Thoughts on ICFRA compliant FTR reamers?

[Kakumba]

I know the question of what reamer to use on an FTR rifle comes up pretty often, but this one is slightly different. As far as I can tell, many FTR competitors run with a ~0.342" neck diameter (or tighter), however whether that would be in compliance with the rules at 2017 world champs is questionable.

First, if you havent seen it, check the memo from ICFRA: http://www.gbfclass.co.uk/doc_downloads/2014-ICFRA-Memo-on-rule-changes.pdf

Note 2 in there is the one that I am concerned with. The implication is that we may find ourselves in violation of the rules with most common chamber reamers in use today. However, I am yet to see any sort of clarification as to how much tighter the test gauge might be. Will they allow any leeway (perhaps ~0.002"), or will they be strict (0.0005 - 0.001" tighter than spec). Considering the way ICFRA has handled things historically (see Bisley chamber specs), I suspect they may land on the strict side of things.

Has anyone any thoughts or comments on this? I would think that this is something to consider sooner rather than later, depending on how often you rebarrel your rifle

 

[ARIZONA_F_CLASS]

Thoughts, Well I think it sucks!!!! And there are plenty of matches for me to attend in the good old U.S.A.!!!

 

[Kakumba]

Thoughts, Well I think it sucks!!!! And there are plenty of matches for me to attend in the good old U.S.A.!!!

I agree with the sentiment (though I have rather a lot less options in my home country). I was planning on going to a 0.340" neck (still enough tolerance to chamber my loaded rounds), however have reconsidered, and am currently trying to decide whether I even go with a 0.342" neck.

For me, the 2017 FCWC is a big goal, so simply ignoring this isnt so much of an option

 

[ARIZONA_F_CLASS]

I am using a .340 neck and I need .006 neck clearance. So I would fail, So be it.

Good Luck Too you. Seems like you don't really have a choice, Well if you want to go.

And Welcome to the Forum.

 

[280man]

It is still being discussed within the committee and I believe we will reach a consensus soon.

 

[Kakumba]

It is still being discussed within the committee and I believe we will reach a consensus soon.

Excellent, I look forward to hearing the result. With the exception if this aspect, the new ICFRA rules have cleared things up quite nicely

 

[Trevor60]

Agreed with what 280man has stated

I am in Canada and have been sent the same info. The neck dia is currently being revisited as there was a high percentage of guys who run tighter then saami spec necks; me included .341. We had asked the committee to help us understand what the goal was in standardizing the neck to .3442. Was it a safety issue, a real or perceived advantage or to standardized both the chamber and neck in accordance with saami.

I am hoping to hear something in the next few months my options are 1) chamber a new barrel with my existing reamer and find out the chamber will not be compliant after the 2015 season; or wait until the decisions has has been finalized to get my reamers reground; and wait months to get them back as almost EVERYONE will be in the same position as me.

Trevor

 

[243Mendoza]

What is the the reason behind this rule? The only one that I can think is the use of issue ammo or max bullet allowed bullet weight.

 

[Kakumba]

I am not 100% clear on the reason for this. You are allowed as much freebore as you want, to run bullets as heavy as you want.

I guess its not entirely unreasonable, the rules have always stated an unmodified chamber, so anything outside SAAMI spec isnt really allowed. I think its partly that some people feel there is a slight accuracy advantage in having a tighter neck, but not sure. All I know is, when it comes time, I want to be sure that I am 100% compliant with the rules.

 

[XTR]

I think I understand the logic of this. The whole genesis of F class, and particularly F-TR goes back to Palma shooting. If I recall correctly there was a time when Palma was shot with issued ammo, so the basis of the rule would come from the ability to shoot issue ammo.


There is a safety angle. I had a rifle with a .339 neck (I bought it that way, changed it on the first rebarrel). It worked great with Win brass, but forget what you are shooting one day and pop in a Military M80 ball round and things don't work as well.

I don't necessarily agree with it, it doesn't really effect me, my reamers are .342, but I think I understand where it comes from.

 

[280man]

I am not 100% clear on the reason for this. You are allowed as much freebore as you want, to run bullets as heavy as you want.

I guess its not entirely unreasonable, the rules have always stated an unmodified chamber, so anything outside SAAMI spec isnt really allowed. I think its partly that some people feel there is a slight accuracy advantage in having a tighter neck, but not sure. All I know is, when it comes time, I want to be sure that I am 100% compliant with the rules.

I don't believe the ICFRA rule has ever read "Unmodified". That is a USA NRA rule that by the way is still in effect. I wonder how many modified 308 chambers were used at Nationals this year?

 

[TonyR]

I don't believe the ICFRA rule has ever read "Unmodified". That is a USA NRA rule that by the way is still in effect. I wonder how many modified 308 chambers were used at Nationals this year?

Interesting point because I'm told that the NRA's new rules are not intended to follow the ICFRA F-T/R chamber rule. But I agree that the current NRA rule could be interpreted as something very close to the new ICFRA rule. Hopefully, this will be one of the things that are clarified or corrected before the new NRA F-Class Rule Book is formally adopted.

 

[280man]

The US rule still reads the same in the new book.

 

[clowdis]

What is the the reason behind this rule? The only one that I can think is the use of issue ammo or max bullet allowed bullet weight.

The reason behind this rule is that several years ago all the ammo was supplied by the host nation for all Palma matches. That ammo was 7.62 Nato. When shooters began fudging the chambers and particularly the throats, they came up with a standard gauge to check all competitors chambers with. Your bolt had to close on this gauge or you would be disqualified for safety reasons. This rule has been carried over to the ICFRA rule book. You may be able to get it changed, I don't know. But if ICFRA decides to stay with the 7.62 Nato rule your chamber will have to conform if you shoot in any International matches.

 

[Joe R]

So, I'm still not clear on this. What is the tightest neck dimensions that are permitted here in the US not overseas? Is it .340, .342 or .344?

Joe

 

[280man]

Joe our US rule simply says unmodified 308 or 223. I personally think if your chamber is outside the dimensions and given tolerances on a SAMMI print in any way by definition it is modified and could be subject to protest.

 

[XTR]

SAAMI drawing it's a PDF, cant post it but the neck spec is .3442, the note to the drawing says all diameters are +.002

 

[Joe R]

So, if I understand correctly that means that currently the acceptable range is from .3422 to .3462 Of course that could change in the future or it could stay the same.

 

[Kakumba]

So, if I understand correctly that means that currently the acceptable range is from .3422 to .3462 Of course that could change in the future or it could stay the same.

Actually, I think it is only 0.3442 - 0.3462", as the tolerance is +0.002", not +/- 0.002". Or maybe I read it wrong, and the tolerance is the other way? I am not an expert in these things. Anyway, pretty sure 0.340" is going to be outside the rules

 

[memilanuk]

The SAAMI print, as I read it, has a maximum cartridge dimension and a minimum chamber dimension, so the theoretical biggest possible loaded round will fit in the smallest theoretical chamber. As such, trying to nail down what exactly constitutes an 'unmodified' chamber is a bit harder than it might seem at first glance.

This has been the subject of considerable discussion already, with some revised language submitted for consideration that spells out what the goal is (or should be) - to limit ballistic advantage by way of 'improved' or 'Ackley' chambers, not to hamstring accuracy or limit brass life by mandating a big, sloppy chamber.