NRA rule change

[375Short]

Pertaining to lever action front sight options: Pre 2025 NRA Rule books mentioned the specific insert shapes for Globe sights. That verbiage is deleted from the 2025 rule book. It’s easy to overlook but significant as one decides on what front sight they may like.

[No1_49er]

Can you advise us what wording (specific) has been changed from pre 2025 rules?
I have checked 3.1.3 as far back as 2020 and see no difference wrt permitted front aperture types.

2020 - The front sights must be a post or bead or a fixed non magnified round aperture.
2023 - The front sights must be a post or bead or a fixed non magnified round aperture.
2025 - The front sights must be a post or bead or a fixed non magnified round aperture.

Perhaps you are referring to a different part of the rule(s)?

Thanks

[375Short]

2012 - The front sight must be a post or bead or if changeable inserts, may use a post or bead insert only.

The change was pre 2020 but don’t have a complete set of rule books to pinpoint the year.

The current rule is as you quoted. Round aperture is added and any mention of insert shape is dropped.

We can use a post , bead or round aperture as a front sight. A Lyman 17a is a round aperture, a legal type of front sight. Without inserts it is no sight at all. The restrictions once describing the inserts was removed.

If one can use a lens in the rear and a fiber optic rod in the front. It doesn’t seem logical that you can’t place inserts in your 17a aperture sight.
My guess is, like many rules, the author knew exactly what they intended to convey but if two people can’t read a rule and arrive at the same understanding it is poorly written. We are about a decade absent of the governing body having any presence to offer clarification.

I certainly don’t feel at a disadvantage by the insert my fellow competitors may choose. I hope the choice helps them gain a better site picture or feel more confidence and enjoyment.

That’s my take.

[edgehit]

I’ve got an AI iridium insert in my Lyman 17

[No1_49er]

Comment(s) inserted.
49er

2012 - The front sight must be a post or bead or if changeable inserts, may use a post or bead insert only.

The change was pre 2020 but don’t have a complete set of rule books to pinpoint the year.
I believe the change was made circa 2016-17

The current rule is as you quoted. Round aperture is added and any mention of insert shape is dropped.
Nothing was "dropped".

We can use a post , bead or round aperture as a front sight. A Lyman 17a is a round aperture, a legal type of front sight. Without inserts it is no sight at all. The restrictions once describing the inserts was removed.
The Lyman 17A could be construed as being a (very large) round aperture, which has always been legal. It is actually the globe within which various types of insert are secured whether that be a post, bead, or fixed non-magnified round aperture such as those supplied with the Lyman globe. You can choose whichever type you wish - no "restriction" has been imposed, or removed.

If one can use a lens in the rear and a fiber optic rod in the front. It doesn’t seem logical that you can’t place inserts in your 17a aperture sight.
You seem to be misreading what is written. The Lyman 17A is the carrier of the insert(s), which have NOT been excluded.
To use the text of 3.1.3(a), (the Lyman 17A is) an anti-glare tube which may not have a length greater than 1 1/8" nor a diameter greater than 3/4"
My guess is, like many rules, the author knew exactly what they intended to convey but if two people can’t read a rule and arrive at the same understanding it is poorly written. We are about a decade absent of the governing body having any presence to offer clarification.
Poorly written? I think not.

I certainly don’t feel at a disadvantage by the insert my fellow competitors may choose. I hope the choice helps them gain a better site picture or feel more confidence and enjoyment.

That’s my take.

[375Short]

We both arrive at a different conclusion. I would argue that if well written we would arrive at the same conclusion. Your written interpretation was much clearer than their rule. Some things are best sorted over a cocktail or cup of coffee. In a rule I always ask myself why is it a rule. In this case why would we be asked to use no other insert shape? I’m not going to win or lose based on my insert choice or someone else’s. The same inserts are available for anyone to choose so there is no unfair advantage. coffee or cocktail

[No1_49er]

Wayne, your response actually poses another very interesting question: "In a rule I always ask myself why is it a rule."
I have often asked why, for Lever Action Silhouette, 3.1.3 (e) 'Binoculars may be used for spotting. Spotting scopes or stands may not be used' exists?
Never have had a sensible answer.
Can ANYBODY explain it, the more-so now that it is not uncommon the see a spotter/coach using image stabilizing binoculars?

[375Short]

It certainly doesn’t matter. Assuming the intent is allowing a spotter to see where the competitors shot went then let them see. A fellow competitor loaned us a pair of stabilizing binoculars, may have saved a marriage, certainly lowered the frustration level. Shooting on a range with lush, grass or weed covered berms can be a near impossible spotting task without a spotting scope. We didn’t even need a beverage to quickly find common ground. We may have another hobby asking why’s of the rule book.

[edgehit]

About 10 years ago there was a competitor meeting held at Whittington nationals. Topics at hand examined binoculars, barrel replacement, and sights. Here’s what I recall:

Discussion centered upon the match founders crafting a match to be as financially accessible as possible in order to draw in new shooters. The arms race of the 90’s was still fresh on everyone’s minds and the intention was to have a match shot with “off the shelf” hunting rifles. The rules were selected to avoid the promotion of costly rifle modifications including stocks, better barrels, and optically advantageous sights so that the playing field was leveled for all competitors, regardless of their financial means.

1. The use of tripod mounted spotting scopes was discussed. Some were in favor of spotting scopes. Those opposed brought up the binoculars’ lower cost, reduced footprint on the firing line, and reduced time to make the range safe for target resets. A show of hands supported keeping the rules as-is.

2. A restoration gunsmith was present at the match and walked the line with the organizer of the competitor’s meeting. He pointed out the rifles he personally rebarrelled and were in the competition. I personally recall seeing stainless barrels on 3 blued steel Marlin 336’s so they were definitely rebarrelled. I personally voted to allow rebarreling using barrels that conformed to the factory contour and length. A show of hands supported keeping the rule as-is and not allowing rebarrelled rifles. I contend that today, there is savings to allow rebarreling vs buying a new rifle in hopes that it’ll shoot tighter than your current rifle. Relining barrels of high pressure cartridge rifles isn’t safe and I once attempted to find a gunsmith who would reline a Win 94 in 30-30 without success. Today, there isn’t any savings between relining vs rebarreling. There are many reasons to reline a rifle that I won’t get into.

3. Sights weren’t a hot topic. At the time nearly everyone used a Lyman 17A front and a peep tang or receiver sight. Some fiber was in use and was restricted to 1-1/8” max length. No one rebutted the rules governing sights. Blade supported fiber was about to become common.

Now we allow rear sights with magnification and diopter correction. The magnification allowance is absurd. The international sight inserts are expensive as are the international receiver sights. Neither of these products were meant for use on a hunting firearm. At the time the rules changed to allow international sights as there was no other option. Allowing the use of international rear sights is no longer necessary with the availability of an $80 archery specialist rear diopter and aperture that screws into our common Redfield thread pitch. Those that have international sights will continue to use them. Those who need diopter correction on a budget will buy the archery rear peep.

[cedestech]

A. Binoculars vs spotting scopes was a goofy rule. Every one has a spotting scope. Stabilized binoculars are a minimum of $500 and worth every penny. Would still rather have a scope.

B. Not rebarreling is a false economy. Rebarreling lever guns in not cheap but it is much cheaper then buying several rifle to get one that shoots to your satisfaction. The hard part is interpreting length/contour. Winchester back in the day would build anything you would pay for.

C. I don’t have any problems with the sights. Most peoples problems isn’t seeing the sights as much as their hold isn’t working for them.

Has been discussed ad nauseam….