ronsatspokane
Gold $$ Contributor
Aside from the fact that Epistemology destroyed logical philosophical thought (IMO), I am in 100 percent agreement, it depends on what the definition of 'is' is. I'm not arguing in favor of additional rules. Quite the opposite. I'm trying to point out how absurd this roller ruling is and how far it could be taken given the possible interpretations of existing rules. The NRA seems to want to take F Class into the realm of Epistemology. Perhaps they should spend a decade defining their terms before establishing ignorant and illogical rules. The rest of us can go on shooting while they ponder the universe of definitions. Perhaps they will even discover their own pronouns in the process.I'm not arguing for or against rules. A lot of this nonsense is why I shoot TR. But the rules are pretty clear that bags have to be relatively soft. A well tracking rifle can be done with soft bags. Maybe not "return to battery" tracking, but close to it.
All this aside, I don't think this matters at all. Benchrest guys have known for ages that overly hard rests will not do you any favors.
Edit: All they're doing with these "clarifications" is muddying the waters. Reminds me of Bill Clinton's famous "That depends on what the definition of 'is' is." What's a bag? What's "positive"? Is felt a bag? Is a side bag a bag? What does "supported by" mean? Is the side of a one piece bag a bag? If a roller can't roll, is it still a roller? What if it's made out of felt? It's silly.

I still want to get to the root of it however. Someone or something precipitated this. So whose feelings got hurt when they got beaten by someone using side rollers?
Last edited: