OzFclass

Somewhere to continue discussions from the ICFRA thread.

linda,
fstd started and was going before it was defined.
i remember attending an prize shoot at stawell which had advertised fclass, only to find after the first range that fclass in that instance meant 308/223 only. i wasn't using one so had to treck all the way home to s.a.
it evolved.
here in s.a. we are getting long range blackpowder going by just doing it.
some of the people doing it are going to bisley to a world shoot.
ftr can start too if people do it rather than talk about it.
those doing it might have to shoot on their own for a while, but if it is good it will take off.
one thing in its favour is that just as std is aimed at target rifles, ftr is aimed at factory rifles with their faster twists. this is what a lot of new shooters turn up with, and they are cheaper than a lot of new target rifles, and a savage or tikka is not to be sneezed at.
good luck with your endeavour. i hope it works.
bruce moulds.

I would like to thank everyone for being able to now, have constructive comments on the topic of F/TR.

F T/R works on the world stage. The ICFRA countries would not even consider adopting F Std, when we can’t even take the time to find out if F T/R works in Australia.

At no point have I said F Std must go, in favour of F T/R. Until last week, I shot F Std off a front rest. It will always have its place in Australian shooting.

Bruce,

Good point about doing rather than saying. This is what we are now doing ourselves. Linda will be shooting FTR as per the ICFRA rules after she receives the lighter bipod from the USA to meet the weight restrictions. She is still using HBC projectiles and will while we are shooting in Australia. This is obviously to comply with FS rules, so she can at least compete here. I think this shows that the debate of FTR is not really based on projectiles, it is more about perception. it is fairly easy to make the weight limits for FTR if the stock is light enough.

For me, I intend to take up FTR also in the near future. That way, if I choose to shoot either FTR or FO internationally, I can do so without having to change equipment etc.

Just out of interest, a general weight breakdown of an FTR rifle might look like this:

Barreled action: 4 kilos (medium palma profile)
Scope and rings: 1.1 kilos (NF NXS) - others are lighter generally
Stock: 2 kilos (Eliseo, with some mods)
Bipod: 1 kilo (Sinclair)

= 8.1 kilos vs 8.25 kilos ICFRA limit

This relates well to actual weights of competition rifles we have in the field.



quote="bruce moulds"]linda,
fstd started and was going before it was defined.
i remember attending an prize shoot at stawell which had advertised fclass, only to find after the first range that fclass in that instance meant 308/223 only. i wasn't using one so had to treck all the way home to s.a.
it evolved.
here in s.a. we are getting long range blackpowder going by just doing it.
some of the people doing it are going to bisley to a world shoot.
ftr can start too if people do it rather than talk about it.
those doing it might have to shoot on their own for a while, but if it is good it will take off.
one thing in its favour is that just as std is aimed at target rifles, ftr is aimed at factory rifles with their faster twists. this is what a lot of new shooters turn up with, and they are cheaper than a lot of new target rifles, and a savage or tikka is not to be sneezed at.
good luck with your endeavour. i hope it works.
bruce moulds.[/quote]

All interested parties

I am new to this forum and thank you for allowing me to be registered. I have read all about this F/TR ideas over the last two weeks and feel I have read enough to post my view. Obviously nobody on this forum knows me (except some registered international shooters) but I dedicate my personal time and effort to the sport of target shooting.
I do qualify; this is my personal perspective and thoughts and I am not an F/TR shooter. I do shoot on the international circuit and travel abroad at least once a year shooting amongst the “international shooters” and I call them my friends. I am captain of the South African Protea Team and serve on various shooting bodies, local and internationally.

I know this is not my place to tell but read carefully and you will agree this is the only way it will happen if you wish. I am through this before and it came out with success.

