F/TR Varmint/Heavy Sporter/Tactical Discipline?

[baldie]

Great post Laurie.

I think you know as well as i though, that garlands dont give a toss about savage. The only man that does is Stuart. Its just a shame that he doesn,t have the agency.

 

My comments regarding attendance were purely a repeated question i heard twice after shooting mcqueens and seeing how many people were actually there for the "f" class practise.

I have never attended the f class or ftr at diggle....it doesn,t interest me in the slightest. I think there is just about enough range time available for all disciplines. I was merely repeating comments made.

I will be channelling what little spare time i have, into helping run the mini-rifle comps up there, which are new this year, and helping the one man who has brought this comp to the north....Ross Burrough.

Personally, i would like to see more action shotgun days, and we have gone up from one to two days this year. Also more tactical comps along the lines of turning targetry etc. This costs money, and the committee are aware of these as we made them aware last year. Several disciplines could use them too. There will be a demo sometime this year, as some will become available.

 

Going up tommorow if you are about ?

 

cheers, dave.

[Laurie]

Dave,

 

I don't know about the practice days - I never attend them as they don't give championship points and I'm hard pressed to make enough of the competitive events to get a full quota of points in (used to be the best 10 scores over the year, now eight but I only managed 7 this year and one was poor so no points for it). The practices also have a McQueens on at the same time on B-Range and quite a few of the regular F-Classers such as Vice Bottomley and Ian Dixon will enter that event for preference. The competitions are always very well supported though.

 

Good on yer if you're running the Mini-Rifle comps. I reckon this could be the big thing for a while - you won't see me though as it falls within the offhand / I'm useless category of shooting.

 

I can never fathom what causes things to take off. I would never have reckoned on rimfire BR becoming as big as it has in many Northern clubs. I've always said give things a try if it's feasible - I just get cynical over the promises that many people make about competing if only their club will lay this or that on. I've come to the conclusion that some clubs attract plinkers and others competitors, and the mix of the two changes over the years so there's nothing fixed about that situation in any particular club.

 

 

Streeker59

 

Yes that sounds a sensible way to get interest up and running and I hope you get the response it deserves. Transferring it to the national scene is more difficult though in that the targets are geared to F-Open and out of the box sporting rifles that will perform well at 600yd - I know because I used just such things at Strensall up to this range for years, an old .308W original model heavy barrel Ruger 77V was particularly effective - often see dramatic fall-offs at longer ranges.

 

It's not just about simplicity and cost - as Andrew says people don't like to lose, or at any rate feel they're doing really badly. I was talking to a long-time and very good TR shooter recently at an F-Class comp who'd switched disciplines temporarily because of a shoulder injury. The individual was badly upset because the 900yd match score - which wasn't at all bad for F/TR given the conditions - had included two 'threes' and this individual just doesn't shoot 'threes'. We had a hard job pointing out that a marginal three on the F-Class target would likely still be in the bull on an NRA TR centre. Persuade some poor bugger to try to shoot on these targets with a T3 or similar at long ranges and he or she'll get complete misses unless the conditions are kind. That just destroys people's enthusiasm and confidence!

 

And in case that sounds elitist to forum members who've never shot a .223 or .308 at long-ranges, members of the national F/TR squad (which I'm not and likely never will be) get occasional complete misses too at 1,000yd if the conditions are really rough - and more than the odd 'no-score hit'. I've seen 15-MOA or more windage needed at some matches and 15-MOA is equivalent to aiming off by 157 inches or 13ft (nearly 4 metres to you youngsters educated in foreign measurements)! if the wind is gusting a lot when it's that strong it's very easy to have a .308 miss the frame completely never mind the scoring part of the target.)

 

Laurie

[dicky]

I remember shooting on stickledown 1000yds...3 targets to the left to get on card, happy days

[brown dog]

Laurie,

 

I'm completely confused by your 8:56pm post. I suspect you've not actually read any of mine in anything more than a cursory manner:

 

You appear to think I want to argue the toss on F/TR or club attendance trends (or why F/TR is, for technical reasons, being misdescribed when called 'prone benchrest' ) -I don't. You also seem to think that I wish to champion a 'crusade' which -if you read my original post- I don't.

 

I would just like to see a discipline that's challenging and doesn't (despite your noted protestations) require bespoke single discipline rifles.

 

I really don't have the energy (or will) to debate with you your perception of the irreproachable perfection of F/TR in its current form

[Andrew]

...The following is what I suggest and it won’t be popular with everyone…..

Factory sporters / varminters only… That means that action, barrel and stock must be from the same maker. No Macs, Robertsons etc. Any trigger group. Any scope . Harris “type” bipods only.

If a rifle is rebarrelled it must have the original makers barrel and not a Trueflite or similar.

