Lifting Restrictions on Brakes in F-Class

[williada]

At our club, we have had to stop admitting new members during the Covid 19 crisis and have a few newbies just busting to start who have seen our advertising from the highway entrance, or who have been informed by word of mouth, gunshops and the surrounding shires public communication lists etc. We feel our club is in a healthy membership position where many hands make light work. We also have a program enabling non member licensed shooters to sight in rifles between 9 and 11 every Saturday on manual targets if they book through our advertised phone numbers. The range is restricted to 9-5 shooting of a Saturday and because we have close neighbours at 600 yards we have restricted those with muzzle brakes to 500 yards because of the noise factor. Our range occupancy is subject to a neighbour agreement. During competition hours past 11 o'clock, those with muzzle brakes may shoot to righthand side of the range after others have finished or if there is sufficient distance between shooters at the discretion of the Range Officer.

Many visitors to the range are inexperienced and expect to shoot accurately when their projectile, calibre, twist rate and load are not suitable for the distance being shot. You only have to observe the wild sprays on targets. Short barrels with muzzle brakes have exacerbated these issues. This has lead to electronic target sensor damage and has stuffed the day for the whole club and for several weeks getting things up and running again with new parts, despite rifles being zeroed at short distance. Consequently we have adopted a, "you break, you pay" policy; and a "two miss and you are off the mound policy" for all shooters. A few seem to have a sense of entitlement to do what they want. The reality is the safety and membership needs consideration beyond self. The Range Officer at our club will now deem if a rifle is suitable to be shot at the competition distance because we use electronic targets.

Members in our club are attracted to competition because of the electronic targets. They value them more than manual marking than the gear they are using.

Unfortunately, we had too many complaints from non-muzzle brake participants about the noise and the muzzle blast when squadded beside those with brakes while waiting their turn to shoot; and the noise factor interrupting other club activities and socializing behind the firing line when communication was made more difficult when assisting visitors who were potential new members, particularly when giving safety talks to new shooters and visitors, and club member discussion usually about gear and performance. The day is not just about a person's time on the mound, it includes interaction with others. I have observed members trying to hear others and lifting one side of their earmuffs up in order to hear when the muzzle braked rifles are being fired. This becomes a health and safety issue.

Our club has a few long time shooters but is mainly comprised of those who are new to competitive shooting in the last few years. It is these new people who do not like the noise and muzzle blast (contrary to some of the discussion here) during competition. The real issue is about addressing the harmony for a pleasant day's shooting where the business is competitive long range shooting.

We run our club by democratic decision making and try to accommodate the differences where possible. We have found new shooters with light gear drift towards the field classes over time when they see the accuracy that can be achieved and want to learn more about reading conditions to maintain tight groups. That knowledge lies with the old school who are more than happy to impart it.

[PeteFox]

Lee, I did hear quite a bit about the Tasmanian saga, the one thing I would say is it wasn’t anything to do with the rules, it was a local range issue, I doubt any rule change would have saved those shooters and I think TRA should be disappointed that they could not come up with a workable solution.

Lee
You're in Tassie I assume reading between the lines ??
I feel for you as your State Ass seems to be in race to see who gets to turn the lights off and close the door.
Regards
Matt Paroz

Reluctantly I feel I must come out and defend the TRA against this disinformation. Is is simply untrue to allude that the "Tasmanian saga" is about muzzle brakes.

On October 17 2020 I was elected as Secretary of the TRA. I'm not going to comment on events since that date and I won't be responding to comments/questions about this post.

The events prior to that Oct 17 (and particularly point 9) are what drove me to seek the position of secretary as the situation could not be allowed to continue to develop. F class would be finished otherwise.
None of the above opinions have come from any information provided by the TRA. As far I can see they are based on FaceBook comments from the social media disinformation campaign that was run against the TRA over the last few months and the selective editing of those posts since then. No information has been sought from the TRA and none has been given.

