75 redfield sights

Centerfires, rimfires, pistol cartridges and everything in between.
krgriggs
B Poster
B Poster
Posts: 78
Joined: Sun Mar 15, 2009 2:02 pm

75 redfield sights

Post by krgriggs »

Does any one know what the status is on 75 redfield sights. It is my understanding they where made to fit most rifles and they are not olympic sights. As long as they are installed ahead of the hammer (above the receiver) they are virually the same as a 70 series sight. Could I get opinions here if they should or should not be allowed next year.
lone ringer
Master Poster
Master Poster
Posts: 1082
Joined: Tue May 30, 2006 9:33 am
Location: CA

Re: 75 redfield sights

Post by lone ringer »

krgriggs, the problem basically is that the rule book states that the sights used in cowboy lever action have to be manufactured for for the rifle they are mounted on and the Redfield Mod 75 was not made to be used in any of the lever action rifles we use, but there are more than one issue with the use of the Redfield Mod 75 sight right now.

For this year they let us use the Redfield Mod 75 at the Cowboy Lever Action Rifle Silhouette National Championships at Raton, NM but things may change next year and you need to be prepared.

We have been using this particular sight since the beginning of cowboy lever action rifle silhouette competition and nobody considered them "Olympic Type" until this year when a competitor from Kansas went to the Texas State Championships and was challenged there because he had installed the sight base backwards getting a couple more inches of sight radius. They let him win the Championship but somebody called Greg Connor the next day and complained saying that competitor had used an extended sight and an "Olympic Type" sight. Greg called the competitor to clarify the situation and the competitor called the owner of the company that made the receiver bases for him who in turn provided Greg with a letter stating that he had been making Redfield 75 bases for lever action rifles since he took over the business from Redfield when Redfield quit making sights and bases over 25 years ago.

You are correct when you say that the Mod 70 and the Mod 75 Redfield sight are similar in function to the point that the part of the sight that has the graduations and target knobs interchanges between both model numbers. The difference is that the Mod 70 was made for each individual make and model of rifles it fits and its attached directly to the the receiver. On the other hand the Mod 75 is more of an universal sight and it requires a base that attaches to the different actions and the sight in turn screws and fastens onto the base.

If you want to use the Redfield 75 sight you will have to write a letter to the silhouette committee and convince them that it is not an "Olympic Type" sight and that it is in our best interest to let us continue using them.

The Redfield Mod 75 is an inexpensive easy to get for between $75 and $125 in Ebay, bases are sold for about $25 to $35. The Redfield Mod 70 is hard to find and much more expensive. I have information of a company that can convert Redfield 75s into 70's for $55 in case anybody is interested
I am in favor of continuing to use the Redfield Mod 75 sights in Cowboy but I will more than likely pay to convert the sights I have to avoid the hassle of being challenged for using "illegal" equipment.
Cimarron Red
B Poster
B Poster
Posts: 90
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2007 10:43 am
Location: Colorado

Re: 75 redfield sights

Post by Cimarron Red »

So the use of the Redfield Model 75 sight affords an unfair advantage? In what way? This isn't sarcasm; I'd like to know. Thanks.
lone ringer
Master Poster
Master Poster
Posts: 1082
Joined: Tue May 30, 2006 9:33 am
Location: CA

Re: 75 redfield sights

Post by lone ringer »

I do not feel that The Redfield 75 gives an unfair advantage, it is a receiver sight not much different than the Williams or Lyman but since the last two are made of aluminum in the long run are not as reliable or durable, other than that the Redfield 75 is not going to give you additional points, you still need to pull the trigger at the right moment.

Shooters in other disciplines where iron sights are used do not consider the Redfield 75 good enough to be used in their sport but in Cowboy its OK since nobody is making really good inexpensive sights for lever action rifles. Some shooters are buying very expensive vernier tang sights designed to be used in single shot black powder rifles and I expect that if the silhouette committee in their wisdom disallows the use of the Redfield 75 they will eventually come after those shooters using the vernier tang sights and ask for documentation that shows they were made specifically for the rifles they are using.

The Redfield 75 is a universal sight much like the Lyman 17A front sight that a lot of us use and some body could argue that it was not made for a specific lever action rifle and in the case of the Lyman MJT which some cowboy shooters use, could be argued that it is a "Olympic type" sight since the factory description of the product states that it comes with seven Anschutz size steel apertures.

I really think somebody is making something out of nothing in regards to the use of the Redfield 75 sight and is the result of the silhouette committee saying to that person that he could not use fiber optic sights at the Nationals. Before 2011 we were using the very same sights and nobody made an issue of it. At technical inspection at Nats the person in charge would pick up your rifle to see if you had a post or bead on the front sight and he would put a sticker on the rifle.
boats
AAA Poster
AAA Poster
Posts: 626
Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2007 6:59 am
Location: Virginia

Re: 75 redfield sights

Post by boats »

No dog in this fight but wondering on the chance I have been misinformed

You have a state match, equipment is questioned by competitors. Decision is taken at the match by the match director or perhaps the Jury. Match goes on everybody may be happy or not happy depending on how it was resolved.

Somebody later complains to NRA Headquarters Greg Connor. What's Greg have to do with it ? Rules are set by the Silhouette committee not Greg. Way I understand it only thing NRA could do would be to withhold sanction on future matches, and far as I know they have never done that. He can of course make decisions at his own match in Raton but even there could be over ruled by the Jury of shooters competing.

Somebody comes to my match and tells me what NRA staff says, and yes it has happened, I give it no consideration at all. Jury of shooters interpreting the rule book settling a match dispute when my decision was not accepted. I will allow whatever they decide.

Am I wrong ?

Boats
lone ringer
Master Poster
Master Poster
Posts: 1082
Joined: Tue May 30, 2006 9:33 am
Location: CA

Re: 75 redfield sights

Post by lone ringer »

You are correct in all counts boats, I was not there but heard about it afterwards. If the shooters from Texas felt so strong about the sights the shooter from Kansas was using they should have resolved the issue there on the spot by filling a protest and having a jury decide one way or the other. The only thing I see wrong is with how the receiver sight bases were installed other than that is a non issue with regards to the sight. Calling the Redfield 75 "Olympic type" in my opinion is pretty silly and maybe all they were trying to do is get the competitor that was using it upset to get him of his game.
User avatar
Bob259
Uber Master Poster
Uber Master Poster
Posts: 4337
Joined: Sat Jul 15, 2006 7:16 pm
Location: Phoenix, AZ

Re: 75 redfield sights

Post by Bob259 »

lone ringer wrote:.............and maybe all they were trying to do is get the competitor that was using it upset to get him of his game.
Gee Tony I thought that only happened with Internationl shooting events (Air, 3P, Pistol... etc) ;) :D

I remember at one match I was in that there was a protest where one competitor protested that another shooters shoes made to much noise at the firing line during the match. :-o I hope we never get like that in Silhouette. :-$
Last edited by Bob259 on Wed Jul 27, 2011 12:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
F Troop - Southwest Outpost

Proud Member of the Ram Slammers US Division (Two Bob)
Cimarron Red
B Poster
B Poster
Posts: 90
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2007 10:43 am
Location: Colorado

Re: 75 redfield sights

Post by Cimarron Red »

Lone Ringer,

If the Redfield 75 affords no unfair advantage, then it should be permitted.

Concerning vernier tang sights, a review of George Madis' The Winchester Book will show that Winchester offered vernier sights for its leverguns. Also see Stroebels' Old Gun SIghts. Here we find reprints of Winchester catalogs of 1878, 1890, 1898, 1911, 1920, 1935 etc. showing the Winchester Graduated Tang Sight (Model 36A in later literature) and variants thereof as shown on pp 286, 288, 289, 290, 293, 295, and 298 of the first edition of the Stroebel book. Additionally he lists the Graduated Tang Sight in Mid-Range Vernier and Long-Range versions as optional on the models of 1866, 1873, 1876, and 1886, and likely the 1892 and 1894.

Also Marlin offered its Improved Vernier Mid-Range and Long-Range Tang sights for the the Models 1881, 1888,1889, 1892, 1893, 1894, 1895 and 1897 lever action rifles (pp 182, 183 and 184 of Stroebel's book.)
lone ringer
Master Poster
Master Poster
Posts: 1082
Joined: Tue May 30, 2006 9:33 am
Location: CA

Re: 75 redfield sights

Post by lone ringer »

Cimarron Red wrote:Lone Ringer,

If the Redfield 75 affords no unfair advantage, then it should be permitted.

Concerning vernier tang sights, a review of George Madis' The Winchester Book will show that Winchester offered vernier sights for its leverguns. Also see Stroebels' Old Gun SIghts. Here we find reprints of Winchester catalogs of 1878, 1890, 1898, 1911, 1920, 1935 etc. showing the Winchester Graduated Tang Sight (Model 36A in later literature) and variants thereof as shown on pp 286, 288, 289, 290, 293, 295, and 298 of the first edition of the Stroebel book. Additionally he lists the Graduated Tang Sight in Mid-Range Vernier and Long-Range versions as optional on the models of 1866, 1873, 1876, and 1886, and likely the 1892 and 1894.

Also Marlin offered its Improved Vernier Mid-Range and Long-Range Tang sights for the the Models 1881, 1888,1889, 1892, 1893, 1894, 1895 and 1897 lever action rifles (pp 182, 183 and 184 of Stroebel's book.)

That is what I meant when I said people would have to provide documentation for the sight to see that it was designed or made for the particular rifle they have. The sights you mentioned are probably not available and with the exception of the Win 1802 and 1894 the other rifles you mentioned are not very common in cowboy competition. I was talking about some of the very expensive vernier tang sights used in Black Powder Cartridge competition that people are buying and adapting to their cowboy lever action rifles. I am not against people using whatever sights they want within reason. I would say no Redfield Olympic, International, Palma, etc. or the ones used in HP or International .22 rifle shooting.
User avatar
Innocent
Uber Master Poster
Uber Master Poster
Posts: 5675
Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 7:28 am
Location: Merritt Island

Re: 75 redfield sights

Post by Innocent »

The sights you mentioned are probably not available and with the exception of the Win 1802 and 1894 the other rifles you mentioned are not very common in cowboy competition.
So do you know if they wer or were not offerered? Or are you just assuming that they were not?

Mary
Proud member of SNOSS. I earned mine!
Proud member of IBDF Club...

Guilty until proven Innocent by the press.
lone ringer
Master Poster
Master Poster
Posts: 1082
Joined: Tue May 30, 2006 9:33 am
Location: CA

Re: 75 redfield sights

Post by lone ringer »

Innocent wrote:
The sights you mentioned are probably not available and with the exception of the Win 1802 and 1894 the other rifles you mentioned are not very common in cowboy competition.
So do you know if they wer or were not offerered? Or are you just assuming that they were not?

Mary
Mary he is talking about sights that were available in the years 1878 through 1935 and I am saying those particular sights are more than likely not available to buy now. I have to say also that am not well versed on the different rifle and tang sights models specially on the vintage kind made in the late 1800's. I am more knowledgeable on the modern ones that most of us use in cowboy competition.
boats
AAA Poster
AAA Poster
Posts: 626
Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2007 6:59 am
Location: Virginia

Re: 75 redfield sights

Post by boats »

Specifics of rear sights on CLA rifles aside there is always some equipment controversy what ever you shoot. I compete under 3 sanctioning organizations NRA ASSRA and IDPA. Every one there is some disagreement over equipment. Most of all in IDPA were there are several classes that let you accessorize your handgun. Most of the controversy is over trying to trick out the stock classifications with some useless accessory. Least in ASSRA were you can do about anything you want to the rifle, but still plenty of disputes.

My advice is shoot well within the rules and don't get upset by somebody else's outfit. Most people don't shoot worth a darn when rilled up and upset. Good defense against the guys trying to throw you off your game is don't give them any handles to grab. On the other hand if there are things that are not right and important to the matches outcome go through the procedure. If no satisfaction lobby the sanctioning organization in a polite structured way. It may get results and won't ruin your match. Following this philosophy have seen several things changed for the better and a few changed for the worse, in my view that is, others probably saw the changes completely reverse from my opinion.

Boats
Cimarron Red
B Poster
B Poster
Posts: 90
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2007 10:43 am
Location: Colorado

Re: 75 redfield sights

Post by Cimarron Red »

Hi, Lone Ringer,

The Marlin 1893, 1894, and 1895 (really a 336 which is a modified 1893) and the 1897 (the current form of which is the 39A) are all quite popular in lever gun silhouette. And I use a modern-production 1886 Winchester.

What makes a tang sight a vernier is the fact that it has graduation marks on the sight staff for elevation and windage graduation either on the eye-piece or on the base. Hunting-style tang sights have rudimentary graduation marks, and they are click adjustable.The Soule-style vernier sight was invented in the early 1880's. The Sharps-style was quite a few years earlier, and they both pre-date the receiver sight (1895, as I recall.) The current premier producer of vernier tang sights is Montana Vintage Arms of Belgrade, Montana, and they offer both soule and Sharps-style sights for Winchester and Marlin lever guns. Price alone should not be a consideration in their use. And the only advantage these sights offer is that they are a bit easier to adjust than the hunting-style tang sight, i.e. the Marbles and Lyman. Vernier sights are no different than most receiver sights in that their scales are engraved with graduated lines, but, of course, they are tang-mounted.
nomad
AA Poster
AA Poster
Posts: 287
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 10:41 pm
Location: Texas

Re: 75 redfield sights

Post by nomad »

This is getting out of hand. Sort of like whispering down the lane.

Tony:
I was running the line at the TX state match and went to the KS shooter and asked if he'd had any complaints about the sights he was using. (I LATER learned that others had the same concerns but hadn't wanted to file formal protests.) HE told me that they had been accepted at nationals and so, we -- everyone there -- passed on any arguments. (The idea was to have a good match, not to start a p***ing contest over rules. Not everyone was happy, but it was decided that, in the face of acceptance at National level, we should accept the setup until further clarification was available.)
I called Greg the following Monday and asked if the 75 was now accepted by NRA -- (PARTLY) to find out how that setup got by at Nationals and (MOSTLY) because I often get asked to work the lines and I wanted to know the NRA position in the event any future dispute arose. Greg told me that he would call the KS shooter and discuss it with him...but he (Greg) considered any 'target type' receiver sight mounted on an extension to be something that shouldn't have passed tech at Raton -- and wasn't acceptable.

For everyone else:
There wasn't any big bruhaha at the TX match. The TX shooters weren't shooting this type sight because they/we were of the understanding that it was not permitted. When told that it had been approved at Nationals, people -- naturally and correctly -- wanted clarification so they could take advantage(?) of that sight style if they wanted to do so. That's what prompted my call to Greg and what happened...about these sights...at the nationals grew out of that.

FWIW,
I've researched the sight subject in depth. The old guys (100+ years ago) were using some pretty spiffy irons...IF they were sophisticated enough to know about them, want them and spend the money on them. (They had the same sighting problems that we do.) Just as you can see everything from factory open sights to 4 figure European optics on hunting rigs in caribou camps and on African hunts, etc., there were old-time 'cowboys' using very expensive-for-the-day sights on some pretty costly rifles right alongside people shooting plain-old, straight-from-the-hardware-store-shelf model 73s and such back before any of our parents were born. The idea that 'cowboys' shot and hunted only with factory-fitted buckhorn rears and bead fronts is Hollywonk BS. Period. (Look up Schoyen and some of the Denver gunsmiths and the work they did waaaaaaaaaaaay back. The old-timers weren't all unschooled in shooting sophistication.)
IMO, if we allow $400 verniers on anything in the game, we should probably allow $400 Warners. But that's not the way the rules read. And the reason is that the people who tried to formulate the game wrote some pretty sorry rules that were VERY open to interpretation...and that always causes strife.

I've suggested to NRA (without any results) that NOBODY should be able to propose or vote on any rule -- except those involving safety -- unless that person had competed in ANY match affected by his/her proposal/vote at least 3 times in the preceding year. That would keep the pistol guys from messing with rifle games and vice-versa, the BP people out of smallbore, highpower and cowboy and such and the airgun guys from getting clobbered by well-intentioned silliness. Then, if only those directly involved were making decisons, this kind of family feud might be avoided.
In addition, we'd probably all benefit from an NPRM (a Notice of Proposed Rule Making) format where-in any rule change would be announced as a 'proposal' valid for a year and open during that time for voting by the competitors...as defined above. At the end of the year, the committee would be REQUIRED to act according to the voting results. An "If you don't vote, don't whine." situation.
The only way that I see to keep our games out of arguments is to make certain that ONLY the competitors control them. Then this crap would go mostly away.

That said, it would be best if we all concentrated on getting the game back on track rather than whining that 'Those guys in TX are causing trouble and making bad phone calls.'
If anything caused trouble (in this specific case) it was passing the extension 75s through tech at Nationals a year or more ago. When you open Pandora's box, bad things come out...

If anyone wants to discuss this further with me, see me at a match. I'm out of here.
E Kuney
User avatar
Tlee
AAA Poster
AAA Poster
Posts: 679
Joined: Wed Feb 21, 2007 9:55 am
Location: Where Bob Wills is still the King
Contact:

Re: 75 redfield sights

Post by Tlee »

lone ringer wrote:You are correct in all counts boats, I was not there but heard about it afterwards. If the shooters from Texas felt so strong about the sights the shooter from Kansas was using they should have resolved the issue there on the spot by filling a protest and having a jury decide one way or the other. The only thing I see wrong is with how the receiver sight bases were installed other than that is a non issue with regards to the sight. Calling the Redfield 75 "Olympic type" in my opinion is pretty silly and maybe all they were trying to do is get the competitor that was using it upset to get him of his game.
Tony -

I WAS at the Texas match, and my perspective on it was that Jim was simply asked if it was a legal site, he stated that he assumed it was as it was accepted at the Nationals, and that was pretty much the end of the conversation... He was allowed to shoot it. No protests, no games, no drama, period. Most everyone at the match congratulated Jim on his fine shooting and everyone moved on.

I can tell you there was a LOT more drama and tempers flared at the nationals concerning Marty's missed call, the cheek pad (seriously?! since when is a kickpad cover considered a cheek pad?!), and fiber optics sights SNAFU than there ever was about Jim's Redfield at the Texas state match!

- Tim
Post Reply