Yes, I found Steve's post most interesting.

Is a old record really broken if it is shot with our new rifles, powders, sights and with unlimited sighter shots?

Maybe the score would be equaled but if not shot in the same manner with similar equipment then I say No Way was it bettered or equaled.

I think it would be more of an accomplishment if done as it was then, or as close to that as possible.
None of the rifles that are manufactured today unless they are very close to the originals.  None of the new cartridges.

It would be exciting to see it done the "Old" way.

It's true, as Steve Garbe says, that you took 100 shots and that was your score...... hit or miss. Your shots were recorded as you took them by a scorekeeper who recorded them on your score card. This had to be done since many people shot on the same target.

  Pope missed winning a match one time when while loading his gun (muzzle-breech loader) he saw a friend enter the shooting house and went to greet him. On returning he must have thought that he'd put the bullet down, because he fired it with just a charged case and it was recorded as a missed shot.

  A coupla things Garbe didn't mention in his article... if I recall right.... One was that there was no time limit on shooting your 100 shots, other than it had to be in the allotted time of the match. Some were even known on two day shoots to see they weren't shooting well that day and came back the next to finish. Second, as mentioned, there were no sighter shots, but, a Schuetzen match was composed of many matches and your gun could be fouled and sighted in for the days conditions on any of them before starting the 100 shot match, or any other important match.

  One thing I don't recall ever reading tho was if once you started your 100 shot match that you had to fire it straight thru, even if you did it over a two day period. It would be interesting to know that if conditions changed drastically, or you came back to finish the next day with a clean gun, whether you could break it off and shoot another match to correct any problems before continuing.

PETE

Pete,
I've read four different accounts of the Election day match of 1903...three were first-hand. The scope controversy over whether scopes would be allowed or not took up a couple of hours in the morning. Some shooters, including L.P. Ittel who was a favorite to win, just flat ran out of daylight and didn't finish the 100 shots.. The rules stated that the 100 shots must be done in one day. Hayes, the wily old veteran, figured out that he wouldn't have time to finish and gracefully retired to "soothe the feelings of fellow riflemen" over the scope controversy. Dorrler, who was animately against scopes being used, had shot a few targets when someone made a wisecrack and he flew off the handle and went home. Sounds familiar to some of today's competitions?

Shooters were allowed to foul their rifles and there was a sight-in area away from the shooting house...but when you stepped to the window it was for all the marbles. Once the warner punched your ticket that was it. Oh...if you or anyone else talked to the warner while he was doing his job...you were off the range. These rules may seem strict but remember, the money that some of these boys were shooting for, or represented backers for, would have bought a comfortable house in those days. This was serious shootin'. 

There's no record that can't be broken if one is willing to put in the time it takes to practice and keep his head in the right place...it's just now-a-days most folks can't justify that sort of dedication given their other responsibilities. It was the same back then...there was far and away the biggest portion of competitors who shot a good score and had a good time. Like Farrow said, " The really proficient offhand shot will most always find himself in a class by himself."

We shoot our Election Day match in Cody under the old rules and have enjoyed increased participation every year. Shooters like to compete under the same restrictions as the old-timers to see if they measure up. I think the future of our sport lies in upholding those rules and records...not "dumbing down" Schuetzen to the point of where it is not a real competition any longer. Just my opinion but I have always enjoyed shooting for money.

The best match is were there are enough prizes for everyone to win something...and good shooters are rewarded for their efforts. Average shooters need to be in matches with top shooters to compare notes. When you put too much luck into a match to make it "fair" you turn away the serious shooters. At the same time average shooters need to be encouraged. This is where the Schuetzen medals are so important.

I'm afraid I've written too much...and speaking of matches, I've got to get ready for the next Schuetzen match in Montana. 

Hold Center,

Steve Garbe

Steve, when you read this let the group know how many shooters can be handled at Cody. Thanks

You had some pithy though quite correct observations regarding the present state of our kind of shooting. "Dumbed down" is pretty harsh but we get the drift. We all have a duty to preserve the level of qualtity sport that we are guardians of. When I drive by a shooting facility and see a bunch of adults with quasi Ninja Swat Team Special Forces Ranger costumes and them banging away with race guns, my thoughts go to turning the fire hoses on their arses! I'm sitting here looking a the back inside cover of John Dutcher's fine book on the Ballard rifle. The inside cover is a group photo entitled "Eighteenth Biennial Rifle Tournament, Davenport, Iowa, 1931. There are 54 men in the photograph, all sitting with their rifles. Nine of these men appear to be at least 70 years old. Many in their late forties and early fifties. I'm sure they enjoyed the fellowship, stood up and did their best. and did it in the manner that made "Schuetzen" a premier shooting sport. We should not do less. Though I misplaced the name guide to the photo I recall that the second shooter seated from the left was famous Chis Westergaard. He and the forth shooter seated from the right have rifles equiped with adjustable buttplates!

Jim I agree that the 2301 in next to impossible to best. And over the years I've been around Olympic and International class shooters and they are not going to do it either, unless they had perfect conditions, had trained and trained and trained. You have shot more scores over 2300 than any shooter. You know the barriers. Perhaps an approach would be to leave the 10K prize out there but offer somewhat lesser amounts for certain levels. I believe Hays, and this identity is a guess, shot a 2172 on the schuetzen target with a rifle meeting NRA specs, 10lbs, 3 lb trigger. (about 1885) At that time the highest score I read of was a 2211 with schuetzen type rifle. Let's consider that 2200 barrier as one that's approachable but surely tough. Maybe $1,000.00 for the first shooter under traditional rules to best it. Would be interesting. Please keep comments and suggestions coming in. I do think that a PR combination of money, history, and challenge would bring new folks into the sport. How many new faces since the heyday of the Coors shoots?

Dick, I'm enjoying this subject of Dr. Hudson!  It gets tiresome reading about bullets, loads, etc.  Offhand shooting is my favorite part of the sport.

I think Ballard, CPA, and the other rifle manufacturers would love it if we had a traditional match for 10 lb rifles with 3 lb trigger pulls.   Think of the rifles they could sell.  Personally, I'm not interested in them.

Let the guys shoot what they have now.  I don't have any real concrete suggestions for money prizes.  Maybe  a $1,000 prize for the person who can shoot a 2250 in a match --iron sights offhand.  That is within reach.  My main point is we need to make the prize attainable.  Dr. Hudson's score was something of a fluke as you mentioned in an email earlier.  He never equaled that score again that I know of.  The longer I think about it, the more I'm in awe of the man and his abilities.  They didn't call him the human benchrest for nothing.

If I had the time, I would like to practice offhand irons everyday for a while just to see how good I could get.  But, I simply don't have the time.

Jim Luke