Wakal Posted May 21, 2005 Share Posted May 21, 2005 We know that a Tactical rifle can have no more than one optical/electronic sight (US Appendix D2.13), and that 5.1.3.2 states that a "optical/electronic sight are aiming devices which use electronic circuitry and/or lenses." So...is the new Aimpoint "Triple Magnification" sight, when used with a Aimpoint red-dot sight, actually two sights or is it just one sighting system? On one hand, the triple magnification portion is fairly useless as a sight without the red dot portion. On the other hand, the red dot and the magnifier are totally different pieces, on their own mounts and everything. Since we think that flashlights are "sighting devices," is a three-power optic with no reticule also considered a sight? If a competitor were to trick out a nominally-Tactical rifle with a spring-loaded rear triple magnification lens system (with the ability to switch "on the fly" from a dot to a magnified dot"...would that competitor move to Open? So...confused... Alex REF: http://www.aimpoint.com/o.o.i.s?id=67&prev...&product_id=117 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
diehli Posted May 21, 2005 Share Posted May 21, 2005 It's definitely tactical and definitely not within the rules of Tactical Division. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted May 21, 2005 Share Posted May 21, 2005 It sure looks like two devices to me. What am I missing? If somebody wants that to be considered one...they might want to bridge the two together with a cardboard tube from a roll of TP and some (tactical) black duct tape. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ErikW Posted May 21, 2005 Share Posted May 21, 2005 (edited) If you duct tape them together, is it one optic? HAHA Flex$ I didn't see your post. GMTA. Gamer Minds Think Alike. Edited May 21, 2005 by Erik Warren Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimel Posted May 21, 2005 Share Posted May 21, 2005 I would want to get an official ruling but there is some parallel here with pistol sights. Two pieces. Both CAN be used without the other (Erik is a pro at this ) but they aren't real effective. If it was MY match I would call it a single optic and allow for Tactical. If however I saw that rifle with only one piece installed during the match it would "Say hello to Open". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Habicht Posted May 22, 2005 Share Posted May 22, 2005 I would want to get an official ruling but there is some parallel here with pistol sights. Two pieces. Both CAN be used without the other (Erik is a pro at this ) but they aren't real effective.If it was MY match I would call it a single optic and allow for Tactical. If however I saw that rifle with only one piece installed during the match it would "Say hello to Open". <{POST_SNAPBACK}> That was my initial reaction as well....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ErikW Posted May 22, 2005 Share Posted May 22, 2005 Actually, because you look through both to sight, I'd be inclined to allow it in Tactical. But it allows for the possibility of removing the magnifier on the close stages, giving an unfair advantage over single optic competitors. Maybe if we had an equipment check at each stage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricW Posted May 22, 2005 Share Posted May 22, 2005 Preconceived notions of what "optical sights" are supposed to be as the basis for what's legal will soon leave Tactical rifle shooters using optics that might as well be Civil War surplus. If relocating a magnifying element is illegal, then I demand that every other competitor have their zoom scope welded to one magnification setting. What's the difference? Just because you can't physically see the optical train being relocated when you twist the magnification ring, doesn't mean that it isn't happening. When it comes to tacticle-correctitude, ignorance most definitely is bliss. FWIW, I firmly believe that the trend in optics is going to be toward discrete powers. My money says that sooner or later, "tactical" scopes with infinitely variable twisty knobs might as well compete in the Flintstones division. Just one person's opinion. <Begin 43 posts telling me why I'm wrong> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wakal Posted May 22, 2005 Author Share Posted May 22, 2005 I didn't call enough attention to the mounting system with the magnification... The mount that I handled yesterday looked like a ARMS rig (big quick-release lever and all), with another large lever on the left side/top running the length of the sight. Pressing the top lever resulted in the 3X falling to the right (out of the way of the red dot sight) under spring tension. Either pushing the 3X unit to the top or a quick "flip" of the gun resulted in the 3X locking back to the top position. This rig is designed to fold the 3X out of the way of the red dot...and return it to "magnified" postion in front of the red dot...in a very expedient fashion. No screwdrivers, no "take it off the flattop"...just a spring loaded mount that allowed on-the-fly transitions from red dot to three-power red-dot. Does this rig fall under the "single optic" allowed in Tactical? Alex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricW Posted May 22, 2005 Share Posted May 22, 2005 Does this rig fall under the "single optic" allowed in Tactical? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Nope, it absolutely is not. Mike Voigt has ruled against it, and I had a similar devious plan that got shot down - not that that's going to stop me from showing up to a match with it and registering for Tactical anyway. The main problem is just like the newfangled Production gun "problem." People want to manipulate the rules to protect their existing investments - because the advantage to discrete power optics is blatantly obvious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mactiger Posted May 22, 2005 Share Posted May 22, 2005 It's two separate scopes, and not allowed in Tactical Division. One optic, no matter what the internals do, is one optic. This is a simple rule: one optic only. Troy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricW Posted May 22, 2005 Share Posted May 22, 2005 Troy, Respectfully, I'll buy that argument right after someone successfully shoots a match using only a 3X magnifier and no reticle. The rule needs to be changed to permit coaxial optical elements. There is no operational difference between the scopes illustrated in this thread and a variable-power scope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wide45 Posted May 22, 2005 Share Posted May 22, 2005 Sure, no functional difference, but a definite physical difference. You want to write rules to control function, that are not subject to interpretation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted May 22, 2005 Share Posted May 22, 2005 Troy,Respectfully, I'll buy that argument right after someone successfully shoots a match using only a 3X magnifier and no reticle. Two optics are two optics. How tough is that? It doesn't really matter if one of them sucks as a sight. We have lots of platforms that suck as sights. Shooter's choice. If you want two optics..shoot in Open. That is what Open division is all about...that latest and the greatest ideas. Tactical Division (don't get hung up on the stupid name) is about putting AN optic on the gun because most of us can't see or hit stuff at distance without one. For me, Tactical is the "I suck at shooting iron sights, give me an optic so I will play...without making me go all the way to Open." (I am a shooter that would fall into that category. If I start seeing guys show up with EXTRA optics that flip off to the side...well, f*#k that...I won't play.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mactiger Posted May 22, 2005 Share Posted May 22, 2005 Troy,Respectfully, I'll buy that argument right after someone successfully shoots a match using only a 3X magnifier and no reticle. Two optics are two optics. How tough is that? Tactical Division (don't get hung up on the stupid name) is about putting AN optic on the gun because most of us can't see or hit stuff at distance without one. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Exactly, Flex. Sorry, Eric, but the rule says one optic. How that optic works is up to the competitor. We don't rule against variable power optics, just how many scopes you can put on the rifle. And, this setup is really not the same thing as a variable power scope, since one can swing out of the way, leaving the other in place and functioning, essentially proving that there are two scopes on the rifle. Several years ago, we had "RIFLE"; basically run what ya brung--scope, no scope, comp, no comp, didn't matter. Then, along came Limited Division for pistol, and from that a hue and cry for Limited Rifle. Then, (wouldn't ya know it?) the Limited guys started saying "We can't see that far with our iron sights, we need a scope." So, Tactical was born. Now, are we hearing "We need more stuff on our rifles to compete better" ? I call Bulls**t. Enough is enough. You want a variable power red dot? Buy one that's all one piece, then you'll stay in Tactical. What's that you say? You want two? Sure, welcome to Open--hell, put 6, we don't care. No rules rewriting to make Tactical Division equal Open. Hell, it's already "Open Light". Some people need some magnification to play. That's fine, that's what tactical is all about, but there are limits. Or, we can just return to the basics and say: RIFLE--run what ya brung, and cut all the crap. Then, everyone can put whatever they want on their rifle, and all will be well, until....well, you know the rest of the story. Troy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricW Posted May 22, 2005 Share Posted May 22, 2005 The irony in all of this, is the minute somebody takes the gamey, dastardly, demon-spawn, flip over/out, retcicle-less magnifier and integrates it and it's parent reticle into one box, thus concealing it's true self, it will be permitted in Tactical without question. Off to the shop.