• This Forum is for adults 18 years of age or over. By continuing to use this Forum you are confirming that you are 18 or older. No content shall be viewed by any person under 18 in California.

NRA F Class Rule Question

xswanted

Gold $$ Contributor
Hi guys,

I’m sure someone can explain the reasons for this rule but why are suppressors not allowed in an F class match?

I can understand muzzle brakes.

Any insight is appreciated.

Thank you!
 
USA?
National politics.
They're an NFA item for everybody.
Several states they're banned completely so we can't even do the paperwork, pay the money and wait for permission.
It would suck to have national rules that were unfair to several(populous) states.

Plus I understand that they do somewhat act as a brake.
 
USA?
National politics.
They're an NFA item for everybody.
Several states they're banned completely so we can't even do the paperwork, pay the money and wait for permission.
It would suck to have national rules that were unfair to several(populous) states.

Plus I understand that they do somewhat act as a brake.

Makes sense with states that don’t allow them.

why is is frowned if it works as a muzzle brake?

I shot F CLass informally quite a bit but never dove too much into these types of rules.
 
It is not the braking action that is frowned on. If there were not the legal issues, suppressors would would be okayed in a heartbeat. Hearing damage is the problem with regular muzzle brakes. All shooting disciplines except PRS and (I think) Long Range BR forbid them with good reason. Even the guys are going to wise up some day.

Sixty years of shooting finally took my left ear in spite of using the best hearing protection available at any given time.
 
It is not the braking action that is frowned on. If there were not the legal issues, suppressors would would be okayed in a heartbeat. Hearing damage is the problem with regular muzzle brakes. All shooting disciplines except PRS and (I think) Long Range BR forbid them with good reason. Even the guys are going to wise up some day.

Sixty years of shooting finally took my left ear in spite of using the best hearing protection available at any given time.

Agreed. I wish PRS would out law them.
 
All NRA competitions are supposed to be conducted in a uniform format across all matches no matter where they are held. Cans are flat out illegal in a number of states, so they could not be used there under any circumstances and would therefore make competitions held there not uniform when compared to those held other places.
 
Makes sense with states that don’t allow them.

why is is frowned if it works as a muzzle brake?

I shot F CLass informally quite a bit but never dove too much into these types of rules.
There are traditionalists who look at brakes as cheating rather than dealing with full recoil.
Use of brakes would probably skew things even farther toward using extremely powerful, high BC rounds.
I don't know if that really adds up to significant reason they're not legal.
 
Until about two yrs ago I was ambivalent about brakes. Then I got squadded next to 2 guys at a club match running RPRs with the brakes on. I got home and felt dazed, almost like percocet makes you feel, for hours, and my ears were ringing more than usual.

Brakes on a crowded line are definitely no bueno .
 
Plus I understand that they do somewhat act as a brake.
A lot more than "somewhat". My 300 Winchester magnum mile gun shoots 230s at 2950 fps. and the recoil is like a 243 with 100s. I can't even imagine what it would be like shooting it un-suppressed. The recoil reduction is immense
 
Even if allowed, you probably wouldn't want to use a suppressor. It's one of those things that sounds way more appealing in concept than it does in practice.

After a 22-30 round string, that barrel is damn near ready to become a liquid. Admittedly, I shoot fast; but I tried it once with a .223 (which generates much less heat than other F-Class calibers) and the mirage made it basically unmanageable. Like shooting through a waterfall.
 
I understand the rationale but don’t agree with it. Eventually California will ban the sale or use of lead in bullets. That’s a lot of affected shooters who arguably wouldn’t reload at home on anywhere close to equal footing, but it would devastate competition to adhere to the same logic.

They could ban a style of rifle that everyone uses in service rifle comps; the logic of following the most restrictive rule anywhere is too harsh, and just out of principle, it sure gives a small minority a lot of power. What if a small jurisdiction like DC passed a restrictive law, like sporting arm calibers are acceptable, but that definition excludes militarized calibers/cartridges, which is and has been a law some places of the world.

I agree that increasing noise with a brake is a no go. But a suppressor, if they want to use it, doesn’t hurt anyone. It’s not as if there is a rule against attaching things to the end of barrels. There is not. From tuners, to heat shields, to bloop tubes to magnets, to flash suppressors, (and in my case this week, I just received a WWII unissued mint bayonet :)).
 
Last edited:
If a suppressor has any recoil reduction, it should not be allowed. If a guy wants to use a 458 against 223's, let him deal with the recoil. It is unrealistic to allow recoil reductions that would allow a 458 to shoot against smaller calibers with the same recoil (if it was achievable).
 
The rule about absorbing recoil is that anything which does, gets counted in the rifle’s weight.

That is the theory behind not letting a rest securely clamp the fore end, but not weighing the rest.

By that reasoning, a suppressor gets weighed, just like a Harris bipod securely attached gets weighed, and it’s just kind of lucky (I think, as worded) that 4 pounds of dirt around a Harris that is stuck in the ground, which they all do, doesn’t get weighed.
 
Last edited:
If anything, suppressors should be encouraged to promote hearing safety as much as possible. The mirage does suck though and there's only so much a cover can do.

Some of the comments seem like people have never used a suppressor before.

Suppressors do reduce recoil a small amount but they mostly just make the recoil impulse longer and are not anywhere near as effective as a good brake at minimizing sight disturbance for seeing your own impacts/misses and making corrections.
 
If anything, suppressors should be encouraged to promote hearing safety as much as possible.

Without a doubt. Very few of us will injure an eye doing this, but all of us are susceptible to losing our hearing. ^^^ You can do everything possible, exactly right, and still damage or lose your hearing.

There’s zero chance I’m going to personally pay for the privilege to put one on, but it makes no sense to hold back folks that will. If they were allowed, I’d squad them at a quiet an end of the line for the effort they made.
 
The rule about absorbing recoil is that anything which does, gets counted in the rifle’s weight.

That is the theory behind not letting a rest securely clamp the fore end, but not weighing the rest.

By that reasoning, a suppressor gets weighed, just like a Harris bipod securely attached gets weighed, and it’s just kind of lucky (I think, as worded) that 4 pounds of dirt around a Harris that is stuck in the ground, which they all do, doesn’t get weighed.
What's your point?

You don't actually believe that is an argument around this:

3.16.1 Compensators and Muzzle Brakes—
(a) Sound suppressors are not authorized for use in high power competition.

do you?
 
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 the 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 for the premise that if some people cannot have them, it means we need to write a blanket 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 prohibited. But RAD’s are perfectly legal, they are simply part of the weighed gun. Anything that recoils at all reduces recoil impulse and 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.
 
Last edited:

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.

Forum statistics

Threads
166,266
Messages
2,215,179
Members
79,506
Latest member
Hunt99elk
Back
Top