ISSF rule change from 1st January 2013

narayanan · Post by **narayanan** » Tue Sep 11, 2012 9:20 am

The ISSF will change the rules of all its shooting disciplines from 1st january 2013. I am attaching the new rules. Check it out. I think it sukzzz. Especially for pistol shooters.

conradin · Post by **conradin** » Tue Sep 11, 2012 10:37 am

Horrible.

Tim S · Post by **Tim S** » Tue Sep 11, 2012 12:27 pm

Would a barrel tuner count as a vibration reducer?

Marcus · Post by **Marcus** » Tue Sep 11, 2012 12:53 pm

Excellent question!

What about the absorber systems on most air rifles for the past decade?

Marcus

jhmartin · Post by **jhmartin** » Tue Sep 11, 2012 12:56 pm

Tim S wrote:Would a barrel tuner count as a vibration reducer?

My guess that is specifically what they are aiming at.

I'd take it further then ... what about the vibration reduction systems on the 9003s and the FWB 700s ... they specifically market their stabilization systems on those rifles to reduce recoil ... i.e vibration. Are these rifles no longer allowed?

Edit: Marcus you beat me to it!

taz · Post by **taz** » Tue Sep 11, 2012 1:13 pm

Cr@p.
Now both my air pistols (Steyr LP10E and FWB 65) are illegal...

jhmartin · Post by **jhmartin** » Tue Sep 11, 2012 1:15 pm

They had also better come up with a good definition of a seam for the "Jacket Left Side Panel".
Just purchased a new KT jacket that has stitching, but no full seam (Not all the way through ... just to hold inner panel in place).

This could junk just about every jacket out there.

Marcus · Post by **Marcus** » Tue Sep 11, 2012 1:17 pm

Taz,

Do not get too excited. I only posed the question about absorber systems because this rule is so vague. There is no definition of what is and is not a "Vibration Reduction System."

Marcus

Brian James · Post by **Brian James** » Tue Sep 11, 2012 1:22 pm

FYI there is a similar thread in the Olympic Pistol Section.

Brian

http://www.targettalk.org/viewtopic.php?t=36366

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » Tue Sep 11, 2012 2:15 pm

yeah, might be a good thing to merge these two threads...

#1texan · Post by **#1texan** » Tue Sep 11, 2012 2:25 pm

We as shooters are just going to have to stand up and say NO. Most of us can't afford new equipment just because the ISSF wants to change the rules because they can. We have to say NO

Nathan

Disgusted · Post by **Disgusted** » Tue Sep 11, 2012 2:55 pm

#1texan wrote:We as shooters are just going to have to stand up and say NO. Most of us can't afford new equipment just because the ISSF wants to change the rules because they can. We have to say NO

Nathan ... ISSF does not represent the shooters. They represent the IOC which is more concerned with TV revenue these days

trinity · Post by **trinity** » Tue Sep 11, 2012 3:00 pm

The Vibration Reduction System rule change is especially peculiar.

I think just about every pistol on the line at an international competition these days have a recoil reduction system of some sort. Most of them are so integral to the gun that they cannot be removed or disabled.

I don't think the ISSF is saying we ALL have to go and buy new (old) guns that do not have these systems.

-trinity

#1texan · Post by **#1texan** » Tue Sep 11, 2012 3:22 pm

I am well aware that the ISSF is not about supporting the shooters but it should be. And if they are only concerned with TV revenue then why all the changes to equipment?

taz · Post by **taz** » Tue Sep 11, 2012 3:25 pm

Marcus wrote:Taz,

Do not get too excited. I only posed the question about absorber systems because this rule is so vague. There is no definition of what is and is not a "Vibration Reduction System."

Marcus

Marcus, it was a joke.
I doubt that they will deem illegal the stabilizer considering most of the current air pistol manufacturers have or are going that route.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » Tue Sep 11, 2012 3:31 pm

Disgusted wrote: Nathan ... ISSF does not represent the shooters. They represent the IOC which is more concerned with TV revenue these days

Perhaps they ought to consider focusing their attention more exclusively on elements of TV coverage such as the debacle un-witnessed in the USA during this Paralympic Games. NBC bought the exclusive USA broadcast rights... then broadcast precisely ZERO SECONDS of live events, scheduled just FOUR HOURS of highly edited events well after their dates, and plans a 90 minute summary for sometime soon. With that sort of lame coverage I should think the IOC has a lot of serious introspection to do in the near future.

While viewing sports during the Olympic Games was somewhat tolerable here in Canada, BCTV's streaming quality was very hit-and-miss with some video being so pixelated as to be virtually unwatchable. They also re-played the same Kraft '4 Cheezes Italiano' commercial at the start of almost every video, and frequently during sporting events, to the point where I think I must have seen that same (un-fast-forwardable) commercial well over 100 times... ensuring that I will NEVER purchase a Kraft product again. And from what I've read, USA viewers had it even rougher. Basic broadcasting quality and availability are serious issues if the IOC wants income from commercial views. Radically changing the structure of our sport isn't going to matter if no one can see the sport in the first place.

Grzegorz · Post by **Grzegorz** » Tue Sep 11, 2012 4:39 pm

I like most of the changes, but I am really shocked by this banning "vibration reduction systems"!

Shooting sport should deal with discovery of new devices, based on the scientific research. I completely do not see ANY reasonable cause to set it as forbidden. As more as in TV such systems look quite fine ;-)

Martin H · Post by **Martin H** » Tue Sep 11, 2012 11:51 pm

I have been advised that this doc has not yet been released by the ISSF so someone has jumped the gun and posted on it here.

Clearly some rules need amendment. For instance banning vibration systems on rimfire rifles. Do they really mean tuners? Or in the stocks? Or in the barrel and action area? G&E Evolution stocks have had vibration dampers in the front end their stocks for the last 6-10 years. G&E Racers have damping systems between the barrel and action. The rule needs clarification. For instance, I do not believe that ISSF intend G&E stocks or barrels to banned.

Again the rule on air rifles needs clarification so it is clear what ISSF actually intend. Most production air rifles have had vibration dampener systems for about the last 10 years. Again I believe ISSF don't intend these to be banned.
Match times- Not convinced they needed to change it by so much.

Finals formats - At the top it says the finals format is going to be finalised at the Nov meeting of ISSF. Hopefully they finalise a system that can run on paper target systems too, not just electronic targets. I can't imagine trying judge a 10.4 from a 10.5 over the scope at 50m with mirage running and then eliminate a shooter based on my very hazy view of the target.
Cheers
Martin H

Muffo · Post by **Muffo** » Tue Sep 11, 2012 11:57 pm

Martin H wrote:I have been advised that this doc has not yet been released by the ISSF so someone has jumped the gun and posted on it here.

Clearly some rules need amendment. For instance banning vibration systems on rimfire rifles. Do they really mean tuners? Or in the stocks? Or in the barrel and action area? G&E Evolution stocks have had vibration dampers in the front end their stocks for the last 6-10 years. G&E Racers have damping systems between the barrel and action. The rule needs clarification. For instance, I do not believe that ISSF intend G&E stocks or barrels to banned.

Again the rule on air rifles needs clarification so it is clear what ISSF actually intend. Most production air rifles have had vibration dampener systems for about the last 10 years. Again I believe ISSF don't intend these to be banned.
Match times- Not convinced they needed to change it by so much.

Finals formats - At the top it says the finals format is going to be finalised at the Nov meeting of ISSF. Hopefully they finalise a system that can run on paper target systems too, not just electronic targets. I can't imagine trying judge a 10.4 from a 10.5 over the scope at 50m with mirage running and then eliminate a shooter based on my very hazy view of the target.
Cheers
Martin H

I dont see how that changes between electronic and paper. we have done finalls on paper for 50m pistol where you simply shoot a shot, then your pistol is cleared, people walk out onto the range and measure the shots, call them out and then leave the range.

Grzegorz · Post by **Grzegorz** » Wed Sep 12, 2012 1:56 am

Martin H wrote:I have been advised that this doc has not yet been released by the ISSF so someone has jumped the gun and posted on it here.

...
Cheers
Martin H

You are right, the document has been sent up to now to the Members of the: ISSF Executive Committee, ISSF Administrative Council, ISSF Section Committees only. However, as an official document it has no "top sectret" stamp :-) I am sure that the authors realized well that this immediately could be spread around. HOWEVER, one should remember that these changes are not obligatory, yet. Some minor changes are still possible. I suppose, that time until November is going to be used as consulting period with national federations. From my experience - ISSF committees really read opinions sent to them and often take them into account, so some organized "papers" could have the impact. I will surely ask my national federation to present negative opinion concerning banning "anti-vibration systems".