issue sights

  • 1.6K Views
  • Last Post 02 March 2009
fisherman posted this 20 February 2009

is it ok to use sight paint on front sight ?  when shooting in matches

Daniel Hisle Region 3 Director

Attached Files

Order By: Standard | Newest | Votes
JetMech posted this 20 February 2009

I'll venture an opinion. Generally it will be up to the match director. If it's a military / Issue sight match, sight “black” would be the only authorized color. Otherwise, it would be a modified sight.

Attached Files

billwnr posted this 27 February 2009

If the rules don't disallow such usage, then it should be legal.

Attached Files

Wally Enga posted this 27 February 2009

The rules state that for Issue Class --- the rifle is strictly as issued --- NO modifications are allowed to the rifle, so you can not do that. 

In practice most Match Directors allow the front sight to be filed down or built up to get a zero on the target. The original profile of the sight must be kept.

The “sight” black would be OK to keep the glare down on the sight.

With the classic 6 o'clock hold, I don't think any other color then the flat black contrast against the target tan/buff would be of any advantage. Maybe with a Navy Hold (center hold), an exotic fluorescent yellow or similar would be of some help.

I'll run this by some of the Issue shooters to see if we need a change / clarification here.

Wally

Attached Files

muley posted this 27 February 2009

walley  if as issued means no modification, then there should be no filing of the front sight. if match directors are allowing this modification, then what other modifications are being allowed? I agree with the lamp black, but if sights can be filed , then we should consider other sight modifications.

Attached Files

Wally Enga posted this 27 February 2009

Jim,

The problem we have here, is that some of these old Military Rifles have their lowest sight setting at 300 meters (aim at the belt buckle and hope to hit him somewhere).

At 100 yds, this would require aiming below the target board to hit the target center and make the rifle unusable for these matches.

Also, I doubt we have available any listing of the actual issued front sight heights for all the issued military rifles and for some rifles different height sights were issued over the years.

Lowering or raising the front sight a tenth of an inch or so will not result in any competitive advantage over a non altered sight --- the sight profile ( thickness) must still stay the same.

Are you planning on making the Nationals in Sioux City in June --- hope to see you there. 

Wally

Attached Files

RicinYakima posted this 28 February 2009

Wally,

Here is my $.02 worth, if it means anything.

This is a major fairness issue for anyone that doesn't shoot Springfield 03A3's (5 sight heights) or Springfield '03's (3 heights and filed to zero on original targeting). I am not aware of any other countrys' military rifle that allows a 100 yard zero with issue sights on an issue rifle. No one can “hold off” well enough to hit center on black bullseyes on buff backgrounds. Since this isn't only US rifle class, something has to be done to make it fair for folks that want to shoot Swiss and other rifles in Issue Class.

This has been the best solution: issue profile, issue thickness and taper (if original), but height to allow a basic zero.

Muley,

Since this is basically a handloading game, our trajectories and bullet profiles will never match issue bullet trajectory. Even with 100 yard / meter zeros, you still have to deal with 50 yard / meter notches for the 200 yard events.

With equal ammo and equal rifles, young eyes with a Springfield 1903 sight and a sight micrometer would be unbeatable.

This issue has been around the CBA for at least 4 years, and no one has made a better suggestion.

For what it's worth, Ric

 

Attached Files

JetMech posted this 28 February 2009

RicinYakima wrote: This has been the best solution: issue profile, issue thickness and taper (if original), but height to allow a basic zero.

I'm a new member and this an issue that definitely needs clarification. I haven't shot any matches yet, but have a 1903 in rebuild and I've been looking at a K31 at a local shop, both for match use.

Ric's solution seems fair and common sense. I hope to shoot some postal matches soon and attend regular matches next year, so a ruling to be applied across the board seems in order.

Attached Files

Wally Enga posted this 28 February 2009

As Ric pointed out , the only practical solution is the way we have been doing it --- Allowing changes in sight height with the profile staying the same. 

The height changes involved here are quite small, a few hundredths of an inch for a foot or so of elevation change and would not be readily apparent to the shooter or the Match Director without a listing of all the issued sight heights and a micrometer. 

Sight Movement  =  (Point ”€œ Of ”€œ Impact Movement  X  Sight Radius)  / Range

(All in INCHES )   For a Swiss K-31 with a 22.5” sight radius

1"  X  22.5"  / 3600” =  .00625” for a 1” change at 100 Yds

(YIKES --- no wonder I can't hold elevation with an Issue rifle anymore --- I haven't been able to see a .006” change in hold in that notch since I was a 24 year old kid.)

