NRA Rule Change - F-T/R

[big5ifty]

I came across this thread searching for information on a bipod mat.

Rules are rules, if you want to play, you have to follow them.

But there are contradictions in my mind.

I understand that a grooved mat or board will guide the bipod, and is not legal.

I don't understand how the F-Open rests are permitted to guide the entire rifle, by clamping the stock.

If a bipod is not permitted to guide the rifle, why is the rest permitted to do so ?

Please don't say it's like shooting off a sandbag. A sandbag does not have a tensioner to grip the stock.

Then the mat itself. It has to be smooth on the bottom. It can also be a board, or metal plate. And you can use layers if you want. All good.

It can't have feet.

I'm fine with that, rules being rules. Not having feet just means I can't adjust it to level if the ground is not level.

So why is a rest permitted to have feet that enable it to be levelled in relation to the ground ?

Is the simple answer that it's just the difference between F-TR and F-Open ?

 

[paulT]

View attachment 1429934

Just so everyone is on the same page, this is the Joypod foot/runner that is being discussed in posts #74-79.

A quality product from Seb
Which i am sure was believed to be complient with the Ftr Rules before production run so why the big $hit storm now made by a few shooters over them?

 

[memilanuk]

why the big $hit storm now made by a few shooters over them?

It's the F-class version of "cancel culture".

If you can't read / adapt to the conditions well enough to win, get the other guy - or their gear - disqualified.

FWIW... I do (usually) take a pretty narrow/literal read of the rules - even the stupid ones. But this has gone way too far, way too long.

 

[big5ifty]

If shooting on grass or soft surfaces and the bypod feet leave tracks its the same as leaving tracks on carpet or other surface.

The big difference is nobody has competitive advantage because of it.

Everyone is shooting on the same ground.

Not everyone is shooting on the same carpet or other surface.

 

[BradY]

View attachment 1429934

Just so everyone is on the same page, this is the Joypod foot/runner that is being discussed in posts #74-79.

Why not just ban anything between the firing line surface and the bipod foot? The British shooters do it. It leaves no ambiguity, no difference in interpretation, no chances to bend the rules for gain, no opportunity for people to protest. And on the topic of ski feet, instead of leaving it open to anything and arguing about it, could there not just be a fixed size foot that must be conformed to? Make them all 3/8” or 9.5mm wide and no longer than 2” or 50mm. If you’re going to impose rules and limits, put something cut and dry in place that just can’t be twisted. You watch, the better shooters will just keep being the better shooters anyway…JMO

 

[X Count]

Every shooter wants the best possible rifle, ammo, tools, equipment, setup etc including with the rest / bipod / bags / setup. Every percent (of anything) counts when someone wants to be competitive these days, correct? Every effort that is legal / allowed by the rules is fine, imho. Rule is rule. We do not "gaming?" the rules but only how to get the best possible outcome without breaking the rules. Innovation is a good thing. Time flows.

"Well unfortunately from my testing I find that it is an advantage to have feet that track on carpet."
Congratulations! I am happy to hear about it!

"At the same match your would probably remember a shooter who's joypod broke? Glue from the leg came loose I believe. That shooter was leant Jason or Sebs bipod and to his amazement, all of a sudden, he could get his rifle tracking in the 5 ring. I asked he what he thought the new articulating feet with rails and he said "yeah it's like cheating". That is from a guy that went from a joypod with flat feet on carpet to feet with rails machined into them and tracking on carpet without any other changes and had an instant improvement."
I also happy for him!

"Jason shot exceptional. Read wind in difficult conditions and shot his bipod off the canvas range mat. It was unfortunate that someone put a protest in for this "rests being joined" because he had his bipod and rear bag on the mat".
Sure he shot great!
I did not know what happened but there is always protester once in a while. Perhaps the protester thinking that he "feels?" defeated, or for other reason. We all shoot in the same time, same rules, same target same distances, etc. When someone wins that is because he/she is CAPABLE to win!
Let's we defeat ourselves rather than worrying about (unfortunately) our own problem! It's always easy to blame others / someone else or the equipment.

"That isn't the intent of the rule"
Could you please explain what is exactly the intent of the rule, i.e. in F-Class by your definition?

