B
Brian_K
Guest
Sounds good to me.
Brian
Brian
michaelthomas
www.thomasrifles.com
Brian,
I don't need to use it.
I was just a logical extension of an electronic firing system......and it does make life easier. It's also a far less expensive way to have a match grade firing system when compared to the cost of a mechanical that can be fired with an almost imperceptible touch.
It seems illogical to me that someone reaching over with their opposite hand and operating a mechanical trigger that is so light that it barely transfers a fingerprint, is generally considered sporting behavior in benchrest.......but if you press a button on a pad wired to the gun from 8 inches away.....it is taboo.
Up until about a month ago......I was shooting off of a 20$ walmart set of bags. I couldn't wait to get an adjustable front rest.....because I was sure my scores would be better with such a precise means of adjustment.
Well......guess what? Nothing changed when I got the rest.....lol. Things were much easier, but not better in the score department. Just as an experiment, I shot a card yesterday only using the bags again. I shot just as well as I have been averaging with the rest. It was a total pain in the rear, but overall accuracy did not suffer.
It's the same kind of thing when it comes to one piece rests versus two. There is a perceived advantage to the one piece......but i would doubt if that perceived advantage has ever borne any real fruit in air rifle competition.
Mike
I don't need to use it.
I was just a logical extension of an electronic firing system......and it does make life easier. It's also a far less expensive way to have a match grade firing system when compared to the cost of a mechanical that can be fired with an almost imperceptible touch.
It seems illogical to me that someone reaching over with their opposite hand and operating a mechanical trigger that is so light that it barely transfers a fingerprint, is generally considered sporting behavior in benchrest.......but if you press a button on a pad wired to the gun from 8 inches away.....it is taboo.
Up until about a month ago......I was shooting off of a 20$ walmart set of bags. I couldn't wait to get an adjustable front rest.....because I was sure my scores would be better with such a precise means of adjustment.
Well......guess what? Nothing changed when I got the rest.....lol. Things were much easier, but not better in the score department. Just as an experiment, I shot a card yesterday only using the bags again. I shot just as well as I have been averaging with the rest. It was a total pain in the rear, but overall accuracy did not suffer.
It's the same kind of thing when it comes to one piece rests versus two. There is a perceived advantage to the one piece......but i would doubt if that perceived advantage has ever borne any real fruit in air rifle competition.
Mike
B
Brian_K
Guest
Remote activation
Mike,
Reference the question of your remote trigger control unit. I decided to seek advice from a number of individuals involved in our sport, whose opinions I value highly, ranging from MD’s to those actually involved in writing the rule books across several continents.
I also did some research into the various organizations and their ruling on the subject of triggers:
WRABF
“is any rifle having a manually and mechanically operated firing mechanism”
UKBR22
“is any rifle having a manually and mechanically (including electronic triggers) operated firing mechanism”
The USARB are pretty much aligned with the rules of the WRABF and as such don’t make any direct reference.
The key word seems to be “manually”
Dictionary definition of the word “manually”:
a. Of or relating to the hands: manual skill.
b. Done by, used by, or operated with the hands.
Now I appreciate you could argue that you operate your remote device with your hands, however in this case I have taken it to mean that the hands (trigger finger) are intended to manipulate the trigger (while attached to the rifle in the normal manner) directly.
As such I feel your method of trigger activation, while ingenious, is not within the framework of the rules and is therefore not allowed.
Obviously I can only make this ruling with regards the BIPM, as such I am happy to accept any score you have so far entered to that organization, however I would ask that any future scores are submitted while shooting your rifle in the normal manner (finger on trigger) without the use of a remote device.
I sincerely hope the above decision doe not upset you, as stated previously I admire your ingenuity.
Brian
Mike,
Reference the question of your remote trigger control unit. I decided to seek advice from a number of individuals involved in our sport, whose opinions I value highly, ranging from MD’s to those actually involved in writing the rule books across several continents.
I also did some research into the various organizations and their ruling on the subject of triggers:
WRABF
“is any rifle having a manually and mechanically operated firing mechanism”
UKBR22
“is any rifle having a manually and mechanically (including electronic triggers) operated firing mechanism”
The USARB are pretty much aligned with the rules of the WRABF and as such don’t make any direct reference.
The key word seems to be “manually”
Dictionary definition of the word “manually”:
a. Of or relating to the hands: manual skill.
b. Done by, used by, or operated with the hands.
Now I appreciate you could argue that you operate your remote device with your hands, however in this case I have taken it to mean that the hands (trigger finger) are intended to manipulate the trigger (while attached to the rifle in the normal manner) directly.
As such I feel your method of trigger activation, while ingenious, is not within the framework of the rules and is therefore not allowed.
Obviously I can only make this ruling with regards the BIPM, as such I am happy to accept any score you have so far entered to that organization, however I would ask that any future scores are submitted while shooting your rifle in the normal manner (finger on trigger) without the use of a remote device.
I sincerely hope the above decision doe not upset you, as stated previously I admire your ingenuity.
Brian
DanB
New member
My feeling is that the game should entail at least a little bit of physical skill. A
remote trigger would allow one to fire the gun without actually having any part of their
body in contact with it. If your finger, palm, and cheek are touching the gun then you
need to be aware of breathing and have a certain amount of hand control or else you could spoil a shot.
I am also concerned about safety. Triggers have trigger guards, a switch sitting on a
bench is not something people are use to. I think an accidental discharge would be easier
with the remote.
I feel it goes against the traditional gun/human interface.
A certain amount of change is good but tradition has to be weighed as well. If you put a
trigger on a bow you now have a crossbow.
Dan
remote trigger would allow one to fire the gun without actually having any part of their
body in contact with it. If your finger, palm, and cheek are touching the gun then you
need to be aware of breathing and have a certain amount of hand control or else you could spoil a shot.
I am also concerned about safety. Triggers have trigger guards, a switch sitting on a
bench is not something people are use to. I think an accidental discharge would be easier
with the remote.
I feel it goes against the traditional gun/human interface.
A certain amount of change is good but tradition has to be weighed as well. If you put a
trigger on a bow you now have a crossbow.
Dan
michaelthomas
www.thomasrifles.com
Brian.....my previously submitted BIPM target was not shot with the remote trigger, so no trouble there. My next ones won't be, either.
I suppose you can interpret the rules as you see fit. I think your interpretation is a bit of a leap......But, I'm not upset.
Mechanical trigger, electronic, or otherwise.......I wont be putting my cheek, palm, or anything else unnecessary on the rifle. Sometimes I harshly stare into the scope.....so that makes up for my lack of contact.
Mike
I suppose you can interpret the rules as you see fit. I think your interpretation is a bit of a leap......But, I'm not upset.
Mechanical trigger, electronic, or otherwise.......I wont be putting my cheek, palm, or anything else unnecessary on the rifle. Sometimes I harshly stare into the scope.....so that makes up for my lack of contact.
Mike
B
Brian_K
Guest
S
sgeorge
Guest
Dan,
Hopefully, my last post on this matter.
There was a person who had a dream about a bow with a trigger. If that person had been stifled by an arbitrary rule, it may have killed that dream. However, that person had the imagination to create, the skills to implement and now, we have a crossbow. Not the same as a compound. The compound was a huge departure from recurves and longbows. They all have a place, a following and exist in some degree of harmony.
Benchrest is the pursuit of perfection. If electronic anything demonstrated an unfair advantage, then, maybe, a rule is in order. Usually, when some item provides, even a slight advantage, there is a rush to adopt it by shooters looking for an edge. However, we have shooters from coast to coast, that are shooting great scores with a variety of equipment, no unfair advantage. My hope is to allow this type of creative freedom in USA Open and USA Unlimited classes.
I respect your opinion, you know that, but I do have an affinity for things that push the envelope.
On a side note, there may be a shooter in Arizona using a wireless anemometer/flag feeding information back to a smart phone device.
Hopefully, my last post on this matter.
There was a person who had a dream about a bow with a trigger. If that person had been stifled by an arbitrary rule, it may have killed that dream. However, that person had the imagination to create, the skills to implement and now, we have a crossbow. Not the same as a compound. The compound was a huge departure from recurves and longbows. They all have a place, a following and exist in some degree of harmony.
Benchrest is the pursuit of perfection. If electronic anything demonstrated an unfair advantage, then, maybe, a rule is in order. Usually, when some item provides, even a slight advantage, there is a rush to adopt it by shooters looking for an edge. However, we have shooters from coast to coast, that are shooting great scores with a variety of equipment, no unfair advantage. My hope is to allow this type of creative freedom in USA Open and USA Unlimited classes.
I respect your opinion, you know that, but I do have an affinity for things that push the envelope.
On a side note, there may be a shooter in Arizona using a wireless anemometer/flag feeding information back to a smart phone device.
DanB
New member
I have no problem with electronics in airguns, hell I'm even designing one now. My only concern is remote triggers used in matches. I can only imagine the uproar that would ensue if I showed up at a field target match with a remote trigger.
Dan
P.S.
Mike, please don't take my stand on this matter as an attack on you or your gun. From all accounts you are an intelligent nice guy with an innovative gun.
Dan
P.S.
Mike, please don't take my stand on this matter as an attack on you or your gun. From all accounts you are an intelligent nice guy with an innovative gun.
michaelthomas
www.thomasrifles.com
D
Dave Shattuck
Guest
The following is more my thinking out load than taking sides for or against, so please don't get your panties all in a wad yet.
DanB had mentioned trigger guards. For competitive purposes I do believe triggers guards are listed as a necessity on any gun no matter whether Air, Rim or Centerfire, whether being a handgun or rifle, in every Organization's Rulebooks giving if nothing less the insinuation that there must be a trigger contained within them. This is mainly for safety reasons, but still is there.
And, if we were to allow Remote triggers, then why not also allow the gun to be Tethered directly to our much larger air tanks during competition? This would have much less of an impact on the results than a remotely controlled firing devise would have. But that is not allowed either.
Plus, while we're at it, why not allow One-Piece rests and Rail-Guns? If I were to argue for anything, this where my point of contention would be because, in my opinion feel this would offer more help than anything else in keeping everything in place when shooting.
I could go on, but you get my point.
But, what do I know.
Dave Shattuck
DanB had mentioned trigger guards. For competitive purposes I do believe triggers guards are listed as a necessity on any gun no matter whether Air, Rim or Centerfire, whether being a handgun or rifle, in every Organization's Rulebooks giving if nothing less the insinuation that there must be a trigger contained within them. This is mainly for safety reasons, but still is there.
And, if we were to allow Remote triggers, then why not also allow the gun to be Tethered directly to our much larger air tanks during competition? This would have much less of an impact on the results than a remotely controlled firing devise would have. But that is not allowed either.
Plus, while we're at it, why not allow One-Piece rests and Rail-Guns? If I were to argue for anything, this where my point of contention would be because, in my opinion feel this would offer more help than anything else in keeping everything in place when shooting.
I could go on, but you get my point.
But, what do I know.
Dave Shattuck
michaelthomas
www.thomasrifles.com
Hi Dave,
Don't worry about me......I never wear panties.
1. It is no harder to place a trigger guard on a remote trigger than to do so on a conventional gun. I think the word trigger is used......because up until now, nobody had envisioned anything else. I'm sure the word trigger wasn't specifically chosen to rule out the use of a button, instead. If it would make people happy.....a remote button firing device could employ a trigger to push the button (with a guard on it). What does that accomplish? I highly doubt that anyone will notice any impact on results from a remote trigger......unless maybe their mechanical trigger is so poor that it requires a ridiculous amount of force to fire.
2. I believe that the no tether rule has to do with safety. If tethering was allowed....you would likely have to govern and inspect tanks and whips for every gun, and probably manage how people secure the tanks to their stations. Some people are stupid and can not be trusted to take care of these things on their own in a safe manner. Keeping big auxiliary tanks off the firing line makes things easier and ultimately safer for everyone.
3. Rail guns are return to battery. That is their advantage. They are only an advantage for group shooting when mirage is a problem......not score shooting like we do. Air rifles have near zero recoil......so no advantage there, either.
I don't know the reasoning behind only allowing a 2 piece setup in air rifle. The 1 piece shouldn't make any score difference.....so it must just be a rule carry over from the powder classes or something. One piece rests would likely cut down setup times at big events, too.
4. I don't know what you know.
Mike
Don't worry about me......I never wear panties.
1. It is no harder to place a trigger guard on a remote trigger than to do so on a conventional gun. I think the word trigger is used......because up until now, nobody had envisioned anything else. I'm sure the word trigger wasn't specifically chosen to rule out the use of a button, instead. If it would make people happy.....a remote button firing device could employ a trigger to push the button (with a guard on it). What does that accomplish? I highly doubt that anyone will notice any impact on results from a remote trigger......unless maybe their mechanical trigger is so poor that it requires a ridiculous amount of force to fire.
