Question for F-TR shooters
- Thread starter minime308
- Start date
I like the current weight limit. I think it helps keep things diverse on the line. Some guns will shoot the heavy bullets well but the shooter may not like the recoil and drop down to a lighter bullet. But also it makes it more of a gun handling ability as well. If they went to heavy on max weight it takes some of that away. Just my .02.
Forum Boss
Administrator
The limit is 1.15 pounds heavier than a 17-lb benchrest gun which is pretty stout. The current F-TR limit is heavy enough methinks. I agree that if you go to 22-lb or heavier, there will be an arms race to shoot the bigger and bigger bullets. Some guys may end up pushing the .308 Win case too hard with those bullets.
Keith Glasscock
Gold $$ Contributor
I agree. We are plenty heavy enough. If the international community would accept, I'd actually like to go slightly lighter. It would tend to even the playing field as to bullet weights even more. It would also force competitors to make hard decisions about what features are most important in rifle design - do you really need a 2lb scope? What about barrel profile? etc...
That isn't to say that heavy bullets aren't punishing enough with an 18lb rifle. Thinking of which, I've got to find more weight for mine.
That isn't to say that heavy bullets aren't punishing enough with an 18lb rifle. Thinking of which, I've got to find more weight for mine.
Larry Bartholome, who was involved in creating the F-Class and F/TR regulations 10 or so years ago explained last year on a forum (US Rifle Teams Long-Range, I think) how the 8.25kg was arrived at when somebody was quibbling about it.
The starting point was the maximum allowed all-up weight for a 308 sling rifle under ICFRA rules for use in Target/Fullbore/Palma Rifle disciplines. Then an assessment was made of the target scopes and folding-leg bi-pods available at that time and added on, and we get 8.25kg or 18lb 2 ounces.
If the limit were reduced from this - and I can't see why it would be as 'it ain't broke, so why fix it - it could actually encourage greater expenditure. As it is, I'm downright flabbergasted as to how many people have bought March scopes in the last 12 months, partly for their undoubted optical and adjuster quality, but also and perhaps mainly to save 6-8 ounces over a Sightron and a lot more over a Nightforce NXS. If we had a say 16lb limit, a few rich competitors would gain a significant advantage by buying a 'super-March' scope, mounts @ $1,000 and a $5,000 superlight carbon-fibre stock (matching the carbon-fibre bi-pod) so they could still have a 10lb 32-inch barrel when everybody else is reduced to a standard Palma profile example.
The starting point was the maximum allowed all-up weight for a 308 sling rifle under ICFRA rules for use in Target/Fullbore/Palma Rifle disciplines. Then an assessment was made of the target scopes and folding-leg bi-pods available at that time and added on, and we get 8.25kg or 18lb 2 ounces.
If the limit were reduced from this - and I can't see why it would be as 'it ain't broke, so why fix it - it could actually encourage greater expenditure. As it is, I'm downright flabbergasted as to how many people have bought March scopes in the last 12 months, partly for their undoubted optical and adjuster quality, but also and perhaps mainly to save 6-8 ounces over a Sightron and a lot more over a Nightforce NXS. If we had a say 16lb limit, a few rich competitors would gain a significant advantage by buying a 'super-March' scope, mounts @ $1,000 and a $5,000 superlight carbon-fibre stock (matching the carbon-fibre bi-pod) so they could still have a 10lb 32-inch barrel when everybody else is reduced to a standard Palma profile example.
Erik Cortina
Team Lapua Brux Borden Captain
I've noticed a trend with F-T/R shooters lately wanting to change something to the rules, why is that?
For example, I've seen some that want to limit bullet weight, some want to add the 6BR to the mix, some want lighter weight limit, some want it heavier, etc.
Why is that? If you chose to play the game, then play the game. If you are not winning, then work at it harder, you are under the same rules/limitations as everyone else.
So, keep it as is and have fun!
For example, I've seen some that want to limit bullet weight, some want to add the 6BR to the mix, some want lighter weight limit, some want it heavier, etc.
Why is that? If you chose to play the game, then play the game. If you are not winning, then work at it harder, you are under the same rules/limitations as everyone else.
So, keep it as is and have fun!
