SR equipment discussion

Thanks. I should be around for at least some of the Saturday morning sessions at Connaught, starting in a few weeks. At a minimum, I intend to shoot the rifle at a recreational level as time premits this summer.
 
I did give a thumbs up to the ORA for selling out matches. Increasing interest and participation is a good thing isn't it?
Should I have told them they suck?
More shooters on the line means more shooters exposed to our sport.
 
My personal issue with the Elcan is that the sight cannot be adjusted to compensate for vision. Every other instrument that I have ever encountered has an ocular that can be adjusted to focus the reticle for a specifc user. To see the reticle in my Elcan clearly, I must wear glasses. A blurred reticle makes obtaining a uniform, consistant sight picture just about impossible.
Also, I replaced the mount clamp screws with proper Allen head machine screws, and machined up knurled steel nuts, to replace the plastic thingies with brass inserts.
 
Sorry if it came across like C79s for everyone.
I hardly think forcing everyone to use the C79 would be the solution to anything, but it like the ACOG is a current issue Service Rifle optic.
I would hate to see people limited to a list of acceptable optics because that is part of the allure of black rifles. Swapping parts and accessories to find what you like.


But when a 3-12 S&B is an acceptable Service Rifle optic we have strayed from what any country issues its soldiers.
 
2012 - There are now a complete set of awards and trophies for both Open and CF/RCMP classes. Both the Open and CF/RCMP winners are chaired.
 
Last edited:
Looking at the 2012 NSCC results, one of the top finishers in Open was shooting a stock Armalite rifle, with an Elcan (iirc, I know he has used an Elcan on this rifle previously. Perhaps a different sight was used). Other top Open finishers were using rifles with tubular handguards, commercial scopes. This rifle is about as close to a C7 as a civilian can buy. No idea what ammunition he was using.
In 1-12, he was in 3rd place 550.43. Closest CF competitor was 6th, with 537.35.
In 1-16, he was in 2nd place, 724.51. Closest CF competitor was 8th, with 699.34.
Was civ. ammunition vs C77 the cause of the point spread? Or was shooter skill the primary factor?
Looking at these results, a CF shooter with a good C7 and a good C79 might well place toward the top of the prize list.
 
In half of the individual matches, CF shooters took or tied for the open class. They took Open in two of the four 500m matches. Two CF tyros won the open class for individual matches, one was a 500m match. In most of the matches where CF did not also take the Open class, the next closest CF shooter was only a point or a couple of Vs away. Even in the infamous 12v "spacegun shoot-off", where the "spaceguns" had both scored 50.7 in the match, then 50.7 and 50.5 in the shoot-off, the third place behind them was a CF with a 50.6 in the match.

tiriaq said:
Looking at the 2012 NSCC results, one of the top finishers in Open was shooting a stock Armalite rifle, with an Elcan (iirc, I know he has used an Elcan on this rifle previously. Perhaps a different sight was used).
Click to expand...

It was a 1.5-5x Leupold, with the front side held down with a boot lace because the front ring was loose at the beginning of the match. Ammo he used was a 69 SMK loaded over a thrown 748 charge.

He was the only one to get a 550 patch for the classic matches. Had it not been for one bad match on the 400m stage, he likely would have been the Open winner.
 
Last edited:
If new competitors are being deterred based on the perception that the sport is expensive to get into because they need a 5k "space gun" one solution would be to have a class specifically with equipment limitations. Trigger weight, barrel length, max magnification for the stages, no muzzle breaks, 5.56 chamber, limit on bullet weight etc, etc, etc.. Maybe call it "Service Equivalent"

I recall one match where a competitor was lamenting it was not fair because I had a magnified optic and he had an Eotech. Well my Falcon Menace scope cost less than his Eotech so it was hard to feel bad for him because he made a poor equipment choice for SR, but if I was using a 3-12 March it would be pretty hard for me to argue a significant equipment advantage with a lot of $$$ required for him to catch up.

If competitors want to get in for "cheap" they shoot this class. If other competitors want an option to shoot more advanced rifles, they compete in say "Open" where the sky is the limit. As many shooters evolve and gain experience they naturally want to shoot higher performance rifles and the AR platform lends itself well to incremental upgrades to achieve this.

Now, does any of this assist with marksmanship training for the military. Maybe in the sense that more civilians involved, more matches at the PRA level and more competition opportunities for units and/or individual CF members. Not sure about that though.

Does having more civilians involved in the sport assist civilian gun owners in demonstrating the sport is legitimate and MSRs are not an evil thing that need to be banned? Yeah, probably. Which is good for all of us, civilian and military alike I think. Most military members were civilians at one time (I can think of a couple I know that I'm not so sure about :p) and will be again after their career. Those that competed on military teams would probably like to continue to do so. Again, growth and continuation of the sport is necessary for them to do so.

