Boyd Allen..et al

W

Wilbur

cook and bottle washer
Some time ago, too long ago, Boyd questioned a change in the NBRSA rules concerning the now "missing" excerpt concerning bedding blocks. I stated that I didn't have recall of the rule being changed and would "Get to the bottom" of it. While visiting with Pat and Burton Ferrell this weekend, I asked Pat to research the issue and she quickly produced documentation in support of the change. As it turns out, the item to remove the bedding block words hit the table at the 2005 board meeting. To my embarrassment, I seconded the motion. I think the other guy that was helping me research what happened actually presented the item.

Bottom line is that the current rule book is correct concerning (or the lack of concern) bedding blocks.
 
Wilbur,
Thanks for the effort. Did you mean action sleeves and barrel blocks? I don't recall anything about bedding blocks.

Just to see if I missed something, I went to the published minutes on the NBRSA web site, and noted that the last entry is for a 2003 teleconference. Maybe it's time for an update? :)
Boyd
 
Last edited:
That's great news.

That makes Gene Begg's new stock legal without any doubt. I hope that he does well with his new design. Good shooting...James
 
Wow

It would have been nice to know all of this before certain persons, (ie, me), questioned the legality of Gene's Stock.

I keep my ear pretty close to the tracks, and I swear, I never heard any of this.

If a tree falls in the forest, and nobody is there to hear it, did it make a noise???........jackie
 
"If a tree falls in the forest, and nobody is there to hear it, did it make a noise???........"

Well, yes. There's ears everywhere, everywhere.
 
Good for you Wilbur !

Thanks for resolving the question about barrel/bedding blocks. When the rule was written, I'm sure there was a reason but I can't imagine what it was.

Now, if we could just get the stock angle rule dropped or changed. :rolleyes: Instead of the complicated, ambiguous description now in use, why not say,

"The bottom angle of the buttstock cannot be less than seven degrees to the bore." Short, sweet and simple. :)

Later,

Gene Beggs
 
Gene,
Not to be too picky, but I believe that some stocks in current production ,that are legal by the current rule, have a toe angle that is slightly less than the one that you have suggested. Don't you think that this should be a consideration in picking an angle? I think that the best way to pick an angle would be to survey the likely list of actions and use the one that produces the smallest legal angle, by the current rule, and specify one a smidge less than that. Just a thought....
 
Gene

By the way how do you plan on checking this angle? Easily? Quickly? Without any controversy?

Hell we don't even use the stock width checker that all Directors have.

Even more important is weighing them and that's not done regulary. Don
 
Don

Weight is about the only thing we check on any sort of regular basis.

It wouldn't bother me if we had two classes, "Bag Gun" and "Return to Battery Gun".........jackie
 
Boyd Allen said:
Gene,
Not to be too picky, but I believe that some stocks in current production ,that are legal by the current rule, have a toe angle that is slightly less than the one that you have suggested. Don't you think that this should be a consideration in picking an angle? I think that the best way to pick an angle would be to survey the likely list of actions and use the one that produces the smallest legal angle, by the current rule, and specify one a smidge less than that. Just a thought....
Click to expand...


Boyd, if it was my decision, I would simply remove from the rules any mention of stock toe angle. If a shooter wants to use a flat, straight bottom on his stock that's fine with me. I assure you it would not make one bit of difference and would not result in even the slightest advantage. We often get hung up with trivia such as this and lose sight of other things that are far more important. My motto; keep it simple. :)

Later

Gene Beggs
 
jackie schmidt said:
Weight is about the only thing we check on any sort of regular basis.

It wouldn't bother me if we had two classes, "Bag Gun" and "Return to Battery Gun".........jackie
Click to expand...


Jackie, you're right; weight is the only thing we check on a regular basis and if we do this, everything else will take care of itself. I've never been beaten by a stock or a rear bag.

You have always said, Light Varmint and Sporter are redundant, and of course they are but the Sporter category provides an additional opportunity for one to earn HOF points. It's a good system the way it is and with the exception of eliminating stock toe angle and any restrictions on rear bags, I say leave it the way it is.

Later

Gene Beggs
 
Don Nielson said:
By the way how do you plan on checking this angle? Easily? Quickly? Without any controversy?

Hell we don't even use the stock width checker that all Directors have.

Even more important is weighing them and that's not done regulary. Don
Click to expand...



All good points Don. The match directors have enough to worry about without fussing over such trivia as stock toe angle. If an angle of four or three degrees or, Heaven forbid, a flat bottom stock provided any advantage at all I could see policing it but it doesn't; it's a waste of time. I say scratch it from the rule book.

Later,

Gene Beggs
 
"I've never been beaten by a stock or a rear bag."

Gene, not to be argumentitive but I suspect you and I have been beaten by both !!!

A great shooting system is every part working in concert... Get a bad scope, barrel, bedding, or any other part of the system and your agging potential starts to dwindle. Every part of the system matters.....
 
Pat B. said:
"I've never been beaten by a stock or a rear bag."

Gene, not to be argumentitive but I suspect you and I have been beaten by both !!!

A great shooting system is every part working in concert... Get a bad scope, barrel, bedding, or any other part of the system and your agging potential starts to dwindle. Every part of the system matters.....
Click to expand...


Hi Pat,

Sounds as if you know something about stocks and rear bags that I do not. I think I have the answer to the stock part of the equation with the Ultralite but do you have any secrets to share with us about rear bags? Anything you can share would be most welcome and how could it detract from your own efforts? You have nothing to prove; you have already proven to one and all that you are one of the best benchrest shooters in the world. You have written your name into the record books and shot your way into the HOF. That says it all. :)

The rear bag rules and interpretations thereof have created a lot of controversy during the twenty years I have been involved in benchrest. I believe it's time we got realistic about this and eliminate some of the outdated, ambiguous rules such as, what the bag may be filled with, what it can be made of, whether or not a bag stabilizer can be used and whether or not it can be attached to the bag etc., etc. Who cares? :rolleyes:

If the rules, as they are presently written, were followed to the 'T', there would be very few rear bags that would pass inspection. For example;

The rules state the rear bag shall be filled with sand only with no additives. This alone would eliminate about half the bags on the line because many add talcum powder, parakeet gravel, lanolin, Barite, rosin, and other additives.

What is the definition of sand? Is it ground up glass, black foundry sand or could white sand from the Monahans sand hills be used? What is the minimum/maximum size of granule? Must it be naturally occurring or can it be ground up concrete? If beach sand is used, must it be washed clean of salt? See what I mean? Such silly rules leave the door open for those who love nothing more than stirring up trouble.

If we are going to look the other way for some and not others, why have the rule in the first place? Why not make it simple and remove all restrictions on rear bags. If a shooter wants to fill his rear bag with lead shot, it's okay with me. If he wants a solid concrete rear bag; why not? I don't have a problem with it. If the huge 'Gator' bags are legal, why not a smaller Edgewood or Protektor bag filled with whatever? :rolleyes:

Later,

Gene Beggs
 
Bags, The eyes have it

I can understand the reason for the multiple rules that govern rear bags. I do, however, agree with Gene. We should allow more and different versions of rear bags and filling materials. This is a business opportunity in an otherwise gloomy financial year. You, for instance, could market the Michael Phelps Bong Bag only available in high and extra high configurations; the KGB bag filled with Polonium 210; the frozen bag filled with epoxy and adjusted by outside levers and screws; the March bag loses all its sand after 2 years and then you are left holding...the bag; the Tom Daschle bag has some interest and absolutely no penalties for misuse; the Obama bag with large ears; the George Bush bag, blame it for every bad group you ever shot. The list goes on and on. I will be working on the Osama Bin Laden bag as soon as I can find it. Tim
 
Dr. Tim

You missed your true calling and wasted your youth as a Doctor. You should have been in stand up comedy. You forgot the Eric Holder bag. It will pardon your bad shooting, no matter what. Good shooting....James
 
Pat

That was well said. Everything that is involved in making one bullet follow the exact same path as the one before is part of the "combination".........jackie
 
Dr Tim, you maze me man....... I'm spavined, flummoxed, flabbergasted and floored....just


wow


:D


al
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top