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

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.

Bob I would love to but it is 14 pages long and I currently do not have the capabilities. If you are looking for something specific I can try to type it out for you word for word as time allows.

I'm happy with the traditional rules as they are.  I shot a iron sighted Stevens traditional rifle in the WSU winter league and didnt get credit or a T after my name for it in the BP news. I shot a traditional rifle at both matches at Spokane and didnt get a traditional medal from the ISSA. 
I shot a traditional iron sighted Ballard at Cody last week but didnt qualify because I used smokeless powder.  So while you guys muddy up the rules and try to make historians out of us, I'll just keep plugging away with whatever rifle I feel like shooting. I wont be buying a 1000.00 + dollar scope just to get a T after my name. By the way, there was only one person shooting a traditional rifle at the NRC match at Cody. I know he felt sorta stupid when he went up to get his prize. Kicking your own A_ _ is never any fun.   


         Joe. 

My understanding of Coors dropping sponsorship of the Schuetzenfest is a little bit different than the article in PS. After you wiped the lipstick off the pig what you got was Max could no longer hold out against others in the corporation who saw the schuetzenfest as having limited to no promotional value. The last straw was losing the Golden range with their home base up in open revolt Coors did not want to be associated with negative aspects that the increasingly yuppyfied neighbors saw as the Coors Schuetzenfest. They withdrew their support.
When the Golden Range was lost Dean Miller and family stepped in and made arrangements for Dean's home range as the facility for that year. At that match the ISSA was born. It was created to continue the tradition of the Schuetzenfest. The range at Ratone was just getting up and running and was a good fit size and facility wise for an event the size of the Schuetzenfest. Coors was happy to donate the left over targets and printed material to the fledgling organisation and to put the potential public relations nightmare behind them. I am not saying that Coors was hostile they were not but like all Lawyers and bean counters they are risk averse and feckless friends.   Dean Miller and the early ISSA board deserve all the credit for keeping the schuetzenfest alive. This is also a cautionary tale of corporate involvement. No corporate entity will stick their neck out any more for anything that celebrates firearms. The Coors Schuetzenfests was a once in a lifetime thing that was driven by Max Goodwine personally. 

40 Rod

OK, as a relatively long-time ASSRA member, sometimes writer, and former Board member, let me stick in my 2¢ worth.

The whole concept of preserving a period in history will be difficult enough with various later revisions as to what was going on in that period.  The sport we call schuetzen was in the midst of what could best be described as an arms race during the period in question.  If you just take one of the patriarchs of the game, the venerable HM Pope, the things he did with rifles, barrels, sights, and loading techniques were non-traditional to the extreme!  He set guns up with scopes while most were using iron sights (and even had to retrofit irons he cobbled together at an event one time.)  He experimented with rifling techniques and found one that was a huge improvement over the "traditional" ones of the day.  How about breech/muzzle loading... that was a departure.  And then that duplex powder measure he made that hid his use of two powders at once from the casual observer.  I would say that old Harry was not bound to much of any tradition, yet he was a guiding light in the movement we seek to emulate and he certainly was not alone in his experimenting to seek better scores.  What we are trying to do is catch a moment in time that was itself in a state of rapid change and experimentation, sort of a Schrodinger's Cat type of thing.  We can argue about it as long as we want, but that cat is still going to fool us every time!

Froggie

PS  To those wondering whether a coil spring high wall is traditional, they came out in 1908, so inasmuch as that was before WW I, they fit the definition.  Just sayin'.   

Gentlemen,

Simply specifying that rifles, cartridges and sights be limited to what was available prior to 1917 simplifies things immensely and performs the function of encouraging folks to research the era in question. I think that's what we are trying to do?

Just my thoughts.

Steve

Randy,
I like that wording. 

Something else that might be considered to promote the use of traditional style rifles is to add 2 to as many as 5 points to the aggregate score or say 1 point per 10 shot target both OH and BR.

Personally I would rather see a cash prize for the highest T rifle, especially at the larger matches. Donated by the sanctioning organization and a $2 surcharge per entry for non T competitors added to the prize money.

Sound like a deal or do I need to go hide behind the berm?

Frank

There you go Frank! Put $ signs in the equation and that will firm up interest in shooting traditional class. Lots of competition then.

If you don't like the idea of a money prize, how about a decent basic repro-type prize rifle awarded to an entry-level category of shooters. 
They are the ones that need the incentive to pursue Schuetzen, not the old-timers who already have their accumulation of toys.

"If you don't like the idea of a money prize, how about a decent basic repro-type prize rifle awarded to an entry-level category of shooters. 
They are the ones that need the incentive to pursue Schuetzen, not the old-timers who already have their accumulation of toys."
This sounds like a good start, tho I think the costs involved for younger shooters to acquire a suitable rifle and all the gear is a major factor, especially if they have to get the ok from the wife......

John,
I don't have anything against moving backers. CBA uses them for there regionals.

A $20 metal hanging, a $2000 prize, and a article about it would be something to tell the grand kids about. Then tell them "you know how much that is in today's money?", I think they might appreciate that more.

I don't understand the logic of mixing pre 1917 with post 1917. If it's suppose to be 1917 and earlier then, that's what it should be. 

The new shooter can shoot in the open class with their FBW and Rugers and then move up like all other competitions do.

Frank

Young folks?

JackHughs

JLouis wrote on Jun 19^th, 2013 at 12:38pm:


I estimate the average age of the schuetzen shooters here at the Modesto Rifle Club to be in the high 60's.  We have not had had any "young" persons join that group in the twelve years that I've participated.  However, we have lost a number of shooters to death and physical infirmities.

I would wholeheartedly support any rule change that would actually inspire young persons to take up the sport but, like John says: it's the money and time - not the rules - that stand in the way.  A person who cannot afford the sport given the current rules will not miraculously realize more wealth or time if FBW rifles are folded into the traditional class.  As Hamlet might say "Therein lies the rub."

And, sadly, the "younger" (under 50) members of our club are all lathered-up over tactical (handgun and rifle) shooting and are, to some greater or lesser extent hostile toward our "old farts" sport.

JackHughs

I started this sport in 1985 as a mere child of 40 and had enough interest and money to get into it. A few took me under their wing but, to most, I was just "under foot". But, nothing would stop me! That is the attitude that a new shooter must have to get started.

So, I think maturity may be one part of getting people into this. It also takes a love of accuracy and not how many rounds you can put down range and the dust cloud you can make.

I spent 10 years trying to recruit people for our club, JSSS. I only found about 10 that were interested enough to shoot in a match. All they had to do is sit down and shoot, I would supply everything else. I think that maybe the biggest part of the equation is, they need to have a competitive sprit.

Like Blindeye states, "where there is a will, there is a way". Besides money being "Traditional" prize, it's also a motivator of the young. If you could say "look how much money you could win", I think it could be a very good "hook" to draw them. 

After all guy's, you can't take it with you

Frank

Especially since the Uberti 1885 already comes with a palm rest and in 32/20 caliber.  All it needs is a traditional scope and it's ready to go.  I'm thinking about this one . . .

Randy,
I've only seen one Italian HW in person and lots of pictures. I was assuming they were built to the original design because of the looks.

The RB's look like they may make it?

Frank

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?

Perhaps the most famous bench match was the Walnut Hill gun club Breech loaded rifles Against the National Rifle Club Muzzle loaded rifles. The participants included Norman Brockway, Milton Farrow, and a young Harry Pope. Muzzle loaders beat the Walnut hill crowd so badly that when AC Gould who had planned a big article on superiority of the breech-loading rifle, only devoted a few lines to the match saying "good scores were made by all". 
Rules in those days only allowed for muzzle rest the only, the butt was held or balanced on the fist as modern Slug-gun shooters do. 
Anyone wanting to learn more about early Bench shooting should get The muzzle Loading Cap lock rifle by Ned Roberts. It is truly his best work. Also The Warner-Lowe letters on disc from the ASSRA archives. Horace Warner and William Lowe were two prominent gunsmiths that made both muzzle-loading and breech-loading bench rifles. The letters can get way up in the weeds but there are some fascinating insights there.
40 Rod

SPG,

"head to head for large amounts of money", that's something that's near and dear to me, old buddy.

Kid Baker

Steve Garbe wrote on Jun 21^st, 2013 at 12:29pm:


Yeah, you cain't take it with you . . . but you cain't go nowhere without it!