Barrel contour restrictions

A

Andy Cross

New member
I've noticed a difference in HV barrels between the USA rigs and those here in Oz. Our barrels in that class seem to be heavier straight cylinders that won't fit easily into a USA made stock. The barrel contour restrictions in the US apparently are not adhered to down under. Assuming this is correct what befefits are gained by applying these restrictions. Just curious.
Andy.
 
Andy Cross said:
...what befefits are gained by applying these restrictions. Just curious.
Andy.
Click to expand...

"Benefits" and "restrictions" sort of don't go together. As far as rifle performance goes, there are no benefits to the restriction.

Or are you asking why the rule came about? You'd probably have to go back to the meeting minutes of the NBRSA to know their exact thinking. It is usually ascribed to (1) making sure a varmint rifle looked like a varmint rifle, and (2) making sure a varmint rifle was not in some way an "unlimited" rfile.
 
Restrictions usually for a reason

Well in motor sport for example a restriction is often enforced to prevent teams with unlimited budgets gaining a huge advantage over teams who are on a shoe string budget. Helps even out the playing field. The advantage or benefit gained is in favour of the underdog.

So who gains any benefit from imposing barrel contour restrictions. Someone must have suggested the restrictions for a reason and then managed to get others to agree with them. I am just curious as to what the reason might have been. Also whether it is now an outdated piece of legislation that no one has bothered to revisit.
Andy.
 
In the US we shoot both IBS and NBRSA rules for 100/200/300 benchrest. Both sanctioning bodies have very specific rules concerning barrel taper written in their rule books (or maximum barrel envelope if you will).

As to where and why these rules came about, like Charles says, was an attempt to make the "Varmint" class rifles kind-of, sort-of look and handle like varmint rifles of the time.

Sporter class came about as an effort to encourage other caliber diameters (and case designs). The IBS and NBRSA both set the greater-than 22 cal so that rifle could be shot in the varmint classes also as long as it followed the greater-than 22 cal rule. At that time the 22 calibers were dominating sanctioned benchrest.

As you probably already know "benchrest" shooting was started in effort to encourage systems and components that would produce greater accuracy than then existed. Reading old benchrest articles it was always exciting to see who brought what to shoot at the next match. Unfortunately innovation has almost stagnated and benchrest has turned into monkey-see monkey-do .
 
Actually you have quite a bit of leeway with the barrel contours. It can be a reverse taper, fluted, or have a bulbous muzzle. The rule states maximum dimension, not shape.
 
Having a relatively stable set of rules allows for continuity of records, protects shooters' equipment investments, and allows larger numbers of shooters to remain competitive. Any rule change that significantly increases performance in effect becomes a required change for any shooter that wants to remain competitive. If this happens very often the expense can become a problem for a significant number of participants. The sport is a small one. Increasing the cost of participation will make it smaller. If it becomes smaller, the economic viability of smaller matches will be adversely affected, threatening their existence.
 
Last edited:
Thanks Boyd

Thanks Boyd you answered my query. Costs Vs performance gains forcing change to remain competitive. The only draw back in this regard is that it can stifle futire development in that class.
Andy.
 
Your are welcome. Personally, I think that there is plenty of development and innovation that can be done within the existing rules. If you compare what the best rifles are capable of in perfect conditions to the aggregates that are posted at most matches, it would seem that the major issues is operator skill, quality of materials, and execution of design. Personally, I am saving up to hire Mr. Boyer to stand somewhere behind the firing line where he can view the flags, and press the button in his pocket, that will light up an LED in my scope when it is time to pull the trigger. I mean, highpower shooters use wind coaches....
 
Boyd Allen said:
Having a relatively stable set of rules allows for continuity of records, protects shooters' equipment investments, and allows larger numbers of shooters to remain competitive. Any rule change that significantly increases performance in effect becomes a required change for any shooter that wants to remain competitive....
Click to expand...