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted May 22, 2005 Share Posted May 22, 2005 The irony in all of this, is the minute somebody takes the gamey, dastardly, demon-spawn, flip over/out, retcicle-less magnifier and integrates it and it's parent reticle into one box, thus concealing it's true self, it will be permitted in Tactical without question. Didn't I say that (and then Erik said it too) in my first post? Though, I am not sure if that is irony. Irony would be when you do some thing like that to game the rules...and you "modification" fails...putting you in Open Division, where you belonged in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricW Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 when you do some thing like that to game the rules The rule was written in ignorance. It should be "ONE PROJECTED/REFLECTED/REFRACTED RETICLE/DOT PER RIFLE". The rule is being maintained with bizzarre religious zeal because people just can't accept the definition of a telescopic sight - as it is used in the field on the rifles by soldiers - is changing. And probably for the first time ever, USPSA is *behind* the power curve. It will be incredibly entertaining when soldiers come back to shoot matches and the local MD or stRange Officer has to explain to them that the M4 that's set up the way they used it in the field is a no-good, stinkin' cheater gun and will have to shoot it in Open. I can hardly wait for the inevitable marriage between USPSA/IPSC and cowboy action. It can't be far away. Nothing says fun like an M4 with buckhorns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimel Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 I was thinking more of a lever gun or maybe a Coach gun with a C-More. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mactiger Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 The irony in all of this, is the minute somebody takes the gamey, dastardly, demon-spawn, flip over/out, retcicle-less magnifier and integrates it and it's parent reticle into one box, thus concealing it's true self, it will be permitted in Tactical without question.Off to the shop.... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Hey, knock yourself out reinventing the wheel, but like I said, you can already buy one of those. If it's all one piece, you can use it in tactical. If it's two separate pieces, you can use them in Open. Nobody is trying to stifle innovation, which seems to be your recurring theme. The division has a one optic rule. Not a "ONE PROJECTED/REFLECTED/REFRACTED RETICLE/DOT PER RIFLE" plus a separate magnifier rule. What is it about this that you don't understand? Troy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricW Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 What is it about this that you don't understand? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Heeeey maaaan...is that Freedom Rock...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
diehli Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 What do you care, Eric... it's not like you can shoot a rifle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricW Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 Not only can I not shoot a rifle, it's still unclear which end I'm supposed to hold on to. (No Troy, you cannot give me instructions. ) Why am I tilting this windmill? This is just another classic example (of several as of late) of how good-intentions, in an attempt to artificially level the playing field, is in reality tilting the playing field in favor of the well-heeled, sponsored shooter. Quick-change, discrete levels of magnification will come to the sport sooner or later. It's simply inevitable. The ability to alter one's field of view quickly and without dismounting the rifle is long overdue. Adding/removing a magnifier in conjuction with a 1X scope is the simple, inexpensive, and now.......Banned-for-Tactical solution. I hear the argumement: "But! But! That's just like an open gun with 2 scopes!!" No, it is not. There is only one reticle. It is one scope with two powers. The solution that WILL be legal for Tactical will come in the form of a vastly more expensive, conventional scope, which will cost probably 2X to 3X of the scope with the hinged magnifier. And thus, once again, the mainstream shooter will take it in the shorts, while the sponsored shooters will get free scopes with which to taunt the middle of the pack. This well-intentioned effort to prevent an arms race shall only beget another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clay1 Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 This is it boys: http://www.leupold.com/products/tactical_p..._Mark_4_CQT.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mactiger Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 (edited) Problem solved. Looks tactical legal to me. Just need to find a dealer with one in stock. Looks like Brownell's carries them: Cheap, too! Thanks, Clay. Troy Edited May 23, 2005 by mactiger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts