F-T/R Rear Rest Question

[alamo308]

Would this be legal as a wood board rest for a rear rabbit-ear bag?
Open end toward target:

 

[Steve Blair]

Please read 3.4.1(b)(5). That should give you an answer.

 

[Immike]

Having trouble with your rear bag? Try attaching one to a 1" steel plate or a barbell weight. I just shot off one duct taped to a flat 25lb barbell weight yesterday and that dude is solid.

 

[alamo308]

Please read 3.4.1(b)(5). That should give you an answer.

Great. Thanks.

 

[alamo308]

Having trouble with your rear bag? Try attaching one to a 1" steel plate or a barbell weight. I just shot off one duct taped to a flat 25lb barbell weight yesterday and that dude is solid.

Wow. That does sound effective, but is it legal for sanctioned matches?
Does duct taping it all together make it 'one', as a complete one-piece rear bag 'unit'?

 

[Immike]

Having trouble with your rear bag? Try attaching one to a 1" steel plate or a barbell weight. I just shot off one duct taped to a flat 25lb barbell weight yesterday and that dude is solid.

Wow. That does sound effective, but is it legal for sanctioned matches?
Does duct taping it all together make it 'one', as a complete one-piece rear bag 'unit'?

I'm not in a official position to say it is or not but it does seem to fit the rules as I read them. I did see a top shooter last year at a regional with a thick block of wood clamped to his rear bag so he thought so.

 

[painless2]

I would say that is an attempt to "contain" the rear bag and is not allowed. However, have seen many use an Edgewood Dead Bottom under the rear bag which is allowed. JMHO.
Tom

 

[Steve Blair]

I would say that is an attempt to "contain" the rear bag and is not allowed. However, have seen many use an Edgewood Dead Bottom under the rear bag which is allowed. JMHO.
Tom

[br]
Tom, where do you see a rule regarding containing the rear bag?

 

[painless2]

Sorry,
Must have that confused with IBS rules.
Tom

 

[painless2]

Aha!! Remembered where I saw it. Rule 3.4.1, boards or plates used under the rest "They must be flat on the top and bottom".

 

[Steve Blair]

Yes, IBS, NBRSA and ICFRA rules are more explicit than NRA rules. While I like the freedom for some innovation, I do not like arbitrary interpretation of ambiguous rules. Unfortunately, it seems to be one way or the other. If you have some freedom, there will be inconsistent rule application. If the rules are narrowly defined, there will be little innovation. Oh, well. [br]
The OP could just get rid of the side and rear rails, which don't seem to provide much utility, anyway. What is left is a flat board. The problem with a flat board under the bag is that they tend to rock on uneven ground. However, if it is made an integral part of the bag, at least semi-permanently attached, then it is not separate and could be a more advantageous shape.

 

[dmoran]

Yes, IBS, NBRSA and ICFRA rules are more explicit than NRA rules.

Can't speak for ICFA, but strongly feel your hypothesizing when it comes to IBS & NBRSA.
Have you ever read the IBS, NBRSA rules in comparison to F-Class rules?
I see substantially more "freedom for innovation" with them then I do NRA F-Class rules (especially in the HV-Gun class).

My 2-cents
Donovan

 

[Steve Blair]

Yes, IBS, NBRSA and ICFRA rules are more explicit than NRA rules.

Can't speak for ICFA, but strongly feel your hypothesizing when it comes to IBS & NBRSA.
Have you ever read the IBS, NBRSA rules in comparison to F-Class rules?
I see substantially more "freedom for innovation" with them then I do NRA F-Class rules (especially in the HV-Gun class).

My 2-cents
Donovan

[br]
No, not speculation. Primarily a comment on IBS filling restrictions and "no containment". NBRSA has some fairly restrictive language regarding size, deflection and materials. It's worth noting that they do allow wide fore ends, more liberal than NRA/ICFRA and their 76mm/3" restriction. Depends upon your viewpoint and what you want to do. Obviously, there must be some rules or it would get ridiculous quickly.

 

[jsthntn247]

What is defined as a board or plate. It does not mention wood or metal, I would assume that just means non flexible, but there again that's just my interpretation. I just made a new "mat" to go under my bipod that is a rubber mat with a piece of carpet on it. I'm sure I will get protested some places and others I won't.

 

[BCoates]

What is defined as a board or plate. It does not mention wood or metal, I would assume that just means non flexible, but there again that's just my interpretation. I just made a new "mat" to go under my bipod that is a rubber mat with a piece of carpet on it. I'm sure I will get protested some places and others I won't.

Many F-TR shooters use the same setup you are describing underneath the bipod. Unless they start counting carpet fibers as protrusions, I think you are safe. I use a floor mat out of my truck under my bipod.

I have also used metal plates glued to silicone rubber underneath my rear bag.

 

[RStewart]

What is defined as a board or plate. It does not mention wood or metal, I would assume that just means non flexible, but there again that's just my interpretation. I just made a new "mat" to go under my bipod that is a rubber mat with a piece of carpet on it. I'm sure I will get protested some places and others I won't.

I can find no issue with that. As I have said before, to me it is no different than resting the bipod feet on your shooting mat. And some of those mats are pretty thick.

 

[dmoran]

No, not speculation. Primarily a comment on IBS filling restrictions and "no containment". NBRSA has some fairly restrictive language regarding size, deflection and materials. It's worth noting that they do allow wide fore ends, more liberal than NRA/ICFRA and their 76mm/3" restriction. Depends upon your viewpoint and what you want to do. Obviously, there must be some rules or it would get ridiculous quickly.

Other things worth noting, that allow more innovation:
- Less caliber restrictions
- Less stock restrictions
- Less weight restrictions
- Less rest restrictions (note: mechanical rear rests)
- Less Brake and Suppressor restrictions

All the 600/1000-BR rules to both the IBS and NBRSA are descendents off the Williamsport (Penn1000) rules, that started back in 1967. Williamsport is in its 47th year now and the IBS-1000 is in its 19th.
When NRA F-Class gets to it's +19th year in the USA, I will be willing to bet strong wagers, it's rules will tighten up even more, with more restrictions yet. Particularly when some realize the advantage of "locking" in the rifle, I foresee sand bag specifications similar to BenchRest will be in its future as well, like was figured out at Williamsport decades ago.

 

[RStewart]

No, not speculation. Primarily a comment on IBS filling restrictions and "no containment". NBRSA has some fairly restrictive language regarding size, deflection and materials. It's worth noting that they do allow wide fore ends, more liberal than NRA/ICFRA and their 76mm/3" restriction. Depends upon your viewpoint and what you want to do. Obviously, there must be some rules or it would get ridiculous quickly.

Other things worth noting, that allow more innovation:
- Less caliber restrictions
- Less stock restrictions
- Less weight restrictions
- Less rest restrictions (note: mechanical rear rests)
- Less Brake and Suppressor restrictions

All the 600/1000-BR rules to both the IBS and NBRSA are descendents off the Williamsport (Penn1000) rules, that started back in 1967. The IBS-1000 is in its 19th year now.
When NRA F-Class gets to it's +19th year in the USA, I will be willing to bet strong wagers, it's rules will tighten up even more, with more restrictions yet. Particularly when some realize the advantage of "locking" in there rifles, I foresee sand bag specifications similar to BenchRest will be in its future as well.

I agree. As the sport gets older rules will evolve. Look how long it took to finally get actual dimensions for boards under bipods. But... we finally have them, so no more guessing.

 

[Steve Blair]

Other things worth noting, that allow more innovation:
- Less caliber restrictions
- Less stock restrictions
- Less weight restrictions
- Less rest restrictions (note: mechanical rear rests)
- Less Brake and Suppressor restrictions

All the 600/1000-BR rules to both the IBS and NBRSA are descendents off the Williamsport (Penn1000) rules, that started back in 1967. Williamsport is in its 47th year now and the IBS-1000 is in its 19th.
When NRA F-Class gets to it's +19th year in the USA, I will be willing to bet strong wagers, it's rules will tighten up even more, with more restrictions yet. Particularly when some realize the advantage of "locking" in the rifle, I foresee sand bag specifications similar to BenchRest will be in its future as well, like was figured out at Williamsport decades ago.

[br]
I am not trying to make this about BR vs. F-Class. But, we already have a rule regarding lifting the rifle and disturbing the front rest. Shoot whatever you want in any manner you want. Worth noting that several BR sanctioning bodies exist, each with a little different view of what the rules should be.

 

[dmoran]

I am not trying to make this about BR vs. F-Class. But, we already have a rule regarding lifting the rifle and disturbing the front rest. Shoot whatever you want in any manner you want. Worth noting that several BR sanctioning bodies exist, each with a little different view of what the rules should be.

Worth noting that BR was never mentioned in this thread, until you brought it up, to a comparison.
I simply replied to your set forth comparison. Shoot what ever you want in any manner you want to....