How open must an open sight be?

[Funny Farmer]

Hi all,

it seems difficult to find an exact definition of an open sight. Must the top of the sight be completely flat? Would a ring with a slot at the top (with approximately the width of the bull's eye) be 'open'? Can an open sight envelop the target at its sides like a pair of prongs?

Perhaps you can link me to an official definition if one exists, or tell your opinion? I do not know why closed sights are restricted at all for pistol shooting, so if you know the background to this it would be interesting to learn.

[j-team]

I have also wondered the same thing.

In fact I thought of taking it one step further and have the ring sight longer and have the gap in the top helical so when viewed from behind it appaears to be a continuous ring.

Not that I think there would be any advantage, just curious that's all.

[David Levene]

It really depends on whether you, or more importantly the match Jury, consider it to be in accordance with the spirit of the rules.

[Brian G]

I am certain that in the past a rule stated that the notch on a pistol rear sight must not be narrower at the top than the bottom, but when that was dropped I do not know. The same rule also referred to U shaped notches as being allowed.
It could have been as long ago as ISU or UIT.

[Funny Farmer]

It seems that right now there is no elaboration in the rules at all assuming that the term 'open sight' is self-explanatory.

Actually I do not think that a ring sight would provide any measurable advantage at all, it is simply about personal preference (as most other things about shooting). No infringement of the spirit of the sport intended.

J-team's idea of a helical gap is interesting too, but I suppose that the sight picture of a closed ring would not be accepted in controls.

[Gerard]

It's not a universally held approach, but the vast majority of pistol competition writing alludes to a need NOT to be overly exact in terms of the precise location of the sights in relation to the black circle. The majority of competitors and writers on the subject seem in agreement that seeing the sights aligned with each other ought to be the priority, allowing alignment with whichever area of the bull (whether centre aim or sub-6 or whatever) to occur more intuitively. Too much focus placed in attaining an exact alignment will often cause shaking in itself, and there's the additional problem that anything you see (ie: 'right now the sights are dead center!) has already happened, owing to the buffering of the nervous system. What you're seeing happened some fraction of a second in the past. The natural arc of movement of the pistol arm has already taken the barrel away from what you're seeing by the time you process the visual information. The further delay, small though it may be, between successfully processing that image and then sending an order to activate the trigger finger approximately doubles this interval.

There is a variety of opinion it seems on the exact duration of these two elements. And of course there is variation between individuals based on natural reaction time and trained reaction time. But in any case it's a safe bet to say a minimum of 1/10th of a second and more likely 1/5th of a second will have passed between the time the sights were actually on centre and the time the pellet/bullet leaves the barrel. There seem only two ways to ensure that the projectile strikes where this sight picture was at that already-gone moment; either hold perfectly still all the way through the process, or train to draw the trigger in a predictive way, anticipating the arrival of the sights at that perfect location. The first is generally accepted as an impossibility. No one can hold perfectly still for any significant period of time. Even if the muscles are perfectly trained and the stance and concentration also perfect, the heart beats, sending vibrations throughout the body. As for the latter, this is often called 'sniping' and is generally discouraged. The arc of movement may well become somewhat predictable, but not absolutely, so this sort of anticipation and timing of the released shot is bound to lead to the odd extra-low value shot along with the perfect shots.

So my guess, and it's only a guess as I've never used a circular front sight like that, would be that it would bring too much focus to perfection of alignment on the target, taking attention away from front/rear sight alignment. But that might not be the case if one trained long enough with such a sight. It could become just another factor in the system and 'disappear' in practical use.

[BenEnglishTX]

It's not a universally held approach, but the vast majority of pistol competition writing alludes to a need NOT to be overly exact in terms of the precise location of the sights in relation to the black circle.
...it's only a guess as I've never used a circular front sight like that, would be that it would bring too much focus to perfection of alignment on the target, taking attention away from front/rear sight alignment.

Interesting post from you Gerard, as always.

Silhouette shooters have at least 30 years of experience using circular front and rear sights. In the U.S., they were popular decades ago, went out of use, and have been rediscovered in recent years. They are now popularly referred to as "peep-on-peep" setups. (Silly name, I know.)

For freestyle shooting, where the pistol is easily held perfectly still, they are wonderful.

For offhand shooting, they're a bit more problematic but not as much as you might think. You simply look through the rear and front sights at the target, focusing either on the front sight or the target. (That's one area where techniques differ and the results don't really support one approach over another.) Without insisting on perfect alignment, press the trigger. The natural desire of the brain to want to see all elements of the sight picture in perfect concentricity is actually no stronger than the distaste we feel when our Vernier vision shows us that the top of the front sight isn't (fairly closely) aligned with the top of the rear sight in a more conventional sight. You just have to get used to the "tube" you're looking through wobbling a bit. Still, as long as you see the target in roughly the middle of the front sight, you can shoot fairly well.

I'm actually in the process of building a production class pistol with this configuration. This is a devilishly difficult task since "production" under IHMSA rules means completely unmodified parts that must be available to anyone. I'm essentially putting an odd assortment of High Power rifle sights atop a pistol. It should be fun once I get the specifics worked out.

Note: the IMSSU, which governs silhouette shooting in most of the world, specifically bans this sort of sight for most categories of competition. They go so far as to include pictures of allowable sight configurations in their rule book, thusly:



Is there nothing like this in the ISSF rules? There seem to be such an overwhelming volume of ISSF rules already; I would have thought something like this would be in there, somewhere.

[RobStubbs]

<snip>
Is there nothing like this in the ISSF rules? There seem to be such an overwhelming volume of ISSF rules already;
I would have thought something like this would be in there, somewhere.

No the ISSF doesn't go into such details.

It says;

"8.4.1.3 Sights: see the PISTOL SPECIFICATION TABLE.

- Only open sights are allowed. Optical, mirror, telescope,
laser-beam, electronically projected dot sights etc., are
prohibited;
- Any aiming device programmed to activate the firing
mechanism is prohibited
- No protective covering is permitted on front or rear open
sights"

I've bolded the key bits pertinent to this discussion.

Rob.

[Funny Farmer]

The only part that applies to the ring sight appears to be the "protective covering". Is the top of a ring a covering? Or would that just rule out a cover above the actual sight?

Does the rule actually say "etc." at the end of the sentence? If so then it sounds like a strange way to phrase a rule. That opens a wide field for interpretation. Whether a slotted ring passes on an AP or FP will probably depend entirely on the person who does the control.

[funtoz]

______

[j-team]

I really doubt that such a sight is really going to give you the edge you hope it will. The only thing that is going to let you shoot better than the world class guys and the current record holders is more practice and dedication, leading to better performance. But by all means, machine yourself a prototype and test it out on your local range. Maybe they'll change the rules for you.

Larry

Lighten up Larry, no one said "I'm gonna get a sight like this and start winning all the matches".

BTW, using dictionary.com to check the meaning of aperture, you get:
"an opening, as a hole, slit, crack, gap, etc."

So does that mean all rearsights are apertures?

It's just a discussion for the purpose of entertainment.

[funtoz]

Sorry J. I didn't mean to offend you. I'll just remove my comment and stay out of your way. You go ahead and have your fun. I'm more interested in real international shooting anyway, so I'll try to confine myself to serious subjects.

[JamesH]

I would use the definition of 'open' to mean 'not re-entrant' or 'not fully or partially closed"

I'm guessing the wording of the rules originally came from the geometric definitions of the words.