Not so new as before

[Innocent]

BulZi,
I have remained quiet on this up until now. Quote all the published papers you want, sitting and reading is not proving anything. I work in the academic field, and I have seen many things written and published, even peer reviewed that are not and have never been true. Build a gun like you are talking about and come out and show us that it wins.

Mary

[CWS]

Rules keep your ideas suppressed... OK, pick a game with NO rules. On the battlefields of the world today, two rifles stand supreme. The Kalashnikov design and the Stoner design reign supreme over TWO bullpup designs by the French and English. You would sullly the reputation of Dieter Anschutz without ever talking to him... only taking his words from context. At the time, Dieter was acting on the advice of his chief of production, (a real engineer) named Johann Mayer, who justifiably and reasonably predicted faults and problems with electronic triggers. Anschutz had the world's best mechanical trigger... why would they want to take the chance? Yes, that's a business decision. As Mary said... build your bullpup and come shoot it with us. If the design shows ANY benefits over current designs you can be sure there will be many that begin lobbying for its inclusion. Shooting competition is like racing... the top designs quickly rise to the top.

[BulZi]

Tell that to the guys who spent a bunch of money on ergonomic chin guns and then weren't allowed to shoot them... It is not a "dream it, build it, shoot it" sport.

I am a not a rifle designer, or a even a great shot. I don't design rifles for a living. I probably couldn't home-build a comp-grade rifle OR shoot it at that level.

The paper I cited is indeed one that I sat and read. If you did the same, you would realize that they did real-world testing including real live-fire shooting and posted real results. "Academia" is not a uniformly-objective set of subjects. Bullet holes in a target are about as objective as data gets, and the data from this study showed that offhand accuracy was improved by shorter LOP and reduced weight, individually and together. It ran contrary to conventional wisdom in the field, and pointed out a path for innovation and further experiments. Perhaps you are more familiar with the "social sciences" or modern literature or some academic field like that. These were Taiwan ROC military research guys who face a much greater threat of fighting a conventional existential land war than we do here in the USA.

I trust their data because I read their methods. They trust their data with their lives, and the rifle that they adopted reflected their findings.

The data that I cited is the only real data put forward which addresses my point, that unconstrained experiments show that non-conventional rifle stocks can give superior offhand accuracy.

Sure, you can get a bad paper through peer review. That is a lot easier than getting a non-compliant rifle through the NRA national comp judges' booth. Please refute data with data. For the record, the small military research effort that published this research ultimately adopted an AR variant with a 25cm LOP and a 3.17kg mass - even shorter and lighter than what was tested. Was it designed for offhand accuracy, compact transport, longer marches, or because the troops use thicker shoulder armor now. Who knows? Perhaps the "short gun advocate" has a relative in the military procurement office. Regardless, the offhand shooting accuracy data in that paper is real and it is based on scientific experiment and not appeals to tradition. It clearly and objectively shows that a shorter and lighter weapon is aimed and shot with greater stability due to ergonomic and physiological effects. Don't rely on the peer review, rely on the data.

My point is simply that no one will even try to build the "optimal" offhand gun with "optimal" offhand accuracy or ergonomics if it isn't allowed to officially compete in a major event.

The arbitrary rules restrictions on sighting geometry and stock geometry preclude a full exploration of what is or is not ergonomically optimal, if "optimal" is defined only in terms of offhand shot placement and not appearance or arbitrary restrictions on scope/stock/bore geometry.

The winning guns in NRA silhouette, ISSF 50M, Olympic biathlon, etc. are not necessarily the best ergonomic offhand guns. They are the best guns that fit the current rules (which include compromises due to sighting rules, stock geometry, weight limits, etc).

Some ruling bodies, like biathlon, are willing to change the rules in favor of better stock ergonomics for their event. Some, like NRA silhouette, have set a precedent of outlawing winning ergonomics (like chin guns) and re-writing rules to stifle real innovation.

"I won the Silhouette Rifle nationals seven years in a row, six years with a chin gun. At the time I began experimenting with this new rifle shape, Silhouette was wide open in design possibilities. There were weight limits on the rifles, but not a lot else to hold back the creative process. The whole idea of this rifle sprang from the want to have the best possible shooting position and then overcome the problem inherent in all other rifle designs of being able to get the sight in front of the eye when the shooter was holding that ideal position (or position ideal)." - David Tubb

David Tubb had the time, money, and motivation to spend a lot of time on his solution, and he did just that. He may have also won those events with a bone-stock rifle, but according to his own personal experiments, he was able to get better offhand accuracy with a chin gun so he did just that. Some people didn't like them, and they were banned. A bunch of other people were then left holding the bag, with newly purchased non-compliant rifles. The NRA could have created an "unlimited" class to accommodate, but they didn't. The chin-gun shooters were labeled "cheaters" which is a pretty harsh invective for someone who was rules-compliant yesterday but isn't today.

I am going to try to build an offhand target bullpup, but it will not be NRA silhouette compliant.

It is guaranteed to never win. By that standard, it is a failure before the first shot is fired. No need to take any data.

