Parker-Hale Mike
CGN Regular
- Location
- Beautiful Victoria
Why keep your piehole shut? Your opinion is welcome here anytime.
Canadian Nationals 2009, Possible New Class for F-Class Categories
- Thread starter Trevor60
- Start date
Why keep your piehole shut? Your opinion is welcome here anytime.
Hi Larry, I think you should keep it up. It gives us jackpine savages a whole bunch more to dwell on during them cold northern nights. I'm not sure the boys here realize that the only ones this will really affect are the international traveller types. On a Provincial level, they'll just keep doing what they were doing before. I know for a fact that every match I get to Provincially is run different. I doubt it will change much after ICFRA either.
Cheers, Glen
Cheers, Glen
Welcome Larry, your perspective is much appreciated.
Glen you've got it right, except interprovincial travelors are also affected. Until a couple of weeks ago, F/F shooters travelling to NS found themselves competing against F/O folks! The maritime PRA's have finally decided to addopt the ICFRA designations, which I think is a step int he right direction, but I'm still running into relativly new, but very capable shooters who are running heavy bullets in their .308's, and so have decided not to go to Ottawa to compete. It doesn't take a whole lot to switch loads, but needing to spend time to go find a <156 gr. load to go compete at nationals can put an already nervous newbie off.
My vote, for what it's worth is for ICFRA countries to shoot ICFRA rules- I dunno, but it makes sense to me.
Glen you've got it right, except interprovincial travelors are also affected. Until a couple of weeks ago, F/F shooters travelling to NS found themselves competing against F/O folks! The maritime PRA's have finally decided to addopt the ICFRA designations, which I think is a step int he right direction, but I'm still running into relativly new, but very capable shooters who are running heavy bullets in their .308's, and so have decided not to go to Ottawa to compete. It doesn't take a whole lot to switch loads, but needing to spend time to go find a <156 gr. load to go compete at nationals can put an already nervous newbie off.
My vote, for what it's worth is for ICFRA countries to shoot ICFRA rules- I dunno, but it makes sense to me.
windborne11
Regular
- Location
- SW Ontario
If there is an intent to change the rules to allow for more shooters, then why add the restriction for bi-pods?
How about any 30 ca. bullet, any front rest. Wouldnt this allow for the maximum # of potential entries
How about any 30 ca. bullet, any front rest. Wouldnt this allow for the maximum # of potential entries
rnbra-shooter
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- New Brunswick
Hi Windborne, we don't get to decide what F/Restricted is (that's already been done). What we get to decide is whether we offer it, or not.
In practice, I don't think that limiting the front rest to a bipod hurts the achievable accuracy (and on the flip side of this, I don't think that allowing others sorts of front rests would be unfair either - but, that's not what F/Restricted is).
(BTW, I'm not sure from your phrasing if you are suggesting any .30 cal cartridge, or stay with "only .308 Win ").
In principal, F/Open is open to anything. In practice of course it is a highly competitive class, in which you pretty much need to duplicate the state of the art in order to be seriously involved with it. So it ends up being a very high-level competition, rather that something that is a usefuly destination for a newcomer to scoped long range fullbore shooting.
windborne11
Regular
- Location
- SW Ontario
My reference to 30 calibre was pertaining to choice of bullet weights.
This is the issue that US shooters have with our FF class, only about half want to use the palma bullet and the rest want to choose their poison.
My reference to the any front rest, is that I have chosen to use "Any "
front rest in FF. And its not a bi-pod.
So possibly the way to keep everybody happy would allow freedom of choice.
Will there be enough FF/FR shooters to support 2 seperate classes?
My suggestion would be to make one class, with fewer restrictions.
This is the issue that US shooters have with our FF class, only about half want to use the palma bullet and the rest want to choose their poison.
My reference to the any front rest, is that I have chosen to use "Any "
front rest in FF. And its not a bi-pod.
So possibly the way to keep everybody happy would allow freedom of choice.
Will there be enough FF/FR shooters to support 2 seperate classes?
My suggestion would be to make one class, with fewer restrictions.
Email sent to DCRA with intent to participate.
Suggested they invite some serving CF snipers with their AR10 .308s to come out for F(TR/R) - seeing how you stack up against a professional might encourage more participation.
Nice to hear from you LarryBartholomew, don't be shy.
Good shooting all, albeit in the snow...Brrrrrrrrrrr.
Suggested they invite some serving CF snipers with their AR10 .308s to come out for F(TR/R) - seeing how you stack up against a professional might encourage more participation.
Nice to hear from you LarryBartholomew, don't be shy.
Good shooting all, albeit in the snow...Brrrrrrrrrrr.
rnbra-shooter
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- New Brunswick
Yes. This also applies to Canadian shooters not coming at it from a Target Rifle background. For example, for somebody who has bought a very capable .308 varmint or tactical rifle, it is somewhat off-putting to ask them to not shoot their well-known 168 or 175 grain ammo and instead try to see if they can get some 155 grain ammo working (they probably can - but how does it benefit us to put needless obstacles in place?)
Looking at the problem from the other side, there is a real problem of perception: there is a worry that somebody shooting .223/80 or .308/155 will be at a meaningful competitive disadvantage if they must shoot against unlimited bullet weights in .308s. I don't think that this is true in fact, but I do know that the worry is real and sincere, and we will have to work to overcome it if we are ever to combine F/F and F/R.
This is another perception problem; there is a sneaking suspicion that perhaps bipods aren't up to competing against 30# cast iron tripod front rests. There is also another feeling that allowing BR-style front rests is a bad and undesired thing, and that we ought to discourage or prohibit them from all but F/Open. In my opinion, I think that there is no advantage either way, but at this time there is not a consensus on this, and this is something that would have to be resolved in order to happily merge F/F and F/R.
Freedom of choice is definitely a double-edged sword. Combining F/F and F/R, with the fewest possible restrictions (e.g. any bullet weight, any front rest) runs the very real risk of making everybody unhappy, rather than making everybody happy. Remember, these are _shooters_ we are dealing with, you know how we are!! ;-). Speaking seriously, we need to come up with something that we'll get good, meaningful participation in, and that is understood to be fair and reasonable.
Great to hear that you'll be joining us, I look forward to seeing you there! Sounds like you will be having a very busy and full 2009 shooting season!
It would be great to have CF snipers or other professionals shoot in our match; we haven't yet found the winning invitation formula, but would love to (suggestions welcome!). It would be great to have their presence serve as an inspiration to others (to shoot against them and see how you stack up). At the same time, we have to make sure that if they do get outshot by some civilians, that this doesn't reflect poorly on anyone.
windborne11
Regular
- Location
- SW Ontario
Hi Daniel.
I did a bit of research.
In 2006 DCRA had 317 entries...9 in class F/R. or 3%
2007 DCRA had 615 entries..16 in F/R or 2.6%
2008 DCRA had 209 entries...8 in F/R or 4%
How many of the rifles that shot in F/R were actually FF rifles?
My guess is about half. Maybe Jim would know better?
Reality is that 2.6 to 4% of the entries is terrible.
When I shot the FF short course in 2007 there were 3 entry's.
Rediculous but true.
The facts are that this class is not popular. Why I'm not sure. I would have thought that more TR guys would have switched over, but not the case.
Hard to get an old dog to perform new tricks I suppose.
Anyways, my thoughts are that adding a class, that according to DCRA results is already there, is simply splitting up an already poor attendance.
And just for the record, my FF rifle is chambered with the 95 Palma team
reamer, which is ideally suited for 155 SMK.And I would not hesitate to compete with it in an any weight bullet class. Using 155 SMK of coarse.
It was proven last year in the USA that 155's were competitive with any weight 30 cal.bullet shot from a 308. The best shooters always won.
I believe Dale Rathwell placed 2nd shooting 155 Scenars. And if I recall correctly, about half of the top ten shooters were shooting 155's.
So I will stand by my KISS theory. Why hinder a potential entry.
