Yeh, I think the throat will be too long...ShaneG??
Asked for it to be throated for 185jugs/200.20x projectiles (as that seemed to be what was recommended at the time (April).
Rule change may be an issue for me. Not sure my budget includes replacing a brand new barrel. Maybe there will be a phase in period?!
Proposal to Limit F/TR Projectiles to 156 Grains
-
SunnyCoast 5r
- Posts: 202
- Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2015 10:23 pm
- Has thanked: 24 times
- Been thanked: 31 times
-
SunnyCoast 5r
- Posts: 202
- Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2015 10:23 pm
- Has thanked: 24 times
- Been thanked: 31 times
Re: Proposal to Limit F/TR Projectiles to 156 Grains
Any idea how our representative/s (Bob P?) plan to vote on this issue?
-
bsouthernau
- Posts: 696
- Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2012 4:31 pm
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 40 times
Re: Proposal to Limit F/TR Projectiles to 156 Grains
Can't see anyrhing on the ICFRA website, anyone know the outcome of this?
-
Havnfun
- Posts: 41
- Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2013 7:48 pm
- Location: NSW
- Has thanked: 23 times
- Been thanked: 7 times
Re: Proposal to Limit F/TR Projectiles to 156 Grains
Barry
According to one of our guys who attended the meeting the proposal was voted down.
So no change to the projectile weight at this time?
Business as usual.
Having said that at Connaught the 200gn pills were superior at 900m in the tricky and varied conditions to the others I witnessed and coached, either Berger or KP ballistic Jacks!
Cheers
According to one of our guys who attended the meeting the proposal was voted down.
So no change to the projectile weight at this time?
Business as usual.
Having said that at Connaught the 200gn pills were superior at 900m in the tricky and varied conditions to the others I witnessed and coached, either Berger or KP ballistic Jacks!
Cheers
Re: Proposal to Limit F/TR Projectiles to 156 Grains
So, from the info given to me here are a few points.
1) Australian rep attending the meeting was handed the instruction to vote for the restriction, id love to understand how this decision was arrived at as it was strongly against all FTR shooters that I know wishes, it also didn't go through the states and territories as we are told time and time again things like this must do, Maybe an NRAA board member could chime in and explain.
2) It would appear from a recent open letter from optimus projectiles (155.5 dyers) that there is a financial reason behind why the NRAA may have, despite its members wishes not to, to vote for this limit, the letter is quite confronting and highlights some issues which our national body really needs to address quickly, and to all its members directly, not through the online only ATR magazine.
3) The decision was strongly voted down was what I heard from people in attendance, I think that is a great outcome.
The next few months are going to be interesting as I believe the NRAA will need to re-assess a number of things, if they get this right it will mean some vast improvements to our sport, and hopefully some growth.
1) Australian rep attending the meeting was handed the instruction to vote for the restriction, id love to understand how this decision was arrived at as it was strongly against all FTR shooters that I know wishes, it also didn't go through the states and territories as we are told time and time again things like this must do, Maybe an NRAA board member could chime in and explain.
2) It would appear from a recent open letter from optimus projectiles (155.5 dyers) that there is a financial reason behind why the NRAA may have, despite its members wishes not to, to vote for this limit, the letter is quite confronting and highlights some issues which our national body really needs to address quickly, and to all its members directly, not through the online only ATR magazine.
3) The decision was strongly voted down was what I heard from people in attendance, I think that is a great outcome.
The next few months are going to be interesting as I believe the NRAA will need to re-assess a number of things, if they get this right it will mean some vast improvements to our sport, and hopefully some growth.
Re: Proposal to Limit F/TR Projectiles to 156 Grains
As an F open shooter who has been playing with FTR I think there are already too many restrictions placed on the sport.
1. People in FTR that can tolerate recoil should be allowed to shoot heavy pills
2. People in F Open should have a muzzle energy limit of 4182? ft/lbs (like NSW) not 3500. In canada it was even higher than 4182 (not that it did the yanks any good)
(i know, thats for a seperate forum but i couldn't help myself)
cheers Andrew
1. People in FTR that can tolerate recoil should be allowed to shoot heavy pills
2. People in F Open should have a muzzle energy limit of 4182? ft/lbs (like NSW) not 3500. In canada it was even higher than 4182 (not that it did the yanks any good)
(i know, thats for a seperate forum but i couldn't help myself)
cheers Andrew
Last edited by macguru on Wed Aug 23, 2017 6:47 pm, edited 2 times in total.
id quod est
Re: Proposal to Limit F/TR Projectiles to 156 Grains
I wish some of you would find out how things actually work and how the NRAA is constructed and how things actually work. I find it deeply offensive that some should suggest that there is a financial reason behind the Board's decision about the FTR Projectile. The decisions for the ICFRA meeting were made by the Board, of which I am only one of 5.
