Sporter Class NBRSA

J

James A. Kelbly

New member
Having shot the last two Nationals, I was looking at how many NEW Sporters were on the line. NOT ONE, same ole LV rifles being shot in Sporter. I heard of ONE person making a experimental Sporter now that rules allow it, ONE. But let me ask, what really can you do or why would you change when the weight stayed same as LV and 10.5 lbs. The Sporter needs to be changed on the weight, so that more people will experiment. Yes I know Gene Bukys was a big influence in getting Sporter changed, but he sure isn't changing with the way he has been shooting, same with Costa and other top shooters. Look at the aggs from Phoenix, why would anyone change unless there could be a advantage in building new rifle that could agg smaller. Yes it was a big deal when the change to Sporter was announced, but NO ONE has changed.

I feel that the Sporter class should be changed to a heavier weight, this would allow more experimentation. 15 lb or 17 lbs or whatever that would give a guy a chance to try new ideas and not build same ole thing. Plus if you did a weight change to say 17 lbs, we might pick up a few F class shooters from FTR class that is 17 lbs, especially since they now shoot 300 yards as one of their distances. It might bring in more shooters, something that is definetly needed in short range BR shooting.

Has anyone out there tried to build a experimental Sporter, if so how did it go, if not, why not?

Jim
 
James A. Kelbly said:
I feel that the Sporter class should be changed to.... It might bring in more shooters, something that is definetly needed in short range BR shooting.
Click to expand...

Jim, why don't you pass along your thoughts to the folks who host the largest short-range BR match in the world -- maybe someone there will implement your thoughts. :)
 
cute, really cute

actually jim could announce a class FOR THE SS ONLY WITH SOME PRIZES.
no rifles under 14lbs allowed. so no two class short range br guns.

Hunter said:
Jim, why don't you pass along your thoughts to the folks who host the largest short-range BR match in the world -- maybe someone there will implement your thoughts. :)
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If your talking about Super Shoot no pull there!!!

The Super Shoot is a non registered match with any association that shoots 10.5lb and 13.5lb and now the Unlimited class. Which adding the unlimited class will allow the experimental Sporter rifles. So we have handled that issue here.

If the Sporter weight was increased, possibly many of the ole unlimited cruiser rifles may come out of mothballs with little costs to the owners. Definitely more shooters would try to build experimental Sporter if weight was increased and their standard LV would possibly have hard time beating the new rifles.

This game obviously needs new life and shooters as 114 shooters at NBRSA Nationals is very disappointing especially when held at one of the best run ranges in the country.

Jim
 
Sport Class

I am not able financially to build different guns at the drop of the hat. I am in favor of those that can and those who have the ability to experiment on those guns. I am also in favor of a fare playing field. I compete with a 10.5 lb. sporter against the HV. My choice to do this was based on how many guns I can afford and I compete well on this basis. If we allow a change in the weight of the sporter class to lets say 17 lbs. then we are not talking about a 3 lb. difference, now its a 6.5 lb. difference. Where does that put those that shoot a 10.5 lb gun. Are there still going to be matches that have a three gun agg. (10.5 lb. LV, 13.5 lb. HV and a 17 lb. SP)? Or matches that combine LV with SP as a two gun match? If the goal is to increase membership, then this should be looked at from all view points and not just from the view point of those that can afford to build superior guns. I think that the changes that were put in place back in 2012 to the sporter class had this very thought in mind and I voted for those changes. Bruce
 
James A. Kelbly said:
Having shot the last two Nationals, I was looking at how many NEW Sporters were on the line. NOT ONE, same ole LV rifles being shot in Sporter. I heard of ONE person making a experimental Sporter now that rules allow it, ONE. But let me ask, what really can you do or why would you change when the weight stayed same as LV and 10.5 lbs. The Sporter needs to be changed on the weight, so that more people will experiment. Yes I know Gene Bukys was a big influence in getting Sporter changed, but he sure isn't changing with the way he has been shooting, same with Costa and other top shooters. Look at the aggs from Phoenix, why would anyone change unless there could be a advantage in building new rifle that could agg smaller. Yes it was a big deal when the change to Sporter was announced, but NO ONE has changed.