IF F/R or FF ever becomes especially popular, then it would be prudent to seperate them. Until then, keep it simple.
I did a bit of research.
In 2006 DCRA had 317 entries...9 in class F/R. or 3%
2007 DCRA had 615 entries..16 in F/R or 2.6%
2008 DCRA had 209 entries...8 in F/R or 4%
How many of the rifles that shot in F/R were actually FF rifles?
My guess is about half. Maybe Jim would know better?
Reality is that 2.6 to 4% of the entries is terrible.
When I shot the FF short course in 2007 there were 3 entry's.
Rediculous but true.
The facts are that this class is not popular. Why I'm not sure. I would have thought that more TR guys would have switched over, but not the case.
Hard to get an old dog to perform new tricks I suppose.
Anyways, my thoughts are that adding a class, that according to DCRA results is already there, is simply splitting up an already poor attendance.
And just for the record, my FF rifle is chambered with the 95 Palma team
reamer, which is ideally suited for 155 SMK.And I would not hesitate to compete with it in an any weight bullet class. Using 155 SMK of coarse.
It was proven last year in the USA that 155's were competitive with any weight 30 cal.bullet shot from a 308. The best shooters always won.
I believe Dale Rathwell placed 2nd shooting 155 Scenars. And if I recall correctly, about half of the top ten shooters were shooting 155's.
So I will stand by my KISS theory. Why hinder a potential entry.
IF F/R or FF ever becomes especially popular, then it would be prudent to seperate them. Until then, keep it simple.
rnbra-shooter
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- New Brunswick
100% would be have F/F, since we have not yet offered F/Restricted.
I agree with you that the number of F Class entries has been quite poor in the last three years (there are various reasons for it, but it is still disappointing). Also agree that pretty much everything else you say too (don't want to split things further; very few TR guys becoming F/F shooters; not crazy to shoot 155s; etc)
Well, any thoughts on what your reaction would be, and the reaction of every shooter you knew, if we (hypotheticallly) were to propose a combined F/F and F/R class? E.g.:
- cal .223 or .308
- if you shoot .308.155 or .223/80, you may use any means of front support
- if you use a bipod front rest, you may use any weight bullet
Thoughts....?
(while you are thinking about it, what if we were to limit .308 bullet weight to 189 grains? This could help forestall the most serious difference facing 155 shooters. Would this keep any heavy-bullet shooters from entering?)
I think that creating a new, third subset of F-Class is a tremendously bad idea for the DCRA. At this past summers CFRC there were not enough F (F) shooters to make up a separate class and so they were instead lumped in the F(O) shooters. I have absolutely no reason to believe that if the DCRA decides to offer F (R/TR) as well as F (F) and F(O) that there will be sufficient entries in either to support three separate classes and instead everyone will once again get lumped in with the F(O) shooters. By introducing a third subclass the DCRA will be just further subdividing an already pitifully small field.
While I disagree with the creation of F (R/TR) by ICFRA what’s done is done. The decision to remove the bullet weight maximums is supposed to be a way to encourage new shooters. I see this decision as having completely the opposite effect. When everyone had to shoot 155gr bullets there was the faint hope that a new shooter who did not reload could buy factory ammo and at least keep their head above water. With the bullet weight restriction lifted any shooter who wants to have a hope of winning or at least being competitive will have to become an expert at hand loading too.
I also foresee an equipment race starting. We are going to see F(O) type custom rifles take over the F(R/TR) class. There is no way that anyone with a factory tactical rifle (whatever that might be) or heavy barreled varmint rifle is going to have a hope of being competitive (with perhaps the notable exception of the Savage F(TR) rifles). I do think that requiring the use of a bipod is an excellent change as it removes one obstacle for new shooters and puts everyone on a level playing field. Of course we then get into a debate about when a bipod ceases being a bipod and becomes something else. For example, comparing a Harris bipod to Henry Remple’s creation is like comparing an apple to a diesel engine. They are two completely different things entirely.
In my mind F(F) and/or F(R/TR) should be a class where equipment and financial means are not the deciding factors. Instead, by creating a level playing field through the standardization of bullet weight, caliber, bipod use, overall weight and other factors the shooters abilities end up being the deciding factor. I know that some of you will try to argue that skill is the overriding factor in all F-Classes but in reality unless you’ve got the bucks to spend on a high end gun in the latest wonder caliber and big $ optics you haven’t got a snowballs chance in hell of being competitive in F(O).
While I agree with most of what Rnbra Shooter says about bullet weight not really being a factor he’s only right up to a point. Anyone shooting 168 or 175 grain pills has absolutely no advantage over a shooter using the Lapua or Berger 155s. However, the super heavy .30 cal bullets, such as the Berger 210gr and Hornady 208 Amax have BC’s that will render all the lighter bullets obsolete in a big hurry. I suspect that Mysticplayer has hit the nail on the head. What we are going to end up seeing in F(R/TR) is guys with big $ custom rigs running super heavy bullets at high velocities and scary pressures. This is not the way to welcome newcomers.
Having said my bit in opposition to F(R/TR), I must say that since the international association has decided to proceed with F(R/TR) then the DCRA should follow suit. Clearly future international competitions will use F(R/TR) as the standard, not F(F). Our Canadian teams and individual competitors wanting to compete on the world stage should be able compete at home under the same rules. My advice to the DCRA is to have only two subsets of F-Class at next years CFRC, F(O) and F(R/TR). It’s unfortunate but F(F) appears to be on it’s way to relegation in the dustbin of history.
While I disagree with the creation of F (R/TR) by ICFRA what’s done is done. The decision to remove the bullet weight maximums is supposed to be a way to encourage new shooters. I see this decision as having completely the opposite effect. When everyone had to shoot 155gr bullets there was the faint hope that a new shooter who did not reload could buy factory ammo and at least keep their head above water. With the bullet weight restriction lifted any shooter who wants to have a hope of winning or at least being competitive will have to become an expert at hand loading too.
I also foresee an equipment race starting. We are going to see F(O) type custom rifles take over the F(R/TR) class. There is no way that anyone with a factory tactical rifle (whatever that might be) or heavy barreled varmint rifle is going to have a hope of being competitive (with perhaps the notable exception of the Savage F(TR) rifles). I do think that requiring the use of a bipod is an excellent change as it removes one obstacle for new shooters and puts everyone on a level playing field. Of course we then get into a debate about when a bipod ceases being a bipod and becomes something else. For example, comparing a Harris bipod to Henry Remple’s creation is like comparing an apple to a diesel engine. They are two completely different things entirely.
In my mind F(F) and/or F(R/TR) should be a class where equipment and financial means are not the deciding factors. Instead, by creating a level playing field through the standardization of bullet weight, caliber, bipod use, overall weight and other factors the shooters abilities end up being the deciding factor. I know that some of you will try to argue that skill is the overriding factor in all F-Classes but in reality unless you’ve got the bucks to spend on a high end gun in the latest wonder caliber and big $ optics you haven’t got a snowballs chance in hell of being competitive in F(O).
While I agree with most of what Rnbra Shooter says about bullet weight not really being a factor he’s only right up to a point. Anyone shooting 168 or 175 grain pills has absolutely no advantage over a shooter using the Lapua or Berger 155s. However, the super heavy .30 cal bullets, such as the Berger 210gr and Hornady 208 Amax have BC’s that will render all the lighter bullets obsolete in a big hurry. I suspect that Mysticplayer has hit the nail on the head. What we are going to end up seeing in F(R/TR) is guys with big $ custom rigs running super heavy bullets at high velocities and scary pressures. This is not the way to welcome newcomers.
Having said my bit in opposition to F(R/TR), I must say that since the international association has decided to proceed with F(R/TR) then the DCRA should follow suit. Clearly future international competitions will use F(R/TR) as the standard, not F(F). Our Canadian teams and individual competitors wanting to compete on the world stage should be able compete at home under the same rules. My advice to the DCRA is to have only two subsets of F-Class at next years CFRC, F(O) and F(R/TR). It’s unfortunate but F(F) appears to be on it’s way to relegation in the dustbin of history.
rnbra-shooter
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- New Brunswick
Just a couple of quick comments for now. Firstly, the DCRA has never lumped F/F in with F/Open, even though there have been a number of years in which there have not been sufficient F/F entries to give specific F/F awards (the threshold is ten, for most matches).
Regardless of how many F/F entries there might be, F/F shooters are _always_ considered to also be an F/Open shooter too, and be fully eligible to win and F-Class match outright.
Something to keep in mind is that there is not necessarily a need for Canada to adopt ICFRA's F/Restricted. For example, Australia voted for the unlimimted bullet weight F/Restricted class, yet they have no plans at all to change their domestic F/Standard class of shooting. Their rationale, which perhaps we should think about, is that F/Standard is what thousands of Australians want to shoot at home. Every four years, there are perhaps eight Australians who will be competing in the F Class World Championship - there's nothing wrong with those eight people having to face the decision of perhaps using a different barrel or bullet for the FCWC than they would otherwise use at home
I agree with your assessment that the 210-class bullets are perhaps enough of an advantage over 155s to worry about (whereas I think I can make a good choice that 155-185 grain bullets are so close that one could have a reasonable and fair competition amongst them).
You worry about a big-dollar equipment race. An extra-accurate (read: $$$++) rifle is meaningful and worthwhile in any discipline in which this accuracy can be put to use in order to achieve a useable competitive advantage. Which describes the nature of F-class to a T. I wish it were otherwise, but it isn't (hey, does this mean everybody will take up iron-sighted elbow-rested Target Rifle instead! ;-) That is why it is already the case that the winners of national matches in F/F as well as F/Open have absolutely first-rate rifles. And even though the winners are really great shooters, if you were to have them shoot a somewhat cheaper, almost-as-good rifle, chances are that they might wind up in second place as a result.
This thread started with a call for expressions of interest in the DCRA offering an F/Restricted class of competition during the 2009 Canadian Fullbore Rifle Championships. So far a handful of replies has been received by the DCRA office (office@dcra.ca). Hopefully we'll receive more, so that we can go ahead and offer it (this a hint for people to write in and express their interest!!!)
Regardless of how many F/F entries there might be, F/F shooters are _always_ considered to also be an F/Open shooter too, and be fully eligible to win and F-Class match outright.
Something to keep in mind is that there is not necessarily a need for Canada to adopt ICFRA's F/Restricted. For example, Australia voted for the unlimimted bullet weight F/Restricted class, yet they have no plans at all to change their domestic F/Standard class of shooting. Their rationale, which perhaps we should think about, is that F/Standard is what thousands of Australians want to shoot at home. Every four years, there are perhaps eight Australians who will be competing in the F Class World Championship - there's nothing wrong with those eight people having to face the decision of perhaps using a different barrel or bullet for the FCWC than they would otherwise use at home
I agree with your assessment that the 210-class bullets are perhaps enough of an advantage over 155s to worry about (whereas I think I can make a good choice that 155-185 grain bullets are so close that one could have a reasonable and fair competition amongst them).
You worry about a big-dollar equipment race. An extra-accurate (read: $$$++) rifle is meaningful and worthwhile in any discipline in which this accuracy can be put to use in order to achieve a useable competitive advantage. Which describes the nature of F-class to a T. I wish it were otherwise, but it isn't (hey, does this mean everybody will take up iron-sighted elbow-rested Target Rifle instead! ;-) That is why it is already the case that the winners of national matches in F/F as well as F/Open have absolutely first-rate rifles. And even though the winners are really great shooters, if you were to have them shoot a somewhat cheaper, almost-as-good rifle, chances are that they might wind up in second place as a result.
This thread started with a call for expressions of interest in the DCRA offering an F/Restricted class of competition during the 2009 Canadian Fullbore Rifle Championships. So far a handful of replies has been received by the DCRA office (office@dcra.ca). Hopefully we'll receive more, so that we can go ahead and offer it (this a hint for people to write in and express their interest!!!)
windborne11
Regular
- Location
- SW Ontario
Daniel, It seems to me that there has been a significant ammount of interest in combining the FF and FR classes.
I see that you have been communicating with the US shooters on LR Forum. Perhaps you should ask them what their thoughts would be on a combined FM/FR class with some of the ideas that have been discussed.
That way we would hear both sides of the story.
Cheers Rick
I see that you have been communicating with the US shooters on LR Forum. Perhaps you should ask them what their thoughts would be on a combined FM/FR class with some of the ideas that have been discussed.
That way we would hear both sides of the story.
Cheers Rick
I'm not in agreement with the F/R class. The differences compared to open are basically the front rest is bipod and the caliber can only be 223 or 308. It seems to me most will agree [at least for the sake of argument] that a good open shooter can build a F/R rifle and win all, so what is the point having the F/R? If the less experienced or intimidated shooters feel safe in F/R and come out to play only to shoot against Mr Open that built a fancy new F/R rifle, they will find their standing didn't change compared to last year. Who benefits? Not the open guy that dished out a bunch of coin to build another rifle so he can shoot in a larger group. Not the open guys that didn't and may lose to an "inferior" rifle. Not the average Joe that got duped into thinking he would be shooting in a class more "fair" to his level.
Why would we want to split up into even smaller groups that are almost the same? Can anyone tell me why there should be a F/R class? Can anyone tell me why this is change is being considered in Canada? Who brought this forward?
Why would we want to split up into even smaller groups that are almost the same? Can anyone tell me why there should be a F/R class? Can anyone tell me why this is change is being considered in Canada? Who brought this forward?
Kodiak99317
CGN frequent flyer
- Location
- Saskatchewan, Canada
I really don’t like it either. I would rather see the rest of world change to FF myself with it's any support and equal BC bullet rule but that is not going to happen.
I too think we are getting too fractured into subclasses. I would rather see a shooter classification system (SCS for short) (M,EX,SS,GS) for FClass and standard small wee vee targets in Canada at the PRA's for FClass shooters. I think this would go a lot further into keeping shooters. It is one thing to draw them, another thing to keep them. This SCS would also subdivide our already few scoped shooters at the PRA levels and possibly push us all into one class, FClass. Sask would end up having 1-3 shooters in each, FO Master, FO-Expert, FF-Master and FF-EX depends on the event, the Prov Championships having the larger numbers. The TR with their same bullet, rifle weight, sling and sights at the Prov level as well today in Sask is very similar. 1-3 shooters per classification, but at least it is all one class! If we (FClass) had a SCS like TR uses, shooters would be competiting against like "skilled" and/or "BC" and/or "deep pocketed" shooters. Each group standing a chance of winning something.
What may (and probably will) end up happening at the 2009 CFRC as others have said, FF and FTR will end up in "a class" and FO in another, depending on the number of shooters in each class. We need 10 in each class guys - hint to us FRs, Let's get out in numbers at the 2009 CFRC! I would guess Team Savage to shot FTR (another 4-6 shooters) and a few more for the eastern US (guessing 10 tops including TSavage). It may also draw some Tactical type shooters. With our poor numbers in FF (average of 11), this should make "a class" that would get a 1st to 5th maybe!
To quote Trevor60 "This would be in addition to the existing F(O) and F(F) Classes." I think it is to get more "scoped" shooters out in 2009's CFRC.
I really don’t care who brought this forward myself...
This all said, I think the DCRA should offer the class F/TR at the 2009 CFRC, in hopes of seeing more scoped shooters attending this event. I plan on being there, shooting probably FO myself.
Keith Skjerdal
Last edited:
Keith, I agree with you completely.
The class was adopted by ICFRA because my ruddy lords of the admiralty
or whatever they're called shoot something called "Match Rifle" (check out this website, it will fill in many blanks... ht tp://www.matchrifle.org/) and this allows seamless integration of this class of shooting into F-Class. DCRA elected to adopt ICFRA rules.
