SH Rule development (read the first post before commenting)

[Weairy]

does anyone know when any clearer set of rules will be released ? I would like to buy another scope but first I would like to know what is happening...

Rumoured to be a new set of rules in the next SSR updates, which I thought was actually due 30/06/23. Would love it if the NRAA would give some timelines to this stuff publicly….

New rules to be posted this week.

Fantastic, look forward to it.

[ZeekyBoogyDoog]

Hello All.

Regarding the new rule 23.3.1 I know why the rule has been drawn up, and i agree with it to a point.

But a lot of "Sporter" shooters get a bit of range time and as such their barrels see a few more bullets than you average farmers fox lolly dispenser.
I have a higher end sporting rifle that has had a few rounds through it. Although its still rather accurate i can foresee a time when it will need replacing(had about 3500 so far)
I know that its feasible to send my rifle back to the country of origin for a replacement barrel, but i just don't see how that is logical. I'm sure replacement barrels for my rifle aren't readily available, and even if they were. How is it going to be "factory fitted" if the factory that fits them is on the other side of the world.

I think you should be able to replace it with an aftermarket barrel as long as it is the same dimensions and material(or not.. idk) as the factory barrel.
As for the other rule changes. I'm not fussed either way.

[Brad Y]

I queried a few things on the Facebook post but overall the change is positive. I never agreed with semi custom or full custom builds competing against factory rifles. (I never agreed with it becoming competitive anyway but that’s human nature for you and is what it is) But my main queries are listed again below.

The word “may” in terms of using a bipod is too ambiguous. I feel it should either be “shall” as in you must use a bipod or if it’s “may” use a bipod then it almost feels like there should be an alternative option listed. Sorry that’s just the lawyer in me playing with words- you may use a bipod or you may hold the rifle supported with a sling. One or the other. Have seen anything from backpacks to flat sandbags then bipods used.

Barrel diameter and profile makes no sense to me. If you’re under the specified overall weight limit then it should be fine. If you want to run a big barrel you might have to pay to flute it or go shorter and run at a reduced muzzle velocity. If weight is a concern due to being able to follow up faster with another shot (less recoil) then why allow muzzle brakes and magazines to be used. And to go with this most fast twist hv barrels (needed to make 1000yds) available generally start as longer blanks like 31”. If you’re going to spend over a grand on a barrel and chambering would you not want to ensure you can rechmaber it again? So cutting down a barrel that’s 0.9” and a 31” hv taper will make your 27” barrel fatter than 0.9” sure you could cut a tiny step on the end to get you to 0.9” but that makes a total mockery of the barrel profile limit and would look stupid.

I also had a query regarding caliber for rebarrelled open rifles but what I thought was the case in my mind was also repeated so happy with that.

[SRC_AG]

I have been reading all the posts regarding rules and following actual rule development and it makes my head spin.
Wouldn't it be a good idea to keep the rules simple and easily comprehended and thus not easily gamed but most importantly easily grasped by a new entrant. I believe that was the original intent.
I propose the following two broad divisions.
Sporter/ Hunter Conventional class and Sporter / Hunter Chassis Class
Conventional Class
Any factory produced conventionally stocked repeating rifle with a wood, laminate or synthetic stock in the style of a sporter, hunter or varmint rifle. Any custom built rifle of an identical style and appearance.
All subject to the following limits:
Barrel not to exceed 26 inches in length to be measured from the boltface to the outermost extremity of the barrel or of any attachment to the barrel such as a tuner or muzzle brake.
Total weight including bipod, scope, mount and any other accessories not to exceed 5.5kg.
Scope power not to exceed 10x.
No rear bag or rest.
Chassis Class
Any factory produced or custom built repeating rifle with a stock of metal or synthetic in the style of a chassis. This class does not preclude the use of a wood, laminate or synthetic stock.
All subject to the following limits:
Barrel not to exceed 26 inches in length to be measured from the boltface to the outermost extremity of the barrel or of any attachment to the barrel such as a tuner or muzzle brake.
Total weight including bipod, scope, mount and any other accessories not to exceed 7.5kg.

I agree with ZeekyBoogyDoog that the new barrel change rule is ill conceived. We change barrels for a variety of reasons but that should not be a reason for pushing somebody into a more competitive class or if they want to stay in a particular class to force them to go through the PTA process and purchase a new rifle. I approached a member of the rules committee for this discipline and he was as nonplussed by that particular rule change as I am and I agree with his view that the two classes should be differentiated substantially by weight limits.

[Drop shot]

We need LESS arbitrary rules. Not more.

8.5kgs should be the upper limit of weight. It's not sporting hunter anymore. It''s sporting rifle. Issued precision rifles are on average approx 8.5kgs. Most purpose build precision rifles are significantly lighter- no matter what you got, you can shoot it.

Magnification limit of 25x for scopes is fine as this is the current industry standard of 5x.

