Sussex Interclub HFT 2011 Round 3 - RESULTS

[Steve L]

While that may well be what they actually apply during the national series, but it's not expressed as such in the current UKAHFT rules, Sir Andy. No mention of air or discharge there; or have I missed something?

I'm personally happy with the 'goes bang' measure, and speak as one who has suffered from this infringment on more than one ocassion when using my AA400, having failed to ensure the bolt was 100% closed. Lost a few points in various comps as result.

However, as result of all the above I would like either for clarification from UKAHFT or for us (SIHFT) to come up with one.

Biggles

I have asked Sparky just to make sure.

[Mog]

Have already asked Sparky for clarification, awaiting his reply.

[Steve L]

Have already asked Sparky for clarification, awaiting his reply.

"Hi Steve

yup and your spot on, the gun must discharge air to be a 0 so you can cock the gun again and take the shot

Pete "

[Mog]

Exactly what he wrote to me. So the man from the UKAHFT, he say the gun must go 'phut' or 'twang' to count.

[Alegazmoz]

Thats what I thought Andy..
I believe that is 2-0 to me now Mr burgermiester

This isn't about point scoring .. in fact, for once you've instigated a reasonable debate on a point that clearly needs addressed ......
...... and I've yet to see evidence to support your interpretation.
Some rifles provide a dry fire function that can be used to circumvent the 'oops!' factor in taking a shot and you've stated that this is an advantage over a rig that doesn't have such a capability.
Failing to utilise a safety isn't the issue here, nor is failing to cock the rifle, as in either circumstance the mechanism fails to operate, therefore Richard's concerns are moot.
Intentionally cocking a rifle, sighting down range, pulling the trigger and taking a second shot having discovered that the act of cocking hasn't been completed and the rifle clicked instead of discharging air is a deliberate act.
I would argue, 'click' or 'bang' there's no mitigation based on the degree of notification. Essentially the fault is the same and the rules specify the act of failing to close the bolt and thereby affecting the shot.
The outcome is the same and the consequences should also be equal otherwise rifles with the dry-fire function can be abused in order to have the advantage you bragged about over those that don't.
Biggles has reiterated my concern that this issue is beyond the determination of local policy and should be clarified by UKAHFT after a little more deliberation than whether a rifle goes phut or not.
Gary.

[jon f]

this includes daystate's then not switching it on
all the other intentions are the same
this includes springers not releasing safety as all the intentions are same
if that view is taken
imo

[Steve L]

This isn't about point scoring .. in fact, for once you've instigated a reasonable debate on a point that clearly needs addressed ......
...... and I've yet to see evidence to support your interpretation.
Some rifles provide a dry fire function that can be used to circumvent the 'oops!' factor in taking a shot and you've stated that this is an advantage over a rig that doesn't have such a capability.
Failing to utilise a safety isn't the issue here, nor is failing to cock the rifle, as in either circumstance the mechanism fails to operate, therefore Richard's concerns are moot.
Intentionally cocking a rifle, sighting down range, pulling the trigger and taking a second shot having discovered that the act of cocking hasn't been completed and the rifle clicked instead of discharging air is a deliberate act.
I would argue, 'click' or 'bang' there's no mitigation based on the degree of notification. Essentially the fault is the same and the rules specify the act of failing to close the bolt and thereby affecting the shot.
The outcome is the same and the consequences should also be equal otherwise rifles with the dry-fire function can be abused in order to have the advantage you bragged about over those that don't.
Biggles has reiterated my concern that this issue is beyond the determination of local policy and should be clarified by UKAHFT after a little more deliberation than whether a rifle goes phut or not.
Gary.

I think you need to just step back from the keyboard once again Gary, the point scoring comment was in jest, but I see you have taken it upon yourself to start up our previuos problems, you really must let go .
So are you now saying I'm a cheat if it happens? sometimes, as Spongey has previously stated, the walther or steyr & even the EV2 cocking arm doesn't quite 'click in' thus resulting in said 'dry fire'. The rifle doesn't fire a pellet as you can pull back the cocking arm & clearly see the pellet hasn't moved, can you say the same about an S400 or other rifles ? Prob not, so therefore the pellet has left the breech or is down the barrel, so unsafe as you can't tell, the bang pushes the pellet down the barrel, the click doesn't.
Thats MY take on it anyway.

[Alegazmoz]

Quote: "Regardless of any circumstances, such as forgetting to load a pellet, not shutting the loading bolt, or if the trigger is pulled before you are locked on target, if the gun goes off the shot is considered as having been taken & will be scored accordingly."