However, you can't just say that the "proof is in the pudding" while ignoring the major fact that certain "ingredients" are banned from pudding competitions. I can prove that there are alternative stock ergonomics capable of winning in an offhand shooting competition by citing the single example of the chin gun.

Who knows what further innovation in offhand ergonomics would be possible without the current stock/scope/bore geometry rules? No one knows, and likely, no one ever will.

[BulZi]

And incidentally, none of the cited rifles (AR, AK, FAMAS, L85) are optimized for offhand accuracy.

Some were optimized for sustained auto fire, some for production costs with limited industrial infrastructure, some for compactness... but not a single one for offhand accuracy ergonomics.

The chin gun was, and it does not comply with the arbitrarily-revised rules. If you don't fear it, rescind the ban. Let major developers and competitors shoot whatever they bring.

I am not trying to sully the name of Anschutz. However, he didn't just make the decision not to pursue it himself, he forbade his sponsored shooters from pursuing it... Stifling innovation if I ever saw it. If they were really hopelessly unreliable, what did Anschutz fear, they would come back to his precision mechanical triggers in no time...

Incidentally, reduced total mass, heavier barrels, and a closer center of gravity are selling points for - Anschutz biathlon guns....

http://jga.anschuetz-sport.com/index.ph ... how=detail

Model 1827 Fortner Sprint nitrided
A combination of an extra light 1827 Fortner barreled action with the stock of the model 1827. This combination makes the rifle 300 g lighter, the center of gravity is closer to the body. The weight is 3.7 kg. The other functions are equal to the model 1827 Fortner.

Modell 1827 Fortner Sprint nitrided, heavy barrel:
The heavy barrel results in a total weight of 3.85 kg.

[shakes]

You guys should just give up on this one. your not going to convince somebody who he thinks hes smarter than everyone who has been shooting silhouette since they could pick up a rifle.

[Jason]

As for statistical significance, one study of 12 shooters is statistically insignificant, period. We had more than that at our smallbore silhouette shoot yesterday. I was lucky enough to win the hunter class match, so therefore I could claim that in my "study" that the stance (or rifle, shoes, hat, etc.) that I use is proven best for offhand rifle shooting. With that in mind, I present to you a larger sample group, the entire rifle silhouette shooting community. Among this very large "study" sample group, none of the top performers are using a radically short, light rifle design. Zero. A friend that I compete with, Kevin (can give full name once I get permission) tried one of the benchrest-style short, fat (2" diameter) barreled rifles like are used in benchrest but with a hunter-style stock for fun. It made weight for standard class but had the weight (obviously) much closer to his body. He is a very good shooter and he tried it a total of one match. It just plain didn't work. It went back to benchrest duty in a benchrest stock.

I don't think there's any point in pushing this farther. You freely admit that you don't know about competition offhand shooting, but you keep presenting data taken out of context or that just blatently doesn't apply (ex: benchrest, pistol) as evidence that shorter, lighter rifle designs are better for offhand shooting. There are many shooting games that do not have rulesets that prevent the use of bullpups or other short, light designs. Yet there are no short, light rifle designs winning there. Your example of sports being willing to change, biathlon, is ruled by an Anschutz rifle that weighs over 8lbs. The NRA rules do not preclude shorter, lighter rifles from being used in competition no matter how much you claim that they do. Again, there are none winning there. With that said, rulesets can not now and never have been able to truly prevent innovation. Presently on this very forum, we have people arguing that the "frankenhunter" rifles in silhouette, which are testament to innovation, shouldn't be allowed. For example, I can get as much downward chin or cheek pressure, depending on which scope mounts I use, on my Pharr RTS stock as I want. It's not a chin gun, though. Innovation will find a way if the concept has merit. Yours does not.

We're now well into five pages of this, with no significant data to support your assertion that shorter, lighter rifles are better for accurate offhand shooting. I believe that Shakes is correct. I also believe that your refusal to accept the fact that others who know the sport much better than you might be correct will significantly hamper your ability to work with others in your electronic trigger design. I also believe that it will significantly hamper their willingness to work with you.

[BulZi]

"There are many shooting games that do not have rulesets that prevent the use of bullpups or other short, light designs. "

Any offhand "shooting games" that allow bullpups? You haven't named any.

NRA - banned due to stock/sight/bore geometry
Olympic free rifle - banned due to stock/sight/bore geometry
Olympic biathlon - banned due to stock/sight/bore geometry

The historical fact is that NRA silhouette banned a very winning rifle design with unconventional ergonomics for reasons that seem arbitrary.

Indeed, I do not know as much as the people on this forum about this shooting sport or any other, which is why I am reading your posts and trying to absorb them. I respect all of your opinions. None of the facts or studies which I cited are my own. I am not David Tubb, or Dieter Anschutz, or a Taiwanese military ergonomics researcher.

I am curious to investigate the ergonomic consequences of shifting rifle weight rearward without compromising barrel length. Some real scientific evidence suggests there may be a benefit. Many appeals to "what wins" currently suggest that there is no benefit, but history shows that a winning design got banned, and those same rules preclude the changes I suggest.

