2025 Rule book

[No1_49er]

Here it is, guys. Hot off the press, so to say. https://competitions.nra.org/media/9996 ... lebook.pdf

49er

[acorneau]

Looks like rule "3.2.1 Smallbore Hunting Rifle" got changed to 9 pounds. (The rules reference chart on page "V" in the preliminary pages wasn't, probably missed.)

That's big news!

I wonder what else was changed.

[psteiger]

in the summary page at the beginning it says 8 1/2 lbs but in the text it says 9lbs......which is it?

[cedestech]

in the summary page at the beginning it says 8 1/2 lbs but in the text it says 9lbs......which is it?

Yes…

[No1_49er]

Looks like rule "3.2.1 Smallbore Hunting Rifle" got changed to 9 pounds. (The rules reference chart on page "V" in the preliminary pages wasn't, probably missed.)

That's big news!

I wonder what else was changed.

For anybody who might be curious about the changes in any of the rule books, go here https://competitions.nra.org/competitio ... ule-books/ and in a column to the right hand side of the listings is a separate listing of the changes.
For rifle silhouette there are three amendments noted, which are contained in a separate document, here https://competitions.nra.org/media/1001 ... hanges.pdf

I'm simply acting as the "messenger".

49er

[kendog]

Rule 3.1.3 (amended) What is an "extended mount"?

[stsbuyer]

I would think it means if mounting a receiver sight you are not allowed to use a base that move the sight closer to your eye.

[No1_49er]

Rule 3.1.3 (amended) What is an "extended mount"?

Search for images of Anschutz 6702 rear sights - THEY have an "extended base".
Search for images of Anschutz 8012 rear sights - they are NOT "extended base".

There are many other examples; however it does beg the question as to why extended bases are not permitted. Their purpose, as "stsbuyer" has pointed out, move the sight closer to the eye. But isn't that what a tang sight does?

A line-by-line examination of (most) rule books will reveal many anomalies that raise philosophical questions, e.g., 3.1.3(e) allows the use of binoculars but NOT a spotting scope or stand. BUT, image-stabilizing binoculars are not disallowed!!

Either we have, and use, rules that are consistent with spirit of 3.1.3 "The intent of these rules is to establish a match for common hunting carbines and other lever action rifles. The match is focused on shooters who enjoy shooting hunting arms and do not want to make the investment required of other specialized types of shooting competitions", or we don't, and it really does become a free-for-all in terms of expenditure on specialized equipment.

49er

[kendog]

Interesting...
Last match I was at some shooters were using Gehmann adjustable iris grafted to a Williams Target Foolproof, and a front sight with a fiber optic tube. Rule benders will bend rules...

"There was no controlling authority at that time..."
Albert Gore Jr, Sole Inventor of the Internet.

[kendog]

And thank you for the reply.

[No1_49er]

Interesting...
Last match I was at some shooters were using Gehmann adjustable iris grafted to a Williams Target Foolproof, and a front sight with a fiber optic tube. Rule benders will bend rules...

The way that the rule is (currently) written, an Anschutz 6702 rear sight, which has an extended base, would not be permitted but an Anschutz 8012 would be, although it is outside the "spirit of the rules".

Unfortunately, I think it becomes a case of "we always do it that way" or, "it's been done that way for so long that it must be OK".

NO. It's time that the rules were invoked by the match director/scrutineer/disputes committee/call it what you will, but it must be done.

If the outcome is that some people have a hissy-fit, so be it. And if their nose is really put out of joint, they should be brave enough to justify their case and seek a change to the rule (which they don't like). Else it descends into a fiasco where the rules simply become a (very) loose guide.

49er

[No1_49er]

In similar vein to the above discussion, I have been to many matches recently where shooters are using a vest that is adjusted with tabs on both sides with which to adjust the fit. Too often, one sees that there is no way that the 4 inch pipe would fit per 3.12(a). The tabs are being tightened to the extent that the vest becomes a shooting jacket providing lumbar support.

Either we have rules and invoke them, or we throw the rule book away and have a free-for-all.

49er

[375Short]

Rules are an important part of our sport and as mentioned, without a form of enforcement things can get out in the weeds in a hurry. Perhaps it’s a good time for competitors to review 11.9, 16.2 and 16.3, it is ultimately the competitor as much as the match officials that carry this responsibility.

If a competitor feels an issue needs to be addressed, assuming it’s not a safety issue, some courteous thought should be given concerning when. Especially issues that may have become accepted practice. If a competitor feels the need to challenge another competitor’s equipment or actions consider opportunities at local, regular scheduled, NRA approved matches. If it’s become a burning issue, waiting until a more complex and stressful match setting, like some form of championship, seems bad form. Officials are busy and competitors are heavily invested in attendance. I’m not advocating letting egregious violations go unaddressed but give thought to the most appropriate when, where and why.

[frankmako]

In similar vein to the above discussion, I have been to many matches recently where shooters are using a vest that is adjusted with tabs on both sides with which to adjust the fit. Too often, one sees that there is no way that the 4 inch pipe would fit per 3.12(a). The tabs are being tightened to the extent that the vest becomes a shooting jacket providing lumbar support.

Either we have rules and invoke them, or we throw the rule book away and have a free-for-all.

49er

the four inch pipe rule for vests is a joke. been to many matches all over and the vests are so tight. you don't see a four inch pipe to check any where. the four inch pipe rule is a rule that is not enforced.

[c4p6t7r188]

Rules are an important part of our sport and as mentioned, without a form of enforcement things can get out in the weeds in a hurry. Perhaps it’s a good time for competitors to review 11.9, 16.2 and 16.3, it is ultimately the competitor as much as the match officials that carry this responsibility.

If a competitor feels an issue needs to be addressed, assuming it’s not a safety issue, some courteous thought should be given concerning when. Especially issues that may have become accepted practice. If a competitor feels the need to challenge another competitor’s equipment or actions consider opportunities at local, regular scheduled, NRA approved matches. If it’s become a burning issue, waiting until a more complex and stressful match setting, like some form of championship, seems bad form. Officials are busy and competitors are heavily invested in attendance. I’m not advocating letting egregious violations go unaddressed but give thought to the most appropriate when, where and why.

Bad form? Rules should be held to the highest regard at any regional/nationals etc... people are fine with xyz when it comes to locals and it's like beating a dead horse when the match director says it's fine...you are now the pain in the ass, If anything people should be enforcing more at these larger matches, but when I'm on the firing line I don't bother looking left or right much, my target is in front of me.