Iron Sight Vs. Any Sight Classification

[6string]

Hi,
For some years, I have been of the opinion that the NRA needs to offer for 2700 bullseye pistol the same sort of sight classification as it offers for various rifle disciplines. Specifically, I would like to see separate "iron sight" and "any sight" classifications.
While there are many people who rightly enjoy the use of red dot sights, especially as an aid to aging eyes, others find the use of such sights to destroy the balance and ergonomics of the "one hand" gun.
I suspect many novices are a bit intimidated by the gear investment and esoterica perceived to be involved in competing in the full 2700 course of fire.
I'll bet there are a number of "cross disciplinary" shooters involved in 2700 and international pistol who would benefit from this proposition.
Not to pine for the good ol' days, but there is something to be said for the "back to basics" quality of service pistol or the more recent (and popular) distinguished revolver matches. Why not carry the concept over across the whole 2700 course of fire?
Am I suggesting that "iron sight" shooters need a handicap? Hardly!
I believe we have forgotten that the 2700 course of fire was devised at a time even before the emergence of the S&W 41, Ruger .22, or even the K-38. If you have the perseverance, one can be quite competitive with a small outlay of dough. Nonetheless, perceptions to the contrary are quite common. I beleive my suggested change in the rules would help spur some new growth and add an extra dimension or challenge to the game.
I sent a letter once to NRA headquarters to this effect but I didn't get too far. Any thoughts??

[Chris]

I love the idea. I think it would help peoples scores in the long run. People tend to want to get a high score fast and go for the scope because it can be eaiser to get your score up from what I have heard. I have only been shooting it for a short while and kind of dabble in it. From what I understand people tend to get to to a spot and they can not improve past because they have developend some bad habbits they might not have gotten if they had used iron sigits longer. I was told to stick with irons until you can shoot 870 is 22 and 860 in 45. My mentor broke 2650 with irons before he went to a scope. It also helps you to get your distingushed since you shoot irons all the time.

In smallbore prone I used to shoot one day irons and one day any sights. I shot irons until I had a master card and would normally beat most of the people on the line. when I stated using a scope I started winning both days and had a much higher x count than most.

Would it not be fun to have a 2 day match. Irons on one day and any site the next day.

[jr_roosa]

I'm just a beginner and I like the idea. I feel like I am learning a ton about how to shoot that I would not get with a red dot.

I'm a bit biased though since I think a scope on a 1911 ruins the aesthetic.

-J.

[wjcksn]

I initiated a discussion on that very topic at Camp Perry last year with Dennis Willing who is a referee at Camp Perry and on the NRA Pistol rules committee. Dennis said that issue has surfaced many times in the past, but always failed to have a sufficient amount of support to change the rules.

My personal opinion is I'm with you, I think iron sights make the game more traditional and fun.

Walt

[CR10X]

Been waiting for this to come up here as well. I hear all the amen's and me-too's but let's ponder this question a little more. (Seeing as how I've been off the board for a while and this is a mindlessly simple diversion).

If I read all the material that you've posted correctly, everyone seem to be in agreement that outside of "aging eyes" the choice of sights probably makes no difference, then why do we need another "class" of match?

Do we just need another "class" to show off our scores with different equipment. Do we really want to set up a form of competition that "older" shooters can't compete in on an even basis? What next, revolvers vs autos, S&W 41's vs 208's, production versus custom?

I think we sould be more internally focused than that.

WE have the option now, to compete with what we want and then check out the results. If someone is so externally focused on comparison, then just walk down the line and make a note of who's kicking our butts with open sights.

I can tell you one thing, if we think it's the sights, or the gun, or the ammo; then it ain't going to matter what we do to the rules, we ain't going to make it to the top anyway.

So please, do an old match director a favor and don't add anymore complications to the match running and stats process. One match director might just decide it's just that much more trouble and quit running matches and just go shoot on his own. You'all think about it and what your real "reasons" might be. But just remember that for almost every change, somebody has to do more and put up with more crap. Maybe one more item to keep track of doesn't sound like much, but if you actually run matches, you'll know what I mean.

HOWEVER, if anybody volunteering to start up and run more matches as a result, then I might be pursuaded to support this. (Any posters on this subject in that category? Hey, maybe that's another class we can ask the NRA for, a match directors category since we don't get to shoot...)

You'all let me know when we get some more matches up and running as a result of this "tremendous change to increase participation" so I'll have more places and times to shoot, rather than spending my time calling the line. In other words, please don't put something else in my boat unless you're going to grap an oar and help row.

Cecil

[solomon grundy]

Specifically, I would like to see separate "iron sight" and "any sight" classifications.

I prefer to compete against all comers - and I don't use a dot or a scope on any of my pistols.

If you'd like to incorporate the information necessary to tabulate seperate standings which recognize iron vs 'any' sights, that's fine, but the match record should recognize a single pistol classification IMO.

[mikeschroeder]

Hi

I don't see a need for two classes. The only place where iron sights are required is Hardball matches, and since I haven't given up yet on distinguished that's what I shoot. The old coots (I'm a child of 47), beat me up one side and down the other regularly with irons or Ultradots, doesn't matter to them.

Just my $2 worth.

Mike

[tenex]

The real question is what constitutes pistol marksmanship? Looking from a distance, you could reasonably say that scores are a measure of 3 basic quantities:

1. The ability to hold
2. The ability to operate the trigger
3. The ability to see the target/dot/sights

Is a shooter who has a rock solid hold, great trigger control, and cataracts in both eyes a good shooter or a bad shooter?

If 1 and 2 are really the most important, give everyone dots. If 3 matters (and our half blind master class shooter really should be bumped down to marksman), shoot iron sights.

I really like to shoot iron sights, but recognize that although I can train and improve my hold and trigger control, I can do little about my aging eyesight.

I think pistol shooting should reflect the parameters that shooters can control and improve upon, so I vote for the dot (And I agree that the last thing Bullseye needs is another classification).

Steve.

[john bickar]

The real question is what constitutes pistol marksmanship? Looking from a distance, you could reasonably say that potential is a measure of 3 basic quantities:

1. The ability to hold
2. The ability to operate the trigger
3. The ability to see the target/dot/sights

tenex, no offense, but I swapped out a word in your statement. Performances (and their oft-related descendants, scores,) are as much a function of what goes (or doesn't go) on between the ears as they are of the three quantities listed above.

Everyone in bullseye, like it or not, is chasing what has been done already with iron sights (i.e., 2680).

To address the original question, bullseye needs an "iron sight" classification like I need a(nother) hole in my head. Once dot sights are consistently proven to be superior to iron sights over the course of fire, at the highest levels (cf. Bianchi Cup), then maybe. But not before. Nothing in the dot/irons give-and-take prevents any newcomers from competing at the highest levels (i.e., High Master-plus) in bullseye.