IBS Rule change

S

steve stanley

Well-known member
I don't shoot long range so I was wondering how the people that do feel about the proposed rule change on the front sandbag from 1/2" clearance between rest container/retainer and any part of the rifle to a front sandbag must maintain 1/2" thickness and must be the only means of support at the rifles foreend. It seems reasonable to me but I don't I don't have a dog in this fight so what is ya'lls opinion on it.
 
It would be nice to get a penalty instead of a dq for losing shots too. Not too many folks want to drive across the country for 6 groups then get a dq.
 
Wayne The intent is to have enough sand between the rifle and the retainer! I myself don't think the rifle would shoot any better touching metal than sand. I believe you want a cushion, but a lot of rests are made that hold say a bag that is two or three inches high to close to the rifle. The retainer is now to close, but there is still over a half inch of sand there. Hope I didn't really confuse you.

Joe Salt
 
Joe, thanks for the info. I always thought there had to be a minimum of 1/2" of filled bag on the bottom and the sides. I suppose I never related the term "retainer" as the sides of the bag, because you weren't to "retain" anything. The gun was always supposed to lift straight up out of the bags. I thought a read a heated argument once about the front bag "sides" not being more than 1/2" high for long range. I have seen stocks that have the forearm quite thin along the bottom where a bag could easily wrap over, if tightened that way I would have thought it out of bounds. Again, if the gun won't come straight up out of the bags it wasn't legal.
 
Wayne yes the gun still has to come up out of the bag without lifting the rest! I just put my IBS vote in the mail, I always figured if I had enough sand in the bag and the retainer covered up most of it, what does that hurt. You just can't trap the rifle with side pressure. I test mine by putting as much side pressure as I can then lift it up, the gun still comes out. I usually just slide it in and out, but if I have to it will lift out.

Joe Salt
 
The sides of the bag can have a maximum 1/2" of contact on the fore arm . Trapping can occur with a 1/2" side also because the ear extends past the 1/2" side. A big difference in seeing if a gun is trapped if the rest weight is 15lb. and having one with a 50lb. plate bolted to the bottom of the rest. I guess it's the shooters reasonability to make sure the equipment they use is legal…… jim
 
I want to shoot some 600 next year. I have a Farley rest with an Edgewood front bag. My stock has 1/2" flat sides (or a little less). I don't trap the gun. This is not untypical of most any short range stocks. If that is outside the rules, then I won't participate in 600 yard shoots.
 
jim1K said:
The sides of the bag can have a maximum 1/2" of contact on the fore arm . Trapping can occur with a 1/2" side also because the ear extends past the 1/2" side. A big difference in seeing if a gun is trapped if the rest weight is 15lb. and having one with a 50lb. plate bolted to the bottom of the rest. I guess it's the shooters reasonability to make sure the equipment they use is legal…… jim
Click to expand...





The rule change makes it almost identical to short range except no 100% contact on the bottom. You can't trap a gun in short range either,so i say you are good to go………. jim
 
dmoran65 said:
Where and when did this come from?
And for who, SR or LR?

Never heard of that one one before, thinking maybe you made a typo....
Donovan
Click to expand...





Donovan, Starts on page 2 and 3 of the short range rules ………. 100% contact on the bottom rest. As i stated above almost all the front rest rules are the same now except for the 100% contact part. This is the problem with one rule book for different disciplines. A short range shooter ask the question and i made reference to his rule book. There is no issue for him to shoot 600 with the fore end issue……….. jim
 
jim1K said:
........This is the problem with one rule book for different disciplines.
Click to expand...

I agree... another good reason why there should be separate rule books from SR to LR. Which is a long over due IBS issue.
Seems like there more worried about changing long standing rests rules so they don't have to enforce rules. And worrying about start times and how many matches a range holds a day, then fixing the long over-due issues like the rule book, voting, membership, and scoring system/programs.
 
dmoran65 said:
I agree... another good reason why there should be separate rule books from SR to LR. Which is a long over due IBS issue.
Seems like there more worried about changing long standing rests rules so they don't have to enforce rules. And worrying about start times and how many matches a range holds a day, then fixing the long over-due issues like the rule book, voting, membership, and scoring system/programs.
Click to expand...




I understand the rule book issue is being addressed………… Jim
 
Donovan the P.A. 1000 yard club has been trying to get our rule worded so people don't try to read between the line! But there are lots of guys that are always thinking how to get around the rules. So its that kind of things that make it tough.

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