This is precisely why this discussion is taking place amongst the wider group of F-T/R shooters. If the general consensus is that we keep the unlimited bullet weight (and it seems to be), you sure won’t see me submitting a rule change.

As a “concerned F-T/R participant”, feel free to express your opinion on the thread, your opinion is valued.

Best,

Darrell

At this point, any (hypothetical) proposed rules are 2 years away at the earliest. If proposed though, they should be submitted to both bodies in my opinion.

My thoughts of a 201 grain limit are for precisely that reason; lower hurdle for entry level shooters, while still leaving room for ‘tinkerers’ to experiment.

With the small F-Class targets, it’s mainly the shooter *regardless* of distance!

Best,

Darrell

I am disapointed in the “leadership” that feels it is alright to throw their weight around when decisions like this are made. This was put out there as a feeler and isn’t getting the intended feedback. You can bet this rule or a overall length rule will be in place within 2 years and it is not for the good of the sport.

F-Class is going the way of the IDPA/IPSC split when decisions like this are made. Our worst enemy is ourselves. The choice to eliminate 600 yards from Nationals for 2012 effectively exluded over half of F-Class shooters in the US. Self interests are the driving factor of new rules and the growth of the overall sport is not even in the discussion.

This is the fastest growing shooting sport in the US and its a shame that we are willing to jepordize that because of a few influential people want things their way.

There are/were two classes in Canada and I think that is a stupid idea.

I think the rules should strike a balance between allowing entry level shooters a chance with an off-the-shelf Savage, and still allowing experienced shooters the option to push things.

Personally, beyond 500, it is all about the shooter regardless of WHAT you shoot, so I could care less. Above all, keep the sport achievable for new shooters.