OzFclass

Although this discipline is not shot in Australia, and, seemingly consists mainly of 6mm and 6.5mm calibres, they still shoot for accuracy, so, what the top shooters in the US use, is, of some relevance here.
A couple of things that I noted was there were no Sierra Projectiles this year(?), Hodgden (ADI) was the dominant propellant and the Hybrids were by far the most popular of the Berger's(which were the dominant projectile).
How you interpret this data is up to you, the individual reader.
This site will send you monthly updates if you join up which is easy to do and well worth some of the in-depth comparisons such as;
Reloading Components - What The Pros Use
Best Long-Range Scope: Buyers Guide & Features To Look For
Best Tactical Scopes - What The Pros Use
Rifle Calibers - What The Pros Use (They do not know how to spell 'calibre' in the US)
Rifle Barrels - What The Pros Use


http://precisionrifleblog.com/2014/12/11/reloading-components/

The other question to ask is how many of them are sponsored? It could a sway in the results.

Seddo wrote:The other question to ask is how many of them are sponsored? It could a sway in the results.

This question was posed before I posted to this site.

All the sponsorship available will not produce top results without the equipment being first rate.
(Even if, say, Berger was a sponsor, this would not change the fact that the 'Berger of choice is the Hybrid', being overwhelmingly in favour over the VLD)?????
I, personally, cannot see Hodgden sponsoring as they do not rely on private shooters to maintain sales as the bulk of their production is for military purposes.

Ask yourself; Would/could you shoot with under performing gear? If so, would/could you win?

Sponsorship doesn't produce top results, only quality components combined with a top shooter would.

That is the reason that I mentioned Sierra. If their projectiles are performing so well, why have they gone from a small representation in the top shooters to a zero?(I have been shooting Sierras for 14 years with good results which prompted the question).I also shoot Berger and HBC.
If anybody would sponsor, then I would suggest that Sierra would be at the top of the list, but, I will repeat what I said in the OP.
Quote:
"How you interpret this data is up to you, the individual reader".

Nevertheless, sponsored teams would seem to have access to a better quality (or the best of) the sponsor's product.

I think there are other variables that also come into consideration when assessing data across disciplines which have some similarities, but also significant differences.

For example the tactical matches tend to be scored on both time and hit basis. Therefore, competitors tend to rely heavily on magazine feeding, which VLDs do not lend themselves to very well (perhaps driving the preference for hybrids). So factors of this nature can strongly skew the data to something other than absolute accuracy in the component choices. I would be careful in drawing conclusions for application in other disciplines from their data, at least in some cases.

I think scopes specs are a major difference between tactical preferences and ours. For example the 3 scope models which dominate their scene being an S & B, Vortex and Bushnell have a minimum of 1/4 MOA clicks (0.1 mrad is about 1/3 MOA). That would eliminate them from my shopping list immediately. I'm sure accuracy matters to them a lot, but it has to be compromised by many other demands which we don't have in F-Class. So without being derogatory, I think F-Class is more of a precision discipline than tactical, and BR goes even further in precision. What we have in F-Class is a good compromise between the two because its suits the shooting ranges we use, and our co-existence with TR.