Shooter1 
I thought I was clear. The match committee is working on making recommendations that the board will vote on. They are working on it, yours is not the only iron in the fire. As of now the way the tuner question is handled at most of the places that I shoot is No Tuners. Bloop Tubes, and weight attached to the barrel are legal. Yes I know that you can use both to tune your barrel if you want to put in the work to do that to get around the tuner ruleing than knock yourself out. 
Joe
Since I took over the Journal I have not missed a deadline. The magazine has come out on time every other month. I resent your statement that the problem is not fixed. That you don't think the content is inclusive enough is a personal value judgement. I tryed to hold out an olive branch to you with an invitation to write articles but recieved none. Now I know why you are more interested in perpetuating a grudge over some persieved slight by another than pitching in and helping to make the magazine better. In the interum I have elected to print articles from writers who submit articles that they feel are interesting to their fellow shooters. 

40 Rod

40Rod, it is indeed a value judgement, and I stand by it. The schedule is certainly better now but the comparison to other magazines is ludicrous.

I HAVE submitted another article, which you and your predecessor immediately lost. He (the previous New Editor) was gracious & civilized enough to give me a handsome apology both privately and publicly on this forum, but no such apology from you and no effort to find it and publish. Some olive branch!

I have repeatedly given specific details of just how the Editor of Precision Shooting took a 2-bit newsletter and turned it into 2 world-class magazines, but so far The Journal Editorship hasn't seemed interested. Wonder why?

An extremely interesting dissertation on scope building appeared on this forum but it took some very pointed and repeated prodding before you, The Editor, reacted to ask him to submit it to the Journal. Wonder why?

Boats, the writers used to be paid, and I believe The Editor also is paid. The past Editors and writers were definitely paid. My last article to be published was paid at a lesser rate and I think this is one of the things that stimulated The Editor Replacement Shuffle.

Who knows; we certainly don't get the straight info from at least some of the org leadership any more.
Too bad, Joe

Irascible,

  You've said it better than I ever could. If it ain't in the rule book it's not legal.

  Not to say of course that individual Schuetzenmeisters can't allow whatever they want at their matches. Of course any records that are shot under "non" rule book rules won't qualify for the record book.

boats,

  Maybe things have changed since I wrote a few articles for the "new, new" (forget which one  ) editor a year or so ago, but I was paid $150 apiece for them.

  I will agree with JD tho that the reason I quit was the articles were "lost" or changed to the point I felt there wasn't much sense sending in anymore. I don't particularly blame that editor since he had a "road" job and way to many irons in the fire.

  I will also say I think 40_Rod is doing a pretty good job. The issues have come on time.... I got my latest issue last week.

  As he says the content is very subjective to what the individual reader wants.

  Personally I don't care to see all those scores published. I've graduated beyond that sort of thing. But I also know a lot of "newbies" need them so they can see what bullets, powders and loads are being used. I know I "ate" them up when I first started. Nothing like being out in the sticks with no one else interested in your game and not having a clue as to where to start.

  A friend thought that long dissertation on West Coast shooting was a farce. I thought it was pretty neat. But then I'm an arm chair historian and like that sort of thing.

  And I'm sure many thought what I wrote wasn't their cup of tea either, altho I did get some private emails and printed letters to the editor wanting more.

  And of course as every editor has said since I first joined the ASSRA back in the late 70's...... They can't print what they don't have. So we have to submit articles, take what's given us, or lump it. No sense complaining about it if you're not part of the solution. I've encouraged two people to write because I know they could do a good job. But so far nothing.

PETE

Brent,

  Most organizations will tell you exactly what Irascible said. If it ain't specifically stated in the rule book it's NOT allowed.

  This is why the current revision of the rule book is out of date, and why it's being revised again. Many things have come up since then that need official sanction by the BoD. You mention a few, and I'm sure there are many others.

  What is the latest revision.... 2002? Some organizations revise their rule books every year to cover all those things shooters try to get away with, or to clear up some vague section that needs clarification. Most revise every two or three years.

  But, as you know, our club allows bloop tubes, back-bored barrels, and bolt action guns. I imagine I could probably show up with a tuner and no one would say anything. Of course if it's not legal and an ASSRA record is shot with a forbidden item, then it won't count.

  That;s why there needs to be a revision. Things are being discussed on here, and showing up at matches that need to be specifically addressed. NCOWS has to constantly make official comments on the suitability of a myriad of things that people are always trying to push thru as "authentic" to the period. Seems like at times half the magazine is devoted to this.

PETE

40 Rod,
Sorry if I missed or mis-understood what you said, if that's the case please accept my apology. I'm just going to shoot what I have the way it is, if someone wants to challenge my equip. they can have a go at it.
  Shooter

jeffer1942 wrote on Mar 27^th, 2008 at 10:01am:


Hi Jeffer1942, you raise some interesting points and I'm glad you asked.

Yes, there sometimes is an undercurrent in my comments, and usually it's a lot deeper and stronger than my words indicate. It stems from the way I and others have been treated in the past. FWIW my recent comments have been a lot more complimentary than in the past, simply because some of the present BoD seem more responsive to the members than in the past. I hope it continues and gets better.

And yes there's a lot I like about what the ASSRA stands (or rather is supposed to stand) for. I love single shot rifles and so joined the ASSRA back in the '80s but wasn't able to pay much attention to the org until around the turn of the millenium. I won't burden you with a lot of detail but will say that the then-BoD informed me that they were only interested in Schuetzen shooting and they didn't want to hear any more comments about any other types of single shot rifles or shooting, and they weren't interested in having anything in the Journal except Schuetzen-related stuff. I coined the terms 'INclusive' and 'EXclusive' to describe my position and the then-BoDs position.

In all fairness I believe this was an ill-considered response by some of the BoD in the aftermath of the fear (and apparently actual panic) inspired by The New Editor's new policies at the Journal. around the time of The Big Blowup. Nevertheless it was a sobering and angering experience for me, to realize that the ASSRA leadership of that time was actually opposed to anything except Schuetzen. One of the then-BoD was actually heard to say that he hoped the ASSRA would not grow any larger since he might not get to  use his favorite shooting bench at EG if more folks attended the shoots. Is it any wonder that I distrust someone like that? Perhaps more importantly, shouldn't you?

It might surprise you to learn just how many of the then-BoD are still on the present BoD.

Yes there is lot that I love about the ASSRA and its stated aims but there's also a lot that I fear about some of the leadership and their attitudes, and so I try to have what the quotation calls eternal vigilance. I guess when you read my comments you need to consider the source (VBG).
Regards, Joe

TenX/Pete,

I know...simple solutions are pretty boring compared to revising 23-volume sets of rules or internet duels.

I have been immersing myself in the black art of slug gun shooting and sort of keeping off the skyline; however, I think I may have just let my hat show above the ridge.

Gute Ziele,

Steve