The UK's Finest Independent Forum for Shooters and Gun Owners. Est 2010.

Gaz wrote: This smells a bit like a cynical move from Enfield owners who don't want to compete against anything else in case they lose.

It comes from the NRA Gaz, not the 62 Enfield owners who competed last time. If owners of foriegn service rifles feel so aggrieved they should enter the comp to prove a point!

I hope a few do. Its a fun match! Come on Gaz join me foreign class...you still need to settle the score after the 200 yard standing at SAW.

As I understand it when the SR matches were initially run the SR(a) and SR(b) classes were only for Enfields as they were the firearms the British used at the time and the CoFs required a 10 round magazine. Foreign rifles didn't get a look-in as they weren't available to the British and Commonwealth troops shooting the matches.

It has nothing to do with the Enfield owners now, in fact the last match had SR(a) and SR(b) as one class (No1 users were at a disadvantage with the shorter sight radius compared to the No4's) and foreign rifles as another. Issues did arise as some of those with rifles holding less than 10 round wanted the timings changed to accommodate reloading.

Mattnall wrote:As I understand it when the SR matches were initially run the SR(a) and SR(b) classes were only for Enfields as they were the firearms the British used at the time and the CoFs required a 10 round magazine. Foreign rifles didn't get a look-in as they weren't available to the British and Commonwealth troops shooting the matches.

It has nothing to do with the Enfield owners now, in fact the last match had SR(a) and SR(b) as one class (No1 users were at a disadvantage with the shorter sight radius compared to the No4's) and foreign rifles as another. Issues did arise as some of those with rifles holding less than 10 round wanted the timings changed to accommodate reloading.

thats good info, although as the Enfield's come with 5 round stripper clips reloading could have easily been harmonised, of course that would require people to be willing to compromise slightly, I suspect that as the previous match was pretty full with just Enfield rifles there is little impetus for change (unless foreign rifle owners are prepared to show up and take part and show willing, and take a little P-taking at the same time razz )

Strangely Brown wrote:

Gaz wrote: This smells a bit like a cynical move from Enfield owners who don't want to compete against anything else in case they lose.

It comes from the NRA Gaz, not the 62 Enfield owners who competed last time. If owners of foriegn service rifles feel so aggrieved they should enter the comp to prove a point!

that is an answer fit for a politician or am I imagining the heated debate that went on on several forums at the time the comp was first mooted?
I agree entirely with the second part though

If the CoF is designed specifically for an Enfield why should they water down their CoF to accommodate other guns (which may operate or function differently)?

We have a similar issue at one of my clubs with so-called "Gallery Rifle" events (ours are best described as dynamic or practical days). We have lever action (no optics), LBR (no optics), and .22LR only CoF's. There's always someone who wants to use a .22LR semi-auto on a lever action CoF because they choose to ignore the range briefing and instruction. If they want to play those games they can shoot somewhere else. The course design and stage procedure has been carefully designed for the specific firearm (all timings, instructions, etc, vary) to demonstrate gun handling and manipulation for that type of gun. It's not rocket science.

I just don't get it. It's like comparing apples and oranges. To get the best out of the man and the gun the CoF has to be designed around the gun. Compromising the standards leads to mediocrity and consequently fewer competitors will be satisfied with the CoF.

kennyc wrote:

Mattnall wrote:As I understand it when the SR matches were initially run the SR(a) and SR(b) classes were only for Enfields as they were the firearms the British used at the time and the CoFs required a 10 round magazine. Foreign rifles didn't get a look-in as they weren't available to the British and Commonwealth troops shooting the matches.

It has nothing to do with the Enfield owners now, in fact the last match had SR(a) and SR(b) as one class (No1 users were at a disadvantage with the shorter sight radius compared to the No4's) and foreign rifles as another. Issues did arise as some of those with rifles holding less than 10 round wanted the timings changed to accommodate reloading.

thats good info, although as the Enfield's come with 5 round stripper clips reloading could have easily been harmonised, of course that would require people to be willing to compromise slightly, I suspect that as the previous match was pretty full with just Enfield rifles there is little impetus for change (unless foreign rifle owners are prepared to show up and take part and show willing, and take a little P-taking at the same time razz )

The Matches were created last year to celebrate the centenary of British involvement in the First World War using the old SR(a) and SR(b) classifications and basic CSR practices at shorter distances on larger targets.
The HBSA (IIRC) then moaned that there was no provision for the other 5-rnd service rifles so the match was opened up and and CoFs altered accordingly.
Then they didn't turn up. One or two 'other nations' rifles appeared but not enough to make it worth while changing the CoF to accommodate them.

The matches were created because those of us who shoot CSR with AR15's & AI's etc wanted to shoot in historic class with bgger than normal targets and no rundowns, it was also a way of getting our No.4's out of the cabinet for an airing.

As Matt says the HBSA wanted to have their say.
(I'm also an HBSA member, but disagree with with letting anything but Enfield's shoot in this particular competition.)

So there we have it. Foreign rifles have been forced on the competition against the wish's of some of the competitors, lines have been drawn and trenches dug.it's not hard to see why it's been difficult to get foreign rifle participation.

Funny how in another thread here, we discuss making complaints to the Press regarding unfair reporting and sensational headlines etc

Yet we have the NRA "snarling" about "foreign muck" here ?