New 2019 NRA HP rules...

[Turbulent Turtle]

I must apologize, I obviously didn't get the memo that said it is critical to create bogus rules for all of High Power in order to preserve the sanctity of F-Open so that it will not evolve into something that we may not like. For some reason, we have to preserve the 12 year legacy of F-Open where virtually all records have reached maximum.

When I first started rifle competition, it was with an old .308 with a long barrel, Parker Hale sights and ammo supplied by the range, to keep things "fair." I've seen a lot of changes in 38 years and every time something new was introduced, the cries of woe were plentiful.

I still have the rifle with which I started competing and when I compare it to the rifle that I use in F-TR, the difference is shocking. Technology marches on, don't stand athwart it, you'll get run over.

I would rather embrace technology and make it work for us. I'm hopeful the proliferation of electronic targets will help gain more competitors and I think the 7 second delay rule is stupid and counter productive. One of the neat things with etargets is how fast you can cycle shooters through a match and that will help attract more shooters. For the purists, you do not have to fire as fast as possible, the time remains the same as it ever was.

So, where did we get 7 seconds from? That looks like a number that someone pulled out of his or her ash. What is the basis for that number and why does it apply to all distances and shot values?

At any rate, yes. It does look like the NRA will enforce that rule starting in 2020, of course without any empirical data. That's the NRA for you.

Finally, now that we have etargets at Bayou, I have been pushing to get some matches set up as pair firing matches. That's how I started back in '81. Now we're going to have people complain that 45 seconds is too short a timeframe because F-open is used to taking as long as they want to shoot and we have to preserve its legacy and national records.

 

[Erud]

I must apologize, I obviously didn't get the memo that said it is critical to create bogus rules for all of High Power in order to preserve the sanctity of F-Open so that it will not evolve into something that we may not like. For some reason, we have to preserve the 12 year legacy of F-Open where virtually all records have reached maximum.

When I first started rifle competition, it was with an old .308 with a long barrel, Parker Hale sights and ammo supplied by the range, to keep things "fair." I've seen a lot of changes in 38 years and every time something new was introduced, the cries of woe were plentiful.

I still have the rifle with which I started competing and when I compare it to the rifle that I use in F-TR, the difference is shocking. Technology marches on, don't stand athwart it, you'll get run over.

I would rather embrace technology and make it work for us. I'm hopeful the proliferation of electronic targets will help gain more competitors and I think the 7 second delay rule is stupid and counter productive. One of the neat things with etargets is how fast you can cycle shooters through a match and that will help attract more shooters. For the purists, you do not have to fire as fast as possible, the time remains the same as it ever was.

So, where did we get 7 seconds from? That looks like a number that someone pulled out of his or her ash. What is the basis for that number and why does it apply to all distances and shot values?

At any rate, yes. It does look like the NRA will enforce that rule starting in 2020, of course without any empirical data. That's the NRA for you.

Finally, now that we have etargets at Bayou, I have been pushing to get some matches set up as pair firing matches. That's how I started back in '81. Now we're going to have people complain that 45 seconds is too short a timeframe because F-open is used to taking as long as they want to shoot and we have to preserve its legacy and national records.

Serious question for you; is there any theoretical point in the technological advancement of the sport that you would consider to be "too far"?

 

[Turbulent Turtle]

Serious question for you; is there any theoretical point in the technological advancement of the sport that you would consider to be "too far"?

That's a great question.

If I wanted to go back to sling and coat with a TR or an SR, I can do that and the range will accommodate me and I can compete with people that are doing it the same way with similar equipment.

I'm ready to sound silly but I think we've reached or are near the maximum ballistics capability of firearms within the existing rules of the game. So in terms of "rifle," meaning a bullet pushed by the burning of powder, I'm not expecting much changes. And if such were to occur and still remain a "rifle" within the specs (weight, no muzzle brake, etc) anyone could get one.

The one aspect that still has room to grow is optics. This is where I see that automation or even AI could be used to gain an edge that would be, to my mind, "too far." I believe that optics used in competition should be limited to unpowered optics save for an illuminated reticle.

 

[Erud]

That's a great question.

If I wanted to go back to sling and coat with a TR or an SR, I can do that and the range will accommodate me and I can compete with people that are doing it the same way with similar equipment.

I'm ready to sound silly but I think we've reached or are near the maximum ballistics capability of firearms within the existing rules of the game. So in terms of "rifle," meaning a bullet pushed by the burning of powder, I'm not expecting much changes. And if such were to occur and still remain a "rifle" within the specs (weight, no muzzle brake, etc) anyone could get one.

The one aspect that still has room to grow is optics. This is where I see that automation or even AI could be used to gain an edge that would be, to my mind, "too far." I believe that optics used in competition should be limited to unpowered optics save for an illuminated reticle.

Thanks for the reply. I also believe that there is a "too far" point. I think that once we acknowledge that there is such a point, exactly where that point lies is somewhat arbitrary, and will vary depending on opinion. In my opinion, we've already reached it (i'm referring to the HP sports in general, not F-Class specifically), and further advancements don't really do anything to improve the sport.

You mention that optics is where you see room to grow, and I definitely agree. The "Tracking Point" system that literally won't let the trigger be pulled until the reticle is locked on target comes to mind. As this technology matures, coupling this system with wind reading software would result in a very different sort of competition. I can only assume that most would be against this for use in F-Class or HP, but surely some would be for it. All of the same arguments could be made for its allowance, i.e.; "it's a natural progression, we aren't still shooting 45-70 black powder rifles for long range, are we?"

I guess it's a question of what we want our sport to become. As a sling shooter, I've seen my sport change pretty drastically in the 12 years that I've been involved. I can't think of any changes in that time that have actually improved the sport, only watered it down and made it easier.

 

[effendude]

I agree there is a point that is too far. I have not ever shot on e-targets but our club is considering them. I may sound silly but I think we will lose a portion of the charm/history/challenge of the sport if we completely transition to e-targets. I teach 20-40 new shooters each year for our 600 yard league, pit service and ultimately good pit service, is one of our goals. It is also easier to see what a good load does on the target when you score a string and critically evaluate it.

Here's my simple solution to the e-target/human puller target error process whether HP, F-class or whatever: 24"x24" adhesive backed, removable target repair centers for each discipline and distance certified by the NRA. Every shooter gets a new target on every string. Sighters can be pasted with a different color than record shots if the target is pulled by a human. At the completion of a string, the target is pealed off the frame and reviewed by the pit official for accuracy if there is any concern or question, whether e-target or human pulled. This eliminates potential favoritism or sabotage, errors centering of the target on the e-target frame, and like benchrest, the proof is right there on paper, undeniable in it's accuracy. We don't need a whole target each string, 9 ring size would suffice for every discipline. My $.02
Scott

 

[sdean]

I believe no one has ever shot all x's at 600 so plenty room for improvement. Now we going to start thinking about what to bitch about in the future. Keep it up and you won't enjoy just shooting and competing.
Some sort of backer would be interesting.

 

[Turbulent Turtle]

I believe no one has ever shot all x's at 600 so plenty room for improvement. Now we going to start thinking about what to bitch about in the future. Keep it up and you won't enjoy just shooting and competing.
Some sort of backer would be interesting.

As I mentioned on the prior page (reply # 38)
600 Yards: 200-22X by S. Broussard of Iota, LA. Bayou has a few shooters in the sub categories back a few years, with one fairly recent (pre-Etargets).

Not only was it all 20X the shooter continued and added 2 more Xs for a total of 22.

 

[jmcgowe]

It did not replace it, it just added the 3x600 as a course of fire. At least thats how I read it. But they did that already.

You are quite right with respect to the F-Class Mid-Range Prone Course (Rule 7.20) - the 300/500/600 yd course is retained and the all 600 yd course added. With respect to the F-Class Mid-Range National Championship Course (Rule 7.21), however, the 300/500/600 yd course is "replaced" by the all 600 yard course.

