NRA Silhouette Mtg.

[Daveb43]

I have unofficial info. that fiber optics are okay now! Anyone hear to the contrary? How about the Redfield 75's?

[cslcAl]

I got word today from a very reliable source that fiber optics are now allowed. I can't quote the wording of the rule, but if fiber optic material is used in a front globe sight it may not protrude beyond the length of the globe. They also set new dimentions for a globe sight of no longer than 1-1/8 in. long and not more than 3/4 in. outside diameter. That means a Lyman 17A is ok, but a Lyman 20 is too big. The aftermarket Tru Glo fiber sights are ok. This seems ok to me, it's basically what the petition asked for that many of us signed. Al Foust

[lone ringer]

I have unofficial info. that fiber optics are okay now! Anyone hear to the contrary? How about the Redfield 75's?

I heard the Redfield 75's are still allowed and also the leather cheek pieces.

[Jason]

Good to hear on the Redfield 75s. What are the Tru-glo sights that you guys are talking about? I don't see one in in a globe format that will fit in a 3/8" dovetail like is usually in a barrel or ramp.

[lone ringer]

Good to hear on the Redfield 75s. What are the Tru-glo sights that you guys are talking about? I don't see one in in a globe format that will fit in a 3/8" dovetail like is usually in a barrel or ramp.

Jason, Tru-glo makes a bunch of sights with fiber optics but most I have seen have material that is too thick for us to use in competition. The Tru-glo sights in globe format are nice and gather a lot of light but they are not legal for competition because the globe is larger than 3/4" and the material wraps around the sight. I believe they are restricting the length of the fiber optic as well to no more than 1 1/8". We have to wait till the official word comes out and we can see what is legal and what is not.

This is part of an Email I got from somebody that heard it from somebody in the silhouette committee.
1) Hooded front sights may not be longer than 1-1/8" long nor greater than 3/4" in diameter. 2) Fiber Optic material may be no longer than 1-1/8" in total

[Bob259]

Good to hear on the Redfield 75s. What are the Tru-glo sights that you guys are talking about? I don't see one in in a globe format that will fit in a 3/8" dovetail like is usually in a barrel or ramp.

Jason here are some pictures of the Tru-glo sights that PPKNY was using on his rifle by modifying a mounting base. Looks like my Lyman 20A is no longer legal as well

No disrecpect just making a funny. How about these sights, Factory made, fiber is not any longer than the sight.


ppkny

[ppkny]

Yes, It looks like my current Tru-glo fiber optics will be illegal. But.......I believe the Tru-glo pictured below is what they are saying is legal. The Lyman 20 measures .805. This looks like a challenge for the winter to adapt something that will fit the new criteria.



ppkny

[lone ringer]

Good to hear on the Redfield 75s. What are the Tru-glo sights that you guys are talking about? I don't see one in in a globe format that will fit in a 3/8" dovetail like is usually in a barrel or ramp.

Jason here are some pictures of the Tru-glo sights that PPKNY was using on his rifle by modifying a mounting base. Looks like my Lyman 20A is no longer legal as well

No disrecpect just making a funny. How about these sights, Factory made, fiber is not any longer than the sight.


ppkny

I bought four of those sights that I can't use in case somebody is interested to buy them from me for some other type of shooting where they are legal.

[Cimarron Red]

Does anyone have an idea when details of the official rule will be published regarding FO sights?

[cslcAl]

They will post them in Shooting Sports probably sometime in the spring. Also the match directors will get a memorandum when the receive their classification books. Al

[Cimarron Red]

Thanks, Al!

[ppkny]

Lone Ringer, If it makes you feel any better I own 3 of the globe type Truglo sights also. Oh well moving on. I'm going to try something else when I see the rules in writting.
ppkny.

[PhxShooter]

It is my understanding that none of the aforementined rule changes are APPROVED until they go to the Rules Committee and are approved there. It is not uncommon for a committee such as the Silhouette Committee to propose a rule change then send it to the Rules Committee only to have the proposal turned down. I wouldn't spend a lot of time, energy or money making any changes till this all makes it through the Rules Committee.

[RBriscoe]

It is my understanding that none of the aforementined rule changes are APPROVED until they go to the Rules Committee and are approved there. It is not uncommon for a committee such as the Silhouette Committee to propose a rule change then send it to the Rules Committee only to have the proposal turned down. I wouldn't spend a lot of time, energy or money making any changes till this all makes it through the Rules Committee.

Actually, the rules are not "final" until approved by the BOD, usually some time in the new year. Typically the BOD action is a rubber stamp affair. The Rules Committee may or may not approve the proposed rules changes, but a look at past actions indicates that it is unlikely they would materially change whatever the Silhouette Committee voted on.

The question in my mind is whether this rule is yet another "one year" rule that will be thrown out the next time the committee meets. There is a long history of that sort of thing. It seems plain that certain people on the committee don't like any sort of fiber optic sights and are probably unlikely to be content until they are all gone, but that is speculation.

[TexasSilhouette]

The question in my mind is whether this rule is yet another "one year" rule that will be thrown out the next time the committee meets. There is a long history of that sort of thing.

I'm curious, what are some examples of these "one Year" rule changes?