New SSRs proposed

[macguru]

Has anyone else read the proposed SSRs as relating to sporter class. ? I was reluctant to add this to an existing thread and make that thread even longer....

From what I can see the main thing is a name change from SP/SPO to SC/SI (Sporter class/sporter improved)
how many name changes does that make ?
The rifle rules seemed the same unless i am missing something .....

no changes to the scoring scheme which is fine, it works for TR, though I dont mind one way or the other about that, if we had FO scoring that would be good too but that was not mentioned so i digress....
any comments ? someone else might notice something I missed.

Andrew

[PeteFox]

Has anyone else read the proposed SSRs as relating to sporter class. ? I was reluctant to add this to an existing thread and make that thread even longer....

From what I can see the main thing is a name change from SP/SPO to SC/SI (Sporter class/sporter improved)
how many name changes does that make ?
The rifle rules seemed the same unless i am missing something .....
there are all these extra rules like i cant have padding under my right elbow? though they may have been somewhere else in the ssrs before...
no changes to the scoring scheme which is fine, it works for TR, though I dont mind one way or the other about that, if we had FO scoring that would be good too but that was not mentioned so i digress....
any comments ? someone else might notice something I missed.

Andrew

Andrew
there is a list of "approved rifles" - whatever that means on page 89 of the draft rules. Whether that means that rifles not on the list can't be used, it is not clear.
But if you've bought a rifle not on the list or have built one up from an action, then I suggest you find out.
It does say that it applies to SP class and not SI (I think)
Pete

[GuyLuke]

I would guess they are trying to get rid of the Hardy's and other ridiculously expensive 'factory' rifles that are not in the spirit of the class.

[macguru]

mine are a savage 10 and tikka t3. I think AIs and TRGs are good, but there is a tikka tac model that would be just as accurate for SC.

[macguru]

from the nswra facebook page:

ATTENTION ALL NSW PRODUCTION CLASSES: The SSR update is underway and your input matters. Have your say about about the SSR’s update.
Got ideas, feedback, or suggestions?
Send them to David at: comp.teamnswra@outlook.com
Deadline: 18th July 2025

[Tim L]

I would guess they are trying to get rid of the Hardy's and other ridiculously expensive 'factory' rifles that are not in the spirit of the class.

Perhaps, if they just got rid of the rear bag it would be more a competition of skill than bank account. We wouldn't need 2 disciplines either, nor a scope restriction or muzzle diameter, just a weight limit. Let the shooter decide where the weight is best used.

[Supercentre]

mine are a savage 10 and tikka t3. I think AIs and TRGs are good, but there is a tikka tac model that would be just as accurate for SC.

If its not broken why try and fix it. Or should I be asking ( Is it broken? ).Would be great if the NSWRA would give more details on what the problem is ?
I have a tikka t3 that shoots very accurately and would not consider replacing it for a AL or TRG.

[Tony GRC]

Perhaps, if they just got rid of the rear bag it would be more a competition of skill

There is merit in this, particularly for SC (production class) and it helps it be a pathway to Target Rifle, inexpensive equipment, bipod but still shouldering the rifle and managing your body movement.

I would encourage people to try 5 shots with the rear bag, then 5 without it and see and feel the difference.

It also has more application as an aid to training in a hunting context as well, which may aid in encouraging hunters to participate and join NRAA affiliated clubs and attend prize meetings.

[ZeekyBoogyDoog]

My two cents on the rules.

I am passionate about this discipline and i love how it has grown to have its own following. In the same vein i don't like how there is a lot of crapping on this discipline in an attempt to make it more like another discipline. People need to accpet that Sporter class has become its own thing, and be more accepting of the fact that we shoot differently to other disciplines.

For the most part i like the new rules. A couple of changes would be nice.

I think the rear bag weight should be upped to 1.2kg, Too often i have seen some shooters get up with a sore neck because their rifle had to be so close to the ground on account of the rear bag. Yes there are ways to combat that, but they are comprimises that are undesirable.

The Magazine rule to be managed by Range standing orders, and allowable to be made single feed only. In case people forgot, the opening paragraph of sporter has clearly explained that it is a discipline for repeating rifles. So why specify repeating then take away the ability to repeat. It defies logic. The magazine would need to be replaced with a blanking block(not available for all rifles), and the blanking block would need to be removed to show clear anyways, so why ban them.

In response to getting rid of the rear bag. This is an ENTRY level discipline. Some people are still learning the fundamentals of rifle shooting regarding sight picture and follow through etc. And you want to make it harder for them for no reason other than, well its not the same as my discipline. We are different. Just like F-class was when it was introduced. End of the day its about getting more people to the mound enjoying target shooting.

Also i think all changes to rules should be advised from WITHIN a discipline, for the BENEFIT of the discipline in relation to fairness, accessibility, and equity.

[macguru]

I strongly suggest you guys submit some of your ideas to the nraa. Personally, most of the changes are fine with me, although i would like to put a pad under my right elbow