Worthwhile discussions

[Matt P]

Glad I haven't shot against you, with all that knowledge and sniper skills F Class would be so easy, 60.10 every time. None of us mere mortals would stand a chance !!!

Oh well indeed you are. I reincarnated as Chris Kyle BEFORE he died. I'm so good that my bullets go through the target and patch up their OWN hole. I never worry about the sun getting in my eyes because it knows better and the only time the wind effects my bullet is to help it go through the X-Ring in the very, VERY rare occasion that I throw a shot... but that's usually down to bullet imperfection, not mine.

But it's not really about skill, it's more about the fact that there's more to think about and apply than what F-Class offers. Modern people want modern firearms and modern shooting. F-Class doesn't cater to that. Sporting tried, but it's an uphill battle and though some clubs are doing awesome things to bring in people and get them on the line, they are the exception, not the rule. Most clubs don't like sporter. So that option of a field practical class is lost. Just look at the advice given in the latest question about sporting class. Get rid of your MRAD scope, get MOA. Get rid of your brake. Get a sled because mag feeding is an issue.... instead of finding ways to adapt, the sport finds ways to hamstring and lock in the format and force compliance with the status quo.

Think of it as; You're still playing cup and ball in an era of PlayStation.

You might be the GREATEST cup and ball player in the entire world.... but not a lot of people want to play cup and ball anymore.
You can LOVE cup and ball, and attend all the cup and ball OPMs, and buy all the cup and ball merch, with all your cup and ball friends.... but it's niche.
And if you're not going to grow with the tech and knowledge and gear..... well.... you're not going to get new people in, and if you don't have new people, you're going to disappear.

Jeremy,
I wasn't going to reply, but as someone who was has been heavily involved from the beginning both as a shooter and volunteer, I just want to clear a few things up regarding this and your first post.
F-Class peaked 20 years ago. The equipment hasn't changed. The disciplines haven't changed. The targets haven't changed. There's nothing to really discuss that hasn't been said before. It has completely stagnated.
F Class was offically adopted into the SSR's in 1997, a lot has changed since then. Back then there was a single class, rifle weight was 9kg (plus bi-pod if fitted), any calibre any sight shot on a 10 ring target. There was then a change in weight just prior to the Inagrual 2002 FCWC,then F Standard was introduced about 2002-2003 . Then FTR was added and F open changed to the ICFRA target and moved away from the Championship 10 ring target. Then Sporter Class added a few years ago.
Equipment in the early days where pretty close to what Sporter is now (with fixed bipod) mainly chambered in 308, then hot 22's such as 22-250, then 6mm, 6.5 and now 7mm
Scores that would have won 5 years years ago, would be lucky to get you into the top 5 now and scores 20 years ago .
I would hardly call that stagnation.
You currently or very recently served on a State Board, what are you doing to better the sport, getting on here and shit stirring behind a alias doesn't really do much.
Regards
Matt Paroz

[Drop shot]

Glad I haven't shot against you, with all that knowledge and sniper skills F Class would be so easy, 60.10 every time. None of us mere mortals would stand a chance !!!

Oh well indeed you are. I reincarnated as Chris Kyle BEFORE he died. I'm so good that my bullets go through the target and patch up their OWN hole. I never worry about the sun getting in my eyes because it knows better and the only time the wind effects my bullet is to help it go through the X-Ring in the very, VERY rare occasion that I throw a shot... but that's usually down to bullet imperfection, not mine.

But it's not really about skill, it's more about the fact that there's more to think about and apply than what F-Class offers. Modern people want modern firearms and modern shooting. F-Class doesn't cater to that. Sporting tried, but it's an uphill battle and though some clubs are doing awesome things to bring in people and get them on the line, they are the exception, not the rule. Most clubs don't like sporter. So that option of a field practical class is lost. Just look at the advice given in the latest question about sporting class. Get rid of your MRAD scope, get MOA. Get rid of your brake. Get a sled because mag feeding is an issue.... instead of finding ways to adapt, the sport finds ways to hamstring and lock in the format and force compliance with the status quo.

Think of it as; You're still playing cup and ball in an era of PlayStation.

You might be the GREATEST cup and ball player in the entire world.... but not a lot of people want to play cup and ball anymore.
You can LOVE cup and ball, and attend all the cup and ball OPMs, and buy all the cup and ball merch, with all your cup and ball friends.... but it's niche.
And if you're not going to grow with the tech and knowledge and gear..... well.... you're not going to get new people in, and if you don't have new people, you're going to disappear.

Jeremy,
I wasn't going to reply, but as someone who was has been heavily involved from the beginning both as a shooter and volunteer, I just want to clear a few things up regarding this and your first post.
F-Class peaked 20 years ago. The equipment hasn't changed. The disciplines haven't changed. The targets haven't changed. There's nothing to really discuss that hasn't been said before. It has completely stagnated.
F Class was offically adopted into the SSR's in 1997, a lot has changed since then. Back then there was a single class, rifle weight was 9kg (plus bi-pod if fitted), any calibre any sight shot on a 10 ring target. There was then a change in weight just prior to the Inagrual 2002 FCWC,then F Standard was introduced about 2002-2003 . Then FTR was added and F open changed to the ICFRA target and moved away from the Championship 10 ring target. Then Sporter Class added a few years ago.
Equipment in the early days where pretty close to what Sporter is now (with fixed bipod) mainly chambered in 308, then hot 22's such as 22-250, then 6mm, 6.5 and now 7mm
Scores that would have won 5 years years ago, would be lucky to get you into the top 5 now and scores 20 years ago .
I would hardly call that stagnation.
You currently or very recently served on a State Board, what are you doing to better the sport, getting on here and shit stirring behind a alias doesn't really do much.
Regards
Matt Paroz

Yeah, what youre describing, I acknowledge, ARE changes, but these tweaks aren't going to be the thing that revolutionises the sport or disciplines and brings more people in. Outside looking in, there's no change.

I've posted my name before on here, it'll be in forum post thread, but i'm pretty open as to who I am. Look hard enough and you'll find my phone number even!

I understand you're getting defensive over something that you like and enjoy being criticized, and I understand other people doing that as well. As I said, no one is forcing you to change, but you can't want members, and then not cater to people.

Doxxing me and insinuating I did nothing with my position doesn't change the state of play or shine you in a better light. Your associations are struggling to get in members and struggling to retain members. I attempted to provide constructive points around why that was in my original post. I'm pretty sure you were the one that gobbed off first madam.

I'm not going to discuss my experiences here, but I'm trying to tell you why things aren't working. You don't have to like it. But this is a lived experience that i'm making my statements on.

I'd love to tell you what I was trying to achieve, and what i'd hoped to achieve, but my fight for the betterment of the sport is over.

[Redhawk]

Jeremy, I think the issue is not the points you are making, it is the way you go about it. You are rude and not open for any feedback on that. Very quick to insult and the victim when you get feedback on the way you go about it.

This sport will change, as it has significantly changed over 20 yrs. However those that work in the system and take people with them will drive that change.

Regards
Frans Knox

[Drop shot]

Jeremy, I think the issue is not the points you are making, it is the way you go about it. You are rude and not open for any feedback on that. Very quick to insult and the victim when you get feedback on the way you go about it.

This sport will change, as it has significantly changed over 20 yrs. However those that work in the system and take people with them will drive that change.

Regards
Frans Knox

Yeah it's definitely a hard conversation to have without offending people. No one likes what they like being criticised.

It is what it is though. Time marches on and the free market chooses what continues and what doesn't.

[Potshot2023]

Just revisited this discussion. Apart from Downes Equestrian, who actually comprehended the gist of my first comment, and focussed on Sporter Discipline, the direction of the discussion seems to have become focussed on whether F Class is sustainable. Anyone for getting back on-topic?

[jasmay]

Jeremy,

I have read all your comments, I don’t really see where you have actually suggested any change…

I note you mention gadgets, Sporter hunter & muzzle brakes, but beyond that, which are and have been topics for years, I really don’t see any attempt to construct what change should look like.

Could you try and lay that out for us in clear terms please?

1) What disciplines should be introduced

2) how should they be shot

3) what gadgets are needing to be allowed

4) how could existing range standing orders either be used to conduct the disciplines you mention or what modifications are needed

5) What support from states and national body would be required to make these things happen

I’m all ears, but we need a structured conversation with good/rounded out suggestions, can you please elaborate on yours a with specifics

[AlanF]

I believe Mr Dropshot does not fully appreciate the legal constraints that most NRAA affiliated rifle ranges are under, and how that can restrict what change is possible. State and Territory Police regulations around shooting sports are strict, and are defended vigorously. Add to that the fact that many NRAA ranges are of the "Classification" type, where use of the range is conditional on adherence to the SSRs.

This sort of criticism from outsiders and newcomers to our ranges has been going on for years. A lot of it can be seen by looking back though ozfclass forums. I call it "range envy". NRAA shooters are indeed fortunate to have access to a large number of long rifle ranges all around Australia, but before critics accuse us of not moving with the times, perhaps the main reason we still have these ranges is that our pressure for change has been measured and conservative.

