Jan 2023 NRA Highpower RuleBook

[Keith Glasscock]

It is important that the rules maintain compatibility with the ICFRA rules.

That's where we find the 10 kg rule, and others.

I'm considering an open letter to NRA to see if we can get some clarification on front rests. The intent is one thing. The words on paper belie something else.

It is truly important to me that the rules set an unwavering standard for the game, as that drives integrity and fair competition. Hand waving and private emails don't cut it from my perspective. Would it not make sense to ask the NRA to publish a statement of intent of the rule and proper interpretation of this rule change?

 

[Warren Dean]

It is important that the rules maintain compatibility with the ICFRA rules.

That's where we find the 10 kg rule, and others.

I'm considering an open letter to NRA to see if we can get some clarification on front rests. The intent is one thing. The words on paper belie something else.

It is truly important to me that the rules set an unwavering standard for the game, as that drives integrity and fair competition. Hand waving and private emails don't cut it from my perspective. Would it not make sense to ask the NRA to publish a statement of intent of the rule and proper interpretation of this rule change?

I agree completely

 

[sfinn1]

You're welcome to plumb me up on this. As a match director the past several years, I have been frustrated with trying to clarify the rules of the games we play. Calling the NRA, one will probably speak to someone without the knowledge that even you possess of the rules. The rules are written in black and white. The actual problem is interpretation of the rules. I do not know of a way to contact the rule committee for a timely answer. Having left a message to clarify a rule, I have never received anything back. Do we even have members on the rules committee that compete regularly in our sport. Are they available to answer our Questions.

 

[USMCDOC]

If the "rollers" are frozen in place and can't move.. then are they not no longer rollers? Asking for a friend

 

[lawman29]

link to updated rule book: https://competitions.nra.org/media/8913/2023-high-power-rifle-rules.pdf

(8) The contents of front and rear bags will be dry, finely divided (less than 5mm/0.19”) granular substance such as, but not limited to, sand, gravel or grain, packed loosely enough so that the bag will be visibly deformable by pressure of the range officer’s fingers.

(9) F-Open Front Rest Bags - The fore-end of the rifle must rest upon and/or be guided by the front bag(s) described elsewhere in this section. The rifle may not be supported or guided during recoil by rollers, wheels, or any other mechanical device.

The discussion about frozen rollers and/or felt on the hard surface would not be legal when you read the above two sections. The rules are stating that the bag will visibly deform by pressure of the range officer's fingers. Neither a hard metal/plastic surface or a thin felt covering of such is going to visibly deform. Furthermore it says that the forend of the rifle MUST rest upon said bags. Anything other than bags would be illegal.

 

[kzin]

link to updated rule book: https://competitions.nra.org/media/8913/2023-high-power-rifle-rules.pdf

(8) The contents of front and rear bags will be dry, finely divided (less than 5mm/0.19”) granular substance such as, but not limited to, sand, gravel or grain, packed loosely enough so that the bag will be visibly deformable by pressure of the range officer’s fingers.

(9) F-Open Front Rest Bags - The fore-end of the rifle must rest upon and/or be guided by the front bag(s) described elsewhere in this section. The rifle may not be supported or guided during recoil by rollers, wheels, or any other mechanical device.

The discussion about frozen rollers and/or felt on the hard surface would not be legal when you read the above two sections. The rules are stating that the bag will visibly deform by pressure of the range officer's fingers. Neither a hard metal/plastic surface or a thin felt covering of such is going to visibly deform. Furthermore it says that the forend of the rifle MUST rest upon said bags. Anything other than bags would be illegal.

My understanding is the claim to legality has been that the rollers ARE bags. Bags that rotate.
So it's now illegal for them to rotate but yeah, frozen, they would probably be legal.
But the sidewalls have to be bags, too. No delrin or felt there either.

