Re: F-T/R Bullet Weight Cap (proposed), discussion.
"That was a wee bit offsides now, wasn't it"
"That was a wee bit offsides now, wasn't it"
F T/R Competition F-T/R Bullet Weight Cap (proposed), discussion.
- Thread starter scaxeman
- Start date
Re: F-T/R Bullet Weight Cap (proposed), discussion.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: IanB</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You should definitely cap the limit to 180 grains, and in a few years time when Berger introduce their new .30 cal 210gr XLDVLD Hybrid with a BC of .700 you can watch the rest of the world beat you with your own bullet </div></div>
See you in Raton, in 2013 Big Boy. Bring some money for a bet.
Go USA
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: IanB</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You should definitely cap the limit to 180 grains, and in a few years time when Berger introduce their new .30 cal 210gr XLDVLD Hybrid with a BC of .700 you can watch the rest of the world beat you with your own bullet
See you in Raton, in 2013 Big Boy. Bring some money for a bet.
Go USA
Re: F-T/R Bullet Weight Cap (proposed), discussion.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Tactical</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: IanB</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You should definitely cap the limit to 180 grains, and in a few years time when Berger introduce their new .30 cal 210gr XLDVLD Hybrid with a BC of .700 you can watch the rest of the world beat you with your own bullet </div></div>
See you in Raton, in 2013 Big Boy. Bring some money for a bet.
Go USA</div></div>
Mike, due to work commitments I can't make Raton.
Perhaps we can shake hands and place that bet in 2017?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Tactical</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: IanB</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You should definitely cap the limit to 180 grains, and in a few years time when Berger introduce their new .30 cal 210gr XLDVLD Hybrid with a BC of .700 you can watch the rest of the world beat you with your own bullet
See you in Raton, in 2013 Big Boy. Bring some money for a bet.
Go USA</div></div>
Mike, due to work commitments I can't make Raton.
Perhaps we can shake hands and place that bet in 2017?
Re: F-T/R Bullet Weight Cap (proposed), discussion.
Ian, not sure of plans for 2017 but would be glad to shake your hand
Ian, not sure of plans for 2017 but would be glad to shake your hand
Re: F-T/R Bullet Weight Cap (proposed), discussion.
Tactical,
If you think I was patting myself on the back, then that is what you want to think. My point is, since you seem incapable of getting it, is that any new shooter who wants to can come to be competitive in F/TR. BTW it doesn't take much of a man to cast aspersions on what someone else is saying over the internet.
AND, that wasn't a rant, just the perspective of a "New" shooter who this issue seems to be concentrated on.
Chris
Tactical,
If you think I was patting myself on the back, then that is what you want to think. My point is, since you seem incapable of getting it, is that any new shooter who wants to can come to be competitive in F/TR. BTW it doesn't take much of a man to cast aspersions on what someone else is saying over the internet.
AND, that wasn't a rant, just the perspective of a "New" shooter who this issue seems to be concentrated on.
Chris
Re: F-T/R Bullet Weight Cap (proposed), discussion.
Lighten up Francis
Lighten up Francis
Re: F-T/R Bullet Weight Cap (proposed), discussion.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I think the vote is a lot closer that those graphs show. 178 voting for some type of cap vs 190 for no cap. How representative is that 368 person sample, and how many of those already shoot >200gr pills? I'm a new F/TR shooter and if I could manage the recoil of a 215/230gr bullet I would use it for fear of getting smoked by it, but then I would have a rifle that I would for most tense and purposes be a single facet tool (and that I wouldn't enjoy shooting). Just my simple minded musings. Very good topic Darrel</div></div>
If the choice were simply between "no cap" and "<156" I think many (most) of those who voted for the "<201" cap would go toward "no cap."
Chris
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I think the vote is a lot closer that those graphs show. 178 voting for some type of cap vs 190 for no cap. How representative is that 368 person sample, and how many of those already shoot >200gr pills? I'm a new F/TR shooter and if I could manage the recoil of a 215/230gr bullet I would use it for fear of getting smoked by it, but then I would have a rifle that I would for most tense and purposes be a single facet tool (and that I wouldn't enjoy shooting). Just my simple minded musings. Very good topic Darrel</div></div>
If the choice were simply between "no cap" and "<156" I think many (most) of those who voted for the "<201" cap would go toward "no cap."
Chris
Re: F-T/R Bullet Weight Cap (proposed), discussion.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Nora23</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
If the choice were simply between "no cap" and "<156" I think many (most) of those who voted for the "<201" cap would go toward "no cap."
Chris </div></div>
True, but look at it another way. I only included the "option" for a 156 grain cap to test the waters out there; see what the feeling of F-T/R as a class was. I don't personally think that turning the clock back to "<156" will ever realistically happen. The ability to tinker with unlimited bullet weights (up to now, ~155-~208) has been a major boost to building F-T/R as a class.
If I had posted a poll with only 2 choices "<201" or "unlimited", the results might be a bit different as well, I'm guessing that most that voted for the <156 cap would have voted for the <201. No worries, I'm happy that all three choices were out there, it is useful info for people to have.
There's a reason I put the ........"201" number out there! It seemed to me a reasonable compromise between keeping technology under control, and allowing room to tinker. As aforementioned, the new bullets that hypothetically could pose an issue are NOT in the mainstream competitions these days. It would *certainly* not affect guys with their 24" barreled tactical rigs shooting 175's, etc.
Best,
Darrell
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Nora23</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
If the choice were simply between "no cap" and "<156" I think many (most) of those who voted for the "<201" cap would go toward "no cap."
Chris </div></div>
True, but look at it another way. I only included the "option" for a 156 grain cap to test the waters out there; see what the feeling of F-T/R as a class was. I don't personally think that turning the clock back to "<156" will ever realistically happen. The ability to tinker with unlimited bullet weights (up to now, ~155-~208) has been a major boost to building F-T/R as a class.
If I had posted a poll with only 2 choices "<201" or "unlimited", the results might be a bit different as well, I'm guessing that most that voted for the <156 cap would have voted for the <201. No worries, I'm happy that all three choices were out there, it is useful info for people to have.
There's a reason I put the ........"201" number out there! It seemed to me a reasonable compromise between keeping technology under control, and allowing room to tinker. As aforementioned, the new bullets that hypothetically could pose an issue are NOT in the mainstream competitions these days. It would *certainly* not affect guys with their 24" barreled tactical rigs shooting 175's, etc.
Best,
Darrell
C
captrichardson
Guest
Re: F-T/R Bullet Weight Cap (proposed), discussion.
I apologize for this sidetrack in advance, but IMHO it gets down to some of the motivation behind this issue.
When I bring a new shooter into F-Class, I tell them that they should focus on:
- Did they learn something from the match?
- Are their scores / performance improving?
- Did they have fun!
None of those 3 things come down to what weight of bullet they choose to shoot (assuming they are not changing bullet weight to improve their score).
Is it really fair, or does it really make sense, to compare your scores to someone else when they:
- have more experience than you
- have better equipment than you
- may get to shoot under better conditions than you
- have better individuals coaching them
Personally, I really don't care what score anyone else shoots, primarily because in most cases I am not on a level playing field with them for whatever reason.
For me, it is about my scores continually improving (not as a result of improving equipment), about me honestly being able to say that I am learning and improving my shooting, and about me having a blast doing it!
Generally speaking, I think that attitude and approach is one that will ultimately help the sport the most.
For those who wish to compete on a National or International level for big prizes, I still say the only way that you can claim that you are a better shooter than anyone else is to use the exact same rifle with the exact same ammo shooting under the exact same conditions with no outside help or influence. Don't see that happening anytime soon!
I can greatly appreciate the “competitive side” of F-Class, but I can honestly say that at times I have seen the “competitive side” of the sport driving away or keeping away new shooters which IMHO is really in no one’s best interest.
Sorry once again for the off topic rambling, but food for thought,
M Richardson
I apologize for this sidetrack in advance, but IMHO it gets down to some of the motivation behind this issue.
When I bring a new shooter into F-Class, I tell them that they should focus on:
- Did they learn something from the match?
- Are their scores / performance improving?
- Did they have fun!
None of those 3 things come down to what weight of bullet they choose to shoot (assuming they are not changing bullet weight to improve their score).
Is it really fair, or does it really make sense, to compare your scores to someone else when they:
- have more experience than you
- have better equipment than you
- may get to shoot under better conditions than you
- have better individuals coaching them
Personally, I really don't care what score anyone else shoots, primarily because in most cases I am not on a level playing field with them for whatever reason.
For me, it is about my scores continually improving (not as a result of improving equipment), about me honestly being able to say that I am learning and improving my shooting, and about me having a blast doing it!
Generally speaking, I think that attitude and approach is one that will ultimately help the sport the most.
For those who wish to compete on a National or International level for big prizes, I still say the only way that you can claim that you are a better shooter than anyone else is to use the exact same rifle with the exact same ammo shooting under the exact same conditions with no outside help or influence. Don't see that happening anytime soon!
I can greatly appreciate the “competitive side” of F-Class, but I can honestly say that at times I have seen the “competitive side” of the sport driving away or keeping away new shooters which IMHO is really in no one’s best interest.
Sorry once again for the off topic rambling, but food for thought,
M Richardson
Re: F-T/R Bullet Weight Cap (proposed), discussion.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: captrichardson</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
For those who wish to compete on a National or International level for <span style="color: #FF0000">big prizes</span>, I still say the only way that you can claim that you are a better shooter than anyone else is to use the exact same rifle with the exact same ammo shooting under the exact same conditions with no outside help or influence. Don't see that happening anytime soon!
M Richardson </div></div>
Prizes?! Prizes???!!! What prizes? I didn't know about any prizes!!! I'm going to have to look into this more carefully (LOL).
Seriously, I'm with you Cap'n. If it was fun, I wouldn't be doing it, no matter what else may be involved.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: captrichardson</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
For those who wish to compete on a National or International level for <span style="color: #FF0000">big prizes</span>, I still say the only way that you can claim that you are a better shooter than anyone else is to use the exact same rifle with the exact same ammo shooting under the exact same conditions with no outside help or influence. Don't see that happening anytime soon!
M Richardson </div></div>
Prizes?! Prizes???!!! What prizes? I didn't know about any prizes!!! I'm going to have to look into this more carefully (LOL).
Seriously, I'm with you Cap'n. If it was fun, I wouldn't be doing it, no matter what else may be involved.
Re: F-T/R Bullet Weight Cap (proposed), discussion.
Well said. Limiting bullet weight is not a logical fix even if there was a problem.
Chris
Well said. Limiting bullet weight is not a logical fix even if there was a problem.
Chris
Re: F-T/R Bullet Weight Cap (proposed), discussion.
The existing rules of the game are quite simple. There are only two chamberings allowed. There are minuscule targets to hit at long distances. Riflescopes, bipods and rear bags are employed. There is a total weight limit for the rifle and anything attached to it. That’s the game, knock yourself out.
Neither of the two calibers allowed are adequate at 1000 yards when using standard factory ammo unless you buy premium match ammo in .308, which is really not worth its cost for 1000 yards F-class competition. This makes the game strictly a handloading proposition.
Now, let's just stay with .308 for this discussion. You have to create your own load and you have a choice of bullets, ranging from 90gr to 230gr+. These bullets are available to everyone. If you are going to create a load, would you not want to select components that will work well for you? Why is that considered “gaming the game?”
The existing rules of the game are quite simple. There are only two chamberings allowed. There are minuscule targets to hit at long distances. Riflescopes, bipods and rear bags are employed. There is a total weight limit for the rifle and anything attached to it. That’s the game, knock yourself out.
Neither of the two calibers allowed are adequate at 1000 yards when using standard factory ammo unless you buy premium match ammo in .308, which is really not worth its cost for 1000 yards F-class competition. This makes the game strictly a handloading proposition.
Now, let's just stay with .308 for this discussion. You have to create your own load and you have a choice of bullets, ranging from 90gr to 230gr+. These bullets are available to everyone. If you are going to create a load, would you not want to select components that will work well for you? Why is that considered “gaming the game?”
Re: F-T/R Bullet Weight Cap (proposed), discussion.
Spot on. The main problem is the majority of people who complain about gamers and non-factory rifles have no idea how F-Class began or what F-T/R even stands for. I would love to give another history lesson, but I believe it has already been mentioned numerous times in this thread. This horse has been beaten to a pulp.
Everyone interested in the sport should read up on its history and the actual rules before discussing the spirit of them.
Spot on. The main problem is the majority of people who complain about gamers and non-factory rifles have no idea how F-Class began or what F-T/R even stands for. I would love to give another history lesson, but I believe it has already been mentioned numerous times in this thread. This horse has been beaten to a pulp.
Everyone interested in the sport should read up on its history and the actual rules before discussing the spirit of them.
Re: F-T/R Bullet Weight Cap (proposed), discussion.
...and Good Night, Farky; wherever you are...
...and Good Night, Farky; wherever you are...
Re: F-T/R Bullet Weight Cap (proposed), discussion.
So what is issue exactly
if you want to run a 230 do so
restrict it
Wow
how about addressing barrel length and the crazy bipods which folk use
bipods are the biggest joke but i,m guessing your part of that problem as in you dont use a standard harris type bipod
how about just getting real with current rules
instead adding more
based on voting your way outta touch with shooters
your idea of improving sport n theirs seems skewed
If you were truly aware of shooters needs then poll result would of been a 180 of what it is
Perhaps being more in tune with the many vs the few is the first thing that needs adrressing
So what is issue exactly
if you want to run a 230 do so
restrict it
Wow
how about addressing barrel length and the crazy bipods which folk use
bipods are the biggest joke but i,m guessing your part of that problem as in you dont use a standard harris type bipod
how about just getting real with current rules
instead adding more
based on voting your way outta touch with shooters
your idea of improving sport n theirs seems skewed
If you were truly aware of shooters needs then poll result would of been a 180 of what it is
Perhaps being more in tune with the many vs the few is the first thing that needs adrressing
Re: F-T/R Bullet Weight Cap (proposed), discussion.
Amen, that.
Amen, that.
Re: F-T/R Bullet Weight Cap (proposed), discussion.
For the good of competition, bringing in new shooters etc., it makes sense to cap the bullet weights IMHO. I have enjoyed F-T/R because it is a shooters match and not as much an equipment battle.
My understanding of F-Class is that is was borne from the Palma tradition. It should continue to reflect those roots.
For the good of competition, bringing in new shooters etc., it makes sense to cap the bullet weights IMHO. I have enjoyed F-T/R because it is a shooters match and not as much an equipment battle.
My understanding of F-Class is that is was borne from the Palma tradition. It should continue to reflect those roots.
Re: F-T/R Bullet Weight Cap (proposed), discussion.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Jedi</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So what is issue exactly
if you want to run a 230 do so
restrict it
Wow
how about addressing barrel length and the crazy bipods which folk use
bipods are the biggest joke but i,m guessing your part of that problem as in you dont use a standard harris type bipod
how about just getting real with current rules
instead adding more
based on voting your way outta touch with shooters
your idea of improving sport n theirs seems skewed
If you were truly aware of shooters needs then poll result would of been a 180 of what it is
Perhaps being more in tune with the many vs the few is the first thing that needs adrressing
</div></div>
Karl, we only know what folks tell us and remember those that bitch loudest we remember. So yes we are on touch with what folks have asked us to do. Thats why it was brought here to see what the silent folks wanted.
Case over no cap
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Jedi</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So what is issue exactly
if you want to run a 230 do so
restrict it
Wow
how about addressing barrel length and the crazy bipods which folk use
bipods are the biggest joke but i,m guessing your part of that problem as in you dont use a standard harris type bipod
how about just getting real with current rules
instead adding more
based on voting your way outta touch with shooters
your idea of improving sport n theirs seems skewed
If you were truly aware of shooters needs then poll result would of been a 180 of what it is
Perhaps being more in tune with the many vs the few is the first thing that needs adrressing
</div></div>
Karl, we only know what folks tell us and remember those that bitch loudest we remember. So yes we are on touch with what folks have asked us to do. Thats why it was brought here to see what the silent folks wanted.
Case over no cap
Re: F-T/R Bullet Weight Cap (proposed), discussion.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Jedi</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So what is issue exactly
if you want to run a 230 do so
restrict it
Wow
how about addressing barrel length and the crazy bipods which folk use
bipods are the biggest joke but i,m guessing your part of that problem as in you dont use a standard harris type bipod
how about just getting real with current rules
instead adding more
based on voting your way outta touch with shooters
your idea of improving sport n theirs seems skewed
If you were truly aware of shooters needs then poll result would of been a 180 of what it is
Perhaps being more in tune with the many vs the few is the first thing that needs adrressing
</div></div>
I HIGHLY doubt Darrell is out of touch with shooters. If there was anyone who should be advocating the use of ultra-heavy pills you'd think it'd be the US team captain and members as to keep an edge on competition. And as it stands now, 52% of the votes are in favor of a some kind of cap.
(The weight limit does address barrel length and bipods. It is a confined limit that people must work within to make weight, and crazy bipods and long barrels dont come without a sacrifice elsewhere.)
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Jedi</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So what is issue exactly
if you want to run a 230 do so
restrict it
Wow
how about addressing barrel length and the crazy bipods which folk use
bipods are the biggest joke but i,m guessing your part of that problem as in you dont use a standard harris type bipod
how about just getting real with current rules
instead adding more
based on voting your way outta touch with shooters
your idea of improving sport n theirs seems skewed
If you were truly aware of shooters needs then poll result would of been a 180 of what it is
Perhaps being more in tune with the many vs the few is the first thing that needs adrressing
</div></div>
I HIGHLY doubt Darrell is out of touch with shooters. If there was anyone who should be advocating the use of ultra-heavy pills you'd think it'd be the US team captain and members as to keep an edge on competition. And as it stands now, 52% of the votes are in favor of a some kind of cap.
(The weight limit does address barrel length and bipods. It is a confined limit that people must work within to make weight, and crazy bipods and long barrels dont come without a sacrifice elsewhere.)
Re: F-T/R Bullet Weight Cap (proposed), discussion.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Denys</div><div class="ubbcode-body">With all due respect, I still do not understand what you are striving for, so I must be dim-witted and narrow minded.
The reason for this thread, as I understand it, was to get from current F-T/R competitors a sense of their views on the rules and what the reactions might be if further rules were imposed regarding bullet weight. The reason for a bullet weight limitation was to ostensibly make it easier for new shooters to start in the discipline. I think the idea of limiting the weight out of deference to new shooters has been examined and found to be not required and perhaps even harmful. The poll shows a majority wanting to keep things as they are.
In this bullet weight discussion you talk about transparent overlays of double Xs and express a desire to use the exact same target as the highpower shooters, but you do not explain WHY that is a desirable goal. That is probably the reason why you have been ignored, in my opinion. So when I asked you what your motivation is for wanting to go back to the old target, you consider that nitpicking. Go figure.
As I explained earlier, at the club, slingers and F-classers shoot alongside one another and one can sometimes be found pulling another type of target than what he or she is shooting. Not a big deal. I will go one step further. As a pure F-T/R shooter, I talk with the slingers as well as the F-classers because my rifle and load are equivalent to the ones used by the slingers and my scope, rear rest and targets are the same as the F-openers. I live in both worlds and that makes my vision narrow? Gotcha. Just so you know, the only thing unique to F-T/R is the bipod and as you pointed out that is not the same as, or as good as a rest.
Let me suggest to you the following instead of your transparent double X overlay as a target. Why don’t you propose that everybody use the F-class target instead of your overlays. The aiming black and rings are the same size for the highpower and the F-class targets. The only visible difference is that the F-class target has an extra inner ring (what you can think of as the double X,) and I seriously doubt this ring can be seen by a Palma shooter through his or her sights.
Now you will probably come back and complain that the ring values are not the same, but that is definitely where I just don’t see the point of your harangue. F-class shooters can be more precise because they use rests and optics and I think a lot of slingers would resent competing head to head with F-classers. If that were to happen I would make Master after two matches, if not High Master. And I would not consider that legitimate. So, I just don’t see your point and perhaps instead of just circling around it, you might go directly to it.
</div></div>
Well put here in Australia we all shoot on the same target but full bore is counted out of 5 and their centre bull is a V then we shoot on the same target their centre bull is then a 6 and there is an X inside that is used for F Class but still called a V for full bore everyone can be squadded on any target following anyone. If there si a restriction it souuld come in line with the palma 156 but this is a different dicapline and it si what it is why mess with it. I can tell you that if you increase the target dimensions back to full bore it will not work every F Class shooter here shoots ont he smaler ICFRA targets here with the X and are limited to 3 approved projectiles in Standard the restricted class and a lot of 59 and 60's are shot at various ranges off bipods with 155gr projectiles so you will have problems going back to the palma target it will not work.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Denys</div><div class="ubbcode-body">With all due respect, I still do not understand what you are striving for, so I must be dim-witted and narrow minded.
The reason for this thread, as I understand it, was to get from current F-T/R competitors a sense of their views on the rules and what the reactions might be if further rules were imposed regarding bullet weight. The reason for a bullet weight limitation was to ostensibly make it easier for new shooters to start in the discipline. I think the idea of limiting the weight out of deference to new shooters has been examined and found to be not required and perhaps even harmful. The poll shows a majority wanting to keep things as they are.
In this bullet weight discussion you talk about transparent overlays of double Xs and express a desire to use the exact same target as the highpower shooters, but you do not explain WHY that is a desirable goal. That is probably the reason why you have been ignored, in my opinion. So when I asked you what your motivation is for wanting to go back to the old target, you consider that nitpicking. Go figure.
As I explained earlier, at the club, slingers and F-classers shoot alongside one another and one can sometimes be found pulling another type of target than what he or she is shooting. Not a big deal. I will go one step further. As a pure F-T/R shooter, I talk with the slingers as well as the F-classers because my rifle and load are equivalent to the ones used by the slingers and my scope, rear rest and targets are the same as the F-openers. I live in both worlds and that makes my vision narrow? Gotcha. Just so you know, the only thing unique to F-T/R is the bipod and as you pointed out that is not the same as, or as good as a rest.
Let me suggest to you the following instead of your transparent double X overlay as a target. Why don’t you propose that everybody use the F-class target instead of your overlays. The aiming black and rings are the same size for the highpower and the F-class targets. The only visible difference is that the F-class target has an extra inner ring (what you can think of as the double X,) and I seriously doubt this ring can be seen by a Palma shooter through his or her sights.
Now you will probably come back and complain that the ring values are not the same, but that is definitely where I just don’t see the point of your harangue. F-class shooters can be more precise because they use rests and optics and I think a lot of slingers would resent competing head to head with F-classers. If that were to happen I would make Master after two matches, if not High Master. And I would not consider that legitimate. So, I just don’t see your point and perhaps instead of just circling around it, you might go directly to it.
</div></div>
Well put here in Australia we all shoot on the same target but full bore is counted out of 5 and their centre bull is a V then we shoot on the same target their centre bull is then a 6 and there is an X inside that is used for F Class but still called a V for full bore everyone can be squadded on any target following anyone. If there si a restriction it souuld come in line with the palma 156 but this is a different dicapline and it si what it is why mess with it. I can tell you that if you increase the target dimensions back to full bore it will not work every F Class shooter here shoots ont he smaler ICFRA targets here with the X and are limited to 3 approved projectiles in Standard the restricted class and a lot of 59 and 60's are shot at various ranges off bipods with 155gr projectiles so you will have problems going back to the palma target it will not work.
Re: F-T/R Bullet Weight Cap (proposed), discussion.
Honestly i think the biggest issue is the ammo people are loading there are people throating their chambers .250" yes 1/4" then using huge loads of powder to achieve over 3100fps with a 155gr projectile in a 308 this is getting to a dangerous level and now pwoplw throating barrels for an OAl over 3.2" to run the heavy projectiles. the best restriction would be a SAMMI spec chamber length now how do you achieve this? you can get 6 155gr class projectiles and all loaded in a factory Remington SPS Varmint say they will all have a different OAL touching the lands so that is one rifle only with 6 bullets all under the 156gr mark. There should be some limiting factor to try and stop people using dangerous unsafe loads i see it a lot with an event called MAtch Rifle where a 308 Must be used from 1000 to 1200 yards and a 308 case only they throat the chambers then run 210gr projectiles some with 50gr of VV550 it all go's well until they wait on a wind change after 18 shots then they fire and blow the ass out of the case it is starting to happen now in F/TR or Standard here in Australia. The best thing would be to limit OAL this would make it a compromise on your chosen projectle weight the lighter the more case capacity the heavier the less a 3" max for a 308 is very generous and all factory rifles should be able to worr int hat region and a 223 is a different situation because they are marginal to start with you have to use a Nato type chamber in the 223 they are longer than a 223 chamber and the rules clearly state a 223 or 556 Nato you can load a 90gr out to 2.6" in a 556 Nato chamber touching hte lands so you could give some wiggle room and let a 223 mave a MAX OAL of 2.65" and a 308 a MAX OAL of 3.00" loaded length that would fix the problem as long as people know in advance what their requirements are then there should be no issue. I have been regularly ammo checked and it is a pain as the organising staff have to give you a recipt with a number on it place your ammo in a bag with that number in it then the ammo go's back to the office and is pulled then the projectiles are weighed and compared to the 3 308 projectles allowed and 3 80gr 223 projectiles allowed for the two calibres then the powder is looked at to see if it is one of the 3 powders that are allowed as powder and projectile here is restricted in our Standard class.
If the RO came to you on the mound they could take a round from you place it in the guage if it slides through the guage you are OK if not you fail and are regraded to Open simple thent hey can send you on the way to get you to make sure you are under weight.
All is done in no time and is a simple thing but remember people are also required to be shooting with SAFE handloads not loaded OV ER SAMMI or CIP pressure levels and most are well over that limit.
Honestly i think the biggest issue is the ammo people are loading there are people throating their chambers .250" yes 1/4" then using huge loads of powder to achieve over 3100fps with a 155gr projectile in a 308 this is getting to a dangerous level and now pwoplw throating barrels for an OAl over 3.2" to run the heavy projectiles. the best restriction would be a SAMMI spec chamber length now how do you achieve this? you can get 6 155gr class projectiles and all loaded in a factory Remington SPS Varmint say they will all have a different OAL touching the lands so that is one rifle only with 6 bullets all under the 156gr mark. There should be some limiting factor to try and stop people using dangerous unsafe loads i see it a lot with an event called MAtch Rifle where a 308 Must be used from 1000 to 1200 yards and a 308 case only they throat the chambers then run 210gr projectiles some with 50gr of VV550 it all go's well until they wait on a wind change after 18 shots then they fire and blow the ass out of the case it is starting to happen now in F/TR or Standard here in Australia. The best thing would be to limit OAL this would make it a compromise on your chosen projectle weight the lighter the more case capacity the heavier the less a 3" max for a 308 is very generous and all factory rifles should be able to worr int hat region and a 223 is a different situation because they are marginal to start with you have to use a Nato type chamber in the 223 they are longer than a 223 chamber and the rules clearly state a 223 or 556 Nato you can load a 90gr out to 2.6" in a 556 Nato chamber touching hte lands so you could give some wiggle room and let a 223 mave a MAX OAL of 2.65" and a 308 a MAX OAL of 3.00" loaded length that would fix the problem as long as people know in advance what their requirements are then there should be no issue. I have been regularly ammo checked and it is a pain as the organising staff have to give you a recipt with a number on it place your ammo in a bag with that number in it then the ammo go's back to the office and is pulled then the projectiles are weighed and compared to the 3 308 projectles allowed and 3 80gr 223 projectiles allowed for the two calibres then the powder is looked at to see if it is one of the 3 powders that are allowed as powder and projectile here is restricted in our Standard class.
If the RO came to you on the mound they could take a round from you place it in the guage if it slides through the guage you are OK if not you fail and are regraded to Open simple thent hey can send you on the way to get you to make sure you are under weight.
All is done in no time and is a simple thing but remember people are also required to be shooting with SAFE handloads not loaded OV ER SAMMI or CIP pressure levels and most are well over that limit.
Re: F-T/R Bullet Weight Cap (proposed), discussion.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Wild_Bill</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Honestly i think the biggest issue is the ammo people are loading there are people throating their chambers .250" yes 1/4" then using huge loads of powder to achieve over 3100fps with a 155gr projectile in a 308 this is getting to a dangerous level
</div></div>
I'm getting 3100+ with 155.5's in a factory chamber without too much trouble (without excessive pressures). I would throat out a chamber .250" for 230's NOT 155's. A 155 would practically have room to do somersaults before it touched the lands with that much room, even if you seated it out as far as it would go without falling out of the case.
Darrell
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Wild_Bill</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Honestly i think the biggest issue is the ammo people are loading there are people throating their chambers .250" yes 1/4" then using huge loads of powder to achieve over 3100fps with a 155gr projectile in a 308 this is getting to a dangerous level
</div></div>
I'm getting 3100+ with 155.5's in a factory chamber without too much trouble (without excessive pressures). I would throat out a chamber .250" for 230's NOT 155's. A 155 would practically have room to do somersaults before it touched the lands with that much room, even if you seated it out as far as it would go without falling out of the case.
Darrell
Re: F-T/R Bullet Weight Cap (proposed), discussion.
Monte- glad you made it to the 1k yd WA Championships this weekend. Was good to meet you! Glad you are weighing in on the "opinion poll" for bullet weight. I am seriously considering getting out of F-open and shooting F T/R. Open seems to be a money game with few limitations and I am too new to the sport to really have an idea of how to keep up.
All being said, in my humble opinion, part of learning any sport is mastering te fine arts of each. Mid range and long range each present there own difficulties and back to the fine arts, the challenge is learning those difficulties. If a bullet weight is imposed it would seem that the only lesson learned would be to develop loads with the highest BC.
Am I wrong?? I enjoy the challenge of finding different loads for different conditions.
Monte- glad you made it to the 1k yd WA Championships this weekend. Was good to meet you! Glad you are weighing in on the "opinion poll" for bullet weight. I am seriously considering getting out of F-open and shooting F T/R. Open seems to be a money game with few limitations and I am too new to the sport to really have an idea of how to keep up.
All being said, in my humble opinion, part of learning any sport is mastering te fine arts of each. Mid range and long range each present there own difficulties and back to the fine arts, the challenge is learning those difficulties. If a bullet weight is imposed it would seem that the only lesson learned would be to develop loads with the highest BC.
Am I wrong?? I enjoy the challenge of finding different loads for different conditions.
Re: F-T/R Bullet Weight Cap (proposed), discussion.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Denys</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The existing rules of the game are quite simple. There are only two chamberings allowed. There are minuscule targets to hit at long distances. Riflescopes, bipods and rear bags are employed. There is a total weight limit for the rifle and anything attached to it. That’s the game, knock yourself out.
Neither of the two calibers allowed are adequate at 1000 yards when using standard factory ammo unless you buy premium match ammo in .308, which is really not worth its cost for 1000 yards F-class competition. This makes the game strictly a handloading proposition.
Now, let's just stay with .308 for this discussion. You have to create your own load and you have a choice of bullets, ranging from 90gr to 230gr+. These bullets are available to everyone. If you are going to create a load, would you not want to select components that will work well for you? Why is that considered “gaming the game?”
</div></div>
I agree completely. Even in MR if you don't handload you won't place in the top three in T/R at our local matches.
I'm also not aware of anyone using anything heavier than the Berger 185 Hybrid at any of the three ranges in the area that hold F-class matches. Honestly as long as it's in a .223 or .308 case I don't care what bullet the guys I shoot with are using.
As far as new shooters, most show up with relatively stock Remmy or Savage rifles with mediocre glass shooting FGMM and if they decide they like it they generally show up next season with better equipment and handloaded ammo. I started out with a stock 700 SPS with a $500 Burris on it. Now it has a Krieger bbl, AI stock, Nightforce glass, etc.....
IMO if anything is gaming it's those foot wide contraptions from Sinclair some people in T/R are using and calling it a "bipod". Those things are just a front rest that is bolted to the rifle.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Denys</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The existing rules of the game are quite simple. There are only two chamberings allowed. There are minuscule targets to hit at long distances. Riflescopes, bipods and rear bags are employed. There is a total weight limit for the rifle and anything attached to it. That’s the game, knock yourself out.
Neither of the two calibers allowed are adequate at 1000 yards when using standard factory ammo unless you buy premium match ammo in .308, which is really not worth its cost for 1000 yards F-class competition. This makes the game strictly a handloading proposition.
Now, let's just stay with .308 for this discussion. You have to create your own load and you have a choice of bullets, ranging from 90gr to 230gr+. These bullets are available to everyone. If you are going to create a load, would you not want to select components that will work well for you? Why is that considered “gaming the game?”
</div></div>
I agree completely. Even in MR if you don't handload you won't place in the top three in T/R at our local matches.
I'm also not aware of anyone using anything heavier than the Berger 185 Hybrid at any of the three ranges in the area that hold F-class matches. Honestly as long as it's in a .223 or .308 case I don't care what bullet the guys I shoot with are using.
As far as new shooters, most show up with relatively stock Remmy or Savage rifles with mediocre glass shooting FGMM and if they decide they like it they generally show up next season with better equipment and handloaded ammo. I started out with a stock 700 SPS with a $500 Burris on it. Now it has a Krieger bbl, AI stock, Nightforce glass, etc.....
IMO if anything is gaming it's those foot wide contraptions from Sinclair some people in T/R are using and calling it a "bipod". Those things are just a front rest that is bolted to the rifle.
Re: F-T/R Bullet Weight Cap (proposed), discussion.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Ol Rob</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> A factory rifle will not be able to chamber the heavies with enough case volume to make 1K competitively.
By the way, I have shot more than my share of 155's and like them alot. They made me a better shooter.
Rob </div></div>
Well I would have to disagree with you here. My Savage FCP McM that I recently sold would allow me to go out to 2.94 with the 208 A-Max and I was getting 2510fps with Varget out of a 24" "stock" barrel.
As a new shooter to the F/TR world it is easy to see it as an arms race with F/TR. Whether that race is in glass, stocks, bipods, powder, or bullets. It sort of reminds me of searching for a new cell phone. Go out and buy a Iphone 4, the 4S comes out in 6 months. Sell your 4 get the 4S, and then the 5 comes out. Companies are always improving their products and trying to make them better.
I have a good friend of mine who wants to come out and shoot some F/TR with me. He is scared do since all he has is a .270 Wetherby in a plastic stock. Even with the month of load development we have into his load he knows there is no way that him with a hunting rifle going into F-Open will he be able to be competitive. So he has never came out just for that reason. He will still come out and shoot in the national forest up north just for fun.
Everything is an arms race. Look at bipods used in F/TR. Some of these things look like it took a mechanical engineer to design. Some of the rear bags are more like cement blocks (with regard to weight) than they are a bag. Things are constantly changing and evolving. Someone shooting the 215 Berger has no advantage over someone shooting a 155 if they can't dope the wind.
What was the range of weights used at the Worlds this year? Did everyone go to the 230's? I don't claim to know how to keep the playing field "level." I do think there should be a way for people who want to come out and shoot to have their own class so they can shoot their "deer rifle" without having to go into a class where someone is running a NF 12-42, custom action, custom barrel, custom chamber, custom bipod. Just my 2 cents.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Ol Rob</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> A factory rifle will not be able to chamber the heavies with enough case volume to make 1K competitively.
By the way, I have shot more than my share of 155's and like them alot. They made me a better shooter.
Rob </div></div>
Well I would have to disagree with you here. My Savage FCP McM that I recently sold would allow me to go out to 2.94 with the 208 A-Max and I was getting 2510fps with Varget out of a 24" "stock" barrel.
As a new shooter to the F/TR world it is easy to see it as an arms race with F/TR. Whether that race is in glass, stocks, bipods, powder, or bullets. It sort of reminds me of searching for a new cell phone. Go out and buy a Iphone 4, the 4S comes out in 6 months. Sell your 4 get the 4S, and then the 5 comes out. Companies are always improving their products and trying to make them better.
I have a good friend of mine who wants to come out and shoot some F/TR with me. He is scared do since all he has is a .270 Wetherby in a plastic stock. Even with the month of load development we have into his load he knows there is no way that him with a hunting rifle going into F-Open will he be able to be competitive. So he has never came out just for that reason. He will still come out and shoot in the national forest up north just for fun.
Everything is an arms race. Look at bipods used in F/TR. Some of these things look like it took a mechanical engineer to design. Some of the rear bags are more like cement blocks (with regard to weight) than they are a bag. Things are constantly changing and evolving. Someone shooting the 215 Berger has no advantage over someone shooting a 155 if they can't dope the wind.
What was the range of weights used at the Worlds this year? Did everyone go to the 230's? I don't claim to know how to keep the playing field "level." I do think there should be a way for people who want to come out and shoot to have their own class so they can shoot their "deer rifle" without having to go into a class where someone is running a NF 12-42, custom action, custom barrel, custom chamber, custom bipod. Just my 2 cents.
Re: F-T/R Bullet Weight Cap (proposed), discussion.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Darrell Buell</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Tactical</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Seeing 308s that overall lengths are over 3" is just wrong to me </div></div>
For illustration:
The left round is a 'standard' 155.5, OAL 2.95"
The right round is a 230 grain, OAL 3.27"
Darrell </div></div>
Hi all, I’m a newbie to the sport. I’ve just started and think I am going to have a lot of fun.
One thing I did notice watching the matches, is that in every match someone has figured out a little way to improve their game. Be it a new scope or bipod.
Granted it can be daunting going up against people who have invested so much time into the sport, especially when they do so well.
But at the same time I can’t wait to take them on, I’d rather loose a chess match against a master and learn something!
When I first saw that picture I thought that it would be a cunning plan to have a switch barrel rifle that I could discreetly swap out to suit the conditions, so when it is windy I could use the uber heavy’s.
I don’t see how this is any different from a fellow using a Night Force scope, or from using an uber custom bipod that makes the rifle look more like a ballista.
Then again I like to tinker as much as I like to shoot.
This sport looks appealing to me as not only am I competing against nature, the wind etc - but against highly skilled individuals who are doing their best to win.
You do get the impression that they have been one upping each other, both in equipment and skill, for quite a while though, that means the competition is going to be tough and rather good fun!
I’ve seen quite a few 308s beat the open class fellows, and it seemed to give them a lot of pleasure to do so!
Granted a world class shooter may be peeved if another world class shooter has an advantage, but since I am not I voted to not restrict the weights. 
If somebody comes up with a way to one up my skill or equipment I am going I am going to nag them about every detail, not fester!
Ben.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Darrell Buell</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Tactical</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Seeing 308s that overall lengths are over 3" is just wrong to me </div></div>
For illustration:
The left round is a 'standard' 155.5, OAL 2.95"
The right round is a 230 grain, OAL 3.27"
Darrell </div></div>
Hi all, I’m a newbie to the sport. I’ve just started and think I am going to have a lot of fun.
One thing I did notice watching the matches, is that in every match someone has figured out a little way to improve their game. Be it a new scope or bipod.
Granted it can be daunting going up against people who have invested so much time into the sport, especially when they do so well.
But at the same time I can’t wait to take them on, I’d rather loose a chess match against a master and learn something!
When I first saw that picture I thought that it would be a cunning plan to have a switch barrel rifle that I could discreetly swap out to suit the conditions, so when it is windy I could use the uber heavy’s.
I don’t see how this is any different from a fellow using a Night Force scope, or from using an uber custom bipod that makes the rifle look more like a ballista.
Then again I like to tinker as much as I like to shoot.
This sport looks appealing to me as not only am I competing against nature, the wind etc - but against highly skilled individuals who are doing their best to win.
You do get the impression that they have been one upping each other, both in equipment and skill, for quite a while though, that means the competition is going to be tough and rather good fun!
I’ve seen quite a few 308s beat the open class fellows, and it seemed to give them a lot of pleasure to do so!
Granted a world class shooter may be peeved if another world class shooter has an advantage, but since I am not I voted to not restrict the weights.
If somebody comes up with a way to one up my skill or equipment I am going I am going to nag them about every detail, not fester!
Ben.
Re: F-T/R Bullet Weight Cap (proposed), discussion.
Although they may make a difference between shooters at the very highest level, the vast majority of F-Class shooters would benefit far more score-wise by improving their wind-reading skills than by using a heavier bullet, new scope, or improved bipod.
Although they may make a difference between shooters at the very highest level, the vast majority of F-Class shooters would benefit far more score-wise by improving their wind-reading skills than by using a heavier bullet, new scope, or improved bipod.
Re: F-T/R Bullet Weight Cap (proposed), discussion.
*<Rant retracted.>*
Forgive me, I came onboard F Class in a time when F-T/R wasn't even a figment of imagination. It was precisely all this kind of hairsplitting and haggling that drove me back out to the hinterlands.
Someday, somebody is going to grab hold of a good thing and just leave it the F*CK alone. Biggest problem this, biggest problem that... BS!, The biggest problem is people who just can't ever leave a good thing as it is.
Someday, somebody's gonna come along and say, "Hey, I remember back when we actually had a Second Amendment, but folks just couldn't seem to leave thing a good thing alone..."
Come in..., over....
Greg
*<Rant retracted.>*
Forgive me, I came onboard F Class in a time when F-T/R wasn't even a figment of imagination. It was precisely all this kind of hairsplitting and haggling that drove me back out to the hinterlands.
Someday, somebody is going to grab hold of a good thing and just leave it the F*CK alone. Biggest problem this, biggest problem that... BS!, The biggest problem is people who just can't ever leave a good thing as it is.
Someday, somebody's gonna come along and say, "Hey, I remember back when we actually had a Second Amendment, but folks just couldn't seem to leave thing a good thing alone..."
Come in..., over....
Greg
Re: F-T/R Bullet Weight Cap (proposed), discussion.
Here's my take on restrictions for FTR. LEAVE IT ALONE! At the moment the sport is growing like wildfire, why dick with it? Does a guy that has a $5000.00 rig shooting big bullets have an advantage over a guy shooting a stock 22 inch barrel stick with a 168MK? Yes, of course he does but changing the rules midstream will piss off alot of guys that spent tons of money building customs sticks with long throats to shoot the big boys. From what I can tell, guys getting into the sport aint crying about guys shooting the 230s etc. I shoot the 185s and 200s and if i get beat by a 230 oh well.
The rules should have been set from jump street, period! With that being said, I wish the rules would have been set using a Harris bipod only, NO rear bag, 24 inch barrel length max, and rounds had to be mag length. As it stands, I shoot 28 to 30 inch barrel, fancy bipod and rear bag, heavy bullets single loaded cause i wanna be competetive. My .02
Here's my take on restrictions for FTR. LEAVE IT ALONE! At the moment the sport is growing like wildfire, why dick with it? Does a guy that has a $5000.00 rig shooting big bullets have an advantage over a guy shooting a stock 22 inch barrel stick with a 168MK? Yes, of course he does but changing the rules midstream will piss off alot of guys that spent tons of money building customs sticks with long throats to shoot the big boys. From what I can tell, guys getting into the sport aint crying about guys shooting the 230s etc. I shoot the 185s and 200s and if i get beat by a 230 oh well.
The rules should have been set from jump street, period! With that being said, I wish the rules would have been set using a Harris bipod only, NO rear bag, 24 inch barrel length max, and rounds had to be mag length. As it stands, I shoot 28 to 30 inch barrel, fancy bipod and rear bag, heavy bullets single loaded cause i wanna be competetive. My .02
Re: F-T/R Bullet Weight Cap (proposed), discussion.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Down South</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Here's my take on restrictions for FTR. LEAVE IT ALONE!
.
.
.
I wish the rules would have been set using a Harris bipod only, NO rear bag, 24 inch barrel length max, and rounds had to be mag length. ... My .02 </div></div>
Is it just me or you see any irony in this post?
Down South, you should realize that TR stand for Target Rifle, as in the definition in the ICFRA rules, not Tactical Rifle, and the original F class was guys with single feed Palma rifles on pods with scopes. Mags and short barrels were never in the mix.
By the way, what is this the yr of Lazarus? Between this and the resurrection of 3 yo threads with AR-15s listed for sale the first thing you need to do is check the date.
one more thing, to one of the recent posts above, most of the top places at Raton this yr were shooting 200s. I'm still running 185s, at least for the next yr or so.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Down South</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Here's my take on restrictions for FTR. LEAVE IT ALONE!
.
.
.
I wish the rules would have been set using a Harris bipod only, NO rear bag, 24 inch barrel length max, and rounds had to be mag length. ... My .02 </div></div>
Is it just me or you see any irony in this post?
Down South, you should realize that TR stand for Target Rifle, as in the definition in the ICFRA rules, not Tactical Rifle, and the original F class was guys with single feed Palma rifles on pods with scopes. Mags and short barrels were never in the mix.
By the way, what is this the yr of Lazarus? Between this and the resurrection of 3 yo threads with AR-15s listed for sale the first thing you need to do is check the date.
one more thing, to one of the recent posts above, most of the top places at Raton this yr were shooting 200s. I'm still running 185s, at least for the next yr or so.
Re: F-T/R Bullet Weight Cap (proposed), discussion.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: XTR</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Down South</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Here's my take on restrictions for FTR. LEAVE IT ALONE!
.
.
.
I wish the rules would have been set using a Harris bipod only, NO rear bag, 24 inch barrel length max, and rounds had to be mag length. ... My .02 </div></div>
Is it just me or you see any irony in this post?
Down South, you should realize that TR stand for Target Rifle, as in the definition in the ICFRA rules, not Tactical Rifle, and the original F class was guys with single feed Palma rifles on pods with scopes. Mags and short barrels were never in the mix.
By the way, what is this the yr of Lazarus? Between this and the resurrection of 3 yo threads with AR-15s listed for sale the first thing you need to do is check the date.
one more thing, to one of the recent posts above, most of the top places at Raton this yr were shooting 200s. I'm still running 185s, at least for the next yr or so.</div></div>
Reread my post carefully. The point i was making was that the rules shouldn't be changed NOW, after tons of guys spent a crap load of money building rigs to compete with the current rules in place. My rifles are setup for the current rules that are in place to be competitive. If the original rules for FTR would have started out with bipod restrictions, barrel length restrictions, etc. I would be just as happy and i think it would put more emphasis on the shooters skills as many have stated in previous post but I just don't think its a good idea to do it now after the fact.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: XTR</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Down South</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Here's my take on restrictions for FTR. LEAVE IT ALONE!
.
.
.
I wish the rules would have been set using a Harris bipod only, NO rear bag, 24 inch barrel length max, and rounds had to be mag length. ... My .02 </div></div>
Is it just me or you see any irony in this post?
Down South, you should realize that TR stand for Target Rifle, as in the definition in the ICFRA rules, not Tactical Rifle, and the original F class was guys with single feed Palma rifles on pods with scopes. Mags and short barrels were never in the mix.
By the way, what is this the yr of Lazarus? Between this and the resurrection of 3 yo threads with AR-15s listed for sale the first thing you need to do is check the date.
one more thing, to one of the recent posts above, most of the top places at Raton this yr were shooting 200s. I'm still running 185s, at least for the next yr or so.</div></div>
Reread my post carefully. The point i was making was that the rules shouldn't be changed NOW, after tons of guys spent a crap load of money building rigs to compete with the current rules in place. My rifles are setup for the current rules that are in place to be competitive. If the original rules for FTR would have started out with bipod restrictions, barrel length restrictions, etc. I would be just as happy and i think it would put more emphasis on the shooters skills as many have stated in previous post but I just don't think its a good idea to do it now after the fact.
Re: F-T/R Bullet Weight Cap (proposed), discussion.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: XTR</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Down South</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Here's my take on restrictions for FTR. LEAVE IT ALONE!
.
.
.
I wish the rules would have been set using a Harris bipod only, NO rear bag, 24 inch barrel length max, and rounds had to be mag length. ... My .02 </div></div>
Is it just me or you see any irony in this post?
Down South, you should realize that TR stand for Target Rifle, as in the definition in the ICFRA rules, not Tactical Rifle, and the original F class was guys with single feed Palma rifles on pods with scopes. Mags and short barrels were never in the mix.
By the way, what is this the yr of Lazarus? Between this and the resurrection of 3 yo threads with AR-15s listed for sale the first thing you need to do is check the date.
one more thing, to one of the recent posts above, most of the top places at Raton this yr were shooting 200s. I'm still running 185s, at least for the next yr or so.</div></div>
Dude just to let you know, if I had 1,000,000 dollars and had to bet..... You or Downsouth, my first ? Would be can I double down after his first shot was a big fat X. Not only is his point valid about money already being spent, where in the rule book does it say " you shall not do anything to get an edge over your opponent". Jeez. Where in the hell does that logic fit in. Not only is he my friend, he's one of the better ftr shooters out there right now. He kicks everybody's ass .... Except when he neck turns...
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: XTR</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Down South</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Here's my take on restrictions for FTR. LEAVE IT ALONE!
.
.
.
I wish the rules would have been set using a Harris bipod only, NO rear bag, 24 inch barrel length max, and rounds had to be mag length. ... My .02 </div></div>
Is it just me or you see any irony in this post?
Down South, you should realize that TR stand for Target Rifle, as in the definition in the ICFRA rules, not Tactical Rifle, and the original F class was guys with single feed Palma rifles on pods with scopes. Mags and short barrels were never in the mix.
By the way, what is this the yr of Lazarus? Between this and the resurrection of 3 yo threads with AR-15s listed for sale the first thing you need to do is check the date.
one more thing, to one of the recent posts above, most of the top places at Raton this yr were shooting 200s. I'm still running 185s, at least for the next yr or so.</div></div>
Dude just to let you know, if I had 1,000,000 dollars and had to bet..... You or Downsouth, my first ? Would be can I double down after his first shot was a big fat X. Not only is his point valid about money already being spent, where in the rule book does it say " you shall not do anything to get an edge over your opponent". Jeez. Where in the hell does that logic fit in. Not only is he my friend, he's one of the better ftr shooters out there right now. He kicks everybody's ass .... Except when he neck turns...
Re: F-T/R Bullet Weight Cap (proposed), discussion.
This thread needs to die. When Darrell and I brought this forward it was because a bunch of folks complained about the "Gaming" and we asked how folks fell about possible restrictions. As I see it the answer is no more restrictions so leave it along is what I believe will happen. It was settled months ago.
This thread needs to die. When Darrell and I brought this forward it was because a bunch of folks complained about the "Gaming" and we asked how folks fell about possible restrictions. As I see it the answer is no more restrictions so leave it along is what I believe will happen. It was settled months ago.
