75 redfield sights

[krgriggs]

It seems to me what gets us in trouble are shooters trying to stretch the rules that are in place. Example is fibre optic sights that end on places other than the sight or 75 sights extended back behind the hammer. If a shooter wants a sight behind the hammer then he should install a tang sight on his rifle. Those guys stretching the rules are ruining it for the guys that mount sights correctly. I also have a question about tang sights, aren't tang sights made for any gun with a (tang). SO since my marlin has a tang, any tang sight is made for that rifle?
I would gladly pay the person changing 75 sights into 70 sights, I think he might be a busy man for the next year or so maybe!

[lone ringer]

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.

Ernie, thank you for clearing what went on and specially about the call to Greg. I got the story first hand from Jim and they some how got me involved because the last year I sold a Redfield 75 and a base to a friend of his. I suggested to Jim at this years Nationals that he install the receiver sight base correctly before going to technical inspection to avoid any problems since I had talked to Lee O'neil earlier on to try to find out what had been the nature of the call to Greg and Lee told me the main complain was the use of what appear to be an extended base. At the Nationals there was a protest that had several issues tied to it and the use of the Redfield 75 was one of them. What was confusing was that even though the jury agreed the sight was not originally made for lever action rifles they did not see a problem with the sight itself but only with how it was mounted to the rifles which does not make any sense to me because you can't use the sight without a base. So I do not know what is going to happen in the future in regards to the legality of using the Redfield 75 in cowboy lever action.

[Innocent]

Not being present at either Nationals or Texas this year but it seems to me that it is the nut pulling the trigger to me. Having shot in several matches where the sights were questionable, most of the modifications are made primarily to psych out the opponent and really give no advantage.
That being said, do any of you really think that our forefathers that shot these rifles didn't take every advantage to upgrade their fine firearms that they could make/afford? Especially as the abilbity to correct vision with lasik etc. was not available then.
Rules have always been pushed, and will always be pushed as long as people have any competitive spirit. And pushing them through psychological means is not against the rules yet!

Mary

[edgehit]

Just to make a point that the sight does not guarantee success, Jim did not win the small bore match with the extended base and 75 sight on his Marlin 39A. But, I did feel just a bit of "receiver sight envy" at first inspection. But it's not the equipment, it's how you use it that makes success

And, there was no drama at the TX match that I noted. I personally was interested in where I could buy the base just in case I wanted to give it a try on my 39A.

Did anyone mention that a TX shooter won nationals without using a 75?

In my opinion an analogy could be drawn between the use of the 75 and fiber optic - it's all up to the shooters mental acuity to execute the shot.

[Tlee]

...(snip)
Rules have always been pushed, and will always be pushed as long as people have any competitive spirit. And pushing them through psychological means is not against the rules yet!

Mary

Mary -

You may have just let the cat out of the bag! Personally, I think all this hoopla over the Redfield 75 and/or the Fiber Optics sites is a calculated "psychological redirect" by some of our Master class shooters Similar to what we saw in the pro ranks in Drag Racing years ago, 1st by Kenny Bernstein, later by Gary Ormsby's crewchief Lee Beard (I'm referring to the "terrible towel")...

Not that I would have ever tried such a thing!



-Tim

Edit:... Actually, to be fair, Kenny wasn't even the 1st; I believe it was Bill (Grumpy) Jenkins who, in the late 60s/early 70's 1st mastered the "psychological redirect", to the chagrin of his fellow competitors when they noticed some holes in the primary tubes of his headers. It caused such a stir at one race, his competitors started drilling holes. Little did they know it was simply Grumpy's 1st attempt at monitoring EGTs and did zero for performance.... But the concept of "monkey see/monkey do" was apparent!

