Proposed FT/R Bullet Weight Limits

dev110

I have just seen that Darrell Buell is proposing limiting the bullet weight to 201 grains or 156 grains

Do you think this will level the playing fields more or will it restrict things to much?

Article on Accurate Shooter

tomcat220t

dev110 wrote: »

I have just seen that Darrell Buell is proposing limiting the bullet weight to 201 grains or 156 grains

Do you think this will level the playing fields more or will it restrict things to much?

Article on Accurate Shooter

Does Darrell shoot for team savage ?

dev110

I'm pretty sure he still does.

Why you ask?

tomcat220t

dev110 wrote: »

I'm pretty sure he still does.

Why you ask?

With a stock savage rifle ?
What twist are they ?
Makes sence he/they might want to keep weights down a bit

dev110

They are a 1-12 twist.
The Berger 185gr Hybrids are all the rage now though.

There isn't that many this side of the water that would use over 200 gr.
I know the Americans like 208gr A-Max

Also if it was limited to 156gr it wouldn't make much sense to have palma then.

tac foley

Just when you think you are getting the hang of it, along comes an apple-cart upsetter.

As dev110 notes- limiting the bullet to 156gr would render the Palma Match [shot with a 155gr bullet] superfluous.

As ever with a technologically-dependent sport, money talks, and lots of money just talks louder.

tac

It wasn't me!

dev110 wrote: »

They are a 1-12 twist.
The Berger 185gr Hybrids are all the rage now though.

There isn't that many this side of the water that would use over 200 gr.
I know the Americans like 208gr A-Max

Also if it was limited to 156gr it wouldn't make much sense to have palma then.

Palma's a sling and irons discipline though. Not exactly comparable in that sense.

tomcat220t

dev110 wrote: »

They are a 1-12 twist.
The Berger 185gr Hybrids are all the rage now though.

There isn't that many this side of the water that would use over 200 gr.
I know the Americans like 208gr A-Max

Also if it was limited to 156gr it wouldn't make much sense to have palma then.

My point is, Darrel looking to limit the weight of the .308 rounds to 200gr ...right on the limits the factory SAVAGE ftr rifles !
There is a clear ballistic advantage to running the 200-230gr rounds ,even thought they are much slower .
They way i see it ,putting a cap on the bullet weights would keep SAVAGE in the game on sales of their rifles .....cant see shooters agreeing to that :rolleyes:.

dev110

Fair enough Palma is shot with sling and irons but then we might as well have Palma and Palma TR or something like that

dev110

I don't see shooters agreeing to it either tbh.

fish slapped

With the amount of r&d, advertising and staff involved in producing bergers new hybrids which mark litt has said works best with heavier bullets, not to mention vld's, and other manufacturers such as Sierra, hornady and lapua ... With all the cost and time involved , i can't see one shooter, no matter who he is, dictating to the manufacturers ...

I use 155 gr scenar's , but can definitely see the advantage of the heavier loads...

Cass

I would be opposed to this "suggestion".

Every sport develops as it progresses. I would like to know myself what the reasons behind his suggestion is. The comments above about factory Savage rifles seem to be a factor. Having shot 155 up to 200gr in my Savage i know that she is almost beyond her limits using the 200s.

My other concern would be the "spliting" of the sport. Those that wish to continue to use heavier rounds will break off from the main body, and over the coming years you would see a multitude of new disciplines being introduced. Such as FTR heavy, FTR sporter, FTR light, FTR palma, etc, etc.

The concept of an "arms race" is a little OTT. People will still use custom rifles irrespective of the bullet. So if they cannot use heavier bullets they will find something else to work on, and the issue will appear again in a few years, and then another suggestion will be proposed to limit stock design, barrel weight, bipod design, etc, etc.

If it's not broken why fix it?

dev110

Looking at the polls on Accurate Shooter and Snipers Hide there isn't enough support for the proposed change.

This is probably the best for the sport as Ezri was saying it could/would cause a splitting of FT/R into different classes.

Cass

I'm after reading through the discussion about the subject, and a few things stood out to me.

Firstly, they say the reason for this proposed change is so newcomers to the sport can start with a factory rifle, and not have to spend thousands on new barrels, etc. My first thought here is there is nothing to stop a person running a factory rifle from the off. They simply have to use a bullet suited to the twist rate of the rifle or vice versa, and buy a rifle suited to the type of bullet they wish to use.

This leads on to the second point. The other focus seems to be on the advantages of the uber heavies over the lighter 155s/155.5s. I can say from experience that a fast 155/155.5 (3050 - 3100fps) will have little difference in drift than a slower running heavy bullet (2600 - 2800). Now the heaviest i've shot are 200gr so i cannot speak for the new 210 - 230 gr bullets, but as the size/weight of the bullet increases the speed decreases. I see in the thread that one poster actually gives a drift scale for different bullets. Even from 155 to 185 there is a difference so a cap of 200 seems pointless.

Thirdly, as said above, the onus to upgrade and run the heavy bullets is on the shooter. No one is forcing them to do this, and if they can afford to run heavy bullets, and the rifles/barrels needed then more power to them. In a few years maybe heavies will be the new 155.5s and rifle manufacturers will produce rifles with longer throats to accommodate these rounds/bullets.

Lastly throughout all this debate one thing to be aware of, as a poster did on that thread, that this applies to the NRA in America. They can impose such rule changes for their own shoots, but unless sanctioned/adopted by ICFRA (International Confederation of Fullbore Rifle Associations) then it will only apply to America. Meaning if the rule was adopted by them (NRA), they would shoot against similar rifles/shooter in national comps, but when it comes to international ones they would be back to "square one" when they face shooters from other countries that continued to shoot heavier bullets.

I applaud Darrel for trying to further things, and on that note to any shooter that thinks or sees an opportunity to further, improve, help the sport. As he said himself though it's only a discussion among shooters, and will not be an issue for serious debate for a minimum of 18 months to 2 years. So for now i can only say to keep and eye on it, see if it "passes" and then what repercussions it might cause for shooters from other countries.

dev110

The more read about it the more I wonder why he has proposed this idea.

It does seem to be a promo for Savage rifles.

What factory rifle offers a competitive platform for FTR? Savage
What weights do they shoot? 155 - ~200gr

Like you say it is up to the shooter to run heavies. I still don't see why he wants to restrict FTR to bullet weight. Some posts I have read would suggest that if this goes through then it will lead to more like bipods, scopes, etc restrictions.

I always taught it was a FTR was a close sport that tested ammo and shooters skills as mostly all shooters use .308

Cass

I haven't read the entire thread, but towards the first few pages there was talk of another rule imposed by the NRA that was simply introduced without much if any consultation with the shooters. So in his own words it's a "preemptive strike" to avoid any shock or upset. However i would wonder if talk of such limitations were already being discussed or will this discussion spurn debate among the NRA to impose limitations.

That aside while his affiliation to Savage is no secret and the limitations would most definitely keep Savage factory rifles competitive(against custom rifles running heavies) there are other brands that fit the same bill. Mid range shooting is very popular in the states with 300 - 600 being shot regularly. In Ireland we concentrate more on the longer ranges, but realistically there is nothing to stop a mid range league being run. However another point that has me thinking is a comment about shooting heavies at mid to short ranges. They are usually less "effective" than the lighter bullets at any distance under 600 yards. With factory rifles not being built to accommodate heavies these factory rifles would be better at these distances since they use lighter bullets.

A good few posts said that if the top shooters were forced to use "rimfires" they would still win, and they might very well be right. The main reason he suggested this is to keep the playing field level/even. So that a new shooter would have as much chance as an experienced shooter. However the experienced lads will always be better so it really does come down to the "nut behind the butt". I suppose at some point a new shooter will gain the experience, and "catch up" on the experienced lads as they cannot progress further because of the limitations. So to that end it might be a good thing, but again when it comes to international comps. i still believe if the heavier bullets prove to be a better bullet than lighter ones or those in the limitation band they could be putting themselves at a disadvantage.

To be honest i'm still trying to get my head around both sides of this. There seems to be far more against these proposals than for.

dev110

Although mid range is popular in the US this year they got rid of the 600 yard match in the Nationals and as a result it was only shot at 1000 yards. This did not sit well with a lot of people as with the 600 they felt like they had a chance to gain points before they hit the 1000 mark.

I agree that the heavies wouldn't be much use at short/mid range as they are still stabilising.

Heavy bullets will give you more room for error.
There is a difference between 155's and 200's.
155 Berger Hybrid: BC: 0.483
200 Berger Hybrid: BC: 0.624

IRLConor

Perhaps there's a gap in the market for another F Class variant? Stock factory rifles only, more conventional bipods, factory ammo only (in a fixed range of bullet weights if they want), and so on.

Beginners and more casual shooters would have a easier entry point into F Class shooting. This is good for them, but it's good for F-TR and F-Open shooters too since they would have a wider pool of talent to recruit from.

I'm sure the larger rifle manufacturers would like it as well, since it would give them a chance to show off their products on a more level playing field.

It would accomodate more shooters without having to change the essential character of F-TR. If it took off, great. If it didn't, then I think it would have demonstrated a lack of desire among F-Class shooters to move in that direction. Either way, it would be healthy for the sport.

Cass

While i understand your point i see a "flaw" in that. If it were for novices or new comers ONLY then yes it could, and would work. However there are already entry level programs for FTR in place. If it were not limited to beginners then i guarantee you that putting a raw beginner in with the likes of Stan Pate, Darrell Buell, Monty, etc would produce the same outcome.

These men are top of their game. I see them beating custom rifles/lads with factory rifles as is.

While change is always inevitable sometimes it is not for the best. How long before a split is split again, then again, until you are left with pockets of shooters of various disciplines that cannot or do not possess the numbers to compete on an international scale. It could work in the states and perhaps some European countries, but in Ireland, and other countries where the sport is still new, and numbers taking part are still very low such division would all but kill any international ability to compete.


I must stress i'm not trying to pick holes in the idea or saying it should be binned, but what works for one does not always represent the best interests of others. The midlands have introduced the F-Class development squad. It is a platform for novice/new shooters to use factory rifles, factory ammo, even hunting styled rifles to get into F-Class. There has been a good response to it, but numbers pale in comparison to other European countries in term s of total number of shooters both new, and experienced.

I suppose all that can be done for now is to wait and see what the outcome or majority believe to be the right course of action. As Darrell said many times nothing will be done immediately and at a minimum nothing for 18 months. Even then it's only the states. See what happens, see if numbers have increased, and because one country takes this on does not mean others must unless directed to by ICFRA. If all this were to happen then it would need to be re-examined, but until then, while there is no harm debating the point, i think it has little to no effect on some countries, and definitely not Ireland.