Reflex Sight

[bkraft]

Guys thanks for all of the input. I just wanted a clarification. I just thought the wording was ambiguous. Now that could have been my reading of it or the wording itself. I just want to see as many people as possible shoot as many guns as they want as long as they can. I agree that the sport is aging out, I agree that it's not the old days. But people we need to press forward while remembering our roots. If that means an asterisk on records set after a certain date to denote rule changes, so what? I thought the mantra of this game was that you are shooting against yourself.
I didn't mean to start a "dust up."
Shoot often, shoot well, shoot safe and for God's sake shoot with a kid.

[contender1121]

No dust-up, just a good discussion as I see it. You know what they say about opinions: they are just like ***-holes, everybody has one.

However, I believe it can all be laid to rest now. This morning I had a three-way conversation with Steve Martens (IHMSA Pres.) and Jim Fields (Region 4 Director and OKC Match director). According to both, the intent of the rule was to allow red-dot (reflector) sights regardless of their construction (i.e. open frame or tubular or compact castings, etc). In other words, the term "reflex" includes all types. This, of course, assumes that all other requirements of the class have been met.
And, according to Steve, if the allowance of RDS is made permanent after the trial period, consideration will be given to re-wording the rule to avoid any further confusion.
Also discussed was the fact that if one is shooting with an RDS during the trial period at state, regional or world championship matches, the resulting scores will be for enjoyment only and not for record.
So, finally, bkraft your sight is good to go.

[bkraft]

Great,! See ya all in OKC.

[i26963]

I have looked, but can’t find the original proposal as it was presented for approval st the World Championship.
I would like to see a copy as presented by Jim to the board.
I’m not comfortable with making interpretations of a proposal almost a year after it was approved. Either it is written in the original proposal or it’s not. Not left to later interpretations.
I seem to remember in discussions that the sights were not to have click adjustments, etc.
It would be helpful if we could see the proposal as presented, especially since we did not get to vote on it.
Thanks
Melvin

[aggshooter]

So.....we just took FPAS guns equiped with red dot scopes and made them FP, as long as they make weight. Right?

And I don't have to look for peep sights for my 300 Whisper anymore, because now I can slap a Tasco ProPoint on it and shoot it in Standing. Right?

And I can shoot my newly equipped (scoped red dot) in Standing because now it's a Production gun and I can use a P-gun for Standing. But youngsters Joe Cullison and Jared Richards still have to use open sights because they aren't age 60. Right?

[braud357]

I apologize for being snide, but I am enjoying this subject very much ! Proverbial "can of worms" - fixing something that was not broken !

[i26963]

I apologize for being snide, but I am enjoying this subject very much ! Proverbial "can of worms" - fixing something that was not broken !

Amen, Philip,
This is what happens when rules are approved without following proper procedure.
I still want to see the original proposal by Jim Fields.
MC

[260 Striker]

ALL MDs just remember to check a person's drivers license for age if they want to shoot a P-gun with a reflex sight. We don't want any 59 1/2 year old person breaking the rules. THAT was meant as a joke but it would be required if following this new proposal. Please, please put some common sense in our rules!!!!!! I remember years ago when IHMSA outlawed Anschutz shooting shoes since they would be a shooting aid to prone shooters. Are we getting too pc and getting away from the fun of the game?????? Shoot what you brung. If it doesn't fit any current category/class, put them in PH. PH even got confusing by limiting scopes to 6X. We just can't make simple rules anymore.

[i26963]

Thanks to Rich Hawkins, here is the original proposal, although I think the “ red dot “ in parentheses was added. Not sure, but if it was, I have a problem with adding amendments to a proposal that was voted on earlier. I am also not sure if this is the final exact wording that was voted on. Seems like I remember a little more detail.
Thanks, Rich
Melvin

“ So here is my PROPOSAL, to allow reflex sights (red-dot) on both production & revolver handguns in our sport. No new categories involved; now, the board is to determine one of two things (1) to allow reflex sights for shooters of any age or (2) set an age limit say at 60 years of age or whatever, that to be determined by majority of the board. My research shows that most all of these sights are under 4 ounces, so to make weight add 4 ounces to total production gun weight.”

[aggshooter]

The excerpt quote in red was from an email document that Jim sent to about 30 shooters in late July 2017. He supplied a word document that include some history of optics and his reasons for submission. The proposal he submitted to the board was dated February 2017. The parenthesis was included in Jim's original proposal. This was what the proposal was when discussed in July. Jim's reference that "My research shows that most all of these sights are under 4 ounces" is a clear indication that scope body style optics were never meant to be included.

While some people want to think it includes all ''red dot, non-magnifying optics,1x scopes, or any variation of them, etc" it does not. Not to be harsh, but what people (even the originator) want it to now include is irrelevant to this conversation. Practical applications of the proposal, if honored at all, must be in accordance with it's proposed wording and the wording published in the Sept issue of the IHMSA News.