GAF rules

[PJ Hardtack]

If I didn't have to travel so far, I'd be happy to join the GAF (along with Grant, who keeps encouraging me) but I have a question re: rifle loads and categories .....

Since the GAF recognizes and awards authenticity in uniforms and kit, what about ammunition, especially rifle loads? I appreciate that local rules prevail, which plays a role in limiting the power floor, but it isn't a level parade ground when someone is shooting even a reduced BP load against smokeless in the same calibre.

Bore fouling and recoil are definitely factors, especially in long strings. This is recognized in other shooting sports, hence various categories enabling you to compete with others on the same level.

Not a condemnation, just the curiosity of an idle fellow between shoots .....

[Niederlander]

Mr. Hardtack,
     No condemnation taken!  We limit velocity primarily because of high velocity effects on our steel target.  As an example, one time someone who shall remain nameless (okay, it was me) thought he'd shoot one of our one half inch steel knockdown targets with a 2,000 fps, jacketed bullet load from a Krag at one hundred yards.  It should have been fine, because all the gunwriters talk about what a weenie load the original Krag load was.  (According to most of them, a .30-06 is just BARELY adequate for whitetail deer, right?)  That 220 grain jacketed bullet put a half inch crater in the target that was just a whisker from going through.  It gave me whole new respect for some of these old rounds. 
     I'm happy to report I haven't seen anyone in GAF try to use "gamer" loads to gain any kind of advantage.  We just don't want to have to replace targets all the time!  Join up, you'll have LOTS of fun!

[Drydock]

Frankly PJ, light loads don't help you in what we shoot.  Load as heavy as you can, or you end up having to ring the target 3 times instead of knocking it down with the first shot.  And at the distances we shoot, the BP guys have the advantage, as their full loads are regulated to their sights.  My reduced Krag loads require my sights to be set at 600 yards to get to the target.  And for the long range component you need full milspec rounds for the 300 yard scoring.  No time limit, wipe between shots if you want.

If you look in the rules, you will see "All classes may be split by powder type, should numbers warrent."

You need to shoot a skirmish match with us.  After the 1st run thru you'll understand a lot better.

[RattlesnakeJack]

Ned and Drydock, if you re-read PJ's post, I believe you'll realize that he is actually wondering whether his preference for using black powder loads is likely to place him at a disadvantage if he gets lumped in with those who choose to shoot smokeless loads in what are (historically, at any rate) black powder firearms designs - e.g. the single-shot military rifle category, as a prime example .... essentially all "period-correct" examples of that class having originated as black powder weapons.  (His only reference to "reduced loads" that I can see was to suggest that, even if he went to reduced black powder loads, his choice of that propellant would still place him at a disadvantage if he has to compete against shooters using smokeless loads.  I think I saw his primary concern right off because this very issue has begun bothering me somewhat, frankly.)

PJ:   GAF Main Match shooting criteria provide for Victorian-era "mil-spec" rifles (which arguably have become the type of firearm GAF wants to encourage the use of most) being grouped into two main categories: single-shot ("Rifleman" class, which would include such rifles as the Trapdoor Springfield, Snider-Enfield, Martini-Henry, military-issue Remington Rolling Block, etc.) and repeating ("Marksman" class, which includes primarily 19th century bolt-action rifles like the Swiss Vetterli, Krag-Jorgenson, Lee-Metford, etc.)

The same criteria also contemplate each of these two main mil-spec categories being divided into "black powder" and "smokeless" subclasses - for the very reasons which concern you, as I understand it.  However, there is also provision for combining shooters using the different types of propellant into a single class "if numbers warrant" ......

The classes have been combined at the last few Musters I have attended, apparently for that reason, which is an unfortunate development in my view.  Rather than encouraging the use of black powder as the "historically correct" propellant in firearms designed for it, I fear that an unintentional bias in favour of less-appropriate smokeless loads may be developing .... which rather flies in the face of the aims of GAF, at least as I understand them.

As you have noted, the "playing field is not level" in terms of fouling and recoil (.... let alone target visibility! ....) and I fear that those factors, coupled with the added inconvenience - and expense - of loading black powder cartridges, and the increased hassles of gun (and brass) care and cleaning, are likely to result in GAF gravitating toward "smokeless only" shooting, despite the historical era we profess to honour and portray.

