(update 11-Feb-2010) For 2010 it has been decided to "merge" F-TR and F-Farquharson, using the more lenient of the two rules, to be offered as "F/F" (i.e. .223 or .308, any bullet weight, and any means of front support as per F/Open)
In our present rulebook we have two very similar versions of F-Class that are fired with .223/.308 rifles. There are only two differences between F/Farky and F-TR, and while they are so minor that it is not really meaningful to offer both classes, it has not yet been possuble to fully merge the definitions of F/F and F/TR at the international level (ICFRA rules and competitions). I would like to see us resolve this issue for Canadian F-Class shooting, and offer only one ".223/.308" kind of F-Class shooting for next year.
Our F/Farquharson class permits any form of front rest to be used, including benchrest-style pedestal front rests, and also limits bullet weights to the same limits as TR rifles (which is, presently, 155 max for .308, and no bullet weight limit for .223). The official ICFRA F/Restricted class, which has since renamed to "F-TR", only permits bipods to be used as a front rest, and allows bullets of any weight to be used, for both .308 and .223. Interestingly, the vast majority of the F/Restricted shooters at the 2009 F Class World Championships in Bisley used .308/155.
If we strictly adopt the ICFRA F-TR version as our one and only kind of .223/.308 F-Class shooting, there will be a number of Canadian shooters who will have to either change to using a bipod or to no longer fire ".223/.308 F-Class" at our Canadian Championships. It is the opinion of most Canadian shooters that a pedestal front rest does not provide any significant competitive advantage over a bipod, especially since in modern F-Class parlance a "bipod" can be a pretty sophisticated piece of gear. And this is reflected in our F-Farky rules of many years standing, in which we permit any form of front rest to be used.
If we stick with our F/Farky version, we might lose potential entries from competitors who wish to shoot with equipment legal for use at the FCWC 2013 matches - these could be visiting American or British F-TR teams, or it could be our own Canadian F-TR team, should any of them wish to explore the use of bullets heavier than 155 grains for their F-TR rifles.
The best proposal I have heard yet, is that we basically merge the two classes, using the least restrictive definitions of each. Perhaps we would want to call the result "F-Farky", or perhaps we would call it "F-TR(Canadian)", but the essentials would be that any form of front rest would be permitted, and that any.223 or .308 bullet weight would be permitted. In this class, any existing F-TR or F-Farquharson rifle would be legal. If there is something bad to be said about this proposal, it would be that we are departing from the standard ICFRA practice, which might bring into question either our dedication to eventually adopting ICFRA rules for our own shooting, or perhaps whether our trial of ICFRA rules is in fact a meaningful trial of ICFRA rules after all, since we keep every-so-slightly tweaking ICFRA rules slightly to better suit our domestic desires.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I would be agreeable to the one class which allows any type of front support be it bipod or front rest.The same with bullet weight.
ReplyDeleteTrevor
The consensus seems to be developing that we should combine F/F and F/TR, using the least restrictive rules from each. Which basically works out to "any bullet weight", and "any kind of front rest".
ReplyDeleteProblem appears to be with the brains trust at IFCRA who appear to want a homogenous circumstance, with all control (read: rule making) residing with them for international competition. The new masters of what universe appear to serve the individual egos involved (back on home turf) and is not generally in the best interest of the masses.
ReplyDeleteWhere is the input from 'science'? In the form of the Technical Committees of old where new ideas can be thrown up against the wall to see if they stick, bounce or slide - just like pasta.
For Pete's sake, or should that be for George's sake, what the Farky does it matter if any weight of projectile can be used? One hell of a lot if you want to compare apples with apples in an international context.
Looking at origins, the issue of ammunition by a controlling body means all competitors shoot with the same advantage / disadvantage, which means tuning the rifle to a 'batch' of ammunition, which is how it was when the military provided ammo back in the .303 days, with everyone looking for the CAC 39 headstamp, believed to be the most consistent for the non-tricked up rifles of the time.
But those bloody Aussies mucked it up with their introduction of the heavy barrel upgrade which gave a definite 1 to 1 1/2 minute advantage over the more flexy standard barrels.
Then us Canadians got all fancy with making the No. 4 the best shooting of the SMLE family untill peep sighted rifles ie, L39 and L42 became surplus. Also based on the No. 4 action, but with floated barrels an aperture sight, plus a well hung trigger and sear combo.
Then the break away occured, with .308 becomming the norm over NATO issue 7.62 where handloading allowed for tuning the ammo to suit the rifle and distance rather than tuning the rifle to suit the issued / surplus ammunition over all distances.
Then governments decided that defence control of rifle shooting was no longer a benefit to training of marksmanship skills and to the dogs it has gone since.
George had the right idea and it has persevered, yet the service rifle devotees have lost out as target rings have shrunk and their kit has worn more with use and age. Ok, they have their own comps and rules and yet they too are being assailed by those seeking non-purist entry to a noble discipline that was established in recognition of the role service rifles play in global freedom.
The real challenge is how do we as a sport encourage fewer divisions, ie, fewer factions of desire / control so that new men and women can be bought into the sport without needing a three day training session just to work out where they can fit in. Have a read of the Bisly Bible for 2010 to see how many variants there are these days.
Variation is a good thing, but where in the sand does the line get drawn so that more people can be considered a part of a class - internationally.
The internet is the change agent here.
Where, for example, Field Class air rifle bods have worked out an equipment and scoring system that allows a beginner shooter through to the ex-olympian to participate on an equal footing - right from day one! Especially once the US agreed to the 12 foot/pound limit.
Another thought is that surplus ammo from current conflicts will soon be stockpiled for destruction / dissasembly and amongst that is a hell of a lot of NATO 7.62 & 5.56. So why not start a campaign for supply back into the sportng bodies so that cheap / affordable fodder can be used on mass for benign target comps?
Maybe we need to have a look at the non-NATO ammo contracts as well, where .303 must be a part of the deal. Or maybe go for a new bolt action class based on 7.62x39, which aint too bad for short to mid range shooting.
THE CHALLENGE WORLDWIDE IS TO HARMONISE THE RULES, COMMUNICATE THESE WIDELY SEEKING CONSENSUS, AND GETTING ON WITH IT.
Best wishes to you all and thank you for taking this rant onboard.
Bobby J from BC
I personally do not supprt this merger. When attempting to attract international competitiors, they have equipment that is optimized for the international standard. This puts those shooters at a disadvantage - particularly in terms of the front rest.
ReplyDeleteHow we can eschew an international standard for FTR and yet embrace the ridiculous ICFRA short range target is beyond me. the 300M target is not used in international competition, and has demonstrated itself to be a nightmare for its rapid obliteration, its non-standard dimensions and its lack of a contrasting aiming mark.
Shooters have expressed a great deal of dissatisfaction at this target. Frankly, it should be scrapped in favour of retaining the DCRA short range standard.