If people were really interested in pushing the limits of offhand shooting accuracy, they would not have banned wacky stocks from NRA silhouette. Please explain to me how that is an irrelevant observation.

[Jason]

Blah, blah, blah.. None of those ban short, light rifle designs. Again, you're trying to wiggle out of proof. Show me where in the NRA rulebook, which I currently have in my hands, that it requires a minimum weight, minimum overall rifle length or minimum barrel length. It doesn't. Period. This is the point being addressed that you supposedly know more than everyone else on. Your only "data" that has been presented as fact is supporting that statement and has nothing to do with bore height relative to sighting plane, so again please stick to your point and actually address it. Your argument that it can't happen because barrels mounted below the comb aren't allowed is not relevant to your shorter, lighter point.

The root of this is that you don't know what you're talking about but you're still talking. Get out and actually try out what you're talking about. Silhouette shooters are wonderful about letting others try out their guns. Try some longer, heavier rifles (like an Anschutz 5418) and then some shorter, lighter rifles (CZ 452 Scout). Actually put your hands on what we're talking about. Then you'll see how credible what "scientific evidence suggests there may be a benefit" to really is.

[BulZi]

True, no bans on minimum weight or barrel length (beyond the federal laws). Events with iron-sights rules give an advantage not only to longer barrels, but longer sight lines as well.

But you can't move the action under the cheek under the current stock rules because comb is restricted relative to bore line. You can't put the scope arbitrarily high above the bore.

Therefore, you can't have the stock which I want to try, which might be the best of both worlds (short rifle with long barrel and ergonomic sight line). I say "might" because until it is allowed, competitors won't try it.

I think it might be good, based on muscle physiology. David Tubb, someone who knows more than me about every shooting sport including NRA silhouette, has written that silhouette chin gun is his best offhand position. "This is a strong example of how a rifle change equates to a position change, and that it's the position that should first dictate rifle design. I stand straighter because I don't have to move the muzzle up with the larger amount of back bend."

My wacky ideas for offhand stock/rifle/scope design might suck too, a point I freely concede. There are few people who can design a rifle from scratch, even very poor quality. I wouldn't shoot a high-power bullpup just because I make my living with my eyeballs, but I might chance it with .22LR - I just wish that rifle ergonomics weren't restricted. I wish that the whole chin gun ban never happened, and that the rules were as free as before.

We know chin guns were good. We know they got banned. Was it because they were better ergonomically? If so, is an even better offhand shooting layout possible, if certain technical constraints are overcome? Why is this such a stupid question to ask?

[BCloninger]

Wow! Y'all got too much time on your hands!

[TXCharlie]

David won the national hunter, std. and open rifle hp silhouette championship, with a factory Remington hunter rifle one year at Whittington. The year he did that, I thought the arguments about the design of rifles would be over. Nope, the next year they shot down the open class instead.. The best shooter is probably going to win on most days.

[glen ring]

Tx Charlie
You're right. I've shot in a few sports and tried to keep up with the jones's by buying the latest , shiny , expensive gizmo. Shooting was expensive and boring. I bought an old browning shotgun at an estate sale for $250.00 and thought I'd try trap. My friend had a "trap Gun" costing several thousand dollars and laughed at my cheap gun. I obtained good instruction and shot many rounds of practice and come my first state match I thumped him really bad. I sold my expensive IPSC gun and equipment and just shot my 9mm duty Glock at matches. Now I was really having fun again!

After I "grew up' a little and quit being so competitive my darling bride of 32 years has started shooting with me and we have a good relaxing match.

At this years Lever Action Nationals I watched a shooter compete with a very old pump .22 that I think he said was given to him by his grandfather. I thought that was a cool story as this guy was gray headed himself and then I noticed that he beat most of us!

I like fancy guns and gizmos as much as anyone but it's usually the best shooter that wins the match. Shoot what you have, plain or fancy, and have a good time.

[Trent]

Wow! Y'all got too much time on your hands!

No kidding!!! I don't even have time to READ some of these posts, let alone come up with the time to write all of this. Some seriously long winded posts.

[BCloninger]

I like fancy guns and gizmos as much as anyone but it's usually the best shooter that wins the match. Shoot what you have, plain or fancy, and have a good time.

And the people said "Amen". Beware the man (or woman) that only has one gun.

[Bob259]

I like fancy guns and gizmos as much as anyone but it's usually the best shooter that wins the match. Shoot what you have, plain or fancy, and have a good time.

And the people said "Amen". Beware the man (or woman) that only has one gun.

There is an old farmer in our indoor winter Sporterifle league that has an old (probably JC Higgins) .22 that rides with him on his tractor and no one would look at once, let alone twice. However, when he does shoot he shoots a lot of perfect 100 scores and very seldom, if ever, shot less then a 97 out of a perfect 100 on a target. So it's NOT the rifle, or price of the toys we choose, it's what everyone has been trying to say it's the SHOOTER, there are a lot of dead wood chucks that the last thing they said was that old farmer and rifle can't hit anything ;)