If the current set up for F Std bothers people then they have the option of F/TR which more closely resembles that scenario.
Good morning Lynn. With F/TR you run in to the money side of things again with the cost of projectiles. It becomes a battle of the bank balance. I was suggesting trying to keep F/S affordable for the new shooter to get started. We see to often the look of horror on a prospective members face when they ask " how much did that cost ? "
Wakey7 wrote:We see to often the look of horror on a prospective members face when they ask " how much did that cost ? "
Our experience is that there is a vast difference between "how much did that cost" and "how much does it need to cost". It often comes down to 'boys and their toys' (and I say that with amusement rather than rancour) instead of the more practical consideration of what will get on the target...it doesn't have to have all the bells and whistles to shoot well and it doesn't have to cost the earth or the marriage.
Okay Barry, so your comment was serious. Fair enough - that's your view - leave things as they are - just do better at attracting more members. But then you go on to say that cost will kill us eventually. I sense that your pessimistic outlook is a widely held view, and that is the problem. We need an injection of enthusiasm and optimism, and to do that we'll probably have to go outside our very comfortable comfort zone, and make some real changes. If we don't, I doubt we have enough of "the few" in all of our clubs to make the required effort to improve overall membership numbers. Just as we can be fairly sure that TR numbers will continue to decline, we can also assume that F-Class growth will be modest at best. Doesn't that suggest there might be a recipe for a class that will grow faster, maybe significantly faster? And if we can introduce such a class(es) with minimal impact on current activities, isn't that preferable to losing our ranges due to lack of numbers?
Working out the costs is one way that experienced target shooters can help the new member.
As well as .308 NRAA Match ammo there are other ways to help.
Eg, For the new member that rocks up with his/her .223 Tikka Varmint and wants to have a go.
The club can keep a stock of some of the cheaper match projectiles such as the Hornady 75gn BTHP match projectile. At about $100 for 600 they are cheap shooting.
http://www.grafs.com/retail/catalog/product/productId/6149 There are plenty of other examples of bullets in .224 dia, 6mm and .308 that the club could keep in stock to help out new members.
Alan,
I agree mostly with what you say but again politics dominate,
"pessimism" and/or negativity"?? I prefer to call it "realism" and you are correct, it is as you say,a widely held view.
SSR's cover for the discipline of Field and Rimfire and I ask why would anyone want to deviate from there.
Field rifles cover all calibres up to 8mm. There are some other restrictions such as rifle weight etc.
The basic rules are there, all it needs is for some bodies to show the enthusiasm and optimism you mention and get it going. By virtue of the fact that SSR's cover the discipline it could be safely assumed that our ranges as they exist are ok.
If it is found that the rules as they exist don't quite cover all contingencies ( within the existing safety templates ) then I am sure that should the NRAA see the whole thing as our saviour, they would very quickly modify the rules to suit.
Field class has been around for a very long time but it has not taken on except for around the Grafton/ Coffs Harbour area.
Why not?
Certainly the rimfire part of it cannot co-exist with FC at the same time but the Field part of it can. ( up to 8mm ) Can be shot alongside during normal club activities to at least 600 yards.
Or is this not what people want?
There seems to be a view that the controlled format of our normal club shoots is what is keeping many away. Something like what you do at Bendigo South (no competition format) might be better. But of course many current members prefer the weekly comp. That is why I suggested a different time of the week for a less formal shoot. Because there would be no competition, then things like rifle weight would not need to be regulated, only safety related limits specified in the standing orders would need to be enforced. If the informal shooters wanted to compete, then they could shoot on F-Class and TR days if their equipment complied.
Alan
Last edited by AlanF on Sat Jan 19, 2013 1:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Barry Davies wrote:Alan, I agree mostly with what you say but again politics dominate, "pessimism" and/or negativity"?? I prefer to call it "realism" and you are correct, it is as you say,a widely held view. SSR's cover for the discipline of Field and Rimfire and I ask why would anyone want to deviate from there. Field rifles cover all calibres up to 8mm. There are some other restrictions such as rifle weight etc. The basic rules are there, all it needs is for some bodies to show the enthusiasm and optimism you mention and get it going. By virtue of the fact that SSR's cover the discipline it could be safely assumed that our ranges as they exist are ok. If it is found that the rules as they exist don't quite cover all contingencies ( within the existing safety templates ) then I am sure that should the NRAA see the whole thing as our saviour, they would very quickly modify the rules to suit. Field class has been around for a very long time but it has not taken on except for around the Grafton/ Coffs Harbour area. Why not? Certainly the rimfire part of it cannot co-exist with FC at the same time but the Field part of it can. ( up to 8mm ) Can be shot alongside during normal club activities to at least 600 yards. Or is this not what people want?
Barry,
I think you need to read the SSR's as they pertain to Field Rifle Target Shooting.
Rule. 17.1.1.8 Bipods : Bipods if fitted to the rifle may no be used as a support in any firing position. I take it this class was never popular as they tried to make it a Full Bore type of competition with slings and scopes in any calibre!
To me this ban on the use of Bipods in Field Class is a deal breaker and the SSR's would need to be changed so that BiPods could be used.
Please correct me if I am wrong.
Alan,
Maybe the clubs need to be less formal in their approach to another discipline.
I can assure you it works at South Bendigo, but then we are all of a similar mind.
Maybe a Sunday shoot.
We at South Bendigo regularly have visitors from several clubs around the district because they cannot " do their thing " on a Saturday at their own club.
You really need to look at the makeup of your club and encourage people to be more tolerant. I am sure with a little bit of effort from all, a compromise could eventuate.
Believe me I know it's not easy.
Barry
Then maybe you ( and others ) should make application thru your state assoc to have bipods allowed for Centre fire comp.
You would need to canvass those who would be interested in this type of shooting and present to the State Assoc with your request a good argument to allow bipods, emphasizing the possible increase in membership.
Even if it was only done at a State level. Should it become popular I am sure word would soon get around and maybe SSR's could be rewritten to accommodate it.
If it is simple as allowing bipods and a little more weight, any State assoc worth it's salt would be hard pressed to not allow it.
Barry
Since Field rifle has standing and sitting series,perhaps someone can explain what use a bipod would be.If a new event is needed,do it ,but try not to wipe out existing matches.
Mike.
Very good to hear Danny. You've obviously got a good thing going there. Keep it up.
I have been sort of hoping for a coordinated approach across Vic, or better, across the nation. But if what you're doing is working, keep us advised on how you're doing it, and that'll be worthwhile info for everyone else. With the appropriate approvals and some willing help, maybe we can get something going at Rosedale along the lines of what Norm and I have been discussing - not quite the same approach as yours, but I think it'll work well in our particular situation. Over time, we might be able to look at a number of initiatives, and come up with a set of recommendations which brings together the best aspects from all of them.
Alan
Last edited by AlanF on Sat Jan 19, 2013 8:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I don't know that cost is really the main factor. Take a look at the pleasure boats we see getting towed around in this part of the world. Motorcycles. Club membership and a set of golf clubs. Even a decent bicycle costs in the thousands. People are clearly prepared to spend big dollars on their recreation IF IT'S WHAT THEY WANT TO DO.
It seems to me that the crux of the matter is that our raison d'etre is competition and people are decreasingly interested in taking part - they prefer to look at someone else do it on the TV. Look at all the abandoned tennis courts around the country. It's not just confined to shooting.
The question is whether we're prepared to let people come onto our ranges and just muck around. I can't see much harm in it - at least they'll pay a range fee and help finance things for the competition oriented and we might have the odd one or two get hooked. The only fly in the ointment might be insurance and liability issues.
Menu
Newest members