Should we reduce Energy Limits ?

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

Moderator: Mod

ajvanwyk
Posts: 453
Joined: Tue May 17, 2016 5:50 pm
Has thanked: 378 times
Been thanked: 464 times

Should we reduce Energy Limits ?

Post by ajvanwyk »

Dear all,

I've been thinking about this topic for quite some time now and am of the belief that the only way to improve participation in our sport is to reduce energy limits. Too many new shooters are trying to chase success by requiring the fastest and best of everything in order to WIN, forgetting technical skills along the way....

We should have an upper limit of nothing more than 6mm to really level the playing field... maybe even go back to issued ammo.

Let's discuss...
Albert
Rosedale Rifle Club
Australian Points Series
Matt P
Posts: 1538
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2005 8:22 pm
Has thanked: 105 times
Been thanked: 617 times

Re: Should we reduce Energy Limits ?

Post by Matt P »

Sounds like a great idea, more details please.
jasmay
Posts: 1325
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 9:26 pm
Has thanked: 184 times
Been thanked: 391 times

Re: Should we reduce Energy Limits ?

Post by jasmay »

6mm is a bit restrictive, but I get the intent.

6.5mm maybe?
Barry Davies
Posts: 1397
Joined: Tue Aug 24, 2010 12:11 pm
Has thanked: 131 times
Been thanked: 232 times

Re: Should we reduce Energy Limits ?

Post by Barry Davies »

Are you talking about FO or all disciplines?
jasmay
Posts: 1325
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 9:26 pm
Has thanked: 184 times
Been thanked: 391 times

Re: Should we reduce Energy Limits ?

Post by jasmay »

Barry Davies wrote:Are you talking about FO or all disciplines?


I’d assume all, given the “sport” comment… otherwise it would just say f-open
Barry Davies
Posts: 1397
Joined: Tue Aug 24, 2010 12:11 pm
Has thanked: 131 times
Been thanked: 232 times

Re: Should we reduce Energy Limits ?

Post by Barry Davies »

What figure for energy did you have in mind Albert?
Weairy
Posts: 455
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 1:43 pm
Location: Seymour, Vic
Has thanked: 74 times
Been thanked: 210 times

Re: Should we reduce Energy Limits ?

Post by Weairy »

I’m assuming satire?
Josh Weaire
macguru
Posts: 1681
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 9:49 am
Has thanked: 228 times
Been thanked: 163 times

Re: Should we reduce Energy Limits ?

Post by macguru »

I think we should make the targets bigger .... they are too small.
id quod est
Weairy
Posts: 455
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 1:43 pm
Location: Seymour, Vic
Has thanked: 74 times
Been thanked: 210 times

Re: Should we reduce Energy Limits ?

Post by Weairy »

Just get rid of rear bags. Factory rifles only. 9 power scope limits. No rebarrel. No tuners.
Seems to be the answer everyone has for levelling Sporting Hunter, so if we want to create a level playing field and promote fundamentals again, why not just apply it to the whole sport while we’re at it?
Josh Weaire
Aubrey
Posts: 403
Joined: Mon May 26, 2008 10:43 pm
Location: Sydney
Has thanked: 44 times
Been thanked: 59 times

Re: Should we reduce Energy Limits ?

Post by Aubrey »

My view is that we already cater for all aspirational shooters and, with some refinement, we can make the options for new entrants simpler and clearer. It would be hard to measure whether an arbitrary calibre/energy ceiling would enhance or reduce aspirational members across a variety classes; it could be argued either away with no real evidence, other than anecdote.

I am strongly of the opinion (and not alone on this viewpoint) that we have too many overlapping classes (and grades) without very clear and distinct differentiators between them. This is hopefully something that will be actively debated within the NRAA in order to broaden the appeal of our sport to a wide variety of new members.
Aubrey Sonnenberg
Magnum Sports
Tim N
Posts: 1341
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2013 8:18 pm
Location: Branxton NSW
Has thanked: 102 times
Been thanked: 511 times

Re: Should we reduce Energy Limits ?

Post by Tim N »

I have thought a 6mm division would be great but the issue I see is our membership isn’t big enough to fit in another discipline.
F standard expanded to include 6BR ?
We don't rise to the level of our expectations, we fall to the level of our training. Archilochos 680-645 BC
Weairy
Posts: 455
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 1:43 pm
Location: Seymour, Vic
Has thanked: 74 times
Been thanked: 210 times

Re: Should we reduce Energy Limits ?

Post by Weairy »

Tim N wrote:F standard expanded to include 6BR ?


That was tabled a few years back and squashed.
Josh Weaire
shadow
Posts: 90
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2018 9:46 pm
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 27 times

Re: Should we reduce Energy Limits ?

Post by shadow »

Oh hell, why so big,make it the 5.56 NATO round,im in.
OuttaAmmo
Posts: 229
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 7:52 am
Location: Darwin
Has thanked: 13 times
Been thanked: 8 times

Re: Should we reduce Energy Limits ?

Post by OuttaAmmo »

No.
AlanF
Posts: 7532
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 8:22 pm
Location: Maffra, Vic
Has thanked: 229 times
Been thanked: 936 times

Re: Should we reduce Energy Limits ?

Post by AlanF »

ajvanwyk wrote:Dear all,

I've been thinking about this topic for quite some time now and am of the belief that the only way to improve participation in our sport is to reduce energy limits. Too many new shooters are trying to chase success by requiring the fastest and best of everything in order to WIN, forgetting technical skills along the way....

We should have an upper limit of nothing more than 6mm to really level the playing field... maybe even go back to issued ammo.

Let's discuss...

Should have posted this 1 month and 20 days earlier Albert. :D
Post Reply Previous topicNext topic