Acceptable Range Restrictions for International F-Class World Championships?

[ThunderDownUnder]

In Australia at the moment there is concern over range restrictions that apply to a couple of our best suited international competition rifle ranges.

This question is really for F-Open shooters although it may possibly effect some really hot F T/R loads as well. The range restrictions in place at Belmont, (best suited international range in Australia, Qld) have a Muzzle Energy limit of a very low 3500ft-lb. To put this in perspective, it limits 230gr bullets to approx 2600fps, 215gr bullets to 2700fps and 180gr bullets to 2960fps.

I personally shoot the 30 cal 230gr hybrids at a very tame 2850fps from a 300WM case, this is my competition load. I have fellow F-Open shooters using 7mm RSAUM with 180gr hybrids launching at over 3100fps for their match loads. We have an assortment downunder of magnum 30cals, (300WSM, 300WM)and 7mm's, (RSAUM, WSM) all shooting competitively in F-Open but unable to shoot at Belmont with current match loads.

We have a set of ICFRA rules which provide for calibre and load restrictions. When a country has a severe range restriction in place the whole character of F-Open is changed to that of a restricted, not OPEN category. Canada has a range restriction in place at Connaught but it pales into insignificance next to Belmont's Muzzle Energy restriction.

The question I'm asking for your input on is just how far can a country go with range restrictions and still host an international event like the F-Class World Championships?

Ian

 

[XTR]

I think it comes down to whether or not the powers that be award them the match. In this case I'd hope that they would not. If the sanctioning body says the match is at X, and X limits us to 1200FPs, well then we're F'd... The IFCRA needs to not award the worlds to a range that so limits loadings.

 

[Keith Glasscock]

I disagree.

Those limits would be within the load windows of several competitive cartridges. We are not having a race, instead it is a wind reading contest.

Just my opinion

 

[memilanuk]

The limits sound just fine... from an F/TR stand point.

Just kidding... mostly

A couple cycles back in Bisley, the MoD rules for the range specified 'high muzzle energy' restrictions for caliber/bullet combinations over a certain level. Ironically, a 6.5-284 slipped under just fine. Some F/TR loads with a 155 running hot (as in 'nuclear') had to be 'de-tuned' to stay under the limit. I think the folks running 7mm short mags and such did end up having to jump thru the hoops if they wanted to play. If I recall correctly, there were some allowances made - competitors only had to go thru the HME qualification process once for the entire event, or something of that nature. I was shooting a B155.5BT @ 2950fps (warm, but not even remotely 'hot') so it wasn't something I worried about.

Would it be the end of the world for the F-Open crowd to throttle back a bit for the sake of a more accessible venue? Seems like it might not hurt, but y'all do like pushing the envelope...

 

[RalfyB]

Hi Thunderdownunder

Don't know where your getting your restriction info from but I am shooting a rum 300 and 230 berger hybrids at ssaa belmont qld Aus and have had no problem what so ever, in fact there is a sign on the window of the sign in office that states clearly that the only calibers that cannot be shot are 338 lapua, 460 steyr, 408 cheytac and 416 barrett also I have a mate who shoots benchrest on the cannonhill range at the other side of the belmont range and he uses 300wm with 230s also and some of the blokes there are running weatherby magnums with 230s so I think maybe someone has gave you the wrong info.

I am going to belmont tomorrow and know the main range officer involved I will ask what the go is, the mate from the benchrest shooting will also be there testing so he may have more info.

 

[280man]

They can go as far as the DCRA in Ottawa has because they have been awarded the 2017 match.

 

[280man]

http://www.icfra.co.uk/FCWC_conditions_2014_final.pdf

Follow the link for the match conditions. Read FC7

 

[Jay Christopherson]

Would it be the end of the world for the F-Open crowd to throttle back a bit for the sake of a more accessible venue? Seems like it might not hurt, but y'all do like pushing the envelope...

Personally, I would view it just part of the game, just another challenge to be better at. You improvise, you adapt, you overcome, right? But, that's just me - I like to tinker, for better or worse. I could certainly see the point where someone with a world-class load doesn't want to have to worry about range limitations requiring a change.

 

[gaboon]

How would they enforce those rules. Put everyone on a chrono.

 

[280man]

Yes that is one way the host country can inspect a competitors ammo.

 

[dannyjbiggs]

Considering the petered out blog “Switchbarrel Options for F-Open” under “BIG Stuff—“, and some of the comments there that may be applicable here; it might just be time for the ICFRA committee to standardize a cartridge, and bullet weight, for F-Class Open to accommodate lowest common denominator range limitations at the various countries; and, in so doing, standardize competitive advantage? (It has been done for Palma/fullbore shooting…not for range limitations I believe; but, to standardize competitive advantage.) It could be a simple coin toss between the popular Winchester .284 and the .284 Shehane, and the common 180 grain bullet?

