H. K. Uriah, SASS #74619

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.

Prisons go back at least to ancient Egypt. Joseph was held in prison for more than a few years when he was there. That was around 1850 BC, give or take a decade or two.

Actually, Lassiter is making me one in .44 Special. (Which is what I wanted.) I asked him about the Magnum cartridge, mostly for speculative reasons, and he felt the Lightning action could not handle the pressures. I only truly became interested when I saw Pedersoli was making one.

If, and this is a big if, I obtain one of those Pedersoli .44 Magnums, the following changes will be made to it by me. 1. Barrel threads will be cut off. 2. Sights will be replaced with conventional blade front and rear buckhorn. 3. Magazine tube will be extended to length of the barrel. 4. Tang safety will be "filled in" like the tang safety on the Japanese Winchesters. 5 Receiver will be refinished to be blued, or maybe case hardened. 6. Can't really do anything about the buttstock, but if I can, I'll replace the buttpad with some sort of a buttplate. 7. Front grip will be replaced with a conventional one. That's a lot of customization to do to a new gun, but well, I'd really like to have a Lightning in .44 Magnum. But that's also why I call this a big IF. I'll have to save up a lot of spare change to do all of this. Maybe by the time I do, Pedersoli will be marketing a more conventionally configured one. Time will tell. Oh yeah, once I make all the changes, I'll take a photo of the gun and send it to Pedersoli, suggesting that they make one in that configuration. Well, maybe not.

I don't believe such a website exists. There are also many gaps in the records at Cody as well. For example, they have no record for my 39A. Their records for those are limited to much later production ones. Why there are so many gaps in the Marlin record, I do not know.

Except for number 1 and that last gun made of a particular model, all guns have 2 consecutive numbers to their own. FINDING at random a consecutive pair would be remarkably rare. Ordering a consecutive pair is a clever gimmick by the gun makers to squeeze a few extra bucks out of the purchase price that is really not justified. About the only way I think consecutive numbers truly matter is if you bought a pair of highly customized ones and asked to have consecutive numbers for "reasons." For example, if I bought a pair of custom Colts that were identical in every way in their customizations, except that one was blued and the other nickeled, (Or lets go crazy, one is gold and the other is silver) having consecutive number would be "neat."

Okay, you want piccies? Here's some piccies! This is what it looks like on the right hand side, as I got it. And here's the left hand side. And a close up of the scope... I find it curious that whoever put the scope on, side mounted it like you would do to a top eject Winchester. Now, I know that one of the "selling points" of the Marlin and its side eject is that it is easier to mount a scope on them.. That's fine. But, silly me, I don't think lever guns should have scopes on them. So... The scope is gone. I think it looks better. I have already checked and have replacement sights on order from Numrich. Buckhorn rear, and a more traditional blade front. I've never been a fan of these ramp sights on lever guns. And from the left. It just looks better this way. Close up of the reciever... In my opinion, they gummed it up good to put the scope on, but let that go. I guess I'll have to find some flush mounted screws to stick in those holes. But still, overall, I think I'be got a fine rifle. That chunk missing from the stock gives it some character, and overall, in spite of some flaws, I think the finish is still pretty good. I think I've done well.

Oh, that would be nice. Especially if they can do .45-70. The .45-85-285 used the same case, but the rifling was designed for lighter faster bullets. And, a 405 grain bullet makes the cartridge just a smidge too long to fit though the loading gate. Switching to 300 grainers will let it fit, and the bullet is light enough to go fast enough to be very accurate.