Lifting Restrictions on Brakes in F-Class

We want to hear what your club is doing to bring in new members. Tell us what works, and give credit to those who are making the effort.

Moderator: Mod

Message
Author
DSilver
Posts: 15
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2019 6:07 pm

Re: Lifting Restrictions on Brakes in F-Class

#61 Postby DSilver » Thu Dec 03, 2020 1:41 pm

Hi all, I have seen a similar sort of scenario in the pistol shooting world between ISSF be IPSC where one is more precision target and the other more practical rapid fire again usually on reactive/metal targets. One thing I have observed over the years with different disciplines is that we are our own worst enemies. You don’t need to try and divide as it’s already done so we are only opening our sport up to be conquered.
With muzzle brakes, unfortunately with all the online media (YouTube) in particular that is what new shooters are getting fed and seeing as the norm. You type in long range shooting in the search field, and you get inundated with PRS competition videos and people ringing steel plates. If you type in FClass specifically, then you get a few old videos from Bisley, couple of old Aussie ones then again American channels, such as FClass John, Erik Cortina etc. Which as informative as they are, they are all American and not home grown so really our sport is not widely known.
So when a new shooter who has never shot distance, watches videos about how his Tikka “TAC” 6.5 can easily hit steel out at 1000, that’s what they want to don’t know otherwise. Also most of these rifles come with the brakes already on. As I understand and I think previously stated, most of the long ranges we have are utilised by our F Class/ TR disciplines and if they’re all similar I’m guessing the template of the range is trying to minimise the cone of fire so that danger areas/misses are minimal. So there is another factor a lot of people probably don’t factor in, or even know of.
Without getting to far off track, Hunter Class is more than enough to cater for newer shooters who don’t necessarily want to have a designated target rifle.
WE NEED TO CREATE A BRAND/IMAGE..
Instead of more disciplines and muzzle devices we need to start pushing our online presence from the ground up, by putting up Queens shoots, OPM’s, even club shoots to let people see what goes on. I am in the process of trying to do this exact thing through our club with the help of my son as my digital media knowledge is not that great.
There also comes a time where we as a group may have more strength as one big group instead of individual clubs.

PeteFox
Posts: 598
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2018 5:20 pm
Location: 7321 Tas.

Re: Lifting Restrictions on Brakes in F-Class

#62 Postby PeteFox » Thu Dec 03, 2020 2:20 pm

Screenshot_20201203-151727_Facebook.jpg


Nuff said

Pete
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Wingnut
Posts: 120
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2018 7:34 pm
Location: Adelaide

Re: Lifting Restrictions on Brakes in F-Class

#63 Postby Wingnut » Thu Dec 03, 2020 4:06 pm

Squading would fix that issue, all the guys with the muzzle brakes shooting at the same time. No one else would have to put up with the extra noise, and those that do can give it back to their neighbours as they get it. Just have to think outside the square, it’s not hard.

willow
Posts: 567
Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2015 9:51 pm

Re: Lifting Restrictions on Brakes in F-Class

#64 Postby willow » Thu Dec 03, 2020 7:48 pm

Wingnut wrote:Squading would fix that issue, all the guys with the muzzle brakes shooting at the same time. No one else would have to put up with the extra noise, and those that do can give it back to their neighbours as they get it. Just have to think outside the square, it’s not hard.


It's not a bad way to go, hell, I'm left handed and got squadded with other lefties at the Nationals and NSW Queens last year.

AlanF
Posts: 7495
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 8:22 pm
Location: Maffra, Vic

Re: Lifting Restrictions on Brakes in F-Class

#65 Postby AlanF » Thu Dec 03, 2020 8:58 pm

Squadding braked rifles together may work at major events, but at small club Saturday shoots it could slow the day down significantly e.g. one or two braked shooters, everyone else off the mound. There is a need for some sort of acoustic barrier system if brakes are to be introduced at club level. I think it should be up to the pro-brake community to come up with an effective and practical design, and possibly have it approved by the STAs or NRAA.

