Question on the new rules
Moderators: pilkguns, Marcus, m1963, David Levene, Spencer
-
silentfury214
- Posts: 186
- Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2010 9:07 am
- Location: Tennessee
Question on the new rules
So, I was just browsing through the new rules, and was wondering if the no vibration reducer includes tuners. Also, does the new underclothing rule mean that we can no longer wear underarmor type clothes?
I would think that Underarmor would be OK as "training clothing" and "unduly reduce the movement" clauses in the new rule, which reads as follows. Unfortunately, this is open to interpretation.
"Only normal personal undergarments and/or training clothing that does not immobilize or unduly reduce the movement of the athlete’s legs, body or arms may be worn under the shooting jacket and/or trousers. Any other undergarments are prohibited."
The oscillation dampeners that almost everyone has been using are still OK as they reduce vibration AFTER the shot, not BEFORE. The new rules prohibit anything that would ACTIVELY reduce movement before the shot, such as something with a gyroscope. The rule says:
"Any device, mechanism or system that actively reduces, slows or minimizes rifle oscillations or movements before the shot is released is prohibited."
"Only normal personal undergarments and/or training clothing that does not immobilize or unduly reduce the movement of the athlete’s legs, body or arms may be worn under the shooting jacket and/or trousers. Any other undergarments are prohibited."
The oscillation dampeners that almost everyone has been using are still OK as they reduce vibration AFTER the shot, not BEFORE. The new rules prohibit anything that would ACTIVELY reduce movement before the shot, such as something with a gyroscope. The rule says:
"Any device, mechanism or system that actively reduces, slows or minimizes rifle oscillations or movements before the shot is released is prohibited."
-
silentfury214
- Posts: 186
- Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2010 9:07 am
- Location: Tennessee
-
silentfury214
- Posts: 186
- Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2010 9:07 am
- Location: Tennessee
-
silentfury214
- Posts: 186
- Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2010 9:07 am
- Location: Tennessee
Rules
'Fury
Most are still fuming over being told in Nov that their stock is obsolete and they need new designs, and new tooling and programming. Look on the Kurt Thune site to see how amused he is! I've spoken to Monard, they just found out as we did, they are also not amused. I would hold on before you change any thing.
The rules are so badly written that much is still down to interpretation. these are un neccessary rules that impose big costs on shooters and manufacturers, and at a time of recession, what a wonderfull display of total lack of consideration for the sport from the ISSF.
Their press statement claiming full consultation is some what economic with the truth.
There is so much uproar over this that perhaps some good will come from it, at the moment the decent people in the ISSF have resigned in protest, hopefully the pressure may remove the old dictators.
Robin
Most are still fuming over being told in Nov that their stock is obsolete and they need new designs, and new tooling and programming. Look on the Kurt Thune site to see how amused he is! I've spoken to Monard, they just found out as we did, they are also not amused. I would hold on before you change any thing.
The rules are so badly written that much is still down to interpretation. these are un neccessary rules that impose big costs on shooters and manufacturers, and at a time of recession, what a wonderfull display of total lack of consideration for the sport from the ISSF.
Their press statement claiming full consultation is some what economic with the truth.
There is so much uproar over this that perhaps some good will come from it, at the moment the decent people in the ISSF have resigned in protest, hopefully the pressure may remove the old dictators.
Robin
In another thread on this topic a few weeks back someone had posted an e-mail response from Gary Anderson saying to effect that the "seam under the left arm of the jacket" was actually pointed at a small number of jackets that had a thicker seam that clearly offered the shooter additional support in the offhand position.
Now I do not recall of any offer as to whose or which models of jacket this might have been other than it is supposedly a small number and most of us are safe (for the time being).
Now, it would be really nice if someone would clarify exactly what they are talking about or send out a picture so we can see what would be legal and what would not.
If you have a jacket, sit tight until the dust settles some. If you are thinking about buying a jacket... sit tight until the dust settles some.
'Dude
PS: ISSF has said that these new rules were developed with collaboration and input from members across the international shooting community. I'm sorry, but I just am not feeling the love. : (
Now I do not recall of any offer as to whose or which models of jacket this might have been other than it is supposedly a small number and most of us are safe (for the time being).
Now, it would be really nice if someone would clarify exactly what they are talking about or send out a picture so we can see what would be legal and what would not.
If you have a jacket, sit tight until the dust settles some. If you are thinking about buying a jacket... sit tight until the dust settles some.
'Dude
PS: ISSF has said that these new rules were developed with collaboration and input from members across the international shooting community. I'm sorry, but I just am not feeling the love. : (
To Dude:
I actually just read the thread you mentioned. Gary's email mentioned "KT and one Asian Manufacturer."
I agree, without a picture put out by ISSF, it's hard to see or envision just exactly what they are allowing vs. deeming illegal.
I'm in the market for a new jacket, and am a little gun-shy to purchase one.
Have you ever used or know anyone that uses the Gehmann 404 jacket??
I actually just read the thread you mentioned. Gary's email mentioned "KT and one Asian Manufacturer."
I agree, without a picture put out by ISSF, it's hard to see or envision just exactly what they are allowing vs. deeming illegal.
I'm in the market for a new jacket, and am a little gun-shy to purchase one.
Have you ever used or know anyone that uses the Gehmann 404 jacket??
Go to the ISSF website and download the Feb interpretations. Clearly explain what is legal & what is not there.jamcmahon wrote:I agree, without a picture put out by ISSF, it's hard to see or envision just exactly what they are allowing vs. deeming illegal.
It's not just one or two jackets ... now reported that as many as 70-80% of jackets are effected.
I am surprised that you are ... surprised :-)
I have just taken photos of the jackets of my son, used by him last few years. There are no KT, no Asian manyfacturers, just Mouche and Hitex. So, for our gear, 100% of jackets are affected by new rules :-)
However, without any problem we have found a local tailor who could fix the problem (I write "could", as the shooter uses currently another jacket - also with "the seam" - but shoots only 50m prone, now).
Questions that surely need some interpretations:
1. Is the rule applied to the jackets when a shooter shoots prone only?
2. How the rule should be applied for seams like those of Hitex for example (slanting)?
I have just taken photos of the jackets of my son, used by him last few years. There are no KT, no Asian manyfacturers, just Mouche and Hitex. So, for our gear, 100% of jackets are affected by new rules :-)
However, without any problem we have found a local tailor who could fix the problem (I write "could", as the shooter uses currently another jacket - also with "the seam" - but shoots only 50m prone, now).
Questions that surely need some interpretations:
1. Is the rule applied to the jackets when a shooter shoots prone only?
2. How the rule should be applied for seams like those of Hitex for example (slanting)?
1) YesGrzegorz wrote:Questions that surely need some interpretations:
1. Is the rule applied to the jackets when a shooter shoots prone only?
2. How the rule should be applied for seams like those of Hitex for example (slanting)?
2) I've been told that "any" seam in the 20/70 area makes the jacket illegal
jhmartin wrote:1) YesGrzegorz wrote:Questions that surely need some interpretations:
1. Is the rule applied to the jackets when a shooter shoots prone only?
2. How the rule should be applied for seams like those of Hitex for example (slanting)?
2) I've been told that "any" seam in the 20/70 area makes the jacket illegal
I would wait for any official interpretation. First, for prone - when in position - any seam is far far away of area 70/20mm. :-)
7.5.4.5 states "The construction of the side panel may not place any 'horizontal' seam or seams under the elbow of the support arm in the 'standing' position."
ISSF RIFLE EQUIPMENT CONTROL GUIDE, Eff 1 Jan 2013 also states "The test has to be done by checking the point of the elbow in the jacket with the rifle in the shooting position."
Unless more comes out, suspect most juries would interpret that the rule does not apply to prone only athletes. Would apply if prone competitor also competes in 3P or AR since 7.5.1.4 limits the athlete to one jacket for all events in an ISSF championship.
ISSF RIFLE EQUIPMENT CONTROL GUIDE, Eff 1 Jan 2013 also states "The test has to be done by checking the point of the elbow in the jacket with the rifle in the shooting position."
Unless more comes out, suspect most juries would interpret that the rule does not apply to prone only athletes. Would apply if prone competitor also competes in 3P or AR since 7.5.1.4 limits the athlete to one jacket for all events in an ISSF championship.
-
bluetentacle
- Posts: 139
- Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2010 12:38 am
- Location: Los Angeles, CA
What a joke. 70mm above the elbow (that's a long way up!) is certainly not "under the elbow" to my understanding of the English language. In issuing the 70/20 language, ISSF didn't clarify the new rule, it created another one.
They should just admit that they messed up and scrap it. That'll bring more credibility to the ISSF than carrying on with this nonesense.
They should just admit that they messed up and scrap it. That'll bring more credibility to the ISSF than carrying on with this nonesense.
Last edited by bluetentacle on Mon Mar 18, 2013 2:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
What makes this particularly annoying is that most or all the manufacturers were impacted by this change. Those starting out (me) and looking for compliant equipment are now left waiting for the dust to settle.
I'm sure that there are more than a few who have bought jackets recently only to find out that they can't be used without significant alteration. Rule changes like this without adequate clarification are going to limit the number of new entries to the sport.
I'll be continuing to follow this with interest.
I'm sure that there are more than a few who have bought jackets recently only to find out that they can't be used without significant alteration. Rule changes like this without adequate clarification are going to limit the number of new entries to the sport.
I'll be continuing to follow this with interest.
As an air rifle coach, I understand the benefit of having ANY seam ANYWHERE near the lower part of the support arm and elbow as being advantageous. Anyone who suspects or argues otherwise does not appreciate the "cheating" benefit.
Any tiny extra support that holds the arm or elbow in place allows the arm to sit better without extra muscle tension. A vertical seam that rests alongside the lower part of the arm (especially on the loaded side of the arm) or a horizontal seam at the bottom of the elbow or in the 70mm (or so) part of the elbow does the same thing.
There is no denying that the arm / elbow is able to rest against it.
Obviously, as a coach, I too take advantage of rules to the edge. For some shooters this allows the wide belt under the jacket that hitches the trousers up can be used to rest the elbow on. Those with longer arms are blessed in this regard. Short arms took advantage of the seam to be a substitute for the belt.
Now....should the belt be eliminated, far be it for me to suggest that it would level the playing field even more.....
And I DO need convincing that you can't shoot standing air rifle - or 3P - without shooting trousers. Even those with the new rules. They stabilise the position far far more than shooting without. For me that makes the sport more a sport for the shooter rather than their gear.
Remember the stories of Russians with lead lined jackets turning up to shoot. And far be it to suggest one of the first "shooter inprovements" was Lones Wiggers shooting In "normal footwear" that just happened to be army boots that he "normally" wore around Fort Benning!!! Now look where we are.
That is not a "blame" by the way, just an indication that interpretation can mean a benefit to a shooter where the INTENTION of the rule was not supposed to occur. But it has occured more and more over the years.
Ditto the air rifle stand. My God a Wonderful invention but one that happened after the advent of air cylinders on air rifles. We all had to drop the rifle onto a chair to reload the spring in the "old days". That is why a chair was required to be next to each shooter, so they could rest the rifle to recock the damn thing!! NOT just to drop the 10 shot strings.
Cylinders improved the accuracy of rifles immensely as well. But that didn't have a influence on the skill of the shooter where clothing and boots have.
Any tiny extra support that holds the arm or elbow in place allows the arm to sit better without extra muscle tension. A vertical seam that rests alongside the lower part of the arm (especially on the loaded side of the arm) or a horizontal seam at the bottom of the elbow or in the 70mm (or so) part of the elbow does the same thing.
There is no denying that the arm / elbow is able to rest against it.
Obviously, as a coach, I too take advantage of rules to the edge. For some shooters this allows the wide belt under the jacket that hitches the trousers up can be used to rest the elbow on. Those with longer arms are blessed in this regard. Short arms took advantage of the seam to be a substitute for the belt.
Now....should the belt be eliminated, far be it for me to suggest that it would level the playing field even more.....
And I DO need convincing that you can't shoot standing air rifle - or 3P - without shooting trousers. Even those with the new rules. They stabilise the position far far more than shooting without. For me that makes the sport more a sport for the shooter rather than their gear.
Remember the stories of Russians with lead lined jackets turning up to shoot. And far be it to suggest one of the first "shooter inprovements" was Lones Wiggers shooting In "normal footwear" that just happened to be army boots that he "normally" wore around Fort Benning!!! Now look where we are.
That is not a "blame" by the way, just an indication that interpretation can mean a benefit to a shooter where the INTENTION of the rule was not supposed to occur. But it has occured more and more over the years.
Ditto the air rifle stand. My God a Wonderful invention but one that happened after the advent of air cylinders on air rifles. We all had to drop the rifle onto a chair to reload the spring in the "old days". That is why a chair was required to be next to each shooter, so they could rest the rifle to recock the damn thing!! NOT just to drop the 10 shot strings.
Cylinders improved the accuracy of rifles immensely as well. But that didn't have a influence on the skill of the shooter where clothing and boots have.
-
redschietti
- Posts: 386
- Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2011 4:31 pm
Since you can't tell where the bones are underneath clothes never mind a shooting jacket, my money is on the end of the 'V'.redschietti wrote:Just curious if ISSF decided what the elbow is.. Is it the lowest point of the sleeve that touches the jacket? Or is it the point at the end of the ulna bone? They are a few inches apart when "in position"
Rob.
-
David Levene
- Posts: 5617
- Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 12:49 pm
- Location: Ruislip, UK