Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

Captain Bill Burt

RO Instructor
  • Content Count

    6,049
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Posts posted by Captain Bill Burt


  1. 12 minutes ago, dannyd said:

    Hopefully I can keep it my hobby, so not making any to sell. But I have surprised couple 1911 owners with one.  Some other ones

    1E2766E7-8039-4615-88AF-CD9ED84EC61F.jpeg

    Good looking holsters!  I haven't seen basket weave on that color leather before. 

     

    Just as an FYI, when you're making carry holsters for a 1911 it can be helpful to have a cut out on the back for your thumb.  The full shield is helpful in protecting the gun from sweat, and your body from the gun, but it can make it difficult to get a good grip.  I use Wilson Combat holsters for both my full size 1911 and my Commander.  Here's how they do it. 
     

     

    10BAF9F0-C15A-4345-8EC9-91D29E65FBD4.jpeg

    3866302E-B1D5-4046-A62C-E5A4EF350530.jpeg

    553BFCC5-8D79-46BB-9CA9-AA2A0F04CD32.jpeg

    8F8360DA-3414-4F66-9E58-2AB3A0F98AB3.jpeg

    7337B835-26BF-477F-8239-F4356E583E47.jpeg


  2. 13 hours ago, Rafe Conager SASS #56958 said:

    Sass already has a min. Smoke standard of 1cc or 15 grains of black powder per the shooters handbook not sure if you can get 1cc of black in a 32, I know of some who use a .6cc lee dipper which is maybe  10 grains. We need to enforce standards. I used to enjoy shooting classic cowboy until some folks loaded their 45 colts to less than a mild 38 load.

    Rafe

    Why would someone else shooting a mild load matter to you?

    6 minutes ago, Rafe Conager SASS #56958 said:

    Nope! I have fun no matter what.

    Seems inconsistent. 


  3. 11 hours ago, Rafe Conager SASS #56958 said:

    Sass already has a min. Smoke standard of 1cc or 15 grains of black powder per the shooters handbook not sure if you can get 1cc of black in a 32, I know of some who use a .6cc lee dipper which is maybe  10 grains. We need to enforce standards. I used to enjoy shooting classic cowboy until some folks loaded their 45 colts to less than a mild 38 load.

    Rafe

    So you enjoying a match is dependent on how other cowboys load their ammo?


  4. 48 minutes ago, Red Cent said:

    Interesting.

    The Wild Bunch and their corporation owns the Moriarity, NM property. The Wild Bunch owns all intangible property of SASS. On October 1, 2020, all of the Wild Bunch will retire. I would think at this time, no officers would exist under the SASS corporation. 

    On October 2, 2020, who will be running SASS? Will there be an organizational chart of new SASS officials? Will a new corporation be established ? I am aware that an advisory board will be established consisting of SASS members. They will have zero authority. Who will they advise?

     

    The last seven pages are interesting. It seems we are putting the cart before the horse. 

     

     

    Misty will still be the CEO and I think it's safe to assume she will be the ultimate arbiter of who is on the advisory board and most likely she will be the one being 'advised.'


  5. I think that ultimately we'll find that there are some small changes that can be made to expand the pool of people interested in SASS, but I don't think it will/would be a big expansion.  I think our best hope is raising awareness and I think Travis has the right idea there.  We need a bigger online presence. 

    • Like 1

  6. 42 minutes ago, Phantom, SASS #54973 said:

    Inexpensive targets can be made and used for both W3G and SASS. Gotta have down range ability.

     

    Biggest problem is that the majority of SASS / CAS are once... Maybe twice a month shooters. The common comment is "I shoot enough Cowboy as is".

     

    The ironic thing about W3G is that there usually is no running and benifits those that can't move real fast... Also takes the tripping threat out of the game.

     

    Phantom

    Hard to imagine.  Sharyn and I shoot 5 times a month and if there were more Sunday matches we would shoot 8 times a month.

    • Like 2

  7. If Rimfire is added participants in that category can't be eligible for overall winner.

     

    There must be an overall winner. 

     

    Do not expand the allowable guns to include any non-cowboy guns such as double action revolvers, semi-autos of any kind, or bolt action rifles.

     

    Do not mandate target sizes or distances. 

     

    Do not offer cash awards for performance.

    • Like 7

  8. 51 minutes ago, Creeker, SASS #43022 said:

    Let me address one point that seems to be confusing some.

    We are COWBOY.  Period.

    When I say EVERYTHING should be on the table for discussion - that should be clear that means EVERYTHING within and under the purview of COWBOY.

