Promoting F/TR in Australia

[AlanF]

...Now all I need is the $10K or so to get to Raton

Don't forget the altitude training Bob... you live closer to Mt Kosciuszko than most of us. That's about the same height (no kidding).

Alan

[IanP]

Here are a couple of sites for those with an interest in knowing more about F/TR and whats happening in Canada at the moment as they transition across to it.

ICFRA F-Class Rules: http://www.icfra.co.uk/FCRules_2009.pdf

Canadian F/TR Discussion: http://dcraprogramme.blogspot.com/2009/ ... we-go.html

IanP

[Matt P]

Ian
Can you please list the differences between FS and FTR and the pros and cons for both.

Matt P

[IanP]

Ian
Can you please list the differences between FS and FTR and the pros and cons for both.

Matt P

MattP, Have a look at page one of this thread, I have listed the main physical differences in equipment.

The pros from my perspective are really that it is the ICFRA standard and that adopting the standard means we are on the same page as the rest of the world. As opposed to standing alone with a F-Class (Farky) FS system. FS is redundant on the world scene but hugely popular here and it would appear to me that none of its popularity is lost in the change to F/TR

I have an engineering background (electrical/electronic) and am used to following standards and keeping current with them. I really think that the future for FS is a progression towards and an eventual changeover to F/TR. I cant wave a magic wand and make it happen but I can open shooter's eyes to the possibility.

IanP

[bruce moulds]

why not have both? then evolution would dictate the future. an experiment.
it would just mean that those who want to do ftr would have to get off their bums and organise it on an australia wide basis as opposed to expecting someone else to do it, and then whinging when it doesn't happen.
that's how fstd got started.
bruce moulds.

[Matt P]

Ian
The differences that I can see are:
Bi pod only vs bi-pod or rest
No triger weight limit vs 1kg
No bullet weight limit vs 80 and 155
8.25 kg weight limit including bi-pod vs 8 kg plus bi-pod and 8kg using rest.
That's the bulk of it.
For FTR as I see it, sort of International Stanard although targets differ around the world.
Against as I see it, some equipment become obsolete, the gap between 223 and 308 widens with use of higher BC 308 bullets ( we have a large number of 223 shooters in OZ), some will feel the need for exspensive triggers to get the weight down.
Why change what is working so well, FS is the ONLY part of our sport that isn't going backwards, and I beleive this is due to a fairly level playing field (it's not perfect but it's pretty good IMO).

Matt P

[Barry Davies]

All you proponents of F/TR, may I suggest you build a rifle to F/TR specs--ie 8.25 kg all up with bipod.
You are stuck with 155 gn for 308 and 80 gn max for 556 and a 1 kg trigger -- but thats ok as it levels the playing field with FS. So, basically the only difference is weight ( 8.25 against 10 ) and bipod only.
Get out into some open competition like a Queens ( not a two bit country PM ) and see what you can do with it.
If you can get into the winners circle with it then you have a good argument for F/TR .
Still have to convince a lot of people to get rid of their $600 to $1500 rests and their heavy profile barrels and maybe their Nightforce scopes in order to drop nearly 2 Kg-- alternatively, FO--where they don't want to be.
Considering all the predictions that are being made concerning the surety that F/TR is our future, let me make one also with about as much surety---
In the current climate it's a recipe for disaster, unless F/TR is a stand alone discipline and not brought about at the expense of FS.
For those of you with international aspirations--you can build an F/TR rifle, lighten the trigger, use any projectile and shoot FO--now you are happy, we FS shooters are happy and FO is in raptures at the sudden increase in numbers.
Barry

[AlanF]

Barry,

Another possibility would be for F/TR spec rifles to simply be allowed to compete with F-Std. F-Std spec rifles would have the advantage of extra weight, and the option of pedestal rests, while F/TR would enjoy a light trigger and unrestricted ammunition. I think the capabilities would be so similar that shooting skill would still be far and away the main determinant of success.

Alan

[Matt P]

Alan
For me that would be a big NO, if there are enough people out there who want to shoot FTR go ahead, get together and get it going, I would prefer FS stay just as it is.
There's always match rifle if you want to shoot heavy bullets or as Barry said I'm sure FO wouldn't turn them away.

Matt P

[bruce moulds]

here's how it will work if it happens.
all the people who want to stay in fstd will do so, and this appears to be the majority at the moment.
those who want to shoot ftr will communicate with each other and come to some agreement about whether and how it will happen.
they will then instigate it at club level and try to expand it.
they will have to try to get it included in prize shoots and queens, and this will mean arranging prizes and trophies to lift the status of the new discipline.
from club level it will have to be developed into acceptance by state bodies.
there will be much other work to do which will only become apparrent as time goes on.
what is happening now is the usual prattle that goes on in fclass circles where everyone argues about what they want, but noone actually comes up with something concrete and actually does something about it in action.
this would suggest that nothing is about to happen fast.
on the other hand, if i am wrong, the established fclass disciplines should learn from how we felt when we started, and not be too negative about it, as we felt fullbore was about us.
bruce moulds.

[AlanF]

Matt,

I was mainly responding to Barry's idea that F/TR shoot with F-Std. The way I suggested would I think be fairer than asking F/TR to make all the concessions on specs.

I think the best way of launching a new class like F/TR would be to keep it separate, and try to get it included at a major Queens (I'd suggest ACT). It would initially need some generous sponsorship, and need to be announced well ahead, perhaps 12 months, to give interested shooters time to set their gear up, and test at club level.

If it succeeded at its first Queens, it'd be 90% there.

Alan

[Lynn Otto]

And then someone has to rewrite the rules to accommodate it, and this is not as simple as it would seem on face value. Considering the changes that have been needed for F Class in recent years, it would do nothing to endear us to the administration of the sport.

Barring the trigger and ammo (both easily changed for international comp) anyone is able to shoot with an F/TR spec rifle now, no one is going to stop them, it's within the rules.

[M12LRPV]

Surely this is a joke worthy of April 1.

IanP 2 days ago said that he never ever said he wanted F-Std shut down and then comes in here and starts talking about shutting down F-Std with deadlines and changeovers



The proponents of F/TR are seeing the current success of F-Std, coming after a long hard road, and now they think they can milk off that without actually understanding what it is that is making F-Std succeed.

[Barry Davies]

Hi Lynn,
Your so right, F/TR is covered by our current FS spec, except Trigger ( little or no consequence ) and projectile ( small concession )
There must be heaps of Rifles out there that comply with F/TR ( except Trigger and projectile ) currently shooting FS, so when it is all analysed it really comes down to a weight issue -- 8.25 against 10. Bipod or rest? again a non issue IMO as some of the best FS shooters in this country use bipods. If a rest was so much better I am sure those shooters would have one.
My suggestion to those proponents of F/TR is to direct your energy into convincing the ICFRA to increase their weight limit to 8 kg and 10 kg as we have in Aus. and leave what we have well alone.
A good exercise for someone advocating F/TR would be to go back in time to when " Farky " campaigned for F Class and look at the equipment that was being used--particularly for TR, in Canada, and compare specs to then and now--particularly with respect to rifle weight and the type of actions being used.
There has been several revisions to weight since early 1900's --was the specified 8.25 kg always that? Was the weight revised along with TR?
eg The current TR weight is 6.5 kg. In 1999 it was 6 kg. The sling was removed from inclusion at some stage which effectively upped the TR weight by about 250 gms.
The point I make here, considering the advance in action design ( and weight ) is that it is not easy to hold 8.25 kg all up with equipment currently available and used.
Based upon current TR specs this gives you about 2kg to include a scope and bipod, which rather limits your choice of either.
Rifle actions vary considerably in weight, but nothing is specified, so there is a vast difference between an Omark and a Millennium for example.
The target we now shoot at is difficult, particularly since the inclusion of the super V ( at about 0.5 moa )
To base rifle specs for FS or even F/TR on a rifle that uses a target twice the size does not seem to make much sense. ( apologies to TR but it is a point of fact )
The target used should reflect the ability of the equipment used. Not much point in having a target that is outside the capabilities of the rifle ( as a whole ) otherwise luck ( both good and bad ) plays a major part in the outcome of the competition.
I don't have to elaborate on what I mean -- it's common sense.
Sorry for the rant but with the current target ( ICFRA ) I believe our current equipment specs to be about right.
Barry
Barry

[AlanF]

I'm not sure whether FT/R with its severe weight restriction is likely to succeed. However that's not what this thread is supposed to be about. My understanding of the original post is that its asking for discussion on how to implement a new class i.e. F/TR. I think it deserves a fair go - I don't think it should be discouraged because it may take numbers away from F-Std - F-Std has already seen the need to divide into grades, and there is now some talk of a C Grade. If sufficient numbers want to do F/TR, good on them I say. It may go the same way as optical class, or the same way as F-Std - who knows? If it doesn't take on, then it was bad idea, but no harm done.

Alan