OzFclass

Sorry all, I don't mean to harp on, but I'm still left wondering what is considered as being sheltered from the weather. Does that mean sheltering your body or your head?

I've seen people put heads under towels and haven't been pulled up.

Any chance John K could advise me here?

If it's illegal to stick my big noggin under this thing, I'll need to shorten it because 1m in length would then be too much.

Denis,

I'm a prize meeting level RO and wouldn't pull someone up for sheltering their head - most of us wear hats after all. My main concern about yours is that with a rigid frame and also being anchored to the ground its going to protect you quite effectively from wind. Buffeting from the wind is something that shooters expect to have to manage, particularly TR but also scope shooters. If yours was allowed, then a larger and stronger framed version would be quite an advantage in buffeting wind. I know its not intentional, but I don't think your design does enough to minimise other advantages, and would be ruled out mainly on the grounds of giving you an unfair advantage.

Alan

Thanks for your thoughts Alan. I hadn't thought of it that way. The plastic sheet is so light I thought it needed to be weighed down to some degree otherwise it could easily blow off and create bigger problems. Even if it started flapping held down by string or something similar it would be distracting to other shooters. Having long alloy strips means that its easy to pack in a rifle case, carry to the mound, quick to setup and roll up and doesn't effect anyone else nearby.

It seems to be a finicky thing then trying to work out the best option here. Must be transparent, cant be a framed tent but cant be a weighted sheet either, but cant be blown away, distract or interfere with other shooters........

I did a few google image searches of what people may be using in the US and UK and came up with virtually nothing, except for rifle rain jackets which doesn't keep ammo dry.

If safety is the key concern, which it is, then a wet loading hand would have to be considered. There's no point keeping your ammo and action dry if your wet hand puts water all over the case when loading. Having a cover blowing around, getting a wet hand trying to restrain it doesn't make sense considering the job that the cover is trying to achieve.

I'll ponder further and tinker some more

Denis,

I agree its important to keep the loading hand dry. Even with my "roller towell" design, I keep another small towel under it to dry the fingers before selecting the next round. If you wanted a much simpler version of mine, just use a towel over the top of the scope with most of its length on your ammo box side. Have that end of the towel go over the ammo box, and tuck under it on the outside as in sketch below. A damp towel clings fairly well and only a very strong wind would cause problems with this arrangement.

Alan I have been using a towel in the past pretty much as you've described. The weight of the damp towel also helps to keep it from flapping.

I was trying to come up with an idea based on the 1m x 1m transparent sheet.

I've just had a look through the NRAA SSR's and the ICFRA rules.

I couldn't find anything in the NRAA SSR's to overrule the ICFRA rules.

I couldn't find a reference to the 1m x 1m transparent sheet in the ICFRA rules (based of the poncho??), these are the only related rules that I could find (please correct me if I've missed something):

T3.3. The competitor may wear wet weather clothing. It is permitted to place the rifle butt under a
lightweight cape or poncho whilst shooting.

T3.8. Equipment boxes/bags may be taken onto the firing point provided they do not
inconvenience other competitors and are not deliberately placed so as to shield the
competitor, or his rifle, from wind or rain or sun. The maximum permitted height of such
shooting box/bag is 300mm.

The last rule there suggests that the shooter or his rifle can not deliberately be shielded from the rain so anything other than a light weight cape or poncho over the butt is against the rules.

I understand that John K has said that safety is paramount and he'll make concessions. I wonder if John could write a list of his own rules that he'll accept on the Duncan and maybe comment on the 2 that have been pictured?

The QRA Queens is only 6 weeks away and would be ideal to have a clear boundary on the topic.

Denis

I think you are quoting the ICFRA TR Rules. You need to look at F3.2 in the F Class rules. I tried to copy and paste here for you but it doesn't want to copy out of the pdf I have - sorry.

Barry

F3.2.
Screening.
A barrel mirage band is permitted and black or coloured adhesive tape may be applied to the top surface of the barrel. A flexible or rigid cover may be used to prevent dust or rain from getting into the action. More general cover may be provided by a piece of transparent material not exceeding 1 metre square over the scope and action which:-
F3.2.1.
Does not interfere with the RO’s visibility over whether the bolt is open or not,
F3.2.2.
Is attached to the rifle in such a way as to ensure that the material cannot be blown away by wind or muzzle blast, and
F3.2.3.
Does not interfere with the shooter’s partner or his equipment.
F3.2.4.
Personal shooting ‘tents’ are not permitted.

Ahhh, thank you gents. That's better, I'll find and download them.

AlanF wrote:Denis,

I'm a prize meeting level RO and wouldn't pull someone up for sheltering their head - most of us wear hats after all. My main concern about yours is that with a rigid frame and also being anchored to the ground its going to protect you quite effectively from wind. Buffeting from the wind is something that shooters expect to have to manage, particularly TR but also scope shooters. If yours was allowed, then a larger and stronger framed version would be quite an advantage in buffeting wind. I know its not intentional, but I don't think your design does enough to minimise other advantages, and would be ruled out mainly on the grounds of giving you an unfair advantage.

Alan

Alan do you mean by that being disallowed because it's an "unfair advantage" would also mean anyone using a 284 should be disqualified because because they have an unfair advantage over those using a 6br? to me as long as you are working within the rules it is not an unfair advantage just because others CHOOSE not to work within the rule to its full extent.

what I'm saying is something like tim's rain shield keeps the weather out increasing safety, doesn't provide cover to the shooter, has a low risk of blowing away and interfering with other shooters especially when attached to the ground. yes it may prevent some buffeting BUT if it's allowed within the rules and everyone has the opportunity to use it then no one has an "unfair advantage"?

Adam,

If the rules said a tent was allowed then that would be okay. But if something like that is brought to a shoot for the first time, then it is testing the boundaries of the current rules (which just say you can put a water proof mat over the breech and fore-end) and some ROs would rule it as an unfair advantage, particularly if no other shooters in the field are pushing the boundaries that far.

I think Tim's design would be very good, and the rules should allow it, but the ICFRA rules (and our F/TR rules) actually say "no tents". So its hard to imagine that ICFRA will be likely to say "tents allowed" anytime soon.

Alan

Hi All
My "tent" design was made to cover most of the rifle and the shooters head as well, to protect the rear of the scope from rain and lessen the misery while shooting in such conditions.

Tim N wrote:Hi All
My "tent" design was made to cover most of the rifle and the shooters head as well, to protect the rear of the scope from rain and lessen the misery while shooting in such conditions.

Let's not get too besotted by the ICFRA rules and remember that it's the SSRs which govern our domestic competitions. For FO these specify all range equipment as per TR. F Std mentions some range equipment but is silent on weather protection so defaults to the same TR rules which allow a waterproof mat over the fore end and breech and forbid any further screening from the weather.

F/TR does have its own rule which allows an action cover which doesn't have to be transparent and "more general cover" by a 1x1m transparent sheet. There are no specifications on what may be more generally covered so presumably this could include the stock and shooter's head.

Barry

Sorry Alan I thought we were talking about what the rules should clearly allow not how they are worded now.

Tim if is used to provide shelter to you then that's probably crossing the line . . . . everything up to that point is safety when dealing with 60,000psi!

BATattack wrote:Sorry Alan I thought we were talking about what the rules should clearly allow not how they are worded now.

That's the OTHER thread over in Rules & Future. I thought your proposal there was precisely worded (Hooray!), retained the current spirit of braving the elements and provided for safety and protection of valuable equipment.

Barry

To me a good rule should:

1. Have acceptance where shooters values are reflected.
2. Be clear and easily understood.
3. So ignorance is no excuse.
4. Be stable.
5. Be enforceable.
6. But be able to be changed with the consent of the majority to meet changing circumstances.

Consider whether a catastrophic event is foreseeable, damage occurs and there is a duty of care. These are three legal tests for negligence.

The problem is that a lot of domestic arrangements for our competition are just guidelines and policy, but hidden amongst them are binding legal obligations. We consent to these rules by joining a club. Safety is one of those binding obligations and not just a persuasive precedent. Good sense is sometimes confusing when the proper conduct is not modelled by those in charge.