Any one doing the NRA Sporting Rifle Match?

taylorce1

New member
Competing in the NRA Sporting Rifle match that is? I want to do this really bad, I’ve been thinking on a rifle that I can compete with in this match. So far I’ve decided on a .243 Win, 26” varmint contour barrel, 1:7 twist. I’ll probably run it on one of my Savage actions for now as that will get me up and running pretty fast since I can do most of the work myself to build the rifle. Plus I’m set up to reload for the .243 right now and would only have to buy the 105-115 match bullets to get started.

I’m looking at long range optics and have enough money saved up for a Leupold MK4 LR/T in 4.5-14X50 or a demo model Zeiss Conquest in 4.5-14X44. Still trying to figure out if I want Mil-dots, or something else in a ranging reticle so I can use holdover for windage vs. turning that knob. I do know I want something similar to Leupolds M1 turrents and side focus on my scope.

Great thing about this match is it is only a couple hours drive from where I live and it is held several times a year. I do not want to get into long range hunting but it sure looks like a great way to test my skills with a long range varmint rig. I’m not looking to win this thing by any means but I would like to make a respectable attempt at this competition.

I hope Zak chimes in before too long because his name is all over the page!
 
Last edited:
I don't know I'm guessing 6-8" steel gongs maybe a little larger it doesn't say in the rules or the video. I do know you engage 60 targets at known distances from 175-875 yards. At 875 a 12" target is going to be small!
 
At 875 a 12" target is going to be small!

That's still more than 1 moa.

Light gathering won't be that important so the 50 Leupold doesn't have a big advantage over the 44 Zeiss. Whichever scope is clearest from 4.5 to 14 is the better choice.
 
Light gathering won't be that important so the 50 Leupold doesn't have a big advantage over the 44 Zeiss. Whichever scope is clearest from 4.5 to 14 is the better choice.

44 is a typo, went back and looked at the scope again. The Zeiss I was looking at was a 50mm scope as well. Difference between the two is 1" vs. 33mm tube and 20.5oz Zeiss vs. 22oz Leupold. Don't know if either has the adjustments to get me out to 900+/- yards without a canted base I'm still doing the research.
 
Here is the equipment requirements from the rules page:


2.1 Minimum caliber: .243 (6mm). Maximum caliber: .300 Mag. Maximum muzzle velocity 3200 fps.

2.2 Match or hunting bullets only. No steel core, steel jacketed, armor piercing, incendiary or tracer bullets are permitted.

2.3 The shooter may carry and shoot only one rifle during the entire match.
2.4 All equipment used must be carrier by the shooter only.

2.5 The rifle may be equipped with a bipod but it must be remain attached for the entire match.

2.5.1 The shooter may use a back pack, fanny pack, or sand bag as a rifle supporting device.

2.5.2 The shooter may use one additional rifle supporting device, but it must have no more than two points of contact with the ground and must not be attached to the rifle (e.g.: shooting sticks).

2.6 In the event the shooter's rifle is broken or becomes unusable, it may be replaced but all targets not engage until the shooter rejoins his squad will be scored as misses. In the event the rifle sling is broken or becomes unusable, the shooter may continue the match but must continue to safely carry the rifle muzzle up or down.

2.7 deleted

2.8 Please no "military" camo. Hunter camo such as "Realtree" or blaze orange camo is OK.
 
I would be all over this course right here.

I'm hoping to be by May, and hopefully I'll do better than 1/3 of the targets the first time out. I'm hoping to learn a lot from the guys who have been doing this. Checking the scores there are some people who haven't done that good a time or two.
 
Hi everyone,

This match was established in 2004 by Mike Kolar with the help of other local Colorado (mostly Denver-area) shooters who had an interest in field long-range shooting (lots of overlap with the 3-Gunners). My memory of the specifics is a little dim at this point, but I believe over a dozen shooters contributed money to fund the start-up costs (targets and stands) and about a half dozen were involved in physically setting up the course. Since there, there has been a cadre of 4-6 people who have been primarily responsible for making the match happen. This includes primarily Mike Kolar, M. Field, C. Ward, with others helping on and off. I was one of the original stake-holders and helpers (though in the last couple years my time to help has been somewhat limited by other commitments). I fund and run the match web site and have the majority of the media materials we've developed there (photos, references to match, etc).

The purpose for the match at the time it was developed was to provide another venue - one that was closer to Denver and potentially more sustainable - where we could practice field-style long-range shooting of the type characterized by the ITRC and the Blue Steel Ranch Steel Safari. It is not identical to those matches, but the idea was to develop a "local" monthly match with as many of the same challenges as were logistically practical. Some of the original "limiting" rules were due to selling it as a "hunting" match, which was a political necessity at the time due to NRAWC leadership.

The match is not an NRA concept, nor is it linked in any way to the NRA-HP "Sporting Rifle" class. Its name is completely due to the political issue I referred to above. The match staff completely runs the match and it has been 100% funded by its shooters. All the money that comes in goes to the NRAWC other than a small amount held back for target repair and replacement, and a small allotment for prizes.

The 2006 Practical Rifle Team Challenge (PRTC) match used the east half of the SRM course - with some modifications - as the longest stage of that match.

The SRM has a mostly constant set of stages, set in the field. We adjust stages to improve the match at the rate of about 1-2 stages changed per year. The match as it stands now is technically easier than it was in 2004-2005, when the majority of the shots could not be taken from the prone position. However, competition now is much more fierce.

The SRM is meant to be a "monthly" match, but due to conflicts with hunting season at NRAWC, it is currently held monthly February through September.

To answer the title question-- yes, there are a lot of people shooting this match. There is a constant contingent of Front Range shooters who come down to every match, and in the last couple years we have seen groups drive over from KS, TX, and OK. There are some WY and NM shooters as well. You'll find more of them posting about it over on SnipersHide. For example, this SH thread has been going on since 2006
http://www.snipershide.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=695870&page=1

The SRM web site contains a lot of information, and if some information is not posted, it's probably because it's doesn't matter (in digital design, we call it a "don't care"). Target sizes are not specified because there are variety of target sizes and the information is not provided. It so happens that there are basically two sizes of targets,

1. approx 6" diameter circles, or diamonds with the same surface area

2. approx 10" diameter circles, or diamonds with the same surface area

There is one larger target at 875 yards. It is more like 14x18, or larger. I can't remember off the top of my head. It's pretty big. Definitely a reasonable size for that distance if you get the wind call right.

As far as equipment (including optics and rifle), the Sporting Rifle Match was one of the primary experiences - along with the ITRC, PRTC, and Steel Safari - I used to write the 3-article series on practical long-range rifle shooting. http://demigodllc.com/articles/practical-long-range-rifle-shooting-equipment/ Actually, all the articles I've written about field long-range shooting are directly applicable to the SRM-- so my best advice is already detailed there.

There is nothing wrong with .243. Just remember you need to keep your muzzle velocity under 3200 fps. That rule is in place to limit damage to the steel targets.

What constitutes "small targets"?
One can conclude some things given that the target distance listed is approx 175 to 875 yards, and a rifle that will shoot at least 1 MOA. Based on the target sizes I listed above, it turns out to be approx 1.5-3 MOA, but munged a little bit based on the target shape (ie, diamonds are harder to hit than circles or squares).

ooking at was a 50mm scope as well. Difference between the two is 1" vs. 33mm tube and 20.5oz Zeiss vs. 22oz Leupold.
Pretty much totally wrong criteria to start looking at for a practical LR scope.

Is this to be off a bipod?
In general if something is not prohibited, it is allowed. In this case, a bipod is listed in the rules specifically to note that if you use one, you must use the same bipod the whole match.

Scores of first-time SRM shooters (with the contemporary course) have been in the single digits up to the high 50's. 60 is a perfect score and has never been shot.

PS- this should probably be moved to the competition forum.
 
Last edited:
There is nothing wrong with .243. Just remember you need to keep your muzzle velocity under 3200 fps. That rule is in place to limit damage to the steel targets.

I'm figuring somewhere between 2800-2900+ fps with match bullets in the 105-108 grain range, and 2700-2800 fps if I step up to the DTAC or VLD in 115 grain range. That keeps me under the 3200 fps so I should not be doing any damage to the target. Plus I think that pushing any 100+ grain bullet to 3200 fps in a .243 would be darn near impossible to do safely.

Pretty much totally wrong criteria to start looking at for a practical LR scope.

I've read you article a few times on optics and unfortunately most of the scopes you like are far above what I can budget this year.

I know tube diameter and weight are the wrong things to look at, but that was pretty much what my choices boiled down to between the scopes I was looking at both had mil-dot reticles, 1/4 moa adjustments (Leuopld had a little more being the 30mm tube), side mounted PA. I know neither are the FFP reticles but I figured I could still probably get there with a reticle in the 2nd plane and do ok. I've got about 1K budgeted for the scope and these came in a little under that. I'm looking for some used scopes but they are hard to find in my budget that are better options than the two I'm looking at.

I'm looking as well at the Leupold 2.5-10X40 since they are closing out the model with M3 turrents and duplex reticle. Again not a FFP scope but I thought I could send it back and have Leupold put in a Mil-Dot or TMR reticle and run with it but this would put me up to the cost of the other two. I like the 1 moa adjustments of the M3 dials a little better than the M1, and I can mount this scope lower to the rifle than the other two.

The upper echelon long range optics just aren't in my budget yet and I was hoping to be down for the April or May shoot. That would give me plenty of time to build my rifle, develope a load and get in some range time before I headed down. I've got the places to shoot as well where I can set up something similar to the sight in range you talked about in NM.
 
I would recommend the 1/2 or 1/4 MOA clicks over the 1 moa clicks for the SRM. Also, I would not recommend a Leupold "smaller than" the 3.5-10. The smaller models tend to have worse field of view and eye relief.
 
The guy that said about the more than 1 inch moa at 875 is incredibly wrong. you have a 1 inch moa at 100 lets say that makes 2 at 200, 4 at 300, 8 at 400, 16 at 500, 32 at 600, 64 at 700, 128 at 800. So you will have roughly a 200inch moa at 875 lets say. So just some quick math you need a .15 inch or so moa at 100 yards. Which isnt exactly bullets inside each other but it takes major skill. I hope my brains working right as I havnt really thought up moas since my guns were all zeroed and I remember they double each 100 yards not just add 1 inch but double the distance

The .243 is plenty capable of this with good reloads and a good shooter. Just dont do it in the wind or forget it. You will drift off 5 feet in 875 yards. Those are some tough shots.
 
Your math is a little off there 1 MOA at 875 yards is rougly 8.75 inches. So what he meant is the target is larger than MOA at that yardage.
 
The guy that said about the more than 1 inch moa at 875 is incredibly wrong. you have a 1 inch moa at 100 lets say that makes 2 at 200, 4 at 300, 8 at 400, 16 at 500, 32 at 600, 64 at 700, 128 at 800. So you will have roughly a 200 inch moa at 875 lets say. So just some quick math you need a .15 inch or so moa at 100 yards. Which isnt exactly bullets inside each other but it takes major skill. I hope my brains working right as I havnt really thought up moas since my guns were all zeroed and I remember they double each 100 yards not just add 1 inch but double the distance
.
You need to refresh your understanding what "MOA" means. The term "inch moa" that you used throughout your post is meaningless and contradictory.

Your right, it doesnt double it increase like .47 for evry 100 yards. I thought it was doub
Still totally wrong.
 
If you want to be smart about it, please feel free to correct us all. Dont just say its wrong and laugh. Fix the error and help others out
 
Last edited:
pabuckslayer08,

Please, just stop posting to this thread. Your first post (trying to "correct" another poster) was complete nonsense and totally off base, and the second and third ones aren't any better. If you need to get into a discussion of how MOA works, please start another thread. Polluting this one - which is about a specific match - is not helpful.

You were right about one thing, though: shooting a 1 MOA group at 800 yards is a lot harder than shooting a 1 MOA group at 100 yards.
 
Here are some photos from the match this year so far (Feb-Apr)







The April match had some of the hardest wind we've ever had in the last eight years at the SRM. Gusts to over 40, regularly switched two full values.
 
Back
Top