The new Sporter agenda item

Interesting

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...

And begs the question, do top shooters simply not put as much effort into finding a killer barrel for the HV rifle, or they do and the weight makes no difference?
 
Trying to Interpret Sporter Rule Change...

If I'm correct in my understanding, the LV rifle will be the new gun to be capable of shooting all four classes,(for instance at the Nationals), Sporter, LV, HV and Unlimited ? Hope I'm reading this correctly. waynej
 
glp said:
And begs the question, do top shooters simply not put as much effort into finding a killer barrel for the HV rifle, or they do and the weight makes no difference?
Click to expand...

If you look at the Match Results from the past 15 years, you will see that in all Region, National, and World Championship matches where there was a Format that included Sporter, LV, and HV, the vast majority of shooters, (including the winners), simply shot a Sporter in LV and HV.

Keep in mind, Sporter and LV are identicle except you had to shoot a caliber of .23 or larger in Sporter. The only difference between a LV and a HV, (by the rules), is the weight. Period.

I may be mistaken, and he can correct me if I am, but current NBRSA and World Champion Gene Bukys exclusively shoots a 6mm in all classes, and while he has a HV, 98 percent of the time he will be shooting one of his Sporters in all three Bag Gun Classes. The same can be said for the majority of other Championship Level Shooters.

If the membership does pass this new Sporter Rule, then there will be a distict difference between what a Shooter can do in building a Sporter and what is allowed in the other two Bag Gun classes.............jackie
 
Clarification, Please

I never got, what I considered, a good answer to post # 14 above. As a bit of background, comparing the looks of rests back in Warren Page's day with the looks of modern-day rests, it seems obvious that the intent of the new design is to "restrain recoil."

Anyone care to review posts 14-16, 18 and 20, and share your thoughts?
 
From glp "And begs the question, do top shooters simply not put as much effort into finding a killer barrel for the HV rifle, or they do and the weight makes no difference?"

I don't know if I qualify as a "top shooter", but I would like to repsond to this. I can tell you that I have had at least two "killer" heavy varmint barrels. It isn't a matter of putting the effort into finding one so much as you buy both light and heavy barrels, and if you have a solid platform no matter what the class, sometimes they happen into your lap.

The great heavy varmint barrels that I have had have given me excellent aggregates; several into the .16xx range. However, when you are at a Nationals or Super Shoot, you often shoot the light guns first, then decide whether to change to the heavy for that class or continue to ride the light gun. My process has been if the light gun is working, don't chance not catching the tune with the heavy when that class starts. If the light isn't working, you have a good-to-great heavy platform to go to when that class is being shot. We are basically opportunists and will go with what gets you there at the end.

I also enjoy much more shooting the HV rifle than the light. It just points up and returns so much easier than the light gun. In the range of recoil that a 6PPC generates, the additional three pounds seems to make quite a bit of difference in gun handling.

One thing that seems to happen to those shooters who use both a light and heavy rifle is that it is much easier to get away with being sloppy with a heavy gun; so much so that one's gunhandling suffers with the light gun. Many of us here in the Eastern Region know of at least one shooter who shoots his heavy gun great and his light gun "not-so-great". We refer to him as being "light-gun challenged". In fact, when I was chasing points my gunsmith Dwight Scott wouldn't allow me to shoot my heavy gun (by withholding barrels) until I got my last point. He refers to shooting a HV rifle as "earning a nice dessert once you've mastered shooting the light gun". The only shooter that I know who has "earned" Dwight's "permission" to shoot a heavy gun is Tony Boyer (whose reputation with the light gun needs no explanation).

There are several great heavy varmint rifles out there that strike fear into the hearts of any competitor. My old friend Pat Byrne has one that has got him several points. Bill Gammon has an old Swidlehurst/Adamovich that has shot an agg. in the .15xx at the Super Shoot. I'd like to think my BAT/Scoville HV (which only weighs 12 pounds) can hang with most HV rifles out there. (In that case it is the driver, not the rig that causes difficulty.) Kent Harshman has one of the two best shooting Hart-actioned HV rifles out there having won the HV class at the Super Shoot two years in a row. And of course, probably the most prolific benchrest rifle ever shot is the Hart-actioned HV that Mr. Boyer shoots. That rifle may have won more benchrest trophies and Hall of Fame points than any other rifle in the history of the sport.

That being said, I have won all four of my HV H of F points and the HV class at the Super Shoot that I was lucky enough to win were with my light gun. And I have basically burned out both of the good heavy barrels shooting regional matches over the past couple of years. Go figure.
 
Last edited:
I've noted a couple of times that some folks will switch to their HV rifle simply because they have one. I "noted" that when I asked them why in the world they gave the match away switching over to a rifle that has never shot a good group much less a good agg. One fellow said it outright - "I bought that sumbitch and I aim to shoot it."

Maybe I don't understand (understatement in general) the nuances of gun handling as it pertains to the 3# difference but I do understand that 3# more will not improve the average agg of a rifle.
 
3 pounds will not make a gun agg better..??

Maybe not a 6ppc...but...a 30BR in a 13.5 lb gun is easier to agg with than a 10.5 lb rifle in the same caliber...IMO...:cool:




Eddie in Texas
 
aka Hunter said:
I never got, what I considered, a good answer to post # 14 above. As a bit of background, comparing the looks of rests back in Warren Page's day with the looks of modern-day rests, it seems obvious that the intent of the new design is to "restrain recoil."

Anyone care to review posts 14-16, 18 and 20, and share your thoughts?
Click to expand...

aka Hunter said:
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.
Click to expand...

aka Hunter, you're interpretation of the first sentence assumes that recoil is not just rearward momentum of the rifle after being fired.

Now the definition of recoil is (according to this website http://www.thefreedictionary.com/recoil)

re·coil (r-koil)
intr.v. re·coiled, re·coil·ing, re·coils
1. To spring back, as upon firing.
2. To shrink back, as in fear or repugnance.
3. To fall back; return: "Violence does, in truth, recoil upon the violent" (Arthur Conan Doyle).
n. also (rkoil)
1. The backward action of a firearm upon firing.
2. The act or state of recoiling; reaction.


Since the definition of recoil only relates to the rearward motion of a firearm during firing, can you please clarify where the lateral movement of a firearm is defined under the definition of recoil.

Also do you compete in Benchrest? If so do you use a front rest that contains a sand bag with ears and has a means to adjust or contain those ears?

Ian
 
eww1350 said:
Maybe not a 6ppc...but...a 30BR in a 13.5 lb gun is easier to agg with than a 10.5 lb rifle in the same caliber...IMO...:cool:

Eddie in Texas
Click to expand...

I think you may be right. I've seen one example that supports the statement.

Returned for correction...change "may be" to "are". The sentence would then read...I think you are right.

The 30BR recoil is significantly greater than the PPC.
 
Last edited:
Ian_Owen said:
aka Hunter, you're interpretation of the first sentence assumes that recoil is not just rearward momentum of the rifle after being fired.

Now the definition of recoil is (according to this website http://www.thefreedictionary.com/recoil)

re·coil (r-koil)
intr.v. re·coiled, re·coil·ing, re·coils
1. To spring back, as upon firing.
2. To shrink back, as in fear or repugnance.
3. To fall back; return: "Violence does, in truth, recoil upon the violent" (Arthur Conan Doyle).
n. also (rkoil)
1. The backward action of a firearm upon firing.
2. The act or state of recoiling; reaction.


Since the definition of recoil only relates to the rearward motion of a firearm during firing, can you please clarify where the lateral movement of a firearm is defined under the definition of recoil. See 1 below.

Also do you compete in Benchrest? See 2 below. If so do you use a front rest that contains a sand bag with ears and has a means to adjust or contain those ears? See 3 below.

Ian
Click to expand...

Thanks for replying to my question; I'm surprised that no one else has weighed in.

1. To posit that recoil "only relates to the rearward motion" reminds me of Bill Clinton's argument about what the meaning of the word "is" is. Would you argue that the upward motion of a handgun after firing is not recoil? Furthermore, the above definition is incomplete. This website, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recoil, explains that, "[f]or a gun firing under free-recoil conditions, the force on the gun will not only force the gun backwards, but will also cause it to rotate about its center of mass."

If you're going to rely solely upon the definition you quoted, given that every action is the result of another action, what action do you attribute to the gun's lateral movement? Wind? No, it's recoil -- and even Bill Clinton would have a tough time explaining that away.

