Captain Bill Burt

Interesting that you bring that up. I shot a match yesterday and noticed a shooter whose holsters were easily two fists apart, basically on the outer parts of each of her thighs, but the upper part of the holsters where they loop over the belt were very wide and were not two fists apart.

Well since I couldn't have a Camaro I guess I would use a Mustang!

Not to be adversarial PB, but I wear 'crotch holsters' and I don't break the 170, in fact I'm not really understanding the physical constraints you're thinking about and how they would necessitate a violation. In fact, I think the location and shape of canted 'crotch holsters' allow the shooter to keep the muzzle slightly down range while drawing and holstering whereas straight drop holsters require the muzzle be almost straight down to reholster. Are you saying the 'crotch holster' is so close to the midline that a shooter who is holstering his right pistol is breaking the 170 on his left side? If that's true wouldn't the holsters have to be closer than two fists apart?

I don't take issue with these statements Jack, I just don't see the connection between them and the OP's topic. Of course I just ate at Pig n Chik, so all that pulled pork, fried okra and collard greens might have me operating a little slower than usual.

Thanks Allie. Very helpful! Now that I have a better understanding of the "Cone" I have to say it doesn't sound as if it would address the problem as stated. So the problem (supposedly) is people won't call the 170, at least not in Colorado, because it's hard to see the violation, or they're afraid they'll get chewed out, or something. So we replace the 170 with an invisible cone that varies in size depending upon the shooter's shooting style (gunfighter, traditional). This invisible cone will be easier to see and make people more willing to call violations. How will that work exactly? It actually sounds even harder to see and call, not easier.

My first thought was of Gary Hart and Donna Hart. Remember the headlines "Rice bad for Hart"?

I never said the rules are great the way they are, nor did I say that enforcement is the only issue. My response was directed solely at the issue at hand, the 170, not the rules as a whole. I'm not sure I agree with your statement about the cocked rifle. That doesn't seem to be a similar issue to me. It's an easy transgression to see, and in my experience is always called. People can, and do, argue after the fact about whether they've broken the 170. It's pretty hard to argue your hammer isn't cocked when the TO is looking at it and it's clearly cocked. I think the argument there is whether we need that stiff of a penalty for a cocked hammer over an empty chamber. Are you saying we have a problem with people coming to the line with cocked hammers and not getting called for it? The argument at hand, as I understand it, is that the 170 isn't being evenly enforced and changes need to be made to address that. That's not the argument I'M making, but it seems to be Phantom's position.

I'm not fully conversant with the "Cone" concept, but would it be fair to say that a potential problem has been pointed out, ie unequal enforcement of the rules regarding the 170, and the proposed solution is to change the rules? I'm not sure how that helps, or am I missing something (probably)? If people aren't enforcing the current rules, how does a change to a new rule make them more prone to enforcement? It sounds to me like the problem(s) are the people behind the timer, not the rules.

You're a hoot Phantom! Here I am trying to make a meaningful contribution and as usual your mouth is writing checks your behind can't cash. LOL. Did you become a moderator and I didn't hear about it? My response was perfectly on topic. You can most definitely sweep yourself when drawing or holstering a crossdraw, without ever coming close to the 170, and as Ike pointed out, it's a no call. That doesn't mean I disagree with your point about calls not being made. I don't shoot in Colorado, so I don't know what you guys are doing out there. I do know that in the Southeast, the 170 is taken seriously. If you disagree, please come shoot a match here, break the 170, and I'll be happy to call it on you to prove my point.

You can sweep yourself without breaking the 170, easily, happens all the time.

Welcome to SASS!

I’m not perfect, so I certainly could have missed one, but when I’m holding the timer I’m pretty focused on muzzles. When I’m not an RO, I’m usually not paying much attention to what shooters are doing.

It's really not that big of a deal, and they're not bold calls. If I see a violation I call it, pretty simple. I think that's true for the vast majority of the cowboys/girls I shoot with. Nobody is a 'harda$$', but the rules are the rules. I haven't seen a 170 violation since April, and I shoot pretty much every weekend.

I'm indifferent to whether they stick. I make the call to the best of my ability and if it's challenged I present my side. After that it doesn't matter to me what the resolution is. Much like when I was a high school teacher I try not to get personally invested in an outcome. Report what happened and move on.

Much like TW I would have to break them up by category. My absolute favorite cowboy gun to shoot is my Uberti 1873 built by Harlan Wolf. My favorite non-cowboy gun to shoot is my Colt Commander with XS Big Dot sights. It feels like the gun is an extension of me and the bullets just seem to go where I want them to go. My SHTF favorite working gun if I need to shoot someone is my Mossberg 930. The only time I really needed it, it came through for me. Picking it up was like a glass of cold water after a week in the desert.

I think they look funny, but I try not to laugh.

So do we have to provide our own axe/hatchet/tomahawk, or will there be a spare or three available? (I am woefully unprepared with regards to bladed throwing chopper things)

All the local matches have enough cover to park your carts out of the rain every stage, so the focus is on staying dry between stages and minimizing exposure when shooting or doing posse duties. Depending upon temperature I wear a light or heavy long coat and have a decent hat that sheds rain. Moving between stages I either use a trash bag, as other’s have mentioned, or I drape my coat over the cart. I always bring a towel for wiping down guns after a match, usually with CLP, but on rainy days I use WD 40. Most loading and unloading tables around here are covered, or can be, so other than the tables getting wet that’s not an issue. A bandanna helps. I usually have two.

I hope your FIL gets better soon Dan! Hands on the cell phone while driving is illegal here in Georgia, so she'll get a whopping $50 fine for that part of the accident.

I think he goes Gunfighter on those and uses a spork in one hand and a spoon in the other.

I respectfully disagree. This point has been covered many times. We're nowhere close to being re-enactors. Our guns aren't period correct, much of our apparel isn't even close to being period correct (think B-Western). Somehow I don't think cowboys ever thought, 'I'm going to stand here out in the open and shoot a Nevada sweep on those four bad guys." We're a fantasy western shooting sport. I always get a kick out of this statement and it keeps popping back up. We're all shooting for fun, even the fast shooters. Some of us just define fun differently than you do. That is a statement I've never heard from anyone at a match in 9 years of CAS. I've heard it here on the Wire, but never at a match.

Obviously short strokes do affect the operation of the gun and aren't according to the original design, BUT they're also included under the "Internal modifications not referenced here" statement. In other words, they are explicitly referenced as being OK. Your difference of opinion is not about what short strokes do with respect to original design, it's about whether they should have been approved. That ship has sailed.

That’s a strange quote, Joe said that, not me.

No, it wasn't. Neither were short strokes. I don't believe that a perceived disadvantage is justification for not allowing these. BUT I am concerned about how they impact our current rules and I can foresee them causing slow downs on stages.

So when the OP asks for reviews only those who have something good to say should respond?