OzFclass

John.

Please see PM to follow.

Alan

Alan,
This topic really got off track. It is not about prize meetings or who puts in the most effort, it is about having a shoot to determine the best all round calibre for F class, particularly FO as FS are limited to 2 projectiles in 308 and 2 in 556. so in my opinion it's a non event for them.
The objection about Geelong was that it is not the best range on which to conduct trials due to obvious format which would have to be used because of the limitations that exist.
You are a numbers man and obviously systematic in what you do, that being, you also know that to arrive at any conclusion that has meaning you must be able to verify the results and also compare with other results that have been obtained under precisely the same conditions.
As far as shooting at Bendigo or anywhere else for that matter, what's this "advantage" business? I thought the exercise was to determine which calibres were more suitable, or am I wrong and it is a competition after all?
I for one am not interested in this exercise because it has no meaning for FS and I don't have an FO rifle. I know the limitations of my 308's as compared with what FO use.
If anyone wants to discuss the merits or otherwise of various rifle ranges then I suggest someone start another topic somewhere else, and I would be happy to enter the discussion, but then not many get around various other ranges , do they?
Barry

To All,
Probably not the correct place to put this, but in light of past posts and the mention of Lancefield by John E, let it be known that Castlemaine have applied for and been granted the Lancefield PM day for next year. We intend to run a PM on that day purely so another PM is not lost.
If anyone wants the day to run a PM we are happy to give it up, but for next year at least we are running a second PM.
Too many shoots being lost for whatever reasons and someone has to uphold the traditions.
There are also discussions proceeding to start up an F Class teams competition with clubs in West Vic. ( FS that is ) more on that later.
Barry

Barry Davies wrote:...I for one am not interested in this exercise because it has no meaning for FS and I don't have an FO rifle. I know the limitations of my 308's as compared with what FO use.
...

Barry,

You were the one who made the original suggestion that F-Std shooters should be included in the one gun shoot on an earlier thread. I have only gone along with that because it would be good for numbers, and because F-Std rifles do qualify to shoot in F-Open. But as far as comparing the performance of the .308 chambering, it would want to be using heavier bullets, tighter twist and heavier barrel to show its true capabilities as an F-Open calibre.

Again I'll say about Geelong, it is better suited for this exercise, because the results will be less distorted by the skills and local experience of the shooter. I'll give you an example, and I'm sure Paul Read won't mind my using him for this. Paul is (a) a very good windreader and (b) has extensive experience at Bendigo. At Bendigo, Paul will shoot well regardless of what calibre he shoots, because his skills and local experience will go a long way towards overcoming a calibre with a high amount of wind-drift. However at Geelong, it is unlikely there will be anyone who can distort the results in the same way as Paul could at Bendigo, because local knowledge and wind-reading skills give less advantage at Geelong. So this will put the emphasis back on the capabilities of the equipment rather than the shooter, which is what we want!

And BTW, Geelong is probably closer than Bendigo for the majority of current FO shooters (particularly if you include the Portland SSAA people).

Alan

Alan,
Maybe I have lost the plot somewhere along the line, but are you testing rifles capabilities or are you testing shooter capabilities?
If you shoot on a quiet, forgiving range where conditions play no part, there will be no " distortion " of the results.
I did say I was interested in the " one gun " prize meeting proposed by Paul Read but you won't find one post by me re your "one gun challenge " I never came into it until you mentioned Geelong in this thread.
The whole idea became somewhat distorted from the original Prize Meeting suggestion to one of a Challenge. Like I said, between FO using whatever and FS using standard rifles it is not a contest.
Barry

If you put it on at Corryong you may get a few from NSW, I for one would make the trip and there would be very little or no "local" advantage. I would agree with Barry it's a pointless exercise for FS unless they wanted to see if shooting a heavier bullet or a different brand, is or isn't an advantage. Those being the 175SMK (which would stabilize in most FS barrels) and the 155 Lapua and Berger and possibly the 190SMK. I went down this path when there was only one FC and found the 155 SMK hard to beat but ho knows others may get different results.

Matt P

How about we firstly try to get the numbers for Geelong. The only people talking Geelong down as the venue don't appear to understand what the event is about, plus they've already declared they won't be competing!

If Geelong doesn't happen, then someone else is welcome to propose a different venue e.g. Corryong.

I'll contact a few people next week and see how we go. The dates aren't fixed so we can probably juggle them a little if required to get those with prior commitments. If we get 15 that's enough - if not, maybe somewhere closer to NSW will get the numbers.

Alan

Great idea Matt Alan a two dayer in the snowy river country sounds great .

I haven't had enough support for the one gun event, so will put it on hold, but when it does come up again in Victoria, I hope we can make Anakie the venue - it just makes more sense than the suggested alternatives.

I'll let the Geelong club know it won't be happening. For anyone else who does appreciate what's been done at Anakie, and wants to give them some support, there is the handicap event on July 21 - should be a good get together.

Alan

For what its worth, I shoot one gun when I want max points in a major event. The one I know shoots the best and I am more comfortable with.
For me, shooting two guns is more about saving a good barrel.

Personally I think restrictions are counterproductive - especially when the main aim is more shooters.

BUT, having said that, here are some of my thoughts on an offshoot of this.

I would like to see more experimentation. Thats in both FS and FO.

The tradition of TR shooting tends to consider the rifle as perfect, with the shooter trying for max scores every week. This means experimentation takes a back seat. And everyone can benefit from individual and group experiments done well. Rifle tuneing is an obvious example. Experimentation is often frowned upon. It may disturb the regular pattern of shooting and marking for one thing. It may also throw out handicap calculations for example in TR.

For example, how much do we believe projectile BC's.
Do different barrels and twists give different wind values. (Quite relevant in FS).

I would love to compare wind with a 6.5 and 7 mm for example. At different twists.

One way to collect data on some of these issues is for two shooterts to shoot simultaneously. This could be on one target with different elevation settings. Shots would need to be taken on max and min wind or max left and max right wind. This would allow accurate comparative data to be collected. Special marking arrangements would be needed.

Most try to compare wind values by how much wind they need from zero. BUT no zero is perfect (even with 'perfect' zero there is some sideways drift which varies with range). This means that the small zero errors make comparisons based on zero fraught with danger and usually wrong.
Small absolute errors may introduce large relative errors when close to zero.

Anyway, I suppose what I am on about is that it could be worth trying to get some versatile target time, maybe in the lead up to a shoot, where people brought togeather from different areas may actually do some experimentation.

Perhaps this should be in the 'Technical' section.

Peter Smith.