Quick
Posts: 1134
Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2008 9:09 pm
Location: Yanchep, Western Australia
Contact:

Re: Lifting Restrictions on Brakes in F-Class

#66 Postby Quick » Thu Dec 03, 2020 9:32 pm

The way I see it, and this is from the last few years of really trying to get more younger and new members to shoot at Pinjar.

1. The majority of people dont want to join a club. They just want somewhere to plink and blaze away. They dont want to compete. And if it costs them too much or is in any way not 100% easy for them, they dont want to know. People these days want everything for nothing it seems. But they are happy to pay per use with no dramas at all.

2. If they want to do what we do, they will join us and seek us out. but unfortunatly alot dont want to. It doesnt appeal to them. A large part of this is because the world has changed and attitudes have changed by and large.

3. In order to survive, we are probably better off using these ranges that we have to make money in order to ensure our survival. Just trying to get members isnt going to cut it anymore.

4. What we do is expensive. It sucks but it is. People think what we do is easy. But then they realise that it takes time and practice and they dont want to devote the time or the expense.

This is how I see it. We may as well make the world as it is work for us. It doesnt seem like its going to change. This means clubs and associations making money to support themselves could be the answer long term. Build membership yes. But that cant be our only avenue to survive.
Shaun aka 'Quick'
Yanchep, Western Australia

308 Win F/TR & F-S
7mm F-Open Shooter.

pjifl
Posts: 883
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2005 12:15 pm
Location: Innisfail, Far North QLD.

Re: Lifting Restrictions on Brakes in F-Class

#67 Postby pjifl » Fri Dec 04, 2020 1:07 am

I completely agree with DSilver's post. We all would be far better off without the average Yank web sites about Shooting. Of course there are some very good ones but search Engines take people to the most popular ones. No idea why people think hitting a large steel plate is exciting ! And why they think missing a paper target or cutting wires on an eTarget is normal. But, then, even Rambo misses with most of his shots so it has to be 'Normal'. And all the super long range so called sniping web stuff is just stupid. No Sniper is going to fire dozens of shots without a hit and give away his position. Which means most sniping is done at fairly short distances. The super long shot so called 'Sniping' is mainly to satisfy small minds. Equipment sniping may be a slight exception.

To get back to Muzzle Brakes, I see few problems on many ranges for a limited number of people to try out their rifles with Brakes if there is no official competition in progress. By that I mean, on many Ranges, the mound is often far wider than the lanes being utilized. Thus a Braked shooter can usually be placed at the far end away from others. On serious competition days we are better off without them with mixed squadding. Special squadding to suite would slow down the shooting because setting up the next shooter on the mound concurrently as we do now saves a LOT of time and would probably not be viable. Many do not realize just how much faster a shoot goes with our system compared to single shooters on the mound controlled totally by a range officer.

A question - can serious braking be achieved by deflecting muzzle gases forward ? Does anyone ever test the reduction in recoil as claimed by makers or simply believe advertising blurb on web sites. Advertising on Shooting Web sites is usually misleading so why would advertising about Brakes be any different. Testing of Brakes would not be very hard and may be an eye-opener. Unless there is some magic involved, forward gas braking will, in general, INCREASE recoil.

Some facts about Brakes.

1/ Unless made and fitted to extremely high standards, they will reduce accuracy. Perhaps pointing this out may encourage taking them off if this is possible.

2/ They can allow a shooter to view the bullet trace all the way to a target using a moderate sized cartridge. This is especially useful if one is off target or the target is not being marked and shot position is not being reported to the shooter. People that want to blaze away at a target usually never even know that it is common in precision shooting to 'see' shot position via a marker or eTargets. And they don't know that it is possible to bore sight a rifle so the first shot will be a hit. These are the people who usually never keep records. OK - there are some exceptions and it is a pleasure to find someone shooting a hunting rifle who knows what he is doing but in my experience it is rare. Anyway - we have a conflict with 'Level Playing Field''. More so in some disciplines than others.

3/ Many modern Riflescope makers - especially some top brands that supply then to the military - are reducing eye relief. Moving the Shooter's eye closer to the eyepiece significantly increases the seen apparent field of view of the targets and it reduces the width of the eyepiece. Hence the weight of the Riflescope is reduced - quite a lot. There is a LOT of quite heavy optical glass in wide field long relief eyepieces. Riflescope reviews are usually so dumb that the reviewer never picks up on this. They seem to think an extra field of view is great and never consider the implication that it may comes at a cost. Again, this changes the Level Playing Field aspect - especially in some disciplines. Unfortunately, as this becomes more the norm in military gear, it could be a looming problem. But most normal Military Cartridges these days are small and have quite low recoil anyway.

As an F shooter, neither points 2 or 3 really frighten me. But they will be viewed by many as firm negatives.

Regarding LH and RH shooters. I shoot both depending ! What I tend to see more of these days is shooters who thoughtlessly plonk themselves down on the mound thinking it belongs entirely to themselves. Hugging the edge of a mound position is normal etiquette to experienced Australian shooters and should be drummed into people. There is normally room for a LH and RH shooter to fit on the mound in 'opposing' positions if this is done properly. F shooters tend to be more square on which also helps.

Peter Smith.

Gyro
Posts: 764
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2017 2:44 pm
Location: New Zealand

Re: Lifting Restrictions on Brakes in F-Class

#68 Postby Gyro » Fri Dec 04, 2020 3:35 am

Quick wrote:The way I see it, and this is from the last few years of really trying to get more younger and new members to shoot at Pinjar.

1. The majority of people dont want to join a club. They just want somewhere to plink and blaze away. They dont want to compete. And if it costs them too much or is in any way not 100% easy for them, they dont want to know. People these days want everything for nothing it seems. But they are happy to pay per use with no dramas at all.

2. If they want to do what we do, they will join us and seek us out. but unfortunatly alot dont want to. It doesnt appeal to them. A large part of this is because the world has changed and attitudes have changed by and large.

3. In order to survive, we are probably better off using these ranges that we have to make money in order to ensure our survival. Just trying to get members isnt going to cut it anymore.

4. What we do is expensive. It sucks but it is. People think what we do is easy. But then they realise that it takes time and practice and they dont want to devote the time or the expense.

This is how I see it. We may as well make the world as it is work for us. It doesnt seem like its going to change. This means clubs and associations making money to support themselves could be the answer long term. Build membership yes. But that cant be our only avenue to survive.


I completely agree. Club membership is declining across a lot of sports these days.

Of the shooters I know and meet in my travels there is a VERY small fraction of them who I think would/could even remotely seriously take up F Class shooting.

AlanF
Posts: 7495
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 8:22 pm
Location: Maffra, Vic

Re: Lifting Restrictions on Brakes in F-Class

#69 Postby AlanF » Fri Dec 04, 2020 7:04 am

Gyro wrote:[...Of the shooters I know and meet in my travels there is a VERY small fraction of them who I think would/could even remotely seriously take up F Class shooting.

And probably even less considering taking up TR. However TR shooters still turn out in sufficient numbers for a meaningful competition at prize meetings. In a way the introduction of the F-Classes has "rescued" ranges and events for TR to remain viable. The same is now beginning to happen as F-Class goes out of fashion in favour of "black guns" and "camo guns". We need to accept this will happen, and control it carefully to ensure that TR and the F-Classes can continue in their current forms. One important requirement of any major new class is in my opinion, for all classes to be able to squad together at small clubs. If muzzle brakes are to be part of the future on our ranges, then we need to do some serious research to find ways of making them easier to live with.

PeteFox
Posts: 598
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2018 5:20 pm
Location: 7321 Tas.

Re: Lifting Restrictions on Brakes in F-Class

#70 Postby PeteFox » Fri Dec 04, 2020 7:31 am

AlanF wrote:If muzzle brakes are to be part of the future on our ranges, then we need to do some serious research to find ways of making them easier to live with.


I suggest that hessian barriers and the like won't do it.
Solid objects work best at mitigating noise and blast.
A proper acoustic assessment is needed to assess what works and what doesn't and that won't come free. But the findings would then needed to be implemented. Its no good ducking the issue. If a club/STA/NRAA are going to allow these things then proper standards need to be adopted. Ducking the issue won't work when Workcover come knocking.

