Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

Badlands Bud #15821

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

36 Excellent

Previous Fields

  • SASS #
  • SASS Affiliated Club
    Murietta Posse

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

2,022 profile views
  1. Jasper Agate! It has been a long time. Things are going well as I hope they are for you. -Bud
  2. The argument goes both ways. I'd agree that for internal consistency, you might have your match-design guidelines indicate that KD targets should fall with the prescribed minimum power factor. The question would then become, do you bump the minimum power factor up to factory .38 or do you change the KD recommendation down to the current power factor? However, the two rules were made for different reasons. The minimum power factor was an attempt to address "mouse-fart" loads and the KD recommendation was (ironically considering the start of this thread) simply an attempt to create some kind of standard for KD targets so people would have some idea what to expect as they traveled around the country shooting SASS matches. KD targets set light enough will be knocked down by the wind or fall out of calibration to the point that they won't stand at all fairly quickly. I suspect that the KD calibration recommendation of ".38 factory load" was more a practical matter than an attempt at a regulation on ammunition power and I'm almost certain it pre-dates the power factor. From a purely practical standpoint, come match day, it's best to have in your cart whatever it takes to put any targets down.
  3. I used to run around with 180gr bullets over the same powder load as my 125-130s. I looked up the actual load data and I was really pushing the upper end of .38 Special, getting into low .357 Magnum. I think I still have that box somewhere. Smokin Gator!
  4. I'd also think $800 is pretty close, but I don't think you need a box to get that amount. Condition is everything.
  5. That should be feasible. I don't know if anyone makes a .38 Special Henry, but you should be able to block up the lifter and replace the barrel. I don't think the rim is involved in controlling feeding? 1851s would just need proper Kirst cylinders. I don't know about the cost, but this fine gentleman was able to craft .44-40 cylinders for Ruger Vaqueros so I could use .429 instead of .427 bullets and quit sizing every darned one of them. I bet he could cut 9mm Kirst cylinders for 1851s.
  6. I hope life it treating you easy, too! I can't complain, I've found a nice little niche and play with guns all day, every day. Roop and OWSS (Chabot) were very much on my mind when I was approached by a couple of SASS shooters who were also re-enactors. They wanted to shoot their Civil War guns with live ammo and we worked out proper stage modifications (and proper, target-friendly loads!) to make it happen. I even shot a couple of matches in that category. It was a ton of fun. Regarding the rule irregularities being related to safety, and hopefully without going too far out of bounds, there are SASS safety rules which should always be followed. Rules related to muzzle direction, loading procedures, guns leaving control of the shooter, etc., which are most necessary and should be followed absolutely. There are SASS safety rules which a half dozen or so shooting disciplines make a compelling argument are unnecessary. Now, I understand the raised hackles and the discomfort. Going to a trap or skeet range scares me silly with guns slung over shoulders and muzzles resting on feet. There are some games which have safety rules which are simply anathema to the SASS shooter. That said, it sounds to me like everyone was able to shoot the stages safely. Those who felt they could not safely shoot while moving wisely chose not to shoot while moving. I would think that disagreement with the structure of the match would be more constructively discussed with the match director than with the SASS Wire. Maybe the Wire has mellowed since I was last passing through, but I seem to recall the Wire could take a week to come to no conclusion about an issue that the SI MD could address in maybe three emails, tops.
  7. I just want a single action, swing-out cylinder, 8-shot, .38 revolver. The double action was a terrible step backward in revolver design
  8. Emphasis mine. Regarding the first bold portion, that's a Sloughhouse Irregulars tradition. Irregulars was a play on the irregularity of the schedule (5th weekend days), but there was more to it. I remember coming up with rules to allow muzzle-loading rifles and shotguns to allow people to participate with rifles and shotguns more suited to a cap and ball revolver than a '94 and a Rossi Overland. We also had a strong contingent that shot in overalls (barely within the 1800s guidelines and according to Tex it is not acceptable to repair them with duct tape). Sure, we mostly played by SASS rules, but I've been to several clubs that had local, regional, special, or just wacky one-off rules. If everyone has fun safely, I don't know what there is to make a stink about. Sloughhouse Irregulars doesn't have an annual match, and I doubt they're in danger of having a State, Regional, or higher level match bestowed upon them. Regarding the second, I'd certainly hope that people can do so, but I'm sad to hear that you're going to walk. I don't know that SI ever had a speedo competition, but it wouldn't be the same without you
  9. For the sake of this discussion, and given historical precedent, let's say that isn't an option.
  10. I understand the desire to not have overall rank points influence category placement, but relative to the problem of inconsistent penalties, rank within categories would be even worse, especially in small categories. The issue that rank points cause is due to a conversion in the difference between two shooters measured in seconds scored as the number of shooters which fill the gap. This means that a difference of 10 seconds could be anywhere between 0 rank points and the number of shooters attending the match. As you get into smaller and smaller categories, the potential for extreme variation in the real penalty, as measured in rank points, gets worse. The effect of a 10-second penalty in wrangler is going to vary wildly from a 10-second penalty in frontiersman. I don't disagree that perhaps there should be some change to address the issue of overall rank interfering with the scoring of individual categories, but rank within category will not help the issue of variable (or non-existent) safety penalties. Again, rank within categories would increase, not decrease the chances of minimal or non-existent safety penalties. The issue of variable resolution in scoring due to rank points gets worse as the number of shooters in the scoring system is reduced. If you separate by category, you will always reduce the number of shooters being scored together. Unless you increase the safety penalty to some substantial number like 60 seconds, you will still have instances of minimal penalties for safety infractions without addressing the issue of different shooters on the same or different stages receiving different penalties for the same infraction. Why should the penalty for the same safety infraction be different for two different shooters simply because of where they placed in the score distribution? If the match is to be scored using rank points, why shouldn't a safety penalty be issued in the units used to score the match so that it is the same across all stages and throughout the score distribution? I could see an argument being made for allowing the miss or procedural penalties to vary based on stage design and score distribution, but I see no good argument for allowing safety penalties to do the same. Same safety infraction, same penalty would seem like the only logical desired outcome, and if we score matches using rank points, the only way to do this is to issue the penalty in rank points. Unless I'm missing something? Bud
  11. Creeker, with a set quantity of rank points for the penalty you would face an issue similar to the one we have now. Instead of having penalties which are variable depending on the distribution of scores, you would have penalties proportionally variable based upon the number of shooters attending. My idea was for a penalty in rank points which is a fixed proportion of the number of shooters attending. Thus if a MSV was a x% RP penalty at a 100 shooter match, the penalty would be x rank points. This would keep the penalty scaled for different sized matches. Edited for clarity.
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.