2012 America Match

johnk · Post by **johnk** » Mon Apr 04, 2011 12:58 pm

ICFRA F Class rules 2009

F2.3. An F/TR Class rifle is limited to .223 Remington or .308 Winchester calibre chambers or their commercial metrification equivalents. Chamber dimensions must conform to SAAMI or CIP dimensions. Ammunition may be commercially made or hand-loaded as defined in Rule F2.24. There is no restriction on bullet weight. The F/TR rifle class is limited to the use of an attached bipod and/or a sling as front supports, optionally together with a rear bag none of which provide a positive mechanical means of returning the rifle to its precise point of aim for the next shot . The overall weight must not exceed 8.25kg including all attachments (such as, but not limited to, its sights and bipod, if any). NB: An ‘attachment’ is defined as in Rule F2.2.

bartman007 · Post by **bartman007** » Tue Apr 05, 2011 9:04 am

Thanks John.

Looks like most of our F Std gear will do the trick.

Use of any weight projectiles is interesting. We can use heavier pills.

johnk · Post by **johnk** » Tue Apr 05, 2011 9:30 am

You can, but bear in mind with a total weight of 8½ kg including bipod, the recoil can get a tad stiff when you're driving heavier pills. One of the things that we learned shooting match rifle was that once you dispense with a sling (many of us do so in the interest of accuracy & consistency), then you take a lot of wallop at the shoulder so we tend to add as much ballast as we can manage.

Remember that you really don't get much advantage over the modern high BC 155s until you get up & over 185 grains.

TOM · Post by **TOM** » Tue Apr 05, 2011 9:51 am

In ICFRA rules I note that there is no weight limit placed on a TR rifle, Yet an F/TR rifle is bound to 8.25 kg max. Anyone know why?

TOM

johnk · Post by **johnk** » Tue Apr 05, 2011 10:43 am

Because US F class shooters had a major influence on the F class rules & favoured weight restrictions whereas US Palma shooters with their equivalent influence on the Palma rules pushed to have them closer aligned with the US Palma rules which are essentially unlimited rifles, calibre, trigger weight with an iron sight.

TOM · Post by **TOM** » Tue Apr 05, 2011 10:50 am

So, The "TR" in "F/TR" really has no obvious use other than to confuse people, an F/TR rifle is not a TR rifle at all, makes sense to me :roll:

RDavies · Post by **RDavies** » Wed Apr 06, 2011 3:24 pm

News just in is that the Australian Match Rifle Association have adopted F/TR class. F Std rifles might have had troubles in some cases shooting 1000,1100,1200yds, but in F/TR configuration, the 308 lovers will be able to shoot these long range matches.
So those 308 shooters who might have been put off buying a separate barrel for F/TR for one or two overseas shoots will now be able to use them in F Class Matchrifle shoots.

actionclear · Post by **actionclear** » Fri May 06, 2011 7:22 pm

These teams are 4 shooters plus associated coach/captain etc in both F T/R and F Open.

Think we might just be able to pull this one off!

Barry Davies · Post by **Barry Davies** » Sat May 07, 2011 8:07 am

TOM has a point --- it should be called F/ICFRA
Barry

bruce moulds · Post by **bruce moulds** » Sat May 07, 2011 8:22 am

as long as it is not called f/tactical rifle, as those who think shooting is a "mission' would prefer.
bruce moulds.

TOM · Post by **TOM** » Sat May 07, 2011 7:23 pm

It will be more than a mission for me to get my rifle down to weight. A new lighter barrel and if I replace my Nightforce with a lighter March scope, that should do the trick, In other words, a $4000 investment for one match, I dont think so!!!

Matt P · Post by **Matt P** » Sat May 07, 2011 8:49 pm

TOM wrote:It will be more than a mission for me to get my rifle down to weight. A new lighter barrel and if I replace my Nightforce with a lighter March scope, that should do the trick, In other words, a $4000 investment for one match, I dont think so!!!

TOM
Why not !!!! It's the way of the future :roll:

so they say !!!!

Matt P

TOM · Post by **TOM** » Sat May 07, 2011 9:26 pm

In Australia? doubtfull! although if they decide to go that way im sure I could be competitive in FO on the new target, ill give F/TR a miss, dont see the point in taking a step backward.

Lynn Otto · Post by **Lynn Otto** » Sat May 07, 2011 9:30 pm

Matt P wrote:
TOM wrote:It will be more than a mission for me to get my rifle down to weight. A new lighter barrel and if I replace my Nightforce with a lighter March scope, that should do the trick, In other words, a $4000 investment for one match, I dont think so!!!

TOM
Why not !!!! It's the way of the future so they say !!!!

Matt P

Luv you guys... :wink:

But a lighter, F/TR compliant rifle has to be cheaper...no?

As for the future...we shall see.

TOM · Post by **TOM** » Sat May 07, 2011 9:33 pm

Build one and let us know. I'd think not.

2012 America Match

F TR rules