We seem to forget that there are laws that sit above the various firearms acts that also govern activities at our ranges, the most obvious of these (to me) are the various workcover (OH&S) laws.

Given that shooters (presumably wearing hearing protection sufficient to amaeliorate the noise from non-braked rifles) still complain about the noise and blast to me means that being around braked rifles requires a new level of protection. It's not just about the nuisance value, it's a health issue.
If we allow braked rifles to be used and don't properly address the noise and blast effects then I would suggest that we are in breach of OH&S laws and our duty of care.
Pete

Wingnut
Posts: 120
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2018 7:34 pm
Location: Adelaide

Re: Lifting Restrictions on Brakes in F-Class

#71 Postby Wingnut » Fri Dec 04, 2020 8:35 am

Not certain OH&S laws apply to sporting events. If they did it wouldn’t be possible to play AFL without wearing head protection etc. if it was a paid commercial range open to the public that may be different.

Quick
Posts: 1134
Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2008 9:09 pm
Location: Yanchep, Western Australia
Contact:

Re: Lifting Restrictions on Brakes in F-Class

#72 Postby Quick » Fri Dec 04, 2020 8:50 am

Ive found when dealing with brakes. Double hearing protection is needed usually. Ear plugs and ear muffs.
Shaun aka 'Quick'
Yanchep, Western Australia

308 Win F/TR & F-S
7mm F-Open Shooter.

AlanF
Posts: 7495
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 8:22 pm
Location: Maffra, Vic

Re: Lifting Restrictions on Brakes in F-Class

#73 Postby AlanF » Fri Dec 04, 2020 8:54 am

PeteFox wrote:...Solid objects work best at mitigating noise and blast...

Yes. The trick is to design something that is compact and portable, whilst being genuinely effective. If a manufacturer was to come up with an excellent solution, there would be a lucrative marketing opportunity.

saum2
Posts: 1046
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 12:22 am

Re: Lifting Restrictions on Brakes in F-Class

#74 Postby saum2 » Fri Dec 04, 2020 9:32 am

Wingnut wrote:Not certain OH&S laws apply to sporting events. If they did it wouldn’t be possible to play AFL without wearing head protection etc. if it was a paid commercial range open to the public that may be different.

While not trying to open a can of worms here, I disagree Wingnut. OH&S laws apply everywhere.
Anyone who enters the range gate and pays a range fee to shoot or visits for a "look see", safety laws do apply. We pay the NRAA a levy for insurance remember, this covers any accident or incident causing injury which may be claimable. All PM flyers must have a "Hearing Protection Must Be Worn" logo otherwise it (the PM) should not be approved. Most good workplaces now have mandatory hearing tests for staff annually or when they first commence work. I believe not enough thought and work has gone into hearing protection by the National or state bodies, ask a lawyer for his view on the matter. If muzzles brakes are causing more noise to other competitors or behind the mound public, perhaps a new set of rules for position and hearing protection are needed. End of rant.

PeteFox
Posts: 598
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2018 5:20 pm
Location: 7321 Tas.

Re: Lifting Restrictions on Brakes in F-Class

#75 Postby PeteFox » Fri Dec 04, 2020 10:21 am

AlanF wrote:
PeteFox wrote:...Solid objects work best at mitigating noise and blast...

Yes. The trick is to design something that is compact and portable, whilst being genuinely effective. If a manufacturer was to come up with an excellent solution, there would be a lucrative marketing opportunity.


Back in the day I used portable frames lined with Barium Loaded Vinyl to shield workers from large noisy generators and crushers when they were working in close proximity. They were effective in that application, but against muzzle blast it would need to be tested. It is a relatively cheap product and very durable ($210 for a sheet of 4kg/m2, 1350w x 5m l). However, acoustics is not guesswork and it's not only the' loudness' that is important, but also the frequency.
Assessment is needed before throwing money at it.
Pete


Return to “Helping F-Class to Grow”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests