Jan 2023 NRA Highpower RuleBook

[Keith Glasscock]

@ronsatspokane -
By that same logic, flexible recoil pad material should also be banned. It elastically stores the energy of the recoil and provides a return force.

The RAD uses a hydraulic shock absorber to absorb energy. It converts the energy to heat by squeezing fluid through an orifice. If one is using a heavy enough spring to return the rifle to battery, some high speed video of the rifle will show the rifle isn't compressing the RAD very much, if at all. My rifle has to be pushed forward back into position after a shot. The spring, on mine, is solely there to return the RAD to full length after the rifle is pushed back forward by the shooter.

Is it an advantage? There wouldn't be one on my rifle if it wasn't. The advantage is in the reduction of fatigue and associated mental impairment after a long period of time shooting (multi-day or a long day). Likewise, a properly tuned RAD will help mitigate shooter shoulder pressure errors by limiting the possible input force.

I do agree with you. The NRA has totally lost my confidence as a rules making body and I'm not going to play their silly games any more. First it was a lack of integrity on rules enforcement, then it was surrendering to the financial interests of e-target manufacturers, now it is trying to destroy a single rest maker. I can't, in good conscience, support the NRA as the national governing body for F-class.

 

[ronsatspokane]

@ronsatspokane -
By that same logic, flexible recoil pad material should also be banned. It elastically stores the energy of the recoil and provides a return force.

The RAD uses a hydraulic shock absorber to absorb energy. It converts the energy to heat by squeezing fluid through an orifice. If one is using a heavy enough spring to return the rifle to battery, some high speed video of the rifle will show the rifle isn't compressing the RAD very much, if at all. My rifle has to be pushed forward back into position after a shot. The spring, on mine, is solely there to return the RAD to full length after the rifle is pushed back forward by the shooter.

Is it an advantage? There wouldn't be one on my rifle if it wasn't. The advantage is in the reduction of fatigue and associated mental impairment after a long period of time shooting (multi-day or a long day). Likewise, a properly tuned RAD will help mitigate shooter shoulder pressure errors by limiting the possible input force.

I do agree with you. The NRA has totally lost my confidence as a rules making body and I'm not going to play their silly games any more. First it was a lack of integrity on rules enforcement, then it was surrendering to the financial interests of e-target manufacturers, now it is trying to destroy a single rest maker. I can't, in good conscience, support the NRA as the national governing body for F-class.

As I said, by the time we are done we will be shooting in a offhand position without the aid of a sling. Now if the RAD never returned to it's original position or the time required to do so exceeded the time required to complete a string, then I could agree, there would be no return to battery function. Or at the very least, Newtons second law would have yet to be realized sufficiently to be termed a return to battery. But, the science is the science regardless of the mechanism. Neither Newtons 3rd law or his 2nd law can be circumvented in this temporal world we occupy.

 

[Warren Dean]

That a RAD is a mechanism that returns a rifle to battery is not a matter of opinion. It is settled science.

No...maybe it's settled semantics but it isn't "settled science".

The RAD has no way to return the rifle to "a precise point of aim". That is the definition of "return to battery" as it is understood by the rest of the shooting world. and is the definition the F Class rules use.

Your word salad doesn't change that fact.

 

[DumpHollow]

Most people interpret them as legal. Personally, I think they're not.

In my mind, I've questioned the legality of the forend stop a couple hundred posts ago.

 

[Rset]

I can't, in good conscience, support the NRA as the national governing body for F-class.

As this thread continues to evolve, and with the ridiculous nature it has taken, I can't possibly agree with you more. But then again, I don't have any faith in the NRA for anything these days.
Also, since considering that a great number of the posts in this thread are from people not even involved in F-Class, I have less and less respect for many of my fellow shooters.
If you don't have a dog in the fight...............................

 

[Bamban]

Issue sandbags on the line, all is fair....cheers.

 

[ronsatspokane]

No...maybe it's settled semantics but it isn't "settled science".

The RAD has no way to return the rifle to "a precise point of aim". That is the definition of "return to battery" as it is understood by the rest of the shooting world. and is the definition the F Class rules use.

Your word salad doesn't change that fact.

Your argument is with Sir Isaac Newton, not with me. It does not need to return the rifle fully into battery. Rollers certainly do not even assist in a return to battery. A RAD system does assist in a return to battery since it does re-extend (rebalance in Newton's terms) the mechanism thereby forcing the rifle back in a direction of battery.

Let's not be science deniers folks. Let's insure the integrity of the rules laid down but the NRA. They need to reexamine their positions based on science not based on placating some whiny little man bitch who feels cheated because he does not have rollers.

 

[gunsandgunsmithing]

As this thread continues to evolve, and with the ridiculous nature it has taken, I can't possibly agree with you more. But then again, I don't have any faith in the NRA for anything these days.
Also, since considering that a great number of the posts in this thread are from people not even involved in F-Class, I have less and less respect for many of my fellow shooters.
If you don't have a dog in the fight...............................

Sometimes clarity comes from the outside, looking in. Someone who believes that it shouldn't take lawyers to define the word sandbag or mechanical, or that what was allowed should not be disallowed after the fact without a vote...that common sense is what's needed and that the goal should always be to better the shooting sports. But I'm an outsider, only looking at this and leaning more toward staying, an outsider.

This isn't complicated nor should it be. We all have a dog in this, that might consider it as a possible shooting venue. Others orgs have had that feeling and it has spawned competing organizations. Ime, that was a good thing but it does divide us more, when we'd all be better off with short, simple, easily understood and enforced rules.

 

[Warren Dean]

Your argument is with Sir Isaac Newton, not with me. It does not need to return the rifle fully into battery. Rollers certainly do not even assist in a return to battery. A RAD system does assist in a return to battery since it does re-extend (rebalance in Newton's terms) the mechanism thereby forcing the rifle back in a direction of battery.

Let's not be science deniers folks. Let's insure the integrity of the rules laid down but the NRA. They need to reexamine their positions based on science not based on placating some whiny little man bitch who feels cheated because he does not have rollers.

Oh, please......

 

[kzin]

Issue sandbags on the line, all is fair....cheers.

The rifle may be supported
with one or two sandbag rests or kneeling rolls or other similar supports that
may be placed under the rifle fore-end. A rear rest may not be used. The butt-
plate is supported by the shoulder. The butt-stock may not rest on the bench
or be supported by anything that rests on the bench. If the match sponsor
provides sandbag rests for all firing points, those rests must be used by all
competitors.

This is the new cmp benchrest rule.
Let's go with it for f-open-closed
Aim the damn rifle not the rest

 

[Keith Glasscock]

As I said, by the time we are done we will be shooting in a offhand position without the aid of a sling. Now if the RAD never returned to it's original position or the time required to do so exceeded the time required to complete a string, then I could agree, there would be no return to battery function. Or at the very least, Newtons second law would have yet to be realized sufficiently to be termed a return to battery. But, the science is the science regardless of the mechanism. Neither Newtons 3rd law or his 2nd law can be circumvented in this temporal world we occupy.

I'm honestly curious about your position here...

Sorry, I'm not following your logic. If the spring doesn't store all of the energy that repositioned the rifle because a portion of it was converted to heat, how does that system rebalance?

It takes X amount of force to push the rifle forward. The springs we use don't have the force to accomplish that task. Add to that the fact that the semi-liquid human on the receiving end of the recoil impulse distorts and rebounds, and we have something that is incapable fo returning itself to battery and the precise point of aim. Even if it ends up against the stop afterwards, how is that different from a solid buttplate with a hard hold?

 

[ronsatspokane]

I'm honestly curious about your position here...

Sorry, I'm not following your logic. If the spring doesn't store all of the energy that repositioned the rifle because a portion of it was converted to heat, how does that system rebalance?

It takes X amount of force to push the rifle forward. The springs we use don't have the force to accomplish that task. Add to that the fact that the semi-liquid human on the receiving end of the recoil impulse distorts and rebounds, and we have something that is incapable fo returning itself to battery and the precise point of aim. Even if it ends up against the stop afterwards, how is that different from a solid buttplate with a hard hold?

See #324

Beyond that, is it your contention that the RAD would have to fully return the rifle to battery in order for it to be illegal, as defined by the NRA? If so, rollers provide no assist and guide no more than a rigid side bag. Yet rollers violate NRA rules and RAD's do not. That position does not stretch the bounds of credibility, it destroys their credibility.

 

[Keith Glasscock]

See #324

Beyond that, is it your contention that the RAD would have to fully return the rifle to battery in order for it to be illegal, as defined by the NRA? If so, rollers provide no assist and guide no more than a rigid side bag. Yet rollers violate NRA rules and RAD's do not. That position does not stretch the bounds of credibility, it destroys their credibility.

I read that post completely. I'm asking about physics, not the ridiculous NRA rules.

Are you stating that the RAD will fully return the rifle to its original position after the shot?

 

[rardoin]

Your argument is with Sir Isaac Newton, not with me. It does not need to return the rifle fully into battery. Rollers certainly do not even assist in a return to battery. A RAD system does assist in a return to battery since it does re-extend (rebalance in Newton's terms) the mechanism thereby forcing the rifle back in a direction of battery.

As Keith pointed out, an elastomeric recoil pad does the same. Should they also be banned???

 

[Acyr]

I'm honestly curious about your position here...

Sorry, I'm not following your logic. If the spring doesn't store all of the energy that repositioned the rifle because a portion of it was converted to heat, how does that system rebalance?

It takes X amount of force to push the rifle forward. The springs we use don't have the force to accomplish that task. Add to that the fact that the semi-liquid human on the receiving end of the recoil impulse distorts and rebounds, and we have something that is incapable fo returning itself to battery and the precise point of aim. Even if it ends up against the stop afterwards, how is that different from a solid buttplate with a hard hold?

I'm honestly curious about your position here...

Sorry, I'm not following your logic. If the spring doesn't store all of the energy that repositioned the rifle because a portion of it was converted to heat, how does that system rebalance?

It takes X amount of force to push the rifle forward. The springs we use don't have the force to accomplish that task. Add to that the fact that the semi-liquid human on the receiving end of the recoil impulse distorts and rebounds, and we have something that is incapable fo returning itself to battery and the precise point of aim. Even if it ends up against the stop afterwards, how is that different from a solid buttplate with a hard hold?

I have a great close-up slow-motion video of a RAD in action. It is of my daughter shooting 215 hybrids in a FTR rifle. Shows almost full compression (I tuned the damping and springs to the load) But more importantly it shows the shoulder moving back a significant amount. You have to push the rifle back into battery after each shot. I don't have the ability to post it. (youtube link etc)

 

[davidjoe]

A RAD operates more like a folded up towel than the spring dampened return system of an artillery piece because the rad isn’t attached to an immovable rear rest. But it does technically help some amount in return to battery because the spring is allowed to reverse direction immediately after being compressed. It’s not a one way ratchet system that only helps with recoil, and then must be reset after each shot. It’s not an unsprung mere hydraulic shock absorber.

I think 3.18 of the rules, excluding everything not addressed, was for high power, before F-Class. A mirage shield is a direct aid that is not specially permitted or addressed in the rules. Dryer sheets and bag spray lubes aren’t addressed.

The big issue is that no two referees independently testing, would reach the same conclusion on pressing on 25 different front bags. I’d wager even the same guy wouldn’t reach the same outcome the next day. That’s an inherent drafting flaw.

The only current rule “criteria” not susceptible vagueness and electronic discrepancy or malfunction is fore end width. As to rifle weight, I personally can’t stand watching a scale not move when I add or subtract small objects from it. No two “precise” scales ever agree, even at the same match. The idea of having to generously allow for this is even more frustrating. What was the goal here? I can chase any BC as fast as I want, in Open and plausibly could even with a huge “.308” (never chamber verified I’ve seen at a match) that is scrap brass on the first shot fits zero magazines, is over length and over SAAMI max load, but it’s a 308 Win, as long as we are at (10 kg and) 18.18 pounds…

Is a guy refusing to shoot from the shoulder? How can this rule be enforced and what does it accomplish when a rear bag is permitted to fully support the rifle?

Side bolsters is a big one. Can someone explain how flexible, bulbous sandbag bolsters can even touch the fore end if they don’t apply “any” clamping pressure? I can machine solid flat walls to a tight tolerance and prevent tilt and trap motion to forward and backward, but sandbags are either an interference fit, or they probably aren’t doing anything at all. And did the NRA really intend to encourage trapping motion to forward and backward movement, only, with eliminating cant and wobble, recently? That’s a 180. How’s a solid flat bolster and a roller different from each other on that front and rear motion axis, they aren’t and in fact the roller lets the butt swing left to right more than the fixed solid wall bolster of any length ever will.

Rules should not be self defeating.

 

[tvaught]

 

[davidjoe]

I was waiting for the explosion. .

 

[dcali]

A RAD does not in any way return the rifle to it's original position (the generally accepted definition of "return to battery). This will be very obvious if you shoot a TR rifle. They move. The details of the physics are irrelevant when you can just observe what happens.

But for the record - Keith is right. A RAD is not just a spring. It also has a damper. Much of the energy is *not* stored in the spring - it is dissipated as heat. Regardless, the RAD is not physically capable of fully balancing the recoil forces and moments. And if it can't do that, it can't return the rifle to battery.

(By the way, Newton's 2nd law is F=ma, not anything to do with energy balance.)

 

[ronsatspokane]

I read that post completely. I'm asking about physics, not the ridiculous NRA rules.

Are you stating that the RAD will fully return the rifle to its original position after the shot?

You read something into it that is not there. The world "fully" is not used. That it could given the length and construction of the RAD or that it does assist in a return to battery should not be in question. One cannot ignore Newton on this subject. Rollers do not assist. It is not like they are powered by some magic that counters the recoil of the rifle and physically assists in bringing it back into battery.