Should LV and HV Classes Be Merged?

[Forum Boss]

This will be controversial no doubt, but I'll throw it out for discussion. Consider this a follow-up to the thread on how to encourage more participation in short-range Benchrest competition.

Question: Should Light Varmint and Heavy Varmint Classes be consolidated in Registered Benchrest Competition?

I say yes. Consolidating the classes will reduce costs, reduce tuning and load development time, simplify the sport, lessen the burden for clubs, and reduce the amount of stuff people have to haul around for matches.

While I know this is controversial, mine isn't the only voice in the wilderness. One founding father of modern BR told me (on condition he wouldn't be named): "Of course the classes should be consolidated. The guns are essentially the same now except for weight, and performance is virtually identical. The only real reason consolidation hasn't happened is Hall of Fame Points. Two Classes give you more bites at the apple."

REASONING:
1. First, many top competitors are shooting the same LV gun in both classes already.

2. Second, the accuracy differences between the two classes are truly insignificant now. I just averaged the current Super Shoot scores, Day 1 and Day 2 of the Top 10 HV shooters, and the Top 10 LV Shooters.

Heavy Varmint 100-yard Average: .2000 (yes, .2000 exactly)
Light Varmint 100-yard Average: .2118

So the difference in Agging capability is about one-hundredth of an inch.

3. Third, as to the argument that the matches will be too short without two classes--hogwash. Just shoot another round or two. Maybe add a score round for diversity, or add 300 yards if the ranges permit. When Cowboy Action matches started getting too short -- because the shooters had become so much faster -- the organizers simply added more stages. Problem solved.

4. Fourth, doing away with the Light Varmint class would reduce costs by eliminating the need to use ultra-light (and ultra-expensive) components. Stock construction could be simplified, and more rugged/reliable scopes could be used.

5. Existing LV rifles could readily be "upgraded" to 13.5 by adding weight or heavier barrels. Or just continue to shoot it at its current weight. The point is, current LVs aren't made obsolete; they'd just shoot in the same class as HVs.

6. By consolidating LV and HV into one 13.5-lb class, you open the opportunity for the "factory-modified" entry-level class that many folks have advocated. The existence of such a sub-division, (F-TR) in F-Class, has been a big factor in the popularity of F-Class shooting, which is growing while Registered BR is shrinking.

7. If you don't like the idea of a "factory class", then let the guys shoot their 600-yard 17-pounders at 100/200/300. This would be great for the sport because we could actually SEE the performance of heavier bullets and better tracking stocks at short range. Wouldn't we learn something if Don Nielson and Lou Murdica were allowed to shoot their 600-yard guns at 200 or 300 on the same day, in the same conditions, as the 13.5-lb PPCs?

OK folks, have at it. I'm sure there are those who would like to see me lynched. But in covering the shooting sports for this site, I look at a wide variety of disciplines--rimfire, short-range BR, silhouette, Palma, F-Class etc. All the disciplines have certain rule quirks which probably should be revised, but the short-range practice of shooting very, very similar guns in two classes -- 99% with the same caliber, 6 PPC -- just doesn't make sense to me, when there seems to be widespread interest in lowering the barriers to entry of the sport and bringing in new shooters.

 

[rayjay]

When I was working on the RBGC 'Production' rules with Messrs. Dittman I wanted liberal weight limits so production based 600 & 1000 yd guns would be eligible. We are still trying to get the word out.

 

[Shelley]

If you want to consolidate something, dump the sporter and make the new class you want. But as to whether we should consolidate the LV and the HV...... Heavens no. Who the heck wants to make the sport easier anyway? It'd have to be those same guys that don't want tuners or any other innovations because it may make that one stinking gun they own less competitive in every class from Sporter to Unlimited.

In Texas, most of our matches are LV and HV. That's our staple match and most of us enjoy them. Besides, most of the main stream shooters do have good shooting Heavy Varmints. And.... .010" is a bunch when you're the guy who needs to do only .010" better to win. You actually see aggs won by .0001" every once in a while.

Now, where's that darn rope when I most need it?

Shelley

 

[Forum Boss]

Shelley,

Thanks for your comments. I agree, that when it comes to scoring, .010" is significant. My point related to the relative agging capability being virtually equivalent.

Imagine if your task was to create a BR discipline, from scratch, in a region where it is relatively new. If you said, "OK, lets create two classes. But they'll use the same rests, the same stocks, the same actions, the same triggers, the same optics, the same twist-rate barrels, the same powders, the same bullets, and shoot the same cartridge. Plus they will shoot the same targets, over the same flags, with the same course of fire, at the same distances. And at the end of the day, the results will be the same within one one-hundredth of an inch. Oh and it will add $3500.00 to your total outlay to have two competitive rifles instead of one."

