Stevens52,

  Well, what I was doing was just throwing your arguments back at you. Namely.... If they'd have had it they would have used it.

  I said it was a stupid argument, but apparently you just want to point out the obvious.

  Also..... Who said that the Hudson/Hayes record attempts were to be shot under ASSRA rules? Seems to me that if Steve made the attempt during a WSU match he probably shot under their rules.

  I'd have to go back and look it up, but I don't recall anyone saying it had to be shot under ANY of the current SS organizations rules.

  Under WSU rules shooting pants coats are illegal unless you're going to shoot in the Open Class in your attempt, and then I'm not even sure of that. Would have to look it up.

  Electronics..... Vague rules about electronic wind speed indicators under ASSRA rules, but nothing in WSU rules covering them that I've seen.

  So it really appears as tho you aren't familiar enuf with the rules of either the ASSRA or the WSU to argue the point. Apparently tho you have decided the record attempts will be shot under ASSRA rules. Glad to hear you are the final judge on that! I assume you have donated a major portion of the money to the attempt so you are qualified to make those decisions? In the second place I wasn't advocating using any of the points in the other message. I raised them in an attempt to show how foolish the comment "If they'd have had it they would have used it" really was. So I suggest that youl, as you suggest I do.... read my messages carefully on the subject. You have seemed to pick and choose the points you want to argue without addressing my main point.

  Oh... By the way...... The day Hudson shot the record was one of those "freakish" days with almost perfect conditions. But, there was one very unusual feature of the range it was shot at that I found interesting. Will have to bring it up sometime when you've calmed down.

Dick,

  There were many .22 matches shot and published in S&F, as well as several other sporting magazines of the era. In fact, probably more than were shot with CF rifles. The big clubs around the country would hold at least a match a week, with many leagues going during the Winter. But, everything I've read seemed to indicate that .22's were shot indoors, or at reduced yardages of 50 & 75 ft. I can't find any proof that there were no shooters shooting .22's at 200 yds., or even 100 yds. back then. But, from matches that listed equipment, such as I showed in a previous message, there just doesn't seem to be any .22 shooters at the 200 yd. outdoor matches. Was this by gentleman's agreement? Of course the preferred .22 ammo for match shooting were .22 shorts which just might not hold up to well at the longer yardages.

  I have no quarrel with anyone who wants to attempt the records with a .22. I just personally feel since all the shooters at the match where Hudson set his record, and from all indications, any other 200 yd. match of importance, then anyone attempting those records should do the same.

PETE

Dick,

  I would say the big reason for not using a .22 for 200 yd. shooting in the old days was that most of the guns then were chambered for the short as it was considered the "match" ammo of the day. The few all original .22's I've owned were so chambered. With there slow twist it wouldn't even have made sense to re-chamber them to the Long or Long Rifle.

  I was wondering when someone was going to bring up the shooting booth idea. This was a pretty standard practice back then. Most of the shooting houses had slots/windows for the shooters to shoot thru. The current issue of the ASSRA Journal has a great picture of what the inside of the Davenport Iowa clubs house looked like. But, there was a problem with that to. Or so the old timers said! You were protected from the wind but then couldn't gage the strength of it so as to allow for hold-off. In the report of the Hudson record match it was said there was just enuf air moving to keep the smoke moving up and out of the way of the shooters.

  The myriad wind flags we set out today were not the practice back then, with mostly just one on the target butt. So being out of the wind could be a handicap to.

  My own experience has been that it takes a fairly decent breeze before it starts to move me around. An example would be our last match when I had a full turn into the wind with my MVA Soule sight and still had to hold on the windward edge of the bull to put the shots in the center when a sudden gust came up. At that I didn't feel the wind was handicapping me. As I recall I didn't pull out of a shot more than three or four times in five targets because of it. Patience is the name of the game in offhand!

PETE

Gentlemen,
An interesting discussion...and I have some observations to share.

I have shot offhand scores with .36 to .54 caliber flintlocks, single shot .22's, .25's, .30's, .32's, .38's, .40's, and even .45's. I can tell you that for every caliber choice there are trade-offs to consider, wind drift and recoil being the primary considerations. With the .25's and .22's there is a very small margin for error on conditions. The .25-20 WCF that I'm shooting in Schuetzen matches now has a 1-12 twist and shoots great with 90 grain bullets...but it is nearly as wind sensitive as a .22 rimfire. My first target for score in the 100 shot match was a 195 and I had good breaks...the wind was very switchy and I got two wide 15's and a 16 that broke at least 22's or better. That is the trade-off to using a rimfire. On the plus side...one can shoot faster, (although sometimes this will work against you especially when using a heavy rifle), and the lack of any significant recoil helps with a clean follow-through. My Ballard .22 weighs 17 pounds on the palmrest and if I shoot it too fast I will tire. 

If I had to pick one caliber to handle all shooting conditions it would be the .38-55 shooting 300 grain bullets. Hudson used a .38 for a lot of his offhand work, and for good reason I think. I know that in the conditions that are typical at Butte, Montana in the winter Schuetzen matches a .22 would be really tough to keep on the paper. You can never disregard the wind but there is a little better margin of error with the .38 without excessive recoil. That said, I do have to keep follow-through in my mind when shooting the .38 as the recoil will distract you.

The main reason I shot a .22 for the Challenge match? I just returned from the excellent Schuetzen match put on in Hamilton, MT by Pat Bowland and Craig Engel and was pretty much out of .25's and .38's. I made up two .22's when I was at Ballard...one a Schoyen-style offhand rifle and the other a No. 7 benchrest rifle so that when I got busy I could just shoot the rimfires. Also...I just really like .22's! I knew full well that the conditions might bite me but I really wanted/needed the practice. 

I don't think that the old-timers shot much rimfire at 200 yards for two reasons...they didn't have the ammo we have now and many of them didn't consider a rimfire to be adequate to the task. Pope was especially sarcastic about .22's and their capabilities. The shooters in the Butte Gun Club back in the 1930's did have matches at 200 yards as did some of the Colorado clubs, but generally .22's were for gallery shooting. That said, I believe that they would have been all too ready to take your money had you showed up at any 200-yard offhand match with a .22!

May I give an opinion? I have been involved in quite a few different "Traditional" shooting disciplines and can say with some conviction that when trying to "re-create" the shooting challenges faced by earlier riflemen the best way to do it is to pick a cutoff date on allowable technology. This way there is a minimum of argument...none of the "They would have used it if they had it" stuff and it makes people research what was actually available in a particular time period. This provides for the preservation of our Schuetzen heritage and that is very important to me. Of course, all this needs to be seasoned with a good dose of common-sense.

I also know this...the Hudson/Hayes Challenge match is a excellent learning experience and great fun to shoot. It has generated new interest here in our club and I think it will do the same for many other clubs. Many thanks to Dick and Brent for getting the ball rolling on this match and I hope to see some other scores shot soon.

Gute Ziel,

Steve Garbe

Seems to me that we should consider the RULES of each match at the time it was shot. Just because a particular match was won or a particular record was set with a specific piece of equipment, that should NOT restrict us to the same thing.

It was the personal choice of the particular winning competitor at the time to use a cartridge of a certain size and ignition type, but was he RESTRICTED to that size cartridge? I think not. More than likely the original match was open to RFs as well as CFs, so why put artificial restrictions on it now?

If anyone thinks the RFs would be easier at 200 yds, I personally believe they're mistaken. Possibly, occasionally, under ideal conditions, but not likely anywhere West of the Miss River because of wind.

Besides it's the WSU's match and the ASSRA rules or opinions don't apply.

I agree with Leadball, whoever beats the old record under the same rules is a better shooter, period, end of discussion. All nit-pickers to pick their own nits, please.
JMO and good luck to all who attempt, Joe

Sehr geehrte Herren,
I greatly enjoyed re-reading Chris Westergaard's 1929 article on Schuetzen shooting in the newest issue of the Journal. I had first read it many years ago in a back issue of the Rifleman that I purchased at a gunshow.

A couple of interesting passages that I'm sure you all picked up on-
"As to calibers of rifles, anything from .22 Long Rifle up to .38-55 may be found on the Schuetzen ranges. The .32-40, however, is the favorite."

and-
"All you riflemen who are looking for big game, come on and try your luck. If you do not have a large-caliber rifle or a lead bullet load, bring your pet .22 rifle. Many of the big prizes were won with .22 caliber rifles at the last shoot."

Counselor...I rest my case.

Gut Ziel,

Steve Garbe