Proposal to Limit F/TR Projectiles to 156 Grains

[bobped]

At the F Class World Championships coming up in Canada, the ICFRA World F Class Committee will meet. The Committee consists of representatives from each member country and Australia is one.
One of the proposals put up by S Africa and being considered is that F/TR projectiles should be limited to 155.9 grains.
What does everyone think of that?

Bob Pedersen

[Barry Davies]

Agree 100% otherwise it's F/something, definately not F/TR.
Barry

[johnk]

The way it should have been. The it would have been F class for Target Rifle, not F class for Tactical Rifle.

[AlanF]

If it were to happen, it would significantly reduce the difference between F/TR and F-Std in Australia. That may raise the question, do we need both? And no prizes for guessing which one would be shown the door.

[macguru]

Which one Alan ?

[Barry Davies]

If so Alan ( and I am not saying I disagree ) it would certainly fix the problem ( perceived or otherwise ) relating to " machine gunning " , at least in F/S
If it were to happen the only significant differences between FS and F/TR ( in order of significance) would be --weight, front rest and trigger pull.
On the other hand maybe we would have three classes without grading -- FO, F/TR and FS.
If FS disappeared there would be a rather large number of second hand front rests available for a cheaper entry into FO.

[Gyro]

Ive been shooting FTR with the Berger 200 Hybrids for the last three years. I believe they do give an advantage if they are run at a worthwhile speed. I believe allowing the big bullets to be used in FTR has been something of a "double edged sword". On the one hand it has led to a lot of innovation and experimentation with getting the right setup to make thier use competitive but it has also led to some fairly ridiculous spending on brass replacement as some have pushed the boundaries way out there ! Restricting the class to 155 grain bullets would make FTR more inclusive to more people and would I believe make for a better competition. Rob Kerridge.

[Amac]

I think there is two sides to this coin.

On the pro side you have the playing field leveling out and yes, it would make the rule makers look at what F Std is or should be perhaps. On the con side you have the variation and difference that is makes from F Std. Yes, it takes a fair amount of skill and rifle handling to launch a 30 cal heavy down range and maintain precision with it.

Being only a fairly new shooter - NRAA disciplines I see that we might have missed the boat on the F Std outcome but you might never know where the future leads.

This would be worth getting input from the current crop of Australian Team Members as they are at the forefront of the sport. No doubt others shooting F/TR will have some good input too. Me, I'm happy to shoot the heavies (within range limits) and just as happy to shoot 155.5 too. Any decision must be for the betterment of the sport!! Who decides that is obviously the most important question though...

Cheers Andrew

[macguru]

An interesting question to consider is WHY the South Africans would make the proposal in the first place ? (To limit proj weight). I think it would provide insight to know this .... Is is cost, level playing field, recoil management in a relatively light, weight limited rifle/bipod combo or what ? I would say the latter, speaking as an F open outsider... but I would like to hear their thoughts.

[John S]

I believe it makes sense to limit the projectile to 156gn. It may even the playing field, cost and recoil as Andrew has pointed out. For a shooter contemplating transferring (in Au) from Std to F-TR then the limit on projectile makes the transition very attractive.

[ShaneG]

This may be proposed by RSA now but I have heard it from UK as well? And some US people as well?
I wouldn't stop competing in F/TR if this was applied but can equally be happy with current rules.
It would align more with our Australian Only F Std!
And the obvious truth is that the competitive F Std gear is really FO .308 with 1 kg trigger!!!
So could be a positive for us in that we would revert to the international disciplines and have 2 F Class to cater for at prize meets instead of 4 classes currently.

[Tim L]

Ive been shooting FTR with the Berger 200 Hybrids for the last three years. I believe they do give an advantage if they are run at a worthwhile speed. I believe allowing the big bullets to be used in FTR has been something of a "double edged sword". On the one hand it has led to a lot of innovation and experimentation with getting the right setup to make thier use competitive but it has also led to some fairly ridiculous spending on brass replacement as some have pushed the boundaries way out there ! Restricting the class to 155 grain bullets would make FTR more inclusive to more people and would I believe make for a better competition. Rob Kerridge.

Not a personal dig Rob, but your post directly contradicts my beliefs so it seems a good place to start.

If what you suggest is true, why do F Std scores consistently beat F/TR scores at Queens? The front rest perhaps? Take a look at Jimmy Blomfields history, he shoots std off a bipod and is one of those who beats F/TR. Steve Laz, Garry Faulkner. There may not be many that choose to do it, but those that do, provide plenty of evidence to suggest the solid front rest isn't the advantage. Hell, they give the 7mm's a run for their money! Heavy pills are a choice not an advantage.
If someone chooses to load one shot brass that too is a choice. There's nothing to stop us blowing 155s out at 3200fps (and some do) not too sure how long that brass will last. I get 2750 out of 200s and 2650 from 215s and still use the cases I started with, over 10 shots on some of them, all be it Palmer brass. There is no empirical evidence to suggest barrel burn rate is affected by anything more than the case capacity to bore diameter ratio. Heavy pills shot from the correct chamber make not a jot of difference. I'm still shooting the barrel I took to NZ nearly 3 years ago. It had over 3000 200gn Bergers through it plus a good number of 185s and 168s before I re-chambered, which I did simply to get the FTR chamber in there, and reduce the weight so I could play with tuners, not because it stopped shooting. It would easily have been a 4000 round barrel.

On a personnel note, I invested heavily in getting competitive gear ready for Worlds. What do I do with the 6x 1:10 and 2 x 1:9 barrels all chambered for 200gn+ pills. They were an investment, not only for worlds but for a good few years of shooting F/TR. I really don't expect barrel prices to come down,,,,,ever!

I'd be more interested in the reasoning for the proposal.

Bob P, just to be clear, I'm not in favour of the proposal

[AlanF]

Which one Alan ?

We are closely aligned with ICFRA for TR, F-Open and F/TR, not so closely with F-Std.

[Barry Davies]

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

[cheech]

I agree with Tim,

Investments I have made with 2 rifles chambered for heavy bullets plus all the precision tooling is enormous, yes my choice but inline with current rules of competition, also the hours of training to adapt skills required from previous Fstd 155 pills shooting, if I had to reinvest yet again I would contemplate doing something else .