• This Forum is for adults 18 years of age or over. By continuing to use this Forum you are confirming that you are 18 or older. No content shall be viewed by any person under 18 in California.

Jan 2023 NRA Highpower RuleBook

The two ways the Open rest rule has started out are:

“F-Class Open Rifle (F-O) - The rifle may be supported by any means which provides no positive mechanical method for returning it to its precise point of aim for the prior shot.”

And in 2020.

F-Class Open Rifle (F-O) - The F-Open rifle may be supported by a front rest bag, which may be fully adjustable for position but may not provide a positive mechanical method for returning the rifle to its prior point of aim from the previous shot.

The first opening says nothing one way or the other about sandbags, and the second opening says explicitly that sandbags may be used, and they may be fully adjustable, and it implies that this adjustability is not the same thing as a mechanical method for returning the rifle to its prior point of aim.

You could just as easily surmise that the rule is confirming a certain kind of rest is ok, as you could that now you “must” use a sandbag. KZIN, it also says the sandbag “may” be adjustable, does this mean it must be??
It's not must.
Use a bag or not. Have an adjustable rest beneath the bag or a non-adjustable rest beneath the bag or just use a big bag with no rest. But the ONLY thing that rule authorizes under the rifle is 'a bag'.
Rule 3.18 says explicitly that what is not permitted is prohibited.
The prone position rules say the rifle may have NO artificial support.
The f-class rules exist in that context.
You can only use what the rules specifically say you may use.

Unfortunately what the rules clearly say is the opposite of the way most MDs act.
If something isn't absolutely the opposite of a stated rule or a blatant unfair advantage they let it go.
That might be the better way for things to be but if so the written rules should be changed considerably.
 
It's not must.
Use a bag or not. Have an adjustable rest beneath the bag or a non-adjustable rest beneath the bag or just use a big bag with no rest. But the ONLY thing that rule authorizes under the rifle is 'a bag'.
Rule 3.18 says explicitly that what is not permitted is prohibited.
The prone position rules say the rifle may have NO artificial support.
The f-class rules exist in that context.
You can only use what the rules specifically say you may use.

Unfortunately what the rules clearly say is the opposite of the way most MDs act.
If something isn't absolutely the opposite of a stated rule or a blatant unfair advantage they let it go.
That might be the better way for things to be but if so the written rules should be changed considerably.

They haven’t written rules to follow that line of thinking, though. The newly worded rule, in 2023, now uses the word “must” - rest upon … bag(s) and addresses wheels and rollers, - guys can’t use them.

The rules have been changed and written to specifically prohibit what they don’t want by name, such as certain TR tracking abilities and now Open tracking.

(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.

3.18 does cover facilitating devices and equipment “not mentioned in the rules or contrary to the spirit of the rules” as being prohibited, but front rests have been covered in the rules and I see this more as a blanket for technologies and devices that don’t even exist yet or are too numerous to name.
 
The rule 22:3.4.1-a: paragraph 8, Says the fore-end must rest upon, or be guided by the front bags. This infers that the fore-end is the combination of the bottom and sides. Makes sense because we can't use the felt sides right?
If you apply the def of the fore-end to the part of rule 3.4.1-a The area of contact between the front bag and the rifle’s fore-end will not exceed 76mm x 76mm (2.99 inches x 2.99 inches), Then the sides and bottom must be included in the calculation.

That is an allowable surface contact of 8.94 square inches.

After dusting off my original SEB 3 piece bag assembly, I find that the bottom bag is 1.55"x 2.99" (4.63 sq") and each side bag is 1.55" x 1.55" (2.40 sq ") for a total contact of 9.43 square inches, which exceeds the legal contact area by about a half a square inch.

Rules are rules, right?
 
The rule 22:3.4.1-a: paragraph 8, Says the fore-end must rest upon, or be guided by the front bags. This infers that the fore-end is the combination of the bottom and sides. Makes sense because we can't use the felt sides right?
If you apply the def of the fore-end to the part of rule 3.4.1-a The area of contact between the front bag and the rifle’s fore-end will not exceed 76mm x 76mm (2.99 inches x 2.99 inches), Then the sides and bottom must be included in the calculation.

That is an allowable surface contact of 8.94 square inches.

After dusting off my original SEB 3 piece bag assembly, I find that the bottom bag is 1.55"x 2.99" (4.63 sq") and each side bag is 1.55" x 1.55" (2.40 sq ") for a total contact of 9.43 square inches, which exceeds the legal contact area by about a half a square inch.

Rules are rules, right?
I guess Rod could cover the felt and add a little sand in with it. His bags are very small at the bottom already, so he might be able to address this easier than some others...but should he need to at all? Not up to me.
 
They haven’t written rules to follow that line of thinking, though. The newly worded rule, in 2023, now uses the word “must” - rest upon … bag(s) and addresses wheels and rollers, - guys can’t use them.

The rules have been changed and written to specifically prohibit what they don’t want by name, such as certain TR tracking abilities and now Open tracking.

(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.

3.18 does cover facilitating devices and equipment “not mentioned in the rules or contrary to the spirit of the rules” as being prohibited, but front rests have been covered in the rules and I see this more as a blanket for technologies and devices that don’t even exist yet or are too numerous to name.
That must is a flip-flop of context within limited scope. IF you're exercising the option that you may use a front bag then you MUST ...

I think roller-guides fit your own definition well. They weren't conceived of as an option when 'a bag' was allowed so 3.18 clarifies that they were never legal.

I don't see 8 or 9 as 'new rules', they're clarifications that things that were implicitly never allowed are now explicitly not allowed. Same for carpet-gate IIRC.

I think we have strong agreement across the board that the rules could and should be better. Then we could argue forever about better EXACTLY how. :)
 
That must is a flip-flop of context within limited scope. IF you're exercising the option that you may use a front bag then you MUST ...

I think roller-guides fit your own definition well. They weren't conceived of as an option when 'a bag' was allowed so 3.18 clarifies that they were never legal.

I don't see 8 or 9 as 'new rules', they're clarifications that things that were implicitly never allowed are now explicitly not allowed. Same for carpet-gate IIRC.

I think we have strong agreement across the board that the rules could and should be better. Then we could argue forever about better EXACTLY how. :)

Yes, I follow the thinking that a rule considered to be one way, is being clarified to read more decisively as it may have been intended, and therefore not necessarily materially changed, as you mention along with Ned.

That said though, it could be, and I think it is true, that many victories and titles, and maybe even records, have accrued in the meantime, with rests that are in the process of being changed over.

For a couple reasons, I like to think of the rule as indeed being actually changed, not because any old scores would be undone, but simply because so many matches would have been shot where no one said anything while the gear and rules didn’t seem to agree, if they were never allowed. The other reason is just for peace of mind of the shooters, that we may miss the discussions where the intent may have been pretty clear, but we can just rely on the verbiage that got passed.
 
Yes, I follow the thinking that a rule considered to be one way, is being clarified to read more decisively as it may have been intended, and therefore not necessarily materially changed, as you mention along with Ned.

That said though, it could be, and I think it is true, that many victories and titles, and maybe even records, have accrued in the meantime, with rests that are in the process of being changed over.

For a couple reasons, I like to think of the rule as indeed being actually changed, not because any old scores would be undone, but simply because so many matches would have been shot where no one said anything while the gear and rules didn’t seem to agree, if they were never allowed. The other reason is just for peace of mind of the shooters, that we may miss the discussions where the intent may have been pretty clear, but we can just rely on the verbiage that got passed.
A- "I'm not certain this is illegal so I'll do it."
B- "I'm not certain this is legal so I won't do it."

I don't like rewarding group A relative to B.
 
A- "I'm not certain this is illegal so I'll do it."
B- "I'm not certain this is legal so I won't do it."

I don't like rewarding group A relative to B.
Competition should push rules but shouldn't break them. That's exactly why they should be very clear...Or better yet, don't have rules that amount to little or nothing. How 'bout..."no one piece rests". Bam! Done!
 
Last edited:
Yes, I follow the thinking that a rule considered to be one way, is being clarified to read more decisively as it may have been intended, and therefore not necessarily materially changed, as you mention along with Ned.

That said though, it could be, and I think it is true, that many victories and titles, and maybe even records, have accrued in the meantime, with rests that are in the process of being changed over.

For a couple reasons, I like to think of the rule as indeed being actually changed, not because any old scores would be undone, but simply because so many matches would have been shot where no one said anything while the gear and rules didn’t seem to agree, if they were never allowed. The other reason is just for peace of mind of the shooters, that we may miss the discussions where the intent may have been pretty clear, but we can just rely on the verbiage that got passed.
Somebody was saying something because the rules got clarified.
 
Tell me again why we pay the NRA to sanction matches?
Because complaining about obtuse, vague rules and the black box manner in which they are written by faceless overlords is a time honored tradition in high power?

Honestly, I'm not sure why we pay the NRA for anything anymore. It's a irrelevant dinosaur, both politically and as a sanctioning body. Rifle competitors are always going to complain (see benchrest - they love to), but at least we could be complaining about people with faces and have some measure of accountability and discourse.
 
There’s people that read more into the rules, then the rules actually state. I’ll never understand this way of thinking. I came from racing stock car, and everyone knows that there’s nothing stock about them! If the rule book didn’t specifically call out something as illegal, then it was good to go. Everyone understood this, and didn’t try to read more into it.
 
The thing that has to be taken into account is that high power has a lengthy history and is in many ways a matter of tradition/custom. The NRA's existence can basically be traced back to their original purpose - to train military shooters in the ways of marksmanship (a new concept back then) - what we now call high power rifle.

What many F classers tend to forget it hat F class is high power first and foremost. But I'm not sure it should be - it has more in common with benchrest than sling shooting these days. I think this is why you get a lot of "that's not how it should be" attitudes, vs the "push the limits" crowd. We should probably look to the BR guys for the way forward - they've done this before and made all the mistakes and had all the arguments. We could do worse than to simply ape their rules.
 
The thing that has to be taken into account is that high power has a lengthy history and is in many ways a matter of tradition/custom. The NRA's existence can basically be traced back to their original purpose - to train military shooters in the ways of marksmanship (a new concept back then) - what we now call high power rifle.

What many F classers tend to forget it hat F class is high power first and foremost. But I'm not sure it should be - it has more in common with benchrest than sling shooting these days. I think this is why you get a lot of "that's not how it should be" attitudes, vs the "push the limits" crowd. We should probably look to the BR guys for the way forward - they've done this before and made all the mistakes and had all the arguments. We could do worse than to simply ape their rules.
Two different games. A Fclass gun will not win a benchrest match. A 600 range benchrest gun will do very well midrange Fclass. They are going different directions. 6mm rules in benchrest. Fclass is going more BC and speed all the time. 10 minute string against 30 second string. I like things the way they are. The one thing might make some happy is benchrest will never compete on Etargets. Probably that one fact shows the difference in those games.
 
Although they may have similar origins, HighPower and F-Class are not one and the same. Certainly there is overlap between the two, and it should be through that lens that rules that should be common to both are viewed. As Damon noted, there is some really good infrastructure in place thanks to HighPower that F-Class shooters would be foolish to simply walk away from. However, there are also clear differences between the two, such that it is unrealistic to expect that a single set of rules can completely and effectively govern both at the same time.

The wisdom that is really required here is the ability to distinguish when a different set of rules is necessary for the two disciplines, and to further recognize that in such cases, shooters with significant experience in the specific discipline that will be affected by any new rule should be the ones that actually decide on the new rule. Frankly, in this day and age of electronic communications, it also wouldn't hurt to obtain a little more input/feedback on potential rule changes prior to their inception from a wider range of participants than just those on the rules committee.
 

Upgrades & Donations

This Forum's expenses are primarily paid by member contributions. You can upgrade your Forum membership in seconds. Gold and Silver members get unlimited FREE classifieds for one year. Gold members can upload custom avatars.


Click Upgrade Membership Button ABOVE to get Gold or Silver Status.

You can also donate any amount, large or small, with the button below. Include your Forum Name in the PayPal Notes field.


To DONATE by CHECK, or make a recurring donation, CLICK HERE to learn how.

Forum statistics

Threads
166,223
Messages
2,214,374
Members
79,485
Latest member
bhcapell
Back
Top