New F-Class NRA Rule

[Tempest]

I built a 32" w/ Benchmark fluted barrel and is well under weight.

 

[glockaholic]

I believe that rule was drafted because of someone who build a clamp in front rest that released (raised) when the rifle was lifted.

People are always gaming. It's natural as long as you stay inside the rules.

 

[dcali]

People are always gaming. It's natural as long as you stay inside the rules.

As an aside, I don’t get why open guys seem to like shorter fore ends, when a taller (or wider) one is what you want to reduce torque. If people get upset about a keel, a 4 inch tall full width fore end (for example) would still work.

 

[F Class John]

As an aside, I don’t get why open guys seem to like shorter fore ends, when a taller (or wider) one is what you want to reduce torque. If people get upset about a keel, a 4 inch tall full width fore end (for example) would still work.

I’m not sure which dimension you’re referencing as taller so I apologize in advance if we are ultimately talking about the same thing?

We are limited to 3” wide for f-open but everyone I know wants the foreend as long as possible (long meaning towards the barrel) and and shallow/short (shallow meaning as little distance as possible between the top of the front rest bag and the barrel) to help reduce torque. While they may be out there I don’t know anyone who strives for a taller gun (meaning more distance between the front rest and the barrel). Guys will even add wood or metal plates as well as take wood away from the underside of the stock to lengthen and lower the foreends in an effort to obtain these more beneficial dimensions. Getting as long and as low as possible seems like the goal for just about anyone I shoot with in f open including myself. Even the difference between having your front and rear rest/bag as low as possible to the ground in and of themselves aids in reducing torque. But there’s also more to reducing torque than just the stock and rest setup (although I believe it’s the most critical place to start).

 

[Don_Parsons]

Our units are max weigth for FTR/ F

With optic and rest.

32" Bull Barrel laminated Birds Eye Maple laminated Cheery wood since its strong and light.

https://photos.app.goo.gl/yLhJL1ATMyoT9xV38

 

[XTR]

Your rain gear counts toward your total weight too, for those who shoot events that don't stop for weather.

 

[dcali]

We are limited to 3” wide for f-open but everyone I know wants the foreend as long as possible (long meaning towards the barrel) and and shallow/short (shallow meaning as little distance as possible between the top of the front rest bag and the barrel) to help reduce torque.

That’s the conventional wisdom and people tell me that all the time. I’m not talking about length though. A longer stock makes for a longer “wheelbase” between front and rear rests, and that’s a matter of personal preference. I’m talking about rifling induced torque.


A lower profile (shorter in the vertical direction) or narrower foreend does not react torque better. A wider or taller foreend does. Since the width is limited to 3”, it would make sense to extend the stock down further to get a larger moment arm than the width provides. You’d want a lower rest to even things out, but the overall effect would be exactly the same as putting a keel on the stock in terms of torque management. Honesty, this is a loophole in the rules that nobody is exploiting- that width is limited but height is not. There are limits to how tall you can go, but I bet if you were clever, you could make a 6-7” tall foreend and a very low rest with a deep channel in which the foreend slides. There is no reason you couldn’t go up either. You’d get some weird looking guns, but I believe it would work and is within the current letter of the law. It’s the same concept that the br guys use with those super wide foreends- just rotated 90 degrees to comply with the rules.

 

[F Class John]

Ahhhhhh. The “giant walls on the front rest” was the component I missed. Yeah I totally get what you’re saying. That would be interesting.

 

[dcali]

Yes, that’s a good way to describe it.

To be clear, I think they should ban this before someone tries it, because it’s totally legal now, and unlike a lot of shenanigans people pull, I think it would provide a real (small, but real) advantage if someone were to invest in the gear required to pull it off.

 

[F Class John]

There would have to be some measurable increase in front rest weight to offset the loss in center of gravity that might be a deterrent to anyone attempting this??? The awkwardness created using this method both in terms of the front rest as well as transpiring the gun itself may be why nobody has attempted it for whatever minimal gain would be found. Especially when many of us have almost zero torque anyway when everything is running correctly.

 

[dcali]

I don’t think you’d need a heavier rest. Just a different rest. It would be pretty ridiculous, but I could see it making larger capacity cases a little easier to manage.