Proposal - Classifications in FClass at the SPRA - to attract more shooters into LR

Kodiak99317

Kodiak99317

CGN frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
4   0   0
Location
Saskatchewan, Canada
In the TR (Target rifle - aka peep sight classed 223/308s) class, they have classifications (Master, Expert, Sharpshooter and Greenshot) so like ability shooters shot against others of like capabilities. This DCRA TR classification is based on your scores at 300M to 600 yds only.

I’m proposing that the SPRA (Saskatchewan Provincial Rifle Association) allows the FClass shooters to also be classified using these same rules.

This way, is you are a new shooter (Greenshot), you will be shooting against other new shooters and have a chance at the medals. Also, if you only have a factory rifle in a caliber other than .223 or 308, you can shoot FOpen in a class were you are not up against the guys that have been winning for years, with rifles worth more than the cars they drive to the range. Once you get a classification, again, you will be shooting against others of the same abilities. This way, you don’t have to have the best equipment or wind reading skills to have some fun and possibly win your sub class.

As many may already know, FClass is currently broken down into basically two classes, FTR(.223 or 308, any bullet weight) and FO(F Open were you shot anything up to the range limits set by the club for safety). This proposal will allow the shooters learning the game to be competitive with others in the same class with similar abilities.

DCRA classifications break downs are as follows;
Master ave score of 4.7 out of 5
Expert is 4.69 to 4.4
Sharpshooter is 4.39 and under
Greenshot is a new unclassified shooter until they are classified

I'm currently basing my classifications on our bigger matches only for past SPRA shooters (Provincials and PPRA) and have classified around 65-70 shooters that have shot at the SPRA range using this method. I will be classifying the new shooters using a hybrid of this, similar to the US NRA were after you have 120 rounds down range from 300M to 600 yds, you will be classified.

As Secretary and statistician for the SPRA I will be classifying anyone that shoots at our matches.

Note: If you have to have 3 shooters in a class for it to operate, if not, you will be moved up into a higher class. i.e., 2 in master class and 3 in expert class would mean the Expert class would be pushed into master class and since there would be 5 shooters in that class, using the 3-6-9 rule, I could award a 1st place and a 2nd place medal in Master class. Classifications work well in well attended matches and in poor attended matches you end up like I showed above, being pushed into a higher class.

The NRA in the US has similar classifications, but in the US, being unclassified means your first time out, you shoot unclassified master against the masters. The US NRA also has a Mid range, Long Range and a Palma classifications for Fclass shooters. Mid range is 300 yds to 600 yds, Long range is string fire at 800 to 1000 yds and palma is pairs fire at 800 to 1000 yds. The US classifications are based on a minimum round count at set ranges to qualify for the classification.

To further help this, I have also separated the range records for TR, FTR and FOpen, again, to allow the FTR shooters a better chance at setting some of our range records. My hope is this will help keep the one times coming out to matches, verses seeing all the marbles go to the TR and top FClass shooters.

For those with current US NRA classification cards, these will also be excepted by me to allow shooters that have not shot at the SPRA to be in the proper classification.
If you have a NRA Mid range, LR and Palma class cards, the highest class card you hold will be what you will be classified as.

Hopefully this will bring more shooters out to our range, located 6 miles east of Nokomis SK. So if you have a desire to learn long range shooting but not high end equipment, come on out anyways, I;m sure you will learn a ton, get assigned a mentor, and be competitive from the very start.
 
Now there is a man with his thinking cap on.

Well explained and to the point.

It's the way I started with TR oh so many years ago, but it is still very valid.

Thanks for the proposal Kodiak, and may the other PRA join in.
 
Works great for our friends down south and I have a little prize envelop to prove it.

I think the major hurdle will be in attendance. As you illustrated, given the numbers in any one group, they might get bunched together with "better" shooters negating their ranking. Of course, this is a chicken/egg situation but anything to help with attendance is a great idea.

Good luck with that.

I would suggest you contact SteveB as he is BC's new f class rep.

Jerry
 
With TR numbers decreasing and FCLASS numbers growing I think this a doable proposal, if the exec at the SPRA approves this, which I think will happen in a few weeks. This also saves us creating other classes, like factory or tactical.

Currently, first timers with a factory 300WM or factory 308 or 30-06 get tossed into FTR or FO and really do not stand a chance against the guys that are seasoned in the sport. Yes, they may win a yardage or two. But never the grand agg. And hopefully, this will keep them coming back.
 
Last edited:
There has been a need for this for quite some time here in Ontario. Although I do still like the idea of having a Factory Class. From what I have seen from the other side of the range, guys that shoot Factory Class only shoot it for about a year before screwing on another barrel and jumping to either F/TR or F/O.

