More on long range (1,000 and 600 yard) rests & bags

Charles E

curmudgeon
Below is copied from the IBS rulebook, as found online. I have added the boldface (for emphasis) and italic, (to add a note).

* * *

7) A front sand bag rest shall support the front part of a rifle: a rear sand bag rest shall support the rear part of a rifle: neither rest can be attached to the bench, the rifle, nor each other; they must be movable in all directions independently of the other. Any part of the rifle resting there on must maintain a minimum of one-half inch distance from any part of the retainer or container holding the sand bag on which the rifle rests. Whenever the rifle makes contact on its sides, there may be a maximum of sand one-half inch high and a minimum of one-half thick on each side. Sand bags on front rests must be a minimum of one and one-half inches wide by four inches long and rear rests sand bags must be a minimum of one and one-half inches wide by three inches long. No device of any kind can restrict the upward and/or rearward movement of the rifle. Any; sand bag used as a rest that is not supported by a retainer and that has movement without restraint need not comply with this rule.

8) Rests rest changes or recoil systems must comply with rule 4 and be shown to and approved by the rest committee and/or range officer before being used in competition. Rifles must rest on sand bags only; no multiple recoil ("return to battery") systems on front or rear rests are allowed.

[rule 4, for reference]

4) A sand bag is defined as a bag with or without a pedestal, with a leather or cloth cover, that is capable of being easily flexed by the fingers, and contains a dry finely divided nonmetallic substance such as, but not limited to, sand, gravel, or grain, without additive and packed loosely enough that bag can easily be deformed by pressure of the fingers. The cover of the sand bag must not be bound in such a manner to prohibit free movement of the contents. Lubricants such as talcum powder, Vaseline, or mica may be used on the bag for lubrication.


* * *

Couple things to note:

1. Best I can tell, there is no rest committee. So, taken at face value, and perhaps absurd, no front rest is legal until the range officer says it is.

2. What may fill a bag is different than short range. Grain, for example is allowed. The rule seems to allow anything that isn't metallic. But Zircon (heavy sand) may be illegal. Is it a metal? Zircon is specifically allowed in the general, short-range rules section (which prohibits anything but sand), but of course, the long-range rules supercede the general rules for long range.

3. Note the "easily flexed by fingers, too. Maybe that's Orangutan fingers? Orangutan's are pretty strong. Otherwise, most front bags are probably illegal. Up to the R.O.?

The cover of the sand bag must not be bound in such a manner to prohibit free movement of the contents
might be taken to prohibit the Edgewood bag with the reinforced top? Up to the varying R.O.'s?

* * *

Some clean-up of the rules is almost certainly needed; can that be done by the committee without a rule change & membership vote?
 
What does this mean, from above?

"Any; sand bag used as a rest that is not supported by a retainer and that has movement without restraint need not comply with this rule."

Can I wrap a big 50lb pinchbag up around the forend? (Like an Uncle Bud's Bulls Bag)
 
alinwa yes throw a 50 lb bag of sand on the bench and shoot of it if you like, if there is no retainer! I think you still have to keep it from wraping around the stock, I think you would be getting into the rule that say you can't stop upward movenent.


Joe Salt
 
Sorta kinda. Joe's right, the "sandbag" portion of the rules apply, the "rest" portion do not.

As a historical note, in IBS's first year or so, I believe Jamie Cass set a Light Gun Group record using a .22 Middlested (well, a .22 on a .243 case of some flavor), firing off one one Uncle Mike's Bull Bags. I don't have back issues any more, but there was a writeup in Precision Shooting. Would have to have been 1995 or early 1996.

Before y'all rush out & get one, I did try a Bull Bag. It has a few advantages and even more disadvantages, at least if you're use to using rests.
 
As i see it ,it must maintain a 1/2" clearance from the retainer or container. I think that is the big one and a 1/2" on the sides of the fore arm this can be done two ways edge of the fore arm or with a bag that has 1/2" ears. I think the 1/2" ears is the way to go because it can't trap the stock, to satisfy that requirement....jim
 
Jim, the rules explicitly state that anything "new" must be run by the rest committee. Left over from the Pennsylvania days. IBS doesn't have a rest committee.