Cheers,
seb

Your correct. Everyone tries to get the best. Some are just for comfortable to exploit the grey areas within the rules than others. Seems like they are the same people that get upset when as you say "time flows" and those grey areas are amended to become black and white.

"It is not permitted to provide tracks for the guidance of bipod feet, nor may the combination of bipod feet and/or pad materials create a track. The pad surface should be smooth enough to allow the bipod to be moved in any direction without having to lift the rifle or move the pad that the bipod is on."

I'm not really sure how I would explain the rule with much more clarity?

Brad your rite. The grey area causes infighting between those that have the balls to push the limits and those that are more conservative. I'm in the more conservative camp because I don't what to loose an event because I haven't followed a rule. I don't care what the rule is but it should be black an white to the point that when you travel to the other side of the country that you can be 100% confident that your playing within the rules and your not going to be disqualified. Well written rules allow you to work rite up to the limit and know that your on a level footing with everyone else.

 

[paulT]

It's the F-class version of "cancel culture".

If you can't read / adapt to the conditions well enough to win, get the other guy - or their gear - disqualified.

FWIW... I do (usually) take a pretty narrow/literal read of the rules - even the stupid ones. But this has gone way too far, way too long.

I totaly agree
And to add such tweaking of the rules could end up with ftr shooters who also leave tracks created during fire by their bipod feet on grass or soft ground finding themselfs foul of the new rules so not just shooters who leave small track marks during fire on carpet,
Witch hunt has opened a Large can of worms.

 

[big5ifty]

It's interesting to see how logical arguments develop based on preceding logical arguments, to the point now where they are disconnected from the original intent, are in fact illogical, yet remain logical purely in their own context.

Was the initial intent not for either a bipod or a sand-bag ?

It's great for the sport and for the entire shooting industry that the equipment has evolved.

It's a credit to the governing body that they were able to incorporate those technical developments into the rules, without detracting from the shooter experience and increasing participation in the sport.

With intelligent input and rational argument, that will continue and further improve.

Still getting all my ducks in a row, with the intent of one day being on the F-Class line.

 

[big5ifty]

"It is not permitted to provide tracks for the guidance of bipod feet, nor may the combination of bipod feet and/or pad materials create a track. The pad surface should be smooth enough to allow the bipod to be moved in any direction without having to lift the rifle or move the pad that the bipod is on."

This rule has nothing to do with Harris type bipods, and it doesn't need to explicitly say so.

A Harris type bipod cannot create any track that guides the rifle. Therefore this rule has nothing to do with those types of bipods.

The wording is for bipods that could create tracks, on the surface you bring to the line for it to track on.

 

[memilanuk]

A Harris type bipod cannot create any track that guides the rifle. Therefore this rule has nothing to do with those types of bipods

On dirt or gravel surfaces, yes they can. They can make tracks, and they can dig in - which some people tried to exploit, but in my experience caused it's own set of issues as soon as you went to a range where they had a paved firing line and your whole set up and approach had to change. I (and others) went so far as to put the big hockey puck feet on my Harris so that it wouldn't sink into soft firing points with sand or gravel, and eventually put a thin flexible nylon cutting board under *that* for the really soft spots - and so it behaved somewhat the same on more solid surfaces.

Yes, the bipod skated around a bit under recoil. Shot plenty of X's like that, back in the days when 155s ruled the world.

 

[big5ifty]

On dirt or gravel surfaces, yes they can.

Which you don't take to the line with you, and everyone else is shooting off. Hence no fit with that rule.

 

[paulT]

Which you don't take to the line with you, and everyone else is shooting off. Hence no fit with that rule.

If the bipod creates tracks on grass/soft surfaces which aids rifle tracking one could argue it also creates the same tracking effect as deep grooves left in heavy shag pile carpet when used with bypod.

 

[big5ifty]

If the bipod creates tracks on grass/soft surfaces which aids rifle tracking one could argue it also creates the same tracking effect as deep grooves left in heavy shag pile carpet when used with bypod.

You can argue anything you like.

The rule is for bipods that are able to track, and the surface the shooter brings with them to track on.

The surface you bring must not aid in tracking if your bipod can track..

The condition of the ground at the range, and the interaction of the bipod with that ground, is not the subject of the rule.

 

[ronsatspokane]

Not to worry, everyone can still use a joy stick to aim the rifle which would seem on the surface to be about as far from original intent as one can get. Meanwhile when it comes to tracking, which a front rest facilitates, F Open shooters are now limited as to the material one can use on the side of the rifle which may or may not provide tracking advantages. And yet F Open shooters can also use a stick to aim the rifle. Let's all get a firm grip on our sticks and shout down the Karen's among us are trying to kill the sport.

 

[Ned Ludd]

A quality product from Seb
Which i am sure was believed to be complient with the Ftr Rules before production run so why the big $hit storm now made by a few shooters over them?

Why not just ban anything between the firing line surface and the bipod foot? The British shooters do it. It leaves no ambiguity, no difference in interpretation, no chances to bend the rules for gain, no opportunity for people to protest. And on the topic of ski feet, instead of leaving it open to anything and arguing about it, could there not just be a fixed size foot that must be conformed to? Make them all 3/8” or 9.5mm wide and no longer than 2” or 50mm. If you’re going to impose rules and limits, put something cut and dry in place that just can’t be twisted. You watch, the better shooters will just keep being the better shooters anyway…JMO

Really? I posted the picture from SEB's website so people would know what was being discussed. I had to look it up myself because I had no idea what they were talking about. I made no other comment.

Nonetheless, since I'm apparently now the bad guy merely for posting the picture, I'll offer my opinion. That foot was unquestionably designed to track better/straighter than one without grooves. Does that somehow make it illegal? I don't know and I don't care, because I beat guys using ski bipods regularly. I posted that picture for clarification and no other reason. Some of the people here remind me a lot of the liberal college students shouting down those that don't agree with them. I don't care about that either, and I'll post whatever I damn well please about F-Class Rules regardless of what anyone else thinks.

 

[kzin]

I came across this thread searching for information on a bipod mat.

Rules are rules, if you want to play, you have to follow them.

But there are contradictions in my mind.

I understand that a grooved mat or board will guide the bipod, and is not legal.

I don't understand how the F-Open rests are permitted to guide the entire rifle, by clamping the stock.

If a bipod is not permitted to guide the rifle, why is the rest permitted to do so ?

Please don't say it's like shooting off a sandbag. A sandbag does not have a tensioner to grip the stock.

Then the mat itself. It has to be smooth on the bottom. It can also be a board, or metal plate. And you can use layers if you want. All good.

It can't have feet.

I'm fine with that, rules being rules. Not having feet just means I can't adjust it to level if the ground is not level.

So why is a rest permitted to have feet that enable it to be levelled in relation to the ground ?

Is the simple answer that it's just the difference between F-TR and F-Open ?

I don't know where the 'cannot have feet' and 'cannot level' are coming from.
You can't have a combination of feet and surface that makes tracks.
We absolutely can have legs that adjust for leveling.
We can also have bipods with cant adjustment to level the rifle that way.

 

[big5ifty]

I don't know where the 'cannot have feet' and 'cannot level' are coming from.

This is referring to the mat or plate that is permitted to rest the bipod on. This is not referring to the front rest.

I've checked it, it's in the rules for F-Class , F2.9 -

" No levelling screws or protrusions are allowed on these boards or plates. They must be flat on the top and bottom: a hole to facilitate carrying the plate is permissible but it may not be used, whether alone or conjunction with anything else, so as to prevent movement of the plate in the firing point."

 

[kzin]

This is referring to the mat or plate that is permitted to rest the bipod on. This is not referring to the front rest.

I've checked it, it's in the rules for F-Class , F2.9 -

" No levelling screws or protrusions are allowed on these boards or plates. They must be flat on the top and bottom: a hole to facilitate carrying the plate is permissible but it may not be used, whether alone or conjunction with anything else, so as to prevent movement of the plate in the firing point."

us nra 3.4.1.a(2) and 3.4.1.b(2) (open and tr)both prohibit feet on the support board

open rests and tr bipods are both allowed adjustable feet

I'm not seeing a discrepancy. Are you referring to some rulebook other than USA?

 

[Warren Dean]

 

[acbrunton55]

View attachment 1430085

Yet another one. I can't keep up.