Of "tactical" Rifle And Aimpoint 3x...

[BigDave]

Well, I just put my detachable front sight on and set the scope to 3X. I can't see the front sight. Knock yourself out.

[skeeter]

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

well dave, it looks like 2 to me so i'd call it open. i hope you can get your money back

by the way where were you? good match, lots of fun, nice turn out.

[BigDave]

I was wondering when you were going to chime in here, Steve!!! Yeah, two devices, but not two sights.

Glad to hear the turnout was good. I was at the State Action Pistol match up in Winimac. I'll tell you all about it later.

[skeeter]

good enough. hope you shot well.

[Flexmoney]

Yeah, two devices, but not two sights. 

Dave...that is just it. The rule defines it as two sights. It spells out the definition so that there is no wiggle room here. You don't agree with the rule/definition, so you are trying to buck it.

There are a handful of rules that, I think, suck hind teat. (Is my avatar still an up-side-down target?) But, those are the rules we have. I gotta admit, sometimes I feel like throwing the baby out with the bath water, but then I realize that this is the best gig going.

FWIW...my idea of Tactical would only include a scope that cost less than the gun.

[diehli]

Well, I just put my detachable front sight on and set the scope to 3X.  I can't see the front sight.  Knock yourself out.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Swing out mount, problem solved.

I tried to make the point that Flex just made in my first post. It doesn't matter if you think that it isn't a sight, the rules as currently written define it as a sight. Get the rule changed or play in Open. Seems pretty simple to me.

[BigDave]

[carrying the flag of a hopeless cause]

Take another look at the rules and follow me here. It is defining sights. Sights, synonymous with aiming device, that use lenses or electronics - Optic/Electronic sights. Sights that don't use lenses/electronics - Open Sights. Sure, that magnifier is an optic in the general sense of the word. You look though it and it contains lenses. But is it a sight? No way. Not here, not anywhere.

How do you aim with a lens? Unless there is a reticle between the target and the lens, it is impossible. If a reticle was etched onto the glass, sure.

It has to be a sight before it can be classified open or optic. The flashlight as an optic is a stretch at very, very best

[/chfc]

[shred]

You guys are thinking competitive again...

A stock Glock 23c with the barrel ports sucks as an Open pistol, but there it is.

5.1.3.2 “Optical/electronic sights” are aiming devices which use

electronic circuitry and/or lenses.

Nothing about how effective it might be as a sight or for frying nearby ants.

What use does the optic thing have except as an aiming device? If it's not an aiming device, what is it?

Don't try and bend the rule, just change it. I'm all for that.

[Vlad]

Question ...

If I take my astigmatism correcting lenses out of my Rudy's or I put them back in does that put me in open? They sure as hell are an OPTICAL device. They sure as hell let me see what I'm shooting at better. They sure as hell make the other optics on my gun (or the iron sights) work better. Unless I am prone in which case geometry makes me shoot better without my OPTICAL inserts.

If my glasses are not yet another optical sight then magnifier shouldnt be either because the two are not that different. They are both lenses designed to help me aim. Neither of them has an aiming device on it. and if I want to go batshit crazy I can proabably have someone build me a pair of glasses with amplification.

However compared this with the A2 sights was right on. Switching between apertures is perfectly legal, even though it change the configuration of the sights. The magnifier does the same for red dot. Whenever the rules stop making sense is time for people to use common sense and then change the rules.

[shred]

Eyewear is in section 5.4 of the rules, not 5.1

So what's "significantly modifies", anyway?

5.1.8 A competitor who substitutes or significantly modifies a rifle

and/or sights during a match without the prior approval of the

Range Master will be subject to the provisions of Section 10.6.

If flip-flapping things in and out of place counts as one sight, then why not just make a turret with a bunch of scopes on it and let the user click in the one they want for the stage?

[diehli]

Eyewear is in section 5.4 of the rules, not 5.1

So what's "significantly modifies", anyway?

5.1.8 A competitor who substitutes or significantly modifies a rifle

and/or sights during a match without the prior approval of the

Range Master will be subject to the provisions of Section 10.6.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't know... but it has to do with the "spirit" of the game.

[Vlad]

Actually 5.4 is very vague on this. I cant remove my eye protection to gain an advantage? but can I add or remove the prescription insert behind my eye protection?

All that aside the wording of 5.1.3.2 is quite clear to me:

“Optical/electronic sights” are aiming devices which use

electronic circuitry and/or lenses."

The magnifier could not possibly be a aiming device. You cant aim with it. I put it in the same category as a killflash scope cover, though a lot more usefull. By itself it is worthless.

