Somebody use NEO rest in 1,000 yds match?

seblambang

seblambang

seb
Gentlemen,

I understand that many shooters use the NEO rest in point blank BR matches & F-class. But I don't know if someones use it for the IBS 1,000 yds or the Williamsport/PA?

Someone here?

I'm asking this question because there is issue in accurateshooter.com forum that the NEO rest (and FARLEY rest) are not legal to use under IBS 1,000 yds & Williamsport/PA match.

My question is, is that is true???

My other question is, anyone has ever DQ'ed or protested using a NEO or FARLEY rest?

I just don't want to make a rest that is 'illegal'. And if so (not legal to use), I will probably change the top/bag design...although the NEO rest is not intended for 1,000 yds match.

Your info/feedback will be much appreciated!

Many thanks in advance,
seb.


To Mr. Jeff Stover,
If you read this thread, could you please chime in?
 
Seb,

All the sancitoning bodies rules for 1,000 yard (and hence, 600 yard) benchrest came from The Original Pennsylvanian 1000 Yard Benchrest Club. (At the time IBS began sanctioning matches, Pennsylvania shot Heavy Gun only.)

Over the years, all three sanctioning bodies have made a few changes to the rifle rules. To the best of my knowledge -- which I'll have to say is is pretty good -- here have been no changes to the rest/bag rules.

Here is how to test your rest with a set of bags (it is the interaction of rest and bags that can cause "illegality").

Take a 1/2-inch strip of plywood, as wide as the forearm you're testing. Put it under the stock, and run it forward until it hits the rest/bag. To be legal, it must hit sandbag only, no metal/plastic/whatever restraint on the rest.

If that passes, you're halfway home. Now do the same thing on each side of the stock, using the widest point of the forearm (some have concave sides, which makes the test harder). You need the same result, the 1/2 inch strip should touch nothing but sandbag.

This insures there is 1/2 inch of sandbag holding the rifle which is not supported in any way by the rest.

There is one further rule, the sandbag can touch the sides of the stock for only 1/2 inch above the bottom. So, take a 1/2 X 1/2 piece of plywood, and run it along the side of the forearm, with it's bottom equal to the bottom of the forearm. When it hits the sdandbag (which it must do to be legal), the sandbag may not touch the side of the stock at any point higher than that strip of plywood.

Hope this is clear,

Charles

P.S. It isn't the "Farley" rest that is illegal. Only some Farleys with some sandbags. And the ones that are (mine is one) can usually be easily remedied by a 1/8- to 1/4 inch spacer under the bag -- between the bag and the bag-containing cradle of the rest.
 
Great info Charles.
And you're right in that the accurateshooter.com thread was not about illegal rests, but rest/bag combinations that failed to meet a 1Kyd IBS rule.
This, whether 'caught' by anyone or not.
 
Charles, thanks for your time. Unfortunately I do not ask how to measure the 1/2 inch requirement, (etc), that is an easy job even 5th grade kids able to do it correctly in seconds. It's too naive to think that I do not know how to measure 1/2" etc.

Re-read my questions.

I will copy this sentence for you Charles. I consider you as a friend.... Look at the photos of my the latest rest (the 'MAX') in accurateshooter bulletin, the top/side plate assy/side bags are exactly the same with the NEO, they have the same cutout etc. Look at the top assy & thickness of the bag over the bag retainer/stopper/leveler.
(re-read that the top/side plates assy/cutouts/sectional cross etc are exactly the same between the NEO & MAX, the MAX top is just longer)

1. Is it about my stopper & leveler are attached ON the bag retainer? (are they must be 'flushed' or under the retainers?)
2. Or is it about the bag must be over than 1/2" over the metal? (because if so then it's ALREADY MET the rules, you can slip 1/2" rod, even 5/8", without touching the bag container-any parts & the stock, any sides).



Mikecr,
You are the one that make the "issue" ("rumor?"), and repeatedly. Sorry to say this, but it's true.
You are the one that said my rests are "fail to meet the rules". Which rules? your rules?
Look at the photos of my the latest rest (the 'MAX') in accurateshooter bulletin, the top/side plate assy/side bags are exactly the same with the NEO, they have the same cutout etc. Look at the top assy & thickness of the bag over the bag retainer/stopper/leveler. Anyone with common sense can know it's already passed the 1/2" requirement. Do you understand?
From what I read about you, you don't even shoot registered BR match.
Should I hear you???
I need inputs/feedback from the ones that know about my rests.


seb.
 
Last edited:
I forgot to comment about this:

There is one further rule, the sandbag can touch the sides of the stock for only 1/2 inch above the bottom. So, take a 1/2 X 1/2 piece of plywood, and run it along the side of the forearm, with it's bottom equal to the bottom of the forearm. When it hits the sdandbag (which it must do to be legal), the sandbag may not touch the side of the stock at any point higher than that strip of plywood.
Click to expand...

Done/no problem.
My front/side bags are "V" shape so for instance even the stock has 'flat' on the sides more than 1/2" tall, only less than 1/2" that will contact with the inner sides of the bag.

seb.
 
Seb, if you look at the Accurate shooter thread (this one?)

http://forum.accurateshooter.com/index.php?topic=3794780.0

You will see that mikecr's link goes to here

http://bulletin.accurateshooter.com/2010/03/12110new-prototype-seb-neo-rest-unveiled/

In that picture, the sides of the bags are higher than 1/2 inch up the forearm, and would be illegal.

I believe you're saying the accurate shooter pictures of your bag shown there are now out of date?

I know of no solution but to do whatever it takes to be able to post on "accurate shooter" and correct misinformation, or out-of-date information, as it occurs.

& just a note to you -- Don't believe any of the IBS officers are paid, it is all volunteer. Nor does Jeff Stover shoot long range. I'm sure he'd help you if there is a need, but would take time, & since he doesn't shoot long range, there will be communications issues, etc.,

The best way for you to address any concerns about your rest and long-range rules would be to direct them to the long-range committee chair in the IBS. Head of the long range committee this year is Stan Taylor, of Douglas barrels. He won't be immediately knowledgeable about your rest (since he had to give out your prize rest so quickly, he didn't have time to take a good look, I'm sure), but that's one step closer.

Edit:

And of course, he can't do anything about any inaccurate information on accurate shooter... ;-)
 
Last edited:
Charles,
That's why I said mikecr knows nothing about my rests. He is also incompetent to say anything about IBS Rules & my rests.
He also said that he didn't read the BRC and don't care to. (then why you're so busy to reply this thread, mikecr?)

That was a prototype rest & bag, not the current/production rests. The current bags are different.

It's not their (accurateshooter.com) false at all. Nor me. I did make some changes/improvements on my rests for several times but I don't have to tell about that to the non-users.
My website also hasn't been updated since 2008. You can't see the NEO there.

Check this for my current/production rest & bag... http://benchrest.com/showthread.php?82869-Mike-Ratigan-2nd-US-dealer-for-NEO-rest/page2
Or this... http://forum.accurateshooter.com/index.php?topic=3299077.225

seb.
 
SEb, I was told could use one at williamsport if you remove the fore end stop and level. This was on an older thread you even commented on it....... jim
 
Jim, I'm just too tired to explain the differences between the gen1 and the gen2 NEO, including the top/bag.
Actually, I don't (have to) care if the NEO is legal or not for the IBS 1.000yds or the Williamsport PA, my 'market' is much bigger than that & already quite busy with my works. What I need to care is our customers, not the "issue" (with "...") made by in-competent source.
I don't even know if I have failed to explain the differences (to you), due to my poor English skill... or perhaps you just don't (want to) understand...(?)
To me, even 5th grade kids will/must be able to know that my new bags are already over (more) than 1/2" over the metal/retainer/side plates/forend stopper/leveler if I show them my new rest & bag. I only need to give them a 1/2" thick plywood or rod.
If you really had a NEO rest(?), I can assure you that 'your' rest/bag was different with my latest rest/bag.
Just one thing, you will soon see that the new/gen-2 NEO is clarified 100% legal to use either in the Williamsport PA or the IBS 1,000 yds.
That's all I can tell to you, no more.

seb.
 
Seb the context of my initial posting on the subject, supported the FACT that some Farleys, AND some of your rests, -could be, and have been combined with bags that could lead to a rule infraction.
That your current rest and bag offered meet this rule, is great, and it appears the current Farley does as well.

None of this was meant as an attack toward your rests, but instead only to inform shooters of the rule and potential pitfall.
Truly the issue should have been recognized in discussion and locally solved without offense to anyone.
However, YOUR denial, defensive posture, apparent misunderstanding of spirit of the sport, and personal attacks, have served to darken and mutate the subject.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for your response/feedback mikecr.

You say personal attack. Who's the one that made it, in your opinion? Please re-read your older posts in accurate shooters.com. Who's made the "issue"? Who's one 'pointing my nose'?
YOUR denial. What i have denied?
Defensive posture. Well, I don't know. I can't consider myself, honestly.
Have served to darken and mutate the subject. Sorry I'm not quite understand with this.

seb.
 
seblambang said:
mikecr knows nothing about my rests. He is also incompetent to say anything about IBS Rules & my rests.
Click to expand...
= ATTACK
That you have yet to concede that older rests of yours, and of Farley's, could be configured in a manner which violates an IBS rule.
= DENIAL
I believe Charles understands that I meant no specific offense to you, but was merely pointing out configurations to watch out for.
I also believe that if you had openly agreed that there was, or is, a potential for this, or said nothing at all on the matter, the term 'SEB' would not have come up further in the discussion..
But instead, you chose to attack, and continue to do so.
Well if nothing else, you might look up the adage: "Never wrestle with pigs"
 
Seb, they sort of came across as personal. Maybe that wasn't your intent.