I think the response of 99.9% of new shooters hearing that would say: "Ummm, it seems totally pointless to have two classes if they are that similar, and it adds so much to the cost."

And if you say, "Well, to save money, you can actually just shoot the same rifle in both classes, and it probably won't make any difference", then the logical response is, again "so why do we need two classes at all?"

Would it make any sense for NASCAR to have two separate championships if the cars and lap times were essentially the same, and it doubled the equipment cost? No, better to add something completely different--such as the truck series. Should there be two PGA Golf championships if the courses, scores, and equipment is virtually the same?

 

[StephenPerry]

Paul
Didn't know you were into controversy. Short Range BR doesn't need a subject like this to grow. My 35,000+ reads say it is doing just fine. When you were a Yut BR Central allowed the Sporter issue to be hashed out several times creating multiple hard feelings. Besides didn't know you shot short range BR. Since only a small spattering of benchrest shooters dial in to Computer BR and very few of the top names you are no way getting a consensus of opinion on the Sporter question.
To start Sporter 10 1/2# gun is eligible to be shot in all short range group classes. Can't say that about any other gun. Second why not eliminate HV since probably 75% or more guns shot in HV are Sporters. Same could be said for LV. Point is most people prefer to build a 10 1/2# 6 PPC. Is that so bad. The Texas clan want an experimental class when they already have one it's called Unlimited.
Bad call bad subject especially for people who don't shoot short range BR. If Sporter was the wrong way to go it would have been dropped a long time ago. Besides what do you with your 3 & 4 guns if you drop one of the guns. It is not up to the shooters to decide when a class is shot it is up to the Shoot Directors like myself. I schedule 3 or 4 Sporter shoots every year. Same for Angeles BR when we go on line.

Stephen Perry
Angeles BR

 

[Forum Boss]

Didn't know you were into controversy. Short Range BR doesn't need a subject like this to grow. My 35,000+ reads say it is doing just fine. When you were a Yut BR Central allowed this Sporter issue to be hashed out several times creating multiple hard feelings. Besides didn't know you shot short range BR.

A: Short-range Benchrest is in retreat compared to many other shooting sports, including action pistol, three-gun, cowboy action. Membership is static at best.

Since only a small spattering of benchrest shooters dial in to Computer BR and very few of the top names you are no way getting a consensus of opinion on the Sporter question.

Agreed, but some discussion is better than none, and a broader poll of IBS and NBRSA members could easily be arranged. But this thread was certainly not intended to settle the issue--it was only intended to open a discussion, following up on the existing thread on how to get new shooters involved.

The fact that the topic was hotly debated on another forum suggests to me there certainly IS an interest in the topic. AND, given the fact that, right now, nations OTHER than the USA,particularly in Europe) are looking to expand the sport in their own venues, it makes sense to re-visit the question.

No, short-range BR is NOT my game, I freely admit that, but interestingly, as noted, this is not my idea alone. The "hard logic" of class consolidation was explained to me by: 1) A leading BR barrel maker; 2) A Hall of Fame smith; and, most interestingly, by one of the industry legends who happens to run one of the biggest short-range BR matches in the country. He also opined, however, "it will never happen because of the Hall of Fame points issue." The barrel-maker joked that he'd sell fewer barrels with a consolidation of LV/HV, but then "we might end up with more new folks so it could even out."

To start Sporter 10 1/2# gun is eligible to be shot in all short range group classes. Can't say that about any other gun. Second why not eliminate HV since probably 75% or more guns shot in HV are Sporters.

A: Easier to make a 13.5 pounder from a 10.5 pounder than vice-versa. But I'd say your point is well-taken. If the vast majority of guns are really 10.5 pounders, then, perhaps, that class should be selected--but then you force everyone into the ultra-light component race. But certainly, the argument can be made that, if there is one class, it should be the sporters.

Bad call bad subject especially for people who don't shoot short range BR. If Sporter was the wrong way to go it would have been dropped a long time ago. Besides what do you with your 3 & 4 guns if you drop one of the guns.

A. Again, this displays a "perpetuate this status quo" and "I've got mine" mentality. If one assumes that: A) It is a good thing to bring new blood in the sport, and B) having to have "3 & 4" $3000+ rifles WILL discourage competition, then we should look at ways to keep costs down. As to what to do with the extra LV guns--sell them to a new shooter who can add weight when the barrel shoots out, then invest the money. I don't see the problem. Again, if the ranks of shooters are growing, the demand will be there for good used guns.

It is not up to the shooters to decide when a class is shot it is up to the Shoot Directors like myself.

A. I detect a bit of "noblesse oblige" in that statement. Shooting organizations exist to serve the shooters, not the other way around. If the shooters want a simpler, cheaper form of BR, with fewer barriers to entry,and more REAL options in rifle types to shoot) then, THAT's what the clubs should deliver. I would also say that democracy is the American Way--that majority opinion should decide how rules are made,or modified), not what Shoot Directors,or NRA executives) arbitrarily decide.

I am reminded of the origins of Cowboy Action, a sport which now boasts 77,000 registered shooters. The founders, aka the "Wild Bunch", were SoCal shooters who wanted to shoot their Colt Single Actions and vintage lever guns. None of the existing Regulatory Groups or Shoot Directors were interested. So guess what, they went out and created a NEW sport, running their own matches that had nothing to do with existing pistol or rifle competition disciplines. I guess you could say it worked. SASS,Single Action Shooting Society) is adding over 7,000 new shooters to its ranks every year. In other words, every year, there are more NEW cowboy shooters than the total sum of BR shooters.

Would it be such a bad thing if, in 5 years, we had 15,000 BR shooters instead of 5,000? Would it be a bad thing if more 20 and 30-year-olds got involved? And more women. For that to happen we have to find out what they want and what would make it easier/less costly/more fun for them to participate.

For the past few days I've been working on an article about 300m competition. Looking over the photos, the first thing that strikes one is that the majority of the competitors are relatively young. And there are just as many female competitors as male shooters. Hmmm. If BR is to have a future, wouldn't it make sense to think more about the next generation of shooters instead of just maintaining the status quo?

 

[StephenPerry]

Paul
Tsk Tsk. All I can say I deal with the reality of the short range BR world you deal with the what if. Your previous idea of 1 gun with multiple barrels to compete in many shooting venues works fine but not for short range BR. The 6 BR is not competitive in short range BR unless given mouth to mouth by a good smith.
You are looking foolish with this Thread to the BR World. Your choice if you want to continue. I am out of this one. You should care about my 35,000 reads, that was a callous statement.

Stephen Perry
Angeles BR

 

[Forum Boss]

Why is it foolish to discuss potential rule changes to boost shooting sport participation and make "the game" more accessible to younger shooters,with less resources), women, and folks in other countries? Consider, in particular the situation in Europe. First, the nascent European BR community is not burdened by demands to preserve the status quo, and secondly, many countries impose severe restrictions on rifle ownership and rifle components,including barrels). Consolidation of LV and HV may make much more sense when viewed from a European perspective.

But the important thing here, hopefully, is to spur the discussion--to hear many points of view. There is no "right or wrong." Certainly if shooters with both an LV and a HV enjoy shooting them both, we have to acknowledge that. It's all about having fun, right? But the question remains, would they have just as much fun shooting one gun twice as much,and using the money saved for something else)?

Back to BR shooting--think of the benefits to the industry as a whole if we could triple or quadruple the ranks of "precision shooters." Components could be produced in much larger quantities--reducing unit costs. Club membership and revenues would increase and there would be fewer legislative efforts to close ranges. A BR match might become more of a family affair, instead of a stag party of guys mostly in their 50s and 60s.

 

[dreever]

Here on the East Coast Short range Score Benchrest lumps LV and HV into one class which is Varmint for Score, and if anything the sport is growing. Hunter and Varmint Hunter class has a small following, but by and large Varmint for Score has the most participants.

 

[Rustystud]

Paul:

I like dialogue but this topic it will soon erupt into a nasty thread.

Talking Bench Rest changes is like dealing with a sacred cow.

There are some basic rules for keeping web threads pleasant, we don't talk race, religion, sex, politics, and BR changes.

It is sad we can't sit down and and have a good philosphic conversation.

It is starting to sound like democrats and republicans, conservatives and liberals, BR shooters and want to be BR shooters.

I hope we all can sit back at laugh a little about ourselves.

I hope you and all have a great Memorial Day weekend. Remember those who made the ultimate sacrifice so we could be here reading this dialogue.

Rustystud

 

[Fred Bohl]

Paul

Thank you for taking on the burden of trying to expand the ranks and add younger shooters to the short range bench rest community. I have been growing tired of negativity and lack of constructive input to my thread.

To both you and Stephen Perry re his 35,000+ reads -

A wise man listens to,and reads the writings of) those that disagree with him to learn as your friends just support your own opinions.

I am responsible for many of the 35,000 and have learned much from those "reads", but Stephen, do not count my reads as an endorsement of all of your opinions and certainly not as a sign that short range bench rest is doing fine.

