William,
Thanks for the suggestion I will make sure it is presented to the group.
If you think of anything else please bring it forward.
TKH
Tony:
Which group are you speaking of?
Bruce
William,
Thanks for the suggestion I will make sure it is presented to the group.
If you think of anything else please bring it forward.
TKH
Tony:
Which group are you speaking of?
Bruce
A thought! How about the sporter weight being raised to 8.0 pounds and under, same stock widths as we currently have, 2.25", no forarm stock profile limitations (so long as the current rule of being able to lift the gun straight up and out of the front sand bag without resistance still applies) which will have to be STRICTLY enforced so as not to allow people to have rail guns, keep the same buttstock profile. Same old 6.5 power scope which makes the sporter the sporter, NOT THE WEIGHT OR THE STOCK PROFILE. There are many many sporters of today that will out shoot a number of heavy guns. Raising the sporter weight to 8.0 pounds and under would enable gunsmiths to build sporters that can have a variable power scope on them. Put a 6-24 power scope on your sporter and shoot it in all classes. Pretty easy, one gun. How cool would that be?
W
The group of four we formed at the meeting at the Nationals.
If you have any ideas please present them.
TKH
The group of four we formed at the meeting at the Nationals.
If you have any ideas please present them.
TKH
Alowing this last question, I will defer anything further and hopefully allow this to develop, but might I inquire as to a little further indormation as to the ,who, why, what, details you might share as to this "group of four"?
Thanks
Tony,
I'm pretty sure I remember correctly that the group you volunteered to form was tasked with reviewing the existing IR5050 rulebook to see if it could be simplified.
Has the rules review group morphed into something else? Sure sounds like it.
As a simple point of information, how many guys currently have sporters with variables ? There are a fair number out there.
That said, how many have you ever seen shot in the other classes ? I cannot recall anybody other than Mel Eck ever doing that and I have never heard of anybody talking about it as a possability.
I do not mean to shoot holes here but last thing that should be done is less than impactful change.
I don't think Dan ever had a sporter of mine.
One can have a good time without anyone but competing against a hundred guys is much more challenging than competing against one or two. It's the challenge that drives some, me included. I realize it doesn't drive everyone. That's why I'm reaching out for ideas.
Is there anything that would get you to attend a sporter National? I don't recall you ever attending one but if you have what would bring you back?
TKH
I would like to here opinions on the 275 scoring.
I am a realative new shooter, just finishing my 4th yr.
I have looked thru my matches this year and it would
for sure change the game somewhat.
In my opion it is a better overall method of measuring ones
performance. A little less dependant on ammo. I have not used
ammo that was capable of more xs but a high chance of a flyer.
In favor of ammo with more consitency but less flyers.
Anyone that has shot 50/50 knows the sinking feeling when one
misses their first target. The rest of the card seems like a waist
of effort and ammo.
I am thinking that the first tie breaker should be highest score,
not counting Xs, then first miss
I really would like to hear all sides of this.
Dean
This is a viable option. For example take a look at the 3 gun list. Travis Beste has shot his sporter only, in most of the matches. His heavy gun was not doing well so he
put a vari scope on. His results speak for themselves. It can be done.
Dean
p.s Oh to have young eyes again