Hunter Rifle Rules

[cslcAl]

I have always been puzzled by how rules are interpeded by the masses. The hunter rifle stock rules read, and have read for a long time that attachments either removable or permanent are not allowed. The item I want to discuss is the installation of material on the stock to aid in gripping or raising the cheek area. I have on my STD rifle Pac-Skin on the cheek area and under the stock to aid my grip on the rifle. In STD rifle this is perfectly legal. I always assumed you could not use materials like this on hunting rifles, and I never saw anyone using it at the Nationals till last year. One individual using it on his cheek area had about a 1/2 inch thick pad stuck on his gun. I asked him if any one questioned him about that in the tech inspection and he said no. I as a match director have been advising shooters for years not to put pads on their hunter rifles as they will not allow it at the Nationals. Help me out; have I interpeded the rules incorectly, or do we need tighter inspections at the Nationals?

Al Foust

[Varn1808]

CSLCAL,
     As you remember you and I had this exact discussion before about the Pac-Skin. I don't feel you've interpretted the rules incorrectly and we definitely need tighter inspections at Nationals. The end result is it's still a Hunter gun and you have to hold it, and squeeze that two pound trigger  to make it go off when you want it to. Pac-Skin, mole skin or anything else on a stock doesn't generate any more points. It's all up to the shooter. I don't feel any antimosity towards a shooter for placing something on his stock to make it more comfortable for them. That is most certainly not going to determine the outcome of the match. You do an excellent job of running matches and I understand your trepidation in this area. Not wanting to turn anyone away and not wanting to offend anyone already there is a delicate balance.                  
     I do feel our current Hunter rules are vague in some areas. Look at the recently posted "new" hunter rules for rimfire. It says the rifle may be a single loading rifle. It doesn't specify that it has to be a factory offered single loading rifle. I interpret this to mean you could put a single shot adapter in an Anschutz and shoot it that way. Also, look at the HP Hunter rules for cartridge. It states no wildcats, belted cartridges, or Magnums. That is open to anyone with a manufacters license to offer something with their name on it. I'm sure we'll be seeing a 6.5 Grendel Hunting rifle soon. Under our current rules it would be perfectly legal. Also, what determines a wildcat? Is it factory offered brass, loaded rounds, or factory chambered rifles? Ultra Light Arms and others have offered different rifles chambered for uncommon rounds over the years.
    All of this is just more hassle for the match directors such as yourself who have more important things to be concerned about than guys who worry more about others equipment than holding center and squeezing. I keep waiting for the day someone produces a piece of 4" PVC and wants everyone to check their vest with it. Especially in our cold climate. I'm not so sure my own qualifies when I'm all bundled against the cold.  I'm sure there will be a few very dissapointed people that day.  See you at the end of the month.  Varn

[yankee]

CSLCAL  Previous to the rule change I would agree with you that nothing should be added to the hunter rifle stock on the outside except a recoil pad.  After the rule change and now after this year change I would say almost anything goes as long is it isn't a thumb hole and kind of looks like a hunting stock.

[eroyd]

Sounds like hunting rifle class is disappearing. Is it beause so many people are deciding they want to shoot one rifle for both classes but are unwilling to give up the benefits of silhouette class?

I think the sport should take a step backward so those new shooters showing up with their 10/22's and Marlins don't feel outgunned.

[cslcAl]

Yankee,  Even though the previous hunter rifle rules were more restrictive, the part refering to attachments still reads the same now.      
     When I came home from Nationals last year I put a Pac-Skin cheek pad on my HP hunting rifle. I just like the way it feels on my face instead of the wood or glass. I think it give me a better anchor as I apply a lot of pressure there the way I hold my rifle.
     Now, with my luck I'll use this all year and when I go to Raton it will be questioned in tech and I'll have to remove it.
     Refering to Varn's reply about vests; maybe they should be worn through the tech process and inspected just like a rifle?
 