2. I occasionally shoot from a bench, using a rest. Do I compete? I guess it depends on your definition of "compete."

3. No, but if I did it might be illegal. :)
 
Taking your logic to the extreme, only flat front bags would be legal. Good luck with that one. I think a more common take on the rule has to do with putting so much side tension on a bag that the rifle's rearward motion during firing is reduced.
 
Boyd Allen said:
Taking your logic to the extreme, only flat front bags would be legal.
Click to expand...

What's exteme about strict interpretation of the rule? What puzzles me is how the "bending" of the rule started -- must have been a liberal.

Maybe the rule book is a "living, breathing" document, and needs to be interpreted in light of the current goings-on.

PS Not suggesting that you're a liberal. :cool:
 
aka Hunter said:
I never got, what I considered, a good answer to post # 14 above. As a bit of background, comparing the looks of rests back in Warren Page's day with the looks of modern-day rests, it seems obvious that the intent of the new design is to "restrain recoil."

Anyone care to review posts 14-16, 18 and 20, and share your thoughts?
Click to expand...

It sounds as though you are referring to the typical front rest design which employs a sandbag with ears and adjustable plates to adjust the ears for a snug fit to the sides of the forend. This obviously helps to restrain the rifle from lateral movement, but does nothing to restrain recoil (rearward movement). Since this design of front rest has been in use for many, many years, there has been plenty of opportunity to question whether it meets with the intent and spirit of the rules. What's your point?

Scott
 
SGS said:
It sounds as though you are referring to the typical front rest design which employs a sandbag with ears and adjustable plates to adjust the ears for a snug fit to the sides of the forend. This obviously helps to restrain the rifle from lateral movement, but does nothing to restrain recoil (rearward movement). Since this design of front rest has been in use for many, many years, there has been plenty of opportunity to question whether it meets with the intent and spirit of the rules. What's your point?
Click to expand...

Over the "many, many years," I never had any burning desire to read the rules; it wasn't until fairly recently that I did so. My point? Nothing more than trying to understand why some rules apparently are strickly enforced (e.g., weight) while that rule seems to be ignored.

BTW, as suggested in post # 32 above, the argument that recoil is nothing more than rearward movement may not be a winning argument.
 
Some of us may not be understanding you.

If I am understanding you correctly that rule has been enforced in at least the S.E. region. I well rember Wilbur when he was The SE director, walking in front of the firing line and pushing up on the rifle barrels to see if the rifle would lift straight up. He also had a guide to check the stock width. I have also been at matches where one of the ref's did the same. I paticulary rember that because I had my side tension too tight and had to loosen it.If this is not what your refering to then I apologise
 
aka Hunter said:
Over the "many, many years," I never had any burning desire to read the rules; it wasn't until fairly recently that I did so. My point? Nothing more than trying to understand why some rules apparently are strickly enforced (e.g., weight) while that rule seems to be ignored.
Click to expand...

I think you are confusing "enforced" with checked before the match. Just because each rifle isnt checked to ensure the barrel taper, stock, etc is compliant before the start of every match, does not mean the officials will not enforce rules if a transgression comes to light during a match. Also, enforcing the rules is not simply the job of a few overworked volunteer match officials. Any competitor has the right to lodge a protest if they think someone has an unfair advantage during a match.
 
I don't think anybody is confused

There is a rule that limits how tight you clamp the sides of your front bag. Follow that rule and recoil will not be restrained. Tighten 'em up beyond that and recoil may very well be restrained - that's Boyd's point. You can restrain recoil with your shoulder but not with the rest screws.

Fergus makes a good point as well. If somebody sees rules not being enforced it would seem that they should throw a flag right then rather than mention it later. Please understand that I'm not writing just in the context of this thread and I point at no one in particular. I am, however, pointing at the general participant at any sanctioned event. Rules are rules and if you see something...say something. The rule book, regardless of how you may feel about it, is the basis for competition.
 
OK...now I am confused..(again)...

" 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....."

There is a stock for sale on BR Classifieds that is a Tony Larson Redwood & Carbton fiber...I am assuming it is a LV/Sporter...but looking at the photos is has a recess (about 1/4") milled into the bottom of the forend that runs the length of the forend and about 2 1/2" wide which lets only the outside lower edge of the stock forend ride the bag, with no contact in the middle area...same as some of the long range rifle stocks..is it legal for LV, Sporter, HV competition.???


Eddie in Texas
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top