The new Sporter agenda item

T

TSI243

New member
From the previous post, it looks like a lot of misinformation is being thrown around with regard to the changes to the Sporter Class.

In an effort to keep things from getting too far out there, let me clarify what this agenda item really is about, and what it's intended purpose really is.

Wayne is correct, the proposal came from the Gulf Coast Region, specifically from me. I proposed this agenda item at our Gulf coast regional meeting at New Braunfels. At that meeting, the vote by the members of the Gulf Coast Region to submit this agenda item was unanimous.
As a lot of benchrest shooters are aware I've been campaigning for this change for about 10-12 years now.

The changes as approved by the BOD are for a one year trial period. Then, at next year’s Nationals in Fairchance PA., a membership vote will be held to either do away with this change, or to make it permament.


The specific agenda item and the change that was made to the Sporter Rifle is as follows:

1. Reword Page 12 Item 5 to read, “SPORTER RIFLE. A Sporter Rifle is defined as any rifle having a safe manually and mechanically operated firing Mechanism and must not weigh more than 10 ½ pounds, inclusive of sights. The stock can be flat, or convex, but not concave. The Forearm can be any width and have any angle. The butt stock can have any angle including a reverse angle, The barrel would not be less than 18” long forward of the bolt face and can be any diameter or configuration including a straight taper or a reverse taper. The Sporter Rifle can be any caliber. Sporter Rifles do not have to conform to the Varmint Rifle diagram (on page 68 of Rev. Ed. No. 36). All sand bag rules will apply to the sporter rifle.”

2. Page 117 Diagram P under title, VARMINT RIFLE DIAGRAM, add the words, “(DOES NOT INCLUDE SPORTER).

The agenda item above is what the Gulf Coast region submitted and, I believe that the item as written above is what the board passed – they may have made some changes, but if they did, I’m not aware of them.

Nowhere in this item is the word experimental used --- this does not create a new rifle or an experimental class --- it simply removes most of the restrictive rules from the existing sporter class.

Every existing LV rifle and every existing Sporter Rifle in this whole world is still legal, and competitive, under these changes.

My purpose in all of this is to make the Sporter class, and the LV rifle, no longer redundant classes, and to have a class where we can have some innovation in Benchrest.

I know the argument about the 22 caliber, and I feel that this has long ago lost it's usefullness. I think that any caliber restriction is just a matter of time --the 30 BR might just have proven this out. Given good jackets and the desire to make it work, any caliber can be made to shoot really well.

If there is a better stock configuration out there or a better barrel profile shouldn’t we --- benchrest shooters, -- be the leading edge of this innovation?? Benchrest used to be the leading edge of vertially all accuracy innovation. I’m not sure if that’s true anymore. I would like that to be , without a doubt, true again.

For right now, I don’t see this as making any huge radical changes to benchrest, but given time and a venue to work in (Sporter Class) there may be some really meaningful innovation that comes about.

Let’s have some fun with this

Gene Bukys
 
Well...shoot! Shoulda changed the other classes too so that folks could just buy the new stuff for their ONE redundant rifle.
 
Gene,
This change is really exciting, and I think could lead to innovations that push rifle accuracy forward. My hope is that the vote next year is positive, since some may hesitate to invest in building a rifle that is only legal for one year.

One question, though. Why restrict the stock to flat or convex? With the wide open possibilities for everything else, this rule seems like an odd duck. Let's say someone wanted to use a space frame as a stock that had widely spaced front sliders, something like current unlimited rifles, only supported by sand bags. Could one use round rods or angles on the left and right for the sliders, or would the forend have to have a continuous flat (from left to right)?

Also interested in your reasons for the mechanical firing mechanism. Electronic ignition has the potential to make ignition more consistent, without inducing vibrations. Etronx, to my knowledge, is the only possibility right now, but who knows what might be developed if it were legal.

Anyway, good to see your decade of efforts finally result in a change.

Cheers,
Keith
 
Keith, the "flat" forearm was almost certainly a political rather than technical decision. The whole "return to battery" issue from the 1960s. It took 30-40 years to begin to overlook the front rest/sandbag rules aiming to limit that, it'll probably take as long for the forearm.

It's primarily an emotional issue -- bet very few of these guys have fired a long-range rifle, where you quickly learn that with sandbags, you pretty much have to re-aim the rifle for every shot, regardless of forearm design.
 
mks said:
Gene,
This change is really exciting, and I think could lead to innovations that push rifle accuracy forward. My hope is that the vote next year is positive, since some may hesitate to invest in building a rifle that is only legal for one year.

One question, though. Why restrict the stock to flat or convex? With the wide open possibilities for everything else, this rule seems like an odd duck. Let's say someone wanted to use a space frame as a stock that had widely spaced front sliders, something like current unlimited rifles, only supported by sand bags. Could one use round rods or angles on the left and right for the sliders, or would the forend have to have a continuous flat (from left to right)?

