TargetTalk

I see that the ISSF issued a revised set of interpretations yesterday.

It is a pity that the ISSF does not consider the various Amendments and Interpretations to be of any importance: news@shooting.by sends out regular 'news' e-mails, but narry a mention of any changes or additions to Amendments and Interpretations.

Fortunately, David keeps us posted (I occasionaly get there first).

That photograph severely underrepresents the difference in length between 70mm and 20mm

6.17.2.1.
Rifle finalists must walk from the Finals assembly area to the Finals FOP fully dressed, with trouser zippers closed...

Well now, we're all glad that's been taken care of.

CHEST SUPPORT WEIGHTS ON AIR RIFLES, RULES 7.4.2.6, b & 7.6.1.2
The 2013 ISSF Rules clearly state that chest support weights (sometimes advertised
as “Brustanlagen”) that project forward from the lower part of butt-plates on 50m rifles
are illegal and cannot be used (Rule 7.4.5.1, d.). Questions have been raised
regarding whether these chest support weights can, nevertheless, be used on air
rifles. The answer is NO, chest support weights cannot be used on air rifles. The
intent of the ISSF Rifle Committee is that these weights cannot be used on any rifles.
Rule 7.4.2.6, b. states that any weights on air rifles other than barrel weights “must
be within the dimensions of the stock.” Chest support weights or other devices that
project forward from the lower part of the butt-plate do not comply with this rule. Rule
7.6.1.2 that defines the standing position makes it clear that “the rifle must not touch
the jacket or chest beyond the area of the right shoulder.” Chest support weights or
other devices that project forward from the lower butt-plate potentially violate this rule
as well. These weights or devices on either 50m rifle or 10m air rifle butt-plates are
illegal.

Badly worded again.

Polystyrene in fill solves that problem. Or custom stocks. The ISSF needs to look beyond what people pick up off the shelf and assume rules orientated around that solves all their woes.

So now rails mounted off the cheek piece with weights on will be legal as long as they don't touch. Legal. Weight in the same place. 'Problem' solved?

robf wrote:So now rails mounted off the cheek piece with weights on will be legal as long as they don't touch. Legal. Weight in the same place. 'Problem' solved?

OK ... maybe I'm a bad reader ... how do you get this?

Many of the weights I have seen fit within the typical shape of a wood stock. It seems one would only have to drill and add weight to a wood stock or redesign aluminum stocks to have an internal pocket for weights.

With the rule so vague it will not be long until some enterprising shooter figures a way to add the weights back " within the dimensions of the stock".

rmarsh wrote:Many of the weights I have seen fit within the typical shape of a wood stock. It seems one would only have to drill and add weight to a wood stock or redesign aluminum stocks to have an internal pocket for weights.

With the rule so vague it will not be long until some enterprising shooter figures a way to add the weights back " within the dimensions of the stock".

And sadly, it will not be long after that when the ISSF further clarifies the rules to make such things illegal.

Rob.

They should just stick to an overall envelope. Then people can do what they want inside it.

OK .... Here's a question for "those in the know". Stirring the pot.
Weights (other than bbl weights) must be confined "within the dimensions of the stock".
What about the weights for the new Hammerli AR20 whose weights hang off the stock (not off the buttplate), but in the same area as the Brustanlagen?
They are just supported from a different location?
(image below from the Hammerli website)

jhmartin wrote:OK .... Here's a question for "those in the know". Stirring the pot.
Weights (other than bbl weights) must be confined "within the dimensions of the stock".
What about the weights for the new Hammerli AR20 whose weights hang off the stock (not off the buttplate), but in the same area as the Brustanlagen?
They are just supported from a different location?
(image below from the Hammerli website)

I think that's a good example of what I was trying to say.

The clarification is badly worded because they concentrate on the issue as it's currently designed in, as as you have found there are already target rifles that go about it a different way, and would be legal despite doing the same thing.

David, thank you very much. for providing this link on the forum. Some of it seems a much needed clarification although I don't see why the ISSF doesn't just give the shooters a couple of min to put their boots on at the line if they hate the way we walk so much. They could wear flip flops to the line or something. But that would make too much sense.

A revised set of interpretations has been issued today.

What an unbelievable dogs breakfast these rules are! The levels of incompetence and stupidity in the formation of them has again clearly demonstrated that the ISSF is not fit for purpose. We have interpretations and revisions at variance with the very late published rules, we have tightening of interpretations on new rules that senior ISSF figures said in public and in many private emails to shooters were not the intention, and now this hotch potch of jumbled rules and interpretations that is a beaurocrat jobsworths dream.
They claimed consultation at all levels, a claim we all know is false and now we are all watching in amazed puzzlement as the situation compounds.
Is it not time for the people responsible for this fiasco to resign, we do need one new rule though, that no rule can be inplemented until it has been consulted and published for a year!

I think you are being unfair Robin.

The 2013 rules incorporated major changes. It is not surprising that in this first year there should be several clarifications; several of which are only required because some shooters (obviously not TTers) have clearly not read, or do not act on, the new rules.

I think everyone would accept that there have been mistakes and omissions, but IMHO they seem to be working hard to rectify those problems as soon as they arise.

This latest "chest weight" rule interpretation is still ambigious and the interpretation is still at variance with the rule as written in the book!

Rule 7.4.2.6 clearly (and I quote from the interpretation) "states that any weight on air rifles other than barrel weights "must be within the dimensions of the stock", Chest support weights or other devices that project forward from the lower part of the buttplate do not comply with this rule. This is an assumption and is not true in all cases.

They then go on to refer to rule 7.6.1.2 and it making clear that no other part of the rifle may touch the right side beyound the buttplate, and that these weights "potentialy violate this rule" and as such are illegal.

So, rule 7.4.2.6 clearly allows weights with in the stock dimensions, no where does it outlaw any attachment point.
The interpretation if read carefully does not say that weights attached to the butt plate are illegal, but it does make an assumption that they will be as:
a) They will be outside the stock dimensions.
b) They will be touching at points defined beyond refered in rule7.6.1.2.

I believe their assumptions may be correct in some cases, but is not automatically correct as the interpretation assumes.

Now, my "chest weight" on a bar on the butt of my LG400 neither infringes either a) or b), I have it as a ballance weight not as a support. I believe it is legal under both the rules and the interpretation in my case, BUT with others IF it infringes a) or b) then it will be illegal!

The weights on the Hammerli as shown ealier are clearly legal.

If they wish to make a weight bar as used on the LG400 and many other alloy rifles illegal for no logical reason, then they should change the rule 7.4.2.6 as this is not just a matter of an interpretation.
If as is logical and sensible they wish to enforce rule 7.6.1.2 then just do so, although to do so they may have to ban woman from shooting or insist on surgical procedures but with this outfit nothing is beyond belief.
Robin

To take this rule further (mischeviously maybe, but factualy correct), it does not specify withing the rules different standards or specs or dimensions for alloy stocks or wood stocks, we are just presuming the chest rest aspect on alloy stocks only, as the intentional chest rests are merely additionions to an alloy stock to make them the same lower profile as a wood stock.
Why is everyone turning a blind eye to wood stocks with respect to this rule?
The rulesmakers in their lack of understanding of standing shooting do not understand that regardless of rule 7.6.1.2 stating that there must be no contact with the right side beyond the buttplate in practice it is virtualy impossible to not have a degree of contact. Most sensible range officers would not attempt to enforce that rule definitively as it is nearly unenforceable, its only when the chest contact is clear and obvious would it be picked up and acted on.
With that as a foundation, by introducing a rule (and it is new) that out laws such chest rests have they not also outlawed wooden stocks that do not have the bottom half of the butt section relieved or removed? I think so but they are turning the blind eye.
Wether it touches or not is irrelavent, it is there and available as would be the infilled rest on an alloy stock which they are so vehemently opposed to!
This is what happens when rules get too complex.

A revised set of interpretations was posted on the ISSF site yesterday.

I have called them "May" as that is how the ISSF described them, although the document actually says "Release: April 2013" (which is technically correct).

The attached copy is a reduced file size from the original. As a result the photographic quality is also reduced, but not too badly.

David
Do you know what is different from the last interpretation? I have not noticed any thing that jumps out.
regards
Robin

The only thing I've noticed is the last section, "BIB NUMBERS FOR RIFLE AND PISTOL FINALS, RULE 6.17.1.2" (but I haven't had a chance to study them carefully).