NRA Rule Change - F-T/R

[Ned Ludd]

YMMV but as i read it

The rule wouldn't affect a shooter using a Harris bipod.

- Harris doesn't make tracks.
- The rubber pad of a shooting mat won't make or hold tracks.
- the rubber shooting mat surface is smooth

Would the rubber feet of the Harris with the rubber surface of he shooting mat , get you DQ'd for this specfic aspect of the rule "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."

No... ICFRA rules FTR bipods are allowed to have spiked feet, which can be up to 2" they do not allow the bipod to move in any direction without lifting the rifle. NRA doesn't appear to have the spike language anymore.

But have someone win a major match with a Harris and rubber mat and see if it gets challenged.

Cheers
Trevor

Trevor - I understand your interpretation; however, the rule doesn't make any distinction about the specific type of bipod feet, whether they track or not, or whether they might make any indentation or not. It simply states they cannot create a track, which could easily include an indentation, and must be able to be moved in any direction without lifting the rifle. Moving a rifle with a Harris-type bipod having rubber feet across the rubber insert in most shooting mats will not happen easily. In fact, the whole point of using rubber feet and a having a rubber insert on a shooting mat when pre-loading a Harris-type bipod is so they don't move and the bipod can be pre-loaded. That is why the simple addition of a clause stating that this segment of the bipod rule is solely for bipod feet that are intended to track would solve the issue.

It may turn out in actuality that this rule is never actually applied to someone using a tradition Harris-type bipod at a match. The problem is that is could be. F-TR started out with people largely using Harris-type bipods, so it seems rather unfortunate that a simple wording issue of this rule might potentially make shooting a pre-loaded bipod illegal in F-TR. Although many F-TR shooters have moved to ski-type bipods, there are still a number of shooters that use a traditional bipod, especially among newer additions to the sport, where it may be all they own at the time. It would be much better to clarify the rule now, rather than wait until someone wins or places well enough at a state, regional, or larger match, only to find out their setup has been judged to be illegal. To that end, I will contact the NRA Rules Committee and point out this the potential problem with the rule. If anything comes of it, I will report it back here.

 

[Jdne5b]

Trevor - I understand your interpretation; however, the rule doesn't make any distinction about the specific type of bipod feet, whether they track or not, or whether they might make any indentation or not. It simply states they cannot create a track, which could easily include an indentation, and must be able to be moved in any direction without lifting the rifle. Moving a rifle with a Harris-type bipod having rubber feet across the rubber insert in most shooting mats will not happen easily. In fact, the whole point of using rubber feet and a having a rubber insert on a shooting mat when pre-loading a Harris-type bipod is so they don't move and the bipod can be pre-loaded. That is why the simple addition of a clause stating that this segment of the bipod rule is solely for bipod feet that are intended to track would solve the issue.

It may turn out in actuality that this rule is never actually applied to someone using a tradition Harris-type bipod at a match. The problem is that is could be. F-TR started out with people largely using Harris-type bipods, so it seems rather unfortunate that a simple wording issue of this rule might potentially make shooting a pre-loaded bipod illegal in F-TR. Although many F-TR shooters have moved to ski-type bipods, there are still a number of shooters that use a traditional bipod, especially among newer additions to the sport, where it may be all they own at the time. It would be much better to clarify the rule now, rather than wait until someone wins or places well enough at a state, regional, or larger match, only to find out their setup has been judged to be illegal. To that end, I will contact the NRA Rules Committee and point out this the potential problem with the rule. If anything comes of it, I will report it back here.

Don't worry. I'll protest yours for you.

 

[Ned Ludd]

Don't worry. I'll protest yours for you.

I had already marked you in my mind as the most likely perpetrator of any complaint or challenge against my setup.

 

[Jdne5b]

I had already marked you in my mind as the most likely perpetrator of any complaint or challenge against my setup.

If you can't beat em, may as well get the rules changed right?

 

[Medic505]

If the committee met in Dallas, I wonder if the meeting was held at Wayne's new mansion in Highland Park? Oh Darn, he didn't swing that did he.... my opinion of the NRA gets dimmer every day.

 

[skibar_tx]

One of the clubs I attend doesn’t have any affiliation with the NRA, another I belong to is doing mostly CMP matches.

 

[Dub]

is this rule aimed specifically at the joy pad?

 

[Jdne5b]

is this rule aimed specifically at the joy pad?

No. Carpet, which was specifically allowed in the rules until someone decided they didn't like it.

 

[seb]

People changing the way your equipment is designed to be used is definitely no fault of the manufacturer.

Thank you Jen!
seb

 

[LVLAaron]

No. Carpet, which was specifically allowed in the rules until someone decided they didn't like it.

Real shame that someone got upset about an accessory that costs less than 1 dollar.

