Proposal to Limit F/TR Projectiles to 156 Grains

[AlanF]

Hardly, TR ( aust ) is about as far removed from TR ( ICFRA ) as FS is from F/TR

Really? In terms of allowed equipment?

[Tim L]

If RSA want to compete with 155gn pills why not suggest the add a pedestal rest as an option and shoot FStd. Our guys will get the oppertunity to compete internationally as well as prove its SA skills that are lacking, not projectile choice that's beating them.

Yeah that last bit is tongue in cheek but the first bit is an option.

[Tim L]

Just heard back from a South African shooter.
It appears the proposal might be based on an inability to get the selection of projectiles over there. They have an option of only 4 30cal berger projectiles due to supply rather than laws or rules. EVERYTHING is expensive there so its not a comparison of expense.

[cheech]

Good work Tim

[jasmay]

This warrants some very careful consideration in my opinion as I believe it will have wide ranging ramifications for the entire target shooting industry.

My initial 2 thoughts are I do not care as long as we are all shooting a world standard, rules set by ICFRA, its about time we all got on the same page.

But my vote on the matter currently would be no it should be left open to choice, the advantage of one projectile over another is perceived and the argument that one is better than the other has been proven wrong. Based on one countries supply issue I think it would be unwarranted to change, as an association lets work to fix that countries supply issue, not limit us all based on it.

The following is just a few immediate concerns I think warrant consideration in the grand scheme of this decision.

1) We are now a long way down the road of competitors and state/country associations investing in the various projectiles and accessories required to run them, if a decision was made this year to stop the use of all but 155 weight you could almost guarantee an immediate switch to them, I would shoot what I have lewft and not buy anything but 155's this would leave a number of business and other suppliers with large stocks of redundant projectiles with only a hope that they may sell to other shooting disciplines.

2) We have barrel suppliers stocked up, and possibly tooled up for tight twists would we be effecting them too?

3) With the wider use of heavy projectiles we have seen some heavy development go into them, and gear to run them, I see other disciplines potentially being effected, match rifle comes to mind, but in general the development that has gone into some of these heavy projectiles has transpired into some amazingly accurate gear being available to the wider shooting community including hunting, I think being mindful of this aspect is important for developing our overall sport.

4) What exactly are we doing in this country, does FS have a future? I certainly see it being threatened even more with a rule like this coming in, will it be enough for the NRAA to make a ruling once and for all to ditch it and align the overall sport with ICFRA, which in my mind is where it should be.

On a deeper point, with the new NFA and it now looking like legitimate sports will only be those that are shot at Olympic, commonwealth or world titles, maybe FS is dead in the water anyway so a change is immediately required, is the NRAA keeping up to date with changes to the NFA and writting what ever submissions it see's required to protect our sport?

5) Would an immediate shift to 155's create a shortage in those?

Edited to add 6) Reamers developed and stocked by both shooters and smiths to cater for big pills is another consideration.

A very careful approach is needed in my opinion, with PRS now on the rise, further changes and restrictions may push more over the edge to change.

[saum2]

I' m not in favour of the proposal. please consider thoughts from current shooters.
GeoffK

[mike H]

I have shot FTR since it's inception in Australia,I like the ability to use different weight bullets.My vote is no change.
Mike.

[Steve N]

I would like to support what Tim L and other current FTR shooters have said and say vote for no change.

[DannyS]

Warracknabeal PM, 18 F standard entries, 3 FTR. Leave FS alone.

[jasmay]

Warracknabeal PM, 18 F standard entries, 3 FTR. Leave FS alone.

If you read the full story Danny you will see this is an FTR issue not FS.

The issue for FS is, if this change is made on a global level i.e. ICFRA, it may as a coincidence impact FS, as why would anyone shooting FS off a bipod want to shoot FS when pedestal rests are a problem? I also see Retiring TR shooters moving to FTR as it will be much more inline with it than FS has become over the years.

[Barry Davies]

Yes Alan, really.
TR in ICFRA is allowed unlimited weight rifle and 0.5 kg trigger. TR ( aus ) is 6.5kg rifle and 1kg trigger. Significant differences.
The only disciplines closely aligned to ICFRA are FO and F/TR. The closest TR and FS come to it is the target.

[jasmay]

Barry, when our shooters go to the com games, what rules do they follow?

[Barry Davies]

Jas,
Basically SSR's. Definitely not ICFRA
Edited.
Further to that I understand that the next Commonwealth Games ( Brisbane 2018 ) will be conducted under the technical rules of ICFRA

[jasmay]

Jas,
Basically SSR's. Definitely not ICFRA

Just confusing as hell isn't it....

Seems some serious alignment across the disciplines is required.

[bsouthernau]

Thought I posted this earlier - second attempt.

I prefer no change, allows me to shoot MR and FTR with the same gear.

Barry