H. K. Uriah, SASS #74619

When I was in elementary school, I carried a folding pocket knife, as did just about everybody. We used to compare them to see who had the one with the most blades or other things in them. It was just something we did. By the time I was in Jr. High, (not Middle School!) I had stopped doing so as I didn't really see the need anymore. But a lotta guys still did. In High School, some of the guys had "graduated" from a pocket knife to a Leatherman type multi tool. It was normal. Today, if a kid was caught carrying a pocket knife, he'd probably get arrested.

The 93/97 is really just a 97 made to look like a 93 by giving it the larger ejection port of the earlier model. So, their 97 parts should fit. I remember having a conversation with Coyote Cap a long time ago about barrel threads, and he said that some of them were metric and some were normal, which could lead to headaches on a barrel swap, but everything else is the same. (This is to the best of my recollection.) Good luck.

What flavor is it? It's Moxie flavored. It is unique. One of the main ingredients is gentian extract. Compared to most modern soda pops, it's a little bitter. The closest thing I can compare it too is when someone handed me a cup of coffee, I thought it tasted, kinda, like warm, flat Moxie. My father thought it tasted like rancid root beer. I actually like it, but its flavor truly defies description. That's why they say it's distinctly different. Been around since 1884. Only Hire's Root Beer and Vernors Ginger Ale are older.

Another option to consider. At something like EoT, there is a side match. One stage of of 10-10-4. Ten .22 Pistol, Ten .22 Rifle, 4 shotgun. It's a side match. No one has to do it, and it doesn't take anything away from anyone who does or does not do it.

An interesting twist to the founding documents is the Articles of Confederation. Why? Well, consider the following... Article VI, paragraph 1 of the Constitution says... All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation. Now, that's pretty straightforward. In a nutshell, it says that anything the United States bound itself too under the Confederation, is still bound to it under the Constitution. Now this is where it get's interesting. The opening paragraph of the Articles, the preamble, I guess, reads... To all to whom these Presents shall come, we, the undersigned Delegates of the States affixed to our Names send greeting. Whereas the Delegates of the United States of America in Congress assembled did on the fifteenth day of November in the year of our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy seven, and in the Second Year of the Independence of America agree to certain articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the States of Newhampshire, Massachusetts-bay, Rhodeisland and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia in the Words following, viz. “Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the States of Newhampshire, Massachusetts-bay, Rhodeisland and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia. The key words for this post are "perpetual Union." The union was created under the Confederation. The Constitution made it better. "More perfect." But more than that, the union created was a perpetual one. That is to say, a Union that would last forever, that it was incapable of being broken. This is what the States agreed to. So, this agreement to perpetual Union was carried over to the government formed under the Constitution. In other words, the Union can not be dissolved. Nor can any state leave the Union. Take it for what it's worth. And I am not the first person to raise the idea that all of this is so and that the "perpetual Union" phrase in the Confederation is binding on the Constitution, consider the words of a fellow named Abraham Lincoln in his first inaugural address... Descending from these general principles, we find the proposition that in legal contemplation the Union is perpetual confirmed by the history of the Union itself. The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured, and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was "to form a more perfect Union." Makes you think, does it not?

How have they been altered?

If you know, you know.

Some specific objections to a .22 match have been raised that I shall now comment on. To wit... >A full size rimfire revolver costs the same as a center fire revolver. Well, that's true, to an extent. But, for this game, let's face it, we spend a lot of money anyway. But that being said... Both are Colts. I got the top one for $400 at a time when a .45 would have gone for about $800 The bottom I got for $700 at a time when a .45 was going for about $1200. Granted, I got both of them used, but well, I got 'em. >Never seen a rimfire 66 or 73. Hmmm... Well... The middle rifle is an Uberti 66 in .22. It is very similar to the reproduction 73 .22 that Uberti also made that is a replica of the 73 .22 made by Winchester. But that's not your only option. The top gun is a small frame Colt Lightning .22 and the bottom is a Winchester 9422. To say nothing of the plethora of pump action .22's made by Winchester and others, both originals and replicas. >What's the point ? The point? It's fun! I've never shot a ".22 match" but I'd jump at the chance to do one, just for something different. Now, I do not think a general .22 category is a good idea. But, if once a year a club wants to do a .22 match where it's an option, I don't see the harm. Prolly have to write every stage where the shotgun is last, and still require 20 gauge or larger, just to make sure the timer can hear something.

Hey! I don't go looking for trouble, it finds me! Oh wait... That's Harry Potter.

The more I think I about this, the more I find a different concept far more interesting; identical serial numbers. I quick look at, for example, Colt's website, I input my date of birth in the serial number lookup, and 10 different guns came up. And that's just for the Colt guns. I am sure there are several guns made by S&W, Winchester, and who knows who else with that same serial number. Now, I don't have a single gun with that serial number. But, I do have a lot of guns made by a lot of different makers, None of them have the same serial number, and the odds of finding a gun, at random, with the same number as something I already own are slim at best. But it sure would be cool, wouldn't it?

So I wasn't the only one with trouble.

What does the SB in SB Hammers stand for? Are these vintage single sixes that never had transfer bars, or have they been removed? If the former, I'm no so sure I'd wanna change the hammers. If the latter, to be honest, it seems that it's more trouble than it's worth. But I could be wrong.

If it's also super humid as well as hot, then the following line can work... Thirsty? Take a deep breath!

