Single Trigger SXS

[Gold Canyon Kid]

Just read a post on SASS Wire that said a single trigger SXS was not legal for NCOWS matches.  Is this true?

[Wymore Wrangler]

Single trigger shotguns were available prior to 1899, Rock Creek Critter told me yesterday in his research he found over a dozen patents for single trigger shotguns yesterday.  Most were built in Europe, and were on high grade doubles.  Common to the poor cowhand, probably not.  As far as being NCOWS legal, Joss is the first Congress member I've heard say they aren't legal...

[Gold Canyon Kid]

Where might I find the rules on single triggers being illegal for double shotguns?  Read all the material on the web site and couldn't find it.

[Wymore Wrangler]

The correct wording of the bylaws is manufactured and/or in common use, not just common use.  I had a discussion recently with a knowledgeable antique gun dealer about guns that were actually in the old west, he pointed out as an example in a  museum in Montana, I believe it was in Livingston, that they had a donated gun from a frontier ranchers collection from that area that was a Holland and Holland double rifle in an elphant caliber, a grizzly rifle perhaps. In the latter 1880's and 1890's we had large immigration of Englishs and European Continentals  coming to the west, my maternal grandmother's folks included, that were fairly well off and I'm sure some brought their sporting guns to the frontier...  So I don't believe anyone can say that they were not available positively.

River City John, I believe the previous discussion was included under Lar's Swedish Husquervana Shotguns when we hashed over all this single trigger issue before...

[Cuts Crooked]

....another example of this is the current copies of the Colt Lightning revolvers in single action format. They existed, LG has shown us the pictures, but they definately were not in common use during our time frame.

[Major Matt Lewis]

Now don't be starting a ruckus over here about my thread of inquiry over on the SASS Wire.  My wife Tina will be shooting and I need a shotgun I can have the stock cut down on....I am not going to butcher my 97 for anybody.  The wife says that if she shoots NCOWS, it will probably be as Working Cowgirl, so I don't see any issues or she can use my Stoeger....So, let's avoid the "tempest in the tea post" as Lars would  say.

[Wymore Wrangler]

Joss, you stated something was illegal based on your personal opinion of the bylaws. I have heard these  discussions on this subject several times at matches at actual NCOWS events by long term members and/or Congress members.  Single triggers were declared legal.  Sorry if others don't share your views....

[Gold Canyon Kid]

So if I had an 80 or 90 year old shotgun (for example) with a single trigger I can't shoot it, but I can shoot a brand new Stoeger that is a replica of nothing and the Stoeger is legal because it has two triggers??

[Wymore Wrangler]

Joss, what you also don't know is that I had the same opinion initially as you that single triggers weren't allowed, and I believe it was Lone Gunman was the one that told me that they were legal during a discussion at Blue River two years ago, I might be wrong on that, but he was in the conversation.  And I have to quote our Marshal again that NCOWS has as many unwritten laws as we do written, and my person belief is that it is a hell of way to run a railroad for you outlying posses...

As far as next weekend for the Convention, I have to work double shifts both Saturday and Sunday, and I couldn't get Friday off...

Gold Canyon Kid, just come and shoot with us, most NCOWS posses are nothing like the internet, the same as SASS posses are nothing like the wire...

[Lone Gunman]

So if I had an 80 or 90 year old shotgun (for example) with a single trigger I can't shoot it,

Well...if you had a 107 or more year old shotgun with a single trigger it would be OK     I think the old thread on this was buried at sea with the 'old' frontier spot. I had received email back from some English manufacturers who acknowledged that they had produced several models with single triggers prior to 1899.  I had also located some pictures of an 1894 Remington double with a single trigger designed by Mr Lard of St Joseph Missouri. Lard's trigger later became the standard on many American made shotguns.

The 'common use' phrase in our bylaws is our equivalent of what  "A well regulated militia" is to the second amendment. I've always felt it referred to items that were manufactured before 1865 but were still in common use during our time period. Of course, if we held strictly to items that were in common use there couldn't be more than 1 or 2 people at a shoot using '97 Winchesters 

I'm going to assume that the Judge we elect next Friday night will establish an Authenticity Committee so things like the single trigger double, the derringer etc can be submitted and we can address them at the July Congress meeting. 

[Gold Canyon Kid]

If you do a search in Guns America for Parker shotguns you will find at least a couple or more doubles that predate 1900 that have single triggers for sale. These guns are dated in the 1890s and come with Parker letters.  I think your rules say if the gun was manufactured AND OR in common use before 1900 or something like that.  This would seem to make single triggers legal. What have I missed?

[Wymore Wrangler]

John, I don't think he has to present anything because they are all ready approved...

[Lone Gunman]

John, I don't think he has to present anything because they are all ready approved...

Well...no...they haven't been approved. No one has ever submitted the documentation to an authenticity committee for review, this procedure is spelled out in detail in bylaw 7-3. The single trigger issue is nearly identical to the 'ejector' issue of a few years ago. There were some who said ejectors (not extractors) weren't allowed because they didn't appear until after 1899, others claimed they were. John Shonts submitted the proof, the Congress voted, and it was unanimously approved because it had been documented that they did, in fact, exist.  It's items like these two, that are right on the edge of the period, that are somewhat controversial without real proof.

[Black River Smith]

WW,

Not to be offensive to you in any way or meaning, but to be able to stop all this confusing discussion.

I wish they (the Congress, the people that you have had all these discussions with through time) would have asked/had you re-write the bylaws/approved listing.  Just so that all these unknowns to the rest us /deviation in interpretation/variations in application would/could then be finally revealed to the rest of us NCOWS members that don't live in the localized area of Iowa & Nebraska

This is truly and sorrowfully confusing and ..............

I thought it was confuse and conquer the enemy, not your body/membership.

(I am going to start studying the patents to find that volley gun used in the civil war or maybe the multibarrelled rifle.)

Black River Smith

[Big Hext]

Well...no...they haven't been approved. No one has ever submitted the documentation to an authenticity committee for review, this procedure is spelled out in detail in bylaw 7-3. The single trigger issue is nearly identical to the 'ejector' issue of a few years ago. There were some who said ejectors (not extractors) weren't allowed because they didn't appear until after 1899, others claimed they were. John Shonts submitted the proof, the Congress voted, and it was unanimously approved because it had been documented that they did, in fact, exist.  It's items like these two, that are right on the edge of the period, that are somewhat controversial without real proof.

Not to get myself more confused than normal, but couldn't (gawd forbid, SHOULDN"T) the authenticity committee be more pro-active?  Seems to me that by clarifying these fringe issues, NCOWS would be in a much stronger position.  Perhaps that is what you are alluding to about the new Judge being selected this weekend.

Adios,

[Lone Gunman]

Due, at least in part, to a coronary bypass, retirement and moving to another state; the judge elected at the 2005 convention never named an authenticity committee. He did, however, stop smoking and that's a big accomplishment in itself 

I'm confident that situation will be rectified this weekend and great strides will be made in resolving many of these issues between now and the next meeting of the Territorial Congress in July.

[Terry Lane]

Howdy all,
I think much of this argument can be addressed by looking at the character you assume. Much like the thoughtful question OCB posed in another post. My character is the Hon. Col. W. F. Cody in the time period I portray (58 years old). Most of the clothing, leather, firearms, etc. I use was most likely not commonly available or in use by the working cowboy. By the time Cody was my age he seldom carried a sidearm except in the arena. It was in use however by show folks or people of means, or those who thought they were of means, wished to present the image of such, or were formerly of means. If your character would have had access to the clothing, firearms, leather, etc., then us 'em. If not, then don't. Just my opinion. Take care.

[Lars]

Terry,

I like your suggestion/approach -- actually I am doing that myself. I am developing a persona that is quite upper class and of foreign origin, complete with some clothing, guns, etc. from the countries of origin (Finland and Sweden). In part I have done this to provide rationale/cover for the use of items not common to the general population in the western USA in the late 1800s. I have also focused on the large hardrock mining towns in Colorado, in part because the large amounts of money floating around in those towns resulted in all sorts of expensive and uncommon (often the very newest) items being in use. I am also an employee of a foreign owned and operated mining company. For personas such as this the "in common usage" guideline simply has limited, maybe very limited applicability. Yes, in case anyone cares to know, I can/intend to document this persona and the items and guns used (now, having said that, who on the Originals can understand our Swedish-language documentation?).

Still, I too find the many descrepencies noted on this NCOWS BB between the actual words in the By-Laws and the many things reported to have been decided verbally but never even (?) recorded. I look forward to Lone Gunman being right and that many (even nearly all? -- can we hope for so much?) of these descrepencies will soon cease to plague us.

Lars

[Ottawa Creek Bill]

Lars Asked?

who on the Originals can understand our Swedish-language documentation?).

Simple solution Lars is to have your original documentation translated and submit both for the originals class, one
thing to remember...you have to show (document) that the upper class gentleman you plan to portray actually brought the firearms into the US from his country of origin...How?, by showing a real paralllel individual (immagrant) that lived during/in the time period of your impression/persona, here in the US and had access to the frearms in question.

Lars,
As far as languages are concerned, how many in the originals group could translate my documentation if I had submitted it in Aaniishinaa'bemowiin? The language of my people (ottawa, chippewa & potowatomi) that I speak fluently and have since a child... We have to use a little common sense and show a little courtesy to those that may not speak my native language or your tongue of origin when asked to understand what is on a piece(s) of paper you may submit to the originals.

Please don't take this question the wrong way, but do you speak the languages you mentioned fluently? Just asking as it is not requried to take part in the originals class.

Gitchi gi ga wabaa'min nagutch aapijiigwe nishiin...

Bill

[Ottawa Creek Bill]

Joss,
It's just that certain individuals keep referring to their knowledge of languages and then want to throw out the gauntlet, ie;

who on the Originals can understand our Swedish-language documentation?).

, it gets tiresome after awhile. Maybe I'll come to the convention dressed as an Apache and speak nothing but Aaniishinaa'bemowiin, doubt much if anyone would know the difference.....

Bill