H. K. Uriah, SASS #74619

I've read that, and there is some truth to it. While I have not tried them in every .45 I own, so far, the following has been observed... Early 3rd Generation SAA: Works. 2nd Generation Commemorative SAA: Works Colt Buntline Commemorative: Works. Uberti Schofield: Works (Naturally) 1860 Pietta cartridge converted: Works, but a tight fit. Rogers and Spencer replica, converted: Works, but a tight fit. Generic Uberti clone: Works. General Patton Uberti replica: Does not fit. Colt 1909: Works. I've got many more .45's, 2nds, 3rds, Uberties, a Remington 75 reproduction, conversions of various C&B models, and a 1902 Alaskan that I have not tried them in. Based on the above, I think it's fair to say that a Colt revolver, regardless of model, will work. Clones by Uberti may or may not work, and the various conversions, well, obviously at least 2 of them will. I am hesitant to say what will happen on anything else though, cuz you never know till you try. I'm kinda bummed to learn that the only one, (so far) that does not work is the Patton revolver. I was thinking about pairing it with a Schofield at an upcoming shoot, just for fun. Oh well.

Hmm... I do use the same 200 grain bullet in the Schofield as I use in .45 Colt. Maybe that has something to do with it working okay in my rifles?

A few weeks ago, I mentioned how I had used .45 Schofields at a match, and shot it clean. My pistols were an 3rd Model S&W Schofield, in that caliber, and an Uberti replica and my trusty AWA Lightning in .45 Colt. Everything worked just fine. Testing also shows that in addition to the Lightning, .45 Schofield will run just fine in an Armi San Marco 92, and an Uberti 66. Which I assume, by extension, means it will also work in a 73 or a Henry. It will NOT work in an Uberti Burgess. Now, I do not shoot Cowboy .45 Special, but I know it is very popular with some folks. I have also read that it it can be made to work in the toggle link rifles with the use of a modified carrier to prevent the shorter shell from double feeding. I have never read about anyone trying it in a 92. Will it work? For that matter, there are a few other rifles in our game chambered for .45 Colt. (Marlins and Henry Repeating Arms come to mind.) Will the short rounds work in any of them, with or without modification? They will of course work in any revolver chambered for the Colt round. I find it curious, given the success or C45S, that the Schofield round did not fill that "niche" for a shorter and therefore less powder and less powerful round long before the CS came along to do it. It remains a puzzlement to me. Could it be that C45S was able to do as well as it did because at the time, the Schofield round was more of a historical footnote chambered for only one antique gun, and thus not really all that well used in the game? I know I only became interested in it once I picked up one of the replica S&W's that they chambered in the round, and was surprised to see how useful it could be. And to folks who are familiar with both rounds, how do you find they compare to each other? Just wondering about stuff, I guess.

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.

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.

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.

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.

https://www.ruhterauction.com/listings/auctions/1551-stan-streff-firearm-collection-online-auction

Too bad. I'd love a 30" full choke version.

And that, I do think is great. There is a market for it. I hope it does well for you.

I while back, information was posted here on the Wire how Pedersoli was gonna be marketing a version of the Lightning in .44 Magnum. At the time I was intrigued, but given how the pictures released at the time showed how it had been modernized and didn't really look like the classic Colt anymore, I was reluctant to be interested. But, a few minutes ago, I was thinking, well, I'll I'd have have to do is replace the wood with more traditional looking stuff. Shouldn't be to hard. So on a whim, I went to the Pedersoli website to take a look at it again. https://www.davidepedersoli.com/en/product/jackal44-44-rem-magnum-pump-action Needless to say, when I saw this, was very unhappy with what I saw, and decided as soon as I saw the pics that I was no longer interested. Now, in all fairness, they do say that their targeted market is hunters, and that's fine. And in fact, some of these feature that turned me off probably do make it a better hunting gun, even if they do make it a gun that is not for me. Here are the features I don't like; The stocks. While I do like the pistol grip shape, the buttpad and fore stock just look wrong to me. I thought they might be easy to swap out for something more traditional, but everything else just makes it untenable. The Magazine. It's short. It should go out to the muzzle. The Muzzle: It's threaded. The sights: Well, I suppose they could be swapped for more traditional looking ones. The tang safety: UGH and ICK! No price is listed on Pedersoli's page, but I did find some folks asking for $2100 and change for them. For that much money, I don't want to have to put in even more for purely cosmetic alterations. And for that money, it better run well right out of the box. I don't own a Pedersoli in my Lightning collection, and they do have a rep for being good right out of the box, so I'll assume it's okay. All in all, a good idea, the Lightning in .44 Mangum, turned into something that probably most Lightning users in the SASS world would not like, has been turned into a bad idea. (I can hear Tom Bodett explaining it. If you know, you know) For that matter, is marketing it to hunters really a good idea at all? The Lightning is very much a niche gun within the CAS world, and outside of it, I wonder how many people have even heard of it. I wish Pedersoli well with this, and I hope it does well for them. but I have my doubts. I and I have a feeling that they will not market a more traditional looking version for the CAS crowd. Oh well.

What kind of a choke?

Those events were in 1775 actually. Too bad you didn't swing by Bedford and the Public Library to see the actual flag that was carried into battle by our Minutemen and was "to April's breeze unfurled." But, Lexington and Concord (pronounced "conquered" not "Concorde) are great places to visit.