[br]Heavies said:
The BR guys tried this with Hunter class. I'm going out on a limb and say that it did not have the intended effect.
F-T/R Bullet Weight Cap (proposed), discussion.
- Thread starter scaxeman
- Start date
The BR guys tried this with Hunter class. I'm going out on a limb and say that it did not have the intended effect.
I'm not sure about the bullet weight cap but I would like to see the rear bag gone in FT-R. The guns and equipment are quickly becoming F-Open like and allowing a mitt instead of the bag would go a long way to ensuring that FT-R maintains a degree of separation and will be a greater test of skill.
[br]Squad112 said:
Shooting a .308, regardless the bullet weight, at 1000 yards is a test of skill.
Not too change the subject or anything but if you were to chamber for 215's, ended up wanting to drop down could you? To what if it's possible?
To have a good discussion, we should first agree on the objective we are aiming for. Assuming, for the moment, that the objective is to attract and retain NEW shooters, I think the idea of limiting bullet weight is a worthy idea. This will put the emphasis on shooting skills and allow brand new shooters to feel that they can start shooting F-TR without having to purchase any new gear. How can anyone argue this is not a helpful way to encourage new shooters? Let's be honest with each other: the shooting sports are in decline. It is imperative that we get a constant supply of new shooters in the sport and I think limiting the bullet weight is an excellent way to make F-Class accessible to new shooters.
Many folks have said that it does not matter what the rules are because the same top shooters will rise to the top. While true, that is missing the point: it's not about the current crop of shooters. It's about making newbies feel welcome and creating an atmosphere that encourages them to come out and shoot.
We've got F-Open and the rules allow just about anything: all the more reason to have at least one class where "stock"rifles can be used competitively. Some folks have suggested limiting the bullet weight is a form of "shooting socialism" where we are trying to level the playing field. I guess the idea is that with a limited bullet weight now a newbie can defeat a more skilled shooter....does that make any sense whatsoever? If anything, limiting the bullet weight will give a BIGGER advantage to the skilled shooter. BUT, limiting the bullet weight minimizes equipment as a differentiator and that is why it can help bring in new shooters. I know a few top shooters who have moved from F-Open to F-TR specifically because they want to test their shooting skills and not their wallet.
Thanks,
Scott
Many folks have said that it does not matter what the rules are because the same top shooters will rise to the top. While true, that is missing the point: it's not about the current crop of shooters. It's about making newbies feel welcome and creating an atmosphere that encourages them to come out and shoot.
We've got F-Open and the rules allow just about anything: all the more reason to have at least one class where "stock"rifles can be used competitively. Some folks have suggested limiting the bullet weight is a form of "shooting socialism" where we are trying to level the playing field. I guess the idea is that with a limited bullet weight now a newbie can defeat a more skilled shooter....does that make any sense whatsoever? If anything, limiting the bullet weight will give a BIGGER advantage to the skilled shooter. BUT, limiting the bullet weight minimizes equipment as a differentiator and that is why it can help bring in new shooters. I know a few top shooters who have moved from F-Open to F-TR specifically because they want to test their shooting skills and not their wallet.
Thanks,
Scott
[br]Boisblancboy said:
I determined that a .280 freebore is correct for .308 Win and 230 Hybrids. The 215 Hybrid is .094 shorter. If the bullet form is the same, freebore should be ~.185. That should let you shoot 200 Hybrids with no problem and 185 Hybrids with a jump.
Keith Glasscock
Gold $$ Contributor
I'm running .142" for the 200's. The 215's work fine, right at the neck-shoulder junction. The 185's will work too without any major concern. The only bullets that would be tenuous would be the short bearing surface 155's.
If I were trying to run a slower powder, I would want more case space for the 215's.
If I were trying to run a slower powder, I would want more case space for the 215's.
[br]scotharr said:
Well, Scott, if we carry that premise to its logical conclusion, then we would have a spec category in which the competitor must shoot a specific rifle and commercial load, like the mess that Indy car and NASCAR have become. Is the point to address a real issue or make people feel that there is not one? I frequently encourage shooters at South Bay Rod & Gun Club to come shoot with Santa Margarita Gun Club at Camp Pendleton. We have both Mid and Long Range matches and I advise them to start shooting at 600 and then try 1000 when they develop some confidence. That also eliminates problems with rounds going subsonic, etc. We've had three new shooters join us that way and they have been very pleased with their performance. All have either acquired or are building new, purpose-built rifles. [br]
Let's assume that you make me shoot a <156 bullet in matches. I have a Borden single shot action in a Manners T4a carbon fiber stock with a solid mag area, 34" LV contour Bartlein 5R barrel and NF 12-42 NXS 1/8 MOA scope. The rifle shoots .25-.35 with 230's and would probably do better with 155-class bullets. How will that intimidate a beginning shooter any less or put him/her at less of a disadvantage? You know very well that it will likely put their 24" Remington down hard. The F-Class newbies that come out usually shoot factory ammo, at least to start. Can they load ammo as well as an experienced long range shooter? No. IF we were talking about a real problem that could be quantified, like 90% of top 10 F-T/R shooters in Regional and National matches use >200 grain bullets, there would be a rational basis for discussion. We know that is not the current situation and (IMO) not likely to be. [br]
As to the shooting sports in decline; I am not sure that is correct. I cannot locate it but read an article that record numbers of shooters (of all kinds) are participating. There is a lot more attention to tactical/practical pistol and rifle shooting (the prizes are better) but I think the numbers overall are rising.
Keith Glasscock
Gold $$ Contributor
To add to Steve's comments, the new shooter with a 24 or 26" barrel will have serious problems getting a 155 to 1K above transonic. Let's say it is going to be difficult at best. If we allow that shooter to launch heavier bullets, the problem gets better. At about 200 grains, the 26" barrel is equal to or better than a 30" shooting 155's.
I think that it would be better to give that new shooter the chance to reach out and be competetive at 1k. Are they going to be wind-drift-numbers competetive with an over-max 200 grain load out of a 30" barrel? Of course not! Are they going to have a fighting chance? You bet! Limiting them to <156 would make it really, really impossible looking.
Having been a new shooter more recently than most here, I have to say that the heavy bullets are what pushed me from midrange to long range. Had I not given them a try, I'd probably still be thinking of our club 600 yard league as a really difficult competition.
I like Steve's story about muzzle displacement. He is absolutely correct. At 200 and greater, the muzzle moves around more than a little compared to lighter bullets. I've gone to lining up on the number board after each shot then coming down to the target. It is real easy to end up lined up on the next target over.
I think that it would be better to give that new shooter the chance to reach out and be competetive at 1k. Are they going to be wind-drift-numbers competetive with an over-max 200 grain load out of a 30" barrel? Of course not! Are they going to have a fighting chance? You bet! Limiting them to <156 would make it really, really impossible looking.
Having been a new shooter more recently than most here, I have to say that the heavy bullets are what pushed me from midrange to long range. Had I not given them a try, I'd probably still be thinking of our club 600 yard league as a really difficult competition.
I like Steve's story about muzzle displacement. He is absolutely correct. At 200 and greater, the muzzle moves around more than a little compared to lighter bullets. I've gone to lining up on the number board after each shot then coming down to the target. It is real easy to end up lined up on the next target over.
Joe C
Student of the 1911.
So I sat here in my shop smoking a pipe and read this entire thread. It reminds me of a similar situation in NRA Distinguished Revolver. A few years ago when they started the DR matches it was determined that the thing to do was make it so that anyone could compete. So they said you had to shoot a bone stock revolver in .38/.357 (had to shoot .38 special loads) and you HAD to shoot ONLY factory loaded 158g LRN or LSWC. I'll just say it right now, that was stupid. It kept a TON of people away from it because number one, you could hardly find factory loaded ammo and number two the ammo you could find was horrible at 25 yards and at 50 yards it was nearly impossible to keep them in the black regardless of the gun used.
Fast forward a few years and someone got wise. Now you can shoot "stock" revolvers in .38/.357 (still have to shoot .38's). BUT, you can reload your own ammo as long as it is a 158g RN or SWC. Now TONS of people are shooting it doing very well and getting distinguished. It has brought quite a few shooters back to the sport because while they may have earned their Service Pistol Distinguished they now have something new to strive for in the sport. In the end, opening up the rules did more good than stifling them.
Personally, I'm not in favor of "limiting" rules. Hey, if I want to go out and spend $5k on a rifle just to shoot a heavy bullet that is going to allow me to buck the wind while it beats the living crap out of me because that is my idea of a great time even if I stink because of it, who are you to tell me I can't "waste my money"? Is this a target sport or not? Do you see pistol shooters whining and saying, "That guy uses a red dot" or "That guy has a shift stick for movers", or "That guy uses a 9mm in center fire instead of a .45acp"? No. You see, as others have pointed out, those who are willing to practice, regardless of their wallet, be it dry fire, small bore, or whatever, winning. People need to learn to look out for themselves. They don't need someone standing over their shoulder saying, "Now, now boys and girls. You don't want to use that bullet because it may cost you extra money and you can't shoot it a 300 yards very good." Let folks alone and let them learn how they choose.
BUT, if you are going to make bullet weight an issue, why not say 210 grains is the cut off so that the guys and gals that shoot the 208's and enjoy them are not shorted for their CHOICE of bullet. Heck, you could even just have a F-T/R "Heavy" class for bullets over 210. Kind of like USPSA where they have Stock, Limited, Limited 10, Minor, Open, etc...But ya, in my opinion saying, you can't shoot this or that weight is a bit stuffy...if I wanted stuffy, I'd shoot International Palma. But then perhaps that's why I'm having a new F-Open rifle built. ;-)
Fast forward a few years and someone got wise. Now you can shoot "stock" revolvers in .38/.357 (still have to shoot .38's). BUT, you can reload your own ammo as long as it is a 158g RN or SWC. Now TONS of people are shooting it doing very well and getting distinguished. It has brought quite a few shooters back to the sport because while they may have earned their Service Pistol Distinguished they now have something new to strive for in the sport. In the end, opening up the rules did more good than stifling them.
Personally, I'm not in favor of "limiting" rules. Hey, if I want to go out and spend $5k on a rifle just to shoot a heavy bullet that is going to allow me to buck the wind while it beats the living crap out of me because that is my idea of a great time even if I stink because of it, who are you to tell me I can't "waste my money"? Is this a target sport or not? Do you see pistol shooters whining and saying, "That guy uses a red dot" or "That guy has a shift stick for movers", or "That guy uses a 9mm in center fire instead of a .45acp"? No. You see, as others have pointed out, those who are willing to practice, regardless of their wallet, be it dry fire, small bore, or whatever, winning. People need to learn to look out for themselves. They don't need someone standing over their shoulder saying, "Now, now boys and girls. You don't want to use that bullet because it may cost you extra money and you can't shoot it a 300 yards very good." Let folks alone and let them learn how they choose.
BUT, if you are going to make bullet weight an issue, why not say 210 grains is the cut off so that the guys and gals that shoot the 208's and enjoy them are not shorted for their CHOICE of bullet. Heck, you could even just have a F-T/R "Heavy" class for bullets over 210. Kind of like USPSA where they have Stock, Limited, Limited 10, Minor, Open, etc...But ya, in my opinion saying, you can't shoot this or that weight is a bit stuffy...if I wanted stuffy, I'd shoot International Palma. But then perhaps that's why I'm having a new F-Open rifle built. ;-)
Turbulent Turtle
F-TR competitor
One should strive to be aware of unintended consequences when trying to change rules.
This year, I am serving as the long range match director at the club and as such, I get phone calls from people who have heard of F-class and want to try it out with their favorite rifle. This is how the conversation would go if we limited the bullet weight to less than 156grains in .308. (Just so you know, I know of no one shooting LR in .223 with anything less than 80grainers, except for when yours truly was doing it with 75gr A-Max. LR F-T/R in .223 is strickly a handloading proposition.)
"Hi, my name is Joe and I want to try shooting at 1000 yards in one of your competitions."
"Great to hear from you Joe, my name is Denys and I will be happy to help you achieve that goal. What caliber do you have in mind?"
"I have a really nice Remmy 700 SPS in .308 that shoots sub-MAO all day long, as long as I do my part. I would like to shoot that one."
"Ok, that's the one with the 24 inch barrel, right?"
"Yeah, but my 175gr load is extremely accurate and the folks on the Internet say that it will be sub-MOA to 1000 yards."
"Ok. But we have a problem here. The rules were recently changed to limit the bullet weight to less than 156grains so as to make it easier for new people to start in the game. So you can't use that load of yours."
"Dang, that's a problem. I don't want to have to redo everything just to try it. Maybe I can buy some factory ammo just this once."
"Yes, I also get calls from people who do not handload but can get all manners of 175gr factory cartridges from various ammo makers. That made it easy for them to try out and many have since been caught up in the game and are now having a lot of fun. But with the rule change to make it easier for new people to get into the sport, those options are gone. The only factory cartridge that meets the new rules is the Hornady offering with the 155gr A-Max bullet, if you can find that ammo."
"Hornady A-max? I've never shot that ammo, I would need to find some and then get a zero and then try to figure out its trajectory. This is a pain. Are you sure I can't use the 175gr ammo? I've got a zero to 600 with it and I have lots of it."
"Sorry no. Our matches are registered with the NRA and you would not be able to qualify for a classification. You will have to change your ammo to meet the new rules. Just remember, the rules were changed to make it easier for new people to try out the sport. I was against tampering with the rules, if that makes you feel any better."
"Click."
This year, I am serving as the long range match director at the club and as such, I get phone calls from people who have heard of F-class and want to try it out with their favorite rifle. This is how the conversation would go if we limited the bullet weight to less than 156grains in .308. (Just so you know, I know of no one shooting LR in .223 with anything less than 80grainers, except for when yours truly was doing it with 75gr A-Max. LR F-T/R in .223 is strickly a handloading proposition.)
"Hi, my name is Joe and I want to try shooting at 1000 yards in one of your competitions."
"Great to hear from you Joe, my name is Denys and I will be happy to help you achieve that goal. What caliber do you have in mind?"
"I have a really nice Remmy 700 SPS in .308 that shoots sub-MAO all day long, as long as I do my part. I would like to shoot that one."
"Ok, that's the one with the 24 inch barrel, right?"
"Yeah, but my 175gr load is extremely accurate and the folks on the Internet say that it will be sub-MOA to 1000 yards."
"Ok. But we have a problem here. The rules were recently changed to limit the bullet weight to less than 156grains so as to make it easier for new people to start in the game. So you can't use that load of yours."
"Dang, that's a problem. I don't want to have to redo everything just to try it. Maybe I can buy some factory ammo just this once."
"Yes, I also get calls from people who do not handload but can get all manners of 175gr factory cartridges from various ammo makers. That made it easy for them to try out and many have since been caught up in the game and are now having a lot of fun. But with the rule change to make it easier for new people to get into the sport, those options are gone. The only factory cartridge that meets the new rules is the Hornady offering with the 155gr A-Max bullet, if you can find that ammo."
"Hornady A-max? I've never shot that ammo, I would need to find some and then get a zero and then try to figure out its trajectory. This is a pain. Are you sure I can't use the 175gr ammo? I've got a zero to 600 with it and I have lots of it."
"Sorry no. Our matches are registered with the NRA and you would not be able to qualify for a classification. You will have to change your ammo to meet the new rules. Just remember, the rules were changed to make it easier for new people to try out the sport. I was against tampering with the rules, if that makes you feel any better."
"Click."
Denys,
I think you are spot on, but it will be even worse if shooters show up and have their scores tossed after a random check of bullet weights.
I don't see the positive side of adding any new rules. As far as I know, there haven't been any perfect scores in F-T/R at 600 or 1000. When 200-20X becomes the norm, I think we could have this discussion, but I don't think that will ever happen with a 223 or 308.
If this rule is implemented, it will show that we are headed down the wrong path. There will be more restrictions within a few years and it will choke the growth of F-T/R.
It is a game like any other shooting sport and those who put in the time and resources will be on top. Saying that restrictions will encourage more new shooters is a fallacy. No new shooter will ever be competitive right out of the gate. Equipment is not the largest factor in good scores and unless we all get this in our heads, the restrictions will continue until we all are shooting the same rifle with factory ammo.
I am also strongly against the idea of a limited overall length. This is the same thing as limiting weight, because it would be impractical to shoot heavier bullets that take up case capacity. I am currently a 155 shooter, but I don't want to be regulated to any weight.
The only reason I believe we are seeing support for the overall length restriction is that is enforceable and the lesser evil of two choices. When you want $10 and give someone the choice of giving you $10 or $20, you will get $10 everytime. I am seeing the results in the polls on 3 different forums and it looks like most are against any restrictions. Lets leave the rules alone and allow F-Class to continue being the fastest growing shooting sport.
I think you are spot on, but it will be even worse if shooters show up and have their scores tossed after a random check of bullet weights.
I don't see the positive side of adding any new rules. As far as I know, there haven't been any perfect scores in F-T/R at 600 or 1000. When 200-20X becomes the norm, I think we could have this discussion, but I don't think that will ever happen with a 223 or 308.
If this rule is implemented, it will show that we are headed down the wrong path. There will be more restrictions within a few years and it will choke the growth of F-T/R.
It is a game like any other shooting sport and those who put in the time and resources will be on top. Saying that restrictions will encourage more new shooters is a fallacy. No new shooter will ever be competitive right out of the gate. Equipment is not the largest factor in good scores and unless we all get this in our heads, the restrictions will continue until we all are shooting the same rifle with factory ammo.
I am also strongly against the idea of a limited overall length. This is the same thing as limiting weight, because it would be impractical to shoot heavier bullets that take up case capacity. I am currently a 155 shooter, but I don't want to be regulated to any weight.
The only reason I believe we are seeing support for the overall length restriction is that is enforceable and the lesser evil of two choices. When you want $10 and give someone the choice of giving you $10 or $20, you will get $10 everytime. I am seeing the results in the polls on 3 different forums and it looks like most are against any restrictions. Lets leave the rules alone and allow F-Class to continue being the fastest growing shooting sport.
Erik Cortina
Team Lapua Brux Borden Captain
What about instead of limiting bullet weight or COAL, or bullet speed, etc, you just give everyone a trophy at the end of the match and have ice cream and talk about how it's not about winning! Also propose group hugs when someone gets caught in a reversal! ;D
Or just quit keeping scores.
Or just quit keeping scores.
Personally, I haven't really decided (or really thought much about to be honest) which solution might be a better option.
It's good to see Darrell raising this for debate and discussion - I'm not 100% sure if this is something that is realistically on the cards, or something we should debate before it might be foisted on F-TR shooters. If it's not yet on the cards, perhaps simply by raising an issue (which I haven't heard any expressions of disquiet about yet), we may be creating a self-fulfilling prophecy without ever meaning to?
One thing I would be pretty much adamant about is that we do not restrict ourselves to a 156gr maximum head-weight. At this point, I'm basing that opinion more on gut-instinct than any real analysis of the situation. IMHO i think that might be a disastrous direction for our sport to take - maybe that could be a limit in certain competitions which we could call 'POD/SCOPED PALMA? (I'm be semi-facetious BTW but ya never know!).
So, as far as I'd be concerned, the two choices we'd be left out of Darrell's three proposed are:
1. Leave the Rules as they are,
or
2. Limit head-weight to 201/208 or similar
I'm not sure which of those candidates I'd pick if push-came-to-shove, but I'd be leaning toward leaving things the way they are - with a caveat that let's wait and see who and what produces the goods at the FCWC 2013 next year. I think folks will be surprised (or maybe not THAT surprised) as to who and what rises to the top of the pile - there's a good few folks who aren't running anything over 185gr (if the scuttlebutt is reliable) who I'd be putting my money on to take home some metalwork at the Worlds.