Here are some actual facts about the "Tasmanian Saga" :
1. The TRA owns the lease on the Campbell Town Rifle Range. It is not a club range. The TRA makes the rules on its range.
2. The "Tasmanian saga" has nothing to do with muzzle brakes. Muzzle brakes were an irritant but are a side issue that is easily managed.
3. It was about range safety and the movement of shooters between positions/barricades with loaded firearms.
4. It was about community feedback about "sniper school for civilians" being conducted on the Campbell Town Range. (For those that don't know, the Campbell Town Range is right beside the Campbell Town Golf Club, to the extent that one of the tee-off points is on the range via a dog-leg in the fence. The 1000 yd mound is literally 20 metres from this tee. Everything done on our range is in full public view.)
5. It was about Police feedback about "sniper school for civilians".
6. It was about the resistance to accepting Council's authority to regulate the conduct of shooting on the range.
7. It was about an attempt to disregard the ban on shooting on Campbell Town Range on a day of total fire ban.
8. It was about a attempt to place car bodies in the butts for target practice.
9. It was about a plan to "branch stack" the AGM, so that at the AGM the attendees would be dominated by other than traditional members, resulting in a changed Council composition and a changed Constitutuion to include proxy voting to benefit other than the bulk of the members.

For me when I became aware of this, there was no sitting back and watching.

That fact (9) would have been the death of F class, TR and Match Rifle in Tasmania, not any so called ban on muzzle brakes.

As I said, I won't be responding or commenting further
Pete

[bruce moulds]

good post williada.
and a balanced view.
it sounds like your club is proactive in promotion, and is reaping the rewards.
at all levels from clubs to the nraa itself this seems in general not to be the case.
if allowing brakes is the single thing that is going to be our saviour, then god help us.
we could well lose as many as we gain from allowing brakes for a net gain of nil.
your approach is to be applauded, as it shows some tolerance, but balances this with reality, including the e.t. damage issue.
bruce.

[bruce moulds]

pete,
you raised a point that has worried me for some years.
it is the image of our disciplines as perceived by the public.
the public vote.
our current disciplines can easily be promoted as less related to anti personell than some.
now is the time to be doing this.
shooting at car bodies in public, and moving with loaded firearms would not be part of such promotion.
in fact i was disappointed to see a mindset in the nraa when they were thinking about empty chamber indicators, when they could have been thinking about promotion of what we have now.
grasping at muzzle brake straws. and new discipline straws, while appearing to be an easy way out, is simply avoiding the issue.
bruce.

[williada]

I want to reiterate our club has taken a proactive approach to protect its members and our neighbours due to the fact that we now accommodate a wide range of people with an equally wide range of gear and experience to match, whether it be as visitors just zeroing rifles or new members who are ignorant of potential dangers. This is why the Range Officer or Captain will now approve gear to be used for the first time on our range as separate from a zeroed rifle to be used on electronic targets.

I am mindful of a friend of mine, who last year at a non NRAA range (where individuals, not clubs do their own thing), got injured as a bystander by a rifle which blew up despite the bloke being warned to check it but who refused to acknowledge the warning and shot anyway. More recently, a new member bought an old Omark from a gunshop before joining a club and seeking advice. The rifle had a small bolt head retaining pin which he was unaware of or that it was deemed illegal for safety reasons by the NRAA on our rifle ranges. Another proactive member picked this up much to the understandable disappointment of the new shooter at the time and so prevented any incident. The member has since had it fixed. Yet the commercial dealers sold this rifle to a licensed shooter. In another situation this year, an experienced member and good bloke recently found it hard to believe his load was blowing up bullets because he said it was safe according to the manual. A sensor was damaged. Sometimes things are not what they seem until proved otherwise which was the case as he later proved for himself. Perhaps a check with a chronograph will be mandatory in the future with wildcats? Similarly, some new people coming to the range have inappropriate reloads that won't go home and get up before calling for assistance and waive gear around in an unsafe manner. A rifle range is not the bush. The list issues is endless and distracting for people continually called upon to remedy the situation who themselves would like to shoot uninterrupted and in safety for a pleasant day out too when there is an influx of new shooters. There was something positive to be said with issued rifles and ammunition in the past.

