Future of AR-Tactical Poll

[KiloTrooper]

#3 with an open/unlimited class. Whatever the NRA wants to call it, don't care; I would just like to enjoy shooting some my favorite varmint & match type AR rifles and have an opportunity to compete in a 'like' category.

Understanding the original intent of Rule 23 was to be "tactical" & introductory; allowing the use of military issue Mk12 SPR and M110 Armalite/Stoner type rifles to be brought into a competitive High Power category, while using close to "as issue" scope maximum scope magnification (i.e. 8 & 10x Leupold Mk 4s, 12x Schmidt & Bender, 15x Nightforce)... the SR-25 was originally built around a 24" barrel configuration and was one of the first adopted in the mid-'90s for LE and Mil issue. The 20" barrel length Mk 11 variant came about with the addition of the suppressor. Bottom line is I am not sure why the rules are so hard over on the 20" barrel length.

I personally would like to bring the longer barreled 24-26"" ARs without optic magnification restrictions onto the firing line. The magazine c.o.a.l. constraint is also arbitrary since "Service" rifle High Power shooters have been shooting specialized 75, 80-90 gr bullets loaded long for quite some time. Why are "Service" rifle shooters able to compete with 'non-standard' ammunition while AR tactical must, especially when all high power mid-range shooting is single load only?!

 

[Catitude]

#3 Ammunition still fits magazine. Trigger 4.5lb. Scope 20X maximum. Pack, bag, or folding leg bipod front. No rear bag. Twenty inch barrel maximum. Calibers .223/5.56,.308/7.62 only. AR Tactical. Show up with anything else shoot AR Open. Oh and F target all around.

 

[kzin]

I've already bought a 12 and 15 power scope specifically for this class. I'd rather they not bump that a little several more times! Leave it or take it way up.

I definitely like the idea of allowing longer barrels in 'open'. There are a lot of rifles that would be good for that class except for having a 22 or 24" barrel.

I would take the weight way down for the 223 class. Make full bull barrel specialty guns hard to make weight.

 

[oob]

#3 - The last registered match we held this year - a mid-range prone - we had 3 F-Open, 3 FTR 1 Service Rifle and 26 AR-Tactical shooters. It makes it a pretty simple choice. ½ were new (in this past season) many were in their 70's and even 80's and having fun, but competing hard. I prefer to see a sled, put the .223 & .308 together. Single load only for safety. Let the gamers play with 6mm/6.5's etc. (I've built several prototypes for a manufacturer in various 6mm & 6.5 configs) and they are boring shooting on the MR targets, but a lot of fun on F-Class Centers and a decent challenge. As an MD I have seen 2 new SR/Match Rifle shooters in the past year at our club. FO has declined, a lot of aging out/and or moved to FTR. A lot of the AR-Tactical new shooters will be shooting some FTR in the upcoming season. We are glad they have a sense on how to be a good competitor and how matches work. Keep it simple, let it be its own Class with two. I don't buy that it's hard to manage another class, we don't have the luxury of catering to one rifle class as is and we are loathe to turn away any safe shooter. Its the same with the PRS guys, we let them shoot on their own relay with brakes and suppressors and let them shoot at F-Class targets - with no fees or reporting to the NRA/PRS/NRL they get trigger time and play their own game. We'd rather have a range that's used, than a shrine to hokey dogma.

 

[Jerry O. Bush]

I run 600 yard matches for F-Class in western Colorado. We have had four shooters take up the game of Tactical. The whole idea is to get guys to compete without spending $7000. on a rifle/ scope set up. Then there is the cost of a Seb Neo and a $200 rear bag. You can be competitive with an AR that costs $1000. and add a scope for another $600-700. Bipods are cheap and soft tactical style rear bags are $40. So what is wrong with that? My only concern with the current rules is the scope power and single loading. What SWAT or military squad marksman is limited to a low power scope and single loaded ammo? It is a separate category so the F-O and F-TR competitors are not really competing against the Tactical class.

 

[SWRichmond]

In slow fire, what is wrong with single loading? Experienced competitors don't want a round sitting in the chamber waiting on scoring. Do people want to blap 20 rounds one right after the other at a 600 yard e-target? I don't get it. What will they do instead of single loading? One of the purposes of single loading is to force the shooter to, however modestly this is achieved in practice anymore, disrupt his position and make him achieve a satisfactory position again.

 

[LVLAaron]

So what’s the consensus on ammo length?

 

[Stumpy1]

Hi LVL,

The rulebook (Rule 3.17) says basically, any safe ammo, and at our range that is all that we care about.

If you were to use a crystal ball, the 'spirit of the game' might be mag length, but the rules committee didn't spell it out, so it is 'Any safe ammo' per 3.17.

Frank

 

[Monte F]

We will see when the final rules are made this year. For now I have been loading to mag length for the most part, have not seen a significant difference on the target. We have not been checking ammo length at our matches, not something we really want to spend time doing. I suppose if the final rules specify mag length and one protests we would check.

 

[Andy Legg]

Hopefully, the New Rules will address the "Mag-Length" Ammo....if not should be what Stumpy1 said.

My son(Dylan) & I have been shooting this discipline for the past year with Mag-Length 75-77's. We didn't want to get somewhere and have the issue arise and not have legal ammo.

On another note....
My 8 year old son(Logan) shot his first 600 Yard Tac-AR Match yesterday @ Golden Triangle Gun Club in Beaumont, Texas. Logan shot a 197-12x w/minor coaching....it looks like he's hooked. He came really close to a 199-12x but the wind got him on the last 2 shots.

 

[oob]

Guys it's not all about seeing how much money we can spend to beat other people. There are millions of stock AR-15 rifles in otherwise largely unskilled hands. We need to provide a regular training opportunity for these people in a fun environment where they can learn about competition and become better shooters. Virtually none of the AR owners I know know anything about wind reading, among those who do not compete, which is the vast majority of them. We need to assist them building confidence and skills.

One of the barriers to entering competition is perception of skill level. You can consider the below a training wheels category if you wish. Our purpose here is to encourage new shooters. Please do not lose sight of that.

5.56 / .223
20" bbl max
12x or 15x scope max
Sled allowed
Bipod and rear squeeze bag no ears.
No inflatable balloon or other body supports.
Shooter/Harris style bipod/squeezie bag/scope/ mat
Magpul BAD
Mag length ammo
= Tactical AR15 Class

Anything else is open class. You guys who want to have 6 Creedmoor AR-10's built can compete with each other.

Part of starting competition is realizing how well some people can do the sport you're in, motivating you to do better, and even to consider improving your equipment. But not everyone is there for Pure sport. Most people simply want to become better Riflemen. We want to encourage many more people to engage in the Shooting Sports. We do this by making entry simple but presenting them with challenge.

 

[Dgd6mm]

I don't read it as mag length ammo.

 

[truman]

i just finished reading this whole thread. my question is, how to recruit these shooters to even know about these matches. from the NRA, state organizations, clubs, to individuals, i see very little except in in small sections of club websites/facebooks or sites like this one that have small appeal to most shooters. i am as guilty as others in not getting people out. i work in a mom and pop shop, and after years of trying i have not recruited one shooter that did more than come out and watch once. sad but true.

 

[Dgd6mm]

I watched a 14 year old girl put up a 180 yesterday in her first relay ever shooting ART class. I will see how her total for the day went once posted. She has only shot two other times at 600 yards and that was with a FTR rig of her dad's.

 

[Hohn]

Thread bump, January is nearly over. Do we know the status of this division?

Secondarily, I'm new to this forum. I am the coworker that JRH84 got into match shooting last year ("set the hook deep" I believe he said, and he's not wrong). In jest, I will say that it's still open as to whether I owe him a huge thanks or a box of the ears (although I might suggest the latter's ill-advised against someone of his physical stature).

I found the lack of clarity in the rules frustrating. Especially the magazine/sled conundrum several others have raised. Locally we just went with single feed long-line rules (80s allowed).

I LOVE the concept of the AR Tactical division. But it absolutely needs some refinement:

- Standard class should be restricted to .223/5.56. It's intended to be new-shooter friendly. But as it is now, there's nothing to prevent a Floyd-Mayweather-vs-kindergartner type of thing where someone with a hot 6mm AR10 comes in and mops up without much effort. The original idea of Service-rifle-off-a-bipod is the right approach (and the higher mag scopes are fine).
- Limiting the class to 5.56 also keeps the sling faces viable. I had several advantages as a beginner, notably some basic handloading and load development skills and a pretty good quality production AR. Even then, my 14x clean at 300 the first time out was very atypical. I've cleaned at 600 only once, at 500 never. And never had an X count higher than 14. My longer line x counts are more like 8x or 7x, which I suspect to be typical. These are warm 80 ELDs under good conditions. So as long as you're limited to 5.56, the sling faces leave plenty of room for challenge.

-AR10s, if allowed, belong in another division. The whole point of AR Tactical is to keep it from becoming a gear-fest where a budgetary disadvantage becomes an outsized competitive disadvantage.

I find some merit in the argument that a supported rifle (bipod) belongs in F class. And there's not much of a counterargument to a more demanding target that makes scoring more difficult. I'd be OK with moving all AR-tactical to F faces even if I think the sling faces sufficiently challenging for any 20" 5.56 gun. I'm not aware of any regular occurrence of x counts over 20x at 500 or 600 with a 5.56 gun.

I think F-class needs a bit of an overhaul also. F-open is fine, it's supposed to be the F1 of prone shooting, so I'm ok with the big budgets and all that. But there's no place where a guy with his Ruger Precision Rifle or the like can shoot midrange off a bipod without being lumped in with the $4000+ race rigs. Can you imagine being a new shooter with a bolt gun that shows up and you're squadded next to someone who as more $$ in his SEB NEO than you have in your whole rig? Talk about discouraging.

And FTR has no comprehensive logic that this shooter can see, other than someone decided serviced to make a terrible hybrid of Service rifle calibers and F-open. The caliber rules of FTR are indefensible.

What's needed is a F-class division where a newer shooter can show up with a "precision" bolt gun in 6mm, 6.5, 7mm or whatever he wants, plop down on a basic Harris or Atlas bipod with a rear squeeze bag and lob some lead at an F-class face with others using similar gear. All that's needed for a class like this to work is an FTR-like weight limit, any caliber 338 or less, no muzzle brakes.

Fewer rules are generally better than more rules. (see: top fuel vs pro stock). Fewer rules keep costs down and reduce gaming. But it's important to have them, and have sound logic behind them.

 

[m1jeff]

AR Tactical is no longer provisional, it is a recognized class.

 

[GSS]

AR Tactical is no longer provisional, it is a recognized class.

Was there a formal announcement from the NRA on this?

If yes can you provide a link?

Thank You,
George

 

[Warren Dean]

What's needed is a F-class division where a newer shooter can show up with a "precision" bolt gun in 6mm, 6.5, 7mm or whatever he wants, plop down on a basic Harris or Atlas bipod with a rear squeeze bag and lob some lead at an F-class face with others using similar gear. All that's needed for a class like this to work is an FTR-like weight limit, any caliber 338 or less, no muzzle brakes.

NO!!!
Not just NO, but HELL NO!! Make up your own division/class. Don't jack with F Class...This crap comes up every so often and is met with the same reaction.....if you want to play by a set of rules YOU want to use, make up your own division and have at it. Leave an established, internationally recognized discipline alone.​

 

[m1jeff]

George, according to Aaron’s post on National Match, the rules will be posted by March 1.

I got it from part of the team that was proof reading the rules. We’re in that limbo of neither fish nor fowl in that the rules are approved but not yet posted.

Should have kept my fingers off the keyboard.

 

[Herzo]

I agree with most of that which Hohn saying that the AR Tactical was far too wide open when it allowed AR10's and any caliber to .308 to compete with the 5.56/.223. I am further irritated with the inability of the NRA to settle on the scope parameters (though I personally see little difference between a 12X & a 15X).
I do have to say that while single loading should be mandatory, the new shooters that we would like to bring to the line will probably not be reloaders and will be at a distinct disadvantage to the longer than mag length shooter. The shame is that we assume that everyone is a potential cheat.

As to F class, I must agree with Warren. The classes are well defined and it requires a certain level of firearm to compete. While I may take a shot (so to speak) with my custom AR I certainly would go in understanding the rules.

In the aggregate, I shoot for the enjoyment and my only competitor is me.