 

[Turbulent Turtle]

I agree there is a point that is too far. I have not ever shot on e-targets but our club is considering them. I may sound silly but I think we will lose a portion of the charm/history/challenge of the sport if we completely transition to e-targets. I teach 20-40 new shooters each year for our 600 yard league, pit service and ultimately good pit service, is one of our goals. It is also easier to see what a good load does on the target when you score a string and critically evaluate it.

Here's my simple solution to the e-target/human puller target error process whether HP, F-class or whatever: 24"x24" adhesive backed, removable target repair centers for each discipline and distance certified by the NRA. Every shooter gets a new target on every string. Sighters can be pasted with a different color than record shots if the target is pulled by a human. At the completion of a string, the target is pealed off the frame and reviewed by the pit official for accuracy if there is any concern or question, whether e-target or human pulled. This eliminates potential favoritism or sabotage, errors centering of the target on the e-target frame, and like benchrest, the proof is right there on paper, undeniable in it's accuracy. We don't need a whole target each string, 9 ring size would suffice for every discipline. My $.02
Scott

Scott, I don't know if you've ever run a match but the superb drill you outlined above is simply unworkable. The amount of work you've added is overwhelming and the benefit is minimal at best and actually counter productive. Please remember that as soon as you put a spotter in the new bullet hole, you have changed it. I also am uncertain if you've ever see the center of a target after a top F-class competitor gets through with it, especially at 300-600 yards.

I'm not sure what you mean by an adhesive backed removable target, but it sounds to me you think that you can put a new face for every shooter and remove that face without ripping up the target underneath. That's just not going to happen; the main target just keeps getting chewed up and you're sticking and ripping things off of it. Also, you are asking people to perfectly paste each and every new center every time and that's not going to happen either.

Then there's retrieving the targets, bringing the back to the line for a post-mortem analysis. At this point, for anything close to a line, you're going to have to lift the pasters (or interpret by looking at the back) and try to figure out which hole was the cross-fire and which hole was the sighter in an unlimited sighter match (1000 yards and first match on other distances.)

People get wet, tired, forget stuff, but you expect this to be flawless very time and brought to the pit official in perfect order.

Then you have to allow time for people to view all targets and resolve any inconsistencies while people are waiting for results. For volunteer clubs, that's expecting a lot. A lot. The only time we have a "pit official" is at state matches and I can assure you the last thing they want to do is check everyone's work. They have a pit line to run safely and efficiently.

 

[XTR]

I'm already a big fan of 223s in Mid Range, give me a no delay target, and I will build a drop port action, I'll give up a pound on the rifle to get a good quality joystick head frankenstined on a Joypod with feet sporting tiny little claws to hold onto my carpet, and lets see how fast I can run a 600 yard target. I have already spec'd out my mid range F-TR rifle for that eventuality. I contacted a gunsmith over a yr ago as to the viability of a drop port 223Rem for exactly this reason. Do you really want to play this game?

 

[dcali]

I think it’s safe to say that e targets should provide a more consistent scoring experience in terms of timing, lost holes, shot out spotters, dropped targets, new guys, jabber jaws, etc. (all of which make it fun, if you ask me, but that’s a whole ‘nother topic). As for delays, they are trivial to implement, and I see no harm done, so why not try to keep something that works from changing?

BUT...

With the 1/4” accuracy number being tossed around, you are introducing a significant factor into the actual scores, especially at midrange. I hear people say “who cares? It’s the same for everyone, so it’s still fair”. That’s true. But coin flipping contests are also fair. With the winners of f class matches, even at a local level routinely shooting 600s with 16-18 X’s per string, it matters. Do we really want the top two or three shooters separated by what is essentially a glorified coin toss? This is a problem specific to midrange f class for the most part, but it is a problem that nobody has addressed. It’s less of an issue at long range, and probably not a concern at all for sling, but 600 yard matches are pretty common. I think it’s a valid concern. Yes, paper targets have issues as well, and perhaps that needs to be looked at as a baseline - how much do rings vary in size, humidity, temperature, etc. But if anything, we should be looking for ways to increase target accuracy/fairness rather than settle for less just because it’s arguably better in other areas.

