• 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.

The 6br for F-TR and Palma, an idea who's time has come?

Steve I am real supprised at your response, the best BC for 6mm is around 500 and the 7mm 280 is over 700, no contest. You may be right that the 6BR has an advantage in accuracy, and reduced recoil, but you well know it is very seldom that we shoot in ideal conditions. I got my long range and mid range High Master rating using the 280AI, they work. Last week I shot a 600-38 with my 6BR, but it was a day with reasonable conditions and I know the range well and can deal with fluctuations there. Bottom line I stand by my comment.
 
Paul, [br]
Your target is twice the size of ours. Regardless the difficulties of sling shooting, precision accuracy is critical in F-Class. I got my F-Class HM, Mid and Long Range, shooting 6BR and .284 Shehane, respectively. If the conditions are tough, the higher B.C. bullet will have the advantage. I don't pay any attention to G1 B.C., but Berger says the unpointed 105 Hybrid is .547 G1. My pointed Hybrids are very close to .300 G7 at 2965 fps. The little Viper shoots between .100" and .200" groups. That is a very tough combination to beat at the distances cited. [br]
Having grown up in Madeira Beach, I'm obviously familiar with the conditions in your area. Sure , the wind blows in Florida just like it does in California, Arizona or New Mexico. If the conditions are favorable, 6BR has the advantage at Mid Range. Recently, while preparing for the Berger SW LR Nationals, I shot my Shehane in a 300-500-600 (20 shot) match and managed a 597-34. That was not a calm day. It rained, the wind blew and we laid our mats in mud. Clearly, not a good day for the 6BR. In other Mid Range matches at Camp Pendleton, the same rifle has taken the overall win, beating all the sling shooters. That is not common and a testament to how accurate and easy handling the cartridge is.
 
Actually, his target is 4 times the size of the F-class target; it's double the diameter and 4 times the area. The targets are two-dimensional.
 
Ok, you guys keep whining about the little target, you lay your gun on the ground, no movement. Try holding it up in a sling and see how easy it is. In Michigan during the summer often we shoot the F class target and suprisingly do darn well. The subject was should 6BR be in FTR, no FTR is what it is and shouldn't be changed. Possibly another sub class would be good for 6MM. I'm done.
Paul Larson
 
Well, there's an idea that completely misses the point of F-TR. 308WIN and 223REM are the allowed cartridges because they have a military heritage, which also makes them extremely popular and widely used. 6BR is only known amongst the accuracy crowd: miniscule compared to the number of shooters who have 308WIN or 223REM rifles. I vote 2 thumbs down and recommend you do more research on the difference between F-Open and F-TR
 
scotharr said:
Well, there's an idea that completely misses the point of F-TR. 308WIN and 223REM are the allowed cartridges because they have a military heritage, which also makes them extremely popular and widely used. 6BR is only known amongst the accuracy crowd: miniscule compared to the number of shooters who have 308WIN or 223REM rifles. I vote 2 thumbs down and recommend you do more research on the difference between F-Open and F-TR
[br]
Scott, can we sneak in the .30-'06? ;)
 
Steve

I would JUMP in with both feet for the 30:06. John just had a idea and floated it on this forum. Just to see what the response is. AND HE GOT IT.

Va Jim
 
I'm with Jim on the 30'06.

The '06 would be sweet at 1K. The exrta beating would be worth the extra ump.
 
I think allowing '06 would be agreeable with its military heritage and the sheer number of folks that have 30'06 rifles laying around that they could shoot.
 
Good lord! If they allowed the 30-06 in F TR I would be ecstatic beyond description. That would be a fantastic change I would support without reservation. I don't know if I've ever read a proposal that got me so excited... :)
 
Do keep in mind, if they the -06 got into the TR game you may as well call it F-06, it's almost F-308 now but I can't imagine anyone running anything else at 1000. Not complaining mind you, I'd be getting me an -06 reamer on order.

The more I think about it that would rock ;D Imagine shooting 1000 yards with a round that wasn't working 400 yards beyond it's designed range?
 
Why not alternatively work to hold events in accordance with CISM or ISSF fullbore rules here in North America. It would be fantastic to shoot 300 competition.

Sure, we have Palma and TR, but reign it in a little IAW ISSF 300m rules, and many 'short' ranges become candidates to hold events at. Reflects the reason 300m competition is so popular in Europe... they just don't have the space!
 
PALarson said:
Ok, you guys keep whining about the little target, you lay your gun on the ground, no movement. Try holding it up in a sling and see how easy it is. In Michigan during the summer often we shoot the F class target and suprisingly do darn well. The subject was should 6BR be in FTR, no FTR is what it is and shouldn't be changed. Possibly another sub class would be good for 6MM. I'm done.
Paul Larson

I'm not sure what using a sling has to do with in an F-TR discussion in the first place. Nobody was comparing the merits of the various shooting disciplines; they all have their challenges or else they would be very boring. What the comments were about is that the challenge in F-TR is the size of the targets with the long distances. This simply means the demands of raw accuracy are higher than for regular match rifles. On the other hand, the demands on shooting discipline and control are higher for regular match rifles but the targets are larger. It's a trade-off and whether it's an equitablle trade-off remains to be seen and I don't even care to debate it because it's pointless to do so.

