TargetTalk

This is a very cool piece of kit just announced today on AccurateShooter.com:

http://bulletin.accurateshooter.com/201 ... /#comments

Any guesses on how quickly the ISSF will move to ban this technology once/if it's verified by independent testing? It's not a magnifier per se, but it does modify the sights.

Jason

They claim it's not a lens. I'm not sure I understand the distinction, but that's what the article says. I almost looks like a polarizer.

johnRW wrote:It almost looks like a polarizer.

Yes, but. . . .

Jason

I don't think ISSF would have an issue if it was worn like a lens.

This uses a diffractive means to focus, but it still focuses.
Instead of a refractive lens, this is a diffractive "lens"

Might be interesting

Just to argue the point:

It appears that it is not a lense in the common usage if the word. That is a curved surface (convex or concave).

I am assuming that it indeed is a flat plate, and that it does not magnify the image.

I would also say that it may not be that much different than a flat polarizer filter, which is in essence a series of straight lines that filters out light that is not polarized in the same plane as the lines in the material.

If it is determined to somehow contavene the rules, how would it be detected? Filters are allowed in the rear iris (or the front sight for that matter). Couldn't it be flipped out of the way like a polarizer filter and then flipped in place when needed? Joel, are you going to disassemble the rear irises, examine them under a microscope and reassemble them during equipment control? Just some thoughts.

Marcus

Marcus wrote:Just to argue the point:

It appears that it is not a lense in the common usage if the word. That is a curved surface (convex or concave).

I am assuming that it indeed is a flat plate, and that it does not magnify the image.

Let me play the engineer here ... it's not the shape of the surface, but the function ... it is a focusing agent (admittedly, MHO)

Marcus wrote: If it is determined to somehow contravene the rules, how would it be detected? Filters are allowed in the rear iris (or the front sight for that matter). Couldn't it be flipped out of the way like a polarizer filter and then flipped in place when needed? Joel, are you going to disassemble the rear irises, examine them under a microscope and reassemble them during equipment control? Just some thoughts.

As far as I know, do they ever inspect the rear iris system? What keeps folks from slipping a corrective lens in place of a color filter now? Only integrity I hope.

The physics of the device is neat, but I'm not enough of an "optic-er" to understand if it is usable for a wide range of distances. You could assume a fixed front sight distance, but can you get a range of target distances (50ft, 50yd, 50m, 100yd, 100m) all in one unit and keep all in (oh... the key word) focus at the same time without going to a compromise or slipping in a refractive corrector?

The ISSF rule quoted in this thread is correct, although a bit ambiguous.

Most people read this rule as a lense 'designed' to aid or correct an eye difficiancy, or where better eye sight is achieved with a lense that has been ground to a prescription. The word 'lens' is used by the ISSF for these reasons. This is not allowed on the gun but can be worn on the shooter in the shape of shooting glasses.

Whether this new 'optic' is an aid to failing eyesight or eye difficiancy comes under the ISSF rule, then it must be decided by the ISSF. I personally think it doesn't and it must surely come under the same classification as filters which are allowed, but I would prefer ratification first.

JSB

You guys have never seen a lighthouse? A breakthrough a few houndred years ago... its a lense...

edit: sorry the article says as much hadn't read to the bottom.

its a fresnal lens. (pronounced freynal) that's done on a scale that uses diffraction of light waves rather than geometry. The effect of diffraction can be observed by looking through a very narrow slit... and the problems it creates people will know when their foresight is to tight to the black.

I can't see it living in ISSF land, however, stopping down the rear iris provides an increase in depth of field anyway..., so possibly. I wonder how much light drops off with this.

There's no gain in magnifcation, only clarity. But the advantages (if it performs) are clear... so i would expect there would be a technological advantage gained... so where do you draw the line on that one, considering the sport as it actually stands now?