This is an argument that is used a lot, and appears well reasoned. Let's look at it, from the cost perspective (Records are going to be broken anyway). As far as the rifle goes, there is a weight restriction. Good thing, needs to be continued. Otherwise, there are two basic rules affecting the rifle: barrel contour, and stock contour.

Barrels: What is the competitive life of a barrel, shooting at the level where IBS/NBRSA sanctioning is used? Somewhere from 250 to 750 rounds? That means, you are never more than a year away from having to purchase a new barrel anyway. The barrel contour rule is simply a nostalgic hold-over.

Stocks do last. Moreover, changes to existing stocks would usually involve (inadvertently) adding weight, which is a problem. On the other hand, given the appearance of our current military rifles, the basis for the old rule -- "makes it look like a rifle" needs a modifier, such as "1950" -- "Makes it look like a 1950s rifle."

There is some notion that the angled buttstock keeps the rifle from returning to battery. Are you kidding? I had a rail that had to climb up hill a bit in recoil, designed that way on purpose. Others get that whenever the target isn't on exactly the same plane as the bench...

And if we really cared about "returning to battery" we'd enforce the bag rules, rather than let them get ever closer to RTB. But bags are cheap...

Benchrest was origninaly a sport of experimenters, gunsmiths, and accuracy nuts. There was never a point to the level of accuracy developed in benchrest, save that things developed filtered down to other shooting disciplines/uses.

We've pretty much removed that function.

* * *

You know, the real cost I've found -- the hard way -- is changing your chambering. Thinking another chambering would be better is an expensive lesson I've gone through too many times. The cost of the reamer. The cost of the dies. The cost of the brass. Probably a new barrel. Playing with a new chambering takes a $1,000 hunk out of your retirement fund every damn time.
 
Last edited:
You know Charles, sometimes these discussions proceed as if shooters can't put on matches without the blessing of sanctioning bodies. If someone wants to compete under a different set of rules, there is nothing stopping him from putting on matches with any rules that he would like. Of course if you consider the problems involved in getting that all together, and finding enough like minded individuals that will actually show up....I think that we are very lucky to have what we do.
 
Boyd Allen said:
You know Charles, sometimes these discussions proceed as if shooters can't put on matches without the blessing of sanctioning bodies. If someone wants to compete under a different set of rules, there is nothing stopping him from putting on matches with any rules that he would like. Of course if you consider the problems involved in getting that all together, and finding enough like minded individuals that will actually show up....I think that we are very lucky to have what we do.
Click to expand...

As an editor friend of mine often said: "Your point being?"

But I think I do take your point. Except for 1,000 yards and an occasional sanctioned score match, I mostly shoot club matches these days. And they're fun. The competition is fierce, and starts over with each new match.

Still, few are going to build a rifle legal in their club matches but not legal under the rules of a sanctioning body. Those rules still stifle some innovation.

Edit:

Here's my point. Suppose you took an HV profiled barrel and cut the muzzle off at 1 inch. On a Hall action, you could used that as the breech with a Savage-style nut. Now take enough off the "breech" (new muzzle) end to make weight.

Head to the range to tune it. How would it tune? Easier? Harder? About the same? I don't know, and I bet you don't either, because it would be illegal in competition.

How about the old Silhouette profiles? Like the perfect date, she's thinner in the middle than the bottom or the top. How would that tune? I don't know, and I bet you don't either...
 
Last edited:
Charles,
Assuming that a rule change would lower aggs. would you really want to put the new records in the same category as the old ones, and for the total cost to all shooters and possibly manufacturers, what benefit have they received? If they had not written Granatelli's car out of Indy with a rule change, any team that wanted to remain competitive would have had to discard their entire car inventory. Less well funded teams that could not afford to make the change, and would have been foolish to even enter the race. It takes a field of cars to have a race.
 
Boyd, what does a barrel cost? How often do you have to change it, anyway (see earlier post, #10)?

