Was out with the TOZ today in a 35ºF wind, and got to wondering:
With all the ISSF rule changes in the several years I've been away, are the cloth mittens/muffs, such as the one Arnie Vitarbo's wife made for me years ago, still legal? It just covers the outside of the shooting hand, doesn't offer any support, and was OK five or six years ago.
Paul
Pistol Mitten/Muff
Moderators: pilkguns, m1963, David Levene, Spencer, Richard H
Forum rules
If you wish to make a donation to this forum's operation , it would be greatly appreciated.
https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/targettalk?yours=true
If you wish to make a donation to this forum's operation , it would be greatly appreciated.
https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/targettalk?yours=true
-
David Levene
- Posts: 5617
- Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 12:49 pm
- Location: Ruislip, UK
Thanks David, That's what sec. 4.4.2 in my 2001 ISSF rule book states, also sec. 4.1.6 in my 1991 USAS rule book.David Levene wrote:Providing that it does not cover the wrist then you are OK.
Rule 8.4.5.2
Hand covers for 50 m Pistol are permitted, providing they do not cover the wrist.
Seems to me, except for the .22 short, most pistol changes have been in the interest of "Media Photogenics". Can't believe they've reduced the occluder size down to 30mm. Hardly enough to protect the eye should a case burst. Now pays to have a lens behind it, I guess. The side blinders, while not a safety item, were a big help to me in getting the proper mind set by eliminating distractions.
All you guys shooting at body temp (37ºC) "Down Under", will be singing a different song in six mos. :>)
-
David Levene
- Posts: 5617
- Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 12:49 pm
- Location: Ruislip, UK
Think yourself lucky. In April 2002 the ISSF issued a "mandatory requirement made within the spirit of the rules" that, as from the World Championships in Lahti in July 2002, the maximum blinder width would be 20mm.pgfaini wrote:Can't believe they've reduced the occluder size down to 30mm.
As many photographs from those championships show, that "non-rule" was not enforced.
-
Fred Mannis
- Posts: 1298
- Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 8:37 pm
- Location: Delaware
Blinder Size & Eye Protection
David,
Would the following be in compliance - a 37 or 42mm lens on the non shooting eye which has been lightly frosted? Would act as an occluder and provide some protection. What if the lens were not frosted, but actually used to see with?
Fred
Would the following be in compliance - a 37 or 42mm lens on the non shooting eye which has been lightly frosted? Would act as an occluder and provide some protection. What if the lens were not frosted, but actually used to see with?
Fred
-
David Levene
- Posts: 5617
- Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 12:49 pm
- Location: Ruislip, UK
As I read the rules Fred a frosted lens would really be a blinder so would need to be within the 30mm. A non-frosted lens is no problem at all.
The difficult bit would be if the non-shooting eye was fitted with an adjustable polarising filter. When fully open the filter is see-through and doesn't come withing the width limit requirement. As you adjust it, it becomes darker and eventually becomes completely opaque when it obviously does become a blinder. I have absolutely no idea how a jury would decide on that one. I would hope that they would decide in favour of the shooter "I moved the adjustment as I was taking them off".
There are several areas of the rules which are badly written. Those regarding side and non-shooting eye blinders are a farce. As it happens, once you get used to them then clearly complying with the rules is not a particular disadvantage; certainly less than the hassle of arguing with a stroppy jury member.
The difficult bit would be if the non-shooting eye was fitted with an adjustable polarising filter. When fully open the filter is see-through and doesn't come withing the width limit requirement. As you adjust it, it becomes darker and eventually becomes completely opaque when it obviously does become a blinder. I have absolutely no idea how a jury would decide on that one. I would hope that they would decide in favour of the shooter "I moved the adjustment as I was taking them off".
There are several areas of the rules which are badly written. Those regarding side and non-shooting eye blinders are a farce. As it happens, once you get used to them then clearly complying with the rules is not a particular disadvantage; certainly less than the hassle of arguing with a stroppy jury member.
-
Fred Mannis
- Posts: 1298
- Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 8:37 pm
- Location: Delaware
-
David Levene
- Posts: 5617
- Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 12:49 pm
- Location: Ruislip, UK
Stoppy = bad-tempered or awkward to deal with (according to the Oxford English Dictionary).Fred Mannis wrote:stroppy???
You know what they say, "two nations separated by a common language".Fred Mannis wrote:Even though I lived in Britain for a year, I never fully mastered your language.
I haven't seen it myself but it does seem to be a success. Helen Mirren's portrayal of The Queen is supposed to be extremely accurate.Fred Mannis wrote:BTW saw "Queen" at the cinema last night. Enjoyed it a lot. How is it being received over there?
What a pleasure to participate....
in a substantially friendly and erudite forum. We learn and share. It is sport and common interest. Cheers, CraigE
-
Mark Briggs
- Posts: 583
- Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 8:35 am
- Location: The Frigid North - Ottawa, Canada
In response to David's musings about the use of a polarizing filter on the non-shooting eye, I'll chime in with my personal experience. I wore one on my non-shooting eye (and a 30mm blinder over top it) during the official training session at a W.C. event. I had so many officials staring at me, and checking their rule books, and talking to each other, that I decided against wearing it during the match. I obviously then wasn't able to put the rule book to the test because it just wasn't worth the risk of having some official call this ruling into question during a match.