To all

I cannot speak for Paul but I invite constructive criticism as one of the best ways to broaden my knowledge. However, personal attacks and "pronouncements from self proclaimed experts" are not useful or conducive to a "sporting community".

Perhaps this forum could be more friendly and useful if all potential contributors would abide by the admonition that unless you have something constructive to contribute, stay out. And also remember the ethic of reciprocity,aka - The Golden Rule) "treat others as you would like to be treated".

 

[butchlambert]

I am with Shelley on this. I am not against change, but my idea would be to open up Sporter class. I understand about trying to keep up 3 rifles and my walnut stocked HV Bat and my unlimited gun are for sale. I will stay with my Sporter and shoot all classes with it. It is cheaper to buy more barrels and tune one rifle.
Butch

 

[Forum Boss]

Butch,

Thanks for your comments. "It is cheaper to buy more barrels and tune one rifle."--This is what I've heard from others, especially some of the Europeans, who sometimes run just one class in local matches.

A while back I interviewed world champ Jari Raudaskoski of Finland. He said he's happy to shoot either class. He also observed that many other Europeans can't afford multiple BR rifles. As to weight limits, Jari thought 5kg,11 pounds) was a nice simple number.

 

[tightneck]

Combining HV and LV will change nothing with most group shooters. Most already use just a Sporter in all classes anyway. Most don't even own a Rail, and there aren't that many unlimited matches anyway. As it stands right now, you only need one gun to compete in short range group shooting. Most of the threads like this one are started by people who don't even shoot short range BR, and most of the people who respond in the affirmative don't either. I've got news for all the shooters that think they need more than one gun to compete, you are simply WRONG. Now, if you want HOF points at the Nationals, then you'll need a to invest in a rail. When you get to that point, you've already decided that you are hooked anyway. It's not as complicated as some of the posters would have you believe. Buy a used Sporter of known quality, and learn how to shoot it. You will then be able to compete with that rifle at the Super Shoot, the Nationals or any other shoot you desire, IN ALL CLASSES.

 

[Shelley]

1. If the Sporter class was dropped, the light Varmint could be shot in all classes by those who don't want to build a HV or a rail gun.

2. If somehow a new bunch of shooters were able to change Benchrest Competition so that everyone is mandated to shoot a Factory Stock Savage so every competitor could have a level playing field and wouldn't get his ego bruised.... Then there'd be a lot of empty benches available to those new shooters because us old 60+ shooters wouldn't play with the new kids. Since the new way would run off all of us over the hill types, why don't the new shooters start their own sport which could be modeled after the Europeans and leave us dinosaurs to our dying sport.

3. I have an old copy of Precision Shooting Magazine which was the second issue for PS. The first article in the magazine laments the declining numbers of BR shooters. So... the same things were being kicked around in June 1956 as today. The sport seems to stay about the same with a lot of complaining about the number of shooters.

 

[StephenPerry]

Shelley
Did you have to use that picture of Jackie one more time, didn't catch his rubber boots. Jackie told me the boots were when the BS got too much. Texas is the place where man meets the elements and hopes to survive.

Stephen Perry
Angeles BR

 

[borderghost]

Why not a new class and get rid of 2 classes . Make a new 12lb class, should be easy to add a little weight to barrel and stock on a LV gun , should be easy to take some weight off the barrel and stock on a HV gun.
simple fix for every one , can use the guns they own, might be surprised how a 12lb gun will shoot.
just my early morning thought.

 

[hogpatrol]

Why not a new class and get rid of 2 classes . Make a new 12lb class, should be easy to add a little weight to barrel and stock on a LV gun , should be easy to take some weight off the barrel and stock on a HV gun.
simple fix for every one , can use the guns they own, might be surprised how a 12lb gun will shoot.
just my early morning thought.

You do know this thread is almost fourteen years old?

 

[jackieschmidt]

It has been 14 years since this thread was initiated and this question was asked.
About the only thing that has changed in those years was the NBRSA did away with the stock and barrel taper rules in Sporter and the caliber restriction, but kept the 10.5 pound weight limit.
The results........ Instead of the vast majority of shooters using their legal NBRSA Sporter to shoot all three Bag Gun Classes, they now simply shoot their legal Light Varmint. At the last Nationals I attended, (2 years ago), I looked around for anybody was taking advantage of the rule change in Sporter. I did not see one competitor shooting a Rifle that for all general purposes was just a Light Varmint.

I do own a Heavy Varmint. But it is my 30BR Varmint for Score Rifle.

In Group, I simply shoot my LV 6PPC.

 

[borderghost]

You do know this thread is almost fourteen years old?

well knew i was asleep this morning, sorry about that