"New" sporter class....

Would that were so simple as just adding 6.5#. You may have noticed that one does not see so many rifles stocked to add 3# for HV. I believe that this is because there is more to making a HV than adding a weight to a LV/Sporter. Build a rifle that has the feature that you suggest and prove that it shoots as well as a rifle that is built to be balanced at the heavier weight, and then you will have more than conjecture stated as fact.

As to the implication that if one does not favor your suggestion as to how to broaden the participation in Benchrest, that one is insincere in ones intent to achieve that goal...pure retoric...and unconvincing. The people that are working toward that goal are taking the trouble to quietly mentor potential competitors and/or put on unsanctioned, club level score matches.

An aside for those that may not know...YO produces... slaves hard, to good effect, to produce an outstanding web site, that you may have already been to. 6mmBR.com. I consider him a good friend of great talent. We have had this argument several times before, and even though he lacks the vision to agree with me on this:D he is a fine fellow. Now , back to the subject at hand.

If one wanted to simply have the experience of shooting a match, with a non-conforming rifle. One could probably make arrangements to do so as long as the match director had been asked before hand, and there were some empty benches on one of the relays. One might even make conditional provision in the rules for that, without doing harm to the additional structure. Such things as caliber and muzzle break restrictions would probably be appropriate. I wouldn't want to shoot next to some monster magnum, or a muzzle break because of the problems that could happen if one doubled. Anyway, it is time to go to work. I will look at this later when I have more time.
 
bryan said:
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.
Click to expand...

First let me say you are never going to see the Sporter class replaced by a Factory or even a more specifically "Savage" class. Never gonna happen, as I stated a couple posts ahead you cannot even get most people to give up shooting their LV as a Sporter.

I agree Factory class is a good thing but making it a registered class is too restrictive. Currently Factory classes are run at the discretion of the hosting range and I believe this is the way it should stay. I personally do not believe any modifications beyond bedding and trigger work should be allowed but thats just my view. I do not desire to impose my restrictions on people in Texas or Michigan for instance where people have many different views on the subject. I have heard of ranges that allow custom barrels in Factory as long as they are a factory taper and factory offered chambering, they apparently have so many factory shooters they have a straight factory and a modified factory class that is great if it works in their area. So just let factory be a local thing it fits the situation at any given local range better that way.

Dick
 
Dick

I suspect that if you said a Sporter would be anything but a 22 or a 6mm, you would suddenly see some excellent 25 cal offerrings, or even 23 caliber,(not to mention the 30 cal),. Then, in a couple of years, all of the one Rifle shooters would be shooting one of those, and we would be right back where we started.

As has already been said, if it wasn't for the current Hall of Fame structure, based on the 4-Gun Format, we would probably only be shooting 3 classes now.

By the way, at this years Nationals, when the Sporters were put away, and the LV's uncased, how many shooters actually shot a true LV, instead of just continuing with their Sporter. Maybe we can get some data on that. Heck, if it was like Nationals of past, the vast majority simply shot a Sporter in HV as well.

In reality, what we really have is two classes. Unlimited, and Limited.
At most of our Region Shoots, when HV is on the agenda, 90 percent of the shooters are still shooting a 10.5 pound Sporter........jackie
 
jackie schmidt said:
I suspect that if you said a Sporter would be anything but a 22 or a 6mm, you would suddenly see some excellent 25 cal offerrings, or even 23 caliber,(not to mention the 30 cal),. Then, in a couple of years, all of the one Rifle shooters would be shooting one of those, and we would be right back where we started.

As has already been said, if it wasn't for the current Hall of Fame structure, based on the 4-Gun Format, we would probably only be shooting 3 classes now.

By the way, at this years Nationals, when the Sporters were put away, and the LV's uncased, how many shooters actually shot a true LV, instead of just continuing with their Sporter. Maybe we can get some data on that. Heck, if it was like Nationals of past, the vast majority simply shot a Sporter in HV as well.

In reality, what we really have is two classes. Unlimited, and Limited.
At most of our Region Shoots, when HV is on the agenda, 90 percent of the shooters are still shooting a 10.5 pound Sporter........jackie
Click to expand...

No we would not be right back where we started Jackie you are only thinking in one narrow avenue "what people are shooting" if people could not get superior results with their new say 25 cal sporters they would go back to shooting a 6PPC in the other classes and if they did get superior results we would have proven the 6PPC was not the ultimate. To me thats not right where we were. thats an advancement,

Dick
 
I have said this before I think it is possible that more than 50% of the shooters would like to see sporter changed but there are so many different thoughts on what it should be changed to that no one group has anywhere near enough support to make the change happen.

I must admit that changing it to a Savage Factory class is a new one on me. Nothing personal and just guestimating here I think this would be about the smallest faction as people who want 17 lb or different cal or even 9 pounds like they do down under will all agree (in my mind) that it be a full blown benchrest class with custom actions.

But these are just my own observations and feelings.

Dick
 
Dick

I think what I said came out wrong.

The reason I shoot a 6PPC now, and not a 22, is because for Registered Match Group Shooting, I do not care to fool around with two separate calibers. I would venture a guess that the vast majority of the shooters would feel the same way.

If "anything but a 22 or 6mm" in Sporter became the rule, and I found that a 25 would shoot just as good, (I used to shoot a 25BR), I would then simply shoot a 25 in all four classes. And, as things progressed, more shooters would probably do the same.

So, in 10 years, everybody would be saying, "we need to do something about Sporter, because everybody shoots a 25 cal Sporter in LV and HV.

In other words, simply substitute what ever caliber everybody would be shooting, and we would be right back where we are now. Everybody would be shooting a 25 cal Sporter, (instead of a 6mm Sporter), in LV, and even HV.

Now,if you made the rule that you must use some caliber that probably would never be competitive, (how about 35 caliber), or institued some rule in Sporter that would actually place it at a disadvantage, such as saying it could only weigh 9 pounds and have a 2 inch forearm width, (easy things to check), then those interested in competing in all four classes would be forced to build a true LV, or HV.

Maybe.......jackie
 
Last edited:
So at a time when the expense of this sport is claimed by many to be a severe deterrent to bringing new blood into our sport, not to mention how expensive it already is for us that do compete, some of you want to add more expense in the way of a new rifle just because you are bored with sporter class! That type of thinking to me is just unfathomable.

If I read the rules correctly and you want to "advance accuracy" you have miles of room in the Unlimited category to do what you want. Build your 17lb cruiser in 27.5 whizz bang special and show us dullards what accuracy is all about.

In regards to the Factory class, it fits ok at the club level and it a good idea but not at registered matches.

I also don't believe that any serious BR shooter said that they don't want any more competition at matches, that thinking defies logic. I have never been to a match where anyone said "Oh man, too many shooters are here".
 
-Yo- said:
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.
Click to expand...

I like the idea. :) -Al
 
Directors?

I'd still like to see a comment from some of those guys:rolleyes:

Sorry, Joe. I saw your post and didn't snap that you were a new Director. We really do need something to generate interest in the sport, and you have shown concern in that area. Good on you.
Bryan
 
Last edited:
Joe Krupa

Excellent Post. Many who are not involved in the Competitive end of Benchrest do not understant the constant experimenting that goes on all of the time within the current rules structure.

When you are shooting at the level that it takes to be successful in todays Competitive Arena, these seemingly "minor" changes can be the difference in agging at the top, or being in the middle of the pack.

I truly believe that we now have the Optics thing under controle. As you know, I have been using my own frozen scopes for going on four years, with a reasonable amount of success. Gene Bukys TSI System is also bullet proof. I have, though, just bought two 50x March Scopes, and they are now on my two Sporters. If they live up to the hype, the only problem shooters will have with optics is coming up with the cash to make the aquisition.

I personally am not too big on changing anything. Caliber restrictions are purely an artificial creation, though. Why should it matter what caliber a shooter chooses. We have come a long way since the Sporter Rules were initially introduced.

Many shooters keep talking about building interest in Benchrest. Well, how about this??. Challenge all of these shooters who are clamoring for "change' to put forth the effort to build a Rifle, perfect the tuning characteristics of the combination, practice, and then go out and shoot some "teen" aggs. Trust me, that will keep them quite busy for a while. They sure won't have much time too worry about change.

In fact, I agree with Stephen Perry. In the real world, LV is the bastard child, since only about one percent of all shooters even bother to shoot a "true" LV, which would be a 10.5 pound Rifle in caliber less than .230. Mybe you could get us some hard data on just how many shooters actually shot a LV in that class at this years Nationals, rather than just continuing with the Sporter.......jackie
 
Last edited:
Stephen Perry

I was director at the time of the Cruiser proposal. We had a Regional meeting at Phoenix and the overwhelming vote was against it so no agenda item was submitted. Don
 
For what it's worth, I would like to go on record as being in favor of leaving the rules as they are. I see nothing to be gained by changing the Sporter class rules. If it ain't broke, don't fix it, and it has been working very well for many, many years as it is. Lets spend our time searching for the secrets of extreme rifle accuracy.

Later,

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