"Positive mechanical return" - bipod rule question

[EbenF]

Can someone pls give me some examples of what would be legal and what would be illegal in FTR ?

For instance, if the bipod legs pivot, allowing the rifle to recoil without the "foot / spike position" to move is that ok ?

What about a bipod foot that has a front to back rod in it, allowing the leg of the bipod to run on the rod ?

[Tim L]

Can someone pls give me some examples of what would be legal and what would be illegal in FTR ?

For instance, if the bipod legs pivot, allowing the rifle to recoil without the "foot / spike position" to move is that ok ?

What about a bipod foot that has a front to back rod in it, allowing the leg of the bipod to run on the rod ?

1st one legal (see the flexpod), 2nd one probably not legal as it could be considered as tracking.

[AlanF]

...2nd one probably not legal as it could be considered as tracking.

There have been bipods around in F-Std for a long time that have feet which slide fore and aft on a rod - e.g. Davies bipod. I'd be surprised if these aren't being used and allowed in F/TR (in Australia at least).

[ShaneG]

comments withdrawn

[johnk]

I would not disallow them in any division.

[Barry Davies]

Correction Alan and Shane,
Davies has never made a bipod with feet that slide on a rod. The originals of that design were made by Ken Larkin.
Barry

[Barry Davies]

Further to the above post--As I said the originals were made by Ken Larkin and this would be at least 15 years ago. So there has been ample time for someone to complain but to my knowledge that has not happened. I would expect that after at least 15 years they are well and truly accepted by all.
As for F/TR --well that needs to be sorted now not 15 years down the track.
Barry

[AlanF]

Correction Alan and Shane,
Davies has never made a bipod with feet that slide on a rod. The originals of that design were made by Ken Larkin.
Barry

My humble apologies Barry. On this very rare occasion, you are right .

[johnk]

A device can only be a positive mechanical return device when it & only it contributes throughout the whole shooting procedure - load, aim, fire & return - to the alignment of the rifle onto a single point of aim or small area of aim. I fear that those claiming such a capability on a bipodded rifle is including the restraint exercised by the shooter & his body in their evaluation. This is how Aussie SSAA bench rest shooters define what a guided setup (a disallowed arrangement identical in all or virtually all respects to our ICFRA definition) is:

Guiding is deemed to occur when a rifle shoots a five shot group of five (5) minutes of angle or less at 100 yards when the shooter loads & aims the rifle, then moving from behind it & firing whilst restraining the rifle from taking off with a hand behind or barely on the butt stock (ie not inhibiting recoil). The rifle would then be pushed forward to the stop, loaded by lifting the bolt without restraining the rifle & fired again as before until the requisite number of shots is achieved.

I would be quite happy to acknowledge that my adjudication was in error as soon as anybody can fire an F/TR rifle to eclipse 5 MOA with industry standard loads (185-215 grain projectiles right on the legal limit) under similar circumstances.

[williada]

Barry has forgotten more than most blokes know.

[EbenF]

Thanks for the interesting replies guys.

In both the scenarios I mentioned the rifle is pushed forward by the shooter, as johnk mentioned.

I guess is the 2nd example had springs on the rear portion of the pin it could be seen as a positive mechanical return. The one riding on the pin has (at least in my mind) an advantage in that it counteracts rifle torque...

[SunnyCoast 5r]

My first impressions of FTR bipods as a new shooter to the sport is that the evolution of bipod design is admirable BUT the intent of taking a target rifle and adding a scope and simple bipod has been bastardised. Too many of the designs now are closer to an adjustable rest rather than a bipod. If we all need $600+ engineering marvels to compete at a high level then FTR has missed the point. In the context of bringing new shooters to F Class I really do think we need to simplify what a bipod is on an international level. It would be good to take it back a notch...set 'wheelbase' limits at the very least. Define what area a ski foot could have. Remove the use of any material between the feet and mound.

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.

[Matt P]

My first impressions of FTR bipods as a new shooter to the sport is that the evolution of bipod design is admirable BUT the intent of taking a target rifle and adding a scope and simple bipod has been bastardised. Too many of the designs now are closer to an adjustable rest rather than a bipod. If we all need $600+ engineering marvels to compete at a high level then FTR has missed the point. In the context of bringing new shooters to F Class I really do think we need to simplify what a bipod is on an international level. It would be good to take it back a notch...set 'wheelbase' limits at the very least. Define what area a ski foot could have. Remove the use of any material between the feet and mound.

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.

Just so I've got this right, you want a world wide rule change that will effect 1000's of people and make many 1000's dollars worth of gear illegal because you don't agree with rules that have been accepted all over the world for many years ??
I have a brand new Joypod here if you want to buy one.
Matt Paroz

[johnk]

BUT the intent of taking a target rifle and adding a scope and simple bipod has been bastardised.

That never was the intention. If that has been the case, F/TR would have been using >155.5 grain projectiles (International Palma projectiles). The rules pushed through were done with the intention of making US style Palma guns compatible and tac guns competitive, but it turned out they weren't in the latter case.

Additionally, by the time it had been decided to separate scoped rifle into what is now Open & F/TR, the Larkin bipod with sliding feet had already been used & accepted in the first international event in Canada & almost immediately copied.

[SunnyCoast 5r]

So are we going to innovate until we are effectively shooting off a 'rest' rather than a bipod in the traditional sense? Will we all have to spend large amounts of money to get the latest carbon fibre or titanium gizmo-bipod to be competitive with our overseas colleagues?
I stand corrected on the genesis of FTR.
As EbenF was originally asking about the inherently unclear nature of the SSRs on what a bipod might be...where will it end...1200mm wide by 300mm feet?
Many sports have changed rules that make equipment obsolete but advances the sport on the whole.
Group C touring cars come to mind. in Australia the v8s had a major rule change but grew their sport.
And finally does Australia not get to give feedback on the international rules?