H. K. Uriah, SASS #74619

Well, if you can afford one, get a real Winchester. One made in New Haven, Connecticut. It'll run great as is.

A what? Wait, I have a Martini Enfield in .303 British, but where did you get a .30-40?

What about a first generation cylinder? I have read that they are the same as seconds.

I always thought I'd just use regular 1911 mags for spares. But the gun came with three sized for it, so that'll do. How are the Officer's and the Compact different?

Yeah, that's the thing I am gonna get. Don't know why I called it a Kimber. It's too easy to get these parts and who made them all confused. For example, the safety on my Mustang is a sig.

Anyone know where I can get a replacement cylinder for a Pietta copy of the SAA?

Ever since they came out in the 80's, I wanted a Colt Officers Model .45. Well, I finally got one! Now, as you can see, even though it's a series 80, it's an early one that does not have the long trigger that is the norm on the full size 1911's of that series. Also, you can see that I put an arched housing on it. I prefer the arched to flat one, party because I tend to shoot a 1911 one handed, and one handed grip, the pistol naturally points low. If only it had a lanyard loop. But, alas, they don't seem to exist for this gun. And that's not the only modification I made. You see, I am a left handed shooter. Now, I LOATHE extended safeties. I don't like the way they poke things and snag on stuff when you try to put them in your pocket. Sadly, as near as I can tell, nobody makes an ambi safety that does not have an extension on it. Not even this one. But the gunsmith who installed it was willing to cut off the extensions and this was the result. I think he did an excellent job. Ironically, based on the shape of the thumb pad itself, it is more like a WWI era safety than the WWII era one. But I don't mind. So anyway, after 40 years of wanting one, I finally have one of these pistols, and in the configuration that I want it. I may or may not replace the factory recoil spring and guide with the one made by Kimber, as the factory setup is a PAIN to take apart and put back, but I don't know yer. Time will tell.

There are actually 6. Now, as to your original question, as others have said, which Henry? The Henry Big Boy, while well made, is not for our game. I have used one at a match as a loaner, and I could see all the plusses and minuses real easy. And, for SASS use, the minuses are just too much. As far as the viable options go... 1. Reproduction of the 1860 Henry. A very nice gun, with a slight learning curve. You'll need to master the "Henry Hop" or get a spacer stick to make it not necessary. But the coolness factor is off the charts. 2. 1866. Also known historically as the "improved Henry," an all around good gun. 3. 1873. The Gun that Won the West. There is a reason why it's the most popular gun in our game. Now, 1, 2, and 3 are, from the standpoint of the action, basically the same gun. You can't go wrong with any of them. For a Henry, I'd get an Uberti and not one made by Henry Repeating Arms simply for reasons of cost. For the 66 and 73, again, go with the Uberti, not the "Winchesters" made in Japan for the same reason. 4. 1892 The 92, generically, is a nice gun. In .45 Colt, you really have only one choice, Chiappa. This is a faithful reproduction of the original that is good to go right out of the box. It is also the only one on the market that does not have a stupid modern safety on it. Unless you can find an older one on the used market that does not have the safety, I'd stay away from the Rossi. They are not perfect, but more than good enough. You would want to consider having the action smoothed out a little, but that is not really needed. The current production ones are very rough and have that horrid safety on top of the bolt that just looks terrible. This makes them guns to be avoided. The Japanese Winchesters are better, the actions are good, but they have a tang mounted safety and a rebounding hammer. I would not consider one at all. 5. Marlin. I had a chance to use one at a match as a loaner once, an was pleasantly surprised. Nod bad guns. The only drawback is that a modern made one in .45 Colt will have the crossbolt safety. That aside, they are very well made guns. Avoid a Remington-Marlin. Go with a Ruger-Marlin or a real made in Connecticut Marlin. Actually, I don't know if Ruger makes it in .45 Colt. Research will be needed. 6. The Lightning. The Lightning is a love 'em or hate 'em gun. The pump action is very different from a lever gun, but they are wicked cool, and very addictive. If you are bitten by the Lightning Bug, you will find yourself wanting more and more. The only one still in production is the Pedersoli. I don't have one made by them, but by all accounts, they are excellent guns. If you go used, avoid the Taurus like the plague unless you wanna send it to Lassiter and have him work his magic on it. The Beretta is not much better. USFAs are as rare as hens teeth, but by all accounts, well done. Which leaves the AWA. An AWA Lightning in .45 Colt is my primary Main Match rifle. It remains the only gun I've shot a clean match with, and is what got me hooked on the Lightning. Still available for reasonable prices on the used market, if you can find one, this is an excellent choice. So what do I recommend? Personally, get a Lightning. Give in to the Bug and join the passionate ranks of those who use this gun! But, if you really want a lever gun, and based on your original options, I'd go with a 66. Good luck.

I think I may have mentioned this idea once before, but I've given it some more thought, so I thought I'd bring it up again. Now, Josey Wales is an alternative way to doing CAS whereby the rifle, and sometimes the shotgun, are swapped out for more pistols. I've always wanted to try this, and there is a local club that's gonna include soon, so we shall see. But, instead of an all pistols, thing, how about an all rifles thing? At first, this would most likely need to be a single stage side match to see how people respond to it rather than to try create an alternate way of doing an entire shoot ala Josey Wales. The most simple way to do it would be to swap out the pistols for another main match rifle and use the same targets for both the rifle and "pistol" sweeps. Leave the shotgun the shotgun. But there could be other ways to do it. The simplest would be a to use a third rifle for the shotgun, but does this create potential timer issues? Would they be pre-loaded, or used single shot? If single shot, would it "allowed" to use a single shot rifle in a pistol caliber? Would alternate targets be needed? Another possible alteration would be to use a ,22 rifle for the pistols, and perhaps a rifle caliber rifle for the shotgun with alternate safe distance targets. Many possible variations, I suppose, limited only by the imagination of how the host club decides to design the scenario. Along the same lines, what about an all shotgun thing? Instead of just a lot of shotgun targets, you break it up by needing multiple shotguns. Perhaps you require a side by side or single barrel for the traditional "shotgun" targets, but you require a repeating shotgun for the rifle and pistol targets. The repeater(s) could be preloaded and reloaded to go after all the targets, or you you could use two different repeaters for the "rifle" and "pistol" targets. Again, it would need to be a single stage side match at first to see how people respond to it, and would be limited only by the imagination of scenario designer. Maybe the pistol shotgun could be a "bootleg" or "Terminator" style one, but not be required to be. Flexibility, I think, is the key to getting people to try these things. Should the shotgun event include fliers? All options to consider. What do we call them? Well, the pistols thing is Josey Wales. I suppose the rifle thing could be Lucas McCain. But who is famous for using a shotgun? The only person I can think of is Doc Holiday, who is always portrayed as using a short barrel SxS. I don't know if these would ever catch on. To be honest, I don't know how popular Josey Wales is, and I've never seen one here in New England. But the only way we'd ever know is try. Any takers?

Now there is an interesting comment. .30-30 was of course created to use smokeless powder. But a lot of handloaders still used black, as it is what they had. It was supposedly found that .30-30 didn't work quite right with black, so Winchester created the .32-Winchester Special, which is the .30-30 necked up to .32 caliber, but still using the same bullet weights. But more significantly, they made the rifling different so that it would work well with either smokeless or black powder, and it wound up doing just fine with both types of propellant. Or at least, that's what I have read.

What's a meter?

