He comments about "space-aging" certain aspects of single shot activity.

In 1989 I started Schuetzen shooting with a Miller actioned rifle. A few years later I "saw the light" re: history, culture, etc., and made the switch to traditional equipment. I've never looked back.

Thanks Bob, for the fine message.

Fred

p.s. Article by ASSRA VP Bob Carow

Gentlemen,

Not liking to stir the pot...but if one would interpret the meaning of Line 1 under Article IV it would seem to suggest  technology cutoff dates of 1865 to 1917. Especially interesting is how the word "preservation" should be interpreted. Line 3 is also very revealing.

Looks to me like the original founders wanted to keep the ASSRA a "Traditional" association. However, this is only my opinion.

I'm sure there will be some comment on this observation.

Gute Ziele,

Steve

And I read:

"of the type developed between the close of the civil war and the onset of WWI."

Of the type.  That to me says a action that works like....

And:
engage in the practice and experimental shooting of single shot rifles. 

Experimental, I trust that means change and advancement in the type of rifles.

And:

ethical conduct at all times and to promote genuine friendliness, tolerance and mutual respect for each other.

Which I read as, no matter what a fellow member shoots and enjoys and is with in the rules, then respect said members choice.

Thats is why the ASSRA needs to adopt matches that do not have the more tradinional compete with some of the more advanced methods and equipment that are with in the rules.

Kind of like, them danged shot gun shooters, blah blah blah, and them danged bench shooters blah blah blah  etc.

We all hang together or we will hang seperately.

It is called what is BEST for the ASSRA as a whole, not for just select interests.

JMHO---in GREAT big letters


I for one am not quite so picky---- a non-bolt action single shot is a single shot PERIOD!!!

To me a Ruger #1 is simply an American made copy of one of the classic british single shots.  A Miller or Peregrine or any one of the modern made singleshots is still a single shot.  How would you fit in a FBW or Clerke action or any of the similar but not parts-interchangible patent paper modern copies.  Even the Browning made "walls"are modified versions of originals  and (I believe) many of the Italian made single shots are not exact duplicates either.
How fine are you willing to split the hair?  we have to be careful lest we "rule" ourselves right into irrelevancy.

F.E:  Hammer or hammerless??? its a deliberately artifical distinction designed to perpetuate a narrowly specific cultural/era/time in a specific game.  pretty much a ship-in-a-bottle type thing since there were hammerless single shots in that time frame. I speculate that if it hadn't been picked up by the NRA as a cash-cow the whole BCPR thing would have peaked a few years back and more liberal run-what-you-brung fun matches a la' Quigley would be more common.
  However, If I wanted to play that game I know the rules going in and wouldn't be whining because my Ruger (or longrange Borchardt--if I had one) wasn't allowed to shoot for competetitive score

sights?  we seldom see a really original optical sight--or even a good copy of one.  even most of our externally adjust scopes are all from the "varmint" era or even later.   I suspect that much of that arguement boils down to aesthetics---IE what I like should be legal and what I don't like should be illegal.
We have iron-sight and any-sight matches and thats a good enough split for me.

Other than that about the only real distinctions I see that make sense would be classes based on BP/smokeless loads.   Even the offhand vrs bench guns are pretty much self limiting since they are two different sub-genres within the Single-shot games we choose to play that have evolved on divergent courses.  If you are really into winning you are not going to try to use a high style schuetzen stocked rifle off a bench rest or try to shoot a benchrest gun in an offhand match.

I'm guessing that being a schuetzenmeister is a pretty demanding and often thankless job.  Setting up and running matches in a safe, fair, and efficient way is probably pretty taxing as it is and getting committment from someone to take up that cross would be even more difficult if rules, classes, awards, scoring etc etc become more complex in the future.

fortunately, at least to my way of thinking, the only person I'm trying to beat is myself.  To me schuetzen and ASSRA shooting are a sport, not my religion.

now I'll let someone else have a turn on the soapbox.
won't you all be glad when we can get back to shooting rather than bull-shooting like this.

What is the reason for allowing shooting jackets? Are they not a costly adjunctive to the sport? And who would deny that they will enhance scores? This is an old question but from time to time it should be discussed. 

Fred

Some years back I went to what was billed as a Schuetzen shoot, air rifles, indoors. At that shoot persons over 60 y.o. were allowed to shoot
from a stand that supported the forearm!

As D.W. says with shooting coats you pays your money you takes your chances. Personally I can't shoot all tied up like a Christmas turkey but others do. I have a vivid memory of Jim McDermott in a shooting coat on a hot and muggy July day at Alabama NY, he was soaked with sweat to the knees and looked like he was going to pass out any second. He shot pretty good though, still it didn't seem like fun. 
On Traditional class as I remember when we adopted the rules for traditional rifles it was with the idea that these rules were for special matches for traditional rifles only. Not to create two different sets of winners for every match. This would double the cost of the awards without adding one new shooter to a match. I can tell you that the cost of awards is not cheap. Instead we decided to be more inclusive and allow all shooters as long as they met the broad criteria that we already have. 

40 Rod

Interesting that you feel the "guns are the dog". I don't recall tennis players talking much about their racquets nor baseball players about their bats. It was always about performance.

fred

Brent, yours is the postion of most of us. We all appreciate the worksmanship, associated history, etc,of fine target rifles. This tread started with appaluse
for Bob Carow's "Message from the Vice President". Then tradtional vs.
contemporary single shots, and then on to the somewhat taboo subject
of shooting jackets. Do the faster lock time of the Miller action and the use of shooting jackets contribute to higher scores? Many years ago as
a farm kid I hang around a 1/2 mile dirt race track. The type of racing
done mostly at that track were what they called midgets. Two types of
engines were used; most common because of a lower cost was the powerplant based on the briefly produced small flathead Ford V8 60 hp. The other
engines were small sophisticated Offenhausers replete with overhead
cams, etc. These cars did not compete directly with each other though
they were on the track at the same time. Performances were not the same. And if we examine the use of shooting jackets should we not compare such with the use of performance-enhancing drugs as so
recently publicized in congressional hearing and the baseball record book?

Fred