rifle supporting device?

[bigbrowndog]

This has come up a couple of times lately and I was wondering what everyone else's opinion would be, so here it goes.

Would you consider a device that could only be used to help support the rifle from the prone position to be a Rifle support device or any position??? IOW, would a Noveske K9 be considered a rifle supporting device, it is marketed as such but its primarily used for shooting thru ports and off of barricades. I have seen another shooter take a scope ring and place it on a rail mounted to his rifle forend and use it for the same thing, it obviously isn't used for a scope since there isn't one in it.

i know what my opinion is, but whats yours????????????????

Trapr

[HS101]

I feel they fall into 2 separate categories.

Bi-Pods, etc, could be used anywhere in a course of fire simply by dropping to the ground. This somewhat goes for the Arredondo mag plates that allow you to monopod off of them.

Match directors / course designers can design courses of fire in such a way that ports are not accessable to be used as support. Fault lines can be used to seperate shooter from reaching the barricade. So, if the barricade is accessable, and I can support my rifle against it, then I do not see any reason the the Noveske k-9, any sort of hand stop, or scope rings, could not be used as well...

I hope that makes sense.....

[Red Neck Tactical]

Hell yeah it,s a "rifle supporting device"! And a stupid one at that, just like the scope ring, but that don't stop it from being open gear! The Idea of "regular gear" is to test YOUR ability with the gun in hand, not how well you can "STICK" your gun to a prop...and besides in the real Red-Neck Tactical world you would NEVER want your rifle stuck to something when it was time to move! This is one of those things that is designed to sell JUNK that you just don't want, but it has a cool name! The more we displace "skill" with gadgets the more we have no skill! Keep it simple and keep it Red Neck Tactical!

[ATAS]

I think its the coolest device to to hit the market since the vertical foregrip. I have 8 of them on my rifle. If course I don't shoot these games like you guys. I protect and serve!

Edited November 20, 2010 by ATAS

[Religious Shooter]

I wouldn't consider the K9 Open gear. You can do the same thing with side irons, a picatinny sling stud, a flashlight, etc.

[mpeltier]

Heck ya its a supporting device. Manufactuerer even says so. If I were writing the rules it would put you in open.....so would anything over 4x on the scope too. But luckily I aint writing the rules.

[bigbrowndog]

I realize mags and iron sights and other stuff "can" be used as support but they are not marketed as such, nor are they used specifically for that purpose, in other words, that is not the sole purpose for it being there. As a big fan of "dog" stuff, I do like the Noveske product name though.

BTW, this is not aimed at Noveske or its team members,........merely a query since I am writing up equipment rules for Rifle/Carbine. I just chose the Noveske item because it was one of the products mentioned to me as falling into the genre.

Trapr

[smokshwn]

The question becomes do we allow/prohibit an item based on its marketing or how a particular competitor utilizes said item during a course of fire ???

If I use a magpul afg, would/should it be allowable to hook it on a barricade?

[FB3GDQ]

I don't think the Noveske K9 gives the shooter that much advantage, and what does a 4 power scope have to do with anything. This is not IDPA, or IPSC. If someone wants to spend money on single use item then so what it's there money to waist. I don't think something like the Noveske K9 is going to be the difference in wining and lossing the match it's just one more thing for range lawyers to complain about. I watched a shooter using it at MS 3gun slip on the baricade while shooting and it ended up coasting him way more time on the stage then the K9 was worth. I would prefer to spend more money on bullets for training anyways leave the bling for the cool guys.

P.S. I wish this thing had spell check

[mpeltier]

I don't think the Noveske K9 gives the shooter that much advantage, and what does a 4 power scope have to do with anything. This is not IDPA, or IPSC. If someone wants to spend money on single use item then so what it's there money to waist. I don't think something like the Noveske K9 is going to be the difference in wining and lossing the match it's just one more thing for range lawyers to complain about. I watched a shooter using it at MS 3gun slip on the baricade while shooting and it ended up coasting him way more time on the stage then the K9 was worth. I would prefer to spend more money on bullets for training anyways leave the bling for the cool guys.

P.S. I wish this thing had spell check

What does money have to do with anything?

These questions/answers are simply to help determine "where to draw the line in the sand" so to speak. No matter the discipline or organization, it has to be done, and there will always be some who get their panties in a wad over it. I am not (when it comes to 3-gun) a big USPSA fan boy and especially not fond of IDPA, so do not mistake my posts as someone who wants a huge rule book. I do believe that there should be a little more deliniation (sorry if thats spelled wrong, I too wish there was a spell check) between tac-optic and open rifles.

Open division to me, has always been the "equipment race division", that is why I believe 4x optics max in tac-optic would be a good rule, anything goes in open. There are some very very pricy 1-4 optics out there, so those that just want to spend the cash still could.

This is simply my opinion, for the .00 its worth.

[Blockhead]

Looks like good practical kit to me. The training challenge the K-9 was designed for comes straight from the field (the VTAC Barricade). I wouldn't have any trouble with it at my matches.

That said, it's up to each Match Director to draw the proverbial line in the sand for his/her match. USPSA handles this kinda stuff with "Rulings" posted by NROI on their website. MD's working with independant rule sets can do the same. I just finished responding to the new SMM3G rules and I wonder how they would rule on this.

No matter what we do, no man-made rulebook will ever cover all of the issues.

Thanks for the post Trapr. I just ordered a K-9 for my HM rifle.

Edited November 21, 2010 by Blockhead

[Stlhead]

The point is not how an item is marketed, or even how it was intended to be used by the inventor. What defines an item is how the competitor chooses to use that item. If a competitor uses a vertical forwgrip as an impromptu monopod then he has created a rifle supporting device. Same for the barricade hooks. As for being practical kit, who knows or even who cares, it constitutes an artificial support and is not legal to use unless in open (in my worthless opinion). I also question the number of stepped slotted barricades one is likely to encounter in "the field".

[Merlin Orr]

I think its the coolest device to to hit the market since the vertical foregrip. I have 8 of them on my rifle. If course I don't shoot these games like you guys. I protect and serve!

Another example of misuse. 4 should be the limit.

[smokshwn]

I think its the coolest device to to hit the market since the vertical foregrip. I have 8 of them on my rifle. If course I don't shoot these games like you guys. I protect and serve!

Another example of misuse. 4 should be the limit.

With a little time and some accessory purchases I was able to mount up 4 scope rings and 4 K9's on a Troy Battle rail. The K9's are at 12,3,6,and 9 for rifle support and the scope rings are at 2, 4, 8, and 10 as ghost rings for CQB distance targets..... Bring on the Viking Tactics Barricade now bitches

[Merlin Orr]

Every competitor should be issued a set of firearms at the gate at all matches. We must do anything and everything possible to stifle any semblance of inventiveness, ingenuity or originality in this sport.

Anything that makes one competitor better in equipment or tactics, real or perceived, should be harshly discouraged and soundly penalized.

Damn these original thinkers! Change sucks and those who advocate it should be punished...!

[StealthyBlagga]

My opinion is that monopods/bipods/tripods/whatever should be allowed in all divisions - there, I've said it. My only caveat would be that the device must stay on the gun for the duration of the match. If the benefit of the device offsets its weight then it will be popular, and if not it will disappear. After all, this is how it is in the real world (if the "real world" is the benchmark for such things). Such a rule change would eliminate all the nonsense over whether this or that item is a "supporting device".

[FB3GDQ]

Every competitor should be issued a set of firearms at the gate at all matches. We must do anything and everything possible to stifle any semblance of inventiveness, ingenuity or originality in this sport.

Anything that makes one competitor better in equipment or tactics, real or perceived, should be harshly discouraged and soundly penalized.

Damn these original thinkers! Change sucks and those who advocate it should be punished...!