     

    Using Possums example - when Coke changed their formula; they continued making a brown sugary soft drink.  It was a lesser quality brown sugary soft drink, but a soft drink nonetheless.

    They did not stop making soft drinks and start making lawn darts.

     

    No one (at least not me and no one I have seen) is advocating SASS becomes trap shooting or IPSC - adds semi autos and red dot sights - or starts being competitive lawn darts.

     

    I would fight vehemently SASS ceasing to be cowboy.

     

    Implying "everything on the table" means a desire to do away with "cowboy" is (in my opinion) being deliberately misleading and counter productive to open dialogue.

    OK then what is Cowboy?  I agree with you that we are Cowboy!  For sure!  But what makes the game Cowboy for me is not necessarily what makes the game Cowboy for someone else.  If we don't recognize that people value the game for different reasons we risk focusing on what we as individuals view as Cowboy and potentially alienating and losing members.  I don't see why that is counter productive to open dialogue.  It seems like that's what we're having now.  You're the one who said that "EVERYTHING should be on the table under the purview of COWBOY" but Cowboy hasn't been defined.  

     

    Speaking only for myself, if the costume requirements were relaxed further I wouldn't care, but many others would.  If target distances and sizes were mandated, some cowboys would like that, others wouldn't.   I would love to be able to shoot on the move and I don't think it would take away from Cowboy, but that's just my opinion.  Would we lose people if we moved to that? 

     

    Possum Skinner said it. "why are we REALLY dressing up in old west clothes?  Why do we have start lines and props based on western movies and shows?" 

     

    What are the core principles of Cowboy Action Shooting? 

    • Like 2

  9. 8 hours ago, Pat Riot, SASS #13748 said:

    In the Navy there would be an accounting of personnel but not at the risk of losing someone. Rescue efforts are activated immediately. The teams assigned to act in a rescue are accounted for immediately as they report to their assignments. As rescue efforts begin uninvolved departments and work centers take muster and report to the bridge. Usually within a few minutes they know who went over the side on most ships. On Carriers it takes a bit longer but if someone is witnessed going over the side the colors of their gear would help indicate what team or department they are in. 
     

    I have no idea what happens on cruise ships or how they react. 
     

    A most sickening feeling is when someone from a Carrier goes overboard and the ship on lifeguard duty cannot find them. Falling from a Carrier deck is most traumatic to the body. Many do not survive. 

    This! 

     

    Though we didn't get too many men overboard on submarines. 

     

    We did have it happen once next to a tender when a line broke under tension and took a guy's arm almost off.  He fell in and got pulled out by a bosuns mate from the tender. 

     

    Another time a couple of guys were in a jon boat painting the sides of the sub when the jon boat began to sink.  That was pretty funny as the boat developed a very large crack and was taking on water fast.  A butter bar threw them a bucket and told them to bail.  The water was already almost up to the gunwales, so bailing wasn't an option.  For the whole patrol the butter bar would walk by a group of people and you could hear someone muttering "bail, bail!' then laughter.

    • Like 1
    • Haha 3

  10. 16 hours ago, Creeker, SASS #43022 said:

    I'd prefer you didn't leave it be.

    I appreciate your input.

    And I would be curious what you would hold up as inviolate and untouchable.

     

    Unlike some - I have no issue with competing viewpoints.

    I want what's best for our game and its future (even if that is not exactly what i feel is best for me)

     

    And as i said in the very first post - if the idea is good enough; I have no moral aversion to stealing it and claiming the position for myself. 

    I think that perhaps I'm not making myself clear, or we just fundamentally disagree, or both.  It's immaterial what my untouchables are because I'm just one person and it would be 'stoopid' to  make SASS wide decisions based on what one person wants. 

     

    But, since you asked, a few of my untouchables would be, there must be an overall winner, a new rimfire category could not compete for overall, and no double actions or semi-autos. 

    13 hours ago, Creeker, SASS #43022 said:

    Fantastic input Doc.

    I think we can all agree on the need for marketing. 

    And as Phantom has pointed out - proper and targeted marketing or we are screaming into the void.

    Out of all the folks within SASS; someone has to be able to direct, assist or point us in the right direction.

     

    I think most of the other points come down to enticing folks (from other disciplines) to participate, because of the (perceived) relative ease of our game.

    Though, I wonder if upping the "challenge" in our game "possibly" drives away existing shooters and loses some of our appeal as an entry level, family friendly game. 

     

    And we have to figure out where our growth should/ can/ may come from.

    Existing casual shooters or folks shooting other disciplines or even from folks currently outside the firearms community?

     

    But no principle...

    (As it pertains to a game)

    NONE, should be inviolate and everything should be on the table.

     

    But because we are viewed as an entry level shooting game by many...

    (And I've often said it myself - maybe I'm wrong)

    It would be interesting research to find out how many SASS shooters were experienced firearms competitors prior to SASS vs how many became competition shooters via SASS. 

     

    Because you are correct; most shooting sports are expensive - your example above, a quality trap or skeet gun, etc.

     

    This would provide valuable insight into whether startup costs are a true barrier or a red herring reason to not play.

    I completely disagree with that statement, and I contend there's no rational basis for taking that approach.  That approach assumes that there is nothing special that's an integral part of our game, anything can be changed and it can still be CAS.  No way!

    3 hours ago, Possum Skinner, SASS#60697 said:

    So if we're not emulating a John Wayne or Clint Eastwood character or Wyatt Earp, Ike Clanton, Billy the Kid, etc., why exactly are we dressing up?  I'm not pretending to be anyone else when I'm shooting (or not), and I just consider it part of the sport/hobby, but why are we REALLY dressing up in old west clothes?  Why do we have start lines and props based on western movies and shows?  (I don't mean this rhetorically.)

     

    As far as the other things I said, I don't like them either, and frankly, I hope I'm wrong.  I love this sport and I hope it lasts forever, but I believe in being realistic and with few exceptions, I believe the old western shows were the main force behind most of our shooters desire to become cowboy action shooters.  There is still a large untapped group of like minded individuals out there who do not know about cowboy action shooting and THEY should be our target market.  

     

    Perhaps the western video games will bring new interest, but I still think those numbers will be limited.

     

    Ya'll remember New Coke don't you?  They had the brilliant idea to change their formula to a new and IMPROVED drink nobody liked and they lost costumers that they've never gotten back.  Let's avoid their mistake.

     

    I'm certainly not against all change.  For instance, I like Doc's ideas...

    This!  My contention is that there are aspects of the game that cannot be changed without transforming the game into something that many of us would rather not play.  I think it's incumbent on those who seek to make changes to identify the core elements of the game that shouldn't be changed.  Perhaps for you there are no such elements, but for others there certainly are.


  11. I knocked a guy out once with a beer bottle.  I believe it was a Molson.  He got in a couple of cheap shots while I was using a urinal, but didn't realize that while one hand was occupied the other was holding a beer.  He went down like a puppet with his strings cut.  The Shore Patrol hauled us both in, got him some stitches, then took our liberty cards.

    • Haha 1

  12. 11 minutes ago, Creeker, SASS #43022 said:

    Regarding drawls - I can't help those folks who talk funny.  :D Besides I said "stupid" drawl and few talk stupider than me.

     

    I agree we should avoid deliberately doing anything that causes damage - but I'm not going to dismiss "radical" ideas completely out of hand as some of these radical ideas may be able to morph to needed, palatable and even exciting changes.

     

    I don't think anything in our game should ever be enshrined as non negotiable or untouchable - beyond we play cowboy.

     

    Doesn't mean we have to change it ( or will even want to) - it simply means we have a willingness to look at it.

     

    If the status quo was always non negotiable...

    TV would still be black and white.

    Corvettes would still be powered by six cylinder engines.

    And a $1.25 would still be a fair hourly wage.

    Ok, thanks for responding. I think it’s best I leave you to your thread as it appears we have different visions of SASS. I can think of quite a few things beyond ‘playing cowboy’ which should not be subject to change.


  13. 17 minutes ago, Creeker, SASS #43022 said:

    No one has said anything about weakening of "Dress" requirements.

    What has been said, is a de-emphasis on dressing "to the nines" to the outside and incoming shooters.

    You don't need a giant Hoss Cartwright hat, wooly chaps, 4 inch rowel spurs and to talk in a stupid drawl to play. 

    Stop going on about, "In this game, women talk about their guns and the men talk about their clothes"

    (1999, in my own words, "I only want to shoot - not play dress up")

     

    And I don't think anyone is inclined to sabotage ourselves by changing the basic game "so" dramatically that current shooters are driven off.

     

    Of course, there will always be some that will whine and claim that any changes will have destroyed the game for them (the same group/ mindset that complain that short stroked rifles and lace up boots and any caliber not starting with a "4" all "ruin" the game for them).

     

    There is always a balancing act between clinging to the past and casting it aside.

    I don’t believe I said that anyone said anything about significantly changing the dress code. I used that as an example for obvious reasons: it’s a sore spot for some.

     

    Not sure about your drawl comment. They’re pretty common ‘round here.

     

    I think you’re wrong, there are plenty of cowboys who would make radical changes given the opportunity.

     

    I think there are definitely nonnegotiable aspects of the game and I think it’s a good idea to try to nail those down. 


  14. I think it’s also important to have aspects of the game that are not subject to change. Change the wrong thing and we might lose more people than you gain. 
     

    For example a rimfire category that’s not eligible for overall probably wouldn’t run anyone off.  Significant weakening of costume requirements might. 
     

    In addition to establishing what might attract new shooters we need to ascertain what the big attractions are for current shooters so we don’t change those.

    • Like 2

  15. 2 hours ago, Phantom, SASS #54973 said:

    Phantom ( same in person as I am on the Wire... Ask me these questions in person and you'll get the same arguments from me)

     

     

    I’ve never met you in person, though you did promise you were coming to Georgia so there’s still hope. Therefore I can’t comment from personal knowledge. However, I have had at least 5-6 people who’ve followed our Wire exchanges tell me that you’re very different in person (much nicer). They meant those comments to reflect well upon you, so I tend to believe them.
     

    Maybe they’re wrong, or maybe you’re not the best judge of how your posts come across sometimes?
     

    As you said to Abilene, that’s not an insult, it’s an observation.

     

    Now to the topic at hand, I tend to agree with you and Widder. Adding Sharpshooter type distances increases the accuracy challenge while decreasing the challenge of running the gun. I think the net effect varies depending upon the person. Accuracy has always been easy for me. If I can see it, I can hit it. Running at high speed is harder, for me. So for me Sharpshooter might actually be easier, though less fun from my perspective.

    • Like 1

  16. If we accept that the two biggest obstacles are the dress requirements and the cost of equipment where does that leave us?

     

    On the high end a person could spend $2,000 on a rifle, another $2,000 on a set of pistols and $1,400 or so on a shotgun.  Add in a good rig and you're close to $6,000.

     

    On the low end a pair of Uberti pistols could be had for $900 or so, a Stoeger for $400 and a '92 for around $500 for a total of $1,800, plus the rig.  I don't see how eliminating any one of those makes that big of a difference in cost, at most you can get rid of the rifle and get it down to $1,300.  Yeah I may be off by a $100 one way or the other, but those numbers are close enough to talk about. 


    OTH, if you let Greenhorns shoot .22s you can get the price way down, probably under $1,000 for all four guns. 

     

    With respect to dress requirements, I think it's all in how it's presented to the prospective shooter.  The requirements are not that stringent.  When I shoot about the only things I'm wearing that I wouldn't otherwise wear are my Ariats and my hat. Jeans, long sleeved shirt, a hat and appropriate footwear and they're good.  

     

    Speaking only for myself, if that's too big an ask for a new shooter, what are we left with, no dress requirements at all?


  17. 2 minutes ago, Hoss said:

    I love shooting Cody Dixon. If it’s offered, I’m shooting it. By far my favorite Category. I’ve tried sharpshooter, but don’t care for it as much.
     

    I think last year at the Texas State Match Cody Dixon was one of the larger categories, 13 shooters in lever, 11 in single shot. (If my somewhat feeble memory serves!) at any rate, a popular Category. 

     

    I practice (not as much as I should), think about stage lay-out, try to think of ways to “game” the stage. I want to do my very best (safely & within the rules) I’m not trying to make any statements about target distances or how fast other shooters are. I just play the game I prefer. 
     


     

    We need more cowboys with that attitude!

    • Like 2

  18. 4 minutes ago, Rafe Conager SASS #56958 said:

    Not sure shoot through is a good idea, who spots, times picks up brass for them? I for one would be pissed if I had to do extra work for people who don't want to do duties. It's hard enough to get people to help out at shoots nowadays.

    Rafe

    That’s why I suggested an extra fee, or maybe shoot throughs are lost brass matches. I’m not suggesting we do it, I’m suggesting it’s worthy of thought.


  19. The idea of more time together has been floated.  I'll go the opposite direction.  How about more options to shoot through?  Perhaps with an additional fee to make up for not doing posse chores. 

     

    Many of our shooters are retired and spending a nice morning and afternoon shooting and then later eating and drinking with friends is what they want.  I don't think that's the case for all of our shooters though.  Younger shooters can be impatient with an entire day on the range, and those of us still raising children can struggle to allocate 4 or 5 days a month spent entirely at the range.  

    • Like 1

  20. 41 minutes ago, Branchwater Jack SASS #88854 said:

    Can they still get what matters to them some other way without having an 'overall'?

     

     

    Not for me no. Do away with that and I’ll shoot somewhere else, or switch to a different shooting discipline, maybe three gun.

    • Confused 1
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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