What is the correct term?

[jasmay]

Barrel Tuner, Barrel Compensatir, Muzzle Compensator.

I've hear all of them used to describe the thing we place on our muzzle to tune a load if needed.

What is the correct term.

And what is the implication of icfra rule F2.18 ? Does this need more definition?

Am I just being a pedantic bastard?

[johnk]

Yes

[KHGS]

Barrel Tuner, Barrel Compensatir, Muzzle Compensator.

I've hear all of them used to describe the thing we place on our muzzle to tune a load if needed.

What is the correct term.

And what is the implication of icfra rule F2.18 ? Does this need more definition?

Am I just being a pedantic bastard?

Barrel tuner is the correct term.
Compensator is a term generally used in pistol & shotgun (Magnaporting in rifles) and is a series of vents machined into the barrel. Muzzle compensator is a misnomer for muzzle brake. These are recoil reduction devices, none approved for NRAA ranges.
Keith H.

[jasmay]

Thanks for that Keith.

What concerned me a bit was it is clearly defined in our SSR's that a Tuner is acceptable, but not under icfra rules.

Many explanations of a compensator are to moderate/minimize the upward motion, which some tuners and mass weights do. If this isn't defined properly could it become an issue for us?

[KHGS]

Thanks for that Keith.

What concerned me a bit was it is clearly defined in our SSR's that a Tuner is acceptable, but not under icfra rules.

Many explanations of a compensator are to moderate/minimize the upward motion, which some tuners and mass weights do. If this isn't defined properly could it become an issue for us?

Only if an idiot were interpreting the rule!!!
Keith H.

[jasmay]

That's a bit rich Keith, I thought it was a genuine question.

Many mass weights and some adjustable tuners are used to minimize upward lift, from all my reading this is the purpose of a compensator , so with ICFRA and our own SSR's clearly not defining things the same way, I am genuinely wondering what the full story is.

If it can be shown your mass weight or tuner is compensating upward lift are we dancing a fine line?

[aaronraad]

Rule: F2.16 covers off on Barrel Extensions or 'tuners' if you like.

jasmay where are you getting the notion the ICFRA rules are concerned with devices preventing upward lift? Rule F2.2 in particular the 'NB' statement and Rule F2.3 cover this off for F/O & F/TR in terms of weight.

Rule F2.16 doesn't care how they attached or if they are adjustable, swinging or sprung, just as long as they are included in your overall weight.

Remember muzzle brakes/compensators are called out specifically more so because of the interference they cause to those nearby, on and behind the mound; and less so because of any recoil advantage/group shrinking magic they might offer.

Logic would dictate that sound moderators (F2.19) would be mandatory, not excluded, but as we know not all competing countries permit the average target shooter to own or fit a sound moderator.

[jasmay]

My confusion is in the definition of a compensator vs a tuner.

When you go looking for a definition of a tuner or compensator its not easy to get a clear definition, and in rule 2.18 it's clear a compensator is not allowed nor a muzzle brake.

Anyway, clearly no one seems worried so I guess the way it stands is fine, I just read it this morning when familiarizing myself more with the rules and thought given the current ambiguity of the definition of the 2 I would ask the question.

[plumbs7]

My confusion is in the definition of a compensator vs a tuner.

When you go looking for a definition of a tuner or compensator its not easy to get a clear definition, and in rule 2.18 it's clear a compensator is not allowed nor a muzzle brake.

Anyway, clearly no one seems worried so I guess the way it stands is fine, I just read it this morning when familiarizing myself more with the rules and thought given the current ambiguity of the definition of the 2 I would ask the question.

You got me worried ! Is a barrel dampener legal under international rules?

[aaronraad]

My confusion is in the definition of a compensator vs a tuner.

When you go looking for a definition of a tuner or compensator its it easy to get s clear definition, and in rule 2.18 it's clearer a compensator is not allowed not a muzzle brake.

Anyway, clearly no one seems worried so I guess the way it stands is fine, I just read it this morning when familiar song myself more with the rules and thought given the current ambiguous of the definition of the 2 I would ask the question.

Note that rule F2.18 is written with the specific adjoining words "Muzzle compensators" in bold and underlined styled text. If you take the word compensators out of context, you might as well include all mass, windage, elevation, diopter, parallax etc. 'compensators' currently used to aim a target rifle.

I would argue that you are specifically looking for the definition of a 'barrel tuner' or 'barrel compensator' that primarily modifies the harmonics of a barrel when fired, but also inadvertently moderates/minimizes the upward motion of the rifle under recoil. Again the ICFRA has no problem accepting this issue by way of including any attachment in the overall weight of the rifle as nearly all attachments moderate/minimize upward motion. If you happen to design a 'barrel tuner' or 'barrel compensator' that also acts like a muzzle compensator or brake which redirects muzzle gases left, right or behind (much like the Browning BOSS system) then you are infringing F2.18.

Think of it this way, why isn't a 'tapered or recessed target crown', 'bloop tube/sight extension' or plain old front aperture sight on your muzzle classed as some form of muzzle compensator or brake?

Also consider the history of our sport and the use of pressure bedding points along the barrel. Even the basic 45 degree recoil action screw in the Ruger M77 and #1 designs provides adjustment through pressure. We've been compensating and tuning for a long time before direct attachments to barrels became trendy.

I wouldn't say you're being a "pedantic bastard", I'd say you're just listening to others not using the correct terms.

[plumbs7]

Thanks Aaron for your input regards Graham.

[Brad Y]

Yes it is graham.
You only need to look back to 2013 where Marty used one to good effect!

[KHGS]

That's a bit rich Keith, I thought it was a genuine question.

Many mass weights and some adjustable tuners are used to minimize upward lift, from all my reading this is the purpose of a compensator , so with ICFRA and our own SSR's clearly not defining things the same way, I am genuinely wondering what the full story is.

If it can be shown your mass weight or tuner is compensating upward lift are we dancing a fine line?

Jason you have misunderstood me, your question is valid & my comment was not directed at you, but to inexperienced officials who make an interpretation on your (or others) equipment in competition, often pushed to make such decisions by those with a vested interest in the outcome. I have seen this many times & have been subject to it first hand.
It is difficult to keep the rules simple but concise enough to be easily interpreted.
Keith H.

[jasmay]

Fair call Keith, sorry for the misunderstanding.

It was an odd one, and I did compare the 2 sets of rules relating to it, I felt that our SSR's are quite direct where the ICFRA rules left s bit open to interpretation which is never good.

People try all sorts of bollox, and having a little discussion at this end of the FCWC on the issue might be better than at the pointy end.

Thanks to everyone for their input, Arron was right as was I, I'm being s pendantic bastard

[johnk]

Jason,

Again while what you suggest in terms of outcome may be correct, there are quite specific descriptions of compensators & muzzle brakes, both specifically requiring the redirection of gases from the barrel to offset either recoil or lift, or both. In that respect, a sound moderator is indeed a special type of muzzle brake that serves a primary purpose of reducing the noise of gas expansion from the rifle muzzle, but as a consequence is not antisocial on the mound unlike the others. Two are banned because they're not liked on open ranges; the latter is out because it isn't universally available.

Were one to argue that weight forward achieved the same result by way of a protest, then one would be forced to concede that there is no prohibition as to where the balance point of a rifle is required to be under the rules & placing mass at the muzzle is only an extreme case of rebalancing the rifle - or you could effectively argue that in your sefence.

Check ICFRA rules F 1.9 & F1.10.

F 1.9 suggests that you would not be in breach if you applied commonly-available accoutrements. It is not intrinsically unfair if you apply readily-available devices like a tuner & F1.10 suggests that such judgements should be made giving consideration to F class to be a developing sport with relatively few limitations. That your fixed muzzle weight might perform better than his tuner or vice versa is just one of those shit happens things. I won't get away with demanding that Tony hand over his annealer because I can't afford one, will I.

As I implied a recent post, many of our domestic F Class rules have been written to clarify & separate F Class from TR because of the relative newness of the disciplines & others because, relative to the rest of the world, we seem to act like a pack of cowboys. Further back, I argued that it isn't worthwhile to cherry pick a single rule in isolation to construct an argument. Rather it's necessary to examine the rules holistically to develop an insight into their application.

Finally, we have precedent. As I recall, the Larkins used tuners at the first scoped event at Canada - last millennium, wasn't it - & others have been used at other events since without being questioned. It could be worthwhile to accumulate information on who has hung things of the muzzle at all F class international events if you believe that their use is likely need defending.

John