Muffo wrote:Have you got a link to this rule. this will disadvantage cross dominant eye shooters in a big way
The rule I'm talking about is from the New Rules Summary Summary, Page 2.
My guess it will be placed in 7.2.4.7
Air Rifle Pistol Grip. The pistol grip may not extend more than 60mm from a
plane perpendicular to the centerline of the barrel (also applies to 300m Standard
Rifle).
At the moment it only has to fit in the box. When you turn the grip to an angle so that you don't have to bend your wrist, palm shelf at the rear of the grip is there for moved further away from the axis of the bore. This means that if you shot right hand left eye you won't b e Anne to have a full size palm shelf
It's late and I should be in bed as I have to drive to a match in the morning, but I've been thinking about a compromise for the competition format, one that preserves the heritage of the sport while still providing the "excitement" that the ISSF believes the sport needs.
I'm a prone guy, so I'm not sure how this would work for 3-P or the pistol events, but it should be similar for air rifle, air pistol, free pistol (and prone). Here's what I'm thinking:
1. Start with a Ranking stage where all shooters fire 60 shots to establishing their ranking (or seeding). No decimal scoring, 60 minutes total time. Just as we do now.
2. Next is the Elimination stage, where shooters are paired up (top seed vs. bottom seed and so on) to fire 10 shots head-to-head. Decimal scoring, 10 minutes total time. Top 8 winning scores -- you have to win your pairing -- advance to finals, 10 minutes total time. Just as we do now for finals.
3. Now we reach the Finals round, where the new ISSF finals format comes in (I won't recap it here). To make the ISSF happy.
Shooters would get 15 minutes to sight in before Ranking, 10 for Elimination and 5 for Finals. This would have to be shot on one day so you wouldn't need extra time for sighters having already fired a bunch of shots that day. If the competition goes over two days I suppose they could allocate extra time to account for condition changes (or maybe not).
The kicker of course, to make this "more exciting" would be to incorporate all of Sparks' suggestions: heart rate monitors and SCATT/RIKA/Noptel displays overlaid on electronic targets with live streaming to social media and official competition websites. An upbeat, knowledgeable announcer to keep things rolling along and to work the crowd is a must, too -- cheering is encouraged (I'm thinking cowbells like they do for cyclocross).
jhmartin wrote:I think some folks are misinterpreting this (new) rule.
Quick sketch to show how I'm interpreting how they are trying to limit limit the >>width<< of the grip. My guess especially on the chest side so that it does not become a support point if you shorten the stock.
Although I think they should identify the plane as a "VERTICAL" plane
My guess:
For those adjustable grips, it would also set (depending on the PG depth) the max rotation you could put on the grip
Have you got a link to this rule. this will disadvantage cross dominant eye shooters in a big way
jhmartin wrote:Like it or not, the sport is going to change.
There are "procedural" changes that can be adapted to, and it's hard to guess if they will hurt or help the sport. Nobody really likes change, but it's coming, it's here.
There are other equipment changes that are "whatever!". (Belt loops, Trousers in prone, Safety flags,etc)
There are some equipment changes that (I see) can definitely hurt the sport. These are changes will cause the dumping of equipment and purchasing new. Or if folks/clubs/programs cannot afford to buy new kit, they will move to another sport .... not really the "excitement" that was foreseen.
The last category, I think is where the majority of the outcry should be.
I agree with that. My jacket is banned under the "no seam under arm" rule. My whole rifle may be made illegal by the "no vibration reducing device rule". The equipment clauses are the most ridiculous ones.
Why don't we just face facts. We are in a sport that is not visually exciting. The only people excited about watching shooting are shooters. The harder and more expensive we make the sport the less excited new shooters will be with attempting to become better shooters. If we make new shooters look at a future of buying new equipment at great expense every 3 years most of the younger ones (or their parents)are going to just give up. The sports most people persue require a ball or a bat and some shoes. They have speed or danger or pain that is visable to the viewing audience. The only way we will gain a TV audience is to line up half the finalists on one end of the range and the other half at the other end. I don't think that will happen. Anything else is just a lame expensive exercise in futility. I started as a high school 3p shooter. When I tried to move up I ran into the same wall of I need all new equipment. Once I got that the rules changed and I needed all new stuff and I gave up. Could I have gotten to the top? Probably not but think of the thousands of shooters that were in the same position and gave up. The attempt at improving this sport is probably what will kill it in the end.
Most Kurt Thune and Kustermann jackets in popular use are made illegal by the "no seams rule". To make them legal, one would have to send them back to the factory.
These jackets have been on the market for years. What benefit could possibly justify this?
jhmartin wrote:I've never seen anyone shoot an air rifle in the right shoulder using their left eye...
I've also never seen this with an air rifle but it's hardly unknown. Offset mounts may be indicated in situations where there's a sudden vision loss, a bad shoulder, severe cross-dominance or other problems unique to a particular shooter.
Here are examples of offset sights, both irons and telescopic, to enable shouldering a rifle on the right while sighting with the left eye:
I apologize to all for what was probably an OT aside.
bluetentacle wrote:My whole rifle may be made illegal by the "no vibration reducing device rule".
Having spoken to an ISSF judge at a shoot today who has some knowledge of this subject, I get the impression that they are referring to a specific development rather than barrel tuners, de-resonators and other current passive vibration controlling mechanisms in stocks or actions.
Maybe someone has tried to get an active electronic damping system through equipment control....
As someone pointed out today - adjusting your bedding bolt torques could be construed as vibration control, as could using an extension tube.
Anyway,
I may be able to find out more tomorrow.
Keep calm and carry on.
jhmartin wrote:I've never seen anyone shoot an air rifle in the right shoulder using their left eye...
I've also never seen this with an air rifle but it's hardly unknown. Offset mounts may be indicated in situations where there's a sudden vision loss, a bad shoulder, severe cross-dominance or other problems unique to a particular shooter.
Ben ... I think Muffo was thinking of his pistol. I've seen offset sights in air (front & rear), but they had no effect on the "Air Rifle Pistol Grip".
I should have caught what Muffo was talking about when he mentioned the pistol sizing box.
My bad.
Kenny B ------ I'm sure you are correct, but that is not how it was stated in the rule summary ... The rule summary states "any type". The problem with these rules they pull out ... of thin air ... is that they need to be VERY specific of what they are going for, or some jury, somewhere will set a precedent of banning tuners, etc. I'm sure that's not what they want to do. I am ... I am ... (I think)
Last edited by jhmartin on Sat Sep 15, 2012 3:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
KennyB wrote:Maybe someone has tried to get an active electronic damping system through equipment control
What, someone strapped a gyro stabiliser to a pistol or a rifle? Because I'd find it hard to believe someone built a system that accurately and actively compensated for the vibration from firing a shot - the timeframes involved are just too short for that.
KennyB wrote:Maybe someone has tried to get an active electronic damping system through equipment control
What, someone strapped a gyro stabiliser to a pistol or a rifle? Because I'd find it hard to believe someone built a system that accurately and actively compensated for the vibration from firing a shot - the timeframes involved are just too short for that.
Sorry, I was just pulling an idea out of thin air - I don't know any specifics so I was hypothesizing....
KennyB wrote:Maybe someone has tried to get an active electronic damping system through equipment control
What, someone strapped a gyro stabiliser to a pistol or a rifle? Because I'd find it hard to believe someone built a system that accurately and actively compensated for the vibration from firing a shot - the timeframes involved are just too short for that.
Sparks ... I work in that field ... you'd be surprised at how fast you can run a simple closed loop control system these days with embedded processors or FPGAs.
The radial & linear accuracy of 50m rifle shooting is not that great. It would be fairly expensive and you'd probably not use gyros (too noisy at those sizes), but it could be done.
jhmartin wrote:Sparks ... I work in that field ... you'd be surprised at how fast you can run a simple closed loop control system these days with embedded processors or FPGAs.
The radial & linear accuracy of 50m rifle shooting is not that great. It would be fairly expensive and you'd probably not use gyros (too noisy at those sizes), but it could be done.
I'm kindof surprised at that - but I guess, it's been a decade since I worked with embedded systems and robotics, I suppose I shouldn't be that shocked...
Sparks wrote:I'm kindof surprised at that - but I guess, it's been a decade since I worked with embedded systems and robotics, I suppose I shouldn't be that shocked...
Google "satellite tracking wavefront compensation"
The "guns" here are 800lb+ beam directors that shoot light
On a terrestrial rifle (even at long ranges) your goal is not really to reduce the vibrations, but control the movement of the rifle induced by those vibrations. A "real" spinning gyro could do it, but as I said those that spin fast enough, that are small enough (like those in an A-A missile) are only about $50K each.
If you used linear displacement mass actuators (one in X & one in Y), much cheaper and they easily have the required frequency response. You could use simple MEMS "gyros" as the sensors.
jhmartin wrote:I think some folks are misinterpreting this (new) rule.
Quick sketch to show how I'm interpreting how they are trying to limit limit the >>width<< of the grip. My guess especially on the chest side so that it does not become a support point if you shorten the stock.
Although I think they should identify the plane as a "VERTICAL" plane
My guess:
For those adjustable grips, it would also set (depending on the PG depth) the max rotation you could put on the grip
Have you got a link to this rule. this will disadvantage cross dominant eye shooters in a big way
Athletes may use pistol transport boxes to take pistols and equipment to the shooting ranges, but pistol boxes or other stands or supports, except telescope stands, may not be placed on the bench or table, provided the bench or table complies with Rule 4.4.11.10 (0.70 m to 1.00 m high). During Finals, pistol transport boxes or equipment bags must not remain on the field of play.
Pistol Support Stands
Athletes may place pistol support stands on the bench or table use them to rest their pistols. The total height of the bench or table with the support stand on it may not exceed 1.00 m.
It's allowed to raise not over 1.00m, pistol boxes placed over the table are not allowed (like populars stormcase), i think only dedicated pistol stand.
But it's apparently contrary of this paragraph in general rules:
No one may change or modify any range structure or equipment (e.g. bench size, cutting mats, adding gun cases or boxes to the bench, etc.).