 

[Drolds72]

link to updated rule book: https://competitions.nra.org/media/8913/2023-high-power-rifle-rules.pdf

(8) The contents of front and rear bags will be dry, finely divided (less than 5mm/0.19”) granular substance such as, but not limited to, sand, gravel or grain, packed loosely enough so that the bag will be visibly deformable by pressure of the range officer’s fingers.

(9) F-Open Front Rest Bags - The fore-end of the rifle must rest upon and/or be guided by the front bag(s) described elsewhere in this section. The rifle may not be supported or guided during recoil by rollers, wheels, or any other mechanical device.

The discussion about frozen rollers and/or felt on the hard surface would not be legal when you read the above two sections. The rules are stating that the bag will visibly deform by pressure of the range officer's fingers. Neither a hard metal/plastic surface or a thin felt covering of such is going to visibly deform. Furthermore it says that the forend of the rifle MUST rest upon said bags. Anything other than bags would be illegal.

This addresses approximately half the problem. The other half, is the rotating head. Non lockable on the Rodzilla top, lockable on the new NEO-X. There are opinions out there that state the rotating head is illegal where the joystick mechanism, that resides one inch below the pivot point, is just fine, per the phrase "or any other mechanical device" I'd like to see an official ruling on that before I order another rest for 2k, that wont be here for years.....

 

[dcali]

This addresses approximately half the problem. The other half, is the rotating head. Non lockable on the Rodzilla top, lockable on the new NEO-X. There are opinions out there that state the rotating head is illegal where the joystick mechanism, that resides one inch below the pivot point, is just fine, per the phrase "or any other mechanical device" I'd like to see an official ruling on that before I order another rest for 2k, that wont be here for years.....

Thats the issue right there. It seems like there are two main ways to think about it. One is that rests should be fixed and have sand bags. The other is more "anything goes". The current rules seem to be a mishmash of both schools of thought, and are unclear because of it. Anecdotally, it seems to me that most open shooters prefer the "anything goes" option.

Maybe this is an opportunity to open up Open class (I mean, it's literally called "open"), and maybe rein in TR a bit to further differentiate them.

 

[Drolds72]

Thats the issue right there. It seems like there are two main ways to think about it. One is that rests should be fixed and have sand bags. The other is more "anything goes". The current rules seem to be a mishmash of both schools of thought, and are unclear because of it. Anecdotally, it seems to me that most open shooters prefer the "anything goes" option.

Maybe this is an opportunity to open up Open class (I mean, it's literally called "open"), and maybe rein in TR a bit to further differentiate them.

My frustration stems from the fact that for years, the X/Y axis of the joystick was perfectly fine. Add the 3rd axis of pivot and No Bueno. I think if the pivot goes, so does the joystick. On a separate but completely unrelated topic, the new style NEO's now have the pivot, but with a lock I have been told. The "testers" seem to be enjoying them.

 

[dcali]

My frustration stems from the fact that for years, the X/Y axis of the joystick was perfectly fine. Add the 3rd axis of pivot and No Bueno. I think if the pivot goes, so does the joystick. On a separate but completely unrelated topic, the new style NEO's now have the pivot, but with a lock I have been told. The "testers" seem to be enjoying them.

Right - from the outside looking in, it seems like someone thought "these rests are getting stupid, lets draw a line". People who are trying to make and buy gear are justifiably upset over a moving target. thats why they need to lock it down one way or the other. Given that the cat is well out of the bag, I think it makes sense to drop restrictions altogether for open. Let people have their fun.

I'm not convinced that freely moving rests (as they are designed today) are really an advantage so much as a convenience.

 

[kzin]

I looked at the rodzilla site to see what this is about and exactly what cool tech he invented.
I noticed he has an 'IBS' top that uses a 'normal' bag.
Apparently the IBS rules are clear enough to force that but the NRA rules are not.

IMO the intent of the NRA rules is the same.

 

[Walt Krafft]

What part of "OPEN" is so hard to understand? Allow inovation and testing to further the advancement of accuracy. If you want restriction, do it in a restricted class like FTR.

 

[stymie12000]

IMO, Open class should be "Open".

I feel like there are too many shooters out there that already have roller style rest. Half of the open guys at my range have rest with rollers (at least last year they did). And almost all Open shooters use a joystick style of rest.

I think this ruling will be off-putting to a lot of shooters, myself included. Mainly due to the cost of the equipment that shooters have already invested in. And now I will have to pay more $ to get within the rules.

And I don't feel like it's much of a difference, if any, bags vs rollers. And a roller system vs a bag system is relatively the same cost to purchase. So the rule is not in place to keep cost down.

Just my 2 cents

 

[lawman29]

I looked at the rodzilla site to see what this is about and exactly what cool tech he invented.
I noticed he has an 'IBS' top that uses a 'normal' bag.
Apparently the IBS rules are clear enough to force that but the NRA rules are not.

IMO the intent of the NRA rules is the same.

The "felt" solution as proposed by Rodzilla in their depicted photographs on the web site is not legal. "The fore-end of the rifle must rest upon and/or be guided by the front bag(s)..." A piece of felt is not a bag.

The OP started this thread to find out what the new rules were. We're degenerating into the typical debate and criticisms of "rules". As competitors and match directors we need to know what are the "rules".

 

[rardoin]

It is important that the rules maintain compatibility with the ICFRA rules.



^^^^^^^ Not only do we want to be able to field national teams but be able to compete in other countries individually using the same rifles/equipment we would normally use in the U.S..

 

[Dos XX]

At least they finally got the e target thing settled. In a registered match there will be no mixing of brands of e targets that don't meet the accuracy requirement. That should do it.

 

[kzin]

Neither (8) or (9) has been propagated to NRA Smallbore f-class rules.

Neither exists in CMP f-class rules. The CMP front rest rules have NO reference to bags. Delrin and felt are GTG.

https://thecmp.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/2023HighpowerRifleRules.pdf

 

[gunsandgunsmithing]

I'm not advocating for or against anything with my post but I have a new Raptor rest with the rollers, felt and IBS sandbag tops. I love the felt top with it's tiny sandbags beneath the gun but in testing, I can't say that I shoot any better or worse from it vs the IBS top. My least favorite is the roller setup...fwiw. His rest is top quality for sure. Just pointing out my own observations regarding the rollers vs the other two styles. That said, none are what I'd call a small investment. Rests can cost almost as much as the rifle and rule changes should consider this, IMHO. Then of course, we have to decide if this is a rule change or simply clarifying an existing rule.

Personally, I think UBR has a good thing going and one of the best things is that there are very few rules aside from safety and course of fire stuff.

 

[davidjoe]

Maybe this is an opportunity to open up Open class (I mean, it's literally called "open"), and maybe rein in TR a bit to further differentiate them.

Yeah, … F-Unlimited? Maybe it’s viewed as simply the default division that anything that does not meet the limitations of Tr or Open, shoots within.

Here’s the thing, I just watched Erik’s recent livestream. Erik says he has shot 12 SWN’s, and this year, he won LR.

Maybe Erik got incrementally better this year, - or just maybe, this is the first year ever that Erik shot something faster than his .284 Shehane at SWN, and that BC on target difference - since he used the same bullets, is exactly the edge that has been urged.

Many rests are going to be affected, probably Erik’s too, but I just wonder whether it wouldn’t be interesting to see what unknown edges and advantages, if any remain, that would get tested if all the stops were pulled out, in a separate Div. I have the prototype rest, my friend devised, unused for years, that started all the front rest rule changes, just one of his innovations, and I believe that there’s nothing to lose and maybe something to gain, for free, by letting guys experiment.

 

[Stumpy1]

At least they finally got the e target thing settled. In a registered match there will be no mixing of brands of e targets that don't meet the accuracy requirement. That should do it.

Except the NRA still hasn't gotten around to promulgating testing procedures and specifications for any electronic targets yet...

Frank