What is likely to happen for a while is that you will have to lump Factory Class in with Greenshots and Sharpshooters. And lump Experts in with the Masters just to get the numbers up to award prizes.
 
Keith,

You need to email Mark I in Ontario. He's just agreed to become the stats keeper for F class results across Canada with the long term objective being a classification system. You guys need to work together to make this happen sooner rather than later.
 
Keith

I really like your proposed system but would like to add one more thing only for discussion. What about a straight .223 only class? Right now people look to the .223 as a cheap target cartridge and the stores sell it like it is with Savages and Remingtons. That is until the new shooters go up against the 308's using 69 to 77 grain bullets. Then they get disillusioned when there scores are really low as their bullets really get blown around. IMHO, the 223 cartridge is a special cartridge for master shooters bored shooting the 308's and not a beginners if you are using the 80 and heavier bullets.

How about a straight 223 class using max 77 grain bullets so that the twist rates normally sold in factory rifles will work?

Steve
 
Keith. I was thinking about a strict 223 class so all would shoot 223's to make competition fun but equal to all without being beaten by the 308. No way a light bullet 223 will stay with the heavy bullet 308's. If the 223's all use the 69-77 grain bullets then the store bought 223's can be used. If the shooter then wants to more into F-TR then they can re-barrel to either the 308 or 1 in 7 twists 223 for the 90's. In the meantime we gain new shooters to enjoy the sport. Maybe also limit the scopes to 24 power also as a thought.

Steve
 
Steve,

I think you are making this way too complicated for a start up effort. Let's get it off the ground using the two "Normal" classes we have and see how it works before we add a pile of new stuff. Also , what you are talking about needs to be run past the DCRA executive to be adopted across the country, not make excessive sub sets of classification in Sk only.
 
Steve, so what stops the 223 guy from cheating and using a heavy? I'm not going to police ammo or scope powers. He is in FTR period. I'm not trying to make new classes and thus two existing class, FO and FTR, with sub classes within, those being their score abilities, M, Ex and ss, and gs for the newbies. Sorry, but this is my stand.

If we allow a new class type, next thing will be pistols or 6ppc's using 68g FB, or people asking for a new class based on barrel lengths, or rifle weights. Like Les said, lets get this off the ground first by using classifications on score abilities. The store bought 223's can still be used in FTR, yes they will not score like the 223 with heavies or the 308's, same as the 308 with 155s dont stand a chance against 308s with 185s, but they will all fit into a classification based on scoring ability. KISS rules in SK.
 
Last edited:
Keith No problem. Was just floating an idea. Good to have the feedback though.

I was mostly thinking of the Lower Mainland of BC where there are mostly F-TR shooters and most of the new guys seem to show up with 223's. Also, I thought it might be a way of making the short ranges fun again.

I enjoy shooting the longer ranges with the big stuff out your way but those range distances aren't available in BC. 600 meters is the longest in the lower part of BC and the LML. Shooting these distances can get somewhat repetitive using a 284 and 300 due to the lack of wind drift. I was thinking of doing a 223 only match where everybody shot a caliber that was cheap to shoot, easy to get into and lots of fun due to the issues of the wind using the light weight bullets.

Tommy won the last 300 yard match in Mission only dropping 2 V's for the entire 2 day weekend shoot. That is pretty intimidating to a new shooter watching who he is up against. A 223 with lighter bullets would level the playing field somewhat.

Steve
 
Steve, take a look at how many competitors shoot the .223/5.56 Championship at the CFRC Matches every year. Tikka T3's and the some Savage factory rifles in .223 have enough twist to shoot 80 and 90 gr bullets. Putting a further restriction by bullets weight may turn the new shooters away. You may find out regarless of caliber and bullet weight Greenshots and Factory Class scores will be very close out to 600 yards/m.
 
I was talking with Les last night about classifications and he suggested we include all yardages and not just the 300 to 600, since by omitting the longs, we will get people that should be in Expert classified as Masters. Slept on it, and even if this is true, which it is, to make it a standard Canadian FClass Classification, we must keep it to the 300m-600yd since not all ranges go past 600yd.

Since it is new for FClass in Canada, we could, if Mark I is willing, have two classifications, like the US does, a Mid range (300-600) and a LR (800-1000). At the CFRC or FClass nationals, we would have to either use just the Mid's to group the shooters, or we could use the LR ones if you have that and if not, then you would have to shoot Unclassified Master with the existing guys that have a Master class until you have a LR classification.

In reality, if you read the DCRA rules on classifications, the only place you are classified is at the CFRC allcomers agg as a TR shooter and there too, it is only 300M to 600 yds, if I remember this correctly.

I also believe that in the US, you are to use whatever classification you have that is highest, so if you are a MD High Master, and LR Master, you are to use the HM classification!
The US has higher figures as well to become a HM, like 97% or an average of 4.85 per shot and a higher one to become a Master as well.

Again, KISS, why not follow the existing DCRA rules, it would be an easier thing to do and have approved by the PRAs and DCRA.

BTW, I have software setup for this, back in 2009 and have copied it to my Dropbox and it has just under 1000 scores on it, mostly from the 2009 CFRC and some PRA scores. You can import records into it from Excel or text formats ( have to line up the fields some and which can be a bit tricky)or enter them manually. It can do the MR, LR, allcomers, or specific events, and yes, LR usually drops your class one place, ie, Master at MR and you are usually an Expert at LR.

Mark, email me at kodiak99317@gmail.com or call me at 306-652-2065 and I will send you a link to my dropbox if you are interested in seeing it. It is pretty large like close to 6Meg in the runtime version, which runs on any PC without the base software.

Update: I added the SPRA and PPRA scores any shooters for 2013 so the Database now has 1283 records, and re-classified these shooters for 2013. I opt'd to add the records manually and it took me 3 hrs to add approx another 300 records and then run the classifications by shooter. I also can tell you the DB can hold approx 2 million records before it blows up LOL
 
Last edited:
Hi Fellas,

I see it as do-able, but will need the support of each PRA and DCRA match directors and a dedicated "records" team . Keep in mind that the Classifications system in the US
is for "prize monies" and not medal awards. The overall totals are still the basis for standings in the matches. Still nice to receive an envelope though and is a good way for
shooters to monitor their progress in development.

Like the US ,we need to stick with Mid and Long range classifications.We would also need to set up a "match software scoring system" that would enable match directors
the ease and ability to section out the classes as well as run "overall" scores.(sounds like it's already done? Keith?)
In the last US match I attended. overall scores needed to be manually tallied as just classification totals were posted. The software system should be able to "do both" at the push of a button.
If too complicated ,match scorekeepers could resist it.I f it's a plug and play,there's no excuse to.

As to establishing "levels" it would be my instinct to try and stay uniform with other countries so ultimately it could be adopted by ICFRA the world body.
As such I would think using the US levels % would be wise. We could then utilize data from US shot matches as well in Canadian rankings.
Accuracy and consistency in reporting results to a National body(Records & Classification Section) would be critical of making this system worthwhile.
In the US we are issued an ID number and ranking on 2 cards (Mid and Long Range) You compete in the Classification at the level of ranking and a higher ranking at mid range does not
go forward to LR if at a lower classification.
For those who have limited access to LR,it should benefit them by allowing US match scores to count towards LR totals. Ultimately they would have shot enough LR Match to qualify
for ranking.
I agree with the US system that any unranked shooter be included in Master Class (unclassified) until sufficient matches have been shot to qualify. This prevents potential abuse.
It may take a season ,depending on the shooters attendance to matches,to get classified,but once established,it's and ongoing record.

If we want it to happen ,we (Fer's) have to run it and not just suggest it to the DCRA to run.
Mark I. was kind enough to volunteer to establish and run a Canadian Records(High score) section and is in the process of investigation.I don't believe the initial design was to establish
a ranking system ,but I can see where it could lead into that.
As in all endeavors ,it is important that we support this by increasing attendance at PRA and National level matches.
Let me know if I can help out in getting this to move forward (keep in mind I am NOT computer literate)
Regards
Gord
 
Lots of good points Gord. Things to remember is the US system actually has 3 classification, MR, LR (both via sting fire) and a Full bore ( via pairs fires) and thus why they use a higher figure for their class breakdowns. The DCRA TR started classification long before the NRA did as well and my software was written some 5 years ago. Yes I can modify it to use their figures, but why not keep TR and Fclass standard using the same breakdowns since most of our shoots are pairs fire.

It was not designed to run a match. It was designed to calc classifications after a match. Match director will still have to do their part and enter scores by yardage at the matches. Plus their is the count back rules so for any system to work correctly you have to enter Shot for shot and not totals for the yardage. Too time consuming IMO.

At does work by running a script, but you have to tell it who the shooter is you want to classify, then it finds his scores from 300 to 600 and does the calcs.

It is easy to add a script to find the 800-1000 scores.

I thought from les's post in this thread that Mark I. Was going to the classifications too, not just range records.

That all said, I think it would be up to the match director to either enter this info or better yet to do the math and notify the person keeping the main list of classification. It took me 3 hrs to enter some 300+ scores today for the SPRA matches that happened in 2013. I do not want to have enter scores for all of Canada! I'm willing to allow the other directors to use this software and keep a database for themselves but I will not allow them to enter in my copy since they can change figures and deleted records. Not saying they would, but easy to do, import their records, and then using find records (headers, etc not needed for the classifications and them delete set and accidently deleteing more than they thought they found). Plus, the classification are based on a three year average and in time there will be over 3 years of data per shooter so the script would have to be change to find only the last three years per shooter. It currently has what I need for the SPRA and some CFRA data from 2009 which it does omit from the SPRA scores for classification of my shooters.

It is easier for the directors to use what they use now and report to or send data by shooter with the classification they have calculated for those shooters, IMO.

Keith
 
Last edited:
I for one am glad to see this discussion starting to emerge with a lot of thought behind it; I sincerely believe that giving new or developing shooters an opportunity to measure their performance against equally matched peers will help to reinforce those positive feelings that keep folks coming back, and the classifications themselves help to serve as development benchmarks.

With respect to the role this plays in prizing I think this provides an opportunity for match organizers to adjust their behaviour. As a community we all benefit from having new shooters come, have some success, and keep coming back, so I think it is in our best interest that we all attempt to recognize those new shooters in some way shape or form. Last year at Easterns Price Enterprises was kind enough to donate a great prize for our top "new shooter", and we hope to be offerring it again this year. It was a small change that can be made at other shoots as well to help reinforce the message that we collectively want new shooters to succeed. I also don't see any reason why we couldn't try to ensure that once the classifications are in place we all attempt to make certain they each get some form of recognition on the prize table.

Scott
 
This has been talked about forever; glad to see Keith jumping in and doing it, and getting good feedback and support from lots of others.

(not to discourage anyone, but my own feelings on classifications is that it is a very, very mixed bag, and they are unlikely to ever achieve what is intended by them. But like I said, don't let my own personal grumblings about this stuff discourage anyone from going out there and DOING IT, and ideally, proving me wrong)

A few random comments.

First - are you trying to classify shooter ability, or equipment capabilities? (or, what mix of these?). The answer to this might affect how you design your classification scheme. Every system has gaps/cracks through which things fall, if you have an idea of what is most important to you you might be able to keep this to a minimum.

Second - Australia did some really interesting work on a "shooter grading system", which I admit I don't fully understand but it might be worth seeing if they've done anything new/useful/unexpected that might be worth stealing.

In the DCRA's TR classification system, the idea behind using 300-500-600 scores (the Allcomers agg) is that this is largely a measure of a shooter's holding ability, and not so much a measure of wind reading ability. Scores at long range are more affected by a shooter's equipment and by a shooter's wind reading ability. So in the TR classification system, the idea is that it attempts to classify a shooter's holding ability (by using short range and mid range scores, and omitting long range scores). It is imperfect, like all systems, but that's what it aims to include and aims to ignore.
 
Thanks for including your thoughts and knowledge Dan. In entering more scores this morning, in one of the matches, we had a ton of rain and very high winds. In this match, our regular Master shooters were shooting Sharpshooter to Expert scores. Since this was such a poor day, should these be excluded from the calcs in your opinion Dan? What would the DCRA do if this happened at the CFRC? We really should have call the match due to weather I think that day..
 
Hi Keith,
You cannot be selective regarding "match conditions" as to weather (spelling pun) or not they should be included. The law of averages will
come into play and sort this out on it's own.I agree with Dan that setting mid range only as the classification does not reflect the entire picture,
and having both mid range and long range classes will work for most situations.
I've tried to figure out the Aussies system as well and cannot.
It would be unfortunate as "each" country (or for that matter if each Province) has a system that is substantially different from each other.
If such is the case,the validity or transferability comes into question.Much like Canadian vs American Class system for IPSC or any sport for that matter.
Until uniformity is adopted by ICFRA World Records, there could remain confusion from one system to the next.
Maybe conferencing with each PRA F rep and National F Committee to get an agreed uniform system in place for Canada
first. Recruit reps to run it for a period of years and tweek it as needed.
Any classification should ,in my opinion,be based on all reported scoring in registered Match rather than selecting certain matches as
"qualifiers" as done in some other sports..
Hopefully it would have the effect that you mention and encourage shooters.I know it feels much better after any match when
you can leave with a sense of accomplishment and being able to see development against equivalent skill levels.
But as always...somedays you be da bug and others,the windshield.
The more competitors we can obtain and retain ,the greater our sport grows.
Great work.I'm glad I'm computer illiterate ,cause it sounds like you're doing a hellofalot work to get her going.
Keep it up!!
Regards
G
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom