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

[savageshooter86]

Now you're going to ask, so you knew you were violating the rules, why did you use it? Answer: because lots of others were doing the same thing and nobody had the balls to call us out for it.

Well that's the golden ticket now days. Just do it because everyone else is doing it and no one has gotten busted for it up until now?? Terrible reason to violate a rule

 

[MikeMcCasland]

Don't understand why people don't consult the Rules , before doing something , and then get their panties in a twist when told what their doing doesn't meet the rules . "But that's the way I've been doin it for five years", doesn't make it acceptable now . Somebody need a "Whaaaaa-bul-ance" ?

Respectfully, I think this is the crux of the 'pro carpet' argument: It's not 'twisting' anything.

It's currently in the rules, and listed as legal: "Carpet or similarly flexible matting may be placed under the front rest and rear bag."

Several sentences later the rule book goes on to state "It is not permitted to provide tracks for the guidance of bipod feet", however this sentence is in reference to the mat/board not having tracks, not to the carpet.

I would wager ~75% of the front mat/bipod setups that I see on the line are leaving a track (or something that resembles a track) behind. This isn't due to competitors or manufactures trying to cheat/game/twist the rules (IMO). It's just that pretty much all the bipod feet out there (Duplin, new SEB feet, and Phoenix) are very narrow, the rifles are 18lbs, and if you're shooting off any surface softer than a cutting board it's going to leave 'something' behind. The same can be said for the commonly accepted 'pod pads', or even your standard MidwayUSA shooting mat on soft ground.

I suppose one could even argue the rule (as written) also implies the tracks need to be there before firing if they're banned for the purposes of guiding the feet. Providing tracks for guidance is not the same thing as creating tracks as a byproduct of use.

Personally, I run a short carpet/stall mat setup. I don't think it gives me any advantage, and I don't/won't have an issue of going to something else. I have quite a bit of video showing my bipod hoping all around, and the carpet does nothing to retain it. I think it has way more to do with rifle hold/body position than it does material.

So...change the rules...the field will adapt...and the results will be the same.

What I do think is silly is the tacit implication that somehow past results are 'tainted' because of the plushness of carpet; if you've ever shot off a carpeted mat, it does an exceedingly poor job of containing an 18lb rifle shooting a 200gr bullet at 2650fps.

And yeah...I know...the horse is dead. I look forward to the spirited discussions in this weekends matches.

Thanks,
Mike

P.S. - Is this a good time to ask about free recoil in F-Open?

 

[BP1]

Respectfully, I think this is the crux of the 'pro carpet' argument: It's not 'twisting' anything.

It's currently in the rules, and listed as legal: "Carpet or similarly flexible matting may be placed under the front rest and rear bag."

Several sentences later the rule book goes on to state "It is not permitted to provide tracks for the guidance of bipod feet", however this sentence is in reference to the mat/board not having tracks, not to the carpet.

I would wager ~75% of the front mat/bipod setups that I see on the line are leaving a track (or something that resembles a track) behind. This isn't due to competitors or manufactures trying to cheat/game/twist the rules (IMO). It's just that pretty much all the bipod feet out there (Duplin, new SEB feet, and Phoenix) are very narrow, the rifles are 18lbs, and if you're shooting off any surface softer than a cutting board it's going to leave 'something' behind. The same can be said for the commonly accepted 'pod pads', or even your standard MidwayUSA shooting mat on soft ground.

I suppose one could even argue the rule (as written) also implies the tracks need to be there before firing if they're banned for the purposes of guiding the feet. Providing tracks for guidance is not the same thing as creating tracks as a byproduct of use.

Personally, I run a short carpet/stall mat setup. I don't think it gives me any advantage, and I don't/won't have an issue of going to something else. I have quite a bit of video showing my bipod hoping all around, and the carpet does nothing to retain it. I think it has way more to do with rifle hold/body position than it does material.

So...change the rules...the field will adapt...and the results will be the same.

What I do think is silly is the tacit implication that somehow past results are 'tainted' because of the plushness of carpet; if you've ever shot off a carpeted mat, it does an exceedingly poor job of containing an 18lb rifle shooting a 200gr bullet at 2650fps.

And yeah...I know...the horse is dead. I look forward to the spirited discussions in this weekends matches.

Thanks,
Mike

P.S. - Is this a good time to ask about free recoil in F-Open?

