I dont' have one and don't plan on having any of my rifles internally modified. But, are short stroked rifles NCOWS legal? and if they are isn't this considered an internal modification?
I'm not asking who in NCOWS has one, the question is just on the lagallity of it.
OCB
OCB
I don't believe this has come up before the Congress as yet. (correct me if I"m wrong) , It may be an issue that should be ruled on. jt
Well,
I have one and feel no shame admitting it. ;) Of course it had to pass the "Trap" inspection first and it did. I almost even got him to try it..... :o LOL!
They are not "illegal" so by default they are legal. The question to ask is "should an action job on a pistol be illegal?" If so, than the short-stroke should be too. If not, than it should be allowed.
I have read a transcript of a letter written by Bat Masterson, where he ordered a Colt and requsted it to be smoothed.
I have never heard of any short stroked rifles in the 19th century.
Books
Matt,
An action job/Tuning a pistol is not the same thing as installing parts in a rifle that is/are not considered original equipement. Short stroking a rifle makes modifications to the internals of a rifle that weren't present or done during the time period we are supposed to represent. JMHO,
OCB
Have we read that current Italian imported rifles throw is longer than the originals ;D
There is an article in this months SASS Chronicle about external and internal modifications on our firearms and how Tex feels that they violate the Spirit of the Game. Very interesting article.
IMHO, the issue of short-stroked rifles is one that should come before the Congress and be decided. This should be done before significant numbers of NCOWS members spend their money on this only to have them disallowed later, much like the Ruger Bisley Vaquero.
I, for one, do not believe such modifications should be allowed for NCOWS and I personally would also advise against spending the money on this modification until it has been reviewed and decided by the Congress.
1) This cannot, in any way, be construed as an authentic modification. I also agree with OCB, this is not the same as "smoothing" or an "action job" on a revolver. Additionally, the short-stroking of revolver actions should also be prohibited.
2) This is not purely an "internal" modification. If you line up a bunch of rifles and open the actions, you will be able to tell instantly which have been short-stroked. And that's externally visible.
3) Just because SASS has headed down this "gamer" equipment race path does not mean that we should.
4) It is only an "advantage" as long as some folks have them and others do not. Once everybody has a SS rifle, the fields will again be "leveled" and another gimmick will have to be found. And the equipment race is on!! I do not believe an authenticity-based outfit such as NCOWS should embrace this equipment race concept.
5) Those who want to SS a rifle for SASS matches, should, by all means do so if they like, but that rifle should not be allowed in NCOWS. I would submit that pards who have the money to spend on relatively expensive SS mods, probably have the funds for a second rifle.
This is just my humble opinion, but there's my 2 cents worth.
Dave,
Take this as polite as possible...Who are you to tell somebody how to spend their money? A Cody Conagher SS and action job is $185. A new Uberti is around $900. Now to be honest, I have a 1873 Border Rifle, Carbine, 66 Yellowboy and a 60 Henry. I reckon I may be the exception not the rule. I can afford basically what I want. When I want it too, but I KNOW that I am the exception. So I CAN go out and impulse buy a rifle that's not short-stroked (I don't need to because I have 2 already), but how many other folks can do that? Why not allow SASS shooters to explore NCOWS without the worry of "Is my gun legal?" "Can I wear X hat or shirt?" Do you want this organization to grow?
Mind you, we are talking about a half inch difference on a throw on a lever gun....
Remember folks, at some level, NCOWS is a business. Buy that I mean that we are asking folks to spend their discretionary time and funds with us. At the end of the day it does come down to $$$$. Do we want to constrict our customer base? Also remember, I will suggest that most folks find SASS and then NCOWS. (Books, I know you didn't). So do you want to put up artificial barriers to entry into NCOWS?
Buy the way, this is a great discussion to have.
I would like to quote Captain Rum Morgan's post from the SASS Wire where they are having a similar discussion:
"Nothing about this sport as well as most other sports will ever be equal
EXAMPLE;
Stock pistols, run the gamet from cabela's Uberti millenium to Colt custom shop.
That's a $1,000.00 difference in purchase price.
Stock rifles, run from Winchester 94's or 92 clones to Uberti border deluxe 73's.
That's easily a $600.00 difference.
Action jobs (not short strokes, assuming they are banned) will be everything from kitchen table, to top of the line gunsmith. Again, a huge difference in cost.
Clothes cover everything from yard sale pick-ups to top shelf, brand name western wear. Low cost (functional) gunleather to competition (slick) gun rigs costing many times more.
Talent is everything from the occassional weekend cowboy to the semi-pro vender/shooter or motor home cowboy that runs the circuit by region or even nationally shooting every weekend. Some cowboys even practice so that they can shoot better than their competitors!
There will always be somebody that will;
out dress you
out practice you
out spend you
OUT SHOOT YOU!!
The whiners are usually the ones that WANT to out shoot you WITHOUT putting in the EFFORT required!
It will STILL be a gun race, clothes race, talent race, etc. etc. etc.... it is naive to think otherwise."
Very well said.
Matt,
I don't think anyone that has replied to this post has whined about anything, I thought we all had a right to express our opinions without them being stepped on. I in no way took Irish Dave's post to suggest that he was telling anybody how to spend their money. What he did say, if I may so humble, was to say that short stroking a rifle is a modification to the original internals of a rifle and not the same as smoothing up the action of a revolver.
I've noticed you've used the argument of turning off new members several times before in other post, so what if it does!!. If prospective new members don't want to play by NCOWS rules there are other shooting venues, it's their choice to join, not mine. I also agree with Dave, that the legallity issue of short stroking rifles is something that needs to come up for a vote at the next congress before it gets out of hand. As far as everything being equal I agree with you, but, I think we are talking about being fair and not taking short cuts to circumvent the spirit of the game.....to use a SASS term.... By the way, I'm glad that you can afford any firearm you desire, so can I, .....what does that have to do with short stroking a rifle? Nothing that I can see.................
OCB
I have no dog in this because I don't and won't own one of the toggle-link rifles. I will stick with Rossi M92s and Marlin M94s.
HOWEVER, I would sure hope that before NCOWS makes any ruling about "short-stroking" that they do a careful comparison of the lever arc angles of numerous originals with those of Itallian copies, in factory condition and shortstroked. What I have seen so far is that the originals generally (how often?) have lever arcs similar to those of short-stroked Itallian copies.
Lars
(http://www.lone-gunman.com/HaneysTruck.jpg)
Mr Douglas, have I got a deal for you...if you'd just help me scoot this chair out of the way...I've got these new short stroke kits for your Winchester. For less than $200 you'll have the edge you need to beat the snot out of that Fred Zwiffle.
Oh I don't know Mr Haney, that's an awful lot of money for a gadget to make the lever move a little less. How much time could that tiny bit of movement possibly save? I'll bet I could improve my times more by spending that money on practice ammunition.
Why Mr Douglas I'm shocked that you'd have such an obtuse point of view :o You know if Fred finds out you're practicing he'll just send Arnold over to root around until you can't find your brass. Well, it's up to you but you know the Zwifles are the next stop on my route...I'm sure Fred understands the logic of lettin' money do the work...I guess you're just destined to be a loser Mr Douglas.
Now wait just a gosh darn minute there Mr Haney, you mean you intended to sell me this contraption and then head straight over to Zwiffles and sell him one too? What happens to my advantage then?
Now Mr Douglas haven't you read the story of Alice in Wonderland?
What does that have to do with anything....have you been eating those mushrooms again?
(http://www.lone-gunman.com/redqueen.jpg)
Certainly not Mr Douglas, I'm referring to the part where the Red Queen explains, "HERE, you see, it takes all the running YOU can do, to keep in the same place. If you want to get somewhere else, you must run at least twice as fast as that!" With shooting it takes all the gadgets you can buy just to keep even with everyone else who's buying gadgets.
Well that's just ludicrous Mr Haney, why the only ones who benefit from this insane arms race are you and the shysters who manufacture these contraptions.
Why Mr Douglas I'm crushed to hear you say that. It's as if you we're trying to take the very bread from the mouths of my poor orphan children. :'(
(http://www.lone-gunman.com/MrHaney.jpg)
Oh allright I'll buy one of the dadburned things, but will you at least wait until after the next match to tell Zwiffle about 'em?
Absolutely Mr Douglas...but that's going to cost an extra $50 bucks...you know to cover my holding costs. ;)
"Thus endeth the lesson..."
Anonymous
George----
That's GREAT!!!! ;D ;D ;D
I'm still laughin'. ;D ;D ;D
Mustang Gregg
George,
That is great!
Lars,
I was aluding to that earlier and agree.
Bill,
I have used that agrument before because I feel that NCOWS is a great organization (obviously, Life Member 160). I want to see NCOWS grow and I feel that as with all forms of government, both public and private, NCOWS being private, over regulation retards growth.
I was pointing out that Dave's cavalier solution of just buying a SASS rifle and then turn around and buying an NCOWS rifle is simply cost prohibitive to most folks. Kind of silly too. I was also pointing out that I was not making my argument based on my personal financial considerations. So, my motives here are not really personal. Most folks fight harder when they have a personal stake in it. I don't, I will fight this one hard on principle alone. It's just a plain bad idea and retards growth from your most likely source of new members, SASS. I personally don't like it when people refer to us in a negative manner, because their perception is just not true. Silly legislation such as worring about the half inch or so on a lever gun may help earn some of that reputation. Who is going to get out a messuring tape or a rule to check levers? Pretty silly.
I agree with Joss House. I laid out my Cim. 1866 44-40 and placed my original Win73 in 44-40 over the top of it. Lining up lever screws and lower edges of the frames, the levers fully open are at the same angle.
One thing to consider is the repros are larger in mass to accommodate smokeless powder.
Black River Smith
Matt,
So, what you are saying is if NCOWS makes the short stroke kits illegal we'll lose potential members, and the members that already have them (#?) will keep them, break the rules and cheat, because you don't think other members will look for them??? Well I for one will point it out as will others that I know who do not care for star wars modifications to old timey firearms.
If the extra half inch in the function of the lever is not important in the overall picture to you then why have you brought it up several times in this post? I think it's more relevant to you then you are trying to make out. Again, this is a modifcation to the firearms original function that was never done.
Maybe we should start a class for short stroked rifles?? We could call it the Speedy Gonzales Class, or, the half incher class, or, short strokers have more fun and get there quicker? The next thing you know, we'll be adding batteries to the short stroke kits and lasers, just because NCOWS hasn't declared them Illegal?????? :D :D :D :D ;D ;D ;D
OCB
Joss House & Black River Smith,
When this issue has come up on the SASS Wire various times, there always seems to be pictures of Itallian and originall Winchesters 73s showing not only the small difference in lever angle at full open but showing that the poster's orignial Winchester had smaller angle than the Itallian copies.
No more no less to my post. As said before, I don't and won't own a toggle-link rifle.
Lars
Number 2 Firing....
Bill,
I never suggested that anybody cheat. I never said that I would cheat, nor did I say I would not shoot an NCOWS match. As stated, I have some non-short stroked rifles just incase the silly ever does happen. Just because I don't agree with a rule, I like the organization enough to play by the rules. I am saying, that no shoot that I ever run will there be a tape measure or a rule to measure a throw on the lever. I hear tell that there are some NCOWS clubs that even still allow the ever dreaded Ruger Bisley. :o
As far as if NCOWS makes short strokes illegal we will lose potential members, I say that is possible. Because it is setting a precidence and perception of the culture of the organization as a whole. I say that less government is generally better. Same goes with rules. Right now, NCOWS has an issue with perception. Things like showing NTR on "Cowboys" goes a long way towards helping that perception. But if we over litigate innocuous issues, such as the short stroke, it does not speak well for us.
Also, I would like to revist the idea of buying an NCOWS rifle. This is behavior that is directly contradictary for an organization that built the catagory Working Cowboy as to allow shooters to shoot in lieu of having all 4 guns. So, if we do not now require shooters to have a rifle, shotgun and two pistols, why would you make new prospective shooters crossing over from SASS to buy a non-short stroked rifle? Seems to violate the spirit in which Working Cowboy was created.
My wife's '73 has a short stroke in it simply because she has shorter arms and it helps her to handle the rifle. To my knowledge the rules state "no external modifications". If this issue is to come in front of the congress, I hope someone has the sense to realize that short strokes are not new to the CAS scene. If they were going to make a ruling against it, it should have been done a long time ago. Since it wasn't, LEAVE IT ALONE! I don't have one, I prefer the bobbling front sight of my '92 weaving back and forth through the BP smoke as my short arms rack the lever. Like Major Matt, I too will abide by the rules that the congress sets forth but this particular issue is not hardly worth consideration. I've met many a woman that had absolutely no concern about 1/2 an inch of shorter stroke. ;D
"..As far as if NCOWS makes short strokes illegal we will lose potential members, I say that is possible. Because it is setting a precidence and perception of the culture of the organization as a whole. .."
Matt:
I would say definitely possible. Speaking only for myself, yes NCOWS has a perception problem. That is coming from two former members that in leather,dress, weapons made sure we wouldn't have a problem. Chicago Sioux would have made the most rabid rules enforcer cry.
Then, of course, there was the ongoing rumblings about gun carts and justification of and for anything. I happened to be shooting BV's, legal then, not now.
Yep, there is a short stroked 38WCF 73 in the safe, as well as, a tuned but not stroked 44WCF. OK, both legal now, possibility of one soon not to be?
We stopped renewing. It just wasn't worth the concern about being braced by somebody at a large shoot. Do I have a problem with NCOWs? No. Play by the rules or choose not to play.
Apologies for the semi rant. Best wishes for a great shoot to you.
Derby
I think the short stroke kits just aren't what NCOWS is about, you will never find one in my rifles, but if someone has installled one, well I really don't care, it's their gun. I agree with just about everything Major Matt has posted on this subject, and Orney Orr has made a valid point about the use of a short stroke rifle, but just like our National government we can pass all the new laws and regulations to cover just about everything, but the real heart of the matter is will they be enforced and who will step up and be the leaders that puts those changes into action. I am far more concerned about updating and establishing range safety rules that will be followed by all clubs rather than if some one has the stroke in their lever shortened.... ;D
"..I am far more concerned about updating and establishing range safety rules that will be followed by all clubs rather than if some one has the stroke in their lever shortened...."
I've been out of the NCOWS loop for awhile, what is the issue on range safety? If I'm hijacking here, I'll start another topic with that question.
I have read with interest the different views expressed on this thread.
There are just a few points that I would like to make: For one, exactly where in the arc of the lever travel is the mgic "half-inch" measured? I have seen several "short stroke" modifications done to various rifles, and there is a great divergence in results. I have seen some that simply removed the inherent over-travel of the parts in a toggle link but did not measurably change the travel. I have seen some that changed the travel as much as TWO Inches from center of lever at the end of loop away from the receiver. What degree is actually acceptable? Certainly in some cases the change would be negligible, in others a major difference glaringly apparent.
For another, in causing prospective members to flee our organization, there are a couple of points to consider: First, we give prospective members a year or more to get their clothing, arms, and equipment in order. This is certainly enough time for new people to see if they wish to become a member, and see if they wish to follow the guidelines and philosophy we embrace. No one is blind sided in this way. Secondly, NCOWS while an organization that promotes shooting, the difference between our organization and most others is fundamental, we also promote and stress historical basis for our dress and equipment.
If people are drawn to our organization, it is NOT because we are "just another place to shoot", or "practice for other matches"... It is the fundamental differences and philosophy that attracts our member base. If not, we would simply be another CAS club with no reason to exist. This is what the entry time is for, to allow prospective members to see if they embrace our core values, and wish to become a supportive member of our organization.
We should not assume that we will recruit disenchanted members of other organizations, NCOWS certainly has more than enough to offer that we do not have to do that. We tend to forget that some of the disenchanted persons are not disenchanted because of the values we support and embrace in NCOWS, but would be equally disenchanted with NCOWS or any other organization that seeks to impose rules on the members.
Just a few thoughts-- sometimes you have to be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.
This has been interesting!
I too have seen the pictures elsewhere purporting to be of original 73s next to reproductions with short stroke kits. In those pics the originals appear to have about the same lever throw as the modified reproductions. Now we also have some pards who claim that their originals do not have the same lever throw as their reproductions with kits in them. This is a puzzlement!
Leaving us with the following possibilities: 1.Someone is prevaricating, 2.Orginal factory tolorences were much more sloppy than todays manufactures, 3.There were gunsmiths in the old days who knew who how to shorten up the lever throw on a toggle link, or 4. there was a change in factory specifications at some point in the old days.
I would prefer to beleive that #1 is unlikely...but it's a possibility. 2 through 4 would require a LOT of dedicated research to prove or disprove either way.
In the end I really don't think it's worth haggling over. Unless the new Corvette that is the prize for the winner is really that important to someone! ;)
A finely slicked '73 with the most advantageous short stroke kit that money can buy would probably make me good enough to win the screws that hold the license plate frame on that shiny new Corvette. ;)
Damn. Amazing how many responses a "hot" thread can generate just overnight.
That's encouraging.
Major Matt:
No offense taken, pard. Just think you missed my point.
I don't care how anyone spends their money and was not trying to tell anyone what to do. But during the Bisley Vaquero debate that preceded the Congress vote to disallow them, we all heard all the arguments about how this was so unfair because folks had already spent their "hard-earned money" on these revolvers (even though they were not formally approved).
All I was trying to do was to suggest that folks might not want to invest in this rather expensive modification until the Congress has resolved it, so as to save them the expense of buying something that was later prohibited.
If folks want to do it anyway and take their chances, then, by all means, go for it. But I would not want to listen to them complain later should the Congress reject this modification and now they're stuck and mad at NCOWS.
As far as Working Cowboy is concerned, if the object as you suggest is to provide newcomers a way to shoot who can't afford all 4 guns lemme ask a question: How many newbies do you think will spend $200 on a SS mod rather than figure that's halfway or more toward a second revolver or nearly all of a Chinese 12-gauge?
My suspicion is, not many.
My only suggestion about dual rifles is that it would be one solution for those who want to play the equipment-race, techno-gimmick SASS game with their SS rifle, SS Vaquero and whatever else and still have one rifle that would be legal for NCOWS -- if the Congress rejects the modification.
PS: Very nicely done, LG. ;) ;D
"..But during the Bisley Vaquero debate that preceded the Congress vote to disallow them, we all heard all the arguments about how this was so unfair because folks had already spent.."
Dave:
Good point. But let me ask this question - How many years elapsed from the introduction (1998) of the BV's to their banning?
Derby
Query:
If yer lever gun has been modified, is it possible to retain the original parts and put them in the gun when yer runnin' wif an "unmodified" crowd?
(sure itsa dumb question, but I wanna know! ??? )
LG,
you're such a Ham..................OCB
Cuts,
With some I think it is. With others, welding is involved.
If a short-stroked rifle does not give the shooter any advantage, then why do it?
If it does give the shooter an advantage; then that isn't really fair, is it? (There is a big difference in fair and legal. I've been through a divorce, so I know this to be true. :()
Therefore, maybe OCB's idea of a short-stroke class should be considered. Or a one second penalty per shot with a short-stroked rifle. :-\
The spirit of the game is what NCOWS is about. The game is late 19th style shooting.
Since we do not have mega-buck prizes all competition is for pride. How much pride is gained by spending hundreds of dollars more than the poor book store owner, so you can out shoot him?
We humans tend to use our gift of rational thought to justify what we want. [We spent centuries justifying slavery. I know it is a far cry from the short-stroking issue, but it is a classic example of the process.]
If this thread makes you think, that's good. If it makes you mad, maybe you should stop and think about it.
Books
This one was hashed over for quite awhile on TFS - probably about two years back.
No real resolution then, as I can recall.
I'll just point out one thing, here.
When these weapons were originally built - far more hand-fitting was the norm.
Actual craftsmen built them - as opposed to whomever is assembling them today.
This accounts for the sometimes amazing smoothness and fit of period-original weapons.
Alas - this capability went into decline after WWII - but the 'average' gun that pre-dated that time far exceeded those that were to be built after, as far as 'feel' and 'finish' were concerned.
Pride in craftmanship is a powerful thing - whereas a mere paycheck doesn't exactly guarantee that work surpasses the lowest standard.
That being said - taking and stoning off the various burrs and machine marks left on modern weapons is merely giving the shooter a closer approximation to what he'd've bought at the local Hardware and Dry Goods.
Music-wire or Coil springs, short-stroke kits and the like - are SASS-inspired competition devices - designed for gaining a mechanical advantage over fellow competitors.
Somehow - not quite the 'Cowboy Way'...
Rather than do that - spend that money - discretionary though it may be - on practice ammunition and range fees.
You can have 'the' most slicked-up, lightened-up and tuned piece on the Line - and a 'Thing of Beauty and a Sight to See' - it will be, indeed.
But when some guy - dressed in his Salvation Army/yard-sale modified cast-offs and carrying the only rifle he has ever shot and knows 'exactly' where it prints - is opposite you and shoots rings around you simply because he's been shooting and shooting and shooting the piece - well, don't be surprised.
Remember what TR said - "The Only Shots That Count Are the Ones That Hit..."
If this is truly going to become an 'issue' rather than a 'discussion' - then remember to tell your NCOWS Reps and have it brought before the Congress.
Talking about it here will just be that - talking about it 'here' - and the baiting and naysaying will continue to cloud NCOWS' perception to the public.
Good Luck to you all,
Scouts Out!
Books,
I think we should have our Reps bring it up at this years convention, a Short Stroke Class that is. Since we don't have a modern class that these guns should be shot in, I think that is a vialble alternative. Lets see.....hmmmm...we might get 6 or 7 members out of all the NCOWS members to shoot in this class....it could be a warm up match for when they shoot SASS, gosh they could even compare notes on who has the shortest stroke (? ;D ;D)...... Flush.....Whoops....there goes the "Spirit of the Game (ers)" right down the toilette, as they say in France....
TIC
OCB
Well, philosophically' I'm closer to NCOWS than SASS. Having said that and with respect, Bill your comment reminds me of why I chose to leave NCOWS.
Derby,
I am sorry my comment offended you, but which part, since there are several things covered in it. As far as you leaving NCOWS for SASS or what ever, that was your choice, you made it and it has no effect on me what so ever, you lose the weak, the strong stay.
If you'll notice the TIC over my initiials they stand for Tongue In Cheek, you know.....for fun....just kidding. If you left NCOWS I would bet it was because it wasn't SASS enough for you, with that said, I belong to both organizations and shoot both, actually shoot SASS more, but, NCOWS is not SASS and I hope it never will be....TIC ;)
ST. George,
You are right, I started it out as light humor but it seems it has come to the point where it has peeved some folks off, so I will drop it. From one old combat vet to another one, some folks just can't stand the heat!! ;)
OCB
Derby:
IIRC, the Bisley Vaquero was rejected in 2004 with that ban to take effect in the spring of 2006. You have a valid point that it had been six years since the BV's introduction.
My point, (apparently not too well or clearly made) was not that there was anything wrong with folks being concerned about the rejection of a gun that they had already bought, but rather to try to prevent that from happening again -- by suggesting that folks might not want to repeat that situation by spending more money on a SS mod until there is a clear ruling from the Congress.
FWIW, I see a distinct difference between the typical "action job" or smoothing and stoning rough parts and the modification of parts, changes in function and addition of new parts that occur in a SS modification.
OCB:
You didn't offend me, no harm, no foul.
.."If you left NCOWS I would bet it was because it wasn't SASS enough for you"...
Now that statement did come close because it was an assumption, an incorrect one. As I said, philosophically I'm closer to NCOWS than SASS. Again, no harm, no foul.
Dave:
I absolutely agree, there is a difference in SS rifles. In fact, given two shooters with equal ability, equal practice time, equal dedication, one with SS, one without, I'll bet on the SS shooter.
The problem remains that folks, coming in or already in, read the forums. They are aware of the SS mod, people already have and are using them in SASS, W3 and, I expect NCOWS. Obviously, it is never too late to ban them, precedent has been set.
With respect to both of you,
Derby
Quote from: Cuts Crooked on October 13, 2005, 06:40:33 AM
I too have seen the pictures elsewhere purporting to be of original 73s next to reproductions with short stroke kits. In those pics the originals appear to have about the same lever throw as the modified reproductions. Now we also have some pards who claim that their originals do not have the same lever throw as their reproductions with kits in them. This is a puzzlement!
Leaving us with the following possibilities: 1.Someone is prevaricating, 2.Orginal factory tolorences were much more sloppy than todays manufactures, 3.There were gunsmiths in the old days who knew who how to shorten up the lever throw on a toggle link, or 4. there was a change in factory specifications at some point in the old days.
I would prefer to beleive that #1 is unlikely...but it's a possibility. 2 through 4 would require a LOT of dedicated research to prove or disprove either way.
I seems to me that the NCOWS rule makers have a lot of research and documentation to do on this subject before making any change in the rules re "short stroking".
Lars
Very interesting discussion. ;)
Slim
I seems to me that the NCOWS rule makers have a lot of research and documentation to do on this subject before making any change in the rules re "short stroking".
Lars
[/quote]
Amen brother Lars, Amen!!!! As all changes should be... ;D
Kudos to Lars, Cuts Crooked and St. George...
Way to hit them in their AUTHENTISITAH...(Think Cartman from South Park and that may be funny.)
Lars,
I couldn't agree with you and Wymore more, but, show me where in any written factory records, records of any kind, photographs etc; that short stroking a rifle was done. Also, if I'm not mistaken Wymore, the authenticity committee doesn't have to show that a piece of equipement was used pre 1900 for it to be NCOWS legal, it's the person that wants to have it submitted that is required to show it was in existance. If in fact that is the way it is supposed to be, then short stroking a rifle is illegal as the rules are now and shouldn't be allowed in an NCOWS sanctioned match?
Lars& Wymore, I was under the impression that if an item couldn't be documented prior to 1900 then it couldn't be used in NCOWS, this I am not sure of as I am not up on all the internal goings on at the NCOWS headquarters. If this is not the case, then pity poor naive me...Do we have a headquarters? We need someone who is more knowledgable in the rules and regs then I am to chime in here on this....... I do hope this comes up for a vote this year as I understand one of our top officials in NCOWS shoots a rifle that has that modification to it, if so shame on you..............and......tsk..tsk...tsk
OCB
I will attach the picture of the original mfg in 1881 and the copy with the shot stroke installed, both are at full stroke. I know that for some of you it would not matter what proof was exibited it would still be wrong.
Some of the posts on here really seem that unless you raise the hackles on some folks you just are not happy. And in your own perfect purist world there is nobody as perfect as you.
In the past couple of years it has seemed that there has been a small group pushing for a total revamp of NCOWS to make it a old west version of NSSA. If every item used has to be documented them how long are you going to allow stainless hardware and knife blades, borebutter, Balistol, gold electroplated watch chains, synthetic stiching in leather work?
Maby everone should take a step back a deep breath and ask themselves what does NCOWS really mean to them? No two replies will be alike just like no two outfits will be at the same level. And no two pieces of equipment will operate with the same specs. Performing internal changes to a firearm to make it more efficient, removing endshake ,timing adjustment, spring pressures, lever throw. none of these will make anyone a better shooter. It might increase their confidence in their equipment, make them want to PRACTICE more and therefore increse their proficiency. But those changes are within the shooter not the equipment.
Life is too damn short to waste it peeing on everyones roses. I just hope you all can figure out what direction you want to go before the sand is all gone from the hourglass.
KC
What is NSSA?
Books
Kaycee:
That appears to be one fine Winchester. I would appreciate seeing a full size picture. PM or post.
Thanks,
Derby
Oh.
Do they have authenticity police?
Books
Great Pictures KC,
So it seems that the Short Stroke actually makes the rifle more historically accurate. Also let me point out that NCOWS allows Marlins with Crossbolt safeties. Hardly Period Correct.
I agree that the E-Committee would spend it's time here in Kansas City looking at ways of growing the organization rather than over litigating the game. Oh, buy the way, it IS A GAME.
Joss,
To answer your question, I have my main competition rifle short stroked to what I would say is the exact lenght as KC's picture. For me, (I have large hands) it allows me to cycle my rifle without moving my thumb, which I anchor to the side of my rifle. The biggest benefit from Cody working on it is the absolute smoothness of the action. I have another rifle that has an "Ultra Short Stroke" in it. It is a back up because although the lever is a shorter stroke, the force required to operate it is greater so the actions are jerkier and it does not "feel" as smooth, and we all know that "smooth is fast."
But it does come down to shooter preference, the way it should be.
I agree with Kaycee, life is to short, heck let's just go shoot and have fun, isn't that why we do this.... ;D
Quote from: Ottawa Creek Bill on October 13, 2005, 05:42:32 PM
Lars,
.................. it's the person that wants to have it submitted that is required to show it was in existance. If in fact that is the way it is supposed to be, then short stroking a rifle is illegal as the rules are now and shouldn't be allowed in an NCOWS sanctioned match?
Lars& Wymore, I was under the impression that if an item couldn't be documented prior to 1900 then it couldn't be used in NCOWS,
...................
OCB
OCB,
As already noted by other posters, following the above to the logical end will leave VERY FEW still extant options for the NCOWS shooter. The list of currently acceptable firearms, cartridges, design of cartridge cases, powders, types of bullets, bullet alloys, woods, etc. used in stocks and grips, dyes in clothing, materials in cloth, modern steels used in guns, safety features, coil springs, etc. etc. etc. would have to be so drastically culled and would become quite short. So would the NCOWS membership list.
We all agree that some balance must be struck, if for no other reason, to maintain the vitality of the organization. While it is obvious that you started this thread in jest, it is also obvious that this topic is a "hot button", both specifically and generally.
By its very nature, an attempt to recreate the past using extant and modern items, materials, etc. is a compromise between what was and what can be. Perfection in the full meaning of the word seems elusive at best, more likely impossible.
While I had nothing to do with the current list of approved/unapproved, it is easy for me to critique it based on my own sense of logic and practicality. Some things I heartily agree with, some look really inconsistant (at least to me, today). If I imagine an expanded list that nixed the badly maligned and apparently poorly understood use of shortstroking on a copy of an original design (but not the original design? Do I understand this point correctly?) then I have one more item in my "really inconsistant" list.
Lars
Just for the record - 'N-SSA' stands for 'North-South Skirmish Association' - the 'parent' Civil War reenactor society.
They have rules and regulations and there are 'some' units that are truly accurate - down to the stitch count in the cloth.
You see this in some of the 'hardcore' Southern units.
For an example of this - look for a copy of 'Confederates in the Attic' - by Tony Horowitz.
In it - he follows one of those ultra hard-core units, and participates in their world.
It's interesting - to say the least.
No matter 'what' you may think of the trend towards more historical accuracy in NCOWS - and how onerous it may be - you ain't seen nuthin' like these boys...
Scouts Out!
There are some valid points made here on this discussion. As I previously mentioned, I have seen SS jobs done that did not significantly alter the lever throw on the rifles. These retained approximately the 90 degree from the receiver arc. I have also seen the other cases, as Major Matt admits to owning, which have a GREATLY reduced lever travel-- the full throw is approximately 60 degrees from the receiver. This is Not an insignificant differece. My position is that if it does not significantly alter the travel, then it is not a problem. If it Does, it does constitute an external mod, simply because it is easily visible as far as you can see the lever. What amount of change are we willing to accept? does it have to resemble the original, or can I have a lever that travels a distance of half or less of the originals? When is enough, enough?
All arguments aside as to what makes a better shooter, the plain fact is that If it were not a competitive advantage, persons would not spend the extra money to have it done. This has been thrashed out quite completely on TOB, and all the parties involved whether pro or con are in agreement on this point. To me , this is immaterial, as I refuse to enter the equipment race to be more competitive. However, it does need to be noted as the underlying reason for the modification.
What if I modify mine to utilize a rack and pinion a'la Browning, and end up with a lever travel of two inches? To use the quoted logic, if it doesn't involve change to the outside, it would be legal. This may seem an extreme thought, but what if?
Give it some honest, unbiased thought, and make your voices known as to where to draw the line. That's why we vote. Use your vote.
Derby,
Left click on the pic and you will get to see it full sized.
Kaycee,
Thanx fer posting that pic! It shows prezactly wat I wuz talkin' about in my earlier post. Now, if someone should place both those guns in front of an authenticity commitee, how they gonna rule? ???
Let's see if I can cram 10 pounds of stuff into a 5 pound post:
Mr Haney is the consummate snake oil salesman. Keeping in mind that I have no first hand experience with 'strokers' it is my opinion that they are 'snake oil'. A missed target in NCOWS is a 10 second penalty. The time saved by moving the lever a tiny bit less with each shot could never recover enough to counteract even one miss. (of course in SASS with a 5 second penalty your odds would be twice as good.) At best it might give an advantage over someone else using the same rifle, but not necessarily to someone using a Marlin which already has a shorter stroke, or a Lightning rifle. I would bet on Steve Paulson with his original 32-20 Lightning against anyone shooting any sort of lever action rifle.
"If they didn't give an advantage people wouldn't be buying them" Folks I've been a salesman all my life, trust me on this, that's NOT the way it works. If it did there wouldn't be lines at the lottery counter and Ron Popeil wouldn't be a millionaire.
"All things being equal", all things are NEVER equal.
"Internal vs External modifications". The single greatest improvement we could make in our online discussions of NCOWS rules is to actually refer to NCOWS rules during the discussions. The 'internal/external mod' rule is a SASS rule, not NCOWS. Everyone who posts on these forums has a computer, our rules are readily available at http://www.ncows.org/Bylaws.htm (http://www.ncows.org/Bylaws.htm) Interlacing SASS rules in NCOWS discussions just confuses the dog poop out of folks...please don't do it.
The Territorial Congress, not the authenticity committee, is the only body that can make a determination on an items acceptance. The authenticity committee conducts reviews and makes recommendations to the Congress. To the best of my knowledge our current Judge, Steve Caldwell, has not named an authenticity committee since taking office in February.
The November 19th & 20th meeting in Kansas City is not an E-committee meeting, it is a full fledged two day meeting of the Territorial Congress just like the one in Des Moines last November when we ratified the new bylaws. This is the meeting where these sorts of decisions are made, that's why they last two days (so folks can heal overnight and come back the next morning for round 2 ;D). The convention meetings are only a couple of hours or so and are now limited to things such as electing officers and lighter issues and/or very urgent business. Updating of the approved/unapproved lists will definitely be on the agenda for next month so, barring any unforeseen problems, this should get resolved then.
Interesting discussion for sure. I want to add a few comments, but have in mind that I comment this based on a standpoint where I try to see these discussions from the outside and also as a veteran in the sport and as a newcomer.
In my promotional work, I talk about our sport to more non cas'ers than fellow shooters and I listen a lot to their comments.
This is not really just a discussion about short strokes and even about how we discuss these issues on a public forum. About the way we discuss, let me add this: we tend to forget sometimes that "guests" read more of the online debates than registered members. When we discuss on online forums, we are ambassadors of the sport and the organizations we want to represent. Always have that in mind.
I get more comments and questions from guests than members of this forum and other forums. For me, it is a valuable feedback because it gives me an understanding how outsiders think about our sport and the organizations and what it takes to get new members on board, whether it is SASS, NCOWS, W3G or just a local non affiliated club.
Short strokes is one of latest hot topics on the agenda when it comes to modifications and it won't be the last. It won't be the last because the gun industry and gunsmiths are working hard and determent to compete in the CAS market. And of course, competing is also about marketing and because of that and the money involved, promoting what some consider race guns becomes more highlighted than the sport itself. In fact, the industry has taken over the promotion of the sport and to some extent, the organizations have lost some of the control. It may be hard to admit that fact, but I have not found proof of the opposite.
In my opinion, SASS started the race and could not stop from day 1. With very liberal rules in the first place, it was easy for the members and the industry to put the pressure on and to push the boundaries of what could be accepted when it came to new guns and internal modifications.
In my opinion, NCOWS are now under the same kind of pressure, a pressure started by the industry and now the members. All this goes hand in hand. It is a consequence of professional marketing goals and we as members accept it for the most part.
One of the many questions is... how important it is to be strict on internal modification rules and/or how can we stop it? Is it too late already?
Will NCOWS as an organization with a goal to keep the sport more authentic when it comes to guns and costumes survive with the pressure we get from shooters who wants the latest in internal modifications?
Where are the borderlines and when and how can we technically say that enough is enough?
Now, we may think that the fast shooters on TV with subsonic thumbs on the revolver and a lever action that gives the impression it is a semi automatic is good for the recruitment. My research tells me it is not. It is quite the opposite.
I have watched episodes of Cowboys with people that haven't even heard about our sport and also studied their reactions and what they found interesting.
My notes and experience tells me that for the majority of the viewers, the fast shooters on TV is not a motivation to join. Seasoned shooters in other organizations are not motivated by that either because they look at it as just another IPSC sport.
However, the NCOWS episode in season 2 and episodes where we see regular shooters on TV with the same "slow" speed and errors as the average shooter, trigger more questions about where to join and how to join.
For me that is more important than short strokes and internal modifications.
Ok, you may think that I wondered off topic here, but in my opinion I haven't. You see, the important part of these kind of discussions is how the sport is prevailed. What is the impact if NCOWS allow a modification or not? Is it perhaps too late to discuss this because the industry have already set some standards through marketing and it is already accepted by the majority of the members? Will a late no to short stroke split the membership and hurt the organization?
Folks, I don't have all the answers, I just want to share some of my observations.
Personally, I don't see short strokes as a problem technically, because it will not really approve the average shooter's skills, in many cases, it will make them miss faster.
It is the psychological effects these modifications have on the sport I am worried about. A lot of shooters think it will move them way up the score board. It won't, practice takes care of that, but..... potential new members think that they cannot afford all these extras that are marketed as a must to be in the sport. A gun out of the box is just not good enough anymore. The entry price to this sport is high enough as it is and is getting higher.
Have an interesting discussion with mutual respect for each others. You may disagree, but you are all on the same boat that has an engine controlled more by outside forces than the fine folks in the machine room.
Thanks for listening.
Quote from: French Jack on October 14, 2005, 06:20:55 AM
All arguments aside as to what makes a better shooter, the plain fact is that If it were not a competitive advantage, persons would not spend the extra money to have it done. This has been thrashed out quite completely on TOB, and all the parties involved whether pro or con are in agreement on this point.
Since I own a '73 with a short stroke, I can say the above is not a fact and all parties involved are not in agreement.
There is NO competitive advantage to my having a short stroke in my '73. I got one because I am used to shooting a Marlin.
I sincerely hope this item is never placed on an agenda before the Territorial Congress.
AnnieLee
Now I have read all of this and won't go into any technical or historical jargon.. not because I wouldn't love to impress you all with the fine and intelligent talk that you good ole' folks are exchanging.. but because..in this topic.. I really don't know the difference between s*** and apple butter.
But I do know this.
I am blessed with being married to the Marshal.. who gives me information all the time about all of the happenings and inside stuff that goes on within the CAS world.
But , since I am a total green horn on most of this... as everyone in my family and the group that we run with here in 'small town redneck America" is...
I can give an unbiased opinion on what newcomers really are looking at and feeling for the most part.
( I'll try not to be my normal windy self here~~ but I am making no promises.)
Since we have a group of people in this area, who are interested in CAS, we decided to have them over for a cookout and also to watch some assorted videos that Marshal had of CAS events.. some in America and some from Norway.
Now keep in mind that we here are just hunters and plinkers ..using all kinds of guns to have a good time with and keep ourselves amused..
What was amazing, was when we were watching all the shooters with the slicked up guns and the lightening fast speeds, there were some impressed whistles..and some impressed comments.
But when he played the video's of the shoots where there were the ones that used common guns and were laughing and shooting their best, but still not too worried about the time clock or the "impression" that they were making.. the whole energy and feeling took a different turn in the room.
THEN.. we started hearing talk about getting something started around here.. how fun it would be...and comments like..."if it is like THAT~~ I would feel comfortable shooting."
My point is... Sometimes the real fast shooters who make it a point of using all the "new tricks" to get the advantage to win and be the "fastest".. I think deters an intimidates new shooters who are considering getting into the sport for the fun and friendship of the game.
((let me finish here))
I am as competitive as the next, and I think the desire to do your best should always be practiced..
But what I am worried about is that the size of the wallet is going to control who the new future member of NCOWS and other organizations will be.
But I also think that the internal modifications of the guns should be kept strict so that everyone is playing on the same level.
Or at least thinking that they are competing on the same level.
We all know that practise is really what makes a good shooter.
And the personality is what makes the sport fun.
Just wanted to get the opinion of the common person in here, who is looking at the sport from the outside.
**If any one of you is making a comment on the fact that I broke my promise to "not be windy".. I will smack you so hard with my rolling pin that your clothes will be out of style when you finally hit the ground**
(http://www.cascity.com/howard/animations/8.gif)
:D :D Marshal'ette
Lone Gunman,
thanks for the interpretation, I just spent four days with French Jack in the hills of Kentucky and thought I had it (the jargon) down pat.
Marshall Holloway,
I couldn't agree with you more that our sport is driven more form the outside (marketers) then in-house. With that said I hope NCOWS still has time to become something other then just a practice match for SASS. Don't get me wrong, I belong to SASS and shoot a match at least once a month.
I guess I am really a sentilmentalist when it comes to old guns and the old west and that is why I feel strongly that any modifications that weren't done pre 1900, should be for the organization that started it all, SASS, after all, it is money driven and has been from the start, but at one time it was the only game in town.
If this next example is any indication of the way NCOWS is heading it is a good sign. We just had a new club in western Kentucky apply for an NCOWS charter solely on being at and seeing the Eastern Regional in Kentucky this month (the clubs founder's words, not mine). This club was a SASS club, but, with all the race gun mentality going on in SASS, they were just fed up. I would hate to lose any members just because they didn't like the rules, but, the way I feel as some others do here, if we have members leave that don't like the rules, there will be others to take their place, we all have to play by some sort of rules in our lives.
Marshal'ette,
It's nice to have a pretty face post over here on the NCOWS forum once in a while, windy or not. Jeez..I hope that didn't sound too chauvinistic.... ;)
OCB
Quote from: Ottawa Creek Bill on October 14, 2005, 03:55:25 PM
Marshal'ette,
It's nice to have a pretty face post over here on the NCOWS forum once in a while, windy or not. Jeez..I hope that didn't sound too chauvinistic.... ;)
OCB
Chauvinistic? I dunno. Offensive to any other woman who has posted in the NCOWS forum? Oh, yeah, you betcha. Great people skills there, OCB.
::)
AnnieLee
Thank you, Joss, but I wasn't fishing for a compliment.
;)
AnnieLee
Annie Lee,
Joss is right. I don't know you, or what you look like, and as far as I know the Marshalette, is the first of the fairer sex to use her actual picture in her avatar while posting in the NCOWS forum. As far as my people skills are concerned, I'm not here to preach the sermon on the mount to anyone, just express my opinions and try not to make it personal in an open forum. If you had a problem with my post you should have sent me a personal message and not made it public since I didn't address you specifically. I think the topic here is on short stroke rifles and not what you perceive to be the quality of, or lack of my people skills.......But thank you anyway for pointing that out......... ???
OCB
Joss,
Aanishna' Apiijig'we Nishin ;)
Will do!
Bill
The Marshal and Marshalette bring up some very good points! Although not on the subject of of short strokes, I've recently learned that at least one ammo company has started offering reduced loads in black powder cartridges. >:( (some of you may be aware that this is major burr under my saddle ;) ) This is without doubt a direct result of recent events in the CAS shooting world and an attempt by big business to capitalize on a perceived advantage in competition. And when commercial enterprizes get involved in such thigs it's hard to rein things back in. Witness the speed floor that disappeared from the other major CAS venues rules....a direct result of ammo companies pressure on that venue.
Perhaps, if NCOWS is really interested in stopping the equipment race, it's time to look at the possibility of "sundowning" the short stroke gunz? (much like the ruling on belt slides....give a date in the future at which point they no longer be allowed to be used in NCOWS matches) This would give the owners/users of such guns time to replace them or return them to stock configuration. This would also give the industry notice that there is no point in pursuing such things, at least insofar as the NCOWS buyers are concerned.
BTW, I too have noticed the differing reactions of non CAS participants upon watching shows about the game. I was involved in the making of a short peice for public television, with The Fort Des Moines Rangers, a couple of years back. It was a local shoot and when it aired on TV I got a LOT of inquiries about "when/where/how?" But the films showing the "top gunz" only seem to bring out comments like "no way I could do that"!
I've found this to be a very interesting and enlightning discussion to date, I guess to me it comes down to only one question: If it ain't authentic to the period, why would an NCOWS member want to do it? If we start down this slippery slope, can the self cocking short-stroked Spencer be far behind??? (Guess that's 2 questions, sorry!) As far as I can tell, the onyl REAL difference between us and SASS is the quest to be authentic, maybe my interpretation of the NCOWS mission statement is a little off based but I thought we were all trying to be correct to the period. I honestly don't give one whit if the guy next to me is shooting the most tricked out Uberti, Ruger or whatever, I'm not in this game for that reason. When we start losing one of the original principles this group was founded on, ie authenticity, I start to get a bit of a queasy feeling in my gut. If you're not in this to be authentic, I've got to wonder why you joined NCOWS instead of just going to another SASS match. I certainly am not authentic in every respect but am trying to improve when I can. Just can't see why we would want to go the opposite direction when it's much cheaper and more correct not to. 'Nuf said!
GW
Though a vocal minority seem to be seeking the 'SASSification' of NCOWS and pay but lip service to period attire and the like - the PMs I get are still overwhelmingly pro-period dress and equipment.
That's the reason that 'they' joined the organization.
Some came from SASS - some from the Civil War/Indian War reenactors and some from the Buckskinners.
All were/and continue to be - ardent students of History and appreciate NCOWS for it's stance with regard to that compelling aspect of it.
If they 'want' to shoot fast - there are more clubs out there for them to do so - but they don't.
It's been said that SASS is a shooting organization that has a social side, and NCOWS is a social organization that shoots.
There's a lot of truth to that.
Short-stroke kits, shotgun slides, flared holster tops and ultra-low loads are all what they are - SASS-inspired devices designed for gaining a 'mechanical' advantage over one's fellows.
They can attempt to be 'justified' by some pretty articulate folks - but the fact remains...
Watching one of the 'Top Shooters' from SASS on television is 'exactly' like watching the old 'Walk and Draw' Fast-Draw contests of my youth - 'vaguely' interesting - essentially useless and not worth the practice time.
However - watching something slower-paced like the NCOWS segment garners both interest and enthusiasm amongst all age groups.
Probably have to blame Clint Eastwood's 'Unforgiven' for the return to an 'authentic' Western, and Tom Selleck's and Kevin Costner's various enhancement of same, for the public's acceptance of that.
They're what folks have seen and have enjoyed and so - they identify more with that 'type' than they do the old B-Movie stuff.
For 'them' - it's 'how it was' during the time and - director's idiocyncracies aside - the 'new' stuff is far better and far more faithful to those long-gone times.
Cleaning up the burrs and machine marks, and putting in harder screws to replace some of the soft ones is one thing.
The result is a weapon whose internal workings replicate what the shooter would've bought at the time, thanks to the innate craftsmanship involved in building pretty much 'everything' back then.
Installing 'kits' and buying like-oriented gear is quite another.
With the demise of the shotgun slide - the idea of a 'sunset' on certain 'overly-competitive' gear is a workable one - at least for NCOWS.
Many folks shoot in both camps - and that's great.
Save the tricked-out, expensive action jobs and other comp gear for those days that you shoot 'IPSC with Hats' and use the living hell out of it and enjoy yourself doing so.
But - when it's an NCOWS shoot - pull out your 'real' Old West gear- the period stuff you read about and hunted for and were helped with - and immerse yourself into a much quieter and more 'civilized' time - shoot some, and talk some and learn some from everyone there.
The experiences are 'similar' - but 'different' and there's more of an honest friendliness that's visible at anything NCOWS is involved with.
If these devices are truly going to be a 'problem' and not merely the 'stuff of conversation', Devil's Advocacy and Dead Horse beating' - then remember - the Congress meets in KC in November.
Get to talking within your Posse and putting your concerns down and tell the Reps, so they can discuss it as NCOWS sees it and not in a public forum like this one - where the casual reader only sees contention and dissention.
For many - KC is a very reasonable distance to drive to and if your dues are paid up - you can sit and watch and learn that developing 'Rules' for NCOWS is a 'lot' like the making of sausage...
But it's harder on your butt...
Good Luck to you all.
Vaya,
Scouts Out!
Quote from: St. George on October 16, 2005, 10:07:55 AM
Though a vocal minority seem to be seeking the 'SASSification' of NCOWS and pay but lip service to period attire and the like - the PMs I get are still overwhelmingly pro-period dress and equipment.
That's the reason that 'they' joined the organization.
St. George, I don't see where folks are seeking the "SASSification' of NCOWS on this issue. What I am seeing are people who would prefer the research be done before anything is brought before the Territorial Congress.
Kaycee posted a pic of two '73s that I am going to repeat, here. His reproduction has a short stroke kit installed that gives it the same arc of lever throw as his original. As a result, it can be logically said that before the short stroke was installed, his reproduction '73 had a
longer throw than that of an original. Installing the kit in his '73 actually makes it appear to be closer in accuracy to an original.
QuoteShort-stroke kits, shotgun slides, flared holster tops and ultra-low loads are all what they are - SASS-inspired devices designed for gaining a 'mechanical' advantage over one's fellows.
That may very well be true, but I would hazard that the majority of folks who have short stroke kits installed don't do it for any advantage over their fellow shooters, they do it because they like how it feels when they shoot the firearm.
QuoteMany folks shoot in both camps - and that's great.
Save the tricked-out, expensive action jobs and other comp gear for those days that you shoot 'IPSC with Hats' and use the living hell out of it and enjoy yourself doing so.
I would again pose that the vast majority of SASS shooters do not consider it to be "IPSC with Hats." Perhaps the top 10% do, but the rest of us are in it for the fun and because we simply love to shoot. I think it is grossly unfair to the 90% of SASS shooters to lump them in under such a term.
QuoteBut - when it's an NCOWS shoot - pull out your 'real' Old West gear- the period stuff you read about and hunted for and were helped with - and immerse yourself into a much quieter and more 'civilized' time - shoot some, and talk some and learn some from everyone there.
The experiences are 'similar' - but 'different' and there's more of an honest friendliness that's visible at anything NCOWS is involved with.
Similar but different, aye, I can agree with that, and that is why I am interested in participating in an NCOWS shoot one day. But to say there's more of an honest friendliness at an NCOWS shoot compared to a SASS shoot? That implies that SASS shoots are dishonest and unfriendly. Tsk. How about leaving comparisons to SASS out of discussions about NCOWS?
If and when I ever shoot at an NCOWS event, it will be because I want to shoot an NCOWS event. Period. But if I am told that I will have to purchase an additional '73 because mine has a short stroke kit installed, even though the work done on mine gives me no competitive nor mechanical advantage, and even though my short stroke kit gives it a lever throw arc more in line with that of an original '73... I might take issue with that.
I sincerely hope this item is never placed before the Congress.
AnnieLee
AnnieLee:
Excellent post.
Let me pose two questions to this forum. Given that an internal modification, SS, is banned: How will it be identified? How will it be enforced?
I would suggest to all interested parties that reading Tex's column in the latest Chronicle will give some proper insight to this situation. If you already have a SS kit in your rifle, do whatever you think is right for you. If this matter does come before the Congress (agenda items are being solicited now), I believe it will be dealt with at the next scheduled (Nov. 19-20) meeting. Contact your Terr. rep. or Senator and let them know how you feel about this issue, and any other thing that you feel is of importance to NCOWS.
GW
GW,
I read the article with interest yesterday and find it ironic that SASS is taking a hard look at where the direction of this sport has gone, even Tex, one of the original founders of SASS, makes reference to the fact with all the modifactions they (SASS) allows it is headed for the IPSC style of shooting if not put in check, if it is not already there.
I also find it interesting that he mentioned coil springs and other mods that weren't done to 19th century firearms and his piece on how he had his percussion revolvers modified in such a way as to make them competitive, but felt guilty about doing it. It's probably to late to weed those kind of tihings out of SASS but I hope NCOWS still has a chance and the will to take that step.
OCB
Bill, I referenced his article because of it's timeliness(just read it last night) and the point he makes about a new shooter's perception of the cost of "playing the game". If Tex is half as savvy as I think him to be, he's looking 5-10 years down the road at the future of SASS in general. Most young folks today cannot afford 4 guns just to shoot, let alone 4 guns with backups all tricked out to make them at least competetive at the larger shoots. NCOWS on the other hand, was wise enough to recognize this and came up with the working cowboy category requiring only 2 guns. I hope this isn't the last time that NCOWS can learn from SASS's mistakes.
GW
GW,
French Jack just now tried to call you at home about going to the Congress meeting next month, and no one picked up, you might give him a call when you can.
Bill
I no longer much believe what Tex writes. Below is a good example. Every time I have seen him shoot C&Bs they were Ruger Old Army's, which already have all the really effective "modifications" needed for reliable C&B shooting (on the other hand, Rogers and Spenser C&Bs had them during the USA Civil War!!). He was even shooting Clean Shot instead of a quality "traditional" BP (such as Swiss).
Quote from: Ottawa Creek Bill on October 18, 2005, 10:06:46 AM
I also find it interesting that he mentioned coil springs and other mods that weren't done to 19th century firearms and his piece on how he had his percussion revolvers modified in such a way as to make them competitive, but felt guilty about doing it.
OCB
I am one that really does not think that SASS is serious about curbing the mass movement towards expensive "competitive" upgrades to modern copies (more or less) of the guns from the late 1800s. They never were, witness the use of Winchester 1897s based on a single movie.
I really think that NCOWS should proceed down a well researched and well reasoned path, with abundant attention to BROADENING the potential base of NCOWS members. Working Cowboy class is one excellent approach, perhaps allowing slightly modernized versions of late 1800s guns (eg. Marlins and Win M92 copies with safties, "modern" variation stocks on factory guns, ramp front sights, etc.) is another. Avoidance of going myoptic on the "hot buttons", like "short stroke" in favor of rational consideration of what, if anything, it really adds to the average shooter's abilities, seems essential to good decisions.
Lars
Lars,
I may be wrong but the way I understood the article by Tex, he refers to revolvers of the SA type not originally equipt with coil springs and not frearms originally designed with them. I respectfully disagree with you as far as allowing modifications on firearms that were not OEM. Where do we stop? As far as research, are you talking about historical research to see if these mods were actually around during those times? Or, do you want to see if our membership wants them?
If its our membership you are talking about, then contact your Territorial Rep, and let him know how you feel. If historical research is what you are referring to, then by all means lets do it! But, personally, I don't think in all my reading I can recall reading about or a mentioning of a lever rifle in the 19th century being modified with a SS kit, tuned and slicked up, yes, there is plenty of that.
There is nothing in the Winchester books (I have six of them) to indicate it was ever a factory mod, and I've never seen it referred to in any other historical context such as a gunsmith in the 19th century doing such a modification.
So, if broadening the potential membership base of NCOWS means that we take the approach that SASS has in allowing these well thought out and reasoned modifications (?), then I personally don't want any part of it. If they don't give the shooter an advantage like some have stated here, then why do it in the first place?
I agree with a lot of what you say here, like the use of other then full loads of real black powder, or combo loads of fillers over black powder to reduce the recoil in large bore revolvers. Or, not using real black powder. I don't think they (NCOWS) should allow those either. It's easier then you think to solve this if you take the approach that if it was not used in our time period ( pre 1900), or, if it was not part of the original equipement on a firearm or other shooting item, then it shouldn't be accepted by our organization. It's just too simple........
One other comment, there was a reply to this post to the effect that if it doesn't hurt your fellow shooter (SS a rifle), then why worry about it? The problem I have with that is, I have a lot of respect for those old firearms and the people who (were a LOT smarter then me) manufactured them. Don't you think that if they thought it was an improvement in their rifle they would have made it that way in the first place? I sure do......
JMHO
OCB
Lars, I think "ol Tex was making a "confession" of sorts and also wishing he could go back and change a few things that SASS has done(allowed). I too believe that SASS will not change in this respect. That doesn't mean we can't learn from their mistakes. NCOWS will grow only if it sticks to it's founding priciples and doesn't get sidetracked by issues like this. We're the REAL Old West outfit, not them, and what I read from Tex proves it.
GW
Since replicas/reproduction long arms are allowed, which is more historically accurate, one with a longer lever arc than the original, or one that has an internal modification that gives it the equivalent arc of the original?
How do we know that the short stroke kits that don't involve welding do not more closely approximate the internal mechanisms of the originals than the mechanics of the reproductions?
AnnieLee
Last night while cleaning my Navy Arms 1875 Remingtons, one of the hammer springs snapped in two. If I understand the direction of this thread, it should be illegal to modify the pistol to except a coil spring, like a Ruger, that would be more durable than the original leaf spring?
Slim
Silver Creek,
I don't know what the legality of that would be at this time in NCOWS, I think you should take Lone Gunman's advice and check the rules and bylaws as he has said several times here during this topic. I personally wouldn't do it until I checked (I wouldn't anyway), but it's your revolver??
Bill
I know Tex slightly, and I know that Tex is a very flexable person when it comes to his shootin irons. He's one of those pards who is always tryin' new things, often jist to satisfy his curiosity So...yeah he probably shoots ROAs on occassion. But his usual irons are a mismatched pair, 73 Colt alongside a 60 Army.
SASS is what it is, and it's a lot of fun for many people, myself included, but I hope that NCOWS can find a way remain unique unto itself in the quest for more authenticity. The arms race looks to be nearly unstoppable in SASS (although I think I may undertake an attempt to do something in that regard. perhaps doomed to failure but I like a good challange) recent additions to permissable gunz on that front are a bit disappointing but simply part ofwhat that game is all about.
I still think it might be a good idea to look at the possibility of "sunsetting" the more radical mods in NCOWS
GW,
NCOWS will only grow if they listen to their customer base and present an appealing quality product. Not necessarily by "sticking" to what you said we should. "Not Necessarily" being the operative word. NCOWS will grow IF, we can resolve our perception issue within the CAS Community. Look how hard people fought when I was considering bringing a GAF Posse into NCOWS. Now truth be told, I had the numbers, but my career and other priorities changed so I could not carry that banner any longer. Why did a lot of GAF members fight so hard? Because it was NCOWS perception.
Now, I run the GAF Muster as an NCOWS event. I have drawn most of my customers (see, it is a business) from SASS. I relax the authenticity requirements a little because I do not want them to feel uncomfortable. For A LOT of my shooters, this is their first experience to NCOWS, other than reading about our silly little rants (yes, they really are silly) here on the internet. It is my goal, to send everyone of them home with a "You know, those NCOWS folks are nothing like I thought. I might want to be part of that." attitude in mind. Why do I do this, because I love this organization in my own way. I figure that the more folks see that NCOWS pards are not a "bunch of Whack Jobs..." the better we all are. Now to be honest, I have actually heard NCOWS folks referred to that way. I know it's not true, but that is our perception issue.
I have to agree with Annie's, Lars, some of St. George's and Cut's Crooked's posts. I will also say that posts like this, the immortalized Gus Crease post and others like it, do not really do us justice.
Like I said - they are what they are...
Remember - in NCOWS - it's not NCOWS' responsibility to research what 'you' want to use - it's all 'yours'.
'You' do the necessary research and 'you' submit your verifiable documentation to NCOWS.
Do that, and you're golden.
The reference books on firearms, clothing and dress and the like literally abound - and then - there's the 'net to boost everything far beyond what can normally be found in your local library.
Even factory blueprints are available for study to answer those burning questions.
Pretty simple, all in all.
Does away with all that 'woulda if they coulda' stuff...
Also helps like-minded folks make decisions and causes them to delve further into the history of the Old West as they too, do research.
The Congress meets next month - and if this 'is' going to be a real problem - then tell your Reps, so that they can discuss the issue.
Vaya,
Scouts Out!
OCB,
Nearly ALL of us are shooting some replica or other of guns actually manufactured in the late 1800s. Many (most?) of those replicas are not really accurate copies of the originals. I would strongly doubt that the manufacturing standards/specs of the originals stayed exactly the same over decades and decades -- for some of my old guns they clearly varied by substantial margins. SO, just where does one draw the "morality" line for altering an inexact copy of a single, individual gun of original manufacture, such as the Itallian copies of Win 1866s, 1873s? IF the alteration(s) make the copy more like at least some of the original manufacture, is that not going in the direction you advocate?
Modifying original manufacture guns (to make them something that never existed) or exact copies of some original manufacture guns is, to me, a different matter. I neither know or care where the line is drawn between making an "inexact" copy of a toggle-link lever gun a more accurate and making it something that never existed. I will not be using them in any case. I do care that the decision be based on far more than a few individual's reaction to a few "hot button" words, in this case, "short stroking".
I for one am not advocating copying SASS -- please do not think that is any part of my objective. I AM advocating some very careful attention to the enactment, repeal, modification, etc. of existing and new rules about acceptable guns and modifactions to them. This is a balancing act, that I think we can all agree on. I hope we can all agree that many (most?) of the replicas need significant work to either make them more functional (in the manner of the originals) or more accurate copies of the originals. I also hope that we all can agree that driving new NCOWS members to expensive after market gunsmithing to make authentic rifles (such as the modern Marlins and Winchester 92 clones and modern Winchester 94) more precisely like the 1800 versions is an adverse action.
As regards traditional BP and the modern BPs (commonly called "subs") I see really little difference in function between really authentic BP loads using quality BPs and the old, traditional BP bullet designs (such as factory BP ammo now available commercially from Republic Metallic Cartridge) and loads using modern BPs such as Hodgdon's 777 FFG or Pyrodex (yes, I have used all extensively). The low quality BPs, Goex, Dupont, Elefant, etc. are a different matter. Most of the "Holy Black" Goex-lovers would not agree with that nor do they have any basis other than "hot button" reactions for dismissal of the modern BPs.
Lars
Quote from: Cuts Crooked on October 18, 2005, 01:22:59 PM
I know Tex slightly.....yeah he probably shoots ROAs on occassion. But his usual irons are a mismatched pair, 73 Colt alongside a 60 Army.
I still think it might be a good idea to look at the possibility of "sunsetting" the more radical mods in NCOWS
Cuts,
My reference to the revolvers Tex used was at 2-3 Winter Range matches where he used Ruger OA each time. I was the shooter right before him each time so know exactly what revolvers he used those matches. What he uses other times, I have no personal information about.
I heartly agree with your last statement!!
Lars
Joss,
I have to agree with you, two different philosophys indeed. Last year, I had 27 shooters at the GAF Muster last year. Of those, I have 19 of those that are returning. More than one is bringing a buddy. This year, I have 46 registered now. I suspect that I will crest 50. What am I doing differently? I don't know, but I am going to expose a lot of people to NCOWS that have no previous experience with it. That is why it is absolutely critical that I focus on the customer experience (emphasizing the business aspect of it). What will I be at next year?
So, does it frustrate Grizzle Bear that we be slightly relaxed on some stuff? Absolutely, but he knows that this is a hybrid match that is not only great exposure to the Kansas Vigilence Committee, but NCOWS as a whole.
I will admit that I have also lost some folks from attending because of the no gun cart rules of the range in which I use. Well, so be it. It is a trade-off that I made to utilize the range. I guess what I am trying to do is display the win-win situation created by moderation. Authenticity is relaxed a wee bit, but the shooter is still able to get the aggregate NCOWS experience that I want them to walk away and come back with.
Remember that saloon statesman, Al Swearengin from Deadwood: "Moderation in all things."
Matt,
A question? If you are holding the GAF match under the guise of NCOWS, and you are as you say loosening the rules for the SASS, or new shooters attending, don't you think you are creating a false impression of how NCOWS really is, or supposed to be? I don't see how you can say the match is NCOWS and not follow NCOWS rules, maybe I am missing something? I do applaud you on the gun cart issue.
OCB
I wouldn't say we are "Loosening" any rules. We have modified some things to fit the GAF ideals.
Grizzle Bear
Does an elefant cease to be an elefant if someone cuts off its little tail, cuts some notches its ears and puts brass balls on the end of its tusks? I would think that one's experance with that elefant would still be quite the same, unless, of course, one is fixated on the tail and wants pristine ears and naturally pointed tusks.
Lar
A question? If you are holding the GAF match under the guise of NCOWS, and you are as you say loosening the rules for the SASS, or new shooters attending
OCB:
Where in the world does Matt say anything about SASS?
Grizzle Bear put that better than I did. I will point out that I do comply with at least level one. When my Civil War uniform is ready, I will be at level 3 whenever I wear it, but oldly enough, I bought it to shoot Smoke in the Valley one day a SASS match.
But to answer your questions, no. Because there will be enough of us NCOWS folks there to give them a flavor for what NCOWS REALLY is all about. To me NCOWS is more about good comraderie around a campfire after the guns are put up. For me, I don't get that at SASS (definately not a slap at SASS, as I have plenty of SASS Pards). For me, that is the main difference between SASS and NCOWS, not some silly crease in a hat (buy the way does anybody really think that the weather and harsh conditions of the old west didn't crease hats naturally in just about every way ;)) or anything else.
NCOWS will forever be about friends by the fire for me. That is what I want people to take home from it. NCOWS is the reason why I am buying Quick Fire's tent. But I do not want NCOWS to become so burdend with rules that I no longer get to enjoy the campfire or bring others to it. I do enjoy competing and winning. But I do not like the fact that someone would tell me that I can't use my favorite rifle because it's throw has been made to more closely resemble that of the original firearm.
Buy the way, I have always said that I would endeavor to be as authentic as practical. I am sure that eventually the most authentic person at the GAF Muster will eye the ever so modern Port a Potties with delight ;)
And let's not forget that the GAF Muster is not a sanctioned NCOWS event, it's just being run under NCOWS rules. And if it was being run exactly as the bylaws are written, guncarts would be allowed, women in pants wouldn't be as a general rule. The GAF Muster is about having fun, let's not make it into anything else but that... ;D
I recieved a PM from Major Matt saying that he did register the match in the Shootist, and I think the following by law applies to this event.
9-1-a. In addition to these classes Chartered Clubs and special events may offer additional classes so long as they adhere to the general outline of these By-Laws.
But my opinion is if this is a sanctioned event, my views tend to lean more to OCB thinking about relaxing the rules....
I think we're getting a mite off-topic, now.
Slim
Slim:
I know I was, so I'm chillin'
Thanks.
Derby,
That is the understanding I got from the Major's sentence:
QuoteSo, does it frustrate Grizzle Bear that we be slightly relaxed on some stuff? Absolutely, but he knows that this is a hybrid match that is not only great exposure to the Kansas Vigilence Committee, but NCOWS as a whole.
Maybe your interpretation is different, but that how I took it.
OCB
Sweet,
We have enough people with so little to do they sit around waiting to quote me....I am flattered. Of course I encourage anybody who would like to come to come and those who don't want to not to...vote with you feet an wallet folks.
Perhaps another thread could be started to discuss NCOWS' relationship to the GAF muster? As I was gently reminded, this is about short stroke modifications. Joss, if you split it off, please feel free to delete this post.
:D
AnnieLee
Slim,
QuoteI think we're getting a mite off-topic, now.
Amen brother
OCB
Matt,
You ae absolutely right!! Too much time waisted on this topic, I doubt if any minds were changed and I've got horses to feed, saddles to make so I am finished with this one......Adios Amigos!! Gi Ga waba' min Nagutch...
Talk to you later.....................Maybe
OCB
Bill,
As I stated much earlier in the thread and the PM I sent you, this, the SS discussion is a good conversation. You are most welcome to dine on dead horse with me anytime around any campfire. That reminds me that I need a prop for the eating of Dead Horse on the Beecher Island Stage....Hmmm, sounds like I am trying to make the event "Authentic" doesn't it ;)
As to those who have issues with the way I run the Muster, come and if you don't have a good time, then don't come back. If you can't come, might be best to reserve judgement, or even better, try holding an event to the scale of which I do and then give me some "feedback." I would be most happy to hear about what you learned.
Looks like I will will be building the Squad List/Posse Assignments tonight after I get finished working on some more props. Oh well, it's a labor of...Lust ;)
Being the "new" guy in NCOWS, I am gonna add my two cents about the SS issue.
I recently joined NCOWS because the organization and the membership seems to be steering a truer course than SASS, as far as authenticity. That's what I want!
With that said, I would have no problem with a SS job that puts the Uberti '66 and '73s at the same stroke distance as the orgininal Winchester '66 & '73s.
NCOWS does NOT need to go down the same road that SASS is going down right now with the mod issues. To quote a song from CCR: "I see a bad moon rising."
Rawhide (happy to be a NCOWS) Rio
"..NCOWS does NOT need to go down the same road that SASS is going down right now with the mod issues. To quote a song from CCR: "I see a bad moon rising."
Rio:
I totally agree. I would add that NCOWS does not need go to the opposite extreme, ie "stitch police".
Quote from: Derby Younger on October 19, 2005, 12:09:04 PM
I would add that NCOWS does not need go to the opposite extreme, ie "stitch police".
And I totally agree with that, also! :)
Rio & Derby,
I agree with your sentimates. The day I have to have somebody get a tape measure on my rifle to see if I am "legal" to shoot, is the day that the the campfire dies out for me. The Spirit of the Cowboy is about freedom. After all the S in NCOWS is for Shootists.
Of course in looking at my wifes non-modified Marlin 1894. Her throw is even less than my short stroked Uberti 1873. So if I HAD to not use my 1873, I could always use go get a Marlin and slick it up and keep it legal. I would have a shorter throw. I wonder, will the move then be to outlaw the Marlin? Is that the desired results of banning short strokes? Getting an even shorter throw legal rifle? Of course I could always get one of those Lightnings, you know, the pump rifle and with some practice (who actually does that ::)) I could get my times for a ten round dump down to around 2-3 seconds....I hear Cimarron has them in .357/.38 Special now.....
Also remember, the arguements around "Level Playing Field," "Not Fair" "Cost too much" are all arguments that Liberals (yes, I am talking about Teddy Kennedy) have made in things like Affirmative Action and other liberal pet projects.
In my heart, I feel that this argument is not about authenticity, the Cowboy Spirit or any other noble reason. I feel it is about a couple people who don't want to pay their dues to end up in the winners circle. I wonder if I am pretty competitive because of my short stroked rifle, or the fact that I spend an hour a night in the basement dry firing?
Folks,
Medoricty and ordinary are just that. If folks want to pay their dues, and you don't and you still want to winner, you better be lucky. Short Stroke or not.
Does anyone know if this item is going to be placed before the Congress?
If so, I have some suggested wording:
"In keeping with the varieties of lever throw arc in both original and reproduction rifles, and to keep the appearance of rifles as authentic as possible, the angle of arc between the stock and lever, when the lever is fully extended, shall be equal to or greater than 80 degrees."
Would anyone have a problem with that?
AnnieLee
Quote from: AnnieLee on October 20, 2005, 07:37:23 AM
Does anyone know if this item is going to be placed before the Congress?
If so, I have some suggested wording:
"In keeping with the varieties of lever throw arc in both original and reproduction rifles, and to keep the appearance of rifles as authentic as possible, the angle of arc between the stock and lever, when the lever is fully extended, shall be equal to or greater than 80 degrees."
Would anyone have a problem with that?
AnnieLee
Nope! ;D
Sounds reasonable to me.
I understand that, Joss, but OCB opened the can of worms regarding the dreaded short stroke, without proposing a means of verification. Since several folks have asked about such a means of how it would be looked at and enforced, and since this is a discussion about the matter, why not have a positive discussion about the possible wording of such a matter before it goes to the Congress?
The suggested wording was drafted without thoughts of SASS, nor of a "modification race," nor of any perceived "competitive or mechanical" advantage. It was crafted for NCOWS, in light of the NCOWS view on historic authenticity.
If the wording is something that the members can agree with, perhaps they, as individuals, can provide an overall consensus to the Congress?
AnnieLee
OCB just asked (12 pages ago) if a short-stroked rifle was NCOWS legal. It seemed like a simple question.
It has evolved into the question:
Should short-stroked rifles be legal?
I for one have learned alot. I can only remember handling two short-stroked rifles. One was a Browning .22 that came from the factory that way. The other one was Major Matt's that only required about a 30 degree arc to cycle. Apparently there are some that not that dramatic.
Like any question of authenticity, this one will boil down to the age old question of:
Where do you draw the line?
I will not short-stroke my rifle.
I will wear hand-sewn clothes made from authentic patterns.
[Machine sewing is appropriate from the mid-1850s. However my wife's machine is posessed.]
I will not remove the fillings from my teeth.
My line will be different from other NCOWS members.
NCOWS members need to ask two questions.
Are short-storked rifles authentic? And How dramatic of a modification is exceptable?
Books
6-1. It is the responsibility of the individual to document the authenticity of all items of apparel, accouterments and firearms.
I believe the by-law referenced above already covers this entire debate, unless of course, the membership wishes to create a "firearms police", in which case I would be happy to nominate anyone of your choosing to adminster such a law.
GW
Ah, so what I am hearing is that as long as my rifle has the equivalent lever arc of an original, I need do nothing since there are no 'firearms police.' Why should I have to document something that is unseen? Are all women going to be required to document the existence of bras before they are allowed to wear one? Will they have to stop shaving their armpits and legs?
The wording I proposed takes the matter away from "modifications" and the firearms police and places it where it belongs: authenticity. If it looks authentic, who will gripe?
My question is: Can you live with the wording that has been proposed, and if not, can you offer a viable alternative?
AnnieLee
Quote from: AnnieLee on October 20, 2005, 07:37:23 AM
Does anyone know if this item is going to be placed before the Congress?
If so, I have some suggested wording:
"In keeping with the varieties of lever throw arc in both original and reproduction rifles, and to keep the appearance of rifles as authentic as possible, the angle of arc between the stock and lever, when the lever is fully extended, shall be equal to or greater than 80 degrees."
Would anyone have a problem with that?
AnnieLee
Annie Lee,
I do have a possible/probable one change to your wording. That is to limit it to reproductions of the toggle-link rifles.
So far the discussion has centered nearly entirely on "Short-stroking" the reproduction toggle-link rifles. On the SASS Wire and this BB there have been pictures showing that at least some shortstroking mods reduce the lever arc of the repros to that of the originals. Those toggle-link rifles made by Winchester have been considered, implicitly and explicitly, to be "pristine". I have also not heard any mention of intent or actuallity to "short-stroke" an original. However, just how consitant the lever arcs are on extant old Winchester toggle-link rifles seemingly remains to be demonstrated, as evidenced by some pictures and statements that some owners of both originals and repros find them to have the same lever arcs.
Although the factory lever arc of Marlins has been mentioned, no one has posted the arc angle for the lever. I don't have a Marlin so, cannot determine if your wording would eliminate it or not.
Lars
I believe I just did. If you took the time to measure the lever arch, and corrected it yurself, aren't you then satisfying the existing by-law? Isn't that the way we're supposed to be doing things anyway?
GW
Booke's,
As this thing continues to drag on, and on, and on..............................., Your idea of having an NCOWS members only forum is looking better and better. How do we make a proposal to the Marshall. I think we need this forum where NCOWS MEMBERS ONLY, can discuss and share issues and pertinent information about our bylaws and rules, without outside and unwanted interference. We can keep the regular NCOWS forum for that...........................
Bill
OCB----HERE. HERE.
GW
As I'd said earlier - 'you' are the one who does the documenting - 'not' NCOWS.
The whole thing falls on the invididual who wants to deviate in some manner from what was available and used during the time frame.
All that Ottawa Creek Bill did - beyond sending up a slap flare - was to ask a very simple question as to the 'legality' of a modification meant primarily to gain speed in an 'IPSC-With-Hats' match.
In so doing - he didn't have to offer any sort of By-Law change or possible alternative or method of verification.
As I read it - it was a legitimate question and nothing more - until it morphed into something larger and included both NCOWS, the GAF, the lessening of rules, leg-shaving, hybrid matches, Marlin vs Winchester degrees of lever throw, 'who' should be a Life member' - 'what' qualifications a Posse Rep or Territorial Senator needs - and so on and so forth.
C'mon...
If this truly 'is' a problem for the bulk of shooters in NCOWS - which I seriously doubt - talk it over with your Posse members and tell your Reps so that it can be discussed with 'your' input - and in doing so - think about it and offer a couple of possible suggestions to assist them in their deliberations.
That's the difference between SASS and NCOWS - the fact that NCOWS is member-driven.
It's this sort of 'discussion' - the type that has no end in sight, and veers wildly - that 'colors' others' impressions of the organization as being without a clear plan.
An 'NCOWS Members Only Forum' may really be the solution...
But so would forethought and realizing that more folks read these comments that you'd think.
Hopefully, not for amusement - but to learn something...
Vaya,
Scouts Out!
Quote from: gw on October 20, 2005, 11:21:24 AM
6-1. It is the responsibility of the individual to document the authenticity of all items of apparel, accouterments and firearms.
I may be out of touch with this comment, maybe even should read the rules carefully again, BUT, I have to ask, "IF someone documents the authenticity of some firearm, modified or not, or a feature on that firearm, in the case where that firearm or that modification is on the "nonacceptable" list, which prevails, the documentation or the list?"
I do consider 6-1 to be a valuable provision because of the room it provides for better understanding of the range of "authenticity". The lists of acceptable and unacceptable firearms are valuable to those contemplating purchase of additional firearms for participation in NCOWS.
Lars
I believe a discussion about a members only forum is off topic for this thread. I am attempting to stay on topic and offer a viable solution to what some members perceive is a problem. Please stick to the topic at hand.
GW has a point. If you are correcting a problem with your rifle so that it has the equivalent throw arc of an original, why would it be an issue?
Thank you,
AnnieLee
St. George,
Very well said......... ;)
Annee Lee,
So, since I am the original author of this thread that started with a very simple question, don't I have a right to change it as others have through 14 pages of off topic discussions? Or, is it me personally, or my ideas that offend you and that is the real reason I don't warrant the same considerations as others that post here such as yourself? For example, it seems like the discussion of, or, encouragment of changing NCOWS rules to please the few is also off topic regarding my original post.....Don't you think??
The NCOWS MEMBERS ONLY forum is the way to go in my view, and my view is the one that is important to me, not what some non member thinks.
OCB
Lars,
Following the GAF Muster, I will be most happy to post pictures of a stock Marlin, a SS 1873 Border Rifle and that of a regular lenght 1860 or 1866 Uberti.
Now,
One method of SS a rifle is welding. I have not heard that mention of that. Only kits.
The topic is the issue of short stroked rifles. There is a perception that a rule should exist in the by-laws to eliminate them.
