
Gene, that's because it is a copy of it. Old information said it (Smith rest) had tighter tolerances and some updating. This rest design has been copied before. Randolph/Fulghum rest was a copy of Lamon Loggins's rest. Difference being the Loggins rest used gears for vertical adjustment and the rest Ken Fulghum made as a copy used/uses a cogged belt/sprocket drive for vertical. Also, the Fulghum top was very different, and IMO, better then the Loggins top. I own both, a Randolph and an original Loggins with the original tops.Looks very similar to my Randolph, also known as a Fulghum.
Here is a pic
The only thing even remotely similar to a Fulghum/Randolph rest from what you have posted is the horizontal adjustment. I would need a better photo of the horizontal adjustment, as I just looked at it again to even remotely make my opening statement valid. Also, way too many moving parts in the vertical adjustment to put me in my comfort zone. What you posted has not been copied several times. Randolph, Smith, and the original Loggins are WAY different from what you posted.......not even close.A guy in my gun club makes a Fulghum style rest but uses a lab style scissor jack for elevation. I like the setup. So this style has been copied many times.
Gene, I gave you a 'like' on this. I am very happy with my Randolph and consider it a change that I made for the 2021 season that put me into the the top 10 in the nation in IR50/50 3-gun competition. There are tons of Randolph's being used in IR 3-gun and Sporter for a reason, excellent top, which the base attachment system has been copied/used by MANY other makers, and smooth and precise adjustments. They didn't cost $1,300 in 2016......and still don't in 2022.
You won't be disappointed.
The windage is controlled the same way and I said right off the bat that it uses a completely different way to control elevation.The only thing even remotely similar to a Fulghum/Randolph rest from what you have posted is the horizontal adjustment. I would need a better photo of the horizontal adjustment, as just looked at it again to even make my opening statement valid. Also, way too many moving parts in the vertical adjustment to put me in my comfort zone. What you posted has not been copied several times. Randolph, Smith, and the original Loggins are WAY different from what you posted.......not even close.
Scott
Post a better picture of the horizontal adjustment. From what I see it is not exactly the same as a Fulghum/Randolph/Loggins/Smith type rest. Perhaps a better picture would prove your point. The picture I see seems to be different from the above four. I know you said the vertical was different, but that was not my point.The windage is controlled the same way and I said right off the bat that it uses a completely different way to control elevation.
Okay, seeing what I thought I saw in the first pictures. This rest your friend has made is really no way a copy of the rests mentioned in this thread. Even considering the vertical, which is very out of the norm, horizontal is not even close to the other rests mentioned, all of those having the same design/positioning of controlling horizontal adjustments. As in being in the center of the horizontal adjustment block, and not on top of it. Since I have no experience with such of a design, I can not comment if the horizontal controls are good or bad, but definitely not copy of the original Loggins rest that started all this copy cat cloning.He located his adjustment knobs in a different location but it works on the same principal. It is a very stable rest and has no slop anywhere in it, but I do see your concern about all the moving parts in the long run. He has been using this rest for about 5 years now I think and everything is still tight. I maybe shouldnt have called it a copy but it works on the same Idea.
