DCRA Rifles

Anvil

Anvil

Regular
EE Expired
Rating - 100%
15   0   0
Location
SK
After a considerable layoff from formal target shooting, I'm thinking about returning to DCRA target rifle shooting. What are people using for rifles and sights these days? Any suggestions for a "starter" rifle? I don't want to spend too much so an RPA Quadlock is out for now. I do have an No.4 Enfield that was converted for DCRA shooting circa 1970 but I'm guessing that might not be competative equipment any more.
I was thinking of a Savage .308 with Central sight. Any suggestions? I'm looking at this combo for fun and practice, not as the ne plus ultra of target rifles.
 
In Sask you will find RPA, Musgrave, converted Enfields, Sportco amoung others. The biggest change you will find is the requirement to handload as military ammo is no longer supplied.
If you have an Enfield converted by Jim Dugan you will be fine. No need to spend the extra cash immediately on something different.
Hpe to see you out there this summer
 
Just a suggestion - make up some careful handloads with one of the current 154/155 match bullets, and see how the rifle shoots. In my rifles, I have used 154 or 155 bullet, Win or Lapua case, Fed GM LR primer, 44/4064 or 46 Varget. 5 ring is about 2 moa, V about half. If the rifle is capable of holding the 5 ring, with fresh ammunition, get out to some shoots and have fun. If you want a more current rifle, ask around. Its not necessary to have a $3 000 rifle built to find out if you want to get involved again. I went back to DCRA in '97, having last shot in '63. Used a Nielsen/Maddco/Robertson/Central that I bought from Paul Reibin for $750. Shot possibles with it at 800 & 900, so it would do the job if I was up to it. Shooting a Musgrave/True Flight/Robertson that I assembled from all new parts the last couple of years. Also have a LB/Dugan conversion, S&L barrel, but have not shot it enough to say whether it would be competitive. The Savage would work, although the barrel is a bit short by current standards.
 
The Savage/Central will work as tiriq stated. The barrel may be short but the only thing that I would worry about is the sight radius.
Add a bloop tube to get the right sight radius. You need about a 34 inch radius to get the correct movement out of the Central sights.
If you have aging eyes, you may need to get the front sight out even farther.

Here in Ont, Musgraves, RPA, are most common. You will also see Witchata's Swings, Armtech's, Stolle's, and even a Millennium:D But I think this year there will be lots of Barnard's hittting the scene.

All the cadets shoot nice, almost new RPA's.:eek: I can't think of a better way to spend my tax dollars then on young shooters.:cool:
 
Barnards are easy to get now in Canada and they are well up to the job. The red and white stocks the Cadet Bisley team uses were made by Robertson Composites.
 
Every now and then you can run into a Sportco for about &375-$500, dependin on the shape it's in and what gear and sights (if any) come with it.

They have begun to sprout up here in Ft. Mac!
Gonna be LOTS of fun this summer.:D
Cat
 
Last year I shot a bit using a rifle fitted with a 4x scope since this is now allowed. It worked quite well and was a lot cheaper than an iron sight setup. The only real problem is that there are no really suitable 4x scopes. A dot reticule would be better as well as target knobs. I used an old K-4 Weaver which, reticule aside, wasn't bad. It's too bad the DCRA didn't specify 6x scopes as there are some superb 6X target scopes available.
By the way, it was mounted on a 1903 Springfield which I had barrelled to 7.62. I'll mostly shoot the same rifle this year, I think. I havn't tried it past 600 meters yet and I'm not real sure I can drive the 155's fast enough from the 26" barrel but we shall see. Regards, Bill.
 
Thanks for the replies. I think I will dust off the Enfield for now and see how it goes. The barrel looks like it has a season or two left in it.

Sportcos do seem to turn up fairly often so I may pick one up if the opportunity arises. In the past there has always been some other rifle that was higher on the priority list.

Central sights- are they still made? Available? I was looking in the box of "stuff" that should have contained my Central sight and it wasn't there. I may have traded it away. The Enfield has a Parker Hale sight so I guess all I have to do is load some ammo and see how it shoots.
 
To get a decent 4x scope with proper knobs means getting a variable that will go down to 4x and wraping tape around the power ring in that position. Of course this still means quite a few dollars to do it properly. I have been trying to talk a friend into building external adjustments so any scope would do.
 
I think the Central have been replaced with the likes of T-Mac's and ones called a CH sight. The scales are easier to read, they are 1/4 minute instead of 1/3 minute and have a 9.5mm iris hole to take the newer style iris's and diopters.
You may still be able to get old Centrals, try Paul Reiben at Range Sports Unlimited in Kamloops, BC.
 
I'm glad to hear you have returned to the fold. Many shooters have to leave for family or work or health, and it is always good to see guys coming back. You should know that age in shooting is an advantage. Patience and self-awareness are two very underestimated traits in the sport.

Depending on where you live in Saskatchewan, if you send me a private message, I will connect you with one of the SPRA shooters.

I posted a message a week or two ago about Long Range Shooting in Saskatchewan. There is a link and some text describing where to shoot.
 
I think the DCRA sure got it wrong when they agreed to trial 4x scopes alongside iron sights because they picked a specification of scope that nobody seems to make.... a 4x with target turrets. They should think again and go for 6x (which are made for the benchrest boys) or 10x (made for the precision shooting market), then we could all try the idea economically and get a reasonable comparison to the wonderful adjustability of the old iron sight.
 
When I first heard of Clint's proposal to experiment with the use of lower powered scopes, I tried to think of a 4X with the adjustment capabilities and necessary precision. Still can't. There are the Burris and Weaver 6x scopes, of course. Doubt that either would adjust 300-900m. This proposal is to allow older shooters whose eyes cannot handle irons to continue to compete, without doing a trasition to one of the F Classes. Higher power scopes, like the fine 10x scopes available get into another type of shooting - like the TR(O) that was tried and failed a few years ago. The Americans have their any sight matches. Clint's proposal is intended to compensate for failing vision, not to promote high powered optical sights. I do not know what scopes he has used in his experimentation. I suppose a variable could be used with the power adjustment sealed.
 
and an unfair advantage

Tikkaman said:
I think the DCRA sure got it wrong when they agreed to trial 4x scopes alongside iron sights because they picked a specification of scope that nobody seems to make.... a 4x with target turrets. They should think again and go for 6x (which are made for the benchrest boys) or 10x (made for the precision shooting market), then we could all try the idea economically and get a reasonable comparison to the wonderful adjustability of the old iron sight.
Click to expand...

DCRA picked 4X after testing as the max. power that would not give an unfair advantage over iron sights. 6X and 10X could not shoot along side irons and be scored the same.

NormB
 
TR(O) died a slow death at the DCRA due to lack of participation. Maybe the timing wasn't right?
Personally I don't like to shoot irons against a 4X scope. With the scope everything is on one plane, put the crosshairs on the target and shoot (wind not being a factor, yet).
Now with irons you need to center the target in the front sight, center the front sight in the rear sights, have everything line up just right.

Now add some wind into the factor. With a 4X scope you may be at an advantage if you can see a wind change. Hold off upwind and shoot, hope for the best.
With irons it would take a big set of balls to shade the sights over at long range.

There are some shooters that don't give a rats ass about Bisley or Palma:eek:
Why not bring back the TR(O) and open it up to any caliber, any sight, with the only rule of having a 2 lbs trigger, off the elbows with a jacket and sling.
Let them have their own Agg and let TR(O) sort itself out, much like the F Class did when it started.

If 3-5 shooters wanted a TR(O) agg put into the DCRA APM and were willing to fork out the $$$ to shoot it. The DCRA may be willing to put it back in.
 
I wonder if there could be a 1X scope with an aperture reticle - someone sold a "peep plex" at one time. This would be just about on a par with irons using a variable diopter. Major difference would be a single focus plain, which addresses the vision problems some shooters may experience. I was once squadded with the chap who promoted the TR(O) concept at 900m. He was shooting a 6BR with a target scope. Certainly drilled them right in there. Maybe the time is right for another go at TR(O).
 
I think what Clint did was to shoot with different powers until his scores matched reasonably well to his iron sight scores and the 4x was decided to be about equal to a set of irons based on scores. With the 4x scope you can win matches but you cannot enter the Bisley agg or shoot on an international tr team during the matches. You still have to use irons for that.
You should read the article in the Marksman to see exactly what Clint did.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom