How to get more people involved in Competitive Shooting

[Mystic Precision]

MOD NOTE: This thread contains posts moved from the "Range Template at Connaught" thread that have diverged from its original topic.

=============================================================================================================

The bullet weight was lifted some years back, mostly under pressure from US shooters. The US shoots under NRA rules and the bullet cap never was introduced. I assume in trying to keep the peace and allow the widest acceptance of the sport, ICFRA also dumped the bullet weight so the globe would be standardised.

Ironically, the US is now considering putting a cap back on their FTR class for both bullet weight and rifle tech. There is a movement to push the sport back to a very low tech level.... we shall see.

Putting a bullet weight cap on FTR might, and I do emphasis might, allow the 223 some traction and that would be a very good thing for many shooters who just don't want to deal with the 30cal heavies and all the joy that comes with that.

BUT to be truly effective both a bullet weight AND a velocity cap will keep the 308 from being supersized. In fact, bullet weights will be self limiting if a cap on velocity was instituted. ICFRA rules is very specific that the chambers conform to SAAMI and CIP specs. If they also include PRESSURES, a lot of stuff will cease to be competitive in a big hurry.

When a 308 performs like a 300WM, even with a long barrel, there is some real toasty pressures being used. Couple that with shooters wearing out Lapua brass in a few firings, eventually, some action is going to go pop and several shooters might get hurt.

Shooters love tech and manf are all too happy to come up with the latest greatest. Yes, muzzling FTR would be more boring but as you said, that is what OPEN is for.

YMMV.

Jerry

 

[paperslayer]

What prompted the uncapping of the bullet weight above the 156g in the F-TR class? Shooters who want to shoot heavier projectiles could shoot in the F-O class, and as we can see by the posted scores of the heavier bullet crowd, be very competitive.
If the ICFRA is the world governing body for F-CLASS shooting, why aren't the rules made so that sanctioned matches can be held anywhere in the world?
Maybe I should have remained silent and thought a fool, instead of removing all doubt...
Read the wind and keep them in the V.

When Farky created the sport. it was intended to take a TR rifle and add a scope & bipod. That's all. There used to be a hybrid class called TRO (TR Optical...scopes, TR rifle, shot with a sling) and this took it one step further. I happen to agree with you. TR is about leveling the playing field equipment wise (and even bullet wise as ammo is/was issued at matches) and making it a contest between shooters. DCRA had a Farky class, that was the 156/80 bullet weight cap. I think FTR should follow the same rules, but I guess the customer is always right and consumer demand will dictate what people want to shoot. If you want to take aim at ICFRA, what I see as silly is the use of black TR targets in a contest of rifle scopes. Change the short range target dimensions to match scopes and switch to a scope friendly target pattern.

If I were king for a day, I would take FTR back to way Farky intended it to be. I wonder if there would be any appetite for splitting open into over and under 6.5mm? (or light and heavy like BR) I have no interest in shooting a 300 win mag in 15 shot strings to keep ahead of the bullet game... That's why I like benchrest.

 

[SND]

I wonder if there would be any appetite for splitting open into over and under 6.5mm? (or light and heavy like BR) I have no interest in shooting a 300 win mag in 15 shot strings to keep ahead of the bullet game... That's why I like benchrest.

That sounds like a great idea to me and I'd definitely be in the 6.5mm or under group. Although I'm very new to this I think it would be a great way to split between the shooters really going for high scores/records that tends to require the super rifles at this point, and those of us who just want to shoot something other than .223/308 and still have the option to fancy things up mechanically and use a rest, and less recoil(more reasonable cost too). Hard to imagine there wouldn't be interest in that.

 

[kombayotch]

When Farky created the sport. it was intended to take a TR rifle and add a scope & bipod. That's all. There used to be a hybrid class called TRO (TR Optical...scopes, TR rifle, shot with a sling) and this took it one step further. I happen to agree with you. TR is about leveling the playing field equipment wise (and even bullet wise as ammo is/was issued at matches) and making it a contest between shooters. DCRA had a Farky class, that was the 156/80 bullet weight cap.

How about also limiting bipods to standard V-shape designs?

 

[manitou210]

I would think to keep FTR class even is to limit the .308 to 185 gr bullets and 223 to 90 grs thus giving both a BC of app; 550.
To get more people using the 223 and with mild recoil of 223 we might get more young people into shooting F class ladies as well.

 

[kombayotch]

I would think to keep FTR class even is to limit the .308 to 185 gr bullets and 223 to 90 grs thus giving both a BC of app; 550.
To get more people using the 223 and with mild recoil of 223 we might get more young people into shooting F class ladies as well.

If you want to get more people shooting it, you need to make it more accessible. Having a class where people can shoot standard factory equipment, and actually encouraging people to come out and shoot in that class (i.e. promoting it) would go a long way. I know of few young people that can affort a custom rifle right off the bat, let alone a $300+ bipod or an 50-80x optic. Lots of young guys out there with off-the-shelf Remingtons/Savages rifles and inexpensive Bushnell target type optics. At some point in the future they may be able to afford better equipment, but many of them will have lost interest in shooting F-class by then.

 

[maynard]

If you want to get more people shooting it, you need to make it more accessible. Having a class where people can shoot standard factory equipment, and actually encouraging people to come out and shoot in that class (i.e. promoting it) would go a long way. I know of few young people that can affort a custom rifle right off the bat, let alone a $300+ bipod or an 50-80x optic. Lots of young guys out there with off-the-shelf Remingtons/Savages rifles and inexpensive Bushnell target type optics. At some point in the future they may be able to afford better equipment, but many of them will have lost interest in shooting F-class by then.

We aready have that here in Ontario. It is called F(M) class (M) meaning manufactured class. The problem is that so few shoot in this class it ends up getting lumped in the F/TR class.

 

[Mystic Precision]

I would think to keep FTR class even is to limit the .308 to 185 gr bullets and 223 to 90 grs thus giving both a BC of app; 550.
To get more people using the 223 and with mild recoil of 223 we might get more young people into shooting F class ladies as well.

That would be wonderful.

In Raton, there was chatter about moving toward putting some caps on the NRA FTR. What? Where? When? just chatter for now but shooters are starting to see this class get overly techy and in some cases, downright dangerous.

New shooters will always figure that mega dollar gear is what is needed. Unfortunately, that is because many top shooters tend to lean on this mega dollar stuff.

I have done very well with near factory gear and certainly at very affordable costs.

The options are there but shooters just lean heavily to what is perceived as "better" to gain a performance edge. A factory class isn't going to change that. We have also tried in BC with lousy turnouts. We have given up.

Newbies forget that wind reading is one of the most important parts to score well and that can't be BOUGHT.

Jerry

 

[FTRRookie]

We may experiment with a factory class next year in Ottawa. Certainly we all benefit from getting more shooters involved, and I think it's important to try and find ways to make the sport more accessible. Personally I don't think we need to put a cap on tech, as it is one of the things that can help make new shooters more competitive should they be willing to invest a little time and effort doing the research and testing. What I would advocate is a closer look at a TR or NRA type classification system where shooters can see how they rank within a group of peers. I think if we a) find ways to allow people to get involved without having to remortgage their house and b) provide them with opportunities to have some success early on then we will truly have done something in the best interest of our sport.

Scott

 

[maynard]

Scott, if you want to attract more shooters the first thing to tackle would be finding a way to reduce the cost of entry fees. You have to dangle the bait before setting the hook. If this means reducing the cost for first time CFRC shooters to 1/2 price then maybe we need to try that. Competitor marking for all 300m relays. Competitors over 65 are exempt from marking duties and a buy-out option for target pulling for those that want it.

Competitor ARO's. Exempt the cadets and overseas competitors, senior shooters would end up pulling this duty once during the week. This may also mean shooting only 3 ranges a day instead of 4, but would also allow to make up an extra range per day if there is a rain out.

Also the DCRA has to put a price cap on what we will pay/target/day instead of an hourly rate for markers. There is no reason that we should be paying for 2 target pullers/target when only one puller is required.

 

[FTRRookie]

Tom,

In my opnion the high cost of CFRC (both in terms of time and $) is one of the reasons the F-Class community elected to create our own Nationals Championships. I think there was a desire for us to craft our own identity outside of what is overwhelmingly a TR shoot, and also to shoot a more compressed schedule.

Personally I like the idea of providing reduced rates for first time competitors, but I think it's a strategy that should be discussed jointly with our colleagues in the west, at least at the regional championship level. As far as local shoots go I think the NCRRA delivers fantastic value with their annual Victoria Day Matches, including low entry fees, paid markers, and even daily rates that are perfect for people to get a chance to come shoot at Connaught in a competition-type environment for less than what some ranges charge for guest fees. If we could mirror that model at more club level shoots I think we would get a bunch more people out to see what a competition is like, and hopefully get hooked like the rest of us have.

 

[rnbra-shooter]

...the idea of providing reduced rates for first time competitors...

My thoughts are that perhaps we should provide reduced rates (or some other sort of very generous incentive) to the SECOND time someone comes out, not the first. I do not mind (not at all!) if someone comes to our matches, shoots them once, enjoys the experience and treasures it forever as one of their wonderful "life experiences", never to return. That's great and I'm glad to have shot with them that once, even though I'd be much happier if they took it up and became a regular.

To be brutally cold-hearted about it, I don't really care to subsidize someone's one-off life experiences; I'm much more interested in subsidizing and promoting something which is good for me and my sport, which is to say, having others take it up as an ongoing and continuing pursuit.

Maynard and others, I've run some financial numbers on what the effects would be if we went to total or partial competitor marking, or competitor range staff etc. Am willing and interested to go over this with any interested DCRA member, however I don't see any really low hanging fruit there. Some other more promising scenarios come into play if we are willing/interested-in shooting three to a target during CFRC, and also to fire on only one range at a time (rather than the two simultaneous as we do today) - a certain amount of operational flexibility is gained, as well as some meaningful-enough-to-be-worth-looking-at-it cost savings. But what we're talking about is on the order of 10% or perhaps 15% at the most, of the overall entry fees; changes to the good to be sure, but nothing that would turn a $700 entry fee into a $400 entry fee. To do those sorts of cost reductions requires that the overall number of days of operation be reduced, and that's a question which has many different opinions.

 

[silverfoxdj]

If you want to get more people shooting it, you need to make it more accessible. Having a class where people can shoot standard factory equipment, and actually encouraging people to come out and shoot in that class (i.e. promoting it) would go a long way. I know of few young people that can affort a custom rifle right off the bat, let alone a $300+ bipod or an 50-80x optic. Lots of young guys out there with off-the-shelf Remingtons/Savages rifles and inexpensive Bushnell target type optics. At some point in the future they may be able to afford better equipment, but many of them will have lost interest in shooting F-class by then.

Well said...

 

[prairieguy]

...the idea of providing reduced rates for first time competitors...

My thoughts are that perhaps we should provide reduced rates (or some other sort of very generous incentive) to the SECOND time someone comes out, not the first. I do not mind (not at all!) if someone comes to our matches, shoots them once, enjoys the experience and treasures it forever as one of their wonderful "life experiences", never to return. That's great and I'm glad to have shot with them that once, even though I'd be much happier if they took it up and became a regular.

To be brutally cold-hearted about it, I don't really care to subsidize someone's one-off life experiences; I'm much more interested in subsidizing and promoting something which is good for me and my sport, which is to say, having others take it up as an ongoing and continuing pursuit.

Maynard and others, I've run some financial numbers on what the effects would be if we went to total or partial competitor marking, or competitor range staff etc. Am willing and interested to go over this with any interested DCRA member, however I don't see any really low hanging fruit there. Some other more promising scenarios come into play if we are willing/interested-in shooting three to a target during CFRC, and also to fire on only one range at a time (rather than the two simultaneous as we do today) - a certain amount of operational flexibility is gained, as well as some meaningful-enough-to-be-worth-looking-at-it cost savings. But what we're talking about is on the order of 10% or perhaps 15% at the most, of the overall entry fees; changes to the good to be sure, but nothing that would turn a $700 entry fee into a $400 entry fee. To do those sorts of cost reductions requires that the overall number of days of operation be reduced, and that's a question which has many different opinions.

I don't really expect you to post numbers here but I imagine there would be a huge cost saving if we switched to competitor marking. Personally I do not ojbect to paying for marking but whenever I try to invite US shooters to come north they invariably complain about the price of the match fee and would rather pull targets than pay for them. It would also mean a decrease to three matches a day instead of four but you could stil shoot multiple ranges simultaneously, just ensure that all ranges start at the same time and time limits are stricly enforced.

 

[rnbra-shooter]

I don't really expect you to post numbers here but I imagine there would be a huge cost saving if we switched to competitor marking. Personally I do not ojbect to paying for marking but whenever I try to invite US shooters to come north they invariably complain about the price of the match fee and would rather pull targets than pay for them. It would also mean a decrease to three matches a day instead of four but you could stil shoot multiple ranges simultaneously, just ensure that all ranges start at the same time and time limits are stricly enforced.

Numbers, why not.

Our national matches (TR, iron sights) cover a 9 day time period. There are 2 days of warmups at the beginning and 1.5 days of team matches toward the end, with a "core" of 5 days being the Canadian Fullbore Rifle Championship (CFRC). The entry fee for the CFRC is $700. Warmups and team matches are extra cost and optional, but a shooter might typically pay $850 in entry fees if he shoots the CFRC plus a reasonable smattering of warmups. Over this time you'll need to eat and a place to stay, which is up to you but you can get by for as little as $42/day for meals at the mess and accommodations on site. You'll need to travel to and from Ottawa, and you'll fire say 350 rounds of ammo. It's not cheap:

entry fees: $850 typ.
meals & lodging: $380
travel to and from Ottawa: varies. (drive from Toronto $100 gas; fly from Western Canada $700; etc)
11 consecutive days: cost varies (1 day of travel at each end plus 9 days shooting)
350 rds ammo: (huh...?? Never calculate this cost, stupid!! ;-)
-------
TOTAL COST: $1230 + travel costs + 11 days time + ammo

Like I said, it's not cheap. It is a wonderful shooting experience. You are either preparing to shoot, or shooting, or resting, or eating, or sleeping, or talking to other competitors. You do not need to rush or hurry. You don't need to mark targets. You shoot four times a day, twice in the morning and twice in the afternoon. Shooting hours typically run 0800-1200, an hour and a half lunch break, then 1330-1730 in the afternoon. It is nine days of focused, purposeful, wonderful shooting. It is very much unlike the other 355 days of the year.

It's wonderful, and it's expensive too, there are no two ways about that.

If we instead of hiring target markers, we could run the competitions with competitor marking. This would reduce expenses by approximately $300 per shooter. So we could make the 9 days of shooting $300 cheaper however it would still be pretty pricey. Additionally though, we probably could not sustain the same shooting programme; with paid markers, we can run the ranges all morning and all afternoon without any interruptions in firing to send people to and from the butts. We might have to reduce the shooting programme to be three matches per day with competitor marking rather than four matches per day with paid making, and with marking duties added the shooting day would be quite a bit fuller and less leisurely. We could perhaps get in four matches per day buy that would probably require shooters to be on the range every single minute; not necessarily a better or worse thing, but certainly a VERY different thing.

 

[highmark]

Is this not the whole reason we went to an F-Class only Nationals? There really shouldn't be any complaints as we got everything we wanted. Our own Nationals with a very compact but high round count, much lower entry fees, yet we still have paid markers so its not like were shooting just another club match.

Attracting new shooters to the Nationals will not work by having lower entry fees etc. etc., it will come over time through the encouragement of other competitors that have been there and had great experiences. 9 shooters from the West were at the first Canadian F-Class Nationals. Because of the fantastic experience we all had we will likely all be there in 2014, with at least that many more that are eager to get in on the fun.

US Nationals in the past have been around 175.00 for entry fees, with no paid pullers. This year they were very close to the cost of our Nationals, and we still pulled targets. I for one will gladly pay a little more to have payed pullers once or twice a year at some special matches. We should be happy with what we have for Nationals at this time, and not be made to feel like we need to attend the CFRC and incure those costs. The F-Class Nationals are what we need at this time, we just need to encourage others to attend.

Just my thoughts on the subject.
Cheers
Eric

 

[Mystic Precision]

If I may throw more fuel on this debate, personally, it is expensive but a whole lot cheaper then a lot of pass times out there.

The key is not to compare the Canadian Nationals to a rd at the local chip and putt but to a major tournament of whatever vocation they want that uses equipment.

think golf, car and boat and bike and motor bike racing, Triathlons (you will be blown away at what it costs for this ONE DAY EVENT in Penticton).

How about 11 days on a Ski hill? or a warm weather resort? Stuff is expensive regardless.

I think the more important question is how do we motivate the many many shooters to get into competitive shooting? They are already spending buckets of money on a whole range of gear, much of it wouldn't be half bad at f class.

So how do we get them to the event at a club level? Because once they are involved, the costs aren't that big a deal anymore.

Think our rifles are expensive? Ever buy a Quad? Or heaven forbid, a new snow mobile?

The gear we use it the top of our sport and it is still affordable and accessible to most every middle class person IF they choose to participate.

Yes, our events can be considered expensive but have you ever tried to play a round of golf at a PGA tournament certified course?

We are in a golden age of wealthy and active people who are post kids, time on their hands, and activity on their minds. All have come through a time when firearms weren't scary machines from hell. There is no shortage of hunters and they can spend some serious coin too.

If we want the costs to go down, we need to increase the level of attendance which allows for business interests to participate as well. It is a positive loop and ensures we all get to enjoy a sport we love.

The key is helping others, especially shooters, to love what we do.

Jerry

 

[308BAR]

Rnbra shooter good post IMO. Wow definitely an eye opener for me and I thought provincials pra tournament fees where expensive. I may have too rethink the whole national and worlds. Definitely starts to become cost prohibitive

 

[FTRRookie]

Please don't take the numbers that Daniel posted as representative of what it costs to shoot F-Class Nationals; in fact they are one of the reasons that there is an F-Class Nationals. While we have not yet nailed down what the entry fees will be for Worlds I can't imagine they will be anywhere near that high. Entry fees for the larger F-Class events in Canada (Easterns, Westerns, and Nationals) have typically run 1/3 to 1/2 of the figures quoted, for shoots that run from 2-4 days.

Scott

 

[rnbra-shooter]

Highmark, thanks for the kind words about the Canadian F-Class National Championships - which are after all much more relevant to this F-Class related thread. The 9-day CFRC is a bit of a relic (and I mean that in the very best sense) of bygone times. No matter how wonderful as it is, an 11-day commitment is simply beyond the reach the real or perceived reach of many, which is precisely why we designed the Canadian F-Class National Championships:

- about 210 rounds (note airline-feasible ammo quantity!)
- about five matches per day. Paid marking.
- three days of shooting (Thursday-Saturday). Some 300-500-600 on first day, all other shooting at 800m and 900m.
- breakfast and awards Sunday morning (drive or fly home Sunday afternoon, be back to work on Monday)
- travel to match on Wednesday (drive or fly)
- so, total timespan of five days (Wed-Sun), three days off work needed
- entry fee $350 (includes all individual and team entry fees plus Sunday awards breakfast)

The two F-Class Regional matches are quite similar. The Eastern one has only been held in Ottawa so far (sooner or later it might travel to another site), the Western one has a nice annual rotation established. Match fees for the Regionals are typically $325 (usually three days of shooting). The Regionals are _superbly_ well run, and the prize table at the Western Regional in particular simply blows me away - I don't know how they pull it off, but it's just incredible. The Regionals are small enough to be fun and friendly, but the depth of competition is such that it pretty much requires world-level talent to win.

I've always hated the "look how expensive other pursuits are" line of reasoning when offered as a defense of what our costs in shooting are, mostly because I really don't want us to have a cheap and easy cop-out. In my opinion we need to hold our cost discipline as tightly as we possibly can. Having said that, Jerry is right on all his points. Any worthwhile pursuit done seriously, especially at the very top level, can be unavoidable expensive.