No specialist “Tactical” rifles such as RPA, TRG, AIW, AICs etc. T3’s accepted as there is no clear advantage over a factory sporter / varminter. ( I’m open to clear reasoning on this point )

 

Calibre to be .308 & .223 only.

Max distance 600 yards so .223 will not be at a disadvantage. Not all can afford regular practice at pay as you go ranges but most of us have access to 600 yards worth of land or know someone who does.

 

2 sighters + 10 rounds ( convertible )

Any rear bag so long as it’s soft..

 

Prone or from a table, there is no clear advantage in my experience. A .308 jumps a damn sight more on a table than it does on a bed of grass shot prone..

 

That's the stuff. At 600 yards with 223 and 308 it becomes an "every man" sport. (Even I might hit the backer at 600 yards!) It would exclude many who didn't have a suitable rifle but it would include a huge number of others. These rifle requirements seem reasonable and think of it: the fellows who can't get prone anymore could shoot from a bench. It doesn't sound like much but until some recent surgery, I was one of them. Older shooters might take to it big time. It may seem like less of a "disciplined" form of shooting but perhaps that would be the appeal?

 

Of course, my idea of "disciplined shooting" these days is shooting prairiedogs, having left competitive shooting when I left the populated areas. In any event, it's a very interesting discussion and I'm enjoying it greatly. ~Andrew

[Laurie]

Laurie,

 

I'm completely confused by your 8:56pm post. I suspect you've not actually read any of mine in anything more than a cursory manner:

 

You appear to think I want to argue the toss on F/TR or club attendance trends (or why F/TR is, for technical reasons, being misdescribed when called 'prone benchrest' ) -I don't. You also seem to think that I wish to champion a 'crusade' which -if you read my original post- I don't.

 

I would just like to see a discipline that's challenging and doesn't (despite your noted protestations) require bespoke single discipline rifles.

 

I really don't have the energy (or will) to debate with you your perception of the irreproachable perfection of F/TR in its current form

 

Brown Dog,

 

where we seem to differ is that I think the current F/TR works, is 'a good package' and you don't. I'm not saying don't innovate at club level - quite the opposite. If clubs can produce something that their members like and suits the type of rifle that the majority of them own - great. On the other hand F-Class Association rules and regulations are internationally accepted and designed for national and international level long-range competition. However, why should a discipline that has been developed for 800-1,100yd competition turn people off who aspire to use their existing kit at say 200yd?

 

It's like saying that because Formula 1 exists, it turns clubman motorsport drivers off using hot hatches in track days in their local car racing circuit. In other technical sports such as motor racing, the clubman aspires to get the drive in F3, F2 and for the tiny minority F1, or whatever that sport's equivalent is. The motorsport analogy isn't a actually great one though as the difference between many clubman shooters' kit and that used in national level F/TR competiton is nothing like the vast gulf betweeen the 'hot hatch' and any open-wheeled formula car, even Formula Renault or whatever the starter formula is these days.

 

What I also believe is that the bulk of these individuals would have absolutely no interest in building (whether with hand tools for 50 quid or commissioned for 4000) an additional single discipline rifle only useable for what has become, essentially, prone 308 benchrest.

 

That's fair enough - a bit cheeky to say people won't have other people's kit if it was in effect given free to them as 50 quid is in today's inflationary times, but then I could say exactly the same about other people's prized possessions used in say Mini-rifle, Practical Rifle, Quiggley or muzzle-loading competition, but I wouldn't because I think it's rude and insensitive and if those disciplines appeal to enough people to make them viable, why should I or anybody who doesn't compete in them tell the participants to make changes?

 

 

Your opening phrase was:

 

SITUATION

 

Rifles that are successful at current F/TR competition are indistinguishable from open class rifles (less calibre!). They are purpose built for that competition and represent a wallet/arms race that excludes the casual competitor from any prospect of success using a conventional rifle of Varmint/Heavy Sporter/Tactical type.

 

and in effect that needs a new discipline or variant of same.

 

It's this view that I profoundly disagree with. There are many rifles out there used for all sorts of purposes that are perfectly suitable for club use over the distances that many clubs and their members shoot - ie up to 600 yards, even 800 at a pinch.

 

900 and 1,000 yard shooting with a .223 or .308 is a completely different ball game, and the risk there is persuading people to waste their time, effort and money by trying to use a rifle that is more than accurate enough but which doesn't provide the ballistics needed at these ranges with these cartridges - the mistake I made in 2008.

