F-Class now has it's own Rules Book (2024)

[mike mccormick]

The HP rule that allegedly prohibits free recoil was written by sling shooters to regulate sling shooters.
Innovators were tucking the butt into their jacket or otherwise hooking it so they made a rule that it "must be held against the outside". Nobody was concerned that a sling competitor might hold the gun OFF their shoulder. It only sounds that way to those who disregard the context.

No....it wasn't. I want someone to explain ti me exactly how you would shoot prone without the rifle in your shoulder, or how that would be an advantage if one could

 

[kzin]

If we took the history and spirit statement seriously we would need to ROLL BACK the equipment rules a great deal. No micro-adjustable front rests and no rear bags with ears to guide the rifle. Use something to support the front of the rifle but control it with your body, not the gear. More like the Vintage Sniper or AR Tactical rules.

That's not going to happen so we appease the fundamentalists with arbitrary and unenforceable PC rules .

Meanwhile ICFRA is accepting f-class as a new sport with it's own characteristics.

 

[kzin]

No....it wasn't. I want someone to explain ti me exactly how you would shoot prone without the rifle in your shoulder, or how that would be an advantage if one could

The rule predates f-class so it was manifestly created to regulate sling shooting.
What you say is exactly how we know the point wasn't to stop people from holding the butt out from their shoulder. Nobody sane would.
"HOLD the butt against the OUTSIDE of the shoulder".
Hold only, because people were using hooks or pockets to support the butt.
Outside, because people were tucking the butt inside the coat to support it.

 

[Rank Amateur]

I'm always interested in the "why" behind rules. Similar to questions about free recoil, may I ask about the intent behind the rule prohibiting a 'table"? Specifically, the rules read:

(1) No more than two rests may be used. If two rests are employed, they may not be attached to each other and the rear rest must be a rear bag.
(2) The use of “tables”, i.e., a single flat solid surface extending un- der both front rest and rear bag is prohibited.

I believe the intent here is to prohibit one-piece rests as the front and rear rests cannot connect to each other. The prohibition in #2 above, however, probably needs to be thought through and re-worded? If a single flat solid surface beneath both rest and bag is intended to prohibit shooting from a table/bench, then how does this wording NOT prohibit shooting from a concrete pad? The slab of concrete that is the shooting platform at many firing lines is FAR more stable than boards or tables or benches, and contrary to this rule, obviously extends under both front rest and rear bag. Are concrete firing points not permitted in F-Class?

 

[Keith Glasscock]

If we took the history and spirit statement seriously we would need to ROLL BACK the equipment rules a great deal. No micro-adjustable front rests and no rear bags with ears to guide the rifle. Use something to support the front of the rifle but control it with your body, not the gear. More like the Vintage Sniper or AR Tactical rules.

That's not going to happen so we appease the fundamentalists with arbitrary and unenforceable PC rules .

Meanwhile ICFRA is accepting f-class as a new sport with it's own characteristics.

Taking that one step farther - E-targets?

 

[Rset]

I am going to shoot under whatever rules are in effect at the time of the competition I am shooting as long as I shoot a particular discipline, period.
I will complain about changes and I will question the motives of those that make the rules, period.
When the rules make my experience no longer enjoyable, I will move on to another experience. period.
I might suggest that the NRA stop the fight with the rest of the world now that we actually have an F-Class only rule book and that we adopt ICFRA rules. Seems to work for the rest of the world, and if you ever want a world title, you are going to have to adapt anyway.

 

[BP1]

I'm always interested in the "why" behind rules. Similar to questions about free recoil, may I ask about the intent behind the rule prohibiting a 'table"? Specifically, the rules read:

(1) No more than two rests may be used. If two rests are employed, they may not be attached to each other and the rear rest must be a rear bag.
(2) The use of “tables”, i.e., a single flat solid surface extending un- der both front rest and rear bag is prohibited.

I believe the intent here is to prohibit one-piece rests as the front and rear rests cannot connect to each other. The prohibition in #2 above, however, probably needs to be thought through and re-worded? If a single flat solid surface beneath both rest and bag is intended to prohibit shooting from a table/bench, then how does this wording NOT prohibit shooting from a concrete pad? The slab of concrete that is the shooting platform at many firing lines is FAR more stable than boards or tables or benches, and contrary to this rule, obviously extends under both front rest and rear bag. Are concrete firing points not permitted in F-Class?

You handicapped people are always complaining..lol just kidding, we’ll see you Saturday

 

[kzin]

Taking that one step farther - E-targets?

I'm not up on what the issues are there. Delay?

I simply won't shoot pits so I'm very accepting of whatever details of etarget use allow me to avoid it.

 

[Keith Glasscock]

I'm not up on what the issues are there. Delay?

I simply won't shoot pits so I'm very accepting of whatever details of etarget use allow me to avoid it.

Here we go, another sacred cow - Anybody want a steak?

History and spirit. E-targets didn't exist 10-12 years ago, much less when F-class came into being.

We can say we are all about keeping the fundamental nature of F-class intact, but what does it say when we have rules that allow E-targets? The nature and limitations of E-targets have fundamentally altered the game in many places.

Don't even get me started on the degradation of pit-pulling skills.

 

[sfinn1]

A few points that stand out on first look:

As far as electronics, this is the only mention in the book that I found

View attachment 1521774
Other newly added items I found as well
View attachment 1521773
View attachment 1521772

From what I'm interpreting, is that electronic levels would be legal. They are not communication nor audio device. They are a convenience and not an advantage over bubble levels.