There are other people who were actually in favour of the decision believe it or not.
The NRAA consists of 5 INDEPENDENT Directors, who are elected for a five year term. I emphasize the word Independent, because the previous National structure that existed simply did not work. It used to consist of representatives from each State who met regularly and argued a lot. If a decision was actually made at one of those meetings, then everyone usually got upset after the meeting and they all ganged together at the next meeting to rescind it. As a result it was vary rare to see any progress or change at all. That's why the present structure of the NRAA was invented with Independent Directors who can make independent decisions, and I can assure you that they always have the general good of shooting in mind. I do often suggest to members that they approach their State Associations asking then to pass suggestions on to the NRAA. This is because the NRAA is more likely to take notice of motion from States, but we are free to make independent decisions as we are not behold to any one particular State.
The election of NRAA Directors occurs in three year cycles. Three are elected in one go for three years and two years later, two directors are elected for three years. Feel free to get yourself nominated and elected.
I suggest that some of you actually look at the Constitution of the NRAA which is downloadable here under the Publications Menu on the NRAA website:-
https://www.nraa.com.au/wp-content/uplo ... 2Nov05.pdf
Find out how the NRAA is actually structured and how it actually works.
As for the constant suggestions that the NRAA is only interested in making a mint of money from the sale of ammo have another think. If the NRAA didn't have the agreements in place that it did with various suppliers, I can guarantee that ammo would be much dearer. FOR EXAMPLE:- Projectiles for F Open and FTR are not restricted in any way. You can go and source them wherever you like. Feel free to approach Berger and arrange to buy and import them yourselves and see what price you can get. Berger is happy to sell to anyone, so feel free. I doubt you will get a Platinum discount and you'll get a nasty surprise at the cost and difficulty of importing but go ahead and you can even set up a structure supplying FTR and F Open Projectiles to Australia.
Lets go back in history a bit.
All the State Associations are and have always been complaining that they don't have enough money. Their only finances come from Annual Subscription Fees and members are always complaining that their Subs are too high and they never get anything for it. Originally (way back in .303 times) all Ammo was issued by the Army. When we changed to 7.62 Ammo and 144 Grain projectiles, all Ammo was issued by the Army, and that was all you were allowed to use.
EXAMPLE:- When I became Chairman of the Tasmanian Rifle Association (many, many years ago) we discovered that the Association had $35 in the Bank. Things were desperate and the TRA decided that it would put a levy of 1 cent on each round that it sold to the Clubs. I won't say that we set a precedent, but every other State eventually decided to put a levy on ammunition as a way of raising much needed revenue for their respective associations. The other option is to raise Annual Subscriptions by enough to actually operate and face the screams that come from members.
The NRAA is in the same bind. We also put a small levy on ammunition purchased. The rule that the Sport could only use ammunition supplied through the National Association and States was written into the Department of Defence Act of 1903, which was the Act that created the movement. Part of the idea was that it should be be as level a playing field as possible, and if everyone had to use the same supplies it would not only be the richest who could afford to to buy the very best of everything who would be the winners all the time. (I often hear the complaint that F Open is so expensive that the ordinary shooter can't afford it). The NRAA has often considered that we and the States get out of sourcing and supplying ammunition and let it all be open slather but we have resisted this because of many reasons. One simple reason is that if you shoot a lot, and someone else only shoots a bit, its fair that the one who shoots a lot pays a bit more through the Ammo fee. One of the things that people in this forum forget is the many many shooters out there in Clubland, who never, or rarely go to open competitions. They are simply there for their Saturday Afternoon shoot, they form the largest part of our movement and it is the NRAA's responsibility look after them as well. Many people on this forum and in F Class think the movement revolves around them only. Not true. There are many others as well.
Some people then object and think the States and NRAA make masses and masses of money for their own aggrandizement. Think again. I and other NRAA directors get paid exactly zilch. Any competitions or trips we make are paid for from our own money and I'm getting heartily sick of hearing such stories.
One message that I keep on trying to put out there to F Class shooters is that if you want to change anything, then find out how the system actually works and be prepared to nominate and get in there yourselves and do some work. You'll be surprised at how complicated it actually is. I do get heartily sick of hearing stories that are passed on criticizing the NRAA or some other Organization and which bear no relation to the actual truth.
Bob Pedersen
There are other people who were actually in favour of the decision believe it or not.
