FCWC BISLEY RESULTS

[Cameron Mc]

Another note from Marty that makes interesting reading:

Quote

During the Imperial they scored V bulls as a 6 (as we do here). During the FCWC they scored V bulls as a 5.1.
Why the difference I have no idea but just doing the maths, if V's were scored as a 6 it would have put me from 39th to 24th overall!!! It makes for interesting thinking....

Lastly, I hadn't had time to check this out but as Rod pointed out:
"overall you beat Larry barthalome, John Brewer, Nancy Tomkins and some other big name US shooters"

so again, really happy...

Cheers,
Marty.

Really well done Marty!!!!!!
Cameron

[RAVEN]

Well done Marty on the gong
and Greg and John for participating
Their experience in this event I’m sure will be invaluable to future shooters going OS to represent Australia.
Maybe in the not to distant future Australia will once again have a team in the FCWC.
Cheers
RB

[AlanF]

Here is a link to the results of the main FCWC teams event.

http://www.nra.org.uk/common/files/results/imperial/2009/9916.pdf

In the end, the GB team was just too good. I notice the Americans (Shiraz at least) are saying the 7mms used by GB are the reason for their success. I wasn't there, but can't help feeling that the main factor was that the GB team did a lot of practice at Bisley under Bisley rules, and if any place would have a home ground advantage, that place would have to be it!

However I'm sure our local 7mm advocates will prefer Shiraz's point of view !

What I am very keen to find out is where the next FCWC will be. The US or Canada perhaps? We should know very soon - an announcement may appear on the ICFRA website.

Alan

[RDavies]

I would say that the reasons for their success were
Depth of great shooting talent
Familiarity with the local conditions
No jet lag, or travel bugs.
No jitters about being at the holey grail of Bisley.
Lots and lots of recent practice in the lead up events.
Rifles set up and tuned for the temp, dampness, wet rests etc
No unexpected powder problems.

Is it possible that the reason the 7s are popular there is with the longer barrel life, given the high prices of barrels over there

maybe next year ,if the event is in USA or Canada, then they will dominate with thier 6.5x284s

[AlanF]

...maybe next year ,if the event is in USA or Canada, then they will dominate with thier 6.5x284s

Rod,

Unfortunately the next won't be till 2013 - but I'd like to see it in the US or Canada. I don't think those places would have anything like the home ground advantage of Bisley.

BTW how's the NSW Queens shaping up for you? I know of a 1 Vic, 1 NSW and 1 Qld shooting F-Open so far.

Alan

[johnk]

You can't deny that there's always an element of home town advantage in the mix, but don't discount the competence of British teams & the technology that they employ.

Their last Palma team won away from home & despite others (Australia included) having shooters right up there. The US shooters are still shaking their heads that the Poms used Berger non-VLD projectiles at under 2900 fps in that event but they did so because they shot better 1000 yard elevation than other mixes tried. Apparently they had demonstrated to their own satisfaction that those pills managed transonic shock fine.

I know that a number of their F class shooters, Des Parr for example, are repointing their projectiles with Whidden dies, something that I've fiddled with myself with my match rifle loads. It was said that the Scottish match rifle team this year was expected to use repointed pills throughout & they won the Elcho from the English eight by 20 points. I get the impression that the US teams might not be permitted the same degree of independent thought.

The Aussie MR team was there on 2006 & we carted all our ammo over - there was no option other than to arrive a week earlier & load the 5-700 rounds needed. Bisley tends to get far hotter than stereotyping would have us believe & we experienced temperatures of up to 36 degrees C, enough to pop primers one day on one of our members loads & he was using the same load that he used at all Aussie venues. The US team wouldn't have had that powder issues because they loaded at home & shipped the lot across but they might have loads towards the ragged edge. Certainly they push the 6½s harder than most locals I know do so they could have suffered from higher than anticipated pressures. In a nation where they jam their loads anything from .010" to .020", preloading might not have been the smartest strategy.

What I found more interesting was that the visitors won the F/TR class. There was an undoubted match rifle flavour in the English team, so I expect that they would have been using 190 or 200 SMKs. There's been nothing said (that I've heard anyway) about what the US team members used, but they certainly seemed to ahve an edge further out when things got tough.

[johnk]

What I found more interesting was that the visitors won the F/TR class. There was an undoubted match rifle flavour in the English team, so I expect that they would have been using 190 or 200 SMKs. There's been nothing said (that I've heard anyway) about what the US team members used, but they certainly seemed to ahve an edge further out when things got tough.

I might have shot myself in the foot here. I just learned from another forum that the US team mostly used Berger's new 155.5 grain VLD, with a couple of exceptions. With the clamour within ICFRA for F/TR to be any bullet weight, I expected that they would opt for heavier pills, but it seems that they had other (justified) ideas.

I'm probably wrong about the Brits too, but I can recall being wrong once or twice before - just in the last 24 hours. Memory doesn't hold up longer than that.

[Cameron Mc]

twice before - just in the last 24 hours. Memory doesn't hold up longer than that.

John, your not the loneranger

[IanP]

Johnk, You might find this interesting...

What I found more interesting was that the visitors won the F/TR class. There was an undoubted match rifle flavour in the English team, so I expect that they would have been using 190 or 200 SMKs. There's been nothing said (that I've heard anyway) about what the US team members used, but they certainly seemed to ahve an edge further out when things got tough.

"Just a quick clarification about an article you have posted on your "F-T/R Only" page. I typically read your website every so often with some interest. When I browsed through your F-T/R section, I was surprised to the passage about Sierra Bullets' connection to the USA F-T/R Team. The fact of the matter is that the USA F-T/R Team is very happy with our Berger Bullets sponsorship! We have been partnered with Berger for several years now and are very excited about Berger's new 155.5 grain "Fullbore" bullet. They came out with this bullet early last year, and it has quickly become the favourite of the USA F-T/R Team. Most of the US Team will be running the Berger 155.5 at the Bisley FCWC this July, all of the others will be running Berger's 155 VLD. Our Team ran the Bergers to great success this last Fall at our own National Championships in Lodi, Wisconsin.

If you could change the aforementioned article to reflect the actual supplier of Bullets to the USA F-T/R Team, I would be very grateful!

Please keep up the excellent website, I really enjoy reading about the exploits of my fellow F-Class shooters from the UK. I am looking forward to Bisley this Summer with some relish!"

Best Regards,

Darrell Buell
Captain, Team USA F-T/R

RULES

An F/TR Class rifle must not weigh more than 8.25 kg. (about 18lb. 2 oz.) including scope and bi-pod.

Permitted chamberings are 308 Winchester/7.62 Nato and 223 Remington/5.56mm.

The rifle may only be supported by a simple bi-pod and/or sling. A sand-bag may be used under the butt.

There is no restriction on scope-power.

Factory or handloaded ammunition may be used and any bullet-weight is permitted.


Its a pity our Australian F-Standard doesn't allow such choice in bullet weight!

[Matt P]

Ian
To be honest I think FS is so successful here because we limit the choice of projectile, beleive it or not we have one if not the largest numbers of TR and Fc in the world so we must be doing something right, on the technical side I would love to be able to use any bullet but looking at it from the competition side I think it works well, and competition is always very close. There has been a move from Canada to limit bullet weight to less than 156gn and 81gr at the FCWC and for the rifle spec to allow any front rest similar to our FS.

Matt P

[IanP]

Matt, I think you are probably right!

[johnk]

I guess that we need to remember that rules are formulated to reflect majority concensus, not accommodate all expectations.

F Open is by & large a simple class to define, ie within certain dimensional considerations anything goes & thus has international commonality.

ICFRA F Restricted on the other hand reflected the majority view of the voting parties & thus favoured the British (who have an advantage ballotting) & virtually accidentally, the US position. The Brits had - still have - little to no participation in this division as such. Their F class roots are Diggles not Bisley. When the restricted class was proposed, their expectation, which seems to have some substance was that their participants would come from the ranks of match rifle shooters as they were the only TR discipline involved with scoped shooting & further that they were equipped with rifles that shot heavy (190-240 grain) projectiles. Any projectile weight was a no brainer for them.

The US has drawn much of its F/TR support from the ranks of tactical shooters & they demanded that they be able to use their short barrelled .308s - which necessitated the use of heavier pills. Those who have come from their TR equivalent ranks shoot Palma style rifles with no restriction on bullet weight. Nevertheless, when push came to shove, they saw an advantage to Palmaesque projectiles, it would seem.

Australia & Canada have both largely held to the original "Farky" concept, that a standard rifle by whatever name is a TR rifle with a scope & rest - and all other rules should remain the same as TR. OK, we went a tad generous with our stand & weight rules.

This likely makes the class competitive within any nation's boundaries but otherwise a challenge for some countries to comply with internationally.

How can you expect much from such a mix? Why would you expect any country to compromise on the offchance that they might some day gee up a team to participate? I know that we do have disparate entry routes into F Standard, but most of us are there because we want the added restriction of ammunition components to enhance other elements such as loading & tuning techniques and individual skill. Why become F Open restricted to a .308 or .223?

Frankly, I believe that as travel costs become more onerous & transhipping rifles & ammunition more problematical, we will see the end of international open range competition except at the highest level of the most popular disciplines. It wouldn't surprise me if the Australia & Palma matches finished up being the only viable ones. Heck, there have been three F class championships now & we were only able to attend the first in Canada - that with a lot of planning & identifying where Varget of the same batch as our guys' 2208 was available. South Africa was a washout because of its domestic ammunition regulation & uncertain policing.

I know how much it cost John Tracey to ship his kit & bang over to Bisley & it wasn't all that much more than we each paid for the 2006 match rifle team, when we had best commercial rates. Unless you can jag a sponsor like the US teams can who will tranship their gear for them, you will be up against it once you travel to the other hemisphere. Have we the market clout to do that? Have we a sponsor with that generosity (ie expectation of commercial return)?

I doubt it, in which case why buggarise around with a winning rule set?

[AlanF]

...there have been three F class championships now & we were only able to attend the first in Canada...

And I'll tell you a major reason why that is the case John - the fact that Australia has gone its own way with F-Std, which has become hugely successful domestically, but depleted the size of F-Open to the extent that we just don't have the numbers to produce an international team. F-Std has the numbers, but until this year, there was no world championship for them. And because FT/R is the weaker category in most other countries, it will probably remain as just a supporting event at future FCWCs. This is not a criticism of F-Std - the F-Class shooting fraternity of Australia has spoken with their feet - the vast majority are happy to shoot domestically. I am still hoping to get to a FCWC, but will be just as happy organising my own gear and travel and shooting individually than in a team - teams involve commitment, and I don't think we have enough committed F-Classers at present.

Alan

[agro]

When is this event to be held in Australia??

[AlanF]

When is this event to be held in Australia??

Wayne,

Probably not anytime soon. We can't expect the others to come all the way down here when we can't get off our butts to go to theirs. The 2013 FCWC will be in Raton, New Mexico, USA. This time, I think we should say to everyone you aren't eligible for the team unless you've booked your air tickets to shoot in ther individual FCWC. Then 6 months out we'll see if we have the numbers on that basis - if not we can still have a great time participating in the individuals, and possibly the Rutland Cup.

Alan