Is my Marlin legal?

[Calamity JoAnne]

Hello, the Fire,
I have just read the newest NCOWS equipment rules again. 
It appears my Marlin Model 1894 .44 magnum will not meet the rules as written last time.
It has the standard front sight with a small ramp base under it.  Legal or not?
Please clarify.  I plan on shooting it at an NCOWS match soon.
Calamity JoAnne
NCOWS 1815
NRA EPL

[Lone Gunman]

I have just read the newest NCOWS equipment rules again. 
It appears my Marlin Model 1894 .44 magnum will not meet the rules as written last time.
It has the standard front sight with a small ramp base under it.  Legal or not?

There hasn't been any change in the bylaws regarding sights. The statement in Bylaw #9:  "Sights for all firearms shall be of original design or configuration" is the same as it's always been. Ramp front sights didn't appear on any lever action rifles during our time period and not on the model 1894 Marlins until 1969 (Marlin Firearms-Brophy, pg 216-222).

[Calamity JoAnne]

Lone Gunman,
Mustang Gregg won't have time to change the front sight before the shoot.
So we won't be shooting at Valparaiso this Sunday. 
Calamity JoAnne

[Wymore Wrangler]

I thought you and Gregg were going to the Millbrook Massacre at Hills City this weekend??

[Mustang Gregg]

Whatsa matta?  Cain't we shoot in 2 shoots on the same weekend?
I didn't realize anyone was keepin' tabs on us.

As for her non-safety Marlin rifle---It has the small ramp under the front blade (std Marlin equipment) & has been used for 2 or 3 years in NCOWS & SASS both. 
She asked 'cause I had mentioned to her that the rifle was a no-go when lookin' at the 2005 rules.

I ain't gonna remove the sight & mill a dovetail just to shoot a few matches.  We will just go to a different shoot on Sunday. 

Mustang (home gunsmith) Gregg

[Major Matt Lewis]

I am just going to throw this out there.  (Here it comes) There are members of the CAS community that feel the need to let people know "that they aren't going to be there becuase of X."  I have seen this type of behavior before from the same people.  As a mater of fact, the same thing came up with the GAF Muster.  I have to be honest.  Does anybody really care if one shooter or a couple, choose not make it to a particular match?  I reckon not.  I think that it is pretty myopic to think that any one posse or event would suffer because I choose to spend my discrectionary time and funds at another.   Would NTR die if I choose to go to the Oklahoma State Shoot?  Pretty unlikely.  Pretty silly of me to think it would.

IF you don't like the rules that one group decides to play by, take your ball and go somewhere else.  You don't have to advertise because the people who do wish to play by the rules just don't care where you go. 

[Ottawa Creek Bill]

Major Matt,
Well said, Amen Brother!!

OCB

[Books OToole]

 I agree that one person boldly announcing that they will not attend an event for a particular reason may come across as arrogant.  However, if many people are not attending for the same reason and are silent about it, we are missing a chance for improvement.

If just one person stands up and sings the chorus of Alice's Restaurant they will think he is crazy.  If two people stand up and sing the chorus of Alice's Restaurant, they may think that they are gay.   If three people stand up and sing the chorus of Alice's Restaurant, they may think it is a movement. 

Books

[Major Matt Lewis]

Books,

I'm not sure, because you know I am not that bright, but I think you missed my central point.  Which is, spend your time and money where you like, but nobody cares where any one individual does it or why they came to a particular decision.

For instance, let's take the GAF Muster.  As you know, something I personally have a vested interest in...If somebody does not want to go because it's not a 10-10-4 Match with no guncarts allowed, than so be it. I feel it is too bad, but the GAF Muster is a Working Cowboy Match with LOTS of on the clock reloads.  A while back, some unnamed individual felt they needed to make a production out of this.  If somebody doesn't want to shoot that type of match, simply don't.  Plain and simple.  There is no need to get on the internet and scream about the shoot format and how they refuse to come.  Because largely, nobody cares....The folks that want to come will and the ones that don't won't. 

The same can be said for somebody who wants to use an "illegal" gun and is asked not to, so they take their ball and go home, nobody cares.  If somebody can't come to a match because they broke a leg or something, than SOMEBODY cares.  But when one ideally howls at the wind, NOBODY cares.  You have to legislate for the masses not the individual.  The same can be said for a National Organizations rules or somebody who is trying to put together something that has mass appeal.  You can't make everything fit every little bodies perception of Nervona.  Regardless of the type of soup served in Alice's Restuarant

[Lars]

I will try to provide a somewhat different perspective, without wanting to pass judgement on anyone posting to this thread.

Back some years ago that was a LOT of fuss about the little white diamond in the rear sights of Marlins. It even became one of those high profile nits that was zealiously enforced at nearly every SASS match I went to. That was an easy fix and really made absolutely no difference in anyone's score. Most of us found it disgusting behavior on the part of the zealious enforcers. The front sight ramp situation looks to me like more of the same, without the same ease of remedy.

While I agree that adherance to equipment actually available in the time period is a valid constraint, I too might well pass on a match where I had been repeatedly warned that my equipment did not meet the strict "letter of the rules".

There still remains the ban on receiver mounted peep sights on rifles, although functionally identically ones factory installed on lever rifles in the chosen time period are, appearantly allowed. Then there is the business of ejectors and extractors on doubles. NCOWS allows ejectors but SASS does not -- ejectors were around in the time period covered by both - a logical plus for NCOWS.

One get a little perplexed, or worse, at times when viewing the mix of allowed and not allowed guns, sights, etc.

I will be shooting a Ruger Vaquero at the GAF Muster -- it offers me no mechanical advantages over a well-tuned Colt-clone, Remington clone, SW clone, etc. I will be shooting modern BP loads (777 FFG and Meister hardcast bullets) in that Ruger, which also offer no advantage over the Republic Metallic Cartridge "authentic" BP loads I will use in my Rossi 92. Logic fails me when I try to "square" the nit-picking rules about sights with the overall range of guns allowed (Ruger Vaquero) and disallowed (eg. Ruger Old Army).

IF I want to, I can find plenty of reasons to and not to agree with the rules, including the nit-picking ones. I think emphasis on enforcement of the nit-picking rules does not play in favor of the organization -- it looks especially bad when there are so many good things about the organization. It invites "bady with the bath water" situations.

Lars

[Ottawa Creek Bill]

Lars,
If we don't enforce what you call nit-picking-rules(?) then what good is it to have those rules in the first place? Why not just chuck them all and we'll all shoot in a modern class, and we'll call NCOWS SASS-2. If the majority can abide by those nit-picking-rules (?) why can't the rest of our members? Do we continually ingnore members that want to bend the rules to do what they want. By the way, are they nit-picking rules (?), only when they don't fit what you think they should be? If we as members don't like the way the rules are written, we do have our representatives that are SUPPOSED to represent us and the way our local posse's vote on these rules..........JMHO

OCB

[Lars]

OCB,

I think we can all agree that there are really important rules for WAS, like no autoloading pistols, no jacketed ammo, no modern magnum loads, no modern optical sights, no muzzle brakes, etc., etc.  They rather define the sport.

Then there are rules about details of guns and ammo -- here it can get rather more difficult to draw the line(s) and they may really not do much to define the sport. One could rule out use of all bullet designs other than those specifically in use in the late 1800s -- there are lots of us that would consider that really great. One could toss out all modern hybrid gunss, such as 45 Colt chambered lever rifles, 44 Mags, 357 Mags, etc. -- plenty of rational for that. How about requiring roll crimps on all shotgun ammo other than brass cases, as well as only card and fiber wad columns -- such ammo is truly authentic and can be loaded to give really excellent performance in doubles having the chamber and bore dimensions developed for good patterns with such ammo -- I know for I shoot such guns and ammo. That would toss out a bunch of modern dimensioned, cheap coach guns and all modern, factory shotgun ammo. One can go on in this vein quite some distance -- don't know that it would much alter the nature of the sport. It would quite likely cause lots of complaints and likely decrease in NCOWS membership.

Where does one draw the line between the rather fundamental restrictions noted above for both guns and ammo and then move on to drawing lines among such modern changes and improvements, such as Ruger revolvers of various kinds, Marlin sights and stock dimensions, recoil pads, receiver mounted peeps, etc.? Seems pretty arbitraty and nit-picky.

The system of having representatives vote for members is a good one. Still, it is a mix of "democracy", as practiced in the old Icelandic Altinger and strict attention to authenticity, as well as mixing in various practical factors. Doubt that one can easily acheive a better overall balance. Still, it is not foolproof and never will be.

As regards your question "If we don't enforce what you call nit-picking-rules(?) then what good is it to have those rules in the first place?" My answer is that all rules are not created equal, never were, never will be. Enforcement of a "nit-picking" rule just because it is a rule is just plain bad practice. Good rules make a real difference in the character and nature of the game and how it is played, nit-picking rules do not.

I am sure I happen to "abide" by some "nit-picking" rules quite by accident. I know I have violated some quite by accident too. IF it is easy to corret the violations, I do, otherwise I will take some other action, which could include to go elsewhere for my entertainment shooting.

Lars

[Ottawa Creek Bill]

Lars,
Not to carry this to extremes, but the rules in NCOWS is what seperates it from that other shooting venue (of which I also happen to be a member of) If I want to shoot any kind of gun in any kind of caliber, I go to SASS events, but thats is what SASS is for, very easy rules, plenty of classes to shoot in. Most people I hope that join NCOWS will know what the rules and requirements are up front before they join, I know I did. So, if you know the score before you join then you really don't have anything to gripe about if you have a firearm that is not NCOWS legal, right?
By the way, I am one of those that agree with you I wish they would do away with all modern conveniences that we (NCOWS) now allow, such as firearms that were'nt chambered for the original cartrdge for example a .45 LC in a 1860 Henry rifle, etc., even though I own one. Will I complain about it, sure, but I will play by the rules, nit-picking or not, until the rules are changed.  By the way, what do you consider to be nit-picking? maybe the direction of this post no doubt???

OCB

[Ol Gabe]

Dead Horse #5.
"You can get anything you want at Alice's Restaurant, exceptin' Alice...", so there.
"OK, listen up now, all the rest of you go set on the 'Group W' bench and smoke 'em if ya got 'em cuz yer numbers comin' up soon enough!" Although never proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, some have said this line was edited from the original screen play since the Anti-Tabacco lobbyists were pressuring Hollywood to not allow smoking in movies and one of the sub-themes in this movie was Arlo Guthrie's dad, Woody, dieing of lung cancer in a hospital while Arlo was going through the process of the Military Draft, somewhat like the pressure we all feel every so often when we ask a question on a forum such as this and get the response we didn't expect.
No comment, no opinion, just an observation.
You are all 'right' in one way or another so let us all go peacefully into the night, treading lightly on Mother Earth and enjoying the Great Spirits domain, shots that go straight, Single Malt Whiskeys and Bootie Beer!
Best regards and good shooting!
'Ol Gabe
P.S. 'Bootie Beer' was premiered this week in Boston, Mass. as a new upscale item for the younger crowd, no reports as to the taste , effect or after action reports.
P.S. .

[Standpat Steve]

Howdy,

I don't know if this applies to Calamity JoAnne or not,(less than a year shooter) but I thought River City John's observation that most posses would overlook the ramped front sight while she gets her gear together for NCOWS during this period was both gracious and true. I also know that at many shoots the loan of an appropriate rifle would be offered to a new shooter, to help welcome them to the sport. So it seems to me the real question is "Is she choosing not to shoot to make a point, or because she made an error in choosing her rifle?" If it is due to an error, I think she would find herself welcome at many shoots, while she straightens out the problem. If it is the former, it's a moot point in NCOWS.       