Well said

[slowsure]

Every competitor should be issued a set of firearms at the gate at all matches. We must do anything and everything possible to stifle any semblance of inventiveness, ingenuity or originality in this sport.

Anything that makes one competitor better in equipment or tactics, real or perceived, should be harshly discouraged and soundly penalized.

Damn these original thinkers! Change sucks and those who advocate it should be punished...!

Merlin for President!

[slowsure]

If i were Noveske i would add a slot or a hole on the K9 somewhere and call it a sling mount.

Almost any 90' surface on a hand guard could be called a "support device". Been there done that with a sling mount

The K9 also might be a hindrance. Some ports may be so small that the K9 might not let you move around enough to get to the targets. Just my 02

[mlmiller1]

I understand why bipods, etc are not allowed in all divisions but if you allow the gun to rest on anything, you have used that part of the gun as a "support" device. Whether it be the forearm or the magazine, it is a support device. How do you restrict that? I say take it easy on the support device name. If it is marketed as a support, it is a support. If it has any other use, then it probably isn't a support device. So they change the name & someone uses it for a support device, so what? If you want to remove all support devices, don't allow anyone NOT in open to rest their gun on anything. Everything shot offhand. This part of the rules can turn into a "my support device is ok but yours isn't" argument quickly.

This is of course only my opinion. I don't want to shoot offhand at everything. I like to rest my iron sighted rifle on a magazine or on a barricade or my hand or on the forearm(no forearm grip for me) but I've already found it complicated what you can use & where you can use it. Let's not make it even harder. Obviously a bipod is a bipod no matter what you call it but it could only have basically one use, a support device. If it is a forearm grip or a mag coupler, let it go. The opportunity to use those things as a support is very slim & probably you can find as many disadvantages as there are advantages to each of those "bling" items.

Common sense?

MLM

[Outsydlooknin75]

I remember seeing Rob's penguin wings at a match maybe a year or so ago and he was showing the effectiveness of using just a hand stop to push against a barricade and I though to myself, put a spike in the middle of it and it might be even more effective. I think it is just one more way to get a more effective and stable position for shooting.

Now to the question of should that put you into open ... I cant say yes. Although I do feel that it is an additional outside support.

[markcic]

The point is not how an item is marketed, or even how it was intended to be used by the inventor. What defines an item is how the competitor chooses to use that item. If a competitor uses a vertical forwgrip as an impromptu monopod then he has created a rifle supporting device. Same for the barricade hooks. As for being practical kit, who knows or even who cares, it constitutes an artificial support and is not legal to use unless in open (in my worthless opinion). I also question the number of stepped slotted barricades one is likely to encounter in "the field".

What is someone monopods off a magazine are they now shooting open?

[dcloudy777]

I need a pic-rail mounted sandbag that I can use as a sling attachment... (patent pending)

DanO

[Outsydlooknin75]

The point is not how an item is marketed, or even how it was intended to be used by the inventor. What defines an item is how the competitor chooses to use that item. If a competitor uses a vertical forwgrip as an impromptu monopod then he has created a rifle supporting device. Same for the barricade hooks. As for being practical kit, who knows or even who cares, it constitutes an artificial support and is not legal to use unless in open (in my worthless opinion). I also question the number of stepped slotted barricades one is likely to encounter in "the field".

What is someone monopods off a magazine are they now shooting open?

Mags are required for shooting.........using what is required for shooting as a support is simply using the tools that are required to your best benefit.

[caspian guy]

Not sure I'd bump that to open.

I have a hand stop on one of my rifles (that looks very similar) that would probably be fairly effective for that purpose if I added a piece of skateboard tape to the front of it.

Most of my rifles have sling swivel studs on the float tube (one at 6 o'clock for occasional bipod use and one at 9 o'clock for the sling. I have used those before as an aid to stabilize my carbine on a barricade would you see that as a support device.

So I guess the question is intent vs utility? Hmm....