Nationals in June

[balcom]

Hi Peter,
What's your thoughts on this one.
FS Rule 20.2.1.4 states that a "piece of carpet or similar may be placed on the ground under the base of the front rest"
How about a piece of carpet or similar stuck on a stiff board? How would you rule?
Further to that we at Castlemaine have blue metal on all of our mounds, and for the F Class shooters we have set concrete slabs into the blue metal with carpet stuck on top. Is that legal? and if so whats the difference between that and a board?
Barry

Hi Barry,
Sorry to take so long in answering but I am on a wireless droadband now and only go onto it every few days, it's not cheap.
Getting to your question, you can put a piece of carpet under your rest on a board as long as it does not assist you in keeping your recoil returning to the same aiming mark, which I dought as they use rubber mats in Canberra to assist on the concrete although it was originally for TR.
The one that RO's should be watching out for is the rests with no sandbag or soft matting under or on the side of the front rest, a few getting around with hard surfaces under thier rifle which is illegat.
Cheers PeterH

[Ken L]

Barry

It is interesting to note the differences between the FS rule 20.2.1.6
No part of a rifle may be in contact with the ground or any hard surface during the act of firing a shot.
And the FO rule 20.1.1.12
No part of the rifle, with exception of an attached front rest, may rest directly on the ground, or any hard surface.

To me that would mean that in FS the rifle must have some sort of soft material between the rifle and any front rest including Pedestals and Bipods or at the very least that the bipod that is attached must have something like carpet for example between it and the ground.

BTW does soft grass growing on hard ground constitute as being enough to conform with thr rules.

Wouldn't it have been a good idea if the powers at be had gotten the 2 committees to consult with each other to produce rules that are ment to mean the same thing actualy be worded the same way.

[AlanF]

...Wouldn't it have been a good idea if the powers at be had gotten the 2 committees to consult with each other to produce rules that are ment to mean the same thing actualy be worded the same way...

And wouldn't it now be a good idea if we concentrated on what can be done to improve the rules rather than looking for someone to blame for the fact that they are not perfect?

[Lynn Otto]

Alan

It's not actually an unreasonable suggestion that the two committees should have consulted on wording where each were writing a rule of similar intended outcome. I thought this at the time the process was happening but there were some posts on this forum that plainly said the two committees were totally separate and "ne'er the twain shall meet", which struck me as yet another wedge between the two groups. The alternative was that someone at the NRAA could have done some proof reading to achieve a similar outcome on the wording. But of course that's all water under the bridge for now. Perhaps it is something that can be considered when next the rules are reviewed, but I shan't be holding my breathe on that one.

Lynn

[Ken L]

It is my understanding that the rules are set in stone for the next 3 years then and only then will they be revisited.
So folks we are stuck with them warts an all for better or for worse.

[Chopper]

The only time i can see any rule change or should i say understanding of a rule is when someone dobs someone else in and then it will be sorted out maybe ,so youre stuck with it ,in the mean time enjoy youre shooting and use common sense. see you other blokes on the 19th,if not at karra opm on the 4th.