Mike some read it your way and some don’t..at this point I can care less all I wanna do is shoot have a good time with all shooters involved and be left the hell alone..

 

[J F Johannes]

Respectfully, I think this is the crux of the 'pro carpet' argument: It's not 'twisting' anything.

It's currently in the rules, and listed as legal: "Carpet or similarly flexible matting may be placed under the front rest and rear bag."

Several sentences later the rule book goes on to state "It is not permitted to provide tracks for the guidance of bipod feet", however this sentence is in reference to the mat/board not having tracks, not to the carpet.

I would wager ~75% of the front mat/bipod setups that I see on the line are leaving a track (or something that resembles a track) behind. This isn't due to competitors or manufactures trying to cheat/game/twist the rules (IMO). It's just that pretty much all the bipod feet out there (Duplin, new SEB feet, and Phoenix) are very narrow, the rifles are 18lbs, and if you're shooting off any surface softer than a cutting board it's going to leave 'something' behind. The same can be said for the commonly accepted 'pod pads', or even your standard MidwayUSA shooting mat on soft ground.

I suppose one could even argue the rule (as written) also implies the tracks need to be there before firing if they're banned for the purposes of guiding the feet. Providing tracks for guidance is not the same thing as creating tracks as a byproduct of use.

Personally, I run a short carpet/stall mat setup. I don't think it gives me any advantage, and I don't/won't have an issue of going to something else. I have quite a bit of video showing my bipod hoping all around, and the carpet does nothing to retain it. I think it has way more to do with rifle hold/body position than it does material.

So...change the rules...the field will adapt...and the results will be the same.

What I do think is silly is the tacit implication that somehow past results are 'tainted' because of the plushness of carpet; if you've ever shot off a carpeted mat, it does an exceedingly poor job of containing an 18lb rifle shooting a 200gr bullet at 2650fps.

And yeah...I know...the horse is dead. I look forward to the spirited discussions in this weekends matches.

Thanks,
Mike

P.S. - Is this a good time to ask about free recoil in F-Open?

So...change the rules...the field will adapt...and the results will be the same.

Exactly

Jim

 

[Medic505]

I haven’t been whining but thanks. All I’ve tried to do is interject some logic and facts here and there. Maybe I’ve failed?

Not at all Rick. I reread everything you posted and I have to say I agree with all of it.

 

[Ned Ludd]

I'm going to reiterate an earlier point because I think it's worth another mention. The rule as amended:

...The pad surface should be smooth enough to allow the bipod to be moved in any direction without having to lift the rifle or move the pad that the bipod is on.

A rifle equipped with a Harris bipod having rubber feet would technically be illegal if fired off of the rubber mat common to most shooting mats (or similar). Having used such a setup for the entirety of my F-TR shooting, I can tell you that they cannot be moved laterally without lifting the rifle. Even a Flexpod, which is a very different type of bipod, is not going to exhibit free lateral movement when fired off a rubber mat. Most rubber bipod feet are way too grippy to do this without considerable effort, or flat out lifting the rifle. Does F-TR really want to institute a rule that technically makes a Harris bipod setup illegal? If the answer to that is that the modified rule is really only for ski-type bipods, then I have to ask why having a certain type of carpet surface that may slightly minimize lateral movement with such a bipod is that important when a Harris-type bipod, driven properly, displays very little lateral movement. It certainly doesn't move freely in any direction when pre-loaded. I understand that the majority of F-TR shooters have gravitated to the ski-/sled-type bipods, but there is always the dinosaur (such as myself) that will show up to a state/regional match with a more traditional bipod setup. I don't have any issues competing against those with ski-type bipods, even with a thick carpet underneath. I just don't think they represent the advantage some have made them out to have.

 

[Medic505]

I’ve seen a lot of way out there set ups that push the interpretation of rules as far as mats and boards under bipods over the years.

And you never protested these violations? You, just like everybody else, turned a blind eye to it.

 

[savageshooter86]

And you never protested these violations? You, just like everybody else, turned a blind eye to it.

I don't shoot FTR but if I saw anyone in violation of a rule I would say something. And I have called a shooter out on a major violation. Thought we shooters were better than that. We should self police ourselves and be honest. Just like the shooter who crossfired and never admitted it and cost me several points. Man up and take responsibility

 

[Stingray]

I have tried a flat rubber mat - a short pile carpet (1/8") and a heavy pile carpet along with other various front boards. I have not found any of them to be better than the other.
It still comes down to tuning the load, wind calls and in my case patience.
I shot the Grand Senior national record at the Texas State competition of a flat rubber mat with the texture of course sand and had to bring the rifle back to the target with each shot. Last 1000 yard I shot a 198 - 193 -198 of a board with a carpet that is old with very short pile and somewhat greasy as it has been in use for a couple of years. It's my practice board and I think it's lucky.
Did I mention that luck plays a role?

 

[calgarycanada]

Did I mention that luck plays a role?

Let’s ban luck. Clearly you have advantage over me because of your luck lol!!

 

[Warren Dean]

I’m goin fishin!View attachment 1192778

Good call, Nick!!

 

[Warren Dean]

I haven’t been whining but thanks. All I’ve tried to do is interject some logic and facts here and there. Maybe I’ve failed?

Rick,

That's gonna be a tough row to hoe! LOL

 

[Ned Ludd]

Let’s ban luck. Clearly you have advantage over me because of your luck lol!!

And hummer barrels. Those simply cannot be tolerated.

 

[Warren Dean]

Not afraid of old bears.

Yeah, well that's the keyboard talking.

 

[davidjoe]

Ned, the trending goal with the TR guns is a nearly straight back recoil so smooth it doesn’t come off target. You mention front loading your Harris. That is stable for the shot, but, - especially with 200’s, it bounces off your shoulder requiring significant reset in the front and rear. With a Harris, you no doubt control elevation from a pinch bag with your non-trigger hand and angled butt stock. You’re driving a stick shift classic Corvette, meanwhile you can’t even get anything today but paddle shift from Maranello.

And the TR scores like acceleration times have improved.

Forget free recoil debate in Open, these set ups that cannot be front loaded like a Harris, because they will just slide forward, can actually be shot well free recoil. Some even have non-angled benchrest stocks and metal pads (just to wink and blow a kiss).

God bless ‘em they are really good at the “just a .308” talk, but - come clean - the truth is they have a higher BC bullet that physically cannot be blown up, the world’s strongest Fclass case (Lapua Palma) absolutely no COAL rule limiting how much powder they might jam into that “Winchester” .308, they get to use Varget, they have slower barrel degradation affecting accuracy roll off during matches, and of course joysticks.

All that - and then they don’t have to follow the Open no-tracking-bipod rules if their cheat’n selves get booted outta TR?

edit : )

 

[Acyr]

I'm sure the event promoters would appreciate the sentiment.
It IS called the "National Championship" afterall.

Seriously? Did you not see the 3 emoji's?

 

[Medic505]

I need to go to emoji school. lol

 

[JCUtah]

The Seb Pod-Pad could be tough to get in compliance. I see tracks forming as the sand settles away from the feet as the match goes on. I would have fill it up enough to not dent under the weight and movement of the rifle but still keep flat on top instead of bulging up.

 

[skibar_tx]

There is nothing better than amending rules, obviously nowhere near being approved by the HP rules committee, for a national championship event. I have a real problem with match directors amending rules for NRA registered matches anyway. If we allow all the match directors, in all the registered events across the nation every year, to amend the rules they don't particularly agree with, then the national records will turn into a farce.. What is worse is when match directors amend the rules to pacify special interest groups in registered matches. That is really bad.

The second sentence of the rule in question, even with their revised version, is "carpet can be used under the front and rear rest". That is the only clear, concise and to the point sentence in that entire rule. It doesn't specify type of carpet, length of pile, or whether the lateral movement of a specific object can be attained. Everything else is speculation. Is it speculation that the only difference between F-Open and FTR is that the FTR bipod has to be able to move in all directions, and with how much effort? I always thought the basis of FTR VS F-O was the rest vs bipod, the caliber, the weight, the width of forearm, etc, etc...... Who knew it was the ability of a Harris bipod, which everyone was using at the time of the rules inception, to move in all directions freely. My Harris wouldn't do that, particularly with that 2 inch spike they allowed to be stuck into the ground. I call BS on that...... If there is one lie, who knows if any of their assertions are true.

 

[Warren Dean]

I need to go to emoji school. lol

You have to be able to read to go to school.... LOL