PDA

View Full Version : The new Sporter agenda item



TSI243
10-20-2012, 01:13 PM
From the previous post, it looks like a lot of misinformation is being thrown around with regard to the changes to the Sporter Class.

In an effort to keep things from getting too far out there, let me clarify what this agenda item really is about, and what it's intended purpose really is.

Wayne is correct, the proposal came from the Gulf Coast Region, specifically from me. I proposed this agenda item at our Gulf coast regional meeting at New Braunfels. At that meeting, the vote by the members of the Gulf Coast Region to submit this agenda item was unanimous.
As a lot of benchrest shooters are aware I've been campaigning for this change for about 10-12 years now.

The changes as approved by the BOD are for a one year trial period. Then, at next year’s Nationals in Fairchance PA., a membership vote will be held to either do away with this change, or to make it permament.


The specific agenda item and the change that was made to the Sporter Rifle is as follows:

1. Reword Page 12 Item 5 to read, “SPORTER RIFLE. A Sporter Rifle is defined as any rifle having a safe manually and mechanically operated firing Mechanism and must not weigh more than 10 ½ pounds, inclusive of sights. The stock can be flat, or convex, but not concave. The Forearm can be any width and have any angle. The butt stock can have any angle including a reverse angle, The barrel would not be less than 18” long forward of the bolt face and can be any diameter or configuration including a straight taper or a reverse taper. The Sporter Rifle can be any caliber. Sporter Rifles do not have to conform to the Varmint Rifle diagram (on page 68 of Rev. Ed. No. 36). All sand bag rules will apply to the sporter rifle.”

2. Page 117 Diagram P under title, VARMINT RIFLE DIAGRAM, add the words, “(DOES NOT INCLUDE SPORTER).

The agenda item above is what the Gulf Coast region submitted and, I believe that the item as written above is what the board passed – they may have made some changes, but if they did, I’m not aware of them.

Nowhere in this item is the word experimental used --- this does not create a new rifle or an experimental class --- it simply removes most of the restrictive rules from the existing sporter class.

Every existing LV rifle and every existing Sporter Rifle in this whole world is still legal, and competitive, under these changes.

My purpose in all of this is to make the Sporter class, and the LV rifle, no longer redundant classes, and to have a class where we can have some innovation in Benchrest.

I know the argument about the 22 caliber, and I feel that this has long ago lost it's usefullness. I think that any caliber restriction is just a matter of time --the 30 BR might just have proven this out. Given good jackets and the desire to make it work, any caliber can be made to shoot really well.

If there is a better stock configuration out there or a better barrel profile shouldn’t we --- benchrest shooters, -- be the leading edge of this innovation?? Benchrest used to be the leading edge of vertially all accuracy innovation. I’m not sure if that’s true anymore. I would like that to be , without a doubt, true again.

For right now, I don’t see this as making any huge radical changes to benchrest, but given time and a venue to work in (Sporter Class) there may be some really meaningful innovation that comes about.

Let’s have some fun with this

Gene Bukys

Wilbur
10-20-2012, 01:43 PM
Well...shoot! Shoulda changed the other classes too so that folks could just buy the new stuff for their ONE redundant rifle.

Roy Allain
10-20-2012, 09:11 PM
I
Well...shoot! Shoulda changed the other classes too so that folks could just buy the new stuff for their ONE redundant rifle.

I second that Wilbur. Hot dang, I swear.

Roy

mks
10-21-2012, 10:03 AM
Gene,
This change is really exciting, and I think could lead to innovations that push rifle accuracy forward. My hope is that the vote next year is positive, since some may hesitate to invest in building a rifle that is only legal for one year.

One question, though. Why restrict the stock to flat or convex? With the wide open possibilities for everything else, this rule seems like an odd duck. Let's say someone wanted to use a space frame as a stock that had widely spaced front sliders, something like current unlimited rifles, only supported by sand bags. Could one use round rods or angles on the left and right for the sliders, or would the forend have to have a continuous flat (from left to right)?

Also interested in your reasons for the mechanical firing mechanism. Electronic ignition has the potential to make ignition more consistent, without inducing vibrations. Etronx, to my knowledge, is the only possibility right now, but who knows what might be developed if it were legal.

Anyway, good to see your decade of efforts finally result in a change.

Cheers,
Keith

Charles E
10-21-2012, 10:58 AM
Keith, the "flat" forearm was almost certainly a political rather than technical decision. The whole "return to battery" issue from the 1960s. It took 30-40 years to begin to overlook the front rest/sandbag rules aiming to limit that, it'll probably take as long for the forearm.

It's primarily an emotional issue -- bet very few of these guys have fired a long-range rifle, where you quickly learn that with sandbags, you pretty much have to re-aim the rifle for every shot, regardless of forearm design.

Mike Bryant
10-29-2012, 07:44 PM
Gene,
This change is really exciting, and I think could lead to innovations that push rifle accuracy forward. My hope is that the vote next year is positive, since some may hesitate to invest in building a rifle that is only legal for one year.

One question, though. Why restrict the stock to flat or convex? With the wide open possibilities for everything else, this rule seems like an odd duck. Let's say someone wanted to use a space frame as a stock that had widely spaced front sliders, something like current unlimited rifles, only supported by sand bags. Could one use round rods or angles on the left and right for the sliders, or would the forend have to have a continuous flat (from left to right)?

Also interested in your reasons for the mechanical firing mechanism. Electronic ignition has the potential to make ignition more consistent, without inducing vibrations. Etronx, to my knowledge, is the only possibility right now, but who knows what might be developed if it were legal.

Anyway, good to see your decade of efforts finally result in a change.

Cheers,
Keith

Back when they came up with the stock configuration restrictions, the purpose was so the varmint classes wouldn't look a lot different than a typical varmint rifle. Years ago, Red Cornelison told me that in about the era when the varmint classes came into being, he showed up at a match with what was basically a 10.5 pound rifle built like an unrestricted rifle. Not sure what it was as it was before rail guns. Rifles like that were probably why they came out with the stock configuration restrictions. Making it a rifle that looked somewhat similar to a varmint rifle would make guys think I can compete against them. There's certainly a lot of difference between what they started with back then and what we're shooting now. Not many people are going to look at todays current varmint class rifles and think I can compete against them with my prairie dog rifle. Those who have tried find out pretty fast that they can't. I've seen a few people show up at benchrest matches with pretty nice custom prairie dog type rifles. They wind up at the bottom of the pack.

I figure the carry over that the forend can't be concave rule is that they still want the rifles to look like varmint rifles and not minature rail guns. I'm an associate director which means I go to the meeting in case Scott Hunter, the gulf coast regional director, can't make it. Scott's made all the meeting, so I've never been in a director's meeting. So, I don't know any of the discussion that went into keeping the forend can't be concave part of the rule. There are a lot of guys out there who can come up with a pretty wild 10.5 pound rifle if there wasn't any restriction except for weight. I've seen what some of the guys like Jerry Hensler come up with in the UL class that are pretty wild. I could just imagine what he could come up with in no boundary except weight sporter class. It will be interesting to see what shows up next year with the relaxed restrictions for the sporter class.

eww1350
01-17-2013, 01:04 PM
"The Forearm can be any width and have any angle. The butt stock can have any angle including a reverse angle, The barrel would not be less than 18” long forward of the bolt face and can be any diameter or configuration including a straight taper or a reverse taper"

WOW...that is some radical changes...too long in coming...I hope to see these changes carry over into the Heavy Varmint class especially for the VFS shooters...



Eddie in Texas

TSI243
01-18-2013, 12:45 AM
Mike ---

The reason for the part about not allowing concave forearms is because I purposefully left that part in when I wrote the agenda item changes to submit to Scott as an agenda Item. It came solely from me!!
My thinking was that this would still be a rifle that was fired from sand bags and all sand bag rules would still apply to the changed sporter class. I felt that letting the forearms go concave would make it far too easy to make them return to battery capable ---at least more capable than what we already have with the bag setups that we use. I think that some of what we use now is pretty close to return to battery.

Mike, one other thing,

As the associate director for the Gulf Coast Region you most certainly can go to the directors meeting with Scott. – You just can’t participate in it –you have to sit in the corner quiet as a mouse, but you can go and listen to all of it !!!

Gene Bukys

Mike Bryant
01-18-2013, 08:58 AM
Gene, that's what I figured. With a concave forend, it would be too easy to just come up with a miniature rail gun shot off sandbags. The concave rule helps keep it looking like a rifle. It will be interesting to see what people come up with in response to the changes. I haven't decided whether I'm going to try to make the nationals at Fairchance or not. I have an idea for a stock, but whether I build it will depend more on how backed up I am on rifle work which right now is quite a few.

jackie schmidt
01-18-2013, 07:52 PM
I'm a little out of the loop right now, I haven't fired a Benchrest Rifle in 4 months. I commend Gene for his efforts.

Just so I am not missing anything, if one builds a Sporter incorporating many of the innovations, (wider than 3" forarm, no taper on buttstock, any barrel contour), that does render it illegal in LV and HV. Or am I missing something.

Previously, you could shoot a Sporter, (configured under the old rules) in both LV and HV.

And I suppose this will open the door for dedicated 22 cal shooter to become the "one rifle" shooter that has permiated Benchrest for quite sometime.

I think this is the most exciting thing to happen in Benchrest in quite some time. It will be interesting to see what shooters come up with.

Don Nielson
01-18-2013, 08:13 PM
Sporter is only shot in sporter class

jackie schmidt
01-19-2013, 08:43 AM
Maybe I did not word that correctly. You can now shoot any NBRSA Legal LV in Class Sporter, but you cannot shoot any NBRSA Legal Sporter in Class LV or HV, if that Sporter is build to incorporarte any new rules that do not fall within the guidlines of the old Varmint Rifle configuration as noted in the rule book.

A shooter can take a NBRSA Legal LV and now shoot it in all three classes, where as before, If that LV happen to be chambered in a caliber less than .23, you could only shoot it in LV, HV, and of course Unlimited.

There are multitudes of shooters in the NBRSA who shoot one Rifle, regardless which class they happenned to be entered into at any given moment.
Before, that Rifle was always a Sporter, because it could be shot in any group class. Now, with the new Rules in place, and the caliber restriction taken away in Sporter, the NBRSA legaL LV Rifle has now become the Rifle that, in any circumstanses, can be used in all three classes.

Of course, as Gene pointed out, any Rifle that was legal in Sporter before is still legal in any class, it's just that now, any Rifle that was below .23 cal and a legal LV can now be fired in any class.

scorpio
01-19-2013, 06:11 PM
Now that we have lifted some of the restrictions on the sporter class, and even though the sporter we are shooting now would still be considered legal, how long do you think it would still remain "competitive" with in the sporter class with the rule change?

Hunter
01-19-2013, 06:38 PM
I think that some of what we use now is pretty close to return to battery.


Per D.(7.) on p 22 of the rule book, "Rifles shall be fired with sandbag front rests, which may be supported on a pedestal, which shall not coact with the sandbag to restrain recoil."

It looks to me like many of the front rests being used violate the above rule since most of them have some sort of vertical support for the sandbag which, I suspect, restrains the muzzle from ending up in a position of pointing at your neighbor's target after the shot. Am I missing something? If so, what?

jackie schmidt
01-19-2013, 07:26 PM
Per D.(7.) on p 22 of the rule book, "Rifles shall be fired with sandbag front rests, which may be supported on a pedestal, which shall not coact with the sandbag to restrain recoil."

It looks to me like many of the front rests being used violate the above rule since most of them have some sort of vertical support for the sandbag which, I suspect, restrains the muzzle from ending up in a position of pointing at your neighbor's target after the shot. Am I missing something? If so, what?