I need some more time to think long, hard, and logically about this - and to take advice and guidance from the more experienced, skilled, and knowledgeable F-TR shooters around these parts, but these are my initial thoughts and hopefully I may be able add something to the discussion.
Either way, it's an interest topic for debate - and as Darrell says: We've plenty of time to debate this.
ATB
Alan
It's good to see Darrell raising this for debate and discussion - I'm not 100% sure if this is something that is realistically on the cards, or something we should debate before it might be foisted on F-TR shooters. If it's not yet on the cards, perhaps simply by raising an issue (which I haven't heard any expressions of disquiet about yet), we may be creating a self-fulfilling prophecy without ever meaning to?
One thing I would be pretty much adamant about is that we do not restrict ourselves to a 156gr maximum head-weight. At this point, I'm basing that opinion more on gut-instinct than any real analysis of the situation. IMHO i think that might be a disastrous direction for our sport to take - maybe that could be a limit in certain competitions which we could call 'POD/SCOPED PALMA? (I'm be semi-facetious BTW but ya never know!).
So, as far as I'd be concerned, the two choices we'd be left out of Darrell's three proposed are:
1. Leave the Rules as they are,
or
2. Limit head-weight to 201/208 or similar
I'm not sure which of those candidates I'd pick if push-came-to-shove, but I'd be leaning toward leaving things the way they are - with a caveat that let's wait and see who and what produces the goods at the FCWC 2013 next year. I think folks will be surprised (or maybe not THAT surprised) as to who and what rises to the top of the pile - there's a good few folks who aren't running anything over 185gr (if the scuttlebutt is reliable) who I'd be putting my money on to take home some metalwork at the Worlds.
I need some more time to think long, hard, and logically about this - and to take advice and guidance from the more experienced, skilled, and knowledgeable F-TR shooters around these parts, but these are my initial thoughts and hopefully I may be able add something to the discussion.
Either way, it's an interest topic for debate - and as Darrell says: We've plenty of time to debate this.
ATB
Alan
bayou shooter said:
This one's easy. I mainly put the "restrict to 156" option on the poll to see where people's feelings lie on the issue. I don't ever see a realistic future where a 156 grain bullet limit will be placed on F-T/R. The 201 grain limit that I floated out there would not affect your new shooters trying their first match, I know of NO factory loaded 200+ grain .308!
Best,
Darrell
When George Farqhuarson created F-Class, it was to allow TR shooters (Palma shooters) the option of using their sling and iron rifles with a scope and bipod, but adhering to all other aspects of the TR rifle rules including weights, bullets, calibers etc. Hence FTR
I am all about making things better, but I am also a bit nostalgic. One of the advantages of George's original vision is that it leveled the field equipment wise, and made this a contest of shooting skill. I accept there are many opinions about that.
Being from George Farqhuarson's club and having been involved with building the range which bears his name, I would like to pay homage to his vision by saying I think it should remain as he meant it to be.... 156 grains max.
I am all about making things better, but I am also a bit nostalgic. One of the advantages of George's original vision is that it leveled the field equipment wise, and made this a contest of shooting skill. I accept there are many opinions about that.
Being from George Farqhuarson's club and having been involved with building the range which bears his name, I would like to pay homage to his vision by saying I think it should remain as he meant it to be.... 156 grains max.
Upgrades & Donations
This Forum's expenses are primarily paid by member contributions. You can upgrade your Forum membership in seconds. Gold and Silver members get unlimited FREE classifieds for one year. Gold members can upload custom avatars.
Click Upgrade Membership Button ABOVE to get Gold or Silver Status.
You can also donate any amount, large or small, with the button below. Include your Forum Name in the PayPal Notes field.
To DONATE by CHECK, or make a recurring donation, CLICK HERE to learn how.
Click Upgrade Membership Button ABOVE to get Gold or Silver Status.
You can also donate any amount, large or small, with the button below. Include your Forum Name in the PayPal Notes field.
To DONATE by CHECK, or make a recurring donation, CLICK HERE to learn how.