Canadian Nationals 2009, Possible New Class for F-Class Categories

T

Trevor60

CGN frequent flyer
EE REVOKED
Rating - 100%
4   0   0
Location
Canada
I haven't seen this posted on here so I poached it off of another site the first part is the one we have to respond to. The next two sections are clarification between countries

Possible Introduction of the F(TR/Restricted) Class in the Canadian Championships.

From our recent survey of shooter's interests and wishes, it appears as if there may be some significant interest in the inclusion of the F(Tactical Rifle/Restricted) Class into the Canadian Championships. Basically, this class allows the 223REM and 308WIN calibres, with no restriction on bullet weight. Rear rests are allowed; only a bipod is permitted as the front rest. In order to gauge the extent of support for this, we invite anyone who is interested to contact the DCRA (office@dcra.ca) and let us know if you would like this class to be introduced and more especially whether you, yourself, would participate. This would be in addition to the existing F(O) and F(F) Classes. Some prizes would be reserved for F(TR/R) shooters, depending on the level of entry. A decision will be taken early in the New Year as to whether F(TR/R) will be part of the 2009 Championships. Hence, if you want it, please tell us very quickly!

Jim Thompson
DCRA
reply to: office@dcra.ca

F(F) in Canada and F® at ICFRA are not the same! Our F(F) currently allows any sort of front rest but restricts bullet weight maxima to 156 grains in 308 or 81 grains in 223. Those maxima are what are also in effect for Target Rifle. The ICFRA F(Restricted) Rules allow only a bipod as front rest, but there is no restriction on bullet weight! As I understand it, the USA F(TR) is the same as ICFRA F®, not the same as Canada F(F). The DCRA is considering bringing F® into the Canadian Championships, in addition to, but not replacing, F(F). F(O) stays as is. We certainly make life complicated for ourselves, don't we!!
The DCRA Executive will meet in early December and one of the matters for discussion is the bullet weight maximum for 223 in both TR and F(F). There is no move to change the 308 maximum for either 308 for TR or F(F).

Jim

The posts above help point out the difficulties that come up when discussing rifle classes in different countries. I will attempt to clarify the differences and similarities.

USA F-Open - same rules and names as Canada, UK, Ireland and ICFRA
USA F/TR – Same rules and name as GB F-Class Association and Ireland
Same rules as ICFRA F-Restricted (some are writing this as F® )
Bipod/rear bag only, .308, .223, no bullet weight limit.
USA TR – term used for across the course shooting (standing, sitting rapid, prone rapid,
prone slow fire at 200, 300 and 600 yards). Iron sights, sling only, not rests. Any caliber, bullet weight.

Canada F-Open - same rules and names as Canada, UK and ICFRA
Canada F(F) – any front rest, .308W, ,223R restricted to 156 and 81 grain bullets max.
The bullet weight is the same as the TR/Palma rifle restrictions.
Canada - Proposed F(Tactical Rifle/Restricted) F(TR/R)- Same as USA, RoI & GB F/TR
(F/Target Rifle). Bipods, rear bag only, not bullet weight limit.
Canada TR – Sling only, iron sights, .308 and .223 only with bullet weight restricted to
156 and 81 grains max.

ICFRA F-Open – same as USA, GB and Canada
ICFRA F Restricted (F®) same as USA, GB and proposed Canada F(TR/R)
ICFRA TR – Same as Canada Sling only, iron sights, .308 and .223 only with bullet
restricted to156 and 81 grains max.

I think if Canada used the term F/TR (F Target Rifle) for its new proposed class it would prevent some confusion between competitors on both sides of the US/Canadian border and keep the term in line with the USA, GB and Ireland. Keep in mind a prone TR rifle with a scope or irons on it would still be eligible to shoot F/TR or F(F) provided it met the rifle weight limit and respective bullet limits.

-------------------

Larry Bartholome
Texas
 
I am frankly torn on the third class... bearing in mind that as of right now F-TR is not defined by ICFRA, I am not really decided as to whether I support the restricted classification. I am a member of KTSA - the very club to which George Farquarhson belonged, and it is regarded as the birthplace of F-Class. In my opinion, a 223 or 308 that is optimized for shooting bullets heavier than 80/155 respectively should be regarded as an open class rifle.

F-TR Class was created to allow a TR shooter to add a scope and a bipod to his TR rig. There are/were rifle and bullet weight restrictions in this class.

If I were to support any augmentation of the existing classes, it would be to recognize factory/sporter rifles in any sub 8mm caliber so as to promote participation by novice shooters.