She was the fastest deal in town.

Well, the Handbook says, "pocket watch with full length chain." It does not say how it is to be worn, or where. I don't see why it would be a problem, according to a literal reading of the rules. Perhaps we can ask for a ruling?

That small pocket in your pocket in a pair of jeans is actually a watch pocket. That's what it was made for. I just clip the chain to the flap of the full size pocket. Many other types of pants also have the watch pocket. No reason not to keep it in there, that's what it's for. Well, fishing it out when wearing a gunbelt might be difficult...

Criticism? What's that? Not typical? Well, I suppose not, depending on how you define typical, but I am fairly sure I know what you mean by the term, and I will agree with you. And, let me correct one thing. The more I think about it, the method I mentioned for 97s and 87s should be 100% optional. Those who wanna do it, can, those who don't, don't have too. Mostly for the very sensible reasons already stated. I was too general, and not specific enough in my comments. As far as ejectors go, well, obviously it's a lot of more complicated than I understand it to be, and that's fair. Never think that I don't know I'm something of an oddity. I feel there is never any harm in mentioning potential variations, even if I know that it is unlikely they will never be tried. I'm just trying to have fun. And, for what it's worth, maybe someday I'll have an idea that's actually a good one that people wanna try. (I tend to doubt it, but you never know. ) The only thing typical about the way I shoot is a desire to have fun. And fun is different for everyone. Tell you what, Bill, I promise that if ever we get a chance to shoot together, I will show up like this (but in a more proper costume of course) and even though I won't be able to shoot them in the match, we'll find an empty bay and I'll let you put a few shots in the dirt. I think that'll be enjoyable.

Very nice! I find the Martini action to be most fascinating. Lotsa interesting gun were built on it. In addition to my shotgun, I've got a carbine in .303 British. I'd like to get a .22 and one of those cadet rifles, preferably one converted to .32-20 to keep things simple. The most interesting things I ever saw on this action was a pair of "Dueling Pistols" chambered in .455 Webley. There was nothing fancy about them, but they were nice looking guns. The price for the pair was very reasonable. However, the seller could not say for sure if they were built as pistol, or had been converted from rifles, so I passed on them, not wanting to go down that road. Too bad, cuz I thought they were pretty cool. Never seen anything else like them, ever. Oh how I wish the Short Act would be enacted!

This, depending on where you live, is a very real thing. Along a similar line, there is a company in Pennsylvania, Sarco Arms, who as a matter of their own policy, will not ship anything C&R to a C&R holder in Massachusetts. When I inquired about that, asserting that there was no law that did not allow them to do so, they replied with words to the effect that they knew that, but didn't care. They felt it was too problematic to do business with folks from Massachusetts. They won't even sell to someone from Mass with a C&R who is present in their store. I don't even bother with their website anymore.

Well, I still think 97s should be staged hammer down on an empty chamber, magazine loaded on the clock, and run away with. 87s should start open and empty, be loaded and taken to town. But it'll never happen.

Heh heh. Fair enough. Thanks for clarifying the rifle rules. I used to watch Roy on a color set, but the movies were still in black and white.

See, that's exactly why I don't get it. Our game is full of things that give one gun an advantage, or a disadvantage, over another one. Single Shots, 97s 87s all have auto ejectors, (so to speak) but doubles can't, even though they were a real thing. (Okay, that's a bad point, there are plenty of things that existed back in the day that are not allowed.) The argument that something gives an advantage just seems like a weak one to me. I'm actually more inclined to accept a "because that's the rule" reason. We've got plenty of those. I mean, does not using a S&W have a real advantage over a Colt if there is a pistol reload? Especially a full one? Some rifles are easier to do a single round reload than others. Etc. Heck, even in single shot rifles where ejectors are not allowed, Trapdoor Springfields can have them cuz that's how they were made. That is an in game precedent, sort of. I am not disagreeing with you Ed, just saying that I don't "get it." But I am weird.

Personally, I don't know why ejectors are not allowed on doubles. There is no logical reason that they are that I can fathom. This is a rule that should changed. Now, my Parkers, and Fox Sterlingworth don't have them, but I do have an Ithaca 16 gauge that does. Oh well. But seriously, why is this rule a rule? I know it's not gonna change, and that's fine, I am just intrigued to know why.

Yes, it was offset. The dovetail for the rear sight is there, but the sights themselves are gone. I've never really been a "scope guy." Nothing against them, per se, I just don't enjoy using them. To this day, I have only 2 scoped rifles, a 1903A4 and an M1D. When I first got my C&R, there were a lot of surplus Mauser and Nagant snipers on the market for reasonable prices, so I was considering collecting sniper rifles, but I had to start with the US models, by the time I'd gotten them and saved up for more, they were either all gone, or the prices had gone through the roof. Oh well, I'm not really a scope guy. Historically, if I obtained a rifle, like a .22 or an M1 Carbine, with scope on it, I would generally take them off, and give the scope to my brother who loved 'em.

I have seen far to many people get confused between USPS and UPS, getting them mixed up. We shouldn't, but it happens. It happens because the string of initials is very similar, and at a glace, I can understand how people can mix them up. Therefore, with my tongue firmly in my cheek, I propose the following convention as to how to refer the organizations used to ship guns. The Post Office. UPS FedEx. I don't think those terms can be mixed up. Take it with a grain of salt.