 

The rifle I then used was a classic clubman's multi-purpose tool - the .308W FN SPR, a modified Winchester Model 70 magazine rifle in the excellent McMillan A4 (some say A5) tactical stock. At 100 yards I saw some of the smallest 5-shot 100yd groups I've achieved with any .308 Win rifle, the 175gn Sierra MK over IMR-4064 giving 0.2" groups and small velocity spreads. The fly in the ointment was 2,600 fps MV at those group sizes. I could get another 150 fps MV but with an extra inch on the group size. Forget Sierra's G1 BC based ballistic tables or Infinity PC program. They tell you this combination is supersonic at 1,000 yards - it's not. The much more accurate G7 BC for this bullet is 0.243 and at 2,600 fps it will be travelling at somewhere around 1,090 fps, over 30 fps below the speed of sound. You need 2,700 fps to be sure the bullet is supersonic at 1,000yd (1,144 fps V1,000), better still 2,750 fps.

 

If I only shot up to 600 yards I'd happily use the FN today still. I'd say exactly the same thing about the Remy 700VS or PSS if I fell lucky and got a good one. I've made the point (twice) about Team Savage members using an off the shelf rifle that an American can buy for his equivalent of £700-750 and was used by 50% of the victorious World Championship F/TR team at Bisley in July (even if they couldn't beat Russell Simmonds and George Barnard in the individual championship matches). Ah, but you've already said that

the bulk of these individuals

have no interest in acquiring such even if only for 50 quid.

 

We're going to have to agree to disagree over whether some accurate multi-purpose rifles are or are not suitable for F/TR except at the longest ranges. I'll give two examples to back up my opinion - you can counter with your own experiences. My old friend Simon Rodgers started in F-Class back when I did (when there was only F - no open and F/TR and you used your .308 against a 7mm BooBoo wildcat bench gun or .338 Lapua Sako TRG42) with a secondhand .308 Accuracy International AW (or maybe AE - I can't tell the difference) and would regularly beat me with my 700VS rebarrelled to 6BR at 600 yards, and more than a few 6.5X55 and 6.5-284 proper F-Class rifles - we all shot off pedestal rests in those days. Simon can shoot and will enter things - he doesn't say Ohmagod, that other guy's kit looks good, I'm too frightened to enter in case I make a fool of myself! Then he'd go and win or come in the top three with kit you're saying is outclassed

 

Nowadays I meet up with Darren Evans (Foxing2Nite) at Diggle BR shoots and we've fought it out at 100 yards between his Sako 6PPC and my .204 Savage 12 LRPV all season, but at 600 yards his Accuracy International AW in its previous .308Wm now factory 6.5X47L form, is staggeringly accurate and he regularly embarrasses the owners of out and out benchrest rifles. As he says only half seriously, he hates Savage rifles because the LRPV, F, and F/TR models are the only 'factory sporters' that can beat his rifle (on a good day for them). Darren use his AI for BR, other precision comps, foxes and deerstalking - a true factory sporting rifle if I ever saw one. If he lent it to me, I've no doubt at all that I could match my single-shot custom built F/TR rifle's scores at up to 600 yards, maybe better them. That's why Andrew notes sensibly there are factory rifles and factory rifles - hence TRGs, AIs, Alpines etc won't be eligible in his factory sporter clubman class. Going bacjk to Darren's AI back when it was a .308, at 1,000 yards there would be no contest with my F/TR Barnard and its long barrel - that's why we use custom built rifles with 30" barrels - not accuracy but simple ballistics.

 

What F/TR-Class is doing is both replacing Target Rifle and enhancing it. It is a long-range discipline using well made but not benchrest quality rifles and allowing all the things that put accuracy nuts off TR for years - handloading, any bullet weight you like not what ICFRA says you must use, optical sights, and properly small targets etc. If you don't like the basic idea of TR as a speciialist long-range precision discipline, you probably won't like F/TR either.

 

If you want a mass-produced sporting rifle / varmint class sub F-Class discipline, well get up off the settee and start organising it like Mik Maksimovich did for F.

 

 

Good luck! I genuinely wish you well in this quest.

 

Laurie

[brown dog]

where we seem to differ is that I think the current F/TR works, is 'a good package' and you don't.

 

No, that is signally NOT what I think

 

My whole premise is based on leaving F/TR in place and creating a more accessible sub-class within it.

 

Your F/TR accessibility examples all read to me as 'I/He had a stock 308 that was great to 6/800 but then wouldn't cut it and I / he went to discipline bespoke kit to be competitive! ....which is precisely where I'm coming from -not everyone wants to build single discipline rifles and to those that realise, that's why they'll never take part or, to those that don't, that's why they'll give up at that point. It's not about 'looking foolish' it's about level playing fields; the desire to compete against the man rather than the rifle -surely this is precisely the reasoning that saw F/TR evolve form Open in the first place??!!

