Barrel contour restrictions

Any group of shooters can hold a match with any set of rules that they agree upon. All someone has to to is to convince a sufficiently large number of shooter that it is worth their investing in special purpose rifles that only fit the rules of those matches. Good luck with that. Or perhaps you could present a petition to one or more of the sanctioning bodies with a sufficient number of member signatures to indicate that there was broad support for a new category of matches, which could be sanctioned on a provisional basis, subject to a minimum threshold of participation. The other alternative is to convince shooters that already have invested in rifles that might be made obsolete by a major simplification of of the rules that this would be in their interest. Good luck with that.
 
You all seem to assume that a technical innovation will lead to dramatic improvements. I sort of doubt that. It could lead to no record-improving at all and still be worthwhile.

Pretend for a minute that a different barrel contour completely eliminated the need to tune for a wide range of temperatures. Since there are already people who can do that -- and win and set records -- it won't help them, at least on the days when they're on. No new records. Just a lot more people shooting better.

& BTW, better varmint rifles, perhaps better military weapons, etc.

What is benchrest about?

Oh, the cost. What are you going to do when you order your next barrel? (Suppose it's a profile change, the rule we're talking about.) Why would it cost more?

Won't happen, you say. Where's your data? Far as I can tell, no one's tried various contours, except just a bit with the RF guys trying to emulate a tuner in the sporter class.
 
The reverse taper with an enlarged muzzle can be done within the existing rules. All you would have to do is combine a tuner, of any weight you prefer, with a barrel that falls within the existing taper rules. Since the the rules only describe the maximum size of the barrel, not the minimum, I don't see where there would be a problem. In any case, there are no contour rules in the unlimited class, so the idea could be tested there, in competition. Let us know how it works.
 
Last edited:
Boyd Allen said:
The reverse taper with an enlarged muzzle can be done within the existing rules. All you would have to do is combine a tuner, of any weight you prefer, with a barrel that falls within the existing taper rules. Since the the rules only describe the maximum size of the barrel, not the minimum, I don't see where there would be a problem. In any case, there are no contour rules in the unlimited class, so the idea could be tested there, in competition. Let us know how it works.
Click to expand...

It isn't the same, Boyd. I'm going to quit posting to this thread now -- you're not being serious, why should I make the effort?
 
You might ask a well known rimfire gunsmith if it would work the same. I think that he would tell you that it would. The only reason that they make the weight integral with the barrel in rimfire sporter class, is that the rules require it. As far as being serious goes, I am just trying to disagree without being (too) disagreeable. I am completely serious.
 
Butch Lambert said:
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.
Click to expand...

+1.

..............

(To all)

We know how hard to achieve aggs, say from 0.250" to 0.200", for instance. Even that is "just" 5/100 of an inch! Let alone from .200" to .150" or better.....
I don't think it will be a "dramatic" record broken in the near future.... a .05" is already very dramatic!!!
Just like in the Olympic games, 100m sprinters spending thousands of hours (& with the latest technologies & methods) to achieve "just" 1/10 second faster.
ETC.... from swimming, dead weight lifting, shooting, and on.
When in innovation & technology "sky is the limit"... a few things are still "achievable", BUT many things have (had the) "maximum".

In point blank BR, do you think someone could agg in the zero, before 2020, with the current rules - or even with any barrel contour, any rifle weight, configurations, etc????

Gusting wind & mirage are not my friend.... seb.
 
seblambang said:
+1.

..............

(To all)


In point blank BR, do you think someone could agg in the zero, before 2020, with the current rules - or even with any barrel contour, any rifle weight, configurations, etc????

Gusting wind & mirage are not my friend.... seb.
Click to expand...

Not my friend either Seb. We are at the point now in 100/200 the group game where we are slow to even add a few other shooters in an agg that are below 0.20. A couple of years ago at a St Louis Nationals if you had a high teen agg in LV you might still be in 20th place. This years Super Shoot winner Jeff Summers 2-gun agg was a 23. But that range doesn't give teen 2-guns. IMO, our bigger problem now is finding a powder that will stay in tune without some luck.

Ferris Pindell was working on a longer bullet and according to his notes he was making good progress. For example in his 2001 notes, which was about the time he developed eyesight problems, his notes said "first 6 shots exactly through the same hole". So, we may need to look at something like an 80 grain 6mm bullet on a 0.985 jacket and a 12 twist???
 
Seb,
You are correct. A 10% reduction in a group or agg is a lot. A .150 agg is tough and to reduce it 10% or to a .135 is huge.
 
Charles E,
I don't think Boyd is being funny. The shape of the barrel is unlimited as long as it fits in the contour dimensions in the rulebook. Most of the restriction is the total weight of the weapon. Even if it allowed an unlimited contour I doubt you could make weight with a straight taper or larger barrel.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top