With the plethora of pre-1917 design scopes now available, MVA B series, MVA Malcolm, Leatherwood Malcolm w/DZ mounts, etc., I submit it is time we re-think the scopes that are allowable under the ASSRA, ISSA and WSU traditional rifle rules. When those rules were drafted, there were no real options for pre-1917 scopes except originals. Allowing Unertl, Fecker, Lyman, etc. with external mounts was only natural, given the availability of those scopes at that time.
The world has made a few turns since those rules were adopted by the Big Three schuetzen organizations and scopes that are more in keeping with the pre-1917 rule are now commonly available. I know, I know, there are people squealing “I have a significant investment in Unertls” (me too) BUT if we as a group (traditional rifle shooters) decide to revise the rules, any changes could be implemented over time, say 3-5 years.
In an attempt to get a conversation started, I’ll throw this proposal on the table:
Remove this sentence from the existing traditional rules*:

Lyman, Unertl, Fecker, and Litchert scopes are specifically allowed.

Insert this sentence in its place:

Scopes may be original or reproduction, of straight-tube design, no more than 7/8” tube diameter, no more than 20X and have period-correct external adjustments.

While the commercially available scopes are 3/4” diameter and 3-6X, I think there is sufficient historical evidence to support the rule as I stated it.

I further propose that if the rules are changed, they don’t take affect for 2 years from the  date of the rule change and they apply first to offhand matches, followed 2 years later for bench rest.
To keep a traditional class faithful to the pre-1917 precept, I think it is time we have an open and honest conversation about whether we really want to adhere to the spirit of those rules.
*The traditional rifle rules can be accessed at the ASSRA, ISSA and WSU web sites.

Stevens was the most prolific scope maker prior to 1917. Again, in Stroebel's book, he list Stevens scopes made in the following tube diameters:
1/2, 5/8, 3/4 and 7/8.

Many of the 500 & 600 series Stevens scopes were made with 7/8's tubes, from 4X to 20X. The 20X came out no later than 1906. 

I believe that RSW's "of straight-tube design" eliminates the larger objective bells of the more modern external scopes.

Most of the early scopes used a sliding tube in side the main tube for objective parallax and focus.

Frank

As I shoot a High Wall, 2x Low Walls and a Hepburn with open sights or an MVA scope I'm all for the proposed rule change. I would like to see the 'traditional' class have a restriction of 6x, max, as well. Heck......... would even vote for BP.

I wouldn't have a problem grandfathering any original scope of the traditional period. 

I think the proposed rules are aimed more at allowing the use of repro's and post 1917 scopes that meet the contruction criteria of the pre 1917 scopes, making available more scopes to fill the need.

Frank

I like the idea of a Traditional class only, don't shoot Irons agence scopes in the same match.

I am not a contender in any match, so I would shoot for my pleasure because I like to shoot. If I win I win. If I loose I loose. I ask myself this question, did I have a good time? I always have a good time , enjoy the company of the other shooters. That is the  enjoyment of shooting.

ron

Sorry, I meant mainspring.  Of course, if any pre-17 action had one, I withdraw my silly suggestion.   I mean, there may be.  I haven't done that much research on the subject.

Make traditional two classes offhand & Bench. Bench Muzzle and elbow rest only.  No mechanical rest only adjustment elevation screw. Its the only thing that can touch the rifle except the shooter.

Scope rule out anything but original or replica of pre WWI models. No clicks no bell objective lens power limit too  

Look at the photos of the Dr Mann period set up's come up with a rule that fits what they did then.

Boats

John L
You are definitely correct about a traditional rifle, say a Ballard, not being competitive, head-to-head against a well-tuned Miller rifle on match after match basis. As to traditional rifles not competing against open class, that would not be a problem except most matches I’ve attended are predominantly open class.
Equipment affordability is always and issue but for there to be a viable traditional class, that can not be the criterion on which equipment is or is not acceptable. 
To other responders to my initial post, please take the time to read the Traditional Rifle rules before suggesting the class be re-invented. Unless there is a ground-swell demand to completely re-write the rules, all I’m suggesting is tweaking the scope definition to better comply with the pre-1917 spirit of the rules.
Randy