Competition incident involving the SH Discipline 4/6/22

[BATattack]

Having a 243 and the technique and loading ability to get it to shoot single hole groups at 200yds is well a over the level of the masses that we need to be trying to appeal to really increase numbers. FYI I stated in a similar way. Sako varmint in 222. . . .52gr hollow points with a 14 twist was pretty interesting at 500yds! But I'd been shooting since I was 6 and reloading by myself at age 12 so nothing was going to put me off coming back.

Note at the end of my post I said that the downside of going to a restricted rifle would prevent others bringing their existing rifles which is against the idea of being inclusive.

I guess the question is how do you make it genuinely fair, competitive and cost effective?

What type of setup is your new guy using? How many of the scores being shot under S/H are actually with legitimate factory rifles?

Here's a nice rifle for sale. Should work perfectly viewtopic.php?f=6&t=14298

[bartman007]

"... without the features or attachments that would place it in the style of a target, match or service rifle"
.

Whilst I like most of your setup, I think the rear bag and stock design would not fit the brief too well. After all, I can't see a hunter carrying the Seb monster bag around in the bush. And compared to someone using a standard hunting factory stock, it will take them more time than you to setup and take the next shot. A 6mm (243 or varient) in your stock can stay on target more easily with your stock and bag.

I'm looking closely at this class too, as I'm keen to have a play.

I like the idea of limiting the power of scope to say 24 power, and probably put a price limit on it to say $2k or less.

[macguru]

"... without the features or attachments that would place it in the style of a target, match or service rifle"
.

I'm looking closely at this class too, as I'm keen to have a play.

I like the idea of limiting the power of scope to say 24 power, and probably put a price limit on it to say $2k or less.

something like this ??
viewtopic.php?f=26&t=12537

or maybe
https://safarifirearms.com.au/savage-ax ... axxpmg223/

[bartman007]

We need to be careful that we don't blur the line between a hunting rifle and a target rifle. The hunting stock in my mind has been enduring since I was a kid, and it has typically had a taper on the underside from the hand grip to the butt. There is no adjustable cheek piece so we used padding when necessary.

We didn't use bags to support the stock, we used our fist or improvised with what was around on the ground.

Maybe we need to think about two divisions of hunter, 1. that with a tactical style rifle and 2. that "standard" hunting rifle with clear definitions of stock / action / trigger / barrel / scope / bipod.

If we want to include SH in competition, it should be more about gun handling technique than stock bag symmetry. Because the typical hunter that we are appealing to shoots in the bush, not on sloping mounds that are purpose built for target shooting.


Just my 2 bob's worth.

[Tim L]

.

If we want to include SH in competition, it should be more about gun handling technique than stock bag symmetry. Because the typical hunter that we are appealing to shoots in the bush, not on sloping mounds that are purpose built for target shooting.
.

And that's the logic behind my suggestion that this discipline shoots with no rear bag.
It's the only way I can see to pull gun designs down onto a level field.

[Rich4]

Or at least a lightweight fill, I actually do carry a bag with, but filled with beanbag balls it's very light but not as stable.

[Weairy]

Whilst I like most of your setup, I think the rear bag and stock design would not fit the brief too well.

This is our setup used in testing at home (hence the mound with a pipe anti-cattle barrier around it). The bag is what we've got, so that's why we used it. Although, bags are open slather in this class, per the rulebook.

The stock and rifle itself are an off-the-shelf hunting setup; https://www.thebarn.net.au/Products/Rem ... nge/105796
This was chosen to set up as an adjustable club rifle, so it would suit a range of shooters. It is still a traditional hunting style stock (raked bottom, no thumbhole etc). I would 100% use this rifle and setup as a hunting outfit. The adjustable stock makes a massive difference.

It has been rebarrelled in the same length, same profile, same calibre as factory, just stainless and fluted for weight, and chambered to suit a particular projectile instead of having an idiot-proof deep throat like factory.

[bartman007]

Hi Craig,

$2,215 for a Remington 700 with that stock is a great starting point. Not quite the traditional hunting stock but maybe a modern take on a new school hunting rifle.

Fair call, we need to embrace some modern improvements. Especially if the typical hunter is using that stock.

Cheers.

[ShaneG]

Possibly a price cap indexed is the only answer?
There was always the “gamers entering “ to win this supposed non competition?
But it is creeping into OPM and Queens?
The stock style that was questioned is on factory Tikka TacA1 and Ruger Precision
Install a Comp scope on a TacA1 and the only detriment to being competitive in F Class is barrel length!

[!Peter!]

To throw something out there, why not just limit SH discipline by:
- Barrel length and weight (perhaps twist as well)
- Overall rifle weight
- Trigger weight (ie make it a safe hunting trigger weight like 1.5kg)
- Harris style bipod or front bag like PRS use
- Rear bag without wings
- Perhaps limit scope to x24 or x32
- Perhaps include magazine requirement

With the above limitations I think it would be a challenge to achieve a half minute rifle system even with top F Class components. When you add in the size of the bull being between 1.6 to 2 MOA for 300m to 600m I don't see a significant advantage comparing a 1moa to a 0.5moa rifle system. You could run Litz's WEZ Analysis to gauge the advantage.

[bartman007]

I don't know if the trigger needs to be that heavy (1.5Kg) to be considered safe. After all, most if not all hunting rifles have a safety built in.

Maybe we ensure a safety mechanism is part of the requirements?

24x scope limit would be more in line with a typical hunting rifle setup, and should ensure we keep the price point lower.

Rear bag without ears sounds good too.

[AlanF]

Possibly a price cap indexed is the only answer?
There was always the “gamers entering “ to win this supposed non competition?
But it is creeping into OPM and Queens?
The stock style that was questioned is on factory Tikka TacA1 and Ruger Precision
Install a Comp scope on a TacA1 and the only detriment to being competitive in F Class is barrel length!

You'd only need a price cap on the RRP of the rifle I believe. Allow people to do a cry once buy once on a good scope, because it won't help them much on a 1 MOA rifle.

[!Peter!]

I don't know if the trigger needs to be that heavy (1.5Kg) to be considered safe. After all, most if not all hunting rifles have a safety built in.

Don’t necessarily disagree. I picked 1.5kg as it was the min weight for the old UIT standard rifle and I think the current CISM rules. Could just survey min trigger weights of off the self hunting rifles.


In coming up with the rules I don’t think the focus should be directly on reducing or limiting costs but on limiting the advantages a cost is no issue custom built rifle built to maximum extent of the rules would have over a typical off the shelf varmint rifle.

So when looking at whether something should be restricted the question should be framed around does it give a significant advantage at the target distance and size being shot at. For example, at 600m on a TR target does a x80 march scope really give a meaningful advantage over a midrange x24 scope? If not why limit it as you’re making the class less inclusive (unless you want to limit the march owner’s hurt when they’re beaten by the cheaper scope )

[macguru]

I know what I would do to the rules ........

Weight Limit ? about 7 kgs (negotiable)
Scope Limit ? maybe, about 24x (negotiable)
Bipod Limit ? Harris / MDT style, not FTR style , no joystick.
Barrel Limit ? 26 inches
Rear Bag ? any soft bag style but not with f class 'ears'

AND THATS IT. That would be the absolute limit of interference i suggest. No limit on cost because the major determinant will be steadiness and shooting style. My rifle is not the limiting factor, I am.....

[Tim L]

I know what I would do to the rules ........

Weight Limit ? about 7 kgs (negotiable)
Scope Limit ? maybe, about 24x (negotiable)
Bipod Limit ? Harris / MDT style, not FTR style , no joystick.
Barrel Limit ? 26 inches
Rear Bag ? any soft bag style but not with f class 'ears'

AND THATS IT. That would be the absolute limit of interference i suggest. No limit on cost because the major determinant will be steadiness and shooting style. My rifle is not the limiting factor, I am.....

Not disagreeing with the suggested limits, just pointing out that both the SAKO TRG and the AI AWM slide in as qualifiers here.
Those are designated sniper rifles with an expected effective range of 1200 yds in 300WM.
This, for me. is where this style of limiting attributes fail to achieve what folks say they want to achieve, which is, apparently, to level the playing field so Mr Howa Standard can compete with Mrs Remington and not get smashed by Messers Accuracy, International and TRG. Either we are encouraging folks with hunting rifles to come and shoot along side us in the hopes that they get the bug. Or we're doing something else,,,,, like introducing a tactical class which, if we're honest with our selves, is the only place this is going to end up.