One of the issues we face is we as individuals can not have eyes in the back of our heads or some members are too deaf and muffed up to monitor unsafe behaviour, but collectively we can, and that is to be vigilant at all times to prevent mishaps. I myself am very deaf due to brain surgery some years ago for a tumour and have to be tapped on the shoulder to ensure instructions are understood when I am muffed up in case of cease fire. These days we cater for more people with disabilities. To address these issues, we are trying to establish a culture at our club where the scorers have a primary duty to ensure safe practice is communicated so that all the work and responsibility does not fall on the range officer who is brought into handle many and varied situations. Some licensed shooters don't realize the danger they pose if they lack good sense and proper preparation. As we used to say, no rule is foolproof. But who carries the legal liability in the event of a mishap? It should not be the members. People have to recognize a rifle range in an inherently dangerous place and is not the bush where if damage occurs its generally restricted to self.

The club has taken a proactive stance to insist on probationary periods backed by instruction for new members and a liability waiver for them to sign as well as visitors which was drafted by lawyers to protect the club members from litigation and to sheet home responsibility to the shooter's for their own actions. We believe prevention is better because there is no cure for catastrophic disaster.

We also have insurance. Sadly it has come to this compared to days gone by, but as we accommodate change there are new issues to address which is in the best interest of everyone. Poor publicity of cowboys referring to what we do is a greater threat to our existence. Our committee now does a character check to determine the suitability of prospective members and seeks members who will commit to supporting the club rules and ethos and that of the VRA and NRAA. It is no place for cowboys.

[Lee]

Ok Lets get a few things clear, first things first.
Thank you Pete for making clear the reasons behind the TRA's decision. I was hoping you would come in to this and do just that as I didn't want to pass comment nor elaborate on what I had already said and that was that both sides IN MY OPINION could of handled the situation better. And that I hope this type of thing didn't spread to other clubs and states. At no time did I intend for this to be thing between PRS and F-Class. In fact the first time PRS was brought up, it was by uninformed F-Class member on here who, lets be kind and just say jumped to conclusions, in the second comment of the thread and I thought that I had sorted out any perceived misinformation in the reply immediately after. Then I was asked Just how long I had been shooting F-Class" to, I felt, imply shut up you know nothing tone and some what demoralizing and belittling way. So much for being courteous and allowing others to have an opinion with out degrading them. not good for the sport or inducing people to come forward with ideas to try and help fix the current situation. It seems as soon as someone mentions a muzzle brake then it is assumed that they are an enemy to the sport to be supporting the PRS style of shooting over the F-Class style. Let me assure everyone this is not why the thread started. It was to allow more people to enter the F-Class world and boost numbers for the growth of the sport. It wouldn't matter where they came from. They could be from non organized hunting back grounds, the SSAA, Long Range Precision, ELR, ULR even the farmer that bought a rifle stock standard with a brake from the local gun shop. My comment was an attempt to open the sport up to a whole range of shooters and of the types that I had spoken to over the last few years not one specific group. PRS is an exciting sport yes but they are not the only people who use Brakes on rifles and they are not the only shooters who would like to combine with F-Class. It seems there are a lot of F-Class shooters who seem to blame the decline of F-Class on PRS and the SSAA along with those persons who wish to shoot in these disciplines and associations. Those people are misinformed and quite frankly wrong. Some shooters may have gone to PRS as they may find it a better sport for them personally. Myself, I enjoy shooting in general and in all forms. I Do NOT support one over the other. Honestly, at this time I have never shot in a PRS match however, it does appeal to me and I fully intend to do so in the coming year when PRS matches move to a range closer to home. I am also going to take up non F-Class based ELR and ULR shooting and have been putting a rifle together to do so. That is my choice. I do still intend to shoot F-Class as well. Which is another choice I have made personally and there are no doubt a number of shooters that are currently doing the same thing and that is their choice. Personal choices are exactly that, a choice made by a specific person to engage in a sport or activity that they want to participate in. So Grow up and stop with the us and them rubbish as this thread and topic in general is not the place for that and its not becoming of an adult person.

