TargetTalk

robf wrote:CBI is an oxymoron.

The first time a knock open valve fails with one of these in perhaps we will see why sticking something into the barrel past the transfer port is a pretty idiotic way of showing a barrel is clear.

Sad to see the sport displaying such basic safety ignorance.

It wi be fine until someone assumes the practice works in all air rifles then pus the trigger on one brand and finds the electronic trigger works with bolt open and discharges air into the barrel and buries one of these things into hopefully nothing more serious than a ceiling.

Because valves are failing all the time right? How long did it take you to think up that pathetic reason for not wanting to use CBIs?

If the CBI is passed right through the barrel (as required) it will be both in front of and behind the transfer port. The barrel will be open to atmospere at both ends. If somehow the vavle should suddenly let go of its air, all that will happen is that the air will vent past the CBI out of both ends of the barrel.

If your version of a CBI is a close fitting bung in one end of the barrel then perhaps your dream might become reality. I challenge you to actually fire a piece of line trimmer line (that's protruding out both ends of your barrel) from your airgun to prove your theory.

Thinking out-side the square and into the future, ROs will get lazy and just see something sticking out the breech and something out the barrel from a distance [ I think that is the intention of the rule ]. CLEAR
The rule says nothing about trimmer line.
Shooters get lazy and just stick something in the breech and something the barrel and not continuous. [be it trimmer line]
ROs will then need to go and visually check that it is clear and the 'flag' is continuous, as per rule.
We will be back to square one, and checking as we do now.

xtreme wrote:The rule says nothing about trimmer line.

Have you read the rule interpretation. That CERTAINLY mentions trimmer line

xtreme wrote:Shooters get lazy and just stick something in the breech and something the barrel and not continuous.

Rule 6.12.7 b, concealed violation, disqualification must be imposed.

xtreme wrote:Shooters get lazy and just stick something in the breech and something the barrel and not continuous.

That's a hell of a lot more effort than just inserting the darn safety flag correctly.
And yes, the RO checks the breech end and the muzzle end. We don't go grabbing the line to see if it's continuous.

What kills me is all the whining going on about this subject. Back when we implemented it in the US for 3-P Air shooting, there was some whining, but the little kiddies accepted it, perform it now w/o a thought, and as I've said before, have never damaged a gun with a clean flag ... Heck, I've never heard of ANY gun damaged.

It's a rule now ... just like controlling the muzzle ... whether you like it or not, if you don't conform ... as David just said ... you're warned, then if still not in compliance, DQ'd

Hi,

I am just back home after European Championships in Odense (Denmark).
A few remarks:
1. About 70-80% of jackets suffer the problem of the famous seam (shooters were just warned).
2. No problems (0%) with sole control (in fact, as a physicist I was never enthusiastic of this funny testing method :-) Of course, shooters immediately found the way to pass over it.
3. Some shooters had problem - they shot after the command STOP given in the end of the preparation time and sighting shots.
4. Funny observation: rifle shooters had practically no problem with using safety flags - rarely they forgot to use it. Pistol shooters opposite, rarely remembered to use it :-) (at least in the beginning).
5. Safety flags during a final seem to be completely useless. As this procedure for AR looks even funny (you know... TV coverage starts and eight shooters desperately are doing something incomprehensible for supporters) this I hope will be changed. Moreover, each time any shooter is eliminated, range officer must run to him to see if a flag is used in spite of the fact that the guy just shot a pellet and hundred people saw it on a final hall screen.
6. There were some problems with weights attached to a lower part of a butplate. According to the rules such weights are not allowed. Shooters do not understand why, and kill me, but I do not understand it, too :-)
7. Most of problems during AR events concerned a rifle rest height. It is surprising to me. I cannot understand why coaches sent their shooters for EC without verifying it. Can you imagine? Some shooters had to lower a rifle rest by more than 10 cm!

OK, that's some remarks nearly "on-line".
If you like - there are some photos and movies taken during ECH, on my page (in Polish, so just switch on google translation):

http://www.lfits.pl/

Grzegorz wrote:1. About 70-80% of jackets suffer the problem of the famous seam (shooters were just warned).

Do you know how they checked? Did they use the "within 70mm above/20mm below" interpretation?

Hopefully the federations will raise some issues with this rule as it's goinf to involve a lot of scrap jackets in a year or two if nothing is done.

Safety flags in the final ARE confusing ... the 6 that sit down are required to insert them ... the top two are allowed "celebrations" with the RO's responsible for making sure the guns stay "safe" while the celebrations occur.

jhmartin wrote:

Grzegorz wrote:1. About 70-80% of jackets suffer the problem of the famous seam (shooters were just warned).

Do you know how they checked? Did they use the "within 70cm above/20cm below" interpretation?

I believe that should be 70mm and 20mm ;-)

David Levene wrote:

jhmartin wrote:

Grzegorz wrote:1. About 70-80% of jackets suffer the problem of the famous seam (shooters were just warned).

Do you know how they checked? Did they use the "within 70cm above/20cm below" interpretation?

I believe that should be 70mm and 20mm ;-)

Yeah, you're right .... remember, I'm one of those 'mericans who used SAE most of the time <grin>
cm - mm la-la-la-la-la

I fixed.

Yes, of course, it was done with 70/20 mm interpretation. Such statistical data collected by Tech. Control Jury is necessary for the analysis.

j-team wrote:

robf wrote:CBI is an oxymoron.

The first time a knock open valve fails with one of these in perhaps we will see why sticking something into the barrel past the transfer port is a pretty idiotic way of showing a barrel is clear.

Sad to see the sport displaying such basic safety ignorance.

It wi be fine until someone assumes the practice works in all air rifles then pus the trigger on one brand and finds the electronic trigger works with bolt open and discharges air into the barrel and buries one of these things into hopefully nothing more serious than a ceiling.

Because valves are failing all the time right? How long did it take you to think up that pathetic reason for not wanting to use CBIs?

If the CBI is passed right through the barrel (as required) it will be both in front of and behind the transfer port. The barrel will be open to atmospere at both ends. If somehow the vavle should suddenly let go of its air, all that will happen is that the air will vent past the CBI out of both ends of the barrel.

If your version of a CBI is a close fitting bung in one end of the barrel then perhaps your dream might become reality. I challenge you to actually fire a piece of line trimmer line (that's protruding out both ends of your barrel) from your airgun to prove your theory.

You seem to be under the assumption the transfer port is always in the barrel. They aren't, even on match rifles. Some are underneath the bolt venting into it and behind into the barrel. It doesn't require the barrel to be closed either.

Valves aren't failing all the time. And it is difficult to fire something out of the barrel in some guns, but not all. The problem is that it's a panacea to gun safety. The barrel isn't empty. The gun is not necessarily safe.

As I said, it's about basic safety, not applying it to top down and assuming it fits all. Not some cludge to allow bad practice.

robf wrote:It wi be fine until someone assumes the practice works in all air rifles then pus the trigger on one brand and finds the electronic trigger works with bolt open and discharges air into the barrel and buries one of these things into hopefully nothing more serious than a ceiling...

To make the cord easier to insert/extract, I have been putting a 90 degree (approx) bend in the breech end of the cord - it ain't going anywhere even if there is a discharge of gas.

Spencer wrote:

robf wrote:It wi be fine until someone assumes the practice works in all air rifles then pus the trigger on one brand and finds the electronic trigger works with bolt open and discharges air into the barrel and buries one of these things into hopefully nothing more serious than a ceiling...

To make the cord easier to insert/extract, I have been putting a 90 degree (approx) bend in the breech end of the cord - it ain't going anywhere even if there is a discharge of gas.

I appreciate this is a circular discussion, but your method only works if you can insert it from the breech end. i.e. if there's no compensator at the muzzle end.

Rob.

Spencer wrote:

robf wrote:It wi be fine until someone assumes the practice works in all air rifles then pus the trigger on one brand and finds the electronic trigger works with bolt open and discharges air into the barrel and buries one of these things into hopefully nothing more serious than a ceiling...

To make the cord easier to insert/extract, I have been putting a 90 degree (approx) bend in the breech end of the cord - it ain't going anywhere even if there is a discharge of gas.

Isn't it a little ironic to be discussing the safety problems of devices intended to insure safety on other devices?

FredB

FredB wrote:

Spencer wrote:

robf wrote:It wi be fine until someone assumes the practice works in all air rifles then pus the trigger on one brand and finds the electronic trigger works with bolt open and discharges air into the barrel and buries one of these things into hopefully nothing more serious than a ceiling...

To make the cord easier to insert/extract, I have been putting a 90 degree (approx) bend in the breech end of the cord - it ain't going anywhere even if there is a discharge of gas.

Isn't it a little ironic to be discussing the safety problems of devices intended to insure safety on other devices?

FredB

has anybody else tried it out, to see if the CBI does come out - my 10m guns just go 'phut' without noticable movement of the flag in the barrel.

