Possible GAF Wild Bunch Revisions

[RattlesnakeJack]

I know it is common in the U.S. to think of both the Colt and S&W revolver designs under discussion as "M1917's" even though it is only the WWI military versions of each model that are correctly called that ..... mind you, perhaps that is appropriate in the GAF/Black Jack Match context.

FWIW, however, in my role as Commander of the Department of the International, and of the Division of Canada, I feel it only appropriate to post a reminder that the basic revolver designs both actually originate prior to the official GAF timeline cutoff of 1904 ....

The Colt New Service revolver came out in 1898 (and was first officially adopted by the U.S. Army  in .45 Colt as the M1909) and the Smith & Wesson Hand Ejector revolver originated in 1899 (although not "beefed up" from the K frame to the N frame until 1908, I gather ....)

What is more, Canada acquired Colt New Service revolvers (in .45 Colt, initially, but later in .455 also) starting in 1900 for Boer War service ....  In 1904, the Colt New Service in .455 was adopted as the official sidearm of the Royal North West Mounted Police, and remained in service with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police until 1954!

Although Canada acquired 5,000 .45ACP Colt Government Model pistols in 1914, all subsequent handgun acquisitions for WWI service were S&W Hand Ejector revolvers - a total of 14,500 of them chambered in .455 from 1915 through 1917 ....

Maybe I make these comments just so I can have an opportunity to post some more pictures.  I have an example of every primary-issue military handgun used by Canada since 1878 ..... here arep hotoss of my Colt New Service and S&W Hand Ejector (both .455)  .....

[captmack]

Good looking handguns!

Mack

[Drydock]

Yes, the 1917, as a New Service with an introduction date of 1898, is allowed in a GAF main Match paired with an appropriate rifle.  But must be reloaded with Loose Ammo, IE Auto Rims.

[Charles Isaac]

My opinion is that M1917 be allowed with or w/o the lanyard ring and moon clips are allowed...................

Capt Mack

I want to see these clip loaded in "Expansion Era, Pershing, Black Jacks etc." too.

Mack was a wildman with that Sharps and one handed that de-spurred Smith Russian. Now I wanna see him one hand double action one of those rawboned old Colt New Services.

[Texas Lawdog]

I need some moon clips for the M1917 Smith and some 45 Auto rim ammo for next year. Anybody any idea on where I can purchase these items.?

[Charles Isaac]

You reload? Tons of auto rim brass on Gunbroker.

http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.asp?Item=144475102

[Niederlander]

It could be up for debate as to whether half moon clips could be used, as they only came out in 1917 for the M1917 revolvers.  It will probably depend on what ends up being the cut-off date.

[Texas Lawdog]

No sir, I am not a reloader. I plan on aquiring the auto rim ammo and the moon clips.

[Charles Isaac]

Every place I checked is sold out of lead auto rim, and for $1.00 a shot!

This is the best deal I found. Should shoot to the sights in an M1917. $275 shipped for 350 rounds. Stuffs expensive!

http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.asp?Item=144195489

[captmack]

Howdy Charles,

thanks for the link to the brass.  I'd like to be able to use moon clips so we can use our standard .45 ACP brass but if deemed necessary I'll pick up the other and load it.

Check out the Colt M1917 I will be using:

[RattlesnakeJack]

The discussion about likely (.... 'potential'? .....) permitted use of moonclips and "period correct" speedloaders with revolvers induces me to ponder how this may affect the "levelness" of the playing field among revolver shooters.  Admittedly, this concern affects me personally because, in the long run, I would prefer to use a suitable wheelgun over my original 1914-Canadian-purchase Government Model pistol,  which is likely too valuable to be subjected to a steady regimen of this type of shooting and handling.  (Besides, it still has its original "umpteen-pound" trigger pull, but I really don't want to ruin its collector value by having it "slicked" .....)

However ..... as I understand the drift of the discussion so far, anyone using a M'1917 Colt or S&W - or even a Webley or other revolver originally chambered for .455 but which has been "shaved" to use .45ACP - would be permitted the advantage of using moonclips for loading/reloading. - and, of course, those devices are readily available at very modest cost.

On the other hand, anyone using a revolver in an original chambering other than was intended to use .45ACP in moonclips - such as any unaltered .455 or, say, a Model 1909 chambered in .45 Colt - would apparently be limited to using original (or at least "period correct") speedloaders.  

Thus my question - wouldn't the proposed allowance of Model 1917 revolvers, and moonclips for loading them, actually create an unfair advantage for the shooters who use them ...... even though they didn't exist prior to the likely Black Jack Match chronological cutoff of 1916 or earlier? Indeed, both could properly be considered to be "WWI-specific" innovations ..... things we apparently want to intentionally avoid in setting the uniform and equipment parameters for this whole proposed side match.

Think about it - even if speedloading devices did exist for period-correct revolvers, the chances of a shooter being able to find even one such original device (let alone afford it) are likely "slim to none" ....  For example - speaking from my personal perspective - although speedloaders actually did exist "back in the day" for British .455 revolvers (notably the Prideaux and Watson "rapid loading devices for revolvers", both originally patented in 1893) originals are extremely rare - the price of a single operational one of either design, if such could even be found, would likely run in the range of $500!  And, of course, no reproductions of these devices are made .....  I assume similar difficulties would exist with regard to any other "period correct" speedloading devices.

So ..... am I all wet here, or is this a very valid concern?  Shooters who choose to use period correct revolvers would be effectively prevented (mainly by rarity and cost) from using speedloaders, whereas those permitted to use M'1917's (through an intentional stretching of the time-frame limits to specifically allow such use) would have the advantage of loading with moonclips!

That is about as far as I have pondered the problem ..... but at this point two possible solutions occur to me (either of which would undoubtedly need to be considered and 'tweaked' ...) -

1.  Permit the use of M'1917 revolvers (or any others, such as "shaved".455 revolvers) with moonclips, but lump them in with the automatic pistols .... or, because that in itself might not be fair either,  perhaps in a separate category for "revolvers used with loading aids".

2. Leave all revolvers together as one class, but don't permit the use of any revolver with moonclips .... indeed, I would then suggest that the fairest rule in this regard would simply disallow any speedloaders or other such loading aids at all in revolver class.  Voila .... level playing field!

- Admittedly, option 2 (which I prefer)  would require shooters of M'1917's (or other revolvers configured for .45ACP in moonclips) to use .45AR cartridges ..... but at least those are readily available, at fairly reasonable cost.  (The relatively modest cost of gearing up to shoot .45AR could be the "price" of being allowed to use a revolver which doesn't actually fit within the chronological limits.)  

- My suggestion that no loading aids be permitted in revolver class is intended as a further leveling of the playing field .....    Nobody would be tempted to go to the cost and expense of trying to acquire rare and costly original speedloaders (or have them reproduced somehow) and this restriction would also avoid any possible future pressure to stretch the rules yet again to allow "modern" speedloaders .....

OK ...... those are my thoughts ......    What say the rest of you?

[Charles Isaac]

Mack, that is one good looking '17!

New Services are my favorite pistols, but they are one beast of a pistol!

Here's my M1909 from an auction photo. Bought it back in July. I had it with me at the muster and would have shown it to you,  but didn't know you used stuff like this.

[Texas Lawdog]

That makes sense to me,  but I need all the help I can get. I am going to sacrifice speed for accuracy. I  haven't shot a double action revolver on a range in at least 10 years, maybe longer.

[Charles Isaac]

The discussion about likely (.... 'potential'? .....) permitted use of moonclips and "period correct" speedloaders with revolvers induces me to ponder how this may affect the "levelness" of the playing field among revolver shooters.  Admittedly, this concern affects me personally because, in the long run, I would prefer to use a suitable wheelgun over my original 1914-Canadian-purchase Government Model pistol,  which is likely too valuable to be subjected to a steady regimen of this type of shooting and handling.  (Besides, it still has its original "umpteen-pound" trigger pull, but I really don't want to ruin its collector value by having it "slicked" .....)

However ..... as I understand the drift of the discussion so far, anyone using a M'1917 Colt or S&W - or even a Webley or other revolver originally chambered for .455 but which has been "shaved" to use .45ACP - would be permitted the advantage of using moonclips for loading/reloading. - and, of course, those devices are readily available at very modest cost.

On the other hand, anyone using a revolver in an original chambering other than was intended to use .45ACP in moonclips - such as any unaltered .455 or, say, a Model 1909 chambered in .45 Colt - would apparently be limited to using original (or at least "period correct") speedloaders.  

Thus my question - wouldn't the proposed allowance of Model 1917 revolvers, and moonclips for loading them, actually create an unfair advantage for the shooters who use them ...... even though they didn't exist prior to the likely Black Jack Match chronological cutoff of 1916 or earlier? Indeed, both could properly be considered to be "WWI-specific" innovations ..... things we apparently want to intentionally avoid in setting the uniform and equipment parameters for this whole proposed side match.

Think about it - even if speedloading devices did exist for period-correct revolvers, the chances of a shooter being able to find even one such original device (let alone afford it) are likely "slim to none" ....  For example - speaking from my personal perspective - although speedloaders actually did exist "back in the day" for British .455 revolvers (notably the Prideaux and Watson "rapid loading devices for revolvers", both originally patented in 1893) originals are extremely rare - the price of a single operational one of either design, if such could even be found, would likely run in the range of $500!  And, of course, no reproductions of these devices are made .....  I assume similar difficulties would exist with regard to any other "period correct" speedloading devices.

So ..... am I all wet here, or is this a very valid concern?  Shooters who choose to use period correct revolvers would be effectively prevented (mainly by rarity and cost) from using speedloaders, whereas those permitted to use M'1917's (through an intentional stretching of the time-frame limits to specifically allow such use) would have the advantage of loading with moonclips!

That is about as far as I have pondered the problem ..... but at this point two possible solutions occur to me (either of which would undoubtedly need to be considered and 'tweaked' ...) -

1.  Permit the use of M'1917 revolvers (or any others, such as "shaved".455 revolvers) with moonclips, but lump them in with the automatic pistols .... or, because that in itself might not be fair either,  perhaps in a separate category for "revolvers used with loading aids".

2. Leave all revolvers together as one class, but don't permit the use of any revolver with moonclips .... indeed, I would then suggest that the fairest rule in this regard would simply disallow any speedloaders or other such loading aids at all in revolver class.  Voila .... level playing field!

- Admittedly, option 2 (which I prefer)  would require shooters of M'1917's (or other revolvers configured for .45ACP in moonclips) to use .45AR cartridges ..... but at least those are readily available, at fairly reasonable cost.  (The relatively modest cost of gearing up to shoot .45AR could be the "price" of being allowed to use a revolver which doesn't actually fit within the chronological limits.)  

- My suggestion that no loading aids be permitted in revolver class is intended as a further leveling of the playing field .....    Nobody would be tempted to go to the cost and expense of trying to acquire rare and costly original speedloaders (or have them reproduced somehow) and this restriction would also avoid any possible future pressure to stretch the rules yet again to allow "modern" speedloaders .....

OK ...... those are my thoughts ......    What say the rest of you?

I am with you on this. (I had talked about this earlier, just not as eloquently as you). I think we are big enough for separate classes for revolver and auto and it seems that a lot more of us have "Expansion Era" etc. revolvers than I thought.

Revolvers and autos together, loading devices allowed for revolvers, otherwise I'll just shoot an automatic-easy choice.

[captmack]

For the Pershing Side Match I'd like to shoot either an auto or DA revolver.  Keeps it interesting and not boring.

Mack

[captmack]

Charles, that's a great looking revolver.  I bet it is a beast!

I picked this one up too in .38.  I'll use it for local matches for Span-Am era with either my Win '95 or Springfield '03.

[Niederlander]

My only thought in bringing up the 1917 Colt a while back (on another thread) was that it's a New Service, and usually a little less expensive than the earlier version.  I always assumed I would only use .45 Auto Rim loads, in that half or full moon clips are clearly a speed loading device, which we've never allowed.  I'm emphatically in favor of maintaining that rule.  If we do go with the Pershing Match (or whatever it ends up being called), I think we SHOULD allow clip-loading of the rifles that were designed for it.  That was cutting edge technology in it's day, and it gives people an excuse to learn to use stripper clips!

[captmack]

So no speed loading of revolvers but speed loading of rifles is ok?

Mack

[Charles Isaac]

I picked this one up too in .38.  I'll use it for local matches for Span-Am era with either my Win '95 or Springfield '03.

I had one of those with me at the muster too, but blued. Just started grabbin guns out of the safe when I packed up! Illegal for GAF due to being "Heavy Barrel" models though.

Again, I would have shown it to you, but didn't know you used stuff like this-you had those shiny looking eye-talian guns!

[Niederlander]

So no speed loading of revolvers but speed loading of rifles is ok?

Mack

I believe the issue is that stripper clips were quite common to the era, while speed loading devices for revolvers were largely experimental.  The U.S. Navy had a speedloader system for their .38 Colts, with a belt mounted cartridge box to match (it held two loading devices and six rounds loose), but I've never actually seen one "in the flesh".  The half moon clips used in the Colt and Smith & Wesson 1917 revolvers were definitely Great War specific.  We're trying to steer clear of Great War specific technology.