The NRAA consists of 5 INDEPENDENT Directors, who are elected for a five year term. I emphasize the word Independent, because the previous National structure that existed simply did not work. It used to consist of representatives from each State who met regularly and argued a lot. If a decision was actually made at one of those meetings, then everyone usually got upset after the meeting and they all ganged together at the next meeting to rescind it. As a result it was vary rare to see any progress or change at all. That's why the present structure of the NRAA was invented with Independent Directors who can make independent decisions, and I can assure you that they always have the general good of shooting in mind. I do often suggest to members that they approach their State Associations asking then to pass suggestions on to the NRAA. This is because the NRAA is more likely to take notice of motion from States, but we are free to make independent decisions as we are not behold to any one particular State.
The election of NRAA Directors occurs in three year cycles. Three are elected in one go for three years and two years later, two directors are elected for three years. Feel free to get yourself nominated and elected.
I suggest that some of you actually look at the Constitution of the NRAA which is downloadable here under the Publications Menu on the NRAA website:-
https://www.nraa.com.au/wp-content/uplo ... 2Nov05.pdf
Find out how the NRAA is actually structured and how it actually works.
As for the constant suggestions that the NRAA is only interested in making a mint of money from the sale of ammo have another think. If the NRAA didn't have the agreements in place that it did with various suppliers, I can guarantee that ammo would be much dearer. FOR EXAMPLE:- Projectiles for F Open and FTR are not restricted in any way. You can go and source them wherever you like. Feel free to approach Berger and arrange to buy and import them yourselves and see what price you can get. Berger is happy to sell to anyone, so feel free. I doubt you will get a Platinum discount and you'll get a nasty surprise at the cost and difficulty of importing but go ahead and you can even set up a structure supplying FTR and F Open Projectiles to Australia.
Lets go back in history a bit.
All the State Associations are and have always been complaining that they don't have enough money. Their only finances come from Annual Subscription Fees and members are always complaining that their Subs are too high and they never get anything for it. Originally (way back in .303 times) all Ammo was issued by the Army. When we changed to 7.62 Ammo and 144 Grain projectiles, all Ammo was issued by the Army, and that was all you were allowed to use.
EXAMPLE:- When I became Chairman of the Tasmanian Rifle Association (many, many years ago) we discovered that the Association had $35 in the Bank. Things were desperate and the TRA decided that it would put a levy of 1 cent on each round that it sold to the Clubs. I won't say that we set a precedent, but every other State eventually decided to put a levy on ammunition as a way of raising much needed revenue for their respective associations. The other option is to raise Annual Subscriptions by enough to actually operate and face the screams that come from members.
The NRAA is in the same bind. We also put a small levy on ammunition purchased. The rule that the Sport could only use ammunition supplied through the National Association and States was written into the Department of Defence Act of 1903, which was the Act that created the movement. Part of the idea was that it should be be as level a playing field as possible, and if everyone had to use the same supplies it would not only be the richest who could afford to to buy the very best of everything who would be the winners all the time. (I often hear the complaint that F Open is so expensive that the ordinary shooter can't afford it). The NRAA has often considered that we and the States get out of sourcing and supplying ammunition and let it all be open slather but we have resisted this because of many reasons. One simple reason is that if you shoot a lot, and someone else only shoots a bit, its fair that the one who shoots a lot pays a bit more through the Ammo fee. One of the things that people in this forum forget is the many many shooters out there in Clubland, who never, or rarely go to open competitions. They are simply there for their Saturday Afternoon shoot, they form the largest part of our movement and it is the NRAA's responsibility look after them as well. Many people on this forum and in F Class think the movement revolves around them only. Not true. There are many others as well.
Some people then object and think the States and NRAA make masses and masses of money for their own aggrandizement. Think again. I and other NRAA directors get paid exactly zilch. Any competitions or trips we make are paid for from our own money and I'm getting heartily sick of hearing such stories.
One message that I keep on trying to put out there to F Class shooters is that if you want to change anything, then find out how the system actually works and be prepared to nominate and get in there yourselves and do some work. You'll be surprised at how complicated it actually is. I do get heartily sick of hearing stories that are passed on criticizing the NRAA or some other Organization and which bear no relation to the actual truth.
Bob Pedersen
Re: Proposal to Limit F/TR Projectiles to 156 Grains
Bob
Don't you think a big change such as limiting FTR bullet weight should have gone to the Members (STA) for at least comment ??
On one hand the Board can make decisions such as changing the FTR rules without comment from the Members (STA), but I'm told the Board wouldn't nominate to hold the FCWC because it needed direction from the Members.
