I thought F/TR was created to offer a simpler, purer alternative to the arms races created by light gun and open classes where there is always a fancier rest, cartridge, scope, to give competitors a new edge. I thought the rules intended that competitors would take rifles ready for field use, limited to the basic 223 and 308 and let them compete without all the "competition specific" add-ons you see in other classes. But already I see fancy competition specific bipods. I see 30" barrels which would make any rifle unbearable to carry and maneuver afield.
BlueRidge,
while many agree with you that it may be less than ideal to see such development of F/TR, your take on it is a misreading of the F Class background. F Class (F for the late George Farquarson in Canada) was originally intended to allow older (and whoever else fancied the idea)
Target Rifle shooters to continue in formal competition when eye deterioration, loss of stamina and strength in the limbs etc made them uncompetitive in traditional iron sights sling shooting. As such it was envisaged that people would take existing .308 TR, Palma etc rifles and shoot them off a rest or bi-pod and with optical sights. They would shoot alongside TR shooters using the same (large) targets. While this may seem a low cost discipline, it's not really as TR / Palma etc rifles are built to very high standards with as good quality components as bench rest kit, and as specialised single-shot rifles are far removed from an out of the box Remington 700 PSS or similar.
The F Class concept quickly appealed not only to the intended market, but to shooters of all ages and backgrounds and F was soon an abbreviation of 'Free' in that the minimum layer of rules and regulations would apply, to be a Formula One if you like of prone shooting, encouraging technical, optical, ammunition developments in the way that Bench Rest long has, but now in the context of prone shooting with each shot marked and all that this means in terms of extending the match time and coping with the resulting wind changes.
With the adoption of more powerful cartridges with better ballistics, .223 Rem and .308W soon became uncompetitive, hence the later introduction of F/TR to restore their own niche and protect them from wealthier shooters with 7mm short magnums etc. At the same time, the classes were differentiated by overall weight distinctions (18lb 2 oz for F/TR i/c bi-pod; 22 lb for Open but not including a bi-pod or front rest); and the mandatory use of a bi-pod in F/TR. The weight limit is very clever as users have to balance barrel length / profile / weight; bi-pod complexity / size / weight and scope size / weight - you simply can't have top specification of each of these and stay within the weight limit, generous though 18lb 2oz seems when you start out in this process.
There are lots of critics saying F/TR has just generated a new 'arms race', bi-pods should be restricted to 'Harris types' etc, etc - and everybody is welcome to their views. I'd answer these criticisms three ways - (1) Team Savage members such as Monte Milanuk who is a regular on this forum show that a well designed and built basic (factory, even) model is still competitive; (2) the objective of being lower cost than F Class still applies as even the most sophisticated of bi-pods is far cheaper than many of the front-rests that 'Open' shooters use and even hard pressed .223 and .308 barrels last a reasonable time compared to the life of those firing some of the short magnums; (3) the F/TR class has helped encourage the design and production of a new generation of thirty and .22 cal bullets, the adoption of new materials in and radical designs of bi-pods and stocks and so on. Look at where we are in handloading .308 - we're seeing a huge amount of experimentation, development and improvement that is feeding through to many non F/TR competitors. This was stifled pre-F/TR because of the ICFRA / Brit Commonwealth / Palma rules that said .308 Win only and bullets limited to 'less than 156gn weight'. (Many of our F/TR critics tell us that they can't afford Berger 155.5s or 185s at the UK price of nearly £50 a box and these should be banned too!)
On the issue of people with two rifles, I for one don't feel unduly disadvantaged by this. 155s and 210s produce very different rifle handling characteristics and even where people have had identical spec rifles built, I often wonder if they lose as much as they gain coping with two sets of behaviour on the firing point and two sets of bullet behaviour downrange. I and many others would rather keep things simple by sticking to one load, and trying to get the wind reading practice in.
I'm talking about national / international level competition here. I hear people say they can't afford to compete in F Class at club level because "you need this spec of rifle, that spec of bi-pod" ..... etc, etc, and there are demands to have the class dumbed down to suit what they own or think they'd like to own. I know a guy who is a top level F Class GB league shooter - he has embarrassed more than a few out and out F/TR shooters with a factory heavy barrel factory Remington last year - he didn't moan, got out onto the range and shot, and showed what talent, practice and handloading expertise can do.
There's nothing to stop clubs having an in-house factory rifle or tactical rifle based F/TR sub-class in competitions either if that's what their members want. After all many, if not most, club competitions are at 600yd and shorter distances, so the need for a 30" barrel custom rifle is much reduced. But when this issue is raised, the arguments often start - what is the maximum barrel length allowed? Are single-shot factory rifles like the Savage LRPV allowed or not? How do you define 'Harris type' bi-pod? etc, etc. There is a thread on the US Rifle Teams Long-Range Forum that raged for weeks last year over definitions and rules for a 'tactical rifles' sub F Class and didn't come to any final conclusions so far as I could see. A sticking point is that 'tactical' and even sporting rifles cover a lot of ground and can cost a modest amount or a great deal of money. What happens when a particular expensive Sako varmint rifle turns out to be unbeatable, or people turn up with £4,000 ($5,500) Alpine Unique tactical repeaters with £2,000 ($3,000) scopes on top? I would regard a Tubb 2000 as a very expensive specialised rifle compared to what I shoot in F/TR for instance. By keeping the rules open within very a broad framework, the T2K owner can get more use out of his or her rifle if it's allowed in and proves competitive in F/TR.
