El Hombre Sin Nombre

Soup Sandwich I still to this day have no idea what that is, but apparently it's "ate up"

I shoot with him regularly and I believe he mentioned he’s got it running properly with so work. Rob is pretty handy with Marlins

No I don't get your point. What I don't understand in all of this "no new categories" screaming crowds is that it usually comes while people are talking about unofficial categories, which is absolutely zero hindrance to everyone else. Often times, the same folks that complain about not wanting new categories would freak out if their preferred choice were eliminated. I can't remember the last time someone like Deuce that wins overall complained about too many categories.

While I wasn't around for the origin of SASS, I believe the intent is to play a fantasy game with guns. If you think you are playing anything even remotely resembling a real cowboy from the 1800's then you are either in the wrong game or do not have a realistic understanding of what the old west really was.

It's simple. All stages are equal, but some stages are more equal.

Nor does it work for a game that has categories of competition in which you are competing against those within your category only yet the outcome is influenced by those outside your category that you aren't competing against.

Your analogies fail because you are trying to call one thing something else. In no way can you call either example rank scoring. Rank scoring would be winning the most amount of innings in baseball regardless of the score, such as beating your opponent in eight innings and winning the game despite the final score being 10-8. In rank scoring, it doesn't matter how handily you beat out your second place opponent that stage as you get first and he gets second. Total time takes that really good inning into consideration. Admittedly, it's a tough comparison either way since both examples are two competitors and not hundreds that affect the outcome.

I assumed you did, but it seems otherwise. Or else you haven't fully thought it out. Example: you've got five really good shooters that keep swapping first place stages throughout the match. One of the shooters gets anywhere from 1-4 first place, but second in all the rest. His score ends up being lower so he ends up winning the match but didn't win the majority of stages. In another shoot, shooter gets 8 first place but has two stages where he didn't shoot bad but those two stages were really fast stages where he lost a lot of points so he wins the most stages but loses the match. Both of these examples are not made up, but actually exist. Rank points is like the falcons winning the Super Bowl because they won 3 out of 4 quarters. A preferable outcome in this case in my opinion. But instead the super bowl is determined by total time, thus the patriots win.

Not exactly. With rank scoring, it's not only possible, but highly probably to win the match but lose 5, 6, 7, 8, and even 9 individual gunfights. It's far less likely with total time.

How about some pictures? I'd like to add a 66 to my cart. It's either the Winchester in 44-40 or the Uberti carbine in 38-40. I still haven't decided.

I've been right I think twice in 30 years, so I'm hoping my streak continues when I say patriots win

Try buffalo arms co. If I remember correctly, they're about a buck a shell though.

Really? I haven't seen a brand new ruger new vaquero standard without "ruger new vaquero" on it. Even on their website this picture says it http://www.ruger.com/products/vaqueroStainless/models.html

I tend to think the opposite. It's my opinion that the whole 5 only load never existed in the old west. I believe it's a Hollywood construct. Heck, people still call it the John Wayne load. I have to imagine that if the majority of cowboys were loading only five, Colt would have made their cylinders hold five only and not bothered to bore out an extra one. Colt also built in a safety notch, while not the safest way to carry a colt, it speaks volumes about how many were supposed to be loaded. I have never read anything in history where cowboys were only loading five, but I have read many times where cap and ball revolvers were not only loaded and capped with six, but troops carried extra loaded and capped cylinders on them for easy reloading, sometimes with ill fated results. I know that if I were a cowboy in the old west, I would be carrying six because the odds of setting off a loaded round while in the holster would be far smaller while fighting Indians than the need for that extra loaded round. It is called a six shooter after all.