Bart Slade

So did I, that's why I didn't clip it off

Tangental to this...the wife just bought a Lincoln Nautilus with the 2.7 liter 335 horse motor. Very nice ride, the motor is very responsive. 8 speed automatic. If the Bronco has the same setup, it should have plenty of giddyup.

Read the following bit of advice in the July 17, 1869 copy of the Washington Standard (weekly newspaper printed in Olympia, Washington Territory). I'm just guessing this is a remedy for when the blueing has worn off a firearm....but if anyone is more knowledgeable (or has tried this) please share.

Read a couple of newspaper articles from July 1869 that mention anvil firing in passing (regarding prematurely fired anvils), such as this article from the Albany (Oregon) Democrat: Maybe I'm in the minority - but I couldn't help but wonder...what the heck is "discharging an anvil"? Turns out it was a thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anvil_firing And it's still done today to one extent or another: Any of y'all ever done (or witnessed) this?

I'm a little confused on the history of the Merwin & Hulbert company. I read the following history on Wikipedia: "Joseph Merwin was involved with marketing and manufacturing revolvers as early as 1856 when he formed an arms company known as Merwin & Bray. This company folded by 1874. In 1876 Merwin formed a partnership with William and Milan Hulbert, who owned 50% interest in Hopkins & Allen. Merwin and Hulbert not only designed firearms, but imported firearms and retailed firearms and other goods in a large sporting goods endeavor. Merwin and Hulbert additionally purchased several firearms manufacturers. Author Art Phelps opined that if Merwin and Hulbert had not marked the revolvers with the manufacturers name 'Hopkins and Allen' (known for inexpensive and poor quality weapons), the Merwin Hulbert would be as well known as Colt, Smith & Wesson, and Remington.[4]" I question the accuracy of this statement (particularly the highlighted part) - because I found the following ad in 1869 editions of Harper's Weekly: So they look established in 1869, far earlier than Wikipedia states (not that Wikipedia is a gold standard for accuracy). Anybody know of a history of M&H that is accurate?

Let me preface by saying - I love the interwebs! Hopefully some of you will find this interesting; Yesterday I was reading a 1869 issue of "Harper's Weekly", and came across the following blurb: So I did a quick google search - it turns out that one of the four wounded men was a (at the time) 21 year old immigrant from Germany named Adolph Roenigk, who later in life wrote a memoir "Pioneer History of Kansas" that included an account of the above incident: http://www.ksgenweb.org/archives/statewide/history/roenigk/chpt22.htm Which is a very interesting read - I was awake half the night last night because I couldn't quit thinking about it! So during the attack, he was armed with a Spencer Carbine: "On the 28th of May, 1869, there were seven of us who went out on the handcar. Besides the three who carried Spencer rifles were George Taylor, Alexander McKeefer, John Lynch and a man whose name I have forgotten. The latter had his rifle with him, but had left his ammunition at the station. The other three were unarmed." He goes into further detail both before and afterwards as to how the men often went out unarmed (or without ammo) and the reasons for such. The unnamed man (who's name he had forgotten) had what I"m going to guess was a 1866 Springfield trapdoor (somebody correct this if you have more information than me, I'm no expert) based on the following statement: "The railroad company had armed its men with rifles for self protection, one gun for each man, which was issued with the regular outfit of tools. They were breech-loading rifles of unusual calibre. The ammunition could not be found for sale anywhere, and it was supplied to us by the railroad company in such limited quantities as to allow us no opportunity for target practice." So here's where the "real world" problem with the Spencer comes in. I knew the Spencer only held 7 rounds, and also knew the magazine could be overloaded, which would prevent the magazine follower/butt plate from being properly inserted. But I'd never considered the real world problems with that: "After that first shout of alarm, I saw Indians mounted on ponies, coming out of the ravine west of us yelling like demons. One can imagine I did not wait for the last Indian to emerge from the ravine but ran for my gun, seized my cartridge bag and slung the strap over my shoulder the way I carried it. I grabbed a handful of cartridges, loading in such haste that I got in one cartridge too many and was unable to close the magazine. To correct this mistake consumed several precious moments.". He follows later with "Here I will say while I was fumbling with my gun, loading it, taking out one cartridge to get it in order, there was ample time for me with my repeating Spencer to have fired three or four shots, and at the short range I could easily have unhorsed a couple of savages if my gun had been loaded as I had intended; but here, as is often the case, at the critical moment there is something to mar our calculations." I found the description of the incident quite fascinating, and had 1000 questions afterwards - the primary being, why wouldn't you keep the Spencer loaded all the time? Was it particularly dangerous (without a cartridge in the chamber), or hard on the gun, or on the ammo? Was it just considered a waste of effort? Or was it a pride? And I'd never considered that in a panic, the Spencer would be difficult to load correctly (certainly more difficult than the Henry or '66 Winchester). I also found it interesting that the description of the Indian attack makes it clear that the Indians were poor shots (which makes sense, they wouldn't have had extra ammo for practice either, nor instruction on how to use the rifles). The description of the escape on the hand car also deserves note; the men could operate the hand car OR they could shoot at the Indians - but they couldn't do both! Something I'd never considered. Anyway, I hope someone out there finds all this as interesting as I did.

I offer you a sincere "Thank You!" for calling me out on that. Having lurked these subs for a few months, I'm aware (intellectually) that we don't refer to our firearms as "weapons" in this community, but habitually I'm having a hard time fixing that. I'll get it sooner or later.

You're absolutely right, and I don't mean to be suggesting going back to a 1 handgun deal. My suggestion is that it be explicitly OK to use just one handgun at a local match - and then either reload on the clock or take a time penalty - 5 misses and a procedural, plus maybe a "no gun" penalty of 15-30 seconds. This way, there's no impact to any of the people with the proper equipment - they're going to do far better timewise (unless they take a SDQ or something) so no effect on the people who are trying to compete. I can certainly accept that my idea seems to be falling flat; but most of the feedback I'm seeing highlights the generous nature of the SASS community - my suggestion is aimed at drawing people in to experience that community. Where I'm from (Seattle suburbs - in an area far more urban than rural), people aren't used to that kind of generosity. Even having spent a few months reading blogs and watching youtube videos and such about how great the community is, I was STILL surprised.

You make excellent points there, you're right that most local clubs would accommodate a person who was short guns. And once the person got to a shoot, they'd certainly be loaned guns. What I'm driving at though is getting younger people in the door. We need to look at this from the perspective of the younger crowd we're trying to attract. The question being - how do you get them to a match? My assumption there being, once you get them to a match - somebody will loan them guns, they'll be hooked...just like everyone is saying. But you have to get them there first. So the accommodation I'm floating is, what if SASS made it clear you could join a match if you only had one pistol? The rules are set up so that you take a penalty that would ensure you're not competitive (even if you're awesome with that pistol), so no harm to any of the other people at the match. And, odds are, that person that shows up with one pistol is going to be loaned everything else they need for the match. So the "rule change" (If you can even call it that - I'd say it's more of a "clarification" that you can take a bunch of misses for weapons you don't have, and more importantly advertising that) is more about getting the first timer to come to a match than it is an actually functioning rule. But, maybe a better solution is to just make it clear that a person can show up with one pistol (or one shotgun, or one rifle) and join in the fun.

Well, I plan to reload. I don't currently - but I'm planning to start this weekend with some used gear (and some basic tools) I picked up. I'm starting with a bunch of hand tools (other than a Lee Load's All II that I picked up for $10.00), I want to see the nuts and bolts of it before I decide on any kind of bench press. Using BP of course!

Hey Smitty! I've been shooting with Cedar County Sheriff the last three weeks (on Fridays) and attended the Cascade Ghostriders shoot a couple of weeks ago, and had a blast (as did my younger son who shot with me)! I'm unfortunately out of town the first weekend of July - but we'll be around! I was planning to shoot last weekend in Poulsbo, but was unexpectedly called in to work. My son and I did borrow leather from Jus Dandee when we shot in Ravenesdale. He (and everyone there) was very generous; shared his cart with us as well. Everyone gave us tons of advice, it was well worth doing. I just wish I'd have started up earlier when I only had one pistol!

In theory, I agree with you 100%. In practice though...I'm personally not comfortable borrowing things from people I don't know, and I'm even more uncomfortable counting on borrowing things. I'm perfectly comfortable going to a business and renting things (such as the bowling example). Such as, I've been to gun ranges a few times and rented guns to shoot, but I would never go there and ask people if I could borrow their gun to shoot. And to a new person, I think the gun range example is far more what's on their mind than the bowling example. And as for why you would make an exception to the rules - I'm not saying make an exception, I'm suggesting "change them". The reason being is that you want to draw in the guy who only has one gun (one pistol for example). Once that person gets comfortable with borrowing other people's gear, they're likely to start doing so - but before they will you've got to get them in the door. So I'm suggesting maybe forget "understanding" why a person wouldn't want to accept a generous offer, and just recognize that they exist and feel that way - and find a way to draw them in.

Well, like I said, I'm a greenhorn - I've been to three practices and one matches (well, two matches, but I've only shot in one). I have been lurking these subs for about 8 months (every since I found out about SASS) - and from what I can tell, "THE" big issue is finding new shooters. Maybe I'm seeing that as a larger issue than it really is, that's certainly entirely possible. So, speaking for myself, I first got interested last November (long story), and just started shooting this month (June). What kept me away for so long? Having to acquire the equipment. I've read (and later found) that shooters are happy to share, but I didn't want to count on that. I'd bet there are a LOT of people that don't want to count on that. Anyway, as inexperienced as I am...I do have a "new guy's" perspective, and I'd like for you guys to be able to take advantage of that while I still have it.

Well, first - I'm talking about a first timer, a person who doesn't appreciate the SASS culture. And second, I don't think we need to understand it - but we do need to recognize it. Maybe. Like I said, "what do I know?"

I didn't address what was going to be the obvious response - the community is very generous and willing to let other people try their guns. But my thinking (and maybe this is just me) is that borrowing firearms from people they don't yet know is uncomfortable for some people. Speaking for myself, I didn't go for the idea of coming to a match hoping I could borrow a bunch of guns. I'm just trying (as a new guy - so kind of 'outside looking in') to crack the "how do you get younger people involved" nut. I've got a 27 and a 30 year old son, trying to figure out how to get them motivated (they are interested in coming to matches and using my guns). If they had to borrow an unknown persons guns, I'm sure they wouldn't come. But if they could get in for $200-$300.00 (the cost of one used pistol), they might go for that.