Do you support 3 F-Classes?

Do you support a 3rd F-Classification?

  • Total voters
    76
Let me start off my ramble by saying I think the sport would benefit from maintaining only two classes, F(O) and F(M).

F(O) This is far and away the most popular classification and no one is suggesting this class be dropped. It has made F-Class the success that it is.

F(TR) This class has been retained mainly as the “entry-level” classification to encourage both the old TR shooter with tired eyes and the new competitor. From my experience it has limited value on both counts. Winning a match by converting your old TR rifle with a scope can still be done but almost no one does these days. The new shooter is intimidated by his lack of experience while shooting shoulder to shoulder with the good old boys. He also looks at the four to six grand outfits that most of the top shooters are using and has second thoughts. He needs help and I don’t believe F(TR) fulfills his or our needs. The usual cost to construct a winning F(TR) rifle and related equipment is no less expensive than assembling a competitive F(O) rifle. If we drop F(TR) few if any competitors will leave the sport. We should never loose sight of what our old friend Farky did for us but I suggest F(TR) has outlived its usefulness.

F(M) “The ORA Mass-Produced Rifle class.” In my opinion the ORA is on the right track. Stated rules prevent the “equipment race”. This keeps the costs to a reasonable level while providing valuable entry-level experience and competition. Both intimidation and cost factors are reduced to a minimum. This should attract many more new shooters to our sport BUT only if the DCRA and PRA’s get serious with a well-designed shooter development program. It will require a major commitment for success. The long-term health of our sport depends upon the new shooter having a positive experience.

The KISS principal should be our prime directive. Convoluted rules and classes only divert our attention and complicate the life of our match directors.

Regards

Aubrey
 
I voted no to a third class. I think there should only be 2 classes F(O) and a combination of FR/FR for 308/223 shooters. I am new to FF/FR Class. I attended my first match this fall and I intend to continue participating next year. I think that adding a third F class just makes things more complicated than they need to be for new shooters. IMHO, the FF & FR classes are too similar to be separate.

Since I am new to the sport, I will adapt to the match rules. If this means shooting from a bi-pod and with some 155's so be it. If I have the option of using a front rest and 175's that’s good too. All I need is clear rules and I will adapt. I think any person trying a new sport will learn the rules and follow them. I do not feel disadvantaged shooting with a bipod against someone with a fancy rest. From what I have learned so far, wind reading and trigger control are much more important than an extra little bit of accuracy expensive equipment may bring.

At my first match, I was shooting 175's. Since them, I decided to do some load development with 155's . The reason I did this was that I wasn't sure where the classes were going to be next year and I was told that I may have to shoot in a different class out of province with the 175's. I will be shooting 155's next year just to keep things simple. I rather spend time learning to read the wind than playing around with various bullet weights and worrying about the rules. IMHO, there is a much better chance a new shooter will not feel intimidated when things are simple.

One of the reasons waited so long to attend my first match was that the various classes were confusing to me and I wasn't sure which match I could attend. To be honest, I am still somewhat confused. Adding a third F class would certainly not have helped me. Let's keep things simple so we can go shoot and have fun.
 
Last edited:
Aubrey,

I think you hit the nail on the head.

With the changing of the guard at KTSA, there will be a movement afoot to adopt an "M" class in their matches, however... Kamloops is always a sell-out. They have turned away late entries for the last couple of years! Mission has a sporter class at their ISSF matches and from my limited shooting there it has been hit and miss for participation, but then so has the promotion of these events.

One of the other changes likely to happen at KTSA is the addition of F-only matches in addition to the Spring, Sierra and Farky matches that are an institution.
 
The "F" class as it was originally drawn up was for any rifle, any caliber, any sight, fired from any non machine rest. George not only wanted to allow older shooters to keep shooting but wanted to attract new shooters as well. The "F" class was the perfect vehicle for this. Splitting up the class is silly IMO. I can shoot at a competitive level with a 308 which meets all F(f) requirements regardless of whether I shoot in the so-called open class or one of the restricted classes. On the other hand, I enjoy fooling around with different combinations. In my view, the longer the rule book, the less enjoyable is the sport. Few will agree with this view but it's mine! I am not concerned with what equipment is being used by my fellow competitors. I am only concerned with my own. Regards, Bill.
 
