NBRSA 2012 Agenda item on creating an experimental class

JerrySharrett

JerrySharrett

Senile Member
At the 2012 annual meeting recently the NBRSA Southwest Region submitted an agenda item (Item 10) proposing dropping the Sporter Class from the NBRSA nationals and makes a suggestion to work toward an "experimental class". What action was taken, if any, on this item?
 
Jerry, changing the sporter class to an experimental class with no restrictions on caliber or stock shape passed. Basically whatever can be built with a 10.5 pound weight limit. They mentioned something that the stock couldn't be concave on the forend. I personally think that the .23 caliber or larger restriction on the old sporter class has accomplished its original goal of developing a cartridge to compete other than the .224 sized bullet. Just as a guess I imagine the main thing we'll see is there will be more .22 PPC shorts built as they will be able to shoot them in all four classes. Whether they beat out the 6 PPC, remains to be seen. Probably will be a little experimentation with stock shapes with no taper in the butt. Might not see much experimentation in stock shape though as there seems to be more shooters interested in competing rather than experimentation. The same 6 PPC sporter class rifle is still legal to use in the new less restrictive class. No new rifle has to be built to compete.
 
Last edited:
Mike, is the new class simply weight-restricted, or are their other rules aside from no concave forearm? Barrel taper? Barrel block longer than 4 inches? Etc.

It's nice to see the NBRSA take this move. Initially, I think you're right, the competitors rule. But as "the few" begin to play with weight-restriction only, I do think we'll see things that drop the aggs in that class. I have no idea what they will be...but if it is a significant amount, I'd bet that over time, they'll be allowed in LV and HV as well. And if/when HV becomes a weight-restriction only, we'll see even more good stuff. It will take time, makes me wish I was younger.
 
Hi Charles,
At the SE Regional meeting we voted not to pass the sporter change at this time because the economy sucks and we have members in poor financial shape. Everyone thought the idea was okay but the timing "not so much". I also asked a few shooters if they felt this would increase participation at the Nationals. It was interesting that the ones that have a railgun said it made little difference while the ones that did not have a railgun said they would probably not come to the Nationals anymore since they already felt at a disadvantage before in one event, now they would be disadvantaged in two.
I guess time will tell.
I can think of quite a few interesting changes that I would like to try but I'm not so sure I feel good about going against guys with an advantage that they can't afford. Feels wrong...
Larry
 
Mike Bryant said:
Jerry, changing the sporter class to an experimental class with no restrictions on caliber or stock shape passed. Basically whatever can be built with a 10.5 pound weight limit. They mentioned something that the stock couldn't be concave on the forend. I personally think that the .23 caliber or larger restriction on the old sporter class has accomplished its original goal of developing a cartridge to compete other than the .224 sized bullet. Just as a guess I imagine the main thing we'll see is there will be more .22 PPC shorts built as they will be able to shoot them in all four classes. Whether they beat out the 6 PPC, remains to be seen. Probably will be a little experimentation with stock shapes with no taper in the butt. Might not see much experimentation in stock shape though as there seems to be more shooters interested in competing rather than experimentation. The same 6 PPC sporter class rifle is still legal to use in the new less restrictive class. No new rifle has to be built to compete.
Click to expand...

Mike, If I am hearing this right and the stock configuration is changed on the butt taper, these guns will no longer be legal in Light and Heavy.......Correct?
Gene
 
As I remember, I was in the middle of the Sonoran desert, sweating and trying to drink lots of water..........funny condition to find oneself when hell freezes over! Now I just need to decide if I go skiing or snowboarding. Or maybe just sit by the fire and wait the winter out............
 
Thanks Mike and Larry for an update. Since I was not at the NBRSA Annual I don't have a feel for what our shooters would like to see but I'll bet an experimental class, restricted to 10.5 pounds was not it.

A few years ago when I was pushing for an experimental class, restricting weight to 10.5 pounds was not on my mind. I was envisioning a class being restricted only to a caliber less than 31, otherwise dream and build!!
 
Jerry,
The idea is that the Unlimited is already the experimental class for the "any weight" goes. This is the bag gun version. It still has to ride on sand bags with no return to battery and weigh 10.5 pounds or less and the current sporter will continue to be a legal configuration, so you can compete with your present day sporter.
Unlike the Unlimited, there are some "gotchas" that were not covered. As an example it leaves open electric ignition, it leaves open wide stocks on rear and front. I don't think barrel taper has been restricted or action type, certainly now any caliber goes and any barrel attachement is okay as long as it is safe. Should be interesting...
At least that is what I understood, there was very little detail given at the meeting.
Larry
 
Sorry guys... That's not the way I remember it or have it noted. At the SER meeting there was not a firm no!! After discussion I summed it up that some changes would be ok as long as competitors could still be competitive with the equipment they were currently using and did not have to lay out additional money for equipment. I voted for this item based on that discussion. I still believe there will be no competitive advantage as long as the 10.5 lb weight restriction stay in place.

There is no experimental class. It will still be Sporter.

This was approved by the BOD on a one year trial basis. If it does not work out it can and will be voted out at the 2013 Nationals in Fairchance.

Wayne Campbell
SER Director
 
Last edited:
As to what the experimental class change to the sporter actually is, we'll just have to see when the actual rule change is printed. If someone makes a change to the current sporter rifle that would be outside the rules for the other classes, then that rifle wouldn't be legal to compete in the other two varmint classes. It could still be shot in the other classes, just wouldn't be competing.

Off the subject of the changes to the sporter class, there have been parts of the old rule books that have been left out of the current rule book. The barrel block restriction of 4" in front of the bolt face had been left out of the rule book unintentionally. Scott Hunter and John Horn went through the old minutes, old and current rule books and updated the rule book to make sure everything was up to date. When the new rule book comes out it's to be in a loose leaf format in a binder format about the same size as the current rule book so that it will fit in loading box and that when a change is made, the page can be replaced to reflect the change.
 
Guys, this is an after the fact discussion but keep in mind for future considerations of limiting the maximum caliber to about 31. Anything larger than that can include projectiles (338, 50 etc) that can not be contained at some existing ranges, like for example, Kelblys. Have you ever seen a 50 cal tracer fired at night? They will practically go forever and the larger projectiles are much worse to ricochet.

So, does anyone know for sure if the new class is a go as a one year trial?
 
Last edited:
Larry Costa said:
Hi Charles,
At the SE Regional meeting we voted not to pass the sporter change at this time because the economy sucks and we have members in poor financial shape. Everyone thought the idea was okay but the timing "not so much". I also asked a few shooters if they felt this would increase participation at the Nationals. It was interesting that the ones that have a railgun said it made little difference while the ones that did not have a railgun said they would probably not come to the Nationals anymore since they already felt at a disadvantage before in one event, now they would be disadvantaged in two.
I guess time will tell.
I can think of quite a few interesting changes that I would like to try but I'm not so sure I feel good about going against guys with an advantage that they can't afford. Feels wrong...
Larry
Click to expand...

+1 SW Region shooters felt the same way but did not get voted that way.
 
As the Eastern region representative at the Director's meeting, I voted for the change in Sporter as proposed by the Gulf Coast Region (I originally said SE region in error) and passed for one year on a trial basis. That rule will come in effect on January 1, 2013.

I also wrote an article on looking at the Sporter class for the NBRSA magazine which should be in print in the next month or so. The points I made in that article were:

1) Sporter started out as an experimental class at its inception. What class do we have today that fosters experimentation? One of the objectives of the NBRSA is "the development and encouragement of extreme accuracy rifles, ammunition, equipment, and shooting methods". There is no better arena for experimentation that the crucible of competition.

2) Sporter is practically speaking today a Light Varmint Rifle that can't be a .22 caliber. We have Light Varmint rifles that are shooting .14xx aggregates and teen two-guns. This change doesn't preclude anyone from shooting their hot Light Varmint rifle in new Sporter, or any other class including unlimited.

3) If for some UNKNOWN reason we find that the stock or barrel dimensions do have a significant advantage over our existing Light Varmint dimensions, wouldn't that be a GOOD thing? How would we ever find this out if there isn’t any incentive to try it other than a competition class.

4) The Gulf Coast region proposal didn't create a new class, simply expand an existing class to see if there are some technical variables that would make these animals shoot better.

One comment that was brought up by none other than Walt Berger (bullet-maker and benchrest sage extraordinaire) was that this could usher in the re-emergence of the .22 in benchrest. My response in the Director's meeting was "and the downside to that would be what?" If we fear every change that is proposed, how can we ever move the sport forward?

[ I removed my comment about cost. There would be a cost element that a competitor would have to consider. But, the use of a competitor's existing Light Varmint rifle in the redefined Sporter class makes this consideration a personal choice.]
 
Last edited:
I would be stunned if any significant improvements come in the next few years. Maybe, if we're awfully lucky, by the time y'all are ready for a new rifle anyway. But for proven concepts, likely not for two or three cycles of new rifle building. How many of you are still shooting rifles built before 1995?

It's no doubt premature to bring it up, but there was a post on unlimited where I asked Jerry Hensler if something would work, and his response was, no, it takes mass. Now this was about rail guns, and whether a (say) 30 pound could do what a (say) 70 pounder could do. The subject was controlling barrel movement, as I recall.

Mass can hide a lot of things. To say there is an experimental class, unlimited, overlooks that.

It's one thing to experiment. It is quite another if the eventual rifle won't be legal in competition. "To hell with it, I won't even try" is an appropriate reaction.

I see the move in sporter as a positive way to lean something. And if that's not on the agenda, why not stick with muzzleloaders? Cheaper, if you'll dump the time limit...
 
The first objective in the NBRSA rule book states:

Objective of the National Benchrest Shooters Association, Inc.
1. The development and encouragement of extreme accuracy in rifles, ammunition, equipment and shooting methods.

To me changing the sporter class to an experimental class would seem to be consistent with the stated objectives of the NBRSA. When you have rules in place stating that the barrel has to conform to a certain dimension or less, the stock has to conform to certain dimensions, you are pretty well stating that the rifles have to be developed within a certain box. If you can't compete with a rifle that is built outside this box, then there isn't much incentive to build it. We are at a point with the rifles that we are shooting that it's going to be harder and harder to make them shoot any better than they already do. If a change in the rules allows a better shooting rifle to be built that lets say is more forgiving of gun handling mistakes wouldn't that be a good thing? I don't see anything negative to the change. I do wonder whether 1 year will be long enough time span to evaluate the changes to the sporter class. It's been said that the unlimited class is the experimental class. It may have been at one time, but it's not anymore. I've seen guys shoot 10.5 pound guns in unlimited and shoot themselves into the top 20. I think Pat Byrne was second at one of the nationals in UL shooting a sporter rifle. Very seldom are you going to see something like that happen shooting against the current crop of rail guns.
 
Joe,
Interesting post. I am surprised that the change in Sporter was proposed by the SE region, I guess I must be getting senile...I must have been at different SE Rgional meeting. Age sucks....
Larry
 
Larry Costa said:
Joe,
Interesting post. I am surprised that the change in Sporter was proposed by the SE region, I guess I must be getting senile...I must have been at different SE Regional meeting. Age sucks....
Larry
Click to expand...
Guys, I don't have the NBRSA News in front of me but I think it was the SW Region that brought that proposal.
 
Seems to me that the UL class is the class for experimentation (if one chooses to experiment instead of build a rail gun to compete), and the sporter class was invented to get folks to innovate in another caliber but on the same platform as the other bag guns. If that is true, perhaps a better modification to the Sp class would have been to keep it exactly as it was but make it .25 cal or bigger.

On the positive side of the current rule change, a 1000 yard type stock with a flat rear end parallel to the forend in a 22 short 100 does sound very interesting.........

Anyway, it's only a 1 year trial. If it doesn't do whatever someone intended it to, it can always be repealed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top