Failing that, any decision is left to the R.O. And I would assume there's no appeal, although maybe the long range committee could hear an appeal, and function as a "rest committee?" The usual route when someone wants to protest a decision by a RO is to the IBS, either committee or board, I'm not sure which.

In other words, as things stand, what you think, or what I think (which is the same, BTW) doesn't count.

What I was suggesting is that the IBS probably needs to re-write the rule. Either at the board level for clarification, or as a change, which would require the membership to make a proposal to eventually be voted on at the annual meeting.

And if it's to be a change, the membership (us) have a wonderful opportunity to say what we would like the rule to say. Half-inch up the stock only, or not. Half-inch clearance to retainer, or...? Consider the equipment used by the short-range guys in an effort to maybe attract them, or...?

That was suppose to be the point.
 
...at the board level...is dangerous at its best. Not that a board couldn't come up with the best deal ever, it's just that no board ever has.:)

Cook up a proposal for a vote by the membership.
 
Charles –

Myself, I respect opinion and suggestion here to the sanctioning rules!!!
How ever my own opinion is not the same as yours to the rest, and I am against any change and do not see issues with the rests or current rules as are written. At the ranges that I attend, it is common occurrence that the rest rules get discussed and enforced, by the Range Officers and Match Directors with the participating shooters (particularly new shooters), from which is why I see no issues with the current rules as are, and see them working well and effectively as are. Communication at the matches being the key as I see it.

On these forum boards, the posting of suggestions and opinions to our sanctioning rules is common and in my opinion, a good place to do so!!
A problem in doing so, many times they have turned out to be a “pissing match” as well as subjected to scrutiny by non-competent’s, and other sanctioning follower forms of attack, to warrant change as to there rules and formats.

With several of such IBS Long Range rules topics that have come up here on BRC, you yourself have repeatedly told people when they make suggestions and opinions that are indifferent then yours, to “leave and/or quite the IBS”. You’ve even expressed whole ranges/clubs/areas to quit.
You do it in such a way as to make it look like they are not happy with the IBS and should quit as a result. But in reality they are not un-happy with the IBS in general, but simple voicing out to the single pertaining subject, as you yourself are doing here and now.
And even in a worse sense, you have automatically rendered such judgment to entire regions that the individual resides from, as to say everyone in that region must be of the same opinion, but again in all reality it is actually individual opinion and inputs.

With this all said, and from your own suggestions here of clarifications and possibilities of rule change, should we look upon it in judgment as you have to so many, and tell you to “quit the IBS”.
Or should we look upon it as your own personal opinion in regards to rest rules, and respect your opinion as an individual, even though our own may differ.

On another note here, I personally know several active competitors who would also give opinions and make suggestions here on BRC, that don’t and never will, because they feel threatened to such derogatory responses as they have witnessed in other such threads by you and a few others. From which communication as a group has been hindered.

Really no need of response back, since this is my own individual input and opinion. And definitely refrain from giving another one of those “history lessons” (there boring and only relevant to your own perspective and memory).

In closing, I want to say I am very happy the current IBS rules and formats, and am in strong support of the sanctioning and the sport. As it seems to be also with those I am in close contact with and the ranges I attend .
Were all having fun and the IBS Long Range is growing !!!

My 2-cents - Donovan Moran
 
Mr. Moran:

Personally, I don't care if the specifics of the rest rules are changed or not. I would like to see them clarified. Enough people have complained, and while I believe it is possible to appeal a RO's decision, it is always after the fact, after a shooter has been disqualified.

It is also not nice to put a RO in that position. Been there, done that, got the T-shirt. Never had a ruling appealed, but I do not like being in a position where someone might get DQ'd because things are not clear.

* * *

I do object to your characterization of me, so I suppose it follows I object to your characterizing yourself as the voice of reason. I find you interested in yourself and your friends, not the general membership. People I respect tell me that's not so, but I don't see the evidence. There is obviously bad blood between us. I have no idea what started it, but here we are. I'm not much interested in any effort to resolve that, either.

The business of the Seb Rest comes to mind. Nobody was either criticizing Seb or his rest, simply trying to explain a situation as it appeared to have developed. Not the time to add gasoline, as you did.

Well, that's just my opinion. I will endeavor not to read or comment on your posts to the extent possible, but with this thread, it seems necessary. I still feel the rules need clarification -- not particularly change, but clarification, as this has been going on since the mid 1990s.

