Nik Habicht Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 While I can see Troy's point --- it's two separate things with glass mounted to the rifle --- I also think the system is actually closest in comparison to the A2 rear sight on most limited ARs, in that we allow shooters to shift field of view there as they wish. I realize there's no magnification involved with the A2 sights, but at longer distances, it's much easier to align the front sight with the smaller aperture; at close distances you want the loose view for faster transitions. However, writing this has just reminded that the place for true innovation will always be open..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clay1 Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 Troy, the pricing is better here and I haven't looked too hard for the best prices: http://www.riflescopes.com/departments/270...riflescopes.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clay1 Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 By the way it is much cheaper than the 3X magnifier and the Aimpoint combined. Nice review on several optics in this month's American Rifleman. If you don't get the magazine, join the NRA and see what you have been missing. Rick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wakal Posted May 23, 2005 Author Share Posted May 23, 2005 To further fan the flames, the IPSC rules lawyers are holding the line (over at the Global Village) that by swinging the magnification out of the way...the competitor is changing the sighting configuration and thus making it illegal for OPEN, too... ...which sucks, because I think this is a really neat setup. Gadget Freak Central! Alex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XRe Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 To further fan the flames, the IPSC rules lawyers are holding the line (over at the Global Village) that by swinging the magnification out of the way...the competitor is changing the sighting configuration and thus making it illegal for OPEN, too... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> That seems a little bit *too* silly, to me... sheesh. Then what does adjusting dot intensity or changing the magnification of a scope constitute??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigDave Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 I think the single optic rule is being poorly interpreted here. I think that it is clear that the when the rules refer to an optic that they refer to a lens with a dot or reticle with which one aims the gun. That magnifier (clue into the term, folks.) cannot, by itself, be used as an aiming device. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wide45 Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 Not poorly interpreted at all. Rules allow as many aiming devices as you want, but you can put only one optic on the gun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigDave Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 Optic sight is what the rule says. Place that magnifier on a flattop AR and show me how to hit a 10" plate at 300 with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted May 24, 2005 Share Posted May 24, 2005 Going by the definition that Alex posted from the rule book: "optical/electronic sight are aiming devices which use electronic circuitry and/or lenses." You are looking at two "aiming devices w/ circuits OR lenses" here. That is the rule as it stands. Right? The rule seems crystal clear. So, I think the discussion has turned to whether the rule is a good one or not. If you don't think the rule is good for the "one optic" division, write up a better one, and send it up the line. Make a case for it. I tend to think the place for two optics is in Open. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricW Posted May 24, 2005 Share Posted May 24, 2005 Am I REALLY going to have to spend the money to buy a cheap 1-4X scope, rip out the guts and remount the optics in the open air on a piece of picatinny rail and actually show up to a match with it? Sigh.... I will be *all too happy* to rewrite the rule and submit it to my Area director tomorrow. And as for the banning of flip/tip over mounts for open division...well I think you all know my opinion already. This crap has got to stop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigDave Posted May 24, 2005 Share Posted May 24, 2005 Flex - I stand by my original statement. The intent, as I read it, is to place rifles that utilize two independent sighting systems into Open. That magnifier (keyword) is to be used in concert with a sight (keyword, singular) as an single sighting system. Aimpoint built a better mousetrap, folks. If it was me and someone came to a match with this setup and declared Tactical, I'd envoke 5.1.3.3 and allow it because that magnifier is clearly not a sight despite the catch-all defininition of Optical/Electronic sight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shred Posted May 24, 2005 Share Posted May 24, 2005 Just because something is a crappy sight does not make it not a sight. See the flashlight thread. Most flashlights suck as sights. Good, well-focused ones work pretty well in dim conditions. The rules make no difference on performance, only on construction. You're free to debate the merits of the rule, but to claim a 2-part something is a one-part something within the rules because either of the parts by themselves suck isn't going to work. Just because I don't turn on my dot doesn't mean I'm suddenly shooting Limited. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Norman Posted May 24, 2005 Share Posted May 24, 2005 So, if I change the magnification on my scope from 1 to 4 have I changed the "Configuration" In the truest sense of the word I have, so all variable scopes are now either only allowed in Open or are banned completely. As to two sighting systems. irons with a Dot or scope are OK in Tactical, Irons only are OK in Limited/Standard and in Open I can have an Iron, a Dot and a Scope, but if I put a magnifier on the dot and it is movable which swings away and is different how from adjusting the power on a scope, I am no good? The rule or its interpratation stinks. How about: Limited/Standard: One Iron sight system only, no other sights allowed and only adjustments for elevation and windage are allowed, the sight may not be moved as to location during the course of the match. Tactical: One Optic either a "Dot" or a "Scope" and one Iron Sighting system may be used. A magnifer may be added to the "Optic" but must remain on the weapon throughout the match, It may not be carried seperately and installed on an as needed basis. Open: You may have three systems simultainiously installed, One Iron, One Optic and One Dot. A magnifier may be added or removed, but must remain on the weapon throughout the entier match. While we are at it, Bi-pods, OK in Tactical, but not in Standard/Limited, but must remain on the weapon and may not be added during the match. Same for Open. Jim Norman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lynn jones Posted May 24, 2005 Share Posted May 24, 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 <{POST_SNAPBACK}> yeah, what troy said. now troy you can only have one avaitar, per be 9.4.1. lynn (sg made me change my avaitar back) jones p.s. i like my open rifle, i'm up to 6 sighting devices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted May 24, 2005 Share Posted May 24, 2005 If it was me and someone came to a match with this setup and declared Tactical, I'd envoke 5.1.3.3 and allow it because that magnifier is clearly not a sight despite the catch-all defininition of Optical/Electronic sight. What is it then? A handle? Ballast? It is clearly a sighting device...there is no other reason to have it on the gun. And, it is clearly a seperate unit. And, I don't believe we have the means in the current rules to regulate how it is attached? (so, we can't say, just put it on there and don't move it for the entire match) 5.1.3.2 goes a long way to defining what an optic is. I can't see how that isn't clear. 5.1.3.3 (The RM decision) seems to me to be a catch-all, giving the RM a card to play in the event of some BS. I'm not sure I like that, but I can see where it might be needed. If it were used, as you suggest, to negate 5.1.3.2 (a clear rule and definition), well...I can't see how that is fair at all. I know that, if I drove to another state to compete in 3-gun Tactical, and the RM let competitors put extra optics on their guns (negating a rule)...I'd ask for my match fee back and not return. Bottom line is, we have a rule here. It is clear. That is what matches need to be run under. If you don't like the rule, take steps to get it improved. Jim's suggestions (except for the limiting the # of optics in Open) seem to be pretty good? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Norman Posted May 24, 2005 Share Posted May 24, 2005 OK, So I'll gladly accept that you can put all the optics you want on your gun in Open, You just can't take them off during the match. If you add 45 pounds of ground glass, be my guest. And no you can't put wheels under it and roll it to the line, it is not supposed to be crew served Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted May 24, 2005 Share Posted May 24, 2005 I don't know Jim. I don't think I would have an issue with shooters in OPEN changing up their gear between stages...or on the clock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricW Posted May 24, 2005 Share Posted May 24, 2005 The whole problem is the definition of "optic". I think that those who think that a 3X magnifier on a tip-off mount (that doesn't leave the gun) is a separate "optic" really don't understand optics. Just because you can see the "ugliness" doesn't make it worse than a scope that has a similar mechanism concealed within an aluminum tube. I also find it laughable that someone would actually think that a rational person would use a 3X magnifier by it's lonesome to achieve some bizarre "advantage" when there's a perfectly good reticle he could use with it. The fact that IPSC has ruled such simple devices (that are in common use with American soldiers in the field) to be illegal in ALL DIVISIONS is of great concern. We have yet another sterling example of why unifying the rules between IPSC and USPSA is a really, really bad idea. When did "Practical" get redefined to mean "nobody is allowed to have a new idea?" Did ol' Coop' secretly reinstated as chief tormentor of USPSA? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zak Smith Posted May 24, 2005 Share Posted May 24, 2005 How do you know it's "two"? If the side-swing lever were permanently attached to the Aimpoint itself, would it theb be one? How about if I put a carboard box over both, with two open ends to look through? An aluminum box? An aluminum box mechanically tethered to both the Aimpoint and magnifier? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigDave Posted May 24, 2005 Share Posted May 24, 2005 What is it then? A handle? Ballast? It is a magnifier. See here. That is very clear. So clear that, oh my, it doesn't even have a reticle!!! Ha! Folks - look past what is on paper (rules) and look at the intent of the rule. Rules are certainly subject to interpretation (e.g. 11 rd mag used to LAMR in Production). In this case the Aimpoint (M3, ML3, etc.) is the sight. The 3XMag is a magnifier to be used in concert with the sight, not seperately. The 3XMag is a magnifing device, plain and simple. By itself you can do nothing for sighting the gun. That is the difference. Here's my idea for a rule change: Optical/Electronic Sighting Device - a device that utilizes lenses and/or electronic circuitry and also contains reticle(s) or dot(s) which, when viewed through the lenses of the device, serves the purpose of aiming. I know that, if I drove to another state to compete in 3-gun Tactical, and the RM let competitors put extra optics on their guns (negating a rule)...I'd ask for my match fee back and not return. I agree with you 100%. But, that magnifier is not a sight and is not intended for use independently for the purposes of aiming the gun it is attached to. That is where you and I differ in the application of the rules. So, is this another bet? Chicken and beer? (as Lucacris plays in the background) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Norman Posted May 24, 2005 Share Posted May 24, 2005 OK, I will even concede that if after the beep you want to reconfigure your gun, go ahead, if you think you can make up the time spent doing a reconfigure. And now for something completely different (but thoroughly related so its not really drift) What about Tactical Class being defined as I can set up my gun in a "Missioon Specific" configuration? On a house clearing, I can install my 16" barrel, short stock and single point sling. Opps, next stage is shots to 350, I can switch out to my 24" use 77 grain bullets and a 20X scope with sandbags? Next stage is sort of an inbetween stage. I will set up with an 18" and an Aimpoint?ACOG or other optic. Black balaclava and facepaint optional. Jim Norman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mactiger Posted May 24, 2005 Share Posted May 24, 2005 I agree with you 100%. But, that magnifier is not a sight and is not intended for use independently for the purposes of aiming the gun it is attached to. That is where you and I differ in the application of the rules. So, is this another bet? Chicken and beer? (as Lucacris plays in the background) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> That's the problem: the dot optic or scope in this combination is the sight, and as such can be used in Tactical Division, since it's one optic, and can be used independently of the magnifier. The addition of another piece of equipment, with two lenses, is another optic, whether it has a reticle or not, and hence violates the spirit and intent of Tactical Division. Even if you don't move the magnifier, you are still using two optical sighting devices. Adjustable one piece scopes don't break the rule, because the rule concerns the number of optics you can put on the rifle, not how they work. And then, if this setup is allowed in Tactical, someone will swing the magnifier off for whatever reason, and claim they are using their "adjustable" scope. Sorry, that just doesn't hold water. As to the IPSC argument against swinging off scopes designed to be swung off, I disagree, as long as it's Open division we are talking about. Troy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted May 24, 2005 Share Posted May 24, 2005 It is a magnifier. No arguement there. But it is still an optic. Folks - look past what is on paper (rules) and look at the intent of the rule. Rules are certainly subject to interpretation ... Intent? As decided by individual Match director? Nah...USPSA rules aren't that open to interpretation. (e.g. 11 rd mag used to LAMR in Production) Great example. It wasn't open to interpretation in the od book. But, it was a rule that was bad...and got changed in the new rule book. In this case the Aimpoint (M3, ML3, etc.) is the sight. The 3XMag is a magnifier to be used in concert with the sight, not seperately. The 3XMag is a magnifing device, plain and simple. By itself you can do nothing for sighting the gun. That is the difference. Yeah...I hear ya. You are still hung up on whether it works as a means of hitting the target or not. That just isn't the RULE. How good it works or doesn't work isn't the issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigDave Posted May 24, 2005 Share Posted May 24, 2005 You guys... It defies any logic I can muster to believe that the combination in question moves a rifle into Open. It is intellectually dishonest (to borrow from a friend of mine), in my opinion, to assert that the 3XMag used in conjunction with with the Aimpoint Comp M consitutes a multiple optic system. Yeah it is two pieces, but it is utilized as a single system. No different than a Bo-Mar rear and Dawson FO front if you ask me. Two different sights, on the same focal plane, used in concert for aiming. Guys - take the blinders off, please. That magnifer isn't a sight by itself. It can't be. How good or bad a sight it is isn't the point because it isn't a sight. This isn't 1+1=2. It's 1+0=1. A slight addition to my proposed rule change: Optical/Electronic Sighting Device - a device that utilizes lenses and/or electronic circuitry and also contains reticle(s) or dot(s) which, when viewed through the lenses of the device, serves the purpose of precision aiming. Devices which project visible light onto the target less than 1" in diameter at 50 yards (e.g. lasers) will also be considered Optical/Electronic sights. The 1" is only a guess, but I hope you get the point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
diehli Posted May 25, 2005 Share Posted May 25, 2005 Optical/Electronic Sighting Device - a device that utilizes lenses and/or electronic circuitry and also contains reticle(s) or dot(s) which, when viewed through the lenses of the device, serves the purpose of precision aiming. Devices which project visible light onto the target less than 1" in diameter at 50 yards (e.g. lasers) will also be considered Optical/Electronic sights.The 1" is only a guess, but I hope you get the point. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> So we can use the magnifier on Limited rifles to find targets? Cool! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts