GAF MILSPEC/BATTLE RIFLE STANDARDS.

[Major Matt Lewis]

So what kinda rear sight are you using Major?

Stock with the rifle.  It was just a Front site.

[Drydock]

Yes, I understand that.  Is it a carbine sight, a rifle sight, an unmarked sight, (All barrel mounted) or a reciever sight?  Is this an original carbine, or a cut down rifle?

[Major Matt Lewis]

It's a cut down rifle.  The rear sight is mounted on the barrel and looks original.

[Drydock]

On the base ramp, and sometimes on the sight elevator there will be a stamped "R" or "C".  Sometimes there is no stamp, indicating a rifle sight.  Is there a stamp, and what is it?  Also, is this a ramp type sight, or a ladder type?  Sights and their designations can be found at the S&S catalog site.

[Major Matt Lewis]

Ramp with a "Y" on it.

[Drydock]

Sounds like an unmodified rifle sight, perhaps civilian, perhaps from an 03 Springfield.  You are going to need to replace it, I would suggest the M1902 Krag sight with target aperture  www.ssfirearms.com  pages 24-25, Item #K544C.

[Major Matt Lewis]

Thanks

[River City John]

Alright, I'm in trouble now. . .

I finally bought one of those Baby Rolling Block Carbines in .45LC

As I mentioned in another post, it is the closest I could find to the Navy 1867 Rolling Block Carbine.
My question is, though, the originals were in .50-45 and had 23" barrels with no saddle bar/ring on the left side receiver. I plan to add slings per the original.( Did find documentation that one Remington carbine from the U.S.S. Colorado's compliment of 150 suffered a burst barrel during the Korean conflict in 1871 which shortened the barrel by 3"!  Ship's Armorer did a good job of recrowning that muzzle for me. . . )
So, if I decided to use it as a battle rifle entry, could I get special dispensation for non-milspec chambering?

RCJ

[Drydock]

I'd allow it this year.  THis is on a case by case basis. 

Wonder if you could bore and rechamber that to Spencer .56/50.  The modern centerfire 56/50 is a 50 caliber bullet over 40-45 grains powder,  Seems about right.

I'm curious, as I believe there are importers offering Rolling block Carbines in .50-70, far closer to the 1867 than the .45 baby carbine you have found.

[River City John]

I'm unaware of any importer offering a rolling block carbine other than that Pedersoli. Post info if you would, please.
The Pedersoli Baby carbine does not have a saddle ring bar, so no holes to plug, and within my budget and skill I should be able to install a butt swivel and a barrel band swivel.
Plus there really was a documented example of one from the U.S.S. Colorado that had damage to 3" at the end of the barrel. . .et voila'. .the 20" barrel length of the Baby RB is perfect!

My main consideration in choosing the straight-walled .45LC is that it will make it easy to reload for, plus it won't scare the beejeebers out of a Match Director that it is going to destroy steel targets when I want to use it at some other shoot.

Quite frankly I couldn't afford to have one custom re-created for me. I have no doubt that it could be done, but it would probably double the price at a minimum. Going this route will be close enough for me. Plus it will go great with the Navy Remington cap'n'ball as the historically correct sidearm.


Oh well, thank you for allowing it this year. It will let me try out the Battle rifle concept.
(I suppose I will jump ship and join the Scouts next year and trot out the trusty '66 Improved Henry and the Open Top. )

RCJ

[Drydock]

I should be somewhat clearer here.  While exemptions for weapons such as yours are to be made on a case by case basis, for the forseeable future I cannot see you not being able to use your Rolling block in the future should this class structure become accepted as the GAF Standard.

Howsumever, It must be said, that should numbers become such that the class should need to be restricted, the non milspec calibers in non milspec frame sizes would be the first to go. 

This probably would not happen in my lifetime, but it needs to be known at the outset.

[RattlesnakeJack]

Hopefully not to be tiresome ... now I am wondering if I might be able to use my "Faux North West Mounted Police/Canadian Militia Winchester 76 rifle" (chambered in .45 Colt) in the Battle Rifle category ... ?  What say?

I have previously posted images of this carbine, which I had made up for me, but here is another pic (click on thumbnail to enlarge ...)


The .45-75 originals were the standard-issue longarm of Canada's quasi-military North West Mounted Police from 1878 to 1914, and the same model was acquired by the Canadian Department of Militia & Defence for issue to mounted units (particularly during the 1885 North West Rebellion.)

I should also note that, by rights, I will "soon" have a new reproduction of the original .45-75 carbine ...

.... follow this link for details:  http://www.cascity.com/forumhall/index.php/topic,15915.0.html
Unfortunately, as mentioned in that other post, it will likely be at least 2 or 3 months before I can actually get this rifle into my possession, and in any event it would not be covered by the Form6NIA import permit I have obtained for attending Muster.

[Drydock]

BTT

[River City John]

BTT

[Guns Garrett]

I was perusing some of the older posts, and returned to this one.  I re-read the original post which stted that "stripper clips" would not be allowed.   Am I right in assuming this is referring to the stripper clips as used in the Mauser, Lee-Enfield et al, and not the "en bloc" clips as per Mannlicher, 1895 Winchester-Lee Navy (not listed, by the way), and 1888 "Commission" rifle?
I realize the Commission rifle was the result of a colloboration between Mauser and Mannlicher (and others), so it may have been listed as an 1888 - "either one".

I once had a Turkish 88 Commission rifle, that had been arsenal (Spandau) reworked to shoot the "S"-bore (.323 cal) ammo, and had the little spring-loaded gate at the top of the magazine that eliminated the necessity of the clip.  The gun was in really good shape - barrel jacket undented, nice plum patina, stock was uncracked with all hardware except sling.  The bolt s/n didn't match the rifle, and I never had the headspace checked, so I never shot it.  It had Arabic makings all over - the sight had Arabic numerals as well (not what we refer to as Arabic numerals today - real Arabic.  I think I ended up trading it away for a two-band Enfield w/ bayonet - I was into ACW reenacting then.  Kinda be cool now tho.

[Drydock]

BTT

[RattlesnakeJack]

Sgt. Drydock is clearly a man of few words ... or perhaps to be more precise, of NO words ... since "BTT" is but an abbreviation/acronym, and thus not a word at all ...      However, I choose to interpret his BTT as an invitation to comment further on the Battle Rifle concept - which I now feel better able to do after personal experience at Grand Muster 2007, where I represented the British Empire with .577/.450 Martini-Henry single-shot rifle and .455 Webley revolver (... and did so fairly well, if I do say so myself!      ...)

I, for one, LOVED IT!      Competing with a Battle Rifle seems to truly crystalize GAF's underlying concept of melding frontier action shooting with military re-enactment/history.  I found it very enjoyable, and hope that the Battle Rifle categories continue at GAF events. 

I also want to take this opportunity to pose a couple of questions  ... for general discussion, as well as consideration by the powers-that-be for possible modification and/or clarificatiion of the Battle Rifle criteria ....

1.   As I understand the current criteria, no tubular-magazine lever-action rifle would qualify as a "Battle Rifle".  However, Sgt. Drydock's specific reference in his postings to such models as the Henry and Model 1866 makes me wonder if a more accurate/appropriate distinction might be that such a tubular-magazine lever-action rifle does not qualify if chambered in a "pistol caliber" cartridge.  In other words, what about a tube-magazine lever-action model with documented military issue and usage that is chambered in a "rifle caliber" cartridge, and thus (presumably) would also not be permitted in the other classes for lever-actions?  A specific case-in-point (and, indeed, the immediate reason for posing this enquiry) is the Model 1876 Winchester in military configuration. such as the .45-75 "NWMP" rifle carbine ... a very nice reproduction of which I just happen to have recently acquired.     (Actually, I thought there had already been some discussion of this very issue either on this thread or elsewhere in the Barracks, but now I can't locate it ....)

     If, as I propose, the "Mil-Spec Repeater" category were expanded/clarified to include such a rifle-caliber mil-spec tubular-magazine model with demonstrable military issue and use in the field, then the service of this particular model for some 30 years as the primary-issue longarm of the North West Mounted Police would arguably qualify it.  Indeed, the NWMP was more of a military organization than a police force (at least in the modern sense) ... in fact, it is well-documented (and taught in our history clkasses up here) that when word reached Prime Minister MacDonald of the unrest being caused in Washington by his Government's proposed legislation establishing a military force for service in the North West Territories (which shared an unguarded common frontier with the American West of a thousand miles or so) a few strokes of his pen changed the name of this unit from "North West Mounted Rifles" to "North West Mounted Police" ... and the rest is history.   However, it is lnot so well-known that exactly the same model of rifle was issued during the 1885 North West Rebellion to mounted military units ... including the cavalry forces despatched to the West as part of the some 6000 Militia troops mobilized and sent there.  For example, here is a picture of several Troopers of The Governor-General's Body Guard for Ontario (a cavalry unit which survives to the present day as The Governor-General's Horse Guards - http://www.regiments.org/regiments/na-canada/volmil/on-cav/GGHG.htm) taken in their camp at Humboldt, District of Saskatchewan, during their 1885 service in the West -


I should also note that, for Canadian impressions at least, it must be pointed out that Canada had no "Army" at all until well into the 20th Century.  Until then, by Act of Parliament, our military forces were all "Militia" - so it is necessary to consider Canadian "Permanent" and "Active" Militia units (which were constituted, trained and equipped essentially the same as regular British Army units) to be "regular military", to differentiate them from what I suspect Sgt. Drydock likely had in mind for the GAF "Militia" class.  Canada also had "Provisional Militia" - such as the numerous irregular and "Home Guard" units raised locally for the temporary emergency of the 1885 North West Rebellion (including my beloved Rocky Mountain Rangers) which would more properly fit in the "Militia" Class ....

2.   My second question is somewhat related ... if a rifle such as the Canadian NWMP/Militia doesn't qualify as a Mil-Spec Repeater but would be allowed in "Militia" or "Scout" class despite its caliber, then another problem results for a competitor with a suitable 1885-1900 Canadian military impression, who might be fortunate enough to have the appropriate Canadian military-issue handgun for that period ... because it was the .45 caliber Colt Model 1878 Double-Action revolver!  However, the Scout and Militia categories both specify single-action revolvers only ....     (Although addressing this issue is perhaps advisable in a general sense,  I again do have a personal motivation in raising it - I have hopes of acquiring an original Model 1878 Colt, of correct caliber, in the proper configuration and of appropriate date of manufacture which was almost certainly one of the Canadian-issue revolvers, though that cannot be specifically documented ... and unfortunately the majority of these handguns were not stamped with any official marks ....)

[Pitspitr]

I'm sure MAA Drydock will have a better, more complete answer but for a quick reply I am quoting excerpts from him in the 2008 Grand Muster announcement thread.

Handguns in the Milspec classes shall be Milspec, or of demonstrated military usage, related in period to the rifle used.

Handgun Calibers in "Non Milspec" classes (Militia, Scout, Buffalo Scout and Forager) will have a minmum bore diameter of .357.

Reviewing the Battle rifle standards, you will see that it refers to hanguns, not single action revolvers.  It means just that.  That they should be related in PERIOD to the rifle used in the Milspec classes gives a great deal of flexibility.  MILSPEC classes will be shot in accordance with Battle Rifle Standards

You may PM me with any questions.  Drydock

[Drydock]

Ahh, must I be forced to speak in complete sentences?   

The M1876 Winchester places one in the "Militia" class.  You may note the argument I made for the Brigade Champion was in reference to this exact point. I had given every consideration to allowing the M1876 in the Milspec Repeater class, but it opened up a can of worms with no bottom in sight.  (For instance, the US Army bought and issued Winchester 1894s for use in stateside guard duty, and someone always brings up those %!!@(&)#%# 1866s at Plevna!)  I believe in simple rules, and the M1876 becomes a Militia rifle because of it, I'm afraid.  "Faux" 76s (73s) in pistol caliber are still Cowboy Scout rifles. 

However, your point about the revolver is well taken.   I am considering dropping the Single Action revolver requirement for all classes outside of "Cowboy"and perhaps "Buffalo".  I think with the reload requirements the different actions have little advantage over each other, as long as we maintain the Victorian era requirement and preclude loading aids. 

I would also like to point out that the names of the classes have nothing to do with the unit backround of the weapons used, or perhaps only in the most general sense.  The classes are a means of scoring weapons with similiar operational charecteristics, not similiar histories.  I may simply have been too clever here, it seems to have caused some confusion.

Feedback would be appreciated, and I will be in conference with the Command Staff in response to this issue.

Drydock

[Drydock]

Upon further review, and otherwise hobnobbing with my fellow wizards . . .

Jack, the 1876 stays in Militia class, but the class will now be open to Milspec or of demonstrated military use handguns.