Taper
-
- AA Poster
- Posts: 399
- Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2006 3:42 pm
- Location: Mesa, Arizona
Re: Taper
And we wonder why we are unable to attract new shooters............ who would want to jump into a group with this type of topic ?
I'm old; have enjoyed silhouette for many years and appreciate the sport we have.
How about we just shoot and stop arguing about inconsequential bullshit.
I'm old; have enjoyed silhouette for many years and appreciate the sport we have.
How about we just shoot and stop arguing about inconsequential bullshit.
- Merlin
- AAA Poster
- Posts: 771
- Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 6:56 pm
- Location: Friendswood, TX
Re: Taper
xpilot
"Only God can judge me." Merlin
"Merlin..Your'e a rimfire whore." God
NRA Lever Action Silhouette - You get more clang for your bang with lever action silhouette.....
TSRA Lifer
NRA Patriot Patron Lifer
"Merlin..Your'e a rimfire whore." God
NRA Lever Action Silhouette - You get more clang for your bang with lever action silhouette.....
TSRA Lifer
NRA Patriot Patron Lifer
- Emietenkorte
- A Poster
- Posts: 229
- Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2014 7:41 pm
- Location: Ephrata, WA
Re: Taper
I would have to respectfully disagree with your statement. Not saying you're wrong, I just have a different perspective of this, being a newer silhouette shooter who hasn't been shooting silhouette for many years.xpilot wrote: ↑Wed Oct 19, 2022 2:29 pm And we wonder why we are unable to attract new shooters............ who would want to jump into a group with this type of topic ?
I'm old; have enjoyed silhouette for many years and appreciate the sport we have.
How about we just shoot and stop arguing about inconsequential bullshit.
We ARE attracting new shooters! Perhaps not in the quantity that you might consider acceptable but I don't think we should minimize people who are new to this sport or the people who are introducing new people to the sport.
I don't believe clarifying the rules is "inconsequential bullshit", just because you have been shooting silhouette for many years doesn't mean everyone has been shooting it for many years. I remember when I started in silhouette I had questions just like this, luckily no one told me that my questions were "inconsequential bullshit".
PRS and NRL forums have questions like this all the time and guess what, people answer them and then they know! Everyone on those forums are willing to jump in on those topics because they want to follow the rules, or push the rules to their limit, just like this person is doing. That's how you learn, by asking questions. For example let's say we had a shooter asking this question at their first silhouette match, you think they would stick around if they were dismissed like this? ... If we discourage people from asking questions by calling their inquiries "inconsequential bullshit" we are going to have a hard time attracting new shooters!
Last edited by Emietenkorte on Fri Oct 21, 2022 8:41 am, edited 1 time in total.
- Merlin
- AAA Poster
- Posts: 771
- Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 6:56 pm
- Location: Friendswood, TX
Re: Taper
There is a huge difference between someone asking a valid question and someone who knows the answer to a question attempting to jailhouse lawyer his way into gaming the system just because he can. Bullshit semantics are bullshit semantics.
"Only God can judge me." Merlin
"Merlin..Your'e a rimfire whore." God
NRA Lever Action Silhouette - You get more clang for your bang with lever action silhouette.....
TSRA Lifer
NRA Patriot Patron Lifer
"Merlin..Your'e a rimfire whore." God
NRA Lever Action Silhouette - You get more clang for your bang with lever action silhouette.....
TSRA Lifer
NRA Patriot Patron Lifer
- Emietenkorte
- A Poster
- Posts: 229
- Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2014 7:41 pm
- Location: Ephrata, WA
Re: Taper
I don't disagree with that, but I haven't been around long enough to know who these people are so I can't make that determination... just like a lot of others, so I'll just answer their questions. I may have met them before, but their Steel Chickens handles don't always give their identity away.
-
- A Poster
- Posts: 182
- Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 1:22 pm
Re: Taper
This is the question: why are we not writing rules that are clear and easily measurable?
It's all well and good to be lenient at local shoots, what happens if a person spends the money to go to nationals with a rifle that meets one reading of the rules but not another?
It's all well and good to be lenient at local shoots, what happens if a person spends the money to go to nationals with a rifle that meets one reading of the rules but not another?
-
- A Poster
- Posts: 226
- Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2016 7:43 am
- Location: Texas
Re: Taper
The original post asked for consensus. We now have two pages, and growing, of competitors attempting to reach one. I think Allen, Erick and others have all made great points. I’m fairly new to Steelchickens and read back through the history of post for various reasons. A pattern is clear that the liveliest, longest and some times most heated conversations have a less than ideal rule at the core. These troublesome rules can take many forms, outdated, poorly worded, don’t meet the needs of the sport or just don’t pass the “ Why” test. Rather than being sentenced to more decades of lively debate can we fix the culprits? I know it’s managed by the NRA but surely folks as smart and tenacious as we can prevail. I mean that in a serious way, I’m willing to help with the work not just make suggestions or throw stones. Is there a person in our ranks that has a history with the rules, a history with working with the NRA and the interest in the subject? Or maybe I’m wrong and it’s all just fine as is. In that regard many already suggest we just shoot the matches. I can’t fault that, that’s exactly what I enjoy and will keep doing, with or without rule house keeping.
Now to the barrel taper question. For me it just doesn’t pass the “why” test. I think the intent of the rule is to have a barrel that tapers from breach to muzzle. The rule does a poor job of describing its intention because once we put much thought into it we get lots of different ways to interpret. My next thought will probably prompt more debate. It’s the “why” test. If a rifle must not weigh more than xx pounds and can’t have a barrel longer than xx inches what difference does it make if it’s a Bull barrel or tapered barrel, there both commonly used to hunt. We add weight to our stocks to change the balance, we change the material of stock construction to change the balance. Why do we get twisted up (besides a poorly worded rule) over the shape of the barrel. I thing we would be better served if it just said “if tapered, must be a continuous taper ending smaller at the muzzle. This taper is commonly recognized on sporting rifle barrels referred to as a “tapered” barrel.” Or other wording that with some brain storming would add clarity and pass the “why” test.
Now to the barrel taper question. For me it just doesn’t pass the “why” test. I think the intent of the rule is to have a barrel that tapers from breach to muzzle. The rule does a poor job of describing its intention because once we put much thought into it we get lots of different ways to interpret. My next thought will probably prompt more debate. It’s the “why” test. If a rifle must not weigh more than xx pounds and can’t have a barrel longer than xx inches what difference does it make if it’s a Bull barrel or tapered barrel, there both commonly used to hunt. We add weight to our stocks to change the balance, we change the material of stock construction to change the balance. Why do we get twisted up (besides a poorly worded rule) over the shape of the barrel. I thing we would be better served if it just said “if tapered, must be a continuous taper ending smaller at the muzzle. This taper is commonly recognized on sporting rifle barrels referred to as a “tapered” barrel.” Or other wording that with some brain storming would add clarity and pass the “why” test.
-
- A Poster
- Posts: 158
- Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2015 7:07 pm
- Location: over there
Re: Taper
Some time ago, I asked where one might find the NRA Silhouette Handbook which is referenced in the NRA Silhouette Rifle Rules book. See 4. Targets, 4.1, first sentence.
The sizes for Metallic Silhouettes are NOT shown in the Rule book, hence the reference to the Handbook.
It seems that it is not readily available; it is not available from the NRA website.
I wrote Arron Farmer requesting info' on its availability. His reply, essentially, was that they'll get around to a re-write, sometime. He did, however, send me a scanned copy of the now very old Handbook.
In other words, it is not a high priority for them.
Does the NRA care. It seems not, although they are "front of the queue" when it comes to asking for match fees etc.
We now get to a state where a competitor asks a legitimate question about 'taper'. This has elicited many responses, the most recent of which is that the O.P. has offered an elegant solution i.e., a rewording of the rule, the reason for which is made clearly obvious.
375Short wrote: -
Now to the barrel taper question. For me it just doesn’t pass the “why” test. I think the intent of the rule is to have a barrel that tapers from breach to muzzle. The rule does a poor job of describing its intention because once we put much thought into it we get lots of different ways to interpret. My next thought will probably prompt more debate. It’s the “why” test. If a rifle must not weigh more than xx pounds and can’t have a barrel longer than xx inches what difference does it make if it’s a Bull barrel or tapered barrel, they're both commonly used to hunt. We add weight to our stocks to change the balance, we change the material of stock construction to change the balance. Why do we get twisted up (besides a poorly worded rule) over the shape of the barrel. I think we would be better served if it just said “if tapered, must be a continuous taper ending smaller at the muzzle. This taper is commonly recognized on sporting rifle barrels referred to as a “tapered” barrel.” Or other wording that with some brain storming would add clarity and pass the “why” test.
Will we get a rewrite? I wouldn't bank on it being any time soon.
The sizes for Metallic Silhouettes are NOT shown in the Rule book, hence the reference to the Handbook.
It seems that it is not readily available; it is not available from the NRA website.
I wrote Arron Farmer requesting info' on its availability. His reply, essentially, was that they'll get around to a re-write, sometime. He did, however, send me a scanned copy of the now very old Handbook.
In other words, it is not a high priority for them.
Does the NRA care. It seems not, although they are "front of the queue" when it comes to asking for match fees etc.
We now get to a state where a competitor asks a legitimate question about 'taper'. This has elicited many responses, the most recent of which is that the O.P. has offered an elegant solution i.e., a rewording of the rule, the reason for which is made clearly obvious.
375Short wrote: -
Now to the barrel taper question. For me it just doesn’t pass the “why” test. I think the intent of the rule is to have a barrel that tapers from breach to muzzle. The rule does a poor job of describing its intention because once we put much thought into it we get lots of different ways to interpret. My next thought will probably prompt more debate. It’s the “why” test. If a rifle must not weigh more than xx pounds and can’t have a barrel longer than xx inches what difference does it make if it’s a Bull barrel or tapered barrel, they're both commonly used to hunt. We add weight to our stocks to change the balance, we change the material of stock construction to change the balance. Why do we get twisted up (besides a poorly worded rule) over the shape of the barrel. I think we would be better served if it just said “if tapered, must be a continuous taper ending smaller at the muzzle. This taper is commonly recognized on sporting rifle barrels referred to as a “tapered” barrel.” Or other wording that with some brain storming would add clarity and pass the “why” test.
Will we get a rewrite? I wouldn't bank on it being any time soon.
-
- Distinguished Master Poster w/Palms
- Posts: 2330
- Joined: Sun May 08, 2011 3:06 pm
Re: Taper
My Tony Tello cheater rifle special (that I beat Steiger with today…). It is straight for 2” then tapered 26” down to almost 1/2 OD….
Is it legal?
Emmett Dibble, Houston, Texas. Where's my buddy Jason? Keeper of electronic records and banisher of little pieces of paper?
-
- A Poster
- Posts: 226
- Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2016 7:43 am
- Location: Texas
Re: Taper
Looks very tapered to me. Many rifles with tapered barrels start with a cylindrical section, I’m no engineer but seems like a reasonable way to add more support to the chamber area, maybe some options if you want to cut the barrel back and choose a new chambering on down the road. It’s definitely tapered from the Breech end to the muzzle and looks like a barrel commonly recognized as a tapered barrel.