H. K. Uriah, SASS #74619
-
Posts
7,601 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by H. K. Uriah, SASS #74619
-
-
16 hours ago, Blackwater 53393 said:
Some people even plainly SAY the word of when telling what they “could have” said or done! When you think about it, it even SOUNDS…. kind of stupid!
Well, you hit the nail on the head earlier in your post. When I "say" what some people incorrectly hear as "should of" I am actually saying "should've."
Got into an argument with my first grade teacher over this very point. She didn't like me.-
1
-
-
16 hours ago, Blackwater 53393 said:
I believe that the word “quite” that you’re looking at was intended to be QUIET.Ah, that would make a modicum logical sense.
-
1
-
-
Yeah, the guy who invented them, called them silencers.
The patent calls them silencers.
The LAW that regulates them, calls them silencers.
Suppressor is a word made up after the fact that has no "legal" meaning with regards to the devices.
" 120-130dBA at 1 meter isn't quite."
Isn't quite what? I assume you mean a VU meter? These are used to measure volume, as in sound, but I are confuzzled.-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, Phantom, SASS #54973 said:
Yes...a generic definition.
However, I ask what "YOU MEANT" when you said " I have seen some really great shooters...".
So...what did you mean?
Phantom
I have seen some Lighting shooters handle the rifle very fast. Some on video, some live standing right on the line as I watch. It's always fun to watch. I've probably seen about a dozen or so over the years. It's a good gun, but you either love it or hate it. Those who love it do well, those who hate it, use a lever gun and do well with that. I understand it's more popular in Ohio, which makes sense as that is where Lassiter is from. Around here in New England, I don't see very many of them. I am one of the few that uses one on a regular basis. I get told that I run it well, whatever that means.
That's all there is to it. You can take what I say literally. At times I do admit to being "generic" in my descriptions, as I don't want to get the details wrong, but am always happy to clarify if specifically asked for specifics.
That last sentence brought to you by the department of redundancy department.
-
2 hours ago, Kid Rich said:
More than one.
Yeah, that would be a good definition of "Some." Other possible ways to put it would be "a few."
Heck, when shooting at a large dump target, I can do 10 rounds in about 3.something seconds. But that's highly unusual! -
Diagonal cutting pliers. Amazingly enough, I have never written the word. That said, since I think of the things that hold back the ocean as a dike, I'd call the cutters a dyke. I understand that's unPC now.
Microphone is a mic.
Micrometer, is also a mic.
Making your engine run faster is surprisingly souped. I base this on the fact that souped comes back okay, but suped has a red wavy line under it.
The diminutive of Honey is Hon.
How do you spell it? I T
I watched ZOOM as a kid. -
1 hour ago, Assassin said:
If one can run a Lightnin' as quick as a lever doubt there would be any complaints.
I am faster with a Lighting than I am with any levergun. BUT, I am not a top tier shooter. That being said, I have seen some really great shooters who run run off 10 rounds from a Lightning in less than 3 seconds.
General speaking, the speed rifle matches are done with main match rifles, and the the Lightning is legal for that.
Of course, unless you've got a dump target, in the hands of an expert, I'd say the best lever shooter and the best Lightning shooters would be on par with each other. -
Time to invest in some 10 Gauge All Brass hulls and reloading equipment form RMC. Expensive as all get out to do that, but well worth it for such a fine gun. That in fact, is my plan. If I ever get a 1901, I'll just factor in the cost of the reloading stuff.
