Potential new benchrest class

  • 972 Views
  • Last Post 15 April 2026
Waleone posted this 08 April 2026

In another post, https://forum.castbulletassoc.org/thread/tamaqua-pa-first-cast-bullet-br-match-of-2026/ the desire for a new benchrest class was brought up. After more details were brought into the discussion, I see the need and would like to solicit ideas before officially proposing a new class per the CBA Official Rules for Competition.

So far, I believe this new class would be for,

  • Single shot rifles 
  • Iron Sights 

Some items to get discussion started,

  • Should this include only single shot rifles or also lever, pump, etc.?
  • Should bolt action, single shot rifles be included?
  • Should this class be limited to plain base bullets, or any?
  • Will it be sufficient to use the targets currently used for Military classes?
  • I tend to believe this new class would be a better fit in the rules for military competition. This would require a name change to Military and Iron Sight Rules.

Wayne

Attached Files

Order By: Standard | Newest | Votes
Tom Acheson posted this 08 April 2026

Wayne,

I’m fairly resistant to forming new match gun categories. Big concern is watering down participation in existing categories. However, we might expect low participation in our current “aging eyes” crowd while it might attract new, younger shooters.

I’ve hosted matches with both Traditional AND Military targets in use, not a big deal.

Another guess… most actions will be using scopes and that would not be something “new” for the CBA. Single shots with plain base bullets (no gas check, less $) and iron sights could have some appeal.

Tom

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • Waleone
  • Ross Smith
pat i posted this 08 April 2026

My personal opinion is that before starting any discussion of a new class past postal participation should be looked in to. If the postal match wasn't drawing shooters I doubt a new registered match class would. You might get a guy that shoots one or two matches in a new class just to try it but I doubt it would last.

HNT was supposed to draw in new and younger shooters but I didn't see that happen. I suggest that before any new class is proposed and voted on a season or two of stand alone unregistered fun matches be held to see if there's an actual interest and if that interest continues. I just don't like the idea of watering the BR or military matches down with new classes until it gets to the point where every shooter has his own class.

Attached Files

Waleone posted this 08 April 2026

Tom and pat i, thanks for your input!

This and similar discussions have been brought up many times in the past in various platforms. I know that at Tamaqua, we have accommodated unclassified entries (including trapdoors, Sharps, H&R 45-70 break opens and falling blocks) for many years, shooting our military targets if un-scoped. Usually, the shooters lose interest after a few matches, mainly due to paying entry fees for shooting a rifle that "doesn't count for anything". FYI, at our last match, we had an interested gentleman stop in only to be disappointed that we do not really have a class he could fit in and be competitive.

I'm not sure how this new class would "water down" any existing classes in benchrest or military.

I am concerned with creating multiple new classes to try and accommodate everyone's particular nitch, only to have them die due to lack of participation. If we would create a class encompassing all iron sighted non-military firearms, it could be further separated in the future if participation warrants.

I also would not want to create a new class that someone could put iron sights on a traditional bolt action benchrest rifle and in turn dissuade every other competitor from continuing to participate. 

 

Wayne

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • Glenn R. Latham
muley posted this 08 April 2026

Wayne, what would constitute "open sights" ???

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • Waleone
  • Ross Smith
John Alexander posted this 08 April 2026

Pat's suggestion to require a trail of running a postal match withth the proposed new class.  In fact three years of postal matches are required by our official rules.  See Section of the rules.  This was the method used for showing interest in HR claass before it was voted on.

John

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • RicinYakima
  • John Carlson
Waleone posted this 08 April 2026

muley, what are your ideas? I started this discussion to gather ideas from CBA and Forum members, competitive shooters and those who may be interested, not to dictate.

If you are asking my opinion, I think any non-optical, non-electronic, non-micrometer or click adjustable open sights should be allowed.

Let's face it, with the current cost and dwindling supply of permitted military surplus firearms and NOS barrels, the number of participants in military matches will be limited even if interest increases. 

If we can generate interest for shooters with iron or open sighted rifles with a class they feel they can be competitive in, without robbing current classes, we may increase turnout at matches. Using current targets will be a plus for clubs and match directors.

Wayne

Attached Files

shootcast posted this 08 April 2026

Finally a discussion. Only been 25 years. My suggestion has been to use the current military targets. This simplifies matters. As both military and the new arms can be shot together but not against each other. It doesn’t interrupt a present shoot. As in military new firearms could be shot in either open sights or some determined maximum magnification scope. Again not against open sights shooters or military shooters. It just opens up the use to gain new shooters with firearms not normally seen in our present shoulder to shoulder matches. This new category wouldn’t be eligible for National Tournaments. Just as military isn’t eligible for conventional National Tournaments. As far as the 3 year postal requirement goes consider this. Lever, pump, auto , break open and probably a few more have been postal matches for many, many years. This rule was put into effect just after the hunting class was approved. Probably to prevent more classes. Yes I’m willing to work with any board member to further this concept.

