Is it time?

[Keith Glasscock]

Let me preface my question with a statement:

This is not any kind of official request for rule changes. It is a question for the benefit of my own education. I am asking this here because the best F-class shooters in the country visit this site more than any other I know. This question applies to F-class only:

Is it time to shrink the F-class mid-range targets again? There is a significantly higher percentage of classified shooters holding HM at mid range when compared to long range, and matches (especially in Open) are regularly decided by X-count in my area (NW Washington). 300 yards is a clean-a-thon, and 500 is getting that way too.

We do have one range that uses a training target for local fun matches. It has rings equal in size to the current 500 yard target, but it is used at 600. The scores do stretch out a bit with the smaller rings.

Second question: If we were to shrink, what size rings would we use, and how would we make the target compatible with the traditional target the way that they are now?

 

[DennisH]

You make a good point. 5 years ago, a 570 to 580 score would sometimes earn you an overall win. I have done it.

Now you must shoot over 590 to be in the running for an overall win.

I have seen several matches were the X count decided the winner.

I don't have the answer, but definitely understand your question. Something to think about.

Dennis

 

[Ned Ludd]

Unless and until multiple competitors at a match are routinely shooting 600 pt cleans, with perfect (or almost perfect) X-counts, what's the point? Even though scores have dramatically improved the last few years, those kind of scores are not the norm, especially at venues where the wind conditions are often challenging. I'm not saying those kind of scores haven't been fired at matches, just that they aren't shot by multiple shooters at a majority of matches. Until such time as they are, changing the targets is simply fixing a problem that doesn't yet exist, and a waste of time and money. If you wait a little longer, electronic targets will be much more commonplace and I suspect it wouldn't be too difficult to alter the target scoring system programming and effectively change the ring diameter electronically.

 

[Mozella]

Shooting clean scores where I compete is not a problem because of the pernicious winds. Perhaps your range should install half a dozen powerful fans which blow in various directions, often the opposite way from the adjacent fan, and which are vary in velocity on a random basis every 30 seconds or so. That should do it.

Seriously, as long as the winner can be determined, why change the target? There's nothing wrong with breaking a score tie by counting Xs. If you want a smaller target than the existing 10 ring, just shoot for the X ring, right? I say just keep-on-keepin'-on.

 

[praveen]

To answer your question of alternatives to the current targets, I would say we could try benchrest size targets. They are approximately half the size of F-Class targets and would prove way more challenging.
Yes, I have been seeing perfect scores or near perfect scores way too often these days even in F/TR. Whether thats a good or bad thing, I am not very sure.

 

[skibar_tx]

It really doesn't matter if we went to a smaller target or not. If we went to a smaller targert, in 5 years we would be facing the same question. Our equipment continues to improve and our skills continue to improve.

F-Class matches are not shooters vs the course, but rather shooters vs shooters. It really doesn't matter what the score is, the highest score wins the match. If we ever get to a point that we have two or three shooters tied with a perfect score (all exes), then something would need to be done.

 

[Lbart]

I agree with Mozella’s comments, do not reduce target sizes. This would just increase the cost to clubs to replace stocks of targets.

It is time I believe, to rise the percentage for classifications. Currently both LR & MR FC High Master is 98%. They have been that way since 2007. Both of these should be raised. My own feeling is LR should go to at least 99% and MR to at least 99.5%. There are too many LR HM cards out there and many more MR. I believe HM cards should only go to the top 10% or less of shooters. The other classes could have a larger percentage bracket.

It might be a good time to split FO & F/TR classifications also. Let the screaming begin.

 

[Keith Glasscock]

To answer your question of alternatives to the current targets, I would say we could try benchrest size targets. They are approximately half the size of F-Class targets and would prove way more challenging.
Yes, I have been seeing perfect scores or near perfect scores way too often these days even in F/TR. Whether thats a good or bad thing, I am not very sure.

It is a good thing. No question.

My question is based in my observations over the last 4 or 5 years that scores are getting higher, faster. For example, the record for 300 yards in open is 200-20+10 or something like that. I predict that it won't be too long before 500 and 600 go the same way.

I was thinking "aloud" that we might want to head it off before we reached the point of 600-60x shoot offs.

 

[Immike]

I was thinking "aloud" that we might want to head it off before we reached the point of 600-60x shoot offs.

I think that the grass is as green as it gets right now. This match holds a good balance of success and challenge. I've ran too many steel matches in the past and the goal was to have a high success rate but not too easy. I haven't seen any 60x shoot outs yet but I'd sure love too! Good discussion topic Kieth!!
Some thoughts:
Do we all need to be rich to do this?
Can I see the new rings on bad days?
Does a new target mean a new sport?
Do we all fail miserably until everything on the equipment is capable?
200- 20x still remains out of reach in midrange and long but a do able still and can be taken past that if needed. The carrot is right there where you want it!

 

[praveen]

I agree with Mozella’s comments, do not reduce target sizes. This would just increase the cost to clubs to replace stocks of targets.

It is time I believe, to rise the percentage for classifications. Currently both LR & MR FC High Master is 98%. They have been that way since 2007. Both of these should be raised. My own feeling is LR should go to at least 99% and MR to at least 99.5%. There are too many LR HM cards out there and many more MR. I believe HM cards should only go to the top 10% or less of shooters. The other classes could have a larger percentage bracket.

It might be a good time to split FO & F/TR classifications also. Let the screaming begin.

Small correction: MR high master is 98.5%

 

[Lbart]

Small correction: MR high master is 98.5%

I think you looked in the wrong section of the book(HP rules). Go to Section 22 (FC Rules) Rule 19.15. Page 73 http://competitions.nra.org/documents/pdf/compete/RuleBooks/HPR/hpr-book.pdf

 

[praveen]

One thing that could be done for F/TR is to return it back to its true spirit of a high power match with scopes.
Essentially, F/TR equipment should be comparable to high power equipment with scopes.
There could be restrictions on max scope power, bipod styles and on rifles.

I think you looked in the wrong section of the book(HP rules). Go to Section 22 (FC Rules) Rule 19.15. Page 73 http://competitions.nra.org/documents/pdf/compete/RuleBooks/HPR/hpr-book.pdf

You are right. I stand corrected. Its 98% for both MR and LR.
Damn it should be higher for MR at the very least !

 

[Keith Glasscock]

Some thoughts:
Do we all need to be rich to do this?
Can I see the new rings on bad days?
Does a new target mean a new sport?

Great questions and the reason I asked the question.

For #1: I don't know. It can be hard to define what we need versus what we want in order to be truly competitive. If I had my way, I'd retire barrels earlier and always have a barrel on that is capable of 200-20X. I simply cannot afford that. That is a great argument against changing ring sizes.

For #2: I simply had not thought of it.

For #3: I don't know the answer, but I like the game we play, the way we play it. I don't want anything done that changes the fundamental nature of our game.

 

[XTR]

Until we start having to have shootoffs to decide the outcomes of 200-20X scores I don't think so. Open may get there, they are certainly flirting with it. In F-TR these days, at 600 yards, you need to shoot about a 594 to be seriously compeditive unless the wind is kicking up hard, but even then you better be over 585 for the day.

I think the better option is for F class to drop the 300 and 500 yard matches from mid range, if they did it wouldn't hurt my feelings (for the record, I've won matches at both distances).

The 10/X ring on the 300 yard target we have today gets shot all to bits in 15 or 20 shots and the X ring is completely covered under pasters. When I pull them I typically use ¼ of a paster per hole(half of a split square paster). I'm not sure how you even pull and paste a 200-20 and actually know that the Xs really were. This is one of those places electronic targets will be a help. If the target was smaller I can't imagine trying to score Xs.

As to classification, I've said it before, I think that 98% is too easy for HM at mid range (again, for the record I carry a mid-range HM classification)

 

[swed6.5]

Im with the majority, until ties regularly occur, i have a hard time and seam to do well, but there are many that are not as capable as us high masters. If your lucky enough to run with the winning few, thats awsome, i have seen as many 7 and 8s hit with the targets we use today.

 

[dcali]

For TR, absolutely no - the target is fine. For Open, it's getting tough. We had a shooter post a 600-49X at 600. He beat the poor guy who shot a 599-40x. 3rd place was a 595-30x. There were only 13 shooters present in the Open class, and it wasn't a dead calm day - not terribly windy, but not still either. (They happen to be great shooters, but still - 3/13 are basically hammering the x ring all day).

But lets think about unintended consequences. Open (at mid range at least - I don't have much to say about long range) has gotten to the point where you need benchrest quality gear to win at our local club match. A 1/2-ish MOA rifle is no longer good enough. If the targets shrink again, will that just increase emphasis on equipment? Is that desirable? There's no right answer there. My preference is that Open class is too equipment dependent as it is - it's getting more benchresty than highpowery. This may be inevitable regardless of the targets.

Practically speaking, it would be kind of a pain to have to manage two sets of targets. It's doable, but not desirable. So I don't think it's quite "time", but it may be in another couple years.

I also think the classifications are too easy in F class. Not a big deal, but compared to cross course, it's a breeze.

 

[DE-F-Open]

Good discussion:

Here are several data points that may add to this discussion and perhaps generate more discussion. All of this data comes directly from NRA:

I. F-Class Classification Data:
a. Mid-Range : There are currently 5,316 competitors for whom Mid-Range scores have been submitted. There are 646 High Masters which equals approximately 12% of all competitors shooting Mid-Range.
b. Long Range: There are currently 3,526 competitors for whom Long Range scores have been submitted. There are 128 High Masters which equals approximately 3.6% of all competitors shooting Long Range.
c. F-Class Fullbore: There are currently 474 competitors for whom Fullbore scores have been submitted. There are 17 High Masters which equals approximately 3.5% of all competitors shooting F-Class Fullbore.
d. There is a combined aggregate of 9316 individual F-Class competitor records on file with NRA ( all F-Class disciplines combined) of which 791 are High Masters which is approximately 8% of the total number of combined files.

II. National Records: (Taken from the NRA web site - I hope I copied it accurately)

300 yards: The current F-Class national record at 300 yards = 200-20x which was initially set on 6/21/14 and then tied by one (1) other individual on 1/17/16 - that means two (2) people have set/tied this record
500 yards: The current F-Class national record at 500 yards = 200-18x which was first set on 9/9/12 and then tied on 8/9/15 and tied again on 10/27/15 - that means that three (3) people have set/tied this record
600 yards: The current F-Class national record at 600 yards is 200-19x which was first set on 8/25/12 and then tied by various individuals on 6/22/14; 10/12/14; 8/30/15; and 9/27/15 - that means that a total of five (5) separate individuals have set/tied this national record
1,000 yards: The current F-Class national record at 1,000 yards is 200-17x which was first set on 7/27 15 and then tied again by the same shooter on 9/10/15 - which means that the current record holder holds this record by himself.
F-Class Palma Course: The current F-Class Palma Course national Record is 450-28x which was first set on 12/7/14 and then tied on 3/20/16 - which means two (2) people set/tied this record.

I hope this data adds to the current discussion and perhaps generates further discussion.

John

 

[Chris Few]

I shot the same match as Keith this past weekend. This was the first time I have competed in an F-class event. I had a blast shooting it and watching the other guys shoot. For Immike's question about being rich my response to that is maybe not rich but have a good paying job. I started building the rifle i used in February and completed it in March after about $2500. I went and watched a match at the same range i shot at and saw that i needed even more equipment yet. So i spent another $2300 or so on the other things i needed to give myself a decent opportunity of competing with these guys. After seeing Keith's setup as well as a couple of the other guys there i found out real fast that the stuff i had spent all of that money on was just an entry level investment into this sport.

 

[nosualc]

No need to change the rules as long as the rules can determine a winner.

As DE-F-Open mentions above, at 500 and 600 yards, there has never (yet) been a single perfect (20x +) shot in a registered NRA tournament. Perfect scores are shot in perfect or near perfect conditions, which are rare enough, even on "easy" ranges.

It is of course, likely an eventuality, but we're a ways off.

-nosualc

ps - Agreed that 300 should be dropped. At our club we've stopped shooting F-Class @ 300, as it's too rough on the targets.

 

[Erud]

Good discussion:

Here are several data points that may add to this discussion and perhaps generate more discussion. All of this data comes directly from NRA:

I. F-Class Classification Data:
a. Mid-Range : There are currently 5,316 competitors for whom Mid-Range scores have been submitted. There are 646 High Masters which equals approximately 12% of all competitors shooting Mid-Range.
b. Long Range: There are currently 3,526 competitors for whom Long Range scores have been submitted. There are 128 High Masters which equals approximately 3.6% of all competitors shooting Long Range.
c. F-Class Fullbore: There are currently 474 competitors for whom Fullbore scores have been submitted. There are 17 High Masters which equals approximately 3.5% of all competitors shooting F-Class Fullbore.
d. There is a combined aggregate of 9316 individual F-Class competitor records on file with NRA ( all F-Class disciplines combined) of which 791 are High Masters which is approximately 8% of the total number of combined files.

I don't think that this particular data is very useful, as it appears to include every shooter that has ever turned in a score card at an F-class match. This means folks who just tried it one time and never came back, folks who shot a few matches and then lost interest, and lots of other scenarios where shooters did not shoot long enough to gain any real skill, and thus, higher classifications. If you look only at active competitive shooters, the percentages of MA and HM shooters is much higher.

I know that at local matches, MA and HM typically make up half or more of the shooters present. I'm a sling shooter, and it's much the same in my discipline. In MR prone, a crazy percentage are HM's and it's close to that in LR too. I don't know if that's really a bad thing or not, but I wouldn't mind seeing the cut percentages ratcheted up a bit to give a little separation between the classes in our game.