Legal or not for FTR and F-Open?

[desert shooter]

I was at a local match ,which was not a sanctioned match, and saw a shooter using stabelizing rods that were attached to the bipod and the rifle. One end of the rods were attached to the feet of the sinclair bipod and they extended back toward the shooter and the other end was attached to the butt stock of the rifle. I asked the shooter what they were and he commented that they kept the rifle from canting and kept everything in line. I was wandering if these stiffening rods would be legal in a sanctioned match since I never seen them before?

 

[Warren Dean]

LMAO....... That's got to be pretty weird looking. ;D

Sounds like the shooter doesn't know how to set up an FTR rifle....or has way too much time on their hands.

I suppose the contraption would be legal as long as the rods aren't touching the mat. And it has to be weighed with the gun.

I can't wait to see this....... :

 

[Immike]

I don't know of any rules limiting the bipod to single point attachment. I'm trying to imagine how he avoids the access to the triggers.

 

[Alex Wheeler]

I'm glad there a still guys out there experimenting. Thats where advancement comes from.

 

[Taildrag15X]

I don't know of any rules limiting the bipod to single point attachment. I'm trying to imagine how he avoids the access to the triggers.

Yeah Rules don't state to a single point but do state "rigidly attached to the rifle’s forend"......

 

[Turbulent Turtle]

I was at a local match ,which was not a sanctioned match, and saw a shooter using stabelizing rods that were attached to the bipod and the rifle. One end of the rods were attached to the feet of the sinclair bipod and they extended back toward the shooter and the other end was attached to the butt stock of the rifle. I asked the shooter what they were and he commented that they kept the rifle from canting and kept everything in line. I was wandering if these stiffening rods would be legal in a sanctioned match since I never seen them before?

I'm trying very hard to picture this setup and even more, to figured out how it can be of any help dealing with canting.

However, if the rods go from the feet of the bipod back to the buttstock, I believe that would be illegal because of several issues; it's no longer attached simply to the forend (3.4(b) and 3.4.1(b)); it is now a mechanical device used to return the rifle to a point of aim (3.4.1(b)); and of course, 3.18 as this device is an aid in shooting that is not allowed in the rules.

Best thing for him to do is to learn to use the locking mechanism in the Sinclair bipod and to use a bubble level (anti-cant device.)

 

[Immike]

I was at a local match ,which was not a sanctioned match, and saw a shooter using stabelizing rods that were attached to the bipod and the rifle. One end of the rods were attached to the feet of the sinclair bipod and they extended back toward the shooter and the other end was attached to the butt stock of the rifle. I asked the shooter what they were and he commented that they kept the rifle from canting and kept everything in line. I was wandering if these stiffening rods would be legal in a sanctioned match since I never seen them before?

I'm trying very hard to picture this setup and even more, to figured out how it can be of any help dealing with canting.

However, if the rods go from the feet of the bipod back to the buttstock, I believe that would be illegal because of several issues; it's no longer attached simply to the forend (3.4(b) and 3.4.1(b)); it is now a mechanical device used to return the rifle to a point of aim (3.4.1(b)); and of course, 3.18 as this device is an aid in shooting that is not allowed in the rules.

Best thing for him to do is to learn to use the locking mechanism in the Sinclair bipod and to use a bubble level (anti-cant device.)

Denys, does it say solely to the forend ? I also disagree about the mechanical on a fixed item. How does this aid his shooting anymore than your bipod? He likes the confidence of it being square to the stock. I think it is a fresh idea.

 

[Corey Schwanz]

You didn't happen to get a picture of his setup did you? Having a hard time understanding how it would actually do any good with that bipod unless he's not using the bipod correctly?

 

[Turbulent Turtle]

Denys, does it say solely to the forend ? I also disagree about the mechanical on a fixed item. How does this aid his shooting anymore than your bipod? He likes the confidence of it being square to the stock. I think it is a fresh idea.

The bipod is mentioned in the rules; his gadget is not. The rules do not say that the bipod should only be attached to the forend, but they don't say that you can attach it at multiple points.

If he does not think it's an aid to his shooting (when he clearly said it was,) why would he be going through that trouble in the first place?

I'm all about fresh ideas, as long as they fall within the rules and I don't think this one does.

 

[Immike]

The bipod is mentioned in the rules; his gadget is not. The rules do not say that the bipod should only be attached to the forend, but they don't say that you can attach it at multiple points.


Ok I'll read it right out of the book,( Any Bipod, meeting the definition of a bipod) How does the stabilizing rods make it something other than that. It's a good idea. I don't think they can forsee all invention in a rule book but as long as it rides on 2 points then it is what it is.

 

[Turbulent Turtle]

We have not seen a picture of the thing and so we're just guessing at what it looks like and how it works. And that's iffy at best.

The issue I see is that it joins the legs of the bipod to the rear of the rifle, (I'm visualizing a big triangle here,) and that's a problem; multiple attachment points and front as well as rear.

I would love to see a picture.

 

[Immike]

The issue I see is that it joins the legs of the bipod to the rear of the rifle, (I'm visualizing a big triangle here,) and that's a problem; multiple attachment points and front as well as rear.

Where's this attachment rule you are looking at? I can't find it.

 

[Erik Cortina]

I'm with Mike on this one. The rules don't say anything about multiple attachment points. I picture two rods coming off the bipod and attaching at the back of the stock somewhere. It would aid in cant and flex, much like ladder bars in a jacked up 4x4. As long as he can still make weight, I don't see a problem.

 

[suberjc]

Don't think we care about what the rules don't say. What they don't say is responsible for most of the advancements we've seen. We try to follow follow pretty closely things that are enumerated. Evreything else is up to the shooter. If it's not mentioned the answer is probably yes. Sounds kind of nasty lookin though

 

[280man]

Its my opinion that it would be legal as long as it makes weight

 

[Canadian bushman]

Im dying to see a picture.

 

[nhm16]

Its my opinion that it would be legal as long as it makes weight

Agreed. I don't think most people originally envisioned F-TR bipods having a joystick either, but that seems to be the in thing now, and nobody complains it doesn't comply with Rule 3.18.

 

[Erik Cortina]

Its my opinion that it would be legal as long as it makes weight

Agreed. I don't think most people originally envisioned F-TR bipods having a joystick either, but that seems to be the in thing now, and nobody complains it doesn't comply with Rule 3.18.

The question about joystick bipods was brought up during the meeting in Phoenix. The conclusion was that they don't facilitate shooting enough as you are still shooting off a bipod and not a single person there raised their hand when asked if anyone thought it was outside the spirit of the game. So that issue is considered settled.

 

[RDavies]

I'm glad there a still guys out there experimenting. Thats where advancement comes from.

+1 on this statement. I like out of the box thinking.

 

[desert shooter]

Sorry, I did not get a picture of the rods, but I will try to clarify how they were attached, as I watched him put them on his rifle since it caught my eye and my curiosity.One end of the rods were attached to the top side on the rear portion of the foot of the sinclair bipod and the other end was attached to the bottom of the pistol grip portion of the stock. Each rod consisted of two portions that screwed into each other so after the rods were attached to the bipod and the stock, they could be turned outward to stiffen the bipod, kind of like loading a bipod. The rods were about 1/4" in diameter. I t looks like it would only work on bipods with a fixed width unlike the Duplin bipod I was using.