2023 NRA HP rules .... Suppressors in AR Tactical

[Ned Ludd]

Cool story bro. If you lose to someone with a suppressor, shoot better next time. Or go shoot service rifle or palma you want a level playing field.

Spare us your pompous BS about shooting better against someone that has an equipment advantage, just because you happen to like this particular rule. I could easily make the statement that the AR Tactical discipline isn't even needed; they should just shoot in F-Class and if they don't win, they should just shoot better next time. However, such a statement would be equally ludicrous. This IS about the rules being the same for everyone, exactly as Warren stated. A suppressor constitutes an advantage in terms of mitigating recoil, and it is not even remotely questionable that it does. Unfortunately, not everyone can have one, and thus this rule actually enables an unfair advantage for certain participants. That is NOT how the rules are supposed to work. This is one of those things that if you let it happen once because too many people claim it's no big deal, it can happen again and again. By the time a rule gets passed that directly affects enough people that might actually complain and make a difference, it's too late to do anything about it. That is why you NEVER go down this road.

In the grand scheme of things, I don't care in the least what rules they pass or don't pass in AR Tactical. No one shoots that discipline around where I live, and I have no interest whatsoever in it myself. Nonetheless, it appears as though the same level of village idiocy is being applied to updating rules for this class as appears to have been done with the recent F-Class rules updates. So even though I have no intent of shooting AR Tactical, I feel compelled to ask WTF is really going with NRA and these rules updates?

 

[karrarararararar]

Spare us your pompous BS about shooting better against someone that has an equipment advantage, just because you happen to like this particular rule. This IS about the rules being the same for everyone, exactly as Warren stated. A suppressor constitutes an advantage in terms of mitigating recoil, and it is not even remotely questionable that it does. Unfortunately, not everyone can have one, and thus this rule actually enables an unfair advantage for certain participants. That is NOT how the rules are supposed to work. This is one of those things that if you let it happen once because too many people claim it's no big deal, it can happen again and again. By the time a rule gets passed that directly affects enough people that might actually complain and make a difference, it's too late to do anything about it. That is why you NEVER go down this road.

In the grand scheme of things, I don't care in the least what rules they pass or don't pass in AR Tactical. No one shoots that discipline around where I live, and I have no interest whatsoever in it myself. Nonetheless, it appears as though the same level of village idiocy is being applied to updating rules for this class as appears to have been done with the recent F-Class rules updates. So even though I have no intent of shooting AR Tactical, I feel compelled to ask WTF is really going with NRA and these rules updates?

A suppressor isn't going to make wind calls for you. If you lose, it's not because you didn't have a suppressor. At the end of the day, you're shooting slow fire at the sling target off a bipod. If it were rapid fire, I'd be a lot more sympathetic to the argument. I've never shot a prone match and complained I lost because my 308 had more recoil than the next guy's 223/6/6.5.

Suppressor ownership is legal in about 90% of states. If you're in one of the 10% you can't, your state is also probably restricting or trying to restrict ownership of the rifle you would use in this class too. How about the guys in California that can't thinks like adjustable stocks and pistol grips? Should we further restrict the class because of them?

For those that live in the 90%, you can pretty much own one if you can own a gun. You just need to spend to spend the cash and play the waiting game. It's not going to shoot more x's for you though. The old saying is still going to hold true, the best shooter is going to win the match.

As far as thus being a rule that I agree with, I challenge you to find a post where I've spoken out against a rule change.

 

[Bamban]

I never understood why they went 15x max on scopes. 16x max would have taken advantage of the plentiful amount of 4-16x scopes and made more sense

Same reasoning they used why 4.5X on service rifle. Whiskey Tango Foxtrot

 

[XTR]

Same reasoning they used why 4.5X on service rifle. Whiskey Tango Foxtrot

ACOG, they aren’t what gets used but it’s supposed to simulate anyway.

 

[SSchnd]

IL is turning into CA. But instead of Funny looking stocks and funky mag releases, JB (IL gov'ner) here is outright banning the future sale of MSR and anything over 10 round AR mags. Oh did I mention the registration to be effective? And sadly no Cans on weapons has been around before this years wonderful new law signed in the land of Lincoln.
I see AR Tactical fired during MR prone matches in match results frequently. I have not tired it yet.

 

[mgdietrich]

Single fire, AR from bi-pod on a big target. This isn’t my game, I am still a sling guy. If someone wants to look through suppressor mirage after a 20+ shot string have at it.

I don’t have a desire to own a suppressor, nor do I want one. But if it brings someone to try our game, I am good with it. Just keep brakes out, those are no bueno for anyone on the line.

 

[kzin]

A suppressor isn't going to make wind calls for you. If you lose, it's not because you didn't have a suppressor. At the end of the day, you're shooting slow fire at the sling target off a bipod. If it were rapid fire, I'd be a lot more sympathetic to the argument. I've never shot a prone match and complained I lost because my 308 had more recoil than the next guy's 223/6/6.5.

Suppressor ownership is legal in about 90% of states. If you're in one of the 10% you can't, your state is also probably restricting or trying to restrict ownership of the rifle you would use in this class too. How about the guys in California that can't thinks like adjustable stocks and pistol grips? Should we further restrict the class because of them?

For those that live in the 90%, you can pretty much own one if you can own a gun. You just need to spend to spend the cash and play the waiting game. It's not going to shoot more x's for you though. The old saying is still going to hold true, the best shooter is going to win the match.

As far as thus being a rule that I agree with, I challenge you to find a post where I've spoken out against a rule change.

The 8 states plus DC that ban suppressors make up 25-30% of the US population.
Cal NY NJ Ill Ma etc adds up fast.
That's a big chunk of people to just accept an unfair disadvantage because you don't like the class anyway.

And yes, accommodation should be made for AWB states, CMP already does to some degree.
We're rapidly heading to more than half the US population not being able to state-legally shoot an NRA legal AR service rifle.

 

[karrarararararar]

The 8 states plus DC that ban suppressors make up 25-30% of the US population.
Cal NY NJ Ill Ma etc adds up fast.
That's a big chunk of people to just accept an unfair disadvantage because you don't like the class anyway.

And yes, accommodation should be made for AWB states, CMP already does to some degree.
We're rapidly heading to more than half the US population not being able to state-legally shoot an NRA legal AR service rifle.

You missed the point of the question. While the CMP has made accommodations for those is AWB states, those accommodations have not placed further restrictions on those in non-AWB states e.g. I am not required to shoot the "alternative" service rifle because someone else can't own an AR.

 

[Twdmar]

Is there actually, legitimate concern that an AR ,with a supressor will beat an f-class rifle? And if so, how does the suppressor factor in compared to the advantages that a bolt action holds over and AR?

 

[kzin]

Is there actually, legitimate concern that an AR ,with a supressor will beat an f-class rifle? And if so, how does the suppressor factor in compared to the advantages that a bolt action holds over and AR?

No. The suppressed Tactical rifle is still illegal in f-class anyway. And doesn't shoot the same target.
The issue is how much of an advantage a suppressed Tactical rifle has over an unsuppressed Tactical rifle.
Because some of us are legally prevented from having suppressors.
Suppressors aren't like a lot of other technically illegal things that one can dodge around the laws with.
I can own an A2 grip and replace my legal(stupid) grip with it when I leave NY.
That's not going to work with a suppressor.

 

[sfinn1]

I've noticed over the years the jabs of disrespect of one shooting discipline to another. Sure, one has an opinion on the topic. We all are shooting for enjoyment and recreation. Now as far as rule changes, we sometimes do not understand the reasoning by the powers to be. As to AR Tactical, the intent was to give AR owners an avenue to compete who normally would not. It was not intended to be an equipment race. But, the discipline has evolved from it's basic premise. At our club, over 1200 to 1400 members, one can see a plethora of AR rifles at the range. Of all these members, how many are active competitive shooters? Look how popular suppessors are. Let's give them a highpower sport they can shoot. At our club AR Tactical has a good core of shooters at our mid range matches, and they have a good time. Now, I know very little about "advantages of suppressors". My opinion is with a slow fire match, with a low recoil .223 for example, there would be little perceived advantage. In the past, suppressors have been allowed to shoot in "out of competition" in our matches.

 

[Twdmar]

No. The suppressed Tactical rifle is still illegal in f-class anyway. And doesn't shoot the same target.
The issue is how much of an advantage a suppressed Tactical rifle has over an unsuppressed Tactical rifle.
Because some of us are legally prevented from having suppressors.
Suppressors aren't like a lot of other technically illegal things that one can dodge around the laws with.
I can own an A2 grip and replace my legal(stupid) grip with it when I leave NY.
That's not going to work with a suppressor.

I see, I was confused by the concern of f-class competitors about AR rifles. What is the advantage of the supressor then?

 

[kzin]

You missed the point of the question. While the CMP has made accommodations for those is AWB states, those accommodations have not placed further restrictions on those in non-AWB states e.g. I am not required to shoot the "alternative" service rifle because someone else can't own an AR.