If UKAHFT exempt rifles with a dry-fire function based on whether or not it goes bang and not if the mechanism operates then the statement above needs to be modified accordingly and perhaps it's time I put in an order for a new rifle ..

[Steve L]

& while we are on SiHFT & rules, how about Nicks previous idea (which seems to have been over-looked) of a different scoring system, just to keep it interesting for everyone , but this could be discussed now by the HOC & then members & sorted for next season, something along the lines of how F1 is scored ?

[Steve L]

This isn't about point scoring .. in fact, for once you've instigated a reasonable debate on a point that clearly needs addressed ......
...... and I've yet to see evidence to support your interpretation.Some rifles provide a dry fire function that can be used to circumvent the 'oops!' factor in taking a shot and you've stated that this is an advantage over a rig that doesn't have such a capability.
Failing to utilise a safety isn't the issue here, nor is failing to cock the rifle, as in either circumstance the mechanism fails to operate, therefore Richard's concerns are moot.
Intentionally cocking a rifle, sighting down range, pulling the trigger and taking a second shot having discovered that the act of cocking hasn't been completed and the rifle clicked instead of discharging air is a deliberate act.
I would argue, 'click' or 'bang' there's no mitigation based on the degree of notification. Essentially the fault is the same and the rules specify the act of failing to close the bolt and thereby affecting the shot.
The outcome is the same and the consequences should also be equal otherwise rifles with the dry-fire function can be abused in order to have the advantage you bragged about over those that don't.
Biggles has reiterated my concern that this issue is beyond the determination of local policy and should be clarified by UKAHFT after a little more deliberation than whether a rifle goes phut or not.
Gary.

Your club captain has already stated a few posts back & I have quoted Pete Sparkes reply to me on STB.

[lightning]

your like a load of girls

[MojoCrow]

your like a load of girls

Don't you mean a load of jaffa's? <Only fools and horses reference>

[Enthusiast]

& while we are on SiHFT & rules, how about Nicks previous idea (which seems to have been over-looked) of a different scoring system, just to keep it interesting for everyone , but this could be discussed now by the HOC & then members & sorted for next season, something along the lines of how F1 is scored ?

I'll have to read it again, we will consider any suggestions for a new season, obviously once we've started one it makes it more difficult to apply new rules part way through.

Back onto the other point where perhaps we should take a step back.

Why do we apply the rule in the first place? My guess would be that it is because if it goes bang or pop there is a chance that there was a pellet in the rifle and that it left the barrel and didn't make contact with the target. Discharging the rifle afterwards to see whether there was still a pellet in it is possible, but would open another can of worms(ie disregard my earlier comment on this, and most of the rest come to think of it)

If it didn't go bang then the pellet can't have left the barrel. If it went click, my guess is that it still couldn't.

I have lost points where I knocked the bolt open slightly whilst changing position. It hurt, but if you apply the logic above you see why.

Click=OK, pop=tough seems to be the answer.

Richard

[Alegazmoz]

this includes daystate's then not switching it on
all the other intentions are the same
this includes springers not releasing safety as all the intentions are same
if that view is taken
imo

No Jon, disengaging a safety cannot be regarded in the same manner.
The issue is whether the interpretation of the relevant rule in its current form disadvantages certain rifles based on the provision of a function that can be used to avoid what clearly is an infringement for some, dependant on whether air is passed down the barrel or not.

Steve ..... don't put words into my mouth nor draw inferences that aren't conveyed in my post.
Your remarks on the issue caused me to give the matter some thought and I see some disparity relevant to the functions some rifles provide over others and possible advantages that you yourself have cited.
Try reading things properly and we'll get along just fine.

Gary.

[Steve L]

No Jon, disengaging a safety cannot be regarded in the same manner.
The issue is whether the interpretation of the relevant rule in its current form disadvantages certain rifles based on the provision of a function that can be used to avoid what clearly is an infringement for some, dependant on whether air is passed down the barrel or not.

Steve ..... don't put words into my mouth nor draw inferences that aren't conveyed in my post.
Your remarks on the issue caused me to give the matter some thought and I see some disparity relevant to the functions some rifles provide over others and possible advantages that you yourself have cited.
Try reading things properly and we'll get along just fine.
Gary.

Now read Richards post, which basically gives the same reason as me, saftey. I know it's a little harsh but I don't see it as an advantage, the rifle goes bang (or pop) it's unsafe, it goes click, I can pull the bolt back, show you the pellt sitting there & shoot it again, it's HFT & shooting at tin chickens as they say, do we need all this boll0cks, lets just go shoot & have a good time eh ?
If you feel so strongly about it I suggest you PM Scooby on here or both Pete's on STB & have it out with them.