 

[Jennb]

I'm already a big fan of 223s in Mid Range, give me a no delay target, and I will build a drop port action, I'll give up a pound on the rifle to get a good quality joystick head frankenstined on a Joypod with feet sporting tiny little claws to hold onto my carpet, and lets see how fast I can run a 600 yard target. I have already spec'd out my mid range F-TR rifle for that eventuality. I contacted a gunsmith over a yr ago as to the viability of a drop port 223Rem for exactly this reason. Do you really want to play this game?

Bring it! I am not afraid! I am going to shoot my game no matter how anyone else chooses to shoot.

 

[Turbulent Turtle]

I'm already a big fan of 223s in Mid Range, give me a no delay target, and I will build a drop port action, I'll give up a pound on the rifle to get a good quality joystick head frankenstined on a Joypod with feet sporting tiny little claws to hold onto my carpet, and lets see how fast I can run a 600 yard target. I have already spec'd out my mid range F-TR rifle for that eventuality. I contacted a gunsmith over a yr ago as to the viability of a drop port 223Rem for exactly this reason. Do you really want to play this game?

Hey Wade, go ahead with your project. Please make a good video of the event, I would love to see that. If anyone can do it, it's you buddy.

 

[sdean]

20 shots every 7 seconds from a bipod laying on the ground would be interesting to watch. I say go for it. Do you think the condition will hold? Youtube

 

[Turbulent Turtle]

Interesting, because when I set the pending record for 1k..I had to call for 3 marks...it was raining and everything was going in a shot out hole in the berm from previous relays..spotting impact was hard and it was to be expected...on shot 12 my target fell out of the frame. Doesn't get better than that.

This is real...it's human interaction...nobody is guaranteed anything when they bring equipment to the line...assuming a bad or inconsistent target puller keeps a great shooter from setting a record is nothing more than pure speculation.

The whole laundry list of reasons that have been stated for no delay are they exact reasons there needs to be a delay...the delay is as consistent and the same for everyone as not having one... it is the human element that is part of the sport and anything other than that changes it to something completely different.

And before anyone says, well it's because your a record holder you want the delay...You would be FOS and don't know me very well.. I hope someone breaks it..I'll be the first in line to shake that persons hand, slap them on the back and congratulate them...I also believe when good things happen in our sport it generates interest and that is always a great thing!!

Norm, I did not see this when you posted it, for some reason your text was part of the stuff you quoted and my browser did not show your prose until I went digging for it just now because I saw that some weirdoes liked your post.

Your post, your response is excellent and drives a stake through the heart of the "protection of the purity of the National Records." You set one with 3 calls for a mark and a target falling out of the frame. You just reinforced that the speed shooting and the efficacy of the puller have no impact on setting records.

So at this point, the only thing that people seem to be worried about is the transformation of F-Open (and F-TR via Wade) into something else.

The sport is always in transition. From Open sights to peep sights, to riflescopes. From military bolt rifle to hunting rifles to match rifles to fancy F-open (and some F-TR) rigs. From nothing to slings, to coats and slings to bipods and now to 127 pound battery-operated, GPS-located, power-driven, Bluetooth-connected, Cappuccino-making front rests. The various disciplines have always been in evolution and it's healthy for the sport.

What difference does it make if someone wants to zip through his or her 20 round string as fast as they can cycle the bolt? It just means that person finishes faster and I can infiltrate in another shooter and have more people participate in a match. For instance, at Bayou we have to put a hard limit on the number of shooters for TSRA events and this year, we have to close registration a couple months ago. With e targets and zero delay, we could let a lot more people shoot.

What if the Berger SWN were shot on zero delay etargets, I'll get you there would be two or three or more times as many shooters. Isn't that what we want?

I can also imagine that we will see more ranges open up since the big expense of pits with moving targets is not needed with etargets; the set up can be a lot less complicated.

Help me understand what that is wrong.

 

[effendude]

Scott, I don't know if you've ever run a match but the superb drill you outlined above is simply unworkable. The amount of work you've added is overwhelming and the benefit is minimal at best and actually counter productive. Please remember that as soon as you put a spotter in the new bullet hole, you have changed it. I also am uncertain if you've ever see the center of a target after a top F-class competitor gets through with it, especially at 300-600 yards.

I'm not sure what you mean by an adhesive backed removable target, but it sounds to me you think that you can put a new face for every shooter and remove that face without ripping up the target underneath. That's just not going to happen; the main target just keeps getting chewed up and you're sticking and ripping things off of it. Also, you are asking people to perfectly paste each and every new center every time and that's not going to happen either.

Then there's retrieving the targets, bringing the back to the line for a post-mortem analysis. At this point, for anything close to a line, you're going to have to lift the pasters (or interpret by looking at the back) and try to figure out which hole was the cross-fire and which hole was the sighter in an unlimited sighter match (1000 yards and first match on other distances.)

People get wet, tired, forget stuff, but you expect this to be flawless very time and brought to the pit official in perfect order.

Then you have to allow time for people to view all targets and resolve any inconsistencies while people are waiting for results. For volunteer clubs, that's expecting a lot. A lot. The only time we have a "pit official" is at state matches and I can assure you the last thing they want to do is check everyone's work. They have a pit line to run safely and efficiently.

Denys,
Wow,
Sorry to have caused you so much typing over a few new ideas. You seem to have much uncertainty about my experiences, rest assured, I do know what I am talking about.

I have ran the largest F-Class, and default, HP matches in the state of MN for approximately 13 years since a few of us campaigned for it to be accepted. A few comments, in no particular order. I have personally witnessed 7 national records being shot here in MN, both at MR and LR including a MR record shot by my wife. I am well aware of how a center gets shot. My friends and I maintain a 25 carrier target pit with over 150 targets.

We don't even bother to shoot 300 yards here and haven't for probably 10. It is a waste of target backers, targets and pasters. Make the 300 yard target a 5 spot target like SB and maybe it would be usable.

My comments regarding a removable center comes from 13 years of listening to comments and complaints from national level shooters about how pit service and judgmental scoring affected their scores. My suggestion of using a removable 9 ring sized center that COULD be reviewed if needed seems like an easy solution. If not adhesive, how about printed on material that is strong enough to only need attachment at the corners? Before we moved to pliable plastic spotters, I made emergency repair centers out of 9 ring sized centers and glued them onto plastic corrugated cardboard that could be stapled onto the existing target in few seconds rather than swapping out the entire target frame. It worked great and the shooters never knew they had blown a hole in the target. Not every shooter is going to shoot a potential record, not every shooter gets cheated by a zealous pit staffer choosing the lower value on one of those close shots but here in MN, most matches are determined by an X or a single point over 2 days of shooting.

As for a plugged hole becoming too large to evaluate, we have transparent scoring aids available in the pits to overlay any hole to determine the value if needed. I'm not saying every target needs review after every string, but having the ability to review a target far outweighs the small amount of extra work.

Scott

 

[Turbulent Turtle]

Denys,
Wow,
Sorry to have caused you so much typing over a few new ideas. You seem to have much uncertainty about my experiences, rest assured, I do know what I am talking about.

I have ran the largest F-Class, and default, HP matches in the state of MN for approximately 13 years since a few of us campaigned for it to be accepted. A few comments, in no particular order. I have personally witnessed 7 national records being shot here in MN, both at MR and LR including a MR record shot by my wife. I am well aware of how a center gets shot. My friends and I maintain a 25 carrier target pit with over 150 targets.

