Creeker, SASS #43022

Great movie. Watch it; you will enjoy it. Based on a Stephen King book - but one of his non supernatural genre. A group of boys going to see a dead body. At that moment in the film; it is a bunch of boys earning status, bonding with each other and building up their nerve by telling gross out (tall) tales around a fire. Within context - it does make some sense. The story being told is deliberately over the top gross, questionable and off putting. And in my opinion; the special affects are deliberately "off" to emphasize the exaggerated nature of the tall tale story. But while that scene is in the movie - it is not the movie nor its story. It is worth a watch. Wil Wheaton (Wesley Crusher from Star Trek TNG) River Phoenix (incredibly talented actor, succumbed to drugs and Hollywood) Corey Feldman (Character actor) Jerry O'Connell (Fat kid in the movie - ended up married to supermodel Rebecca Romijn) Keifer Sutherland (Lost Boys, Young Guns, 24)

I have always enjoyed shared interests creating a sense of community. I do not currently own a jeep - sold my Wrangler when I moved out of Michigan. But I always liked the "Jeep Wave" (and the ducks are just an extension of that). Corvettes get a peace sign out the window or at minimum off the steering wheel thru the windshield. I always throw an inverted V at motorcycles - even sometimes when I'm in the car. All of this is just a nice way to say, "This toy that YOU think is cool. Well, I agree - I think it's cool as well." And some will go overboard and some may not participate at all - but as long as we don't step on anyone else's joy; it's a big tent.

They say the hardest singular thing in sports is to hit a fastball in professional baseball They say the hardest position in sports is playing Quarterback at the NFL level. I say Biathlon may quite possibly be the hardest "sport" as a whole, when everything is considered. Completely disparate skill sets between skiing and shooting. Heart rate fluctuating between 150 bpm racing and then trying to control it enough to fire between beats. I figure I can barely walk; much less ski and then golf ball sized targets? I whine when the targets are smaller than 16x16 at 12 yards.

Also just to be pedantic - the OP is slightly unclear whether they are referring to a numerical qty. of firearms made or the variety of firearms made. The answer is still Uberti.

I admit to missing the revolver qualifier (read it from the thread title as main match legal firearms) - but even then, revolvers were not limited to handguns; I would contend that Uberti has made many times the number of "revolving" carbines (long guns) than were ever produced by the original manufacturers as well.

It is a simple question. The answer is Uberti. They have made pistols (from multiple makers {Colt, Smith & Wesson, Remington, cartridge and cap}) and then topped those off with rifles (from multiple makers) in great numbers.

I have played this game for many years - I'm pretty sure my club was NOT an exception. And I am sorry, if your clubs have not been as welcoming - that has always been a point of pride for me within our game. Regardless - you cannot bring your Mazda to the Porsche track day. It diminishes the experience for the ones who have paid for being there. A certain level of commitment and investment is required to play. I don't want to advertise, "Bring whatever you have and we will accommodate you". "If" a shooter is not comfortable borrowing guns or playing within the equipment rules; perhaps this is not the game for them. I could, RIGHT NOW with brand new guns, equip a shooter with TWO 357 pistols, 357 lever action rifle and 12ga. side by side for $2000. That took me 2 minutes on Palmetto - give me 15 minutes on Gunbroker and accept used guns? I could knock off another $300. How low does the price of entry have to be to accept that if someone truly wanted to play our game - they would? And I am willing to go even further. If you wanted to lobby for a recognized adult 22 caliber category (scored apart from center-fire) - I would support that. Now price of entry could be less than $800 with 4 brand new guns. Allowing them to play the same game, same scenarios, same staging - until they decide to move to centerfire. That's a compromise that doesn't dilute the game and solves cost. If $800 is too high - they don't need to play a gun game.

And what components are you willing to compromise, dilute or eliminate to lower that cost of entry? And upon those compromises, dilutions or eliminations - at what point does it cease being what we recognize as Cowboy? And at what point do the folks that have supported the vision, paid for the equipment and played the game as written feel they are being insulted and diminished? Hyperbole example: The nice folks at Chevrolet have heard that more people want to own Corvettes. And some product planner will say, "Folks want to own a Corvette; but the price is too high - maybe we should lower the price of entry? Make the Corvette more accessible to more people." And the boardroom will clap - what a great idea. How do we do that? First thing is, V8's are expensive - we can make that optional - some will be V6 or 4 cylinder. And these high performance tires; the 4 cylinder won't need those. Hey, maybe we could do away with this over engineered mid engine design too? We can use one of our existing front wheel drive chassis - slap some Corvette emblems and crossed flags on it. Now we have a Corvette that everyone can afford... Excepting it ain't a Corvette any longer. The folks that claimed that price was a barrier didn't buy the cheap one - because they weren't serious; just looking for an excuse to not participate. And the folks that loved the old product are insulted by this decimated shadow and don't want anything to do with the neutered new version. I cannot speak for every club - but ANYONE that showed up at my clubs expressing true interest was quickly equipped and brought into the game. They were loaned guns and leather (not for one stage - but for months) until they could gather their gear. Cowboys sold them guns at a loss because, "I got extras; these are just back ups to back ups. My only condition is, when you find something different - you offer them back to me first."

Suggestion - turn the situation around. Create a tangible tracking that shows how much the shooters bring into the town. Ask your shooters to save ALL their receipts for purchases, meals, hotel stays, gasoline, visits to Boot Hill, admission to the rear of the Bird Cage, zip lines, Stagecoach rides etc. Make copies - submit these to the Chamber of Commerce. Demonstrate the economic value of your matches to the town. Ask the current pro SASS retailers to track who's buying in their shoppes and the impact. Present that information to the Chamber of Commerce. Remind them every shooter that is not actively being welcomed and recruited to Tombstone is still spending money; but it's going to Sierra Vista and Bisbee. When Painted Lady and I make it down there... Three to four nights at the Tombstone Grand $350.00 or Katie's Cozy Cabins $500. Gasoline purchased in town $75 Snacks, candies, sodas from the gas station $30 (probably more, spread over four days - don't judge 😋) Breakfast/ Dinner for two $80 (or more) daily. Admission to OK Corral, buy a shirt, a "I'm your huckleberry" refrigerator magnet, maybe a bracelet, a hatband, a book and a leather key chain. Another couple hundred $. Call it $1000 for two of us over four days. Meaning we have a daily impact of $125 each, daily. Now I'm cheap - we don't drink, we don't spend a lot on souvenirs and tourist trap admissions - so we are on the low side. I'm betting the average is more like $250 each - daily. The impact of an event like Bordertown with 300 shooters? 300 x $250 x Four days. $300,000. Even if you discard 1/3 of the shooters because they aren't staying in Tombstone or are going home and not eating there, etc. It is still nearly a quarter million dollars being dumped into the local economy. That ought to be worth some consideration.

Cost is a red herring. CAS has always had a more expensive entry than the majority of shooting sports. And Cowboy has always been an older persons game. We have never "grown" because of youth entering the game. Our demographic of 40+ was/ is the largest group in the United States. If it were simply about cost as a barrier - the affluent age 40+ folks in our game that quit or die off would be replaced by the next 40+ affluent group aging IN to our game. But the folks that have the means to play our game are playing others, not because of cost, but because they are not interested in the product. Not a slam on the product - but changing aspirations. As an adult - you buy the things/ experiences that you desired as a child. The children of the 40's, 50's, 60's - were enamored by westerns. They dreamed about a cold blue steel Colt 45 revolver and lever action Winchester. They aspired to be the cowboys they saw at the matinee and on TV. Those "kids" are dying off. The 70's, 80's kid watched Star Wars. Played D&D, read The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings. This demo has aged into our desired demographic and has the money and time for cowboy - they simply don't want to be cowboys. So they buy $7000 2011's and play different games. The 90's, 00's kids don't know or care who John Wayne was and have never heard of Randolph Scott. They played HALO and Call of Duty. As they can afford it; they buy in real life the firearms they played with on their XBox; buying the Aug and MP5, the Beretta M9 and Benelli 12ga. And when they have enough time and affluence; they will seek out the games that use these toys. Culturally, unless you somehow make being a cowboy cool again - no lowering of the bar for equipment entry or target distance changes are going to bring it back to where it once was.