The rule is you are supposed to be able to lift the rifle straight up out of the front rest without disturbing the rest.
No bag set-up is a true return to battery, only a good Rail Gun has that capability. If someone thinks their bags are giving them a true return to battery capability, simply fire a group without looking through the scope. That will settle that argument.........jackie

Hunter
01-19-2013, 07:34 PM
The rule is you are supposed to be able to lift the rifle straight up out of the front rest without disturbing the rest.

That strikes me as another rule within the same paragraph; I don't read that sentence as negating the previous sentence.

jackie schmidt
01-19-2013, 07:36 PM
Now that we have lifted some of the restrictions on the sporter class, and even though the sporter we are shooting now would still be considered legal, how long do you think it would still remain "competitive" with in the sporter class with the rule change?

In actuality, the overall agging capability of a Rifle depends much more on the quality of the barrel, bullets, and the tune more than it does things like stock width, taper, etc.

You can take a 50 pound Unlimited Bag Gun with an average barrel, and it will get it's butt kicked by a Sporter with a great barrel.

Look at class Heavy Varmint. You would think the added 3 pounds would be a tremendous advantage. But the reality is that over the past years, Sporter Rifles have dominated in HV as well as LV. This is due to the simple fact that about 95 percent of the Rifles through these years used in all three classes have in fact been Sporters.

This includes matches at both the Regional and National Level.

jackie schmidt
01-19-2013, 07:52 PM
That strikes me as another rule within the same paragraph; I don't read that sentence as negating the previous sentence.

I'm not sure what you mean.

scorpio
01-19-2013, 08:16 PM
In actuality, the overall agging capability of a Rifle depends much more on the quality of the barrel, bullets, and the tune more than it does things like stock width, taper, etc.

You can take a 50 pound Unlimited Bag Gun with an average barrel, and it will get it's butt kicked by a Sporter with a great barrel.

Look at class Heavy Varmint. You would think the added 3 pounds would be a tremendous advantage. But the reality is that over the past years, Sporter Rifles have dominated in HV as well as LV. This is due to the simple fact that about 95 percent of the Rifles through these years used in all three classes have in fact been Sporters.

This includes matches at both the Regional and National Level.

I agree Jackie, barrels,bullets, and tune are pretty much the name of the game as it is. However, as far as what, if any advantages are to be had with stock width,taper,etc... adds to the over all equation has yet to be seen. Apparently Gene and others that welcomed the rule change feel like there's something to be gained, otherwise there would have been no need for the rule change in the first place. I guess time will tell.

Hunter
01-20-2013, 08:31 AM
I'm not sure what you mean.

Regarding posts 14 -16:

1. One of the rules of rule interpretation is that all words in the rule have meaning. If the second sentence of the paragraph was the essence of the rule (as you suggest in post 15), the phrase, "which shall not coact with the sandbag to restrain recoil" would have no meaning.

2. Glen Newick says, at p 46 of his book, "screw levers on the front rest side plates adjust tension so the forend achieves an extra snug fit with little lateral play....the rifle can be returned to battery...with only small adjustments needed to achieve perfect aim." That strikes me as a design to restrain recoil.

3. Given my interpretation of the first sentence, what's the purpose of the second sentence (the one you reference in post 15)? I'm not sure; maybe to prohibit bags (used without side-plate style rests) that might be designed to "dovetail" with the slope of the stock.

glp
01-20-2013, 08:52 AM
In actuality, the overall agging capability of a Rifle depends much more on the quality of the barrel, bullets, and the tune more than it does things like stock width, taper, etc.

You can take a 50 pound Unlimited Bag Gun with an average barrel, and it will get it's butt kicked by a Sporter with a great barrel.

Look at class Heavy Varmint. You would think the added 3 pounds would be a tremendous advantage. But the reality is that over the past years, Sporter Rifles have dominated in HV as well as LV. This is due to the simple fact that about 95 percent of the Rifles through these years used in all three classes have in fact been Sporters.

This includes matches at both the Regional and National Level.