As far as the TRA and their decision is concerned. That was one group of shooters who wanted to combine with another to use the range facility for the longer distances available at the range. For this to happen there had to be changes made and for the reasons pointed out by Pete, could not happen. Me personally and a number of others that have voiced their opinions to me privately, both from F-Class and other shooting sports and associations found it disappointing, that things could not of been sorted out as nether party would give a little which lead to the outcome. That is my personal opinion and stance on the matter as an outsider looking in. Others opinions may differ and thats fine. This does not affect my relationship with the TRA nor the group of shooters who happened to be PRS shooters. In fact during the period which these happenings were occurring I had a discussion with my club president to let him know my situation on the subject and chose to keep my distance from the discussion so as not to be seen to form a bias toward one side or the other. The only people who are to blame for the current situation of the sport and its declining numbers are ourselves for not having the foresight to do something earlier in the piece to secure the numbers already involved with the discipline and engaging with more shooters and non-shooters in an attempt to get them to move to F-Class as their chosen sport.

This thread stared as an attempt to do just that, engage more shooters to boost our dwindling numbers as the subject matter suggests. Lifting of restrictions of brakes on rifles would do exactly that, open the sport to those who do not wish to be removing and replacing brakes or spending money on other ways to mitigate recoil. It was also meant to open a meaningful discussion with reasoning for ideas concerning the why's and why not's and perhaps work out ways we could work the situation through to be able to allow it to happen with questions like the following: In the case of some country ranges not having the space or running at full capacity on targets:
Why can you not put up hessian dividers to mitigate the blast and dust issues? A roll of hessian is cheap and effective and wont obstruct the shooters or scorers view no provide shade or shelter over head. Have you tried it or other methods say thin conveyor belt rubber to know it wont work or is it just the opinions of some members?
Noise: There is lots of hearing protection available more than capable of mitigating the level of noise emitted. If necessary give the range officers a Bull horn to address the shooters and for the sake of safety, an air blast horn for the immediate need of a cease fire order. As far as people trying to talk over the noise, who are these people and who are they talking to because last I heard people were not meant to be talking to scorers whilst shooting was in progress as it is a safety issue and a distraction so people should not be tracing up and down the mound looking at scores and chatting to the scorers. Shooters, scorers and range officers only in the vicinity of the mound/firing point.
If the scorer needs to speak to the range officer concerning the shooter on the mound then there is a problem and the shooter has or should have stopped firing, therefore reducing the noise in the immediate vicinity, allowing for a quick conversation to ensue. AT NO TIME should hearing protection be removed when in the vicinity of the mound as this is a safety issue and anyone doing so should be told to leave the area immediately or replace their hearing protection.
The scores are/can be posted for people to see on score sheets and are/can be posted after each range has been completed so people need to be patient or don hearing protection if they wish to view running scores. with the electronic targets its entirely in 2020 possible to have them linked to a large screen showing all the running scores. So move the non shooters back from the mounds where they can talk to each other and look at a screen for the info. Non shooters in the vicinity of the mound and scorers being distracted has been an ongoing issue for years and rules have been put in place so we may need to enforce them.
For larger ranges with less people more spacing between shooters may be all that is needed for blast mitigation.

Have the range committees done a Safety Analysis and Risk Control Matrix? Going by some of the comments that have come into the thread, I would say not and is this not a legal obligation as it is in say, a workplace or business that has a danger element to it?
Please do not use health and safety as a reason for getting the desired outcome as WHS these days is designed to work through dangerous practices to make them workable through RISK MANAGEMENT utilizing various matrices.

Yes SOME members of the SSAA have hunting rifles and hunting class would suit. But others do not so why are we restricting them or placing them in a class for hunting rifles. This would be unfair on the hunting class rifle users, laying next to a precision rifle as many in the SSAA and other disciplines use. Perhaps its not an issue for some as its not their problem. A bit selfish I say to those people. What happened to tolerance of others and their personal choices. There are no advantages or disadvantages as anyone can use Brakes. Put one on the 6mm Dasher and get the recoil of a .22lr or put in on a win mag and get the recoils of a 6mm dasher its all relevant to the specific shooter and the recoil they are use to dealing with as long as its consistent. Brakes are the same as, tuners and high end scopes compared to cheaper scopes and non tuned barrels.Unless you can use both as in the case of an EC Tuner or similar, you gain for one, you loose on the other unless your prepared to do the work and tune the load to the barrel rather than tune the barrel to the load.

How we are perceived by the public is up to us and the picture of our sport that we send out to them. PR is a great tool to better our reputation and public standing.

In my opinion the steadfast on the muzzle breaks issue is one brought about by tradition and personal preferences for some. So I say this, ask your selves this question. Whats more important? The loss a few conveniences and a little bit of the tradition, or the chance of maybe securing a few more shooters and a bit more funding towards facilities along with potential growth of F-Class? If some shooters do not like the outcome and again that is their choice, and still wish to leave after the concerns have been addressed and mitigated, it would primarily be out of spite and if so then that's a childish choice.
If anyone has a legitimate concern or a reason to lift or curve the restrictions I happily invite you to voice it as this is what we need, an adult and meaningful discussion.
Whilst entitled to an opinion and as well being entitled to voice it, if its not accompanied by good reasoning, then please don't bother as it wont help the people for or against and the discussion gets reduced to an argument which is not healthy for the sport. We need to communicate with purpose. So please think before you post. At the end of the day yes the decision to allow or not allow brakes lays with the state associations and may the majority rule. But at least here in this forum, reasons for and against can be voiced and heard so the decision made is one that is properly discussed and well informed and to some extent helped by a large number of the shooting fraternity not one made to satisfy the the wants of a few.

I hope this brings forward some discussion that can be held in an adult manner and maybe come to some sort of solution to work with. Not only with brakes but with any ideas from any one who is willing to voice them. Whether new to the sport or an old hand at it, as shooters your Ideas count and could be the catalyst for change and future growth moving forwards. Without Ideas, we more than likely wont. Do we as a discipline want F-Class to continue enough? Or do we not care to have our say and let it go by the way side. There's always PRS, Long Range Precision, ELR and ULR right?
Take Care

Cheers

[AlanF]

Lee,

Over the 15 years this forum has been running, there have been numerous suggestions of changing F-Class in the direction of some other discipline. Wanting benches to be allowed was an example. Fortunately we've stood firm to maintain the character of the sport - if we hadn't done that we may well have attracted a new breed of shooter, but we might also have lost just as many because the sport that attracted them when they took it up had changed to something quite different. If you want muzzle breaks, do it without disaffecting those of us who are happy with our respective F-Classes. Why not suggest a second higher spec subclass of the SH discipline, which will allow heavier tactical type rifles?

[Gyro]

.... "if I’m going to be shooting prone on a line with friends, I might screw on a suppressor to not blast the guy next to me all day. If I’m shooting more of a run-and-gun match with lots of barricades, I may go with a muzzle brake to maximize recoil reduction and the ability to stay on target to see my impacts" ..... unquote. Just a comment from a PRS shooter.

Brakes are horrible noisy farking things Lee but I too have wondered how u could do a type of 'unobtrusive' screen system to protect nearby shooters lined up prone on a mound so as to allow braked guns ? I went to a shoot once where there was short lengths of cutoff logs placed along the mound and that helped ya from getting nailed by the brakes being used, but still not a great solution.

What about a small portable half-round open ended 'tent' to put over the shooter ? And the shooter who wants to use thier brake alongside others HAS to supply and use one ?

[Lee]

Bravo Allan,
Thank you for your input. If this is something that is possible then all for it. I personally would be happy with a sub class of High Spec rifle shooters. As long as they can be afforded the same opportunities as the run of the mill shooters, with respect to competitions. If that means running a separate detail for a Hi Spec Tactical style rifles at comps, to enable them to shoot at mixed championships, such as they do with F/TR and F-Open and assists in not affecting other shooters, then that is something to work on and to see how this could be achieved.

It could be a case of braked rifle shooters using "Competition Specific" style brakes divided through the shooting details and placed at the far end of the mound where they can be spaced further from the common field and have more spacing between them selves. I feel that may be a workable situation and further reduce the noise rather than having 10 Braked rifles blasting away at once. Something along those lines seems to have been somewhat effective at other ranges as put forward in a comment by Williada, in a previous post outlining a few changes they have made at the range. If the room is available then that could be excellent solution and reduce the need for the hessian. Maybe one piece of hessian or given the lesser amount needed, sound dampening rubber or rigid screen material between the common and high spec divisions with a 1 to 2 meter space each side of the divider to enable un-braked rifle users to shoot un-hindered and reduce the need for an extra detail to reduce the time involved. Either way, this could be an entirely workable solution. As long as the screen didn't compromise the field of view of the range officer and subsequent safety personal. A string of Red LED lighting placed on the ground several feet in front of the mound and triggered remotely, given the accessibility and cheap cost of these types of products, would be a way to conquer the safety aspect of the Range Officer not being able to convey a cease fire order over the inherent noise emissions. Further more, if run the length of the mound, then it would convey any messages of this nature to the entire field given the age and inherent hearing impairments of some shooters. Which in reality should be already in place as the situation of shooters, not hearing the RO's orders has presented as a problem in the past.

Now it seems we are making progress through meaningful conversation. And maybe able to have a chance at engaging a whole new group of shooters once unable to shoot with their rifles in their current format.

Thank you Allan. It is this type of constructive input that is needed to work through this.

[Lee]

The tent would be a good idea Gyro, although it would been seen as shelter and need to be permitted for use by all shooters to make it fair. It may obstruct the RO's field of view and that of the scorer also. However if there is a design that could encompass the shooter and not shelter him/her then this too may be a workable solution

[cheech]

I have an Australian made brake that blows forward and doesn’t upset anyone

[Lee]

Excellent Cheech! Watersrifleman too has a brake of this nature and these are the types of products that we should be looking at and sourcing to help with this issue. Being Aussie made is the cherry on top.

A tuner to be able to be fitted behind a brake as the EC Tuner can be, would also be a help for those who do not wish to loose the ability to tune barrels. Or a brake that incorporates a tuning nut or slide adjustment style system for ease of use and to make a one piece tuneable brake may also be an item to consider if able to produce such an item.
Just a thought.....

[Gyro]

I have an Australian made brake that blows forward and doesn’t upset anyone

Me too except mine is kiwi made.

[Lee]

If it does the job efficiently then it too should be encouraged. Where these are made is not relevant being cost and efficient in taming the blast and mitigating noise is. Things in general made in the United States are inherently expensive due to shipping and import costs. If a solution can be worked out it would do a lot towards supporting people closer to home and their products made for local markets. Just another good reason as I see it.

[bruce moulds]

some forget that fclass is an internationl 2 disciplines.
as such it must conform to those rules.
at the moment some feel that allowing brakes and introducing new disciplines is the solution to our membership woes.
at the same time, the vast majority of shooters and potential shooters do not even know what fclass actually is.
here is the chance to begin promoting what we have.
not in an amateurish way doomed to fail, but professionally.
part of that promotion is potentially to explain such things as no brakes as an advantage, rather than a disadvantage.
for example, when no brakes are on the range, you can sit back from the mound without the need to wear earmuffs all day, and you don't need to spend the cash to have a brake.
when there are 1 or 2 rifles shooting with brakes and they are only 6br is one thing, but when the saums start doing it life won't be fun.
and once it sneaks in it will be hard to get rid of.
as alan says, those of us who shoot as we do now should not be made to suffer.
should we want to use our ranges more, there are many who just want to sight in fifles.
for a new discipline, there is rimfire fclass that would fit into the ethos of the current discipline.
and another alternative is to run our clubs as we do on saturdays, and on sundays have a different discipline with brakes, steel, and magazines.
in the meantime our management continues to be negligent in the area of serious promotion.
in business they would be the board, and members the shareholders.
we the shareholders are ultimately responsible, as we fail to make the correct demands of our board.
bruce.