 

[Rank Amateur]

You handicapped people are always complaining..lol just kidding, we’ll see you Saturday

I had to find some way to leverage my victimhood . Looking forward to having you kick my a$$ again Saturday!

 

[Rset]

Here we go, another sacred cow - Anybody want a steak?

History and spirit. E-targets didn't exist 10-12 years ago, much less when F-class came into being.

We can say we are all about keeping the fundamental nature of F-class intact, but what does it say when we have rules that allow E-targets? The nature and limitations of E-targets have fundamentally altered the game in many places.

Don't even get me started on the degradation of pit-pulling skills.

Impact!

 

[davidjoe]

Kzin, I know Keith’s view on etargets well. He seeks the tightest shooting performance from his guns. A lot of effort and expense accompanies testing to wring that accuracy out. Keith has seen performance errors with etargets, just nominal operation errors, that vary enough from actual impact that the point of top quality components and advanced load development is undermined. Further in cases of the rare but possible more extreme disparity, the outcome of the match will/could change. Most of our matches are distant. I’m typing on I-10 right now. It can tip the scales, depending.

Keith isn’t wrong, and he’s further vexed that it’s impossible to resolve doubts in normal etarget matches as the face is obliterated with holes. I’ll say this about them, my most enthusiastic club shooters are a generation older than I am. My club match Sunday, where I set up and take down for the match myself, had zero shooters except myself who were not seniors or grand. About half the regulars are Vietnam vets. One of them Sunday shot a 197-11, his best score ever, winning that match, and I could see the immense satisfaction in his face. That was heartwarming. It will lift his spirit for weeks, that performance of his. Improving now reinforces his confidence in so many ways, as age challenges us all in so many others. He wouldn’t be able to pull targets at the latitude of Miami, in south Texas, anymore.

The club seniors pushed me hard. I won by a point. They are as important in my mind to Fclass as the three that will stand on the podium, Sunday.

 

[ronsatspokane]

Interesting points of view that often orbit the "spirit" ideal. If I understood the intent of the return-to-battery prohibition, it was to disallow mechanical devices that would return the rifle to battery for the shooter. If that intent was to disallow any device or material that would move the rifle forward after the shot, then the only permissible butt materials would be a solid, hard endplate. Any flexible material (such as rubber) deforms under load and then returns to it's original shape. This results in rubber buttpads "pushing" the rifle toward battery after each shot just like a RAD, just to a lesser degree. RAD devices do not return the rifle to battery any more than any other rubber or sorbothane or ?? material. I think this highlights the need to define thresholds for rule clarity. If a RAD (or heaven forbid a RAD with attached sorbothane pad - grin) somehow violates the rule, then we need to define the specific amount of deformation/rebound that is permitted. IF the intent is to maintain the purity of the "spirit" of F-Class, then rules will have to be written in absolutes (Buttstocks may not terminate in energy-absorbing pads or attachments of any kind).

I agree. Or just make open open and drop the "spirit of" rhetoric.

That said, I'd love to see the look on the face of anyone shooting 300 WSM with a steel butt plate at the end of the third 20 round string of the day. I shot one in a couple of matches with a recoil pad and it's hard to not start flinching.

 

[Pres100]

Here we go, another sacred cow - Anybody want a steak?

History and spirit. E-targets didn't exist 10-12 years ago, much less when F-class came into being.

We can say we are all about keeping the fundamental nature of F-class intact, but what does it say when we have rules that allow E-targets? The nature and limitations of E-targets have fundamentally altered the game in many places.

Don't even get me started on the degradation of pit-pulling skills.

I really don't have a dog in this fight at all, but I'm pretty sure that E targets were around 10 years ago .... may not have been very common but they were being used. I remember shooting some 300M prone matches on E targets at MRRC around 10 years ago??

 

[swd]

E targets are probably a topic for another thread but I’m not sure which is worse, the small error the e target has or a guy giving you 20-30 second pit service while the guy next to you is getting 6-10 second service.. I’ve been on both sides of that.

The “Spirit of F Class” is VERY subjective. My opinion is as long as it’s shot prone off a bi pod or front rest with a separate rear bag in a High Power format then it is. It’s OK for it to evolve into what we shooters want. After all we’re the ones traveling and spending the money and doing it.

 

[ronsatspokane]

Here we go, another sacred cow - Anybody want a steak?

History and spirit. E-targets didn't exist 10-12 years ago, much less when F-class came into being.

We can say we are all about keeping the fundamental nature of F-class intact, but what does it say when we have rules that allow E-targets? The nature and limitations of E-targets have fundamentally altered the game in many places.

Don't even get me started on the degradation of pit-pulling skills.

The folks in Phoenix are sharpening their target pulling skills presently.

And their shooting skills. Tod Hendricks wins mid-range F Open, Tom Hubbard wins FTR. Don't mess with those Northwest shooters and whatever you do, don't drop a point in that F Open crowd.

 

[kzin]

I improve the average target pulling proficiency by not doing it.

 

[Keith Glasscock]

I really don't have a dog in this fight at all, but I'm pretty sure that E targets were around 10 years ago .... may not have been very common but they were being used. I remember shooting some 300M prone matches on E targets at MRRC around 10 years ago??

I remember membrane-style E-targets back in 1996 at the Wolf Creek Complex during olympic trials. They didn't appear in F-class until much, much later. It wasn't that they didn't exist.

 

[Fuj]

Yinz need to add a new class......Call it F-Outlaw or F-Unlimited. Or for
that matter, a whole new organization like what UBR and Freedom did.