Al Foust

[fwt1712]

The most disturbing elements for me are the apparent 'evolution' of rules. Surely we need to stick to the spirit of the rules as originally laid down (which here in Australia mean 7.5lb total weight, factory issue, 2lb trigger as decreed by IMSSU). Whatever you think of the rules it seems a great turnoff for potential new shooters who do turn up with a hunting rifle to see what a 'silhouette hunting rifle' is. Not being a benchrester I don't know how new chums feel when they turn up to shoot sporter benchrest, but I can guess they don't feel like they're in the same class. Similarly for silhouette the spirit of hunter shouldn't prohibit Joe Bloggs turning up with his 10/22 and 4x and at least feeling a bit in the game. Conversely if Anschutz or anyone else has the initiative to make a rifle to the rules then at least we can make these rules relatively static. As the trend to using your lightweight rifle in both classes increases it should also be obvious that there is an even greater need to keep the rules static and true to the spirit on which they were laid down.

[davei]

I think the new rules are fine...  and much easier.  going back to if it walks, talks, or poops like a duck...   the new rules resolved a lot of the mud squeezing challenges.  one must understand that there are a number of areas that limit or allow a shooter to progress up through the classes.  foremost is the skill of the shooter.  clearly equipment must be addressed as well.  an individual shooting a 10/22 will advance as far as his skill and equipment will allow.  we all faced that dilemna.  i don't know many folks that are shooting their first rifle when they hit master class.  hunter rifle or standard rifle.  one could argue that we should limit the quality of ammunition in the hunter class as well.  the new guy showing up with federal lightening is certainly at a disadvantage to the other shooters using a higher quality round.  he is probably showing up with a 3x9 scope purchased a k-mart for $49.95 as well.  should we limit the quality of scopes used in hunter class?  all of a sudden the class would really suck and no one would be shooting it but those guys showing up with the 10/22.   the new rules also allow a guy to shoot one rifle and be competitive in both classes.  i like that as well.  half the cost of equipment, less weight to carry around, less of a hassle sighting in, one trigger to learn...  certainly makes teching rifles much easier.
we have the new rules...  it was an extraordinary painful process to arrive where we are.  one could well argue that the damage done was not worth the end result...  but here we are and i feel the game and the community are better for it.
respectfully,  dave

[nomad]

Al,

As I got it from GC when I first brought this question up, the original intent of the 'no attachments' rule was to prevent the use of stabilizers and inbuilt adjustable tuners, etc. on hunters. Since then, people have taken it and run with it until it's been waaaaay too narrowly interpreted.

You can build a rifle with features that you can't add after the fact. (If the fellow with the 1/2" add-on pad on the cheekpiece had built his own stock and made it to those identical dimensions, would he have been outside the rules?)

Similarly, to argue against the use of some surface finish that the shooter feels gives more control is pretty questionable. If he just covered the grip with coarse checkering -- producing the exact same effect -- would that be illegal?

Face it: We have here another poorly written rule; meant to prevent the gross development of 'space-gun' hunters and being interpreted to create never-planned restrictions. I agree with you that we need rules that prevent distortion of the game but I can't back rules that prevent one method of configuring a rifle while permitting the identical configuration and effect when arrived at simply via a different route.

I think most people are happier with the lesser restrictions that we're now seeing and I've relaxed my approach when running tech.

Imas is right (I HATE  to have to say that! ): If it defecates through feathers, it's a bird.

[Metalhead]

Hi Dave..& Ernie..

You guys both have it right...in my minds eye, anyway....The guy showing up with his 10-22 to shoot his first match...has already been out to view a local match before he actually enters on his first try...and let's assume,...' he's from outside of Lewis Co. WA...he quickly figures out that his sweet little customized 10-22...just aint gonna cut the mustard....

But, a new guy like this, given the fact that he is interested in the sport, will most likely realize... if he is indded a real shooter and not just some local deer snoose chewing deer hunter...that it is really a fun way to spend a Sunday morning and meet some new like minded freinds.... and all he needs is a litte bit better gun to move up in the ranks.

So, the new rules say that if it looks like a hunter, has a tapered barrel, and a two pound trigger, and makes the weight requirement....whether it be high power or small bore...in my estimation, just like you, it is good for the sport....It was very hard to get this far...so let's not go back....

It's hard enough to hit 'em...even on a good day...and it's way more fun when you do acutually hit 'em...so why try to restrict the equipment to WallMart type offerings...That doesn't make much sense to me....

But...as you know...I'm just trying to sell you a custom gun...eh?

Marv