We always have "sling shooters" at our matches and I admire their dedication, especially wearing coats in 110degree heat and they are great shooters. The fun thing is that we can discuss loads and barrels and so on because we all shoot .308s at the same distance. We trade recipes & pointers and we learn from each other.
 
1. FWIW... I don't shoot F/TR.
2. But I have been shooting F Class since 1999 and have been involved in most rule decisions.
3. Someone always comes along and wants to change something to make it easier to hit the center or in some few cases harder.
4. Why change a working and growing worldwide formula?
5. Get off the keyboards and back to prepping for the FC World Championships :-)

Larry Bartholome
 
Lbart said:

1. FWIW... I don't shoot F/TR.
2. But I have been shooting F Class since 1999 and have been involved in most rule decisions.
3. Someone always comes along and wants to change something to make it easier to hit the center or in some few cases harder.
4. Why change a working and growing worldwide formula?
5. Get off the keyboards and back to prepping for the FC World Championships :-)
Larry Bartholome
[br]
1. I do, sometimes.
2. I respect that.
3. True
4. No reason except that someone occasionally has a good idea.
5. I was at the range earlier with [SIZE=small]my .300 WSM [/SIZE]shooting 230 Hybrids. :)
 
Larry,

Since you have some ties in the ICFRA end of things... do you know the exact reason - in TR, not F/TR - why the calibers have been .223/.308?

I was under the impression it had to do with the common military calibers of various allied countries - USA, UK, Canada, Australia, etc. and that was where the original .30 cal 155gn bullet weight limit for international matches came from as well. Since F/TR was derived from TR, we inherited their split in calibers (.223/.308 vs. everything else)... but for some reason not the bullet weight limits. I'm guessing that may have had something to do with F-Class starting in Canada but taking off in the USA, where we traditionally have had no bullet weight limits for domestic matches.

Hopefully the .30-06 crowd can see where this is going... the caliber choice doesn't have anything to do with *USA* calibers any more than 'TR' stands for 'tactical rifle'. It's a little bigger than that.

Now off to the range to play with my new .30 BR... ;)
 
Monte,
In the beginning......there were no caliber restrictions to F-Class due to the failure of the original developers to think ahead at all. George Farquharson just wanted to shoot his TR (Palma) rifle with a scope and rest since he and his friends were getting a little long in the tooth. No one dreamed it would grow like is has less than 20 years.

The TR/Palma competitions then, as now were restricted to .308 and .223 due to the military history of the sport. A large part of the restriction had to do with the availability at the time of military ammo at low cost. Just as back in the day you had to shoot issue ammo in our 'leg matches' here in the States. The thought was it evened the playing field but that was not the case in my opinion.

In 1999/2000 the Canadian FC rules were wide open, "caliber less then 8mm; trigger weight more than 1/2 kg (1.1 lbs); rail guns and muzzle brakes are not allowed. Bipods and/or sand bags (fore and aft are permitted). Any sights are acceptable". Front rests were treated as sand bags.

The Rocky Mountain Palma Matches (RMPM) were one of the first in the USA to allow FC and their match program read "Any rifle, .33 caliber or less, any sights and/or rests, are permitted (sand bags, bipod) prone or back position. No muzzle brakes allowed." In effect, shoot what you had any way you wanted.

Over time some people became dissatisfied getting beat by people with other calibers and heavier rifles and at a 2000 meeting in Canada a weight limit was put on FC rifles of 10kg/22 lbs. I wanted it to be 16.5lbs so any "light rifle" BR would make it and the FC rifles could be used there also. I was out voted.

Then here in the States people complained about the same thing when they, shooting off bipods were beaten by shooters using rests. Discussions were held on weight limits, bipods, calibers, etc. Many want to allow calibers other than .308 and .223, but it was decided that a limit had to be set at some point and since other countries were setting up classes for .308 and .223 based on their shooting history we should do the same.

The reasoning being why have two OPEN classes. FO for experimenters and F/TR for diehards :-) The 8.25kg/18.18 lb weight limits was based on Palma rifles at the time with added scope and bipod. The first FCN's in 2004 used these rules. The lack of bullet weight was I think due to the USA's love of things bigger and faster. After all our NMC/LR history has no bullet weight restrictions. Only the Palma game does.

When the International Confederation of Fullbore Rifle Associations (ICFRA) got in the game and wanted to setup worldwide rules for F/TR they adopted the USA rules more or less. That in a nut shell is how we got where we are.

Larry
 
Thanks for the trip down memory lane. As it happens, I recently found an old copy of "The Canadian Marksman" dated fall of 1982. This was the issue following the 100th DCRA Rifle Matches held August of that year in Connaught, Ontario. I also participated in the 1983 DCRA Rifle Matches and that was my last time shooting at Connaught.

The newsletter is chockfull of memories, and names of shooters from around the world. There are also several pages of B&W pictures. I do remember shooting with Alain Marion of Hull, QC. He was (still is?) a heck of a shooter.

Here we are 30 years later, where has the time gone?

I will bring this newletter to Raton in August.
 

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
166,353
Messages
2,217,164
Members
79,565
Latest member
kwcabin3
Back
Top