2020 NRA F-Class National Championship MATCH DIRECTOR’S BULLETIN #1

[MatthewsCarbineCo]

These are what I currently have to use. Can they be used on a piece of non grooved rubber mat or ply wood and be ok within the rules?

 

[kzin]

3.4.1 Rifle Rests - (a) F-Class Open Rifle (F-O) - The F-Open rifle may be supported by a front rest bag, which may be fully adjustable for position but may not provide a positive mechanical method for returning the rifle to itts prior point of aim from the previous shot.

Can some one please explain this to me, I honestly want to know, and I am not trying to troll this thread. How does this rule reconcile with the way F-Open is shot today?

I witnessed a F-Open shooter at a match once fire several shots at his target without ever looking through his rifle scope; fire, load a round, push rifle to stop, and fire again only looking through his spotter. How does this meet the requirements of this rule? And if this is okay, why are we even discussing tracks in carpet?

Now I will have to agree that the slotted horse mat does pose some problems, what kind of bipod was used? This certainly would not work with the scissor type bipods, the slots would have to be adjustable for width. I digress.

Please explain.

Jim

Why should they have to reconcile?
TR is intended to be a more restrictive, lower scoring class.

They made shooting a TR style bipod explicitly legal in Open but nobody ever promised(or probably meant for) it to be equally competitive. You also still have to count the bipod weight in open. If you don't want the (small?) disadvantage of a bipod use a rest or rebarrel to 308 and shoot TR.

Using a sling is legal but certainly not competitive. Should we try to reconcile that too?

 

[BP1]

These are what I currently have to use. Can they be used on a piece of non grooved rubber mat or ply wood and be ok within the rules?

That top mat is illegal the lip around the edges could possibly act as a stop..I would protest that..

 

[kzin]

These are what I currently have to use. Can they be used on a piece of non grooved rubber mat or ply wood and be ok within the rules?

The actual test is supposed to replace evaluating a setup just by looking.

Can you nudge it sideways without it hanging up in the fabric grain?

 

[J F Johannes]

Why should they have to reconcile?
TR is intended to be a more restrictive, lower scoring class.

They made shooting a TR style bipod explicitly legal in Open but nobody ever promised(or probably meant for) it to be equally competitive. You also still have to count the bipod weight in open. If you don't want the (small?) disadvantage of a bipod use a rest or rebarrel to 308 and shoot TR.

Using a sling is legal but certainly not competitive. Should we try to reconcile that too?

I understand that. I am talking about this:

.......may not provide a positive mechanical method for returning the rifle to itts prior point of aim from the previous shot.

It is similarly stated in F-TR and F-Open rules. Here they are talking about front rest bag of any kind

Jim

 

[Baka]

These are what I currently have to use. Can they be used on a piece of non grooved rubber mat or ply wood and be ok within the rules?

Only until you win!

 

[MatthewsCarbineCo]

If you search for Joy Pod replacement feet: you will clearly see intent to cheat the system.
When there is talk of Phoenix bipod style JoyPod replacement feet being used in appropriately?
Forum.accurateshooter.com/threads/joy-pod-replacement-feet.3973433/

Quoted from above forum thread

"If used on top of something shorter than shag carpet but taller than commercial flat carpet, the carpet allows the feet to create a groove or track when rearward recoil firce is applied. The result is the rifle is less likely to hop, it tends to stay in the groove, and baby I always want to be in the groove"

What is a new to this style of shooter supposed to think?

 

[MatthewsCarbineCo]

That top mat is illegal the lip around the edges could possibly act as a stop..I would protest that..

What type of mat should I use or could I simply remove the piping from the edge?

 

[kzin]

I understand that. I am talking about this:

.......may not provide a positive mechanical method for returning the rifle to itts prior point of aim from the previous shot.

It is similarly stated in F-TR and F-Open rules. Here they are talking about front rest bag of any kind

Jim

Well they do try to draw a line for mechanical return in both classes. Just to different degrees.

All bags have to be leather like with some give, not hard material like I see some outlaw bench guys using.
No connection between front and rear supports in either.

FO front bag has width and total surface requirements and must be freely liftable.

TR feet can't track.

I've never looked into one piece rests or railguns in any detail but I think you see some total mechanical return there.

 

[MatthewsCarbineCo]

The actual test is supposed to replace evaluating a setup just by looking.

Can you nudge it sideways without it hanging up in the fabric grain?

Yes it can be nudged easily sideways and does not tend to embed either

 

[kzin]

Yes it can be nudged easily sideways and does not tend to embed either

Then it's good. At least if they enforce as proposed in the OP.

 

[Crow]

I must say there's nothing funnier than watching a bunch of my fellow Texans talking about skis and bipods.

You know what we meant...

As someone with a gift for precise language, exceptional knowledge of current rules, a match directors eye when it comes to the application of said rules, and even hailing from the birthplace of f-class, I've wondered what your thoughts were on the 'elongated contact points' / carpet controversy. Care to share?

 

[Dessert]

Somebody made a reference to NASCAR, the reason they have such a myriad of rules is that people will find ways to game the system. That is why they also have a strong inspection and enforcement system. I’m not advocating anything here, just making an observation.

 

[kzin]

What type of mat should I use or could I simply remove the piping from the edge?

If we're trying to be hyper-technical it looks like base and surface may be too wide anyway?
Can only be 2" over bipod width on a given side.
Trim it back to get absolutely legal.

