I just got this note from Gary Anderson as to what a VRS was intended to define. To me this is reasonable.
The key word here is "before".
Any device, mechanism or system that artificially reduces, slows or minimizes rifle oscillations or movements before the shot is released is prohibited.
In his explanation Gary states:
We've been working with Anschütz and other members of the industry on this one. As near as we can tell their technology only comes into play after the shot is released and would not be affected. What we are really concerned about is someone trying to use the technology now common in more advanced cameras to achieve hold movement reduction. Believe it or not, it's been tried.
Gary Anderson
Those awaiting the new CMP 3-P Air rulebook should expect to see this in there.
Yes, that makes perfect sense and coincides with what has been said to me.
It's a shame that the ISSF doesn't/didn't include explanations of the reasoning behind rule changes in their notifications - it might save an awful lot of misunderstanding...
Any device, mechanism or system that artificially reduces, slows or minimizes rifle oscillations or movements before the shot is released is prohibited.
Any device, mechanism or system that artificially reduces, slows or minimizes rifle oscillations or movements before the shot is released is prohibited.
Any device, mechanism or system that artificially reduces, slows or minimizes rifle oscillations or movements before the shot is released is prohibited.
Kind of defines a sling, doesn't it?
And a jacket
And any mass attached to, or making up a component of the firearm.
This definition doesn't seem to know much physics...
they could use another word like "active, active suspension, etc". or they could just say that any system that moves the barrel-frame inside the stock/grip by itself is prohibited. certainly they could do it better.
"Any device, mechanism or system that actively reduces, slows or minimizes rifle oscillations or movements before the shot is released is prohibited."
then that might be clearer - active (to me) means that it draws power from an external source like a battery. Basically, I think we're talking about Gyro's attached to the stock.
"Any device, mechanism or system that actively reduces, slows or minimizes rifle oscillations or movements before the shot is released is prohibited."
then that might be clearer - active (to me) means that it draws power from an external source like a battery. Basically, I think we're talking about Gyro's attached to the stock.
Is this a bad thing?
Ken.
They should run with this exact wording so I can get one for my pistol
Admittedly, I am still reather ignorant to some of this stuff, but the way the wording of the rule is made up, could extra weights be considered a method of reducing vibration prior to the shot? A lighter weapon could be more unsteady. I know what you are all getting at, gyro type things would reduce the "sport" of the shooting, but the wording of the rule is vague, and leaves open the door of interpretation. Am I way off here?
No you're not way off this is the crap you get when people try to define stuff that doesn't really exists anywhere but in thief own mind. That definition just about puts everything in that category, and the little equipment control czars if left to their own devices will interpret and enforce it in the broadest context. After all that is their sport.
I think it's commendable to try sorting this out before such devices hit the market. Changing the rules after something has been used in competition always creates trouble and bad feelings. Only comfort is that todays shooting is at such a high level that setting new records by "cheating" is hardly feasible :-)
Many sports have had such issues, whether it's equipment details, technical style, dimensions etc. and they've reacted in different manners:
Swim suits, high jump style ("Fosbury flop"). Boklöv V-style in skijumping, Springy poles in pole vaulting, Wing paddles, various shoe designs, ski- kayak- gun- etc. length and shape rules just to name a few.
And people are not idiots just because it's hard to describe something that hasn't been designed yet. Now that I'm growing old and my AP has started wobbling more than before, I'm busy at the drawing board trying to figure out a remedy. In my youth I studied acoustics, including HiFi stuff such as loudspeakers and turntable suspensions. And I know of many patents for keeping control of vibration in addition to the camera stabilizing stuff. And why don't you just have a look at things like "steadicam" :-)
luftskytter wrote:And why don't you just have a look at things like "steadicam" :-)
Having a little experience with Steadicams (not the pro models but models like the JR), I've often wondered why free pistols don't hang below their grips. After all, FP is supposed to be a bastion of "no rules, use the best pistol for the job".
So, obviously, when electric triggers came along that could be actuated by a switch held in the off hand they were welcomed with open arms.
And when sights that used mirrors were developed, they were lauded as advancing the state of the art.
Oh, wait... :-)
All kidding aside, some 30 years ago I rented the lightest camera gyro I could find and bolted it to the bottom of an XP-based silhouette pistol. The idea showed promise but the whole contraption was so heavy it was unusable. There was no way to make weight under the rules and there still isn't when using traditional Kenyon gyros that look like this:
If the much lighter stabilization mechanisms used in modern cameras are actually useful to steady pistols, I feel sure someone in the silhouette world will start using them soon if they haven't already.
I've had this argument before, where the rules are poorly written, and when you do something that is consistent with the written rules, you are informed after the fact that 'why no, that's not what the rules meant ...'
The people writing the rules are not good at definitions - they write a rule to allow or disallow something that they are envisioning, but often don't go back and think about what else they inadvertently just did or did not allow when you consider the real definition of a word, rather than what they think.
Yes, 'active' would have been a good word to add to describe damping systems. Unless they meant to ban passive systems, in which case they need to get specific as to how an allowed mass is different from a passive system.
By the way, if you mount a mass using springs, is that allowed?
So now there's work to be done: before making new rules someone has to tell what inventions we should expect that would revolutionize shooting.
And they would have to define what should be allowed and what should be banned. Some examples would be:
Smart mass distribution.
Different kinds of Freefloating/suspended mechanisms.
Damping systems, both "active" and "passive", whatever this may mean.
Gyro and servo systems, and defining whether they are "powered".
The meaning of such words, including "electronic".
E.g. "electronic trigger" which is being used today:
what other functions could be "electronic" without breaking the rules?
And what does "before/after the shot is fired" actually mean?
Trigger pull, valve release, pellet travel, pellet leaving muzzle?
How can this be kept simple?
Looking forward to committee meetings etc.: thank Heaven for the Internet, or there would be huge Travel expense and Hotel bills :-)
ShootingSight wrote:By the way, if you mount a mass using springs, is that allowed?
That was one of the ideas I was considering developing - the tuned mass damper.
I suspect that it would be one of those things that could cause as many problems as it fixes (if not more) but I'd say that as it's passive (doesn't require external power to make it function) it should be acceptable.
Good, concise, loophole-free rules are quite an art to write it seems...
ShootingSight wrote:By the way, if you mount a mass using springs, is that allowed?
... I'd say that as it's passive (doesn't require external power to make it function) it should be acceptable
Yes, it would be considered passive.
The distinction between active and passive is one that's already defined in control systems engineering and if we're going to be precise let's use the existing definition - a passive system or component is one which consumes energy but does not produce energy itself. Anything else is active.
That does give someone quite a lot of freedom to design passive systems...
...but there's nothing you can do about that unless you go putting in a rule saying "well, if you conform to our rules but we judge subjectively that you've broken the unwritten spirit of the rules, then you're still in violation".
Sparks wrote: "well, if you conform to our rules but we judge subjectively that you've broken the unwritten spirit of the rules, then you're still in violation".
Many shooting sports with which I'm familiar have exactly such rules. I believe the SASS rules call it "failure to engage." Under IDPA rules, it's officially called "failure to do right". In many cases, NRA juries have simply said that a piece of equipment (that has sometimes already passed equipment check-in and been cleared for use) "fails to adhere to the spirit of the rules" and they've retroactively DQ'd competitors.
I'm not asking to be a jerk; I genuinely don't know and am curious. Does ISSF have any "spirit of the rules" rule?
On a personal note, even though I've shot in matches where an official "spirit of the rules" rule existed, I've never liked them. To me, they can all be translated to "Competitors are not allowed to be smarter than the officials who own the sport." I rather resent that attitude but I don't complain about it as long as it is explicitly stated in the rules that officials can do whatever they want. Then it's up to me to make my own informed decision whether I shoot or not.
BenEnglishTX wrote:Does ISSF have any "spirit of the rules" rule?
They do, and I wouldn't mind so much really, but a rule like that has to be a two-way sort of thing.
So yes, competitors have to engage with the spirit of the rules (which is the same in any sport ie. to ensure a level playing field so that you're measuring the athletes and not who has the bigger budget/best chemist/whatever); but equally, the organising body has to engage too. That means the rules have to be as good (ie. fit for purpose, easy to understand, well-articulated, considered, etc) as possible.
The summary that we've been talking about is a pretty decent example of the opposite - where the organising body believes that the "spirit of the rules" rule is a one-way sort of thing.
