seblambang
seb
More photos....
seb.
seb.
Bipod for F-TR?
- Thread starter seblambang
- Start date
LarryBartholome
Member
Seb,
Looks so good I might have to trade my NEO in on one.
Looks so good I might have to trade my NEO in on one.
J
Jefferson
Guest
a couple of suggestions, make extra ski feet (like the remple) keep the high polish, and serial number them so I can have either 00013, or 666, when are you taking money,
nicely done, looks like a M-pod in the way it expands,
Jefferson
nicely done, looks like a M-pod in the way it expands,
Jefferson
seblambang
seb
Thanks you for yours, sirs.
I will think about the serial number.
I would probably make two models with different legs/configurations in the future.
I would probably apply the mini coaxial unit for mini/light front rest or rear rest also. But time will tell. I have already very-very busy with my works/businesses at this moment.
Cheers,
seb.
I will think about the serial number.
I would probably make two models with different legs/configurations in the future.
I would probably apply the mini coaxial unit for mini/light front rest or rear rest also. But time will tell. I have already very-very busy with my works/businesses at this moment.
Cheers,
seb.
C
Craig_bu
Guest
Seb,
Four years ago I purchased one of your coaxial rests and it is a work of art that is a joy to use. Recently I have started participating in "Varmint Hunters Association" VHA matches because it presents a new challenge and also because it is one of the few forms of rifle competition that is growing and has "sold out" matches. For the "stock" class, light weight is not a goal and I believe that there is a place for a coaxial bipod that is not light weight. My current choices are to have the stability of a traditional bipod and give up adjustabilty, or have the adjustability of a traditional front rest but give up stability because I am trying to stabilize a round bottomed forearm. I am eagerly awaiting for you to release a coaxial joystick so I can be the first kid on the block to have one. Please consider offering a "non lightweight" model of your coaxial joystick. A copy of the VHA rules are included below for your review.
RESTS: Front; benchrests, bag(s), or bipod. No one-piece benchrests. REAR: Bag or block or pod.
CLASSES
Rifles only. No shooter assistance, except with a youth shooter (under 18).
FACTORY CLASS: Must be factory production receiver, stock, barrel and chamber. May be any factory chambered caliber 30 caliber (.308) or less. Allowed modifications from pure factory are: Trigger may be aftermarket, receiver may be bedded, and barrel may be re-crowned. No aftermarket muzzle brakes in the factory class. Any scope and mount is acceptable. Guns with flat bottom forearms are not allowed in the Factory class. No altered factory stocks. No stock with forearm over 2.3” wide. No forearm stabilizers such as Accuracy Asset.
Four years ago I purchased one of your coaxial rests and it is a work of art that is a joy to use. Recently I have started participating in "Varmint Hunters Association" VHA matches because it presents a new challenge and also because it is one of the few forms of rifle competition that is growing and has "sold out" matches. For the "stock" class, light weight is not a goal and I believe that there is a place for a coaxial bipod that is not light weight. My current choices are to have the stability of a traditional bipod and give up adjustabilty, or have the adjustability of a traditional front rest but give up stability because I am trying to stabilize a round bottomed forearm. I am eagerly awaiting for you to release a coaxial joystick so I can be the first kid on the block to have one. Please consider offering a "non lightweight" model of your coaxial joystick. A copy of the VHA rules are included below for your review.
RESTS: Front; benchrests, bag(s), or bipod. No one-piece benchrests. REAR: Bag or block or pod.
CLASSES
Rifles only. No shooter assistance, except with a youth shooter (under 18).
FACTORY CLASS: Must be factory production receiver, stock, barrel and chamber. May be any factory chambered caliber 30 caliber (.308) or less. Allowed modifications from pure factory are: Trigger may be aftermarket, receiver may be bedded, and barrel may be re-crowned. No aftermarket muzzle brakes in the factory class. Any scope and mount is acceptable. Guns with flat bottom forearms are not allowed in the Factory class. No altered factory stocks. No stock with forearm over 2.3” wide. No forearm stabilizers such as Accuracy Asset.
seblambang
seb
Craig, thanks you for yours.
First of all the joystick concept/feature on the bipod must be tested - by knowledgeable & independent shooters. It will take a few months, I guess.
Of course we all know that coaxial front rest works flawlessly for the F-Open, short & long range BR, etc, BUT we (still) do not know exactly if a joystick bipod will also work flawlessly, say for F-TR.
Vince Bottomley informed me that he (and Laurie Holland) will test the prototype #1 in the next couple weeks, and will provide feedback.
Both of them are well known shooters in the UK.
At this moment I only have one prototype finished (that Vince owns it now), but I'll make another ones soon when I have the time.
"JC" (current F-TR Champion, USA) offers me if I need someone to test the bipod, so I'll send him one.
I would probably send another one to Australia.
We need feedback (either good or bad) from the "Testers" - especially with how the joystick feature works? (does the joystick alter the point of aim, etc), and probably with the legs/feet.
IF in turn the feedback is 'negative' (the joystick feature on the bipod does not work / proved to not work), I will not produce it.
(I will not make stuff that does not work, or a sub standard stuff, for sure).
But if I then get positive feedback (the joystick proved to work), I will soon improve the details & will prepare the production.
(If this is the case, I will make sure that my customers will get a 'best overall' bipod in the market!)
In shorter words, it's mainly (95% +) about the joystick feature on the bipod. If the joystick works flawlessly as expected, the other things such as the legs, the weight, etc, are 'piece of cake' & easy to make.
seb.
First of all the joystick concept/feature on the bipod must be tested - by knowledgeable & independent shooters. It will take a few months, I guess.
Of course we all know that coaxial front rest works flawlessly for the F-Open, short & long range BR, etc, BUT we (still) do not know exactly if a joystick bipod will also work flawlessly, say for F-TR.
Vince Bottomley informed me that he (and Laurie Holland) will test the prototype #1 in the next couple weeks, and will provide feedback.
Both of them are well known shooters in the UK.
At this moment I only have one prototype finished (that Vince owns it now), but I'll make another ones soon when I have the time.
"JC" (current F-TR Champion, USA) offers me if I need someone to test the bipod, so I'll send him one.
I would probably send another one to Australia.
We need feedback (either good or bad) from the "Testers" - especially with how the joystick feature works? (does the joystick alter the point of aim, etc), and probably with the legs/feet.
IF in turn the feedback is 'negative' (the joystick feature on the bipod does not work / proved to not work), I will not produce it.
(I will not make stuff that does not work, or a sub standard stuff, for sure).
But if I then get positive feedback (the joystick proved to work), I will soon improve the details & will prepare the production.
(If this is the case, I will make sure that my customers will get a 'best overall' bipod in the market!)
In shorter words, it's mainly (95% +) about the joystick feature on the bipod. If the joystick works flawlessly as expected, the other things such as the legs, the weight, etc, are 'piece of cake' & easy to make.
seb.
Last edited:
seblambang
seb
I made it!
Just working with a new prototype (for F-Class use) this week.
Some photos here... http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=598191220208302&set=pcb.598191720208252&type=1&theater
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=598191323541625&set=pcb.598191720208252&type=1&theater
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=598191416874949&set=pcb.598191720208252&type=1&theater
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=598192590208165&set=pcb.598192806874810&type=1&theater
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=598192763541481&set=pcb.598192806874810&type=1&theater
I'll try to take more photos tomorrow.
Weight & rigidity is my main concern this time. This one, without lever screws, weighs just under 20 ounces. (I think the lightest I could make with "all metal" material). The bipod can accept my whole weight (145 lbs) with minimum flex. With 3 lever screws to lock the legs & the cant feature it should weight 20.5 to 21 oz max.
The one shown in the photos is equipped with symmetry legs. I have another one with longer leg on the left, the idea is to resist/counteract the rifle torque better, assuming that most barrels today are right hand twist. The legs & feet are compatible.
Legs: knock-down 1" diameter alum pipe (can be epoxy glued to the coaxial unit for stronger construction), about 19" wide apart, constant width.
Feet: polyacetal/delrin, or alum "half ball" 1.5" diameter + spike (not shown in the photos). Optional rubber feet maybe needed too.
Top with Anschutz rail (European style). Other rails are optional.
Height adjustment from +/- 6" to 10"
It has cant feature (14 degree) in the coaxial unit, my new finding i.e. a "built-in" cant feature inside the coax unit.
Yes it also has built-in uplift to accept F-Class gun, joystick motion is very smooth.
Can be used either up for up, or up for down.
Let me know your thought about this model gentlemen.
The coaxial unit is already perfect to me. The cant feature also works great.
I also have many designs but this one is the lightest one.... I'm just not quite sure if the "look" & the legs are already good or not?
High polish or anodize?