The Alternative Rifle was a move to keep things fairly competitive for everyone including ban states triggered by the state bans being passed.

This is a new move away from fair competition from where we've been for several years triggered by nothing in particular. Suppressors have never been legal in highpower. You make it sound like this exception for Tactical only is fixing an injustice of taking them away.

NRA seems generally happy to punish blue state shooters for their state's shitty laws.
They never have adapted an Alternative rule.
I can't legally own an NRA legal AR Service Rifle right now.

 

[kzin]

I see, I was confused by the concern of f-class competitors about AR rifles. What is the advantage of the supressor then?

It can have a brake effect to help manage recoil.

 

[karrarararararar]

The Alternative Rifle was a move to keep things fairly competitive for everyone including ban states triggered by the state bans being passed.

This is a new move away from fair competition from where we've been for several years triggered by nothing in particular. Suppressors have never been legal in highpower. You make it sound like this exception for Tactical only is fixing an injustice of taking them away.

NRA seems generally happy to punish blue state shooters for their state's shitty laws.
They never have adapted an Alternative rule.
I can't legally own an NRA legal AR Service Rifle right now.

"Fairly competitive" is not a level playing field like you guys are arguing for. If it was meant to be a truly level playing field, the rules would be written differently.

As far as never being legal in high power, neither were scopes for xtc 6+ years ago and here we are. This is just another evolution of the of the sport. You can be the guy that still complains about optics on service rifles, but ultimately no one really cares. This will eventually be the same way.

 

[mgdietrich]

Is there actually, legitimate concern that an AR ,with a supressor will beat an f-class rifle? And if so, how does the suppressor factor in compared to the advantages that a bolt action holds over and AR?

They shoot in different categories, on different targets. They are not competing against each other.

 

[Ned Ludd]

I see, I was confused by the concern of f-class competitors about AR rifles. What is the advantage of the supressor then?

A suppressor can mitigate felt recoil by as much as 20-30%. Anyone thinking that such an advantage couldn't make the difference between winning and losing, even with a moderate recoiling cartridge such as the .223 Rem, is living in an alternate reality. These days, matches are often won by only a point or two, sometimes just an "X" or two. Mitigating felt recoil with a suppressor could unquestionably make a difference.

However, that's not the biggest issue IMO. The biggest issue is that not everyone can own a suppressor, and not everyone wants to own one due to the hassle involved, especially if it's solely for the purpose of not giving up an advantage to their competors. Since when does the NRA advocate rules that are not fair and even across the competition? This one is ludicrous. It is not at all the same as competitors choosing to use different cartridges/calibers. First off, that would be a choice, not a necessity. Secondly, every cartridge/bullet combination has its trade-offs in terms of ballistic efficiency and felt recoil. For example, if you choose to use a cartridge capable of handling a larger, heavier, higher BC bullet, you will likely pay the price in terms of increased recoil. If you decide on a lighter, faster, lower BC bullet that is easy to shoot due to lower felt recoil, you might pay a price in terms of increased windage. Either way, that's a personal choice made by the user, not one made out of necessity simply because of a need to keep up with an advantage held by the competitor(s). The bottom line is that use of a suppressor is a totally different animal from the typical kinds of choices we all have to make in the shooting sports, and the real issue here is the making of stupid and capricious rules by the NRA for any of the disciplines in Highpower.

 

[davidjoe]

But, on the other hand, the states against suppressors would be making law for everyone, if the NRA draws national rules according to the most restrictive jurisdictions. What happens when just one state still bans them?

What if a big state like CA limits or bans a whole class of guns like these, or lead in bullets, big rifles cartridges, or junior shooting programs and their awards?

 

[dcali]

In the grand scheme of things, I don't care in the least what rules they pass or don't pass in AR Tactical. No one shoots that discipline around where I live, and I have no interest whatsoever in it myself.

I tried. But everyone kept telling me I was shooting F Class, and that I came in 2nd to last.

 

[dcali]

I don't see the big advantage a supressor adds to an AR, to be honest. I just like my hearing and those flash hiders can get a bit loud under the right conditions. I would like to see the whole class cleaned up and given a proper standard. It's a lot of fun. I'd love to see them keep mag length ammo and also allow SLEDs, but that's just me. There's something to be said for avoiding the ballistics arms race and just shooting 77s with everyone else. The targets are too big, but the f class targets are too small. Not sure if it's worth a new target, but the big ones are probably good enough for the class (as I envision it at least).