NRA F Class Rule Question

[sdean]

No, the rule is clear, no suppressor. My point is that the rule is a bad one, it goes against hearing protection for the reason that some people that might want a suppressor, can’t have one where they live. My other point is that rationale along those lines will unravel completely when something we do care about a lot gets banned in some state. This Rule is probably the only one that plainly defies safety. The explanation we have for the Rule will be immediately jettisoned as soon as some state bans lead bullets or AR 15’s. We will suddenly with one voice not care that some people cannot have them, if that were to mean we need to write a rule that none of us can use them in matches out of fairness to all.

The no-suppressor rule does not exist because they reduce recoil. The Rules already address how to handle things that reduce recoil. You include them in the overall weight limit. That’s why I said above that if they were legal, they should be weighed in.

The Rules aren’t concerned about reducing recoil, as Bennett says above. Reducing felt recoil is fine. There seems to be a misconception here that reducing recoil is against the rules. If the Rules were concerned about recoil, then RAD’s and everything like them would be prevented. But RAD’s are perfectly legal, they are simply part of the weighed gun. Anything that reduces recoil by recoiling at all, is simply included in the weight. If still not convinced that recoil is not the issue, consider that the shooter may wear anything he wants and none of that is weighed, including 3 leather jackets over shoulder pads. (Shooter and apparel specifically excluded in rules).

Brakes are called out by name because they add noise, not because they reduce recoil.

Where is it written or explained that brakes are not allowed because of noise?

 

[davidjoe]

Where is it written or explained that brakes are not allowed because of noise?

Only a few rules out of 100 plus pages of them offer any word as to why they were put in place.

The Rules mention and recommend hearing (and eye) protection in matches, and so are cognizant of those safety issues. Brakes exacerbate noise.

Most of the Rules have a direct, if inferential link to safety, from dealing with malfunctions to staying on target. Brakes double the SPL.

I don’t think the Rules were being punitive about recoil with 22 pound weight limits and two supports.

There is no recoil disparity if permitting brakes across the board, if fair recoil was the concern, the line would just be unbearably loud, (brakes work on every gun, and every gun recoils).

There would be no relative change amongst shooters, all guns could be made to recoil less, if they were allowed, so if that’s a wash, then the remaining explanation for the no-brake rule, is sound level.

Good brakes are also are designed with large posterior fins to put the gun’s shooter in an insulated cone, while exposing the vicinity of neighbors to full force. They are as sociable as hot brass down the shirt collar.

 

[XTR]

Not everyone in HP shoots f class, and on a tight firing line brakes can disturb the position of a shooter in a sling and coat. We sometimes forget that F class is a subset of HP and in many places we shoot side by side. I've had the blast from a brake blow the corner of my mat up, that would surely disturb your position on your elbows shooting sling.

 

[sdean]

Only a few rules out of 100 plus pages of them offer any word as to why they were put in place.

The Rules mention and recommend hearing (and eye) protection in matches, and so are cognizant of those safety issues. Brakes exacerbate noise.

Most of the Rules have a direct, if inferential link to safety, from dealing with malfunctions to staying on target. Brakes double the SPL.

I don’t think the Rules were being punitive about recoil with 22 pound weight limits and two supports.

There is no recoil disparity if permitting brakes across the board, if fair recoil was the concern, the line would just be unbearably loud, (brakes work on every gun, and every gun recoils).

There would be no relative change amongst shooters, all guns could be made to recoil less, if they were allowed, so if that’s a wash, then the remaining explanation for the no-brake rule, is sound level.

Good brakes are also are designed with large posterior fins to put the gun’s shooter in an insulated cone, while exposing the vicinity of neighbors to full force. They are as sociable as hot brass down the shirt collar.

Well maybe. The only thing in common between a brake and suppressor is recoil reduction. For them to used in the same sentence in the rules leads me to infer recoil reduction is at play. Also what XTR says. Doesn’t make any difference cause it ain’t going to happen.