I think that regardless of how you read the current rule a better wording would refer multiple sighting planes. I my opinion any number of devices chained should be considered one optic, as long as only one of them has an actual aiming aid (dot, crosshair, smiling face) and the others act as optical aid for the main devices. In my opinion you should be able to add a night vision device in front of you aimpoint or a multipler behind it. You can buy scope that incorporate all of those things into one unit. The piece meal might even be more expensive, but more affordable as you can buy it in smaller chunks

Just my take on the issue.

[Jim Norman]

And if Aimpoint made a 1-3 variable that attached directly to the rear of the dot, no one would complain, I could add it, and dial it up or down all day long as long as I never removed it physically from the sight plane. But because it is a seperately mounted item with a small space between it and the dot, it is a no-no.

I really have a problem with this sight and any difference between a 1-4 adjustable scope. You can't say that changing from 1x to 4x ona 300 yard COF isn't a SUBSTAINTIAL change or modification.

Jim Norman

[ErikW]

Dialing power on a variable scope is no different than dialing the rheostat on a dot scope. Neither is changing the sight configuration.

(I can't believe I'm posting in this thread!)

[mactiger]

I have no problem with those who are of the opinion that the Tactical Division sight rule needs to be changed. If that's how you feel, work to change it. But, change in our rules doesn't happen simply because someone disagrees with a rule and decides not to enforce it.

However, think about this: if two devices (whether you call them sights, magnifiers, optics, or whatever) are allowed in Tactical, how will it then differ from Open? Bipods? Open can have 3 or 6? What's the limit going to be?

Tactical division originated (and not from me or the IPSC rules people, BTW--it was a USPSA BOD decision), because of the demand from competitors who claimed that rifles were meant to have optics to be at their utmost efficiency, and from those who couldn't shoot well using iron sights, but didn't want to compete in Open. (I haven't figured that one out completely yet). I won't argue that a rifle is a more efficient long-distance weapon with some sort of magnified sight, although there are a lot of US Marines that might.... . But, they are going to dots and whatever as well.

Back to the subject, and my point. The rules are clear, copied below:

Optical/electronic sights permitted Yes, no more than one optical/electronic

sight.

And,

5.1.3.2 “Optical/electronic sights” are aiming devices which use

electronic circuitry and/or lenses.

Given the fact that the dot alone is a sight, IMO, any additional lenses break the rule, and therefore would not be allowed in Tactical, because the magnifier is an adjunct to the dot. It may not be able to be used alone, but the dot certainly can, and constitutes the "one optical/electronic sight" as specified in the rule. Note that the rule does not say: "sighting system", it says "sight". And, also note that it doesn't specify what kind of optical or electronic sight, just how many you can have.

Arguments about changing your eyeglass prescription, cranking up or down the power on your one-piece variable scope, or turning on your dot are not relevant here. We are simply talking about the number of optical devices on the rifle, and for Tactical, if that's more than one, you violate the Division requirements.

Final note: all of this is my (strongly held, ) opinion, of course. I am not the final arbiter of the rules for rifle in the US. I have been discussing this with John Amidon, DNROI, as well as with Carl Schmidt and some others but have not heard a final decision, or even if there is going to be one. If the final call is to allow this in Tactical, I'll be the first to say that it's allowed, and that my opinion was in error, and I'll gladly enforce the rule whenever I'm called to do so, just as I'll enforce the rule as is now, until told differently.

That does it for me on this one.

Troy

[Jim Norman]

So lets see if I finally get it.

If Aimpoint were to directly attach the magifier directly to the Dot Sight and were to also make it variable it would be ok to change the power setting from 1x to 4x, but if the magnifier were to be seperated by as little as 0.1mm it wouldn't be legal.

This make perfect sense to me.

Jim

[diehli]

So lets see if I finally get it.

If Aimpoint were to directly attach the magifier directly to the Dot Sight and were to also make it variable it would be ok to change the power setting from 1x to 4x, but if the magnifier were to be seperated by as little as 0.1mm it wouldn't be legal.

This make perfect sense to me.

Jim

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And if I were to shit gold bricks I'd be rich.

Jesus (he's my Mexican gardener)... them rules seem pretty straight-frickin'-forward to me. If y'all can't unnerstan Troy's point, seek help. If you want to get the rule changed, lobby. If you just want to make waves, come over to my house and we can play "Storm of the Century" in my bathtub.

[Jim Norman]

Easy there,

I did't say I didn't understand and remember the rule that we are discussing was written before the equipmet we are discussing was made available.

I don't have a problem following the rules. I don't have a problem uderstanding the rules.

If you look back you will see a suggestion that I made regarding a new rule to allow for this innovation.

Jim Norman

[Flexmoney]

70 posts...anybody got anything new?

[EricW]

70 posts...anybody got anything new?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Let me calculate the mean velocity of the unladen fruit bat, and I'll get right back to you.

[Nik Habicht]

If anyone has anything new to add, feel free to pm me --- I'll be happy to reopen this thread.

Until then, the fork's in this turkey.......