OzFclass

macguru wrote:

RMc wrote:I was at a prize meeting at the weekend and the main topic of discussion was the way that the SSRs .......I would suggest that other associations take what has been proposed, alter it as necessary and put them forward so that by the end of the next round of Queens the rules are finessed to do the job.
Note that the rules have been published well in advance of the competition so that people are not disadvantaged when they arrive. Smart move.
RMc

Good to hear some reasonable comments. Some of the stuff coming from the antis is just plain silly

We arent "anti" increasing membership. We are anti bastardizing the original intent of the class to suit individual agendas.

FWIW I already have a modified factory rifle that would fit YOUR definition of S/H in the cupboard which is proven capable of shooting 60s and winning competitions out to 1200yds. Adopting your rules would be the easiest solution for ME to bring what I already have and zero additional cost and be very competitive. BUT I'm trying to look past the what's best for "ME" aspect, which I encourage everyone discussing this topic to do, and look to the long term future of our sport and association and how we can introduce NEW people it shooting sports in general and also attract people from OTHER similar shooting sports into our association. Modifying rules without future vision just to please existing members doesn't increase membership.

BATattack wrote:

macguru wrote:

RMc wrote:FWIW I already have a modified factory rifle that would fit YOUR definition of S/H in the cupboard which is proven capable of shooting 60s and winning competitions out to 1200yds. Adopting your rules would be the easiest solution for ME to bring what I already have and zero additional cost and be very competitive. BUT I'm trying to look past the what's best for "ME" aspect, which I encourage everyone discussing this topic to do, and look to the long term future of our sport and association and how we can introduce NEW people it shooting sports in general and also attract people from OTHER similar shooting sports into our association. Modifying rules without future vision just to please existing members doesn't increase membership.

As I said we are never going to agree. My rifle is totally fair and ill be shooting it here, I have not seen yours so i dont know what you are on about...

RUSTY OMARK wrote:

RMc wrote:I was at a prize meeting at the weekend and the main topic of discussion was the way that the SSRs allow people to shoot this discipline with equipment more suited to FS/FO requirements. In these forums, it is even proposed to have three grades to overcome this.
What I see is an association that is taking steps to bring the competition back to what its original intention was, and these rules were drafted with consultation with the shooters of their state.
Instead of bagging it, I would suggest that other associations take what has been proposed, alter it as necessary and put them forward so that by the end of the next round of Queens the rules are finessed to do the job.
Note that the rules have been published well in advance of the competition so that people are not disadvantaged when they arrive. Smart move.

RMc

The NRAA has drafted national rules for sporter hunter that will come into effect dec-jan. There is no reason for other associations to modify rules Willy nilly. Makes things too hard for those who follow and comply with the current rules that are set in place.

So if the NRAA has drafted a new set if rules lets see them then ? Whats the point of holding them till Dec - Jan ?

I'm waiting to build a SH rifle and it's not clear yet what to build. If I want to shoot in the ACT Queens this year, I wonder what their rules may be?

If I was to believe the NSWRA, I could build a 7.5Kg rifle. Which is not the reason I'm going to SH, I am keen for the existing 6.5Kg limit per the current SSR's.

And from what I hear about the NRAA proposal, is that we may have 2 or 3 disciplines to choose from.

I hope the NRAA reigns this in quickly before other associations make house rules. I just wonder how that sits with the crown sanctioning the use of their emblem/design in Queen's events? Is SH an endorsed discipline yet?

bartman007 wrote:I'm waiting to build a SH rifle and it's not clear yet what to build. If I want to shoot in the ACT Queens this year, I wonder what their rules may be?

If I was to believe the NSWRA, I could build a 7.5Kg rifle. Which is not the reason I'm going to SH, I am keen for the existing 6.5Kg limit per the current SSR's.

And from what I hear about the NRAA proposal, is that we may have 2 or 3 disciplines to choose from.

I hope the NRAA reigns this in quickly before other associations make house rules. I just wonder how that sits with the crown sanctioning the use of their emblem/design in Queen's events? Is SH an endorsed discipline yet?

The current SSRs are what all major comps should be run to, if ACT adopt thier own rules, I will not be attending as previously planned.....

The VRA are looking at adopting a similar set of guidelines for SH, to offer some clarity. It can’t be enforced as a change of rules across the board, but is offered to provide supplementary wording and clarity on the more ambiguous points, such as scope power and stocks. It’s completely optional for adoption of it.

The proposed rules are the same, minus the weight change (remains at 6.5kg), the additional of no ski/sled or spike bipod feet and a maximum scope power of 30x (not a 50x wound back to 30x). A draft is in circulation at the moment for discussion and is probably going to be the guidelines/supplementary rules used for the VRA Queens.

Weairy wrote:The VRA are looking at adopting a similar set of guidelines for SH, to offer some clarity. It can’t be enforced as a change of rules across the board, but is offered to provide supplementary wording and clarity on the more ambiguous points, such as scope power and stocks. It’s completely optional for adoption of it.

The proposed rules are the same, minus the weight change (remains at 6.5kg), the additional of no ski/sled or spike bipod feet and a maximum scope power of 30x (not a 50x wound back to 30x). A draft is in circulation at the moment for discussion and is probably going to be the guidelines/supplementary rules used for the VRA Queens.

So I can’t compete with my scope as it’s 32x.
What differance does it make if your scope is wound back? None!!!
This will only go against the intention of the discipline to attract new shooters. Sad to see people make there own rules that go against the ssr. Just what we need to bring sporter hunter down in a big crash. Good work fellas.

RUSTY OMARK wrote:

Weairy wrote:The VRA are looking at adopting a similar set of guidelines for SH, to offer some clarity. It can’t be enforced as a change of rules across the board, but is offered to provide supplementary wording and clarity on the more ambiguous points, such as scope power and stocks. It’s completely optional for adoption of it.

The proposed rules are the same, minus the weight change (remains at 6.5kg), the additional of no ski/sled or spike bipod feet and a maximum scope power of 30x (not a 50x wound back to 30x). A draft is in circulation at the moment for discussion and is probably going to be the guidelines/supplementary rules used for the VRA Queens.

So I can’t compete with my scope as it’s 32x.
What differance does it make if your scope is wound back? None!!!
This will only go against the intention of the discipline to attract new shooters. Sad to see people make there own rules that go against the ssr. Just what we need to bring sporter hunter down in a big crash. Good work fellas.

What 32x scope is it?

A Nightforce Competition turned down to 24x is going to be a mountain better than a 24x Nikko Stirling, isn’t it.

Weairy wrote:

RUSTY OMARK wrote:

Weairy wrote:The VRA are looking at adopting a similar set of guidelines for SH, to offer some clarity. It can’t be enforced as a change of rules across the board, but is offered to provide supplementary wording and clarity on the more ambiguous points, such as scope power and stocks. It’s completely optional for adoption of it.

The proposed rules are the same, minus the weight change (remains at 6.5kg), the additional of no ski/sled or spike bipod feet and a maximum scope power of 30x (not a 50x wound back to 30x). A draft is in circulation at the moment for discussion and is probably going to be the guidelines/supplementary rules used for the VRA Queens.

So I can’t compete with my scope as it’s 32x.
What differance does it make if your scope is wound back? None!!!
This will only go against the intention of the discipline to attract new shooters. Sad to see people make there own rules that go against the ssr. Just what we need to bring sporter hunter down in a big crash. Good work fellas.

What 32x scope is it?

A Nightforce Competition turned down to 24x is going to be a mountain better than a 24x Nikko Stirling, isn’t it.

Lol. So will a leapold, vortex, Schmidt and bender, athlon, Burris, glass quality might change. But can’t see that changing accuracy. What next? Every one has to shoot Howas as they are cheaper than a Tikka?

RUSTY OMARK wrote:Lol. So will a leapold, vortex, Schmidt and bender, athlon, Burris, glass quality might change. But can’t see that changing accuracy. What next? Every one has to shoot Howas as they are cheaper than a Tikka?

Being able to see clearer is a fairly good advantage. I use a $600 ZeroTech scope and I can tell you, if I whacked my F-class March on, with 1/8 clicks that adjust true and glass good enough to tune out the mirage and handle lower light much better with the larger objective etc, I would be a lot better off.

What is your counter suggestion then?

Weairy wrote:

RUSTY OMARK wrote:Lol. So will a leapold, vortex, Schmidt and bender, athlon, Burris, glass quality might change. But can’t see that changing accuracy. What next? Every one has to shoot Howas as they are cheaper than a Tikka?

Being able to see clearer is a fairly good advantage. I use a $600 ZeroTech scope and I can tell you, if I whacked my F-class March on, with 1/8 clicks that adjust true and glass good enough to tune out the mirage and handle lower light much better with the larger objective etc, I would be a lot better off.

What is your counter suggestion then?

I would suggest running the current ssr. Then there’s no discrimination to those that comply with the current ssr. I can say I do have a Nightforce comp on one rifle and a cheap shitty scope on my Howa. Both rifles are competitive and will shoot a 50-10 with ease if I do my job. Hence I can’t see the point in discrimination against others as it goes against the first part of the class to attract and promote new shooters. I have never heard of a scope being able to dial out mirage, can you share your technique to how this is done?

Yeah 30x limit seems odd. By the time you have a 30x scope you likely have enough magnification to make the most of that type of platform so I'm not seeing why more than 30x is a significant advantage and actually worth having a rule to restrict.

bartman007 wrote:I'm waiting to build a SH rifle and it's not clear yet what to build. If I want to shoot in the ACT Queens this year, I wonder what their rules may be?

If I was to believe the NSWRA, I could build a 7.5Kg rifle. Which is not the reason I'm going to SH, I am keen for the existing 6.5Kg limit per the current SSR's.

And from what I hear about the NRAA proposal, is that we may have 2 or 3 disciplines to choose from.

I hope the NRAA reigns this in quickly before other associations make house rules. I just wonder how that sits with the crown sanctioning the use of their emblem/design in Queen's events? Is SH an endorsed discipline yet?

You aren't supposed to build it. You're supposed to buy what is commercially available.

Tim L wrote:

bartman007 wrote:I'm waiting to build a SH rifle and it's not clear yet what to build. If I want to shoot in the ACT Queens this year, I wonder what their rules may be?

If I was to believe the NSWRA, I could build a 7.5Kg rifle. Which is not the reason I'm going to SH, I am keen for the existing 6.5Kg limit per the current SSR's.

And from what I hear about the NRAA proposal, is that we may have 2 or 3 disciplines to choose from.

I hope the NRAA reigns this in quickly before other associations make house rules. I just wonder how that sits with the crown sanctioning the use of their emblem/design in Queen's events? Is SH an endorsed discipline yet?

You aren't supposed to build it. You're supposed to buy what is commercially available.

Exactly

Tim L wrote:

bartman007 wrote:I'm waiting to build a SH rifle and it's not clear yet what to build. If I want to shoot in the ACT Queens this year, I wonder what their rules may be?

If I was to believe the NSWRA, I could build a 7.5Kg rifle. Which is not the reason I'm going to SH, I am keen for the existing 6.5Kg limit per the current SSR's.

And from what I hear about the NRAA proposal, is that we may have 2 or 3 disciplines to choose from.

I hope the NRAA reigns this in quickly before other associations make house rules. I just wonder how that sits with the crown sanctioning the use of their emblem/design in Queen's events? Is SH an endorsed discipline yet?

You aren't supposed to build it. You're supposed to buy what is commercially available.

So why can you replace barrel and trigger with match items ?? Just saying.