Proposal to Limit F/TR Projectiles to 156 Grains

[jasmay]

Bugger me ......

Jason, are you suggesting we put our bullets up our BACKSIDES before shooting??

I am sure you will shoot like Sh#t if you try that......

[Barossa_222]

I don't think we need a change. This sounds a whole lot like a South African problem and not much like our problem. Work within your limits. We are fortunate to have a larger variety of bullets/powder/primers/brass available to us. Good for us. Maybe they should be doing more to lift the level and quantities of gear being brought in to their country?

I shot standard in my early days and switched to FTR because I liked the idea of shooting a discipline that was recognised world-wide and not just in Australia. I've invested heavily in gear and equipment like every other committed FTR shooter. If we were to change and be capped at 156gr, I would still buy the best gear I could get and tune my rifle to the absolute limit just like I do now. I would push the available bullets as fast as was accurately possible, like I do now. None of this stuff stops anyone competing. It hasn't in the past, it won't in the future. It all depends on how competitive you want to be. Talk to the guys who are shooting standard at a high level and they are spending as many dollars and as much prep as an FTR/open shooter. I'd leave well enough alone and you'll find the sport with grow and evolve without rule tampering and major changes.

[Gyro]

Can anybody explain how/when/why FTR got "opened up" to allow using the big bullets ? What was the rationale for it ? It was before my time in the sport.

[johnk]

Bugger me ......

Jason, are you suggesting we put our bullets up our BACKSIDES before shooting??

Thought it was just a friendly gesture to those desirous .....

[Gyro]

Maybe to add a bit of a "historical perspective" to this discussion ?

[Tim L]

It's not really clear Gyro. Maybe 2008-9 when the pedestal rest was dropped for the bipod, or maybe when ICFRA took over. Jason and myself are hoping to find a bit of time in Canada to have a look at the annals, if there are any.

[Gyro]

Cheers Tim. Been an interesting discussion. Not sure how much more I could add here except to say I reckon the "big bullets" have added a lot of positives/interest to FTR, especially regards the development side of the shooting platform ie. the stock mostly ....... but this is another story.

[Matt P]

When the FT/R rules were being proposed, the UK and USA were pushing for unlimited bullet weight, at the time we weren't sending an Open team to the FCWC so a FT/R team was out of the question. So we didn't pass much comment on the unlimited bullet weight other than we had FS which had restricted bullet weight and type (at the time I was the Australian FC delegate). The UK and the US both had teams ready to go, the Poms from the match rifle crew, and the Yanks have (had) any sight/308 (any bullet) classes.
That's the short version.
See here viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1061
Regards
Matt P

[BATattack]

OK here's my thoughts and they may have already been mentioned.

other than "I have already spent money buying bullets and barrels to shoot heavies in FTR" are there any other real issues? bullets and barrels are consumables and with a roll out period I don't see anyone getting caught with their pants down.

why does it concern me. . . . I only shoot open you say. well actually I have recently built an FTR gun with 3 barrels for 200gr bullets and up and a large quantity of powder and projectiles so I do have a sum of money invested in this decision.

I see it has a huge amount of merit going forward!

international and possibly domestic events move to issued ammo. imagine not having to carry the quantity of loading gear and brass etc we are taking to the world's? using the same ammo they use at commonwealth games. Issued ammo an additional source of income for associations and also enables new shooters to get into the sport and be competitive without out laying lots of money on loading gear. I'd see hand loading allowed at club OPM and possibly state level but nationals and world's would be issued to allow easier transport.

narrow the field of components. less variety of bullets needed to be kept in Stock by associations would allow bulk purchasing and leverage price negotiations and I'd imaging a flow on effect of better availability. did I mention more income for associations which could be spent on facilities and promoting the sport.

faze out FS. remove FS over the same time period as introducing the 156 cap on FTR. There is no need for an additional domestic only class when there is the FTR alternative using the same barrels and bullets. This will reduce the number of classes and assist small clubs to support all classes at OPMs and even club level championships while providing a international pathway for all our classes.

If done rite FTR with 156s would become a highly competitive, cost effective and transportable class. I think overall there are more pros than cons. short term pain with long term gain.

[Pommy Chris]

OK here's my thoughts and they may have already been mentioned.

other than "I have already spent money buying bullets and barrels to shoot heavies in FTR" are there any other real issues? bullets and barrels are consumables and with a roll out period I don't see anyone getting caught with their pants down.

why does it concern me. . . . I only shoot open you say. well actually I have recently built an FTR gun with 3 barrels for 200gr bullets and up and a large quantity of powder and projectiles so I do have a sum of money invested in this decision.

I see it has a huge amount of merit going forward!

international and possibly domestic events move to issued ammo. imagine not having to carry the quantity of loading gear and brass etc we are taking to the world's? using the same ammo they use at commonwealth games. Issued ammo an additional source of income for associations and also enables new shooters to get into the sport and be competitive without out laying lots of money on loading gear. I'd see hand loading allowed at club OPM and possibly state level but nationals and world's would be issued to allow easier transport.

narrow the field of components. less variety of bullets needed to be kept in Stock by associations would allow bulk purchasing and leverage price negotiations and I'd imaging a flow on effect of better availability. did I mention more income for associations which could be spent on facilities and promoting the sport.

faze out FS. remove FS over the same time period as introducing the 156 cap on FTR. There is no need for an additional domestic only class when there is the FTR alternative using the same barrels and bullets. This will reduce the number of classes and assist small clubs to support all classes at OPMs and even club level championships while providing a international pathway for all our classes.

If done rite FTR with 156s would become a highly competitive, cost effective and transportable class. I think overall there are more pros than cons. short term pain with long term gain.

Issue is the horse has bolted, I and others have invested seriously in FTR current rules. I have for example 1,000 200's 3,000 185's and not including what I am taking to Canada 2500 215's and a couple of thousand 210's just in projectiles and at 85 cents each this is a lot of money this is thousands of dollars then there is barrels and my ftr reamer. If a 156 limit comes in have many thousands of dollars of gear which is useless like about 9k in barrels alone. It is like F open making a rule that only 6.5 is allowed or only 223 is allowed for F standard. If it was the start of FTR all good, but right now when everyone has invested heavily it is too late for drastic changes. My whole set up is around the projectile weight I use and that applies to most of us.
Chris

[Wakey7]

Look at the big picture Pommy Chris. You are not the only shooter out there.

[jasmay]

Look at the big picture Pommy Chris. You are not the only shooter out there.

No He isn't, I and every FTR shooter I know are in a similar position, the same argument comes from FS shooters with pedestals, and there are many of them.....

[jasmay]

I see it has a huge amount of merit going forward!

international and possibly domestic events move to issued ammo. imagine not having to carry the quantity of loading gear and brass etc we are taking to the world's? using the same ammo they use at commonwealth games. Issued ammo an additional source of income for associations and also enables new shooters to get into the sport and be competitive without out laying lots of money on loading gear. I'd see hand loading allowed at club OPM and possibly state level but nationals and world's would be issued to allow easier transport.

narrow the field of components. less variety of bullets needed to be kept in Stock by associations would allow bulk purchasing and leverage price negotiations and I'd imaging a flow on effect of better availability. did I mention more income for associations which could be spent on facilities and promoting the sport.

faze out FS. remove FS over the same time period as introducing the 156 cap on FTR. There is no need for an additional domestic only class when there is the FTR alternative using the same barrels and bullets. This will reduce the number of classes and assist small clubs to support all classes at OPMs and even club level championships while providing a international pathway for all our classes.

If done rite FTR with 156s would become a highly competitive, cost effective and transportable class. I think overall there are more pros than cons. short term pain with long term gain.

Really, Factory ammo for F-Class Have you ever tried to shoot the current factory ammo with any degree of accuracy?

Have you never talked to the TR shooters who used to shoot with factory ammo and listened to the problems they had, now you don't want to not only make all the FTR gear I have redundant but you want to make 1000's of dollars worth of reloading gear and powders redundant, I can promise you without a doubt that if a notion like this ever came about exiting the sport would not need consideration.

As for "consumables" what about all the gun smiths tooled up for FTR gear, with money invested in reamers for long projectiles, barrels stocks, all the associations and suppliers with stock of both barrels and projectiles for it, if the ruling was made you could almost guarantee purchase of these would stop immediately.

It is a silly idea to change this based on one countries problems when it is already shown any projectile can be competitive and win a top level event. I think it is also too big of a change and will damage the sport overall if it did, more so in Australia as it would impact FS heavily.

[Jase PTRC]

As a relatively newer shooter and someone who has just spent thousands of $$$ building a rifle and buying a front rest getting set up to shoot STD i find all this talk about about fazing out STD to be pretty concerning, not everyone is in a position to build rifles willy nilly and in most cases anyone shooting STD would have to most likely build again or heavily modify their current rifles If STD was to be fazed out because of the weight difference and purchase Bipods to be able to shoot FTR leaving our expensive front rests useless and a waste of money. The only thing Ftr shooters would have to do is use a different reamer to suit the 155's. F std has a very large following Nation wide and im sure there will be others who echo this sentiment. I dont care what bullets you want/have to shoot in FTR and that should have no effect on what anyone else wants to shoot.

[Pommy Chris]

Look at the big picture Pommy Chris. You are not the only shooter out there.

Everyone I know who shoots FTR IS in the same position, so not being selfish this affects everyone. Then there are the gun shops and barrel importers who are going to get stuck with thousands of dollars of heavy tight twist barrels and heavy projectiles. People may well go broke if this goes ahead.
Chris