Spencer wrote: has anybody else tried it out, to see if the CBI does come out - my 10m guns just go 'phut' without noticable movement of the flag in the barrel.

Okay, I'll take one for the team! It's late here in Vancouver and my wife and young boy are asleep upstairs so I'll use my Baikal 46m. The Pardini's just too loud for night use. And... With a length of straightened orange trimmer line, 2.5mm diameter, with a knot at the front end and the regulation 100mm extra for each end but for firing's sake with the full 200mm extra sticking out the muzzle end... I fired at the normal height in my workshop. Two tests. Nearly identical results between them; the line landed about 2.5 metres in front of the muzzle. About as far as I could flick it off a table with my finger. So no, unless someone's using a CBI which fairly closely matches the bore size (in this case there's a 2mm difference) it'd be difficult to imagine anyone being injured. Perhaps if they were staring into the front of the barrel at the time?

jhmartin wrote:

David Levene wrote:

jhmartin wrote:

Grzegorz wrote:1. About 70-80% of jackets suffer the problem of the famous seam (shooters were just warned).

Do you know how they checked? Did they use the "within 70cm above/20cm below" interpretation?

I believe that should be 70mm and 20mm ;-)

Yeah, you're right .... remember, I'm one of those 'mericans who used SAE most of the time <grin>
cm - mm la-la-la-la-la

I fixed.

Although not being enforced at the British Championships I was shown by a very experienced ISSF judge the 2013 check and we had discussion on it.

The interpretation says the seam must be at least 70mm (2 3/4 ins in old money!) above the elbow or 20 mm (about 13/16 ins) below. It's also very dificult to get an accurate measurement as it depends how the shooter places their elbow.
He had to agree that their interpretation of the rule as written is also highly debatable, they are interpreting the wording "horizontal seam or seams under the elbow" as if there is punctuation after the word seam, and that then makes two options, either a horizontal seam, or any seam under the elbow which would then include a vertical seam or a diagonal seam! But that is what they intend and how they are enforcing it and it will not change.
The way it is written actualy means horizontal seam or seams, that is horizontal seams singular or plural, so technically a diagonal seam under the elbow as on Monards and Hitex and others is legal, but they won't accept that.
This stupid unneccessary rule will almost certainly be revised to say in correct (possibly!) English that any seam under the elbow in the 70/20mm zone is illegal, and yes thousands of shooters will be condemned to replace or modify as there is no chance the ISSF will backtrack.

So 70 - 80% of jackets failed the silly seam test at the European Championships!!!!
It does not say in the rules that it should only be a warning? But then it would have wrecked the event to have disqualified 70% so they were in a bit of a spot. I have an e mail from Mr Anderson some time back stating that this seam rule will not effect the majority of jackets only the few who are deliberatly adding a support seam.
He refered to it as technical doping, which I think is a euthanism for cheating, like being diplomatic with the truth is one for lieing.
So those of us who said it will cost the thousands of grass roots shooters who shoot to ISSF rules a lot of money were right, just hope it does not impact on the future of our sport.
But its done and I doubt they will revert it so these things need to be sorted.
We have a lady in the UK who is an expert at making and altering jackets and she is altering jackets to comply at the cost of approximately £100 ($150), the boots are cheap to alter (£5), its a pain in the butt having to get it done but we have discovered an advantage in that it's easier to get on your shooting trousers with the trimmed boots! It makes no difference to the standing position and I suspect coaches will soon adjust kneeling to adapt to the round toes.
We wait with interest for the next rules revisions.

Take it easy, there is no reason to start a tempest in a teapot...

If you read announcements on the ISSF Web page you will surely find that 2013 is treated as a time for all rules verification. They do they job. They collect data, observe. Isn't that what one should expect?

Grzegorz wrote:Take it easy, there is no reason to start a tempest in a teapot...

If you read announcements on the ISSF Web page you will surely find that 2013 is treated as a time for all rules verification. They do they job. They collect data, observe. Isn't that what one should expect?

Absolutely not!
Why collect the data & observe if they are not willing to also adjust ideas that they have imposed without true thought. The side panel rule was put in place because some THOUGHT only a few would be effected .... Now it's turning out that MOST will be effected. Isn't there any common sense or humble ability in those ranks that can say "we goofed"?

Did they put in the match program that this was a verification event? If not then they should have enforced the rules and basically gutted the event.

jhmartin wrote:Did they put in the match program that this was a verification event? If not then they should have enforced the rules and basically gutted the event.

Have you read the rule interpretations issued by the ISSF?