question about sights
-
- AAA Poster
- Posts: 514
- Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 11:39 am
question about sights
Are the Redfield Olympic and International sights still illegal for lever action? I am looking for a better receiver sight for my Win 94, but these are all I can find. I can't find a 66 which is what I have on my other rifles. I did see one 75, but I am not sure if the windage arm would be long enough.
Appreciate your wisdom. Thanks!
Appreciate your wisdom. Thanks!
-
- Distinguished Master Poster w/Palms
- Posts: 2327
- Joined: Sun May 08, 2011 3:06 pm
Re: question about sights
The rule book hasn’t been changed so “technically” they are illegal.
You can look for sights that fit a 39a also. They will fit a 94 but be a little narrow on the windage. They will be adjusted towards the right side of the rifle for windage to be centered but there is still plenty to play with.
You can look for sights that fit a 39a also. They will fit a 94 but be a little narrow on the windage. They will be adjusted towards the right side of the rifle for windage to be centered but there is still plenty to play with.
Emmett Dibble, Houston, Texas. Where's my buddy Jason? Keeper of electronic records and banisher of little pieces of paper?
-
- A Poster
- Posts: 157
- Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2015 7:07 pm
- Location: over there
Re: question about sights
I have to take issue with a persistent interpretation of the "no Olympic" type sight exclusion.
Going back as far as the 2010 rule book, the specific wording was "No Olympic type sights or extended mounts".
Same in the 2014 rulebook.
In 2016, the rule became "no extended mounts". The term Olympic was deleted.
Same for 2018.
Same for 2020.
The only (current) use of the term "olympic-type" sights is found in 3.4 (b) for Black Powder Cartridge Rifle.
In the same vein, a (Google) search for Redfield "Olympic" style sights shows several iterations of the so-named sight, several of which are similar to what many of use when we mount a William version.
I believe that there is confusion created by the term "Olympic", a word that Redfield ascribed to their version of an "iron sight", and what others ascribe to the likes of Anschutz, FWB, Walther, etc., (modern) Olympic sights.
Rules can be a P.I.T.A. if they are not written with absolute clarity. If there is room for massaging an interpretation we end up with an ongoing unresolved discussion, such as is the case here.
I haven't been around the LAS game long enough to know the reason for the original term "olympic" when it was included in the rules: was it to exclude the Redfield "Olympic" sight, or was it to exclude 'modern olympic' type sights.
To answer the specific question, the rule has been changed, and I do not believe they are "technically illegal".
Going back as far as the 2010 rule book, the specific wording was "No Olympic type sights or extended mounts".
Same in the 2014 rulebook.
In 2016, the rule became "no extended mounts". The term Olympic was deleted.
Same for 2018.
Same for 2020.
The only (current) use of the term "olympic-type" sights is found in 3.4 (b) for Black Powder Cartridge Rifle.
In the same vein, a (Google) search for Redfield "Olympic" style sights shows several iterations of the so-named sight, several of which are similar to what many of use when we mount a William version.
I believe that there is confusion created by the term "Olympic", a word that Redfield ascribed to their version of an "iron sight", and what others ascribe to the likes of Anschutz, FWB, Walther, etc., (modern) Olympic sights.
Rules can be a P.I.T.A. if they are not written with absolute clarity. If there is room for massaging an interpretation we end up with an ongoing unresolved discussion, such as is the case here.
I haven't been around the LAS game long enough to know the reason for the original term "olympic" when it was included in the rules: was it to exclude the Redfield "Olympic" sight, or was it to exclude 'modern olympic' type sights.
To answer the specific question, the rule has been changed, and I do not believe they are "technically illegal".
-
- A Poster
- Posts: 157
- Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2015 7:07 pm
- Location: over there
Re: question about sights
To add to the above, perhaps the reason for the term "no extended mounts" was to prevent the use of modern olympic type sights that had greatly extended base lengths, presenting the aperture closer to the shooters eye and extending the sight radius. Hence the extension from the rear of the action.
But isn't that what we do by mounting a tang sight? Extending the sight radius.
But isn't that what we do by mounting a tang sight? Extending the sight radius.
-
- AAA Poster
- Posts: 630
- Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 9:18 pm
Re: question about sights
Redfield type and other rear sights are all legal. Nothing in the rules preventing any sights except extended mounts.
And even the extended mounts rule is dumb. This outlaws mounting a rear sight at the muzzle but extending the mount back to the rear edge of the receiver, ending up with no difference compared to a receiver mounted sight but because it is on an extended mount it is illegal.
Here is the 2020 rule:
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. The front sights must be a post or bead or a fixed non magnified round aperture. A front sight antiglare tube which may be no longer than 1 1⁄8” to include any attachments and no longer than a ¾ outside diameter, may be used.
Fiber optic material may be used in or on the post or bead and may not be longer than its support blade and not to exceed 1 1/8” in length. In an antiglare tube, the fiber optic material may not be any longer than the tube or extended outside the tube. The fiber optic sights do not need to be commercially manufactured.
And even the extended mounts rule is dumb. This outlaws mounting a rear sight at the muzzle but extending the mount back to the rear edge of the receiver, ending up with no difference compared to a receiver mounted sight but because it is on an extended mount it is illegal.
Here is the 2020 rule:
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. The front sights must be a post or bead or a fixed non magnified round aperture. A front sight antiglare tube which may be no longer than 1 1⁄8” to include any attachments and no longer than a ¾ outside diameter, may be used.
Fiber optic material may be used in or on the post or bead and may not be longer than its support blade and not to exceed 1 1/8” in length. In an antiglare tube, the fiber optic material may not be any longer than the tube or extended outside the tube. The fiber optic sights do not need to be commercially manufactured.
-
- A Poster
- Posts: 157
- Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2015 7:07 pm
- Location: over there
Re: question about sights
Thanks thauglor, I'm glad that we agree. Perhaps there are many more amongst us who also concur.
As written, there is nothing that prohibits anything other than "extended mounts".
Some would claim that it is "not in the spirit" of usage at some period of our history. If that is so, let me throw this one in. 3.1.3 (e) Binoculars may be used for spotting. Spotting scopes or stands may not be used.
Why not? Oh, that's right, the spirit of the times. But what about all those amongst us who extol the virtues of image stabilising binoculars? Let's have some consistency here FFS. What possible advantage can be gained, for the shooter, by his/her spotter using a spotting scope on a tripod stand, other than an inconvenience to the spotter?
-
- AAA Poster
- Posts: 514
- Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 11:39 am
Re: question about sights
Thanks guys.
Would any one know if one version is a better fit for the 94 than the other? From what little I can see on ebay, the International version seems a bit larger. Is this true?
For that matter, will the 75 work? It has been a long time since I saw one in person.
Thanks again!
Would any one know if one version is a better fit for the 94 than the other? From what little I can see on ebay, the International version seems a bit larger. Is this true?
For that matter, will the 75 work? It has been a long time since I saw one in person.
Thanks again!
-
- AAA Poster
- Posts: 615
- Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2006 3:24 pm
Re: question about sights
save yourself time and money and install a Williams FP-TK. I bought redfields that are nicely made but then had to source a mount. In the end I didn’t like it as much as the Williams because I could affix a vernier scale to the Williams but could not with the Redfield. I think you’ll find you will have spent more money and not gain any targets.
If your hung up on redfield, another solution is to find a model 70 which had a version made to fit flat sided lever action rifles. It uses the same slide mechanism as the 75 but without the mount headache to solve.
If your hung up on redfield, another solution is to find a model 70 which had a version made to fit flat sided lever action rifles. It uses the same slide mechanism as the 75 but without the mount headache to solve.
- Joe
- PAndy
- B Poster
- Posts: 98
- Joined: Mon Jul 31, 2017 5:47 am
Re: question about sights
Outback gun parts used to make bases to mount the redfield 75 sight to lever action rifles that are drilled and tapped for a side mount receiver sight. Getting the height of the rear sight correct with this set up might be a challenge.
-
- B Poster
- Posts: 61
- Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2022 8:07 pm
Re: question about sights
I was curious about mounting redfield sights as well on my Marlin 39a and heard about Outback Gun Parts.
I called them up last week and they said they regularly make and machine their own bases for the redfield 75 made to fit the 39a and other models.
Call them, the good old fashioned way, and ask. They well might have a solution for you
812.945.0480
I called them up last week and they said they regularly make and machine their own bases for the redfield 75 made to fit the 39a and other models.
Call them, the good old fashioned way, and ask. They well might have a solution for you
812.945.0480
- Merlin
- AAA Poster
- Posts: 771
- Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 6:56 pm
- Location: Friendswood, TX
Re: question about sights
Thank You Sir.... I shall. The Redfield 75 is a beast and does not move around or flex like lesser sights....CoolArrowMarksman wrote: ↑Fri Jul 29, 2022 6:14 pm I was curious about mounting redfield sights as well on my Marlin 39a and heard about Outback Gun Parts.
I called them up last week and they said they regularly make and machine their own bases for the redfield 75 made to fit the 39a and other models.
Call them, the good old fashioned way, and ask. They well might have a solution for you
812.945.0480
"Only God can judge me." Merlin
"Merlin..Your'e a rimfire whore." God
NRA Lever Action Silhouette - You get more clang for your bang with lever action silhouette.....
TSRA Lifer
NRA Patriot Patron Lifer
"Merlin..Your'e a rimfire whore." God
NRA Lever Action Silhouette - You get more clang for your bang with lever action silhouette.....
TSRA Lifer
NRA Patriot Patron Lifer
-
- AAA Poster
- Posts: 514
- Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 11:39 am
Re: question about sights
Thanks guys, I will call Outback.
for what it is worth, I have a bucket full of the current production sights if somebody needs them Williams, lyman, tang and receiver sights. Once you go Redfield there is no going back!
for what it is worth, I have a bucket full of the current production sights if somebody needs them Williams, lyman, tang and receiver sights. Once you go Redfield there is no going back!