Hunter Stock rules

[chunter]

Please correct me if I am wrong:

It appears that currently the hunter gun can almost have a higher cheek comb than that standard gun. At nationals I swore that some hunter guns had combs as high as the one on my 54.18.  

So if this is the case,  what are the current rules on modifying a hunter stock. Lets say that we have CZ silhouette rifle, the shooter wants to increase the comb height on the stock, does he have to buy a new stock for it, or can he legally epoxy a riser piece on it.

I am not fighting the rules, I just want to find out for the shooters at our range that are talking about wanting to modify their stocks.

Casey

[kahuna]

chunter
If you add to the stock and you still want to shoot it
as a standard rifle or in both,It will have to go into the
the jig if they shoot it at the nationals.
Mine almost didn't make it this year as a standard rifle.

[tirador]

Casey, there are no rules that allow modifications on a hunter stock right now, you could not legally epoxy a riser piece on it because it would be considered an attachment which are considered illegal.

But if you do the same thing in a way that it looked like it was professionally done (read hide work done with nice paint job) and without getting too far away from what other stocks used in hunter look like (Nesika Bay, Brown Precision, etc.) then in my opinion that would be acceptable.  

On the other hand I heard that the Silhouette Committee were going to address this issue at their annual meeting so it would be wise for your friends to wait before doing any work on a hunter stock until we hear from the Silhouette Committee, to see if they set measurements to the hunter stock rules.

[chunter]

Ok, this is getting into a little bit of gray area, forgive me :wink:

So then is it legal to buy a different stock for a hunter gun? I notice  a lot of people dumping actions and barrels into Nesika and BP stocks. These seem to be custom stocks, so if we bought a stock blank and then built one is this legal?  Or how about I took a McMillian stock and put a CZ or Kimber action into it?
I guess my question comes down to where is the line (rules) currently drawn?

It seems like if it doesn't look abnormal then it will be okay? When is the Silhouette Committee's annual meeting?  

Thanks for your help, I am just trying to get some clarification.

[tirador]

Casey, right now is all about looks.  Many people are changing their, stocks, barrels and triggers but still hunter rules do not call for modifications to original equipment and that is where if you are not careful could run into problems.  

It seems like a contradiction but until the rules are changed which by the way I don't think are going to be changed any time soon we will have to live with them and do our best to interpret them without getting to far in front of the group.  

The reason I say that is because last year some people built smallbore Hunter rifles with thumb hole stocks and some with barrel tuners, things that rubbed a lot of people the wrong way and caused the committee to disallow them for Hunter rifle competition.

If you want an official clarification you can call Greg Connor and ask him his interpretation of the rules regarding modification to stocks on Hunter.

The Silhouette Committee annual meeting is usually held around October or November.

[chunter]

Thanks,  

I guess we might need to look for a good paint job then.  :-D

[Mongo1]

Casey, right now is all about looks.  Many people are changing their, stocks, barrels and triggers but still hunter rules do not call for modifications to original equipment and that is where if you are not careful could run into problems.  

Please read the rule before you spread misinformation like this.

[Arizona Jake]

Mongo:

Tirador has been involved in this sport for over 20 years and, if I remember correctly, has served on the Board of Directors. He knows what he is talking about. We have two ears and one mouth, so listen twice before talking. :bye:

[Mongo1]

Mongo:

Tirador has been involved in this sport for over 20 years and, if I remember correctly, has served on the Board of Directors. He knows what he is talking about. We have two ears and one mouth, so listen twice before talking. :bye:

I very well know his record.  His is badly mistaken.  He was one of the problems on the silhouette committee for reason such as this.  If you will read the rule yourself you will see that he is mistaken.

So read before you speak.

[nomad]

Mongo,
Considering that the current thread started over the addition of an 'attachment' to Chunter's stock comb -- and since attachments, either temporary or permanent, are not permitted at this time -- what do you find about Tirador's advice that is incorrect?

I wrote a letter for the committee's consideration 'clarifying' the attachment thing. (Greg has repeatedly told me that 'attachment' was originally meant to mean anything like a stabilizer or external weight and has gotten a bit out of hand.) We can now build a legal stock to dimensions that we are not permitted to modify an existing to match. That IMO needs correcting...but at the moment it's the rule.
We discussed this on a previous thread but I'm not sure just when that discussion took place.

I don't have the letter in front of me but it says more or less:
" 'Attachment' shall mean any stabilizer, external weight or other device that is not normally found on a hunting rifle stock. Material added to the comb, cheekpiece or grip to aid in handling or fit shall not be considered an attachment and prohibited unless that addtiion causes the stock to fail the 'hunting style stock' requirement of this rule."

As an example, I took a Finnfire stock and modified it to what I wanted -- which was something similar to the Nesika stock. That modified Finnfire stock is illegal due to its incorporation of additions to both comb and grip; but the Nesika is OK since it was originally built that way. So I carved (from a blank -- I used to work at 'smithing and stockmaking) another stock to match my modified stock and that's legal since it has no 'attachments'. That's a poorly written rule...

[Mongo1]

Mongo,
Considering that the current thread started over the addition of an 'attachment' to Chunter's stock comb -- and since attachments, either temporary or permanent, are not permitted at this time -- what do you find about Tirador's advice that is incorrect?

I wrote a letter for the committee's consideration 'clarifying' the attachment thing. (Greg has repeatedly told me that 'attachment' was originally meant to mean anything like a stabilizer or external weight and has gotten a bit out of hand.) We can now build a legal stock to dimensions that we are not permitted to modify an existing to match. That IMO needs correcting...but at the moment it's the rule.
We discussed this on a previous thread but I'm not sure just when that discussion took place.

I don't have the letter in front of me but it says more or less:
" 'Attachment' shall mean any stabilizer, external weight or other device that is not normally found on a hunting rifle stock. Material added to the comb, cheekpiece or grip to aid in handling or fit shall not be considered an attachment and prohibited unless that addtiion causes the stock to fail the 'hunting style stock' requirement of this rule."

As an example, I took a Finnfire stock and modified it to what I wanted -- which was something similar to the Nesika stock. That modified Finnfire stock is illegal due to its incorporation of additions to both comb and grip; but the Nesika is OK since it was originally built that way. So I carved (from a blank -- I used to work at 'smithing and stockmaking) another stock to match my modified stock and that's legal since it has no 'attachments'. That's a poorly written rule...

If you were using some of the commonly available "stick on" pieces that people in the real world use (because they are easy, inexpensive and practical) the various oracles have pronounced those to be impermissible...rather foolishly in my view, but they have taken a consistent position on those.  You probably have looked at the meaning of the word "attached" http://meriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=attaching  and have concluded that it has little meaning, and certainly not the meaning that has been applied to it.

Tirador stated "...people are changing their, stocks, barrels and triggers but still hunter rules do not call for modifications to original equipment...."  This is a mistatement of the rule.  There is no "original equipment" or "stock/factory" portion of the rule any more.  He knows that or certainly should.  There is no requirement that any part of the rifle be either original equipment or unmodified.  Had he simply cautioned to lock up the women and children when the silhouette committee is in session as no one knows what they will do there would be no basis for disagreement.  

People are spending entirely too much time trying to make this difficult and are guilty of overregulating the competitors' equipment to no good end.  

Never have I seen a situation where the KISS principle was more appropriate and less likely to be applied.  Match Directors don't need all of this nonsense (and neither do the competitors).  

Most people probably think of an "attachment" as being a temporary or removeable device such as the cheek pieces used on service rifles when they are fitted with a scope for use by a designate marksman or scout-sniper.  Your proposed language would be an entirely reasonable explanatory note at the bottom of the paragraph if such a note is necessary at all.  Why should we be concerned about these things at all.  There are bigger fish to fry that trying to find ways to run people out of the sport.  

Best

[chunter]

All,

After getting these responses I must admit that I am a bit confused. Sounds like we are in a gray area in the rules.  I emailed Greg Connor to see if he would answer my question, but we will see.

I asked this question due to the fact that shooters in my silhouette league would like to modify their stocks, not wanting to cause them problems I figured I better ask. I definitely appreciate the responses that I got, just don't know which one  or which combination of them is the most accurate response for the shooters.

Thanks
Casey

[nomad]

Chunter,

It'll be interesting to see what Greg replies. Pls post it here when you get it.

And we did make it sound more complicated than it is. (Sorry 'bout that!) :wink:

As I saw it at Raton and as I understand it:
You can saw, whittle, carve, sand, rasp, chop or dynamite anything you want OFF your hunter stock. (As long as it 'looks' like a hunting stock, just as Tirador said.)
Excepting for buttpads/buttplates, you cannot ADD anything to the stock or you run afoul of the 'no attachments' rule. (You can't legally add a comb riser as you asked in the initial post.)

[chunter]

All,

Greg Connor gave me a call this morning about my email, and he answered my question. Tony, you were right on.

To sum it up it comes down to if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it is a duck (BTW my summary of Gregs words).  With the new/current hunter gun rules a shooter can build/modify a hunter gun as long as it looks and is in the spirit of the rules.  If the gun gets to a state/national match and has pieces or parts on it that make it look more like varmint/standard gun then you will probably end up facing the jury and proving to them that it is a hunter gun (Gregs Words).

I really like these new rules, it really gets rid of the problems that arose previously with "factory" issues.  I think these rules will allow guns like the CZ's to be used more on the state and national level.

Thanks Greg for giving me such a quick response.

Casey

[Mongo1]

All,

Greg Connor gave me a call this morning about my email, and he answered my question. Tony, you were right on.

To sum it up it comes down to if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it is a duck.  With the new/current hunter gun rules a shooter can build/modify a hunter gun as long as it looks and is in the spirit of the rules.  If the gun gets to a state/national match and has pieces or parts on it that make it look more like varmint/standard gun then you will probably end up facing the jury and proving to them that it is a hunter gun.

I really like these new rules, it really gets rid of the problems that arose previously with "factory" issues.  I think these rules will allow guns like the CZ's to be used more on the state and national level.

Thanks Greg for giving me such a quick response.

Casey

Not to make too fine a point of it Casey, but that is not what Tony said.  He has it all mixed up.

Greg's advice to you is what the rule actually says.

[tirador]

Hello everyone, mongo is right and I was wrong for offering advice without reading the rules first, sorry about that it won’t happen again.

Good thing the sport has someone to warn you about my evil ways and keeps me from single handedly destroying the sport.  I did not realize I had such power.

I accepted the appointment from the NRA to serve in the Silhouette Committee hopping to do some good for the sport.  After serving for some eight years in the Rifle Subcommittee I resigned two years ago when I realized that only a couple of all the past committee members remained in the sport, the other ones had gotten tired of being maligned and blamed for destroying the sport and quit it all together.  

All that I can say in our behalf is that If it was not for the few of us that get chosen to serve in the Silhouette Committee and try to help with the management of the rules, they would other wise be dictated to us by people not even remotely involved in the sport.

[nomad]

I'm going to go on record here: (Keep in mind that I'm sort of shy and non-confrontational and I hardly ever do anything like this...)  :-D

As I saw Tirador's post, it was pretty much right on. It may have been a bit rambling but you'd have needed to go quite a bit out of context to misunderstand that what he said was -- as Chunter commented -- correct.

In fact, I think Greg's comment to Chunter was very practical and exactly what we need -- but I'm not sure how he (GC) is reconciling it with 3.1.1(c) where the second sentence says: "Attachments, either permanent or removable are not permitted." That sentence doesn't leave any wiggle room. IOW, if running tech or on a jury, I'd bust a stock with anything epoxied (attached) to the comb. I wouldn't want to, but I would, since IMO the rules should not be subject to on-the-spot reinterpretation by individual ROs or MDs. (I would be highly annoyed if, while I was obeying the speed limit, a cop watched someone else sail by way over that limit and justified that by saying that the rules didn't matter -- HIS interpretation of the correct speed was what counted! IMO this is the same thing.) If the committee accepts the rewrite that I've submitted, the problem will go away.

Further:

I consider Tony Tello (Tirador) a friend. We don't always agree but when we do, we face off and disagree straight out. He's contributed a lot to the game. He -- and the others who are or were on the committee -- are not perfect but they've put in the effort and I respect that. (If you're unfamiliar with the machinations of the system we play under, you know that the committee isn't always the source of unpopular decisions.)

With that in mind, I'll make a suggestion:

Let's all append our names to these posts. (I've never been a fan of 'handles'. The one I use was my call sign in southeast Asia and a number of other strange places over the years and, in line with 'netiquette' I use it...along with my name.)
I've noticed that things stay more civil when posters' actual names accompany their comments.

Ernie Kuney

[nomad]

Too quick on the trigger!

That sentence in the fourth para about the system we play under should begin:

If you're FAMILIAR -- not 'UN' familiar...

Sorry 'bout that!

[chunter]

All,

I guess that is one thing that I hate about the politics of anything,  people like to carry a chip on their shoulders.  Tony-Ernie, thanks for the help, it is great that we can have forum like this to get stuff figured out.  :shock:

Tony,  I don't think you have to worry about your silhouette record here, seems that you might know one or two things :wink:
Ernie, I appreciate the help you have given in the past getting our silhouette leagues up and running. It was nice meeting you at nationals also. BTW what type of a re-write our you proposing?  You can pm me if you are worried about it getting picked apart just for the sake of doing so.

Also did anything come from your story you wrote about Nationals? If nothing does, I imagine we can find a place to post it on the web so it can be read afterall?

Thanks
Casey Hunter

[nomad]

Casey,

The articles on rifle nats (SB & HP) are almost ready to go to the editor at NRA and I'd guess that he won't throw them back at me  :wink:  but thanks for the offer! (They're scheduled for the issue that follows the one on Perry.)

Did enjoy mtg you at Raton and look forward to the next time.

The rewrite is almost as I noted above. I think we just need to clarify what constitutes an attachment. Nobody wants wings, stabilizers and gyroscopes on the line but things like you asked about certainly ought to be permitted...and I'd hope that we can do that with a simple addition to 3.1.1(c).

[dwl]

I guess I ought to say something, after the fact, about the whole intent of CHunter's remarks.  He went public on my behalf.  I have a CZ Silhouette which stock is a bit on the small side for me.  We discussed putting a spacer on the butt and building up the comb to something approximating his Anschutz 1700.  The intent was not to push the limits of the rules but rather to make the stock fit me.  That's all.  

This all became a discussion because my intent was TO CONFORM to the rules and to the spirit of the rules with a rifle that fits.  I do not want to show up to a match and find out that someone is protesting my rifle.  I would find that somewhat aggrivating.

It appears that inorder to eliminate the possibility of a whiner complaining I may have to purchase a stock whose comb is already high enough.  I wonder, though, what difference in principle from adding a spacer to the butt and adding one to the comb?

dwl

[Mr_Christopher]

not to hijack this thread, but Nomad are you a member of the Haltom Rifle and Pistol club?  I sent you a PM...

Chris

[nomad]

Yup,
That's me. I'll go look at it. (I never think about PMs!) :oops:

[nomad]

DWL,

The problem with that sort of 'principle' is:
How do the competitors who scrupulously follow the rules feel about the match official's 'principles' when he winks your fitted-with-an-attachment stock through tech? (And IMO it's hard to get around that 'Attachements, either temporary or permanent, are not permitted.' part.)

The problem is simple -- the rule needs a rewrite. Make it clear that the intention is not to prevent people from making the kind of reasonable mods that you want to make but only to prevent space-gun 'hunter' rifles from turning up on the line and all this sort of controversy and potential conflict will go quietly away...

"The fastest way to create crime is to make bad laws."

[jbeckley]

A bit off the thread, but Tony had one of those rare jobs, much like a match director, where everyone could do a better job, but nobody wanted to!  Jim     Not even bringing up the pay.

[Bird Dog]

Interesting tread guys. However, I believe the rule book as small as it is it only tryies to define the rules as best possible with the space available.
If you wanted to cover every little detail of what we can and can not do with our rifles, we would have a rule book as big as the Bible and no one would read it.
I as a match director, (with the exception of wildcat calibers, proper weight and trigger pull) try to follow the advise that Greg Connors is giving us.... the quack advise! :grin:
This in my opinion simplifies matters for shooters as well as us match directors.
In a local match I am not going to take your rifle apart to inspect it and kick you out of the match if it does not look right. I will however advise shooters that their guns may not pass at a state or Natl championship and
after that it is their call what they do to fix it.
Just my 2C.
Bird dog....AKA Arnie Tovar

[nomad]

Arnie,

You've brought up a valid point that we've all skirted:
At our local matches, we don't care what you bring, you're welcome to join in and shoot. We want to see new faces and we want everyone to have fun.

That stops, however, if a shooter with a rifle that isn't silhouette legal wants 10-in-a-rows toward a GS or starts walking off with the match awards because he's taking advantage. IOW as long as it's just in fun, anything goes -- but a shooter who bends the rules has to understand that he's only 'at' a match and not really 'part' of that match.

My wife's been watching the Olympics. (I haven't had much interest in them except for the 9 seconds of shooting that the media has condescended to show -- although for some reason I've become a fan of women's beach volleyball...)    
I've noticed that the burden of following the rules is on the competitor and they don't give second chances to people who don't know what's legal. I don't see why we should be much different!

Let's face it, most people fully understand what the book says and means. Then they decide that they don't like somethng in the rules and suddenly the book becomes 'confusing/hard to follow/unreasonable'. That's a little too Klintonian for me.

Ernie

PS: if you have a moment, email me offlist. I've lost your email and need some info about Arturo.

[Bird Dog]

Ernie, I think I did the same thing with you e-mail. Here is mine.

Arnie@at-kennels.com

Hope to hear from you soon.

[chunter]

MR. Christopher,

Are you the same Mr. C from rimfirecentral.com ?
If so is Nomad one of the guys you ran into while checking out silhouette?  What luck if so, he can give you some good info..  Also glad you found this forum.

Casey

[Jerry G]

This has all been verry intersting.  I guess I didn't know that the equipment was worth so many points at a match.  I guess (stupid me) that shooter skill was the answer, not some new bell or whistle.  I think we all loose site of our goal and get carried away with each little step.  What does it matter if the length of pull is 13" or 15"?  I am short so I want the shorter gun.  Dennis M. is long so he would fit the long gun better.  Same goes for neck length or whatever you want to compare.  The rules keep most people from shooting a 40 so lets leave the things alone.  Everytime there is a rule change made we have to go out and spend a bunch of $$$$ to comply.  Look at the chin gun deal.  Much $$ for a chin gun stock and after 2 years, throw the thing away.  How many people did we loose on that one, not to mention all the trophies I had to buy for the added class.

I guess that is more than 2 cents worth but what the heck.