Didn't Jim Clark win Indy with an engine in the rear (somebody did)? Did they get an asterisk? Did anyone in baseball except Roger Marris get an asterisk?

Aren't records in BR coming down, anyway? Should the new ones get an asterisk because of new bullet design? More consistent jackets? Sandbags that would have gotten you DQ'd in 1990?

Just how much change do you think any new designs would make, anyway? My guess is that rather than the best getting better (the records region), what would probably happen is that an average shooter would get closer to a first-rate shooter because the equipment is more forgiving. Maybe we don't want that?
 
Last edited:
Surely you jest. I am one of the shooters that needs all the help that he can get, within the rules. If by some fortunate accident, I happened to break that pattern, and shoot a range record, or perhaps in the wildest of fantasies a NBRSA record, i wouldn't want anyone to be able to say that I did it with a rifle built under new rules that made comparisons an apples to oranges thing. I have explained my reasoning in detail. Sometimes if someone does not get a point, it is not because there isn't one, or that it was poorly explained. If the price of a barrel is so insignificant, why the need to make the investment in the experiment less risky? Just do it, and let us know what happened.
 
Boyd Allen said:
Surely you jest. I am one of the shooters that needs all the help that he can get, within the rules. If by some fortunate accident, I happened to break that pattern, and shoot a range record, or perhaps in the wildest of fantasies a NBRSA record, i wouldn't want anyone to be able to say that I did it with a rifle built under new rules that made comparisons an apples to oranges thing. I have explained my reasoning in detail. Sometimes if someone does not get a point, it is not because there isn't one, or that it was poorly explained. If the price of a barrel is so insignificant, why the need to make the investment in the experiment less risky? Just do it, and let us know what happened.
Click to expand...
Boyd,if you ever win anything again, we're going to put an asterisk by your name ;-)

It's not the asterisk that counts, it's what it's hooked to. Suppose the little one below said "really good guys"?
 
Last edited:
I personally think that you could let shooters build any darned thing they want, (maintaining the weight restrictions and non return to battery features), and the aggs would still be exactly the same.

Regardless of all of the gimmicks that come around every year, nothing still beats a great barrel, a great lot of bullets, and a great tune.

At our Tomball Club Matches, the "Benchrest Class" says 'any legal firearm'. I can't make it any more simple than that. We have good participation........jackie
 
Last edited:
I think your right

jackie schmidt said:
I personally think that you could let shooters build any darned thing they want, (maintaining the weight restrictions and non return to battery features), and the aggs would still be exactly the same.

Regardless of all of the gimmicks that come around every year, nothing still beats a great barrel, a great lot of bullets, and a great tune.

At our Tomball Club Matches, the "Benchrest Class" says 'any legal firearm'. I can't make it any more simple than that. We have good participation........jackie
Click to expand...

I think you are right Jackie - When I look at the records that were being set in the early eighties ( Which is when I was first introduced to BR ) and compare them to the records being set now they haven't dropped dramatically in spite of the dramatic changes in technology. Which is what prompted me to ask the question about barrel contour restrictions in the first place.
Andy
 
Andy, I believe that you are wrong. I believe a lot of records have fallen in that time. If you check i believe you will find any old records may be for group and not aggs. Do you think an unlimited barrel contour with our present weight restrictions will make a difference? How can that happen?
 
Dramatically

Butch Lambert said:
Andy, I believe that you are wrong. I believe a lot of records have fallen in that time. If you check i believe you will find any old records may be for group and not aggs. Do you think an unlimited barrel contour with our present weight restrictions will make a difference? How can that happen?
Click to expand...

I do believe I used the word dramatically. Yep the aggs have come down but not dramatically. If they had grand aggs in the low ones or high zeros would be common place. However the changes in the technology have by comparison changed a lot more than the results. To my way of thinking if a restriction doesn't actually achieve anything then it probably need not be there.
Andy
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top