Regulating short strokes is not an issue to enter into without some contemplation. Should members be expected to have someone take a screwdriver to their firearm?
Then there is the issue of how far is too far, and if short strokes are allowed, what's next? Will the "IPSC with hats" modification race continue until a round can be extracted and chambered with 10 degrees of lever throw?
It has been mentioned that adapting a firearm to meet the specs or looks of an original is already allowed in the by-laws. I agree with that concept. The words I have proposed would continue that line of thought and eliminate the possibility of "creep". There'd be no need for a "firearms police," nor any need to take a screwdriver to someone's rifle. Most folks know what 90 degrees looks like. 80 degrees allows some room for error.
Lars, you make a good point, but by including Marlins with the toggle links, this eliminates the possibility of short stroking Marlins in the future. Gunsmiths are a creative lot, who knows what they will devise next? ;)
Respectfully,
AnnieLee
Major Lewis,
The distinction between shortstroking kits/mods that do or do not involve welding may well be a useful distinction for the moment. However, its value could easily be fleeting, as inventive folks learn to make parts that do the same function as acheived via welding.
Annie Lee,
IF, in fact, Marlins and toggle-links can indeed be covered by the same wording, then I agree with you. However, I have not seen that demonstrated. Maybe I am just one of those inversely retrogressive Rossi M92 copy users.
Members Only Forum
Being a new NCOWS member as of early this year, I can quickly see pros and cons to a Members Only Forum. In many respects I would not want to see very many of the highly informative threads (at least to me) "disappear" from a fully public forum. In making my decision to join NCOWS I found the BB on TFS to be very influencial -- maybe even decisive. I also received a lot of helpful, sometimes very useful, advice, perspective, information from that public forum. I do agree that there are topics and discussions that could be best hashed and sliced and diced and etc. among members only. A Members Only forum would seem a great place to raise and develop a diversity of viewpoints and information on issues to be discussed in advance of augmenting/modifying existing rules, regs, etc. Maybe a Members Only forum would even get Annie Lee to join NCOWS.
Lars
Lars,
If you will notice in my post it was suggeted that we have both, one where non members can post and one strictly for members only without outside interferrence. I don't think it should be an incentive to get people to join but to be used just for these kinds of discussions that impact our members.
OCB
QuoteI think we need this forum where NCOWS MEMBERS ONLY, can discuss and share issues and pertinent information about our bylaws and rules, without outside and unwanted interference. We can keep the regular NCOWS forum for that...........................
OCB,
I was not trying to ignore what you wrote, it just got lost in those 14 pages, which I DO NOT reread before each new post I make -- I am kinda lazy that way. I don't even always remember what I wrote!!
Actually, I think my take on the whole issue of public or Members Only fora is much like what Joss House posted just above.
Lars
I've thought it over a lot and I agree with you Joss. If differances are so bad the public can't see them and not lose respect for the group then we have problems that can't be solved.
Lars, you asked about Marlins. Below is a pic of a Marlin with its lever fully extended, then a pic of a '73 sandwiched by two Marlins, all with levers fully extended. I think you'll be able to see the Marlins would fit into the" greater than or equal to 80 degrees."
Sadly, I don't have access to a '92, so I can't help with that one.
:D
AnnieLee
Thanks Annie Lee!
The Rossi 92s are very similar to those you show pics of, at least mine is. Suppose original Winchester 92s, as well as Winchester 94s, are about like those too.
Lars
Glad to help, Lars.
;)
AnnieLee
Annie Lee,
You said the because the Two Gun Regional had a test, that you would NOT join NCOWS.
Most all that have contributed to this topic are NCOWS MEMBERS. We have paid for the privilige of changing the rules through our posse Rep and our Senators who are elected by all NCOWS MEMBERS. It is a club with dues and rules. Why do you, a non member feel that you must solve a problem for a group that you chose not to belong to????
If you want to tell us how to run our group, step up and join!
NCOWS member and proud of it!
Well, gosh, Dr. Bob, I don't recall ever saying I would not join NCOWS because of the test. I may have torn up my application because of the attitude I received as a result of my comments on the test, but that is a quite different matter.
This is a public board, open to members of the forum. Is the message you want people to receive one of "We don't want to talk to outsiders, even if they present a rational and realistic solution to an issue"?
How about rather than making me the issue, you propose an alternative solution?
:D
AnnieLee
Annie Lee,
Yep, is sure is a public forum. I just grew up thinking that it was polite not to tell a group that I chose not to belong to how to operate. That is how I was raised. If I want to participate in making decisions, I join. If I don't want to join, I keep my mouth shut. Just how I am. You are of course, free to say what you want.
Dr. Bob, if you can find a post of mine anywhere on this multipaged thread where I told NCOWS how to operate, please feel free to quote me, for I don't recall doing it. All you are currently doing is reinforcing the message that some NCOWS members have no interest in anything an outsider may have to say.
Again, I ask, why are you making this about me, instead of working on a potential solution? Do you think short strokes should be allowed?
:D
AnnieLee
Annie Lee,
I have no experience concerning short stroke modifications and so won't give an opinion that I am unqualified to speak to. I am not in NCOWS for the competitive aspect, but for fun. I'm happy to stick with my Win. 73 like it came. I'm not looking for a competitive edge. Been there and done that a long time ago and I don't need that at this point in my life. ALL that I have to say.
Annie, I welcome your participation in this forum, anyone that buys TWO airline tickets from Virginia to come to a our convention has shown a solid interest in this organization. I and a few others on this board would really like to see you take the plunge and officially join our rank. NCOWS really isn't like the internet image we portray...
This thread is being thrashed to death.
Are short stroked rifles NCOWS legal? Answer is YES.
Should this be made illegal? Up for contention. But my vote is NO.
I short stroked our '73 because my wife and daughter were short stroking anyway....and hating it every time they picked up the rifle. I was thinking I just spent a huge amount of cash on a rifle that was about to be rejected....and I hated it too!
It's no fun when your rifle misfires or jams. I think anyone who are REAL shooters in this organization know that fact!
I submit that most of us CAS shooters and very nearly all spectators wouldn't be able to tell an orignal rifle from a repro, or a short stroke from an original stroke, simply by observation. Therefore no VISIBLE modifications is a very wise way to craft this rule.
Beyond that, each of us is free to have or not have a short stroke kit installed in our rifles as long as it is not plainly visible to all but the authenticity police or a gunsmith.
If it makes the sport more fun, and attracts membership or better yet, keeps the membership we now have....then I'm all for it.
If authenticity extremism manifests itself in this instance, I think it would be a disservice to NCOWS future. Most of us look up to the folks who live the authenticity of NCOWS, that should be enough.
Too bad I didn't get here before page 15....my post would probably heated the fire a few degrees.
I guess folks claim that short-stroked rifles are currently NCOWS legal...just cause they ain't specifically banned at this time ::)
Well, as a NCOWS member who cares seriously about this organization's guiding priniple of authententic firearms, clothing, accoutrements as well as more historically or realistically placed targets and shooting scenarios (i.e. not lined up in shooting gallery format) I'm here to explain my understanding of the "true faith". When a firearm is modified by the user (or his smithy) to have a different configuration (hardware/parts - mechanical stuff), as per a short-stoke mod....that modification does not represent a product available in our time period and thus cannot be documented to our time period (i.e. show me the documentation).
As a configuration-manager of several firearms design, I certainly believe (preach may be closer ;D) that as soon as a short-stroke kit modification is installed, thus altering the throw distance of the lever, the rifle is no longer the same Uberti reproduction rifle listed on the NCOWS approved list.
The argument that short-stroking them to make them more "authentic":
I have examined a number of original rifles and compared samples to reproduction rifles & find that out-of-the-box, they have very comparable length of stroke. So, this argument does not hold up.
If a person is having "jams" with their rifle, it's probably cause it's a .45 or .38. that's the chance you take using an approved, but less authentic cartridge. The rifles really weren't designed with these two in mind.
For those with weak arms, etc.. a little work-out may be in-order. My youngest niece, fired my '66 Rifle with BP 44-40 loads when she was 9yrs old ::). There are also approved methods such as action smoothing and lightening of springs to make the rifle easier to operate. These things may even improve reliability, but they don't provide a different operating mechanism, nor have they made the rifle less authentic. Again, undertaking some of these options puts you at risk of a light-strike failure and potentially lower reliability..again at the user's risk. Anyone who is capable of holding the rifle at arms length can certainly fully stroke a standard rifle. Particularly a '73 or '66. If not, shoot a rough-as-a-cob Rossi for a couple years, then switch to a '73 / '66 and you'll believe you got a super-duper-slick and reliable rifle.
For those who don't know me, I am an NCOWS member. Life, if anyone cares.
When we change our guiding principles just to appease & grow our ranks, I'll join the number of good pards who have faded from the NCOWS scene.
As for what SASS allows....why should NCOWS care...heck, they even allowed the "big-boy" even after the membership resoundingly said "no". Just 'cause near everyone at the SASS clubs are shooting a short-stroked-short-rifle doesn't make it right for NCOWS.
...And I'm sure there is a good market for a used S-S kit on the wire :D
Slim
Nicely stated, Slim.
And true.
The posted pictures of the Marlin and Winchesters are nice - but we weren't comparing the two.
If you want to shoot a Marlin - shoot a Marlin - and if you want to shoot a Winchester - then shoot one of those.
Comparing lever throws on two wholly-different manufacturers bears no relevance whatsoever.
A comparison like that leads to adding Spencers and Whitney-Kennedys and Evans to the list.
Like I said - the short-stroke kit is what it is and SASS is its domain.
The attempt to adjust NCOWS' principles to those of 'IPSC With Hats' will continue to keep good folks away.
There's enough room on the line somewhere else - if competition and placement are so important that the authenticity and love of the history of the 'real' Old West can be set aside.
They'll be happy to take your money...
Vaya,
Scouts Out!
Early in this lengthy thread, Kaycee posted pictures of two '73s to demonstrate their relative throw. Later on, Lars asked to see the lever throw of a Marlin. When I took the pictures, I had one of a Marlin, then one of two Marlins and a '73. The intent of the pictures wasn't to compare two wholly different manufacturers. The purpose was to see if an 80 degree rule could apply to Marlins as well as the '73s, it was a reality check to see if such a rule would be viable.
Something like an 80 degree rule addresses the issue of short strokes and a perceived "competitive advantage" without using a screwdriver on someone's rifle. All that is needed to impose such a rule is eyesight.
I ask those who would ban all short stroke kits: how do you intend to do it without using a screwdriver on someone's rifle?
AnnieLee
St. George,
The fact that you "do not shoot with civilians" is plainly evident in your post. Maybe you should try it sometime. Might be a bruise or two on the old ego but you would benefit from the aggregate experience. The throw does make a difference. Currently the stock Marlin throw is much shorter than Uberti's. For many years, the formula is SASS for rifle success was a Marlin. Until the SS kits came and "evened up the playing field." Now both rifles are equally competitive. The only thing that isn't is the shooter and that is the way it should be.
What many seem to miss is that through all the rules and focus on authenticity at the heart of it, this is a shooting competition. If anybody does not think that is so, try holding an event with no timers and no awards. See what your event participation is like. We don't participate in this sport to celebrate mediocracy. And if anybody does not think my focus on the Spirit of NCOWS is appropriate, I will post the costume judging criteria at the GAF Muster after the event. It was made up by a SASS friend of mine, Chantilly, who decided not to join NCOWS based on the abrasive behaviour of some folks here on the internet.
I have stayed out of this long enough. I am writing as a NCOWS member and not the moderator.
Major, competitiveness is not what NCOWS is about. It is about experiencing the 19th Century as much as we can and choose to. We do have minimal standards but the hope is that members will feel the urge to do more and to strive for as much of a degree of authenticity as their budget and nature will allow.
This is not to say that we aren't competitive because it is part of human nature but it isn't the driving force behind NCOWS. We have SASS to feed the competitive beast that dwells in most of us. I would hope that winning would be a long ways down the list of criteria for an NCOWS shooter.
A 19th century shooter mostly used guns as they found them. Anything more than an action job is, in my opinion, outside the scope of what NCOWS is about.
As an example say a person became interested in racing vintage automobiles. He would be limited to what engines and other drive chain components that were available in that era. If he bored and stroked the engine or put in a high speed rear end he would be in violation of what brought him to the sport in the first place and that is to experience what his forefathers did when driving those type of cars. That isn't to say that some might not be attracted to the sport of vintage auto racing (if there is such a sport) because they couldn't be competitive if they raced in modern equipment. The big fish in a small pond syndrome. I suspect that some are attracted to NCOWS for that reason. They couldn't compete with top SASS shooters but can with NCOWS shooters whose emphasis isn't on winning but experiencing as much of the Old West as possible for a 20th or 21st Century person can.
We, as individuals must decide what is important for them but if competition is your main focus you are in the wrong organization. I am a life member of both organizations, I just wear different "hats" at different shoots. I have learned over the years where my priorities lie with both groups and act accordingly.
Will Ketchum
Will,
I went up to NTR last month and that was a GREAT eye-opener as to what NCOWS can be. And you know what, I saw Steve Paulson, he won the overall even though there was no over all catagory. I last saw Steve at End of Trail where he was tearing it up there. I also saw Larry, aka Spittin Lead (Won Land Run overall), who does have asperations of winning EOT, and just may one day. I also shot against a couple of duelist that absolutely cleaned my clock, meaning based on the scores, even if I did not have two shotgun malfunctions and a hit on a knock down that did not fall, I still probably would have come up short. That "loss" actually benefited me as a shooter. I gave me a goal for next year. I reckon that is the difference between shooters that attempt to be competitive and those who are content with mediocracy. The Goal.
So for the implication that within NCOWS does not dwell competitive shooters and I mean folks that are dang good at this sport, is not only a mis-statement, but a discredit to the organization as an aggregate. I can tell you plannly that this organization is a heck of a lot more than a bunch of thread counting, crease complaining, short stroke hating whack jobs. The problem with that though, is that most folks who would like to see NCOWS grow and fully reach it's potential remain silent, at least here on the internet. But they do read it here everyday.
I will also through out that I did not join NCOWS to "cherry pick." I don't know anybody who did. I just don't like rules that attempt to inflict mediocracy on everybody. As the people who beat you today with better equipment will still beat you tomorrow. And were it not a competition, why is there a timer?
The Government which Governs Least Governs Best.
Major Matt Lewis wrote...
So for the implication that within NCOWS does not dwell competitive shooters and I mean folks that are dang good at this sport, is not only a mis-statement, but a discredit to the organization as an aggregate.
Richard, I couldn't agree more, and I'm one of the lucky ones that get to see regularly some of the finest shooters (and great friends) compete regularly against each other ;D
Will, Matt, I agree with both of you. Let me take a shot at the question as a SASS and NCOWS (ex) member.
Competitiveness. It exists in both organizations. Has to, human nature. It will vary from full out to not that interested. But, it's there. Competing with others, competing with yourself, my vest is more authentic or I'm faster, it's there.
The Rules. Both organizations have them. Do the organizations review them annually? Yes they do. What drives the review? Is it a what do we include, exclude or allow? Yep.
Now comes the question of why; is it safety issue, a new firearm, a modification? In this thread, we're addressing a modification. Why? Is it an external mod? No. Is it a "this will make somebody faster than me"? Possibly.
I took Evil Roy's class. If I handed him my box stock Cimarron's, he would smoke me. If I grabbed the best SS rifle available and he shot box stock, he would smoke me. And that isn't limited to just Evil. The point being it isn't the weapon, it's talent, dedication, practice.
As an aside, I have yet to see an answer on how any internal SS mod would be identified.
Conclusion. I understand and support NCOWS existing philosophy and rules. Because I question the reasons and need for excluding a SS rifle, I wouldn't support it.
Thanks for listening.
Derby and All,
Just got in form New Paliestine where I have my horses boarded, nice long cold ride this morning, popped a few balloons in practice, anyway, I wasn't going to jump into this again but I will add this as far as the misconceived notion that anyone is going to check a firearm, in this case a rifle, to see if it has been short stroked, that just isn't going to happen, so I'm not sure where that idea came from.
If, by chance SS are made illegal for NCOWS use, it will be up to the individual shooter to police him or her self and no one else. If you feel that once a firearm modification is made illegal or not acceptable in NCOWS, and you want to use it, by all means do so, only you will know unless you say something to one of your pards. If you can live with the "I'm getting by with this syndrome"....well......it will be on your conscious....do so
Fom the sometime aformentioned, elitist thiniking?? (Gosh, I wish I knew what that mean't) and I still haven't met any of the so called "Stitch Police" in person that a few here like to bring up when they don't have a legitimate argument.....
OCB
Bill:
"Stitch Police" and "IPSC with hats" are perceptions, both inaccurate, both visceral. I've used one, dislike the other, can't have it both ways, gonna stop using one.
Derby,
I've never seen the stictch police in over 40 years of reenacting. It is a phrase used quite often by people who can't get their point of view across or proven with documentation (historical documetation that is). It would be nice if, we could all have a discussion on a topic without using catch phrases (I'm as guilty as the next, I am partial to IPSC with hats) and have a nice informative discussion based on historical facts and not use information that has no bases in history.
I've been called narrow minded in my thinking, but its is the first time that my views (hopefully based on historical research and not fantasy), have been implied to be elitist. I hope just because my views are in line with current NCOWS by laws I am not seen that way by the majority of those that post here, it was never my intentiion and is not now. We have to remember, as members, if we want a change in NCOWS by laws or rules, WE are the ones responsible to research the historical precedent to support your request, it is not NCOWS nor has it ever been their responsibility to do it for you.
OCB
There is one disconnect, at least in my view, in all this discussion of historical prescident as regards gun modifications. That is, NO ONE, so far as I can tell, is hot to short stroke an origial Winchester toggle-link. So, to some of us the "historical precident" seems greatly diminished in applicability. EVERYONE, apparently, has more or less strongly held opinions about short stroking REPLICAS, replicas that seem rather widely to be considered less than perfect copies of the oringinal Winchester toggle-link rifles. On top of that, there seems ample evidence that the Winchester toggle-link rifles were not and are not precisely identical in their interal working or dimensions of their innards.
SO, just where does one draw the line? In the sand somewhere? On the basis of which original Winchester toggle-link rifles? With how much tolerance around a nominal value?
Where would all of this end? Various folks seem to think that slicking up a sloppyly made replica, even changing or altering springs, is totally OK. That certainly made my Rossi function and feel quite like an old original Winchester 92. A slicked up Marlin is quite a different from a Big-5 cheapie Marlin. A Cody Connagher slicked up toggle-link is easier to cycle than most out of box ones. When modifications to the innards of a toggle-link, or Marlin, or Rossi bring it more into function of one made in the late 1800s and slicked up from decades of use, where is the base for nixing that? Apparently there is no basis for that, nor is it nixed by NCOWS regs. Where does "short stroking", what ever that really means in specific incidences, cease to be bringing a replica in line with originals and when does it move into an actual modification that is outside the range of documented originals?
Without sorting out the above with some throughness, this discussion takes on the character of a certain Don Q. and his quest to defeat a few windmills.
Lars
QuoteSo for the implication that within NCOWS does not dwell competitive shooters and I mean folks that are dang good at this sport, is not only a mis-statement, but a discredit to the organization as an aggregate
.
Matt:
I don't think that's what Will was saying. And I would argue that misinterpreting his comment is equally a discredit to the organization.
I believe his point, (as would be mine) is
NOT that there are no highly skilled and competitive shooters within the organization, but rather that that mentality is not what the organization is
ABOUT and not what dominates the NCOWS philosophy.
Certainly, IMH experience, the dog-eat-dog competitors are present in NCOWS, and that's fine, but for every one of those I see, I can point to one or two others who could care less. As a whole, they're not as focused on competition and winning as are the vast majority of SASS members that I know.
I, too, am a life member of both organization and have been to plenty of matches of both groups. There IS a difference in the
raison d'etre of the two organizations.
Quote from: Ottawa Creek Bill on October 22, 2005, 12:04:05 PM
... as far as the misconceived notion that anyone is going to check a firearm, in this case a rifle, to see if it has been short stroked, that just isn't going to happen, so I'm not sure where that idea came from.
If, by chance SS are made illegal for NCOWS use, it will be up to the individual shooter to police him or her self and no one else. ...
OCB
Woah... folks are proposing banning a modification with no teeth, no method of enforcing the banishment? What is the point of that? So mother hens on their way home from the match, dressed in their jeans and sneakers can bad mouth the folks whom they think have a short stroke kit installed? Yes, indeed, sometimes the ridiculous borders on the sublime. You don't create a rule just so some folks have fuel for gossip.
::) ::)
AnnieLee
Well Folks,
I must say I am totally lost on this one ???
QuoteWoah... folks are proposing banning a modification with no teeth, no method of enforcing the banishment? What is the point of that? So mother hens on their way home from the match, dressed in their jeans and sneakers can bad mouth the folks whom they think have a short stroke kit installed? Yes, indeed, sometimes the ridiculous borders on the sublime. You don't create a rule just so some folks have fuel for gossip.
OCB-sometimes alluded to, to be and Elitist??, or implied there of
Actually, this is just another hot button thread. If you had bothered to read the Bylaws and rules, you would have seen that such items as a "Short Stroke Kit" or modifications of that sort are not and have not been allowed. The ONLY WAY that would be allowable would be if you were able to document that such items existed prior to 1899 and were readily used. Such is not, and never has been the case. The fact that originals and replicas may or may not have the same degree of lever travel is immaterial. Too many variable such as wear and tear, original dimensions come into play.
What we do need, is for everyone to get on the same page and realize that this is not something that is negotiable. If it can be historically supported, provide your documentation to the Judge and the Authenticity Committe. If you don't have it, can't get it, --- then forget it.
Maybe what we really need is a directive to require that the Bylaws and rules are not to be ignored.
Quote from: French Jack on October 25, 2005, 07:58:10 AM
Maybe what we really need is a directive to require that the Bylaws and rules are not to be ignored.
Where would we write that down ???
And don't forget, there would always be those who would misinterpret what was meant by the word "ignore". ::)
Lone Gunman----- I know what you mean. How about posting a disclaimer/warning on the front page of the Talley Book to the effect that ignoring the fine print can get you strung up, ridden out of town on a rail, tarred and feathered, or even turpentined by River City John?????? :o ??? ::)
"Actually, this is just another hot button thread. If you had bothered to read the Bylaws and rules, you would have seen that such items as a "Short Stroke Kit" or modifications of that sort are not and have not been allowed. The ONLY WAY that would be allowable would be if you were able to document that such items existed prior to 1899 and were readily used. Such is not, and never has been the case. The fact that originals and replicas may or may not have the same degree of lever travel is immaterial."
Morning Jack:
My assumption is that you're referencing 6-3-B. If so, let's assume that the framers of the Bylaws were addressing the visual aspects, ie is the shooter wearing modern jeans, carrying a Henry Big Boy, wearing a "Down Hill Racer" cowboy hat, etc? In other words, if what you're wearing or carrying isn't period authentic or look period authentic, it's not allowed.
Further, let's assume that "internal mods" were not even on the horizon when the Bylaws were written In other words, so who knew?
Given that, a case can be made that no replica rifle is legal because the throw distance (angle) does not match any original.
My point? 6-3-B is not clear in regards to this discussion. Further, that if the memberships intent is that such internal modification/s not be allowed, it will have to be identified, described and codified.
Thanks for listening.
Derby,
By your own admission ou are not evern a member, so why do you even care how NCOWS by-laws are written. I asked Joss House this morning to lock this thread since I am the original author, just on the basis of asinine statments like yours.
I for one don't care what non members think about the interpretation of OUR by-laws. By the way, there are others that post here that feel the same way I do but I guess I'm the only one that is going to say it.....
It will be up to the NCOWS members and their dully elected officails as to how OUR by-laws are administered......Not folks like you.
You and others like you, post your replies with only one thing in mind (?), and that is to cause friction on these forums. If you and others want to have a legitimate say in how OUR organization is run, then join. In other words, either put up or shut up........
OCB, an sometimes implied or alluded to ELITIST of the first order....not my words.....
Morning Bill:
That was kinda strong, wasn't it? By the by, believe you can lock your own thread.
Derby
To be precise, an "ex" member
It seems there are degrees of short-stroking.
If the action is open and the lever is only an inch and a half from the stock it would be obivious. Such a dramaticic change would be obivious externally, would it not?
Books
Derby, the By-laws are silent on the use of "internal Mods" if that is what you are referring to, in the case specific of Short Stroke Kits, simply because they had not been invented. These items are something that has been introduced into the CAS game by certain gunsmiths in the recent past. Not pre 1899. The use of replacement OEM parts or performing an action job to smooth and adjust internal parts to achieve a better fit and durability of the firearm is not in question, nor has it ever been. That is nothing new. Going further by altering the geometry of OEM parts to change the cylclic parameters is something altogether different.
These "replicas" were also approved for use and named specifically, NOT replicas that have been dramatically modified either internally or externally. To get approval for such would require historical documentation of such modifications. That is a "line item" that would be up for approval by the Judge and Authenticity Committe, anything different, such as a blanket approval of such mods would require a specific vote of approval by the Congress.
Simply put, your premise that if something is not specifically named in Bylaw 6-3-b, or 6-1, it is permissible does not fly. To broaden the scope of the original bylaw to INCLUDE something that by your own argument, did not exist even at that date, would require action by the Congress to do so.
And 'that' is why research - done by the 'individual seeking documentation' - is so important.
NCOWS has clearly-written guidance - well-stated by French Jack just now and so stated earlier in this 'discussion'.
These modifications are what they are - those using them know this.
So do those to whom modifying their weapon beyond smoothing away the burrs would never be considered.
To be sure - this 'is' a public forum - but when non-NCOWS members decide to argue a point - I wonder what they feel that they're going to achieve - beyond dissent.
If these are valid concerns - join - or re-join the Organization - and vote on an issue.
Were this SASS - and you'd thought that the Henry 'Big Boy' didn't resemble anything beyond something ugly with a lever - as did many - SASS wouldn't care at all what 'you' thought after they saw what advertising revenues might be.
Unlike them - NCOWS will actively encourage discussions and looks continually for folks to write articles (citing sources) so that others may benefit from that research.
Just remember - 'woulda if they coulda' doesn't cut it - and neither does 'I wish'...
If it wasn't available pre-1899 - the accepted cut-off date - then it's not permissible today.
The bigger Libraries have folks who'll gladly point you in the right direction for period dress, firearms and customs of the times.
If they can't provide it at that Library - they'll do an 'Inter-Library Loan' for you - sometimes at the cost of mailing from one to the other - but that's a small price when you're documenting things - either for proposed 'use' or for display.
When you do manage to find something interesting - tell the Lone Gunman - we'd all like to read about it one day in 'The Shootist'.
And - when you decide after long thought - that a personal attack is warranted - try contacting that individual via PM in order to vent those feelings.
Grandstanding by doing it in a 'public forum' and playing to sycophants is small and petty.
Vaya,
Scouts Out!
Jack:
Good rebuttal. Thanks.
St. George:
I appreciate your comments. My intent was not to formulate dissent.
Derby
We are guest here on this forum, it is not owned by NCOWS or leased by it's members exclusively for zCNOWS members use. Everyone is welcome here and if they think other wise, they had better pose that question to Marshal Halloway....
So, what about plastic eye protection and molded ear protection? They were not around back then so if we extrapalate what you say St. George, than we loose them too. Granted, both are safety devices, but they are also accoutraments, are they not? What Trooper at the Little Big Horn had molded ear plugs and safety glasses? But we use them anyway....
I don't reckon they had shot timers back before 1899 either. Let's do a way with them too...How about also requiring that we can only shoot ammo that has turned green with unmaintained weapons as well.
You are also incorrect about the Henry Big Boy and how SASS approved it. The Territorial Govenors approved the Big Boy. They are our Posse Representatives. The same as the NCOWS Posse Reps. I do know that all three SASS clubs that I am affiliated polled it's members prior to voting.
I strongly recommend spending some time shooting matches to all who don't. (Now this is just me), but I feel that shooters have a better understanding of issues that effect the shooting portion of NCOWS. Also, St. George, I also recommend spending sometime shooting at SASS also. I know you like to comment on "the other CAS outfit" often in your references. Once again, commenting on something as an outsider, lacks the credence of commenting on something as one who has an understanding. You are a great person to ask historically oriented questions and even eloquent in your defense of your shooting views but at the end of the day, you are speaking in hypothetics. Application is a very different thing. We all know that. Pull some triggers, get off the sidelines and get in the game. The view can be quite different.
By the way, Joss tells me you said hello ;)
Courtesy of Lars,
6-2. No modern (post 1899) firearms will be allowed unless they are authentic reproductions of traditional firearms or very markedly resemble traditional firearms
Major Matt:
I don't have the rules in front of me at the moment (shame on me!) but modern eye and ear protection is specifically exempted from authenticity requirements.
Grizzle Bear
P.S. I am trying to find a 30 and 60 second sand glass to time shoots!
Griz,
You think you could have them by Thursday for the GAF Muster? Opps sorry, somebody does not like me talking about an NCOWS sactioned event where NCOWS is a paying sponser on the NCOWS board....
Griz,
I am sure you are correct about the rule book, but the vehicle to allow the Short Stroke is also already in the rule book as Lars has pointed out. I say leave it as is and let this issue go away.
I can see that my comment about personal attacks falls on deaf ears.
Too bad, so sad.
And I had such high hopes...
Whether or not a man 'chooses' to 'compete' is irrelevant and it's been discussed before.
It's most definitely 'not' a requirement for NCOWS' membership.
If you feel that you need to do so in order to satisfy some hyper-competitive need within you - please - by all means - do so.
Many others don't feel the same way.
Continual attempts to goad - well - that's just... small...
As are named references to personal communications from other members and Moderators - along with a sly 'wink'...
In the meantime - you go right on needlin' folks - it's what you're good at.
As to safety glasses and hearing protection - it's always been stressed that those are what's needed on and around the firing line - regardless of what it may look like - so that's a specious argument.
As to timers - some clubs use them - some don't.
The Posse decides on that aspect of it.
Your arguments about ammunition - well - I just don't have any idea what you're trying to argue, there.
Troopers of the time did realize that corrosion was a problem - copper and leather tanning chemicals 'do' combine to form verdigris, after all - but that wasn't what happened at The Little Big Horn - it was the soft copper-cased round that would stick in an over-heated action that made extraction difficult.
As to the Big Boy - it 'was' voted on - in a way - and SASS' leadership over-rode it.
Were the archives still extant at 'The Frontier Spot' and if they were archived - you could better follow the progress of that escapade.
Scouts Out!
Major Matt,
I think it is absolutely amazing that you would make a comment about outsiders except when you agree with them. At least St. George is a member of NCOWS. I know that he doesn't need me to defend him but I'll bet in his real job he has pulled more triggers then you or I combined and I've done a lot of shooting in my day. get in the game....man....I've heard all now..
QuoteI know you like to comment on "the other CAS outfit" often in your references. Once again, commenting on something as an outsider, lacks the credence of commenting on something as one who has an understanding. You are a great person to ask historically oriented questions and even eloquent in your defense of your shooting views but at the end of the day, you are speaking in hypothetics. Application is a very different thing. We all know that. Pull some triggers, get off the sidelines and get in the game. The view can be quite different.
OCB
Quote from: Major Matt Lewis on October 25, 2005, 11:37:25 AM
So, what about plastic eye protection and molded ear protection? They were not around back then so if we extrapalate what you say St. George, than we loose them too. Granted, both are safety devices, but they are also accoutraments, are they not? What Trooper at the Little Big Horn had molded ear plugs and safety glasses? But we use them anyway....
I don't reckon they had shot timers back before 1899 either. Let's do a way with them too...How about also requiring that we can only shoot ammo that has turned green with unmaintained weapons as well.
You are comparing apples to oranges.
Eye + Ear protection =
Your safetyShort stroke kits = some degree (however small it may be) of competive advantage
Rawhide, St. George and all,
This is my last comment on this post. They just don't get it. They've been blinded by the changes that have ocurred in SASS that it's OK with them if it happens in NCOWS. Do I shoot both organizations? Yes thats my right to do so and I don't need any body on this forum to tell me when, where and how much to shoot to have insight to see the direction NCOWS is going if we don't stop it now.
All in all, I thought this was a very enlightening post, but, it's gotten to the point where we are just rehashing the same old crap over and over, and I do wish Joss or I Will Ketchum would lock it up.
If SS kits comes up for a vote at this years congress, and NCOWS does vote to retain the SS kits thats fine, I will remain a member and not use some lame excuse not to join or quit just because I didn't like the outcome or got my feelings hurt. On the other hand if our powers that be have the guts and determination to correct the ambiguities in our by-laws and outlaw the types of modifications we are talking about here then great. If not, it won't be long that we will be looking at short stroked revolvers in NCOWS.....SASS already has them.....just my last rant on this post.....
OCB
St. George,
If you want to take what I said as a personal attack, instead of looking inward, to quote Doc Holiday from Tombstone..."You're a Daisy if ya do." If you told somebody they should do more research on a subject before they fully form an opinion, that is far from personal.
Rio,
To a point it is apples and oranges. But it's an illustration of something taken to the extreme. To quote the saloon philosopher Al Swearengin "Moderation in all things."
Bill,
You see non-members as outsiders. I see them as potential members. See the difference? Also, I couldn't care about anybodies real job. I design secure wireless networks, secure to the point that I have done more good for this nation in my current job than I or most ever did as a single solitary Marine, Soldier, Airman or Sailor (Not comparing myself or what I do to the Audie Murphys, Chesty Pullers or Sgt Yorks of our history). Big Whoop! As you know, it is a completely different world when you are standing at the firing line and the buzzer goes off in this GAME.
To not play The GAME and make commentary on the sidelines, regardless of who it is, is no different that the political pundants like Rush Limbaugh, Al Frankin, Bill O'Reilly or Allan Combs. They all can sit on the sidelines praise or condem, but they refuse to get in The GAME. They are just talking heads. At times they make good points, but at the end of the day, they refuse to get in the GAME.
Bill:
Go to your original post.
1. Select Modify
2. Select Options
3. Select Lock This Thread.
You're welcome.
Derby
Quote from: Ottawa Creek Bill on October 25, 2005, 12:45:12 PM
If SS kits comes up for a vote at this years congress, and NCOWS does vote to retain the SS kits thats fine,...... On the other hand if our powers that be have the guts and determination to correct the ambiguities in our by-laws and outlaw the types of modifications we are talking about here then great. If not, it won't be long that we will be looking at short stroked revolvers in NCOWS....
This has been an interesting thread for me too! I have absolutely no interest in shooting any toggle-link rifle, so that aspect of this thread will have no effect on me. For me all the toggle-link rifles are so slow and clumsy that they make a distinct decrease in my shooting abilities. I am looking for a nice slick Marlin.
I do strongly hope that if NCOWS makes any additional ruling, removal of ambiguities from by-laws, etc. that they do it in an objective manner that can be applied to the EFFECT, if any, of the modification on an individual shooter's performance. (NCOWS rule makers are already plenty focused on matters of appearance.) Simply banning something called "short stroking" is way too arbitrary, given the wide varieties and effects of such modification, as well as the growing number of ways to do such modifications. Perhaps lever arc, hammer arc, etc. is a better criteria (given all the caveats and vagaraties that entails!!).
I also consider that the effects of such modifications for the average shooter are not going to much improve that shooter's score. That is so influenced by skill level and physical abilities, practice, gun fit and balance, suitable sights, ease of shooting a specific gun, etc. as to make the marginal effect of the modification just that, marginal. I can see and have personally benifited from modifications that result in easier use of a gun, compensating for physical limitations.
As regards one SS-specialist, as I recall, folks initially prized his modifications of toggle-link rifles for their ease of operation, NOT because of their "short strokes". Certainly, my slicked up Rossi and various slicked up Marlins I have used allowed me to shoot accurately faster simply because my aim was disturbed less by the easier levering. For me that was about 5 seconds per stage for a middle of the pack shooter.
Lars
Lars,
Just wondering, why don't you like toggle links?
Derby,
I already tried that, Under additional optiions, there is no option named "lock this thread". I think the moderator is the one that has control over that function.
Thanks,
OCB
Major Lewis,
Some years ago I shot or handled ALL the different versions of Henry's, 1866's, 1873's and found ALL of them to be stocked and balanced so far from what works for me that I simply could not shoot them anywhere nearly as well as slicked-up M92s or Marlins. The "short-rifles" came closest to being acceptable but even they handled so poorly as to not be acceptable for either quick first shots or follow-up shots. They easily cost me 10+ seconds additional time per stage, and that was before even more physical problems arrived. Even more important to me, I simply do not enjoy shooting guns that do not handle easily and accurately.
I am speaking as a lifelong wingshooter that insists on well balanced and properly stocked (for the specific shooter) doubles or O/Us. I hold my hunting rifles to the same standard. This means that all but some of the stocks on the old lever rifles have to be modified for my use, as well as the balance of the rifle.
There is also the issue of ability to handle higher pressure loads, such as 44-40 loads giving 1600-2000 fps. NONE of the cartridge guns I use for CAS/WAS are solely for that purpose. The shotguns are my bird guns -- no coach guns or 97s for me. The Rugers are also trail guns. It was intended that the Rossi would be a hunting rifle also -- just has not happened yet.
Lars
I have a Marlin 1894 C that I got slicked up for the wife, and have only put 10 rounds through it. What rifle are you bringing to the Muster? If it is a 92, you mind at some point if I put a couple rounds through it. I have not shot one of those before.
Be happy to let you shoot a few rounds of quite authentic BP rounds (Republic Metallic Cartridge) through my Rossi 92 44-40 carbine. It was slicked up by Steve Young and has tang and Marlin front brass bead sights. It also has over an inch of stock extension stuffed into a lace-on recoil pad (just have not gotten around to making a permenent extension). There is enough lead in the end of the mag tube to get rid of the muzzle lightness of the gun.
Lars
Sounds sweet. Does it clutch up on you? I am starting to get to the point where I have out cycled my rifle a couple of times. It was an awkward feeling to say the least.
Like with all the slicked up lever guns I have used, it needs smooth, full strokes. Otherwise it can do a couple of unwanted things. Ammo does make a real difference, of course. With "original" 44-40 bullets (that is, Lyman 427098) I have never been able to cycle it too fast for reliable feeding -- however, I never had super fast reflexes and they have not gotten faster in the past 60++ years.
Larws
I reckon several of us will be departing for the GAF Muster soon. I trust that those who are left behind will keep the bridges burning brightly until our return ;) If all goes well we should have some pseudo-scientific research to share upon the return.
So Ida, adios,
I can't wait to see you findings that you told me about the other night....
Howdy! To all, I have been reading this thread off & on for a week now but would like to say a few words. First off the original question was short strokes legal in NCOWS? Read the by-laws & come up with your own interruption but as far as I know they are. I have observed NCOWS members are using them at NCOWS sanctioned matches. If they (NCOWS) change the rules so be it. It will be one more reason I will not rejoin NCOWS. To remind folks of the up coming rule changes in 06', no shotgun slides, no double loop shotgun belts, no Ruger Bisly Vaquaro's & no fast draw rigs, which are different than bucsadarro rig or drop loop rig that have always been outlawed. There may be others not mentioned here but those are the main ones that affect competitive shooters. They (NCOWS) don't want this to be a competition (that's why the rule changes) about shooting but as who can be the most authentically dressed but that in it self is competition. I guess I just don't under stand, I don't really know anyone that plays Golf, Bowls, plays cards, horseshoes or any type of activity, who doesn't want to try to do the best that they can within the rules of the game. I mean really, if you go bowling do you not try to roll strikes or roll gutter balls? (I guess if you roll to many strikes they will outlaw your 16 lb. ball). I can't advise anyone on what they should do if they don't agree with these new rules, but I along with others have voted with are feet & left NCOWS but that doesn't mean I won't shoot at NCOWS matches, that will be ignoring these new rules. I had to laugh when I read about how some of these same folks who wanted these changes, then complained about the poor turnout at the Nationals & that there were few or no vendors. As I remember someone saying, these changes may cause a loss in our members, so be it. Well they got what they wished for. This is just my 2 cents worth & my opinion. Former NCOWS member 369# Wild Ben Raymond.
QuoteI guess I just don't under stand, I don't really know anyone that plays Golf, Bowls, plays cards, horseshoes or any type of activity, who doesn't want to try to do the best that they can within the rules of the game. I mean really, if you go bowling do you not try to roll strikes or roll gutter balls?
Very true. But you know as well as I do, there are a small percentage whose lives revolve around winning and will do whatever they can, whether legal or not, to win.
I think I can understand the direction NCOWS is going, although hard to put into words without making a speach. I, for one, have no problem with that direction. It seems a bit refreshing from the wham-bam-thank you-ma'am course of SASS.
JMHO. :)
Quote from: Joss House on October 26, 2005, 02:38:47 PM
#1. "To remind folks of the up coming rule changes in 06', no shotgun slides, no double loop shotgun belts, no Ruger Bisly Vaquaro's & no fast draw rigs, which are different than bucsadarro rig or drop loop rig that have always been outlawed."
Joss,
I just visited the NOCWS By-Laws and find no mention of "no double loop shotgun belts" or of "no fast draw rigs, which are different than bucsadarro rig or drop loop rig that have always been outlawed", although "fast draw rigs" are on the unapproved list. Frankly, I have no idea what means "fast draw rig". Does the unapproved list need some editing, or...............?
Thanks,
Lars
Lars,
You can ask The Marshal at the Muster. I am unclear too. Not worried, just unclear.
Thanks Major Lewis, I will ask about that, and most likely about other things, being on the same squad.
Joss,
Yes, I knew you were C&Ping Wild Ben. I also presumed that in doing so that you considered his statement to be valid.
Lars
Wow. Five more pages since I last posted and I had to catch up! Some good points made but the "rules lawyers" put me to sleep every time.
I think it is right to not lock such a discusssion as this. For open forum's sake, we shouldn't be too quick to censure content when we lose stomach for what we started..(jab, jab, OCB ;)
I take exception to comments that NCOWS shooters are not competitors. They are competitors by their very actions if you care to attend shoots and take notice. As RO, I have to watch the shooters all the time but mostly for safety reasons. I'm starting to see behavior patterns too. How they move, what questions they ask, what trips them up on a stage, what they really enjoy, shooting styles, etc...
Sure, folks will tell you that they aren't out to win any awards but I have noticed that by their behavior, they are watching the scores closely. They check the scores of their friends. They cuss and joke when someone beats them by a fraction of a second. They razz the guy all summer who shows up to shoot with his holsters tied down (hoping no one would notice). It is a ton of fun and it is not a bad thing to be competitive!
And they all gather around when someone like Steve Paulson is shooting. It's actually fun to watch the guys who are competitive and really work at this game. When someone does well, we don't cuss his short stroke kit or the fact that he spent thousands of dollars on slicking up his gun....we slap him on the back and let him know how proud we are of his hard work and dedication to the game! To be the best he can be! Who doesn't dream of being faster than the fastest gun in the old west? We have many people like that in this organization.
You know, I think if Wild Bill or Wyatt Earp or Doc Holiday or Billy the Kid went head to head in an NCOWS shooting event, it would draw a crowd too!
NCOWS also has a place for those who are students of history and authenticity. It makes us unique and it is a ton of fun! Beats SASS by a long way in my book. I really look up to those of you who have put so much hard work and dedication into your persona. Many of us (read Surly Bob here) don't have the skills that it takes to do really thorough historic research like this. Perhaps someday I'll learn how but I'm really poor at that. And I appreciate the history of our country during the 17 and 1800's....and that's why I'm here.
I see both sides of this organization and I also realize we have to have BALANCE between authenticity and shooting. Is it really so hard for everyone to acknowlege that? It's like a marriage, there is give and take that has to happen or we will end up in divorce. Please keep this in mind as I don't think anyone really wants to see that happen. An organization focussed only on authenticity or an organization focussed only on shooting sport would have me bored to tears!
Not that I really want people to post answers to the following questions but do you ever ask yourself how you are supporting NCOWS?
I ask myself these questions at the end of each summer:
How many shoots did you participate in this year Surly Bob?
How did you make the experience fun for others?
What did you enjoy the most this year?
What didn't work out so well?
Did you make a new friend?
Did you help make the new shooters feel welcome?
How did you personally improve the club or the organization?
Did you get a little more authentic?
How did you personally improve YOURSELF? (post sign...heavy construction area here)
I think NCOWS has bigger fish to fry than a few short stroke kits.
I still find it very disturbing that our congress would vote in change that is perceived to be damaging to the growth of the organization. Did these changes bring in new membership or create a growth in the organization? The phase-in was an attempt at blunting the blow but I'm not convinced the membership really agrees with all decisions made.
I was taking SASS RO 1 and 2 in Cheyenne this year and the SASS governors made a point to mention that there was a fundamental difference between SASS and NCOWS. NCOWS, by their estimation, is only concerned with authenticity whereas they felt that SASS is the ultimate cowboy fantasy game, allowing all areas of CAS shooting and was more versatile as an organization. My personal feelings are that SASS is way too confusing with all it allows. Most of the differences are highly visible to everyone and at first it feels like you are the kid in the proverbial candy store. Later, you realizes something is missing. SASS doesn't have the soul that NCOWS has.
I also believe that there are many SASS members who are looking for more emphasis on authenticity (did you read Tex's comments in the last Cowboy Chronicle?) Do you think Tex would join NCOWS? Has the offer been made? For a key figure from SASS to join our organization would probably pull some extra membership to us.
However, I doubt that we would attract people from SASS if we didn't acknowlege their basic needs. For example, wouldn't it be great if a gun manufacturer offerred a trade-in deal on your old non-period correct guns in favor of the more period correct version? If we were a large organization like SASS, I think we might see more support like this from our vendors that would ultimately help NCOWS meet authenticity goals. Rome wasn't built in a day.
I personally think our NCOWS rules are appropriate and I will support the congressional process. But there needs to be balance in the congress for the reasons I mentioned in my previous post.
The Judge Roy Bean told me at Cheyenne a couple years ago that both he and U.S. Grant were NCOWS members, I don't know if it's true or not, but it does speak well of us doesn't it... ;D
Amen to that!
Howdy! Once more, when I posted earlier I was stating my dissatisfaction with the up coming rule(s) changes for 06'. I for one don't know for what reasons we needed these changes other than the claims that they are not authentic. I believe the rules were just fine the way they were and I am not alone, talking with some of the other posse members, I have heard these posse's may not follow the new up-coming rules! Because most likely would hurt their membership or shoot attendance. I believe Surly Bob hit the nail on the head when he said; there needs to be a balance between shooting & authenticity or the marriage will end in divorce. Joss Hoss; Yes I still have an interest in NCOWS because I have many friends that shoot in this organization. I would not be voicing my opinion here if I didn't care but it's the folks that are pushing the authenticity factor to far that it chokes the shooting competition aspect (FUN) of it out of the picture. In a nutshell, I don't like the direction NCOWS is going. Again these are my opinions. Wild Ben Raymond
Howdy,
There was mention of some research that was supposed to happen at the GAF muster regarding short strokes. Has anyone heard if it happened and if it did, what were the results?
Thanks,
AnnieLee
There was too much on the agenda to actually get to it, however, all who say my dreaded SS Border Rifle agreed that is shouldn't be an issue with it's 90 degree arc. That would include Trap & Grizz off the top of my head.