I feel that the Sporter class should be changed to a heavier weight, this would allow more experimentation. 15 lb or 17 lbs or whatever that would give a guy a chance to try new ideas and not build same ole thing. Plus if you did a weight change to say 17 lbs, we might pick up a few F class shooters from FTR class that is 17 lbs, especially since they now shoot 300 yards as one of their distances. It might bring in more shooters, something that is definetly needed in short range BR shooting.

Has anyone out there tried to build a experimental Sporter, if so how did it go, if not, why not?

Jim
Click to expand...

Jim, at the Nationals in Phoenix, several of us asked the same question. I did not see one Rifle on the line Tuesday Morning or Friday Morning deliberately built to take advantage of the rule changes in Sporter.

Everybody was shooting what amounted to a legal Light Varmint.

The only one I have seen personally is one built by our Region Director, Scott Hunter. He had it at Denton. It was rather unremarkable. He nicknamed it "the Hammerhead" because of the 5 inche wide front of the forearm. After a couple of groups, we all agreed that "Platypus" was more fitting.:D

Most short range Benchrest Shooters understand that what makes a winning combination has little to do with stock width, barrel taper, or any other aspects of the new rules. It's still all about barrels, (the inside), bullets, tuning, rock solid scopes and, I would say, great actions.

I'm not sure more weight would increase the interest. In truth, shooters just might pull out their HV if they have one. The hassle of having to carry around another rest, (or top), and rear bag doesn't seem to be worth the hassle.

But I agree with you assessment, more weight would allow more of what the change in the rule was implemented for, that being more experimentation.

To add to your inquiry. I wonder how many shooters went to the line Wednesday and Saturday morning, when we shot Heavy Varmint, with the same Rifle they shot in LV and Sporter?

I would bet 90 %.
 
Last edited:
Bruce,

Yes they changed the Sporter to something that nobody has changed too, so what good was the change. If the Sporter was changed to 17 lbs (or something heavier than 13.5 lbs) more experimentation would happen. And you could still use your 10.5lb rifle in Sporter, so no effect to you or your wallet if you do not choose to build heavier Sporter. Sporter was changed to experiment and NO ONE has!!!!!!!! So it is same ole LV rifle we have been shooting for 40 plus years.

Did you know the original Sporter class, you had to use 6x scope only. Eventually it got changed to a LV standard that you had to use .235 or larger caliber, they did that to get more calibers than 22 or 30 caliber. It was for experimentation and it helped develop the 6mm which is now King in short range BR. Changing Sporter to heavier weight could develop the next latest and greatest BR thing and maybe also the rest of the shooting world. As it stands now no new changes from Sporter class. Experimentation is not done by everyone as most in this game play follow the leader, hence the reason no one is building 10.5lb experimental Sporters as they can not do much changes at that weight limit.

Also, maybe the attendance problem in short range br is from the fact, it is same ole thing for past 40 years, people love to tinker and experiment. We see it everyday in other shooting disciplines that are growing in attendance.

Jim
 
James A. Kelbly said:
This game obviously needs new life and shooters as 114 shooters at NBRSA Nationals is very disappointing especially when held at one of the best run ranges in the country.
Click to expand...

James A. Kelbly said:
...maybe the attendance problem in short range br is from the fact, it is same ole thing for past 40 years.
Click to expand...

Jim, my suspicion is that travel time and cost is a major deterrent to attendance. Phoenix is 1,900 miles, one way, from me; heck, I wouldn't go that far to watch Alabama beat Ohio State. :)
 
Hunter,

Your right you would drive 1900 miles to see OSU whip on The Tide. What was score last time we played!!!!!!!!!!!! Phoenix used to have 240 at Cactus and Nationals both. Stagnation could be BR short ranges biggest problem.

Jim
 
BUT IBS EXPECTS western shooters to drive that far for their ANNUAL MEETING!

Hunter said:
Jim, my suspicion is that travel time and cost is a major deterrent to attendance. Phoenix is 1,900 miles, one way, from me; heck, I wouldn't go that far to watch Alabama beat Ohio State. :)
Click to expand...
 
Jim,
I believe the credo of the NBRSA says something like "In the interest of EXTREME accuracy". So if the introduction of a "17 lb" sporter will accomplish this I am all for it. But, I also feel that we already have a class for this, as you have stated, and that is the unlimited class. You mention that the attendance at the "big matches" is down. I agree with a previous post that the cost to attend these matches is just beyond some of us. If your post was about boosting membership I would ask when was the last time you or any other member took a new shooter out to their home range and introduced them to this wonderful sport of ours. If your post was about experimentation of new shooting equipment I would remind you of the new tuners, new triggers, etc...that have come of lately. I am not trying to argue, I just disagree with your proposal. By the way, I did know about the background of the original "experimental" sporter class. Bruce
 
Since the idea seems to be to encourage innovation, why not adopt that subject to muzzle blast, and brass flinging issues, that if there are slots available in a relay, that shooters can run what they brung, as long as it is safe and shot from sand bags. Of course they could not expect to be competing for class prizes, but they would be able to see how their rig did under the same conditions. If someone comes up with something that works, nothing would keep a bunch of them from putting together their own statistics, and if there were enough interest perhaps a class change would be an option. IMO this would give some room for grass roots innovation without threatening what is already in place. For smaller matches, if the experimental shooters were only shooting that, it would increase match revenues, and allow shooters a taste before investing.
 
Jim you have access to a pretty good workshop. With all due respect what does your new sporter look like?
 
Future Sporter, 17.5# so we can use our 600 yard frame to build a heavy honker on. Unlimited stock design, simply just keep the 2-piece rest/ We need another challenge without adding too much to the junk we already tote.

I found out in the 2016 Super Shoot when I had to leave my camper in West Bygawd and transfer enough junk to the rental van I had to get to make do.

.
 
Last edited:
I thought a sporter was some thing you could carry in the field. Maybe we are going the wrong way weight wise 8# limit sounds right. Lets see what we can get out of a hunting type rifle.
My two cents
Brush
 
My new Sporter, you obviously are not paying attention, WHAT CAN YOU BUILD BETTER AT 10.5 LBS, I would not waste my time trying to build new Sporter as you have no room to do anything new. A 10.5lb rifle means to do anything new with stock or barrel you have to suffer on the barrel or stock to make something new and this would decrease accuracy.

Someone else asked when last time I introduced someone to BR shooting, well yesterday would be the answer. I did not have the guy come out and shoot but I spent an hour with a possible newbie from another state and he is looking serious into shooting BR now. I also travel the country displaying our products and a BR rifle is ALWAYS on display and I am always promoting short range benchrest as well as other shooting disciplines. I was born and raised in this sport and I will die promoting BR shooting it is in my blood.

Bob brought upa lighter class, I could go for that as well as this would eliminate a LV rifle being used in Sporter and could bring in more shooters via hunting rifles. I could see that. It will more and likely not see much more experimatation but if it brings in new shooters I am for that.

I do not wish anyone to get upset, I am just disappointed in where short range BR shooting is, as far as numbers of shooters. I want to see us remain viable for the clubs and the competitors. Now for anyone thinking this is about business for me, short range BR shooting is less than 5% of our business and we are busier than ever. This is personal for me.

I just noticed we changed the Sporter to encourage experimentation and I see nothing getting built different than intended and I believe it is due to weight restriction. This is my opinion and after last nights election, I am still allowed to have an opinion. GO TRUMP

Jim
 
Camel's nose under the tent

Jim, I agree with your suggestion that a further change in the sporter class is necessary. My guess is that a change in the weight would not have passed the board at the time the class was modified. Now that we have removed many restrictions on the sporters perhaps it is time to go further. Our sport's rules do not, in general, change radically but now that the camel's nose is under the tent perhaps we can get a hump inside. Tim
 
Bob Brushingham said:
I thought a sporter was some thing you could carry in the field. Maybe we are going the wrong way weight wise 8# limit sounds right. Lets see what we can get out of a hunting type rifle.
My two cents
Brush
Click to expand...

Competitive Benchrest, as represented by The NBRSA, has absolutly nothing to do with Hunting.

In fact, we sacrifice all other parameters of Rifle performance in search of the best agging capability of the Rifle at the yardages we compete.

Many of us are not even "Gun People", as most would define that term. The Rifle, to many, is simply the tool with which we use to compete.

A good analogy is a NHRA Pro Stock Car as compared to my wife's Caddy. Both are "cars". But one, the Caddy, serves the function that automobiles were designed to do. The Pro Stocker, however, sacrifices all other parameters of automobile design and performance for one thing, covering the 1/4 mile in the quickest time possible.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top