Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

Proposed Rule Changes


Cholla

Recommended Posts

One of the clubs I am part of sent these proposed rules changes out for SASS members to decide on:

 

ITEM #1. Remove the SDQ penalty for initially staging a long gun with the hammer cocked/action closed with no live round in the chamber.

(verification for rifles- same as for movement from the LT...for shotguns, simply open the action to verify.) I thought this was already not a SDQ for a rifle. I'm guessing this is about shotguns.

 

ITEM #2. Add shotguns to the current exception for changing location from the loading table to the stage:

Changing location with a long gun with the action closed and the hammer cocked (exception for rifle long guns from the loading table to the stage with no round chambered). I don't see a downside unless someone can show how this can be dangerous.

 

ITEM #3. Remove the subjective verbiage regarding "blocks" from the lever wrap allowance:

Levers may be wrapped or padded with leather or faux leather. or other natural material.

- Filler “blocks” or other such mechanisms designed to prevent all or drastically limit movement of

the fingers within the lever loop are not allowed.

("leather" includes suede..."faux leather" would include anything that looks like leather.)

I have never heard of a block. I assume it would make working the lever easier by keeping the fingers closer to the trigger.

 

I would like to know what the pros and cons are before I decide.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Cholla said:

One of the clubs I am part of sent these proposed rules changes out for SASS members to decide on:

 

ITEM #1. Remove the SDQ penalty for initially staging a long gun with the hammer cocked/action closed with no live round in the chamber.

(verification for rifles- same as for movement from the LT...for shotguns, simply open the action to verify.) I thought this was already not a SDQ for a rifle. I'm guessing this is about shotguns.

 

 Current rule (applies to both rifles & shotguns):
" - Initially staging a long gun with the hammer cocked/action closed (once it leaves the shooter’s hands)."

SHB p.22 - STAGE DISQUALIFICATION PENALTY (SDQ)

 

 

 

Edited by PaleWolf Brunelle, #2495L
edit txt
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The proposed rule changes have been sent out to the Territorial Governors for a vote via email ballot.

 

Let your TGs know how you want them to vote (Yes or No) on the proposals.

 

PWB paw print (sm).jpg

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All three of these changes make sense to me.


The first one gets the ‘new’ cocked rifle rule to what I thought it was supposed to be when it was first passsd.

 

The second one one lets shotguns be treated similarly to rifles when carried from LT to be staged.

 

The third one puts everyone on the same playing field since lots of folks have found ways to ‘drastically limit’ finger movement in the lever without triggering the current rule.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Barry Sloe said:

For PWB - Do you know how long the TGs have to get their responses back to SASS?

 

BS

 

The voting deadline is Monday, January 8, 2024.

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I only said no on # 3.  I look on that modification as similar to using a trigger shoe... solely for purposes of enhancing performance.  Or as an equipment enhancement the sports originators wanted to avoid.   

  • Sad 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a yes on all three for me and I have let my TG know.  I created a google forms ballot that was sent to all club members to cast their vote. The results will be given to the TG before the end of the month in an excel spreadsheet.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Griff said:

I only said no on # 3.  I look on that modification as similar to using a trigger shoe... solely for purposes of enhancing performance.  Or as an equipment enhancement the sports originators wanted to avoid.   

Levers are consistent on size...hands are not. Why penalize those with smaller hands?

 

Phantom 

  • Like 19
  • Thanks 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I shot with a lady this summer that had a huge wrap of leather lace on the lever, she could barely fit her fingers in the remaining space. It didn't occur to me at the time it might be illegal. Figured it was just compensating for small fingers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Captain Bill Burt said:

All three of these changes make sense to me.


The first one gets the ‘new’ cocked rifle rule to what I thought it was supposed to be when it was first passsd.

 

The second one one lets shotguns be treated similarly to rifles when carried from LT to be staged.

 

The third one puts everyone on the same playing field since lots of folks have found ways to ‘drastically limit’ finger movement in the lever without triggering the current rule.

#1 and #2...by all means YES.  #3 is yes in my opinion, however I could care less as to what material might be under the leather/faux wrap that is visual.  Some are more comfortable, and safer, with more "padding/block" than others.  As long as we keep the visual component a rule, let the shooter have what they desire under it.  I don't want to go peeking under shooter's wraps (lever wraps:rolleyes:) because they are larger than another shooter's choice.

  • Like 9
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Phantom, SASS #54973 said:

Levers are consistent on size...hands are not. Why penalize those with smaller hands?

 

Phantom 

 

I guess they should use thick finger cots to make up the difference. :D

 

image.png.d3fb3a59ed48161f75b2e1e742fb9126.png

  • Haha 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Phantom, SASS #54973 said:

Levers are consistent on size...hands are not. Why penalize those with smaller hands?

Phantom 

That was just my gut reaction to it.  Suffice to say, I'm probably against most external modifications... 

 

5 hours ago, Billy Boots, # 20282 LTG-Regulator said:

As long as we keep the visual component a rule, let the shooter have what they desire under it.  I don't want to go peeking under shooter's wraps (lever wraps:rolleyes:) because they are larger than another shooter's choice.

I could agree with this.  ↑↑↑

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Skullbone Willie said:

How do you find out who is your Territory Governor ? 

 

THe SASS Web site lists all SASS affiliated clubs, under the Club listing it has the Territorial Governor and the Match Director listed.

So yours would be The Arizona Ranger for Memphis Gunslingers.

 

Edited by Ya Big Tree
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/7/2023 at 7:41 AM, Phantom, SASS #54973 said:

Levers are consistent on size...hands are not. Why penalize those with smaller hands?

 

Phantom 

When there's a methodology for the needed modifcation for those with a physical handicap, using such a broad-based argument is the ultimate "strawman" argument.  But, no, it fits much better to demean anyone who points out that a blanket modification benefits those that would want to circumvent  the limitations how short the lever stroke can be.  

Edited by Griff
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Griff said:

When there's a methodology for the needed modifcation for those with a physical handicap, using such a broad-based argument is the ultimate "strawman" argument.  But, no, it fits much better to demean anyone who points out that a blanket modification benefits those that would want to circumvent  the limitations how short the lever stroke can be.  

I'm sure there's a purpose for this post... I'll search reason and see if I can find it.

 

Good Lord...

 

Phantom

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Griff said:

When there's a methodology for the needed modifcation for those with a physical handicap, using such a broad-based argument is the ultimate "strawman" argument.  But, no, it fits much better to demean anyone who points out that a blanket modification benefits those that would want to circumvent  the limitations how short the lever stroke can be.  

 

5 minutes ago, Phantom, SASS #54973 said:

I'm sure there's a purpose for this post... I'll search reason and see if I can find it.

 

Good Lord...

 

Phantom

Come on guys. I know you both and you’re both good people. Let’s be friends…

 

I think Griff is pointing out that with enough padding you’re effectively reducing the throw length, which I believe is true. But, IMO it’s unlikely there’s any appreciable advantage to that. I think the advantage comes from your fingers not rattling around in there and potentially coming out of the lever.

 

I think there are potential disadvantages too. I recently purchased an 1873 that was used to win a WC at EOT. The lever wrap was so thick I had trouble getting my fingers in or out of the lever. I would not shoot that rifle in a match without putting a thinner lever wrap on it, but it’s fine for my 13 year old.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Captain Bill Burt said:

 

I think Griff is pointing out that with enough padding you’re effectively reducing the throw length, which I believe is true

Only if the starting and ending points of hand position can change during levering. 

 

If ones fingers are so thick that their fingers don't move during levering, their throw distance total will be less than someone who's fingers move during levering.

 

Funny how I (competition focused), like the proposed rule change while the other side of the argument (in for the "fun" of the game), seems to be against it.

 

Phantom

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Phantom, SASS #54973 said:

Only if the starting and ending points of hand position can change during levering. 

 

If ones fingers are so thick that their fingers don't move during levering, their throw distance total will be less than someone who's fingers move during levering.

 

Funny how I (competition focused), like the proposed rule change while the other side of the argument (in for the "fun" of the game), seems to be against it.

 

Phantom

Good point, I didn’t think of that. I’m going to blame that on the drugs I’m on not my intellect. That’s my story and I’m sticking to it!

 

I also like the rule change.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Phantom, SASS #54973 said:

Funny how I (competition focused), like the proposed rule change while the other side of the argument (in for the "fun" of the game), seems to be against it.

Phantom

Don't recall ever saying I'm only in it for the fun of the game, the fact that I ain't fast has nothing to do with how competitive I might be.  Competition can be found at any level...Ain't a thing wrong with being competitive, even super competitive is fine... it's how records are set.   But my point is, when, allowing a modification that negates a hard rule on a measurement, maybe more than simple popular vote is warranted.  Just because a thing seems innocuous doesn't make it so.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's the difference between a minutely shorter stroke due to padding a lever and modifying/replacing parts to shorten it ,a lot?

Edited by Eyesa Horg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Griff said:

But my point is, when, allowing a modification that negates a hard rule on a measurement

How exactly does the rule (proposed), do this?

 

Phantom

4 hours ago, Eyesa Horg said:

What's the difference between a minutely shorter stroke due to padding a lever and modifying/replacing parts to shorten it ,a lot?

Please explain how the stroke is shorter?

 

Phantom

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Phantom, SASS #54973 said:
4 hours ago, Eyesa Horg said:

What's the difference between a minutely shorter stroke due to padding a lever and modifying/replacing parts to shorten it ,a lot?

Please explain how the stroke is sho

It would be minutely shorter due to your fingers being further from the lever on opening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Eyesa Horg said:

It would be minutely shorter due to your fingers being further from the lever on opening.

The distance doesn't change if the fingers don't move during the stroke of the lever.

 

So....?????

 

Phantom

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Phantom, SASS #54973 said:

How exactly does the rule (proposed), do this?

 

Phantom

Please explain how the stroke is shorter?

 

Phantom

If at rest the outside of the lever loop is an inch & a half from the wrist of the rifle and you place a half inch of padding inside that outer portion of the loop, you've effectively removed a half inch of movement your fingers need to move the lever.  Although the amount of lever movement is not reduced, the movement your fingers need to move the lever that amount is... 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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