ruger old army

[Larsen E. Pettifogger, SASS #32933]

This is my personal opinion only and counts for nothing else.

 

I do not favor allowing adjustable sights into the Frontiersman or any other Black Powder Category whether they be on a Ruger, Colt, Remington or whatever you choose to shoot.

 

Frontiersman was started before the fixed sighted ROAs came along and did just fine without them. Actually I'm pretty sure the adjustable sighted models were outlawed before there even were fixed sighted available.

Whether or not the sights offer an advantage has nothing to do with how I see this issue.

 

I've done just fine in both Frontiersman and Plainsman and have very rarely used Rugers to do it.

Lefty Eastman has won championships all over the place and I don't think he has ever used the ROA.

In my opinion the pretty good copies of the originals are just fine for Frontiersman and Plainsman.

Don't get me wrong It's not the Ruger I'm at issue with, it's the adjustable sights.

 

+++111. When you are shooting BP part of the ambiance is not having modern adjustable sighted revolvers. They should not be allowed if, for no other reason, they just don't look right! Most of the people that argue for this change don't shoot Frontiersman. It has been and will always be fine the way it is. Leave it alone.

[PaleWolf Brunelle, #2495L]

...

I do not know who sat on the commitee when it was decided to require mutilation of the adjustable sighted ROA in order to make it legal for Frontiersman category, but I cannot imagine that any of those folks actually shot in the category. I cannot imagine that anyone who enjoys shooting cap and ball guns would encourage the mutilation of any of these guns.

 

The ROA's were added to the section of the "Firearms Covenants" that 'legalized' Ruger Blackhawks that had been modified to the Colt SAA configuration for fast draw competition (also in use by a few members of the ROC).

 

This wasn't a matter of requiring/encouraging "mutilation" but an allowance to modify them in order to compete with those revolvers in the historically TRADITIONAL (BP) categories for SASS competition.

 

Any change to the current category rules will require a 2/3 majority of the Territorial Governors for approval.

 

FWIW - A number of the ROC members regularly shoot percussion revolvers.

[Wyandot Jim]

This is my personal opinion only and counts for nothing else.

 

I do not favor allowing adjustable sights into the Frontiersman or any other Black Powder Category whether they be on a Ruger, Colt, Remington or whatever you choose to shoot.

 

Frontiersman was started before the fixed sighted ROAs came along and did just fine without them. Actually I’m pretty sure the adjustable sighted models were outlawed before there even were fixed sighted available.

Whether or not the sights offer an advantage has nothing to do with how I see this issue.

 

I’ve done just fine in both Frontiersman and Plainsman and have very rarely used Rugers to do it.

Lefty Eastman has won championships all over the place and I don’t think he has ever used the ROA.

In my opinion the pretty good copies of the originals are just fine for Frontiersman and Plainsman.

Don't get me wrong It's not the Ruger I'm at issue with, it's the adjustable sights.

 

Well Rowdy,

I have been shooting Frontiersman and Plainsman for 7 years and have done OK at it. No I'm not one of the famous Guys.

What I see at the monthly matches is I'm about the only one shooting it. These are matches with 30-80 shooters. Now at the bigger shoots sometimes they don't have enough to make a category. So I take another set of guns.

And some of these are State Black-powder Matches. Not much fun with 2-3 in a category. Unless ya have to have a buckle.

Will FS ROAs made a difference?? I don't know but it might help. If it helps I would be all for it. By the way I also shoot some Colt 1860 Armys and a Walker. Would I take them to a match where I paid big money to compete. Not on your life.

Look at the top shooters at EOT and tell me what they shot. I sure know since I have shot with a lot of them. Different times and a different game. Speaking of times who would have thought stages at EOT could be shot mid 20s with C&Bs.

Just like you this is my opinion good or bad

Wyandot

[J-BAR #18287]

They should not be allowed if, for no other reason, they just don't look right! Most of the people that argue for this change don't shoot Frontiersman.

 

 

I shoot Frontiersman about 80% of the time. I use ROAs about as much as I use my 1851 Navies. I presently hold the speed stage record for Frontiersman Category at Central Ozarks Western Shooters in Rolla, MO, and I set that record with the Uberti 1851 Navies.

 

I don't like the way the Henry Big Boys and Omnipotent revolvers look. I also don't like the way Vaqueros look when they have Super Blackhawk hammers on them. But such matters of personal taste may not be a justification for outlawing a particular gun. These oddball looking guns are legal, aren't they?

[Larsen E. Pettifogger, SASS #32933]

1345324259[/url]' post='2487742']

I shoot Frontiersman about 80% of the time. I use ROAs about as much as I use my 1851 Navies. I presently hold the speed stage record for Frontiersman Category at Central Ozarks Western Shooters in Rolla, MO, and I set that record with the Uberti 1851 Navies.

 

I don't like the way the Henry Big Boys and Omnipotent revolvers look. I also don't like the way Vaqueros look when they have Super Blackhawk hammers on them. But such matters of personal taste may not be a justification for outlawing a particular gun. These oddball looking guns are legal, aren't they?

 

Sure, but when you are shooting your ROA's you aren't using adjustable sights. Just because someone is using something oddball in one category doesn't mean standards should constantly be pushed to the lowest common denominator in every other category. Otherwise we don't need any rules. Everyone can just do their own thing. Just my opinion, but Frontiersman is fine the way it is. A few months back someone was arguing to allow two handed shooting in Frontiersman. I thought and still think that is also a bad idea.

[J-BAR #18287]

Sure, but when you are shooting your ROA's you aren't using adjustable sights. Just because someone is using something oddball in one category doesn't mean standards should constantly be pushed to the lowest common denominator in every other category. Otherwise we don't need any rules. Everyone can just do their own thing. Just my opinion, but Frontiersman is fine the way it is. A few months back someone was arguing to allow two handed shooting in Frontiersman. I thought and still think that is also a bad idea.

 

 

I agree with you that Frontiersman should remain a one-handed category. I have never stated otherwise, so your comment is unwarranted. And I think it should be obvious that I enjoy it the way it is. I was responding to the statement that reconsidering allowing the use of the adjustable sighted ROAs is coming from those who are not shooting in Frontiersman category. I provided my bona fides to prove that I shoot Frontiersman and it would not bother me to have the adjustable sighted ROAs allowed in the category. I also responded to the statement that "not looking right" is sufficient justification to ban a gun. Each of us has our opinion about what looks right. I have not made any comments about pushing anything to the lowest common denominator and not needing any rules. Those are your statements, not mine.

 

This is not anything any of us should lose sleep over. I am not really campaigning for a change. All I am saying is that I do not think the older model ROA with 7 1/2 inch barrel and adjustable sights would be the gun chosen by those who want to win in Frontiersman category. I do not see that it provides a competitive advantage over the guns that are presently legal for Frontiersman. If the rules commitee decides to allow the use of adjustable sighted ROAs in Frontiersman I will not object. What I object to is rules that do not have a sound logical basis. And in my opinion the only logical basis for outlawing a particular gun in any category would be that it gives an unfair competitive advantage.

[Rowdy Yates, SASS #141]

 

 

If the rules commitee decides to allow the use of adjustable sighted ROAs in Frontiersman I will not object.

 

FYI and like PaleWolf said:

Any change to the current category rules will require a 2/3 majority of the Territorial Governors for approval.

[Wyandot Jim]

I agree with you that Frontiersman should remain a one-handed category. I have never stated otherwise, so your comment is unwarranted. And I think it should be obvious that I enjoy it the way it is. I was responding to the statement that reconsidering allowing the use of the adjustable sighted ROAs is coming from those who are not shooting in Frontiersman category. I provided my bona fides to prove that I shoot Frontiersman and it would not bother me to have the adjustable sighted ROAs allowed in the category. I also responded to the statement that "not looking right" is sufficient justification to ban a gun. Each of us has our opinion about what looks right. I have not made any comments about pushing anything to the lowest common denominator and not needing any rules. Those are your statements, not mine.

 

This is not anything any of us should lose sleep over. I am not really campaigning for a change. All I am saying is that I do not think the older model ROA with 7 1/2 inch barrel and adjustable sights would be the gun chosen by those who want to win in Frontiersman category. I do not see that it provides a competitive advantage over the guns that are presently legal for Frontiersman. If the rules commitee decides to allow the use of adjustable sighted ROAs in Frontiersman I will not object. What I object to is rules that do not have a sound logical basis. And in my opinion the only logical basis for outlawing a particular gun in any category would be that it gives an unfair competitive advantage.

 

J-Bar,

Thank you so much. Very well said.

If everybody wanted to look COOL we would all be shooting SAAs or pre SAAs

Yea makes me no difference. Just less to compete and have fun with.

WJ

[Larsen E. Pettifogger, SASS #32933]

I agree with you that Frontiersman should remain a one-handed category. I have never stated otherwise, so your comment is unwarranted. And I think it should be obvious that I enjoy it the way it is. I was responding to the statement that reconsidering allowing the use of the adjustable sighted ROAs is coming from those who are not shooting in Frontiersman category. I provided my bona fides to prove that I shoot Frontiersman and it would not bother me to have the adjustable sighted ROAs allowed in the category. I also responded to the statement that "not looking right" is sufficient justification to ban a gun. Each of us has our opinion about what looks right. I have not made any comments about pushing anything to the lowest common denominator and not needing any rules. Those are your statements, not mine.

 

This is not anything any of us should lose sleep over. I am not really campaigning for a change. All I am saying is that I do not think the older model ROA with 7 1/2 inch barrel and adjustable sights would be the gun chosen by those who want to win in Frontiersman category. I do not see that it provides a competitive advantage over the guns that are presently legal for Frontiersman. If the rules commitee decides to allow the use of adjustable sighted ROAs in Frontiersman I will not object. What I object to is rules that do not have a sound logical basis. And in my opinion the only logical basis for outlawing a particular gun in any category would be that it gives an unfair competitive advantage.

 

J Bar, go back and re-read my post. I never said anything about you. It was a comment about another attempt to change Frontiersman, which as another example of things people have proposed for this category is certainly warranted.. I write things simple and to the point. Don't read more into what I have said than what is there.

 

As far as the sights themselves. As I am getting older I can see a target rear blade with a large square cut in it and a tall ramped front sight a lot easier than a small brass blade and a notch in the back of a hammer. Even the ROA with its blade and groove does not present the sight picture a set of target sights do. Not sure when or if this will ever come to a vote. But, I hope they decide to keep Frontiersman the simple game it is now.

[Rowdy Yates, SASS #141]

Well Wyandot, many, not all, but many of the top shooters you are talking about only entered Frontiersman because they could do so with a high tech piece of modern technology and have little appreciation for the Frontiersman Category’s soul. That’s not necessarily a negative but having broken bread with many of them and discussed the subject that’s just how it is.

 

For some of us the Black Powder categories have a soul that is missing in the others. I see this category and the other BP categories as being the closest association we can have with the real old west as it was settled from the 1850s through the 1880s. The great cattle drives and the great cow towns and gold towns that made the west what it was.

No offence intended amigo, just kinda hate seein’ that whittled on.

[Wyandot Jim]

Well Wyandot, many, not all, but many of the top shooters you are talking about only entered Frontiersman because they could do so with a high tech piece of modern technology and have little appreciation for the Frontiersman Category’s soul. That’s not necessarily a negative but having broken bread with many of them and discussed the subject that’s just how it is.

 

For some of us the Black Powder categories have a soul that is missing in the others. I see this category and the other BP categories as being the closest association we can have with the real old west as it was settled from the 1850s through the 1880s. The great cattle drives and the great cow towns and gold towns that made the west what it was.

No offence intended amigo, just kinda hate seein’ that whittled on.

 

Rowdy,

No offence taken and never will be.

You are 100% correct about the Pards coming into Frontiersman.

We still have the problem of getting more FR guys. How do we do that? Like I stated, I have gone to BP State shoots and be the only one in FM. That isn't any fun.

That is the main reason I bought the conversion cylindes for the ROA. If not enough FR. show up I will shoot some other BP category with the ROAs. Yea they don't have the cool factor but neither do a lot of other guns being shot.

I do believe we as FM need to do something to keep our caregory going. I sure don't know what that is.

WJ

[Larsen E. Pettifogger, SASS #32933]

Rowdy,

No offence taken and never will be.

You are 100% correct about the Pards coming into Frontiersman.

We still have the problem of getting more FR guys. How do we do that? Like I stated, I have gone to BP State shoots and be the only one in FM. That isn't any fun.

That is the main reason I bought the conversion cylindes for the ROA. If not enough FR. show up I will shoot some other BP category with the ROAs. Yea they don't have the cool factor but neither do a lot of other guns being shot.

I do believe we as FM need to do something to keep our caregory going. I sure don't know what that is.

WJ

 

Seems fewer and fewer want to take the time to work with C&B's. At many shoots I am the only Frontiersman and at a couple of shoots wound up shooting duelist with the smokeless boys as that was the only category that was close. I don't know what the answer is either. But, I sure hope it isn't to gut the essence of Frontiersman.

[Brooklyn Slim]

I can understand the issues with the cap and ball revolver, but then I look at the handbook and any SASS legal rifle, and lever action shotgun are allowed. If we're looking for 1850-1870 time frame, why not be as strict with the long guns as we are with the revolvers?

[Rowdy Yates, SASS #141]

I can understand the issues with the cap and ball revolver, but then I look at the handbook and any SASS legal rifle, and lever action shotgun are allowed. If we're looking for 1850-1870 time frame, why not be as strict with the long guns as we are with the revolvers?

That was the original intent.

Started out you needed a '73 or older rifle and a shotgun with hammers.

Problem is there weren't so many mule ears around like there is now and in order to get more shooters into the cat the rifle and shotgun requirements were changed. Frontiersman was growing real good and then when SASS adopted it and made it duelist participation fell off dramatically.

Not sayin' anything, just filling in the history.

[English Luke]

I shoot Frontiersman and I agree with not allowing adjustable sights but can't see the problem with a drop in conversion to a fixed rear sight and changing the foresight, could this conversion not be a relatively inexpensive way forward ?

[PaleWolf Brunelle, #2495L]

REF: SHB p.3 - "SASS FIREARMS COVENANTS"

[English Luke]

REF: SHB p.3 - "SASS FIREARMS COVENANTS"

I realise it is currently not allowed, just asking whether it should be

[PaleWolf Brunelle, #2495L]

I shoot Frontiersman and I agree with not allowing adjustable sights but can't see the problem with a drop in conversion to a fixed rear sight and changing the foresight, could this conversion not be a relatively inexpensive way forward ?

 

REF: SHB p.3 - "SASS FIREARMS COVENANTS"

 

I realise it is currently not allowed, just asking whether it should be

 

The reference cited was to the procedure for getting a firearm modification approved.

[Noz]

I am strongly opposed to any changes in Frontiersman.

[Howdy Doody]

I agree with everything Rowdy says on this subject. I shoot ROAs myself and they are fine. However, I started in frontiersman with Pietta 1858 Remingtons and those equipped with better nipples are just as fast, just as reliable and a whole lot cheaper than a real good ROA. Just because some folks shoot ROAs and are fast, does not mean that you have to have them. Like I said I shoot ROAs myself, so I am not bashing them, but there are alternatives out there. Rowdy mentioned Lefty Eastman and you will have a great day if you can do better than him with his 1860s. It does not seem to be economical to properly convert the ROA adjustable to fixed and the guns will be worthless modified like that if ever resold. Just sayin'

[Buffalo Dick, SASS #12880]

Well Wyandot, many, not all, but many of the top shooters you are talking about only entered Frontiersman because they could do so with a high tech piece of modern technology and have little appreciation for the Frontiersman Category’s soul. That’s not necessarily a negative but having broken bread with many of them and discussed the subject that’s just how it is.

 

For some of us the Black Powder categories have a soul that is missing in the others. I see this category and the other BP categories as being the closest association we can have with the real old west as it was settled from the 1850s through the 1880s. The great cattle drives and the great cow towns and gold towns that made the west what it was.

No offence intended amigo, just kinda hate seein’ that whittled on.

 

Well said! While I have 5 1/2" ROA's, I usually shoot Frontiersman with a pair of 2nd generation 1860's.

[Dick Dastardly SASS #45219]

My brace of old ROAs have brass back straps and square back trigger guards. They had only adjustable sights available at the time. That was before SASS existed. I shoot them Frontiersman and if some rule Nazi says something, I haul out my Kirst Konverter cylinders and change category, thank you very much.

 

Yes, I do think that the adjustable sights on ROAs should be allowed in Frontiersman because they were there BEFORE SASS started making up rules against them.

 

I suppose I could shoot them in age based category, but I choose not to play with the old farts just yet. I'm only 71.

 

DD-MDA

[Wyandot Jim]

Dick Good fer you.

Smokem if ya gotem

[Larsen E. Pettifogger, SASS #32933]

My brace of old ROAs have brass back straps and square back trigger guards. They had only adjustable sights available at the time. That was before SASS existed. I shoot them Frontiersman and if some rule Nazi says something, I haul out my Kirst Konverter cylinders and change category, thank you very much.

 

Yes, I do think that the adjustable sights on ROAs should be allowed in Frontiersman because they were there BEFORE SASS started making up rules against them.

 

I suppose I could shoot them in age based category, but I choose not to play with the old farts just yet. I'm only 71.

 

DD-MDA

 

Applying the rules, does not make someone a rule "Nazi."

[Bad Hand]

Applying the rules, does not make someone a rule "Nazi."

 

+1

[PaleWolf Brunelle, #2495L]

My brace of old ROAs have brass back straps and square back trigger guards. They had only adjustable sights available at the time. That was before SASS existed. I shoot them Frontiersman and if some rule Nazi says something, I haul out my Kirst Konverter cylinders and change category, thank you very much.

 

Yes, I do think that the adjustable sights on ROAs should be allowed in Frontiersman because they were there BEFORE SASS started making up rules against them.

 

I suppose I could shoot them in age based category, but I choose not to play with the old farts just yet. I'm only 71.

 

DD-MDA

 

The SASS BP categories have required fixed-sighted (TRADITIONAL-type) revolvers since (at least) the mid-80's.

ALL revolvers with adjustable sights were relegated to MODERN category prior to the change to Age-Based cats.

(listed exceptions in the SHB p.6 for dove-tailed front & rear sights)

[Monco]

That is the main reason I bought the conversion cylindes for the ROA. If not enough FR. show up I will shoot some other BP category with the ROAs. Yea they don't have the cool factor but neither do a lot of other guns being shot.

 

I personally think that any ROA is one of the coolest looking guns available from any time....C&B cylinder or conversion cylinder, fixed or adj. sights, shot in any category with any number of hands. I'd be more than happy to shoot in Wrangler with a pair of em any ole day at any match. No caddy comin' my way and my pay stays the same first or last place.

[Wyandot Jim]

I personally think that any ROA is one of the coolest looking guns available from any time....C&B cylinder or conversion cylinder, fixed or adj. sights, shot in any category with any number of hands. I'd be more than happy to shoot in Wrangler with a pair of em any ole day at any match. No caddy comin' my way and my pay stays the same first or last place.

 

 

Monco,

I just don't understand how you can say that

How in the world could these be COOL loking guns???

They don't look anything like a Colt or Remmie

All they do is make a big BOOM everytime

http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk67/wyandotjim/1330559475.jpg

http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk67/wyandotjim/1330559477.jpg

[Three Foot Johnson]

Isn't it legal to use adj. sight Ruger Old Army revolvers in all age based categories using BP & Subs as long as it is not shot Gunfighter style?

 

Gunfighter style is perfectly fine with adj sight ROA's... in B Western.

[J-BAR #18287]

The SASS BP categories have required fixed-sighted (TRADITIONAL-type) revolvers since (at least) the mid-80's.

ALL revolvers with adjustable sights were relegated to MODERN category prior to the change to Age-Based cats.

(listed exceptions in the SHB p.6 for dove-tailed front & rear sights)

 

I thought I was through with this thread, honest!

 

But dang it a dovetailed sight is an adjustable sight. I have seen shooters go back to their guncarts and whack a dovetailed sight after shooting a stage and I bet you have too. The only reason to put a dovetailed sight on a revolver is so you can adjust it.

 

I am NOT campaigning for any rules change. I am just pointing out that this is another GLARING inconsistency...allowing some guns in a black powder category to have an "adjustable" sight, and not others.

 

PWB, my heart goes out to you, my friend. You have a job few if any others can do...trying to make sense out of all these rules. Thanks for your expertise and patience. You get a star in heaven.

[Brooklyn Slim]

I'm new to all this, but out of curiosity how many cap and ball revolvers were issued in stainless steel way back in the glory days of the old West?

[Wyandot Jim]

I'm new to all this, but out of curiosity how many cap and ball revolvers were issued in stainless steel way back in the glory days of the old West?

 

I don't think to many. Must be why mine are nickle plated or Blue

[J-BAR #18287]

I'm new to all this, but out of curiosity how many cap and ball revolvers were issued in stainless steel way back in the glory days of the old West?

 

 

None.

 

According to Wiki (yeah, I know, but it's quick) what we recognize as stainless steel was created after 1904.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stainless_steel

 

another:

http://www.estainlesssteel.com/historyofstainlesssteel.shtml

[Brooklyn Slim]

So why are we in a dither over fixed vs. adjustable sights, when stainless steel is OK?

[Monco]

So why are we in a dither over fixed vs. adjustable sights, when stainless steel is OK?

I am pretty new to SASS myself but I am not new to rules based competitive activities.....with that, I'll take a shot at answering your question. Beware, my explanation is pretty simple......

 

• Because the SASS rules plainly state no Adj. sights (Except for dovetailed sights)in Frontiersman and some do not agree with the rules which is fine as far as I am concerned.

• SASS competitors are expected to play by SASS rules in SASS sanctioned events.

• Rules are available and can be understood prior to making the choice to become a member and shoot at SASS sanctioned events.

• If a competitor wishes to make changes to rules, there are avenues that can be taken to propose such changes through designated channels to be voted on.

 

I suppose ROA shooters could look at the positive side and feel fortunate that ROA's can be used in SASS sanctioned events at all. Take a look at NCOWS rules by comparison. NADA to ROA's with any sight configuration or construction material.

 

That said, I am glad to be a SASS member and am also glad to play by SASS rules when required to do so.....and I also enjoy reading discussions like this one.