Final SASS Gun Modificatoin Document Released

Gold Canyon Kid · January 24, 2006, 07:49:35 AM

The final SASS gun modification document has been released to the club TGs to distribute to their members. Each TG must vote the document up or down not later than mid Feb. The document draws a line in the sand at where we are today and does not require us to remove widly used gun modifications. The eight page document is very well written IMHO and the Mod Committee did a really good job of defining the allowable gun modifications. The new line in the sand is basically where we are today with gun modifications with a few exceptions such as no lightning rod, no slide action pumps except 16 and 12 gage 1897s and clones, etc. The document sets forth a measurement standard for short stroke 66 and 73 rifles which should allow all but a very small number of experimental mods to be allowed. I am certainly going to recommend to the TG of several clubs we are members of to vote yes on the document. If your TG does not send out the document to you, I am sure some clubs will post the document on their web sites in the next hours or days for all to see.

Col. Riddles · January 24, 2006, 09:44:15 AM

I just posted a request on on our club forum for our TG to copy and paste them there. But he's a cattle rancher & some days he's real busy & others he isn't so I don't know how long it will be before he gets them posted to our web site. I wish somebody would copy & paste them here.

Camille Eonich · January 24, 2006, 12:21:07 PM

Link

http://www.coalcreekcowboys.com/pdf%20files/SASSFirearmsRules_01_13_2006.pdf

Big John Denny · January 24, 2006, 03:33:08 PM

Thanks to Camille for posting the link to the draft document.

Looks pretty fair to me, but you will not please everyone. The only thing I see is that some of the real short "short stoke" kits may have to be replaced, lever wraps changed to the right thickness and lightning rods removed. I do like that it stipulates 1897 pump action shotguns and their clones only in 16 and 12 GA, since even Marlin said not to use their older period pump shotguns for SASS shooting because they were unsafe.

Irish Red O'Toole · January 24, 2006, 03:45:27 PM

Quote from: Big John Denny on January 24, 2006, 03:33:08 PM
and lightning rods removed

Color me stupid, but where did it specifically prohibit the Lightning Rod? I must have missed it.

Camille Eonich · January 24, 2006, 04:04:46 PM

IROT I would think that this would cover the lightening rod since the wheel on the back does change the contour.

Firing Pins
• The length of the firing pin may be extended.
• The visible contour of firing pins or firing pin extensions may not be altered.

Manatee said something barrels milled under the forearm being illegal but I can't figure out where he is getting that from. Any ideas?

Greeenriver · January 24, 2006, 04:23:46 PM

I like it, and thank you so much for posting this.

Greeenriver

Irish Red O'Toole · January 24, 2006, 04:25:47 PM

Not really, Cammie. I would have thought "The visible contour of firing pins or firing pin extensions may not be altered." would mean a Lightning Rod was OK since you can't see it with the action closed as it states in another section. But I personally feel that while this is a good start, we aren't done and shouldn't be voting on a document that's half finished.

Camille Eonich · January 24, 2006, 04:33:22 PM

IROT, I'm starting to feel the same way. If they aren't willing to go back to the drawing board and answer some of the points that they left out and they want it to be all or nothing then nothing may be the best way to go.

It was voted on and apporved at the TG summit that all new rules should be in effect for Winter Range and now they are already breaking that rule by doing this mods thing and not putting it into effect for Winter Range this year. If they couldn't get it ready in time for this season then they should wallow it around and fine tune it in time for next year. In the mean time though the gunsmiths are waiting for their business to pick back up but the way that the mods paper reads now it leaves as many questions unanswered as there were before. They're just different questions.

Irish Red O'Toole · January 24, 2006, 04:41:32 PM

And by saying that very same thing over on the SASS Wire, I've been flamed to no end. Makes you wonder what the rush to approve it is.

Ozarks Ranger · January 24, 2006, 04:46:29 PM

Camille,Thanks for posting

Snake Eyes

Big John Denny · January 24, 2006, 04:54:31 PM

Well, the new rules go into effect on 1 March 06, and I believe they felt it was necessary to have something there to act as a baseline when the new rules get published.

I don't see all that much wrong with it now, and it does allow for annual updates by TG votes on new changes to allowed or disallowed mods. It is something in hand now, and I can support it as a good initial effort.

Is it perfect, no it isn't, but even our own US Constitution has 27 changes to it. Could you imagine how long it would take to come up with something else that every SASS shooter likes. Try never.

I would vote yes on it to get the process started in the right direction. We discussed this at the Mule Camp match this last weekend, but did not receive any heartache with the initial changes. The report does clearly state that if its not listed as an allowed modification it is disallowed, period.

Irish Red O'Toole · January 24, 2006, 05:25:20 PM

That's the problem, John. There are too many loopholes in the proposal as written to throw support behind approving it. Is it a good start? Yes, absolutley. Can it be re-worked with some of the issues already raised and still be done before EOT this year? Again, yes absolutley. Should we just be sheep and be happy with it as written? NO!! If this is so important that it needs to be expedited, then it needs to be done right (or as close as possible) the first time through. AS it stands, we'll be modifying this document for the next five years.

Gold Canyon Kid · January 24, 2006, 05:42:20 PM

Quote from: Irish Red O'Toole on January 24, 2006, 05:25:20 PM
That's the problem, John. There are too many loopholes in the proposal as written to throw support behind approving it. Is it a good start? Yes, absolutley. Can it be re-worked with some of the issues already raised and still be done before EOT this year? Again, yes absolutley. Should we just be sheep and be happy with it as written? NO!! If this is so important that it needs to be expedited, then it needs to be done right (or as close as possible) the first time through. AS it stands, we'll be modifying this document for the next five years.

Well if you think there are loopholes in the document that is up for a vote, I shudder to think how you feel about the rules on gun mods we currently have. You don't get to vote to rework what you don't like. If it is that bad in your opinion you get to tell your TG to vote no. Are there questions that some folks have, ask them and I am sure you will get answers. Get specific. What exactly are the loopholes you are worried about? You will be modifying the document for the lifetime of the sport, not just the next 5 years. Unless you get specific on issues, it just smells like sour grapes from someone that didn't get to help write the document. If you have issues with what is written, maybe you need to contact your TG. He was the one that was supposed to be reviewing the earlier draft and making comments on that draft, issued several weeks ago.

Doc Shapiro · January 24, 2006, 05:54:38 PM

GCK, I did contact my TG. I provided feedback and told her what my vote is. After that, there really isn't anything I can do. If it passes, I'll deal with it then.

Gold Canyon Kid · January 24, 2006, 06:25:27 PM

Doc, did your TG discuss any issues in the earlier draft with you? Your TG was supposed to make them on the TG Wire.

Micheal Fortune · January 24, 2006, 06:38:29 PM

I don't see much of a problem with them. It won't affect anyone around here with the exception of making the Win97 the only slide action shotgun you can shoot.

We have a couple of Marlin fans here that have been shooting them for a long time and are going to be upset. But then again they don't get to SASS State of higher matches much.

I never thought that we needed any rule other than the "No external modification" rule and a little common sense, but I guess the cowboy way got lost somewhere along the way.

Maybe too many lawyers shooting these days.

Or not enough lawyers shootings, depend on how you look at things.

I guess I'll have to take the Co2 assist off my '73 now.............

Big John Denny · January 24, 2006, 07:42:03 PM

IROT, I can understand your concerns. I will say that IMO the document as it stands is a good start, not a finish, that will get us on the right track to a finish. I don't think any further changes are to be made as it stands right now. If you don't feel you can support this initial effort then cast your no vote with your TG.

I think that it will take some further time and effort over the next few years to get it all straight, but it is at least more specific then the old rules and will give all a guide to where they should be right now. It's basically a living document, but I still think the committee was very level headed and even handed with the mods out there already.

Its like all rules, it depends on us and our honest approach to obeying the rules to make it work.

Lou Graham · January 24, 2006, 09:29:48 PM

I'm with you, Cammy and IROT -- it's a very good first draft.
It ain't ready for a vote.
Only way to get it right is say "no' and fix it before we thunder off over a cliff.

Camille Eonich · January 24, 2006, 10:41:22 PM

Lou it IS a good start but they tried to make specifics out of generalities and left a lot of holes. There is a post on the SASS wire about what if we don't approve this and the person goes on about then we are right back at the beginning. Not so! Take this beginning and run with it. Listen to the questions that they people have concerning it and fill those in. Then throw it back out again.

It is a very good start it just needs a little bit more refinement before becoming law. I WANT to follow the rules and play the game the way that it's laid out but there are still too many questions left open for me to do that.