OzFclass

I saw this device on another forum, one relating to short range bench rest. While it mightn't have application there, where the but & for end would be at least of equal width but not necessarily in the same horizontal plane, it might have an application for F/TR or FS when shot off a bipod.

I reckon that the 3" wide plate, maybe offset, maybe not, could assist to maintain the rifle's transverse waterline better than the conventional butt arrangement.

Hi All,
My F/O rifles run 3" fore end and butt plate 3"also and they definitely track better than a conventional butt shape. My 1000yd, rifle has a 6'' fore end and 3'' butt plate and that helps in controlling the torque of the .284W. calibre.
Cheers,
Trevor.

Just sounds like a whole lot of torque to me.

I was using one of these until 2011 when some complained that it wasn't sporting, should be banned and pics even got sent to overseas bodies to adjudicate on who all said it wasn't in the spirit of F Class. Not long after this, it started getting a few people from those countries copying it.
I eventually stopped using it for F class as I found it was not as stable on uneven mounds as we shoot on regularly, sort of like a 4 legged chair always rocking a bit, while a 3 leg chair is always stable. I have kept the plate to use on benches as in Fly shoots and BR where the front and rear rest will always be on the same plane. I am thinking of having a new stock made and would think about getting something like a 1.5" wide bottom insert on it as I think this will be more likely to conform to slightly uneven mounds.

RDavies wrote:I eventually stopped using it for F class as I found it was not as stable on uneven mounds as we shoot on regularly, sort of like a 4 legged chair always rocking a bit, while a 3 leg chair is always stable.

That's the reason I thought it would be useful for bipod users - there's only a single point rifle contact at the front.

johnk wrote:

RDavies wrote:I eventually stopped using it for F class as I found it was not as stable on uneven mounds as we shoot on regularly, sort of like a 4 legged chair always rocking a bit, while a 3 leg chair is always stable.

That's the reason I thought it would be useful for bipod users - there's only a single point rifle contact at the front.

Yes, if they weight the butt down it will keep things level each shot. Could work well

I think it will entirely depend on whether the bipod is rigidly fixed to the rifle or allowed to swivel where it attaches.

But I do not know much about bipods !

Peter Smith.

Too much for this dinasour,I come from the camp that believes our shooting came from using a hand held firearm to hit a distant target,all this effort to avoid holding a rifle and returning to the same spot without any effort on the shooters part is foreign to me. Probably why I like Match Rifle shooting.
Mike.

RDavies wrote:... when some complained that it wasn't sporting, should be banned and pics even got sent to overseas bodies to adjudicate on who all said it wasn't in the spirit of F Class.

Then these overseas bodies obviously hadn't read their own rules which clearly state "The spirit of the F-Class Rules is to encourage innovation, and Match Referees and Committees will bear this philosophy in mind in ruling on issues not covered by these rules."

Barry

bsouthernau wrote:

RDavies wrote:... when some complained that it wasn't sporting, should be banned and pics even got sent to overseas bodies to adjudicate on who all said it wasn't in the spirit of F Class.

Then these overseas bodies obviously hadn't read their own rules which clearly state "The spirit of the F-Class Rules is to encourage innovation, and Match Referees and Committees will bear this philosophy in mind in ruling on issues not covered by these rules."

Barry

That is what I quoted at the time.
We are starting to see more of it now though, so I suppose it is actually sporting now.

That's a neat looking rifle , I would own something like that ..... FTR maybe .

It's interesting to note that, unlike the front rest, there are no restrictions on the area of contact with the rear rest.

How about reversing things and having a "swivel" front contact point and 6'' wide rear wing for stability?
I can hear the cries now...

Tim N wrote:How about reversing things and having a "swivel" front contact point and 6'' wide rear wing for stability?
I can hear the cries now...

He's at it again .........

johnk wrote:

Tim N wrote:How about reversing things and having a "swivel" front contact point and 6'' wide rear wing for stability?
I can hear the cries now...

He's at it again .........

Oh Tim, always controversial aren't you
But yes, your idea does make good sense if you can get some weight into the rear end (or do what my stock now has )

I think it could be a good idea for F/TR especially. (due to the amount of pivoting, but lockable bipods_