Introduced in 2019, this class is defined in Chapter 23 of the SSRs. It offers shooters with factory sporting rifles the opportunity of participating at NRAA ranges alongside TR and F-Class.
RJNEILSEN wrote:Firstly, I support these rule changes. Obviously they will evolve as needed.
My question to those clubs that already encourage guys with hunting rifles, is how do you manage their first few shoots to ensure they can safely hit the target at the longer ranges? Sure some of these guys will have awesome gear and know it backwards, but some will have old bits of crap in an unsuitable caliber that wont go the distance. Proof at a zero range is not good enough. Many clubs now utilize electronic targets and spraying shots around the target frame is punishable by hanging. Do you follow a procedure to audit their gear, ammo and skills first? Even if just for safety.
Cheers, Ryan.
One idea I've heard is that shooters and guns must qualify for longer ranges. If they can't stay in the black at 3, 5, 6 there is no 7, 8, 9.
idea I've heard is that shooters and guns must qualify for longer ranges. If they can't stay in the black at 3, 5, 6 there is no 7, 8, 9.
Good ideas fellas. What's wrong with getting them on the mark for the range on a conventional target prior to shooting on the electronic target. We need to be giving new shooters all the help they need to be able to shoot safely and to an acceptable standard rather than leaving them to fend for themselves. Congratulations to the people who had input into this idea to introduce a new class to our sport well done and keep the good ideas coming.
RJNEILSEN wrote:Firstly, I support these rule changes. Obviously they will evolve as needed.
My question to those clubs that already encourage guys with hunting rifles, is how do you manage their first few shoots to ensure they can safely hit the target at the longer ranges? Sure some of these guys will have awesome gear and know it backwards, but some will have old bits of crap in an unsuitable caliber that wont go the distance. Proof at a zero range is not good enough. Many clubs now utilize electronic targets and spraying shots around the target frame is punishable by hanging. Do you follow a procedure to audit their gear, ammo and skills first? Even if just for safety.
Cheers, Ryan.
One idea I've heard is that shooters and guns must qualify for longer ranges. If they can't stay in the black at 3, 5, 6 there is no 7, 8, 9.
When we first started this at North Arm, we thought this was a great idea. New shootees had to stay in the black at 300 to qualify for 400, and stay in the black at 400 to qualify for 500, and so on. But it doesn't always work out that way. What ended up happening was a white marker was placed in the bullet catchment area of the stop butts of an empty lane when targets were getting setup. Then when a new shooter wanted to have a go, a club member would sight him or her in on the marker. After 2-3 shots you got the idea of how they would go. If you were still a bit concerned about how they were grouping, then the member would stay with them during their first target as a wind coach. If they looked to be grouping well on the marker, the member would just stand back a bit and offer advice if they thought necessary. Remembering most of these guys have no idea on how much difference a wind/mirage change can make , to protect your targets, we realized pretty quickly, you need to have someone to talk them a threw their first few ranges. 99% of the time the newby got up very thankful for the help. The 1% generally got up blaming you for their poor form, and you rarely saw them again. And yes. You are going to get those 1%ers as we all know those people who already know everthing, but the majority of them get up with a huge smile on their faces, and that makes up for the others 10 fold. Scott.
cheech wrote:...Question so why have rules for something that is non competitive ?
As stated in rule 23.2 "The prime purpose for its introduction is to encourage participation, rather than competition...", but that doesn't mean it can't have a competition format. This is a sensible approach in my opinion, because "plinking" is not approved of by the Police on Classification ranges, in Victoria at least. Shooting a competition format does not need to be "competitive". And I know at my range there will be regular opportunities for sighting and testing, for all disciplines.
As stated above the objective was for an introduction to Fclass and encourage participation, this is very similar to Field and Game "birds only" a non competitive introduction class...
If this is not a competitive format why so many restrictions, we are trying to be inclusive to all shooters, wanting to try our discipline? I think its naive to have restrictions on barrel length and rifle weight for an "introduction class" into long range shooting.. (Fclass)
That being said, im really glad to see acceptance of muzzle brakes/ magazines, these are all steps in the right direction....
Another leaf we can take from Field and Game is too better represent our Ladies and Jnr/ Sub Jnr shooters... We need to be more family orientated, and i think this new introduction class could encourage this movement, but currently we dont represent either very well at all..
At last some common sense used to introduced a new concept into our sport without the crap of rules and regulations to kill it of before it even starts. Me i am ready to go with a ruger 22 br that i used as a roo shooter, best cartridge that i ever used in my 33 years as a wild game harvester
I suspect some here misunderstood my previous post here. the concept of this subject is undoubtedly a good one. the point I tried to make is this. the hunting world is quite a different one than the long range target one. this world exists, and people within it equip themselves for it according to what works best, as do silhouette shooters, benchrest shooters, field rifle shooters etc. mention was made here of "old fashioned hunting rifles". these rifles have evolved to be ideal for their job, as have cartridges to suit them. parly because you have to carry them all day with water, ammo, safety gear etc, and they are required to be shot offhand fast, and they do not need more than a 5 shot mag, and an open pistol grip works better than a vertical one for the task in hand. they work better with a different balance than a hybrid, which in part comes from lighter lower mounted scopes which have non snagging knobs and really do not need to be over 6x. since then, a new style of rifle has evolved, partly through a desire by gun manufacturers to sell more product, and partly though a demand created by very successful marketing. these rifles are a hybrid target rifle/military rifle and can be used for certain aspects of hunting, but are not an all round hunting rifle by any means. in modern times an understanding of hunting has come more from the marketing machine than experience, to the extent that the modern rifle is now considered by beginner hunters as a superior tool for the job. in hunting specific circles this is not considered the case. the same circles consider the 6.5 cm to be ballistically equivalent to the 6.5 mannlicher, and inferior to most other hunting rounds for all but specific jobs. by implying that the new class is for hunting people, it might well be self defeating. I have been involved in trying to attract hunters to long range for many years, mostly with the same result. you see them come and you see them go. the new type of rifle is unquestionably more suitable for our disciplines than a hunting rifle due to its hybrid nature. perhaps the problem here is the naming of the class. could these new rifles be thought of as a modern sporting rifle - suited to some aspects of hunting, and several disciplines of range shooting. I would suggest renaming the discipline to something like "modern sporting rifle" or "Australian sporting rifle". these two names have a marketing appeal, as well as attracting the right customers, as opposed to ones that will either not come at all, or if they do will never come back. bruce.
Bruce, you make some very valid points. I think the name does need revision and your observations about attracting hunters into the sport sound valuable, would be keen to get your perspective on this in a bit more detail as it sounds valuable honing retention efforts.
The biggest change offered by this at the moment is the allowance of muzzle breaks and magazines on rifles with an affordable factory type rifles. The affordability aspect is critical to growing this sport. I have also met existing shooters, good people that would make great contributions to our clubs and the sports, deterred from attending our shoots because their rifles and and set-ups have muzzle breaks and mags for PRS/PSR, hunting or otherwise. They don’t want the hassle changing configurations of Muzzle breaks, balance and other things by bending to rules of F-TR/Open/STD etc.
I think my club will probably limit this to 3,4,5 hundred meter ranges, initially, and see what people who attend for this class new class want from it. If it is viable and a regular group of people are attending to participate specifically to shoot this new class, with its allowance of Muzzle breaks and magazines then it would be folly to force people to abandon this class and force people into Existing F-classes, complying with ‘no muzzle breaks’ rules, competing with large dedicated rifle set-ups and the costs inherent,” We would find ourselves back where we are now, wondering why people are leaving and we are looking at poor growth prospects.
If it does what the NRAA hopes and it provides a feeder into the existing competitive classes then that is awesome, but there probably needs to be planning by Clubs and NRAA as to how that will be effected. It’s probably not going to happen straight away or of it’s own accord.
Personally I see it that local clubs committing to this class and attracting people to it, need to be Listening to participants of this new class (the customer if you will) and evolving it based on their feedback, our results and then observations. If that means it becomes a stand alone competitive class in its own right, because people like shooting braked rifles with mags, then so be it.
bad primer, many of us have held the dream of feeding other discipline shooters into fclass and also hopefully t.r. the hunter thing has been tried by many, some with more success than others. many of us have tried pilching benchrest shooters and silhouette shooters as well. open days have been tried as well. on all these things, the return for the effort has mostly been minimal. with this new thing, as you say, different clubs will have a different interpretations, and their experiments will be foundation work in coming to a better system. it would certainly appear that at the moment hybrid rifle shooting is popular to some degree, and would be a good thing to tap into for membership increase. as we find out more about hybrid rifle disciplines, it would appear that their compatibility with current disciplines is less than hoped. in all honesty one could be forgiven for thinking that the running of these disciplines would be done separate from t.r. and fclass. is this a bad thing? in its favour, the hybrid rifle shooters would be more free to do as they please, including using brakes, magazines, and doing pushups and running as part of a course of fire. on bigger ranges there is usually mound space to do this - not so sure about small country ranges. not in its favour is that if the disciplines are run at different times, then the clubhouse aspect would benefit less. our club currently shoots long range muzzle loaders further up the mound with success. probably hybrid rifle shooters would ultimately prefer steel targets at mixed distances, which requires a specialized range, and that would really separate us. however if those guys are nraa members we still gain. the problem here is that the nraa, well meaningly, has gone off half cocked and failed to recognize the target market. unfortunately every discipline has a lack of understanding of other disciplines, just as tr did with fclass until recently. in this case the failure is to understand hunting in enough depth. bruce.
AMAZING something new and so much negativity 23.7Aplplications to be 2 convertible sighters and 10 shots on standard ICFRA targets.Scoring as per TR i.e., with 5 and V bulls. As I understand it ,it is a new discipline to encourage more people onto ranges. I understand that some people do not take to change very well eg, transition from 303 to 308(omarks), then along comes F Class , F Open, FTR. Sporter Hunter Class. Seems to be a common thing called the process of evolution. Did not see any where in the rules about shooting steel targets or running around on mounds. I have never shot PRS but am open to having a go at it. I have read some of their rules and I think that the rules that they have for their novice or starter class for PRS where they have a $5000 cap on rifle and scope set could be a good guide for Sporter Hunter Class. You would have a rifle that you could use for 2 disciplines. Having a cap on equipment value as per PRS do could stop it turning into F Open with a 26 inch barrel.
Quick wrote:Its still a competive class. Its been shot t a few PMs here in WA.
Exactly Shaun.
To those who are questioning the need for rules, there WILL be some who will like the competitive side of it - hence the need for competition rules. Others will just come and try to improve on their own skills. They will definitely still need to comply with safety rules, but if they don't do exactly 10 shots and 2 sighters on a club day, that's fine. Most clubs already have a few F-Class shooters like this. It just needs a reasonable and commonsense approach from the RO.
I think this is, overall, a positive development. This should be considered version of 1.0 of the rules and it should evolve to meet needs and interests of those who do participate.
The success really will be driven by how well it is supported at club level and promoted even. SSRs on the NRAA website are hardly high web traffic areas and out and clubs need to get behind it and get over ourselves and engage with all kinds of shooting organisations. So let’s start talking to our friends in SSAA, Field and Game, Deer association FOU etc. Getting existing licensees to participate is low hanging fruit, but needs to be undertaken at the club level.
I understand that enticing hunters across to the target disciplines has had mixed success by others in past, this time might be different or maybe it won’t be. But this is a pretty an opportunity to try with a better and more market ready product.
Just have to ask ourselves How badly do we want to see our clubs grow and our ranges utilised?
Wal86 wrote: Another leaf we can take from Field and Game is too better represent our Ladies ........
One of the things I like about our sport is that men and women compete equally. I don't think we need a separate class for them. I DO think we need decent toilet facilities near the firing point.
bsouthernau wrote: One of the things I like about our sport is that men and women compete equally. I don't think we need a separate class for them. I DO think we need decent toilet facilities near the firing point.
100% agree with that sentement. It's the only sport I know where women, men, disabled, able bodied, juniors, seniors, lbgtq, libral, labor et al all compete on a level playing field. Crickey, we would even let 2nd hand car sales people and estate agents compete without descriminating.
bsouthernau wrote:One of the things I like about our sport is that men and women compete equally. I don't think we need a separate class for them. I DO think we need decent toilet facilities near the firing point.
Kudos to the Vic Queens for having clean serviceable toilets at the 600 yard mound for the shorts
Menu
Newest members