 

 

 

As regards a 'Quest' -There's no quest. This would be no more than a couple of pen strokes by some enlightened F Class hierarchy bod who recognises the idea for what it is: simply create and define an F/TR sub class that fires in F/TR relays but competes within the sub-class

[Streeker59]

I'm Mr Average club shooter like thousands of others.

I shoot once a month with my club at Bisley cos that's all i can afford. I work some weekends and when i'm not working, the wife wants to spend time with me as well. As such, trotting around the country to regional shoots to clock up "points" for a national comp is out of the question.

 

My rifles are multi purpose and fit the Sporting / Varminter class exactly, these being sako 75's in .243 & .308, a Tikka T3 in .223 1 in 12" & a Quad .22 rf / .17 hmr.

I shoot club F( as we call it ) class with several other club members and we enjoy our in house comp.

 

Some of us however would love to compete on a grander scale without the need to spend 2 - 3 K on AICs, AIWs, TRGs & RPA multishots etc to be competitive in official F class comps. Furthermore we don't want to have to travel across the regions to compete either.

 

The following is what i see as two possible solutions to this conundrum.

 

As i've mentioned in a previous post on this thread, eligible rifles should be restricted to "bog" standard sporter / varminters. The only upgrade maybe is a different trigger group. No restriction on scopes. Harris type bipod only, soft rear bag and prone or table shooting allowed. Distances restricted to say 300 & 600 yards . Caliber restricted to .223 & .308. It would be great to include others like .243 win & .270 but if that were the case then we'd have to accept 6.5 x 55. This caliber on it's own would pretty much out shoot anything else i've mentioned and lead to the same probs that "F" open class suffers from now, elitism.

 

As we're talking bog standard rifles here, targets should be standard NRA TR targets for the appropriate ranges.

 

The class could be run on a postal league basis ( shot on club days ) with RCO's signing off competitors score cards before posting or one club official could collate all scores over a period of time and pass them on to a central body every so often. Entry could be on an individual basis or club teams of say a max of 6 within the team. If there are more than 6 in the club who want to compete then there would be team 1 & team 2 from the same club and so on. The teams can have names instead of numbers, it matters not.

 

Alternatively. Individuals and club teams could compete at "one" of a number of regional ranges. In my case that would be Bisley and i could shoot the whole comp at that one range and no other on fixed dates throughout the year. This solution keeps the expense down as well as travelling costs for competitors.

Not everyone would be able to make every shoot date therefore there would have to be a max number of cards to be shot over the 12 month period that would allow competitors to shoot more than one card on any given date.

[Elwood]

I fail to see why custom rifles are being singled out here, from what I have read on the internet a Tikka T3 will hold its own against any custom rifle! Ok, yes I'm being a little bit cynical here, but it really is the man and not the machine that counts.

 

By limiting the caliber you are already forcing people to change or upgrade/downgrade, it should be any caliber that's eligible for the range, ie: 3290 fps or 4500 J's or under for MOD ranges (please correct me if I'm wrong)

 

Why not have it as "sporting rifle F class" nothing weighing over 12 &1/2 pounds with a trigger pull of 2 lbs or over, ranges being shot from 500/600 and 800 yards, which would still make the .308 a competitive caliber. No back rest and a bi-pod only as a front rest. I agree with the leg span being limited to eliminate the custom bi-pods ( I think sporting rifle prohibits the use of bi-pods as well, I know the Mcqueens sporting rifle does, not that I'm suggesting that front bi-pods should not be used ) No scope with a magnification of over 25, this will allow many of the people with the big Zeiss's or NF's to enter. I can't see that people are going to sell there cherished scopes and down grade to compete.

 

If you want this to appeal the mass, you have to find out what the masses are using and not limit them.

[Streeker59]

Custom rifles are not being singled out as such. And yes it is the man and not the machine that counts until you give the machine a tight neck and bed it's action in epoxy and aluminum.

Custom rifles are represented in F class open and FTR. It's the average varminter / sporter that doesn't have it's own comp and this is what this thread is about...

I would suggest that the masses own varminters and not custom builds...

[TC]

Custom rifles are not being singled out as such. And yes it is the man and not the machine that counts until you give the machine a tight neck and bed it's action in epoxy and aluminum.

Custom rifles are represented in F class open and FTR. It's the average varminter / sporter that doesn't have it's own comp and this is what this thread is about...

I would suggest that the masses own varminters and not custom builds...

 

I really like the sound of this discipline although my rifles would likely be excluded by your definitions......

 

How long do factory Varminters remain "standard"for most around here? Those shot by my shooting mates seem to be in a constant state of evolution - a change to a stiffer stock, a rebarrel in a heavier profile, a change of trigger. This evolution is part of the hobby for many and judging by the nature of the posts aroung here it's pretty much the norm for UKV.

 

Creating a pure factory class seems to lead to the gamesmanship we have all heard of - hiding blueprinted actions, sleeved/disguised barrels etc etc

 

I liked the sound of the original Brown Dog suggestion based on weight, barrel length, mag feed, bipod etc etc. but i will have to admit a degree of bias based on my own rifles.

 

Perhaps I should go and purchase a single function rifle for this discipline - a bog standard factory varminter never to be changed or tweaked

 

TC

[brown dog]

With regard to this 'custom' vs 'bog standard' debate:

 

I just want to be clear where I stand; I'm seeing this whole thing as being about 'inclusivity'; I wouldn't want to see a 'bog standard only' class -that's excludes all the keen shooters who have spent money on kit.

 

Such a measure sniffs of Seventies Trades Unionism and; to my mind; is more about the politics of jealousy than creating level playing fields [Ho Ho Ho ...standby ].

 

To attempt to develop Laurie's car analogy (and I'm not into cars, so I'll probably biff it ) :

 

 

Scenario:

 

Global Warming; all forms of motorsport receiving negative feedback in the press and under threat from populist politicians.

 

F/TR = Hill climb drag racing.

Varmint/Heavy Sporter/Tactical = 4WD.

 

Narrative:

 

Clearly, you can have a go at Hill climb drag racing in a 4WD, but to stand a chance you must own a purpose built hill climb drag racer.

 

Some 4WD owners would like to have a go on the hill climb drag course; but they're currently only allowed to compete against people driving purpose built hill climb drag racers.

 

The 4WD owners know they'll lose. The 4WD owners have no interest in purpose built hill climb drag racers ......and they know they will never own one.......Therefore they don't take part.

 

 

Nevertheless, the 4WD owners fancy a go on the hill climb course.... they simply ask if they could take part on the hill climb days.....and be scored against other 4WD owners.

 

 

That'd be good for motorsport as a whole wouldn't it?

 

And it'd seem odd if the purpose built hill climb drag racer enthusiasts told the 4WD owners to poke off ; wouldn't it?

 

[seems pretty reasonable to me Although I now realise that it's difficult for owners of purpose built hill climb drag racers to accept that others may not share their enthusiasm for cars that can only be driven on hill climb race courses ]

 

 

...but I want to get all 4WD owners engaged ...as long as their 4WD was designed for off-road use and has not been built to win the new 4WD Hill Climb Class

 

and I would certainly not wish to limit the 4WD Hill Climb class to Lada Cossacks just because Lada Cossack owners are jealous of the Land Rover owners (and won't even pass the time of day to Range Rover Owners!).

 

 

 

 

I'm all analogied out now

 

Bottom line, and (in the spirit of KISS, because KISS works) this is really simple:

 

Don't dumb it down to the lowest common denominator;

just create a sub class for rifles that are demonstrably not purpose built for a single discipline competition

 

[brown dog]

Perhaps I should go and purchase a single function rifle for this discipline - a bog standard factory varminter never to be changed or tweaked

 

 

Tony, it pisses me off when i spend all that time producing ludicrous analogies, to find pithy paragraphs accurately summarising the situation posted in the meantime !

 

 

All,

 

I think it'd be safe to summarise opinion here as:

 

Those who've expressed an opinion would like to be able to take part in F-TR (with their current non-discipline-bespoke-kit) in a sub class designed to create a level playing field for such participants.

 

Right now, the only F-Classer revealing himself (laurie) is against the whole idea.

 

Changing that opinion is the issue to address now.

 

Let's not bog in the "Lada Cossack" vs "any 4WD" debate!!

[Elwood]

Custom rifles are not being singled out as such. And yes it is the man and not the machine that counts until you give the machine a tight neck and bed it's action in epoxy and aluminum.

Custom rifles are represented in F class open and FTR. It's the average varminter / sporter that doesn't have it's own comp and this is what this thread is about...

I would suggest that the masses own varminters and not custom builds...

 

Grant were would this fit in? it's a full blown custom built to a varmint spec (if there is such a thing) built and used as a stalking/varmint rifle, but occasionaly gets a go at Bisley. The issue of bedding also needs to be addressed as some out of the box rifles have bedding blocks, the Rem PSS for one.

[TC]

 

Tony, it pisses me off when i spend all that time producing ludicrous analogies, to find pithy paragraphs accurately summarising the situation posted in the meantime !

 

Of course what I suspect you would really like Matt is a competition where the functions required to compete effectively would dictate the form of the rifles we own - mags, weight, barrel length, calibre etc etc This would doubtless be a comp which included a degree of movement, multiple positions, angles, reloads and a wide range of distances .... We know that is tough given the UK's facilities.

 

The TR, F and F/TR rifles are perfectly evolved based on their required function - lying in straight lines at known distances with no need for movement or positional shooting. Our kit will always be disadvantaged to some extent in this scenario.

 

That said I like your idea as I enjoy shooting my non evolved toys at distance and it's the being out and shooting in decent company which is the pleasure for me not the tin cup (just as well those of you who have shot with me will agree ) I'm competing against my previous best and my own goals and am not really worried if the chap next to me is scoring better at 1000yds due to his 30inch barreled luminous monster.

 

Last week I saw a 12 year old shooting surplus ammo through a bright pink factory Tikka pull off some shots that equalled her hungover Gucci kit driving companions IMO there is room for everyone shooting anything as long as we are out there enjoying ourselves and we don't fall in to the trap of taking ourselves too damn seriously - if you want to do that then go and shoot an Internationally recognized discipline within the set rules.

 

I appreciate however there are others who are driven to compete and want to measure themselves against others without feeling outgunned. I wonder if someone brighter than I could come up with a handicap system? Base level perhaps a .223 factory rifle with a 24" barrel and a 10x scope then handicap points added for calibre, weight, barrel length, magnification etc etc etc.? Perhaps a shorter barrel and mag feeding could be traded against penalties for weight and match triggers... Just musing now Massively open to abuse, interpretation and a likely admin nightmare etc but we are likely doing this for fun amongst like minded individuals. Perhaps a signed declaration at the start stating your rifle spec against a fixed set of criteria and take your handicap accordingly.

 

I may well be taking this too far from the intent of just plunking down with your 26" mag fed rifle and having some fun as part of an F/TR relay.

 

 

Tony

[brown dog]

where would this fit in?

 

 

Although that wasn't addressed to me; to quote myself a couple of posts ago:

 

With regard to this 'custom' vs 'bog standard' debate:

 

I just want to be clear where I stand; I'm seeing this whole thing as being about 'inclusivity'; I wouldn't want to see a 'bog standard only' class -that's excludes all the keen shooters who have spent money on kit.

 

Such a measure sniffs of Seventies Trades Unionism and; to my mind; is more about the politics of jealousy than creating level playing fields [Ho Ho Ho ...standby ].

 

 

.....

 

Bottom line, and (in the spirit of KISS, because KISS works) this is really simple:

 

Don't dumb it down to the lowest common denominator;

just create a sub class for rifles that are demonstrably not purpose built for a single discipline competition

 

 

So, in my world , if it scores OK against my draft criteria; it's in.

[brown dog]

Of course what I suspect you would really like Matt is a competition where the functions required to compete effectively would dictate the form of the rifles we own - mags, weight, barrel length, calibre etc etc This would doubtless be a comp which included a degree of movement, multiple positions, angles, reloads and a wide range of distances .... We know that is tough given the UK's facilities.

Well, yes. But I'm attempting to cut my coat according to my cloth. Right now, there is no target discipline in UK that holds my interest.

 

I may well be taking this too far from the intent of just plunking down with your 26" mag fed rifle and having some fun as part of an F/TR relay.

 

I think so; only KISS will work.

 

 

But I also think you're being a little pessimistic with the zennish 'I compete against myself' angle:

 

 

When I whoop people's asses I like to know I did it fair and square; ditto when I'm whooped. If I give myself the mental crutch of thinking "I only got whooped because the other fellow was using a bespoke-single-discipline-gun" I've a pre-prepared excuse.

 

I think that totally misses the whole purpose/ethos of competition.

 

All my greatest shooting learning has taken place when shooting in a competitive environment. I suspect the same could be said of your performance change between the 2 'unusual' competitions in which we competed against each other.

 

I don't want mental crutches; I want to whoop people err, know how good i am in comparison to my peers.

[Zaitsev]

Grant were would this fit in? it's a full blown custom built to a varmint spec (if there is such a thing) built and used as a stalking/varmint rifle, but occasionaly gets a go at Bisley. The issue of bedding also needs to be addressed as some out of the box rifles have bedding blocks, the Rem PSS for one.

 

That fits into the 'ooooh nice' category... It's still a mag fed bolt gun though with a comparitively stubby/skinny barrel.

 

Stop showing off ;-)

 

G

[menial 1]

As a non competitive member of Oundle Rifle and Pistol Club, where I use their outdoor (100yd) range for load development and a little plinking, a Sporter class could have me interested in competing.

My rifles all see use in the field, and scoped up ready for work all fall into the 12.5lb weight limit suggested by Elwood.

However I'd up the weight to 14lbs to allow those that wish to continue using their mods, high end scopes, varmint (detest that word) contoured barrels,

replacement stocks, in fact anything you wish as long as it hits the scales at sub 14lbs ready for the firing line.

Repeaters, fail to see the need as many sportsman use single shot rifles in the field and don't feel as though they're hampered in anyway.

A soft bag at the back, why not, they're inexpensive and the whole point to the competition is to make the best of what you have regardless of calibre out to 800yds max.

Max magnification on scopes of 25x, don't want to exclude the man that has saved for years to buy his dream scope, NXS or PM11, he 's certainly not going to downgrade.

Let the criteria be weight and I think there are quite a number of shooters out there that already own such equipment and may be tempted to enter a class in which they think they may be able to compete without the need for an otherwise single purpose rifle.

Perhaps there is already a class that exists for owners of such rifles, but as I see it this class is designed to be as simple as possible and as long as the equipment doesn't exceed the weight limit, let the owner decide how much they wish to spend, it still can't weigh more than that of the weight the govening body finally decides on.

Probably a simplistic view, but I wouldn't mind competing against others with similar equipment to distances that in the real world are shot by sporting weight rifles.

My one rule other than weight is commercially available calibre size, to encourage the non reloaders to have a go where out and out wildcat calibres can't take all the prizes.

Obviously one calibre will come to the fore as with most things, but a rebarrel to that calibre to wouldn't be the end of the world surely if you wanted to compete seriously.

Pete.

[Andrew]

Am I reading this correctly? In the UK there are more "custom" rifles than stock factory rifles? Therefore a production class would exclude too many shooters? Hard to imagine that. I would have thought the opposite and that opening this "dumbed down" class would widen the scope of shooting sports for a large groups of shooters currently sitting at home. That complicates things.~Andrew

[Guest dasherman]

I've watched this post with interest but fail to see among all the ideas put forward what attaching a sub class to F/TR would achieve.The F/TR shoots are only at 800/1000yds and shot on 1/2moa targets. Shooting a rifle with the restrictions suggested alongside F/TR will quickly dishearten people. I started shooting benchrest in Factory sporter class but very soon moved to Light Varmint not because I was competing against people in that class but because I wanted to shoot groups that my factory rifle wouldnt. When your scoring 3's and the bloke next to you is doing 5's and V's in F/TR and your spending the same on entry fees/ammo/traveling what are you going to do?

I think a disipline that encompased an element of the McQueens and shooting longer ranges on more military type targets would be more in line with using factory type rifles be it a AW/TRG etc.

If a sub class was run along with F/TR I have customers who would come round with the rule book and go through it until they found a possible loophole and then get me to build a rifle to encompass it - its only natural.

Russel's rifle was not expensive - I think his action/trigger/barrel came in at about the same price as a Sako 85.

[Streeker59]

Grant were would this fit in? it's a full blown custom built to a varmint spec (if there is such a thing) built and used as a stalking/varmint rifle, but occasionaly gets a go at Bisley. The issue of bedding also needs to be addressed as some out of the box rifles have bedding blocks, the Rem PSS for one.

Hi Ian. If my rules were to be followed to the letter, your rifle would not be eligible because the main components are not made by the same manufacturer. It's a "bitsa". I understand your point though. With regards to the PSS using a bedding block. If lock, stock and barrel are made by the same manufacturer it's eligible.

The bottom line here is that a sub class will never get off the ground cos as this thread has clearly shown, one would never get a consensus of opinion by all parties for it to become a reality..

[brown dog]

I've watched this post with interest but fail to see among all the ideas put forward what attaching a sub class to F/TR would achieve.The F/TR shoots are only at 800/1000yds and shot on 1/2moa targets. Shooting a rifle with the restrictions suggested alongside F/TR will quickly dishearten people. I started shooting benchrest in Factory sporter class but very soon moved to Light Varmint not because I was competing against people in that class but because I wanted to shoot groups that my factory rifle wouldnt. When your scoring 3's and the bloke next to you is doing 5's and V's in F/TR and your spending the same on entry fees/ammo/traveling what are you going to do?

 

Very interesting and valid observations. However, I've decided to walk away from this idea for other reasons:

 

I'm disappointed by the way that responses here (by all but about 4 people) have amounted to little more than individuals trying to shape criteria to simply describe their own kit; and bugger inclusivity.

 

Mindless restriction, without considering the purpose of the restriction being proposedis about little more than the politics of jealousy.

 

I hoped for agreement on a sub class to " for rifles that are demonstrably not purpose built for a single discipline competition"

 

Nothing more, nothing less.

 

 

Russel's rifle was not expensive - I think his action/trigger/barrel came in at about the same price as a Sako 85.

 

As above. Missing my original point; this idea was never about a dumbing down to the cheapest rifles or some form of class-war jealousy. It was about creating an opportunity for long range competition within an established framework, using generalist rather than purpose-built-single-discipline (ie boooring! ) rifles

 

If a sub class was run along with F/TR I have customers who would come round with the rule book and go through it until they found a possible loophole and then get me to build a rifle to encompass it - its only natural.

Agreed, that's why successful rules would be designed to steer design options away from single-discipline rifles. Built to match such rules, the rifles (regardless of the motivation behind them) would unarguably be effective field varmint/heavy sporter/tactical rifles.

 

I think a disipline that encompased an element of the McQueens and shooting longer ranges on more military type targets would be more in line with using factory type rifles be it a AW/TRG etc.

 

Please can we lose this 'factory' vs custom or whatever divide. It is an introduced distraction of dubious motivation (to my mind 'jealousy' rather than the false 'inclusivity' under which it masquerades).

 

As before the idea was about creating an opportunity for long range competition within an established framework, using generalist rather than purpose-built-single-discipline (boooring! ) rifles.

 

That aside; I think you may have hit the nail on the head

 

 

 

No doubt 15 posts will follow describing why only the poster's kit should qualify

[menial 1]

Andrew, if you bought a factory rifle and it turned out a shitter would you buy another and take the chance of purchasing the same thing or perhaps have it adjusted to shoot more satisfactorily by way of a new trigger, barrel, stock, all of these or perhaps just one.

It's amazing the lengths people will go to replicate "factory" to get an edge. Is a blueprinted action still to be considered factory, only if eveybody has it.

The majority of shooters that have some interest in accuracy at what would be considered extended hunting ranges here in the UK tend to go the semi custom route of new barrel or other mods as and when the funds, the need or the mood takes them.

The average punter shooting in the field will continue shooting his factory rifle exactly as it came from the factory whether it shoots "2 groups or in the ".2's with factory ammunition because he doesn't know better nor cares to as long as he kills what he aims at because therein lies his only interest.

I've had a couple of factory rifles that have shot wonderfully and also some that despite careful loading refused to improve.

You could practice as much as you like with a poor rifle but will not beat a skillful shooter with an accurate rifle, you know as well as the rest of us that factory rifles accuracy can vary widely so why handcuff a simple enough class with production equipment and so exclude the large numbers that have improved a factory rifle without spending a king's ransome.

Too many rules are sometimes just that, too many rules, making it mandatory for the organisers at every event to check every rifle for it's authenticity as a production rifle.

If a class is simply done on weight of the kit as it is to be shot, there can be no "he's cheating" claims, the rifle makes the accepted weight limit or you can't shoot, simple as that.

I raced motorcycles in both Grand Prix spec machines and Production machines and the biggest fiddlers were always to be found in the Production machine classes, I'm in no doubt that some would attempt tweaks that wouldn't remain within the true spirit of the factory/production class that some would like to see evolve, myself included, but wouldn't bother to post an application for this supposedly pure factory class as I'm all to aware of human nature in all things competitive I'm afraid, and therein lies my reasoning to include allcomers that comply with the weight restriction, keep it simple.

Pete.

[grahamfarmer]

brown dog,

 

dont give in now you have started something that is giving us mere mortals a glimmer of a chance for some competative shooting with what we have got already.

 

i think the main point is that for some people what we are trying to acheive is to simple to understand in that we just want a chance to shoot competively against each other with our every day rifles just that some people are looking for the loop holes before its off the ground.

 

i hope that my earlier posts wernt taken out of context but it sounds that you where trying to open up for as many as possible to have a go and hence some very broad outlines where to suggested so as to exclude as few as possible whilst maintaining an element of fairness .

 

it seems to me that you either need a rule book of umpteen volumes or as few as possible at all for this to work or a two section class .

 

class one being factory production rifles , what ever it is if you can buy it as it is from a rfd then thats its class ie remmy700 pss would be factory production .

 

class two would be modified factory so if i rebarrel my pss with a trueflite barrel i now class two or i fit a manners stock to a tikka t3 its class 2

 

then just a few basics like harris or similar folding bi pod to be used

 

triggers can be what ever but must have safety catch

 

caliber to be available in commercial production form of orginal rifle action or be 223, 243 25-06 270 308 30-06 ie the common factory calibers

 

then add the priviso that the rifle must be conditioned for deer or fox

 

then for the modified class max barrel lenght 27 inchs say

 

as for bedding the action let it be ok for any rifle as common first step to upgrading a rifles accuracy

 

then eldons rifle can compete in class two as although a custom build as long as it a factory chambering he would be shooting amongst similar rifles to some extent .

then say range of shooting any to a max of 600 yds say

 

 

THE THING IS WE ARE TRYING TO HAVE SOME COMPETIVE FUN NOT TRYING TO BUILD A SUPER GUN CLASS .

 

 

 

OR COME ALONG TO THE UKVARMINTING SHOOT AS THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT WILL HAPPEN.

 

GRAHAM.