That might level out the Open rifle arsenal advantage that competitors strategically choose to amass, in accord within their personal means…and to regulate “competitive advantage”? In the Switchbarrel blog, I mentioned my philosophy of bringing “enough gun”. I was implying to “bring more than enough gun” to be the most competitive as possible. For two or more competitors with common wind-reading skills in F-Open, the advantage generally flows to who brought the “most gun”, all--things--considered, to the yard line. And, a competitor with lesser wind-reading skill might achieve par, or better, using “more than enough gun”? Nothing’s new here for the majority of you. Standardizing the cartridge/bullet weight would taper competition down to raw wind reading skills (like Palma/fullbore), and help eliminate the confusion as to what cartridge/bullet can be shot here or there, if that is what the F-Open shooting sport wants?

I’m sure this issue might be just as controversial as the heated discussion on standardizing a bullet weight for F-TR was a few months back!?

Danny Biggs

 

[1KBR]

I was talking with an Aussie buddy of mine and he tells me the limits at the range in Australia you mentioned were slightly more restrictive than Connaught if you shoot 180gn 7mm, but identical to Connaught if you shoot the new 195gn 7mm (when it comes out) due to a different way of doing the calculations. (something like 2840 fps for 195gn 7mm). He did say the 30s are restricted more, but not sure how much.

I don't think Open class should be restricted too much, hell it is open class, but like others mention, if it is just for a World Championship and the restrictions are not excessive, well some kind of limit might level the playing field, though unless it is a tricky range, probably wont make much difference in scores. I certainly hope they don't try to mandate certain cartridges, that would take the tinkering and innovation out of the sport. With my budget I cant afford to run to much of a barrel burner, but then I cant afford to travel overseas for a world championship either.

 

[Steve Blair]

Considering the petered out blog “Switchbarrel Options for F-Open” under “BIG Stuff—“, and some of the comments there that may be applicable here; it might just be time for the ICFRA committee to standardize a cartridge, and bullet weight, for F-Class Open to accommodate lowest common denominator range limitations at the various countries; and, in so doing, standardize competitive advantage? (It has been done for Palma/fullbore shooting…not for range limitations I believe; but, to standardize competitive advantage.) It could be a simple coin toss between the popular Winchester .284 and the .284 Shehane, and the common 180 grain bullet?

That might level out the Open rifle arsenal advantage that competitors strategically choose to amass, in accord within their personal means…and to regulate “competitive advantage”? In the Switchbarrel blog, I mentioned my philosophy of bringing “enough gun”. I was implying to “bring more than enough gun” to be the most competitive as possible. For two or more competitors with common wind-reading skills in F-Open, the advantage generally flows to who brought the “most gun”, all--things--considered. And, a competitor with lesser wind-reading skill might achieve par, or better, using “more than enough gun”? Nothing’s new here for the majority of you. Standardizing the cartridge/bullet weight would taper competition down to raw wind reading skills (like Palma/fullbore) if that is what the F-Open shooting sport wants?

I’m sure this issue might be just as controversial as the heated discussion on standardizing a bullet weight for F-TR was a few months back!?

Danny Biggs

[br]
Sure, and let's change the name to F-Closed while we're at it.

 

[DBailey]

Considering the petered out blog “Switchbarrel Options for F-Open” under “BIG Stuff—“, and some of the comments there that may be applicable here; it might just be time for the ICFRA committee to standardize a cartridge, and bullet weight, for F-Class Open to accommodate lowest common denominator range limitations at the various countries; and, in so doing, standardize competitive advantage? (It has been done for Palma/fullbore shooting…not for range limitations I believe; but, to standardize competitive advantage.) It could be a simple coin toss between the popular Winchester .284 and the .284 Shehane, and the common 180 grain bullet?

That might level out the Open rifle arsenal advantage that competitors strategically choose to amass, in accord within their personal means…and to regulate “competitive advantage”? In the Switchbarrel blog, I mentioned my philosophy of bringing “enough gun”. I was implying to “bring more than enough gun” to be the most competitive as possible. For two or more competitors with common wind-reading skills in F-Open, the advantage generally flows to who brought the “most gun”, all--things--considered. And, a competitor with lesser wind-reading skill might achieve par, or better, using “more than enough gun”? Nothing’s new here for the majority of you. Standardizing the cartridge/bullet weight would taper competition down to raw wind reading skills (like Palma/fullbore) if that is what the F-Open shooting sport wants?

I’m sure this issue might be just as controversial as the heated discussion on standardizing a bullet weight for F-TR was a few months back!?

Danny Biggs

[br]
Sure, and let's change the name to F-Closed while we're at it.

LOL! Good One Steve!

Mr. Biggs
I see your point, but I don't think it will fly.

 

[Turbulent Turtle]

Or we could restrict Worlds to F-TR and say F-Off to F-open.

So many options to choose from...