[Trap]

  My view of the rules in question, (being only one person) are that NCOWS rules are there to make everyone feel as much as possible, to be in the 19th C. From a few feet or so the Cal of the gun dosen't show , But external firearms innovations that did not appear until well into the 20th C. are obvious to someone who cares. Everyone does this (WAS) for their own reason. Some will say that if their outfit and guns satisfy them, that is all that should matter. But the appearance of every one adds to everyone elses experience. I'll use the example I used once before. Like taking a photo that you believe is really PC and when you get the pictures back, there is a pop can showing.  jt

[Lars]

Trap,

I would like to take your analogy a bit further. First, I presently do not own a Marlin but was thinking of getting one, so, I do have a real interest in not getting a rifle that is or will become non-approved. In addition to the sights, there are two much more obvious differences between current Marlins and the pre-1900 models (at least that is my understanding and is consistant with the few examples I have seen). Neither are currently mentioned in the approved/unapproved lists -- they are:

1) Stainless steel. This was definately not around pre-1900. One cannot even pass it off as a surrogate to a  Ni-plated pre-1900s Marlin.

2) Clunky stock, especially forearm, on the current versions (except the cowboy?).

Now, both of those will be much more visible in that photo of yours than anything with the sights.

Question for whoever --- are additional restrictions to be expected on the Marlin? Restrictions that leave very few (only the Cowboy?), versions of the Marlin 1894 rifle approved for NCOWS use? If so, I will terminate my thoughts of ever buying a Marlin lever gun that I might someday choose to use in a NCOWS match. I will look for another Rossi 92 instead.

Lars

[St. George]

Boy - those Dead Horse herds are regenerating at a furious rate, aren't they?

Damn...

The sense of  'immersion' into the Nineteenth Century is what makes NCOWS different from the other C&WAS organizations - that - and the fact that we're member-driven.

Historical accuracy's a part of the whole selling point - 'not' competitive shooting - 'not' 'woulda if they coulda', and certainly 'not' the acrimony we're starting to see here.

NCOWS is changing - yet it's not.
Maybe 'defining' is a better term and more indicative of what's really happening.

Reviewing 'how it was' is fruitless, since in many cases those rules were superseded long ago.

Trying for the 'SASSification of NCOWS' will only drive folks into an organization that doesn't try to do 'that'.
They're looking for something different from that - something perhaps more 'friendly' and honestly helpful.

If 'you' want to shoot fast - by all means - shoot fast against those who also 'want' to - but don't try to force your ideas on the rest.

If 'IPSC with Hats' isn't your thing - that's fine.

Enjoy the shooting of Nineteeth-Century firearms in the way they were made to be shot, and remember TR's observation - "The only shots that count are the ones that hit..."

Missing 'fast' just looks silly...

But remember - NCOWS is more about the 'real' Old West than anything else out there and that's why it came to be.

It has reasonable guidelines - follow them and don't try to see what can be circumvented.

It has elected Representatives - elect those who speak for 'you' - and support them.

If you have any questions about your outfit - please - ask someone - and if you want to - send them a PM.
There are no 'Stitch Police' - none.
That's a  WAS 'Urban Myth' - so tell all your friends.

'Think' about what you want the direction of NCOWS to be and converse with others - but don't get out the soapbox and just 'announce' your fevered desires, since that can be damned hard to resist and some folks pray every day for that kind of behavior to respond to.
By hashing it out - improvements can be made and the Organization can further adapt.

Do remember, though - the folks who post are not always the true 'voice' of NCOWS - sometimes, they're just the most contentious, and that's off-putting to many prospective members.

Before you post - think.

And leave any 'attitude' deep in your Mexican-loop holster...

Remember - given the nature of CAS City and any other sites - 'other' non-NCOWS folks get their initial impression from our writings.

If all they see are the contentious ones - then how will we grow as an Organization?

Vaya,

Scouts Out!

[Trap]

  Lars;
  To try to answer your question, I doubt there will be any more restrictions put on Marlin rifles in NCOWS. In fact restrictions on them have been loosened, at one time Marlins w/ cross bolt safeties were banned, now OK.  jt

[Lars]

Thanks Trap!

That is just the kind of information I was looking for. Good to see that Marlins with crossbolt safeties are now allowed -- that is just the kind of "nit-picking" rule I was referring to earlier. I dislike the crossbolt safeties but have shot many borrowed lever guns that had them and never had a problem.

Lars