Of course now you have another class in the competition, more awards, more logistics, etc, etc, etc. That is an obvious down side. I'm not a match director and those that I know of are volunteers so it is hard for me to say they have to make this change and add more work to what they do.
 
There are already classes at NSCC (Open and CF/RCMP), and there is a complete set of awards for both. What is being asked is that there be equipment rules put on the open class so that shooters from the other class can win it as well.

ORA doesn't have classes because the scores don't show a need to and there is no big outcry because the majority of the matches are being won by CF shooting a C7. Rest assure though, if at some point a civilian with a "spacegun" (which includes anything with picatinni rails, according to some people's definition) starts winning most of the matches, there will be. A spacegun isn't going to win you a match... unless you win a match with one. Then that's the reason you won.
 
My thought was not to limit Open Class shooters. It was to add a class for non-CF/RCMP shooters to compete with a level of equipment that is cheaper and more affordable for a start. The aim to be to encourage new shooters to the sport...IF....they are currently being discouraged by a perceived high cost to get started.

You and I both know it is the shooter, not the rifle. Your rifle did not beat me last year, you did. When I do the same to you next year it will be me doing it, not my rifle (of course if your rifle craps out completely in the middle of the match it will help) LOL.

Again, concept only. We would need to know if shooters are staying away due to the perceived high cost to have a competitive rifle to shoot with. If they are not, then there is no need for limitations. Alternatively, the perception has to be dissolved some other way.

The ORA is an example where there are not limits and matches are seeing growth in participation on the civilian side. That can't be ignored. And yes, CF shooters win as many or more of the matches than civilians do. I certainly don't feel that I have any kind of equipment advantage over them when I shoot. When I go to NSCC this year I am not expecting to be near top of the pile because I shoot at "space gun". I know the experience levels of the top shooters are going to keep them there and I can't do anything about how they shoot. I can only control how I shoot...the next shot.
 
The thing is; there is no correlation between limiting a scope's magnification to 4x and cost. (this is an optics thread, so ltes not diverge too much from that).. A 3-9x or 2-7x is probably the cheapest scope you can buy at the average shop. There are lots of little cheap varmint scopes with turrets. If someone is truly concerned about costs to a newbie, they aren't going to prevent them from running one of those or whatever else they may already have sitting on their safe.
 
kombayotch said:
The thing is; there is no correlation between limiting a scope's magnification to 4x and cost. (this is an optics thread, so ltes not diverge too much from that).. A 3-9x or 2-7x is probably the cheapest scope you can buy at the average shop. There are lots of little cheap varmint scopes with turrets. If someone is truly concerned about costs to a newbie, they aren't going to prevent them from running one of those or whatever else they may already have sitting on their safe.
Click to expand...

I think it's safe to say with the 2013 offerings, anyone can put an optic on their rifle and have a go at it for less than $400 for the optic, with all the features one needs. Nikon and I are proof of that, and it looks like Leupold finally figured it out, along with a few others.
 
If you want to play with vari-power scopes, especially the el cheapo ones, you have to have very consistent chin wield and head positioning, or parallax and bad eye relief will throw your right off. The more magnification it has, the more critical these things are. There is more room to fudge with low magnification fix power sight like ACOG and Elcan. That is why they are much faster to use.
 
Thats an issues with cheap scopes, good quality variables have a large eye box. But it's beside the point. It was being implied that forcing a 4x limit will save new shooters money. That's a load of dung... there is no cost advantage to it.
 
I shoot a "space gun" in the sense that has a tubular handguard. Actually, I have two similar uppers. One with a barrel I turned from a $100 brand X blank, the other with a retrofitted Stevens 200 barrel. The first barrel is getting a bit tired, it has thousands and thousands of rounds through it. May retire it. Have a Remington LTR barrel coming ($60 ppd) that I will rework for the AR. My rifle without sights cost less than a NEA. A flat top upper with tubular handguard is easy to assemble, and cost effective. I did buy a NEA DMR barrel, out of curiosity; it shoots as well as the brand X or Stevens. I suppose that it is possible to buy a multi thousand dollar space gun, with all big ticket components.
Started with a Falcon 1 1/2 to 5, a modestly priced scope. Was satisfied with it until it failed during walk back zeroing. The Stevens barreled upper was swapped in; it carries a Leupold 1 1/2 -5 with target knobs. Forgot about the Leupold secured with the shoelace. Splurged last fall and bought a Leupold Mk. 4 2-8, which was on sale for $815 plus tax.
I think that the catch with using an econo scope is that the durability and repeatibility may be unknowns. That is my experience with two Falcons.
The Armalite with 1 1/2 - 5 Leupold shows that it is possible to place very high - with a strong possibility of winning - with a medium priced over the counter rig.
 
I am not worried about the military shooters winning matches, I am concerned with getting new civilian shooters (or military members shooting as civilians) on the line and getting them to stay around year after year.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom