Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

Dusty Devil Dale

Members
  • Content Count

    1,272
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

564 Excellent

About Dusty Devil Dale

  • Rank
    SASS Wire Vet

Previous Fields

  • SASS #
    105091
  • SASS Affiliated Club
    Kings River Regulators

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Central CA
  • Interests
    Wood carving, guitar making/playing, machining, metal fabrication, big tuna

Recent Profile Visitors

  1. Agree again, except it would seem better to just take that sentence out of the SHB and save all this interpersonal crap. Like you said, words are important. A person should be able to quote from the SHB's descriptions ( like me--absent offering any of their own slant or interpretation), without such an uproar. I suspect the original intent of the sentence was inclusive, rather than exclusive. They didn't say CAS is neither. They said it is a combo of both. Again, I didn't write it and I don't necessarily agree with it or care. But briefly pointing it out, without interpretation shouldn't have been the source of such a firestorm. If folks don't like it, and think the word "reenactment" has misdirection connotations, then be my guest, remove it. I'm kinda tired of being drawn into arguing about nothing.
  2. I actually agree with you. I have wondered how that reenactment language has survived in the SHB for so long. Personally I don't care what other shooters (particularly new ones) wear. I worry about my own compliance and performance. I never enjoyed judging others. They can do what they please as far as dress is concerned, and it doesn't affect me at all. A huge number of our shooters wear particular clothing because they have particular health, safety, strength, metabolism or other issues. Poking fun at them or criticizing them, unknowingly or otherwise, isn't my idea of the road to new friends or to fun. Folks here seem to have taken my pointing out a preexisting sentence in the SHB as some kind of personal assault. It surely wasn't meant that way. I think, at times, some folks here just look for any good argument, often about trivia. That isn't a sin and it can be fun at times. But often folks here get personally derogatory over very little. I guess that's up to them. I prefer to try to be constructive and helpful. But it's quite hard to say anything here without offending somebody.
  3. BINGO! And many of them didn't have very much. Civil War leftovers and stuff made out of grain sacks were about it for many.
  4. You attribute a lot of biases and attitudes to me personally. I didn't write the passage I quoted. You need to take up your argument with the ROC or whoever wrote that SHB section and apparently erroneously (by your view) characterized us as 1/2 "reenactment". I'm just the messenger who pointed out the language. Change it if you like. I don't care one way or the other. Personally, I would never turn anybody away, being so desperate for friends. I think you kinda overreacted, just a tad. Apology will be accepted.
  5. Not trying to interpret anything (not qualified). Just reading the words that someone else put in the SHB. Personally, I don't see it as a die-on-the-sword issue. Does anybody really care what we call it?
  6. See SHB, Page 2, Clothing and Accoutrements "Cowboy Action Shooting is a combination of historical reenactment and Saturday morning at the matinee."
  7. I'm personally unsure that ANY changes are needed in our sport, other than to get a view of our great sport out more broadly, to a bigger audience. . Unless we become a spectator sport like baseball, and do heavy promotion to attract large paying crowds of spectators (unlikely), participating shooters will always be the determinant of size and financial viability of our matches. At present, promotions and sponsorships are nearly all directed toward attracting shooter sign-ups, rather than to attracting spectators. So our sport will definitely fade if shooter attrition progresses. But I am unsure that the attrition can be very effectively countered. I don't think we are making mistakes in our rules or dress, or firearms covenants that are holding masses of new younger potential shooters away. The cost of the firearms themselves is certainly a factor, but not necessarily a "mistake", IMO. I would not want to see our overall identity shifted very far in pursuit of some presumed hybrid more survivable sport.
  8. So should we proactively engage in guessing how to change the game and rules (to the point that many of us old guys get disillusioned and go home), betting on the come for new members that we only speculate might be out there? Why not ride with the game we all were attracted to, and just enjoy it. Let the future shooters either do their own thing on the outside, or come into the fold and change CAS when and if they become able, interested, or in a position to drive the sport. I don't think the "Build it and they will come" experimental approach will do anything except divide and diminish our present participation. All of the new shooters I know were attracted by the game, dress, guns, etc., that we already have. If you're trying to appeal to the camo and semi-auto crowd, I think they already have the shooting sports that they like. Homogenizing the sports by broadening and overlapping the respective rules is unlikely to attract anybody additional. Our strength is in our uniqueness. When society changes to where the western nostalgia is gone, even our CAS name loses its meaning. We can't do much about that, so enjoy what you have, while it is here. If it gradually dies out, so be it. Some local clubs will still keep their CAS ranges and shoot cowboy, I am sure, until the last of us finally become unable. After that, who among us really cares?
  9. Are we sure that change will be needed to sustain our game? The several clubs I belong to have all seen a steady influx of enthusiastic new shooters who love what we do now. They have come in all ages, with quite a few in their thirties or early forties. We aren't recruiting them by hundreds or even by dozens, but we are definitely replacing attrition. Maybe we won't tip the world off its axis with the weight of new members, but maybe that's OK as long as we continue to enjoy our sport. It doesn't seem like it has to be a grow-or-die situation, as long as we can achieve the minimum financial thresholds to keep playing. Making major experimental changes hoping to attract new growth seems like too vague of an objective. And we might not like whom we attract as new voting club members. They could potentially make a lot of changes that many of us might not like. To summarize, I'd say making changes to the core of the game or rules without adequate market analysis should be a definite "untouchable". Just thoughts.
  10. Lots of good advice here, but they missed the most important thing. Make sure you get one long enough to go around your waste -- not just now, but later on down the road. Gunbelt length hasn't been incentive enough for the rest of us to slow the process of moving those youthful, bulky leg muscles up above the belt line.
  11. Many prayers, a lot of love, and some very good medical people appear to be working here. This is the nightmare that we all worry could happen to our family or good friends. It's great to see such progress being made, and such a community gathering of prayers and spirit in support. Let's all hope and pray the improvements keep on coming.
  12. Will do. Also some thanks due to what sounds like a group of really dedicated, capable medical people. May God bless them all.
  13. An easy way to avoid the oiling of rifle and shotgun stocks is to store the guns muzzle down. It looks funny, but the oil stays on the metal parts, where you intended it to go. I usually run a swab or bore mop down the barrel after storing for any length of time. The oil can accumulate and gum up in the chamber.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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