Industry - Summary of Proposed 2017-2020 ISSF Rules Changes

[redschietti]

I just checked two wood stocks. Both are no longer legal and no way to modify them. One air and one SB. I would presume they have made all wood stocks ilegal.

Both kk300 alutec and fwb700 pass IF you put a different buttplate carrior on them. Neither pass now. I dont think any of the current BP carriers will pass.. Get out your credit card or quit!! :)

[jhmartin]

Jim ...
What stocks did you measure and where?

On a 1912 (wood) stock the grip itself is more than 130mm (~150mm).
(can't be real accurate as I don't have the action in that stock right now)
I'm guessing a 1913 & 1914 would be about the same.
But the grip is not the issue.

Our 1903 grip is 140mm ... but parts of the wood stock itself, between the buttplate (carrier) and the grip are up to 170mm.

One of the questions should be an interpretation of the "buttplate" ... I'll contend it includes the carrier.
But that still does not solve the 1903 issue.

Somebody's not thinking clearly .. gonna have to take some pics and send them to some of these folks.
Someone has HUTA syndrome.

[redschietti]

1907, 1813, dont pass cause the woodstock is below 130. Also the walthr jr (newest blond an blue laminate) doesnt pass. Also, FWB P70 jr doesnt pass.

I disagree, the rule as written here, clearly says buttplate! The carrior wont be considered as part of the buttplate.

Of 6 precision guns at our house none pass, tho two can have the carrior replaced.

USAS i hope, wont enforce this rule.

[jhmartin]

Well .... I think the "reason" behind the rule is to cut out the wiggle room that some manufacturers are playing with.
Note the new ONE stock with the forward weights that can be placed on the rod on top or in the middle of the carrier rod. The rule now states "below".
It would be interesting to know the intent here

That said, when a"n older" wood stocked rifle won't pass something is wrong with the rule. The ISSF should let the IOC alienate the athletes in the sport ... not come up with some ill thought out, obscure way to interpret an existing rule.
(Oh wait ... what am I saying!)
This will truely drive folks away from the sport

[jhmartin]

Well, in the doc it asks for questions (and I assume comments as well) be sent to Gary.
Here is what I sent, not only to him but our USAS reps
=================================================================================

Gary & Robert,
In reference to the document:
"A Summary of Proposed 2017-2020 ISSF Rules Changes Regarding Shooting Equipment"
and Specifically:
"Air Rifle Specifications
The limitation on how low the butt-plate may be fixed was eliminated (was 220 mm below the centerline of the bore). No part of the butt stock between the butt plate and pistol grip may be more than 130 mm below the centerline of the bore."
---and---
"50m Rifle Specifications
No part of the butt stock between the butt plate and pistol grip may be more than 130 mm below the centerline of the bore."

I would like to make a comment and strongly request that these two Rules changes be fought vigorously.
I have attached two photos of very common, popular rifles that are currently used by a wide range of youth shooting organizations ... a Anschutz 8002S2 air rifle and an Anschutz 1903 smallbore rifle.
These photos have overlaid on them the bore centerline and the 130mm below centerline scribes.

As you can see neither of these popular rifle would pass these new rule adjustments effectively banning a whole group of youth rifles. I cannot believe that ISSF is seriously contemplating the gutting of such a large group of rifles, which would also clear out many opportunities for current and future youth.
I have also been told that this does not just effect 1 manufacturer ... I have also been informed that in addition to a 1907(wood) and 1813 not passing, rifles from Walther(new laminate stock) and FWB-P70JR stocks do not pass the 130mm muster.
REALLY? ... REALLY?!

In addition --- A SAFETY ISSUE:
"Blinders
Only shotgun athletes will be permitted to use side blinders (60 mm maximum depth). Rifle, pistol and shotgun athletes can wear one front blinder 30 mm maximum width), but no side blinders."

With respect to sport pistol ... this is insane ... part of the reason for side blinders is that not all SP bays in clubs can afford screens.

Very few rifle bays (including our own Ft Benning) have protection between bays. It is VERY COMMON, especially in the 3-P events where you have athletes in different positions getting ejected shells falling on them.

Side blinders are a very inexpensive method for side eye protection in both rifle & pistol. Are the (limited) television coverage interests really above the interests on an athletes eyesight?

In short, many of the (hopefully suggested) rule changes in this document are reasonable, and yes - necessary, but the three mentioned above can only reduce future participation and lead to a potentially safety issue. I respectfully request that the USA Shooting interests fight these three rule proposals.

Regards,
Joel Martin
Valencia County 4-H Shooting Sports
Peralta, NM

[PaulB]

Is there a wood stocked rifle in common use that would pass this proposed 130mm rule? I don't believe so from the pictures that I have looked at on-line. It would seem that this rule would make everyone that wants to shoot ISSF have to upgrade to an aluminum stock or make serious modifications to their wood stock.

[Pat McCoy]

Pertinent part of a response I received from Gary Anderson:

Thanks for contacting me with your question about the proposed 130 mm butt-stock lower limit. This proposal represents another small line in the continuing battle with rifle manufacturers over technological doping. This was introduced because manufacturers keep trying to add extra accessories to the bottom of the butt-stock that can become “chest rests” to facilitate resting the stock on the chest instead of on the shoulder as required by the rules (7.6.1.3 b). Whether the final rule is 130 mm or something close to that, I do not know yet, but there almost certainly will be a limit.

Our Equipment Control experts have checked a lot of butt-stocks in the last few months and have found that 130 mm covers almost everything including many older wood stocked rifles. At the international level wooden stocks have almost completely disappeared. I am at the ISSF Junior World Cup in Suhl, GER and just walked the line to check athletes competing in the 50m 3x20 Women event. Only one of 48 competitors was shooting with a wooden stock.

Initially, this limit will apply in international competitions and may or may not be adopted for national competitions.

[ShootWithStyle]

Hope this doesn’t force Daria Vdovina to give up her wood stocked FWB. She’s a top shooter and makes finals.




Emilie Evesque of France used the same, but I believe she is retired now.



I like the wood stocks on the air rifles. Lots of room to cover up with Equipment Control stickers!

[imac]

The wording is interesting in regards to the ar an rifle butt/grip possible rule. Do you think they mean the butt stock not including the butt plate and carrier maybe not more than 130mm below the centre line of barrel, or are they saying the butt plate maybe be no lower than 130mm?
Great news about corrective lens maybe attached to sights, a big enough disadvantage having to use a corrective lens without the added disadvantage of it getting bumped and being next to unless. Also cut the cost a little for position shooters, one fixed lens instead of 3 pairs of shooting glasses

[corning]

Think about the 130 mm for AR stocks. Probably no current wood stock would pass. This might explain Anschutzs' new stock design. Also what about someone with big hands, half their hand would not be griping anything.

50m rifle has the same 130mm below centerline of the bore restriction between the butt plate and pistol grip. A lot of those wood stocked rifles will get dinged too. Welcome to the ISSF smallbore equipment race!

[corning]

Pertinent part of a response I received from Gary Anderson:

Thanks for contacting me with your question about the proposed 130 mm butt-stock lower limit. This proposal represents another small line in the continuing battle with rifle manufacturers over technological doping. This was introduced because manufacturers keep trying to add extra accessories to the bottom of the butt-stock that can become “chest rests” to facilitate resting the stock on the chest instead of on the shoulder as required by the rules (7.6.1.3 b). Whether the final rule is 130 mm or something close to that, I do not know yet, but there almost certainly will be a limit.

I must be dumb as a rock.

What is:

1) technological doping
2) "chest rests"?

I neither understand, nor can I visualize either one of these issues/things.

[jhmartin]

What really irks me is :
1) the condesending replys
2) the way this rule will only INCREASE the rifle stock makers incentive to create new ideas. Rather than just say "NO that particular combo ... ON A METAL STOCK ... is not valid". All the problems they have a re with the metal stocks, so they want to dump the wood too?
3) Federations need to replace their reps to ISSF

Maybe all the way up to the IOC:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sports ... heats.html

These are they type of shenanigans driving the rule changes ... more money for the IOC

[randy1952]

We at the club are trying desperately just trying to survive all the rule changes that are being forced on us. I just had to replace every air cylinder in our club at the cost of a couple of thousand dollars to just meet the last rule changes. Almost every air rifle my club has is a wood stock and wouldn't meet the 130 mm rule. I don't have the resources to replace or modify those stocks, so I am faced with the situation of just ignoring the rule change or just dropping rifle. Gary's observations and conclusions at the international level competitions are out of touch with the reality that many clubs here in the United States face. I do have one other option and that is to just stop supporting the international shooting sports after 25 years of support for the junior shooting programs. People may have complaints about the NRA, but despite their problems I am not spending thousands of dollars every four years to meet some rule change.

[Metookevin]

We at the club are trying desperately just trying to survive all the rule changes that are being forced on us. I just had to replace every air cylinder in our club at the cost of a couple of thousand dollars to just meet the last rule changes. Almost every air rifle my club has is a wood stock and wouldn't meet the 130 mm rule. I don't have the resources to replace or modify those stocks, so I am faced with the situation of just ignoring the rule change or just dropping rifle. Gary's observations and conclusions at the international level competitions are out of touch with the reality that many clubs here in the United States face. I do have one other option and that is to just stop supporting the international shooting sports after 25 years of support for the junior shooting programs. People may have complaints about the NRA, but despite their problems I am not spending thousands of dollars every four years to meet some rule change.

The base membership of smallbore & air rifle clubs is adversely affected by ongoing ISSF rule changes. I don't see any hard evidence presented that these changes do in fact level the playing field. The equipment is not cheap & to expect club members to stay current with rules is neither desireable or feasible from a club membership perspective & to keep the sport viable at the base level.

The suggestion of dropping prone as an Olympic event highlights & typifies the disconnect between the base of smallbore shooters & ISSF.

Therefore if the ISSF does not represent the broad interests of Smallbore & Air Rifle fraternity then it should be ignored in large part. That includes the vast majority of current ISSF rules. You could do a lot worse than adopting a 1984 UIT rule book & saying that's it.

The exceptional situations to ignoring current ISSF rules would as I see it be in two areas.

First would be safety practices as in the absence of an acceptable code there would safety/legal considerations.

The second area would be those eager beavers wanting to compete at elite/Olympic levels. These people would have to make their own way in the world. Which they already do in areas such as wada/drug control.

If not a divorce then a trial separation.......
Cheers

[randy1952]

I don't know if it would make any difference, but maybe it would make a difference if clubs and individuals from around the world write to their governing bodies and to the ISSF that in their so called efforts in leveling the field is killing the support. I honestly think that the ISSF has built this false image of building a great looking upper part of a house, but at the same time they are undermining the foundation of the structure. Maybe I am wrong, but I would guess that that many shooters or clubs are not going to be able to afford these kind of rule changes and the ISSF is forcing at least a gradual race to the bottom. You cannot just go to a big international shooting event and conclude that wood stock rifles are irrelevant. That is like going to the Indianaoplis 500 car race and concluding that all drivers are using similar cars. I imagine that many clubs and individuals at least here in this country are buying these wood stock rifles because they are the least expensive way to get the rifles for their kids to learn and compete.

I liken this situation to the economic situations we are experiencing here in the US. For example, the more progressive state and city governments have increased regulations and cost so much that businesses and individuals are exiting those states because those increased regulations, all made in an effort to level the playing field, created situations were it was to expensive to do business and in turn increased the cost of living so much that individuals couldn't afford to stay. The continuing stream of regulations changes introduced uncertainty which in turn put increased cost pressures. These progressive states and cities were at one time great sources of jobs and wealth and now most if not all are facing unsustainable deficits and economic Armageddon. You can only milk the cow so much before it eventually dries up.

I am hoping that the shooting community in the interest of making this sport sustainable and stable by driving home to their governing bodies and to the ISSF that they are going done the same path as the example just mentioned above. Just as the examples mentioned above their situation didn't happen overnight.

[hundert]

Sorry Randy,

but writing to the ISSF will not help. See Rapid Fire rule changes from 2005, which killed its popularity.
Not everyone can drop $3000 on a Pardini and just as much a year on Eley to be competitive.

They make changes only because they like to think they're in charge, and for absolutely no other reason. The ISSF leadership is highly incompetent, I don't think they even shoot.

Changing, and re-changing finals format only shows that the guys have no idea what they're doing, and, not only that, they are not realizing they're only hurting shooting sport. They do worry about popularity, and take drastic measures, which however only keeps destroying the sport.

They may even be desperate, because the popularity of shooting dropped significantly in the last 6-7 years. And they contributed a large part to that.

They think removing blinders will somehow make shooting more popular, because you can see the athlete's face. Well, I'm sorry, but slalom skiiers have masks on that make half of their faces invisible to us. They look for problems in the wrong place.

To make shooting more popular, you need to focus on the way you present it. How many times did you see a commentator holding a real cleared 10m paper target, and show the audience how small the 10 ring is and how incredibly well these athletes shoot. I'm talking about people I know, who also shoot guns, but they have no idea about air pistol or free pistol, and when somebody shoots ten 10s in a row they have no idea if it's good or bad, they have no comparison. They actually didn't know what's going on when I and my family watched sports pistol on TV a year ago.

This is their problem, they have no idea what they are doing and how to present this sport correctly.