From my point of view (right or wrong) it looks like changing FTR rules to less than 155's would have two potential upsides for the NRAA. Firstly an increase in bullets sales and secondly bring FS and FTR closer together to the point of being able to phase out FS and reduce the number of classes.
The current Board system isn't very inviting or easy to get on. I know of a few F Class shooters prepared to nominate however the current system makes any change a very slow process which perhaps our movement can't endure.
Matt Paroz
Don't you think a big change such as limiting FTR bullet weight should have gone to the Members (STA) for at least comment ??
On one hand the Board can make decisions such as changing the FTR rules without comment from the Members (STA), but I'm told the Board wouldn't nominate to hold the FCWC because it needed direction from the Members.
From my point of view (right or wrong) it looks like changing FTR rules to less than 155's would have two potential upsides for the NRAA. Firstly an increase in bullets sales and secondly bring FS and FTR closer together to the point of being able to phase out FS and reduce the number of classes.
The current Board system isn't very inviting or easy to get on. I know of a few F Class shooters prepared to nominate however the current system makes any change a very slow process which perhaps our movement can't endure.
Matt Paroz
Re: Proposal to Limit F/TR Projectiles to 156 Grains
Mat people ask what is wrong with our sport, I will even say society. Reading your post brings it all to the surface.
All changes have to have happened yesterday.
It is too hard to work within a system, so why try.
I do not have time so I will rubbish those that try.
And every one is plotting against me.
How about we actually applaud the few of us that put the extra in and have ago.
I know that I rely on them, so that I can still shoot on Saturdays.
Richard McRae
All changes have to have happened yesterday.
It is too hard to work within a system, so why try.
I do not have time so I will rubbish those that try.
And every one is plotting against me.
How about we actually applaud the few of us that put the extra in and have ago.
I know that I rely on them, so that I can still shoot on Saturdays.
Richard McRae
Re: Proposal to Limit F/TR Projectiles to 156 Grains
Richard
I've been invovled with F Class since it's introduction into the SSR's in 1996. Over that time I've been on club committees, DRA's, rules committees and was the F Class ICFRA Delegate for the NRAA and now on NSW council. In that time people have said to make change you have to be on club committees, state ass etc, well I've done that and guess what very little change.
So to say I want change yesterday but don't want to do any work is a little unfair.
I'll leave it at that for now.
Regards
Matt Paroz
I've been invovled with F Class since it's introduction into the SSR's in 1996. Over that time I've been on club committees, DRA's, rules committees and was the F Class ICFRA Delegate for the NRAA and now on NSW council. In that time people have said to make change you have to be on club committees, state ass etc, well I've done that and guess what very little change.
So to say I want change yesterday but don't want to do any work is a little unfair.
I'll leave it at that for now.
Regards
Matt Paroz
Last edited by Matt P on Thu Aug 24, 2017 1:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
lightcaliber
- Posts: 31
- Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2016 7:22 pm
- Has thanked: 2 times
- Been thanked: 1 time
Re: Proposal to Limit F/TR Projectiles to 156 Grains
As I have said before the NRAA is run by TR people and who are still living in 1950 when kings and Queens ruled but not now this is 2017 in the time of change . This organisation can not heep going with only 9500 or so members comparred to SSAA 180000 With assets of approx 45 million .
I keep hearing comments that we have to many classes but this crap as we don,t have enough to attract new members .
SSAA have 8 in benchrest alone without anythink else.
My thoughts
I keep hearing comments that we have to many classes but this crap as we don,t have enough to attract new members .
SSAA have 8 in benchrest alone without anythink else.
My thoughts
Re: Proposal to Limit F/TR Projectiles to 156 Grains
Hi Bob, you might find it interesting to know there are a lot of us doing just that, trying to find out how things work, reading the constitution and talking to councillors and delegates to try and understand how the overall system works, reading the constitution is one thing, understanding it in practice is another. But thank you again for the rap over the knuckles.
I will ask directly, rather than assuming form available information, HOW was the decision to vote for the restriction arrived at, what factors were considered? Clearly the vote which was weighted against it was not followed, nor was any direct consultation from FTR shooters as I am yet to meet more than a couple who were for it, and again, our entire representative team that just attended were against the idea. If you could shed some light on this it may further our understanding of how decisions are made, and how we may better influence them in the future.
I'd also like to bring to your attention, that there are both local suppliers and foreign agents who can assist in the acquisition of projectiles at comparable prices to what is currently available through the state associations, very minor differences in pricing. So any light that you could shed on the comments that without the NRAA's contracts prices will rise would also help further understand how and why decisions are made.
I sincerely apologize if my statement that their "MAY" have been a financial reason for the NRAA to decide to vote for the restriction has upset you, but I don't see why it should.
Either I am fed lies by the councillors I speak to (And completely misunderstood Mr Duncan's recent article in issue 129 of the ATR), or it is a fact that the NRAA makes a small margin from the sale of certain projectiles, why then is it unfair to assume that their may have been some financial implications behind the decision is beyond me, but again I apologize for any offense, I am sure you can see why that train of thought had come about though, particularly after reading Mr. Giffords open letter regarding the Optimus contracts.
There is no doubt some issues facing the sport locally and I feel been open and communicative about them all, with everyone, will be the only way to achieve an outcome that is favourable to all of us.
There are many many shooters, many with much more intelligence than myself that are trying to get involved in the management side of the sport, very few (Actually none) express how easy it is to become members of any boards where they can have some kind of influence over things, but we are trying, so please have faith in us.
It is also a bit sad that you would think any of us think the sport revolves around us only, as I can firmly assure you, from experience, we know it doesn't, and I don't actually believe there is any of us who don't understand that the weekend warrior, the Saturday shooter, is pivotal to our sport. That said, I also believe that those who strive to achieve national and international success are just as pivotal and both types of shooter go hand in hand in the continuing success of the sport.
Regards,
Jason.
I will ask directly, rather than assuming form available information, HOW was the decision to vote for the restriction arrived at, what factors were considered? Clearly the vote which was weighted against it was not followed, nor was any direct consultation from FTR shooters as I am yet to meet more than a couple who were for it, and again, our entire representative team that just attended were against the idea. If you could shed some light on this it may further our understanding of how decisions are made, and how we may better influence them in the future.
I'd also like to bring to your attention, that there are both local suppliers and foreign agents who can assist in the acquisition of projectiles at comparable prices to what is currently available through the state associations, very minor differences in pricing. So any light that you could shed on the comments that without the NRAA's contracts prices will rise would also help further understand how and why decisions are made.
I sincerely apologize if my statement that their "MAY" have been a financial reason for the NRAA to decide to vote for the restriction has upset you, but I don't see why it should.
Either I am fed lies by the councillors I speak to (And completely misunderstood Mr Duncan's recent article in issue 129 of the ATR), or it is a fact that the NRAA makes a small margin from the sale of certain projectiles, why then is it unfair to assume that their may have been some financial implications behind the decision is beyond me, but again I apologize for any offense, I am sure you can see why that train of thought had come about though, particularly after reading Mr. Giffords open letter regarding the Optimus contracts.
There is no doubt some issues facing the sport locally and I feel been open and communicative about them all, with everyone, will be the only way to achieve an outcome that is favourable to all of us.
There are many many shooters, many with much more intelligence than myself that are trying to get involved in the management side of the sport, very few (Actually none) express how easy it is to become members of any boards where they can have some kind of influence over things, but we are trying, so please have faith in us.
It is also a bit sad that you would think any of us think the sport revolves around us only, as I can firmly assure you, from experience, we know it doesn't, and I don't actually believe there is any of us who don't understand that the weekend warrior, the Saturday shooter, is pivotal to our sport. That said, I also believe that those who strive to achieve national and international success are just as pivotal and both types of shooter go hand in hand in the continuing success of the sport.
Regards,
Jason.
Re: Proposal to Limit F/TR Projectiles to 156 Grains
Matt I commend you on what you have done, but in all the decisions that were made by you or your committees did you give a detailed report on how you justified them. Or did you make the decision with the info you had. From what I can see people are trying to say that the poll on this unofficial site should had been taken into account. This is no different than a council polling 80 people and banning Australia Day. The other 99% of shooters should also have a say. The main error that I can see that happened was there was not enough time given for the proposal to be handled in a formal manner, but I think it is a long straw to say that the NRAA made its decision on a financial basis, this is showing no respect to those that use their time so we have a sport.
Richard McRae
Richard McRae
Re: Proposal to Limit F/TR Projectiles to 156 Grains
F/TR is F/TR, not F/TR STD. However, if F/TR was moved to F/STD, it would save the NRAA donating the limited funds to the Australian F/TR team at the next world championships to defend their 2nd place in Canada. I'm sure the F/STD's can defend it with bi-pods only.
Regards,
Azzo
Azzo
Re: Proposal to Limit F/TR Projectiles to 156 Grains
Azzopardi wrote:F/TR is F/TR, not F/TR STD. However, if F/TR was moved to F/STD, it would save the NRAA donating the limited funds to the Australian F/TR team at the next world championships to defend their 2nd place in Canada. I'm sure the F/STD's can defend it with bi-pods only.
That's fairly cryptic, what do you mean?
Menu
Newest members