Dowter Posted November 14, 2003 Share Posted November 14, 2003 This is sort of a question in two parts. 1. Is it legal to put a notch and post (iron) sight on a mount (like an open optic mount) on a limited/standard gun? (2 mounts - 1 for the front and 1 for the rear) 2. Is it a good idea if you can? I was wondering about this because it seems like it would be easier to follow the sights if they didn't move anywhere. Of course the fact that I haven't seen anyone do this leads me to the probable conclusion that this is a bad idea... but I have to ask. Also, here's another weird idea conceptually similiar. To improve the sight radius, what if someone extended the front sight to (let's say) an inch past the barrel of the gun. As above 1. legal? 2. good idea? That it would look bizarre and defile the spirit of limited division, I have no doubt but is it legal and/or a good idea? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted November 14, 2003 Share Posted November 14, 2003 Vincent, From an IPSC Standard Division rules perspective, the only challenge with using a mount (or extending the front sight forward of the muzzle), is whether the gun can still fit the box. If it does, no problem, provided the sights are not "optical" or electronic. From a shooting perspective, I really don't know if it will improve things, but I can see where you're coming from. I guess it's a case of trial and error, like many other things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ErikW Posted November 14, 2003 Share Posted November 14, 2003 You may have to convince somebody it's a mount, not an external weight. Good idea? Well, they are going to be higher, which leads to trajectory issues. More importantly, it might not point as naturally. There are iron sight ribs out there... mostly seen on revolvers (PPC?). And bullseye autos? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dowter Posted November 14, 2003 Author Share Posted November 14, 2003 You may have to convince somebody it's a mount, not an external weight.Good idea? Well, they are going to be higher, which leads to trajectory issues. More importantly, it might not point as naturally. There are iron sight ribs out there... mostly seen on revolvers (PPC?). And bullseye autos? "You may have to convince somebody it's a mount, not an external weight." That's the one thing that I thought might be a problem. But if made it out of light weight aluminum and not something like tungsten, I don't see what the problem would be. I think that Amidon(or USPSA in general) has flip-flopped a little over the issue of tungsten mag wells so I'm not sure how this would fall. "Good idea? Well, they are going to be higher, which leads to trajectory issues. More importantly, it might not point as naturally." What I was planning wasn't going to put them much (if at all) higher. The mount would safely clear the slide but not by much. "There are iron sight ribs out there... mostly seen on revolvers (PPC?). And bullseye autos?" Do you have a link so that I can get a better idea about this. Obviously wheel guns don't have to worry about sights moving around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ErikW Posted November 14, 2003 Share Posted November 14, 2003 Aristocrat wheelgun ribs at Brownells I'm sure I've seen them for autos somewhere. Wichita brand? Oh yeah, they were on 1911 bullseye guns, and they had about the same sight radius as the normal 1911 sights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted November 14, 2003 Share Posted November 14, 2003 I don't think they would meet the minimum number of guns produced requirement. The Aristicrate rib probably would, but I think it moves with the slide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dowter Posted November 14, 2003 Author Share Posted November 14, 2003 Flex Is that the goofy and poorly defined "prototype" rule. I'll never understand the weird enforcement of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dowter Posted November 14, 2003 Author Share Posted November 14, 2003 You may have to convince somebody it's a mount, not an external weight. If I put it on a Glock, I think that I should get the benefit of the doubt. There's lots more easier ways to make a gun heavy than to start with a glock. Also, I'm not thinking about a one piece rear/front sight job. Both the front and rear sights will have seperate mounts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted November 14, 2003 Share Posted November 14, 2003 Prototypes are a different footnote (note "d)"). This is note "c)": c) Any complete handgun or components produced by a factory and available to the general public for one year and 500 produced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redmercury2 Posted November 14, 2003 Share Posted November 14, 2003 its a good idea for bullseye, if it was workable in practical there would be some ouy there and there arent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dowter Posted November 14, 2003 Author Share Posted November 14, 2003 Prototypes are a different footnote (note "d)").This is note "c)": c) Any complete handgun or components produced by a factory and available to the general public for one year and 500 produced. OK, I see now. I actually bothered to get my rule book out. But basically, if I get a mount that is already being produced (in sufficient quantities) and put it on my gun it should be alright? BTW - I emailed Amidon. He is usually very good in getting back quickly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shred Posted November 14, 2003 Share Posted November 14, 2003 My take is by changing the sighting system (from reciprocating to fixed), you've gone and made a prototype... be interesting to see what Amidon says. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dowter Posted November 14, 2003 Author Share Posted November 14, 2003 if it was workable in practical there would be some ouy there and there arent. That's what I figured but hasn't every new idea regardless of whether it was good or bad have that same obstacle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
parsonm1 Posted November 14, 2003 Share Posted November 14, 2003 Isn't this a similar question to the "optic mounted to slide or to mount" question. I thought that having an optic mounted to the slide (like a doctor or optima), would be more distracting and harder to use due to the movement of the slide and the the sight moving in and out of the sighting plane. But, after talking to quite a few shooters with guns set up both ways, it doesn't seem to make that much different except for having the sight closer to the more natural sight plane. Most open shooters I asked said one of the more difficult transitions to using a mounted sight was having to hold the pistol in a lower position, away from the trained/natural optic plane. Most who switched to the slide mounted sight said it fit more naturally to their trained POI. YMMV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dowter Posted November 14, 2003 Author Share Posted November 14, 2003 parson Yeah, I thought about that too. With the success of DR optics sights, maybe the sight moving for that .06 of a second isn't that big of a deal. But remember, I'm planning on having the mounted iron sights be almost exactly where they would be if they were on the slide, not high in the air like most Open optic sights. I agree that there is an advantage to having sights as close to the bore as possible, my only real question is whether keeping the sights fixed are an advantage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DBChaffin Posted November 14, 2003 Share Posted November 14, 2003 Without getting into legality issues, here's your extended rail: Sorry the pic is so small. It's a Champion's Choice Wadcutter Pistol with Bo-Mar extended front sight rib made using Les Baer parts, can be found here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dowter Posted November 14, 2003 Author Share Posted November 14, 2003 LOL. I figured someone would have come up with this idea first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ErikW Posted November 14, 2003 Share Posted November 14, 2003 Not the non-reciprocating part. I'm imagining your frame mount extending outward and upward from the Glock accessory rail. I'm imagining great ugliness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted November 14, 2003 Share Posted November 14, 2003 Yeah, what Bryant pictured moves with the slide (right?). Those are old school bullseye and PPC gadgets. Amidon shot down the SV no-hole hybri-comp barrel (no comp, limited gun). This would have had the front sight mounted on the barrel...thus, not moving with the slide. Not sure of his exact reason...I think it was the "less than 500 produced" thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted November 14, 2003 Share Posted November 14, 2003 Flex, Amidon shot down the SV no-hole hybri-comp barrel (no comp, limited gun). Given the displeasure you've expressed in other threads with the way IPSC does things by committee, aren't you even more concerned about one man having so much power? Personally, I have no problem with JA making rulings for the USPSA, but I just couldn't resist scoring one for the Evil Empire Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted November 14, 2003 Share Posted November 14, 2003 Vince, You are still throwing air-balls. I should have said that Amidon gave his opinion... Nobody supersedes the rule book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dowter Posted November 17, 2003 Author Share Posted November 17, 2003 Ok. I got a reply from Amidon. ------------------------- Hi, Sorry for the delay in getting back with you, have been tied up with the Match Directors workshop this past weekend. What you are asking would not be allowed under external modifications, it would make it a prototype, and these are specifically not allowed. DVC, John Amidon --------------------------------- Issue resolved. 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