Also, I think the idea that a high growth rate is critical for the future of the sport is over-rated. The key requirement is sufficient numbers to justify keeping a range running. After that some growth may be desirable, but not critical. The problems associated with memberships exceeding capacity of ranges can be as bad as numbers being too small.

[Weairy]

Sorry Alan, but I disagree.

In my experience, VicPol has been very accommodating with proposed changes of range use, including steel gongs, long range 22, PRS shooting etc.

Membership growth is crucial to survival. The cost to keep the doors open is ever increasing, and year on year, especially here in Victoria, the numbers at OPMs and events are getting smaller and smaller. The same old names are turning up, but very few new ones are on the list. There hasn’t been a year-on-year increase in memberships in a long while, from all accounts I’ve heard.

I have witnessed this sport time and time again hamstring growth. Gatekeeping of ranges and actively bullying and pushing out of anyone who suggests trying something new or different or exploring different means.

At what point does a range, which takes up to 1000yd of shooting space, with a further 2000+ fallout zone, stop being justifiable, when it has only a handful of members, opening once a month at best? Clubs are folding and ranges are being pushed out. Look at what happened at Colac. Look at what almost happened at Karramomus. How many more years will Lang Lang survive before it gets swallowed by the housing estate encroaching on it, or mounting pressures force its closure? Strength in numbers doesn’t exist here.

Take PSR for example. It is a NRAA approved discipline, written into the SSRs, and it has been kicked to death at every turn. The pushback from clubs and at NRAA level has been inmense. I tried to put a post up here a while back, praising the efforts of the team at Castlemaine for a great event, and the post was immediately deleted by admin. Is that how we treat growth? Squash it and silence it?

I’m not an outsider or newcomer. I’ve been involved in the sport for about 8 years now, have shot all disciplines, have shot at all levels, have won my share of events. I’ve sat on a club committee for several years and been involved indirectly with the VRA. And I’ve seen it first hand, over and over.

Like it or not, the sport is dying here at an alarming rate.

[Drop shot]

I believe Mr Dropshot does not fully appreciate the legal constraints that most NRAA affiliated rifle ranges are under, and how that can restrict what change is possible. State and Territory Police regulations around shooting sports are strict, and are defended vigorously. Add to that the fact that many NRAA ranges are of the "Classification" type, where use of the range is conditional on adherence to the SSRs.

This sort of criticism from outsiders and newcomers to our ranges has been going on for years. A lot of it can be seen by looking back though ozfclass forums. I call it "range envy". NRAA shooters are indeed fortunate to have access to a large number of long rifle ranges all around Australia, but before critics accuse us of not moving with the times, perhaps the main reason we still have these ranges is that our pressure for change has been measured and conservative.

Also, I think the idea that a high growth rate is critical for the future of the sport is over-rated. The key requirement is sufficient numbers to justify keeping a range running. After that some growth may be desirable, but not critical. The problems associated with memberships exceeding capacity of ranges can be as bad as numbers being too small.

I hate every part of this post.

But it is a VERY good demo of the attitudes and opinions that are killing the sport, so I guess thankyou for that.

This is a good learning opportunity though for us all.

Alan, given your level of knowledge and expertise, can you please let us know what chapter of what document I would need to reference if I wanted to know the provisions under which I could shoot steel on NRAA affiliated ranges?

In your own words, 5 words or less - keep it short, just for info of people here - can you summarise what needs to be done in order to shoot Steel on NRAA affiliated ranges and the 1 caveat that goes with it?

I think it'd be really good to have someone as educated and experienced as you let everyone know how this can be done and where to find that information.

[jasmay]

[ can you summarise what needs to be done in order to shoot Steel on NRAA affiliated ranges and the 1 caveat that goes with it?

My understanding is that it comes down to the individual range standing orders and danger template in regards t what can be shot on each range.

Can you correct this if not so Dropshot?

[argh]

[ can you summarise what needs to be done in order to shoot Steel on NRAA affiliated ranges and the 1 caveat that goes with it?

My understanding is that it comes down to the individual range standing orders and danger template in regards t what can be shot on each range.

Can you correct this if not so Dropshot?

Try looking up differences between field firing template versus classification range template.

My understanding is that many NRAA ranges (but not all) are based on classification templates, which are used under controlled firing conditions (prone) at penetrable targets. Field firing templates are for field firing situations (varied positions) at at variety of different target types, including steel plates.