Also interested in your reasons for the mechanical firing mechanism. Electronic ignition has the potential to make ignition more consistent, without inducing vibrations. Etronx, to my knowledge, is the only possibility right now, but who knows what might be developed if it were legal.

Anyway, good to see your decade of efforts finally result in a change.

Cheers,
Keith
Click to expand...

Back when they came up with the stock configuration restrictions, the purpose was so the varmint classes wouldn't look a lot different than a typical varmint rifle. Years ago, Red Cornelison told me that in about the era when the varmint classes came into being, he showed up at a match with what was basically a 10.5 pound rifle built like an unrestricted rifle. Not sure what it was as it was before rail guns. Rifles like that were probably why they came out with the stock configuration restrictions. Making it a rifle that looked somewhat similar to a varmint rifle would make guys think I can compete against them. There's certainly a lot of difference between what they started with back then and what we're shooting now. Not many people are going to look at todays current varmint class rifles and think I can compete against them with my prairie dog rifle. Those who have tried find out pretty fast that they can't. I've seen a few people show up at benchrest matches with pretty nice custom prairie dog type rifles. They wind up at the bottom of the pack.

I figure the carry over that the forend can't be concave rule is that they still want the rifles to look like varmint rifles and not minature rail guns. I'm an associate director which means I go to the meeting in case Scott Hunter, the gulf coast regional director, can't make it. Scott's made all the meeting, so I've never been in a director's meeting. So, I don't know any of the discussion that went into keeping the forend can't be concave part of the rule. There are a lot of guys out there who can come up with a pretty wild 10.5 pound rifle if there wasn't any restriction except for weight. I've seen what some of the guys like Jerry Hensler come up with in the UL class that are pretty wild. I could just imagine what he could come up with in no boundary except weight sporter class. It will be interesting to see what shows up next year with the relaxed restrictions for the sporter class.
 
Sporter rifle changes..

"The Forearm can be any width and have any angle. The butt stock can have any angle including a reverse angle, The barrel would not be less than 18” long forward of the bolt face and can be any diameter or configuration including a straight taper or a reverse taper"

WOW...that is some radical changes...too long in coming...I hope to see these changes carry over into the Heavy Varmint class especially for the VFS shooters...



Eddie in Texas
 
Mike

Mike ---

The reason for the part about not allowing concave forearms is because I purposefully left that part in when I wrote the agenda item changes to submit to Scott as an agenda Item. It came solely from me!!
My thinking was that this would still be a rifle that was fired from sand bags and all sand bag rules would still apply to the changed sporter class. I felt that letting the forearms go concave would make it far too easy to make them return to battery capable ---at least more capable than what we already have with the bag setups that we use. I think that some of what we use now is pretty close to return to battery.

Mike, one other thing,

As the associate director for the Gulf Coast Region you most certainly can go to the directors meeting with Scott. – You just can’t participate in it –you have to sit in the corner quiet as a mouse, but you can go and listen to all of it !!!

Gene Bukys
 
Gene, that's what I figured. With a concave forend, it would be too easy to just come up with a miniature rail gun shot off sandbags. The concave rule helps keep it looking like a rifle. It will be interesting to see what people come up with in response to the changes. I haven't decided whether I'm going to try to make the nationals at Fairchance or not. I have an idea for a stock, but whether I build it will depend more on how backed up I am on rifle work which right now is quite a few.
 
I'm a little out of the loop right now, I haven't fired a Benchrest Rifle in 4 months. I commend Gene for his efforts.

Just so I am not missing anything, if one builds a Sporter incorporating many of the innovations, (wider than 3" forarm, no taper on buttstock, any barrel contour), that does render it illegal in LV and HV. Or am I missing something.

Previously, you could shoot a Sporter, (configured under the old rules) in both LV and HV.

And I suppose this will open the door for dedicated 22 cal shooter to become the "one rifle" shooter that has permiated Benchrest for quite sometime.

I think this is the most exciting thing to happen in Benchrest in quite some time. It will be interesting to see what shooters come up with.
 
Last edited:
Maybe I did not word that correctly. You can now shoot any NBRSA Legal LV in Class Sporter, but you cannot shoot any NBRSA Legal Sporter in Class LV or HV, if that Sporter is build to incorporarte any new rules that do not fall within the guidlines of the old Varmint Rifle configuration as noted in the rule book.

A shooter can take a NBRSA Legal LV and now shoot it in all three classes, where as before, If that LV happen to be chambered in a caliber less than .23, you could only shoot it in LV, HV, and of course Unlimited.

