F-TR Bullet weight poll

H

Hambone

Guest
With the arms race now pushing competing in F-TR ever more sky high.Should the old max bullet weight ruling be reinstated?

"Darrell Buell, Captain of F-TR Team USA, has started a discussion about permitted bullet weights in F-TR competition"

"Darrell writes: “In order to run the uber-heavies, you will be required at a minimum to get a gunsmith to re-cut at least the throat of your chamber, then you are stuck with a tiny number of projectiles that will work in the rifle. People that want to be competitive will feel compelled to drop the expense of modifying their rifles, and not have any guarantee that their mods will turn out to be effective. We will have strayed from our successful initial model for F-T/R, as a class for ‘shooter vs. shooter’ competition, and be marching down the road that you must have a $5000 custom to be remotely competitive.” As the result, Darrell has proposed an F-TR rule change that would limit the max weight of permitted .308-caliber bullets to “less than 201 grains”."

http://bulletin.accurateshooter.com...m-poll-on-proposed-f-tr-bullet-weight-limits/

I voted C. Limit max bullet weight to 156 grains or less.

How else do we expect the discipline to remain attractive to all shooters rather than just those with the deepest pockets?
 
Wish they had a ballot spot to vote against the use of 155/156's.
Only thing I see corrupting the class is the 155/156 lobbyists...........
 
dmoran65 said:
Wish they had a ballot spot to vote against the use of 155/156's.
Only thing I see corrupting the class is the 155/156 lobbyists...........
Click to expand...

So you prefer a playing field with a definate list/slant/tilt as defined in Buells OP?
 
Not at all.
I'm simply in favour of returning the whole thing back to a level playingfield. Where things are as equal as they can be made to be. Which AFAIUI was the original idea behind the creation of F-TR in the first place following the head long dash for the cash expenditure that has occured in F-Class.

People always lobby. As long as those that lobby do so in the quest for equality for all. I see nothing wrong with it. Where as those that would lobby to maintain or increase the tilt in the playing field have to be questioned as to their motives.
 
Hambone -

I personally don't care what bullets anyone shoots.......

Here is a REAL LIFE example why the 155/156's are NOT the big money saving equalizer that some people lobby:
I am currently helping a friend get a gun ready to compete with. It will be for F-TR and F-Open. Doing it on a low budget to what he can afford.
It is a Rem-700 SPS Tactical AAC-SD (20" factory barrel) and these are the modifications thus far:
- Stock replaced (Rosse)
- Pillar bedded
- Action trued (SSG)
- Bolt re-timed and handle replaced (SSG)
- Recoil-lug replaced and pinned (SSG)
- Trigger reworked and adjusted to around 1-lb
- Barrel lapped (before it was ever fired)

Letting him come to my place to reload his ammo, and giving him the best advice and accuracy secrets I've learned in my +10yrs of competing.
Using 155/156 can't get bullet stability at 1000yds with out a super hot maxed out load.
Using 168-AMax, 175-SMK, 185-VLD no problem getting to 1000yds from good pressure signed loads.
Even though it is just a factory barrel, we have the 185's shooting 5-shot groups under 10" at 1000 in kind winds.

You and I both know his 20" factory barrel is to short to get the speed needed for the 155/156's to make 1000 effectively.
With that said, how are the 155/156's going to save him money?
Now if the rule was implemented to your 156-max, guess what, you just costed this NEW shooter $500 for a 30" barrel and a chamber job.
But as is, he can make 1000 effectively from heavier higher BC bullets and shot the he!! out of the factory barrel until he decides and can afford to replace it.

My vote - leave the rules alone, they are working as is !!!
Donovan Moran
 
Last edited:
I have read all of the post on this subject on here as well as on Accurate Shooter.com. These type of scenarios come up from time to time in all disciplines of shooting. I remember one that ran for page after page here on Benchrest Central not too long ago. Oh! the subject matter changes from thread to thread but the outcome is usually the same. Hard feelings, shooters swearing off the sport complettly, friends that sometimes never speak to each other again. And for what? A pissing contest becuase someone comes up with the new rule to once again return the sport---what ever sport--- back to its intended purpose. And oh yea! make it a "Level" playing field for all shooters.

I view these topics from a philosophical point of view. So since this just may be a philosophical discussion lets talk a little Philosophy. At some point in time folks are going to come to the logical conclusion that there is nothing fair about life. Not as long as some are old and some are young as an example. Another good example would be as long as some folks are smart and some are dumber than a pile of rocks.

How do you ever make the playing field "level"? Never as long as the following events of nature run their course.

Having a relay where an 18 year old Boy or Girl with their, 18 year old vision, reflexes, strength, flexibility, and all of the other things that you have when you are 18. Shoots against an elderly, insert age here _______, who has vision, reflexes, strength or lack of same and all of the other ailments, aches, pains, inflexibility and other myriad of complaints and complications that come with being "Older than Dirt".

Then lets move on to "Wind Reading Skills" or maybe the guy who is willing to spend hours on the range perfecting his shooting technique, that can't be fair and level to all shooters now can it? I mean there will always be the shooter who goes to the range once a month to shoot a match. Don't we need to be fair and level to those cats too? Maybe we need to give an exam before every match just on wind reading, pass with a "C-" have a good day and win the match--"Oh sorry there Pal but you are disqualified because you shot above your wind reading ability according to your exam results". How's that going to work????

Or maybe just to make it a level playing field, let's have every shooter shoot the same rifle and the same ammo. I mean it's going to take a while to get the 52 shooters that show up for the random F/TR match with but one rifle through the day, but what the hell it will be A Level Playing Field. But wait a minute would that be Fair and Level? No probably not as the guy who shots first will have the smallest round count on the barrel, thats not Level. Oh me oh my what do we do now..........

Roland
 
Hambone this is America the playing field is fair. If you want anyone can work extra or hard enough to afford the gun they want. In sailing there is a factory class where everyone sails the same kind of boat. Mostly entry level and fun but as soon as most can afford to they move on to a custom high tech rig .If you want to lobby for a factory FTR class then have at it. The main difference between Palma and FTR is the scope. Do you want a rule you can't use a March. Not much interest in FClass around this forum.Try a poll on limiting bullets 1000 rd benchrest class and see the results. Did you notice the results of the poll over 6BR? Did you vote for Obama?

Stephen
 
Roland

I did say "Where things are as equal as they can be made to be".
 
This is a fix looking for a problem, NOT a problem looking for a fix. As a matter of FACT there very well may not be a problem at all. A simple question I believe sorts this out. Are the " Uber Heavies" ( wonder who coined that definition ?) winning or dominating F/TR now? Have they even won a single event? If they are so great and such a huge threat that it requires a rule change why have they not shot even one clean relay? Since this has never been done in F/TR is the threat "Really" there?

The way I see it this rule change is NOT about being "Fair" and having a "Level" playing field for all of the shooters of F/TR. It is about those wanting to change the rules having any advantage they can get over all of those shooters shooting F/TR, at least so in there eyes. That is were any exclusionary rule goes and its purpose in the first place to excluded something. In this case they are trying to exclude a problem only they see, and only they seem to be threatened by.

Roland
 
Hombre0321 said:
This is a fix looking for a problem, NOT a problem looking for a fix. As a matter of FACT there very well may not be a problem at all. A simple question I believe sorts this out. Are the " Uber Heavies" ( wonder who coined that definition ?) winning or dominating F/TR now? Have they even won a single event? If they are so great and such a huge threat that it requires a rule change why have they not shot even one clean relay? Since this has never been done in F/TR is the threat "Really" there?

The way I see it this rule change is NOT about being "Fair" and having a "Level" playing field for all of the shooters of F/TR. It is about those wanting to change the rules having any advantage they can get over all of those shooters shooting F/TR, at least so in there eyes. That is were any exclusionary rule goes and its purpose in the first place to excluded something. In this case they are trying to exclude a problem only they see, and only they seem to be threatened by.

Roland
Click to expand...

Roland

I think some of the opening comments in Darrels post from the link in my OP goes soem way to answering you..

"In my opinion, F-T/R branched off of F-Open for a reason; people wanted a 'limited' equipment version of the game, that wouldn't bankrupt them paying for new barrels 2-3x per year. Basically it would be something that would be more of a NASCAR, vs. the top fuel dragsters that F-Open trends towards."

"Now, with a new crop of *very* efficient 'uber-heavy' bullets coming on line (215 grain, 230 grain, etc.), the level playing field has developed a bit of a list..."

I realise that people POV with be determined by which touchline of the tilted playing field they happen to be stood on. I'm very much on the "limited" equipment/cost line. To not be gets away from the very reason why F-TR came about.
 
Hambone,

We are just going to have to agree to disagree on this. You are never going to convince me of your point of view, as a matter of fact I see this as a big set-back in a lot more ways than one. It will not reduce cost, it will ad cost to the new shooter. Hopefully not so much to keep them from shooting but that certainly will be the case for some. It does absolutly nothing to make the playing field Fair and Level, nor is it intended to accomplish that in the first place.

We are just at loggerheads on this, and that Hambone is probably the best thing to come from this discussion. We should not "ALL" agree on anything, no matter the subject. Opinions and especially different opinions are almost always a good thing.

Normally at this point I would wish you luck with this debate, however in this case I just cannot do that as I personally feel that this change would be a bad thing for F/TR.........

Roland
 
As my old Aussie rugger playing mates would say. "No worries Roly, lets go down a few stubbies"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top