In fairness, I gather that the primary consideration in allowing combination of the two propellant types into a single class was likely the cost and inconvenience for event organizers to provide medals or other such awards if the number of competitors is small.  However, I also note that the practice has developed of awarding certificates only for those who "Place" .... and with the affordability and convenience of producing such certificates in this day and age, I can't really see this remaining a legitimate concern.

Perhaps I am "biased", having limited myself to black powder loads exclusively since these"battle rifle" categories have been made available, but I must say I find it discouraging to go to the trouble and inconvenience of loading and shooting BP cartridges (in the course of a long and expensive trip to do so) only to find myself lumped in with shooters using smokeless loads.   I find myself wondering why I don't just shoot smokeless also .... and that gives me great pause, because I honestly feel that is the wrong direction for GAF to go!  

I look forward to hearing what others my have to say on this issue .....

[Drydock]

I see your concern Jack. (and yes, I misread PJs post, though I did catch it enough to edit it later.) we may indeed need to make at least the single shots a Mandatory Powder Split.  We have always hoped for better numbers, and my Trapdoor simply works better with BP than smokeless. 

If Pit and the General are in favor of this, I would indeed reccomend a mandatory Class Split for Single Shots at the Department and Brigade level.   I think we've reached the point where we'll have enough numbers to accomodate this in scoring.

[PJ Hardtack]

I didn't mean to come across as a "Barracks room lawyer", but after talking to Grant about it, there did seem to be a need for some dialogue on the topic.

I've been to a single shot rifle event once that pitted smokeless and BP rifles against each other and it became apparent that it was an 'oranges and apples' comparison; Trapdoors shooting BP against Remington rolling blocks fitted with custom barrels shooting smokeless.

"The Spirit of the Game'' would seem to indicate the consideration of two categories where justified by numbers.

[Drydock]

Well, we allready have that (should numbers warrent)  but perhaps we do need to go a step further and mandate the split.  We allready have a point procedure in place for uncontested catagories should the need arise.  We probably need to mandate a split for the repeaters as well, for those Spencers that show up with BP loads.  We allready do this at the Brigade level, just need to extend to the Department as well. 

Local matchs can be left to the descretion of the range officer.

[pony express]

It does seem to make sense to split BP and smokeless, although I've only shot repeaters at regular GAF matches so far, I will definately be using BP if I decide to shoot a rifle origionally designed for it.

[Pitspitr]

I believe the combining of the smokeless and BP classes when "numbers warrant" stems less from economic concerns and more from the concern that we don't end up with classes for "lefthanded bald men between the ages of 46 and 46.5 years old who shoot while standing on their head and whistling Dixie" thus diluting the meaning of a class win.

So, for the sake of arguement discussion (I don't want this to degenerate into a disrespectful mud slinging) let's say we mandate the split of of classes by powder type. 2 competitors are in the running for the "Iron Trooper" Both shoot single shots, 1 BP, 1 Smokeless. 1 wins the uniform class the other places second. The winner of the Uniform class Places second in the Long Range, but the uniform runner-up wins the long range. In the main match the BP shooter places 2nd and the Smokeless shooter's overall time is slower than the second place BP shooter but because the smokeless field is weaker the smokeless shooter wins his class. Both the BP and Smokeless classes have 4 shooters. The Smokeless shooter is the Brigade Champion. How do we create a "level Playing field"?

[Drydock]

You can't.  The "level playing field" has allways been an illusion.  You can honestly try, and in doing so, provide a level of comfort, but thats it.  The problem is just how comfortable do you need to be?

We've got things pretty equal between the Single Shots and the Repeaters.  BP vs smokeless is more ellusive, not because they're all that unequal, but because folks THINK they are.  Grant had a bad run.  If he'd not had that, he'd have won the Single Shot class, BP or no.  Of course, Ned had a bad run as well.  THATs what determined the winner in this case, the shooter, not the powder.

But the other point is, yes, we want to encourage the use of BP in those weapons designed for it.  Split classes might do that.  You could also assess a one point penalty for anacronistic practice for those using Smokeless in a BP Weapon.  But would that discourage the participation of someone who wants to shoot his Trapdoor, but does'nt feel comfortable loading and cleaning BP? (again, you're fighting perception)

I would say split the class and live with it.  Better numbers/greater participation should overcome the problem you illustrate over time.

Remember as well.  You do not HAVE to award the Overall/BC.  We reserve that right.  In case of a tie, you could use anacronistic practice to break that tie if needed.   Or declare no OA for that year.

We're all here to have fun, Right?

[RattlesnakeJack]

How do we create a "level Playing field"?

As noted by Drydock, I doubt if it is possible to create a perfectly level playing field in any competitive sport .... indeed, even if the actual playing surface is "level", other factors come into play and have to be taken into account.  Hence, for example, the requirement that sides switch ends during games like football (.... by which I mean "soccer" of course ....) and "American Rugby" (.... which most North Americans call "football" ....   ) to minimize "wind" or "light angle" advantages, or the like.

However, I think any honest assessment will acknowledge that shooting smokeless loads gives a distinct advantage over shooting black powder - no fouling affecting accuracy and action operation, less barrel heating, no smoke obscuring targets, and so on.   (Someone, in a moment of candour at the DoM Muster, acknowledged that he had switched to smokeless loads so he would be able to beat me!    I also recall that same shooter experienced so much fouling with black powder loads in the long range match that he found it necessary to swab his bore after every shot .... and shot smokeless loads during the main match ....)

Admittedly, some of these factors can be ameliorated .... black powder fouling can be reduced by use of sufficient quantities of suitable bullet lube, for example .... but that is part of the "art" necessary to shoot effectively with black powder, and certainly adds to the effort and inconvenience of shooting the "proper" propellant instead of smokeless.

This issue perhaps really boils down to whether GAF truly wants to promote "historical accuracy" across the board, by encouraging use of the period correct propellant ... rather than risking effective (even if unintentional) discouragement of its use.  Indeed, a strong argument could be made for mandating the use of black powder only in the Rifleman class:  although I may well be forgetting one or two, I am unable at the moment to think of any single-shot military "main battle rifle" design which did not originate prior to the development of smokeless powder (.... even if such rifles - or variants of them - were historically used with smokeless cartridges later on.)  I would acknowledge that such a Draconian rule might not be feasible in this day and age, but this factor alone should, at very least, be justification enough to "mandate" separate powder classes for Rifleman class, at least.  I would even go so far as to propose that .... much as "Best Dress Uniform" trumps "Best Field Uniform" for Brigade Champion standings .... any "Place" in Black Powder Rifleman should trump an equal placement in Smokeless Rifleman. (Drydock's idea of a specified penalty point for "anachronistic practice" would achieve a similar result.)

Also, with respect to the determination of Brigade Champion (or equivalent) I submit that a more "level playing field" would in fact result if the significant differences in propellant type are recognized by mandating separate smokeless and black powder classes, at least for Rifleman.  The top-scoring Black Powder Marksman is quite likely to be relegated to Second or Third Place (or even worse) in a combined category, effectively "skewing" the Brigade Champion determination in favour of Smokeless shooters.  

Not idle speculation, by the way - it has happened to me more than once, frankly.   So be it - I have continued to attend .... and have fun .... as you are aware.  But I can also say that, in my case and quite likely in the case of others, this issue does tend to add one more little "discouragement" on top of the more pragmatic factors of time, distance and expense involved in participating in GAF Musters.  The alternative - i.e "playing the game" by switching to smokeless loads - is something I'd really rather not do ..... nor do I think that is the direction GAF should go.

[NOTE:  I have edited this post and my earlier one to hopefully correct every instance of my reversal of the Rifleman and Marksman category names!  I seem to have a mental block against getting them "right" .....  Although not as 'colourful', I much prefer the former differentiation of "Single-Shot" or "Repeating" for these Mil-spec rifle classes!]

[Niederlander]

Jack's idea seems pretty good to me.  For various reasons, I'm not that interested in shooting black powder, but I love to shoot the guns.  I certainly admire those that go to the trouble of shooting with black powder (even if I personally don't want to do it), and it would seem reasonable to reward them for being more authentic.  Good discussion!

[Drydock]

It can be pointed out as well that we are not creating any new class here, simply mandating one that allready exists.  I like the idea of reserving the need to assess any anacronistic practice in any final calculation.  We allready have this in our rule package as well.  (we really do have one, in final editing)  So in either case we are simply utilizing a structure that allready exists.

[Niederlander]

It seems like a lot of rule changes we enact just codify what we're already doing.  I think it says some good things about how well we've been applying common sense.

[Cowtown Scout]

I do not have any issues with smokeless being unsed in a firearm designed for black powder provided it is a safe load for the action and firearm.  Not everyone is comfortable dealing with loading and shooting black powder.

I also believe that shooting black powder (including subs) should always be seperate from shooting smokeless and never mixed.  In cowboy action I shoot smokless powder in duelist and classic cowboy but I shoot the smokin stuff in plainsman side matches and frontiersman.  Any  smokin category has destinct issues to deal with that smokeless shooters definately do not as RJ has outlined in his posts.
Scout

[Drydock]

Remember, we started out with loose ammo reloads because it was thought that would create a "Level playing field" for the Krag?  Turns out we need'nt have bothered.  (Don'cha just love finding out "accepted" history is wrong!) 

Now we have stripper/bloc clips in Smokeless marksman, obviating the need for a seperate "clip" class some advocated for.  All a learning process.  Great discussion, great fun!

[Bow View Haymaker]

Jack's idea seems pretty good to me.  For various reasons, I'm not that interested in shooting black powder, but I love to shoot the guns.  I certainly admire those that go to the trouble of shooting with black powder (even if I personally don't want to do it), and it would seem reasonable to reward them for being more authentic.  Good discussion!

I'm with Ned on this.  I just don't want to use smoking powder yet,  but I reallly enjoyed shooting a trapdoor lis last muster.  I do wonder though since I used smokeles in a gun designed for black shouldn't I have placed better?   My score kind of negatges some of the argument that shooting smokeless in a trapdoor should place better.? 

[RattlesnakeJack]

Bowview .... have you considered the possibly that the problem was neither the gun nor the loads?   

Seriously though, even with smokeless loads it seems that one must first find the "sweet spot" for any particular vintage rifle in terms of bullet, powder, over-all length, etc.   However, once that is achieved it should remain a constant, and can be loaded on an ongoing basis with relative ease and economy.

On the other hand, the necessary "voodoo" is generally rather more complex, labour-intensive .... and messy .... with black powder loads .... and then you have to contend with fouling build-up, smoke clouds and all the rest ....

All part of the fun .... and challenge!

[pony express]

I've been to a single shot rifle event once that pitted smokeless and BP rifles against each other and it became apparent that it was an 'oranges and apples' comparison; Trapdoors shooting BP against Remington rolling blocks fitted with custom barrels shooting smokeless.


[/quote
In this example, I don't think it will ever happen in GAF, unless somebody went to the trouble of having a custom barrel made to military specifications. The rolling block in this example would have to be in military configuration to be in milspec class. If it wasn't, then it would be a different class(used to be buffalo scout, not sure if it has a new name)

[PJ Hardtack]

For the record, I used the term "level parade ground" rather than "level playing field" .... ;>) more appropriate for us soldierly types.

I'm almost sorry I stirred up this brouhaha, but it looks like a few people have supportive viewpoints. I think it came to mind as tomorrow I will be shooting in a "military rifle" match at our club with an 'as issued' M1 Garand and '03 Springfield, both made in 1942, the propitious year of my birth.

The rules state:

"No slings or shooting gloves
Sporterized rifles allowed if they retain original sights
Cut down rifles in after market stocks allowed"

Huh? Pray tell how this makes any sense? These rules came about as a result of the "military rifle" matches I used to organize. I'd show up in a USMC shooting jacket, glove and shot all phases slung up. This put noses severely out of joint.

I shot the M1 in other matches allegedly called "hunting rifle" matches and won. The M1 is a legal hunting rifle with it's 8 rd enbloc clip and the largest Mule Deer I've taken to date fell to it. Thereafter, "unsporterized military rifles" were outlawed, including my Shiloh 50-70 Military Rifle that has taken two 400+ lb black bears and a four point Mule Deer.

I called the organizer of tomorrow's match and asked if we would be shooting 'bolt' and 'semi-auto' classes. He presumed that it would be 'bolt' only, forgetting about those that have Ljungman 6.5s, Tokarevs, M1s and the ubiquitous SKSs. Now if we have three for a class, we'll recognize 'semi-auto'. Evidently, there wasn't a lot of thought put into this.

Two years ago, I was dealing with cancer and the next summer I was still recovering, so the matches I organized lapsed. Now with the new rules, my attitude is - I show up, you tell me the rules, I adapt and overcome. The best shooters will prevail.

Life is indeed to short to split hairs and pick fly sh*t out of pepper. My bout with the 'Big C' taught me that. I simply can't be bothered.