Question, Are Short Stroked Rifles NCOWS Legal.

[Wymore Wrangler]

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

[Derby Younger]

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.

[Ottawa Creek Bill]

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

[Derby Younger]

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.

[Ottawa Creek Bill]

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

[Lars]

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

[Irish Dave]

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

.

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.

[Joyce (AnnieLee)]

... 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

[Ottawa Creek Bill]

Well Folks,
I must say I am totally lost on this one

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.

OCB-sometimes alluded to, to be and Elitist??, or implied there of

[French Jack]

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.

[Lone Gunman]

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".

[French Jack]

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???

[Derby Younger]

"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.

[Ottawa Creek Bill]

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.....

[Derby Younger]

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

[Books OToole]

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

[French Jack]

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.

[St. George]

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!

[Derby Younger]

Jack:

Good rebuttal. Thanks.

St. George:

I appreciate your comments. My intent was not to formulate dissent.

Derby

[Wymore Wrangler]

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....