at first the mat sounds like a good idea,
however, on raised mounds, it will have to be back on the mound, instead of in front of it as per the rules.
this will make the brakes even worse.
why brakes are being discussed under hunter class is a good question, when most serious experienced hunters prefer to not us a brake.
bruce.
Rifle Suitability
-
- Posts: 2900
- Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2005 4:07 pm
- Has thanked: 413 times
- Been thanked: 330 times
-
- Posts: 7532
- Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 8:22 pm
- Location: Maffra, Vic
- Has thanked: 229 times
- Been thanked: 936 times
Re: Rifle Suitability
bruce moulds wrote:at first the mat sounds like a good idea,
however, on raised mounds, it will have to be back on the mound, instead of in front of it as per the rules.
this will make the brakes even worse...
Not sure exactly what you're getting at there Bruce. It would work on our raised mounds.
-
- Posts: 2900
- Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2005 4:07 pm
- Has thanked: 413 times
- Been thanked: 330 times
Re: Rifle Suitability
already now there is a rule that muzzles should be forward of the firing line for noise reasons.
there have always been people that flout this rule and become offended when the subject is raised.
the reason for the rule is for the comfort of those shooting.
putting a mat under the muzzle might putting yourself in front of the line , and thus be unsafe.
putting it on a steeply sloped front of a mound might in some cases be impossible physically due to the slope.
as muzzles must be forward of the line for comfort, surely putting something on them that redirects blast and noise sideways and/or rearward is incongruous with the spirit.
and lets face it, if guys are not prepared to swap a brake for a weight, they don't actually want to shoot fclass.
bruce.
there have always been people that flout this rule and become offended when the subject is raised.
the reason for the rule is for the comfort of those shooting.
putting a mat under the muzzle might putting yourself in front of the line , and thus be unsafe.
putting it on a steeply sloped front of a mound might in some cases be impossible physically due to the slope.
as muzzles must be forward of the line for comfort, surely putting something on them that redirects blast and noise sideways and/or rearward is incongruous with the spirit.
and lets face it, if guys are not prepared to swap a brake for a weight, they don't actually want to shoot fclass.
bruce.
"SUCH IS LIFE" Edward Kelly 11 nov 1880
http://youtu.be/YRaRCCZjdTM
http://youtu.be/YRaRCCZjdTM
-
- Posts: 555
- Joined: Sun Sep 21, 2008 5:56 pm
- Location: Latrobe Valley
- Has thanked: 4 times
- Been thanked: 11 times
Re: Rifle Suitability
bruce moulds wrote:and lets face it, if guys are not prepared to swap a brake for a weight, they don't actually want to shoot fclass.
bruce.
Bruce,
No one is disputing they don't want to shoot f class and that is why people talk about the reducing numbers. I'm sure there would have been similar discussions when people started using scopes and then again when f open started. I remember negative comments when f open used a different target. Brakes are popular in PRS where you don't have a spotter or screen and need to see the trace. If you look at rifle competition you will find PRS is where the numbers are going as people like shooting those type of rifles.
For the record, as there is a f class match that allows them to use brakes so i think you find they are actually shooting f class whether you think they want to or not.
----------------------
Seddo
Moe City Rifle Club
Seddo
Moe City Rifle Club
Re: Rifle Suitability
Seddo wrote:bruce moulds wrote:and lets face it, if guys are not prepared to swap a brake for a weight, they don't actually want to shoot fclass.
bruce.
Here’s the SSR’s translate them how you will.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.