We don't even bother to shoot 300 yards here and haven't for probably 10. It is a waste of target backers, targets and pasters. Make the 300 yard target a 5 spot target like SB and maybe it would be usable.

My comments regarding a removable center comes from 13 years of listening to comments and complaints from national level shooters about how pit service and judgmental scoring affected their scores. My suggestion of using a removable 9 ring sized center that COULD be reviewed if needed seems like an easy solution. If not adhesive, how about printed on material that is strong enough to only need attachment at the corners? Before we moved to pliable plastic spotters, I made emergency repair centers out of 9 ring sized centers and glued them onto plastic corrugated cardboard that could be stapled onto the existing target in few seconds rather than swapping out the entire target frame. It worked great and the shooters never knew they had blown a hole in the target. Not every shooter is going to shoot a potential record, not every shooter gets cheated by a zealous pit staffer choosing the lower value on one of those close shots but here in MN, most matches are determined by an X or a single point over 2 days of shooting.

As for a plugged hole becoming too large to evaluate, we have transparent scoring aids available in the pits to overlay any hole to determine the value if needed. I'm not saying every target needs review after every string, but having the ability to review a target far outweighs the small amount of extra work.

Scott

Hello Scott, great answer.

Let me tell you about humidity and high heat here in south Texas as we try to glue or staple targets.

We still shoot the 300 yards a few times a year when it's too hot to be in the middle of a field for hours on end. Also, it's a great range at which to introduce new shooters. It's still longer than most people ever shoot but I do agree that it's a waste of target backers for seasoned competitors. That's why we long ago started using little white pasters instead of regular spindles for marking the shot. A good puller can score a 300 yard target inside of 4-5 seconds easy. Our 300 yard frames are a lot smaller than the long range frames.

I still remember the 12 feet-wide target frames we had back in the early 80s. It took two people to maneuver those frames (we were pair-firing) and a good portion of the bullet holes at 900meters were keyholes. Ah, the good old days...

 

[Turbulent Turtle]

And Scott, I wanted to say thank you for what you did and still do in organizing matches and making them run smoothly. It's because of the work by people like you, Diffey, Brooks, Edgard and many others that matches take place at all.

 

[Bindi2]

Denys,


My comments regarding a removable center comes from 13 years of listening to comments and complaints from national level shooters about how pit service and judgmental scoring affected their scores. My suggestion of using a removable 9 ring sized center that COULD be reviewed if needed seems like an easy solution. If not adhesive, how about printed on material that is strong enough to only need attachment at the corners? Before we moved to pliable plastic spotters, I made emergency repair centers out of 9 ring sized centers and glued them onto plastic corrugated cardboard that could be stapled onto the existing target in few seconds rather than swapping out the entire target frame. It worked great and the shooters never knew they had blown a hole in the target. Not every shooter is going to shoot a potential record, not every shooter gets cheated by a zealous pit staffer choosing the lower value on one of those close shots but here in MN, most matches are determined by an X or a single point over 2 days of shooting.

As for a plugged hole becoming too large to evaluate, we have transparent scoring aids available in the pits to overlay any hole to determine the value if needed. I'm not saying every target needs review after every string, but having the ability to review a target far outweighs the small amount of extra work.

Scott

We use the replaceable centre idea here. Glued to coreflute (plastic corrugated card board) held in place by Velcro . Replaced as needed, we also have smaller adhesive backed centres all used on ETs

 

[GSS]

Ok, I have been reading the E-target thread since it started and all of the discussion seemed to be going in circles...so I wrote to Aaron Farmer and he provided me with the rule changes voted on in January...I have attached them, however as you work your way through them you will have to remember that they are in their raw format, you will have to break out your previous copy of the rules and insert/modify it with this information...they are still working on the format that will be hopefully posted later this month...

You will notice right away that these rule changes are very heavily invested in E-targets...

Archer ?

Do you have any word on when the Final Version of the Official Rule changes will posted on the NRA webpage for the public to see ?

Thanks,
George Smith
www.nfga.org