OzFclass

Does anyone know if there is a list of the changes, it’s quite hard to track between the draft and current rules.

jasmay wrote: Sun Jul 06, 2025 12:26 pm Does anyone know if there is a list of the changes, it’s quite hard to track between the draft and current rules.

No list
I started to do a cross-referencing index but there are just too many changes. It's something that should have been published as part of the review process.
I hope they know what they're doing because it's not immediately obvious.
Pete

Did anyone see the energy limit rule ?? 3.8.1.4. At the discretion of the CRO/MD muzzle energy may be calculated using a chronograph and
determining the bullet mass. It may also be used to determine velocity. A competitors energy
and/or velocity shall be determined by averaging five shots in a stage. The energy calculator at
https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/bullet-energy shall be used to determine energy.
A RO can place a chronograph next to a shooter at anytime during a match and record 5 shots, then a bullet be pulled and then muzzle energy be determined, if found to be over the stage doesn't count.
So a few things, no shooter should be disadvantaged or advantaged 3.4.1(seeing your muzzle velocity would be an advantage and being interupted during your shoot would be a disadvantage), no chronographs/nor electronics on the mound. What if the chronograph isn't set up correctly and give a faster or slower speed ??
IMO this is unacceptable, I have no issue checking for ME but there has to be a better way.
Thoughts

Simple solution…

Get carded for testing, all tests conducted at the conclusion of competition shooting for each range, (i.e. once everyone has completed the stage, including the carded person, then testing will commence).

5 shots seems a bit extreme.

How will the chronograph calibration be guaranteed (should be certified just like scales).

jasmay wrote: Mon Jul 07, 2025 8:47 am
How will the chronograph calibration be guaranteed (should be certified just like scales).

Weighing of rifles is the biggest joke in shooting.
It doesn't matter what certification the scales have, weighing in the open air on a plastic folding table sitting on spongy grass is nonsensical. ( The Belmont Method)
If the point of calibration is accuracy and precision, then the precision is destroyed once that shit is started.

Not having a standard set of conditions for chrono use, leaves the test result vulnerable to whatever substandard setup is in use on the day.

Jason/Peter
Agree with you 100% but these will get pushed through and the fact that it's made it to final draft makes me shake my head.
Regarding weighing of rifles, it's a joke along with trigger testing. I've had customers go to several major events and pass rifle weight, then with no change to the rifle be over by 50 grams, only to be told everyone else scale must be wrong !!!!

Matt P wrote: Mon Jul 07, 2025 9:45 am
Agree with you 100% but these will get pushed through and the fact that it's made it to final draft makes me shake my head.

Yes Matt, they will get pushed through, leaving a fair number of people unhappy.
The way the NRAA is going with this and their habit of not listening is leading to a whole lot of unintended consequences. If it ain't broke ..........

I can see some "local" rules being adopted around the country.
E.g.
- Rule changes like this will mean that range standing orders (RSO) will need to be reviewed to see if there is a local safety impact.
- STA's or clubs might decide to keep going with 6 & X for scoring because of their target setup.
- I can see a situation where for example the disallowing of spikes on rear bags is deemed a safety issue if conditions don't allow for a stable platform and RSO's will prevail. If you can't get a stable platform, then you are not in control of your rifle. See Rule 3.3.2 of the Draft SSRs.
- I can see someone getting really pissed if their score is disallowed through amateur hour chronograph operation. It happens reasonably regularly with speed cameras being challenged, so why not here.
- there has been a failure to update the rule on "misses" on ET's, when there is an obvious need.
- getting triggers checked in a paddock where there is nowhere that allows the shooter to have a stable footing is keystone cops stuff.

Making rules that are ambiguous and can't be enforced properly because the training isn't there,
Referencing a website as the muzzle energy calculator, WHAT!

National Rifle Association of Amateurs
Pete

I'm still confused about scoring for F Class. Has the 6 and Super V been retained?
The only reference I can find is on Page 55 of the draft rules.
Have I missed something? As others have found its hard to find stuff.

Barry Davies asks: Is it a case of 'if it doesn't say you can, then you can't'.
Current SSR 11.2.3.2 states : Where any condition or matter arises which is not covered by any of these rules such condition or matter shall be deemed to be not approved."
I can't find anything in the new Draft along these lines.

Potshot2023 wrote: Mon Jul 07, 2025 2:16 pm Barry Davies asks: Is it a case of 'if it doesn't say you can, then you can't'.
Current SSR 11.2.3.2 states : Where any condition or matter arises which is not covered by any of these rules such condition or matter shall be deemed to be not approved."
I can't find anything in the new Draft along these lines.

Yes its right here:

3.4.1. No competitor may use equipment, shooting methods or behaviour that provide him with an unfair
advantage or put any other competitor at an unfair disadvantage. Where the rules are silent on particular issue
then competitors will not be permitted to exploit the opportunity/issue. The MD is
empowered to act accordingly in accordance with the provisions of these SSR. See Rule 1.5.4.

Is a joystick front rest and advantage over a conventional bipod?

bobped wrote: Thu Jul 03, 2025 1:01 pm Spikes on Rear Plates.
Way back, when we did the original rules for F Open, spikes on rear plates were permitted for F Standard. I included this for the F Open Rules as well, even though ICFRA Rules did not allow them for F Open.
The reasoning was as follows:-
Without spikes someone on one spot might have a really good flat and stable spot on the mound for their rear plate yet a shooter further down the mound night have a really rocky and unstable spot for their rear plate. The allowing of rear spikes solved this problem.

A further example is the very thick and spongy grass on both the 900 & 1000yds mounds at Brisbane. Without spikes its almost impossible to have a solid and stable rear bag on these mounds. The only way to overcome this might be to a have very very heavy and spikeless rear plate . I do remember lending my spiked plate to a number of F Open shooters at Brisbane for this very reason.
I don't fancy having to carry round an 8-10 KG plate around with me as part of my gear to solve this problem.

I do remember years ago recommending to the NRAA that they seek to have our version of spiked plates for F Open (and FTR) included in the ICFRA Rules for the above reasons. Obviously to no avail.

There is still time fro review. To do so, you need to contact your State Council and suggest that the new SSR's include spiked plates for F Open and FTR, and even perhaps ask that the NRAA send the same request to ICFRA.

What was your reasoning behind allowing the "box" on the rear bag and allowing rifles to be upped to 8.5kg in FS?

On rough mounds, putting a sandbag under the rear plate is as good or better than spikes. It works and complies with ICFRA rules.

Barry Davies wrote: Mon Jul 07, 2025 5:31 pm Is a joystick front rest and advantage over a conventional bipod?

Possibly. Is it an "unfair" advantage? No.
It's just a choice.

So what is the difference between an advantage and an unfair advantage?
The rules don't define it. So it's subjective, not objective, which amounts to an opinion.

I find it an unfair advantage that you all are better shooters than me.