Unintended Affect of Rule 3.1.3

[edgehit]

I’m going to stir the pot a bit.

Has anyone spent any thought as to how the content of the following 3.1.3 “intent of rules” language can inadvertently affect many current rifle’s compliance to the rules?

“(The intent of these rules is to establish a match for common hunting carbines and other lever action rifles. The match is focused on shooters who enjoy shooting hunting arms and do not want to make the investment required of other specialized types of shooting competitions.)“

Here’s some key words that jump out at me: hunting, carbines, lever action, investment, and other types of…competitions.

Obviously, this was written to stop the use precision micrometer target sights used on ISSF competition rifles.

However, as written, this language prohibits the use of the ladder style tang sights manufactured for long range, falling block black powder rifles that many competitors are using. These are expensive sights, 3x the cost of a Lyman 66, Williams FP, and commonly used tang sights for hunting lever action rifles. They were not developed, marketed nor catalogued for use on lever guns although they will fit the tang with some D&T’ing. Additionally, they are clumsy looking and fragile, and not well suited for hunting conditions.

Are we going to have an informal exception right off the bat?

Why not write the rule to specify the sight models and styles that are deemed to be suitable? Example- Receiver sights similar in construction and attachment like the Redfield 70, Lyman 56/66, Williams 5D/FP, and mono-pole constructed tang sights like the Lyman #2 and Marbles floppy? The sight must fasten directly to the rifles frame or tang using the standardized hole patterns adopted over a century ago.

We all agree that the intended sights were state-of-the-art to century old production.

[H.Plummer]

Unfortunately, the "intent of the rules" or "spirit of the game" is immediately outweighed by a competitor's desire to win, and any possible "edge" is exploited to that end. Whether it's auto racing, track & field, boxing, shooting or whatever, some will always try to gain an advantage over other competitors by bending ( or even breaking) the rules.
I am not a great shooter and I only compete against myself, but I might start taking performance enhancing drug injections to see if I can improve my scores. Wink wink.

[Rotnguns]

I’m going to stir the pot a bit.

Has anyone spent any thought as to how the content of the following 3.1.3 “intent of rules” language can inadvertently affect many current rifle’s compliance to the rules?

“(The intent of these rules is to establish a match for common hunting carbines and other lever action rifles. The match is focused on shooters who enjoy shooting hunting arms and do not want to make the investment required of other specialized types of shooting competitions.)“

Here’s some key words that jump out at me: hunting, carbines, lever action, investment, and other types of…competitions.

Obviously, this was written to stop the use precision micrometer target sights used on ISSF competition rifles.

However, as written, this language prohibits the use of the ladder style tang sights manufactured for long range, falling block black powder rifles that many competitors are using. These are expensive sights, 3x the cost of a Lyman 66, Williams FP, and commonly used tang sights for hunting lever action rifles. They were not developed, marketed nor catalogued for use on lever guns although they will fit the tang with some D&T’ing. Additionally, they are clumsy looking and fragile, and not well suited for hunting conditions.

Are we going to have an informal exception right off the bat?

Why not write the rule to specify the sight models and styles that are deemed to be suitable? Example- Receiver sights similar in construction and attachment like the Redfield 70, Lyman 56/66, Williams 5D/FP, and mono-pole constructed tang sights like the Lyman #2 and Marbles floppy? The sight must fasten directly to the rifles frame or tang using the standardized hole patterns adopted over a century ago.

We all agree that the intended sights were state-of-the-art to century old production.

But from 3.1.3 (a):

"Rear sights may be open, receiver, or tang sights, mounted as
originally intended. Corrective lenses are allowed in the rear
site only. No extended mounts are permitted."

Appears that tang sights are ok as long as "mounted as originally intended." Wouldn't that also apply to ladder-style tang sights?

[edgehit]

Along the line of thought “mount as originally intended” would make an argument that ISSF sights that affix to a grooved receiver would also be allowed.

The ladder style tang sights are intended for long range competition. How many times is “Creedmore” mentioned in the following link? https://www.buffaloarms.com/target-44-i ... ights.html

[DonM]

Page 27 of the 1878 Winchester catalog may shoot down the "only used for creedmoor" argument.

[chickenhater]

Not all vernier tang sights were long range, there was the shorter version considered a mid range sight.

[DAVIDMAGNUM]

Original Winchester rifles were available drilled and tapped for tang sights.

The MVA sights that I have on three rifles are just a peep sight. I am looking through a hole that is just like the hole in a Lyman or Marbles sight. When I swapped out my Marbles for the MVA my scores did not increase. I did not expect them to. What I gained was a little more confidence in my sight settings. Nothing more. The Marbles sights were worn, loose, had too much slop. I also did not like counting clicks. I did not like forgetting if I already adjusted my Marbles sight for the next animal. The MVA sight has a numbered scale so that I can know what my sight setting is. The MVA also locks into place more precisely and securely.
I did not and still do not see this tang sight upgrade as giving me an edge. The MVA sights in my opinion are just a better quality sight. In the end it is still the same peep hole that the Marbles had. My Marbles sights were loose and sloppy. I was unhappy with the cost vs quality of the Marbles.

David

[375Short]

If I recall correctly it seems older rule books stated no “Olympic style “ sights. Only the current rule book is applicable and as things change over time editing has been terrible, helping cause lots of uncertainty. One could easily conclude the intent was not / maybe still not / to allow Olympic style or ISSF type sights. None the less they are now common and even more common once a person needed a way to utilize a rear lens. With time things progress or if you don’t like progress they seem to fall apart. I believe things will progress to the point of allowing optics. It has happened in High power, Smallbore prone, Black powder silhouette, even the military. What if we just proactively jump ahead of the slow painful transition. You could have a Traditional Sight class to include open sights, traditional style peep , tang and vernier. Then “Modern Sight” class to include anything not listed as Traditional Sight. Like ISSF with all the front and rear lens you want or a scope up to 4x power, dot, whatever. Lots of folks could extended enjoyment of the sport with a scope. You only run one match, the competitor chooses the category to compete in.

[375Short]

I’m glad we have vainer tang sights “for long range “ because Lever Action silhouette is long range. 200m is a long way out there for the equipment we use especially if one chooses something like a 38-40, 44-40 or anything else with big slow bullets. The short staff Vainer “ladder” sight was too short for my use, not providing enough long range adjustment. The medium staff is just right and the long much too long. No matter how long the ladder is it’s not providing any additional advantage. In fact all the unneeded ladder just gets in the way causing a distraction. If one was to shoot a high tech cartridge like a 30-30 I could see less attraction to the ladder. With the modern 30-30’s laser like trajectory one may as well shoot a 257 Weatherby. The last few sentences are just humor poking at edgehit. I may have just talked myself into 30-30.