Great article on 6mmBR.com editor's visit to Beggs facility complete with pictures
- Thread starter Boyd Allen
- Start date
Not to start any trouble....
The picture of Gene's rifle has a clamp attaching a small "forestock" . This clamp is more than 5 inches in front of the bolt face. Does that constitute a violation of NBRSA rule B:3. This rule was intended for barrel blocks, but I wonder if Gene's method of attaching the small stock constitutes a barrel block of sorts. His arrangement is fine with me, but if he gets to the Nationals and finds that it is illegal, then it will be too late to change things. Good shooting....James
The picture of Gene's rifle has a clamp attaching a small "forestock" . This clamp is more than 5 inches in front of the bolt face. Does that constitute a violation of NBRSA rule B:3. This rule was intended for barrel blocks, but I wonder if Gene's method of attaching the small stock constitutes a barrel block of sorts. His arrangement is fine with me, but if he gets to the Nationals and finds that it is illegal, then it will be too late to change things. Good shooting....James
jackie schmidt
New member
Gene's Barrel Block
Gene commented that the NBRSA President, and a couple of others, stated sometime last years that the set-up looked legal.
But, since you mentioned it, we might as well take a look.
The "stock" is that 3" wide aluminum block that sits in the front bag. What is attaching the barrel, and action, to this "stock". It is a block, clamped to the barrel, and attached to the "stock".
That, my friend, is a "bedding block".
Nobody cares now. Nothing has been won with the Rifle. The President "saying" it is legal is not the same thing as an official inquirey brought on by an official protest. I would bet good money that if a Region or National Championship was won with it, you would see a serious protest under Section B, article 3 of the rule book.
I am not going to be one of those who makes stupid statements like, 'I ain't never been beat by a barrel block, stock, bag", or what ever. We are an organization of rules. We need to follow them, or do away with them........jackie
Gene commented that the NBRSA President, and a couple of others, stated sometime last years that the set-up looked legal.
But, since you mentioned it, we might as well take a look.
The "stock" is that 3" wide aluminum block that sits in the front bag. What is attaching the barrel, and action, to this "stock". It is a block, clamped to the barrel, and attached to the "stock".
That, my friend, is a "bedding block".
Nobody cares now. Nothing has been won with the Rifle. The President "saying" it is legal is not the same thing as an official inquirey brought on by an official protest. I would bet good money that if a Region or National Championship was won with it, you would see a serious protest under Section B, article 3 of the rule book.
I am not going to be one of those who makes stupid statements like, 'I ain't never been beat by a barrel block, stock, bag", or what ever. We are an organization of rules. We need to follow them, or do away with them........jackie
Boyd Allen
Active member
It may be that at the time the barrel block rule was written, that no one envisioned the use of a two piece stock for serious accuracy work. In any case rules can be changed. How many of you would object to an exception to the current barrel block rule for two piece "stocks" such as Gene's and Shelly's as long as they met the width and toe angle parts of the rule? BTW was anyone around when the current block rule was written. Someone told me that it came in the days when Mausers and long barrels were in use, when someone came to a match with a long block and kicked everyone's butt.
BTW what's this about a forestock? What we are looking at is a two piece tuner;-)
BTW what's this about a forestock? What we are looking at is a two piece tuner;-)
Last edited:
jackie schmidt
New member
Boyd
I looked in the archives once, it was long ago, in a galaxy far away.
Regardless, the rule still is in the book, and I do believe that under strict interpretation, that will be declared a barrel block, and it is attached too far forward from the bolt face.
This is not anything personal with me. I am simply stating what the rule book says, and making an observation as to what Gene has created.
Of course, my hat is off to Gene for innovation. Sometimes it takes challenging a specific guideline to get things clarified, or to determine the legality of a specific piece of equipment.......jackie
I looked in the archives once, it was long ago, in a galaxy far away.
Regardless, the rule still is in the book, and I do believe that under strict interpretation, that will be declared a barrel block, and it is attached too far forward from the bolt face.
This is not anything personal with me. I am simply stating what the rule book says, and making an observation as to what Gene has created.
Of course, my hat is off to Gene for innovation. Sometimes it takes challenging a specific guideline to get things clarified, or to determine the legality of a specific piece of equipment.......jackie
Gene Beggs
Active member
James
This question has come up before. I researched the rule book carefully during development and am satisfied the stock is legal but I wanted to hear it from the powers that be. Last year at the Cactus, I had the rifle examined by both Dennis Thornbury and Don Nielson and they both declared it perfectly within the rules.
Y
-Yo-
Guest
I don't have a stake in how this comes out. I did photograph and shoot Gene's rifle.
NBRSA Rule B (3) para. 2 states:
"The barrel may be attached to the receiver, bedding blocks, sleeves, or combination thereof for a distance of no more than 4 inches, measured from the face of the bolt. The overall length of the receiver, bedding blocks, sleeve, or combination thereof not to exceed 14 inches. (Maximum dimensions shall not include normal scope blocks and sight bases). See illustration in back of book."
Some thoughts:
A. The term "bedding block" is NOT defined. So, we have to turn to common sense usage. Bedding blocks were developed as an intermediate connection between barrel and a conventional wood, fiberglass, or metal stock. Gene's front sled does not perform this intermediate connective function since it attaches ONLY to the barrel, not to a stock.
B. The 4" length limit applies to "bedding blocks". Both words, "bedding" and "block", are important. Is Gene's sled a block? Yes. But does it use bedding material or otherwise attach to another stock section as virtually all "bedding blocks" have in the past? No. One can argue then that it is NOT a "bedding block" (two words) for the simple reason that it doesn't bed anything.
C. As noted above, the engineering function of a bedding block is to connect between barrel and a conventional stock. If there is no conventional stock, then how can this be a bedding block? In fact, I think Jackie has it right: "The 'stock' is that 3" wide aluminum block that sits in the front bag."
If the Sled is the stock itself (or perhaps more precisely a detached forearm), then I don't see how it can be called a bedding block which attaches to a separate stock.
Getting back to basics, it seems to me that the device is best viewed as a detached forearm and I don't see that Rule B (3) prohibits detached forearms. Consider that detached forearms clamped to the barrel are among the oldest of firearms designs--that existed well before anyone had conceived of bedding blocks as we now know them.
- - -
In any case, the rule-makers will doubtless mull this design over and it may or may not pass scrutiny. I do think Gene is to be commended for developing a detached forearm/sled design and making it work.
NBRSA Rule B (3) para. 2 states:
"The barrel may be attached to the receiver, bedding blocks, sleeves, or combination thereof for a distance of no more than 4 inches, measured from the face of the bolt. The overall length of the receiver, bedding blocks, sleeve, or combination thereof not to exceed 14 inches. (Maximum dimensions shall not include normal scope blocks and sight bases). See illustration in back of book."
Some thoughts:
A. The term "bedding block" is NOT defined. So, we have to turn to common sense usage. Bedding blocks were developed as an intermediate connection between barrel and a conventional wood, fiberglass, or metal stock. Gene's front sled does not perform this intermediate connective function since it attaches ONLY to the barrel, not to a stock.
B. The 4" length limit applies to "bedding blocks". Both words, "bedding" and "block", are important. Is Gene's sled a block? Yes. But does it use bedding material or otherwise attach to another stock section as virtually all "bedding blocks" have in the past? No. One can argue then that it is NOT a "bedding block" (two words) for the simple reason that it doesn't bed anything.
C. As noted above, the engineering function of a bedding block is to connect between barrel and a conventional stock. If there is no conventional stock, then how can this be a bedding block? In fact, I think Jackie has it right: "The 'stock' is that 3" wide aluminum block that sits in the front bag."
If the Sled is the stock itself (or perhaps more precisely a detached forearm), then I don't see how it can be called a bedding block which attaches to a separate stock.
Getting back to basics, it seems to me that the device is best viewed as a detached forearm and I don't see that Rule B (3) prohibits detached forearms. Consider that detached forearms clamped to the barrel are among the oldest of firearms designs--that existed well before anyone had conceived of bedding blocks as we now know them.
- - -
In any case, the rule-makers will doubtless mull this design over and it may or may not pass scrutiny. I do think Gene is to be commended for developing a detached forearm/sled design and making it work.
jackie schmidt
New member
Gene
I would think that the legality of any concept would have to be determined in an official and declared meeting. There is a good possibility that other members of the BOD do not agree with Don and Dennis.
As for Paul's, (Yo) assumptions, I see the 3" piece of aluminum as the stock. (granted, a rather short one), the ring that is bolted to it as the bedding block, and of course, the barreled action is clamped into this.
Everybody is confused because they see the block assy as being clamped to the barrel, when, for legal purposes, the opposite is true. The barreled action is actually clamped into that block assy, hense making it a conventional "bedding block" attached to a stock.........jackie
I would think that the legality of any concept would have to be determined in an official and declared meeting. There is a good possibility that other members of the BOD do not agree with Don and Dennis.