Erik, I also have seen many of the things you are talking about in these public forums. I believe that the idea or sentiment most often expressed about changing this or that has to do with "Making It A Fair Playing Field" or "A Level Playing Field". Removing the arms race component from the game. Different ways and ideas of doing that seem to pop up from time to time.
The truth of the matter is there is no way to ever make it a completely level playing field, no matter what you change. Even if you took the most drastic step's possible it still wouldn't be fair. As an example I will make a Philosophical Argument, I am using an extreme just for the sake of argument and I am not proposing nor advocating anything.
Philosophical NRS Rule: II112- To make it a level and playing field for all F/TR shooters, all competitors will draw there "Issue" rifle from the range arsenal no sooner than 10 minutes before going to the line, at that time they will also be issued there Factory Ammo for that day.
II112 c- No shooter will be allowed to shoot there own rifle in a match at any time. All rifles will be furnished by the hosting club, and be exact duplicates of each other in every respect, including Bi-Pods and Scopes.
Pros of this NRA Rule: All competitors would be shooting the same type and brand of rifle and ammo thus leveling the playing field. No rifle advantage or disadvantage...
Cons: Several things wrong with this. One is no two rifles, same brand some caliber are ever really the same. What would you do about one competitor getting a rifle with a low barrel count and another with a worn out barrel? Some scopes ( no matter the brand) are good and some not so good. So how is that level and this list of Cons could go on and on.
On its face this looks like it would level the playing field, but in truth could make things even worse.
So maybe you could change the above rule to say that "ALL" competitors will have to shoot the SAME rifle. Not another one just like it but the exact same rifle. Well that would kinda be tough might make for a real long day for all of those F/TR guys to have there turn. And would that be fair? I mean the same rifle, the same scope, same ammo, same Bi-Pod and even same bag. How much fairer could it be? I can see about a dozen problems ( other than the time needed to shoot a match) with this approach.
It simple can not and never will be a fair or level playing field, and to tell you the truth that is the way it should be. You as the shooter should strive for excellence, it's not supposed to be easy man. Here is one arena still left that has not fallen to Political Correctness. This is not Tee-Ball were everyone gets a trophy, just for showing up because we don't wont any of the kiddies to feel bad about there self, for not winning, so we will only have winners in this game. No way this one you gotta show up, know what you are doing and then do it very well.
If the guy laying on the mat next to you has more talent then work harder to get to a more level place with him, don't look for an edge by changing the rules. Any edge out there is available to all of us if we look hard enough...
Roland
The truth of the matter is there is no way to ever make it a completely level playing field, no matter what you change. Even if you took the most drastic step's possible it still wouldn't be fair. As an example I will make a Philosophical Argument, I am using an extreme just for the sake of argument and I am not proposing nor advocating anything.
Philosophical NRS Rule: II112- To make it a level and playing field for all F/TR shooters, all competitors will draw there "Issue" rifle from the range arsenal no sooner than 10 minutes before going to the line, at that time they will also be issued there Factory Ammo for that day.
II112 c- No shooter will be allowed to shoot there own rifle in a match at any time. All rifles will be furnished by the hosting club, and be exact duplicates of each other in every respect, including Bi-Pods and Scopes.
Pros of this NRA Rule: All competitors would be shooting the same type and brand of rifle and ammo thus leveling the playing field. No rifle advantage or disadvantage...
Cons: Several things wrong with this. One is no two rifles, same brand some caliber are ever really the same. What would you do about one competitor getting a rifle with a low barrel count and another with a worn out barrel? Some scopes ( no matter the brand) are good and some not so good. So how is that level and this list of Cons could go on and on.
On its face this looks like it would level the playing field, but in truth could make things even worse.
So maybe you could change the above rule to say that "ALL" competitors will have to shoot the SAME rifle. Not another one just like it but the exact same rifle. Well that would kinda be tough might make for a real long day for all of those F/TR guys to have there turn. And would that be fair? I mean the same rifle, the same scope, same ammo, same Bi-Pod and even same bag. How much fairer could it be? I can see about a dozen problems ( other than the time needed to shoot a match) with this approach.
It simple can not and never will be a fair or level playing field, and to tell you the truth that is the way it should be. You as the shooter should strive for excellence, it's not supposed to be easy man. Here is one arena still left that has not fallen to Political Correctness. This is not Tee-Ball were everyone gets a trophy, just for showing up because we don't wont any of the kiddies to feel bad about there self, for not winning, so we will only have winners in this game. No way this one you gotta show up, know what you are doing and then do it very well.
