TargetTalk

COBelties wrote:

Piefou wrote:Did i just read 3po air rifle 10m as an official issf évent ?

Hell yes, in France we have this for children, i loved it but now have to wait summer season to go to the 50m range.

I think he was implying that the CMP (Civilian Marksmanship Program) 3-P Air Rules were updated with the proposed ISSF rule changes, not that the ISSF was incorporating a 3-P Air event. I could be wrong but that is my understanding. Joel?

Yes ..... CMP is publishing the rules ahead of ISSF

To summarize: Yes, this is legal if the tape is basically invisible.

With best regards,
Gary
Gary Anderson
gary.anderson@issf-sports.org

jhmartin wrote:

imac wrote:Can someone help?
I see one of the rules likely to change is the shooting glasses. I had high hopes this was going to allow us to use a monocular type glass attached to the iris. After reading the rule it says "inserted" not attached, I hope this is a typo.......

My opinion is that it is "inserted" in the rear sight optical system, so I think a lens screwed onto the iris end (like the centra mirror type device) is OK.

So if a lens is okay, is a rear sight with multiple lenses okay? If a rear sight has an adjustable diopter correction (such as the -4.5 to +4.5 by Centra) I would think it would need at least two lenses and adjust the distance between them to achieve this. Is this still "a lens"? Or are adjustable ones not going to be allowed? Or will it be the typical vagueness that changes depending on who looks at your equipment?

Justin Tracy

Just like your glasses is a single lens ... not making a tele/microscope.

Again, I think that the rational behind this is to get away from the contraption that are shooting classes ... not for any purpose other than to clean up the view (for TV) of the shooters faces. People start playing games here (and it would <will> be OH, so easy) who knows what the poobas will come up with ....

jhmartin wrote:
To summarize: Yes, this is legal if the tape is basically invisible.

With best regards,
Gary
Gary Anderson
gary.anderson@issf-sports.org

So... Since the weights are taped (excuse me, "attached") to the TOP of the stock behind the grip, it is legal. However, if the weight were in the same place, only on the bottom, between the grip and butt, it would be illegal???? "Weights cannot project downward". Does that mean within the "confines of a typical stock?" (Whatever that means) So.... If no weight can project downward, even one strip of stick on weight between the grip and butt would be illegal.

Can I just remind everyone that what Gary Anderson sent was really just a precis of what he expects in the new rules. I'm sure it wasn't intended to be the exact wording.

I sometimes get the impression that he's damned if he does and he's damned if he doesn't.

David Levene wrote:Can I just remind everyone that what Gary Anderson sent was really just a precis of what he expects in the new rules. I'm sure it wasn't intended to be the exact wording.

I sometimes get the impression that he's damned if he does and he's damned if he doesn't.

I certainly appreciate Gary and others for providing a heads up on pending rule changes. Most, I think, most understand these are preliminary, and wording may be clarified. This type of discussion should be of great interest to those who write the rules. It can be difficult to think of a way to word a rule to cover every possibility. The questions asked here are the very same ones that will be asked at matches.

My limited experience is that when the "official rules" are published, they will still be vague and subject to interpretation. The RO at one match is fine, then somewhere else the RO will not pass your gun. AND... These things are important! When a competitor shows up at a match and some item or setting they have been using for years is ruled illegal, the results can be disastrous. Just ask Sarah Sherer!

Weight changes can be tricky. Showing up at a match and having to remove several ounces of weight because a RO does not understand a poorly written rule should not have to happen.

The next Olympics may be 4 years away.... The next matches that are important to many competitors are coming up quickly. It takes time for a shooter to adapt to equipment changes so the heads up is greatly appreciated.

rmarsh wrote:So... Since the weights are taped (excuse me, "attached") to the TOP of the stock behind the grip, it is legal. However, if the weight were in the same place, only on the bottom, between the grip and butt, it would be illegal???? "Weights cannot project downward". Does that mean within the "confines of a typical stock?" (Whatever that means) So.... If no weight can project downward, even one strip of stick on weight between the grip and butt would be illegal.

Rick ... now I am winging it, but I think the weights projecting downward are only off of the buttplate????
To me if they were within the 140 mm area they would be OK???

This is the type of stuff David was talking about ... the actual wording will be interesting as it will either make this comprehension all the more precise .... or (snicker) ... add to the confusion ... I know, I know - I'm a cynic

I know, and yes I am being a bit of a cynic as well.