Your replies seem to be born out of the natural pride of someone who's made a good product, defending the product.

I don't think mikecr was attacking your rest at all, just pointing out that under some conditions, many combinations of rests and bags don't meet the specifics of the 1,000 yard rest/bag rules. Something the shooters should be aware of, if someone is going to start checking things.

Your simple answer is, the production units, though maybe not the the prototype, meet the 1K rest rules.

Enough said.

* * *

On the mater of the difference between the 1K and short range rules, the simple answer is to make the 1K rules the same as short range. The problem with that is the 1K rules actually make more sense. I'd bet that close to 90% of the rest/bag combinations found in point blank BR do not meet the rules as written, read strictly. The "easy deflection" part makes sense if you're describing a 25-pound lead shot bag filled with sand. The original sandbag. You could press down on the "bottom" of the bag and it would still "easily deflect." How about now? The 1K rules are at least possible to adhere to.

Given the importance of rests and bags in benchrest, it would be nice to have a complete re-write, given a modern understanding. Problem is, I'm not sure we really do understand.

There has been some discussion that "soft" bags work better than "hard" ones. Well, these are not precise terms, but last weekend, at an indoor 100 yard range, I fired two 10-shot groups, one using a "soft" setup, one a "hard". The groups were identical, about .200 (10-shot groups, remember). This was a .30 BR HV, which has done well for me in both group & score. Both had a little more than 1/2 bullet's worth of vertical.

The "soft" was a not-too-hard-packed Hohen bag on a Hohen windage top, with some firm foam under the bag itself (to make 1/2 inch, as it happens). The ears were not tight. The "hard" rest was a fairly firmly packed Edgewood on a Farley, using an aluminum (hard) spacer under the bag. The ears were adjusted to make good solid contact with the sides of the stock.

The only difference was that the groups fired using the Hohen, with it's loose ears, had a touch more horizontal. The horizontal was about .160 (half a bullet hole) with the hard top, and again, about .200 with the soft top.

Well, there could be all sorts of reasons for the size of these groups, including "I can't shoot." But it was an indoor range, they were 10-shot groups, and they were almost identical. And a flat two is not that bad.

I don't know the answer, and therefore, I don't know how to write a sensible rule. You want to rule to make a level playing field, yes, but not to take away from the performance of the rifle.
 
Last edited:
SEB -

First I want to Thank You for contributions to 600/1000-BR and your obvious support to the sport !!!

I find it admirable that you placed yourself and your product in the "lime light" here to be judged compliant to the rules and offer change if need be. And asking for input/involvement of the IBS president shows the sincerity of your intents.

To bad your thread and questions here got railroaded by rambling rubric which has now distorted the obvious reasoning you started the thread. And that being your wanting to make sure your rests are in compliance to 600/1000-BR rules.
I agree 100% with you that you are being victimized by a non-competent who not only here to these threads, but repeatedly in the past as well, has been trying to scrutinize the sport, sanctioning, and rules. It is very obvious to many these are the intent.

Best Regards,
Donovan Moran
 
Seb, i was not aware of the new stile bag or the gen. 2 rest,Now you tell it meets the 1/2 requirement. will this bag fit the gen1 without a lot of hassle?The problem is solved then, I did own two of your rest as late as this summer. This was to inform you not to bash you or your rest.........jim
 
Last edited:
OK, I have no dog in this fight :) but just my $0.02. I don't see where it is necessarily the height of the sides of the bag that matter, just how much of the bag contacts the side of the stock? In MHO, the sides of the bag could be 12" high as long as the stock is configured so that only 1/2" of it touches the bag? I personally had Mike McNeil (land owner at Hawk's Ridge) tell me back in early 2000 that my bag was touching more than 1/2" of the stock? So I sewed part of the bag on either side so it only made 1/2" of contact. If your stock has a 1/2" of flat on the side and then tapers in toward the barrel, it is almost impossible for the sides to make more than 1/2" of contact? So, as long at there is only 1/2" of contact and the rifle can be lifted out of the rest with out it picking up the rest, you should be legal!
Rich De
 
dmoran65 said:
SEB -

First I want to Thank You for contributions to 600/1000-BR and your obvious support to the sport !!!

I find it admirable that you placed yourself and your product in the "lime light" here to be judged compliant to the rules and offer change if need be. And asking for input/involvement of the IBS president shows the sincerity of your intents.

To bad your thread and questions here got railroaded by rambling rubric which has now distorted the obvious reasoning you started the thread. And that being your wanting to make sure your rests are in compliance to 600/1000-BR rules.
I agree 100% with you that you are being victimized by a non-competent who not only here to these threads, but repeatedly in the past as well, has been trying to scrutinize the sport, sanctioning, and rules. It is very obvious to many these are the intent.

Best Regards,
Donovan Moran
Click to expand...

Donovan, many thanks for your kind words....seb.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top