And begs the question, do top shooters simply not put as much effort into finding a killer barrel for the HV rifle, or they do and the weight makes no difference?

waynej1
01-20-2013, 10:42 AM
If I'm correct in my understanding, the LV rifle will be the new gun to be capable of shooting all four classes,(for instance at the Nationals), Sporter, LV, HV and Unlimited ? Hope I'm reading this correctly. waynej

jackie schmidt
01-20-2013, 11:17 AM
If I'm correct in my understanding, the LV rifle will be the new gun to be capable of shooting all four classes,(for instance at the Nationals), Sporter, LV, HV and Unlimited ? Hope I'm reading this correctly. waynej

That is correct.

jackie schmidt
01-20-2013, 11:30 AM
And begs the question, do top shooters simply not put as much effort into finding a killer barrel for the HV rifle, or they do and the weight makes no difference?

If you look at the Match Results from the past 15 years, you will see that in all Region, National, and World Championship matches where there was a Format that included Sporter, LV, and HV, the vast majority of shooters, (including the winners), simply shot a Sporter in LV and HV.

Keep in mind, Sporter and LV are identicle except you had to shoot a caliber of .23 or larger in Sporter. The only difference between a LV and a HV, (by the rules), is the weight. Period.

I may be mistaken, and he can correct me if I am, but current NBRSA and World Champion Gene Bukys exclusively shoots a 6mm in all classes, and while he has a HV, 98 percent of the time he will be shooting one of his Sporters in all three Bag Gun Classes. The same can be said for the majority of other Championship Level Shooters.

If the membership does pass this new Sporter Rule, then there will be a distict difference between what a Shooter can do in building a Sporter and what is allowed in the other two Bag Gun classes.............jackie

Hunter
03-05-2013, 02:15 PM
I never got, what I considered, a good answer to post # 14 above. As a bit of background, comparing the looks of rests back in Warren Page's day with the looks of modern-day rests, it seems obvious that the intent of the new design is to "restrain recoil."

Anyone care to review posts 14-16, 18 and 20, and share your thoughts?

Joe Krupa
03-05-2013, 05:33 PM
From glp "And begs the question, do top shooters simply not put as much effort into finding a killer barrel for the HV rifle, or they do and the weight makes no difference?"

I don't know if I qualify as a "top shooter", but I would like to repsond to this. I can tell you that I have had at least two "killer" heavy varmint barrels. It isn't a matter of putting the effort into finding one so much as you buy both light and heavy barrels, and if you have a solid platform no matter what the class, sometimes they happen into your lap.

The great heavy varmint barrels that I have had have given me excellent aggregates; several into the .16xx range. However, when you are at a Nationals or Super Shoot, you often shoot the light guns first, then decide whether to change to the heavy for that class or continue to ride the light gun. My process has been if the light gun is working, don't chance not catching the tune with the heavy when that class starts. If the light isn't working, you have a good-to-great heavy platform to go to when that class is being shot. We are basically opportunists and will go with what gets you there at the end.

I also enjoy much more shooting the HV rifle than the light. It just points up and returns so much easier than the light gun. In the range of recoil that a 6PPC generates, the additional three pounds seems to make quite a bit of difference in gun handling.

One thing that seems to happen to those shooters who use both a light and heavy rifle is that it is much easier to get away with being sloppy with a heavy gun; so much so that one's gunhandling suffers with the light gun. Many of us here in the Eastern Region know of at least one shooter who shoots his heavy gun great and his light gun "not-so-great". We refer to him as being "light-gun challenged". In fact, when I was chasing points my gunsmith Dwight Scott wouldn't allow me to shoot my heavy gun (by withholding barrels) until I got my last point. He refers to shooting a HV rifle as "earning a nice dessert once you've mastered shooting the light gun". The only shooter that I know who has "earned" Dwight's "permission" to shoot a heavy gun is Tony Boyer (whose reputation with the light gun needs no explanation).

There are several great heavy varmint rifles out there that strike fear into the hearts of any competitor. My old friend Pat Byrne has one that has got him several points. Bill Gammon has an old Swidlehurst/Adamovich that has shot an agg. in the .15xx at the Super Shoot. I'd like to think my BAT/Scoville HV (which only weighs 12 pounds) can hang with most HV rifles out there. (In that case it is the driver, not the rig that causes difficulty.) Kent Harshman has one of the two best shooting Hart-actioned HV rifles out there having won the HV class at the Super Shoot two years in a row. And of course, probably the most prolific benchrest rifle ever shot is the Hart-actioned HV that Mr. Boyer shoots. That rifle may have won more benchrest trophies and Hall of Fame points than any other rifle in the history of the sport.

That being said, I have won all four of my HV H of F points and the HV class at the Super Shoot that I was lucky enough to win were with my light gun. And I have basically burned out both of the good heavy barrels shooting regional matches over the past couple of years. Go figure.

glp
03-06-2013, 08:23 AM
Interesting answer and perspective. Tks.

Wilbur
03-07-2013, 01:57 PM
I've noted a couple of times that some folks will switch to their HV rifle simply because they have one. I "noted" that when I asked them why in the world they gave the match away switching over to a rifle that has never shot a good group much less a good agg. One fellow said it outright - "I bought that sumbitch and I aim to shoot it."

Maybe I don't understand (understatement in general) the nuances of gun handling as it pertains to the 3# difference but I do understand that 3# more will not improve the average agg of a rifle.

eww1350
03-07-2013, 04:55 PM
Maybe not a 6ppc...but...a 30BR in a 13.5 lb gun is easier to agg with than a 10.5 lb rifle in the same caliber...IMO...:cool:




Eddie in Texas

Ian_Owen
03-08-2013, 07:46 PM
I never got, what I considered, a good answer to post # 14 above. As a bit of background, comparing the looks of rests back in Warren Page's day with the looks of modern-day rests, it seems obvious that the intent of the new design is to "restrain recoil."

Anyone care to review posts 14-16, 18 and 20, and share your thoughts?


Regarding posts 14 -16:

1. One of the rules of rule interpretation is that all words in the rule have meaning. If the second sentence of the paragraph was the essence of the rule (as you suggest in post 15), the phrase, "which shall not coact with the sandbag to restrain recoil" would have no meaning.

2. Glen Newick says, at p 46 of his book, "screw levers on the front rest side plates adjust tension so the forend achieves an extra snug fit with little lateral play....the rifle can be returned to battery...with only small adjustments needed to achieve perfect aim." That strikes me as a design to restrain recoil.

3. Given my interpretation of the first sentence, what's the purpose of the second sentence (the one you reference in post 15)? I'm not sure; maybe to prohibit bags (used without side-plate style rests) that might be designed to "dovetail" with the slope of the stock.

aka Hunter, you're interpretation of the first sentence assumes that recoil is not just rearward momentum of the rifle after being fired.

Now the definition of recoil is (according to this website http://www.thefreedictionary.com/recoil)

re·coil (r-koil)
intr.v. re·coiled, re·coil·ing, re·coils
1. To spring back, as upon firing.
2. To shrink back, as in fear or repugnance.
3. To fall back; return: "Violence does, in truth, recoil upon the violent" (Arthur Conan Doyle).
n. also (rkoil)
1. The backward action of a firearm upon firing.
2. The act or state of recoiling; reaction.


Since the definition of recoil only relates to the rearward motion of a firearm during firing, can you please clarify where the lateral movement of a firearm is defined under the definition of recoil.

Also do you compete in Benchrest? If so do you use a front rest that contains a sand bag with ears and has a means to adjust or contain those ears?

Ian

Wilbur
03-08-2013, 09:22 PM
Maybe not a 6ppc...but...a 30BR in a 13.5 lb gun is easier to agg with than a 10.5 lb rifle in the same caliber...IMO...:cool:

Eddie in Texas

I think you may be right. I've seen one example that supports the statement.

Returned for correction...change "may be" to "are". The sentence would then read...I think you are right.

The 30BR recoil is significantly greater than the PPC.

Hunter
03-10-2013, 10:29 AM
aka Hunter, you're interpretation of the first sentence assumes that recoil is not just rearward momentum of the rifle after being fired.

Now the definition of recoil is (according to this website http://www.thefreedictionary.com/recoil)

re·coil (r-koil)
intr.v. re·coiled, re·coil·ing, re·coils
1. To spring back, as upon firing.
2. To shrink back, as in fear or repugnance.
3. To fall back; return: "Violence does, in truth, recoil upon the violent" (Arthur Conan Doyle).
n. also (rkoil)
1. The backward action of a firearm upon firing.
2. The act or state of recoiling; reaction.


Since the definition of recoil only relates to the rearward motion of a firearm during firing, can you please clarify where the lateral movement of a firearm is defined under the definition of recoil. See 1 below.

Also do you compete in Benchrest? See 2 below. If so do you use a front rest that contains a sand bag with ears and has a means to adjust or contain those ears? See 3 below.

Ian

Thanks for replying to my question; I'm surprised that no one else has weighed in.

1. To posit that recoil "only relates to the rearward motion" reminds me of Bill Clinton's argument about what the meaning of the word "is" is. Would you argue that the upward motion of a handgun after firing is not recoil? Furthermore, the above definition is incomplete. This website, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recoil, explains that, "[f]or a gun firing under free-recoil conditions, the force on the gun will not only force the gun backwards, but will also cause it to rotate about its center of mass."

If you're going to rely solely upon the definition you quoted, given that every action is the result of another action, what action do you attribute to the gun's lateral movement? Wind? No, it's recoil -- and even Bill Clinton would have a tough time explaining that away.

2. I occasionally shoot from a bench, using a rest. Do I compete? I guess it depends on your definition of "compete."

3. No, but if I did it might be illegal. :)

Boyd Allen
03-10-2013, 12:58 PM
Taking your logic to the extreme, only flat front bags would be legal. Good luck with that one. I think a more common take on the rule has to do with putting so much side tension on a bag that the rifle's rearward motion during firing is reduced.

Hunter
03-10-2013, 04:36 PM
Taking your logic to the extreme, only flat front bags would be legal.

What's exteme about strict interpretation of the rule? What puzzles me is how the "bending" of the rule started -- must have been a liberal.

Maybe the rule book is a "living, breathing" document, and needs to be interpreted in light of the current goings-on.

PS Not suggesting that you're a liberal. :cool:

SGS
03-10-2013, 07:10 PM
I never got, what I considered, a good answer to post # 14 above. As a bit of background, comparing the looks of rests back in Warren Page's day with the looks of modern-day rests, it seems obvious that the intent of the new design is to "restrain recoil."

Anyone care to review posts 14-16, 18 and 20, and share your thoughts?

It sounds as though you are referring to the typical front rest design which employs a sandbag with ears and adjustable plates to adjust the ears for a snug fit to the sides of the forend. This obviously helps to restrain the rifle from lateral movement, but does nothing to restrain recoil (rearward movement). Since this design of front rest has been in use for many, many years, there has been plenty of opportunity to question whether it meets with the intent and spirit of the rules. What's your point?

Scott

Hunter
03-10-2013, 08:27 PM
It sounds as though you are referring to the typical front rest design which employs a sandbag with ears and adjustable plates to adjust the ears for a snug fit to the sides of the forend. This obviously helps to restrain the rifle from lateral movement, but does nothing to restrain recoil (rearward movement). Since this design of front rest has been in use for many, many years, there has been plenty of opportunity to question whether it meets with the intent and spirit of the rules. What's your point?

Over the "many, many years," I never had any burning desire to read the rules; it wasn't until fairly recently that I did so. My point? Nothing more than trying to understand why some rules apparently are strickly enforced (e.g., weight) while that rule seems to be ignored.

BTW, as suggested in post # 32 above, the argument that recoil is nothing more than rearward movement may not be a winning argument.

Jerry Dailey
03-10-2013, 08:45 PM
If I am understanding you correctly that rule has been enforced in at least the S.E. region. I well rember Wilbur when he was The SE director, walking in front of the firing line and pushing up on the rifle barrels to see if the rifle would lift straight up. He also had a guide to check the stock width. I have also been at matches where one of the ref's did the same. I paticulary rember that because I had my side tension too tight and had to loosen it.If this is not what your refering to then I apologise

Fergus Bailey
03-10-2013, 10:14 PM
Over the "many, many years," I never had any burning desire to read the rules; it wasn't until fairly recently that I did so. My point? Nothing more than trying to understand why some rules apparently are strickly enforced (e.g., weight) while that rule seems to be ignored.



I think you are confusing "enforced" with checked before the match. Just because each rifle isnt checked to ensure the barrel taper, stock, etc is compliant before the start of every match, does not mean the officials will not enforce rules if a transgression comes to light during a match. Also, enforcing the rules is not simply the job of a few overworked volunteer match officials. Any competitor has the right to lodge a protest if they think someone has an unfair advantage during a match.

Wilbur
03-15-2013, 03:36 PM
There is a rule that limits how tight you clamp the sides of your front bag. Follow that rule and recoil will not be restrained. Tighten 'em up beyond that and recoil may very well be restrained - that's Boyd's point. You can restrain recoil with your shoulder but not with the rest screws.

Fergus makes a good point as well. If somebody sees rules not being enforced it would seem that they should throw a flag right then rather than mention it later. Please understand that I'm not writing just in the context of this thread and I point at no one in particular. I am, however, pointing at the general participant at any sanctioned event. Rules are rules and if you see something...say something. The rule book, regardless of how you may feel about it, is the basis for competition.

eww1350
03-25-2013, 08:00 PM
" Reword Page 12 Item 5 to read, “SPORTER RIFLE. A Sporter Rifle is defined as any rifle having a safe manually and mechanically operated firing Mechanism and must not weigh more than 10 ½ pounds, inclusive of sights. The stock can be flat, or convex, but not concave....."

There is a stock for sale on BR Classifieds that is a Tony Larson Redwood & Carbton fiber...I am assuming it is a LV/Sporter...but looking at the photos is has a recess (about 1/4") milled into the bottom of the forend that runs the length of the forend and about 2 1/2" wide which lets only the outside lower edge of the stock forend ride the bag, with no contact in the middle area...same as some of the long range rifle stocks..is it legal for LV, Sporter, HV competition.???


Eddie in Texas

Don Nielson
03-25-2013, 08:06 PM
No

Mike Bryant
03-25-2013, 09:26 PM
Typically, the way that the NBRSA has checked for flat forends in classes such as hunter classes that require the forend to be convex and not flat was to take a straight edge and lay it on the forend. If it rocked, then it was convex. Conversely, if you laid a straight edge on a forend and it hit on each side and had daylight underneath the straight edge it would be concave. I agree with Don that it wouldn't be legal. But, that's just my opinion.

Whether it makes any difference in how it shoots, I doubt it. But, when you have a rule book, it has to follow the rules to be legal. IMO, there are too many rules that serve no particular purpose. I'm sure they were put in with good reason such as the deflection rule on sandbags, 1/4" deflection with thumb pressure, but would be very hard to enforce. 5 pounds thumb pressure, 10 pounds, 20 pounds. I'm sure that was put in to keep from having a return to battery varmint class rifle. If someone wants to shoot a rock hard sandbag, they will eventually find that it doesn't help their shooting and can cause fliers. Some people seem to have to push the edge of the rules to try to gain a perceived competitive advantage. It's simpler just to stay within the rules and not have to worry about it. I'd rather be an ounce or two under on rifle weight as the 1/4 of an ounce over that is allowed for scale variance. It just makes life simpler. The new sporter class rules will be interesting. I hope they stay in effect longer than the one trial year as that's not long enough to see much changes especially with how hard it is to get rifle components currently.