"New" sporter class....

bryan

bryan

Bryan Armatys
I didn't want to hijack the "what is a factory rifle" thread, so I'll just start here.
I'm addressing 2 things in this post............
1: The redundant "Sporter" class.
2: The need for a Factory type class, in an effort to get new blood into the game.

Sporter and LV are twinkies. How many competitors shot dedicated sporters in that class and another rifle in LV at the Nationals? Not many, I'd bet.
Point made............been made before (many, many times).

Why not replace Sporter with a Savage class?
Stock Savage action, and bolt, (with the appropriate aftermarket bolt head), and adjustments/changes to the ejector allowed to prevent brass from flying all over the place. Triggers, stocks, etc. to follow varmint class rules already in place. Replacement barrels MUST retain the stock barrel nut retaining system.
Newcomers could get by with a stock, barrel, bolt head, and trigger replacement and be on par with the big boys, and the old timers could get a chance at a "new challenge" in benchrest shooting.
Owners of other brands of factory rifles may not like the savage restriction, but they are cheap enough to build, and easy enough to regulate that I think it would catch on....especially when it would be contested at registered events, Nationals, and the Super Shoot.
I'd like to hear what the Krupa's and the Ocock's and the Ratigan's and now the Rodney Brown's:D of this sport have to say about this idea.
Bryan
 
Never happen, such a change would just mess up the quest for Hall of Fame points. Sporter has to remain unchanged because of HOF, and to make it possible to shoot the same rifle for LV, Sporter, and HV. What you are suggesting would require competitors to have two seperate rifles, and the headaches that entails.

The beauty of BR is that change comes in tiny tiny portions and very slowly. Besides why would you want to restrict the new sporter class to Savage only. Why not open to any factory rifle that had had a production run of at least 500 rifles, and is commonly available in sporting goods or retail stores?
Bob
 
Sporter/Factory action class

Interesting Bryan...

There now is avaliable a 2oz trigger "system" for the Savage 10/12; 110/112 and Target actions... Available from Fred Moreo at Sharp Shooters Supply...
http://www.sharpshootersupply.com/

Yes, there will be that "I want to shoot my RemChester"... A barrel nut can be made for them quite easily and inexpensively as well so that they can be shot in the class (factory actions only)....

This could be the answer to an inexpensive, easy to govern Sporter class. Could very well be an excellent vehicle to bring in more shooters AND a new challange for ALL.

I'd like to hear what the Krupa's and the Ocock's and the Ratigan's and now the Rodney Brown's of this sport have to say about this idea.


I as well,
cale
 
BR will not change

Short range BR is what it is and the directors (which are the only foks empowered to make this kind of change) are long time BR shooters who do not want the fundamentals of BR to change (I am not suggesting that this is a bad thing).

Those who don't like the format probably leave BR eventually. Those directors who promote growth (they all do in their own way) want it to occur within the existing structure. In my opinion, the best opportunity for change is to pursue it among the other types of BR shooting (ex. 600 yard, 1,000 yard and rimfire).

Changing the fundamentals of short range BR has many more difficulties beyond its affects on the HOF. You have records and software to consider as well. Something else to keep in mind is that people have been suggesting change since shortly after the PPC has been so successful. The fact that this change has not occured over all these years should be enough to suggest that change is not likley to happen.

Regards,
Erc
 
I think you are making it to complicated with all the upgrades and add on's.
If it is a factory class then it is factory. Period!
Must say savage on the barrel and other parts!

THen if a person want to transition that rifle to the HV or LV class they can do the upgrades.

Ted
 
Eric - The "factory class" was tried in 1000yd at Tucson for about two years,this is how long it took for it to die out as the winners had blued, bedded, triggered, improved "factory" guns. Long range, 1000yd has had the same rules since the start.... "if it is not broke - do not fix it"
Karl
 
IMHO the thing that has worked to get new shooters started in some type of Benchrest is unsanctioned, club score matches that have several classes. The only problem is someone has to actually do something, and not just discuss what to do, and promoting and putting on matches is a lot of work....for no money. Most people would rather discuss. Very few want to do that much work for free (best case).

A long time ago, I was the president of a large rifle and pistol club, doing the work of about 2 1/2 board members...who still got to vote. Every once in a while, someone would ask me why "we" didn't put on some sort of match, at which point out that I had about all that I could say grace over on my plate. I would then suggest that I would be glad to explain the steps involved in getting a new type of matches approved, and running. It would be about that time that I would see their backsides as they were walking away.

We should be really nice to those who keep ranges running and those that put on matches. It always amazes me how few step up to take their "turn in the barrel". Most just seem to want to play with thier toys and not be bothered with the details. That is the problem when it comes to getting anything new started. Don't get me wrong, I have a high opinion of Benchrest shooters, it's just that they don't usually come to the range looking for a job.
 
Last edited:
First, I never thought I would ever see my name in the same sentence with Joe, Gary, and Mike -- I just had a good week is all. Everyone knows that this sport is about consistency and backing up your performance, so after an exhausting season of benchrest shooting I suddenly can't wait for next year. Thanks Bryan!

My grasp of the Sporter Class was that it was originated at a time when the .222 dominated the sport and while custom rifles were becoming commonplace, the guy with a "accurized" factory rifle could still be enticed to compete. Hence, sporter with the 6mm minimum invited some new shooters to the sport. Fast-forward to the development of the hyper-accurate PPC and the necessary adoption of truly custom gear to be competitive and yes, the Sporter ends up largely redundant. But I see no need to "replace" it. The volume of history that we carry along with it (records, HOF points, etc.) is testament to its permanent place in our lore. Besides, balancing the LV/HV with the SPTR/UNL weekends makes for good match scheduling.:)

The addition of a new classes certainly bears some investigation. The NBRSA in particular is having a challenge in attracting new members and a recurring theme of the newbie is "how can I be competitive without spending thousands of dollars?". The reality of today's formats is that he cannot.

When I first got into benchrest a short three years ago, I read everything I could find -- this forum, the entire Primer book, Newick's book, AND I read the NBRSA Rule Book. Cover to cover, taught myself the rules that way. The very first section is the "Objectives" of the organization -- development, encouragement, standardization, and sharing of data (i.e. education).

A. OBJECTIVES OF THE NATIONAL BENCH REST
SHOOTERS ASSOCIATION, INC.
1. The development and encouragement of extreme
accuracy in rifles, ammunition, equipment and shooting
methods;
2. The achievement of extreme precision in rifles,
ammunition, equipment, and shooting methods by shooting
"groups";
3. To standardize on a national basis the entire Bench Rest
Shooting program so that targets, ranges, scoring methods,
records, and match procedure will be uniform and comparable;
4. To assist and encourage any individual or organization
in the promotion of Bench Rest Shooting; and
5. To gather and make available to its members pertinent
statistics and technical data.​

Practically every firearm review in any magazine includes a "group size" statistic that I would bet makes every benchrest shooter laugh. Who shot the groups? Was it outside? Wind flags? Factory ammo:eek:?

It seems to me that the quest of the first 50 years has put the emphasis "extreme accuracy" nature of those objectives, and largely ignored the interpretation where some emphasis could be put on the "development and encouragement" phrase. This could open up a whole world of opportunity for our organization as we "standardize on a national basis" those silly reviews we read. Through our extreme classes, we already review all the custom components of the sport. Why not expand our interpretation of our mission to standardize the evaluation of factory guns and factory ammo? I'm sure that the success could be interesting: new group shooters competing with what they have and manufacturers having a vested interest in supporting the organization, since our competitions could become their source of marketing fodder. (I can already imagine Hornady coming out with a line of "single-press" bullets to go along with their "custom ammo"!)