The conventional wisdom says most shootouts are at less than three yards - with less than three shots fired. Assuming you never miss AND your assailant(s) is/ are nice enough to go down quickly - being limited to five rounds may be fine But the issue with "most" shootouts is that it is not "all" - meaning there are "some" that required more ammo or happened further away. I would hate to be in the "some" group if I am only prepared for "most". Never heard of anyone who has ever been in an armed conflict; wishing they had carried less ammo. Desert Scorpion carries a 15 round Smith & Wesson 9mm Equalizer. Painted Lady carries a 15 round Sig 365 9mm Creeker carries an 11 round pistol with two extra magazines. Tisas Stingray Bobtail 4" 1911 9mm

Lawfare? No. Put out of business because they were absolute garbage firearms. No redeeming factor whatsoever and no loss to the firearms community. You've heard people make fun of Hi-Point designs and Kel Tec quality control? I would take a Hi-Pont, a Kel Tec, a sharp stick or a strongly worded letter over a Sccy. Good riddance.

A version of the same was used as the hall way stage at Eldorado for years as well.

As I said above - if the shooting is justified, it doesn't matter where you shoot them or with what. If the shooting is not justified - the same applies. But when a courtroom is part of the equation - decisions are not as simplistic as THIS SPECIFIC DETAIL caused the jury to decide THAT SPECIFIC OUTCOME. No, there has never (to the best of my knowledge) been a self defense case where the decision was DOCUMENTED as having turned on the use of handloads. But I am also not aware of any documented decision where a case turned because of the defendants acne or greasy hair. Or a documented decision made where the case turned because the defendant was a pretty girl with a nice body (But we both know it has happened. And likely many, many, many times for both). If you find yourself in front of a jury - you don't need ANY item that may be perceived (or can be twisted) negatively. Whether that item individually sways a decision or not - that negative can be a tiny factor in the preponderance of things being evaluated. In a gunfight; your handloads are, at best, a wash against factory self defense ammo. In a courtroom; they may be a liability. There is no logical reason to willingly assign yourself a negative - no matter how slight or likely meaningless.

As an instructor - let me expound on the modified firearm, ammo, accessories theory. There are three components to surviving an armed conflict. Avoidance - it is easiest to survive a gunfight if you are never in a gunfight. Competency - if you find yourself in a gunfight; be the best prepared you can be with equipment (firearm, ammo, gear). Legally - the conflict is not over when the armed threat is over; you still have to survive any consequences of your choices. Avoidance is self explanatory. Competency means that any choices you make "should" be based around having the best equipment and hopefully are defensible as such. There was a time when Hollow Points were thought to be "excessive" - but they are defensible as better stopping, less likely to over penetrate and supported by their use by law enforcement. Red dots, better triggers, etc. are all defensible as providing better accuracy or control. Factory self defense ammo is used by law enforcement - I actually recommend using the same brand, weight and loading as your local PD as it eliminated that choice being called into question. But, don't get super hung up on the modifications, ammo or equipment; the most important thing to remember is a legally justified shoot is justified - no matter where you shoot them or with what. An non justified shoot is not justified - no matter where you shoot them or with what. Now the part where I contradict the above. Surviving the legal system. Now it is not about what you did, how you did it or what you used. It is how those decisions are presented by a prosecutor and perceived by a jury. A jury of your peers made up of folks who either WANTED to be on a jury or were too stupid to get out of jury duty. You may be called upon to defend your equipment choices (to non firearms people); but the ability to state that your choices were based upon current training, trends and are in line with current law enforcement standards covers a lot of ground. Making your choices a non issue because to criticize those choices criticizes the same choices made by law enforcement. Remember, it is now about their perception of appropriate - not reality. We want to avoid firearms choices, modifications/ additions that sway a jury opinion (or simply make them look at you differently). Punisher logos, Kill them all - Let God sort them out, political commentary. Any equipment that appears you are "playing" make believe rather taking the idea of self defense seriously; a magazine of green zombie killer rounds or yes, your "cowboy" gun falls into this category. Handloads are another item - law enforcement uses specific "self defense" ammunition. This ammo is built in factories, tested and labelled as such - I can defend my choice of ammo by holding up the law enforcement choice to carry same. Handloads (to the uninformed) make me look like a nut in my garage brewing a witches cauldron. Whether it works or not - providing opportunities to the prosecutor to make you look like an outlier or weirdo is detrimental to you surviving the courtroom. Make the best choice for all three facets of survival. Your single action, limited capacity, difficult to conceal, slow to reload cowboy revolver is perhaps questionable in the 2nd facet and is detrimental in the 3rd. As the great Matthew Quigley once said, "This ain't Dodge City and you ain't Bill Hickok"

A bundle of "junk" such as a just married collection weighs significantly less than a trailer (and bikes pull trailers all the time) - I don't see how it would be an issue. The items cannot generally move faster than the bike pulling them; so having them getting tangled in a wheel is unlikely. Not a huge deal.

CCW is about a singular idea. Protecting yourself or your loved ones from harm. Using anything but the absolute best tool for that purpose is a mistake. A single action revolver is not that tool.

First - Let me say how much I love seeing these questions being asked. Writing stages, whether its regarding staging, sequences, movements etc. that eliminate or at least minimize ambiguity, and inconsistent calls should be the goal of EVERY stage writer/ match director. For downrange movement on a flat surface - I have always been a fan of the "Angled table" or the "Railed" table. An angled table is simply a "normal" table set at a 45 -70 degree angle from the firing line. Using tape; you mark the table into 2' foot sections. Firearms must be RESTAGED (safe for downrange movement/ aimed into the side berm) within these 2' sections with no part of the firearm touching the tape. The other method is your "normal" table set LENGTHWISE to the firing line at a 45 - 70 degree angle. This table has "Rails" (any simple lightweight trim/ board that extends above the table) attached to the lengthwise edges and the firearm must be placed flat upon the table between rails. I have attached an example of using both styles in stage form (same stage - different tables).

I'm a gunfighter - be amazed how coordinated I can be.

I don't know your wife; but she now has my undying love and adoration. 😍

People still watch baseball? Why? 🤔

You can ALWAYS pick your own order - you just have to be willing to accept the 10 second penalty that is assessed for doing so. By shooting it out of order - he is being penalized 10 seconds. The issue arises by folks attempting to penalize him 15 seconds for shooting it out of order. (10 seconds for the procedural AND then another 5 seconds by not awarding the pistol bonus). These two items (the SEQUENCE instructions AND the target SCORING instructions) are two separate instructions and one has zero to do with the other.

Cowboy is a niche game. It was created by and has remained inhabited by a certain demographic; a demographic raised up on and inspired by Cowboy ethos and mythology. The pillars of their childhood memories. As this group has aged - the game evolved to allow those shooters to continue. The "youth" wants to play gun games that closer reflect the video games they grew up on (their childhood memories) - meaning Glocks, AR's, etc. They (for the majority) would not be interested in cowboy regardless of the challenge presented or promotion thereof. So anyone can claim some wholesale change of philosophy will bring back shooters - but SASS clubs that fail to recognize who actually pay the bills will die off even quicker than we are currently. As for "favor the elderly" - find me a SINGLE component of our game that "favors" the elderly over a younger, faster shooter with better reflexes. Sounds more like someone who wants challenges implemented or activities included that "favor" the young.

Or to make the argument really simple... Why would you want to penalize the shooter twice for a single error? He is receiving a 15 second penalty for his infraction. 10 seconds for shooting targets out of order. We all agree on this one. And then by failing to be awarded the bonus for a target he hit - whether you call it bonus or penalty; his score is off by 5 seconds to everyone else who accomplished the same feat. I cannot find a justification for it.

I read that as TWO instructions. Firstly a sequence instruction. Which the shooter did NOT follow - earning him a Procedural penalty. Then a scoring instruction. Which the shooter did follow - earning him a 5 second bonus. If we are to combine the sequence instruction with the shooting instructions; meaning the last target MUST be hit with the 10th round to be scored as a "hit". Then how would you score the stage "If" the shooter had placed their 9th round on the 4th target; the one at "pistol distance"? Would that "hit" be scored in a different manner - ignored, thrown out - because it was hit with the 9th round - not the 10th? The stage writer established the sequence. The stage writer assigned a bonus to a given target. Two separate instructions. The shooter violated the sequence. That's a "P". The shooter hit an appropriate type target from an appropriate type firearm. That's a hit. And in this case - that hit "on the distant target" earns the bonus. An easy fix for NEXT time is either: "If struck; the distant target will be scored as a hit; but it will only count as a bonus IF struck with your 10th round" or option 2 (imo; this is better - takes out the procedural possibility for a miss on the closer plates) "The 4th target (either pistol distance or more distant) does NOT exist as an firearm appropriate type target until AFTER the 9th round is discharged. Any strikes upon the 4th plate (pistol distance or more distant) at any other point in the shooting string will be scored as misses.