IBS Long Range Rulebook

[JRS]

IBS objectives:

(A) The development and encouragement of uniform competition to achieve extreme accuracy in firearms, ammunition, equipment, and shooting methods.

We have welcomed, encouraged and enjoy the advancement in actions, stocks, barrels, powders, bullets, scopes and triggers. Why not enjoy the modern advancements with the front rests. Each one of these advancements have helped to achieve that extreme accuracy.

 

[6MMsteve]

yall was arguing at Willamsport 30yrs ago when I was up there, just kidding wish I could come back maybe someday

 

[johara1]

2 allen head screws and about 3 minutes and she's good to go for old rules

You want the inner step of the "chair" to be a bit wider than your rail. Once the sand settles you get a couple more contact/guiding points. Then it really runs!

Tom

Tom, IT does not comply with1/2" rule as i see where it is trapping. It lips over the top edges of the sides of the stock. the middle part is ok i guess but if it contacts the stock you are up the creek there also….. but a good idea… jim

 

[Raythemanroe]

Seb rests still would have trouble maintaining a 1/2"..


Ray

 

[JRS]

Seb rests still would have trouble maintaining a 1/2"..


Ray

Not at all. The SEB rests comply with the rules.

 

[JRS]

I see if it picks up any part of the rest when you raise the gun, is trapping it and a DQ. but a 15 lb. rest verses a 60 lb. rest is NOT a level playing field. This where the 1/2"contact rule comes in to play. ….. jim

Hasn't the Hart rest with baseplate been used for many years? It weighs more than 40 pounds. Unfair advantage?

 

[dmoran]

Once the person proves it is in fact a half inch then under the new amendment that rest would be legal or at least the person who made that rest would hope so.
Ryan Miller

Before there had to be a minimum of 1/2" exposed as clearance, and was an easy check/measurement.
They changed the rule so they didn't need to measure or check if there was 1/2" clearance/exposed.
So why would they measure bags now? And/or how, there allowing containment?
Simply said, the rule was changed so they didn't have to enforce the rule...

Only need 2 bags. 1/2" x 1/2" x 1/2" U shaped bags. one on each side. Fully encapsulated by aluminum on all 4 sides. 1/2" x 1/2" rails would ride sweet in them and not move even a little bit.

That will work to !.!.!
But the bags would have to be minimum 1/2" thick by 1-1/2" wide, but now can be any length.
So 2 bags that are 1/2" x 1-1/2" x 1/2" will work...

Have to applaud you guys at Williamsport, where rules are left alone and get enforced !!!
Donovan

 

[johara1]

Before there had to be a minimum of 1/2" exposed as clearance, and was an easy check/measurement.
They changed the rule so they didn't need to measure or check if there was 1/2" clearance/exposed.
So why would they measure bags now? And/or how, there allowing containment?
Simply said, the rule was changed so they didn't have to enforce the rule...




That will work to !.!.!
But the bags would have to be minimum 1/2" thick by 1-1/2" wide, but now can be any length.
So 2 bags that are 1/2" x 1-1/2" x 1/2" will work...

Have to applaud you guys at Williamsport, where rules are left alone and get enforced !!!
Donovan

Donovan, They let the Neo with the three piece bag shoot the WO. last year. …. enforced? jim

 

[JRS]

Does/did the rule state the front bag had to be a one piece bag?

 

[Raythemanroe]

Not at all. The SEB rests comply with the rules.

1/2" on the side, if you are using the measure system you taught the wife..lol


Ray

 

[jstover33]

The purpose of the "new" rule book was to "take care of" ALL outstanding issues. So....IF there is a problem with the front rest rule as it is currently written...what do you want it to be? I, for one, would LOVE to be done with the LR front rest issue. The intent is to have a "sand bag" rather than a guiding means, i.e. rail gun.

Jeff Stover
IBS President

 

[dmoran]

The purpose of the "new" rule book was to "take care of" ALL outstanding issues. So....IF there is a problem with the front rest rule as it is currently written...what do you want it to be? I, for one, would LOVE to be done with the LR front rest issue. The intent is to have a "sand bag" rather than a guiding means, i.e. rail gun.

Jeff Stover
IBS President

Mr. Stover -

For myself, the fallowing:

1) For the rules to be written and enforced just like they were before you yourself changed the 1/2" clearance/containment before the 600 Nationals in 2014.

2) Copy & Paste the 2012-B Revision rules exactly word for word, with no re-writing or re-wording of nothing, into a separate LR rulebook.

3) Have the rules enforced by all the ranges, and at all the Nationals.

Donovan

 

[dmoran]

1/2" on the side, if you are using the measure system you taught the wife..lol


Ray

Up until the bylaw re-write, the front bag requirements were:
- Minimum 1/2" thick
- Minimum 1-1/2" wide
- Minimum 4" long
By those requirements, the "ear bags" on the 3-bag SEB were not legal, because they were not 4" long.
(how ever, that same SEB rest with a single bag was legal, as long as it had adequate containment clearance)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is the front sand bags 2012-B Revised and new Bylaws re-written, bags length requirements:

Before:
"Sand bags on front rests must be a minimum of one and one-half inches wide by four inches long"

Now:
"Sand bags on front rests must be a minimum of one and one half inches wide from the direction of the muzzle to the butt stock"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now by the bylaw re-written bag specifications, there is no longer a minimum 4" length requirement (it up and vanished). There for the 3-bag SEB would also now be legal (it clearly never was up until this "bylaw re-write").

