F-T/R Bullet Weight Cap (proposed), discussion.

[mattt]

Eric I am on your side of the issue of this bullet wieght thing Maybe the sponser analogy hit you the wrong way

 

[Hoser]

Restricting bullet weight on paper targets is a bad idea. You already limit it to 223 and 308.

Why make it hard for someone to play the game?

 

[Steve Blair]

The first registered F-Class match I shot, the 2010 AZ Palma Championship, I shot with a Savage 12F, Sinclair bipod on the sand and a factory barrel. If not for my own stupid mistakes, I had a pretty good shot at winning that tournament. You can succeed on a modest budget but you have to point the rifle in the right place. Only hard work and practice can do that.

 

[mattt]

I shot my fist match with a cz 308 hunting rifle and a bushnell 160$ scope at Sac valley Calif against alot of high end f/tr rigs 18 months ago.What I noticed was everyone had a better rifle and scope than me not what bullet they were shooting!I thought this thread was about bullet wieght and new shooters? ;D

 

[Heavies]

Wow.
Hope you are joking about the sponsor stuff.

I am on a very tight budget, I have to fight constantly to get matches scheduled with are club, have to remind and prod to get enough shooters to hold a match. We are not being allowed presently to shoot 1000yard matches at our one and only range set up for competition. I never once was envious of any sponsored shooter. If they are sponsored, I think they must have worked darn hard to get to where they are at. Good for them.

I also started with a hunting rifle. I never thought about how the other shooters were shooting big dollar rifles and scopes. I was just proud that the remmy I was shooting would hold 10's, 9's, and 8's at 600 yards.

I build a budget savage. Did very well with it.

Moved on to a full on build.

If this game is your passion, then the money is well spent.

 

[mattt]

My point is shooters with sponsers are concerned with what a new shooter has his barrel reamed at? please That is what this thread was started for right? Those who jump the gun please read all of the thread

 

[Erik Cortina]

Eric I am on your side of the issue of this bullet wieght thing Maybe the sponser analogy hit you the wrong way

It wasn't the sponsored shooter analogy, it was the "it's not fair" talk.

 

[Heavies]

Eric I am on your side of the issue of this bullet wieght thing Maybe the sponser analogy hit you the wrong way

It wasn't the sponsored shooter analogy, it was the "it's not fair" talk.

+1

Those who jump the gun please read all of the thread

Been reading the thread from the start. I don't agree with limiting bullet weights.

 

[mattt]

It is not fair started with the start of this thread and how much less wind drift the new bullets had from Darrel . I was making the point as a new shooter who didnt care what the bullet drift was .Boy you guys are a tough crowd

 

[Keith Glasscock]

I'm seeing this "sponsored shooter" sourness on several sites. As a match director struggling to get and F-class program on its feet, I have to say that sponsored shooters are a great delight to have around. Think for a minute: If several sponsored shooters were to come to a local match on your home turf, wouldn't you want to come out and shoot, or at least watch one of the best shoot?

I am praying that one of the sponsored shooters I invited will come out to my little 60 @ 600 this weekend. His presence will be a blessing over the entire program and give us a boost.

Sorry, I just can't get my head wrapped around not having sponsored shooters. Getting a sponsor is something I am striving for in my shooting. I bet there are a lot of folks that would be grateful as all get out to have a manufacturer or gunsmith help them even a little with their shooting expenses.

I just can't find the envy for people that have worked hard, sacrificed many things, and gotten to where they are. All I can find is respect.

Now, back to bullet weight...

 

[mr_logic]

Have I missed something?

You've got a slightly lower BC - but I must admit that Berger has made yet another very worthwhile step forward with the 0.224" 80.5gn BT compared to when I ran the original numbers for what was available at the time I went down the .223/90gn route.

However, I just don't think that the .223R user can get an 80 to the same MVs as some national league competitors are running 155s at in their 308s. Think numbers around, or beyond 3,100 fps!

You can get the 90gn Berger VLD to shoot well at long range, but it's very hard work. My 223s' barrels so far just haven't taken to the 80.5 unfortunately - a shame as I'd like to be able to use this model. I'm using the 90gn Berger BT instead in the 'affordable' 223 F/TR rifle at a relatively modest 2,600 or 2,650 fps from a 26" barrel. At its peak, my long-range F/TR 223 and its 31" barrel produced 2,907 fps and low teens ES with the 90 VLD, but that was pushing it, and a really hot summer day would have produced serious primer problems. 2,850 with VarGet was less risky and less temperature affected. Using the 'Litz Rule of equivalent ME values' for different bullet weights produces an ME of 1,689 ft/lbs for a 90 at 2,907 fps and that equates to a respectable 3,073 fps for the 80.5gn bullet - assuming there is an accuracy node at that MV of course. The more 'sensible' 90gn MV of 2,850 fps has an 80.5 equivalent of 3,013 fps.

I have seen people produce some frightening MVs with the 80.5 in rifles with RPA 4-lug actions, but none I've seen so far would group under an MOA at 100yd at these same velocities. If you can get significantly above 3,000 fps with the 80.5 and with the quarter MOA grouping that I could get from the 90 VLD, congratulations ...... and be careful you don't waste barrel life in anything other than major competitions as you may not repeat the feat with its successor. There seems to be a bit of a lottery with long-range 223 at present. Some barrels perform outstandingly giving the right MV / grouping combinations, many simply don't. I live in hope that somebody will discover just what combination of groove numbers and form / internal dimensions gives the right results consistently which could really assist the cartridge's long-range use. It'll never seriously compete with 308W though in the popularity stakes as the latter is simply so much easier to get good results with, and so much less likely to go 'out of tune' for some inexplicable reason or other.

Anyways ... we're rather off-topic here, but this exchange does emphasise the principle that I believe in 100% that almost anything should be allowed in F/TR as long as the rifle chambers .223 Rem or 308 Win and complies with the regulations such as the 8.25 kg overall weight. To give an example of the radical thinking around, I heard a well argued case for re-adopting iron match sights the other week to allow the weight saving over a scope to go into a yet longer / heavier barrel. Some of the top ex TR riflemen can hold a circular aiming mark so well in 'irons' and adjust windage on the knob between shots that it might just work out very well! Vive l'experimentation!

I agree. I think it's worth letting everything continue unless and until something done which changes the status quo to such an extent that the original ethos is lost. Given the trouble such long bullets bring, I think for now they are a niche with promise, and should be left alone.

Regarding the 80.5 Berger, I can get a half-minute with Varget, and the original velocity I had was around 3050-3075. The rifle is a factory Savage so a half minute will likely have to do - it's never shot better on a consistent basis.

Powder I've found seems not where it should be - H322 should be too fast yet it works accurately. Need to chrono still but definite promise, only trouble was pressure, so IMR8208 might have to be tried!

 

[Boisblancboy]

Now my opinion does not come with any weight since I have yet to even shoot in a match, but I also think that restricting bullet weight is not a good idea. My thought is not only does it allow everyone to have their own setup but in my eyes it allows for tinkering. I enjoy playing with new loads getting them to shoot well etc.

It keeps the sport from being one dimensional.

I am in the process of building an F tr gun right now and didn't mind what restrictions are in place. But I do like that I can shoot whatever bullet weight I chose. I would like to give the heavies a shot even though from what I have seen and read that most people that try them end up going to a lighter bullet. Not only that but I don't mind try to stay away from the norm as well. If I don't win a match I'm not too worried about it. I just want to continually learn and at least keep getting better along with having a great time and shooting with fellow competitors.

 

[jaclthr]

Please excuse me but I don't see why this is even an issue being brought up. Fair, what does fair to new shooters have to do with it. The cost race, advancement in technology, that never was spoken in optics. I started off in High Power & Palma shooting and you never heard anyone tell Al Warner we can't use you sights because not everyone can afford them and they are to advanced, nor did you hear that when Neil Jones developed his optics inserts. I say great and keep going Berger and whoever else in development. I want new and better to come along. I may not be able to afford it now but when I rebuild I will consider it in the cost. Every new shooter usually comes in at the entry level anyway or some place along the way where they feel comfortable and they go from there. Let technology run and be grateful companies are willing to try it and everyone shoot what they can and the best shooter on any given day win with what every they can. I still wander what is driving this, why even start people considering this stuff, more effort in across the board fairness could be put in the selection process in the different teams and in the shooting members on competition day of those teams from rumblings heard after last World Competitions. My 2 cents anyway.

Thanks

jaclthr

 

[scaxeman]

This post has now enjoyed 4 days of voting and spirited discussion at three different sites. For those interested, here is a voting summary for each site, as well as the overall votes.

Yup, that's pretty much the conclusion I came to as well! Actually, this discussion has been very close to what I was after. I got a *massive* interest in a *very* short period of time. That tells me two things; 1. most guys aren't interested in any sort of a bullet weight limit at all, and (perhaps more importantly) 2. there is a *boatload* of interest in F-T/R in general... Never a bad thing!!


Thanks,

Darrell

 

[Heavy barrel]

As far as new shooters being competitive, isn't that what the classifications are for?

 

[scaxeman]

As far as new shooters being competitive, isn't that what the classifications are for?

Unfortunately, the classification system isn't particularly relevant to F-Class. You can develop your 'generic' F-Class classification using either an F-Open, or F-T/R rifle. Furthermore, your classification tells someone *much* more about which ranges you normally shoot on, rather than your skill level. If you shoot protected 'low-wind' ranges, your classification will be a heck of a lot higher than someone that regularly shoots at Rattlesnake, Raton, or Ben Avery, etc.

 

[Nodak7mm]

Well I'm not much on being politicaly correct, but I have to agree with Erik. I'm not out shooting many this day in time! However I'm working my butt off to do so! The same as one FTR shooter James Crofts has done, and the soul reason he is out shooting everthing and everybody on the East coast!! James is putting in the work and time!! This is what it takes more than anything!! I believe that more than anything!!

What really gets under my skin! Is some of the internet High Masters want to change the rules only because their not winning and don't want to do the work!!!! However some are just much better at politics than shooting!!


Amen Mark!! No one rule or bunch of additional rules is going to level the field. It boils down to, the guys who put in the time and energy, will take home the Gold!!

Rod

 

[XTR]

Well I'm not much on being politicaly correct, but I have to agree with Erik. I'm not out shooting many this day in time! However I'm working my butt off to do so! The same as one FTR shooter James Crofts has done, and the soul reason he is out shooting everthing and everybody on the East coast!! James is putting in the work and time!! This is what it takes more than anything!! I believe that more than anything!!

What really gets under my skin! Is some of the internet High Masters want to change the rules only because their not winning and don't want to do the work!!!! However some are just much better at politics than shooting!!


Amen Mark!! No one rule or bunch of additional rules is going to level the field. It boils down to, the guys who put in the time and energy, will take home the Gold!!

Rod

Want to not be "politically correct" then try this one on for size, you are talking out of your ass. I swear the average reading comprehension on the web is about 3rd grade.

I know Darrell wanted a lot of discussion in a hurry, and he got it, but the "someone is beating you so you want to change the rules' crap I've seen here and in some other posts is BS. Nobody is winning with these bullets yet, for the most part they are still not available and almost nobody is using them on the line. Some of the better known shooters in the country have been able to do load testing on them.

The real question raised is regarding the very heavy 200+ grain bullets. We're talking about loading bullets into a 308 that are heavier than what is currently used in a 300 WM. The question was asked to get in front of the tech trend to see what people thought, it's pretty obvious that a little over half want no changes to the rules.

Maybe this picture didn't make it here:

On theleft a 'standard' 155.5, OAL 2.95", on the right is a 230 grain, OAL 3.27". The bullet is almost longer then the case!?

 

[Steve Blair]

On theleft a 'standard' 155.5, OAL 2.95", on the right is a 230 grain, OAL 3.27". The bullet is almost longer then the case!?

[br]
Not to dispute what you wrote, but to provide a data point regarding heavy bullet OAL. I have two .308 barrels chambered with a .280" freebore reamer. The OAL with 230 Hybrids, just touching, is 3.200". You could get by with a little less freebore, maybe down to .220". I anticipated jumping the bullets .020-.030" and wanted to stay well clear of the neck-shoulder junction, hence the .280". An OAL of 3.270" would be a little low on neck engagement and doable, but not necessary. That said, my cartridges don't look much different at 3.175". [br]
Also, as I stated earlier in the thread; the additional recoil of 230's at 2500 fps makes rifle handling problematic. If I can successfully work that issue, they show promise to provide a ~10% wind deflection advantage. So, that means the occasional shot would make score instead of just missing. Hardly earth shaking.

 

[scaxeman]

We're talking about loading bullets into a 308 that are heavier than what is currently used in a 300 WM. The question was asked to get in front of the tech trend to see what people thought, it's pretty obvious that a little over half want no changes to the rules.

*Precisely!* The intent was to have discussion before the technology (hypothetically) overtook us, and it was too late for change. If the majority of folks like where we're at, philosophically, as a class, so be it. At least we're walking into it with our eyes open.

As to whether either Mike, or myself are "internet high-masters", not winning... do a little research, the idea is so ludicrous as to be laughable. Don't blame Mike, in any event, while we've collaborated on the subject, this debate was entirely my idea.

good shooting to all,

Darrell