BiPod pad

[kzin]

It doesn't matter if Aaron's reply is not logical. He's "the man". Aaron also specifically stated "the 2" is directed towards a rest NOT a bipod." That's clear as day.

It's nonsense. An ftr rule can't be directed at a rest as opposed to a bipod.
It's not just wrong, it's impossible. There is no rest in ftr other than a bipod.

Plus, a statement prefixed with "it looks like" doesn't sound like a rock-solid ruling to be taken as a precedent.

fyi - I don't care what anybody uses. I'm just analyzing the text.

 

[ED3]

It doesn't matter if Aaron's reply is not logical. He's "the man". Aaron also specifically stated "the 2" is directed towards a rest NOT a bipod." That's clear as day. And,as far as the wording "as wide as necessary" goes, who is going to DQ a shooter saying his bipod is "wider than necessary"?

The rule doesn't address the widths of bipods, only the relationship between the widths of support boards and bipods.

 

[skibar_tx]

Here is the rule 3.4.1 (b) (2)
The use of “tables” i.e. a single flat solid surface extending under both front rest and rear bag is prohibited. Carpet or similarly flexible matting may be placed under the front rest and rear bag. Separate flat boards and or plates not exceeding the dimensions of the individual rests by two inches on a given side may also be placed under the front rest and rear bag. In the case of a bipod, the board or plate may be as wide as necessary to accommodate the bipod at its widest point, but not be more than 12” front to rear. It is not permitted to provide tracks for the guidance of bipod feet. No levelling screws or protrusions are allowed on these boards or plates. They must be flat on the top and bottom.

This rule is about as vague as it gets. First it says the board cannot exceed the dimensions of the rest by 2 inches on a given side, then the next sentence refers to bipods, saying it may be as wide as necessary to accommodate the bipod at it's widest point. Define "wide as necessary"? That is an indefinite measurement.

 

[Nowhere Man]

The rule doesn't address the widths of bipods, only the relationship between the widths of support boards and rests; which could be a bipod, or bag.

A bipod is not a rest.

The rule doesn't address the widths of bipods, only the relationship between the widths of support boards and bipods.

You are correct. I meant to say, who's willing to DQ a shooter because the board under his bipod is wider than necessary?

 

[ED3]

A bipod is not a rest.


You are correct. I meant to say, who's willing to DQ a shooter because the board under his bipod is wider than necessary?

If a bipod doesn't function as a rest, what is its purpose?

 

[Nowhere Man]

If a bipod doesn't function as a rest, what is its purpose?

You'd have to ask Aaron. He's the one who first said a bipod is not a rest. I was quoting him.

 

[ED3]

You'd have to ask Aaron. He's the one who first said a bipod is not a rest. I was quoting him.

The only place I've read a bipod is not a rest is your post.

Where else is that stated?

I'm not going to argue the rules could not have been better written, but the intent and purpose is clear enough that I, for one could arrive at a match with a clear expectation as to what is allowed, with regard to a bipod support and not be a pain in the backside of the already over extended MD.

 

[Nowhere Man]

The only place I've read a bipod is not a rest is your post.

Where else is that stated?

If Aaron has not made a distinction between a rest and a bipod, please explain his message.

 

[Jdne5b]

The head of competitions is not a referee or a match director who without official clarification, can interpret it however they want (even though I agree with his email and interpretation).

Instead of arguing semantics online, we should be working on wording that makes sense, and submitting it to the high power committee for a revision.

 

[skibar_tx]

If you look at rule 3.4.1, (a) refers to f-open and (b) is referring to FTR. Paragraph (2) of each section, (a) and (b) are the exact same wording. They are addressing what can be placed under an F-Open rest as well as a FTR bipod. The 2 inches on each side is referring to the F-Open rest, the "as wide as necessary" is referring to the FTR bipod. So there is no restriction of width on a board or plate under an FTR bipod. The only restriction is the 12" from front to back.

 

[ED3]

If Aaron has not made a distinction between a rest and a bipod, please explain his message.

I read that as being a distinction regarding to what of rests the 2" rule applies.

 

[kzin]

3.4.1 Rifle Rests -
...

(b) F-Class Target Rifle (F-TR) Rests - A bipod and/or sling ..

The idea that the word rest in this context excludes bipods is insupportable.

In common use we often talk about rests vs bipods as an exclusionary distinction.

In this context rest is clearly inclusive of 'benchrests', bipods, bags, packs and whatever else one might rest the front of the rifle on.

 

[dcali]

There’s no point in debating a poorly written rule. However, the one clear part is that the 2” only applies to boards/plates and not carpets/mats.

 

[kzin]

In the case of a bipod, the board or plate may be as wide as necessary to accommodate the bipod at its widest point

The reason this line exists is to allow for adjustable width bipods, not to exempt them from the width rule altogether.
Some years ago some people were saying that if your board was wide enough for the widest setting of your bipod but you were using the bipod at a narrower setting then your board automatically became too wide.

 

[cheyenne01]

Ok I have a question?
I use a board with carpet to shoot off in ftr. Then I use my Seb pad on top of it with a Rempel bi pod .
Is this legal?
Thanks

 

[kzin]

Ok I have a question?
I use a board with carpet to shoot off in ftr. Then I use my Seb pad on top of it with a Rempel bi pod .
Is this legal?
Thanks

I don't see any particular reason it wouldn't be legal.
But as we've shown here this section of the rules is unclear and almost anything can be read into or out of it.