....in that I am really pretty new at this director thing. But, I do know that there is a process to determine the legality of certain innovations that seem to push the rules. That process starts by either a formal proposal for a rules change or a protest that needs to be acted on. Things sometimes move slowly, but it seems that is how our governing bodies work so as to avoid a "rush to judgment". I'm not saying that is good, it just is.
The NBRSA Directors (as well as the IBS Officers) have always had to walk a tightrope between the objective of "development and encouragement of extreme accuracy" and what falls within the rules of competition. It often seems to turn into an "old guard" versus "new guard" argument. Again, I'm not saying that is good, it just is.
I have seen Gene's set-up at a few matches, but had the same thoughts that Jackie had mentioned; that being until someone starts to dominate with the thing in competition, it may not be taken seriously enough to challenge it. It may work, but one guy shooting it occasionally at a very few matches may not be giving it a fair chance. Competition is the crucible from which great ideas are validated. We need to make sure that it meets the rules before too many guys shell out and then we have issue with its legality later. And maybe that starts with a proposal to define the rules better. Gene took the initiative to put his own "skin in the game" and he should be applauded for it. And if it works, then the sport is made better for it.
That being said, I'd like to take off my director's hat and put on my competitor's hat for a minute. I have three questions that I saw with it; and maybe they are "non-events", but if my nontechnical mind entertained them, then maybe others (more technical) have the same questions.
First, does the action flex? Doesn't the barrel now become a cantilever and part of the structural framework of the rifle where under more "normal" applications it is simply the portion of the system that points the muzzle in the direction that the bullet will eventually be pushed? There seems to be quite a bit of pressure exerted on that one point of where the barrel connects to the action. I always believed that the action should be as stable (I call it inert) as possible as part of the platform that holds the barrel when the gun goes off. In my non-technical mind, I always view that the barrel is the part of the total system that moves the most during the firing of the gun and the remainder of the gun should be as "nonmoving" (stable? inert? whatever?) as the "system" moves on the bags. (I almost said "moves backwards", but we all know that the rifle moves backward and torques sideways from the action of the bullet moving down the rifles barrel with some resistance.) It just seems to me that there are more stresses on the action and barrel and potential for movement when the barrel becomes part of the structure that needs to also handle the stresses that we put on the entire system when we touch off 60,000 psi. It just seems to me that we are asking the barrel to do two things: be part of the structure and also do what a barrel is supposed to do. What am I missing here?
Second, we know that barrels move; we can see the affect of that on our targets. Heck, whenever we change some tuning dynamic, the point of impact changes (sometimes dramatically) on the target. The kinds of things that cause the barrel to move (like a 60,000 psi explosion and the forces of a bullet of a certain diameter being dramically shoved and turned on its axis through a 20+ inch length via a hole of a smaller diameter). That area of the action (especially smaller diameter steel or aluminum) just looks like it is prone to flexing. (Heck, I like to shoot larger diameter actions - in the area of 1.470 to 1.550 diameter stainless - in lighter stocks simply just to remove the real or perceived possibility of action flexing that rattles around in my mind.)
And if all of these forces do cause either the action or barrel (or both) to flex, how does that affect the fact that the aiming device (meaning the scope) is on something that is moving around (assuming that the muzzle is also moving around as the bullet moves down the barrel). Aren't we asking the system to be awfully stable when we are introducing more opportunity for movement and stresses into it? Isn't one of the bigger improvements in rifle accuracy considered to be when the scope mounting was removed from being part on the barrel and part on the action to having all of the scope mounted on the action? Heck, I saw a picture on the rimfire board last week where Bill Calfee mounts his scopes with both rings on the front base so as to avoid minute heat-induced expansion from affecting his aluminum scope which has a different coefficient of expansion than his action on which it is mounted.
Third, does the placement of the "fore end" under your system have an impact on how the barrel vibrates? Does it shoot differently if the "fore end" (loosely defined) is moved back to where it falls within the perceived "barrel block" rules? Does it shoot differently if the apparatus is moved to the muzzle end of the barrel? (More stresses? Who knows?) With all of your work on tuners in an attempt to keep the muzzle from moving as much as without them, I would think that there is also some considerable work being done on your "fore end" placement. How do you know where the optimal placement on the barrel should be?
I do know two things: until it gets to beating up on the benchrest masses, there will be some skepticism (justified or not). The tuner has made some inroads, but I don't believe that I am wrong by saying that it hasn't yet been accepted by the benchrest masses. (I do know that some of the National-level competitors are using them today, but more so as "muzzle snubbers" than as tuning devices. Perhaps we have just scratched the surface on this one, too.)
And second, I am not an experimenter. I have too little range time to do what I like to in this sport. And I am more of a competitor (some may challenge that comment) than a scientist. And what that means is that whenever one of you experimenters come up with something that does work, I (and 99% of the competitive benchrest world) will be jumping on it in no time.
Get the thing into enough hands of the shooting community and both the rules and the performance concerns will work themselves out over time.
I am not even going to try and question the 4198 load development. I have seen quite a few guys try and stay on top of it in a 6 PPC during the course of even one day at a match, let alone an entire week at a Super Shoot or Nationals. I just haven't seen too many shooters dominating with it in a PPC-like cartridge over the course of a match of any duration. I don't know anything about it in a .30 BR, and I know guys have been shooting it in the .22 PPc -.100, but in the sixes it just is too "spikey". Maybe we are all will learn something from this. I am wondering about what powder that guy who just shot the 300-yard unlimited group record with your 6mm Beggs cartridge was using? I thought it was 133, but I'm not sure.