Wally

Attached Files

muley posted this 28 February 2009

walley, and all    good to see this discussion. i think we should look into the terminology in the by-laws and add or subtract words that describe these modifications. I agree that young eyes are the best remedy.     Walley, I hope to make the Nationals if the finance officer says o.k.   Will us other shooters get a handicap if we don"t shoot a mosin-nagent mod 39 ??

Attached Files

jerryb posted this 02 March 2009

 Young eyes are not an option in my case.  Hows about drilling out that tiny hole of a peep sight on the Springfield 03?

Attached Files

CB posted this 02 March 2009

muley wrote: walley, and all    good to see this discussion. i think we should look into the terminology in the by-laws and add or subtract words that describe these modifications.  

Whatever terminology is 'decided' is one thing, but a wise man once stated to the CBA BOD years ago, “you shouldn't make rule changes you can't enforce."...............Dan

Attached Files

Wally Enga posted this 02 March 2009

muley wrote: walley, and all    good to see this discussion. i think we should look into the terminology in the by-laws and add or subtract words that describe these modifications. I agree that young eyes are the best remedy.     Walley, I hope to make the Nationals if the finance officer says o.k.   Will us other shooters get a handicap if we don"t shoot a mosin-nagent mod 39 ?? Jim

Hey, I think that handicap should go to the guy shooting that clunky old 1891/30 action that was probably cobbled together by some poor Russian peasant back in a cave in the Ural Mtns. :P 

Getting back on subject here, I do expect to have a rule amendment ready in the next week or so that addresses these  Issue sight changes and a few other items like must the rear sling attachment that tears up the rear bag be left on and can a Slip On recoil pad be used in Issue Class.

 Wally

 

Attached Files

CB posted this 02 March 2009

Wally while you are at it, you may what to consider those screw on the eyepiece magnifiers for scoped class and come up with a specific for that..

Attached Files

Ed Harris posted this 02 March 2009

My own feeling is that sight “paint” in any color should not be allowed, unless paint was a military issue item apropriate for the type of rifle. The Brits slobbered black paint on everything, so if you want to paint the front sight on your No. 4 rifle black I have no objection.

Sight blacking using a carbide lamp, paper or wooden match or Zippo lighter is OK, but Frank Marshall wouldn't have allowed a BIC butane unless you could prove it came in a Red Cross Package, or you had a chit from your Gunnery Sergeant saying that you had properly won it from a sailor in a crap game

8-).

73 de KE4SKY In Home Mix We Trust From the Home of Ed's Red in "Almost Heaven" West Virginia

Attached Files

BruceV posted this 02 March 2009

jerryb wrote:  Young eyes are not an option in my case.  Hows about drilling out that tiny hole of a peep sight on the Springfield 03?

Please note that the slide aperture found on the 03 rear sight was available in a variety of sizes.  In the era when the 03 was “King of the Range,” target shooters often had in their kit slides w/ different sized apertures so as to be able to use what would be suit the light conditions, etc.  Also the USMC used a 03 sight combination with a substantially thicker front sight and a larger than normal rear sigh aperture.

Your might want to look at the following links:

http://www.odcmp.org/new_forum/topic.asp?ARCHIVE=true&TOPIC_ID=56159>http://www.odcmp.org/newforum/topic.asp?ARCHIVE=true&TOPICID=56159

http://www.odcmp.org/new_forum/topic.asp?ARCHIVE=true&TOPIC_ID=43882>http://www.odcmp.org/newforum/topic.asp?ARCHIVE=true&TOPICID=43882

HTH.  Sincerely.  Bruce.

Attached Files

CB posted this 02 March 2009

From what I've seen rule change is a slippery slope. In my opinion sight black should be the only thing allowed for the sights and everything else should be as issued, including the rear sling attachment.

Attached Files

Wally Enga posted this 02 March 2009

Ed --- I really enjoyed your relating what a  “purist” like Frank Marshall's view on this would be.  Great!  And there is a lot of wisdom in what Dan pointed out about not making rules you can't enforce.

We don't want to put the Match Directors in a position of having to spend hours before the Match trying to decide which are “legal” rifles. But we do need to get input from everyone on these items and then get it down in black & white so all the Match Directors are singing from the same hymnal.

Wally

Attached Files

Close