The range danger area is significantly different between the two, with the Field Firing Template being significantly wider. This may mean extension of the range template if you want an existing range to cater for shooting at steel, or from moving firing points, etc

NSW police have certainly stopped numerous ranges based on a classification range from shooting at Steel Plates, ours included, and mandated fixed firining points and only shooting directly in line with the templates and in the lanes - no cross firing, and also ensuring that our range proceedues are for prone or table firing only.

Many ranges cannot cater for steel plate as a result of their approved range template

[jasmay]

That’s a really good explanation Argh, and has been my understanding also x of Dropshot knows otherwise, I’m hoping to learn…

[PeteFox]

Jason
There is a fairly good summary of the different range types and their danger envelopes in Chapter 4 of the Range Officers Handbook, there is a link on the main page of the NRAA website.

[Drop shot]

That’s a really good explanation Argh, and has been my understanding also x of Dropshot knows otherwise, I’m hoping to learn…

Arghs' explanation is very good.

The RSO's stipulate what you can and can't shoot on your range.

The restrictions come from your trace/SDA length and width/angles. You can mitigate SOME of this on SOME ranges through using target bunkers which is the mitigation device for ricochet. Ricochet is the primary concern regards using steel plate targets. The caveat to the bunkers is you need a spawl trap and if they aren't built into the primary butts (and in some cases even if they are), eg, they are embedded on the face of the mantlet, you might need to get secondary EPA advice, but it's typically just noted that the mantlet is now being used as a buttstop and has lead contamination.

So even with a restricted range, you can get steel plate approved in some cases. What you'll see in RSO's is what you can CURRENTLY do on the range. You can change RSO's provided you comply with the extant policy and regulations and have it endorsed by your states governing authority. What you can also do, is if your firing mounds meet the required heights and widths, embed targets into those as well so your range can have a fixed firing point. This opens your range to NRL22 and PRS so you can make bank off them - which we had.

I've been involved in assessing 3 ranges for steel plate now. I also designed from scratch a secondary range to be similar to what is in existence at little river to run adjacent to a Major VRA range in Vic. This was designed so that both ranges can be used concurrently provided the F-Class range doesn't extend behind the 600y line (or 700y line if I had my way). Meaning the F-Class range can shoot from 600y and in, whilst the other range is being used to smash steel and zero.

Further to Arghs points there are restrictions on the type of shooting you can do on the ranges. For example, when getting a range re-assessed and endorsed for Chapter 16 and 24 of the SSRs, not all ranges are going to be fully compatible with these disciplines and you might be told no. Typically, ranges that would not be approved for these disciplines have restrictions in place already in the form of baffles for height and in some cases left and right of arc, or the RSO's state no cross firing. But just because it currently ISN'T endorsed for these disciplines, doesn't mean it can't be. A generic template is typically applied for convenience and expedience and if it's been extant since the Nasho days, there's a chance it just hasn't been reviewed. If you work with your governing authority to have it assessed, you might find you can change it. Additionally, just because you can't do 100% of a discipline, doesn't mean you can't do any of it. We had baffles at one range and still put people on the PACT timer to drop down behind their gun and see how many centres they could hit under time limit.

If your range is prone only, then you just cant have elevated positions. If it's a tight range, then you can't cross fire, meaning no movers. That doesn't mean you can only shoot circle targets from prone, single shot until the sun burns out.

This is where high value and experienced people like Josh Weaire above, have gone to the effort of planning and proposing shoots to allow a different style of shooting on extant ranges within the SSRs and within the Range restrictions.

The opportunities to grow have been there all along. You just have to want to.

[Hoghunter9mm]

Here we are agsain.
I said it months ago. People try to come in and tell us why what we are doing is wrong. They don't understand our ranges. They don't understand our SSRs. They just think they know everything and want us to change to suit them. Fullbore has been around for a long long time. It's going nowhere. We don't need the new shooters and their yahoo style of shooting and their tacticoooooooool guns. There's a reason our ranges are surviving. It's because we look after our ranges ahead of our members or potentl membors. The range comes first. The SSRs are what governs us. Don't like it? Piss off. Go adn shoot with the other yahoos and when ythose range close because of your conduct, you will be begging for us to take you in. F-Class won't be so boring then will it?
Sick of the new shooters attitudes. You have rails on your gun? Oh please tell me how much you know about shooting. F-Class is the premiair shooting discipline for accuracy and skill. Period. Australia represetns countries across the globe as the best shooters. That's because of our attitudes, our dedicatoin, our knowledge and our adherence to looking after our rangse.
Well be here long after these new fad shooters and discpines has gone because the government has shut you down.