As for Paul's, (Yo) assumptions, I see the 3" piece of aluminum as the stock. (granted, a rather short one), the ring that is bolted to it as the bedding block, and of course, the barreled action is clamped into this.
Everybody is confused because they see the block assy as being clamped to the barrel, when, for legal purposes, the opposite is true. The barreled action is actually clamped into that block assy, hense making it a conventional "bedding block" attached to a stock.........jackie
WOW WEE ... hello new stock designs coming out if that thing is legal....
No "intent of the rules" in that one...
Why comply to intentions or any rules?
And sure kicks the heck out of how many thousands of rifles built around "intents".
But hey !!! That is just my opinion,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Donovan Moran
No "intent of the rules" in that one...
Why comply to intentions or any rules?
And sure kicks the heck out of how many thousands of rifles built around "intents".
But hey !!! That is just my opinion,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Donovan Moran
jackie schmidt
New member
Donovan
Gene knows how this game is played. A few winning aggs will go a long way in proving the concept. Not that many serious shooters will get very excited about it untill that happens........jackie
Gene knows how this game is played. A few winning aggs will go a long way in proving the concept. Not that many serious shooters will get very excited about it untill that happens........jackie
H
hecksf
Guest
A
abintx
Guest
Gene's Marvel ...
Yo's rationale is awfully tight. Regardless of official interpretation, Gene is to be commended for foresight, innovation, ingenuity, hard work, and the guts to put it out there for scrutiny by fellow competitors. Isn't there an official NBRSA or IBS office or board where an individual presents new designs, for an official blessing or rejection of sanctioned use, based on the rules ??? Art
Yo's rationale is awfully tight. Regardless of official interpretation, Gene is to be commended for foresight, innovation, ingenuity, hard work, and the guts to put it out there for scrutiny by fellow competitors. Isn't there an official NBRSA or IBS office or board where an individual presents new designs, for an official blessing or rejection of sanctioned use, based on the rules ??? Art
jackie schmidt
New member
Yes
The NBRSA has an executive committee, made up of the President, the Vice President, and a majority of the Region Directors.
Section F in the rule book covers protest. Unless a competitors equipment is declared illegal at a match by a Ref, I have no idea how these things get resolved.. Go to Section F, scroll to item 8. It explains the procedure.
I suppose a shooter can voluntarilly submitt a design to the Executive Committee, for some reason I can not find this procedure in our NBRSA Rule Book.
It seems the way it is done is the Referees declare a piece of equipment illegal for use, the competitor will file a $5 protest fee, and be allowed to shoot, under protest. If the Executive Committee finds for the shooter, the $5 is refunded, and his scores stand. If the equipment is declared illegal, then he forfeits the fee and is disqualified from that aggregate.
So, it seems that a Referee would have to take the first step.
The rulebook does state that one of the jobs of the Refs is to inspect all equipment.
When was the last time THAT happenned, aside from the obvious things like weight and forearm width. The reason we do not do this is because the rules do not say the Referees WILL inspect all Rifles and Bench Equipment, it says they SHOULD.
That "should" is a big word. They might just as well have said "don't bother," .......jackie
The NBRSA has an executive committee, made up of the President, the Vice President, and a majority of the Region Directors.
Section F in the rule book covers protest. Unless a competitors equipment is declared illegal at a match by a Ref, I have no idea how these things get resolved.. Go to Section F, scroll to item 8. It explains the procedure.
I suppose a shooter can voluntarilly submitt a design to the Executive Committee, for some reason I can not find this procedure in our NBRSA Rule Book.
It seems the way it is done is the Referees declare a piece of equipment illegal for use, the competitor will file a $5 protest fee, and be allowed to shoot, under protest. If the Executive Committee finds for the shooter, the $5 is refunded, and his scores stand. If the equipment is declared illegal, then he forfeits the fee and is disqualified from that aggregate.
So, it seems that a Referee would have to take the first step.
The rulebook does state that one of the jobs of the Refs is to inspect all equipment.
When was the last time THAT happenned, aside from the obvious things like weight and forearm width. The reason we do not do this is because the rules do not say the Referees WILL inspect all Rifles and Bench Equipment, it says they SHOULD.
That "should" is a big word. They might just as well have said "don't bother," .......jackie
Last edited:
E
eww1350
Guest
Let's ask Bill Calfee...He tends to predict what will be in the future of 100/200 yd centerfire benchrest...