There are multitudes of shooters in the NBRSA who shoot one Rifle, regardless which class they happenned to be entered into at any given moment.
Before, that Rifle was always a Sporter, because it could be shot in any group class. Now, with the new Rules in place, and the caliber restriction taken away in Sporter, the NBRSA legaL LV Rifle has now become the Rifle that, in any circumstanses, can be used in all three classes.

Of course, as Gene pointed out, any Rifle that was legal in Sporter before is still legal in any class, it's just that now, any Rifle that was below .23 cal and a legal LV can now be fired in any class.
 
Now that we have lifted some of the restrictions on the sporter class, and even though the sporter we are shooting now would still be considered legal, how long do you think it would still remain "competitive" with in the sporter class with the rule change?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
TSI243 said:
I think that some of what we use now is pretty close to return to battery.
Click to expand...


Per D.(7.) on p 22 of the rule book, "Rifles shall be fired with sandbag front rests, which may be supported on a pedestal, which shall not coact with the sandbag to restrain recoil."

It looks to me like many of the front rests being used violate the above rule since most of them have some sort of vertical support for the sandbag which, I suspect, restrains the muzzle from ending up in a position of pointing at your neighbor's target after the shot. Am I missing something? If so, what?
 
aka Hunter said:
Per D.(7.) on p 22 of the rule book, "Rifles shall be fired with sandbag front rests, which may be supported on a pedestal, which shall not coact with the sandbag to restrain recoil."

It looks to me like many of the front rests being used violate the above rule since most of them have some sort of vertical support for the sandbag which, I suspect, restrains the muzzle from ending up in a position of pointing at your neighbor's target after the shot. Am I missing something? If so, what?
Click to expand...


The rule is you are supposed to be able to lift the rifle straight up out of the front rest without disturbing the rest.
No bag set-up is a true return to battery, only a good Rail Gun has that capability. If someone thinks their bags are giving them a true return to battery capability, simply fire a group without looking through the scope. That will settle that argument.........jackie
 
jackie schmidt said:
The rule is you are supposed to be able to lift the rifle straight up out of the front rest without disturbing the rest.
Click to expand...

That strikes me as another rule within the same paragraph; I don't read that sentence as negating the previous sentence.
 
scorpio said:
Now that we have lifted some of the restrictions on the sporter class, and even though the sporter we are shooting now would still be considered legal, how long do you think it would still remain "competitive" with in the sporter class with the rule change?
Click to expand...

In actuality, the overall agging capability of a Rifle depends much more on the quality of the barrel, bullets, and the tune more than it does things like stock width, taper, etc.

You can take a 50 pound Unlimited Bag Gun with an average barrel, and it will get it's butt kicked by a Sporter with a great barrel.

Look at class Heavy Varmint. You would think the added 3 pounds would be a tremendous advantage. But the reality is that over the past years, Sporter Rifles have dominated in HV as well as LV. This is due to the simple fact that about 95 percent of the Rifles through these years used in all three classes have in fact been Sporters.

This includes matches at both the Regional and National Level.
 
jackie schmidt said:
In actuality, the overall agging capability of a Rifle depends much more on the quality of the barrel, bullets, and the tune more than it does things like stock width, taper, etc.

You can take a 50 pound Unlimited Bag Gun with an average barrel, and it will get it's butt kicked by a Sporter with a great barrel.

Look at class Heavy Varmint. You would think the added 3 pounds would be a tremendous advantage. But the reality is that over the past years, Sporter Rifles have dominated in HV as well as LV. This is due to the simple fact that about 95 percent of the Rifles through these years used in all three classes have in fact been Sporters.

This includes matches at both the Regional and National Level.
Click to expand...

I agree Jackie, barrels,bullets, and tune are pretty much the name of the game as it is. However, as far as what, if any advantages are to be had with stock width,taper,etc... adds to the over all equation has yet to be seen. Apparently Gene and others that welcomed the rule change feel like there's something to be gained, otherwise there would have been no need for the rule change in the first place. I guess time will tell.
 
jackie schmidt said:
I'm not sure what you mean.
Click to expand...

Regarding posts 14 -16:

1. One of the rules of rule interpretation is that all words in the rule have meaning. If the second sentence of the paragraph was the essence of the rule (as you suggest in post 15), the phrase, "which shall not coact with the sandbag to restrain recoil" would have no meaning.

2. Glen Newick says, at p 46 of his book, "screw levers on the front rest side plates adjust tension so the forend achieves an extra snug fit with little lateral play....the rifle can be returned to battery...with only small adjustments needed to achieve perfect aim." That strikes me as a design to restrain recoil.

3. Given my interpretation of the first sentence, what's the purpose of the second sentence (the one you reference in post 15)? I'm not sure; maybe to prohibit bags (used without side-plate style rests) that might be designed to "dovetail" with the slope of the stock.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top