Donovan

 

[seb]

How come this thread is then "related?" to NEO rest?

Anyway, it is obvious to me that a few of you here know nothing about the production NEO rests & the bags...
And I do mind

To Ray: Wake up!!! This is 2016 already, your photo 'reference' above is taken/copied from Accurateshooter.com - that was when I made the prototype rests & bags last 2010 or 2011!

Please check out the production rests & front bags... attached a photo here for thickness/dimensions comparison... the top side plate is 15 mm (0.590") thick. Also notice the angle on the sides that contact the stock's fore-arm.
Now do your math and common sense!


*(Note: this is a 'special edition' unit, not the standard rest, but they have exactly the same bag shape & dimensions).

Either the one pc bag or the 3 pc bags, they already exceeded the minimum dimension requirements (Etc) if/when sand filled properly.

Today I have shipped over than 1,000 NEO & MAX rests to over 30 countries!
(I don't know/remember the exact sum right now)
We also donated over than $ 50.000 to some shooting matches, teams, also some individuals in the USA, Australia, etc.
(Not much compared to the big companies but for me that's not a small amount also).

So my question to the whinners: What did/do you do for our sport!?

Wishing you all the best & Happy Easter!
seb.

 

[seb]

Behave!
If we/you behave good or properly, we/you already help the sport, imho!

seb.

 

[seb]

Also checkout my reply to Jeff about "4 inch stock in a SEB NEO rest" in another thread, yesterday... http://forum.accurateshooter.com/threads/4-inch-stock-in-a-seb-neo.3897972/

Hi Jeff,

Try to remove one of the side tension screws (or both), adjust the side tension to your liking, then align the rest-rifle-rear bag accordingly.
Just be sure that the side bags are at least or close to 1/2" thick over the side plate assembly. Adjust the sand inside, or (just) "push" them to be about 0.6" thick.

The CTC between the NEO posts is 200 mm, that gives 175 mm spacing (approx 6.89") between the posts....so with 4" stock + 2 x (0.5" side plate + 0.6" side bag) it will give you about 0.69" of free space.

If you use one side tension screw, and set it almost "half deep" (not deepest, say for fine/more tension adjustment), you still have about .35" free space/room there.
.35" side to side movement on the top will give you over than 38 MOA already.
That (4" stock) is about the maximum a NEO can handle, whilst the MAX can handle up to 8" stock.

Hope this help,
seb.

Until today, I do not know nor understand why the front bag must be at least 1/2" thick, why the rifle must be freely lifted off of the rest/bag, why the vertical contact on the sides must be no more than 1/2", etc... but rules is rules.

And you can see that I emphasized that the bag must be over than 1/2" thick over the metal that holds the bag in my reply to him.

That's (just a sample) how I respect the rules and behave properly, not by whinning.

ATB,
seb.

 

[johara1]

Seb, the only issue i see with your rest is that the side tension screws are too high in the side plate and push well above the 1/2" area of the fore arm. When tightened to get the proper side tension desired, it causes them to trap the fore end. Maybe a lower screw hole would help. jim

 

[JRS]

Does it really make a difference whether the bag is 4" long, or 14" long? Look at the NEO. When you place a 3" wide forearm on the bag and add the 1/2" thickness on each side (side bags) you have 4". If you have a 4" stock sitting there , you now have 5". The difference is the modern NEO rest. It's adjustable. The bottom portion of the bag is more than 4" long. The side bags meet the 1/2" rule. Clearly, to the naked eye, a 3" wide stock sitting on the bag that complies with the 1/2" side rule is at least 4" long. A ruler and calculator isn't necessary. Looking at the old rules, a single front bag is referenced. At no time does it state the bag has to be one piece. The NEO and MAX with the 3 piece configuration is a single bag made up of 3 pieces. It is, never less, a single bag that complies with the rules. There isn't another bag in front of it, nor behind it. The SEB rests offer the competitor the convenience to adjust the bag for different width stocks. No more… no less. I can tighten the side screws on any rest that I have, and trap the stock, but I don't. Why would anyone want to trap the stock anyway? You certainly don't gain an advantage by not allowing the rifle to recoil! What's next? The joy sticks? Do they offer an unfair advantage over the next guy because they allow that person to adjust elevation and windage faster and easier? Shouldn't we be advancing this sport and trying to gain, rather than lose members?

 

[Raythemanroe]

Just stating the obvious, everyone here knows the reason for the rule clarification isn't for the common bags used on more traditional rests.. The Seb rest I posted a picture of is why you have a clarification and why Seb revamped his bag.. Again, The pictured bag and rest is what I have seen at the range..

Ray

 

[Joe Salt]

Ray I have to agree with you, the Seb bags a year or two ago were not legal. A friend had one and the side bags would ride up on the MBR. stock. But I also see Seb has improved on the bags. Thanks Seb. So yes the new ones are fine. I try not to pay attention to what everyone is using. But there were guys that pointed out to me different rests that they thought were pushing the rules. So if you see this you should challenge them buy going to someone one the rules committee.

Joe Salt