However... Read the proposed rule. Then, keep in mind it is ALREADY illegal to have weights or other devices that project downward or laterally outside the normal dimensions of the stock. So, what is the purpose of the new rule?

rmarsh wrote:So, what is the purpose of the new rule?

What's missing is knowledge of the discussion of the rules changes and what the intent was.

People seem to forget that rules are rewritten to try and stop certain practices that have been observed.

Also, rules are made by committee. Meaning opposing sides need to agree on wording.

I see complaints about rules and the governing body in every group I've been a member of. But it's rare I see people doing what it takes to lobby for rules clarifications or changes.

jhmartin wrote:Just like your glasses is a single lens ... not making a tele/microscope.

Again, I think that the rational behind this is to get away from the contraption that are shooting classes ... not for any purpose other than to clean up the view (for TV) of the shooters faces. People start playing games here (and it would <will> be OH, so easy) who knows what the poobas will come up with ....

I'm not talking about making a telescope with the lenses. Just allowing a variable power correction, maybe astigmatism as well. My point is that if the rule says a single lens, but in their minds the rule makers are thinking the current crop of adjustable diopter rear sights are okay, they may actually be outlawing something they want to allow. Since the summary says (which not to be confused with the final official wording) a lens "in" the rear sight I would think they mean to allow these internal adjustable diopters and not just the clamp on system.

Justin Tracy

Justin Credible wrote:

jhmartin wrote:Just like your glasses is a single lens ... not making a tele/microscope.

Again, I think that the rational behind this is to get away from the contraption that are shooting classes ... not for any purpose other than to clean up the view (for TV) of the shooters faces. People start playing games here (and it would <will> be OH, so easy) who knows what the poobas will come up with ....

I'm not talking about making a telescope with the lenses. Just allowing a variable power correction, maybe astigmatism as well. My point is that if the rule says a single lens, but in their minds the rule makers are thinking the current crop of adjustable diopter rear sights are okay, they may actually be outlawing something they want to allow. Since the summary says (which not to be confused with the final official wording) a lens "in" the rear sight I would think they mean to allow these internal adjustable diopters and not just the clamp on system.

Justin Tracy

They specifically cite a Single Lens. By definition that cannot be adjustable in strength. You can fix your prescription spectacle lens to or in the rear sight - that's it.

I think the problem with the currently available variable dioptre irises is that they magnify to varying degrees.
Wasn't there some rumor of an adjustable dioptre that WASN'T magnifying undergoing ISSF approval - or was I dreaming?

K.

KennyB wrote:I think the problem with the currently available variable dioptre irises is that they magnify to varying degrees.
Wasn't there some rumor of an adjustable dioptre that WASN'T magnifying undergoing ISSF approval - or was I dreaming?

K.

Gehmann has just released a lenseless astigmatism diopter if that is what you mean.

KennyB wrote:I think the problem with the currently available variable dioptre irises is that they magnify to varying degrees.
Wasn't there some rumor of an adjustable dioptre that WASN'T magnifying undergoing ISSF approval - or was I dreaming?

K.

All lenses have magnification. Even a single lens on eye glasses. There is nothing you can do with an adjustable diopter that you can't do with a single lens on your glasses, except for adjusting the power (though they do make eyeglasses with deformable lenses for that).

Justin

KennyB wrote:I think the problem with the currently available variable dioptre irises is that they magnify to varying degrees.
Wasn't there some rumor of an adjustable dioptre that WASN'T magnifying undergoing ISSF approval - or was I dreaming?

K.

Hi Ken,
Yes, you are correct.
Gehmann have listed their new 50300 rear iris which is adjustable from +5 to -5 diopters with no magnification.
This is different from their older 530 iris which also has optical correction from +4.5 to -4.5 diopters but has an inbuilt 1.5x magnification.

Not sure if the 50300 iris is available yet, one website has it listed as being available from autumn 2016.
Cheers
Martin

Let's say one, having a perfect vision, uses -5 diopter contact lens and +5 diopter lens in a rear sight. 500 years old idea :-)

Grzegorz wrote:Let's say one, having a perfect vision, uses -5 diopter contact lens and +5 diopter lens in a rear sight. 500 years old idea :-)

Galileo rearsight - cool!

What, ... you want to magnify the image of your front sight?

jhmartin wrote:What, ... you want to magnify the image of your front sight?

no, merely jesting.
The whole idea from Gehmann, which is "awaiting ISSF approval" according to Intershoot, should be scrapped before it gets out of hand.