Maximum barrel length of 26.5" - NOT including muzzle device. There's no practical reason to make someone shoot a 23" barrel because their brake is on the rifle against a 26" unbraked barrel. Again, 26" is industry standard and allows for minor manufacturing tolerance.

When we create a rule, it should be to mitigate something we've identified as a liability.

The rifle must be fired from prone using a rear bag and bipod that falls in line with Chapter 24 of the SSRs for Precision Service Rifle - these people have the most experience with these types of fire-arms and should be engaged to move those sorts of rifles into F-Class. This builds a wholistic approach to inclusion of people and equipment and adds more shooters to more disciplines.

Proper engagement would fix part of the issue in that the people making the rules aren't familiar with the current industry standards and community - this isn't a sleight, people are trying to do as good of a job as they can, but greater engagement with key players would remove a lot of the ambiguity or confusion in the rulings.

There's no practical way to separate skill level based on equipment as spending money on equipment doesn't represent skill

Therefore, the only real solution is Grade A and Grade B.

A new shooter on their second trip to the range shouldn't be up against a seasoned shooter - they should be competing against other shooters at their skill level.

For this to be practical and be competitive at a club level, we'd have to stop turning people away and/or refusing to allow approved disciplines to be shot at our ranges due to fear of change and personal bias - the rules can be tuned - This is the ceiling we need to break through and I do believe we are making a good effort to do this - albeit slowly and at times with some people kicking and screaming.

I LOVE sporting rifle as a discipline and it's by far and away the future because, whilst TR and F-Class show mastery of fundamentals or mechanical knowledge, they are wholly impractical and dated (IMO). I have nothing but respect for what TR and F-Class shooters can achieve, but this sort of fixed in shooting doesn't appeal to the masses, and this is where we are missing out.

[Graham Mincham]

I have been waiting for the new rules for the Sporter Discipline to be approved. They have been. I am very interested in shooting this discipline and would give all the others disciplines away after more than 55 years in the sport. A Sporter rifle does not have to be expensive and is more economical to run than an F-Open rifle.

I was looking at a 6.5 Creedmoor in a Howa action with a factory fitted 26 inch barrel and fitting it in an aluminium stock at a total cost of about $1350. That's by buying the barrelled action and the aftermarket stock from the retailer. I would have fitted one of my existing Scopes and a bipod. I hoped to keep the overall weight to around 7 kg. The 6.5 Creedmoor is light recoiling and an excellent 1,000 yard cartridge.

Remember we have to use these things at up to 1,000 yards, so a scope magnification of at least 25 power is needed. On our local range we often have to reduce magnification down to about 15 to 20 power due to mirage. It is very rare to be able to use 30 power. Magnification should not be specified because of this practical limitation, particularly in summer.

Well after reading the new rules, I'll wait until we get another round of rule amendments.

My greatest problem is with the proposed weight limit of about 8Kg in the Open class. A rifle of that weight can be tuned to shoot possibles all day long on the current targets and does not belong in Sporter Discipline, unless it is scored on F-Class target dimensions.

I do not expect to compete against new shooters and feel there is a need for only A and B class shooters, where B class is for new shooters and A class is for experienced shooters. I also think that re-barrelling and hand-loading is not an issue as new shooters in our club are soon hand-loading and most other shooters have had to re-barrel worn out barrels after about 18 months of regular shooting.

Expensive rifles do not determine scores on the target, wind reading skill determines the score. That is why, I think, experienced shooters have an edge and should be in a separate class to beginners. I agree with an earlier comment that one can learn to tune a rifle in about 8 months, but it takes 20 years to learn how to read wind. These comments are coming from very experienced shooters and new shooters to the sport should take notice.

Keep safe everyone and enjoy the sport.

Graham Mincham

[Joeaquilina]

I agree with BATattack with both subclasses, with the inclusion of aftermarket adjustable cheek rests being allowed.

[Therook]

Unfortunately there’s too much discussion on rule changes at the moment people are unsure of the class name even.
Those that shoot it have read the rules because they keep changing.
Most clubs are growing because of sporter class please don’t discourage participation we need clubs to grow!
The average age is much lower in sporter than any other discipline but still not too many shooters under 20 in prize meetings or Kings in any discipline,Why?
I suggest leave the rules as is for at least two years let the sport grow.

[Drop shot]

Unfortunately there’s too much discussion on rule changes at the moment people are unsure of the class name even.
Those that shoot it have read the rules because they keep changing.
Most clubs are growing because of sporter class please don’t discourage participation we need clubs to grow!
The average age is much lower in sporter than any other discipline but still not too many shooters under 20 in prize meetings or Kings in any discipline,Why?
I suggest leave the rules as is for at least two years let the sport grow.

We abandoned the rules for our club at this stage. The rules are arbitrary and make no sense so we are just planning to let people shoot whatever and do internal club comps.

The hardest part is defining what a sporting rifle is which is why there's so much contention.

I don't think it'd be far of a stretch to say that, in 90% of cases, we would be able to look at a gun and intrinsically know whether it's a field appropriate "modern sporting rifle", but how do you define it. What features make it so?

The other element to this is, it's up for interpretation. Even when it was sporting hunter, people fixated on the hunter part. We know what features make a typical hunting rifle.... but there's a lot of people now that run not what would be typically seen as a hunting rifle even just 20 years ago.

A mate of mine runs a DTA SRS as his deer rifle but when someone says "hunting rifle", that's not what comes to mind. Another mate runs an AXSR in 300nm. Again, that doesn't fit the stereotype.

Personally, i'd just have it no weight limit, no barrel contour specification, 26.5" max length and 25x max mag. Rifle MUST be fired from prone with a bipod and rear bag that complies with the SSRs for Precision Service Rifle and be done with the rules.

We are planning on B grade shooting on TR targets and A grade shooting on F-Class targets to delineate between skill levels. What percentage of success you attain on the TR target to move up to A grade is still in discussion but honestly, I think that's more appropriate a fix.

[macguru]

I have been waiting for the new rules for the Sporter Discipline to be approved. They have been. I am very interested in shooting this discipline and would give all the others disciplines away after more than 55 years in the sport. ......
Well after reading the new rules, I'll wait until we get another round of rule amendments.
.....
Graham Mincham

Graham, the rules are what the rules are at the moment. I agree they are not perfect but they are an improvement on before IMHO. I have 2 rifles, a rebarreled 308 that means PCO ; and a factory Tikka 6.5PRC UPR that weighs under 6kg that is PC. Its a bit of a handful to steady at times but gets great results. When the barrel wears I will turn it into a PCO and restock it as well.

I think the rebarrel rule (not allowed for PC) makes as much sense as the restock rule (allowed now but not under previous rules). But it is what it is. I think that if you are 55years into the sport then like me you should waste not a minute and get something that fits the CURRENT rules and start shooting PC, or PCO, or both.

[Toe Cutter]

Speaking of New Shooters and older experienced shooters..
im starting to “see” and hear of guys from the F-Class fraternities dropping back into production class

Building Rifles etc…

Are these guys seeing this class as “Easy Pickings”??

[Drop shot]

Speaking of New Shooters and older experienced shooters..
im starting to “see” and hear of guys from the F-Class fraternities dropping back into production class

Building Rifles etc…

Are these guys seeing this class as “Easy Pickings”??

Without knowing each individual's motivations, it's hard to say exactly, but I would hazard a guess that the answer would be yes in at least SOME instances.

The sporting rifle class has been "gamed" by more experienced shooters in ways that I personally don't feel is appropriate, and is a bit of a piss take to be honest. The people doing it would HAVE to know that what they are doing is in bad spirit to at least SOME degree.

Having said that, the primary (or at least openly stated) drive for pers moving from traditional disciplines to Sporting Rifle has been the reduced weight of both rifle and equipment and cost.

Older pers are tired of dragging 40kgs of equipment around the range in their range prams. With sporting rifle, a rifle fitted with a bipod, a rear bag and ammo is all that is required.

This kind of leans into why Sporting Rifle is (generally speaking) more popular with younger people. It's empirically more practical that other disciplines and therefore caters to shooters more universally.

I think (or hope) what we are seeing is people being offered a discipline that they are more interested in and migrating across accordingly.

[ned kelly]

G'day All,
long time lurker of this topic.
I've shot FO mainly, but I haven't competed in any shooting competitions for a number of years and have offloaded my FO rifle only recently.
I see the SH classes as a way of getting back to basics and having 1 rifle that can be used outside of competition for hunting or vermin control.
In the current times, the cost and availability of components is hitting everyone and not to forgetting the added travelling and accommodation costs.
So finding a way to keep shooting locally and cheaply is the main driving factor I'm considering, especially the number of rounds fired per range or day.
Personally I'm looking at SH and running a T3 2238T in one of my varmint hunting stocks and possibly shooting F STD with a .223 with another rifle.
Why? Simply to keep my shooting skills up and its a perfect opportunity to help teach new shooters about the skills and techniques of LR shooting.
If people are stepping back from mainstream NRAA classes, SH is a way to stay involved or your options become very, very limited (in my personal position).
Just my personal 2cents (probably 5 cents with inflation!) and I'll go back to lurking.
Cheerio Geoff

[Phil.D]

I really think the rules should be kept as simple as possible, the easiest way to control this is with weight restrictions and 7kg is more than enough, that way it keeps the F & FTR class rifles out of it, I shoot Sporter open because I bought a custom action from cleavers as a complete rifle. the rear bag rules are perfect as they are now, under 1kg with no ears on them that works well, and the bipod rules are fine too so just reduce the weight down to 7kg
and keep the standard class and an open class just as it is now.
My 2 cents worth.
Cheers Phil
PS. keep the barrel length at 26"
PPS. and why not move sporter open to F class scoring or are you F class shooters worried we might show you up?

[Tim L]

Simple would be getting rid of the rear bag.
Let shooters compete instead of wallets.