 

[Albany Mountain]

"Brakes are called out by name because they add noise, not because they reduce recoil". There is nothing to support that in the rules.

 

[davidjoe]

True, there’s nothing in the rules about why it’s there. If they were allowed, I definitely don’t see how they wouldn’t drag down a shooter’s score. It’s just hard to tell the occasional one, all-in gun for-all-things shooter, wanting to try Fclass that the rules don’t allow suppressors. And for some people, the score they shoot isn’t as important as having shot the match and learning the gun.

Invariably that gun is a 16 pound, tied legged Harris bipod, 6mm, magazine fed, rebarreled quality-factory bolt gun with all the glass he could put on it. I do hesitate at the idea, as he’ll look at my -let’s be honest- obscene, ridiculous Open set up, to now add that his suppressor illegally reduces recoil. I can’t explain it as an MD very satisfactorily for these same reasons we’re talking about, especially at a small rural club match, where interstate nationals don’t have even a slight bearing. Neither explanation is a good one. Also, I do appreciate they want to shoot their gun the way they took pains to make it, rather than without it, but that’s the rule. The rule doesn’t have to be explained, bottom line. It would be nice if it could be, though.

I don’t see it changing, either, but nothing wrong with discussing them; I’ve been only on this side of the question, every time.

 

[Warren Dean]

jeez...this thread is going down the FPR road we discussed ad nauseum in here several years ago and some other times in between. If you want to shoot a certain configuration of rifle, have at it. Develop your own discipline...like the FPR folks did. Don't try to change the rules and bastardize a recognized and flourishing international discipline with wanna be snipers wanting to change the rules because they think they should be allowed to shoot with whatever they bring. Play by the rules or stay home.

All in the name of bringing more shooters into the game. I call BS on that.

 

[davidjoe]

So, …what’s the reason that suppressors aren’t allowed? I missed it.

Illegal somewhere, or, NRA prohibits recoil mitigation, or …. f-class can’t thrive if they are allowed, or if the rules were to get changed, I’d call BS on that. Fclass rule changes do happen, and they don’t hurt participation.

No one would propose requiring them. I don’t see how someone using a suppressor on their own rifle that would lower their own score, because for example they are already losing their hearing, or are very fearful of that happening, has any effect, other than a good one, on other shooters.

By sniper rifle I assume you mean, a rifle that serves as a rifle?

 

[skibar_tx]

Brakes are not legal because they impact the shooters around you, suppressors aren’t legal because they aren’t allowed in every state and you certainly can’t walk into a store and walk out with one today. That was easy, wasn’t it? Quit whining!

 

[davidjoe]

I’m not suggesting to take a suppressor into one of the eight states where it is not legal for a match. This all or none line of thinking would be like ELR in Wyoming banning 50’s in their matches because in California you can’t buy one, and someone there wants to come shoot. I can’t imagine making decisions that way. Am I missing something here.

The NRA itself pushes for suppressor rights at every opportunity and has cited hearing loss prevention innumerable places as the most important reason.

This one is ironically titled opposing a ban.

 

[Warren Dean]

So, …what’s the reason that suppressors aren’t allowed? I missed it.

By sniper rifle I assume you mean, a rifle that serves as a rifle?

I didn't mention that in my last post. And I never typed the words sniper rifle. But of course, you know exactly what I mean so quit with the snarky comments.

I am not about to get dragged into a flame with with you. Argue with someone else.

 

[hothead]

I didn't mention that in my last post. And I never typed the words sniper rifle. But of course, you know exactly what I mean so quit with the snarky comments.

I am not about to get dragged into a flame with with you. Argue with someone else.

Don't get in a pissing match with a skunk

 

[davidjoe]

Warren, I’m as avid an appreciator of F-Class as there is (and I know you are as well). I am to a fault, actually, ask anyone. Maybe hard headed too, and not alone in that. Traditional, pure rifle marksmanship skills appeal to me. Practical as well, in fact I started this match journey with, eventually not less than 10 3 screw Savages from .223 to .308 and those in between, picked from looking at their unique second bolt lug and solid shroud, that together blocks gasses. My young kids would be shooting these guns too after all. They have together won many events as juniors and thankfully, always safely. My safety bend is not to rile you up. It’s always existed.