2. I believe that the no tether rule has to do with safety. If tethering was allowed....you would likely have to govern and inspect tanks and whips for every gun, and probably manage how people secure the tanks to their stations. Some people are stupid and can not be trusted to take care of these things on their own in a safe manner. Keeping big auxiliary tanks off the firing line makes things easier and ultimately safer for everyone.
3. Rail guns are return to battery. That is their advantage. They are only an advantage for group shooting when mirage is a problem......not score shooting like we do. Air rifles have near zero recoil......so no advantage there, either.
I don't know the reasoning behind only allowing a 2 piece setup in air rifle. The 1 piece shouldn't make any score difference.....so it must just be a rule carry over from the powder classes or something. One piece rests would likely cut down setup times at big events, too.
4. I don't know what you know.
Mike
D
Dave Shattuck
Guest
I don't know the reasoning behind only allowing a 2 piece setup in air rifle. The 1 piece shouldn't make any score difference.....so it must just be a rule carry over from the powder classes or something. One piece rests would likely cut down setup times at big events, too.
4. I don't know what you know.
Mike
Mike,
The answer to #4 probably should be: not as much as I think I know. And I'm sure there's a whole bunch of shooters out there that will attest to that.
This will be my 20th season of shooting Benchrest, both rimfire or airgun, and was not only one of the advisors used by Milt Cook, IR 50/50's creator, whenever a question arose, but was also highly involved with getting Airgun Benchrest back into existence shortly after the 2007 IR 50/50 Nationals.
As for the differences between a One and Two-Piece rest. The main differences are: a One-Piece has Delin buttons that hold the gun in place allowing for a much tighter and more secure grip, plus when making adjustments you are moving the entire gun from side-to-side and up-and-down while with a Two-Piece Rest it is always specified that the use of sand-filled bags both front and rear must be used, plus when making adjustments with a Two-Piece only the front end of the gun is re-positioned meaning that you can create pressure changes on the rear of the stock, and sometimes the front as well depending on your set-up, each time you re-adjust to a different target.
You know, basically we're all saying the same thing, only different.
Dave
B
BobZ
Guest
Open Class
Seems to me that all this discussion is about a done deal, if we are to play with international LV and HV rules. The Open class is the only option.
What's not to understand about the word O P E N or U N L I M I TED as the class rules now are set up. We can add anything that needs to be allowed there by spelling it out or create a new class.
Use with LV and HV is a done deal as is the 20 minute rule, if we are truly shooting an international sport AND PLAY BY THE RULES IN ALL EVENTS. As far as leaving the definition of a sanctioned match to the match director that sucks. We have to have rules that are followed for any postal competition and any match advertised as a sanctioned match. If a club wants to play any variation at a fun math who cares. Who would want to travel to a match and find surprise this is allowed and this is not when that is different from the sanctioning body published rules or find that the top dog in a postal took 33.33 percent more time to complete a target.
Just to escalate the discussion, artificial power limits are a handicap (those set by law in Europe or by a limit set to prevent target damage to metal targets. No other bench rest sport I know of limits velocity, except possibly magnum cartridge in rim fire. I think that our open or unlimited class allows for a lot of experimentation and innovation.
What if 20.85 fps with a specified pellet tightens the group by x percentage. (something everyone can do that is not an air smith.) The open class allows experimentation.
One old mans opinion.
BobZ
Seems to me that all this discussion is about a done deal, if we are to play with international LV and HV rules. The Open class is the only option.
What's not to understand about the word O P E N or U N L I M I TED as the class rules now are set up. We can add anything that needs to be allowed there by spelling it out or create a new class.
Use with LV and HV is a done deal as is the 20 minute rule, if we are truly shooting an international sport AND PLAY BY THE RULES IN ALL EVENTS. As far as leaving the definition of a sanctioned match to the match director that sucks. We have to have rules that are followed for any postal competition and any match advertised as a sanctioned match. If a club wants to play any variation at a fun math who cares. Who would want to travel to a match and find surprise this is allowed and this is not when that is different from the sanctioning body published rules or find that the top dog in a postal took 33.33 percent more time to complete a target.
Just to escalate the discussion, artificial power limits are a handicap (those set by law in Europe or by a limit set to prevent target damage to metal targets. No other bench rest sport I know of limits velocity, except possibly magnum cartridge in rim fire. I think that our open or unlimited class allows for a lot of experimentation and innovation.
What if 20.85 fps with a specified pellet tightens the group by x percentage. (something everyone can do that is not an air smith.) The open class allows experimentation.
One old mans opinion.
BobZ