F/TR Projectile Rule - 20.30.1

[Quick]

G'day All,

Was having a chat today to a fellow F/TR shooter here in WA. He noticed that in the above rule, it only specified that there was no restriction on bullet weight but nothing else in the rules pertaining to type of bullet or alike. Above rule 20.30.1 it lists that if there is no specific reference to a ruling or alike, then your supposed to refer to TR rules.

One could read this as there is nothing stating that your allowed to have any bullet, any weight, purchased fom anywhere; so you must refer to TR rules which have bullet restrictions in place like FS. F-Class Open has 'any bullet' listed in Appendix 1 of the SSRs but nothing for F/TR. This seems to be abit of a gray area and we would like clarification on the above rules. Attached is the rules and Note in question.

Cheers.

[Gyro]

Mate, it's very simple : 223 Rem or 308 Win and ANY BULLET WEIGHT.

How can that possibly be confusing ?

[Quick]

I understand what your saying but as we see it, the rule is open to interpretation. Theres some gray area. When Bob Pedersen or alike says nothing to worry about then thats good enough for me.

[johnk]

Try reading the the preamble that worries you again & thinking about what it says.

It says, written another way, that the only time TR rules apply is if the matter is not specified in the class rules.

... as Gyro says, the class rules offer no wriggle room - any bullet weight for the calibers specified.

Of course, if you want to take it further, come to the 2018 QRA Queens, lodge a protest in writing & give me $5 drinking money. I'll make sure that I have a protest committee ready to adjudicate further.

[johnk]

By the way, the TR rules specify a maximum rifle weight. Are you going to apply that limitation to the three F Classes via the same argument?

[Quick]

John,

Was just seeking clarification is all. My mate asked some people here in WA and they interpreted it differently then yourself.

I dont want to take it further. Was just asking.

[johnk]

I understand, Shaun, but your mate can't cherry pick.

If he believes the preamble disclaimer applies to projectiles despite them being unambiguously specified because the TR rules happen also to define projectiles, then the same disclaimer should be applied in all other IMO unambiguous clauses of the F/TR rules, one of which I mentioned in my earlier posting. Hell, those buggers use bipods & sandbags!

He might consider reading the FS rule 20.13 which specifies ammo & bullets according to the TR rules and ponder why the authors of the SSRs chose to so define projectiles for that discipline, while the F/TR rules use the phrase any projectile. One might only reach one of two conclusions:

They didn't know what they were doing, in which case we're all going to hell in a bucket or
The wrote each rule elegantly with forethought

Another approach for your mate would be for him to dwell on the fact that the rule has been tested or been available to be tested for better than five years now without valid challenge or the issue even being raised.

I must admit that I get my knickers in a knot when issues (not an important topic or problem for debate or discussion more likely come, go, or flow out from) are raised. It's not good enough to jump on one phrase or rule in isolation; a shooter needs to test it themselves against the body of the rules.

[Quick]

John,

It the rule doesn't say any projectile. It says any bullet weight. Thats the difference. My mate and myself are both shooting F/TR so we just want to get this clarified so we have no issues. If the rule said any projectile there wouldn't be any question.

[AlanF]

John,

It the rule doesn't say any projectile. It says any bullet weight. Thats the difference. My mate and myself are both shooting F/TR so we just want to get this clarified so we have no issues. If the rule said any projectile there wouldn't be any question.

That's a fair point. It would have been clearer to say any projectile. However its pretty obvious that it does mean any projectile and it can be obtained anywhere. If you dissect all the rules to this degree there will hundreds of cases where they aren't perfectly clear and unambiguous. However they don't need to go to the High Court for a ruling - its up to the range officers and competition committees to interpret them, and in this case, they would be very brave to go against the obvious intention of the rule.

[Quick]

Alan, thats exactly what we are saying. We are aware of the intention of the rule but its open to interpretation as we see it, even if Im playing devils advocate. I guess our point if there was no gray area and the rule said something like: "any projectiles that are .224 or .308 calibres ONLY" it wouldnt be as grey?

[johnk]

I think it's time for me to retire from this forum.

Goodbye.

[sungazer]

As Alan said there are lots of places the rules are outdated and should be changed how many ranges have telephones between the butts and the mound (that are still working). The rules refers to being the telephone being the only method of acceptable communication device and in one instance from memory actually says an open radio channel shall not be used. All the OPM's I have been to use a wireless device called a radio on the mound to communicate with the butts.

[bsouthernau]

As the preamble states, TR rules only apply when there is no applicable rule for FTR. As it happens there IS a rule specifying ammunition - 20.30 - and it's a very simple one. You can use a .223 or a .308. Full stop. End of story. None of 3.4 is applicable. The bit about projectile weight is superfluous but does clarify things.

The way rules work is that you must do everything specifically required and must not do anything specifically prohibited. Other than that you can do what you like.

[jasmay]

Ok, I think if someone is trying to change, through interpretation, what is accepted as the standard world wide within a class and is widely known amondhsr sll shooters, I’d probably have a not so quiet few words to say to that chap as he doesn’t sound like a sportsman I’d like to share a mound with.

The End.

[Pete]

Um..... For people like myself on the left hand side of the intelligence bell curve, thank-you for the "projectile" vs "Bullet" debate as suddenly I am feeling a little less stupid!
In all seriousness though, just like in the law, it must be read in the way that a reasonable person could be expected to interpret something, the majority of the time.
This obviously excludes criminal defence barristers and their clients, who I would imagine most of us would not want to be....