F/TR rear bags?

[Dalua]

I don't do it often, but wouldn't it be more fun if you weren't allowed a rear bag?

 

While I'm at it, how about restricting the choice of bipods to those which allow the rifle to be cased while they're still attached - like a Harris, for example?

 

[FGYT]

I don't do it often, but wouldn't it be more fun if you weren't allowed a rear bag?

 

While I'm at it, how about restricting the choice of bipods to those which allow the rifle to be cased while they're still attached - like a Harris, for example?

 

How about a 5mile squadded speed march before shooting all kit and ammo to be carried or you can't use it on the line . Lowest 20% scores run the 5mile again

 

Or no bipods

 

Max x6 mag 1" tube scopes.

[blackburnbuccaneer]

And pointless thread of the day award goes to .....

[Dalua]

And pointless thread of the day award goes to .....

I appreciate that, but sadly it's a day late.

[DW58]

And the pointless thread award of a day later also goes to Dalua ... ... ...

 

Oddly, nothing anywhere says that you have to use a back bag, bipod, front bag, machine rest or even a belt to hold your trousers up, it's all a case of convenience and making life easier. If you opt not to use front/back support then so be it, but unless you have the muscles of Charles Atlas you'll be out of any competition, pure and simple.

[Dalua]

And the pointless thread award of a day later also goes to Dalua ... ... ...

 

Oddly, nothing anywhere says that you have to use a back bag, bipod, front bag, machine rest or even a belt to hold your trousers up, it's all a case of convenience and making life easier. If you opt not to use front/back support then so be it, but unless you have the muscles of Charles Atlas you'll be out of any competition, pure and simple.

Fair enough.

Has a rear support been permitted since the start of F-Class, or did their use come in later?

[DW58]

Can't help you there I'm afraid ... ... ...

[Laurie]

Fair enough.

Has a rear support been permitted since the start of F-Class, or did their use come in later?

 

Since the very beginning. F as in F-Class = the late George Farquarson, a lifetime Canadian TR competitor who decided that old age, bodily infirmity and failing eyesight shouldn't end his and others' competitive rifle shooting activities. The original FTR all-up weight limit took the maximum allowed TR rifle and added typical amounts for then readily available bi-pods and target scopes. Initially, it was intended for TR and F competitors to be mixed on the firing lines and share a single target format / size. Initially all F allowed any form of support including slings as long as no part of the rifle touched the ground.

 

As the discipline gained popularity an alternative and equally valid raison d'etre developed - a test-bed and development arena for advancing precision in prone slowfire rifle shooting. As equipment improved and skills developed, the standard NRA targets quickly became too large, so F-Class versions were introduced whose scoring rings are half the diameter of those on the TR model (= quarter the ring area). Initially, there was F-Class and F-Class, but as 6.5s especially the 6.5-284 caught on, the popular 308 Win rapidly became uncompetitive, so sometime around 2008 or 9, there was a split made between F-Class and FTR (or 'F-Class Restricted' as the NRA calls it) limited to 308 and 223, mandatory use of a bi-pod or sling (ie no front-rests) and an all-up weight of 8.25kg.

 

This is a tried, tested and very popular format and both sub-classes have 'pushed' equipment and ammunition development much further and faster in 15 years than TR has since its introduction in 1968 through the freedom of choice they allow and incentives to innovate within sensible overall parameters. In the USA, many clubs also allow a very popular F-Tactical division for 'tactical' type rifles, but the demand for this has been muted in the UK, the CSR types generally satisfied with the shooting/competition opportunities they have, not to mention a dislike of slowfire, prone position only, shoot with partners in rote, and targets marked immediately following each shot.

 

The current rules are national / international level (set out by ICFRA which also manages 'Target Rifle' and 'Match Rifle', the trio being variations on a single theme). There is nothing to stop individual clubs changing the rules to suit their memberships and their wishes for their own events and a few do so.

[The Gun Pimp]

Knowing what we know now, I'm sure the rules would be a little different if we had to re-draft them.

 

Back bags is one such rule but don't forget, the target has been reduced to take this into account and even now, there are not many rifles which will put 20 shots into a 10-inch circle at 1000 yards - even benchrested.

 

Yes, we do see 'possibles' but not too many. What precentage of 'effers' have actually shot a possible at 1000 yds - I've had one at 800 yards (in ten years) but the target is rather more generous at that range.

 

It's the old story - if you want to play the game - these are the rules. Do away with the back bag and you'd have to up the target size - by 50%?

[DW58]

Laurie/Vince, thanks for the benefit of your experience.

[GeorgeB]

ICFRA's remit only covers TR and F Class, not MR (match rifle). Rear support is not allowed in MR, neither are bipods. You can use a sling and/or a front rest, but your forward hand must be placed between the rifle and the rest.

[Dalua]

That's interesting! What are MR targets like compared to F-Class and TR?

[GeorgeB]

MR uses the standard Bisley long range target, 24" bull vs 10" bull for F class, but as the course of fire is 1000, 1100 and 1200 yards, tie shoots in competition are quite rare, as are HPSs at 1200x.

 

My personal view is that the MR target gives a fair challenge to wind reading skills , whereas the F class target score rings are so excessively tight, they turn your chances of getting a winning score into a lottery, depending on what detail you are squadded on and even which lane you are squadded on.

 

If you look at the results of major MR competitions, you will see the same names tending to appear in the top 10, whereas the distribution pattern of names in F Class competitions is a random mash-up!

[Laurie]

I always fancied MR too. Unfortunately, it's limited to Blair Atholl and Bisley in the UK as the only two gallery ranges offering 1,000 / 1,100 / 1,200 yards distances, and I live roughly half way between these venues with 600 and 500 mile round trips respectively plus accommodation costs.

 

I know where you're coming from George and agree there is the 'luck of the draw' element re short-term detail wind conditions and at Bisley, the lanes you're squadded on, these factors sometimes producing very significant and unexpected stage results. However, if you look at GB FCA league positions, both F-Open and FTR are producing the same small number of people regularly in the top half dozen league round places as determined by aggregate scores for the four or more stages shot over a weekend.

 

What there is no margin for is the 'f*ck*p factor'. Stuart Anselm has had a very good season to date at the half-way point (4 ex 8 rounds) in FTR for instance with two Firsts, a Third, and and out of pattern 14th in round 3 at Diggle. The poor result was down to changing make and model of bullet, and it simply didn't perform as well as his usual Bergers at 1,000 yards - changed back to his usual load and back to 1st overall as well as several stage wins in Round 4, the Bisley Long-Range meeting with its 1,100 and 1,200 yards stages alongside 1,0000.