I mention this because of words that were used “bastardize” and “sniper wannabe” that you did use. Those changed the tone, and since then yeah, reflecting I shouldn’t have been snarky.

My Open set up, I love it. I was talking about how it appears to a guy that has never seen one, and it’s true, my words were fair. Doesn’t mean you can’t love it at the same time, and I do. So, my match visitors with a practical gun like I described, they obviously don’t care to cheat recoil leaving 8 pounds on the table, and I was trying to convey the more subtle realities of what their rifle really is, than a simply saying play by the rules or stay home.

In the last 14 days, I have confronted a trespasser and, armed as he could plainly see, held him for arrest by the Sherrif deputy I called. Believe he was a human trafficker. Days earlier 15 people pursued crashed by the gate and when hospitalized, one pretending to be an illegal, but actually the coyote, escaped. This morning, very early, a 4 month old Honda Pioneer was stolen from the equipment barn. Fences were cut on the family ranches, up through the King ranch and, just within the last hour, through BP in the air and on the ground, and several of my family members following the trail and calling the owners, potentially confronting them at any point, it was found vacated and wrecked 55 miles north of the barn.

I say this because real guns are vital to us. They are the ones I need the most, all said and done, daily, so yes, I have a tendency to want to let them in. I don’t like to see any forms of bloodlust dwelled on or played out in real or substitute ways, and take it you don’t either, but I have guns like theirs, without a suppressor, and I don’t dwell on shooting someone with them, and so I know they aren’t all sniper wannabes, either.

 

[kzin]

True, there’s nothing in the rules about why it’s there. If they were allowed, I definitely don’t see how they wouldn’t drag down a shooter’s score. It’s just hard to tell the occasional one, all-in gun for-all-things shooter, wanting to try Fclass that the rules don’t allow suppressors. And for some people, the score they shoot isn’t as important as having shot the match and learning the gun.

Invariably that gun is a 16 pound, tied legged Harris bipod, 6mm, magazine fed, rebarreled quality-factory bolt gun with all the glass he could put on it. I do hesitate at the idea, as he’ll look at my -let’s be honest- obscene, ridiculous Open set up, to now add that his suppressor illegally reduces recoil. I can’t explain it as an MD very satisfactorily for these same reasons we’re talking about, especially at a small rural club match, where interstate nationals don’t have even a slight bearing. Neither explanation is a good one. Also, I do appreciate they want to shoot their gun the way they took pains to make it, rather than without it, but that’s the rule. The rule doesn’t have to be explained, bottom line. It would be nice if it could be, though.

I don’t see it changing, either, but nothing wrong with discussing them; I’ve been only on this side of the question, every time.

So allow suppressors at your local matches and let us all know how it goes.

I think lots of us allow brakes to some degree while informing the shooters they're not really f-class legal.

 

[Warren Dean]

I mention this because of words that were used “bastardize” and “sniper wannabe” that you did use. Those changed the tone, and since then yeah, reflecting I shouldn’t have been snarky.

and so I know they aren’t all sniper wannabes, either.

Well David, the term bastardize is a proper term and sniper wanna-be is colloquial. Be that as it may, in my view they are accurate descriptors. If they changed the tone of the post in your eyes, well that's on you.

Dealing with snarkery (is that a word? ) isn't really a big deal. But if you deal snark, be prepared to be dealt snark back. Turnabout is fair play.

 

[davidjoe]

I think we must look like this. It’s all good, we hard headed slow-fire guys have to do something between matches ).

 

[Medic505]

^^^^^^ my only question is who is who?

 

[davidjoe]

^^^^^^ my only question is who is who?

I don’t know, but neither tortoise is ever worse for the wear, and if we both live to 120 I’ll be happy.

 

[Warren Dean]

Grumpy old men.... LOL

 

[MattPeetz]

Did you guys run out of crayons????