-
While I can't comment specifically on their 94, I can say that I have a good feeling about the Cimarron. Basically because it's made by Chiappa, and the Chiappa 87 and 92 are excellent guns that seem to be good to go right out of the box, comparing favorably to an original Winchester. And that's just their functionality. They don't have a stupid safety, or angle eject. They are like the gun as designed by JM Browning. (If only Winchester/Browning would make 'em that way!) Now, I have a pre-64 94 in .32 Winchester Special, and a pre-83 in .30-30. Both are good guns, the pre-64 being better, but the pre-83 not as bad as some people like to make it out to be. (I wouldn't touch a post 83 with a ten foot pole) If the Chiappa/Cimarrons are at least as good as a pre-83 Winchester, you can't go wrong. I won't comment on the caliber, cuz I don't have anything in that chambering. But I will say this, that depending on how "long range" the long range side match is, .30-30 might not be enough. I've been to a couple of matches where the .30-30 just couldn't reach the targets. That's part of the reason why I switched to .45-70. That being said, people familiar with the .38-55 say it has good long range performance, so there's no reason not to give it a try. Finally, even .45-70 can be loaded with the right powder to a level where it will have very manageable recoil, and not lose it's long range performance.
That's all -
6 hours ago, Three Foot Johnson said:
I was going to use my Armi Sport .56-.50 Spencer in Wild Bunch one time, and found out, although the rifle is legal, there is apparently no exception for .56-.50 like in CAS. The rifle is legal when used with cartridges it was never originally chambered in, but not the original .56-.50 chambering... go figure.
https://wildbunch.sassnet.com/topic/919-56-50-legal/#comment-6766
Common sense would dictate that if the gun is legal, the ammo it shoots is legal, and it doesn't have to be specified. And there is a precedent.
Technically speaking, original ammo for the Nagant revolver would be illegal according to the rules. But the pistol is specifically specifically listed as okay. Years ago, I asked about this apparent contraction and Pale Wolf soon made a post to the effect of since the gun is legal, its ammo is legal. But to this day, no exception for the Nagant ammo is listed in the Handbook.
I would argue that if the Spencer is legal, its ammo is legal. Also, the Spencer generically fits in the "lever action rifle made between 1860 and 1899" category. and there is nothing that says it is NOT a legal rifle. So again, if the gun is legal, its ammo is legal.
At least, based on precedent. -
Moving this to here...
I have always been impressed by people who go all out in their costuming. My own tends to be more minimal, but there is one getup that I like to trot out from time to time when I am feeling particularly silly. It's a variation of my normal getup, but I think you can see the humorous touches.
I call this my "Sheriff Buntline" alternate persona . Obviously named for the guns I am using. The rather dumb looking straw hat, the backwards gunbelt, and the attempt at a confused expression all add up to... Well, something...
I guess.
And shooting these two pistols as a pair DOES cause a lot of people to do a double take and laugh. (Real Colts, .44 Special)-
8
-
-
I understand that a few years ago, Taylor's marketed a Spencer reproduction in .44 Russian. Supposed to be as rare as hen's teeth.
Anyone know anything about them? -
Is it an 1887 or a 1901? The latter is safe for smokeless. The former is black powder only
-
2
-
-
It occurs to me that a related question to this would be what is the oldest gun "design" still used in CAS? I mean I doubt if anyone is shooting a real vintage Colt Paterson, or even a Walker, but reproductions are certainly in use. For rifles, I'd guess the Henry is the oldest design. Plenty of reproductions, but I doubt anyone is shooting a real one. (Which may very well may mean that the potential oldest real gun is a centerfire Winchester 66...) Nobody makes a reproduction Volcanic rifle, or anything that may have come along before that. For a shotgun, I guess it would be a specific model hammered double, but there's more of a chance that whatever it is might actually still be in use by someone.
-
Oops
-
Mine also has the blade extractor. I use cut down .50-70 brass from Buffalo Arms that they saw is custom modified for use in original Spencers because the modern made brass is for the one that Taylor sells that uses slightly smaller rims for some reason. But, usually, the blade pulls the spent shell halfway out and then slips off the rim. I flick it out by hand and then lever in the next round. Annoying, but workable. Do .45 Scofields work in the 45 Colt ones? What is the other .44? Special or Russian?
Hmmm... I'd assume it was never chambered in a reproduction, but I wonder if .45 Auto rim would be the ideal caliber...,
-
Until they make of these "tacticool" lever guns with a bayonet lug, I'll continue to pass.
-
1 hour ago, Sedalia Dave said:
I have an original 1865 Spencer that has been shot in one match. The breech block was replaced to convert it from rimfire to center fire. I still have the original center fire breech block and magazine follower.
Plan to shoot it in a few more once I get the forearm repaired.
I take my Spencer out once, at most twice a year. It's fun to shoot, feeds properly, but doesn't seem to extract quite right. But, it's gonna be a slow as a snail anyway. I have found it's easier to load the last 3 one at time into the chamber rather than try to reload the magazine. The Spencer is fun, but I don't think I'd wanna shoot it regularly. At least not my original. If I was gonna do it regularly, I'd want to get one of the modern replica's in a more conventional (.44, .45) cartridge.
-
1
-
-
Heh heh heh....
Ask, and ye shall receive! Dates of manufacture are based upon either a factory letter, or best guess estimate from various online sources. I have limited myself to things made prior to 1898, and that are of Main Match type firearms.
Pistols....S&W New Model 3. .44-40 10-27-1897
S&W New Model 3 Target. .38-44 December 17th, 1887
Colt SAA .44-40 1884.
Merwin & Hulbert 3rd Model. .44-40. Estimated date of manufacture between 1883 and 1887.
Colt SAA. 32-20. Letters as a .44-40 1881
Remington 58, Factory Conversion to .38 Long Colt. Made in November 1864
Colt 1860. Converted at some point to .32 S&W. 1863
Rifles...
Colt Lightning .32-20 1897
Colt Lightning .44-40 Costa Rican Army Surplus 1890
.
Marlin 1888 .32-20 3-1-1889
Let us know how yours works. Mine is very smooth, but seemed kinda quirky when I used at at a match.Model 1865 Burnside Spencer 56-50 Spencer. Circa 1865-1866.
Shotguns.
Winchester 1893 4-11-1895 12 Gauge (Not SASS Legal)
Burgess circa 1884-1889. 12 Gauge. (Not SASS Legal)
Winchester 1897 4-18-1888 12 Gauge.
I do have other things, but it's all side match stuff.
I have fired all of these guns, and used all but the two oldest pistols (and the two outlawed shotguns) in a match, but only because I just haven't yet.
So, the ones to beat are indeed a Colt revolver, but the rifle's a Spencer. The shotgun's a Winchester though, at the moment.-
4
-
1
-
-
S&W Number 3's are great guns, and I've got a few of them.
1. Uberti American 8" .45 Colt.
2. Uberti American 5" .44 Special as discussed above.
3. Uberti Schofield 8" .45 Colt
4. S&W 3rd Model Schofield 8" .45 S&W
5. S&W New Model 3 8" .38-44
6. S&W New Model 3 8" .44-407. S&W Model 3 DA 6.5" .44-40
Fun to shoot all around! I guess I need a Russian and a Uberti New Model 3 in .45. Colt -
Ah, thanks.
-
G-Force! Trans-Mute!
If you know, you know.-
1
-
-
What was done? Didn't see a different announcement....
-
There is a parts schematic for them on Numrich.
What's your trouble?
Irrational Words
in SASS Wire Saloon
Posted · Edited by H. K. Uriah, SASS #74619
I would disagree, irregarless of your assertion.
Why, because everyone knows exactly what I just meant.
What is a "word?"
(SIX SPACES shout all writers.)
Ahem... A "word" is a collection of spoken sounds with an agreed upon (accents and dialects non withstanding) pronunciation and meaning. In written form, it has an agreed upon spelling. "Irregardless" meets all those criteria. Its derivation is non standard, but so are hundreds of other words in our language. English is a fluid, living, changing language. If "irreigardless" is not a word then we shouldst reeturneth to ye olde verb tenses, is it wouldst maketh more sense to thee.