ALL Those in Favor of Double Shotgun with ejectors

[Carlzbad , SASS #4221]

This is for the territorial governors to bring up at their meeting this year to change the rules about double shotguns with ejectors. These were made during the time period that sass rules dictate. If you need proof go to the Blue Book and look under Remington shotguns or in Wikipedia: Daniel Myron LeFever

Daniel Myron LeFever is credited with the invention of the American hammerless shotgun. Working for Barber & LeFever in Syracuse, N.Y. he introduced his first hammerless shotgun in 1878. This gun was cocked with external cocking levers on the side of the breech. He formed his own company, The LeFever Arms Co., in 1880 and went on to patent the first truly automatic hammerless shotgun in 1883. This gun automatically cocked itself when the breech was closed. He later developed the mechanism to automatically eject the shells when the breech was opened. The LeFever Arms Co. went on to make some of the finest double barrel shotguns in America until they were bought by The Ithaca Gun Co. in 1916.I think this a little more chance to compete with these auto 97s. I have always shoot a double since I started in 1994 and always felt 97 had a advantage cause of people with big hands.

That's my two bits.

[Jack Houston # 35508]

Never Happen!

[M.T Chambers, SASS#76185]

Gettin' the spent shells out hasn't been as much of a problem as gettin' the next two in, at least for me!

[Major Miles Stone]

Yes. As long as pump action shotguns are legal, doubles with ejectors should be. Alternatively, only allow shooters to pull two shells at any one time.

 

Don (Working on the Alias!)

[ChuteTheMall]

If we go strictly by time period, we'll be shooting bolt action rifles and double action revolvers in no time.

 

John Wayne didn't need ejectors.

 

If '97s have such a new-fangled advantage, let them remove their ejectors instead.

[Keystone, SASS # 47578]

Well,

 

As that great philosopher Charlie Brown exclaimed......GOOD GRIEF!

 

Hasta Luego, Keystone

 

P.S. It ain't even winter yet and we're playing beat the nag.

[Wallaby Jack, SASS #44062]

..... no thanks .....

 

 

.. wbj ..

[Possum Skinner, SASS#60697]

No. No. No!

[Phantom, SASS #54973]

You do that and you KILL the 97...

 

If that's what ya want...why not man-up and say it?

 

Oy!!!

 

 

Oh, and by the way, my hands ain't big...I've just put in a little time PRACTICING!

 

[G. I. Tarpicker, SASS #998]

Ejector guns are fine for skeet, trap, and sporting clays, but extractor guns are better for hunting and CAS, as are double triggers. IMNSHO. -- GIT

[Guest diablo slim shootist]

Fine... If they have an original Lefever with ejectors I would make

an exception

[Grizzly Dave]

No thanks

 

Grizz

[Goatneck Clem]

OK Boys

 

I will inject food for thought based on your proposed Double issue. When a Gunsmith does an action job on your Double and the Ejectors are left in place you are going to add additional spring presure to your action. Thus adding additional time to your shotgun portion of the stage. Lets use say 1 to 2 seconds for example only, per stage that totals 12 to 24 sec. per 12 stage match. Now there is a way to tune the ejectors, than you will add an additional $50 or so to your Action Job. You do the numbers.

 

 

 

Goatneck

[Doc Coles SASS 1188]

Available in the period has never had much to do with SASS rules. I will pass on this change because it will just start another equipment war. I just don't see the point or the need.

[Carlzbad , SASS #4221]

First of keystone so what if it ain't winter why don't you make a logical comment about this subject. Second John Wayne did use a double shotgun with ejectors in a western movie it is called Mclintock

[Big Jake1001]

Yes. As long as pump action shotguns are legal, doubles with ejectors should be. Alternatively, only allow shooters to pull two shells at any one time.

 

Don (Working on the Alias!)

 

I'm putting my Flame suit on first. Cowboy Action Shooting has been around for 30 years, Sass about 24 years. When the rules were written there were shotguns with Ejectors and they could be used with the Auto ejectors disabled. Period.

 

Now some newbie comes along and wants to allow ejectors as long as we(SASS) allow pump shotguns(97's). Yeah, right. How about Joining SASS first, put in some time shooting and talking to some OLD timers who have been around the block before making statements like that. I like to see new shooters in this game, I just don't like someone trying to change the rules before he even joins up.

 

This 97 vs. Double thing has been going on even before SASS started. End of Trail was shot for years before SASS. 1982-1987 in April at Coto de Caza Calif. I started in 1985 at EoT, and watched it evolve into something really great. 92,500 people later and it has morphed into something other than what it was.

 

Please don't come into a game and start changing everything cuz YOU think it should be that way. Learn the game and enjoy it. You like doubles...fine, I have them too. I prefer my 97's, thank you very much. Just sayin'.........OK ....flame suit on and zipped up tight.

 

Big Jake

[Harvey Mushman]

Absolutely NO, and I'm a double shooter (have 97s too).

More of us 2-fers everyday, including 97 converts - tide changing.

No rule change necessary, PERIOD. WAAAYYY more new problems and cost.

 

If it ain't broke, don't fix it!

 

Cheers,

Harvey

[Goody, SASS #26190]

Carlzbad

 

I tried to drum up support for just this same thing. I think it's an idea that has merit. As Goatneck says, the guns are a real bear to open, having to push against that extra spring pressure. I don't see at as an advantage, nor do I think it would bring about the demise of the 97.

 

I suggested that we also do away with the empty in the chamber rule, this takes away any percieved advantage to having to shuck or not. If a live round is found in the gun then access the penalty.

 

While I know that both positions are unpopular and would propbably fail to gain enough votes to pass, I will still propose whatever I feel like should change.

[Carlzbad , SASS #4221]

No I do not want to get rid of the 97 that is not why I started this. I just saying if you shot a 97 with an ejector what's the difference with a double with ejectors. Also I don't brag but I am pretty fast with a double.It funny that we allow all these modification to other guns but bring up a subject about a gun that was manufacture this way and we get pissy about it because we all think we are experts at this game. I to have been at this game a long time and seen the changes in it to.

[Jack Houston # 35508]

I suggested that we also do away with the empty in the chamber rule, this takes away any percieved advantage to having to shuck or not. If a live round is found in the gun then access the penalty.

 

 

 

Damnit.......I agree with Goody on this

[Guest Cinch, SASS#29433]

Just aim those empties at your own top lip and not at the RO/TO

[Throckmorton,23149]

Just aim those empties at your own top lip and not at the RO/TO

 

+1 !!! that would be my main objection to doubles haveing ejectors,some of them eject into the next zip code .ouch !

 

it takes waaaaaaaaay more time to load 2 than dump 2,so I think it's just not necessary t allow them. Also,will we have to put them in a different class than us handicapped shooters that don't have ejectors???

[Griff]

Leave the double guns alone. Ejectors aren't an advantage. '97s are not an advantage over the double as it is.

[Nate Kiowa Jones #6765]

No I do not want to get rid of the 97 that is not why I started this. I just saying if you shot a 97 with an ejector what's the difference with a double with ejectors. Also I don't brag but I am pretty fast with a double.It funny that we allow all these modification to other guns but bring up a subject about a gun that was manufacture this way and we get pissy about it because we all think we are experts at this game. I to have been at this game a long time and seen the changes in it to.

 

 

Leave them alone. As stated, the difference is ejecting SXS's throw the hulls toward the TO and counters. A 97 doesn't. It's a safety concern. Plus the 97 only ejects one at a time. The ejecting SXS does two at a time. Since most long guns are staged horazontal now days and many times the shotgun string is broke up, the 97 doesn’t have much advantage anymore.

[Lone Dog, SASS #20401]

This change is long over-due. There is no reason ejector doubles should stay banned, they should never have been outlawed in the first place. It was a big mistake in the beginning and remains a bad deal to this day.

 

If a TO can't stand where he won't get whacked upside his punkin' haid by ejected empties or is too slow to dodge give the timer to someone else. That the TO might catch an empty in the teeth is an argument with no merit. We finally allowed ejectors on single shots and I haven't heard of any problem. My H&R/NEF single shooters will launch empty shells OVER the TO's head.

 

Of course hammerless ejector guns would still not be allowed in CC or BP categories and such where they would be unseemly. But in the age-based and "modern" cats, let 'em in and let 'em run. No reason not to.

 

No one should be allowed to have more than two shells in any hand at any time. But that's just my old arthritic can't-do-it-meowndangself NSHO. Dang it.

 

The Model 12 should be allowed in WB.

 

The 93/97 should be finally let in.

 

And finally folks, one more time and pay attention this time GOODY, there are NO "c"s in the word assess.

 

Mr. Correctifier.

[Ace_of_Hearts]

Two cents worth.....

 

Get rid of 97's in B-Western and let um shoot any side by side.

[Anvil Al #59168]

Nope. Leave it the way it is.

 

Part of the fun is shucking the shells.

[Goody, SASS #26190]

Nope. Leave it the way it is.

 

Part of the fun is shucking the shells.

 

We are talking about allowing them, not requiring them. You would still be free to shuck till your hearts content.

 

And Lone Dog, I do apologize. I didn't have access to a dictionary to look up assess.

[Carlzbad , SASS #4221]

THANK YOU GOODY

[BLACKFOOT SASS #11947]

Hexx No.

 

Drifter

[Anvil Al #59168]

We are talking about allowing them, not requiring them. You would still be free to shuck till your hearts content.

 

And Lone Dog, I do apologize. I didn't have access to a dictionary to look up assess.

 

I would still say no. Leave it alone. Fine just the way it is.

 

You can tinker with things to much and screw things up. Things in the SG department are the last things

we need to change.

[Gold Canyon Kid #43974]

Now I need auto injectors a lot more than auto ejectors for my doubles. Neither will happen.

[Flying W Ramrod]

For the folks worrying about the ejected rounds heading to the next county or at the TO, I guess you don't shoot plainsman or don't shoot it with a handy rifle. Unless the TO is DIRECTLY behind the action, you wouldn't get hit by ejected hulls. The shooter is more likly to get a couple of hulls to the head.

 

As for the change, again, if you practice and properly take care of your action/chambers, shucking hulls is easy. Easier with smokeless than BP, but still easy.

[Pit Bull Tex]

Just leave things alone.Go out and work at you double.Watch the vids. on here.

[Slowhand Bob, 24229]

My vote would be yes. Most arguments posted seem to be based on a concept of individuals being against requiring it. I have wondered about the concept that was used to ban them in the first place, while allowing for the '97??? I love it when so many reasons given are totally contrary to each other, it wouldn't improve the speed on one hand while on the other it would kill the poor old '97s last bit of advantage? Guys we can paint all kinds of pictures around something like this but in the end we will still come down to one philosophy, I want to dictate what someone else uses. Funny how many of your names have appeared in the past criticizing others for doing what you called the same thing! If it were correct for the period, if it is reasonably safe and if you are still allowed your own gun of choice, then what is your real deep dark fear of this?? For those who profess to be in the 'no new rules' or 'no more categories' camp, this is no such thing, it is just an inclusion into an already established list of acceptable period firearms. Sometimes we are a hoot, for sure!