Physics and a question of stability

[Cochran]

I have no dog in this fight, but I'm curious. Do those of you who support restricting FS to bipod only, think that the Larkin type bipods should be allowed ?
I seems to me that they allow the rifle to track straight back just like if using a rest. Could not the right hand leg be made of heavier material that would also offset the torque.
One of these days I'm going to attach a bipod to one of my Open class guns and see what difference it makes.

If I'm not mistaken, the FT/R winner of last years US nationals was using a Harris bipod and beat out alot of rifles using rests.

[Tony Q]

Hello Cochran

There are some exceptional shots out there and no matter what they use, even the humble Harris bipod, they do exceptionally well. They are a credit to us all.

I am unfamiliar with the Larkin type bipod, but we do have some self trackers here in Oz that are seeing more and more use. They work well but are a little much for my purist blood.

At some stage the evolution of the bipod, for competition shooting, will reach such a point in development they will be unrecognizable as bipods compared to the trusty Harris.

Should they be allowed? … In competitive shooting there is always someone who will push the envelope to get every ounce of accuracy potential out of anything. In Open classes its almost encouraged to find the next accuracy enhancing modification while chasing that ever shrinking group size.

In Standard classes .. they should be restricted in some acceptable form. This could be in design, dimension and weight restrictions. Std classes are not the arena for tinkering and modifying past a certain point .. they are as stated Standard Classes.

(the above is my personal view, if any one is offended … that’s to bad.)

[Lynn Otto]

Evolution or change is about the survial of the species, without it you stagnate and ultimately become extinct. If you take away the tinkering and modifications we would not be using the rifles we use today. Like it or not, our rifles are a product of the people who tinkered and found a better way to do things and I personally am appreciative of their innovations.

Should we sit back and stagnate and become as the dinosaur, extinct?

Lynn

[Tony Q]

No Lynn.

And, im not going to get drawn into revolving arguments on this kind of response as it will only lead me on the road to STOCK DESIGN! One of the most evolved parts of a bolt action rifle in 130 years.

Evolution .. As I WROTE is INEVITABLE.

Not only that, but I wrote its almost DEMANDED in F Open to evolve and modify.

It is an OPEN class … All OPEN classes should EVOLVE and MODIFY. Its what they do .. they develope through modification, thats why we have Open Classes in some sports.

But what gains, apart from advances in materials and manufacturing have changed the rifles we use in that time (130yr). Optics, stock design, action modification and with FS the introduction of the 7.62 in 1953 to Nato and the 5.56 in the mid 60’s. These are the evolutions of both FS and FO (except for wild cat cartridges) and these are the major contributors to what we shoot today.

But, in competitive sport you MUST have LIMITATIONS based on CLASS, without these limitations you have nothing but a bunch of people scrambling to beat the Joneses every time someone comes up with another modification. Modifications within a set guideline are fine, but going out side that guideline in competitive sports is called CHEATING.

Fullbore, although not a growing class, has been around for over 100 years, and before that in the form of black powder Creedmore shoots and before that there was something else. I hope we are sill here (F Class) in 100 years, but without fair rules that allow people to compete fairly we will not.

This is why we have a weight class in FO to stop those who would make a 50kg rifle, and there are those who would if not the restriction. In FS it must be tighter in restrictions again .. because it’s a STANDARD CLASS it is not a semi-unrestricted class.

The only Dinosaur around are the ones modifying, outside the envelope, for there own advantage over another. In other words .. they should be extinct.

Now, if any of you don’t like what I have written in regard to FS and you are an FS shooter then it is my opinion that you should be in FO period.

[Guest]

No Lynn.

And, im not going to get drawn into revolving arguments on this kind of response as it will only lead me on the road to STOCK DESIGN! One of the most evolved parts of a bolt action rifle in 130 years.

Evolution .. As I WROTE is INEVITABLE.

Not only that, but I wrote its almost DEMANDED in F Open to evolve and modify.

It is an OPEN class … All OPEN classes should EVOLVE and MODIFY. Its what they do .. they develope through modification, thats why we have Open Classes in some sports.

But what gains, apart from advances in materials and manufacturing have changed the rifles we use in that time (130yr). Optics, stock design, action modification and with FS the introduction of the 7.62 in 1953 to Nato and the 5.56 in the mid 60’s. These are the evolutions of both FS and FO (except for wild cat cartridges) and these are the major contributors to what we shoot today.

But, in competitive sport you MUST have LIMITATIONS based on CLASS, without these limitations you have nothing but a bunch of people scrambling to beat the Joneses every time someone comes up with another modification. Modifications within a set guideline are fine, but going out side that guideline in competitive sports is called CHEATING.

Fullbore, although not a growing class, has been around for over 100 years, and before that in the form of black powder Creedmore shoots and before that there was something else. I hope we are sill here (F Class) in 100 years, but without fair rules that allow people to compete fairly we will not.

This is why we have a weight class in FO to stop those who would make a 50kg rifle, and there are those who would if not for the restriction. In FS it must be tighter in restrictions again .. because it’s a STANDARD CLASS it is not a semi-unrestricted class.

The only Dinosaur around are the ones modifying, outside the envelope, for there own advantage over another. In other words .. they should be extinct.

Now, if any of you don’t like what I have written in regard to FS and you are an FS shooter then it is my opinion that you should be in FO period.

[Lynn Otto]

Now, if any of you don’t like what I have written in regard to FS and you are an FS shooter then it is my opinion that you should be in FO period.

Tony, I would sincerely hope that you did not intend this comment the way it sounds, that is, that if anyone disagrees with your view on how FS should be, that they have no right to be in FS, that your opinion is the only correct opinion. You seem to be telling them they should go to FO because they disagree with you as opposed to what they are shooting with. Please tell me I am wrong.

Lynn

[Tony Q]

Thats right Lynn .. if you want to develop with almost no or very few restrictions then FS is not the place. It never was.

FO is the developmental class .. if thats what they want then thats what its there for.

You cannot have it both ways .. you cannot have 2 semi unrestricted classes, it doesnt work.

This is my own personal view its also the view of 98% of people i have spoken to or have contacted me. So its not just me who thinks this way.

And Lynn ... i did say in the last post 'its my opinion' me, you as every one else is entitled to an opinion.

Am i right? .. Are you right? ... Who is right?

[Lynn Otto]

Tony

We are all aware that we are entitled to have an opinion, else this forum would not exist, but you did not in fact answer my question.

That aside, as it happens, and you know, I don't completely disagree with you, people should stay within the set limits as those limits exist at any given time. BUT, there should always be room for those limits to change and adapt as need requires. Even fullbore has changed a number of times in recent years, so the pattern for change has been set. Rules should never be so concrete as to put the users into a corner from which they can not move forward.

Lynn

And as this was originally my thread which has been so thoroughly subverted from its original intention, lets leave it at that.

[Tony Q]

Lynn ... the last thing i want to see is everyone in FS shooting an OMARK only, i have never said that. FS is a TR disiplin .. FO is a developmental disiplin.

I have never said tighten the rules .. I said keep FO benchguns out of FS.

Having room to move is one thing, and its important. But move outside that envelope and you will find FO.

[Guest]

Lynn,

You are correct in saying "rules should not be so concrete etc. etc."

TR has made more moves over a short space of time than a chess player.

Rest assured when TR moves FS will go with it, and that applies equally with respect to both targets and equipment.

Barry Davies.

[Tony Q]

Yes Barry but they were all in the intended spirit of TR and as such FS.

Rules set in concrete are wrong so are rules that allow whatever you want.

Rules need to be right .. for growth, for fairness and for the ongoing health and future of anything.