You charge that I'm stirring things up. I take the exact opposite view, suggesting the IBS should take the extra step to resolve a issue that comes up now & then, and is then swept under the proverbial rug. Whether or not the *specifics* of the rules should change, I don't care. I do suggest that if anyone is unhappy with those specifics, a general review is the time to consider change.

Just one example: some short-range folk don't want to go to a 1,000 or 600 yard match because their rests might be illegal. Which could happen, some legal point-blank rests are not in accordance with the long-range rules. Personally, I don't much care about that situation either. I shoot both, and just use my long-range rests for point-blank matches. Without anything but sand, to stay legal in point-blank, BTW.
 
Charles Seems pretty straight forward to me, Sand bag without retainer no problem. With retainer 1/2" rule. Whats so hard about that, use a spacer if you have to, I'm with Morgan, we don't need a change just people to understand what is required in long range. The same as If I wanted to shoot short rang I would have to comply.


Joe Salt
 
Joe, I keep repeating myself, over and over.

1. There is no rest committee in IBS. Maybe we should just use the Pennsylvania committee? That'd be fine with me.

2. Let's stop all this bull$hit about wanting to "grow the sport." Biggest pool of potential benchresters for long range is the short range guys. Who, oddly enough, don't seem to want to buy new rests.... How strange. Screw 'em. You'll get your growth from a different group, right?

But I'm with you and Donovan too, at least this far. I don't care if they stay the same. What I do care about is all the whining. But that care's fading fast; if I don't look or listen, I won't hear it.

Edit:

If I cared, deeply, I'd show up at the next Nationals with an extra $100. I'd spend that protesting, with video rolling, the "easily deflectable with fingers" of the front bags of the top-ten leaders for SOTY. Now, of course I'm not mean. But after seeing 'em squirm all year on fair & not fair, wonder if that might not occur to one of those SOTY-chasers?

& BTW, just how does it work, at Pennsylvania, the "easily deflectable" portion? Sides? Bottom? Both? & how do you guys test for that?
 
Last edited:
Charles that is a fine line, I've called a few people and had them squirm. Yes we have a rules committee, so if we should see something different we call the committee and let them take a look. Your boad should appoint a rules committee, just make sure they know the rules! "Easily Deflectable" I've asked this more than once, with the rifle in the bags or out ? With an 80 pound rifle in the bages it would be vary hard to flex. And thats sides and bottom, that is why the retainer is a problem. Big 50 pound bag of sand can be flexed with nothing holding it. Hope that helps

Joe Salt
 
Charles that is a fine line, I've called a few people and had them squirm. Yes we have a rules committee, so if we should see something different we call the committee and let them take a look. Your boad should appoint a rules committee, just make sure they know the rules! "Easily Deflectable" I've asked this more than once, with the rifle in the bags or out ? With an 80 pound rifle in the bages it would be vary hard to flex. And thats sides and bottom, that is why the retainer is a problem. Big 50 pound bag of sand can be flexed with nothing holding it. Hope that helps

Joe Salt

Joe, I think it' a great answer, and well worth everyone consisdering, both what you say, and what it means.
 
Charles I think there should be meetings or classes like or Benchrest school that we have every year, so it can be explained and shown right there so if there are questions they can be explained! You know as well as I people will never stop coming up with different configuration with rests and bags. But that is a good thing. Thats what we are trying to do learn!

Joe Salt
 
"Squirm" - been there for sure.

Don't know just how big this rest deal is among longrangers but it has a familiar ring. The root of such can usually be traced to an ambiguity in the rules and often it's the result of an omission. These things can go for years before someone forces the issue. Typically, said "forcing" occurs at the largest, most prestigious event of the season. "Tempers flare" would be putting it mildly.

A proactive approach should be utilized on two fronts. One, is to clear the ambiguity in the rules and the other is the individual competitor's responsibility to ensure the rules are followed. Ain't gonna happen (hasn't yet), and I'm not saying it would be good if it did.
 
Your right Wilbur I think so to if someone is going to get into this game its there responsibility to know the rules or ask people who are up on this stuff. I know I for one don't like to get DQ'd. But some do get ticked if you call them on something. So just be nice when asking them if you can check there equipment.

Joe Salt
 
Back
Top