Internationally, this change has merit. Domestically, we have identified its short-comings. This essentially allows international match rifle competitors to shoot f-class in Canada and from what I can see, that was its designed benefit.
The class was adopted by ICFRA because my ruddy lords of the admiralty
or whatever they're called shoot something called "Match Rifle" (check out this website, it will fill in many blanks... ht tp://www.matchrifle.org/) and this allows seamless integration of this class of shooting into F-Class. DCRA elected to adopt ICFRA rules.Internationally, this change has merit. Domestically, we have identified its short-comings. This essentially allows international match rifle competitors to shoot f-class in Canada and from what I can see, that was its designed benefit.
Mystic Precision
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Summerland, BC
That was an direction I was also thinking of and has many benefits. However, it still doesn't cover a few issues.
223 is essentially killed in any new class. This where you want the most growth as it is both economical to run AND the much lower recoil will be very desireable to women, younger shooters and even men.
Not many shooters want to shoot magnum rifle recoil all day long just to be competitive.
The fight to have any bullet weight in this class is because the heavies do offer a tangible difference but at much higher recoil, pressures and risks. Then you must use a super dollar vault tight rig just to reach this lofty performance.
I say that this new F class is going to be more expensive then F(O)
A significant cost is in that bipod. A Harris is relatively cheap. A Caldwell BR tripod rest is a few more dollars. A Remple pod, double this cost.
The Remple pod can be argued to be more stable then the front pedestal rest given its substantially wider footprint. Using this does not reduce the shooting abilities one bit. Enough F(O) shooters use this to show is prowess.
If we really want to allow F(223/308) to grow, the best thing we can do is limit ammo to SAAMI specs. Shoot the ammo over a chrony before the match and the winners have to verify their ammo again/test at random. Just like IPSC.
That stops the arms race in a heartbeat. Everybody gets to shoot whatever bullet floats their boat BUT there is little ballistic difference between a 155 and 210gr bullet at SAAMI pressures.
A 223 shooter can now compete on an equal footing (actually a slight advantage) and allows all those factory rifle and tactical rigs to play competitively.
Allow any front rest as we do now in F(O). If a bipod must be used, then super pods need to be reviewed.
I just see these new F(TR) class as a way to game the division. Does nothing to improve the sport and greatly reduces its appeal. Look at the numbers participating.
I am glad I made the decision to shoot F(O). Do whatever I want without fear my rifle will be 'ruled' into oblivion.
And can shoot competitively for CHEAPER.... and safer.
Jerry
While we cannot change the world tomorrow, we should have good reason to conform to others will. If we [Canada] recognize the F/R Class it won't hurt us one bit. On the other hand, forcing us to use this class where is isn't wanted may kill us. This is where I see a potetial problem. If the majority of current or potential F class shooters are asking for change that's one thing. The other thing being lots of shooters simply like to shoot and not get involved in the politics of it all have a habit of remaining silent. Possibly the bulk of shooters are in this mindset and in all likelyhood they are happy about it. I ask "Who" wondering if these guys know whats going on.
I see the DCRA asking questions and encourgaging replys, good job guys!
I see the DCRA asking questions and encourgaging replys, good job guys!
windborne11
Regular
- Location
- SW Ontario
Where it can hurt is by splitting the FF class. At last years DCRA match out of 209 entries, there were 8 registered FF shooters. the DCRA has chosen to score them as F(res), however they would have had to have been FF.
Over half of these 8 shooters, could elect to shoot in the proposed new class, with no changes to their equiptment.
So if they did that, then the FF class would pretty much disappear.
Then you would have dissapointed FF shooters.
By combining the 2 small classes into 1 larger class, should satisfy most.
And I believe would be fair. Putting some limit on bullet weight may have some merit. Especially under severe gusting wind conditions.
Perhaps they could end up with one class with 20 to 30 entrants?
That would be interesting.
