Should we reduce Energy Limits ?

[AlanF]

[RDavies]

[Bretto77]

[Martin]

I am not advocating for getting rid of the chairing ceremony, on the contrary I am questioning why the winners of other disciplines are not given the same respect.
The tradition is chairing the winner. TR used to be the sole discipline and chairing the TR winner was the thing to do. Now we have several disciplines that are as well supported in numbers as TR but we still just chair the TR winner. As I originally posted, this is an example of our ability to innovate technically but not administratively.
Another example. I just followed the world championships in SA both on this forum and through social media. The thing that I found strange was that we in Australia do not have one top level competition that mirrors the match conditions for the FOpen world championships. Why is that? Is it again our inability to innovate at the administration level?

[David B]

[AlanF]

[BATattack]

Even if it's restricted to 284 only your still using 7mm pills and other than a bit more barrel life what are you saving on? What about making FS exactly the same rules as ICFRA FO with the only exception being they must use 223 or 308 with 90 / 155 bullet weight. Same weight guns and triggers as FO.

That would still provide a set of rules that "should" only be adjusted at ICFRA level for FS, provide a competitive training and a progression class for FO.

[Brad]

F open is F open...emphasis on open!!!

[oldman1967]

Reduce Energy Limits ???? No bloody way should we be doing that Albert. We should be increasing them if anything.
I can't wait to shoot my 50 BMG FO rifle at WELLSFORD.

[williada]

No, Albert. My interest waned when the energy limits were reduced last time, based on Pommy, urban politics. Monkey see, monkey do in Australia. My competitive SAUM loads made me feel like an illegal immigrant in my own country when energy limits were imposed. This is the land of Oz, with wide open spaces. Reduce them again, and I will walk away.

Cost of competition is the problem, not diversity. With the way the world is going, perhaps our skills will be required by the Defence Department in the future which was of course the foundation of our movement. Reducing energy limits is dumbing down the skill set for future use, just like in manufacturing in this country. There will be fewer to pass on knowledge and it will be lost.

[cheech]

[macguru]

what about getting rid of f standard altogether and just having FO and FTR ? plus TR and SH of course. There are too many different categories.

[dazza284]

[GrahamW]

Firstly, I'll address the topic.... No I don't think lowering energy limits will improve anything.

Now, sorry to take this off topic Albert but due to many similar comments, in several topics on these forums (including this one) I have to put my two cents in..


Why is it that so many F Open shooters are so quick to want to drop F Standard??

It's less expensive for a new shooter to get started in FS than it is to be competitive in SH, particularly the way SH is heading.

You can pick up an Omark, Angel, Neilsen or similar with a reasonable scope, ready to go for well under 2K.
Take some time, learn to reload and hone your skills at your local club, move on to OPMs and Kings shoots and when you get to a certain point you can decide if you want to and/or can afford to try F/TR or F Open.

You can take virtually any action and with some fine tuning be competitive in FS with a lot less technical skill and knowhow than needed for FO or F/TR, with longer barrel life, cheaper and easier to find cases and projectiles.

I see comments about how FS has become more like FO and turned into an "Arms Race", I don't see this.
The last rule change for FS I think was trigger weight being lowered to .5kg the same time for TR, I think roughly around the time F/TR was introduced in Australia. There may have been a slight weight increase also, I can't remember, but they were minor changes.

It's still .308 or .223 with projectile weight, trigger weight and overall weight restrictions. No comparison to F/TR or FO other than an overall weight restriction.

Sure, those with a few more dollars to spend will get the best gear they can afford and may have some perceived or real advantage but they're generally the ones that will move on to F/TR or FO and aspire to shoot for Australia or internationally at some point.

Most of the FS shooters I've come across just want to shoot locally and at OPMs and Kings events with no interest in shooting internationally, they just enjoy shooting and the camaraderie that is, for the most part, prevalent in our sport.

Dropping F Standard will NOT increase NRAA membership or improve our sport in any way, we would just lose more members.

Cheers,
Graham

[jasmay]

Graham,

I have to disagree on FS being cheap to get into in comparison to FTR.

Look at the majority of people doing well in FS.

Weight increase to suit heavier barrels and trigger weight reduction to improve free recoil ability of a rest.

The top end all have high end front rests, expensive F-Open style stocks and highly accessorized rigs.

FS has now become F-Open restricted.

FTR is much more about technique than gear and you can get into a rig cheaper than FS these days.

I don’t have an answer as to how we grow the sport quicker, but please don’t give pellle the illusion that FS is cheaper that FTR because it definitely isn’t, actually on average it’s probably a more expensive at least in the order of several thousand dollars, especially if you want to be competitive at the top end.