D
Dave Shattuck
Guest
When the AGBR first came into existence I was the one who had initially stirred the pot that ended up bringing it into being. It’s a long story, which a lot of you are already familiar with, so I will spare you the details.
At that time the only reason I was not more instrumental with its creation was: even though I had over a decade of experience with running benchrest matches, I had absolutely no hands-on experience with airguns and only knew what I had read, which was just enough to tell me that the time had come to get things restart on a National level rather than just leaving it as happening only at the Club level.
Ever since its demise I have been analyzing, then reanalyzing the path we should now follow while getting this next generation of Airgun Benchrest set up. Over the years I have kept in contact with as many of those who are in the know from around the world as possible along with reading whatever I could regarding Airguns. And now because of all of your input as well, which I thank you for, I feel that I may have found a direction the majority of us would like to see followed in order to create “as level a playing field as possible”.
While pondering what to do next many of us have been lucky enough to be exposed to how the rest of the World does things after having rubbed elbows with some of the-best-of-the-best at these most resent WRABF World Championships in South Carolina. Because of this I have come to realize and full appreciate the importance of classifying everything by FPE and weight, and not just haphazardly create Classes by dividing everything up without a sound basis. Therefore, I am totally in favor of using the existing WRABF Rulebook and targets for our basis, then only change what is needed in order to better suit the needs of our shooters. So, now the question becomes: just how much do we need to change what is already in place?
In other posts we have been throwing around the idea of adding 3 more Classes: a Club level Springer Class, an Open Class and an Unlimited Class. And up until a few days ago I was thinking those were all good ideas. However, after stepping back and taking a look at where we are, and what we are thinking of creating, I am now thinking that maybe we would be going too far to fast if we were to indeed add all 3 Classes at this time.
Let’s take a look at the purpose of each Class and how adding them might, or might not better what is already in place.
(“CLUB”) SPRINGER CLASS: In the provisions already in place with the WRABF both the International Sporter Class and the LV Class have a place for Spring Powered guns. The argument was made that most shooters using Springers would probably be doing so as new shooters, and thus would not want to compete at this advanced level, and would want to shoot at more of a “Club” level. It is my contention that we do not need to add an entire Class just to suit the needs of so very few for two reasons:
1.) There will more than likely only be a one or two shooters, if that, per event, who will show up to compete in such a Class, and then only on a here-and-there basis
2.) Nothing is stopping any host club from allowing them to join in right along side those of us who are there competing in one of the already established Classes, and then to record their scores as being shot in a Club Springer Class.
If needed a Class could be added later on, but I doubt the demand would ever warrant one, so my vote is NO to adding a Springer Class.
UNLIMITED CLASS: The argument has been made that this Class would be where everything above and beyond what is currently allowed, including the Open Class, would fall, regardless of power or weight. We would also allow the use of one-piece rests and rail guns here. Up until recently I was making the argument for allowing .25 caliber guns in this Class as well. Plus, it was said that this Class would be a place where the experimenters amongst us could come and compete while they try to stretch the limits to the max. I don’t feel the place for experimentation is at the firing line during competition, so, here again. My vote is NO to adding an Unlimited Class.
OPEN CLASS: Now, to me this one makes sense! As we all know, under the current WRABF Rules the highest FPE allowed is 20fpe. In our country we are lucky enough to be able to enjoy FAC guns. The problem with limiting an entire sport down to a maximum of 20fpe while also allowing the ownership of FAC guns is that you immediately take away the majority of guns from competition. Several of us have either .20 or .22 caliber benchguns that we either don’t want to detune to that level, or find they loose their effectiveness once detuned, so we have chosen to leave them at their higher settings. By establishing an Open Class, this would give those shooters, the majority of shooters, a place to compete, but I still feel that we should:
1.) Limit the power to a max of 35fpe
2.) Keep the maximum weight the same as in the HV-B Class at 15# with all other rules applying from that Class. This should not be a determent as it is only being created for those who have either detuned their guns and want to turn the power back up, or for those who are using full-powered FAC’s and want to detune them as little as possible
MY VOTE IS YES TO CREATING AN OPEN CLASS.
Which brings me to my dilemma.
Over the past several months I have been openly campaigning for adding the .25 caliber into at least an Unlimited Class, if not the Open Class as well. The reason being: for the past few years one of the things that has kept jumping out at me is the fact that today’s .25’s are beginning to find their place amongst the high-end guns, plus there is now an abundance of quality, match-grade ammunition readily available that would allow this caliber to show its superiority if ever given a chance to compete. No matter what we do today I feel confident that the .25’s will soon need a place to compete as they very well could become the wave of the future in our sport. But, as much I as like the .25’s and have been advocating for allowing them, I have now come to realize that my stance probably isn’t the thing to do, at least not now. The reason is simple: as good as the .25’s may prove to be, they are the go-between between the .177's, .20's and .22's that we are now using, and the Big-Bore guns that we in no way want to combine into the mix. Therefore the .25’s really don't belong and will have to wait for another day.
All of the above is only my opinion and you are welcome to disagree.
Dave Shattuck
At that time the only reason I was not more instrumental with its creation was: even though I had over a decade of experience with running benchrest matches, I had absolutely no hands-on experience with airguns and only knew what I had read, which was just enough to tell me that the time had come to get things restart on a National level rather than just leaving it as happening only at the Club level.
Ever since its demise I have been analyzing, then reanalyzing the path we should now follow while getting this next generation of Airgun Benchrest set up. Over the years I have kept in contact with as many of those who are in the know from around the world as possible along with reading whatever I could regarding Airguns. And now because of all of your input as well, which I thank you for, I feel that I may have found a direction the majority of us would like to see followed in order to create “as level a playing field as possible”.
While pondering what to do next many of us have been lucky enough to be exposed to how the rest of the World does things after having rubbed elbows with some of the-best-of-the-best at these most resent WRABF World Championships in South Carolina. Because of this I have come to realize and full appreciate the importance of classifying everything by FPE and weight, and not just haphazardly create Classes by dividing everything up without a sound basis. Therefore, I am totally in favor of using the existing WRABF Rulebook and targets for our basis, then only change what is needed in order to better suit the needs of our shooters. So, now the question becomes: just how much do we need to change what is already in place?
In other posts we have been throwing around the idea of adding 3 more Classes: a Club level Springer Class, an Open Class and an Unlimited Class. And up until a few days ago I was thinking those were all good ideas. However, after stepping back and taking a look at where we are, and what we are thinking of creating, I am now thinking that maybe we would be going too far to fast if we were to indeed add all 3 Classes at this time.
Let’s take a look at the purpose of each Class and how adding them might, or might not better what is already in place.
(“CLUB”) SPRINGER CLASS: In the provisions already in place with the WRABF both the International Sporter Class and the LV Class have a place for Spring Powered guns. The argument was made that most shooters using Springers would probably be doing so as new shooters, and thus would not want to compete at this advanced level, and would want to shoot at more of a “Club” level. It is my contention that we do not need to add an entire Class just to suit the needs of so very few for two reasons:
1.) There will more than likely only be a one or two shooters, if that, per event, who will show up to compete in such a Class, and then only on a here-and-there basis
2.) Nothing is stopping any host club from allowing them to join in right along side those of us who are there competing in one of the already established Classes, and then to record their scores as being shot in a Club Springer Class.
If needed a Class could be added later on, but I doubt the demand would ever warrant one, so my vote is NO to adding a Springer Class.
UNLIMITED CLASS: The argument has been made that this Class would be where everything above and beyond what is currently allowed, including the Open Class, would fall, regardless of power or weight. We would also allow the use of one-piece rests and rail guns here. Up until recently I was making the argument for allowing .25 caliber guns in this Class as well. Plus, it was said that this Class would be a place where the experimenters amongst us could come and compete while they try to stretch the limits to the max. I don’t feel the place for experimentation is at the firing line during competition, so, here again. My vote is NO to adding an Unlimited Class.
OPEN CLASS: Now, to me this one makes sense! As we all know, under the current WRABF Rules the highest FPE allowed is 20fpe. In our country we are lucky enough to be able to enjoy FAC guns. The problem with limiting an entire sport down to a maximum of 20fpe while also allowing the ownership of FAC guns is that you immediately take away the majority of guns from competition. Several of us have either .20 or .22 caliber benchguns that we either don’t want to detune to that level, or find they loose their effectiveness once detuned, so we have chosen to leave them at their higher settings. By establishing an Open Class, this would give those shooters, the majority of shooters, a place to compete, but I still feel that we should:
1.) Limit the power to a max of 35fpe
2.) Keep the maximum weight the same as in the HV-B Class at 15# with all other rules applying from that Class. This should not be a determent as it is only being created for those who have either detuned their guns and want to turn the power back up, or for those who are using full-powered FAC’s and want to detune them as little as possible
MY VOTE IS YES TO CREATING AN OPEN CLASS.
Which brings me to my dilemma.
Over the past several months I have been openly campaigning for adding the .25 caliber into at least an Unlimited Class, if not the Open Class as well. The reason being: for the past few years one of the things that has kept jumping out at me is the fact that today’s .25’s are beginning to find their place amongst the high-end guns, plus there is now an abundance of quality, match-grade ammunition readily available that would allow this caliber to show its superiority if ever given a chance to compete. No matter what we do today I feel confident that the .25’s will soon need a place to compete as they very well could become the wave of the future in our sport. But, as much I as like the .25’s and have been advocating for allowing them, I have now come to realize that my stance probably isn’t the thing to do, at least not now. The reason is simple: as good as the .25’s may prove to be, they are the go-between between the .177's, .20's and .22's that we are now using, and the Big-Bore guns that we in no way want to combine into the mix. Therefore the .25’s really don't belong and will have to wait for another day.
All of the above is only my opinion and you are welcome to disagree.
Dave Shattuck