To do this we just need definitions. A framework of classes that allows the comparison of major components as well as major and minor add-ons and modifications. For instance,

Factory-Class - STOCK - Factory Ammo
Factory-Class - STOCK - Handloaded Ammo
Factory-Class - MODIFIED - Factory Ammo
Factory-Class - MODIFIED - Handloaded Ammo

Competition format should be consistent across all the classes so that comparisons could be evaluated. Results within a class could be sorted by both "overall" group size, and by Class-Component so that guys shooting Savages or RemChesters could compare themselves to each other. As an NBRSA promotional tool, marketers from the rifle and component manufacturers could publish results within certain guidelines.

Granted, these classes probably won't hold much interest for most of us that already have a room full of custom gear. But this isn't about us, it is about our place in the industry and offering a well-defined competitve environment around our fundamental measure of accuracy -- the small group.

Rodney Brown
 
Last edited:
Some Of Us Are Trying

We had our annual Tomball Gun Club meeting today, along with election of Officers.

As the Benchrest Club Match Director, I gave a report of our first season, which I considered a success. We had an average 22 shooters for the four matches.

The problem was we had 5 times as mant "established' Benchrest Shooters as the other two classes, (Factory and Modified). One of the main reasons we are having the "club" matches is to attract shooters who are not active in Benchrest, and would like to try it.

As for this suggestion about a "Savage" class in Registered Competition, I hope you have your tonge firmly planted in your cheek when you say that.........jackie
 
I'm not of the opinion that the Sporter class is redundant. Looking at it another way, I can shoot a 10.5 pound .22 caliber rifle in LV, a 10.5 pound 6mm rifle in SP and a 13.5 pound .22 caliber in HV or larger caliber in any of the classes. Or I can shoot a 10.5 pound 6mm rifle in all three classes. About the only place where it matters as to the classes is when you're shooting the three varmint classes at the Nationals. If I start off with a 10.5 pound rifle and at the Nationals and I shoot it for the two days of LV and SP, I'm not going to change to a HV rifle unless that rifle isn't shooting well. By the definition that the LV and SP classes are redundant, then the HV class would be redundant as well. In my mind it's just common sense to shoot the rifle that has been proven to you in the first part of the nationals. If it's not shooting, then switch to a HV or another rifle.

If you are going to have a factory class, it should be done at the local level with local rules. Get the guys interested in seeing what they can do and how it compares to the current benchrest rifles being shot in competition. They will either make the change if they are interested in pursuing benchrest or they will be happy shooting what they are shooting at the local level.

Mike Ratigan showed that this worked well when he was holding matches at Mooreland. They had what was called prairie dog matches on separate days from their benchrest matches. They wound up having a number of the prairie dog shooter switch over to benchrest rifles and shoot the registered benchrest matches. The main thing you have to have is a local club hosting local matches where you don't have to travel to get beginning shooters to shoot in matches. It takes either a die hard or a benchrest addict to travel 350 to 1000's of miles to shoot in benchrest matches.
 
Sporter change...not!

I used to think that in order for the sporter class to be viable that it had to be different too.

Then I found a new way of thinking of it that has helped to make it acceptable and proper in my simple mind.

Look at it this way; when you are competing for a national championship, the greatest degree of difficulty should be tested. I like to think of the SP and LV as the same thing but with a 10 group/match aggregate instead of 5. Even though it is divided in 2 separate classes, for all practical purposes it is 10 groups of the same thing.

This truly separates the men from the boys. It's a matter of endurance that is not found in lesser levels of competition.

Hope this is helpful.

Larry
 
Ok what is the fascination with a Savage 223 only class? If you are truly interested in Factory then all factory should be good to go. Maybe BR should look at IHMSA pistol shooting and all of the classes they have, 25 yrs ago there were 4 now 15+ classes. I don't think that game has grown alot bigger with the number of shooters, but the number of times a shooter can shoot in 1 match. Is this what you are looking for a bunch of classes with 1 or 2 shooters in each?
 
Last edited:
Mrl

That is exactly what we DON'T want.

As a club Match Director, I would not look forward to supplying awards to a format that has been dilluted simply so more shooters can "win something".

I think three classes like we have at Tomball are plenty, anybody remotely interested in competing will come up with something to shoot in one of those three classes.

At this time,the Benchrest Class is by far the largest, we had as many as 15 entries at one match. Heck, I could just have one class, and have what would be considered a "successful' club match for a mornings shoot. But that is not what we want.

We are trying to attract new shooters. New shooters who are able togive Benchrest a try with what they have on hand, without having to spend a fortune only to discover that they really are not interested in that type of Competition.........jackie
 
I agree with you, I don't want it to happen either but it seems like peiople are pushing for that kind of solution. I still feel the best way to do this is for each club to run what works for them and leave the national organizations out of the picture. Want new shooters in this game? Bring somebody along with you and an extra rifle for them. I have found that for every 3 who try it 1 might stay, (with encourgement ).
 
Last edited:
I've been thinking a lot about both sporter and how to grow the sport lately.

But, I need to temper my opinion with three facts:

1) I'm in my first day as a director in the NBRSA, and I don't have just one perons' beliefs to consider when forming an opinion,

2) I've won Sporter, as it exists today, at the Nationals (2007 IBS), and

3) I'm a member of the Benchrest Hall of Fame.

These three things generally cause one to not want to change something as it currently exists for fear of creating more trouble than by leaving it alone.


But, I do hold the OPINION (personally, not as a director) that sporter is somewhat redundant and that the .22 restriction makes for more problems than it removes. (It is a historical restriction left over from the "pre- 6 PPC" days.) However, I agree with Larry Feusse that looking at it during the Nationals as 20 groups in the 10.5-pound class and as two opportunities versus one to attain HOF points is a better way to approach it.

I truly believe that we need to foster more experimentation in benchrest, but also need to not have so much of a change to a class so that the guy who shoots one 10.5 pound gun in all classes isn't forced to choose between building another gun or not shooting that class in a match.

I also believe that the next advances in our sport will be made in terms of optics, vibration dampening, barrel making and bullet technology and perhaps in reamer and case design. Experimentation in these areas is not currently hindered by the existing rules. The main thing with changing the stock and how it rides the bags is to get back on target quicker and perhaps change the vibratory characteristics of what happens to the muzzle and the gun in the bags when we pull a trigger. We are just scratching the surface in these areas with tuners and stock materials and configurations. Heck, I'd also like to see someone develop a powder to shoot in our existing cases and capacities that would stay in tune anywhere on the planet in any kind of environmental condition.

Anyway, proposing a change to sporter would be fraught with peril for any director who fears the ire of the old guard in the sport. But, if we don't continue to grow through experimentation, our sport is destined to die from stagnation. That's the challenge.

I don't see changing sporter as a way to get new blood in the sport. I see more the mentoring program, benchrest schools, range development and general communication as a better set of methods to get new members in the organized part of our sport. And using entry level classes (factory and custom) in unregistered matches has seemed to work well here in Michigan to get new guys ready to move to the registered matches.

I also believe that having this kind of dialog is very healthy for our sport and needs to be continual.
 
Last edited:
Exactly...

jackie schmidt said:
That is exactly what we DON'T want.

As a club Match Director, I would not look forward to supplying awards to a format that has been dilluted simply so more shooters can "win something".

I think three classes like we have at Tomball are plenty, anybody remotely interested in competing will come up with something to shoot in one of those three classes. jackie
Click to expand...

I run a Hunter class match at the Austin Rifle Club each month, year round. I've been doing it since the mid-eighties. We've always had three classes; Factory, Factory Varmint (heavy barrel varmint rifles), and Match (Benchrest match rifles).

However, since reading your responses on this forum Jackie, I've copied your match class names; Factory, Modified, and Benchrest. I think they are more descriptive and cover a larger range of rifles.

Starting in the early nineties, I eliminated the high cost of trophy awards and give back half the entry fees (entry fee is $5) in first place cash prizes for each class. Works great. In addition, we have an optional high score pot for each match for each class (five matches equal $5, $1 per match). High score takes the pot. In addition to that I give a $5 award to anyone who shoots a 50-5X.

Recently three shooters have moved up to Benchrest rifles and would have come to the Texas State and Gulf Regionals if Ike hadn't intervened (I used to like "Ike" in the fifties, but not anymore).

Strangely enough, two other shooters bought Benchrest rifles after several matches...and never showed up again...hmmm.

Well enough ranting...so long for now and if you're in the Austin area the last Sunday of any month, stop by and shoot with us at 1pm. We'll make a class for ya no matter what ya bring.;)

You betcha,
virg
 
Just One Perspective...

First off...

I think Bryan's suggestion is worth further discussion.
I agree with Eric that change is not going to happen.
I think Joe's comments shows some careful, intelligent thinking.
I'm glad Stephen provided the historical perspective.

Taking a look at the raw numbers (Agg scores), however, one could say that, in terms of the group sizes on the paper, there's really not any meaningful performance difference any more between sporter, LV and HV. The Aggs are typically within one or two hundredths at the end of a match.

So, an outsider (with no HOF/historical concerns) might say, well, why not just settle on one short-range BR bag-gun class, one weight and leave it at that. That would certainly simplify matters. In fact, a major "founding father" of short-range BR (and big match organizer) has told me that "In truth, we don't need 3 bag-gun classes anymore. One bag-gun class would be fine--and whether it's 10.5 lbs or 13.5 lbs--it doesn't really matter." But, he added "this is NEVER going to happen because of Hall of Fame points."

If there is a new class (to replace Sporter), in my opinion, the logical choice would be a 17-lb class which complies with existing LR benchrest rules. Then you could attract many of the mid-range and F-Class shooters to try their hand at the 100/200 yard game, using rifles they already own (but maybe with a different barrel/chambering).

I know this idea will be roundly condemned, and attacked as ridiculous, stupid, uninformed, heretical and so on. I fully expect to be verbally tarred and feathered on this board. But if people would just stand back for a minute they might see that adding a 17-lb class could potentially DOUBLE the number of participants in 100/200 BR. Additionally, if a 17-lb gun replaced sporter, then the current wizards of short-range benchrest would have a second rifle that they could shoot at other distances rather than a redundant sporter, that for all intents and purposes, is just another LV 6PPC. Don Nielson, Lou Murdica and other short-range guys have certainly had fun (and done very well) with their 17-pounders at longer distances.

I know the response to this will be "Paul, you stupid, mindless idiot, don't you understand that anyone can shoot a 6mm 10.5-lb LV in Sporter already (and HV for that matter) so one doesn't need a second gun for Sporter." Yes, I understand that. My point is simply that, from a results standpoint (measured Aggs), the distinction between Sporter and LV really has ceased to exist. SO... if a decision is contemplated to eliminate Sporter, then the logical choice for a replacement would be a 17-pounder that would also be competitive at other distances. I think that would bring in more shooters, and the quality of marksmanship at long distances would benefit from the infusion of short-range guys and vice versa.

But let me stress, this is just food for thought...grist for the mill. I think Eric is 100% right that nothing will change. The benchrest establishment is committed to the status quo. I also understand that there are many, many good, solid reasons to leave things just the way they are.

I can say this, though, when I talk to highly talented shooters from other disciplines, particular those from overseas, they are dumb-founded that short-range BR persists with three classes (LV, HV, and Sporter) that produce virtually identical results on the target, and are just 1.36 kilos apart in weight. The question these guys pose to me is "What is the point? Why not shoot one gun/one class if they all Agg the same anyway?" And they add, if you DO have another class it should be significantly different than the first so that, hopefully, the second gun class could: a) make competition cheaper; or b) attract new shooters; and/or c) be a design that is more versatile and can be used in multiple disciplines.

Let me conclude that I defer 100% to those actively involved in short-range registered benchrest. I fully concede that some of these ideas may be considered "lame" or "dumb" or "uninformed". But I can say this, at local club fun matches out here in California, we often have 17-pounders shooting side-by-side 6PPCs at short-range matches, and everyone seems to have a good time. The owners of the 17-pounders like the opportunity to "see what she'll do" at shorter distances, and the PPC guys like the added challenge that more shooters on the firing line provides.

To me, if there is to be an official "second gun" (after a 10.5-pounder that can shoot either LV or HV), it makes sense to build it to a different standard that will work in other disciplines too.

Turning all the way back to Brian's original post, the adoption of a 17-lb class, with its higher weight limit, WOULD allow the use of factory guns like the Savage F-Class 6BR. That, I think most would concede, could be a good thing for the sport, providing an affordable "entry platform."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Allowing heavier rifles would not make the Savages competitive. No production rifle is, in open, 1-200 yd. group competition, against real Benchrest rifles. And while the accuracy potential of a 10.5# 6PPC may be virtually identical to that of a 13.5# 6PPC the same may not be true of a 17 pound 6PPC , especially with a flatter toe angle thrown into the mix so as to let rifles built for F class and longer yardage Benchrest compete. So, if it turns out that I am right and another rifle would be required to be competitive,(if a 17# class were to replace the current Sporter class) then a competitor's cost to equip himself for bag rifle competition would double, at least as far as rifles are concerned, and since the chances are that no factory rifle would be competitive, nor would the longer range calibers be, at the shorter distances against well driven PPCs of the same weight, then all that would have been accomplished would be to discourage those who already compete who do not wish to buy a second rifle. Additionally, because there are better calibers than the PPC for the longer yardages, a purpose built 17# short range rifle, having for example the typical rblpre,( a configuration requiring PPC bolt face) would be of little use for anything else.

If the rules are to be changed, I think that it should be by action of those who have the knowledge gained by actually participating in, and/or putting on matches for sanctioned short range center fire competition. Those who want to compete will. One may say that if the rules were different he would compete. I doubt that that is the problem. Too many of us have had the free use of equipment and components turned down. Some like competition, some do not. There is nothing wrong with making suggestions, nor, I hope, anything wrong in pointing out their perceived deficiencies.
 
Boyd makes some very good points. You wouldn't want to impose a rule change that effectively forces existing competitors to build a completely new gun. That would be counter-productive. But I don't think that's the case at all.

1. A 17-lb class would be INCLUSIVE of existing 10.5 and 13.5-lb classes. These already-in-existence rifles would have the advantage (out of the gate) of a tuned, highly-accurate action/barrel/cartridge. If, it was learned that the extra weight and different toe angle of a 17-pounder provided a significant advantage, so that shooters of current LVs and HVs felt out-classed (which I doubt), this would be easily solved by allowing LV and HV owners to mount a removeable weighted, angled keel on their LVs and HVs. This sits on the bottom edge of the buttstock and could be attached by various means. Such weighted keels are already being used by guys who are shooting their short-range guns quite successfully in 600-yard matches.

2. Boyd's perspective, is one that I've heard before... namely, "if you create a new, substantially different class, then me and my buddies will have to build new rifles... and that's going to cost existing shooters MORE money, which defeats the purpose." As I've explained before, from a technology standpoint I don't think that's true at all. But the other problem with that perspective is that it is "status-quo-centric". It presumes, from the get-go, that the only valid rule modifications are those that serve and assist "those that already got theirs".

One reason to adopt a new rule, such as with the creation of F-Class in NRA long-range shooting, is to make the sport accessible and attractive to a wider audience. Guess what, F-Class is the fastest growing NRA rifle discipline and is the ONLY NRA centerfire rifle discipline that has inspired major rifle-makers to create new competition-oriented production rifles in recent years.

One could have raised the same argument that "we should not allow F-Class because then sling/iron sights shooters would have to buy another rifle." That argument ignored the possibility that a new class would attract a whole new group of shooters (young and old) to matches. Thankfully, the sling-shooters said "hey, the more the merrier" rather than "we don't want to share our range with a different type of shooter." And guess what? F-Class DID attract a huge new group of shooters.

Back to short-range Benchrest, as I've stated, if you have an accurate 10.5 LV, add a keel and shoot it in the 17-lb class. Nobody's probably going to beat a 17-lb 6PPC any time soon. But, given time, the higher weight limit could and should encourage folks to experiment with different chamberings and barrel set-ups. Is that such a bad thing? Remember what Joe Krupa said about the likely "new frontiers" in precision shooting? Having more weight to play with could allow some real breakthroughs in stock design, tuner design, barrel vibration control etc. Current LR rules allow barrel blocks for example.

But the most important point about adopting a 17-lb class, is that you immediately open up the sport to potentially thousands more shooters who don't have a 10.5-lb or 13.5-lb PPC (and don't have the money to buy one) but do have something that they are already shooting--in varmint/groundhog matches, 600-yard matches, Palma matches, etc. (Remember your history--this sport started with "real" varmint rifles and has evolved to something very different.)

By most estimates, there are maybe 5000-6000 short-range benchrest shooters in the USA, and I would guess less than 1500 are very active. By contrast there are tens of thousands of shooters shooting Palma rifles, varmint rifles, F-Class rifles, and long-range BR rifles that could all, potentially, compete in a 17-lb class. What's wrong with some new blood?

Boyd also makes the point that a Savage will never be competitive, (even in a 17-lb class), so it is stupid to create a class that would embrace such a rifle. Well, that assumes that no shooter would ever come to a match unless they were assured of having "the bestest and the fastest." I don't think it's safe to assume that. In any hobby or sport, there is always a starting point. To tell someone "we won't let you play, because we've decided (in advance) you can't win", ... well I think that attitude wars with the goal of encouraging new shooters at matches. Moreover, if a 17-lb class proved popular, there is certainly the potential to create a sub-class for "true" factory rifles. That has been done, with great success, at both the Varmint Jamboree and Hickory Egg shoot, both of which dwarf the Super Shoot both in attendance and prize value.

The message in all of this is that rule decisions should be made BOTH to a) advance the needs, interests, and welfare of current shooters; and b) promote the sport's growth and make it more interesting, attractive, and viable for the new shooters, and in particular, the next generation of shooters. And the plus side could be that more short-range shooters would have fun shooting 17-pounders at other distances, and there would be cross-over from the NRA disciplines into the short-range world.

Of course, there is the possibility that I've got it all wrong... that in fact there really is no interest in drawing new shooters and perhaps doubling the number of participants in short-range BR matches. I have been told as much by some short-range veterans: "Look, here's the bottom line. Things are fine the way they are. Don't you get it? We don't want more people at our matches, we don't want more competition for HOF points, and we sure don't want to bring in a different kind of rifle that might rock the boat and lead to yet another technology race. If you want to shoot your &#@! 17-pounder go do it at 600 yards and leave us the heck alone."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
-Yo- said:
2. Boyd's perspective, is one that I've heard before... namely, "if you create a new, substantially different class, then me and my buddies will have to build new rifles... and that's going to cost existing shooters MORE money, which defeats the purpose." As I've explained before, from a technology standpoint I don't think that's true at all. But the other problem with that perspective is that it is "status-quo-centric". It presumes, from the get-go, that the only valid rule modifications are those that serve and assist "those that already got theirs".
Click to expand...

So you have to create new rifles ! This if successful and causes the advancement of accuracy is called progress. And I believe it is what Benchrest is supposed to be about.

Classes should be different to promote advancements, I think the 3 pound difference between a light and a heavy is a good thing. I think the requirement of cal larger than 22 means almost nothing when well in excess of 95% of contestants shoot the exact same 6mm rifle in both classes.

I know this statement falls on deaf ears as many poeple like the stagnation that BR classes have been for the last 25 years and care less about advancing the sport than they do about keeping it so they can shoot the same gun in multiple classes .

Here's a novel Idea , make sporter any caliber below not a 22 or a 6mm change weight and stock dimensions also if you like. It doesn't matter what is suggested no change is going to happen.

Redundancy and stagnation of the classes will continue for convenience and to protect the possibility of shooting the exact same rifle in 3 or even 4 classes

Dick
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top