Rosshooting Posted September 22, 2004 Share Posted September 22, 2004 Can I switch the front sight of my IPSC Production Sig with Fiber Optic one. I think it's illegal in stock class in IPSC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kimberkid Posted September 22, 2004 Share Posted September 22, 2004 Powerman, its legal for production, as long as it is still of the notch and post configuration. Most any FO fits there. I highly recommend the Brazos or Dawson. the Caspian FO sucks, dont bother with it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
diehli Posted September 22, 2004 Share Posted September 22, 2004 For USPSA Production, KK is right. However, for IPSC Production it's a different story. SiG is offering a model with a Dawson Precision FO front sight (the 220 Langdon), but that might not be good enough to allow it being placed on your 226. Ask Vince. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kimberkid Posted September 22, 2004 Share Posted September 22, 2004 whoops, my bad, i thought they had the same rule in that venue Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Anderson Posted September 26, 2004 Share Posted September 26, 2004 I asked John Amidon this question at Nationals and he told me that Fiber Optic is allowed in IPSC Production division. I looked up the below paragraph on the IPSC site. Sounds like some clarification might be in order. Aftermarket sights of the same type and kind offered by the OFM for the approved handgun are permitted, provided their installation and/or adjustment requires no alteration to the handgun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Anderson Posted September 26, 2004 Share Posted September 26, 2004 And here is the answer from the IPSC FAQ section. 15. Can I replace the original 3-dot sights on my Glock 17 with aftermarket 3-dot fiber optic sights? No, not unless Glock offers fiber-optic sights for the Glock 17. Production Division rules allow competitors to use aftermarket sights but only if they are of the same "type and kind offered by the OFM for the approved handgun". In your example, both sets of sights are "3-dot" however fiber optic sights are not the same "type and kind" as the original sights, and are therefore disallowed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zerwas Posted September 26, 2004 Share Posted September 26, 2004 Most Glock sites are of the U shape rear, and dot front. I can't imagine it would be a big deal to just replace the front site with an F/O considering it is the same shape etc... If you changed the front and rear I could understand that. We'll have to ask the experts on this one... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scooter Posted September 26, 2004 Share Posted September 26, 2004 USPSA Prod rules have always said you can replace the sights as long as it's still a post and notch. IPSC Prod rules used to say that it must be FACTORY sights. Now they allow aftermarket sights of the same type and kind offered by the factory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spd522 Posted September 27, 2004 Share Posted September 27, 2004 Might want to make sure the FO front matches the rear. That is the problem I am having with my P226 is that the available (Dawson) FO front isn't tall enough if you want a decent rear sight too. I called Dawson and it is made for the stock rear sight. Not a good choice for competition IMHO. I put an MMC on the rear but it has to be cranked down to work. If you are familiar with the MMC, cranked down looks crappy. I talked to Bruce Gray at the Nationals as he was shooting his very slick P226. He said he had to make the front FO sight himself as nobody made one tall enough. He said it requires a .240-.250 height to work with a good rear sight. He is using the factory adjustable rear from the P226 Sport and the two work great together. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted September 27, 2004 Share Posted September 27, 2004 And here is the answer from the IPSC FAQ section.15. Can I replace the original 3-dot sights on my Glock 17 with aftermarket 3-dot fiber optic sights? No, not unless Glock offers fiber-optic sights for the Glock 17. Production Division rules allow competitors to use aftermarket sights but only if they are of the same "type and kind offered by the OFM for the approved handgun". In your example, both sets of sights are "3-dot" however fiber optic sights are not the same "type and kind" as the original sights, and are therefore disallowed. Hmmm. Are there gremlins in the house or has this topic been moved from somewhere else (e.g. the planet Pluto)? I mean I know I'm getting old, but I'm just wondering how a topic which was initiated on 22 September suddenly popped up on my radar today. Methinks somebody out there is messing with my mind ........ Flex, is your face red? Anyway, Lawman has supplied a perfect answer to the question, so my work here is done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted September 27, 2004 Share Posted September 27, 2004 Methinks somebody out there is messing with my mind ........ Flex, is your face red? I didn't want you deprived of getting to answer a rules question so I moved it in where it needed to be. Since you didn't get to answer...I'll provide you with a fresh question in another thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
diehli Posted September 27, 2004 Share Posted September 27, 2004 So if he was shooting a 220, then he could put a FO FS on (and a Scott Warren rear). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted September 27, 2004 Share Posted September 27, 2004 So if he was shooting a 220, then he could put a FO FS on (and a Scott Warren rear). I must reserve final judgement until I have more information but, having said that, my initial response is "No". The reason I say "No" is because, as far as I can determine, the "Dawson Precision" fiber optic front sights and the "Scott Warren" rear sights are offered exclusively on the "P220 Langdon" model. In other words, they're not offered by the OFM as an option on their "garden-variety" P220 (or any other model, for that matter). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
diehli Posted September 27, 2004 Share Posted September 27, 2004 Got it... makes perfect sense within the rules. Can't say I like it, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
racerba Posted November 6, 2004 Share Posted November 6, 2004 Is Dawson's adjustable sights (non-fiber optic) for Glocks IPSC PD legal? Glock does offer adjustable sights and they also offer metal sights. It would seem to me that they are legal, but to be on the safe side, I'll pose the question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spook Posted November 6, 2004 Share Posted November 6, 2004 They're legal. I just put them on my Glock 17 and they're really nice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
racerba Posted November 7, 2004 Share Posted November 7, 2004 Thanks. I like them also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted November 7, 2004 Share Posted November 7, 2004 Spook, You're absolutely correct, with thanks. As an aside, another thing on my "To Do" list is a proposal to allow "any Open Sights" (as defined in Rule 5.1.3.1), to be used in IPSC Production Division. If this proposal is supported by my colleagues on the IPSC Production Division Committee, and if it is ratified by the General Assembly, it would mean that fibre optic, ghost ring and similar sights would all be approved. However the existing "provided their installation and/or adjustment requires no alteration to the handgun" language would remain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spook Posted November 7, 2004 Share Posted November 7, 2004 Vince, I like the proposal. I think it would be practically impossible to remain updated of which accessoires a cetrain model is provided with by the mfg. even if you narrow it down to "types of sights". Your proposed rule would make life a lot easier for ROs and shooters I think. We're only an "xx-rounds maximum capacity rule" away from a perfect Production division Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eye Cutter Posted November 7, 2004 Share Posted November 7, 2004 Vince: that's nice to hear. the FO's should be a big help specially for "old" eyes! hope the GA ratifies it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted November 7, 2004 Share Posted November 7, 2004 Vince, sounds like a good move. I was wondering why there is the stipulation that there be "no alterations to the gun"? I don't care one way or the other. Just curious. If a shooter wants to bury Bomars into his Glock slide, I don't see that as an advantage over me and my slip-in Heinie Slant Pros. It just allows the shooter to use a Bomar for his Glock (shooter's like Bomars) that doesn't hang off the back end of the gun. I do wonder if some might take advantage and use the excuse of "milling for the sight" as a way to get by with lightening the slide. But, I don't know how much of an issue that would be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted November 7, 2004 Share Posted November 7, 2004 I do wonder if some might take advantage and use the excuse of "milling for the sight" as a way to get by with lightening the slide. It a nutshell, yes. If we allowed competitors to start milling their slides "to fit the sight", the old adage of "give 'em and inch, they'll take a yard" will soon be apparent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garfield Posted November 7, 2004 Share Posted November 7, 2004 Well, all things considered I agree it's probably the best solution. Being an RO this decision would definitely make life easier, that's true. But still .... I really, really, really hate having to compete on the level of accessories / money, and that's where PD seems to be heading now too . But I agree, there really does not seem to be a practical way to avoid this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Anderson Posted November 8, 2004 Share Posted November 8, 2004 Any idea when the rule change would be in effect? Is this something that could happen before the World Shoot? Or is it still some time off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted November 8, 2004 Share Posted November 8, 2004 Any idea when the rule change would be in effect? Is this something that could happen before the World Shoot? Or is it still some time off. Frankly, there's no way the proposed "softening" of the sight rules in Production Division can take effect in time for WSXIV. The IPSC Executive Council can authorise Rule Interpretations under the provisions of Rule 11.8.3 (which are subject to ratification by the General Assembly "after the fact"), but the subject proposal is actually a rule change, so there are no "short cuts". Having said all that, the proposed change would essentially be administrative (i.e. to simplify matters in the field). You don't win or lose the World Shoot because of the type of sights you use - David Sevigny became IPSC PD World Champion by virtue of his exceptional talent (and using sights which are permitted under existing rules). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now