Innocent wrote:259...well at least I know there is one East of the Mississippi that will try to push the intent of the rules. The one west of the Mississippi doesn't post here but he is aware of the discussion and has posted via proxy.

Innocent Mary

And Mary you also know PPKNY and know how he likes to run on the ragged edge of the rules, or illegal. ;)

He likes to call it 'Being ahead of the curve' and we all call it illegal

Well, as one of the many that like using the fiber optic front sight due to marginal eyesight, I am disappointed, but not surprised, by the ruling. I won't say that the ruling will stop me from shooting CLA, however it'll certainly make it more challenging, especially on black targets.

Curiously, although I did so originally, I wound up NOT extending the fiber outside of the hood (only because I was forever breaking/damaging the fiber). I found that a short piece of fiber optic (only what reached from the insert to the muzzle side of the sight hood... maybe 1/4 to 3/8"), was sufficient to gather enough light for me to see the dot just fine. From reading the ruling though, I'm not convinced that my "shorty fiber" would be legal as it is still a "homebrew modification" to the Lyman's 17A insert.

Concerning the TruGlo sights; I bought one, but I've yet to figure out a way to adapt it to the dovetail on the front of my Marlin 1894. Anyone have a method they'd like to share?

-Tim

ppkny wrote:Mary, No disrecpect just making a funny. How about these sights, Factory made, fiber is not any longer than the sight.


ppkny

Tlee, Which one do you have the, the dove tail or the thread mount . I have both mounted and would share my method but it looks like they will be illegal. If you want to do it send me a email and I'll showw you pictures of my mounting system.
ppkny
[email protected]

Pete,
After much consideration, I can not help but ask what branch of the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" military you were in? In other words, what makes you so sure "Mary you are getting way to technical, but bigger has always been better."?

Also are you referring to bigger as being, longer or larger in diameter, or both???


As for your other sights, I do not think that it would give anyone an advantage, but then I am a rebel shooter.

Innocent Mary

I didn't even know such sights existed. I feel so primitive using my Lyman 17A and Shaver insert now.

So much for 'Innocent' I guess

259...after all I am the one that still prefers to shoot a Winny 52 over an Annie!!! So I am still Innocent.

Interesting. I used them this year and have gone, for next year, to the Lyman 17A because I think the fiber optics are too large. I'm thankful to our Maker that I can see well enough to believe I need a smaller bead. And I ain't no spring chicken.
Will see how it goes and may go back to the fiber optic sights, if rules allow. Their color contrast is really good, they just need to be smaller.

I think if we just stuck to simple sights like the Marble Glow Sight pictured we'd be fine. It wouldn't matter if it was home made or commercially manufactured. As mentioned, the commercially manufactured ones like this are just too big for some shooters. They run .060" to .080" + the metal band. Many modify sights to .030" to .040" and they work great. They would meet the requirement that the fiber optic material not be any longer than the sight.

krgriggs wrote:I use fibre optic front sights. The reason I use them is because at the nationals they use black targets and the sight blends in with the animal at all matches at home they are white targets so black sight works fine. I would be fine if they wanted to discontinue them but it should be instituted as a rule in the NRA rule book and not left up to the person who runs the match! It would cause to much inconsistancy in our game from club to club. Now if we are running a regional match we have to make the decision if they are going to be allowed, I don't think we should be put in that position.

I suppose that there need to be mass protests before the matches about the color of the targets. (It does make a difference.)

There is nothing "written in granite" that requires black animals. (For those still imbibing the spirits of the sport, TR shot animals that were whatever color they were, not something spray painted black.)

I don't know. I got into this sport because of the simple equipment required. I'm a ways over 50 yoa and will need glasses this year to clearly see the front sight. It really doesn't matter to me what color it is and I will never consider getting a fiber optic front sight. If I can see the front post I'm good to go. Young eyes will always be better than old eyes. I'm just going to read the rules, make sure I understand them and just shoot. If I ( and many others I've seen shoot) were doing this for a living some of us would be a lot skinnier.

TXCharlie wrote:The committee did not change the rules, there is a 5 year moratorium on rules changes, they made it an option for the match director to allow or disallow fiber or the leather cheek pads. This sounds like the illustrious demo's running congress, this is our decision and you will like it.
The NRA has almost killed Black Powder Rifle Silhouette with rules changes and infighting, looks like Cowboy Rifle Silhouette is the next one on the list.
Remember when there were LARGE crowds of Pistol Silhouette shooters, the past is being repeated again. WE/THEY are determined to not learn from the past but to only keep repeating it.
Charlie

ps... what is the next game we will start for them to KILL?????

Charlie,

Interesting about the moratorium. I thought that it had been 1) ignored from the beginning as being "inconvenient" 2) tossed when what's her name left office. They could have saved some money by not holding the various committee meetings if it were actually intended to be implemented. After all, what's her name imposed it to save money by not reprinting the rules books, all the while avoiding the simple solutions, such as publishing the rules books electronically. (I note that the Silhouette rules were online when I looked last year.)

If this is a matter for match directors to decide, then it is the biggest mess yet...and that is saying something.

I wonder how may of the people howling about the use of fiber optic sights have actually used them or spoken to people using them to find out why they are using them. Is being able to see the front sight such an awful thing?

Rick

Edit: P.S. I can not seem to get your link to the moratorium to work.

When I spoke with customer service about the large size of the Fire Sight, would you believe that they used to make a smaller one, but "people" asked for a larger one.

And "one more thing" as Steve says, just who elected these people on the Silhouette Committee in the first place? I don't recall getting a vote? Oh, I forgot, the NRA doesn't practice what it preaches about representation or notice of what is going on. I can only imagine the screams from the NRA if the Congress were to function the way it does.

RBriscoe wrote:.....Oh, I forgot, the NRA doesn't practice what it preaches about representation or notice of what is going on. I can only imagine the screams from the NRA if the Congress were to function the way it does.

We're here from the NRA for your money ;)

I think the NRA does a great job. I'm very pleased at the way they handle the matches and the rules seem fair to me. I think Mr. Connor is one of the nicest folks I've met in any sport and he has certainly been patient with my wife ( a new shooter) who asks many questions that some folks may consider dumb. After the Cowboy Nationals my wife and I made it a point to thank the staff present and to send an e-mail to the Silhouette Division for a well ran and enjoyable match.This is a low key and enjoyable sport that the whole family can compete in and I hope it stays Low key and laid Back.

Glen,
Obviously you have not run many matches as a director, nor have you delt with attending a number of nationals where the trophies were not prepared, or in one case never delivered.

Mary