"Positive mechanical return" - bipod rule question

Longranger · Post by **Longranger** » Mon Dec 07, 2015 6:45 am

Your analogy of motor sport doesn't work for me. When the Nissan GTR's and Euro cars flogged the Aussie V8's the rules were changed to exclude them. That's not advancement! Advancement would have been Holden and Ford Australia developing a technologically superior product. But no, let's exclude anything that renders the Aussie V8's uncompetitive. Boring!

I don't see a problem with using a Joypod, it sure is not a pedestal rest you are alluding to. It still is a bipod with all the same attributes.

Good luck in your quest.

scott/r · Post by **scott/r** » Mon Dec 07, 2015 8:29 am

The unfair advantage rule must be so vague as to make it a bit of a joke...anything other than the hunting/tactical style of bipods is a bit unfair in my book. And they look strange to a new bloke I can tell you!

Now before anyone tells me I am a Luddite have a look through some old photos of FTR champs.[/quote]

They may be funny looking to a new guy, but using a Harris type bi pod in a comp against the joy pod is like going into a v8 super car race with an ss commadore. Especially when you know the rules allow you to have a full race spec car. That doesn't make it an unfair advantage to the person who has one, but it doesn't make it easy for the person that doesn't have the equipment that uses all the specs that they can in the rule book. It would be like me trying to get barnards and the like banned because I'm shooting an Omark.
And as far as Australia having a say in the global ftr rules goes, we are just entering into a class of full bore that has been around for quite a few years, so I believe that we need to conform to their rules. Not to change them to suit what we want.

bsouthernau · Post by **bsouthernau** » Mon Dec 07, 2015 8:35 am

SunnyCoast 5r wrote:So are we going to innovate until we are effectively shooting off a 'rest' rather than a bipod in the traditional sense?

In a word - yes. At greater length - the SSRs are silent on the matter, which I think is a bit of a pity, but the ICFRA rules state

F1.10. 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.

That's pretty clear. And you don't NEED a joypod to be competitive. Plenty of competitions are won using normal F Class style bipods such as the Davies and one of those is certainly not going to break the bank. I know of at least one shooter who had a joypod and didn't like it.

Barry

johnk · Post by **johnk** » Mon Dec 07, 2015 8:49 am

One other thing worth considering was that at the time the F/TR rules were voted on, only two countries shot a .223/.308 restricted class at more than a desultory level, Canada (Farky's home) & Australia, & both used rules virtually identical to our FS rules (excepting recent local embellishments). That included any form of bipod or front pedestal rest.

Post by **AlanF** » Mon Dec 07, 2015 8:54 am

SunnyCoast 5r wrote:So are we going to innovate until we are effectively shooting off a 'rest' rather than a bipod in the traditional sense

I suppose the Harris type is what you're referring to as "traditional" but ever since F-Class started in Australia, wider and more adjustable designs have been the norm. F/TR is encouraging the development of innovative and superior designs. It wouldn't surprise if some design features feed back into the military. That said, with a good technique and enough practice, I get the impression that most bipod designs can be competitive at the highest levels. The advantage with the Joypods etc is that they are easier to master, but not a "must have" if you want to be competitive.

I see Barry is saying much the same thing.

bsouthernau · Post by **bsouthernau** » Mon Dec 07, 2015 9:16 am

AlanF wrote: The advantage with the Joypods etc is that they are easier to master....

I've never used one Alan but I wouldn't be so sure that theyARE easier to master compared to a design with a single elevation knob. The big advantage I see them offering is when you're all ready to let the shot go but decide to make a last second alteration to your point of aim.

SunnyCoast 5r · Post by **SunnyCoast 5r** » Mon Dec 07, 2015 11:52 am

This has been a really useful discussion for me (thanks EbenF).
I now have a much better perspective on FTR and will develop a DIY bipod over the break (tight budget now I have purchased a 2nd hand NXS).
I have reframed my thinking based on everyone's comments and will now get on with it. There are quite a few different designs now I have had a better look around the world.
What do you think the Aussie team will use in 2017?
PS the Harris is now put away. Point made fellas

EbenF · Post by **EbenF** » Mon Dec 07, 2015 1:49 pm

Maybe another way of framing the question would be: what process do you guys over in Aus use to make call on equipment that people are not 100% sure about ?

Given the spirit of innovation that is part of F-class, this must happen every now and then...

Do you have local gurus (? Bob P) that look at it and make a call, or is information about the design and operation sent to ICFRA ? How are those decisions communicated back to the members ?

johnk · Post by **johnk** » Mon Dec 07, 2015 3:53 pm

Bob does make calls where circumstances warrant & publishes them. See http://www.nraa.com.au/wp-content/uploa ... 7-2015.pdf for example.

States (through their boards or CROs) might refer issues they have concerns with to Bob, or they might choose to make a local adjudication (as the SSRs allow) but in the latter case, NRAA may take it further if & when the matter comes under their field of control.

An individual would be smart to ask their state association to consider any issue that might seem outside the rules.

bsouthernau · Post by **bsouthernau** » Mon Dec 07, 2015 4:15 pm

EbenF wrote:
Do you have local gurus (? Bob P) that look at it and make a call, or is information about the design and operation sent to ICFRA ?

Don't know how things are in NZ but ICFRA has nothing to do with it regarding domestic competition in this country. This is controlled by our Standard Shooting Rules (SSRs) promulgated by the NRAA and they can be whatever we like. There is a fair body of opinion, which I share, that the closer they are to the ICFRA rules the better and in the case of F/TR the NRAA is trying to do this.

Barry

EbenF · Post by **EbenF** » Mon Dec 07, 2015 6:57 pm

hi Barry, just recognised your surname, we shot in the same squad during QRA earlier this year

In NZ we've pretty much adopted the ICFRA rules in total. For a couple of years there was a slight difference in scoring, but both FO and FTR now use 6.1. We do not have something like your FS.

johnk · Post by **johnk** » Mon Dec 07, 2015 8:03 pm

bsouthernau wrote:Don't know how things are in NZ but ICFRA has nothing to do with it regarding domestic competition in this country. This is controlled by our Standard Shooting Rules (SSRs) promulgated by the NRAA and they can be whatever we like.

Barry,

Our F/TR rules exactly mimic ICFRA. We just package them differently. The other two are ours to fiddle.

John

bsouthernau · Post by **bsouthernau** » Mon Dec 07, 2015 8:06 pm

That's right Eben - good to see you participating in this forum.

Cheers

"Positive mechanical return" - bipod rule question

Re: "Positive mechanical return" - bipod rule question

Re: "Positive mechanical return" - bipod rule question

Re: "Positive mechanical return" - bipod rule question

Re: "Positive mechanical return" - bipod rule question

Re: "Positive mechanical return" - bipod rule question

Re: "Positive mechanical return" - bipod rule question

Re: "Positive mechanical return" - bipod rule question

Re: "Positive mechanical return" - bipod rule question

Re: "Positive mechanical return" - bipod rule question

Re: "Positive mechanical return" - bipod rule question

Re: "Positive mechanical return" - bipod rule question

Re: "Positive mechanical return" - bipod rule question

Re: "Positive mechanical return" - bipod rule question