To be honest Ian even if their were no restrictions I wouldn't be going any bigger than the 7mm SAUM capacity, there are only a few people who could shoot a 20 shot match with the big thirties well, so for me personally it's a non issue.
Matt P
FCWC 2017 in Canada - Nominations
Moderator: Mod
-
aaronraad
- Posts: 573
- Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2012 3:43 pm
- Location: Brisbane, Australia
- Contact:
IanP wrote:if I were to contact the Canadian Range or their Canadian Rifle Association, that would be inappropriate as I see it. I am not in a position of authority with our state or national associations and I see this as the appropriate means of raising our concern.
Ian
No problem contacting the Connaught Range Ian. The rule applies any day of the week as far as we know? Just start by asking what rules are applied to F-Open because you were thinking about booking a flight next weekend for a casual afternoon of F-Open shooting.
Our sport is so lame that we even accept people with disabilities as long as they hold a Shooters Licence. F1 and MotoGP have more technical restrictions than Rugby Union has rules for a scrum. Do you remember what happened to the Group B Rally car series?
Be careful what you aim for, you might hit it! Antipodean Industrial - Home of the G7L projectiles
-
AlanF
- Posts: 7501
- Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 8:22 pm
- Location: Maffra, Vic
ICFRA F-Open rule 2.2 allows a maximum of 8mm calibre. I presume this was done because a large number of ranges around the world use this figure. But using just a calibre limit is too simplistic for the purpose, which is to limit how far projectiles can travel, and hence stay within the bounds of the safety template.
As an example of the unfairness of this simple 8mm limit, a 44-40 can't be used, but a 30-378 Weatherby can. Yet the 30 cal has a potential maximum range approximately 3 times that of the 44.
So can you blame the authorities regulating Connaught range (and many others) from using a formula which much more effectively does the job of protecting people from stray bullets?
If we are going to put in a submission to ICFRA, surely it would be better to request that they change the restriction to something like the Connaught formula, and set it at a level that will satisfy the vast majority of ranges around the world, THEN say that the FCWC must be held only at ranges which accept this standard.
Alan
As an example of the unfairness of this simple 8mm limit, a 44-40 can't be used, but a 30-378 Weatherby can. Yet the 30 cal has a potential maximum range approximately 3 times that of the 44.
So can you blame the authorities regulating Connaught range (and many others) from using a formula which much more effectively does the job of protecting people from stray bullets?
If we are going to put in a submission to ICFRA, surely it would be better to request that they change the restriction to something like the Connaught formula, and set it at a level that will satisfy the vast majority of ranges around the world, THEN say that the FCWC must be held only at ranges which accept this standard.
Alan
-
Daniel Chisholm
- Posts: 53
- Joined: Thu May 03, 2012 8:40 pm
- Location: Canada
Re: F/Open ammo restrictions at the 2017 FCWC.
These restrictions are a part of an agreement under which DCRA uses the range (which belongs to the military).
AlanF - you are correct, getting an answer from Scott Bissett (Chairman of the 2017 organizing committee) is about as reliable a source as is possible. I can confirm that what has been published on the 7mm.com.au interview and what has been discussed here is current, correct and accurate.
IanP, Matt, if I were to contact the Canadian Range or their Canadian Rifle Association, that would be inappropriate as I see it. I am not in a position of authority with our state or national associations and I see this as the appropriate means of raising our concern.
You could phone the DCRA Office at +1-613-829-8281 and ask the question, or email them, or write them a letter. It's a completely fair question to ask and I know they would be happy to answer it for you.
You can look at the current rules of shooting in Canada, go to http://dcra.ca/fclass.php and then load up the rule book http://dcra.ca/rulebooks/Rule%20Book%20-%20complete%20for%20website%20May%202012.pdf. Read the whole thing if you want, or go straight to Rule 11.21 on page R11/10, where you will see that the Connaught-specific rule limit cartridge performance, and also the plot on page R11/12.
If you would like a question to be formally asked by Australia, you could get NRAA to contact DCRA and ask the question (or, have your Australian rep on the ICFRA F-Class Committee ask officially, and get an answer from either the Canadian ICFRA F-Class Committee representative or DCRA). You'll get the same answer as what has been discussed in this forum but if it is more helpful to get a take-it-to-the-bank official answer, those would be a couple of ways to get that.
FCWC 2017 is an ICFRA match, being conducted by the DCRA. If it is to be conducted on Connaught Range (realistically, the only venue in Canada where it is feasible to conduct a match of this size), we need to comply with the local range restrictions. In 2002 it wasn't an issue since the then-current state of the art technology (6.5x.284 with a 139/140/142 at 3050-3150fps) happened to be "just in". Nowadays, there are some F-Open cartridges which do exceed that limit.
If you think that it is unfortunate that the 2017 FCWC will be conducted under limitations slightly more restrictive than the ICFRA rules permit, I would agree with you. Realistically there are only three courses of action that I can see:
- accept things as they are. Shoot FCWC 2017 in Connaught, under the published limitations
- decide that this is unacceptable, and ask DCRA to petition the military for a variance or an exemption for FCWC2017. This has already been thought of and discussed; my estimate of the chances of this being successfully done are about zero.
- decide that this is unacceptable, and ask ICFRA to yank the hosting of the 2017 FCWC from DCRA/Connaught and hold it somewhere else. It is ICFRA's match and it would be within their power to do this. ICFRA would have to weigh the pluses and the minuses of making this change; I would think it would be hard to make a case that this is enough of a reason to make such a drastic change
These restrictions are a part of an agreement under which DCRA uses the range (which belongs to the military).
AlanF - you are correct, getting an answer from Scott Bissett (Chairman of the 2017 organizing committee) is about as reliable a source as is possible. I can confirm that what has been published on the 7mm.com.au interview and what has been discussed here is current, correct and accurate.
IanP, Matt, if I were to contact the Canadian Range or their Canadian Rifle Association, that would be inappropriate as I see it. I am not in a position of authority with our state or national associations and I see this as the appropriate means of raising our concern.
You could phone the DCRA Office at +1-613-829-8281 and ask the question, or email them, or write them a letter. It's a completely fair question to ask and I know they would be happy to answer it for you.
You can look at the current rules of shooting in Canada, go to http://dcra.ca/fclass.php and then load up the rule book http://dcra.ca/rulebooks/Rule%20Book%20-%20complete%20for%20website%20May%202012.pdf. Read the whole thing if you want, or go straight to Rule 11.21 on page R11/10, where you will see that the Connaught-specific rule limit cartridge performance, and also the plot on page R11/12.
If you would like a question to be formally asked by Australia, you could get NRAA to contact DCRA and ask the question (or, have your Australian rep on the ICFRA F-Class Committee ask officially, and get an answer from either the Canadian ICFRA F-Class Committee representative or DCRA). You'll get the same answer as what has been discussed in this forum but if it is more helpful to get a take-it-to-the-bank official answer, those would be a couple of ways to get that.
FCWC 2017 is an ICFRA match, being conducted by the DCRA. If it is to be conducted on Connaught Range (realistically, the only venue in Canada where it is feasible to conduct a match of this size), we need to comply with the local range restrictions. In 2002 it wasn't an issue since the then-current state of the art technology (6.5x.284 with a 139/140/142 at 3050-3150fps) happened to be "just in". Nowadays, there are some F-Open cartridges which do exceed that limit.
If you think that it is unfortunate that the 2017 FCWC will be conducted under limitations slightly more restrictive than the ICFRA rules permit, I would agree with you. Realistically there are only three courses of action that I can see:
- accept things as they are. Shoot FCWC 2017 in Connaught, under the published limitations
- decide that this is unacceptable, and ask DCRA to petition the military for a variance or an exemption for FCWC2017. This has already been thought of and discussed; my estimate of the chances of this being successfully done are about zero.
- decide that this is unacceptable, and ask ICFRA to yank the hosting of the 2017 FCWC from DCRA/Connaught and hold it somewhere else. It is ICFRA's match and it would be within their power to do this. ICFRA would have to weigh the pluses and the minuses of making this change; I would think it would be hard to make a case that this is enough of a reason to make such a drastic change
-
DaveMc
- Posts: 1453
- Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2011 6:33 pm
IanP wrote:I'm surprised to see that as yet no one else appears to be concerned that Canada may be running a restricted F-Open class. That opens the door to any country that runs a future WFC Championship to change ICFRA F-Open rules because they cannot provide a suitable venue.
Maybe if we and other countries complain to ICFRA, who are the governing body for this event, that we want F-Open to remain open and not ballistically neutered, then we may be able to get it changed.
Its not about me not listening to the people who claim they know, its about not wanting to accept a lame F-Open implementation of our sport and present it as a World Championship event. Its about me being concerned with what the future holds for these competitions.
Is our sport that lame that it accepts a restricted F-Open class as being suitable for a world championships? If the majority of F-Open shooters dont care about this degradation to our class then so be it!
Ian
Ian, There is another side to this. If we restrict ourselves solely to countries or ranges that have an adequate template to run to the full letter of the original F class rules (originating in Canada by the way) then we will have little to no participation. These rules were written before the new range of projectiles came out and can be changed up to 12 months before the next WC's. They were written in a time where it was inconceivable to see an accurate sub 8mm break these boundaries and I guess they were written to exclude the 338 class (maybe for safety template or other reasons).
This is a big issue and one which severely limits European participation in our sport. There are very few 1000 yard ranges around rather less ones with safety templates that will go to essentially 338 Lap standards. (Also large enough to handle large numbers of shooters.)
If I had a choice between shooting against 2 countries but being allowed to go to the whopping 30's or new 7mm projectile at full noise vs getting the world involved. - I would choose the latter.
I am sure ICFRA are aware of the issue and also are aware of the development of the new projectiles coming through. I am also sure there isn't a snowflakes chance in hell of convincing the Canadian military to change their safety regulations but I understand your frustration.
By all means try if you believe in it that strongly.
-
IanP
- Posts: 1193
- Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2008 11:30 am
- Location: Adelaide
Its a shame to wake up to the realisation that F-Class is really more of a hobby than a sport. International sports have a set of rules and a governing body. Serious international sporting events are held at venues that allow the existing rules to be implemented by teams or individuals who endeavor to maximise any advantage the rules permit.
Its also encouraging to see Australia as a shining light in following the ICFRA F-Open ballistic implementation of the rules. As does the USA as recently shown to the world at Raton.
It seems to me that Canada is a step back in time with Bisley style squadding and a ballistic template in place. To my way of thinking Bisley style squadding is wonderfully unique to Bisley but to stage a WCFC event using this method is difficult to comprehend.
Canada is also causing me concern with the spreadsheet that has been posted to use for gauging ballistic compliance. How many shooters in F-Open will be using flat based projectiles? I'm pretty sure all shooters will be using long range boat tail projectiles. The spreadsheet put forward by the Canadians is using G1 BCs which is applicable to bullets we wont be shooting. The Canadians state they are unsure how they are going to measure ballistic compliance. In short, the ballistic compliance is presently a complete farce with a dud spreadsheet and without a way of accurately measuring compliance.
In closing I would like to say if for the future of the sport, (as expressed by some in this thread) that ballistic templates must be used. Then I say its time to change the current ICFRA rules for F-Open or perhaps a better way would be to drop F-Open from the rules entirely and only have F T/R.
The big attraction in F-Open for me was the freedom of expression it offered the reloader in me, to choose calibre, bullet and velocity. It appears that without countries complaining loudly about what Canada and other countries may do to F-Open, we are entering into uncharted waters. Some may prefer this direction, but it will end up like another form of F T/R. The restrictions will mean the 284W will become the defacto 308W of F T/R.
Ian
Its also encouraging to see Australia as a shining light in following the ICFRA F-Open ballistic implementation of the rules. As does the USA as recently shown to the world at Raton.
It seems to me that Canada is a step back in time with Bisley style squadding and a ballistic template in place. To my way of thinking Bisley style squadding is wonderfully unique to Bisley but to stage a WCFC event using this method is difficult to comprehend.
Canada is also causing me concern with the spreadsheet that has been posted to use for gauging ballistic compliance. How many shooters in F-Open will be using flat based projectiles? I'm pretty sure all shooters will be using long range boat tail projectiles. The spreadsheet put forward by the Canadians is using G1 BCs which is applicable to bullets we wont be shooting. The Canadians state they are unsure how they are going to measure ballistic compliance. In short, the ballistic compliance is presently a complete farce with a dud spreadsheet and without a way of accurately measuring compliance.
In closing I would like to say if for the future of the sport, (as expressed by some in this thread) that ballistic templates must be used. Then I say its time to change the current ICFRA rules for F-Open or perhaps a better way would be to drop F-Open from the rules entirely and only have F T/R.
The big attraction in F-Open for me was the freedom of expression it offered the reloader in me, to choose calibre, bullet and velocity. It appears that without countries complaining loudly about what Canada and other countries may do to F-Open, we are entering into uncharted waters. Some may prefer this direction, but it will end up like another form of F T/R. The restrictions will mean the 284W will become the defacto 308W of F T/R.
Ian
Last edited by IanP on Mon Feb 17, 2014 7:21 am, edited 3 times in total.
__________________________________________
A small ES is good. A small SD is better. A small group is best!
A small ES is good. A small SD is better. A small group is best!
-
bsouthernau
- Posts: 696
- Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2012 4:31 pm
IanP wrote:
It seems to me that Canada is a step back in time with Bisley style squadding ..... To my way of thinking Bisley style squadding is wonderfully unique to Bisley but to stage a WCFC event using this method is difficult to comprehend.
They shoot Bisley triples in South Africa. I could be wrong (again!!) but I think the world's split about 50/50 between Bisley and string style shooting.
Barry
-
AlanF
- Posts: 7501
- Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 8:22 pm
- Location: Maffra, Vic
Ian,
I share your enthusiasm for the freedom F-Open gives to "discover" new chamberings and components that improve performance. That is why many F-Open shooters choose to shoot the class ahead of F-Std. But even F-Open, despite its name, is subject to many restrictive rules. The existing 8mm calibre rule is after all only slightly less restrictive than the Connaught rule. But while the Connaught rule may appear to stifle advancement in long range projectile performance, there is still plenty of opportunity for F-Open shooters to improve things. By raising BCs and at the same time lowering velocities we will get many gains including less recoil, less barrel heat, both of which should lead to greater accuracy, and additionally longer barrel life. Raising velocity is helpful ballistically, but it brings with it many down sides.
BTW I share your concerns about the inappropriate use of the G1 BC in the Connaught formua. And if they decide to use manufacturer's published BCs we might see many of them suddenly revise their figures down and exaggerate them on the low side rather than the high side
.
Alan
I share your enthusiasm for the freedom F-Open gives to "discover" new chamberings and components that improve performance. That is why many F-Open shooters choose to shoot the class ahead of F-Std. But even F-Open, despite its name, is subject to many restrictive rules. The existing 8mm calibre rule is after all only slightly less restrictive than the Connaught rule. But while the Connaught rule may appear to stifle advancement in long range projectile performance, there is still plenty of opportunity for F-Open shooters to improve things. By raising BCs and at the same time lowering velocities we will get many gains including less recoil, less barrel heat, both of which should lead to greater accuracy, and additionally longer barrel life. Raising velocity is helpful ballistically, but it brings with it many down sides.
BTW I share your concerns about the inappropriate use of the G1 BC in the Connaught formua. And if they decide to use manufacturer's published BCs we might see many of them suddenly revise their figures down and exaggerate them on the low side rather than the high side
.
Alan
-
Cameron Mc
- Posts: 1089
- Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2005 10:55 am
- Location: Darling Downs SE Qld
-
IanP
- Posts: 1193
- Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2008 11:30 am
- Location: Adelaide
bsouthernau wrote:IanP wrote:
It seems to me that Canada is a step back in time with Bisley style squadding ..... To my way of thinking Bisley style squadding is wonderfully unique to Bisley but to stage a WCFC event using this method is difficult to comprehend.
They shoot Bisley triples in South Africa. I could be wrong (again!!) but I think the world's split about 50/50 between Bisley and string style shooting.
Barry
Barry, I'm hoping you can explain how the Bisley system works for team shooting. The current info, (interview) suggests two to a mound and not three to a mound if possible.
Not understanding how this system works I am guessing all the good work that went into team wind coaching at Raton could not be applied under a Bisley style competition?
Would this style of shooting, which I presume puts two or three teams on one target take longer to shoot than having one team to one target?
Any info on how this changes team tactics from Raton to Canada would be much appreciated! I remain open minded about using the Bisley system but dont understand how it works in team mode.
Rule one for any team shoot or individual competition is to know the rules! I find myself in the situation of not knowing the Bisley rules of engagement.
Ian
__________________________________________
A small ES is good. A small SD is better. A small group is best!
A small ES is good. A small SD is better. A small group is best!
-
AlanF
- Posts: 7501
- Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 8:22 pm
- Location: Maffra, Vic
IanP wrote:...Barry, I'm hoping you can explain how the Bisley system works for team shooting. The current info, (interview) suggests two to a mound and not three to a mound if possible...
Ian,
Sorry to butt in, but I think the answer is quite simple. Bisley style is only used in individual shooting (for the FCWC at least). I believe the team shooting format will be the same as for Raton.
Alan
-
IanP
- Posts: 1193
- Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2008 11:30 am
- Location: Adelaide
AlanF wrote:IanP wrote:...Barry, I'm hoping you can explain how the Bisley system works for team shooting. The current info, (interview) suggests two to a mound and not three to a mound if possible...
Ian,
Sorry to butt in, but I think the answer is quite simple. Bisley style is only used in individual shooting (for the FCWC at least). I believe the team shooting format will be the same as for Raton.
Alan
Thank god for that!!!!!!!!!
I wondered how a Bisley team shoot could possibly work.
Ian
__________________________________________
A small ES is good. A small SD is better. A small group is best!
A small ES is good. A small SD is better. A small group is best!
-
bsouthernau
- Posts: 696
- Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2012 4:31 pm
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 132 guests
Menu
Newest members