If the guy laying on the mat next to you has more talent then work harder to get to a more level place with him, don't look for an edge by changing the rules. Any edge out there is available to all of us if we look hard enough...
Roland
I'm with Eric on this. Trying to change the rules to level the playing field seems silly when I see changes at a place at Raton or most other places so great that nothing that could be fired from the shoulder would shoot through them. And what about people like myself that have spend a lot of time and energy building a rifle that conforms to the current rules.
Down South
FTR Junkie
TonyR said:
+1
With the shooters as good as they are, you need really good equipment to sort out who's really good and who's merely good. On a calm day, it would be difficult to tell who shot well and who had a good gun if the playing field were so leveled that everyone were using factory guns. Or, in a fantasy world where everyone's gun was similarly accurate, but less accurate than currently used, then you'd have trouble determining who was good and who got lucky with the close ones in rather than out. The variation in the performance of the guns (even if they're all just as accurate) would cancel out a good portion of the skill over a single match, and perhaps over an aggregate.
The better the equipment, the more the shooters control the outcome.
The better the equipment, the more the shooters control the outcome.
I've seen three strands to the 'Let's change F/TR to something better / what it was meant to be' argument.
The first is very much a US issue, rarely heard in the UK and Canada, Australia etc - why do we have this strange choice of 223/308 only? Here in Britain, it's the one thing that F/TR's critics actually like. The point is that F/TR is an offshoot of TR / Palma Rifle, is regulated by ICFRA and these are the cartridges for mainly historic reasons. FWIW, I think it's turned out to be a good choice as both cartridges are enormously popular outside of China and some of the former communist countries so development in the hothouse F/TR environment is facilitated and benefits other users, and components are widely available in most countries. The only downside is the link to 5.56/7.62mm military calibres and the restrictions this places on some European citizens whose governments simply don't allow civilian use of 'military calibre rifles'. For instance, it's very difficult for Spanish shooters to own a 308, but we still have a surprising number turn up at Bisley every year for the European Championship meeting. Back home I understand they've developed .222 Rem with fast-twist barrels and heavy bullets for 300-600M F/TR as owning a 223 is impossible. We may face future UN led challenges to ownership and use of 308/223 in the guise of 'international smallarms control'.
The 'arms race / money buys points' argument. We have a fair size group of people in the UK who want to challenge F-Class on this basis and are promoting S-Class (Sporter Class). To make F/TR affordable, factory rifles only, very limited modification allowed, tight and low weight limits, must have a working magazine in situ, limits on scope power to 12X (or 16X, (or whatever X as every proponent has a different view on this matter) and no fancy bi-pods. The F/TR bi-pod is the hate object for many here encompassing everything wrong with the discipline and in their proposed class the bi-pod would have to have folding legs and fit inside a box with limited dimensions. There has been vast amounts of talk and discussion on ranges and some forums, but so far as I know nobody has instituted a true S-Class to date even for limited club shoots. I've tried to promote the 'affordable rifle concept' starting with secondhand sporting rifles (Savage 12 LRPV rebarrelled to 223R for 90s and an as issued Howa 1500 Varminter in 308) and used them successfully / written about them in TargetShooter online magazine. But the critics aren't interested - if it's not 'their class' they don't want to know. There is a view that says any discipline has those, thousan ds of them in fact, who would compete ..... if only X were changed ........ but that sensible regulators should ignore them as they never will compete seriously. My personal view is that you can get into F/TR with very modest kit and have a great time and fair success, but you can't regulate the kit used at national or international level to suit impecunious tyros. Being at the top of ANY sport is expensive even if it's training, travel, and accommodation costs rather than equipment.
Again. these people either don't see that F/TR is a high-tech higher-precision offshoot of Target / Palma rifle, or if they do, like it even less. They are the same people who for years have criticised 308 sling shooting in often very insulting terms - suitable for 'anally retentive types' only, not real shooting, not real rifles etc .. etc. (The words 'not real' keep cropping up in the anti-TR and F/TR lexicon.) Unlike many, I've no objection at all to their owning and using M1913 MILSTD rail festooned black or camo-finished rifles that look as though they had been killing Taliban in Helmand Province recently, but why should they think their rifles are a) 'real' and mine are not, and b) superior to mine, likewise the use they put them to?
The final argument is that F/TR isn't what George Farquarson intended - this wonderful idea has been corrupted by the purveyors of custom rifles, Berger Bullets and its 230gn Hybrids, makers of carbon fibre bi-pods. It should be somehow restricted to 'what George intended', so (presumably) 155gn bullets, thinner barrels, cheaper / cruder scopes and bi-pods. I don't know how the late George Farquarson would regard today's scene and neither do they. I reckon they want to preserve something that developed in the 1990s (?) in aspic, and no discipline thrives in that environment. Over here, we suffered for decades from people who reckoned the move from the Number 4 Enfield rifle and .303-inch cartridge that in arsenal form struggled to better 3-MOA to Target Rifle and 7.62mm was a sin against God. These were the same people who regarded the UK L1A1 (FAL) service rifle that replaced the No.4 as an abomination in civilian hands and under no circumstances would follow the US NRA in retaining SR disciplines with constantly developed and accurised versions of the nation's military rifles - and look where that got us, we can't even own them now at all, 'Section 5 Prohibited Weapons' is the legal designation. Yeah, you guys in the US, really f+++ed up there - M1As and AR15s in competition really set your shooting sports back generations didn't they? Sorry if I sound bitter - but I am!
The first is very much a US issue, rarely heard in the UK and Canada, Australia etc - why do we have this strange choice of 223/308 only? Here in Britain, it's the one thing that F/TR's critics actually like. The point is that F/TR is an offshoot of TR / Palma Rifle, is regulated by ICFRA and these are the cartridges for mainly historic reasons. FWIW, I think it's turned out to be a good choice as both cartridges are enormously popular outside of China and some of the former communist countries so development in the hothouse F/TR environment is facilitated and benefits other users, and components are widely available in most countries. The only downside is the link to 5.56/7.62mm military calibres and the restrictions this places on some European citizens whose governments simply don't allow civilian use of 'military calibre rifles'. For instance, it's very difficult for Spanish shooters to own a 308, but we still have a surprising number turn up at Bisley every year for the European Championship meeting. Back home I understand they've developed .222 Rem with fast-twist barrels and heavy bullets for 300-600M F/TR as owning a 223 is impossible. We may face future UN led challenges to ownership and use of 308/223 in the guise of 'international smallarms control'.
The 'arms race / money buys points' argument. We have a fair size group of people in the UK who want to challenge F-Class on this basis and are promoting S-Class (Sporter Class). To make F/TR affordable, factory rifles only, very limited modification allowed, tight and low weight limits, must have a working magazine in situ, limits on scope power to 12X (or 16X, (or whatever X as every proponent has a different view on this matter) and no fancy bi-pods. The F/TR bi-pod is the hate object for many here encompassing everything wrong with the discipline and in their proposed class the bi-pod would have to have folding legs and fit inside a box with limited dimensions. There has been vast amounts of talk and discussion on ranges and some forums, but so far as I know nobody has instituted a true S-Class to date even for limited club shoots. I've tried to promote the 'affordable rifle concept' starting with secondhand sporting rifles (Savage 12 LRPV rebarrelled to 223R for 90s and an as issued Howa 1500 Varminter in 308) and used them successfully / written about them in TargetShooter online magazine. But the critics aren't interested - if it's not 'their class' they don't want to know. There is a view that says any discipline has those, thousan ds of them in fact, who would compete ..... if only X were changed ........ but that sensible regulators should ignore them as they never will compete seriously. My personal view is that you can get into F/TR with very modest kit and have a great time and fair success, but you can't regulate the kit used at national or international level to suit impecunious tyros. Being at the top of ANY sport is expensive even if it's training, travel, and accommodation costs rather than equipment.
Again. these people either don't see that F/TR is a high-tech higher-precision offshoot of Target / Palma rifle, or if they do, like it even less. They are the same people who for years have criticised 308 sling shooting in often very insulting terms - suitable for 'anally retentive types' only, not real shooting, not real rifles etc .. etc. (The words 'not real' keep cropping up in the anti-TR and F/TR lexicon.) Unlike many, I've no objection at all to their owning and using M1913 MILSTD rail festooned black or camo-finished rifles that look as though they had been killing Taliban in Helmand Province recently, but why should they think their rifles are a) 'real' and mine are not, and b) superior to mine, likewise the use they put them to?
The final argument is that F/TR isn't what George Farquarson intended - this wonderful idea has been corrupted by the purveyors of custom rifles, Berger Bullets and its 230gn Hybrids, makers of carbon fibre bi-pods. It should be somehow restricted to 'what George intended', so (presumably) 155gn bullets, thinner barrels, cheaper / cruder scopes and bi-pods. I don't know how the late George Farquarson would regard today's scene and neither do they. I reckon they want to preserve something that developed in the 1990s (?) in aspic, and no discipline thrives in that environment. Over here, we suffered for decades from people who reckoned the move from the Number 4 Enfield rifle and .303-inch cartridge that in arsenal form struggled to better 3-MOA to Target Rifle and 7.62mm was a sin against God. These were the same people who regarded the UK L1A1 (FAL) service rifle that replaced the No.4 as an abomination in civilian hands and under no circumstances would follow the US NRA in retaining SR disciplines with constantly developed and accurised versions of the nation's military rifles - and look where that got us, we can't even own them now at all, 'Section 5 Prohibited Weapons' is the legal designation. Yeah, you guys in the US, really f+++ed up there - M1As and AR15s in competition really set your shooting sports back generations didn't they? Sorry if I sound bitter - but I am!
Heavy barrel
Silver $$ Contributor
Laurie
Always a voice of reason. I always enjoy your posts. Your presents here is very much appreciated.
Always a voice of reason. I always enjoy your posts. Your presents here is very much appreciated.
I am very new to this sport,I have never tried to shoot in a match till this year.My friend has talked me into being a part of the sport,so we are now going to shoot in the PA match at the end of MAY.With that said my rifle is a stock 5R chambered in a 308.The load I will be useing has a 200gn hybrid running 2500fps.The only reason why I am useing a 200gn bullet is that my friend offer them to me and they shoot great from my rifle.I feel that I am walking a fine line useing this bullet,but the rules allow me to use them.Plus I think till I can learn to read wind,this bullet will give me an edge to stay on target better.
I feel all that has been spoke of here in this thread.The main reason for me shooting FT/R,is that it is based on the fact of the type of rifle I own.I am unable to go out and build me a $3000 rifle but I can shoot the heck out of my stock 5R.I see the pain of someone building a rifle to shoot in a FT/R match,but I would say OK to a guy wanting to build and stick to the basic rifle.There has to be a limit somewhere in the rules.Guys that have the advantage to build are taking away from the idea of the FT/R program.I am not saying this because I cannot afford to build a better rifle.I say this because the real reason for FT/R was to allow others to join in on the fun.( this is what F class is for ) I love to shoot and getting into the sport takes it to a new level for me,just hope that I can do my part when MAY gets here.
I was just offering my opinion,so please see my side to what I had to say.Shooting means a lot to me,and being a part of match shooting will extend my shooting skills.Maybe one day the rules can be looked upon,so that we shootesr can talk less about the rules and shoot more.I want to hold my own one day at a match with my rifle,but rahter know I was able to hold my own in a level playing field.I know my rifle want out shoot some of the high end rifles in MAY,but I hope it will hold a 10" or better group.
I feel all that has been spoke of here in this thread.The main reason for me shooting FT/R,is that it is based on the fact of the type of rifle I own.I am unable to go out and build me a $3000 rifle but I can shoot the heck out of my stock 5R.I see the pain of someone building a rifle to shoot in a FT/R match,but I would say OK to a guy wanting to build and stick to the basic rifle.There has to be a limit somewhere in the rules.Guys that have the advantage to build are taking away from the idea of the FT/R program.I am not saying this because I cannot afford to build a better rifle.I say this because the real reason for FT/R was to allow others to join in on the fun.( this is what F class is for ) I love to shoot and getting into the sport takes it to a new level for me,just hope that I can do my part when MAY gets here.
I was just offering my opinion,so please see my side to what I had to say.Shooting means a lot to me,and being a part of match shooting will extend my shooting skills.Maybe one day the rules can be looked upon,so that we shootesr can talk less about the rules and shoot more.I want to hold my own one day at a match with my rifle,but rahter know I was able to hold my own in a level playing field.I know my rifle want out shoot some of the high end rifles in MAY,but I hope it will hold a 10" or better group.
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.
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.