 

[DBailey]

Or we could restrict Worlds to F-TR and say F-Off to F-open.

So many options to choose from...

Denys, do you really want Mr. Biggs coming back to FTR? ???

 

[Laurie]

The limits sound just fine... from an F/TR stand point.

Just kidding... mostly

A couple cycles back in Bisley, the MoD rules for the range specified 'high muzzle energy' restrictions for caliber/bullet combinations over a certain level. Ironically, a 6.5-284 slipped under just fine. Some F/TR loads with a 155 running hot (as in 'nuclear') had to be 'de-tuned' to stay under the limit. I think the folks running 7mm short mags and such did end up having to jump thru the hoops if they wanted to play. If I recall correctly, there were some allowances made - competitors only had to go thru the HME qualification process once for the entire event, or something of that nature. I was shooting a B155.5BT @ 2950fps (warm, but not even remotely 'hot') so it wasn't something I worried about.

Would it be the end of the world for the F-Open crowd to throttle back a bit for the sake of a more accessible venue? Seems like it might not hurt, but y'all do like pushing the envelope...

The UK MoD gallery range ME limit is 4,500 Joules (3,319 ft/lb) that does see the top end of today's FTR loads fall within it. That's the following MVs for likely bullet weights:


105 3773
110 3687
115 3606
120 3530
125 3458
130 3391
135 3328
140 3268
145 3211
150 3157
155 3106
160 3057
165 3010
170 2966
175 2923
180 2882
185 2843
190 2805
195 2769
200 2734
205 2701
210 2668
215 2637
220 2607
225 2578
230 2550

(In practice anything below 140gn can't exceed it 'legally' anyway as MoD ranges here which includes Bisley ban anything with an MV that exceeds 3,275 fps.

However, higher MEs are permitted through an HME (High Muzzle Energy) zeroing qualification as follows (Bisley Range Safety Regulations):


g Additional Limits on High Muzzle Energy (HME) Firearms

i A High Muzzle Energy (HME) Firearm is defined as any firearm which, using a particular round, develops a muzzle energy (ME) in excess of 4500 J (3,319 ft lb). A special zeroing procedure is required with these firearms before they may be shot at any distance on any range at Bisley. The firearm may be zeroed on the NRA Zero Range using a special target supplied by the Range Office, or at a distance of 200 yards on a special target under the direction of a RCO qualified to conduct HME zeroing (see regulation 5 below).


This is a once per event requirement, even if the fixture lasts two weeks which must be achieved before any long range shooting is done. It's a few shots only which shows that the rifle is zeroed such that a bullet will be contained by the backstop at long ranges and takes only a few minutes unless there is a queue to be certified.

If the Australian restrictions are there for the same reason as in the UK (concerns about very long-range cartridges' bullets travelling outside of the range 'Danger Area' if a shot passes over the backtop) rather than for the life of the range fabric in stopping high terminal enery bullets, I can't see why an HME zero test couldn't be adopted for the FCWC.

 

[ARIZONA_F_CLASS]

Or we could restrict Worlds to F-TR and say F-Off to F-open.

So many options to choose from...

OH DAMN, He went there!!!! LMFAO!!!!!

 

[Bob Sebold]

I don't know, those slow .284's seem to shoot okay for me! That sounds like a good idea-keeping slower loads- not changing the name Steve.

 

[ARIZONA_F_CLASS]

Considering the petered out blog “Switchbarrel Options for F-Open” under “BIG Stuff—“, and some of the comments there that may be applicable here; it might just be time for the ICFRA committee to standardize a cartridge, and bullet weight, for F-Class Open to accommodate lowest common denominator range limitations at the various countries; and, in so doing, standardize competitive advantage? (It has been done for Palma/fullbore shooting…not for range limitations I believe; but, to standardize competitive advantage.) It could be a simple coin toss between the popular Winchester .284 and the .284 Shehane, and the common 180 grain bullet?

That might level out the Open rifle arsenal advantage that competitors strategically choose to amass, in accord within their personal means…and to regulate “competitive advantage”? In the Switchbarrel blog, I mentioned my philosophy of bringing “enough gun”. I was implying to “bring more than enough gun” to be the most competitive as possible. For two or more competitors with common wind-reading skills in F-Open, the advantage generally flows to who brought the “most gun”, all--things--considered. And, a competitor with lesser wind-reading skill might achieve par, or better, using “more than enough gun”? Nothing’s new here for the majority of you. Standardizing the cartridge/bullet weight would taper competition down to raw wind reading skills (like Palma/fullbore) if that is what the F-Open shooting sport wants?

I’m sure this issue might be just as controversial as the heated discussion on standardizing a bullet weight for F-TR was a few months back!?

Danny Biggs

[br]
Sure, and let's change the name to F-Closed while we're at it.

It's OK Steve, You can step up to FTR. You can run 230's as fast as you want!!!