OzFclass

Due to my tight budget and the fact that my Harris bipod is old hat I am in the process of designing a new bipod.
DIY is fun and cheap...
But do the rules actually specify things like max spread, size or type of 'feet', materials, max weight (my rifle and scope are well under the 8.25kg) or how it is attached???
Can you have ballast on the legs?
Please lend me your thoughts. I have checked out most of the commercially available ones but most are too dear for me.

SunnyCoast 5r wrote:But do the rules actually specify things like max spread, size or type of 'feet', materials, max weight (my rifle and scope are well under the 8.25kg) or how it is attached???
Can you have ballast on the legs?
Please lend me your thoughts. I have checked out most of the commercially available ones but most are too dear for me.

20.37 "The FTR Rifle may be supported by an attached bipod which may not provide a positive mechanical method for returning the rifle to its point of aim for the previous shot. Each “foot” may terminate in a single spike, which may be pressed into the ground by up to 50mm (about 2”) provided this causes no significant permanent harm or indentation to the firing point. A “ski” facilitating free recoil is also permitted. The rifle of bipod may incorporate an integral mechanism for raising and lowering the fore-end. A sling may additionally be used in conjunction with a bipod."

That's all you have to comply with. I don't see anything there that says no wheels or castors. You can put all the ballast you like on but remember that the bipod is included in the rifle weight.

Barry

What Barry has posted sums it up well I think. But it is funny how some people read the rules on anything and then place their own spin on it. There are lots of different Bipods out there. In Canberra last year there was one made out of the Aluminium slats from a Security Door. It looked Fantastic and worked very well.
It's up to you where you won't to distribute the 8.25 KG., Barrel / Stock / Bipod / whatever you like.
Experimenting is always fun to try something different. We have been playing with some very wide Bipods for FTR and they work very well.
Just keep in mind the 8.25 KG

Thanks for the input. Version 1 will be finished over the Xmas break. Photos if it works.

As a first resort, you could always email the NRAA competition director for a local (Australian) determination.

I have been wondering if my old bipod is legal, it is either a davies or davies copy.
But it has the feet that essentially stay planted and the bipod slides back and forward through a nylon block. Im wondering whether this constitutes a "mechanical return to zero" as it is in a fashion, sliding on two rails.

If you're winning dummos then someone will definitely have a problem with that sliding block system.

dummos wrote:Im wondering whether this constitutes a "mechanical return to zero" as it is in a fashion, sliding on two rails.

So when you push it forward where is it pointing?

Remember that when the SSRs were written it was done by people who hadn't a clue what return to zero meant .

SSAA Australia defines the process to determine whether that occurs:

Set up rifle aimed exactly on target.
Move beside the rifle & fire it, stopping the recoil with the hand.
Move forward
Reload
Fire - for 5 shots.

If the group is better than 5 MOA, then it has a mechanical return to Zero, or as they define it, the rifle is guided.

That 'process' johnk would not in my mind stand up to scrutiny.

Maybe, Gyro, but the SSR for standard rifle states:

20.10 Rests
(a) The rifle may be supported on front and rear rests, such as a bipod or a pedestal rest, providing that such rests do not give any mechanical assistance to return the rifle to the exact point of aim as that of the previous shot.

People seem to choose to emphasise providing that such rests do not give any mechanical assistance or claim to return the rifle to the exact point of aim as that of the previous shot is the nub of the matter.

If you claim the emphasis should be on the former, then every rest gives some mechanical assistance. If you emphasise the latter, then you need to prove a degree of precision of return to aim. If you address it logically, then you must agree that with every & all bipods a degree of manipulation beyond the physical mechanics of the bipod is necessary as the shot is being fired & after to return the rifle to the exact point of aim, or even close to it.

To be sure to be sure ....... but the rules it seems can't capture everything. As soon as a shooter is running something that raises eyebrows then there's a problem. I love to try 'borderline' gear but I've learnt it ain't worth the agro when people want to challenge it.

As far as I'm aware the RO of the day has the final say ? So ones campaign can get derailed when someone complains. Not worth the drama I reckon.

The whole Rules debate can get very complicated ...

Gyro wrote:As far as I'm aware the RO of the day has the final say ?

Nope, not in Australia.

The range officer has the first call, the promoting committee the next, which is usually final.

2.2 Control and Conduct of Competition
2.2.1 The rules of the Part 2.2 shall control all competitions provided always that a promoting body <snip>
2.2.3.3 Shall, subject to any right of appeal given to competitors, be the sole interpreter of the meaning and scope of the shooting rules and the rules and conditions governing the matches and of the extent to which they apply.

Good luck with emailing the nraa with questions. I did just such a thing before the last state team shoot and am yet to receive an answer. As always very helpful.

bsouthernau wrote:

SunnyCoast 5r wrote:But do the rules actually specify things like max spread, size or type of 'feet', materials, max weight (my rifle and scope are well under the 8.25kg) or how it is attached???
Can you have ballast on the legs?
Please lend me your thoughts. I have checked out most of the commercially available ones but most are too dear for me.

20.37 "The FTR Rifle may be supported by an attached bipod which may not provide a positive mechanical method for returning the rifle to its point of aim for the previous shot. Each “foot” may terminate in a single spike, which may be pressed into the ground by up to 50mm (about 2”) provided this causes no significant permanent harm or indentation to the firing point. A “ski” facilitating free recoil is also permitted. The rifle of bipod may incorporate an integral mechanism for raising and lowering the fore-end. A sling may additionally be used in conjunction with a bipod."

That's all you have to comply with. I don't see anything there that says no wheels or castors. You can put all the ballast you like on but remember that the bipod is included in the rifle weight.

Barry

My reading of that rule gives you two options, 50 mm maximum length of insertion spikes or skis which are allowed to slide across the ground/surface (with friction imparted by weight etc.) so being that there is no mention of wheels/casters being allowed would that not make them illegal? Aside from the fact that I couldn't really see them being practical on a grassed mound. May even be a safety issue.

The rules could never take in every possible idea so they are written to try to capture the main points. Perhaps THE main point is ruling against a "return to battery" rig. But even that aspect of the rules can be confusing.

Wheels/rollers on grass would not work. Wheels on a board/plate would work fine and be legal because as with skids the front end is essentially free to move in all directions.

Now if u thought that maybe you could sharpen the wheels/skids so they now start to track ( shooters have tried this ! ) on the board then you're breaking the rules.

Now having said above "wheels on grass won't work" I've just thought that large diameter light wheels might ...... but then they could be seen as a rig that now 'tracks' and that would generate protest. As with a certain type of bipod that has feet that are essentially a block with a sliding part .... same problem as the rig now starts to track. Confused ?