Future of AR-Tactical Poll

[kzin]

What should NRA do with this class when it is reviewed in January?

1. Drop it from the book altogether.

2. Keep as is.

3. Make it a full class.


If you vote 3 are there any changes that MUST go along with it?

 

[GSS]

I vote 3
Make it a full recognized class with current caliber and other restrictions

BUT.....
They should shoot on F Class Targets
They should be allowed to use Bob Sled Magazines to single load

Note:
I'm just a sling / service rifle shooter and I have no interest in shooting this class but I am also a match director and manager of our 600 yard range and i think this class has the potential to grow attendance.

It will be interesting to see how much interest there is in this class by the number of responses this poll gets.

Hopefully people clarify if they intend to actually compete in this class

OR.. If they just want to see it Succeed or Go Away

 

[kzin]

I'm hoping it goes full. I've had enough of it as a provisional class. I'll either make it my main class or drop it.

I don't care which targets - current or f - all that changes is numbers.

I want the mag requirement CLARIFIED. Mag length and must be cycled through a normal mag or single load with sled allowed. I don't care which.

If it becomes a championship class then made-for-the-class 6 or 6.5 uppers become a requirement and the value of the class as an 'introductory' class goes way down.

 

[Mr. Ten-X]

Turn it over to the CMP seeing as NRA matches are dying. CMP understands rifle matches and how shooters operate. At least they will put together some rules that are fair, actually make sense and will draw more shooters.

 

[Herzo]

#3.
I'm late to the game, but the one match that I shot was a hoot. I can see going to the F class targets and allowing the Bob sled would be a good idea. Mag length ammo should be maintained though.
I'm not certain but what 12X is not a little high but probably should be kept if they go to the tighter target. 6 or 8X might be good for the MR1.
Whether the AR 10's have a substantial advantage, I cannot say, but I felt a little like I was "gaming" with my 6.5 Grendel.

 

[memilanuk]

FWIW, I've never seen anyone shooting in this category at any MR match I've shot in to date.

I've thought about it, but just always seem to need to run one of my dedicated FTR guns for load testing, practice, whatever.

Why they opted for not allowing a SLED is weird.

I definitely think the F-class target would be more appropriate. Sure, they're shooting from a folding bipod and a rear bean bag - which, gosh, sounds an *awful* lot like the gear we used in the early days of FTR. Yes, the scores will be lower - unless the ARs really *are* as good as some would claim

 

[jrh84]

#3
Make it it's own class, or a new division of F-class, but PLEASE get someone competant to re-write the rules. To me, the spirit of the class was to have 2.260" ammo. Clarify that, and allow Bob sled or single shot followers. Separate the .223/5.56 from everything else so it doesn't get gamed too much.

Promote the dang thing, and get the bazillion rifles that have been bought in the last 11 years out of the safes and on a >100 yard range.

 

[Nowhere Man]

#3. F Class targets, no scope restrictions, no trigger restrictions or mag restrictions. And no barrel length restriction. Let them load as long as they want. Let's see what these guns are capable of. As an MD the last thing I want to do is weigh triggers and measure the length of someone's ammo.

 

[Mastershot]

#3 for me too, but lets make this a open class. Unlimited everything, including the bags, bipod, scope, mags, possible rest. I shoot this match the way it is currently structured. If you ask me its getting boring and people are loosing interest.

 

[Monte F]

#3, I was one of the first to shoot it at our matches. We now have 3-5 shooters at each club match. I think clarifying the ammo length to keep with the "spirit" of the class. Either smaller targets or lower power scopes to make it harder to clean the target ( I thought the 12X rule was enough for the targets in use) . We already have "built" rifles in 6mm to be competitive and be within the rules as they are now. Could turn into an arms race if rules are relaxed too much and discourage new shooters, or have two classes (current and open).

 

[JCUtah]

#3. If the intent is to get new shooters to a match, or using tactical as a bridge to other comps then keep the sling target. The sling targets may create higher scores but high scores are not cleans and shooters feel they are doing well with room to improve. Our range is probably on the moderate scale of wind most of the time and it keeps things challenging enough to hold intrest.

The matches I have run, it seems tactical is about having fun. Tactical is still going strong. It's brought a few "regulars" every match.

Scores can be seen here:
Wasatchrifeclub.com

Even if the NRA drops it, I'll keep it alive here. Shooters are showing up.

 

[Ned Ludd]

I would vote for #1 or #2, simply because as Monte noted, I have never shot a MR match where a single shooter from this class was even present. I recognize that the folks that DO shoot in this classification might not be too happy about that, however. In contrast, I have seen quite a few people using ARs in F-TR, which were set up for that purpose, primarily with longer than normal barrels. In many cases, they did pretty well. The only issue I would envision might become an issue with #3 is if it became mandatory to include the classification with awards at every F-Class match held. I guess you could get around that by stipulating there must be a minimum number of shooters in a given classification to warrant an award, but it is not always possible to know how many shooters will sign up well in advance when the awards may need to be ordered.

I'm not trying to step on anyone's toes or intentionally exclude shooters that participate and enjoy this class, but it hasn't seemed to have caught on universally like I expect the NRA folks were thinking it might. Unless the participation level warrants inclusion, it just seems like potentially more headache to insist it become a standard sub-classification within F-Class.

 

[Mastershot]

#3. If the intent is to get new shooters to a match, or using tactical as a bridge to other comps then keep the sling target. The sling targets may create higher scores but high scores are not cleans and shooters feel they are doing well with room to improve. Our range is probably on the moderate scale of wind most of the time and it keeps things challenging enough to hold intrest.

The matches I have run, it seems tactical is about having fun. Tactical is still going strong. It's brought a few "regulars" every match.

Scores can be seen here:
Wasatchrifeclub.com

Even if the NRA drops it, I'll keep it alive here. Shooters are showing up.

Justin

Missed you at our 600y mid range match last month. Hope everything is good, your favorite target puller.

Brian

 

[Andy Legg]

#3

I'd like to see as many AR15's as possible get out of the closet/gun safe and out to the Range. This class it a great place to do it. I wouldn't want to have someone feel like the needed to spend a fortune to come play.

I'd bet most AR's in those closets are 20"(or less) .223/5.56 rifles. To keep it competitive and prevent gaming....I would restrict to .223/5.56 Only. Also, the 77 grain .223 at 600 yards is not a bad place to learn to read wind.

The Scope rule is probably good as is(Most folks already own something that would work or if they had to buy a legal scope it could be done very inexpensively). I shot a 199 last month at 600 with a 3-9 Nikon P223(<$200 scope w/mount included).

In the interest of keeping it simple and not excluding some of those rifles in the closet.....I would drop trigger restrictions & not worry about the Mag Length Ammo(I agree with Nowhere Man...MD's have quite a bit going on already & we don't need to add anything else).

I'd most likely leave the targets alone. Going to an F-Class Target wouldn't really bother me, but most AR15's won't shoot better than 1moa with any repeatability(think 20 shot strings). I have shot a couple 1/2 moa 3-5 shot groups.....just not a 20 or 60 shot string.

I would hate to see someone dive off into the class and spend a bunch of money that could be spent on putting a nice F-TR rig together. I'd recommend the class as a good place to start and then move up when your ready.​

 

[1shot]

#3 for me as well, but lets make this a open class. Unlimited everything, including the bags, bipod, scope, mags. I'd shoot this match the way it is currently structured.
I shot a match last year using a AR10 Target that was gathering dust in the vault and it was a nice change from strapping up with a sling and coat.

Lloyd

 

[Sniper338]

Id love to see an AR15 F-class open division

 

[Andy Legg]

#3 for me as well, but lets make this a open class. Unlimited everything, including the bags, bipod, scope, mags. I'd shoot this match the way it is currently structured.
I shot a match last year using a AR10 Target that was gathering dust in the vault and it was a nice change from strapping up with a sling and coat.

Lloyd

How about....AR-TAC & AR-OPEN?

 

[dcali]

I would vote for #1 or #2, simply because as Monte noted, I have never shot a MR match where a single shooter from this class was even present. I recognize that the folks that DO shoot in this classification might not be too happy about that, however. In contrast, I have seen quite a few people using ARs in F-TR, which were set up for that purpose, primarily with longer than normal barrels. In many cases, they did pretty well. The only issue I would envision might become an issue with #3 is if it became mandatory to include the classification with awards at every F-Class match held. I guess you could get around that by stipulating there must be a minimum number of shooters in a given classification to warrant an award, but it is not always possible to know how many shooters will sign up well in advance when the awards may need to be ordered.

I'm not trying to step on anyone's toes or intentionally exclude shooters that participate and enjoy this class, but it hasn't seemed to have caught on universally like I expect the NRA folks were thinking it might. Unless the participation level warrants inclusion, it just seems like potentially more headache to insist it become a standard sub-classification within F-Class.

It's basically what I shot unofficially at that one ENGC match this year. It was a lot of fun - I wouldn't shoot it exclusively or give up F Class, but I'd definitely do it again. I'd like to see it take off, but I'm not sure making it a full class would do it. Either people like it or they won't. What it does allow for is shooters to have an f class like experience while shooting a very basic rifle even with factory ammo without being at a severe disadvantage. It really is just F Class, though. I know the rules say it's not, but it sure quacks like a duck.

 

[Dgd6mm]

I haven't shot it yet, but have intentions of doing so. I'll vote #3. I'll roll with the flow as far as rules go. I'm good with whatever.

 

[Cochran]

I haven’t shot it either but I’m interested in it. Eventually I’ll get my AR put together.
I don’t care which target but prefer it be .223 only. I strongly believe if it’s single loaded then any length and sleds should be allowed. If it’s limited to mag length then it should be fed from loaded mags