PDA

View Full Version : Has Anybody Built, or Seen, a Sporter Based On The New Provisional Rule?



jackie schmidt
04-05-2013, 03:35 PM
Just curious.

Joe Krupa
04-05-2013, 04:38 PM
Larry Feusse talked about building one at our last score match in March.

The stock was one thing. But, Larry also mentioned that a front rest top would need to be designed and built.

ehparis
04-08-2013, 11:44 AM
Clarification. I thought the new provisional rule made a sporter and a LV one and the same, i.e., a sporter can now be .22 and it will weigh 10.5 pounds. Am I wrong?

jackie schmidt
04-08-2013, 10:46 PM
The new Provisional Rule does away with just about all stock restrictions in Sporter, such as limits on the width of the forarm and the angle of the butt stock. The stock, however, cannot have any guiding means that would allow true return to battery capabilities.
Also, there are no restrictions on the barrel contour such as what are in place for LV and HV.
And yes, the caliber restrictions have been removed.

The Sporter and Light Varmint Class are still restricted to 10.5 pounds, and HV to 13.5 pounds.

If someone builds a Sporter incorporating the new guidelines, it will not be legal to fired in either HV or Light Varmint, as the stock requirements and barrel contour requirements are still in affect for those classes.

But do keep in mind, none of this prohibits a shooter from simply shooting his current Sporter, or LV, in Sporter Class.

Also, just as a note, where in the past, a legal built to the rules Sporter could be legally fired in all four classes, that now falls to Light Varmint.........jackie

Wilbur
04-12-2013, 11:16 PM
I thought you would be the first to show up with a tricked out Sporter !!!

Now what are we gonna do !?!? :)

Mike Bryant
04-13-2013, 05:41 PM
I think it's going to take some time to see much change in the sporter class rifle. It's possible to build a benchrest rifle in the years trial run for the new sporter class rules, but you'll have to do it with actions that you either have or someone has in stock. The same thing with barrels. If you order components from the manufacturers, you are looking at around 8 months or more to get some makes of actions and some makes of barrels. You're either going to have to build the stock yourself to get it very fast and that may not be quick or have someone make it for you if they are willing to experiment with stock shape. I had a popular benchrest stock put on one of my actions last year and it was about that same 8 months or so getting it.

Wilbur
04-13-2013, 09:32 PM
Is there anybody on the band wagon making trick stuff for these new Sporter rules?

Wilbur
04-13-2013, 09:35 PM
Do any of you have plans, or know of someone with plans to cook up a rifle that is different? Not asking what you're actually gonna do because that would take the scare factor out...should there be one.

CubCouper
04-14-2013, 12:06 AM
Not tricked out in any unusual way (yet), but I've got a new .222 in the works for my Sporter experiment for this season. Thought is that the PPC dominated the deuce because it was good, and because a 6mm was required. Without the 6 requirement I decided to see how competitive the old cartridge could be with all our modern build techniques. I'm kind of limited on how radical the changes can be because I don't plan on investing in new rest components until I see how it plays.

Rod

ARTC
04-14-2013, 01:53 AM
I think we were the first place in the country to have a match under the new sporter trail rule. We shot the Arizona 4-Gun Championship in January and April. We only had one shooter at the January match that shot a sporter with a differant taper on the barrel. That's the only one so far.

Art Clegg

Bro.D
04-14-2013, 06:33 PM
I'll throw my hat in the ring. My plan right now is to build a sporter that is experimental in nature, mostly within the stock design. I think this is going to be a difficult venture because of the weight limit. time will tell. It sure would have been nice if the new rules would have allowed us to experiment with some extra weight. 13.5 lb would have been awesome! But has been mentioned the gears are turning slowly. The plan is in my head I just have to have the time to do it and time is hard to come by for a new projects. I hope there will be others that will experiment.... Later, Bro.D

jackie schmidt
04-15-2013, 07:54 AM
There are a few top shooters working with stock makers on coming up with a unit that takes advantage of the new rules, and still allows for a 10.5 pound weight limit.

I would think that the idea of 10.5 pounds was kept in order to actually bring forth new ideas in designs. If the weight was 13.5, what you would end up with would be a trimmed down 600-1000 yard light gun in a short range chambering.

Probably no easy task, but then new innovations often take the best in minds to finally be brought to fruition........jackie

glp
04-16-2013, 06:34 PM
Looking at Shelley Davidsons tubular two piece stock design or some variation? My recollection is it was very light. Ken Livengood was thinking of building a rifle around one, not sure if he ever did.

http://www.accurateshooter.com/guns-of-week/gunweek077/

Remember this was written in 2008 and the IBS has since legalized tuners.

Pete Wass
04-17-2013, 07:51 AM
Looking at Shelley Davidsons tubular two piece stock design or some variation? My recollection is it was very light. Ken Livengood was thinking of building a rifle around one, not sure if he ever did.

http://www.accurateshooter.com/guns-of-week/gunweek077/

Remember this was written in 2008 and the IBS has since legalized tuners.



Gene Beggs has said that this rifle was the most accurate rifle ever shot in his tunnel, as I recall.

Vern
04-17-2013, 10:27 AM
FWIW Gene also makes what is generally referred to as a skeletonized stock. It bears marked resemblance to the ideas Shelly had.
Both however seem to make the fore end attachment to the barrel in some form. I think maybe the key is to make whatever forearm attachment attach to the action so the barrel has no restrictions unless that is of course it could be conceivable to use the attachment to the barrel to cause it to cause a tuning effect.

ehparis
04-19-2013, 12:29 PM
The new Provisional Rule does away with just about all stock restrictions in Sporter, such as limits on the width of the forarm and the angle of the butt stock. The stock, however, cannot have any guiding means that would allow true return to battery capabilities.
Also, there are no restrictions on the barrel contour such as what are in place for LV and HV.
And yes, the caliber restrictions have been removed.

The Sporter and Light Varmint Class are still restricted to 10.5 pounds, and HV to 13.5 pounds.

If someone builds a Sporter incorporating the new guidelines, it will not be legal to fired in either HV or Light Varmint, as the stock requirements and barrel contour requirements are still in affect for those classes.

But do keep in mind, none of this prohibits a shooter from simply shooting his current Sporter, or LV, in Sporter Class.

Also, just as a note, where in the past, a legal built to the rules Sporter could be legally fired in all four classes, that now falls to Light Varmint.........jackie

I would hope that the new rules lead to some innovations in .22 caliber which would result in rifles chambered for something other than the PPC family although .22 caliber rifles seem awfully competitive when built on the PPC case. I'm wondering if old experiments with .22s built on the BR case will return. Apparently from what's said in this thread at least CubCouper is going to try the old .222 in Sporter class and there were a lot of variations built on the .222 Mag case. Given today's popularity of the .223 case perhaps it will be the basis for some experiments.

Mike Bryant
04-24-2013, 06:56 PM
I would hope that the new rules lead to some innovations in .22 caliber which would result in rifles chambered for something other than the PPC family although .22 caliber rifles seem awfully competitive when built on the PPC case. I'm wondering if old experiments with .22s built on the BR case will return. Apparently from what's said in this thread at least CubCouper is going to try the old .222 in Sporter class and there were a lot of variations built on the .222 Mag case. Given today's popularity of the .223 case perhaps it will be the basis for some experiments.

I doubt if you'll see much experimentation with a BR case in a .22. I've moved shoulders back on them and compared to moving the shoulder back on a .220 Russian it's a royal pain. To move the shoulder back on a .220 Russian case, you push it into a .22-250 die and shorten it as much as you want depending upon how far you push it into the die. Trying to push the shoulder back on a BR case has to be done in steps as it will collapse the shoulder if you try to do it in one pass. I haven't found a die that will do it the same way a .22-250 die will work for a PPC case. Too much work for something that won't out shoot a PPC.

I expect that change will come in the way of stock design as we aren't constrained by the butt taper and width requirements.

Charles E
04-30-2013, 10:31 PM
http://www.varmintal.com/a22lr.htm#RVBBL

http://www.varmintal.com/a22lr.htm#TwoFlats

Now legal in CF sporter, ... right?

Joe Krupa
05-01-2013, 10:39 AM
I talked again with our "resident experimenter" Larry Feusse at our April WWCCA match.

He is trying to make soemthing up that meets the new sporter rules, but he asked a very legitimate question: can we shoot these animals in any other matches than the Nationals?

I threw the question to our ER director Jack Neary and the discussion went toward changing the format of some of our regional matches from LV-HV to Sporter-HV so that the experimenter can try out their handiwork.

I would quess that the range could change their format by changing their existing 2013 contract to replace LV with sporter and see what comes from that. We would also need to advertise the change in the newsletter.

Any of the other regionals getting that same question or thought process?

Wilbur
05-01-2013, 12:56 PM
http://www.varmintal.com/a22lr.htm#RVBBL

http://www.varmintal.com/a22lr.htm#TwoFlats

Now legal in CF sporter, ... right?

I think so!

mks
02-16-2015, 12:47 PM
Any interesting developments? Is this rule still in effect?

David Halblom
02-16-2015, 01:56 PM
Any interesting developments? Is this rule still in effect?

permanent. Was made so at the 2013 Nationals at Fairchance. Developments, who knows?

David

Tim Singleton
02-16-2015, 07:31 PM
http://bulletin.accurateshooter.com/2013/10/nbrsa-changes-sporter-rules-bukys-builds-to-new-standards/


I remembered reading this a while back A great design on the stock as it can be switched back to make LV

If I remeber right Skeetlee has one of these stocks. He may have sold it idk

jackie schmidt
02-16-2015, 08:29 PM
The most important feature of this rule is it has no affect on a shooter using his existing Rifle, (ie, a LV)), in any class.

If you think a wider stock and different barrel contour will help you in Sporter, go for it. If you can spare the weight, it might be as simple as attaching a piece of epoxy coated balsa wood onto the forearm of your LV.

TSI243
02-16-2015, 09:21 PM
This rule is not provisional -- it's the rule now and has been for several years

I built this rifle a few years ago and have not had a chance to shoot it yet to see what it's got

http://benchrest.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=15897&stc=1&d=1424139263http://benchrest.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=15898&stc=1&d=1424139263http://benchrest.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=15899&stc=1&d=1424139293

Maybe I'll get to it this year This rifle can be configured to shoot as a LV or HV as well -- so it's the all purpose rifle --

I also hear that John Horn has built a Sporter to the new rules I'm not sure what it looks like ??

Gene Bukys

Mike Bryant
02-17-2015, 10:32 AM
I saw a stock at Holton last year that Bob Scarborough was making for the Sporter class. 5" or so wide forend, no taper in the butt. Didn't look at it very closely. It was Scott Hunter's stock so expect to see it this year at some of the regions sporter class matches. John could have wound up with the stock instead of Scott.

Dave Coots
02-17-2015, 11:37 AM
I wonder how many folks get discouraged waiting, or die while waiting on benchrest related supplies. If a new shooter had the money and wanted to get into the game he would have to wait a year and a half to shoot by the time he gathered up all his new stuff.

Later
Dave

tzander
02-17-2015, 02:33 PM
I wonder how many folks get discouraged waiting or die while waiting on benchrest related supplies. If a new shooter had the money and wanted to get into the game he would have to wait a year and a half to shoot by the time he gathered up all his new stuff.

Later
Dave

Well said Dave. Tony

liljoe
02-17-2015, 07:16 PM
And then finding out the gun you waited so long for is just average.

Joe Hynes

jackie schmidt
02-17-2015, 08:15 PM
And then finding out the gun you waited so long for is just average.

Joe Hynes

Yeh. Or in order to make it work, you have to send it off and have several "problems" fixed.

The last I heard, there is a cottage industry that has cropped up "fixing" some of the more popular actions. But I have been out of the loop for a while, maybe the manufacturers have addressed these.

But Benchrest has always had this. Top shooters know little tricks of the trade that do make their equipment just a cut above. They didn't just stumble upon this knowledge, it is gained through hours of meticulous trial, and often error, finding out what works, and what is just a solution in search of a problem.

I think the correct term for that is "dedication".

Years ago, a very well known shooter from out in the west Texas area told me he considered every brand of action a "kit", except the Panda. Probably some truth in that still.

Dave Coots
02-18-2015, 07:02 PM
And then finding out the gun you waited so long for is just average.

Joe Hynes

Joe

What did you expect for 3 or 4 thousand bucks--------something that worked??:cool:

Later
Dave

liljoe
02-18-2015, 09:10 PM
They all work, just some work a LOT better than others.

Joe Hynes

LARRY FEUSSE
02-20-2015, 11:56 PM
Stock design is just one of the things that we can learn more about with this new design freedom. I also believe there is yet a lot to be learned about barrel harmonics. Has anyone noticed that the faster we try to drive bullets, the harder it is to keep the gun in tune? Is this because of more rapid heat build up, or that the nodes are closer together as velocity increases, causing every little variable to be magnified? Has anyone besides Skip Otto ever tried to control barrel temps or vibrations by enclosing the steel barrel in a liquid with an aluminum outer shell? Just some examples.

This platform would allow so much new experimentation and advancement in knowledge and accuracy potential. But the thing that is still a huge barrier is that there are not enough matches in which to try out new options. Until we as the benchrest shooters demand that matches include the new sporter platform, we are just providing lip service and not committing to any real possibility for anyone to learn from this opportunity.

Sorry if this sounds like a rant. I want this to work for the sake of our sport. Unless we really get behind the concept of change, we are going to loose participants who have no hope of competing with those who have the money for tons of equipment, money for travel and money and time for practice. And even those folks will eventually become frustrated with not having anyone to compete against anymore.

I think many in this sport are overlooking the value of having .................................................. ........................what???????

JerrySharrett
02-21-2015, 05:17 AM
Yeh. Or in order to make it work, you have to send it off and have several "problems" fixed.


Years ago, a very well known shooter from out in the west Texas area told me he considered every brand of action a "kit", except the Panda. Probably some truth in that still.



I rest my case!!

The only known problem that has exited with the Panda was that the bolt handle was silver soldered on and in an extreme situation the handle could come unsoldered.

This story CCBW was involved in. He and his shooting pard HFV were at a shoot, Rockingham IIRC, and HFV somehow jammed up the action... (Too much of the grey stuff??), anyhow, he broke the handle off. He and CCBW called the action builder GK Sr for an idea on a quick fix. Mr action builder had them go to the store and get a bottle of Super Glue and glue the handle back on. They did and HFV finished the shoot with the now glued on handle.

That was a 1995 Panda affectionately called the Bowling Ball because of its obnoxious colored stock. One can still see the gouges in the bolt flutes where HFV and CCBW pried the bolt open. I know that story well as I now own that action. The Bowling Ball stock is now retired and has been replaced with a Leonard stock. I'd guess that action has had over 25,000 rounds through it and it will travel to the Shamrock with me in just a few weeks.

I notice on my latest Panda of 2012 vintage that the bolt handles are now TIG welded instead of silvered. My Pandas range in vintage of 1992 to 2012 and all function flawlessly. They sometimes wish they had a better driver though!!

.

Nancyscarbrough
02-22-2015, 10:46 PM
Just curious.



Scarbrough Stock has built 2 of these Stock for a 10 1/2 lb sporter class, called the "Hammer Head".

Nancyscarbrough
02-22-2015, 11:19 PM
Just curious.

http://benchrest.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=15910&stc=1&d=1424665116

Dusty Stevens
02-23-2015, 12:39 AM
Just like anything else bob does- nice.

tzander
02-23-2015, 12:54 PM
15911 Here is another view of Bob's version to the new sporter rule.

David Halblom
02-23-2015, 07:06 PM
Scarbrough Stock has built 2 of these Stock for a 10 1/2 lb sporter class, called the "Hammer Head".

did the first 2 come in at for weight? Still gotta make 10.5#.

David

Morran
03-10-2015, 01:50 PM
Not tricked out in any unusual way (yet), but I've got a new .222 in the works for my Sporter experiment for this season. Thought is that the PPC dominated the deuce because it was good, and because a 6mm was required. Without the 6 requirement I decided to see how competitive the old cartridge could be with all our modern build techniques. I'm kind of limited on how radical the changes can be because I don't plan on investing in new rest components until I see how it plays.

Rod

How competitive is the deuce nowadays?

Wilbur
03-15-2015, 01:32 PM
I don't think we'll ever know unless folks, in general, start shooting the .222. One or two doesn't mean much.....

Morran
03-16-2015, 03:32 PM
I don't think we'll ever know unless folks, in general, start shooting the .222. One or two doesn't mean much.....

Thanks for your reply! I guess that you´re right. I Read in another thread that there was a bunch of them coming out in 2014.

M

Dusty Stevens
03-18-2015, 01:14 AM
Thanks for your reply! I guess that you´re right. I Read in another thread that there was a bunch of them coming out in 2014.

M

We'll see. Maybe at a small shoot but not a big one. The way benchresters work is if a deuce won a big match like the super shoot, a couple folks will build one and test it, if it works they may take it to some small matches but still shoot a ppc then if a deuce won about 4 more big shoots then you may see about 3 at mid size matches then if successful in 10-12 yrs from now- if its been beating ppcs solid- youll see a gradual changeover. Its just hard to get most br shooters to fork over the money for a big match and have one part of the equation in question. Its not like F class where if one caliber wins this week next match everybody there will be using the same oddball flavor of the week. I love the deuce. Im a vintage guy and have some in my vintage collection. Wish they had a class for em.