 

[CharlieNC]

Well to cludge this up a bit more, tracking is actually a "two way street". I have used narrow ski feet on a low pile carpet to achieve less torquing upon recoil such that the horizontal shifting on target can be improved. This did not cause visible tracks on the carpet, and was simply because the feet dug into the carpet such that the resistance to lateral movement was much greater than the longitudinal movement. On the other hand this also resulted in a more lengthy time required to realign exactly on the x-ring. Because tracks were not involved and did not improve return to battery, I would not interpret this as a violation of the initial rules but simply good trial and error. So there is not necessarily a mandatory correlation between visible tracks and tracking. I understand the implicit design of mechanical tracks is a violation of the initial spirit, but is optimizing tracking itself a problem? If so then this suggests a single defined board surface and approved feet are the only true answer to achieve equal "footing" for everyone; and then where does it stop? From what I have seen in competition and the photos on this post I do not have a problem with competing against any of those setups; afterall if someone shows me their mousetrap is better then I can get one too. Seems the MD judgement to rule against obvious mechanical tracks is clear, and let innovation for tracking go on.

 

[DR1586]

Here's something interesting boys, as you know the individual driving this platform down Mid's throat is a person from North Carolina. On page 5, Jetjock1 is speaking for the NRA highpower committee saying this is a done deal. Did you know he was from North Carolina also...... Just saying!!! Starting to smell real fishy in NRAville.......

I have no dog in this fight as i am not an F-Class shooter. However, I am from North Carolina and am quite familiar with the work history of Walt (Jetjock1) and anyone that suggests that Walt is acting in any way other than ethical is sorely mistaken. I assure you that any rule changes that Walt recommends or votes for are in the best interest of the shooting sports. The man has devoted a substantial portion of his life to the NRA and the Highpower community. There is no conspiracy happening here in North Carolina.

 

[Turbulent Turtle]

You know what we meant...

As someone with a gift for precise language, exceptional knowledge of current rules, a match directors eye when it comes to the application of said rules, and even hailing from the birthplace of f-class, I've wondered what your thoughts were on the 'elongated contact points' / carpet controversy. Care to share?

You want me to walk into the manure distribution device? Do you think I'm insane? I'm just relaying some observations.

Lest you believe that I am trying to evade the issue, let me just say that the NRA rules are badly written, inconsistent, incoherent and contradictory. In other words, par for the course. At this stage you can make them back whatever position you care to espouse.

People will argue over the definition of "carpet" and since it's not defined in the rules, it's a free for all and left to everyone's and anyone's imagination. That's why it's difficult to write simple rules.

 

[kzin]

Well to cludge this up a bit more, tracking is actually a "two way street". I have used narrow ski feet on a low pile carpet to achieve less torquing upon recoil such that the horizontal shifting on target can be improved. This did not cause visible tracks on the carpet, and was simply because the feet dug into the carpet such that the resistance to lateral movement was much greater than the longitudinal movement. On the other hand this also resulted in a more lengthy time required to realign exactly on the x-ring. Because tracks were not involved and did not improve return to battery, I would not interpret this as a violation of the initial rules but simply good trial and error. So there is not necessarily a mandatory correlation between visible tracks and tracking. I understand the implicit design of mechanical tracks is a violation of the initial spirit, but is optimizing tracking itself a problem? If so then this suggests a single defined board surface and approved feet are the only true answer to achieve equal "footing" for everyone; and then where does it stop? From what I have seen in competition and the photos on this post I do not have a problem with competing against any of those setups; afterall if someone shows me their mousetrap is better then I can get one too. Seems the MD judgement to rule against obvious mechanical tracks is clear, and let innovation for tracking go on.

Good point but I come to the opposite conclusion.

The proposed test of free movement sideways seems to indicate that tracking itself is the problem and visible 'tracks' are not essential to fail.

 

[CharlieNC]

Good point but I come to the opposite conclusion.

The proposed test of free movement sideways seems to indicate that tracking itself is the problem and visible 'tracks' are not essential to fail.

I don't think it is about a conclusion, but that to me I don't care whether it is difficult or easy to slide the rifle sideways. But that is because I am trying to read the minds of the initial rule makers, and view their intent as to not allow mechanical tracking as with the open rest. I have shot skinny skis on carpet and do not view a slight improvement in tracking as an undue competitive advantage, especially since it is easily within the ability of all competitors to use if they wish. If someone wants to try many different feet on many different carpet grades to find something that works for them, why should it bother me since I can do it too. I consider optimizing a setup to get good tracking on a flat piece of carpet mounted on a flat board to be within the intent of not mechanically tracking. I don't use anything close to that setup, but it doesn't bother me that others might because I could if I chose to. But that's just my opinion.

 

[Jay Christopherson]

3.4.1 Rifle Rests - (a) F-Class Open Rifle (F-O) - The F-Open rifle may be supported by a front rest bag, which may be fully adjustable for position but may not provide a positive mechanical method for returning the rifle to itts prior point of aim from the previous shot.

Can some one please explain this to me, I honestly want to know, and I am not trying to troll this thread. How does this rule reconcile with the way F-Open is shot today?

I witnessed a F-Open shooter at a match once fire several shots at his target without ever looking through his rifle scope; fire, load a round, push rifle to stop, and fire again only looking through his spotter. How does this meet the requirements of this rule? And if this is okay, why are we even discussing tracks in carpet?

Now I will have to agree that the slotted horse mat does pose some problems, what kind of bipod was used? This certainly would not work with the scissor type bipods, the slots would have to be adjustable for width. I digress.

Please explain.

Jim

@J F Johannes you are mistaken in your assessment of Open equipment, how it works, and how it is shot. very much so. I would recommend you actually shoot it before making comments about equipment that I know for a fact you know nothing about.

If you are interested in rectifying your ignorance, try asking the guys you shoot with. I know all of them.