ED

Get or give advice on equipment, reloading and other technical issues.

Moderator: Mod

Message
Author
Tony Q
Posts: 1044
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 8:04 pm
Location: Adelaide (MBRC)

#16 Postby Tony Q » Fri Jul 29, 2005 8:49 pm

Now back to BEN!


Ok Ben Boy ... back to this 'wannabe Tactical rifle' stuff.

I shoot a Sako TRG 22 in 308.

The original TRG 21 (1996) was designed by Sako, after years of research and development, for the Military as their primary tactical rifle platform, a full modular system that can be stripped in seconds and refitted with other components in the field.

The revised TRG 22 (2000) is the same rifle with minor stock changes.

Not only are these rifles std issue to the Finnish Special Forces but are used by many police and counter terrorist units around the world. They are only produced in 3 calibers. 308, 300 and 338 Lapua

The TRG, in conjunction with Sako, was designed by some of the most recognized target shooters in the world. To the extent that the original TRG 21 and the newer TRG 22 have become popular and regular at the International UIT 300m tournaments.

The action is slick and the heavy receiver is hexagonal in shape with a solid top and stiffened base with a small loading port, it employs a massive 3 lug lock and uses the world renowned Sako extractor system…. In other words Ben, it’s a TR action.

They are designed to take open military (battle) sights, Telescopic sights and Target aperture front and rear sights, without adding any rail, mounting block or bracket.

There is built in mounting points for mirage bands, and quick release magazines for rapid fire disciplines. There are storage facilities in the butt to hold open sights and keep them protected when not used, or for back up. There is also multiple sling mounts 3 rear and 2 front for Biathlon shooting.

The whole system mounts onto a full length alloy rail and the butt is adjustable for length, pitch, height and cant. The cheek piece is adjustable in 3 directions. The forend has a std full length Anschutz rail.

The trigger is a one piece (including Guard) modular unit of 2 stage design. It is based on the Anschutz trigger and is adjustable for creep and backlash not to mention Pitch, location and rotation. The whole module is held by one fixing and is accessible from outside the stock for quick adjustment. It is one of the best triggers I have ever come across.

All the add on accessories were thought out and designed from the ground up, Slings, Low centre of gravity Bi Pods (pivot on bore access) adjustable pitch Muzzle breaks and open sight systems.

The entire rifle system is incredibly well thought out and some of the best Military and Target shooter minds in the world went into its development.

It’s a piece of Art and Sculpture …. To me…. with enormous technical and development history.

So, call it what you want, Sniper Rifle, Tactical Rifle, International UIT Target Rifle … or F Class Standard Rifle.

Because of its history and development it does not make me a ‘wanabee’ anything, it makes me interested in fire arm development and design. And from a personal note, I fired just about anything you could hold on to and pull a trigger, years ago, in the Army. All I want to be now is a competitive FS shooter with equipment design I respect.

And lets not forget ... our treasured long range shooting sport developed from the trusty Military 303 ....


So Ben, whats the interesting history and development of your rifle??? made it your self? wone it in a raffle? it dosent matter ... its your rifle and its your thing!

Mines Green ... Yours is Orange ...

does that make you a 'Wannabe Fruit' :?: :)
MBRC F-Class standard ... and proud of it!

Guest

#17 Postby Guest » Fri Jul 29, 2005 10:36 pm

ed
Last edited by Guest on Sun Oct 30, 2005 8:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Tony Q
Posts: 1044
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 8:04 pm
Location: Adelaide (MBRC)

#18 Postby Tony Q » Fri Jul 29, 2005 10:45 pm

Sorry Matt ... didn’t mean to disappoint :!:


ummm .... If it were up to me, I would put it in the same categories as BR stocks.

Now, let me finish, I have seen plates, rails, rods, add on wings and all sorts … all for 1 reason only … extra stability. (they certainly aint for looks). Matt, what you need to tell me is this, if these guys took off the wide rails and butt rods ... will the rifle shoot the same?

The answer is probably not :cry:

Im not saying they are wrong … im saying they are FO not FS
MBRC F-Class standard ... and proud of it!

Guest

#19 Postby Guest » Fri Jul 29, 2005 10:54 pm

ed
Last edited by Guest on Sun Oct 30, 2005 8:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Simon C
Posts: 422
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2005 9:43 pm
Location: Adelaide

#20 Postby Simon C » Fri Jul 29, 2005 10:57 pm

Tony that post is certainly funny :lol:

Might I go so far to say that the comparing your rifle & Ben's is like comparing "apples with oranges" :lol:

It is a good example (stock wise) of the point u r making :wink:
"Aim small, miss small"

Simon

Tony Q
Posts: 1044
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 8:04 pm
Location: Adelaide (MBRC)

#21 Postby Tony Q » Fri Jul 29, 2005 11:00 pm

Ah Matt … you’re a great adversary! .. Keep em guessing!!!! huh?

By the way LOL ... fell off my chair is an understatement :!:


The horse may have bolted, but we can still grab it by the rains. Either have the FSO concept (i think this would be a tremendous addition) or they have to take them of.

I disagree that the rules are Grey .. I think they are quite B&W. these shooters are manipulating the system for their own benefit and at the expense of others.

Not good. :x
MBRC F-Class standard ... and proud of it!

a.JR
Posts: 205
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 8:33 am
Location: AUST

e

#22 Postby a.JR » Fri Jul 29, 2005 11:38 pm

Edited.JR
Last edited by a.JR on Mon Aug 01, 2005 2:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Tony Q
Posts: 1044
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 8:04 pm
Location: Adelaide (MBRC)

#23 Postby Tony Q » Fri Jul 29, 2005 11:53 pm

Hi Jeff.


I, and others, firmly belive FS is just a modern version of fullbore. We use the same rifles and rules.

The stock, as per the rules, must be of conventional design, this to me precludes 'tracker stocks' and even BR stocks.

This MUST be sorted out before it gets out of hand.

And for the record, a $300 good omark is more than capable of taking on and beating a $7000 rig of conventional design. But we must deal with the stock issue as this has serious implications for FS.

Vote NO to improved accuracy through improved stability!

Vote YES for Pure Shooter Skill with a conventional rifle design!!!!!!(orthadox or unorthadox)

:lol:
MBRC F-Class standard ... and proud of it!

Simon C
Posts: 422
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2005 9:43 pm
Location: Adelaide

#24 Postby Simon C » Fri Jul 29, 2005 11:54 pm

Hi Jeff,

the rifle u describe would best fit into the theoretical FSO Tony mentions across the forum. In my opinion these types of rifles are basically Open rigs in FS caliber namely 308win.....I wonder if the trigger will be set at 1.5kg?? You ask if u need to have something similar to be competitive against this rifle?? Dos that mean u agree that these stocks offer an advantage over a conventional stock? I think the answer would be yes...in order to have the best chance in Std class where equipment restrictions are present, u would need something similar.

That is why I think the suggestion of FSO is a good option as it caters for shooters who have these rifles that are practically half way between a conventional Std rifle & F-Open. This is my honest opinion on this issue which is proving to be a contentious one.

I have built 2 stocks from large lumps of Euro Walnut for my hunting rifles so I know the time & effort that goes into the process with endless hours of filing, sanding etc. But u get the satisfaction in the end as u can proudly say...'I made that' & know it is unique. Hope the rifle turns out well & I get to shoot against u with it :wink:
"Aim small, miss small"



Simon

a.JR
Posts: 205
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 8:33 am
Location: AUST

e

#25 Postby a.JR » Sat Jul 30, 2005 9:46 am

Edited ..JR
Last edited by a.JR on Mon Aug 01, 2005 2:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Tony Q
Posts: 1044
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 8:04 pm
Location: Adelaide (MBRC)

#26 Postby Tony Q » Sat Jul 30, 2005 9:59 am

Hi Jeff

I hope we do meet one day and enjoy a days shooting. :)

I agree with your Human Nature responce ... thats part of the problem, looking for loop holes, pushing the limit just for that extra point.

If it cant be stopped as it should have been long ago it is still an option to form FSO class.

I can attest Jeff that a $300 Omark and a $7000 TR rifle will produce the same results (good barells and all)
MBRC F-Class standard ... and proud of it!

Guest

#27 Postby Guest » Sat Jul 30, 2005 11:54 am

ed
Last edited by Guest on Sun Oct 30, 2005 8:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Tony Q
Posts: 1044
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 8:04 pm
Location: Adelaide (MBRC)

#28 Postby Tony Q » Sat Jul 30, 2005 12:03 pm

I may have phrased it wrong Matt.

A $300 Omark with a good barrel has and will produce some fine results. I have seen Omarks ive put together for others win Queens ranges against $5000 rifles. They will print 1/4 min with a little tuning.
MBRC F-Class standard ... and proud of it!

bjld
Posts: 160
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2005 10:40 am
Location: South Australia

#29 Postby bjld » Sun Jul 31, 2005 2:11 pm

Geez, Tony. I guess you interpreted "wannabe tactical shooters" as being yourself. I understand that there are several people like yourself who want a tactical/varmint class to replace FS, with FS shooters whose equipment doesn't conform to fall into FSO. I wasn't picking on you.

"So Ben, whats the interesting history and development of your rifle??? made it your self? wone it in a raffle?
Mines Green ... Yours is Orange ... does that make you a 'Wannabe Fruit'"

I think the forum would benefit from more discussion and less diatribe.

Ben
Orange & happy
XXX

Guest

#30 Postby Guest » Sun Jul 31, 2005 5:56 pm

Hello Ben

Not to replace it Mate ... but one day, if ever, to have a seperate class like in the US and Canada. BUt im quite content shooting side by side with TR rifles as long as they are TR spec... i love this sport and as such am here to help if i can, not to hinder.

As stated many times, i dont believe FS if for BR types .. thats Open territory. The concept of FSO was to have a unrestricted section within FS for rifle types and unrestricted projectile weights with all the added benefits of Open class

Also, I didnt think you were talking about me, i was wondering what you were talking about? or why the reference in the first place?????

The point i was making is i got my rifle because of its history and R&D thats all, and many more are similar minded .. and as such, i for one am not a 'wannabe' anything. Like i said, i just didnt understand the inference of 'wannabe' at all.

The guys who have been talking about this class have been discussing making the rules even simpler in regard to equipment ... and thats what this forum is all about, ideas and communication. Whether it will ever happen or not isnt the issue, our strongest asset is the ability to communicate like this.

Tony ... XX 8)


Return to “Equipment & Technical”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider] and 5 guests