Having said all that, I do not wish to be accused of putting my head in the sand or turning away from the changes that are made around the world, but diluting the current ranks of competitors with a third classification would seem to be more complicated that in needs to be.


my $.02

Ian Hames

F-Class Director, BCRA
 
Obtunded said:
In my opinion, a 223 or 308 that is optimized for shooting bullets heavier than 80/155 respectively should be regarded as an open class rifle.
Click to expand...

A little food for thought here. The 155 grain bullet that everyone in BC is so adamant upon, where did it come from and how did it get into use?

My point is, the 147 gr. 7.62 round IVI was shot forever until service rifle (b) was abandoned and TR was started on the road to becoming what it is today.

The TR rifles that were built after the Enfields were retired evolved to shoot a slightly heavier bullet with a better BC when the shooters had to start rolling their own, thus the Palma 155 bullet.

What's wrong with a little more progress to a better bullet.

A shooter running a 308 shooting any of the good bullets in the 170's will have to have his game on to stay with a 6mm so I can't buy the Open class argument. Not because I am stubborn but because I have seen this first hand multiple times.

My good buddy faces this thinking back home.
"Your rifle meets absolutely all the rules to shoot F(f), but you are a free thinker in regards to that bullet..........Off to F-Open for you."

Time marches on.
 
Mike,

I think the issue (around here anyway) is that TR has certain restrictions here in Canada. That being rifle, trigger pull and bullet weight. ICFRA rules still uphold the TR bullet weight rules of 156/308 and 81/223 while changing the F/TR rules.

George's idea for F-Class was to take a TR rifle (and all it's restrictions) put a scope on it and shoot it off a front rest/bipod and rear bag, with F(O) being created for those who wish to shoot anything else.

This decision does not affect me one way or the other because I don't shoot in that class so I really don't care which side of the fence this egg will land on. Unfortunately this whole issue is going to become a Rem/Sav...Chev/Ford debate.

As it is now, getting enough people out to our shoots to fill 3 classes is hard enough, nevermind trying to award the top 3 of 4 or 5 different classes of shooters when you don't have enough people to fill those classes with more than 2 or 3 people.
 
Last edited:
I debated briefly this bullet weight issue on US boards. Wow, what a Sh!t storm. The US loves their 308's THEIR WAY, and they will drive this class no matter what we say.

I have some very strong reservations about how F(TR) and now F(R) will head. To me bullet weight in a 308 or 223 is a diminishing returns project, UNTIL shooters start getting creative with their loading.

If the 308/223 shooters want to go any weight, fine BUT limit muzzle velocity to SAAMI parameters. Shoot over a chrony at the match if necessary.

There are way too many shooters who are pushing the 308 to 300WM performance with the 'no pressure signs' rationale. That is not only dangerous (got to be in the 80,000 to 100,000psi range), it forces a very negative equipment race that will turn many shooters off.

155gr at 3150fps. 210gr VLD at 2700fps. Yeah, just powder puff loads.

The F(F) that Mr. Farquay dreamed up is a positive extention of a well defined shooting class. I like it ALOT especially since it encourages 223 shooting - an excellent novice entry point.

With this new F(R), all bets are off and the super sized 308's will rule the roost. Heavy recoil, mega dollar customs running some really scary loads open the downward spiral that has also claimed many an IPSC competitor.

Without load restrictions, the intent, flavor and viability of this class will quickly erode. Bad news for a sport desparate for any manner of growth.

YMMV.

Jerry
 
I'm still chewing this all over in my head, but there are a couple of points I'd like to make. of the .308/.223 F'er's in ottawa this summer, I can only think of two shooting off a front rest. The rest of us shot off bipods of some descriptiion or another. On the bullet weight side, I could really care less. I think it's very telling that Darrel Buell is requiring his guys to shoot the 155.5 Berger in the FCWC team match. I also noticed that he has posted on another site that the really hot loads are to be throttled back as well- as he put it, better to loose a grabber, and risk a nuked bullet that doesn't make the target.
 
Parker-Hale Mike said:
A little food for thought here. The 155 grain bullet that everyone in BC is so adamant upon, where did it come from and how did it get into use?

My point is, the 147 gr. 7.62 round IVI was shot forever until service rifle (b) was abandoned and TR was started on the road to becoming what it is today...
Click to expand...

The TR sport is predicated upon the principle that the equipment is equal. In fact, in many matches, ammo is/was dispensed by the match directors, hence the evolution of the Obermeyer, Wylde et al chambers.

While ammo may not be issued at many matches anymore, the principle remains that the equipment is standardized and the tie-breaker is the shooter.. It is not a case of "Whoever has the best gun wins"

The F-TR classification carried the standardized equipment principle over to F-Class, where the addition of scopes and bipods made the groups tighter, but the tie-breaker is still the shooter.

Now, the Restricted classification is essentially a bridge to allow ANY 308 or 223. This would be very good news for tactical shooters wanting to try F-Class with their tactical rifles. At a local level, I would love to see Tactical and F-class combining the numbers at shooting matches!!I think that is fantastic, (and I have even dropped a note to Mike earlier saying I would love to do just that!) however on a technical note, I'm not sure if I buy the argument that a custom 308 shooting a 190 Berger VLD is in any way inferior to a 6mm. I don't like heavy cartridges because I don't want the punishing recoil, not because I feel they are ballistically that much inferior.

I retierate, if the aim is to accomodate new shooters, then adopt a factory or sporter class where custom stuff is not allowed. I would be very surprised to see many brand new shooters willing to spend more money of their Connaught entry fees than they did on their rifles, so if new shooters are the worry, there are better ways to attract them.

The fact that ICFRA has adopted this puzzles me, but admittedly, I am easily puzzled.
 
Last edited:
I think Jim is trying to harmonize the class between the US and Canada and bring more shooters to the table both locally and from the USA. I can understand that and approve it.

Many shooters from the UK with super specialized .308 Match rifles [MR Class] would give many guys here a solid running. They regularly shoot them @ 1,200 yds with precision and their 210gr Bergers or equivalent.
 
Hi CH,

At the BCRA AGM the third classification was discussed and Bob Pitcairn pointed out - quite correctly - that this was indeed the motivation.

Your point about the Brits and their 308 Match Rifle class was sort of my point too, it isn't so much the equipment as the shooters, therefore why are we making yet another distinction based on equipment?

Just a counter-point.
 
Well, I'm all confused :D
Using a .308 at 155gr and a front bag, I was a F(TR) at the Farky, but I'd have thought I was F(F).
What is the difference between F(F) and F(TR) as it stands now?
 
stevebc said:
Well, I'm all confused :D
Using a .308 at 155gr and a front bag, I was a F(TR) at the Farky, but I'd have thought I was F(F).
What is the difference between F(F) and F(TR) as it stands now?
Click to expand...

Same thing Steve. No difference

F(F) = F Farky Class which, as stated earlier, is a scoped TR rifle on a rest/bipod.
 
I believe there is going to be 2 classes of rifle for F class target shooting, Open and F/TR. This has been already sanctioned by the ICFRA for the FCWC 2009. Canada is now playing catch-up. Provincially, there will be stock classes to introduce (induce?) new shooters to the shooting discipline. Nationally the F(F) class will probably disappear into the F/TR class. F class may have originated here, but the rest of the shooting world developed it. Just my 2 cents worth.
 
Hi Terry, the new ICFRA rules now define F-Open, R-Restricted and have pledged to define F-TR "In Due Course". ICFRA rules also say that changes cannot be made within 1 year of the FCWC, so Bisley will only use FTR and FO in 2009 as per the "old" rules, but yep, the third class is here. It remains to be seen to what degree this is adopted by the PRA's since diluting the participation has not been a popular idea.

Maybe it's a sign that I'm getting old that I am resistant to the change, so I will make a concerted effort to embrace it and wait-and-see.
 
As someone's who's what you would call a 'young, new shooter' (mostly shooting service and tactical type shoots, but have shot a couple FClass matches too): I don't understand all the uproar about every little thing that changes?
The AGM had over an hour+ dedicated to debating the change in the bulleseye, and probably two hours+ in the change to the bullet weights. Now another uproar to this third class.
Why not just show up and shoot, have fun, and if you get a trophy, so be it?
 
F/TR vs F(F)

Ian,
As an outsider I am hesitant to butt in, but since my post on L-R.com was quoted in the first post of this thread I feel somewhat obligated to do so.

You wrote: “Hi Terry, the new ICFRA rules now define F-Open, R-Restricted and have pledged to define F-TR "In Due Course".”

I think this needs some clarification. ICFRA F-Restricted is exactly the same as GB, RoI and USA F/TR. It is not F(F) since only a bipod/rear bag is allowed and any bullet weight can be used. The ICFRA F-Class Committee decided to call it F-Restricted and it just complicates the issue. I don’t know, but perhaps your Provincial NRA are calling F(F), F/TR?. Is this true? I know the DCRA uses the term F(F).
 
Trevor, thank you very much for getting this discussion started here. It had been on my to-do list, but you beat me to the puch - thanks!

In an ideal world, there would only be one ".223/.308" F-Class; for a variety of historical reasons, we are now faced the the fact that there are two kinds of F-Class competition that are very similar to each other, but not completely identical. They are, the original Canadian F/Farquharson, and the ICFRA F/Restricted (which is exactly the same thing as what the NRA-US calls "F/TR"). Perhaps sometime in the near future these two classes will "converge", or one will clearly take over and come to dominate - but in the meantime, both exist, and we need to decide how to best deal with them.

Since Canada has decided to be an early adopter of ICFRA rules for both iron sight Target Rifle and also F-Class shooting, the question arises of whether we ought to offer the international F/Restricted class in our national champsionship (which also happens to be the same thing as the very popular F/TR fired in our nearest neighbour). So the DCRA is trying to get the answer to, "if we offer it, will they come?".

The most important thing you can do, if you would like to fire F/Restricted at the Canadian Fullbore Rifle Championships in 2009 or in the future, is to immediately send an email to "office@dcra.ca" and express your interest. The more information you provide, and the more shooters respond, the more solid the case will be for the DCRA to go ahead and offer this. If you want to know more, contact me privately and I can help; but one way or another, the time to speak up is *NOW*. There's really no point moaning and grumping in June that the DCRA has decided to not offer F/Restricted, due to a lack of interest shown.

Ian, FYI ICFRA presently defines rules for F/Open and F/Restricted . They have asked Canada to propose a definition for F/Farquharson, which we have done, and which has already entered the ICFRA rulesmaking process. Canada is not the only country to have a notion of ".308/155" F-Class, there is also South Africa's "National Class", and Austrialia's "F/Standard". There are certain good arguments to be made for an F-Class that is a "Target Rifle with a scope"; that's where Canada's F/Farquharson started, and that clearly also makes sense for a number of other Commonwealth countries. At the same time there are also good arguments to be made for any good accurate .223 or .308 rifle, not necessarily originating from an iron-sighted TR background (e.g. any off-the shelf commercial varmint or target rifle, a typical sniper-type rifle), or one of the super-fancy and expensive factory target rifles e.g. Sako TRG-21) to have a natural class to compete in. This is further "complicated" by the fact that our nearest and biggest neighbour, the USA, does not have a tradition of limiting the bullet weights of their .308 target rifles ("US Palma Rifle"). Both sides of this were well represented in the ICFRA F-Class committee, and after a fair bit of back-and-forth, the decision was made to go with what is now the "F/Restricted" definition for international competition. It is now up to the DCRA, and other NRAs, to decide whether or not it suits them to adopt ICFRA's F/Restricted class fror their own competitions. For some NRAs the decision is easy (NRA-US, Republic of Ireland), since F/Restricted is exactly what they already shoot; for others such as the DCRA, we need to decide how/if/when we will adopt it, and whether it will be in addition to or instead of our ".308/155" F/F class.
 
Good evening
NO problem Daniel i just wanted to get some dialogue going about these proposed changes.

And my apologies to Larry I poached your posted off of L-R becasue i know how heavely involved in the sport you are and your description of the varies classifications was clear and concise Again my apologies if this was inappropriate

Trevor

P.S
I thing a common classification system that all countries could follow would only enhance the sport and foster more competition. It would further allow competitors to travel outside of their home country to compete without requiring more equipment costs, because you know these comp guns only run a few hundred dollars LOL
 
Common Rifle Classes

Trevor,
No apology required! You mentioned a common class system for F-class and that would be ideal, but as far as F(F) is concerned it may be more difficult than people realize. Daniel mentioned South Africa’s National class and Australia’s Standard. Well, SA has a weight limit of 8kg as does Oz. SA only allows .308’s, I am not 100% sure of Oz. And Oz allows a total weight of 10kg if the front rest/bipod is attached to the rifle. As you can see the field is quite varied when it comes to F(F)/National/Standard. Getting agreement may not be easy.

I do know that when we standardized our F/TR rules to only allow bipods the nay Sayers predicted doom and glum, instead the class took off. Then we made our targets much smaller with the same predictions. We also introduced classification for shooters so competitors of like ability shoot against each other (at least if there are 5 or more in a class).

I only shoot F-Open, but have an interest in all F-Class matters since I represent all US F-Class shooters both in our NRA and ICFRA. From all my discussions with shooters over the years it seems bullet weight is not much of a factor in determining who wins a match. I know from my own experience in major championships, I have beaten and been beaten by much smaller and larger cases and bullets.

As many have stated it is primarily the competitors abilities that determine who wins. Also those who win do so because they are prepared to work hard and spend what it takes to win. No matter what the game the winners always win no matter what the rules are. If the rules are changed the same people win. I have seen it for 45 years in a vast number of disciplines.

I’ll try and shut my pie hole now and keep it shut. Good night all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom