F T/R Competition Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

[NorCal Vu]

Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved by the NRA HP Committee.

All,

I was invited to join in on the NRA High Power Committee’s conference call to discuss the possibility of Field Precision Rifle Class (FPR) aka F-Tactical becoming an official classification in F-Class.

After about a 20 minute discuss, the NRA HP Committee members approved FPR/F-Tactical in concept. There were too many questions and what ifs to answer right then and there, so I will be working with a committee member located in Sacramento on the finer details of this classification.

They were actually thinking of pushing it through for this coming year, but that was not meant to be. I expressed that I rather go back and refine things, rather than putting something out there half ass.

So the good news is the NRA is seriously thinking of including this classification under F-Class. This would mean TAC shooters can compete in our own class, and be ranked nationally.

Bad news: No brakes or suppressors. This would be a deal breaker for the committee members, so I agreed to change the rules to not allow brakes or suppressors. It is what it is.

Over all, I think this is one step forward in the right direction. This classification will give competitors that are just starting out a place to learn LR shooting, without having to run and gun. Or the guys that are retiring from all the run and gun stuff, but want to keep on shooting a TAC precision rife. This also adds another venue for us to compete among our peers with the hardware we have.

So what’s next?

I’ll be working with Rob Thomas (fellow club shooter) and the NRA HP Committee on finalizing the rules and specs for the classification over the next several months.

What I need from everyone (even if you don’t even plan on shooting one of these events):

1. I need everyone to post the specs of their rifle and weight with bi-pod attached. The more details on the rifle, the better.

Stock configuration:
Optic:
Barrel contour:
Caliber:
Mounting system, Rings, Base:
Bi-Pod:

I need as many rifle weight specs as possible. Those that have stock AI, Sako, Savages, ect. Please give me your specs as well.

Thank you,

Vu

 

[sinister]

Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

Vu,

A Field Precision F-class that restricts or prohibits a brake or suppressor pretty much eliminates the next generation of United States military sniper weapons (USSOCOM PSR; US Army PSR and CERSR; and the USMC extended-range sniper rifles).

Welcome to 2011.

 

[Lowlight]

Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

Vu,

So this is shooting the F Class Course with a rifle labeled as tactical ?

How does this differ really from anything else already offered in F Class ?

No brake, No Suppressor ? So really you are making an Open division with a bipod, that has a weight restriction or lack of weight restriction ? As in I can build up an F Class Open rifle and place it in an AICS and as long as there is no brake or suppressor, I can have a 7WSM in the Tactical Division ? The main difference from the open guys is the bipod ?

Essentially is this correct ?

 

[sobrbiker883]

Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

Congrats on the step ahead bro!

Here's my stuff:

Manners MCS T4A
USO 3.8-22
Med Palma
Seekins Rings/Base
Harris BRS-M
Brakeless

17# empty

That is my 6.5CM, My 6XC weighs in within a half pound, but has a T2A Manners MCS and no rail being a Surgeon.

 

[NorCal Vu]

Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

Sure, shoot your 7wsm with no brake, or build a 338LM if you wish.

Won't make everyone happy, but those that want to play, will play.

There will be a weight restrictions of course, and rifle specs are being worked out.

 

[NorCal Vu]

Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sinister</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Vu,

A Field Precision F-class that restricts or prohibits a brake or suppressor pretty much eliminates the next generation of United States military sniper weapons (USSOCOM PSR; US Army PSR and CERSR; and the USMC extended-range sniper rifles).

Welcome to 2011. </div></div>

Welcome to the real world, not everyone can have a suppressor.

 

[Lowlight]

Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

So the difference Between F Tactical and F Class Open is the Bipod vs Front Rest ?

 

[nhm16]

Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Vu,
How does this differ really from anything else already offered in F Class ?
</div></div>

I think from reading about this earlier that the intent was that you could compete with a tactical style rifle as commonly found on this site and not have to go up against a full-blown 22lb F-Open gun shot off a rest, but instead compete only against other like configured rifles. This will hopefully (better) encourage the guy with his high dollar GAP rifle to try F-class.

 

[kengel2]

Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Vu</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Bad news: No brakes or suppressors. This would be a deal breaker for the committee members, so I agreed to change the rules to not allow brakes or suppressors. It is what it is.
</div></div>

Why is a brake such a big deal? Doesnt everyone wear hearing protection?

Looks like Im out of the only class I qualified for.

 

[hank440]

Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

Vu

So what is the problem the NRA has with brakes/suppressors ?

 

[Jerry m]

Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

Breaks are loud and blow leaves, grass & dirt on the shooters to either side of breaked shooter.

Good luck

Jerry

 

[hank440]

Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

not my Vais break it's quieter than the guy next to me last sunday he had a 30" barrel with no brake that was quite loud

 

[223ai]

Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Jerry M</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Breaks are loud and blow leaves, grass & dirt on the shooters to either side of breaked shooter.

Good luck

Jerry</div></div>

And? Why not shoot regular f-class if that is a concern?

 

[kengel2]

Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Jerry M</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Breaks are loud and blow leaves, grass & dirt on the shooters to either side of breaked shooter.

Good luck

Jerry </div></div>

And semiautos throw hot brass everywhere. Are we shooting guns or playing barbies? Make everyone wear shooting glasses and ear protection, they probably should be anyway. There are other classes that most guns qualify for, this was the only one to allow brakes. The local range had this comp on its own day so no bothering the other f class shooters.

 

[hank440]

Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

YEAH and this new tactical class can we actually load a magazine and shoot from a magazine instead of single loading

 

[Rthur]

Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

Vu, will there be a maximum width on the bipod used in this class?

 

[gvanhyning]

Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Vu</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Over all, I think this is one step forward in the right direction. This classification will give competitors that are just starting out a place to learn LR shooting, without having to run and gun. Or the guys that are retiring from all the run and gun stuff, but want to keep on shooting a TAC precision rife. This also adds another venue for us to compete among our peers with the hardware we have. </div></div>

I'm having real difficulty in seeing this as a step forward. The muzzle brake and suppressor could be made part of the class. Maybe an email campaign to the NRA is in order. With that said here's my stuff.
Stock configuration: AICS
Optic: S&B PMII 4-16x50
Barrel contour: M40
Caliber: 6.5x47 Lapua
Mounting system, Rings, Base: Badger Ordnance 20 MOA base, Badger Ordnance USMC M40A3 rings
Bi-Pod: Atlas
Weight: 17#

 

[NorCal Vu]

Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rthur</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Vu, will there be a maximum width on the bipod used in this class? </div></div>

We will try and create the rule so that Harris and Atlas bi pod style bi pods are use.

None of the sled types.

Guys, this is a work in progress. I know there is a major concern with brakes and suppressors. When I brought it up, it was considered a deal breaker for this concept to move forward.

It took 80% vs 0. Wish I could make it all happen the way we would want, but its not going to work out that way.

 

[762frmafr]

Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

I just got off the phone with VU. I too was skeptical about the no brakes rule. My biggest question was along the same lines as what Frank asked. If there are no brakes allowed, what makes this different than regular FTR or F-Open. Sure as it stands now, you can unscrew your brake and go shoot an FTR or F-Open match with your "tactical" gun. I think everyone agrees that you will be at a huge disadvantage. With this class, you will be shooting next to and scored with people that have those same disadvantages. Also, it is getting our foot in the door. Maybe in a few years when there are a few thousand shooters in the new class we can petition to have brakes allowed. Also in my eyes anything that gets new shooters in to the sport is a good thing. If little Jimmy wants to be a sniper but the only match in his area is this, well at least he'll be out shooting instead of on the internet arguing on barfcum. When it's all said and done I think it's a step in the right direction. Is it ideal? NOT AT ALL....but a step in the right direction nonetheless....

 

[kengel2]

Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 762frmafr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Also, it is getting our foot in the door. Maybe in a few years when there are a few thousand shooters in the new class we can petition to have brakes allowed. Also in my eyes anything that gets new shooters in to the sport is a good thing. </div></div>

Sadly, I fall into the kicked out class of new shooter with a brake.

 

[taliv]

Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

personally, i find f-class excruciatingly boring and only use it to fireform brass or to get a solid 1000 yrd dope.


however, my 13 yr old daughter likes to shoot. i let her shoot my practical gun in an f-class match (using bipod in F-O) last year and she shot 'expert' her first match! she is excited and wants to compete, but she doesn't want to shoot anymore without the suppressor.

she's not strong enough or big enough to safely move a 15+ lb gun around in sniper matches. but she could be competitive at her age in F-tactical, if it didn't suck.

she is not alone. there are several 13-14 yo boys and girls around here that i often take shooting with me. e.g.

they ALL want to shoot suppressed. many of their parents have already purchased suppressors for their use. they can shoot and they are all NRA members.

 

[hank440]

Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

I disagree with the foot in the door BS. I think the NRA needs a foot in the ass. I'm a NRA LE instructor for handgun, shotgun and rifle, all of NRA training is stuck in the 1950's and has yet to advance to the 1970's. They care more about it's members sending in the cash than anything else.

 

[NorCal Vu]

Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

Well guys, let me ask you this.

Is no brakes a deal breaker for this shooting group? It sounds like it might be?

If it is, I won't waste any more time on it. More time to reload. =)

 

[hank440]

Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

NO I will shoot it, heck I shoot F/TR now with my brake on so far no one has complained. I only shoot it because I have no where else here to practice long range and it's better than nothing.

 

[taliv]

Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

keep working on it vu

just don't give up so fast. really, there is NO valid reason to disallow suppressors.

 

[kengel2]

Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Vu</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Is no brakes a deal breaker for this shooting group? It sounds like it might be?</div></div>

For me the brakes/suppressor thing is a deal breaker, but I am only one so I do understand. I dont mind shooting next to brakes whether or not I have one, just like I dont mind shooting next to a semiauto flinging hot brass all over me(happened last match).

I really just dont understand the reasoning for not allowing a brake/suppressor.

 

[Pthfndr-CA]

Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

Everyone,

Keep in mind Vu was hashing this out with the High Power rules committee. It will take some rocking to move that boulder out of it's hole and get it rolling.

At our range (where Vu and I put on matches) the HP MD lets us tac rifle guys shoot in all their prone/Palma matches in our own tactical rifle class, AND lets us keep our muzzle brakes. He just squads us on the end of the line. Initially there was grumbling from some of the die hard HP people about the noise they <span style="font-style: italic">expected</span> from muzzle brakes. But once we shot with them it has all but gone away. Our 1K line is covered, and even there it hasn't been the issue they thought it would.

Back in August at the Palma match they had 36 shooters. 12 were Tac rifle, 14 were a combination of F Open and F-T/R.

IMO, the NRA came to Vu because a) he presented this proposal on a High Power forum, and it met with about 50% acceptance b) the NRA's initial foray into "tactical" rifle competition was less than successful c) HP is not a growing sport and tac rifle competition as we do it is.

There are a ton pf people buying "tactical rifles", such as the Remington 5r and Savage LR Precision series. Savage has seen the writing on the wall and answered it with a factory tac rifle in 260/6.5CM/243. Tikka has their T3 Tactical. How long before Remington gets really serious. None of those rifles comes from the factory with a MB. Everyone buying one of those is a potential NRA competitor. And once they are hooked on the sport and want something more, they can come grow our ranks in real tac rifle matches.

Vu has said this before, but think of FPR/F-Tactical as the NASCAR of tactical rifle shooting.

If, and I admit right now it's a big if, there is enough turn out in numbers of tac rifle people at NRA matches, down the road we can probably get them to accept suppressors (where legal to own/use)and probably even muzzle brakes.

Those of you who have HP matches at your range, ask the MD, be nice, to let you shoot with your brake on. Tell you'll shoot on the end of the line if need be. Some of them, like ours, might be willing to give it a try. Tell them Jim O'Connell out in CA lets us do it (and if they are serious HP people they will know who he is).

 

[hank440]

Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

savage model 10
choate tactical stock
nightforce f1 3-15x 50mm
barrel savage varmint contour
.308
NF rings and EGW 20 moa base
bipod harris 6-9" s-brm
weight 15 lbs

 

[mjh30]

Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

VU I have to ask the question, why precision/tactical rifles have to become a official classification in F-Class. In the past I have shot my run of the mill tactical 308 rifle in F/TR matches, for the most part to shoot more and learn how to read the wind better because everyone around me was willing to share their wealth of knowledge. A lot of the time, F/TR and F-open were lumped together, did I care no, I figured every time I went I learned something. If anyone wants an introduction to shooting long range, I don't think anyone running a match would complain if someone showed up and wanted to shoot their rifle in the match even though it didn't meet F/TR or F-open or fullbore rules or whatever. A lot of my local matches are any rifle/any scope. F-class is still a fairly new shooting sport, you could say in its infancy and at times facing its own critics. By the way congratulations on getting the PRS Association up and running.
Marty

 

[taliv]

Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

pthfnder, being allowed to shoot isn't the problem. i doubt any match around here would turn down a shooter, regardless of equipment. they just won't turn the scores in, which i think is the point for all of us, right? i mean, you guys are already shooting your guns the way you want in your matches. classification and shooting for records in regionals/perry is what people are looking for, i think.


btw, please don't take any of my comments in either thread as anything other than constructive feedback. glad you guys are doing this. if it's a multi-step process, so be it.

 

[kengel2]

Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Keep in mind Vu was hashing this out with the High Power rules committee. It will take some rocking to move that boulder out of it's hole and get it rolling.</div></div>

If I in anyway sound like I dont appreciate what he is doing, I apologize to VU. I dont even know him, but the test they ran with this class actually got me out to Palo Alto to shoot a match. It was fun, and since then Ive tried to participate in as many of these matches as I could. This even got me into the "tactical" matches and I shot my first one at NTRP last month.

One of the key attributes that attracted me to this class, was the fact that a brake/suppressor could be used. I use a brake and hopefully someday a supressor. Maybe its because Ive shot around brakes and dont mind them.

 

[Lowlight]

Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Pthfndr-CA</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

There are a ton pf people buying "tactical rifles", such as the Remington 5r and Savage LR Precision series. Savage has seen the writing on the wall and answered it with a factory tac rifle in 260/6.5CM/243. Tikka has their T3 Tactical. How long before Remington gets really serious. <span style="font-weight: bold">None of those rifles comes from the factory with a MB</span>. Everyone buying one of those is a potential NRA competitor. And once they are hooked on the sport and want something more, they can come grow our ranks in real tac rifle matches.
</div></div>

Sorry to correct you but they do come from the factory with Muzzle Brakes


See Remington Military

http://www.remingtonmilitary.com/Firearms/Sniper%20Rifles/MSR.aspx

http://www.remingtonmilitary.com/Firearms/Sniper%20Rifles/M24.aspx

http://www.remingtonmilitary.com/Firearms/Sniper%20Rifles/M700.aspx

The new Army Model

http://www.remingtonmilitary.com/Firearms/Sniper%20Rifles/XM2010.aspx

Muzzle devices either brakes or suppressors on all models but the bone stock M24.


See Savage Law Enforcement

http://www.savagearms.com/firearms/models/

So the most common US manufacturers include brakes

Most Accuracy Internationals have Brakes included, the Sako and Tikka are threaded but the brakes are an Options that a lot of people go for.

So the idea that brakes are not "tactical" or common is false, and as Sinister said, this cuts out the military using this as a way to supplement their training as their rifles are braked or suppressed and cannot be removed.

Most stock Tactical Rifles in 2011 -- > forward are braked so you're asking people to "modify" their systems to fit the NRA's need to not piss off the Palma people, a segment of the sport that is static or shrinking.

 

[hank440]

Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

AMEN BRUTHA Frank Preach on

 

[762frmafr]

Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

Frank, I agree with you. I think that for experienced "tactical" shooters this new class is too much of a compromise. But then again, those type of shooters already have their matches that they shoot in and travel to shoot in. On the other hand, Billy newbie that wants to learn has a great opportunity in this new class.

 

[Lowlight]

Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

Steve,

My Local range is Colorado Rifle Club, Byers, CO... it has a fantastic 1000 yard HP Range there, that has been around a long time and is used for F Class. Why would I not use this local asset to increase my skill level for the few quarterly big tactical matches that require travel and expense. I already shoot their local steel match when my time permits, its a "tactical prairie dog match" so what is wrong with me bringing my same AI AX to an F Class match every month or so ? Oh wait i can't my AI is braked, suppressed, etc... so not happening.

The military has budget issues, new sniper rifles that are braked and suppressed, why can't they supplement their training by attending a local F Class match with their issued sniper rifle ? Oh wait, braked and suppressed and they can't remove them -- IE the Surefire which requires them to be timed.

There are plenty of examples of why I can't but the reasons for out weight the reasons against.

Palma is a dying sport, it barely retains shooters and when they get too old they move to F Class because of the scopes. So why are we people catering to them, because they run the show ? Okay I get that, they have been around a long time but if you want to "move the sport" forward, then catering to the old guard doesn't fit the new model. Asking shooters to modify their stock systems because the NRA doesn't want to offend a Palma well, that is very weak response.

You can squad them separately, you can add a separate relay, you can put a 4X8 piece of plywood between the last Palma shooter and the first braked shooter. However when on the line at my local match nearly 90% of the shooters are braked, why --- simple we all know it gives us an advantage, it allows guys to shoot things like ballistically superior 7WSMs without the recoil getting in the way. Still nobody bitches about the brakes on the steel range.

I get it do the best you can with what you can, but the facts remain, brakes and suppressors are common, and here to stay. If you want to leave the suppressors out because some states can't use them, sure I can accept that rule, but brakes, that are on factory guns, no, hmmm, a new guy modifying his gun or staying home you tell me ?

 

[Pthfndr-CA]

Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Sorry to correct you but they do come from the factory with Muzzle Brakes

So the idea that brakes are not "tactical" or common is false, and as Sinister said, this cuts out the military using this as a way to supplement their training as their rifles are braked or suppressed and cannot be removed.

Most stock Tactical Rifles in 2011 -- > forward are braked so you're asking people to "modify" their systems to fit the NRA's need to not piss off the Palma people, a segment of the sport that is static or shrinking. </div></div>

I stand corrected. Thanks. I guess what I should have said is that most of what beginner people are buying are factory rifles without brakes. At least as I see what people are posting on various forums (other than this one). Based on what I see other so people recommending, a lot of them are as unaware as I was what the factories offer.

I agree whole heartedly that brakes and suppressors should be allowed. Especially suppressors. That right there would negate many of the old guards complaints about any noise or debris. Not that it's really an issue, in their ignorance they just think it is.

 

[Pthfndr-CA]

Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

Frank

You bring up a very good point about the military, that could possibly work to our advantage. The NRA is very big about highlighting the military in HP competition. Why shouldn't they provide a venue where those guys could get in more range time with what they use? We have a few guys from the 1/5 of the 1st Mardiv that come to our tac matches. It would be great if they could get more of them to come up on a monthly basis to shoot the HP prone/Palma matches. They're only a few hours drive away.

Kengal2/Taliv

Not taking your comments the wrong way at all. The more input we get the better.

Perhaps, as someone suggested, an email campaign to the NRA is in order.

 

[taliv]

Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you want to leave the suppressors out because some states can't use them, sure I can accept that rule, but brakes, that are on factory guns,</div></div>

that would be like USPSA getting rid of open class because some states only allow 10-round mags.

but that's ok man, just go ahead and throw the evil silencers under the bus

 

[762frmafr]

Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Steve,

My Local range is Colorado Rifle Club, Byers, CO... it has a fantastic 1000 yard HP Range there, that has been around a long time and is used for F Class. Why would I not use this local asset to increase my skill level for the few quarterly big tactical matches that require travel and expense. I already shoot their local steel match when my time permits, its a "tactical prairie dog match" so what is wrong with me bringing my same AI AX to an F Class match every month or so ? Oh wait i can't my AI is braked, suppressed, etc... so not happening.

The military has budget issues, new sniper rifles that are braked and suppressed, why can't they supplement their training by attending a local F Class match with their issued sniper rifle ? Oh wait, braked and suppressed and they can't remove them -- IE the Surefire which requires them to be timed.

There are plenty of examples of why I can't but the reasons for out weight the reasons against.

Palma is a dying sport, it barely retains shooters and when they get too old they move to F Class because of the scopes. So why are we people catering to them, because they run the show ? Okay I get that, they have been around a long time but if you want to "move the sport" forward, then catering to the old guard doesn't fit the new model. Asking shooters to modify their stock systems because the NRA doesn't want to offend a Palma well, that is very weak response.

You can squad them separately, you can add a separate relay, you can put a 4X8 piece of plywood between the last Palma shooter and the first braked shooter. However when on the line at my local match nearly 90% of the shooters are braked, why --- simple we all know it gives us an advantage, it allows guys to shoot things like ballistically superior 7WSMs without the recoil getting in the way. Still nobody bitches about the brakes on the steel range.

I get it do the best you can with what you can, but the facts remain, brakes and suppressors are common, and here to stay. If you want to leave the suppressors out because some states can't use them, sure I can accept that rule, but brakes, that are on factory guns, no, hmmm, a new guy modifying his gun or staying home you tell me ? </div></div>

Frank, again I agree with what you are saying. We are the growing sport and I believe that is the reason NRA has even considered this new class. I suggested the 4x8 sheet to Vu on the phone. He said that he suggested it as well. NRA said that it has to be standardized. Just like if you want your range to be NRA certified, it has to conform to their standards. I completely agree that you should be able to take advantage of your local range. And like people have said before, I am sure that if you wanted to shoot there, they would not turn you away from an F-Class match just because you have a brake. You just would not be able to compete for points. This new class would class you with people with the same disadvantages as you plus you all would be on a level playing field. Only shitty thing would be you'd have to remove your brake. I know...stupid compromise. But if you are interested in points, it looks like that is the only way FOR NOW hopefully.

 

[Lowlight]

Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: taliv</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you want to leave the suppressors out because some states can't use them, sure I can accept that rule, but brakes, that are on factory guns,</div></div>

that would be like USPSA getting rid of open class because some states only allow 10-round mags.

but that's ok man, just go ahead and throw the evil silencers under the bus

</div></div>

Preaching to the choir there, even my Class 3 dealer says I have more suppressors than anyone he knows, including his shop which has a huge supply of suppressors on hand. In fact I have 4 in the Que with the ATF now, on top of the many I already have...

Suppressors are civilized, but if they want to standardize it, I understand that part.

 

[MTETM]

Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

I am missing what the NRA's problem with brakes is...I shot High Power for several years...on the line in Service Rifle...Right next to "flash hiders" on AR's and MIA's. Sound just like a break to me!

I appreciate the work and hope this moves forward, but I would like to see breaks and suppressors allowed. If they want my wife and little girls to shoot in the future, breaks will need to be allowed.

 

[XTR]

Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

Currently I shoot in F-TR.

R700
308Win
McM A5
Badger M4 bottom metal (no DBM)
NF 32BR
24" Rock Creek #7 Barrel, threaded, but I leave the Badger brake in the safe.
Currently running a 6-9 Harris; however, I have a new Sinclair on order
Weight 16.0

(that said I am in the process of building a new dedicated F-TR rifle)

Unless you put a limit on the barrel length this class will be just like the current F classes for the long range 800/900/1000 yd game. Put as long a tube as you can get and make weight, and with a 30" tube you don't need a brake. If you limit barrel length, including brakes, then it won't matter because nobody will have one, they'll all be looking for the last two inches of pipe for muzzle velocity. Anyone who has shot for score at 1000 yds knows the wind is the real opponent, you are trying to do better against the wind than the guy next to you, and if the BCs are equal the one thing that you can do for an edge is MV. Ringing steel is one thing, 20 shots for record with a 5" X-ring and a 10" 10-ring you are looking for every inch of windage you can buy, otherwise we wouldn't be shooting Bergers that cost 2x what 175SMKs cost.

Another thing regarding brakes. If they are allowed do you limit types? Do you really want to try to shoot a match lying next to a guy running some kind of chevron on a magnum that blows your mat and concusses in your face every shot? That's the problem that has to be solved with brakes.


I understand the idea you are trying to cultivate, but there are so many things that the rules will have to address you are going to have a hell of a time even making half the people here happy. It will be hard to keep it from getting gamed just like the F classes that are there now.

Guys want to mag load vs single, that will require a variance from the HP rules that are currently incorporated into F class.

Mag length rounds? People already build on long actions for long loaded WSMs and RAUMs

Bullet lengths? In F-TR we're already discussing that it is impossible to get MDs to check chambers and brass, even at nationals.

You are talking pretty much open caliber, that's going to mean that the class will look like Open with pods in no time. There really is no point in shooting a 308Win against an 7RSAUM at 1000. The 7 gets 1/3 the windage, it's not even a close game.

Maybe you can get it to work, but if you want this to look like something other than F-O w/bipods then it is going to take a hellofa good rule set.

 

[Pthfndr-CA]

Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

XTR

Here's the thread from a year ago with the initial concept that has some of the specifics you ask about:
http://www.snipershide.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2063698&page=1

 

[XTR]

Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Pthfndr-CA</div><div class="ubbcode-body">XTR

Here's the thread from a year ago with the initial concept that has some of the specifics you ask about:
http://www.snipershide.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2063698&page=1 </div></div>

I read most of that in the past, that proposes two new classes, I think that this thread is discussing one new class.

 

[kengel2]

Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: XTR</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I read most of that in the past, that proposes two new classes, I think that this thread is discussing one new class. </div></div>

As far as my local range goes, those two classes were combined and we ran it as rear bag vs no rear bag.

 

[memilanuk]

Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: MTETM</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I am missing what the NRA's problem with brakes is...I shot High Power for several years...on the line in Service Rifle...Right next to "flash hiders" on AR's and MIA's. Sound just like a break to me!</div></div>

Not even friggin' close. Wanna lay next to my braked .338LM on one side and my WOA AR-15 Service Rifle w/ A2 flash hider on the other just to be sure? Or to make it more of an apples-to-apples comparison, we can sub my 18" middy SPR-ish AR w/ Miculek brake for the .338LM. I guarantee you will absolutely be able to tell the difference between a 'flash hider' and a 'brake'.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If they want my wife and little girls to shoot in the future, breaks will need to be allowed. </div></div>

Considering that I've seen a number of small women and girls shoot (very well, in fact) with a .223 Rem in F/TR for mid-range matches, I say you might want to reconsider that. A 17-18lb. .308 doesn't have much recoil; a .223 has almost none.

 

[Mr Flannel]

Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

Whatever gets the most number of shooters on the line should be the way ahead. In the case of you blokes up there, that will likely mean allowing braked or suppressed rifles into the main disciplines at some point (latter more logical from a manners and hearing safety perspective).

Frank is right about the pandering to the Palma crowd and down here, it is even worse. Shit, we're having to fight to get F-TR rules accepted by our own equivalent of the NRA (called NRA Australia/NRAA), which is run by a cabal of TR/Palma shooters who never liked f-class to begin with and are either bitter or resigned that f-class numbers are increasing quickly in comparison to TR/Palma, which is headed backwards. Down here, we have F-Open and F-Std, which essentially F-Open restricted to .223 or .308 and a min 1kg trigger pull - oh, and about 3 projectiles legally allowed per calibre. Go figure and thank your lucky stars that at least you might be in with a chance of getting something different sorted up there. 16 Planets would need to align to get F-Prac/Tac going down here...

 

[XTR]

Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: memilanuk</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: MTETM</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I am missing what the NRA's problem with brakes is...I shot High Power for several years...on the line in Service Rifle...Right next to "flash hiders" on AR's and MIA's. Sound just like a break to me!</div></div>

Not even friggin' close. Wanna lay next to my braked .338LM on one side and my WOA AR-15 Service Rifle w/ A2 flash hider on the other just to be sure? Or to make it more of an apples-to-apples comparison, we can sub my 18" middy SPR-ish AR w/ Miculek brake for the .338LM. I guarantee you will absolutely be able to tell the difference between a 'flash hider' and a 'brake'.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If they want my wife and little girls to shoot in the future, breaks will need to be allowed. </div></div>

Considering that I've seen a number of small women and girls shoot (very well, in fact) with a .223 Rem in F/TR for mid-range matches, I say you might want to reconsider that. A 17-18lb. .308 doesn't have much recoil; a .223 has almost none. </div></div>

^^ What he said. Try getting prone 10 feet to the right of someone with any large bore magnum with a good brake. It ain't a .223 with a flash hider. Every round you get hit with a pressure wave, now get one on each side of you and try to hold the mark on a 1MOA target.


I think another part of the problem here is that the NRA isn't seeing the people who want things to be different. What I'm reading in this thread is people sitting in the stands and saying "I'm not going to play till you give me the ruleset that I want" is going to be less productive than the people who are playing asking that their rules be changed. (at least I think so) I haven't played yet but there seems to be a pretty good network of matches out there that are outside of the NRA system.

I'm out there shooting F-TR with a 24" tube, and after one year I can tell you that I understand how my rifle and ammo performs and I am a better shooter today than I ever have been in my life.

I think it is a legit question to ask if the "tactical" shooters really want to come play on an NRA certified format? Punching round paper for score at known distances from a flat firing point is not ever going to be "tactical". Even if you change the ruleset with regard to equipment you will will not change in format in our lifetime unless the tactical folks fill the ranks and become the "managers" as it were.

 

[scaxeman]

Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: memilanuk</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If they want my wife and little girls to shoot in the future, breaks will need to be allowed. </div></div>

Considering that I've seen a number of small women and girls shoot (very well, in fact) with a .223 Rem in F/TR for mid-range matches, I say you might want to reconsider that. A 17-18lb. .308 doesn't have much recoil; a .223 has almost none. </div></div>

I'll take this one step further, I've personally watched a 16 year old girl that *might* weigh 90# soaking wet shoot a 20 round match with a 300 Win Mag with <span style="font-weight: bold">no brake at all</span>. She did very well with it. The rifle might have weighed 14# total, including scope, and was shot "sling and irons", ie. no front rest.

That said, it is silly for a "F-Tactical" class to be restricted to no muzzle breaks. I think I have shot closer to a (very aggressive) muzzle break than most, and find that while annoying, it is quite possible to do in competition. In my case, it involved a sniper match in Canada that required the shooter to fire a string using their spotter's shoulder as a support, leaving the muzzle break about 8" from the spotter's head. Loud? yes, even with double ears, but hardly "concussive".

As far as the proposed new class, as much as I'd love a new division in F-Class to get more shooters involved, I think your concept has some issues. The vast majority of shooters in it would likely be using some form of .308. The way you have your concept outlined now, you are basically turning it into F-Open on bipods right out of the gate. I can't think of a way to turn off new shooters quicker than to have 80% of them shooting stock .308's and have them constantly getting demolished by the couple of guys with their hyper-modified 6.5-284 "sniper rifles". The massive differences in ballistic efficiency between the different calibers will dictate that those that are truly interested in excelling in the new class will be driven to the crazy barrel-killing calibers that are currently in vogue with the F-Open crowd. You want to unscrew your insanely accurate barrel and turn it into a tomato stake at 700-1000 rounds? Run a 7mm "ultra-mag", or 6.5-284. The expense of constant barrel changes alone will turn off many of the same shooters that you are trying to attract.

Just my .02,

Darrell

 

[762frmafr]

Re: Field Precision Rifle Class Concept Approved!

From talking to VU I was under the impression that there will be 2 new classes. F-Tactical, which will be 308 168-178 grain bullets, and F-Tactical Open....Which will be any other caliber.