Attached Files

Lucky1 posted this 08 April 2026

Since I shoot these things, I'll weigh in. Keep it as simple as possible. Iron sights (better definition than 'open') Single shot- non military rifle Loaded cartridge and not plain base. Military targets are good because at least they're black and easy to obtain. My twist to this is a modified postal concept. Match is open spring through fall. (March through October? ) Shooter goes to a match, signs in and shoots 20 rounds each at 100 and 200 for score. Match director certifies the score and date and shooter sends this in to the postal director with appropriate fees. CBA reports monthly scores and top shooters for the season. My thought is a shooter can compete and be social, find out how he compares later and not have a lot of postage etc. Also, it seems like I'm always late for a postal class or don't finish in time and this would be a walk-up instead. Plus we can see the participation levels over time. Or we stick with Unclassified. One other note- military rifles can compete in Hunter and Production Class.

Scott Ingle

Attached Files

Waleone posted this 08 April 2026

In fact three years of postal matches are required by our official rules.  See Section of the rules. 

John

If you are referring to the Benchrest Rules (titled Official Rules for Competition), per rule 16.1 three years of trial are required, postal matches should (not shall) be offered.

The Military rules have no such requirement. Due to the targets presently being used for military matches being the best fit for iron/open sights, this class would be a better addition to Military matches than our traditional benchrest matches. However, it would require a name change to the military rules.

Wayne

Attached Files

Waleone posted this 08 April 2026

Loaded cartridge and not plain base. 

Lucky1, I'm curious, what is your reason for excluding plain base?

Wayne

Attached Files

John Carlson posted this 09 April 2026

The use of the term "should" instead of "shall" appears to have been an oversight judging by the remainder of the paragraph:

The member, or members, proposing the new class will be  completely responsible for advertising, promoting, scoring the targets, and reporting for  the postal matches during the trial period.  

Far from the only place our rules are less than crystal clear.   From the Military Rules:  

5.7 Military Rifle Matches - The rules for Registered Military Rifle Matches shall follow existing CBA Benchrest rules with the following additions and exceptions.

  Since we don't have an exception to section 16 it also applies to Creating a new Military class.  

We hold a few "unique" matches each year.  A few AR shooters.  One Sharps buffalo gun.  ChiCom guns no one would bring to a regular military match.  Carcanos.  No one expresses concern about national records, just a fun match.  Very rarely brings anyone new in, just the regular shooters doing something different.  Trying to generate some interest in a lever action match.  Come to think of it the 1876 Winchester could qualify in Issue Class.    

 

John Carlson. CBA Director of Military Competition.

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • pat i
shootcast posted this 09 April 2026

The suggestion for following Postal could possibly work out. Any postal category that could be shot on the military targets could also be shot at a registered club. The local match director or assistant scores the target. The shooter fills out the standard match paperwork . Name address and so forth. Since this category doesn’t reflect the conventional system it shouldn’t pose any problems. This concept allows new shooters to attend a local match with a firearm already owned. Not one that has to be specially bought and equipped with a high magnification scope to be able to try and compete. Hunting class as stated earlier started out to attract hunters. Therefore was the positive reasoning for a mandatory 3x9 scope. I have never witnessed a hunter on the east coast that needed a 45 power scope to hunt with. Naturally we didn’t get hunters. Since the CBA allows plain base bullets, gas checked bullets and powder coated bullets I see no reason to change. We are trying to get new people interested in shooting cast bullets. I don’t see our present shooters jumping ship to shoot in this category. Yes some will but at the end of summer if they are interested in the NT they won’t be shooting these firearms. The Fouling Shot needs articles as I understand. This new category will give each region the opportunity to write articles of the experience of this class. Maybe just maybe some Fouling Shot readers will consider trying this. For those non members who frequently visit the CBA website they also may consider trying this. At some point of time these new shooters may decide to compete in a conventional established class. Some folks simply are not interested in the present National Tournaments. This is fine also. As our rules allow national records to be shot at registered clubs. Whether we decide to call them National records or not isn’t that important. As an example one new shooting organization simply uses the three top scores shot throughout the year. Averages these and complements the individual with highest score as score shooter of the year. Would seem to me if your ego is achieve SSOY you will attend matches.

Attached Files

MarkinEllensburg posted this 09 April 2026

Why put the burden on match directors? John Carlson quoted part of the new class submission guidelines. The proposer is married to the effort for 3 years is how I read it. 

Wayne, my thoughts are a new class open to iron or open sight rifles. Any bullet meeting the definitions of a cast bullet. Breach seat or fixed. Use the military targets. I would even advocate for leaving out any language about stocks, barrels, bedding, production numbers, etc. My thinking is if a member wants to shoot open sights it would not be an equipment race. It would allow re barreled hunting rifles to be in a class more fitting than unlimited or PBB. 

I am guessing the "not plain base" is to allow gas checked bullets but not exclude plain base. 

If the class is narrow by definition I don not think it will attract enough attention and participation to make the cut. 

Limiting it to only several months and making it a postal only or hybrid match will also present roadblocks to participation. Many match postings have in the past included military on demand during a traditional match. I have not seen the reverse. In my region we have traditional matches year round. Each one would have the potential for a new member to shoot in a class that he may have a rifle for already. Many of us have choices every match which class to shoot. Adding a class will not take from that in my opinion, it will add to the enjoyment for some present members. Adding an iron sight class would increase the classified entries at Spokane's January lever action match, one that is mostly attend by members anyway. 

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • Waleone
  • Sevenfan
Tom Acheson posted this 09 April 2026

I’ve seen the “watered down” situation. Since day one (1977) handgun metallic silhouette was 100% iron sights only and just 4 categories. Shooters got older and scopes eventually opened up several new categories. Shooters migrated from the “original 4” to newer categories, reducing the quantity of shooters in the original 4, resulting in less competition. Eventually some of the original 4 had no shooters at some of the matches.

That “category creep” can really diminish the match experience.

A potential downside is people get frustrated with what is available, get impatient waiting for change and drift off to different shooting games.

Agree with Pat. Not a popular outlook in this current discussion. Do a trial run with either a new Postal OR the Match Director makes it informally available @ his matches and in either case measure the reaction.

Hint…too many rules that result in endless debate @ the match are not constructive.

Tom

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • John Carlson
  • Millelacs
shootcast posted this 09 April 2026

I personally don’t see a burden on a match director. Someone wants to shoot. He or she pays the fee. Fills out the data sheet. What difference does it make whether the check mark goes in the block of a new sub title ? The target gets scored and the match director sends results off. Think about this. A lot of clubs admit they on average have less than 7 shooters attending there sanctioned matches. We have I believe 7 classes now. If all 7 shooters attending a local match shoot in a different class all win there class. The competition of a class is a gathering from all sanctioned matches across the country. Because this new classification isn’t shot on conventional targets it isn’t effecting the 10 percent rule for the cigar at the NT. We deed shooters our old methods haven’t worked. 

Attached Files

pat i posted this 09 April 2026

I was on the board when HNT class was going to be the savior and you can see how that went. UNP is another class discussed that eventually passed. Granted it gets entries but from what I've seen its a regional thing and not country wide.

As for the class being discussed are you going to break it down into categories? Is a 36 inch long Sharps LRE or an 1885 wearing a Soule rear and globe front in 40/65 going to be competing against Mdl 94 with iron sights in 30/30? Tell the guy using the Soule or Vernier sights he can't use it you've lost him. Tell the 94 guy he'll be competing against the single shots you've lost. Or worse yet either or will be clamoring for another class to cover their guns. As John A. has said many times in so many words "proposing a new class is easy, writing the rules for it isn't"

Just my .02 cents

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • John Carlson
  • Wm Cook
shootcast posted this 09 April 2026

This new sub class or whatever decided to call it , should be open to as many firearms as possible. I don’t think that our clubs will be flooded with new shooters. It will take some time and talk to get more people interested. As already stated we chase away potential new shooters because there isn’t a logical fair class to shoot in. If we welcome the shooter with the firearm and post by firearm type, others will read this in the results. Then possibly they will shoot a firearm like it. Our present rules state that 3 members make a legal shoot. For this new class we  should determine how many people throughout the year needs to shoot a like firearm. Once this number is achieved we should simply show some gratitude. We shouldn’t tell a potential new shooters  we don’t have a class for that. Or you can shoot that Sharps in Plain Base. Unclassified to me is the loophole to allow jacketed bullet shooters the opportunity to just shoot. We are the cast bullet association and cast bullets are our thing. 

Attached Files

pat i posted this 09 April 2026

Im just playing devils advocate here because I'm into HNT class guns now and no where's as active as I once was but I think a set of rules should be put forth to the current shooters for review before any decision is made. Along with a decently long period to find out if there actually is any interest and to see if it garners new members and match shooters. As I said a new class or not doesn't effect me at all. Just putting my thoughts out there.

Attached Files

Premod70 posted this 09 April 2026

Iron sights kills it for me as well as most that I shoot matches with. At one time there were a few refugees from the BPCR camp that came and shot in the plain base matches and were welcome at the monthly matches but were told smokeless powders only at the registered events which thinned that group out quickly. The ASSRA ranks have a bench class called 40+ for the traditional large bore rifles that be of interest but all in all it’s hard to attract old shooters with heavy recoiling rifles. One might look at a way of classifying vintage rifles to include lever actions and the other more traditional rifles of the lead bullet era. Good luck whatever path you take as good ole America has too many guns to pick from and very few that are lead bullet specific.

Dale Flinchum

Attached Files

John Carlson posted this 10 April 2026

The unclassified category is still good for cast bullets, just being shot with different equipment or targets than our established classes.  What we're talking about here is precisely why we created it.

Perhaps what we should address is amending section 16 to re-define how we go about assessing the need/desire for a new class.  The "try it out in postal" approach hasn't yielded much for results.

John Carlson. CBA Director of Military Competition.

Attached Files

Show More Posts
Categories
Search
Popular Tags
This Weeks High Earners
Hot Topics
Close