Thanks everyone. All of the above makes sense. Sounds like, for me at least, the most logical "solution" is to save the M94s for 100 yards or less. For more than that, I'll use my .45-70's. Or maybe .45-60. So I guess I'll do it this way... Up to 100 yards. Winchester 94 in .30-30 or .32 Winchester Special. Or a Marlin 336 in .30-30 Both have 20" round barrels. I may try to obtain an octagon barrel rifle of at least 24". Over 100 yards, my primary gun will be a 28-1/2" octagon Colt Lightning in .45-70. Alternatives will be a 20" octagon Winchester 86 in .45-70, an Uberti 76 in 45-60. I've also got a Winchester 95 in .30-40 Krag. That's more limited as to where it's allowed, but we'll see. I guess that makes a modicum of sense. I also want to get, maybe, a Marin 1881 or an original 95 in .45-70.

Once upon a time, that was very true. But that seems to be changing, at least in some areas. If you have a beat up, barely to non functional gun that you return to shootable condition, you have made it better. If you can at the same time return it to looking like it did when it was new, you have also done a good thing. If you have an old gun that is, say, fully functional, but has no original finish left, not because it has slowly faded away over time, but because someone took sandpaper and/or steel wool and scrubbed off any remaining finish, and it shows that they did so, and you have that finished restored to like it was when it was new, you have likewise improved the gun's value. On the other hand, if you have a gun that has, oh, say 70% of it's original finish left, still looks pretty good, but you go and have it redone, that probably was not a good thing. And, people are recognizing the difference between a simple "I had it reblued" and "I had it professionally restored." The former will turn almost anyone off. The latter, it very well could make what was a beater worth a decent amount of money. Perhaps not as much as an original in 98%+ condition, but still better than it was. Oddly, I remember reading articles about this 30 years ago about how it was becoming acceptable to have fine old shotguns so redone. It seems to be slowly becoming more acceptable with other types of guns. I use the classic car analogy. A rusted out not-running 57 Chevy is not worth all that much. Have that car restored to factory original condition, and it's now worth many thousands of dollars. When you look at the prices that some of the high end restorers like Turnbull can get for a gun they have redone, you begin to feel that it's not as taboo as it once was.

One that I will recommend is Rustblue Gunsmithing in Natick Massachusetts. (https://rustbluing.com/) He's done a lot of repair work for me over the years. He even was able to fix my NRA Colt that went KABOOM thanks to an over charged cartridge. I've not, yet, used him to refinish anything, but I have seen example of his work, and it looks really good. As per his name, rustbluing is specialty. I have a Marlin 1889 that has no finish left. Not because it has worn away over time, but because someone scrubbed it off. With no collector value left, I may decide to have him restore the finish on this gun.

Like many who had an affinity for Winchesters and "Old West" guns long before getting into CAS, one of my first Winchesters was a Model 94 in .30-30. When I got into CAS, I discovered the hard way that .30-30 is fine for "shorter" long range shooting, but not so good for longer long range shooting. When I got my first .45-70, I discovered that it can reach out and gong things at much greater distances than the .30-30. My second M94 is in .32 Winchester Special, and I have found its performance to be essentially identical to the .30-30. What all of this means is that my M94s are only really useful for events with a maximum distance of 100 yards. For anything longer than that, I need a .45-70, and better eyesight. That is, if they are chambered for .30-30 or .32 Winchester Special. What about .38-55? Does this larger, heavier bullet have longer range capability than the smaller rounds? I don't have a .38-55, and I still love the M94, and would like to be able to use it. But, depending on where the shoot is held, the long range events might not be within the limits of the range of a .30-30. I have noticed that here in the Northeast, Long Range, if done at all, is indeed 100 yards or less. But once you get out West, (of the Hudson) Long Range events tend to be much longer. Usually 150 to 300 yards, and if you get WAY out West (of the Mississippi) maybe even 600 yards. That is not to say that the super long range is non-existent back here or that the short long range is not done out there, but in general terms, this seems to be what one should expect. Now, I know there are some issue with the .38-55 with regards to inconsistent bore size and other factors, but for the most part, people who shoot it sing its praises more than curse its detractions. Now, both of my M94's are 20" round barrels. If I ever do get another one, it's gonna be a longer barrel in the shape of a stop sign. (I have read that this configuration does enhance the longer range accuracy of the .30-30, but I wonder how much it can affect the actual RANGE of the gun. If and when I do get such a rifle, should I consider a .38-55 with the idea of occasionally using it for longer range CAS long range stuff, or just get another .30-30 and keep the .30-30 for shorter long range work and stick with .45-70 for the longer stuff. Opinions and experience solicited.

Turnbull?

More than likely. Of the two clubs I go to more than any others, I'd say one will and one won't. And at the one I think will, I always bring "regular" guns along with anything weird I wanna try just it case I try to take it too far.

Which is why my "Small Iron" project is going to be .32 Long Colt and .32 S&W, and not .25-20 and/or 25 ACP. That, and I don't have a rifle in .25-20, so... But I do have a 1st Generation Colt that someone converted to .22 Hornet. That's basically a .25-20 necked down to .22 caliber. Love to give it a try at a match and not just put a few rounds in the dirt after the match is over.

Oh yeah. Cimarron is marketing a Model 94 reproduction in .38-55. I do not know who makes it for them. No tang safety. No angle eject. No other stupid modern enhancements. And much more affordable than a real vintage Winchester.

By Henry, I assume you mean the modern Henry Repeating Arms company. By all accounts their guns are well made, but not well suited to our game. By Winchester... It get's a little more complicated. For a .38-55, you want one a Model 94 made before 1983 when they went to angle eject, and then started adding safeties and other modern features that ruined the gun. Quality also took a nose dive, in my opinion. Of course, I don't know when Winchester stopped offering the Model 94 in the caliber you want. The best possible .38-55 Winchester 94 you can get would be one made before 1964. They are very well made, and will never do anything but go up in value as long as they are in shootable condition. For a .45 Colt Winchester, you are talking a modern Made in Japan "Winchester" made under license by Miroku. You can get either a 92 or a 73. A 92 will have a rebounding hammer and a tang mounted safety. Their 73's are more "accurate" in that they have no safety on the tang. I believe they also make a model 66, and I think it's available in .45 Colt as well. I do not know if they have a traditional half cock, or a modern rebounding hammer. If these modern features don't matter to, then go for it. Everything I have read says that both guns are well made, but I don't own one to say for sure. To be honest, I think they are over priced. If I wanted a modern made 73 or 66 in .45 Colt, I'd get a Uberti. For more affordable. I don't believe the Japanese Winchesters will hold their value like one Made in Connecticut does, and the quality of the Italian guns is very good. The Italian guns also have no silly safeties or rebounding hammers, they have a half cock notch. For a 92, I'd get one made by Chiappa. Their guns are excellent quality right out of the box. They are more expensive than say, a Rossi, but you get what you pay for. Them's my opinions.

Well in that case...

How old are these Rugers? Unless they are over 50 years, C&R is irrelevant. But if they are over 50, you can ship them to another C&R. I am fuzzy on the exact procedure, but C&R to C&R shipping is allowable for eligible guns. While I have not shipped any, I have received C&R guns from other C&R FFLs. But, the idea to check with your LGS is a very sound one. They know all the rules and can do it properly.

Buffalo Arms has several weights of .458" bullet. I got some 300 grainers there, and a quick check says they also have ones over 500.

.32-20 is the most effective cartridge for turning gun powder into NOISE! By far my loudest guns are .32-20's. Oddly, the 7.5" barrel is louder than the 5.5" and 4.75" ones. .32 Short Colt, on the other hand...

Hmm.... On the right pair, the one on the bottom says COLT SINGLE ACTION ARMY .45, so that's why I figured it was a Colt and the one above it was not a Colt. Then, looking at the pair on the left, I noticed that the shape of the front sight on the bottom one matched the clone on the right, and the front sight on the top one matches the Colt. So, that's why I ID the ones on the right as I did. Interesting.