Gentlemen,
I think the easiest way to define a Traditional Class is to specify pre-1917 rifles/equipment and faithful reproductions thereof. "Faithful" meaning correct to the patent, not interpretations. This is the definition of the Traditional Class in the WSU; we have made specific allowances, by name, for Unertl, Lyman and Fecker scopes. Given that the source of supply for pre-1917 scopes has improved dramatically, it would make sense to toe the 1917 mark. Let the shooters research what was available prior to 1917; this way, we all learn something and it doesn't require a 50-page rulebook.

It is important to note that no one is being turned away from a match because of equipment. It either falls in the Open or Traditional Class if it is a single shot shooting plain base lead bullets with whatever sights, at least under WSU rules. And...as a nod of support to the Traditional rifle and sights, it is possible for one to win both Open and Traditional classes with a Traditional rifle.

Steve

Personally I have been trying to shoot in a more "traditional manner" when I shoot offhand.  I am shooting my offhand rifles with a MVA scope in original Winchester mounts. The rifles are a CPA model 52 and a Schoyen Ballard re-barreled by Ballard. I do however shoot smokeless powders and semi-spitzer bullets. This is my own personal voyage of discovery. To see if I can measure up to the old time shooters. I fully understand that this is my personal interpretation of "traditional". I shoot in open class, as I believe that in offhand its the man not the equipment. I fully believe that the really good offhand shooters can beat the crap out of me whether they shoot a Miller or a Rolling Block.
I understand the push for "tradition" it really does honor the spirit of the the founders intent. The part that makes me queasy is the "Amishness" of the "Traditional" movement.  Where does it stop? We are fracturing ourselves into smaller and smaller units. First it was ASSRA then ASSRA and ISSA, then ASSRA, ISSA and WSU and now we want to add traditionalist and modern to the fracturing? We should be trying to come together not dividing ourselves into increasingly smaller units. Pretty soon we will start getting scores for the Noah's Navel primitive free-range no artificial additives added single shot rifle match. 
I applaud the idea of trying to shoot with equipment, that at least superficially, is like what was shot during the golden age. But I believe the choice should be personal not mandated. 

40 Rod

40_Rod wrote on Jun 14^th, 2013 at 9:46am:


Ahhhhh, I can see the King Target now ...  closest shot to the Navel wins!

40 Rod, you have made my morning.  That is precisely the route (with the addition of paper patched bullets) that I want to take.  My competitive spirit will be vented only against my last score.  At a match, I'm mostly there for the beer and sausages! 

It is discussed in detail in the January 1996 Vol. 41- No. 9  Issue of Precision Shooting. A 14 page article worthy of reading.

You are welcome HM and the folks over on Benchrest Central might be helpful in locating back issues.

The PS Article has more in depth detail on the transition including the names of those first entrusted with responsibilities. It is also interesting that at this point in time during the meeting there was reference made to possibly affiliating with one of the current Benchrest organizations. The article if you can get your hands on it is worth reading and more descriptive than the introduction link to the ISSA site. A close friend was one of those first individuals chosen and when time allows I will pick his brain for any additional none published information.