Would that slight variation qualify or dis-qualify the action?

Laurie
Thanks for the data on the Italian High Walls. I was not aware of their internal similarity to the originals. Based on your input, those actions/rifles should be good-to-go as traditional class rifles.
Frank
As far as I know, the Italian rolling block rifles are OK for the traditional class.
Jack
To the best of my knowledge the CPA is OK for the traditional class. It is my understanding, the only variation from the original is the wider receiver to accommodate a barrel shank large enough to accept 45-70 rim-size cartridges.
In all cases, it is not my call. Per the rules, it’s up to the Schuetzenmeisters of the ASSRA, ISSA, WSU and/or designated jury to make the final determination.

Fallingblock,
I think you loaded the wrong diagram for the Japanese HW.

Frank

In general The rules on modern reproductions of traditional rifles is that modifications made for safety are acceptable if they don't stray too far from the original design or modifications in the spirit of period gunsmiths. 
For instance The CPA is the same shape and size as the original 44 1/2 except that the action is 1/16" thicker. This was done to use the larger Winchester size shank so that .45 size cartridges could safely be mounted on the action. 
The only other design difference is the bushed firing pin. This was a modification that was done for safety back in the day and there were as many variations as there were gunsmiths. 
I am not against rewriting the Traditional rules as long an all 3 Schuetzen organisations agree on the changes together. Its bad enough that the few of us that are left divide ourselves up but 3 different sets of rules will be a hopeless mish-mash for the average shooter much less the new shooters we are trying to attract. 

40 Rod

Jack
I'm going out on a limb here and I'm sure someone will come along a saw it off behind me BUT I do not think there were bench rest matches in the original schuetzen era similar to what we (ASSRA, ISSA) shoot today. Right up to about 1900, bench rest shooting was dominated by muzzle loaders. The big money matches held by the CSU or other big associations, were offhand events.
Now this part is speculation; I'm not an ASSRA historian but bench rest matches as we now shoot them came about when the ASSRA came into being in late 1940's. One of the main drivers creating bench rest shooting was that people who could afford the old offhand schuetzen rifles were older and past their prime for offhand shooting (me included).
It might also be insightful for all following this thread to read the ASSRA, ISSA and WSU traditional rules. They are nearly identical in defining traditional rifles. If one were to build/buy a traditional rifle that fit the rules of one of those organizations, that same rifle would be acceptable as traditional by the other two organizations.
With any luck, a real historian will get on me, like ugly on an ape and set us all straight about bench rest history.

Gentlemen,

I know that what the WSU does in it's competitions doesn't have any bearing on the ASSRA but it might be insightful for the purpose of discussion.

The Traditional Class rules for Schuetzen address only offhand shooting as this is what Schuetzen competition was. The National Rifle Club was the original organization devoted to rest shooting and those Traditional Class rules have a technology cutoff of 1900. If we (the WSU/NRC) have a bench match it is under NRC rules. If we have a Schuetzen match it is under WSU rules. We don't combine/confuse benchrest with offhand, but that is just what we do. Not saying that any other organization should follow that lead.

On the topic of traditional actions the general rule is that
parts of the reproduction action should fit original production with a minimal amount of fitting...basically, true to the original patent.

There seems to be an idea that the Open Class is somehow a "leper colony". Not at all true, an Open Class serves the function of letting anyone shoot as long as they have a single shot rifle shooting plain base lead bullets. And (not to dump gas on a potential wildfire) in the WSU this means that the dreaded bolt-action rifle, both in traditional (pre-1917) and open dress, can compete. We hold hard to the dates on technology cutoffs and accept equipment that falls within those dates rather excluding rifles and sights that were available but not well-known at our present time. 

We do allow a Traditional rifle to be eligible for the high score in both classes as a nod to the added effort required to compete at a high level with vintage equipment. At our last NRC match a traditional rifle shooting black powder turned in the high Open Class score, as it wore a Lyman scope and as such was in the Open Class of the NRC. It competed against some very modern single shots including a .32 Miller shooting smokeless powder. 

Steve

I might also add L.C. Cummings patented June 14, 1892 and sold a enternaly adjustable scope. Scopes of 20X were also available as we're varible power scopes prior to 1900.

Steve thank you for the information on the NRC. It appears those Matches mentioned at the Mass. Rifle Club were the first ones to be included into the Schuetzen Match programs as we now know it, that being restricted to single shot falling block actions. I have been offered access to research material that might help to answer or to define those traditional rules and the means and methods of how they shot off the benches. Hopefully there will also be some defined equipment used such as the power of the optics, types, mounts, internally, externally adjusted as well as front and back rest setups etc. Historical information that may have been forgotten over time and might be becoming individualistic speculation/perception?