Draft NRAA Standard Shooting Rules – June 2025 Update

[bobped]

For those interested the NRAA has put out a Draft set of rules revising the present SSR's.
Its a fairly major revision of the rules.
refer to here to see them:- https://nraa.com.au/nraa-news/draft-sta ... 25-update/

You have until 18th July to pass on opinions and suggestions to your State Association. (NOT the NRAA)
State Associations have until 31st July to send feedback to the NRAA

[Martin]

As it is a complete rewrite, it is hard to compare the draft with the current.

I thought I'd look up target dimensions for FOpen in the draft.

• Index says section 8.10 is the relevant area.
  8.10.2.1 says look in Chapter 6.
  6.2.1 says for long range targets look in Appendix C.
  In Appendix C there are no target dimensions (similar to Chapter13 of the current rules).

So after that effort I am none the wiser on what target dimensions are to be used.

[Martin]

Rear Rests
FO
Currently spiked flat plates are permitted. Doughnut bags are also explicitly permitted.
In the new draft rules, the flat plate is retained but spikes are prohibited. Doughnut bags are not mentioned.
FStd
Retains spiked plates, but loses the ability to have a box holding the rear bag. Doughnut bags are not mentioned.

I had a look at the ICFRA rules and understand the loss of spikes was to align the domestic with the international rules. What I don't understand is FStd. The box rule is gone but spikes are retained. Seems arbitrary.

I was interested when I was looking at the ICFRA rules on how to determine a safe trigger:
"A trigger will be deemed “safe” if the sear engages on each occasion when the bolt is slowly
and gently closed three times in succession with the barrel pointing upwards."

[Barry Davies]

No mention of portable tables for F class either.
Maybe it's a case of __ " if it doesn't say you can, then you can't.". --- or was that " if it doesn't say you can't , them you can" ?????

[PeteFox]

Rear Rests
FO
Currently spiked flat plates are permitted. Doughnut bags are also explicitly permitted.
In the new draft rules, the flat plate is retained but spikes are prohibited. Doughnut bags are not mentioned.

Making something illegal that is currently legal. Where have we seen that before?

I'll stop using mine when they offer to buy it back

Pete

[bobped]

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.

[PeteFox]

As it is a complete rewrite, it is hard to compare the draft with the current.

This request for submissions from the NRAA is duplicitous and flawed in my view.
On face value it appears to be either deliberately designed to make the content difficult to navigate or the process and proposals are not sufficiently mature for informed comment.

A properly constructed document, requires that the audience can gain an informed understanding of its contents so that relevant and coherent comment can be made.
The documents (rules and appendices) seem to have been constructed to deliberately obscure the additions and changes that are proposed and how they compare to the previous SSRs.
1. There is a considerable amount of re-numbering of rules. All this is done without any cross-referencing to the current rules. This makes it difficult, without in depth analysis to discern the changes and effects.
2. The index and content point to missing information. How can missing information be commented on? Or its relevance to the published content discerned?

The proponents of the rule changes are putting the membership at a disadvantage in being able to comment because of the information gaps and the expectation the members will wade though the documents to to find out the whole picture. The cynic in me thinks that the process is deliberately designed to make it difficult so that those who are proposing the changes can get them pushed through without too much scrutiny.

Pete

[Benji]

I was about to have a dozen or so of these rear plates made up being not being able to buy them anywhere but maybe I should hold off.

[Barossa_222]

Really the rules are a dogs breakfast. Standard should be put in the bin for anything other that club shooting and ICFRA rules should be adopted moving forward.

[Barossa_222]

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.

This should never have been allowed in the first place. ICFRA rules should have been adopted through out. This sounds very much like people making rules to suit themselves and not what is best for the sport.

[PeteFox]

With reference to the proposed rules on spikes on rear bag plates and ICFRA rules.
ICFRA rules apply to international competitions. That is written into the rules themselves. That is their purpose. They were not meant to apply to local competitions.

Rear bag spikes are prohibited in international competition, but are not necessary anyway, because the firing points are of international standard.

The mounds I shoot on have had sheep and cattle all over them, grass cover is patchy, or there are rocks sticking up. Having spikes is a necessity to get the rear bag level. However I’ll compromise.
When country rifle clubs get the funds to maintain international standard mounds, and when the QRA fixes the spongy Belmont mounds, I’ll retire my rear plate.
Pete

[bobped]

Every country has its own set of rules and these are usually suitable for their local conditions, circumstances and history. As far as I'm aware no country uses the exact ICFRA Rules for their local/country rules.Those that do use some version of ICFRA, generally adapt them to suit themselves. Imagine telling the USA, with their 10 ring rules that they have to convert to ICFRA.

The circumstances Peter refers to with rough mounds, applies to many many country ranges all over Australia. A lot of them are in farm properties where cattle are free to wander all over the mounds. That's why we wrote the rules to adapt to Australian conditions.

[Tim L]

Pete writes
"Rear bag spikes are prohibited in international competition, but are not necessary anyway, because the firing points are of international standard."

despite Bob spefically saying Belmont needed spikes ("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") which is an international range.

Perhaps the rules should provide a standard for mounds rather than forcing shooters into using modified gear in order to be able to shoot. It really should not be OK for competition organisers to disadvantage a shooter. These comps cost too much money fot that shit to continue.

[Barossa_222]

I have shot on country ranges in sheep paddocks, on gravel, on ants nests. I don't use a spiked rear plate. Just excuses from people who refuse to adapt.

[jasmay]

2013 FCWC - Raton NM, mounds literally built from coal mine tailings with rocks as big as your fist.

2017 FCWC - Connaught Range Ottawa - Grassy mounds worse than Belmont with Ground Hog burrows

2023 FCWC - Bloemfontein South Africa, army range with gravel pit mounds.

I’m not sure where all these lush, highly engineered world class mounds are

Just shoot the rules that are written, otherwise it’s not F-Class is it….