 

[kzin]

We had rules
Somebody pushed into a gray area.
The gray area has been redefined.
This is the way sports should work.
I'm glad they did it instead of leaving the gray area indefinitely.
Now can I shoot free recoil or not?

 

[LVLAaron]

I get it it. It's just silly. I would understand a complaint about 5-800 dollar bipods not being in the "spirit" of the FTR game... but a 1 dollar piece of carpet that anyone can have is just childish.

 

[davidjoe]

Recoil force upon the rifle starts and emanates primarily from the bolt face, well behind the bipod. This means the bipod is merely drug behind the recoiling rifle’s motive point.

If this is true, then the rifle’s butt stock does all the “steering” of the rifle on recoil, as the stock makes contact unquestionably “in front” of the point motivating the movement.

And if that point is true, then the unlimited height and length of the of the rabbit ears along with solidity and weight of the rear bag determines whether an FTR rifle tracks “straight back” (in reality, forward), or not. Not the bipod skis, which simply “trail”, just like a trailer does.

 

[Forum Boss]

Some years ago, we tested the Jennings rifle. This had a bipod with large, cylindrical feet about the size of a small redbull can. The gun tracked superbly on a regular shooting mat (no carpet). I saw the advantage to the larger surface area. I wonder if some competitors will now explore this option. I have discussed this with a couple bipod makers... Thus far none have put it into production.





And yes the gun could be "moved in any direction" without lifting the rifle.

"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."

 

[LVLAaron]

Recoil force upon the rifle starts and emanates primarily from the bolt face, well behind the bipod. This means the bipod is merely drug behind the recoiling rifle’s motive point.

If this is true, then the rifle’s butt stock does all the “steering” of the rifle on recoil, as the stock makes contact unquestionably “in front” of the point motivating the movement.

And if that point is true, then the unlimited height and length of the of the rabbit ears along with solidity and weight of the rear bag determines whether an FTR rifle tracks “straight back” (in reality, forward), or not. Not the bipod skis, which simply “trail”, just like a trailer does.

Yes. But when the gun torques over to the side, it disrupts your rear bag. You'd need a hell of a set of bunny ears to prevent that.

 

[Warren Dean]

Some of y'all are making way too much of this. If you were at the SWN then you ought to know what precipitated this rule. Nobody is going to say p-turkey about skis that are still visible above the carpet.

Like kzin said in his post above, rules get pushed and when they go too far, the rules get changed. Pretty straight forward from where I sit.

Free recoil...LMAO!!! No way to enforce that one and if folks want to get their shoulder bashed every shot, have at it.

 

[MattPeetz]

Some of y'all are making way too much of this. If you were at the SWN then you ought to know what precipitated this rule. Nobody is going to say p-turkey about skis that are still visible above the carpet.

Like kzin said in his post above, rules get pushed and when they go too far, the rules get changed. Pretty straight forward from where I sit.

Free recoil...LMAO!!! No way to enforce that one and if folks want to get their shoulder bashed every shot, have at it.

but the new wording makes it even more vague.
The way it is worded now, you can’t shoot off of a Harris bipod. This hurts recruiting new comers.
Just because a few got butt hurt. If your gonna change it, change it for the better and encompass everything.
If we want to kill the sport, then keep changing the rules to suit butt hurt people.

 

[Warren Dean]

but the new wording makes it even more vague.
The way it is worded now, you can’t shoot off of a Harris bipod. This hurts recruiting new comers.
Just because a few got butt hurt. If your gonna change it, change it for the better and encompass everything.
If we want to kill the sport, then keep changing the rules to suit butt hurt people.

Matt, NOBODY is going to say a word about a Harris bipod...guaranteed. Some people might get pissy about the wording but we all know what the rule is intended to stop. If people are worried about it, use indoor-outdoor carpet like a bunch of folks do.

Go eat some crayons, bubba.

 

[BP1]

Some years ago, we tested the Jennings rifle. This had a bipod with large, cylindrical feet about the size of a small redbull can. The gun tracked superbly on a regular shooting mat (no carpet). I saw the advantage to the larger surface area. I wonder if some competitors will now explore this option. I have discussed this with a couple bipod makers... Thus far none have put it into production.

View attachment 1253273

View attachment 1253274

And yes the gun could be "moved in any direction" without lifting the rifle.

"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."

Jay it’s funny you posted this..I actually know a certain someone who took and modified a Duplin with cement finishing trowels on it and it seemed to work real well.

 

[MattPeetz]

Matt, NOBODY is going to say a word about a Harris bipod...guaranteed. Some people might get pissy about the wording but we all know what the rule is intended to stop. If people are worried about it, use indoor-outdoor carpet like a bunch of folks do.

Go eat some crayons, bubba.

What color of crayon lol