Abe E.S. Corpus SASS #87667

We all know that the rule requires the shooter to “declare” a malfunction. I advise new shooters to SAY something but in practice the declaration is nonverbal, so I am inclined to agree.

My comment was somewhat tongue in cheek. When I write stages with plate racks I make clear that an unfired round is a miss.

If he REALLY wanted to game it, the shooter could simply eject the unwanted rounds. Saves ammo AND time.

Walnut Grove Rangers are shooting on Saturday (a great way to celebrate Independence Day). That is a small group and probably a great opportunity to meet some folks. You are welcome to come to Greenville, SC. You just missed our June match, though. Get to a local match. Keep your wallet closed until you do.

I concur. Too much Lemishine will discolor your brass. More is not necessarily better.

There are lessons for everyone in this situation. First to the stage writer to be clear and precise. There should be no gaps not covered by Stage Conventions to cause the reader to assume anything. For the TO, make sure you understand the instruction so that you can assist the shooter. Also keep in mind that the benefit of the doubt always goes to the shooter. Here the instruction to “shoot the plates” was ambiguous, so telling the shooter “you’re shooting the rifle targets” was improper coaching. My call is a “P” but offer a reshoot. I can’t tell from the description whether there were misses (limited to plates left standing or misses on the static targets). We do the best that we can while the clock is running. The TO’s assumption that the far rack was a rifle target may have been a reasonable one but if on reflection (and careful reading of the instructions) it was in error, make it right. Ordinarily telling a shooter they are shooting at the wrong type of targets is commendable since those would be misses, not just a “P” after the first target was hit.

The .32-20 was and remains an interesting cartridge. It was offered in some double action revolvers. Those would not be legal under SASS rules but that doesn’t mean we would not like to see it!

Several shooters in my area have them. One fellow has large hands and said he wanted them to extend the rather small grip frames of the New Vaquero.

So an external modification to an otherwise compliant firearm is legal if it is a feature from the factory that is a safety mechanism? That explains the need for Taylors to obtain ROC approval for a factory threaded muzzle. Waiting for someone to say that a threaded muzzle is necessary to attach a suppressor which improves the safety of everyone’s hearing (which is a true statement).

This reminds me of the discussion of the threaded muzzle of the Taylors 9mm 1873 rifle. Does the external safety constitute an external modification that the ROC would need to approve? Is it otherwise a legal revolver? There is specific language in the SHB allowing certain small frame revolvers (including the Ruger Single Six) but the Heritage is not on the list. Perhaps no one cared about Rimfire revolvers; certainly .22 Rough Riders are regularly used by Buckaroos and by older shooters at monthly matches. I am not looking to buy these revolvers for myself. As a Match Director I would allow them at a monthly match. Just wondering “WTC” under the current rules.

Heritage Manufacturing showed its SA revolver chambered in .32 H&R Magnum at NRAAM. MSRP was announced as $257.99. https://heritagemfg.com/product/6-5-rough-rider-32-hr/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanna_White

My thoughts exactly!

You are making an incorrect assumption. OP is an experienced SASS shooter.

I see the occasional “on the clock” rifle reload, most often only a single round. I’ve never seen a stage that required the shooter to “fully reload” on the clock. Keep in mind that ammunition used on the stage must be carried in an approved manner. The reloading tube is not one of the authorized methods. The shooter using one would earn a Procedural and misses for each target engaged with that ammo.