All metal or with carbon fiber legs/construction?
I'll make more units next week then send them to some friends for testing & feedback.
So any input will be much appreciated!
I also need to learn how to anodize alumunium (class III type if possible), if you have the knowledge or source to get the chemicals & equipments please let me know - I'll pay for good $$$ for it. Or I can give you a production unit, or a rest, for a trade/barter.
Thanks,
seb.
Just working with a new prototype (for F-Class use) this week.
Some photos here... http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=598191220208302&set=pcb.598191720208252&type=1&theater
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=598191323541625&set=pcb.598191720208252&type=1&theater
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=598191416874949&set=pcb.598191720208252&type=1&theater
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=598192590208165&set=pcb.598192806874810&type=1&theater
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=598192763541481&set=pcb.598192806874810&type=1&theater
I'll try to take more photos tomorrow.
Weight & rigidity is my main concern this time. This one, without lever screws, weighs just under 20 ounces. (I think the lightest I could make with "all metal" material). The bipod can accept my whole weight (145 lbs) with minimum flex. With 3 lever screws to lock the legs & the cant feature it should weight 20.5 to 21 oz max.
The one shown in the photos is equipped with symmetry legs. I have another one with longer leg on the left, the idea is to resist/counteract the rifle torque better, assuming that most barrels today are right hand twist. The legs & feet are compatible.
Legs: knock-down 1" diameter alum pipe (can be epoxy glued to the coaxial unit for stronger construction), about 19" wide apart, constant width.
Feet: polyacetal/delrin, or alum "half ball" 1.5" diameter + spike (not shown in the photos). Optional rubber feet maybe needed too.
Top with Anschutz rail (European style). Other rails are optional.
Height adjustment from +/- 6" to 10"
It has cant feature (14 degree) in the coaxial unit, my new finding i.e. a "built-in" cant feature inside the coax unit.
Yes it also has built-in uplift to accept F-Class gun, joystick motion is very smooth.
Can be used either up for up, or up for down.
Let me know your thought about this model gentlemen.
The coaxial unit is already perfect to me. The cant feature also works great.
I also have many designs but this one is the lightest one.... I'm just not quite sure if the "look" & the legs are already good or not?
High polish or anodize?
All metal or with carbon fiber legs/construction?
I'll make more units next week then send them to some friends for testing & feedback.
So any input will be much appreciated!
I also need to learn how to anodize alumunium (class III type if possible), if you have the knowledge or source to get the chemicals & equipments please let me know - I'll pay for good $$$ for it. Or I can give you a production unit, or a rest, for a trade/barter.
Thanks,
seb.
Last edited:
seblambang
seb
seblambang
seb
seblambang
seb
Guys - we have a write-up on Seb's first Joystick bi-pod in the March edition of Target Shooter www.targetshooteronline.com which will be on-line any day now.
Laurie Holland - who wrote the article - shot a 100.13v with it yesterday in an F/TR competition at 500 yds on the F Class target (with one MOA bull, scores 5).
No doubt about it - the joy-pod works and allows an F/TR shooter to use a more 'solid' rear bag support like the Open shooters - without having to squeeze/shuffle the rear bag between shots.
VInce (UK)
Laurie Holland - who wrote the article - shot a 100.13v with it yesterday in an F/TR competition at 500 yds on the F Class target (with one MOA bull, scores 5).
No doubt about it - the joy-pod works and allows an F/TR shooter to use a more 'solid' rear bag support like the Open shooters - without having to squeeze/shuffle the rear bag between shots.
VInce (UK)
seblambang
seb
Latest photos probably in Target Shooters Magazine, article series by Laurie Holland UK...seb.
seblambang
seb
Hi Vince, sorry that I didn't know that you posted it.
Thanks, glad to hear about Laurie's result!
seb.
Thanks, glad to hear about Laurie's result!
seb.
V
VT52
Guest
The question is really if this is still in the spirit of what TR was started for?
The current bipods are no less than rests attached to the rifle which together with inflating prices to be able to complete defeats most of the purpose of why F/TR was created: giving people with ordinary rifles a chance in this game. Why not just do away with the 8.25 and bipod rule and use the F/O rules (10kg and rests) but keep the calibers to 223/308.
ICFRA will not be changing the bipod rule as people have apprantly already "invested" in such gear. That is kind of a moot point as rules should not be dictated by who invested how much, but to keep a fair competition going
If you can spend $1000 on a rest than you should be able to spend $120 for a normal bipod The problem with the F-Class rules (at least ICFRA) is that they mention in the beginning that things must be looked at from the point of innovation, but that goes against what F/TR was based on in my opinion.
A 12" wide rear stock is not prohibited, just a 3" forend for Open, no such rules on F/TR. So if you want a stable TR rifle, you are able to use a 3ft wide bipod and 3ft wide rear stock/bag combination, just as long as you stay within the 8.25kg limit.
The current bipods are no less than rests attached to the rifle which together with inflating prices to be able to complete defeats most of the purpose of why F/TR was created: giving people with ordinary rifles a chance in this game. Why not just do away with the 8.25 and bipod rule and use the F/O rules (10kg and rests) but keep the calibers to 223/308.
ICFRA will not be changing the bipod rule as people have apprantly already "invested" in such gear. That is kind of a moot point as rules should not be dictated by who invested how much, but to keep a fair competition going
If you can spend $1000 on a rest than you should be able to spend $120 for a normal bipod The problem with the F-Class rules (at least ICFRA) is that they mention in the beginning that things must be looked at from the point of innovation, but that goes against what F/TR was based on in my opinion.A 12" wide rear stock is not prohibited, just a 3" forend for Open, no such rules on F/TR. So if you want a stable TR rifle, you are able to use a 3ft wide bipod and 3ft wide rear stock/bag combination, just as long as you stay within the 8.25kg limit.
LarryBartholome
Member
F Class was started originally to enable older TR/ Fullbore/Palma shooters to continue shooting competitively with the friends they had made over the years. I am living breathing proof that it works.
It evolved first into F-Open because there were no rules in the beginning and secondly into what is now called F/TR as more time and effort was put into defining that second version. Rules are not easy to write. There are always loop holes. Was it expected that today's versions would exist? NO
Spirit does not have anything to do with what happened. It was thought the 8.25 kg rule would control the class. What happen is.... evolution. Just as the human race has evolved, so has F-Class. Innovation is natural.
You are right people have money invested in their equipment, but consider also they will continue to invest money if they are serious about winning. Be it invested in training or equipment. People who have the will to win, will win. You don't have to have a $1000 rest to be competitive, you don't have to have a $5000 rifle. But, if YOU have to have such things to boost your mental condition then you better ante up.
The is nothing fair about competition. He who competes best wins. There is no such thing as a level playing field.
It evolved first into F-Open because there were no rules in the beginning and secondly into what is now called F/TR as more time and effort was put into defining that second version. Rules are not easy to write. There are always loop holes. Was it expected that today's versions would exist? NO
Spirit does not have anything to do with what happened. It was thought the 8.25 kg rule would control the class. What happen is.... evolution. Just as the human race has evolved, so has F-Class. Innovation is natural.
You are right people have money invested in their equipment, but consider also they will continue to invest money if they are serious about winning. Be it invested in training or equipment. People who have the will to win, will win. You don't have to have a $1000 rest to be competitive, you don't have to have a $5000 rifle. But, if YOU have to have such things to boost your mental condition then you better ante up.
The is nothing fair about competition. He who competes best wins. There is no such thing as a level playing field.
V
VT52
Guest
Hi Larry,
Hopefully you agree that rules can be adapted as a discipline evolves.
The original idea behind the bipod rule in F/TR vs rests in F/Open is not really an issue anymore as the rest such as Seb is making no longer gives any disadvantage in using a bipod over a rest. The bipod/rest differentiation is becoming a moot point. The only real difference that remains between TR/Open, besides the calibers, is pretty much the weight limit.
If it is just a gear race and innovation/winning is a more important factor in the rules of a discipline, then why not just accept that and allow rests and a 10kg limit in TR? It would allow competitors to choose between Open and TR without having to build a new rifle or buying a new rest/bipod, just slap on a different barrel and shoot F/TR one week and Open the other. The main differentiation would be the caliber, and why shoot a 308 when you can shoot a 6.5 or 7mm which is more suited for this type of shooting? Hence, why is there still an F/TR class if winning is the sole driving factor ?
You know me Larry, but I'm just trying to stir up some dust to see what the idea behind F/TR still is these days if "in the spirit of" is not a deciding factor. In other words, is F/TR still intended for the same group as it was when it arose from the original F-Class or has it evolved into a new class of Open/308. If so, that might warrant the S-Class proposed elsewhere here on the forum.
Hopefully you agree that rules can be adapted as a discipline evolves.
The original idea behind the bipod rule in F/TR vs rests in F/Open is not really an issue anymore as the rest such as Seb is making no longer gives any disadvantage in using a bipod over a rest. The bipod/rest differentiation is becoming a moot point. The only real difference that remains between TR/Open, besides the calibers, is pretty much the weight limit.
If it is just a gear race and innovation/winning is a more important factor in the rules of a discipline, then why not just accept that and allow rests and a 10kg limit in TR? It would allow competitors to choose between Open and TR without having to build a new rifle or buying a new rest/bipod, just slap on a different barrel and shoot F/TR one week and Open the other. The main differentiation would be the caliber, and why shoot a 308 when you can shoot a 6.5 or 7mm which is more suited for this type of shooting? Hence, why is there still an F/TR class if winning is the sole driving factor ?
You know me Larry, but I'm just trying to stir up some dust to see what the idea behind F/TR still is these days if "in the spirit of" is not a deciding factor. In other words, is F/TR still intended for the same group as it was when it arose from the original F-Class or has it evolved into a new class of Open/308. If so, that might warrant the S-Class proposed elsewhere here on the forum.
Last edited by a moderator:
LarryBartholome
Member
Now I know who you are. I was about to tell you to contact your ICFRA Rep
Of course I agree rules can be changed.
Originally everyone operated under Open rules. That meant you could use any type of rest. F/TR was created at the request of those who want a lighter, more mobile class that conformed better to the original Fullbore rifles and calibers. Hence the 8.25kg rule (a Fullbore/TR rifle weight with scope and bipod added) and caliber resrictions.
I have seen Open shooters use a bipod and win on occasion. But the front rest is inherently more stable and on average will offer an advantage. You seem to be making a judgment based on a few prototype bipods that have not proven to be any real advantage as yet. Even if they are, the same people will win and that to me is the important point.
The SEB bipod w/joystick possibly will add to the scores of users but in the end the same people will win. In my 50 years of competition in many disciplines I have watched people change equipment/disciplines for various reasons and guess what....the same people still are winners.
You are talking about messing with a working formula and that is not always a good thing to do. F/TR is still F/TR and not Open. Leave it that way. I am now going back to working on the FCWC. So Long.
Of course I agree rules can be changed.
Originally everyone operated under Open rules. That meant you could use any type of rest. F/TR was created at the request of those who want a lighter, more mobile class that conformed better to the original Fullbore rifles and calibers. Hence the 8.25kg rule (a Fullbore/TR rifle weight with scope and bipod added) and caliber resrictions.
I have seen Open shooters use a bipod and win on occasion. But the front rest is inherently more stable and on average will offer an advantage. You seem to be making a judgment based on a few prototype bipods that have not proven to be any real advantage as yet. Even if they are, the same people will win and that to me is the important point.
The SEB bipod w/joystick possibly will add to the scores of users but in the end the same people will win. In my 50 years of competition in many disciplines I have watched people change equipment/disciplines for various reasons and guess what....the same people still are winners.
You are talking about messing with a working formula and that is not always a good thing to do. F/TR is still F/TR and not Open. Leave it that way. I am now going back to working on the FCWC. So Long.
seblambang
seb
VT52,
Maybe just like in short range Benchrest, there are Sporter / LV / HV class when we could use a sporter to shoot three of them - so I'm not going to question "why" we don't shoot just F/O or F/TR only. It's not my "portion".
I'm just responding to your concern about my joystick-bipod "would no longer give any disadvantage over a front rest" - as I think that's not the case. A front rest is much more stable than a bipod, a good front rest wouldn't move or shift under recoils. On the contrary, a bipod - as a "unit part" of the 8.25 kgs gun, then - no matter the design - will move along with the gun & you have to adjust the point of aim every-time.
I do not believe there is such a bipod that will give you a "perfect" return to battery, too - even if it is equipped with sliding rails (etc) on the feet or on the head unit.
This maybe a "support" for my statement above: I did try to shoot my .308 off of my bipod this morning, and I'm confident to say that I had to adjust my setup each time I've shot a round, no matter how I hold the rifle - soft hold, hard hold, free-recoil etc...no matter I shoot on soft firing ground/grass, carpet, or slippery floor. With my front rest I don't have to do that, only for minor adjustment.
They are different. I would choose a front rest over a bipod IF both are allowed.
As mentioned by Mr. Bartholome, a joystick bipod probably will add score - but if so that would only because it's more comfort to use, less fatique & quicker to adjust. (That's my intention with the joystick controlled bipod. I don't like bag squeezing myself & I had a question in my head last year why there was no joystick bipod in the market?)
I do still believe in "who's good, he/she will win". The greatest barrel / load / optics / windflags / equipment (etc) or a bipod alone wouldn't give someone a win - as you know it's more about the driver - but of course I will buy, say a better dies or a better scope in effort to gain my score/group.
Best Wishes,
seb.
Maybe just like in short range Benchrest, there are Sporter / LV / HV class when we could use a sporter to shoot three of them - so I'm not going to question "why" we don't shoot just F/O or F/TR only. It's not my "portion".
I'm just responding to your concern about my joystick-bipod "would no longer give any disadvantage over a front rest" - as I think that's not the case. A front rest is much more stable than a bipod, a good front rest wouldn't move or shift under recoils. On the contrary, a bipod - as a "unit part" of the 8.25 kgs gun, then - no matter the design - will move along with the gun & you have to adjust the point of aim every-time.
I do not believe there is such a bipod that will give you a "perfect" return to battery, too - even if it is equipped with sliding rails (etc) on the feet or on the head unit.
This maybe a "support" for my statement above: I did try to shoot my .308 off of my bipod this morning, and I'm confident to say that I had to adjust my setup each time I've shot a round, no matter how I hold the rifle - soft hold, hard hold, free-recoil etc...no matter I shoot on soft firing ground/grass, carpet, or slippery floor. With my front rest I don't have to do that, only for minor adjustment.
They are different. I would choose a front rest over a bipod IF both are allowed.
As mentioned by Mr. Bartholome, a joystick bipod probably will add score - but if so that would only because it's more comfort to use, less fatique & quicker to adjust. (That's my intention with the joystick controlled bipod. I don't like bag squeezing myself & I had a question in my head last year why there was no joystick bipod in the market?)
I do still believe in "who's good, he/she will win". The greatest barrel / load / optics / windflags / equipment (etc) or a bipod alone wouldn't give someone a win - as you know it's more about the driver - but of course I will buy, say a better dies or a better scope in effort to gain my score/group.
Best Wishes,
seb.
Last edited:
H
Hombre0321
Guest
I am a firm bliever that the Bi-Pod is an obstacle to be over come. if you think about it a Bi-Pod is a staple shooting platform up until you break the shot, then we are talking a whole new ball game. The shooter is going to have to rebuild his shooting position, find a way to deal with the elevation change that was destroyed when he broke the shot, then and only then is he or she back into a stable position for the next shot, and then the dance starts again.
A good tracking rifle in Open Class does not have to deal with any of that. I believe that SEB's rest is a great idea for the F/TR shooter as I do for the other Elevation adjustable Bi-Pod's with a mariner wheel.
There is no such thing as a level playing field, not as long as at any match you may have to compete against other shooters like Danny Biggs or Eric Cortina, Jim Croft, Laurie Holland or any of the other great shooters in this game. The level playing field is a myth plan and simple. I also feel that innovation and expermentation is a good thing and makes any sport grow. If and thats not a when but an "IF" SEB's rest is proven to be the greatest thing since sliced bread in F/TR, we will start to see more and more of them. To me personally thats a good thing, progress, and I see this as progress, is not to looked down on.
Maybe before it is looked at in a negative way we should wait until there is one to just look at. Right now there are only a couple of these on the planet shouldn't we judge it "After" it becomes available?
Roland
A good tracking rifle in Open Class does not have to deal with any of that. I believe that SEB's rest is a great idea for the F/TR shooter as I do for the other Elevation adjustable Bi-Pod's with a mariner wheel.
There is no such thing as a level playing field, not as long as at any match you may have to compete against other shooters like Danny Biggs or Eric Cortina, Jim Croft, Laurie Holland or any of the other great shooters in this game. The level playing field is a myth plan and simple. I also feel that innovation and expermentation is a good thing and makes any sport grow. If and thats not a when but an "IF" SEB's rest is proven to be the greatest thing since sliced bread in F/TR, we will start to see more and more of them. To me personally thats a good thing, progress, and I see this as progress, is not to looked down on.
Maybe before it is looked at in a negative way we should wait until there is one to just look at. Right now there are only a couple of these on the planet shouldn't we judge it "After" it becomes available?
Roland