[Innocent]

Tim, I agree...99% of the arguments over sights, vests etc is purely psychological. Don't know anything about Drag racing, but Ihave seen the psych head rasied in all sports, so it isi nothing new. So lets mess with their heads back!!! Give 'em more tequila...LOL

Mary

[Tlee]

Tim, I agree...99% of the arguments over sights, vests etc is purely psychological. Don't know anything about Drag racing, but Ihave seen the psych head rasied in all sports, so it isi nothing new. So lets mess with their heads back!!! Give 'em more tequila...LOL

Mary

Why do you think I still maintain a well stocked bar, but haven't drank much more than a 12-pack of anything containing alcohol in the past 20 years? Actually, I've given Colfax tavern the honor of my last 3 beers over the last 3 years (and I only did that to give my fellow competitors a fighting chance at the nationals)

-Tim

[Innocent]

Ah...Colfax tavern, and how is the gorilla? Never more than two...but I dom't do beer anyway. And as I was driving myself out there only had one a night over the course of the week...so I'll leave the drinking to the kids and let the old age eyes be their advantage over me.

Innocent

[L. Rivard]

I must admit to being pretty new to this sport, but not to competitive shooting in general. While I enjoy lever action silhouette a great deal, some of the equipment rules gall me. The rules on sights are probably the worst. An aperture sight is just a damned hole you look through, what difference should it make how you move it around? As far as i'm concerned, if it dose't poke you in the eye under recoil, or magnify the target, it should be legal. As it is most of us are stuck with the Marbles, a real POS if there ever was one. Oh well, it's enough fun that the annoyance factor is worth it.

[RBriscoe]

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.

I was not there either, Tony, but I am suspicious that his chain was being jerked as you are.

As far as I am aware, there is nothing remotely resembling a definition of what an "Olympic sight" is. I have come to the conclusion that an "Olympic sight" is probably the sight used by someone who shot a better score than the individual complaining about it.

If things continue on the present course, this game could easily be ruined as well.

As you well know, LASC, not the NRA started this game as something fun to do even though it was unsanctioned. Perhaps that is the direction things will go once again when all is said and done.

Cheers

[lone ringer]

Rick, Nomad gave us his account of what happened at the Texas state and why he felt he had to call Greg Connor to clarify the issue.

Some people are lumping the Redfield 75 with the other models like the Olympic, International and Palma which I think is totally wrong because as I said before the Redfield 75 is identical in function and in some cases similar in looks to the Redfield 70 which was made for most of the lever action rifles back in the 1940's or earlier. The also say the Redfield 75 is a "target" sight but so are the Williams and Lyman receiver sights that have target knobs.

Before the Nationals there was a protest that included the Redfield 75 issue and the jury decided that the sight was OK but the base which some people were calling spacer was wrong. I do not understand that part, I do know that extended bases are not allowed as per Cowboy rules but receiver sight bases are not disallowed and a Redfield 75 sight which is a "Universal" sight will not work without a base.

By the way Rick some shooters have been using Redfield 75 receiver sights even before the NRA started sanctioning Cowboy silhouette matches and as far as who invented the game I have to tell you that as far back as the late 80's and early 90's some clubs in my area were having their version of the Cowboy lever action silhouette rifle matches some of which required the use of lead cast bullets to prevent damaging their targets. I know that Raton and other places in the western states had also Cowboy matches and when the NRA finally decided to sanction the sport around the year 2001 we ended up adopting the rules cowboy shooters at Raton were using.

[RBriscoe]

Tony,

Thank you for the reply.

I had drafted a reply, but the whole subject has become so discouraging that I am simply going to bow out of the discussion. I will see what becomes of the matter and be guided accordingly.

Best regards,

Rick

[gunbits]

What ended up being the verdict?

[Merlin]

As a lever action newbie I am very interested in the answer too....... After reading the thread I have to wonder WTH as several TX lever shooters encouraged me to use the Redfield 75 saying that repeat-ability and a great build quality made it the one to use...

I actually have bought one for each of my rifles and will be a little chagrined to learn they are not legal....

[TheBugFather]

People have been using them legally for years now.
Dennis