F T/R Competition Dividing F T/R into 2 divisions? Opinions?

[ryanjay11]

There are some seriously misguided ideas of how F-Class was started. Palma rifles with 30-32" barrels, a scope, and a bipod are how this started and most of the winning rifles today still look just like they did 10+ years ago.

Hell, the thing I find the most funny is anyone thinking the fastest growing shooting sport in the world should be changed to be more like a sport that is losing shooters. There are tons of disciplines out there to compete in. Why someone feels they should change one to suit them doesn't make sense. Those who actually want to compete will find a way to do it. This same BS pops up about every 2-3 months and is usually dominated by people who don't even shoot F-Class.

 

[gstaylorg]

Couple of observations:

1) I believe most would interpret Rule 3.4 (b) as being aimed at the chamber specs, rather than the case itself. I can't imagine someone getting dinged for neck-turned .308 cases at a competition at any level and it's rather absurd to even bring it up as part of this discussion.

2) I often get lumped in with F-Open shooters at local comps here when there are fewer than 5 F-TR shooters. So what? I appreciate the challenge and often post higher scores than some (but not all) of them, which brings me to point 3.

3) The whole argument for/against F-TR being an "entry-level" discipline is not as clear cut as has been outlined by various posters above. Although I would fully agree that technically it is not stated anywhere that F-TR is an "entry-level" type of competition, the reality is that many first time competitors begin competitive shooting in F-TR.

There are at least a couple reasons for this. First, they often already own and have some experience shooting a .223 or .308 rifle setup that falls into the F-TR category. Second, many local ranges host matches ranging from 300-600 yd, which are not as intimidating to a novice as LR matches are. The reality is that very few first time F-TR shooters start out at 1000 yd. IMO, no one in their right mind would try to shoot their first F-TR match at 1000 yd without some prior competitive experience, even though I'm sure there have been a few that had to learn that the hard way. Rather, most new shooters will compete in a local midrange match, where if they stick with it, they will figure out over time that their Remy 700 bolt gun/Harris bipod/Redfield scope shooting FGMM 168s isn't going to get them to the top very often, if at all, even at local midrange matches.

Like it or not, these people are "entry level". They are also a group of shooters of which a select few will continue on to shoot at a much higher level. However, neither treating F-TR as solely an "entry level" discipline, or going to the other extreme by thinking of it as "top level 1000 yd competitions only" is the true reality of the sport. Comparing the two extremes is simply apples and oranges, and the reality is somewhere in between. I am in full agreement with regards to the stringent equipment requirements that several have noted earlier as being an absolute necessity in order to have any chance of competing at the highest level of the sport. What really irritates me is when people strongly imply that even a first time shooter needs such and such a custom rifle, or brand X bipod, or a particular kind of scope with the XYZ you can see a golfball on the moon glass in order not to be completely embarrassed their first time out. These shooters will come here and read that stuff and think it's true.

The fact is that it is absolutely possible to shoot a moderately-priced Savage or accurized Remy F-TR gun and be competitive at many local midrange matches. I'm not talking about winning matches by 20 points, I'm talking about not coming dead last by 50 points. I will grant you that if you live in certain areas like Houston or near Camp Butner in NC, this may not be true as the even the average shooters there are very, very good. However, there are many local matches all over the country where a new shooter can show up with a modest rig and do well enough in a midrange match that he or she will want to continue shooting F-TR. Scaring these shooters off before they even fire a single shot with horror stories of getting creamed if they don't have the extremely costly equipment used by those at the very top of the F-TR food chain is a poor way to grow the sport.

IMO, it is not the F-Class rules that need to be changed or the number of classes expanded, they seem to me to be working very well as they are. I think simply making sure that we treat new shooters with respect and encouragement so that they want to continue will go a long way toward improving the sport. These folks are not (yet) top level shooters and should not be treated as such. Of course it is an arms race at the very top, nothing anyone says or does will ever change that. But we all started somewhere, and it wasn't at the top. If they stick with the sport, new shooters will find out on their own what it will take to improve to the next level. I'm simply advocating that we don't scare them off before they even start.

 

[DropinLead]

Couple of observations:
IMO, it is not the F-Class rules that need to be changed or the number of classes expanded, they seem to me to be working very well as they are.

Seems logical that you start at lesser ranges and need to qualify to move up to farther ranges. Nodody arrives with no experience and dives from the high board thier first time diving in competition. 300 yd is dang hard but it is at least possible to do OK without specialty hardware and bullets. As you get better adn get better hardware you move up.

Just a thought...

 

[Bill Larson]

NO....

 

[DropinLead]

I'm not sure what a mionopod is and I think it way be a good thing I can't see yours.

Just remember that the X-ring is 1.42 inch in diameter at 300 yards.

Ha ha WELL PLAYED sir! Actually I will post a pic of my steel practice target tonight. I call it an F-Calss Silhouette had it made special for me. 1.5"ish Xring is mighty small I know, that is serious skill that equipment alone can't address.

 

[DropinLead]

NO....

Why not? Is the reason that is a bad idea? Not saying your wrong but NO is not a reason. If you expanded classes as an option, and made some entry level class, what would the criteria be for different classes? Even the entry level one would be 1000 yds? With any rifle and no demonstrated experience or knowlege?

Or are you saying there is no ned to segment the classes or do any changes at all and it is fine just like it is, herds everyone into one class and let the chips fall where they may? Which again my be fine, folks here put a lot of thoguht into varius ideas and "No" hardly seems not on the same level of contribution is all.

 

[ryanjay11]

Please stop trying to split it up or change anything. There is absolutely no reason to do so. If you would just realize that you are competing against yourself, you would enjoy it more. It is rewarding and fun when you beat your previous high score. If you think you can buy your way to the top, you are in for a long and expensive letdown. Be happy with what you have and learn to shoot it. If you want to upgrade, go for it, but don't try to hold back someone else because you can't afford their rifle.

Do we need to have so many classes that everyone is in their own and gets a shiny gold star for showing up? If you are actually concerned with receiving a warm welcome from experienced shooters, do everyone a favor and stop trying to change it because you feel handicapped. We all started new. Get over yourself. I always help new shooters and many of them are showing up to matches every month. The negative attitude that you have about the climbing the hill that everyone else had to climb is annoying at best.

 

[gstaylorg]

The main point of my earlier statements is that with the rules exactly as they are, this issue already takes care of itself. I'm sure there are exceptions, but most people starting out are likely to try F-TR at a local midrange match for the reasons I stated. If they like it, they'll learn as they go along what it takes to improve and will act accordingly, or they won't improve. Changing the rules to favor "entry level" shooters would adversely affect top level shooters, and vice versa. As they are now, the rules allow shooters with a wide range of skill levels to compete, whether at the local level, or at larger regional/national matches.

The spectrum of F-TR in this country encompasses both extremes, as well as those that fall in between. As long as people aren't discouraged before they even start, most are smart enough to figure out what they will need to take their shooting to a higher level after they gain a little experience. Because it already happens pretty much on its own, creating a new class, altering specific rules, or requiring prior qualification at lesser ranges is not likely to have a positive effect. On the other hand, it might actually be detrimental to the sport. As an example, not everyone has ready access to competitions at different ranges, even within the midrange genre. How would it be possible to require shooters to qualify at lesser ranges when there may be strict limitations on distances of shooting ranges to which they have access? With the rules as they currently are, plain common sense will usually be the deciding factor for new shooters. 300-600 yd ranges are far more common in the US than are 1000 yd ranges, and far less intimidating to the inexperienced. By default, they are much more likely to start out there, and either move up or not as their skills and confidence improve.

 

[DropinLead]

The negative attitude that you have about the climbing the hill that everyone else had to climb is annoying at best.

What you mean me? Whoa whoa whoa. I am not saying change it I am trying to understand why or why not change it. Just jumpin ginto what I see as a lively debate or discusion. Just trying to see both sides and looking for the argument on both sides. I read some interisting perspectives and decided to question iot is all. This is not my post I am contributing. I am fine with the rules the way it is actually.

The first part of your post was great and provided a good ratoinale for not splitting it. Thanks for that and I agree. As for the second half. all I have to say is this... Nice avatar, your target looks like you shoot it with a shotgun, at best, get over yourself.

The original poster just asked for opinions so no harm, it is a valid question to ask if nothing else.

With the rules as they currently are, plain common sense will usually be the deciding factor for new shooters. 300-600 yd ranges are far more common in the US than are 1000 yd ranges, and far less intimidating to the inexperienced. By default, they are much more likely to start out there, and either move up or not as their skills and confidence improve.

Great point gstaylorg I appreciate taking the time to expxlain your argument, makes sense. Again I am jsut reading this post and askign questioins to understand both sides. It is not my post but it asked what I thoguht were valid questions. Thanks for not taking is to a personal place becasue of a question and based on the assumption you know that it is being asked becasue of some juvinelle motive.

 

[ryanjay11]

DropinLead,
It's not surprising to hear that you are just stirring the pot with nothing to add. This is the biggest problem with public forums. Keep it up and I bet you will have thousands of posts in no time. You will be a rockstar on the forum.

As for the target, I'm actually pretty proud of that one. That was 2 matches of 15 with 2 sighters. I scored a 150-9X on the first and 148-6X on the second. It was enough to win the club match that I was shooting. There are 6 pasters outside the 10 ring and 4 of them are sighters. Maybe 298-15X isn't good enough win at 300 yards with you on the line, but on a switchy wind day at 600, it was.

I doubt you are going to make it to Missouri to shoot, so I'll come your way. I'll be there for Nationals next year. Maybe we can share a beer and you can give me some pointers on how to tighten up my shotgun pattern.

 

[6Dasher]

I figured it correctly.

Yes.

So you agree that I was correct there also; the case is the thing.

Yes. Just wanted to point out that the rule that was in place did not limit the CIP standard to the case part, hence since 2001 most shooters have had illegal 308s (just talking about FCWC, not your nationals etc).

So, you are saying that every one should come shooting 1000 yards with 24 inch barrels and 168gr SMKs? Good luck with that.

No, I am not saying that. TR comes from Target Rifle, aka Palma. Those guys have 30"+ barrels and were shooting the 155 Palma bullets. No slouches!


[MENTION=25976]XLR[/MENTION]: I know Russel, he is a top shot. He beats me with his 308 while I'm shooting a 7WSM. There is no caliber that can best a man who can read the wind. PS: I spend two days per week on the range, but sadly we are limited to 100m here (and a very occasional 300m), so have to go abroad to practice for F. Despite that, our best (and only) shooter came in 14th at the FCWC for individual F/Open.

 

[6Dasher]

[MENTION=81254]Ryan[/MENTION]Jay: Not agreeing with you does not mean they are fair game for a bashing. Emotions run high, but let's keep our heads cool

For open sights there is Target Rifle, aka Palma, albeit that's shot from a sling and not a bipod.

If a sling is not your thing, then a scope does not have to cost you a second mortgage. You can get rings, a scope and a bipod for $400 combined. Not german glass, not a badger/spuhr base, not an original harris or F/TR sled, but it will get you into the game.

PS: There is no rule preventing you from shooting open sights in an F-Class match that I am aware of.

 

[XTR]

PS: There is no rule preventing you from shooting open sights in an F-Class match that I am aware of.

You would be correct. If one wants to shoot irons on they may. I've seen it done, once.

 

[Greg Langelius *]

My short response to Wade was about his comment on arguments falling apart when rules are consulted. I was answering on my Smartphone and did not see his other response until after I posted my short one. I shall fix that.

Well, then I am dead wrong, Denys; and I apologize for the statement. This assumes the arguments you were disputing were not mine.

You can shoot F-Open with a bipod.

Yes I know, I did so quite a few times a Bodines. So...?

It would still be useless because the score would be 200-?X for every one who was shooting halfway decently. Kinda stupid to set the bar that high right away.

Also true. But it also represents the capability of the shooters and their equipment on a level playing field. I guess that A) makes me stupid for calling a spade a spade, and B) level playing fields are for those stupid fuckheads like me, and Bear, and LL, and all the rest of us guys who were all there shooting F Class back in 2002 and trying to enjoy it the way it was originally envisioned by Farky. I guess I'm never going to get the point, eh?

Like I said, I'd rather not continue with this dispute, and yet here we are hashing this over again. Thanks for your cooperation, sir.

Greg

 

[Greg Langelius *]

Greg, you do realize that since at least 2004 F class has had it's own championship without any slingers?

Yes, yes I do. I also see that sarcasm and deliberate obtuseness seems to be your currently preferred approach to dissent. We get it, you shoot F Class. A lot. And my dissent is not appreciated. Tough darts.

I get it. This is what you think this forum is for. Sarcasm, condescension, keeping the pot boiling.

I guess that the score's the thing for you two.

Simply shooting for the enjoyment, to learn, to be among the others, my betters, is what does it for me. I'm not a winner, probably well past that ever happening now, but that's not a problem for me. Score is just a number, a way of gaging my current performance against nothing more than my own previous attainment. My own demons are competition enough, and yes, I don't give a shit about 'The Slingers" scores, or yours, or anyone else's besides my own. I'm clearly all the competition I can handle, and that's just fine with me.

Smile, people here are watching. From here on, you're on your own.

Greg

 

[Denys]

Well, then I am dead wrong, Denys; and I apologize for the statement. This assumes the arguments you were disputing were not mine.



Yes I know, I did so quite a few times a Bodines. So...?



Also true. But it also represents the capability of the shooters and their equipment on a level playing field. I guess that A) makes me stupid for calling a spade a spade, and B) level playing fields are for those stupid fuckheads like me, and Bear, and LL, and all the rest of us guys who were all there shooting F Class back in 2002 and trying to enjoy it the way it was originally envisioned by Farky. I guess I'm never going to get the point, eh?

Like I said, I'd rather not continue with this dispute, and yet here we are hashing this over again. Thanks for your cooperation, sir.

Greg

What's this "we" crap? I said my piece several postings back. You're the one still hashing here.

:bigsmile:

And cut Wade (XTR) some slack; he's a gentleman and he really cares about F-TR and the way it operates now.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Note 3.

 

[Greg Langelius *]

I don't (haven't) wanted to keep this going, but you deserve a decent answer. I was responding to more than one poster, and yes, Wade was one of them. I have no doubt about his being a gentleman, nor that he deeply cares about F-TR; that's probably what's behind his responses. Dispensing with the tit-tat barbs, I'll simply charge the preceding to dissent and passion, something we all get saturated with around here a lot, most of it being helpful in the long run.

I doubt I've changed any minds on the subject, that was always the most probable outcome. I expected passionate disagreement from the start, and also noted that my dislike for treatment past was adamant and irrational. I know I'll never impress anyone with my suggestions and viewpoints on F Class.

I get all the competition (and then some) that I could possibly handle from our club's FV alternative to genuine F Class. It's shot on targets which display the same MOA-equivalent size rings as the ones you and Wade use, folks keep turning up and returning, so I guess it's at least workable, and I'm pretty sure that even with our first handful of 200 scores already behind us, nobody at our club will be pulling out that rug to increase the level of difficulty. Shooters today already have more than enough of that from outside our ranks; I really don't think there's a need for us to join in that from within. Things could worse; imagine living in New York like I do.

So I prefer things as they were before. I may be alone in that, I may not. Just another hill o' beans, that. The sport survives despite dissent, be happy for it.

Someone once said the real problems begin to appear when the grumbling in the ranks suddenly goes silent; so maybe our discussion served a useful purpose after all.

Greg

 

[ryanjay11]

Greg,
While we don't agree on the subject, I do respect your opinion and the fact that it is based on prior experiences. It is your choice to stick to a club style match. We have several of them at St. Louis and I really enjoy them as well. What I don't appreciate is new shooters that haven't even tried the sport, or have only tried it a handful of times, trying to change things to make it easier for them. If you are willing to try it again sometime, I think you would be surprised how far F-Class has come as far as the structure and the relationship between the different High Power classes. Now that it's apparent we aren't going anywhere, the opposition has lessened.

 

[LRRifleman]

Hi guys. I have to agree with"DropinLead", I have learned more than I had ever hoped with this link.

When I resumed target shooting in 2011 after my accident, I was ignorant of F class and the history behind it because I wanted to succeed in my return to"sling" shooting which I had been engaged in for over 40 years because it was what I was familiar with and comfortable, not to mention that it was something I was good at and it allowed me to remain in denial of the extent of my injuries. The accident was a major turning point in my life and took much from me. I wanted something i could return to, since much of my preaccident life was lost forever. Many of the members in my club saw me struggling to succeed, trying to adapt equipment to my limitations. Only once I conceded that I had exhausted equipment modifications did I concede that that further efforts would only add to my disabilities.

As I perceived F class, it was a way to utilize my target rifles (which fired unmodified cartridges); hence my labeling F class as being for target rifles in concert with the T/R category. As I saw T/R, it required more from the rifleman than Open, leaving the human factors being a greater variable than one's equipment, ability to load precise ammo, etc. I saw Open as being more mechanical and negating the human factor. I did not realize it's origins rested with aging shooters trying to remain in the game. I was just a disabled shooter with a similar goal but different motivation.

I think, based upon many of the very respectful responses, is that many here thought I was looking to alter the game to my benefit. This is far from the case, since I have been in denial to the severity of my injuries and limitations for over 6 years like many who find themselves that are not ready to stop the way they had lived their lives.

Thank you for the education via the open dialogue.

 

[Greg Langelius *]

Ed; since 2002, I shot for a few years at Bodines until they altered the range right out from under us. Christmas 2004, I had a major heart attack and nearly bought the farm. A year later I fell on ice, broke my left humerus and ripped up the left shoulder joint. Consequently, the left elbow can't get closer than about 30 degrees to vertical under the rifle, and slinging up brings a bunch of pain. Basically, I am off the ground and limited to rested bench shooting when engaging paper. So I can understand your point of view, and also miss the situation I had enjoyed prior to the last two adventures.

Were you able to connect with the Southern Jersey Marine Corps League shooters yet?

(To the rest of you, take advantage of your health while you can, expectations can go awry with no warning.)

Ryanjay; my health and that of my Wife (Due for hip replacement in Feb, she has mobility and discomfort issues.) makes distance travel unattractive; I try to stay no more than an hour's drive away from her. This makes club shooting doubly attractive. For me, the bigger part of the attraction is about meeting back up with the regulars and enjoying a day at the range in their company. I think my days as a winner may be past, but that never stops me from trying.

Greg

 

[LRRifleman]

Hi Greg,

I can appreciate where you are coming from. You are correct, we must value our health while we can. From all indications, I never saw my accident coming, since I never got to hit the brakes. I can also understand the need to stay close to home, I lost my dad 10 weeks after my accident, then my mother 6 months later, while on the path of becoming a single parent to 4 & 2 year old children (at that time). Life has been far from easy.

I have not had an opportunity to reach out to the MCL yet, between trying to do the dad thing and prepare for surgery 17, which may lead to giving me a properly working leg. Nothing can be done for the arm, and I still face the prospect of losing my mangled leg.

 

[Denys]

I would like to clarify, if not take exception to one point in LRR's last post here:

As I saw T/R, it required more from the rifleman than Open, leaving the human factors being a greater variable than one's equipment, ability to load precise ammo, etc. I saw Open as being more mechanical and negating the human factor. I did not realize it's origins rested with aging shooters trying to remain in the game.

I believe we are unfairly minimizing or even dismissing the marksmanship of F-Open shooters. Here's the way I look at it. At 1000 yards, it is usually easier to achieve a good score in F-Open compared to F-TR. But before I go any further, I need to throw in one caveat; I am talking about Long Range here.

Now this is purely about score, because when it comes to winning a match, all bets are off. The competition at the top end of F-Open is fierce, to say the least. If you make one mistake during a match, you're out of the running; the F-Open winners have to be consistently flawless in execution and must show some brilliance at least a few times. In the last few years F-TR has become more competitive at the top end but not to the same degree as F-Open. For example, if you look at the 2013 FCNC results in F-TR the winner won by two points, as did the F-Open winner, but third place was 4 points behind second place and a total of 4 people were within 10 points of the winner, whereas 4 people came in 2 points behind the winner in F-Open with 15 people 10 points or less from first place. (I picked 10 points as the cutoff because that's the maximum error one can commit (cross-fire) and still complete the match.)

So, I don't think it's worthwhile to denigrate the F-Open marksmanship requirements, especially at the top end of competition.

 

[Tactical]

Well it would be nice to talk about F Class without demeaning Open or TR Classes while doing so. I have been shooting F TR at a fairly high level since 2006. I have seen both classes get to a point that any mistake and your down out of the money. The same is true of Palma and basically every type of NRA shooting. There are no easy types of NRA Comp.

It used to be F TR depended more on shooting and less on development of rifles, ammo and scope etc. F Open used to be more gear based. Now these days you better have every thing working perfect in both classes or you will go home with head down. Both classes are full of World Class Shooters. I know having been a Vice Captain of one US National Team and a Member of the other. The Shooters and Gear in both classes are tops and who ever picks the next US Teams will have a Hell of a time because we have tons of great shooters

 

[Al_Ski]

Come on Denys, you know that F-Open shooters can shot through conditions that drive us F-TR shooters crazy...

 

[Denys]

Al, I'm guessing you're speaking tongue in cheek with your aposiopesis.

However, in case you are not, let me just state that conditions never deterred me from shooting. Several people heard me utter the phrase "bring it on," when we got ready to shoot the second of two matches on the final day of the FCNC with rain, snow, lighting, meteor shower, tornadoes, dust storm and solar eclipse all occurring at that time.

I don't remember anyone avoiding the firing line at that time, F-Open or F-TR.

I exaggerated about the solar eclipse; it just looked like that due to the massive clouds that showed up at that time.

 

[Al_Ski]

Al, I'm guessing you're speaking tongue in cheek with your aposiopesis.

However, in case you are not, let me just state that conditions never deterred me from shooting. Several people heard me utter the phrase "bring it on," when we got ready to shoot the second of two matches on the final day of the FCNC with rain, snow, lighting, meteor shower, tornadoes, dust storm and solar eclipse all occurring at that time.

I don't remember anyone avoiding the firing line at that time, F-Open or F-TR.

I exaggerated about the solar eclipse; it just looked like that due to the massive clouds that showed up at that time.

Yes my friend, I could hardly type that while laughing.

I'll give open shooters a little harassment along with the sling shooters. I respect what both disciplines accomplish. And as far as a beginners class, I thought that was what "Marksman" was for...

 

[memilanuk]

And as far as a beginners class, I thought that was what "Marksman" was for...

Ding ding ding! Finally, someone who gets it.

 

[Denys]

Al, I detected the mirth in your keystrokes.

Monte, the classification system has been mentioned several times; try to keep up.

It's actually one of the nice features of the NRA sanctioning of F-CLASS in the USA.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Note 3.

 

[memilanuk]

Maybe... but it still needs repeated/emphasized as people by and large DON'T SEEM TO GET IT. Breaking up F-Class beyond F/TR and F/Open into umpteen little classes so that everyone including beginners can win their own little sandbox class and go home feeling special their very first time out keeps coming up over and over and over... indicative of a general lack of understanding of a) what 'competition' is supposed to be about, and b) why the classification system exists.

 

[Denys]

Monte, you stated it quite well.

We should keep this for when the next newcomer shooting his "tactical rig" complains that it's too difficult to compete with the fancy F-TR rifles with non-Harris bipods.

 

[LRRifleman]

I have not tried (or meant) to denigrate the marksmanship of one type of competition against another. My comments were based on perspective, which it seems that only Greg has grasped.

Visualize the longings of a paraplegic to walk again. Visualize the yearnings you would have if you lost use of your (dominant) arm. I was on that cusp for almost 4 years, and I longed to return to some degree of familiarity in my life, since most of what I had been able to do had been taken from me.

It is not that I am not ready to jump fully into F class, it is that I wanted to jump fully into a familiar aspect of shooting. Yes, Open class is shooting, and it still requires trigger control and the ability to read the wind. Yes, T/R does require precise loading, like Open, but the rifle in T/R is more an extension of the rifleman. I am not trying to put down any aspect of shooting, but it seems my comments have been taken that way.

For each of us, we have selected the style of shooting we are in because of some unique appeal. Some of us need to be better than the rest of the line, which is fine. Some are motivated by score. Some need to have the highest score or to outshoot the rest of the line. That is the competitive nature of some of us, and there is nothing wrong with that, but that is not me. My motivation has been to better my score from my last match. I am motivated by the harmony of man, rifle and ammo. When I get on the line, there is only one person I am out to beat, and that is me and my last time on the line.

Looking at sling matches, for across the course, you have both match rifle vs service rifle. In Long Range, it is Match Rifle vs Service Rifle vs Palma Rifle. In many of these matches, there are sub groupings for iron sight vs any sight, except with Palma Rifles. I was only curious if there were an interest in F T/R iron.

 

[diego-ted]

Like has been said, if you are truly only competing against yourself, shoot tr or open with your iorn sights and shoot for improvement. I shoot to improve myself and to see where I stand against those who cwn really shoot. I have no delusions of placing until I get much better. However, I enjoy the comarotory of the shooters attending competitions as well as supporting these events.

I have an artificial shoulder and therefore have a challenge on the fireing line as well.
Diego

 

[Killshot44]

We should keep this for when the next newcomer shooting his "tactical rig" complains that it's too difficult to compete with the fancy F-TR rifles with non-Harris bipods.

That's the guy for whom the "F-Field" class would fit; shooting repeater actions, non-.308 calibers and shorter barrels. The match director at Sac Valley has been classing them this way for a couple of years and turnout is good. Most of them shoot against each other in regular Field Precision/Tactical matches so this is just another playing field for them.

In fact the waters were tested here as to the viability of approaching the NRA to add this class to "F" but the sticking point was the use of brakes - no one wanted to have to shoot without them so the issue quickly died.

 

[Denys]

Why would these people even want to shoot on F-Class target? Would it not be better or more "like reality" to shoot on the regular 2MOA targets? F-Class targets are already difficult for the specialized F-TR rifles firing non-magazine length ammo, it will be exponentially more difficult for the short barreled repeater with Harris type bipods and low magnification scopes. I've been competing for several years and my personal best at 1000 yards is currently a 199-7X I shot at Raton during FCNC (a good time to do that). The conditions were conducive to that and my rifle and ammo are definitely not the "F-Field" type of equipment. As luck would have it, another F-TR shooter managed a 200 and there were 4-5 others who also shot a 199-something. All this to say that F-TR, even with top-notch equipment and with some of the best shooters in the world in excellent conditions still struggle to get very high or perfect scores; an "F-Field" shooter will get frustrated because the target size is not commensurate with the equipment. They would do much better on the regular targets.

Anyway, it's already a chore to track 3-4 divisions now at the club level, the last thing I would want is to introduce yet another complexity.

In fact, there is already an NRA class and that's the Any/Any and I actually have set up a rifle to play in that soon. I would suggest the "tactical" shooters look at that one; it's shot on the regular 2MOA targets but still one round load, slow fire.

 

[XTR]

Why would these people even want to shoot on F-Class target? Would it not be better or more "like reality" to shoot on the regular 2MOA targets? F-Class targets are already difficult for the specialized F-TR rifles firing non-magazine length ammo, it will be exponentially more difficult for the short barreled repeater with Harris type bipods and low magnification scopes. I've been competing for several years and my personal best at 1000 yards is currently a 199-7X I shot at Raton during FCNC (a good time to do that). The conditions were conducive to that and my rifle and ammo are definitely not the "F-Field" type of equipment. As luck would have it, another F-TR shooter managed a 200 and there were 4-5 others who also shot a 199-something. All this to say that F-TR, even with top-notch equipment and with some of the best shooters in the world in excellent conditions still struggle to get very high or perfect scores; an "F-Field" shooter will get frustrated because the target size is not commensurate with the equipment. They would do much better on the regular targets.

Anyway, it's already a chore to track 3-4 divisions now at the club level, the last thing I would want is to introduce yet another complexity.

In fact, there is already an NRA class and that's the Any/Any and I actually have set up a rifle to play in that soon. I would suggest the "tactical" shooters look at that one; it's shot on the regular 2MOA targets but still one round load, slow fire.

Denys if you didn't you need to look back and see the very long thread discussing the idea. It's in here somewhere, I believe it was started by Vu. I wish I could get a dozen guys with what ever they wanted to shoot to come out to the range.

Remember that there are a whole lot of people who think that they can shoot just as well to 1000 with a 20" barrel "as long as I do my part". (and my rifle will shoot a national record the day I "do my part")

F-TR is very attractive to the tactical guys,

first of all, there are matches to shoot
second, it looks kind of the same, 308s with bipods and scopes
Then there is the whole misconception that TR is for Tactical Rifle. (for the record for anyone who has misses it, it stands for Target Rifle, there is nothing tactical in there.)

Then they get to a match and find out that they aren't supposed to mag feed and in the rules cans and brakes are not allowed.

 

[Denys]

What do you mean "nothing tactical?" All I have to do is apply come digital camo paint to my Sinclair bipod and perhaps on the 32 inch stainless barrel. Oh, and the scope, must not forget to paint the scope also.

Then I could put some tracks on my cart instead of wheels. Oh, and must not forget to apply digital camo paint on the cart.

Do you think I should also paint the rear bag? What about my shooting hat?

I guess I should use M118 or M118LR instead of my current handloads.

Yeah, I do remember the thread, I just have an automatic reflex thing to explain that F-class is not sniping and it's not for snipers wannabes. It ain't combat in any way, shape or form; it's marksmanship for marksmanship's sake.

 

[damoncali]

What do you mean "nothing tactical?" All I have to do is apply come digital camo paint to my Sinclair bipod and perhaps on the 32 inch stainless barrel. Oh, and the scope, must not forget to paint the scope also.

Then I could put some tracks on my cart instead of wheels. Oh, and must not forget to apply digital camo paint on the cart.

Do you think I should also paint the rear bag? What about my shooting hat?

I guess I should use M118 or M118LR instead of my current handloads.

Yeah, I do remember the thread, I just have an automatic reflex thing to explain that F-class is not sniping and it's not for snipers wannabes. It ain't combat in any way, shape or form; it's marksmanship for marksmanship's sake.

I know what you're saying, but there is of course a longstanding connection between civilian high power and the military. You can see it more closely in XTC service rifle matches, which have a vaguely military feel and in the very existence of the CMP. I don't see why that shouldn't carry over to F class. Now that shooting a scoped rifle off of a bipod is a genuine military skill rather than a rare oddity, it makes sense to allow for the equivalent to a "service rifle" class in F class. Maybe not so strict, since scoped "sniper" rifles used in the military seem to change quite a bit, but I think it would be good to work the same spirit in somehow.

But as many have said, F T/R is more of a parallel with Palma on the sling side than it is with service rifles. There is no service rifle equivalent in F class, and I think it would be nice to see one just to keep the connection with the military alive. The concept of the CMP/DCM is a good one that we should cherish.

 

[skibar_tx]

It is interesting that so many people believe that "service rifle" is kind of a basic rifle class. It has been years since I have seen a competitor in service rifle use a basic standard issue rifle, if there is such an animal. Everyone on the service rifle line today has, at the very least, custom barrels, custom triggers and custom sights.

In F-class competition, anyone can bring their hunting rifle and get into the match and do fairly well. I am sure that 99 percent of the US hunters, those that hunt with a rifle, use a scope. So that is why F-class is growing and the iron sight disciplines are declining. If I had a Winchester 30-30 with the standard iron sight, the service rifle discipline would turn me away from competing with them. I might have brought my sling also. Go figure.

The guy that wants to shoot FTR with iron sights, the F-classers will allow you to shoot with them also. The F-class rules indicate that you can use any old sight you want to use, so those iron sighters could easily make the jump. However, unless you are a wind reading son of a gun, you will need to make a bigger commitment than that to achieve stardom in either F-O or FTR. You aren't going to get a medal for just showing up.

 

[damoncali]

Service rifle *is* basic when you compare it to the other options, but the point is not to use rack grade rifles, but rather to maintain the connection to the military roots of high power and the military-civilian partnerships that makes it what it is. Being able to take some kids to a rifle clinic put on by the USMC rifle team at the Quantico range and learn how to shoot an M16 is a huge deal. High power wouldn't be the same if all we had was match rifles and palma guns. F class can benefit from that too, if you ask me.

 

[memilanuk]

The analogy to Service Rifle may have some merit...

A beginner can pick up a basic DCM-style AR15 from several manufacturers, get to the range and start participating that weekend. Much of the other gear such as spotting scope, mat, cart/stool, coat, etc. can be borrowed initially and picked up piecemeal as time/money/desire allows. With some more work and attention to detail they can start working their way up the classification ladder, and possibly start being competitive at the club/local level. By the time they honestly wear out that first barrel, the new shooter will be ready for one or more equipment upgrades - and they'll have at least an idea of what they want/need. If they want to stick with the basics, so be it. If they want to start stepping up their game, that's easy enough to. If the limitations of the equipment or caliber starts losing its appeal, feel free to move up to Match Rifle and go hog-wild - or not.

Sound familiar?

Other than you almost never hear anybody trying to add, subtract, or change the categories in Service Rifle / Match Rifle.

 

[Denys]

It is interesting that so many people believe that "service rifle" is kind of a basic rifle class. It has been years since I have seen a competitor in service rifle use a basic standard issue rifle, if there is such an animal. Everyone on the service rifle line today has, at the very least, custom barrels, custom triggers and custom sights.

In F-class competition, anyone can bring their hunting rifle and get into the match and do fairly well. I am sure that 99 percent of the US hunters, those that hunt with a rifle, use a scope. So that is why F-class is growing and the iron sight disciplines are declining. If I had a Winchester 30-30 with the standard iron sight, the service rifle discipline would turn me away from competing with them. I might have brought my sling also. Go figure.

The guy that wants to shoot FTR with iron sights, the F-classers will allow you to shoot with them also. The F-class rules indicate that you can use any old sight you want to use, so those iron sighters could easily make the jump. However, unless you are a wind reading son of a gun, you will need to make a bigger commitment than that to achieve stardom in either F-O or FTR. You aren't going to get a medal for just showing up.

Skip, I hear what you are saying, but I should point out that Service Rifle was designed from the outset to use rifles that are or were in service or their civilian (semi auto only) equivalent. It's to the point where there can't be any cosmetic alterations to the rifle beyond the use of a stainless steel barrel. This is why my NM AR-15 has complicated free float handguards and the crappy pistol grip of the original AR-16/M16. All the improvements are internal.

Service Rifle has its genesis in the military, that is very clear; F-class, not so much, or at all. The martial rifles that come closest to an F-TR rifle would be a .308 caliber sniper rifle, M21, M40 or whatever the current designation is. The problem is these rifles are totally inadequate for LR F-TR and the game is totally different.

 

[damoncali]

Service Rifle has its genesis in the military, that is very clear; F-class, not so much, or at all. The martial rifles that come closest to an F-TR rifle would be a .308 caliber sniper rifle, M21, M40 or whatever the current designation is. The problem is these rifles are totally inadequate for LR F-TR and the game is totally different.

They wouldn't be in their own class, and if necessary, with the old targets. And they'll do just fine at 600 and under.

 

[JBD56]

Thank you all for wasting an hour of my Sunday morning that was planned for being at the range to fire form brass !! Great discussion and perspectives. I am a newb to the f-class format (only shooting since 2012), and have only shot mid-range (600 yard) matches. I will be shooting some LR matches in 2014 now that I have an idea of what it takes for wind reading and equipment to be fairly competitive.

Our club has one of the best groups of f-class shooters (open and t/r) that a newb could hope to get involved with. The "seasoned" guys will go our of their way to help anyone who looks for advice. The club puts on a wind clinic every spring, taught by a couple of the national coaches. We put on loading classes at the club to help learn the correct way to build a competitive round. These things are done to help grow the sport a bring new shooters into the ranks. We see 10-25 new people show up every spring that want to get involved in the sport. Some bring their hunting rifle that they shot elk at 700+ yards with the previous fall and expect to be competitive with the people shooting competition rigs. It doesn't take long before they stop showing up or spend the money for some level of equipment to at least be "in the game".

Not having been a sling shooter (hated getting twisted into a pretzel in the Corps), I don't have the perspective of you experienced shooters on the development years of f-class, but several at our club were. I have experienced the sarcastic comments about cappuccino rests and second-class treatment by sling shooters at matches. F-class is the driving force for growth in the state now and makes up close to half of the registered high power shooters. I think it is important to have discussions about changes to the discipline, but not to change rules just so everyone can have a participation medal to take home.

If you have an active f-class club or group in your area, talk to them about having some fun matches to change up the normal string of fire. We do an end of the season match that involves using a terrorist/hostage target for score and a last string of fire that is to see how many rounds you can get on target in 10 seconds loaded one at a time. Have matches that specify what the equipment requirements are (hunting rifles only, bi-pod only, etc...). We were discussing the other night having a competition next year that will require you to start at the 600 yard firing line with whatever equipment you can carry in your hands (no packs) to the 300 yard firing line in one trip. The guys with the Farley/SEB rests will have a tough time carrying them along with a 20 lb rifle, rear bag, mat and ammo. At the end of the day it is still about having some competitive fun and getting trigger time.

 

[Denys]

Damoncali:

So, it took me a little while to understand what you said. When I had a few words to your first sentence, I come up with this:

They wouldn't be inadequate if they were in their own class, and if necessary, with the old (regular 2MOA) targets.

If this is what you intended to say then you just made my point; get them to shoot in any/any class and leave F-class the way it is now.

 

[damoncali]

Yes, that's what I meant. I see it was pretty unclear now.

There is a danger in too many classes. I don't disagree except that people don't want to shoot their .308 M40 clones in Any/Any, they want to shoot them in F class (and I don't blame them -it's a bit of an oddball). I think three classes is a good balance - Open for the gearheads, TR for the target shooters who don't want a gear race, and "service" (or "field" for whatever you want to call it), to keep the tradition of military inclusiveness in high power and cater to a large group of shooters. At our local matches, I'd guess half or more of the TR shooters would be in this new class. Our XTC matches are almost entirely service rifle. It might kill off or diminish TR, which is a risk. I don't know. Just thinking out loud.

 

[Denys]

If you're just thinking out loud, than I just responding the same way. This is just a discussion, nothing more is intended.

Yes, that's what I meant. I see it was pretty unclear now.

There is a danger in too many classes. I don't disagree except that people don't want to shoot their .308 M40 clones in Any/Any, they want to shoot them in F class (and I don't blame them -it's a bit of an oddball).

You mean they just want to shoot off a bipod. I'm fine with that, have them petition the NRA to sanction a new class alongside Any/Any that uses the regular 2MOA targets using bipods.

I think three classes is a good balance - Open for the gearheads, TR for the target shooters who don't want a gear race, and "service" (or "field" for whatever you want to call it), to keep the tradition of military inclusiveness in high power and cater to a large group of shooters.

I still don't see the point of shooting the miniature F-class targets with "field" rifles. When the NRA sanctioned the one quarter targets, these targets where commensurate with the equipment that would likely be fielded for the next multiple years or decades. I simply do not see F-TR shooters being able to clean targets at will; ever. I don't see it being possible for F-Open either, but since I don't shoot F-Open and probably never will, I don't want to make such a pronouncement.

Forcing these one quarter targets on the "field" shooters will only engender resentment and grumbling, especially if they compare their results with F-TR or worse still, F-Open.

There is no "tradition of military inclusiveness" in F-class; it's all civilian, about a civilian as you can get this side of clay pigeons. We are talking concentric circles, (very long) known distances, long and heavy single shot rifles shooting highly sophisticated hand loaded ammunition scored one round at a time.

At our local matches, I'd guess half or more of the TR shooters would be in this new class. Our XTC matches are almost entirely service rifle. It might kill off or diminish TR, which is a risk. I don't know. Just thinking out loud.

XTC was designed for Service Rifle, the semi auto kind. I've tried it once with a bolt action rifle, without stripper clips; it was a disaster. I do much better with my NM AR-15 and a pair of magazines.

So let's say you have a Field class, I can guarantee you that within a few years there will be someone wanting to create a sub-class to better accommodate beginning shooters who are unable to get a medal or a win on their first time out with their Wally World special rifle scope and ammo for $300. Where do you draw the line?

 

[damoncali]

I'm very much against using equipment to segregate out beginners. That's what classifications are for. To me it's not about giving people chances to earn medals, but accommodating a significant bloc of shooters who have a legitimate interest in a different style of rifle. It's arguable that it's too close to TR -that the lack of an official service rifle will basically create a TR-lite class with little substantive difference outside of barrel length and bipod style choice. I don't think that would be good. And there is probably some correlation between beginning F class shooters and shooters who want to shoot a military style rifle in TR.

But I disagree that there is no military influence on F class. In the end, high power is high power - at its core is an approximation of military rifle qualifications. There has always been a distinctly martial feel to the matches, although admittedly less so in palma and F class than XTC, but I think that's something that should be encouraged. I think we should be striving to maintain the intent and culture of the CMP. Nobody wants to turn it into tacticool, but I'd like to see it carry on. Maybe F class isn't the venue for it, but maybe it is.

 

[XTR]

Any of you guys ever picked up a top competitors Service Rifle? They nearly need a gun bearer to carry it to the line for them. How much lead can you fit under an A2 handguard and still free float, you can get a couple of lbs into the cavity on the butt stock, and you can pour another pound or more into the bottom of a 20 round metal magazine. Add in a $400 Krieger barrel and a $150 set of pinned rear sights with apertures, and a $250 Geissele trigger. Yea, nothing gaming the system there. (and for the record, I do have a rifle set up for service rifle, i suck but I do have one)

Oh yea, then there is the $700 shooting coat.

Yea, come one come all to that beginner shooting discipline.

 

[Denys]

I have 3.5 pounds of lead in the buttstock of mine but I never placed any under the handguards. However, even with the lead removed from the buttstock, it's still a heavy son of a gun because of the barrel. There is nothing "tactical" about my NM AR-15 unless I paint the cart I use to hold it in digital camo colors.

 

[damoncali]

Mine weighs a ton. And you're right that XTC is a pain for beginners (although my coat cost WAY less than $700 - more like $120), but service rifle really helps mitigate that. You know exactly what to buy and it doesn't cost near what a competitive rifle will cost in many other disciplines. It's not rack grade, but it is pretty much standard. I think it's more the other gear that drives people away. It just looks very difficult if you've never tried it. And everyone else looks so, um, competent, with all that gear on. Compare that with f class - a new guy can look up and down the line and say "I already have all that stuff".

They'll eventually find out a top of the line F class rig costs 3x what a top of the line service rifle does, but by then its too late. The addiction has set in.