The history of FT rules?

[SqrlHntr]

So with all the discussions about combining classes or adding classes, I realized I need to know more insights about the history of the current rules and classes. I read the book “Airgun Field Target Shooting” by Les Herridge and Ian Law, 1989. Granted PCP’s were discussed as the ‘future of airguns’, but there were no bipods, buckets or harnesses then. Nearly every shooter uses a sling, and looks like they are either prone, sitting, kneeling or standing, kinda like how I was taught to shoot as a kid with a chimpmunk 22. So how did that sport of FT turn into what it is today, rules and class wise? What was wrong with the way it was with a simplistic ruleset? Seems to me the FT I read about is much more of a challenge than any of the classes now. So when i mentioned a Purist class in another thread this is what i meant, going back to the original rules where it was more like actual hunting or 3 Position shooting. (Not the topic of this post, but wanted to mention it for clarity)

So for the FT shooters that have stood the tides of change, what really prompted the rules to become what they are? How did we go from a sling and a knee to bipods, harnesses, etc? I guess one could argue that equipment changed the sport and thus rules followed, but i would only agree to a point, harnesses and seats and sticks had to have more reason than the rifles are more accurate or the scopes are better. I also understand physical limitations, but that doesnt apply to all the rules and classes either. So whats the backstory on the FT rules? Im not complaining about any rules in FT, just trying to understand how they came about.

 

[AirNGasman]

Although I've included field target related chapters in some of my five books on airgunning, it would take a whole book to answer your questions, SH. And although I've considered it, think I'd just as soon spend months in a dentist's chair!

I can answer many specific questions about how this or that rule came to be; in fact have done so many times on this forum. Usually the most hotly-contested rules that result in very contentious debates, some of which have posed real threats to U.S. field target.

In trying to wean myself off so much keyboarding it's literally taken quite a toll on my neck, I won't repeat that exercise now. Rather, I'll repeat the condensed version of how and why FT rules happen.

Some are the result of excellent forethought by those with enough insight to avoid problems and issues bound to arise without basic rules of fair play. For lack of a better term, let's call those 'proactive' rules.

Other rules happen in response to problems or issues that could not be foreseen. Let's call those 'reactive' rules.

Field target began in the the UK as a HUNTING simulation sport; hence animal targets that fall only to hits in the KILL zone. As a hunting simulation sport, in its infancy folks used hunting type equipment and shooting positions; even in the U.S.

However Americans being the prolific consumers we are, and competitors naturally seeking EVERY possible advantage, didn't take American field target very long to devolve toward COMPETITION-SPECIFIC equipment, aids, accessories, gadgets and gizmos. Some of which has no practical use in the hunting fields.

"Hunter" Class is an excellent example of the devolution of field target in the U.S., and I am the best example of a Hunter Class throw-back. If I'm not mistaken, the last Republic of Texas FT Championships (the RoT name brought to you by Ron Robinson), was the most-contested Texas State FT Championships in history. Of the 34 shooters in all classes and divisions, 24 contested Hunter PCP.

Amazingly, and defying all (otherwise) prevailing "performance at any price" competition-specific equipment trends, some old Neanderthal prevailed over all 34 WELL-equipped competitors using nary a side-focus, oversized focus-wheel, scope-level, wind indicator, moderator, harmonic tuner, ballistic app, pellet sorting device of any kind, range cart to transport the whole mess, or bracketing. Why would anyone in their right mind reject virtually every prevailing shooting aid, accessory, gadget and gizmo in such a precision and detail-centric shooting competition as field target?

No-one in their right mind would! However, I function on a different level. Correction- I DYSFUNCTION on a different level!

I originally took up field target not only to improve my HUNTING related shooting skills, but for FUN. That being the case, I not only still use practical hunting-capable equipment, but shun as much superfluous (to hunting) extra equipment as possible; in order to keep my field target shooting first and foremost FUN.

Perhaps the challenging wind conditions on day one, and the brutal winds on day two had something to do with a completely ILL-EQUIPPED NEANDERTHAL now being the reigning RoT Champion. But just as likely, the damned fool is just too dumb to realize he can't possibly win!

I'm happy to answer specific FT rules questions anytime SH, but by conversation please. Just used up my keyboarding quota for a while.

 

[beerthief]

would love to see a FT match where it is : you , your gun 12 FPE . , scope, no touching , your pellets . comfort items IE Knee /elbow pads , ground cloth , and target lanes .

 

[tjmac]

"Some are the result of excellent forethought by those with enough insight to avoid problems and issues bound to arise without basic rules of fair play. For lack of a better term, let's call those 'proactive' rules.

Other rules happen in response to problems or issues that could not be foreseen. Let's call those 'reactive' rules."

In a nutshell, I think this answers the question.

Tim

 

[MartyMcFly]

"Some are the result of excellent forethought by those with enough insight to avoid problems and issues bound to arise without basic rules of fair play. For lack of a better term, let's call those 'proactive' rules.

Other rules happen in response to problems or issues that could not be foreseen. Let's call those 'reactive' rules."

In a nutshell, I think this answers the question.

Tim

Almost all sports become more ‘technical’ over time. What initially is just a fun way to pass time becomes an obsession for some and thus the complexity of a sport grows. In some sports it’s the rules that become more complex and in others it’s the equipment. It’s a weird version of Darwin’s evolution, where both the players and the rules evolve at the same time…

-Marty

 

[tjmac]

Proactive rules are the hardest to come up with, but sometimes they are obvious. Up in Canada, our range requirements call for a 600 metre fallout zone from the firing line. That works great with normal pellets. Slugs, on the other hand, with their very high BC would render most FT ranges, in Canada, illegal. It seemed that a rule had to be made banning slugs, just for the survival of the sport up here. That is what we did and there was no argument from shooters once they knew the rationale.

I think sometimes the rationale part of a new rule is not made clear, leading to the rule being questioned.

 

[rich177]

Well I can only go back as far as 1989. That is when I started running FT matches at Delran junior Marksman Club in Delran, NJ. At that time I knew very little about Ft but had run various other matches at our club The only other groups that were running FT were Delaware County Field and Stream, in Brookhaven, PA., Tampa Bay Airgunners in Tampa FL., and Capitol Area Field Target Association in the Maryland, DC area. There may have been others in Central US and the West Coast. The Tampa Bay guys ( Rodnet Boyce, et al) shot sitting down like the English. The rest of us shot mostly standing ( a lot of us were silhouette shooters so we were use to standing). There were no positional shots. The Tampa guys hated standing and we kinda liked it because we did it in silhouette. The guns were all springers and a 12 or 18X scope was considered high power. Target distance was 10 to around 45 yards which was considered a pretty long shot ( offhand). We typically did not case our guns on the course. We just walked around with them and a lot of us used slings to carry them. Some carried a stool to sit on. Rules were simple and match attendance was high by todays standards.

Along came the 1990s and we started to see PCP rifles like the Shamal and others. Scopes were changing as well and even in silhouette. By 1995 some of us were using scopes of 40 power.. The PCP guns were easier to shoot so the classes became springer and PCP to keep it more fair. More and more shooters got involved that were not silhouette shooters so the English sitting style gained some traction and became the norm. When we went to sitting I would always include a couple of shots that were not actually forced positional shots but I set them up so that they pretty much had to be shot standing( in order to see them). This was a good way to break ties. Since the PCP guns and the high power scopes made FT easier the match directors started to make the courses more difficult. The scores kept getting better so forced or positional targets/lanes started to be used to make it a bit harder. Target distances started to increase and reduced kill zones became more common. PCP guns were a little more delicate than the spring guns so shooters started to carry their more delicate and more expensive guns in cases on the courses and just took them out to shoot.

Time passed and PCP guns became more specialized and pricey with their high powered scopes. Shooters complained and wanted a division that would accommodate them using a rifle that they would use for hunting which would also use a lower power scope. They also wanted to use support and did NOT want to have to get up and down off the ground. Hence the Hunter Division was born allowing the use of a bipod ( detached) and a seat and a scope of limited power. This is easier than sitting with no support so restrictions are used to make this Division less easy like not being able to adjust the scope and limiting its power. Please note that this is a Division in an AAFTA Match and not anything like Hunter Field Target in the rest of the world.

The last major change was the introduction of a WFTF Division which again is not following the rules in the rest of the world but does create a separate Division within AAFTA for the use of the same guns that are used in WFTF competition. The major requirement is that he gun must be 12 foot pound energy or less.

That's the Readers digest version. Probably left some stuff out but this is just from MY memory. Good or bad? I don't know. I guess it's more fair but seems like it used to be more fun in the beginning.

Respectfully submitted,
Rick Bassett

 

[beerthief]

Thankyou for being here and relating your version of FT , I am confident it is fairly accurate . Sounds like a lot more fun in the early days .

 

[Scotchmo]

Here is a little history of one of the more contentious issues - prone shooting in Hunter.

Early on in AAFTA, there was some effort to promote prone shooting. Maybe related to Hunter Division since prone is the predominant position used in HFT elswhere.

In 2009, Hunter Division rules were added. Also, a 15" target visibility rule was specifically added to better accommodate those wanting to shoot prone.

From at least 2011 to 2013, Hunter Division at the Nationals was won by a prone shooter. I think in 2013, the top four in Hunter used the prone position.

There was a push-back that had already started. In 2014, additional restrictions were added about which parts of the body could support the gun, definitely aimed at hampering the prone shooters. The 15" visibility accommodation was also quietly removed from the rules. A few in Hunter Division adapted and continued to shoot prone, but in fewer numbers. A side note was that the designated prone rules were also removed from the handbook. There were also a few other less obvious rule changes at that time that would make prone shooting less likely

A hallmark of the prone shooter was the attached bipod. 2014 was also the year that a campaign was started to make the use of an attached bipod illegal in Hunter Division. It was eventually put to a vote of the club reps. Those that did not use attached bipods outnumbered those that did, so it passed as a new restriction for the 2015 AAFTA season. That was probably the last straw for many, as very few prone shooters remained in AAFTA FT after that.

I still have attached bipods on lots of my rifles, but no longer on my FT rifles.

 

[L.Leon]

Here is a little history of one of the more contentious issues - prone shooting in Hunter.

Early on in AAFTA, there was some effort to promote prone shooting. Maybe related to Hunter Division since prone is the predominant position used in HFT elswhere.

In 2009, Hunter Division rules were added. Also, a 15" target visibility rule was specifically added to better accommodate those wanting to shoot prone.

From at least 2011 to 2013, Hunter Division at the Nationals was won by a prone shooter. I think in 2013, the top four in Hunter used the prone position.

There was a push-back that had already started. In 2014, additional restrictions were added about which parts of the body could support the gun, definitely aimed at hampering the prone shooters. The 15" visibility accommodation was also quietly removed from the rules. A few in Hunter Division adapted and continued to shoot prone, but in fewer numbers. A side note was that the designated prone rules were also removed from the handbook. There were also a few other less obvious rule changes at that time that would make prone shooting less likely

A hallmark of the prone shooter was the attached bipod. 2014 was also the year that a campaign was started to make the use of an attached bipod illegal in Hunter Division. It was eventually put to a vote of the club reps. Those that did not use attached bipods outnumbered those that did, so it passed as a new restriction for the 2015 AAFTA season. That was probably the last straw for many, as very few prone shooters remained in AAFTA FT after that.

I still have attached bipods on lots of my rifles, but no longer on my FT rifles.

This why I won’t participate currently. I use an attached bipod and a LRF to pest and hunt. Why can’t I do the same in HFT? The above post sums it up nicely for me. The sport should have a division that reflects how many actually use their air rifles while hunting afield.

 

[gonzav71]

Here is a suggestion. AAFTA should renamed the classes to describe the equipment allowed.

Hunter > Seat and Shooting Sticks = SSS
Open > Leg Straps = LS
Unlimited > Prone and Bipods (attached) = PB
WFTF will remain as is.

 

[AirNGasman]

"The sport should have a division that reflects how many actually use their air rifles while hunting afield."

Your point has been made many times LL, and in a perfect world that would be the case. Unfortunately there are some problems with that.

There are several to many ways folks actually use their air rifles when hunting afield. Also, everyone has their own opinions about how any given class should be defined with rules parameters.

Not necessarily last, but certainly not least, every new class added dilutes participation in other classes. Consequently there should be a certain amount of participation anticipated in any potential new class before it is given serious consideration. As far as I can tell, that is the approach now.

Example (or rather, reverse example)- There used to be enough participation in Springer division to warrant participation in three Springer classes. But nowadays many FT matches don't turn out enough Springer shooters to warrant the division, much less multiple classes.

Further example- Two or three Springer Division shooters show up; each in a different Springer class. Do you throw them together in one Springer division "class" , or do you throw them to the wolves by having them compete in each's correct class (with the PCPs)? Or do you take the time to let them vote, and hope it doesn't come out a tie?

Not trying to be argumentative, just trying to give real-life examples of the complications involved in accommodating as many as possible, as well as reasonably possible, without over-diluting participation in classes to the point shooters are competing against only one or two other shooters.

Regardless, this is why there aren't more divisions and classes.

 

[tjmac]

I started field target (FT) in late 1998 and it was a difficult sport. It was not difficult to play at, but it was difficult to get good at. For a number of years, more than I care to admit, I looked to the equipment to make my scores better. Better gun, better scope, better pellets and a harness to hold me steady was the path I took. I got better, or should I say, my scores got better. My skill only improved as a result of using specific equipment to make it “easier” to hit targets.

When I started hear about WFTF rules, I was a little resistant to adopt any of them. Slowly my outlook changed as I realized that I had to work on myself to have success within the WFTF format. We first called it “International class” up here in Canada. I put the harness away and gave it a try. After struggling with steadiness for a few years, my scores started to improve because I was a better shooter. Time passed and I went to sub 12 ft/lb and adopted all facets of my game to line up with the WFTF rules. I have been doing that since about 2010.

I shot pcp pretty well exclusively and had some good success in local matches and a few US based matches, using my trusty Steyr LG100. I still like good equipment, but work far more on myself than I do on the equipment.

In 2015-16 I started using a TX200Mk2 I had picked up for a great price and the challenge of mastering it really appealed to me. I started using it more often and would use my 8.5 ft/lb FWB 300U at times as well. I loved the challenge and started using them more often, with the Steyr getting lonely in my gun safe. I pretty much shoot my TX200HC or my TX200SR Mk1 that was fortunate to pick up a number of years back. I like the springer because the challenge and uncertainness are never gone. My version of living on the edge I guess.

Now, 24 years later, at 73, I work on myself to be able to shoot successfully under the current rules of the WFTF. I have had my knee rebuilt, my ankle fused and deal with arthritis in my back and elsewhere as many do at my age. I work very hard on my physical condition to be able to shoot kneeling, standing and on unlevel ground. To me, the challenge is to make sure I keep myself physically able to shoot within the existing rules of my chosen class as long as I can.

As to growing the sport; it is very difficult. Of people that try field target, very very few become long time shooters like many of you here. People who like the challenges of FT and work hard to overcome them are not all that common. The young are often taught to avoid challenge or cry that they are being unfairly treated if challenged. Mental toughness is needed and far too many are failing to instill it in our young generation. I am not just talking about parents, but institutions and the governments as well. Verbal assault is now a big thing. I am sure that for many of us, we experienced verbal assault every day when we were kids and are pretty tough mentally as a result. I am hoping the pendulum swings back towards being independent and mentally tough; it is way overdue.

Long story short, improving yourself to work within the rules, rather than worrying about changing the rules to suit you, is a far more rewarding path, not easier, just more rewarding.

Tim

 

[beerthief]

I started field target (FT) in late 1998 and it was a difficult sport. It was not difficult to play at, but it was difficult to get good at. For a number of years, more than I care to admit, I looked to the equipment to make my scores better. Better gun, better scope, better pellets and a harness to hold me steady was the path I took. I got better, or should I say, my scores got better. My skill only improved as a result of using specific equipment to make it “easier” to hit targets.

When I started hear about WFTF rules, I was a little resistant to adopt any of them. Slowly my outlook changed as I realized that I had to work on myself to have success within the WFTF format. We first called it “International class” up here in Canada. I put the harness away and gave it a try. After struggling with steadiness for a few years, my scores started to improve because I was a better shooter. Time passed and I went to sub 12 ft/lb and adopted all facets of my game to line up with the WFTF rules. I have been doing that since about 2010.

I shot pcp pretty well exclusively and had some good success in local matches and a few US based matches, using my trusty Steyr LG100. I still like good equipment, but work far more on myself than I do on the equipment.

In 2015-16 I started using a TX200Mk2 I had picked up for a great price and the challenge of mastering it really appealed to me. I started using it more often and would use my 8.5 ft/lb FWB 300U at times as well. I loved the challenge and started using them more often, with the Steyr getting lonely in my gun safe. I pretty much shoot my TX200HC or my TX200SR Mk1 that was fortunate to pick up a number of years back. I like the springer because the challenge and uncertainness are never gone. My version of living on the edge I guess.

Now, 24 years later, at 73, I work on myself to be able to shoot successfully under the current rules of the WFTF. I have had my knee rebuilt, my ankle fused and deal with arthritis in my back and elsewhere as many do at my age. I work very hard on my physical condition to be able to shoot kneeling, standing and on unlevel ground. To me, the challenge is to make sure I keep myself physically able to shoot within the existing rules of my chosen class as long as I can.

As to growing the sport; it is very difficult. Of people that try field target, very very few become long time shooters like many of you here. People who like the challenges of FT and work hard to overcome them are not all that common. The young are often taught to avoid challenge or cry that they are being unfairly treated if challenged. Mental toughness is needed and far too many are failing to instill it in our young generation. I am not just talking about parents, but institutions and the governments as well. Verbal assault is now a big thing. I am sure that for many of us, we experienced verbal assault every day when we were kids and are pretty tough mentally as a result. I am hoping the pendulum swings back towards being independent and mentally tough; it is way overdue.

Long story short, improving yourself to work within the rules, rather than worrying about changing the rules to suit you, is a far more rewarding path, not easier, just more rewarding.

Tim

i wish more people thought like this .

 

[Scotchmo]

"The sport should have a division that reflects how many actually use their air rifles while hunting afield."

…

Regardless, this is why there aren't more divisions and classes.

I’d be fine with one Division, i.e. Everyone, and two Classes, i.e. Precharged & Piston.

If you don’t like using a harness or jacket and don’t want to compete against them - get over it! If you don’t like using a bipod or high seat and don’t want to compete against them - get over it!

And the argument that allowing high power scopes and bipods will have a bunch of shooters cleaning the course is BS.

“I am shooting against the course”
I see that statement and it’s fine, but I’m also competing against my squad mate and everyone else. And I like it that way. Individually, we strive to improve our scores. Achieving the high match score is an accomplishment that should be ok to recognize. Even more so than recognizing the various high scores from the various “exclusive” Divisions.

 

[tjmac]

If my score happens to be higher than someone in a different division, I may be quietly pleased, but will never compare the two, as they are different. I chose my division and class and if any comparison is to be made, it is with those that shoot the same rules, with the same equipment I do.

I really do not like overall high score. Some strange things happened with scoring and faulty targets at the last Crosman match in order to have an overall high score for rifle and pistol, regardless of class. Targets were pulled from our division that worked fine for us but were faulty in a different division on a different day. It was somewhat frustrating for those who hit those targets and then they were awarded to everyone. Some shooters, that missed the targets, were awarded many extra points, while those that hit them got nothing.

So was the overall winner the one that hit the most targets or the one that missed them and were awarded the points anyway?

Tim

 

[Scotchmo]

If my score happens to be higher than someone in a different division, I may be quietly pleased, but will never compare the two, as they are different. I chose my division and class and if any comparison is to be made, it is with those that shoot the same rules, with the same equipment I do.

I really do not like overall high score. Some strange things happened with scoring and faulty targets at the last Crosman match in order to have an overall high score for rifle and pistol, regardless of class. Targets were pulled from our division that worked fine for us but were faulty in a different division on a different day. It was somewhat frustrating for those who hit those targets and then they were awarded to everyone. Some shooters, that missed the targets, were awarded many extra points, while those that hit them got nothing.

So was the overall winner the one that hit the most targets or the one that missed them and were awarded the points anyway?

Tim

I never pulled targets from any GP match that I have run. Don’t give free points -period! I’ve seen it done at a number of matches. And there was no match high score award to contend for, so that really has nothing to do with pulled targets.

There is no longer any allowance in the rules for pulling a target and awarding free points. The competitor is required to knock down the target in order to earn a point. You don’t knock it down, you don’t get the point.

 

[thomasair]

I’d be happy with one division, too. That’s probably a really long shot to ever see that come to fruition.

 

[Airgunoregon]

Just a PCP and Piston class makes it really nice and easy for the match director..

All current AAFTA equipment/positions allowed... mix and match as you like

That's basically unlimited PCP and Piston

Folks can still shoot the way they are now if they like.

But this is very unlikely to ever happen again.. I've heard LD talk about those good old days too..

Wayne

 

[Franklink]

There's 3 kinda concurrently running discussions right now, with a lot of overlap.

Scott H has mentioned this a couple times.

I’d be fine with one Division, i.e. Everyone, and two Classes, i.e. Precharged & Piston.

If you don’t like using a harness or jacket and don’t want to compete against them - get over it! If you don’t like using a bipod or high seat and don’t want to compete against them - get over it!

And the argument that allowing high power scopes and bipods will have a bunch of shooters cleaning the course is BS.

I think going to 1 big happy class would be good for field target. (or two if we want to include the very small percentage shooting springers).
It would let the older guys keep shooting, lets newcomers come and "run whatcha brung," promotes inclusivity, rather than the "my class is harder" thing that seems to always want to rise to the surface,

I do think we'll see more cleared courses though. Which I didn't point out when I first said this, but I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing, and can always start setting harder targets.

The only restriction I can see being an easy one is the 20fpe limit. Seats with backs and laser rangefinders are a bit more of a gray area.

What are the potential downsides of a one-class field target system that I'm not seeing?
(seems like there must be some or that's what we'd already have?)