Draft of rule changes to be submitted to National Committee

Hi,

Further to all the disucssion in the previous thread, I have compiled a suggested set of changes to the rules.

All the changes from original are clearly defined in red along with comments in the side margin.

I have tried to take up the intention of the previous discussions and of course welcome any further feed back or comments.  I would propose that if the majority agree with these changes, we submit them to the national committee for review at the next meeting.

Cheers

AnthonyFly_Rules_Suggested_Changes.pdf

Hi All,

I think Anthony has done a good job with his draft having zeroed in on the core issues, although I have a few suggestions. Before going into them let me remind you all that I have some years of experience as a delegate on the National commitee and I know that rules and rule changes should avoid duplication, excess verbage or stating the obvious - otherwise passage thru the system becomes a chore. Anyway on to my comments -

3.1.1.3   HG weight - leave as is, or get into a debate as to what/whom represents a 'reasonably fit adult' . This would never get thru  the commitee.  Also lets take into account that any shooter with a bit of experience knows that building something ridiculously heavy confers no advantage anyway.

3.2.3      Spacers - clarify that we are talking rear bag spacers and use the term 'resticted rests' in reference to the main rule book item.

3.2.8     LG weigh-in.  Suggest the following wording - "All rifles intended to be used in LG class must be weighed prior to the commencement of the match."  This simple wording is all that is needed as it covers the issues of spare/optional rifles and the requirement for the range/organisers to have the necessary gear to do the job (a pre-requisite of a registered match).

3.3.1.3.   Change to simpler wording -'and allow a warmer target'

3.4.4.      Change rim fire to 200YARDS

3.5.          Using .01 puts the pressure on Anthony to keep refining his program and distribute nationally!!!

"Target Scoring" - hardly worth mentioning as this is already the norm in all forms of benchrest
. How else could a competitor bring a problem to the scorers attention.

Pete

Anthony,

I see no specific mention of rear adjustable rests, ie windage and elevation. Does this mean under these rules a rear adjustable rest is allowed?

Jeff Harrison

Hi Jeff

Unfortunately, no.  The main rule book says as follows

"5.2 RESTRICTED RESTS
5.2.1 Restricted rests shall comprise a front rest to support the front part of the
rifle, and a rear rest to support the rear part of the rifle; neither rest may be
attached to the bench, the rifle or to the other rest, and each must be
movable independently of the other.
5.2.2 The front rest may be a block or pedestal, and may incorporate
adjustments for windage and elevation, but shall not have any guiding
means; it shall be used in conjunction with a sandbag on which to rest the
fore-end of the rifle; the section of fore-end contacting the sandbag shall
be for full width of the stock. The rear rest shall be a sandbag only, except
that a vertical spacer shall be allowed between this sandbag and the
bench-top. Such spacer shall not incorporate adjustments for windage or
elevation, nor shall it contain any protrusions which can be inserted into
the bench-top or the sandbag and the top and bottom of the spacer shall
be substantially flat. The rear sandbag shall not be contained in any
manner.
5.2.3 A sandbag shall be a bag or combination of bags, without extra additions
or devices, the covering of which shall be made of cloth, canvas, leather,
or any other similar material that can be easily flexed by the fingers. The
contents with which it is filled shall be a dry divided non-metallic
substance, such as, but not limited to sand, gravel, grain or sawdust,
packed loosely enough"

So short of major changes ,adjustable rear rests won't happen.

Cheers

Anthony

Anthony,

Doesn't need to be a major change. 5.2.1 and 5.2.3 don't need any revision.

5.2.2 just needs the statement pertaining to rear rests to be changed to read similar to the front rest, including the shall not have any guiding means.

The main reason we want this change is that when you get up into the 60 - 70 lb mark, you have a heap of weight sitting on the front rest. It is difficult to engineer a rest with adequate strength and durability to operate under these conditions. The rear rest carries much less weight, and is much easier to engineer.

Interestingly, Seb, who makes rests, is also of the opinion there is no 'advantage' to a rear adjustable rest.

It seems to me that the main change needs to be in the thinking of some of the shooters, rather than the rules.

Jeff Harrison

Jeff,

I agree with you in principle, but a change to the main rule book would need sufficient support within your state to convince your delegates to bring it to the table as an agenda item. I very much doubt that it would pass even were it to get that far. Then the democratic process of debate and a vote takes over. On the other hand having it introduced as a new rule in the interim fly rules may stagger over the line. Why not have a go at the wording and post it on this forum for discussion? (I suggest you make the rule specific to heavy gun class for best chance of getting it accepted).

Pete

Pete,

This is where it needs to go in my opinion


Heavy Gun rests may incorporate adjustments for elevation and windage in either front or rear
component. Neither rest may incorporate guiding attachments. Both rests shall consist of at minimum a sandbag, which may be attached to a pedestal or base, incorporating the adjusting mechanisms. Rests must not be attached to each other, the rifle, or the bench.


I would submit this as 5.2.2.1

Jeff Harrison

Jeff, i think this one is better left alone. The reason i say this is that we in the North have placed a priority on 1K and as such have chosen either 600 IBS and the more recent 550 BR, over the Fly, as our intermediate shoot, principally as a testing ground for the 1000 yard matches. The Fly as such has become more of a nostalgia event for some with little or no value placed on its being shot. With the return of the SOTY, that will no doubt change.

Until such time others see the massive advantages a rear rest can give some shooters, the minority, us up here, should not be in a position to influence the majority. You must remember, we have gone this route to close the gap between us and the Virginia club in the postals. That is the goal, not to shoot a once a year match.
A simple question, you built the rest for what main event? While we may think that a lone rear sand bag is living in the dark ages, the majority don't. Well here in Australia anyways.
 

Anthony,

Seems there is no real objection to having rear adjustable rests, can we get them put into the draft?

Jeff Harrison

Hi jeff i think this needs some more debate because everything is well addressed in this forum,
I have some questions for thought-
1/If rear adjustable rests are allowed what are the specs and what can you do and what cant you do
2/ Does the rest have to be totally mechanical Eg can it have nuematic adjustment , or electrical servo's
3/ What is the allowable weight of the adjusting device, width of the rear bag effectively you could have a 8" front sled and an 8" rear rest. That would certainly provide for a stable rifle of any weight as there is no rifle weight restrictions now.

We all must be mindful of costs and keeping the Newbies coming in, $1200 for a front rest then $1000 bucks for a rear rest with all the bells and whistles and you are talking alot to get started.

At present guys can use there caldwell rest and a sand bag of quality and be somewhere in the ball park......
just a thought
cheers Les

Les,

It's no different to a front rest! Where are the specs for what is and isn't allowed? All this talk of electric or other operation is just putting hurdles in the road. These methods of operation aren't banned in front rests, so who cares if they use them or not. Even if they do get used, wasn't one of the stated aims of fly shooting to improve the precision and accuracy of shooting?


 By making it too hard, you will do the thing you are avowing not to (turn shooters away). I won't shoot the Fly, because I can't afford to go out and buy a new front rest, rear bag, and build a module for the rear of the rifle. I won't be the only person in this situation either, I know of at least one other shooter up here who won't compete in the fly either, because he won't spend the money.

I started with a Rem700 in 270Win, with a $400 Tasco 40x on top, with a Caldwell front rest and a rear sandbag, 4 years ago. I shot next to Jeff Rogers, who has one of the most high tech, high cost outfits in Australia. Being flogged each shoot by him didn't scare me off, and when I did get the odd win over him, it made it that much sweeter.

While we shouldn't make it too hard, we should also give something for people to aspire to. Most Newbie shooters won't be entering heavy gun anyway, as their rifle will most likely fall into light gun class. If we wanted to make it more even for them, we should ban March and Nightforce scopes, and non factory barrels. That would even up the field a bit.

I put this post of a change up days ago, and so far you are the only person to respond, this is what I mean't when I said there doesn't seem to be much objection. Last I checked, 73 people had read it, but only one said anything against it. Does this mean 72 say yes, or I don't care, and only 1 no?

Jeff Harrison

Hi Jeff,

I have not responded until now as I have been preoccupied with more pressing matters.

Firstly I draw you back to my suggestion that any discussion of  adjustable rear rests be restricted to the Fly rules - your point about  5.2.2.1 in the main rules would never get past first base. If promoted purely for HG class in the Fly it might get some support as I mentioned earlier. My personal solution to the problem of  'slow to adjust' front rests for HG was to construct a special 'joy-stick' rest for the purpose. Works fine with rifles in the 25 to 30 kgm range and can be locked if desired.

The comment from Tony Z  that rear adj gave an advantage was interesting to say the least - that's probably going to hurt your case, unless you can show otherwise. None of use Southerners have used such a device to be able to make the comparison.

Anyway, back to the main point. If you wish to table this rule change ( for the F ly) at the  conference of Fly competitors that I hope to see scheduled in Canberra early March (either in person or in writing) then it can be discussed and voted on. If passed then I will see to it that it becomes a part of the rule changes presented in Perth at Easter. Then your ideas will meet their final fate.

Again, I cannot see any reason not to allow such a change (after-all it's another way to my special joy-stick rest solution) and we Fly shooters should be regarding the HG class as the "Experimental/Unlimited" part of this discipline. For those not familiar with traditional Benchrest you may not be aware that Experimental class is not always won by a 'rig', just as aLG has often won the HG award and/or taken the outright win in the Fly?

Pete

Ok Pete,

Let's call it 3.2.3.1 in the draft above. While we are at it, if the main concern is to keep the cost down, why aren't we banning Joystick rests? These are every bit as expensive as any fixed front, adjustable rear set up.

In terms of 'is there an advantage to a rear adjustable?', the best  1000yd Aus 6 match was shot this year, again, with a rear sandbag, front adjust rest, so it isn't really a contention. I would like to have this change submitted in March, so if someone would like to give me the proper format, I will go ahead and do it.

In terms of the SSAA benchrest rules quoted, these apply to short range (100 & 200m), as far as I know, they don't apply to the long range stuff, these were handed to NRA, and in terms of equipment, are substantially the IBS rules.

Jeff Harrison

firstly jeff i would like to say to me personally i didn't say anywhere i was against, for or other wise. The whole idea of this forum is for fly shooter to talk about what they would like to see in the sport. My mention of topics was to get people into the threads and understand where the sports direction is going. I am sure if you were to address a letter to Pete VM as he has put it to you in his email then the fate of your request will be with your state delegates and other state delegates in March of this year as all other requests will be.

There are so many issues out there that we all have contributed in getting rules that are workable for everyone, to suggest that i am personally putting up hurdles is not the case.  Flyshooting is becoming a popular sport with many people contributing to its growth. We all share a common trait and that is to get as many to the shoots as possible. Your issue is no different then bench draws, scoring or any other topic that has been put up here.

Have your say by all means and put your comments on here but there is no need to feel affronted by others comments as this is purely topics for discussion.

Personally bring anything you like to a fly shoot as long as it is in the rules, and run your chances like everyone else.
Les

Hi Jeff,

When you say there has not been much objection, that is fair.... at least on my part, and probably the part of a lot of others who have not responded.

I have abosultly no objection, I just didn't comment as I am not "Qualified" to comment.  I have not seen or used a rear adjustable rest, and would probably object if it was proposed for Light Gun.... but I think the feeling seems to be that Heavy Gun should be relatively unlimited in fly.

If there are still no significant objections by then, I will write it up for you in the proposed rule change sumbmissions to be tabled at the March Fly meeting.

Cheers

Anthony

I don't think the bag rules (Rule 5 on the Fly Target) should change at all.

I think the rules up for discussion are more generally match procedures, organisational issues, things to do with records, registered ranges, how official matches are run etc. I don't think generally the 10 rules always on the target are up for change. If so that will mean WW3 probably

If people want to shoot adjustable rear rests like they do in 1,000 yard Benchrest around the world that is fine for 1,000 yard benchrest  but the Fly Shoot is the Fly Shoot. That rule has served well for more 20 years and should stay in my opinion.

I also note Tony Z comments that the "Fly" has become more a "nostalga event".
Really? I am sure that makes everyone involved in the Fly around Australia feel impressed towards some of our Townsville colleagues.

Les Fraser is doing a fine job as website owner and forum operator. He is putting his money and time to promote an event he is unselfishly passionate about. But he does have some rules for his forum. I like his rules. They are that contributors must sign in and post under their real name and have a picture of themselves. This is very different to what occurs on other forums thankfully.
The majority of people involved here do that but I notice some of our friends from up north don't seem to like following these rules either. Tony Z and Just Jeff here for example.
How about everyone shows some respect and follows these forum rules which Les has?

Stuart Elliott

Hi Stuart,

Very well said re the forum.

I think your point on the rear rest issue is clear and seems a fair argument from someone qualified to pass such opinions.

If others dissagree with Stuart please chime in and say so.

Cheers

Anthony

CONTENTS DELETED

Well Stuart,

I can't agree too much with what JR has said. If you want more people to participate, then you need to look at what is stopping them from doing so now. The rear rest rule in HG is one of those things.

If the rules as they have stood for 20 yrs are fine, why are we changing any of them?  Saying everything should always stay the same is the equivalent of evolutionary suicide, but that's up to the shooters to decide I guess.

Some of the arguments put up so far are just nonsense, cost being a major one. Rule 1.1.1 says we are trying to promote precision in shooting, and improve our results. Not looking at alternative ways of doing things is one good way to stifle that development.

Jeff Harrison

Jeff,

Whilst I am interested in the idea of adjustable rear rests I am happy to keep them in the 1000yd arena, if that as you suggest means I am backward then I suppose I am backward.
I dont see any need for the introduction of adjustable rear rests and I have been shooting this event in HG for a little while now.
Thats my opinion just like I dont think a one piece rest should be legal .. remember that rules are funny things what you see as reasonable and commit to as a rule may not be everyone elses interpretation.
There is and always will be those who take every rule to breaking point to gain an advantage ( real or perceived) your suggestion may not pan out in practice as you intend in planning .. think I am wrong ask a few people.
IBS allows adjsutable rear rests and muzzle breaks Fly does not its that simple. Will a change in Fly rules to that effect increase numbers ? Since most 1k BR shooters in Australia shoot Fly already I dont see any benefit in increased numbers.
If you want to build a rifle thats purely for 1k then good on you but that does not make it a majority call.
I have not commented prior because I saw no need but apparently this is serious and I need to record my objection.

Have a Nice Day