My observation:
- I do not agree with the numbers review for your shooting disciplines. Either the people here on the forum are uninformed and inflate numbers or the ICFRA updates are deflated. They certainly do not relate, not even closely.
- I do see that the general forum readers are mostly uninformed and at times make things look bad because of wrong interpretations made.
- What I do know; you have LOTS of people shooting over a huge area.
- With your shooting activity, there will MOST DEFINITELY be a place for three independent sets of rules for “F-related” shooting disciplines. I wish we had the numbers to field three disciplines.
- Without stepping on toes; F-Class shooting will outlive TR in time to come and this will be a sad day!!
- I do observe that there are a few F/TR interested parties and it is common & human nature not to put up hands initially.
- From previous experience I can say; it will be the “shooters duty” to get the numbers shooting this discipline and then to approach the NRAA to implement it as official discipline.
- You, as member of ICFRA will have no issues to eventually field a team in F/TR.
- I have met some of your F-Open shooters in America and England over the last few years. They are always two or three Australians but just not enough to field a team BUT the carrot for international shooting hampers this as there was never a carrot as far as I can gather.
- In my country and all the others where I shoot it is the highest honor one can have to be awarded national colors in sport by the ruling sport bodies of such country.
- YOUR country has so high international standards in all other sport they support and will always be a country to be aware of when preparing for an international competition. Therefore I do not understand why the “carrot” was never put forward in F-Class shooting, they do in TR though.
- Money will be scares as this is an amateur sport and gun laws and regulations hampers the free traveling etc. All shooters are not in the same position as 90% of us do work and has little time off annually.

Method to implement F/TR:
- One dedicate person must do a “presentation letter” to all your clubs, area quarters etc. I am not sure how the states / provinces work in Australia in relation to the NRAA and how they report upwards. This must give all the benefits, pro’s & con’s etc. of such new venture.
- Do F/TR shooting at club level for those who want to do it. No need to try and steal over another disciplines’ shooters. This must be a “free will” situation.
- Once the numbers are to the extend that a Queens- state- or provincial Championship can held to allow a few targets/entries to shoot F/TR. I am sure the F/TR shooters will be happy do go without the medals at first as this carry extra costs.
- The shooters themselves will have to get “appetite” to shoot internationally, this count for many individuals as the idea of making your international shooting travels part of your yearly vacation. It is expensive BUT with effort, sponsors are around every corner. I know lots of Australian TR shooters that regularly shoot on my home turf. They obviously do this for many years and nothing is new.
- Once you have a database of real scores, then you select the best team possible and get it approved by the association. Should there be people not available for the team only then you leave a window of time to withdraw and fill the position with the next name on the database. I am 100% sure that you have enough interested parties to shoot in a World Championships, individually and as a team. It is a fact that all do not have the intension and /or money to be that serious about the sport the love.
- Application should be made by the NRA to the sports federation to get the national colors approved prior to selection of a team. For this you have the structure in place moons ago.

Technical implementation:
- You will have to identify at least three individuals from various areas to form a committee to regulate & promote this in the area where they shoot.
- It is so that some shooters will have to convert shooting gear to fit rules, i.e. weight and some other technical rule related issues. BUT do not force this until such time that a shooters is happy to convert, it must happen conveniently.
- Get enough numbers shooting this discipline and then ask for the next shoot to allow the shooters to try this out.

Conclusion;
- Just go out and shoot an enjoyable score and if you do take it seriously, then you put heart to it seriously and become an international shooter/ team to be reckoned with.
- F-Open and F-Standard are basically the same discipline; what makes it two is the few “standards” set in the rules like permitted caliber and some other variances. We have no F-Standard anymore due to declining shooting numbers but the older shooters who never converted, still shoot F-Open with the .308 and do pretty well at shorter distances and some at longer due the skill of wind reading.
- A “real shooter” will outshoot you even with an F/TR set-up, it has been proven on more than one occasion.
- The build of the two rifles for the disciplines (F/TR & F/S) should be in a way that the same rifle can be used for both. Obviously weight is a concern but easily can be met without the high costs all forum readers refer to.
- At any World Championships there are teams shooting along in the “Rutland Cup”. These are made up by many shooters who do shoot individual but has no official team and country to represent. It can be of any country, club nationality etc. Teams consist of four shooters and not eight like the “National Teams.”
- MY PROPOSAL: get a sponsor to go and shoot the F/TR Rutland Cup with people who are interested in FCWC 2013. My reasoning is; time is little and I am not sure if any database exists to make up a team now. F-Open can still do.
- I have sent an invite to the NRAA for all Australian F-Class shooters to come and visit South Africa during our SA Open shoot in March/April 2013. This will be for the individuals who want to see what a cheap & beautiful country looks like.

F/TR & F-Open: unfortunately the only two disciplines where a shooter and teams can compete internationally. This is fun though.
I soon hope to see more Australians on the ranges where I shoot. I will be shooting in Brisbane later this year and any individual are welcome to have a conversation about this.

I thank you for the opportunity.

Thanks Jannie for taking the time to reply in this thread. It seems yourself and Darrell Buell, both F T/R team captains from two different countries share pretty much the same message. The message is clear that F T/R is the way ahead for Australian F-S shooters. F-O are already compliant with ICFRA rules.

The issue really is about how we eventually arrive at having F-S transform into F T/R without causing any pain and suffering to the F-S aficionados. I for one enjoy shooting F-S and have done for years with a 223R off a bipod to a 308W off a pedestal rest. I agree with Jannie's observation that F-S has become that closely aligned with F-O to be almost the same class with a calibre restriction.

I think and have said before in numerous threads on this forum that there needs to be a transition period where both classes shoot side by side for a few years. At the end of a few of years the transition to F T/R ICFRA should be complete. The changes in equipment to meet F T/R compliance when phased in over time are manageable.

Why not phase it in by first relaxing the ammo restrictions as Ned has suggested for 223R projectiles. Start by allowing F T/TR ammo rules (both 308W & 223R) in the first year. Then follow on by introducing a bipod rule further down the track and eventually the class is transformed into F T/R with minimal fuss and bother.

I think this thread is about finding a way forward for F T/R and as Linda has stated at the very beginning of this thread, lets have a positive discussion with real world, workable solutions. It would also be beneficial for those shooters who have an interest in shooting F T/R to offer their insights or to highlight problems that need to be overcome.

IanP

Well put, Jannie.

Ian,

Very well stated. I find it almost amusing (but not so much) that a few are raising so much hell thinking that F-T/R has to replace F-Standard. I find that point laughable since I haven't seen one serious suggestion to that effect in this discussion. Which begs the question...Why must the two be mutually exclusive? Methinks there is a hidden agenda of some sort that I do not care to pursue.

Here in the States, we have had to deal with prejudices from the TR shooters that hated the idea of the F Classers playing on THEIR field. Thankfully, we persevered and we now have a very amicable and jovial relationship with most all of them and even a few shooters crossing back and forth between disciplines occasionally. But there are still a very few curmudgeons that still hate us. So we ignore them, which really pisses them off.

Allowing the natural evolution of the 2 Australian disciplines to determine the survivor is the most logical way forward. If our Australian cousins decide they like F-S better, so be it. And the same holds for F-T/R. I just don't see it having to be one or the other.

Emotional tirades with figures and statistics with no basis in fact will repulse more shooters than they will attract. Daily life has enough BS to deal with, without having it pervade our favorite avocation as well.

We all play the same game, just with different gear. Why all the fuss?

Thank you Jannie,Darrel and Warren for your objective input
It is my view that including an additional discipline can only be good for our sport.
And I hope in the future that Australia will be represented by both International discaplines on the world stage.
F-Class Open has the keenest group in my state at present and we are growing our numbers all the time.
All we need is ppl to start shoot in the F/TR specs and I’m sure others will follow.

Richard Braund
South Australian F-CLass Assoc. Secretary
South Australian F-CLass Open Team Capt.
South Australian State F-CLass team manager

IanP wrote:...The issue really is about how we eventually arrive at having F-S transform into F T/R without causing any pain and suffering to the F-S aficionados...

Ian,

I think the point Jannie and Warren and everyone else are trying to make is that there is no need to transform F-S into F T/R. F-Class numbers are growing - we don't need to kill off one class to make way for another. Any talk of doing so is probably working against the likelihood of F/TR succeeding. I'm all for F/TR, but it should succeed purely because shooters want it, not as a result of some transition plan from F-Std, which I hope continues to flourish as an Australian class.

Alan

I would agree Alan we as a group should look to build onto what we have not dismantle one for the benefit of another.
I think ppl need to understand and respect the fact that FS his here to stay we had and opportunity to make the discipline closer to F/TR in the early days but the horse has bolted and the domestic FS is well entrenched and enjoyed by hundreds of shooter around the country.

Richard Braund
South Australian F-CLass Assoc. Secretary
South Australian F-CLass Open Team Capt.
South Australian State F-CLass team manager

Thank you Alan and Richard for reminding Ian of that. No one minds him having his class if he and the other supporters build it themselves without using us as the backbone.

Warren if you think the idea of someone trying to replace F Std with F/TR is laughable then reads Ian's post again, read many on Ian's posts.

AlanF wrote:

IanP wrote:...The issue really is about how we eventually arrive at having F-S transform into F T/R without causing any pain and suffering to the F-S aficionados...

Ian,

I think the point Jannie and Warren and everyone else are trying to make is that there is no need to transform F-S into F T/R. F-Class numbers are growing - we don't need to kill off one class to make way for another. Any talk of doing so is probably working against the likelihood of F/TR succeeding. I'm all for F/TR, but it should succeed purely because shooters want it, not as a result of some transition plan from F-Std, which I hope continues to flourish as an Australian class.

Alan

I agree whole heartedly with what you are saying. There is no need to dismantle F-S. I am suggesting (perhaps not clearly enough) for the F-S shooters wanting to transition over to F T/R that a period of time is required. It certainly doesn't have to be all or nothing as F T/R can be shot alongside and scored as F-S now providing the ammo restriction is in place. I'm suggesting that we drop the ammo restriction and let F T/R into F-S from the get go!

This is my suggestion for a way forward and is a positive process for introducing change for those that want to change to F T/R or even shoot both.

I personally think that while a local (Oz) F-S is excellent and has its place I also think that most F-S shooters will eventually transition across. My prediction is that F T/R will eventually take over from F-S simply because the majority of the world is already there and are inviting us to join with them in the World Standard ICFRA competition.

IanP

My view is that both disciplines are flawed.

FS is overly generous on equipment weight for bipodded rifles, though this is understandable due to its derivation from a single scoped class discipline in Australia. Remember out earliest competitions did not divide competitors on calibre, weight or any other characteristic.

F/TR has unlimited bullet weights despite all countries who shoot TR having limited projectile weights. Again, this is understandable as a formula was needed to include the USA, which doesn't usually relish one class type rules.

As far as international competition is concerned, many Commonwealth countries managed to train & compete in Palma in the past despite their domestic rules being more restrictive. These days, of course, it's probably the USA alone whose domestic rules don't accord with the ICFRA Palma rules in the essentail areas. However, I reiterate what I've said before & that is that the Antipodes are the least desirable destination for northern hemisphere competitors because of the comparative distance, cost & consequent inconvenience for international competitors to attend. The relative popularity of Palma 2011 will be a barometer of that. Conversely, there is only a single international competition destination that Aussie shooters can travel to easily & inexpensively - our next door neighbours New Zealand.

Therefore, offering F/TR domestically is not necessarily the panacea to encourage participation in international matches - there's the need to address the significant costs & challenging logistics as well as issues like the availability of loading components & facilities at the destination. On the other hand, mandating ICFRA F/TR rules would seem to be necessary to host the ICFRA world championships, though the likelihood of that being offered us would not at all unreasonably be dependent on Australian shooters proving our commitment to participate internationally - like the previous host countries have.

Let's just leave FSTD as it is -- ammo restrictions and all. I will support anyone who wants to start another class, such as F/TR, and both disciplines can stand together, although I can see problems for clubs organising prize meetings, such as happens now with the lack of FO patronage and hence clubs not providing for them in the prize list.


John