Hey Bill. You’re right about George wanting to keep it simple. He would get very direct if you wanted to complicate the rules. His basic philosophy was bring what you’ve got and give us your best shot. The restricted, so called “Farky” Class, F(TR), F(F) or whatever is a distortion of what he intended. When I reread my last post I realized I gave the mistaken impression that George was in favour of splitting F-Class but he wasn’t and I apologize for that. You are sitting firmly in his camp and I know he is smiling.

Having said that I think we need to seriously think about how best to recruit new members for our sport. Remaining static won’t do it. The ORA F(M) Class has merit but just creating (M) Class will surely fail if an effort to encourage and develop new members is not taken seriously. We need to promote the sport and our events much better than we do now. The anti-gunners have many of us closing ranks and withdrawing to subculture status. That must change. We have a great product to sell. We know that but a majority of the Canadian population does not and the fault is ours. We need to get off our asses.

Ian, you can count me in if you think any of my thoughts might help put a Provincial plan together. Maybe you can build a fire under the DCRA’s ass and smoke out whoever has the power to develop a National program. I’ll be surprised if there isn’t Federal funding available.

Regards

Aubrey
 
Aubrey, I can even see F/M becoming an equiptment race now that Savage has brought out the F Class 6.5 x .284.
That will be a tough act to follow, and may deter the whole idea of the F/M
class.
It may be smart to class that rifle as an F/O.
The more i think about it, the more I am leaning towards the idea that
lumping all of the .223/308F class and all of the factory rifles into one class, may be the answer.
When I shot F/M at Ottawa a couple of years ago, my factory Savage was
quite comparable to the best of the FF rifles. It was chambered in .243 Win.
Combining all of these rifles into one class, would give everyone a class to shoot in, at ALL events the size of the class would be increased, and may improve the overall success of that entire class.
Instead of a shooter showing up at a match and getting thrown into a class that he is not prepared for ( F/O), simply because there are not enough shooters in either the FF class or F/M class.
That happens a lot. Or if the class turnout is typical and there are 2 or 3 shooters in one of those classes, it is not a large enough turnout where the competitors feel like they have accomplished anything other than to shoot.
Lack of satisfaction.
Now the naysayers will comment that you cant expect a new shooter to be
competing with more experienced shooters with possibly better rifles.
To this I say Bunk. The new shooters who show up initially at the events are happy to just be there. And if they're rifle will not cut it, then they get a better rifle. It takes a pretty good rifle to compete in the F/M class as is.
Putting that new shooter in with FF class is not going to be any more difficult, but much more satisfying for the shooter. Instead of competing with 1 or 2 others, or getting thrown into the FO class, they get to shoot with a larger number of shooters with fairly similiar equiptment capabilities.
Simple is better. 2 classes.
 
WB11, You would have better access to the rules than I would, but the Ontario M class excludes rifles specifically manufactured as target rifles such as the Remington 40X, and the Savage target rifles. This is why I would prefer the class to be a "sporter" class.
 
I've gone for the 'no' vote - I don't see that there's as much advantage in creating a new class as there would be in creating shooter classifications. F Class should recognize the level of the shooters within the F(O) & F(F), but we only need 2-3 levels at this time (not 4).

Ballisticly, the .308 is at a disadvantage to the calibers used in the F(O) class and changing a barrel every 1500 rounds does not appeal to me. Being rolled up into F(O) when there are not enuf F(F) shooters is tough slog, but I deal with it when it happens. With all respect Ian, if F(F) was permanently rolled into F(O), I'd stop shooting fullbore.

I can live with the present F(F) rules, but the removal of bullet weights and staying with bipods as defined has my approval. Splitting F(F) for one or the other doesn't make sense.

I do support the concept of a 'introduction and development' level F(M) class at the PRA level.
 
Obtunded said:
WB11, You would have better access to the rules than I would, but the Ontario M class excludes rifles specifically manufactured as target rifles such as the Remington 40X, and the Savage target rifles. This is why I would prefer the class to be a "sporter" class.
Click to expand...

If you go to the ORA results page," Ontario 2008 F class championship
Shot on October 8 2008.

Total FO entries, 9. includes total of 3 308/7.68 entries.

Total FF entries...0

Total FM entries 7. top 2 finishers shot 6.5 x .284. balance were all .308.

I did not attend this match. But after reading the results page, i believe that 3 FF entries got bumped up into F/O, and the top 2 shooters in F/M i
assume were shooting Savage F/O rifles.

If I have read this wrong, someone please correct me.

But I believe the results of this match, typify what I am talking about.
 
The "F" class as it was originally drawn up was for any rifle, any caliber, any sight, fired from any non machine rest. George not only wanted to allow older shooters to keep shooting but wanted to attract new shooters as well. The "F" class was the perfect vehicle for this.
Click to expand...
This is an interesting comment by Mr. Leeper. It made me think that if F class was only one class, the only way to distinguish between shooters' scores would be the classifications that Target Rifle uses. You know, Master, Expert, Sharpshooter, Greenshot. This would get rid of the idea that newcomers or average shooters could not achieve success. All shooters would be placed in a category with similar scores. When they consistantly outscored their class, they would be moved up to the next class. It would not overwhelmingly matter what caliber or rifle you used, but what your skill level was. I have seen shooters with whiz bang calibers that cannot out-perform 308/223 shooters. The idea here is to make each class (Masters, Experts, etc) important, which they should be. Think about it...a new newbie with a varmint rifle has been out a couple of times, and one day he/she comes home and says he/she won his/her class. This keeps the new guys/girls coming back. Now, if you want to be the best of the best, you will either upgrade your equipment, and/or learn to shoot.
 
I have a couple of stories to tell, personal experiences.

Back in 2005 I came out to an ORA intro day, brought out my Dads .222 remington benchrest rifle that he handbuilt in the 60's.
Loved the intro day, and came back.
So at the fall match at Cedar springs. because I had a handbuilt rifle,
me and my .222 got put in the FO class.
So here I am trying to compete in the FO class, with a rifle that at 600 yards the bullets were tumbling into the targets. 52 gr hpbt.
Meanwhile laying next to me is da "VIPER". Remember that Bob?
Bob is putting every shot into the centre of the V Bull.
....Except the one with the "BAD PRIMER"
Great experience shooting with Bob, as I got to see through my scope, what a FO rifle is capable of, being pointed by a competant shooter of coarse.
So the next year I bought what I felt was a very good FM rifle, savage 243.
It did shoot excellently, however once again at the annual fall match, I was the only shooter there with an FM rifle.
Once again back in the FO class with my 12bvss. Last place again of coarse.
Now I cant remember if there were any FF rifles there that day, but i know that my 12bvss would have at least stood a chance of competing in the FF class. However due to the rules, My rifle was put in FO.
 
Shooter classifications in F Class could be really simple

With the new ICFRA 1/2 moa V bull, we could just stick with the DCRA TR system as it is today and score as the TRs do. V bulls would only be for tie breaking and would not count as a 6 and you would base the classifications of 5's and your 300M to 600 yd raw scores like the TR do now for their classification. Since the Fr's have a twice as hard target, it makes sense to keep the classifications the same for FF and FO as the TR use today. Again KISS.

100% 5.00 M
94% 4.70 M
94% 4.69 EX
88% 4.40 EX
88% 4.39 SS
84% 4.20 SS

I'm all for the new 1/2 moa V bulls counting as a 5 and used for tie breaking only. Makes it easier for the stats people too, no more converting a 49-7v to a 56 and you will be able to see misses (4's) in the raw scores, were today they are hidden with the V's counting 6 as shown in the 56 example above. 4 or 5 guys on a nice day getting 50-10v's will be a thing of the past with this new target.

Again, back to the original discussion, so a new guy shows up that can not get down on the ground due to medical problem with his back. He has his wife's folding ironing board that he plans to shot his scoped 308 hunting rifle with 150g bullets off a bipod on. What class is he in??? FO or FF or F/TR or FM??? And yes this really happen once in SK. :runaway: The rules state he can even use a bench if he is handcapped, so what class is he in now if he does and borrows a front rest and rear bag? :slap: Who cares, the guy should get a GreenShot award just for coming out and a free bottle of pain killers! Today without a classification system the guy goes home with nothing but more back pain and never comes out again.

After thinking some more, what is stopping a cheating FF shooter from using 175s at 1000 yds??? I bet this has been done too and it would go uncaught by most match directors. Maybe FF should go without the bullet weight restriction it has today! Maybe F/TR could add "rests" to their support clause. Maybe FF and F/TR will be merge into one class at the 2009 CFRC regardless of bullet weight or support used. Maybe we could have a F(M) class! Maybe we should just have FO, F308/556 and FM, with classifications within them and use the 3,6,9 rule for prizes. Maybe we should get the DCRA to order F wear centers with a 1/2 moa V bull and a 1 moa 5 ring to go over the existing DCRA TR targets so all PRA could order them and we could use a standard Canadian F Class classification system for the 2009 CFRC.
Maybe I should shutup ... Everyone :slap: Me
 
Last edited:
Kodiak99317 said:
With the new ICFRA 1/2 moa V bull, we could just stick with the DCRA TR system as it is today and score as the TRs do. V bulls would only be for tie breaking and would not count as a 6 and you would base the classifications of 5's and your 300M to 600 yd raw scores like the TR do now for their classification. Since the Fr's have a twice as hard target, it makes sense to keep the classifications the same for FF and FO as the TR use today. Again KISS.

100% 5.00 M
94% 4.70 M
94% 4.69 EX
88% 4.40 EX
88% 4.39 SS
84% 4.20 SS

I'm all for the new 1/2 moa V bulls counting as a 5 and used for tie breaking only. Makes it easier for the stats people too, no more converting a 49-7v to a 56 and you will be able to see misses (4's) in the raw scores, were today they are hidden with the V's counting 6 as shown in the 56 example above. 4 or 5 guys on a nice day getting 50-10v's will be a thing of the past with this new target.

Again, back to the original discussion, so a new guy shows up that can not get down on the ground due to medical problem with his back. He has his wife's folding ironing board that he plans to shot his scoped 308 hunting rifle with 150g bullets off a bipod on. What class is he in??? FO or FF or F/TR or FM??? And yes this really happen once in SK. :runaway: The rules state he can even use a bench if he is handcapped, so what class is he in now if he does and borrows a front rest and rear bag? :slap: Who cares, the guy should get a GreenShot award just for coming out and a free bottle of pain killers! Today without a classification system the guy goes home with nothing but more back pain and never comes out again.

After thinking some more, what is stopping a cheating FF shooter from using 175s at 1000 yds??? I bet this has been done too and it would go uncaught by most match directors. Maybe FF should go without the bullet weight restriction it has today! Maybe F/TR could add "rests" to their support clause. Maybe FF and F/TR will be merge into one class at the 2009 CFRC regardless of bullet weight or support used. Maybe we could have a F(M) class! Maybe we should just have FO, F308/556 and FM, with classifications within them and use the 3,6,9 rule for prizes. Maybe we should get the DCRA to order F wear centers with a 1/2 moa V bull and a 1 moa 5 ring to go over the existing DCRA TR targets so all PRA could order them and we could use a standard Canadian F Class classification system for the 2009 CFRC.
Maybe I should shutup ... Everyone :slap: Me
Click to expand...

do the rules state that he has to prove he is handicapped??:runaway:
 
windborne11 said:
do the rules state that he has to prove he is handicapped??:runaway:
Click to expand...


I think the rules state the DCRA will decide "what special assistance or dispensations are necessary" and yes he has to prove it before hand (more of a DCRA CFRC thing I think), but at a prov level, I see no reason not to let him shoot off a bench or his ironing board if he needs. He can only shoot off a bench from 3 yardages at our range so he is out of any of the day or two day aggs anyways. If he comes and pays his entry fee and club membership, I'd say let him shoot. I do not think this high position off his ironing board would worry many prone shooters, as long as he is safe :)

For the rules on handcapped shooters see the DCRA site at www.dcra.ca
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom