Cholla Posted January 7, 2022 Share Posted January 7, 2022 In looking something up I came across the SASS entry in Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cowboy_action_shooting Keep in mind anyone can add or edit entries in Wikipedia. Along with some errors, I found this last line: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garrison Joe, SASS #60708 Posted January 7, 2022 Share Posted January 7, 2022 Wikipedia accepts editing contributions for articles from the general public. I've made a few that were accepted on various ammunition and firearms topics. I don't see how a load that is within SASS rules is in violation of any part of the spirit of the game. If those loads did violate the spirit, then the "spirit" would be a conflicting rule to the published SASS rules. And, as we have seen in other discussions recently, using full power (reloading handbook) loads can exceed the velocity limits established for the game. Wikipedia does not generally accept ill-based opinions to be placed in the articles, and this entry seems to be in error about power levels of ammunition used. Like Dragnet's Joe Friday, Wiki's editors much prefer the authors "stick to the facts". good luck, GJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sixgun Sheridan Posted January 7, 2022 Share Posted January 7, 2022 Once I wrote a long, detailed history on their M1911 page, referencing my source books. Later somebody came along and completely edited it, removing key history and adding stuff that was completely bogus. I also had a good comparison picture and somebody else edited that too. I no longer waste my time contributing to that site as there are too many idiots who think they know more about something than you do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garrison Joe, SASS #60708 Posted January 7, 2022 Share Posted January 7, 2022 There's no accounting for idiots, and, with as many as there are, there's no use COUNTING them either. good luck, GJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Krazy Kajun Posted January 7, 2022 Share Posted January 7, 2022 Obviously the person making that edit is paid by the “build back better” foundation. Kajun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garrison Joe, SASS #60708 Posted January 7, 2022 Share Posted January 7, 2022 Usually it's the "I know better than anyone else" clan, I find. good luck, GJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoss Posted January 7, 2022 Share Posted January 7, 2022 Near where I live is a small community known as Flour Bluff. Part of Corpus Christi but has their own school district. Some wag edited the Flour Bluff Wiki page saying “known for bondo colored cameros, flip flop-pajama wearing wal mart shoppers, pothole streets and meth labs. Also home of the guy that invented the tooth brush. Otherwise it would have been called a teeth brush. it created a stir for a while! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tequila Shooter Posted January 7, 2022 Share Posted January 7, 2022 11 hours ago, Cholla said: In looking something up I came across the SASS entry in Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cowboy_action_shooting Keep in mind anyone can add or edit entries in Wikipedia. Along with some errors, I found this last line: What Cholla forgot to include…the references. Check out the last one I bet you it has something to do with the “Spirit of the Game” reference References[edit] ^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p Taffin, John (2005). The Gun Digest Book of Cowboy Action Shooting: Guns · Gear · Tactics. Gun Digest Books. p. 256. ISBN 978-0-89689-140-1. ^ Jump up to: a b "Single Action Shooting Society" (PDF). Wild Bunch Action Shooting Handbook. Single Action Shooting Society. October 2010. p. 1. Retrieved May 23, 2011. ^ "SASS Firearms Covenants" (PDF). Wild Bunch Action Shooting Handbook. Single Action Shooting Society. October 2010. p. 3. Retrieved May 23, 2011. ^ "1911 Pistol Requirements" (PDF). Wild Bunch Action Shooting Handbook. Single Action Shooting Society. October 2010. p. 4. Retrieved May 23, 2011. ^ "Rifle Requirements" (PDF). Wild Bunch Action Shooting Handbook. Single Action Shooting Society. October 2010. p. 6. Retrieved May 23, 2011. ^ "Shotgun Requirements" (PDF). Wild Bunch Action Shooting Handbook. Single Action Shooting Society. October 2010. p. 9. Retrieved May 23, 2011. ^ "Ammunition" (PDF). Wild Bunch Action Shooting Handbook. Single Action Shooting Society. October 2010. p. 11. Retrieved May 23, 2011. ^ "Clothing and Accouterments (sic)" (PDF). Wild Bunch Action Shooting Handbook. Single Action Shooting Society. October 2010. pp. 2–3. Retrieved May 23, 2011. ^ "Alias Lookup". sassnet.com. ^ Taffin, John (September 28, 2005). Single Action Sixguns. Iola, Wisconsin: Krause Publications. pp. 299–300. ISBN 1-4402-2694-6. ^ Brandon (December, 2021) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garrison Joe, SASS #60708 Posted January 7, 2022 Share Posted January 7, 2022 If they were writing about SASS Cowboy shooting, why use all the references to Wild Bunch handbooks and not any of the Cowboy handbooks? Given the level of inaccuracies, it's not unexpected. As for the last "reference", it is of course not even a URL entry. good luck, GJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tequila Shooter Posted January 8, 2022 Share Posted January 8, 2022 55 minutes ago, Garrison Joe, SASS #60708 said: If they were writing about SASS Cowboy shooting, why use all the references to Wild Bunch handbooks and not any of the Cowboy handbooks? Given the level of inaccuracies, it's not unexpected. As for the last "reference", it is of course not even a URL entry. good luck, GJ GJ - the last “reference” was my poor attempt at a joke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H. K. Uriah, SASS #74619 Posted January 8, 2022 Share Posted January 8, 2022 My own happy experience with Wikipedia can be found on this page...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_six_frigates_of_the_United_States_Navy When I first read this article, it listed status of these ships as the following... Planned 6 Commissioned 6 Lost 2 Retired 4 I knew that to be in accurate. So, many years ago, I personally changed it to the following... Planned 6 Commissioned 6 Active 1 Lost 2 Retired 3 I am happy to say that over a decade later, my "correction" is still what the page says. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hardpan Curmudgeon SASS #8967 Posted January 8, 2022 Share Posted January 8, 2022 Actually, that line in the Wiki report is not necessarily incorrect... check Page 25 of the Shooters Handbook, "Ammunition Covenants - Power Factors." This may not exactly be a "noted trend" now, but years past there were many discussions here about the subject, which eventually led to the creation of the "Power Factor" standards. Remember the term "mousefart loads?" I've seen 'em. Most of us have seen 'em... I have actually watched bullets sail downrange to "tink" on the steel target and fall pretty much intact. I once stopped a young lady with a "Squib!" call - her first round went off with a sound somewhere between a pop and a pffft... and I was immediately berated by the male relative who loaded the ammo. Wasn't a squib - all her ammo was loaded the same; but definitely "mousefart" loads and probably not legal. I considered the Wiki statement a reference to these type situations, rather than standard light loads within specs. Perhaps it could have been worded something like "... some shooters may use loads below specs to reduce recoil and improve their times. This would run counter to 'the spirit of the game'." At any rate, I wouldn't get too wrapped around the axle over it. On balance, the article is good press. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cholla Posted January 8, 2022 Author Share Posted January 8, 2022 1 hour ago, Hardpan Curmudgeon SASS #8967 said: Actually, that line in the Wiki report is not necessarily incorrect... check Page 25 of the Shooters Handbook, "Ammunition Covenants - Power Factors." This may not exactly be a "noted trend" now, but years past there were many discussions here about the subject, which eventually led to the creation of the "Power Factor" standards. Remember the term "mousefart loads?" I've seen 'em. Most of us have seen 'em... I have actually watched bullets sail downrange to "tink" on the steel target and fall pretty much intact. I once stopped a young lady with a "Squib!" call - her first round went off with a sound somewhere between a pop and a pffft... and I was immediately berated by the male relative who loaded the ammo. Wasn't a squib - all her ammo was loaded the same; but definitely "mousefart" loads and probably not legal. I considered the Wiki statement a reference to these type situations, rather than standard light loads within specs. Perhaps it could have been worded something like "... some shooters may use loads below specs to reduce recoil and improve their times. This would run counter to 'the spirit of the game'." At any rate, I wouldn't get too wrapped around the axle over it. On balance, the article is good press. I was a spotter at a match a few years ago. One shooter’s rifle loads were so light I couldn’t hear the shot over the “tink” of the lead hitting the target. It was like he was using an air rifle! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hardpan Curmudgeon SASS #8967 Posted January 8, 2022 Share Posted January 8, 2022 23 minutes ago, Cholla said: I was a spotter at a match a few years ago. One shooter’s rifle loads were so light I couldn’t hear the shot over the “tink” of the lead hitting the target. It was like he was using an air rifle! I hear ya - pun semi-intentional. I'm pretty sure I just stood there slack-jawed for a moment while that fella gave me a dressing-down for calling his grand-daughter... like I should have KNOWN better. Sheesh. Having seen first-hand the results of squib-caused blocked barrels... uh, no. Make 'em bang or make 'em smoke. But I do have to admit, after that it was easy enough to just follow her bullets and watch 'em bounce off the targets. Literally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Shapiro Posted January 9, 2022 Share Posted January 9, 2022 2 hours ago, Hardpan Curmudgeon SASS #8967 said: Actually, that line in the Wiki report is not necessarily incorrect... check Page 25 of the Shooters Handbook, "Ammunition Covenants - Power Factors." This may not exactly be a "noted trend" now, but years past there were many discussions here about the subject, which eventually led to the creation of the "Power Factor" standards. Remember the term "mousefart loads?" I've seen 'em. Most of us have seen 'em... I have actually watched bullets sail downrange to "tink" on the steel target and fall pretty much intact. I once stopped a young lady with a "Squib!" call - her first round went off with a sound somewhere between a pop and a pffft... and I was immediately berated by the male relative who loaded the ammo. Wasn't a squib - all her ammo was loaded the same; but definitely "mousefart" loads and probably not legal. I considered the Wiki statement a reference to these type situations, rather than standard light loads within specs. Perhaps it could have been worded something like "... some shooters may use loads below specs to reduce recoil and improve their times. This would run counter to 'the spirit of the game'." At any rate, I wouldn't get too wrapped around the axle over it. On balance, the article is good press. I taught a class at a state level match one year. Early in the class, we shoot cardboard targets for group. One shooter didn't have any holes in his target. He was shooting 45 Colt, with 165gr bullets. They were so slow, they bounced off the cardboard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tequila Shooter Posted January 9, 2022 Share Posted January 9, 2022 49 minutes ago, Hardpan Curmudgeon SASS #8967 said: Having seen first-hand the results of squib-caused blocked barrels... uh, no. Make 'em bang or and make 'em smoke. But I do have to admit, after that it was easy enough to just follow her bullets and watch 'em bounce off the targets. Literally. Hardpan you made a little mistake, I corrected it for you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.