Let me make something perfectly clear, I don't care if the FBW does not meet the traditional rule and I have tried to make that clear on several occasions yet it continually and unfairly continues to
arise as an on going personnel agenda on my behalf that does not even exist. The point I was trying to make was just because something has been acceptable / common practice in the past does not mean it has been grandfathered in and is now acceptable just because an individual and or certain individuals simply feel that is the way it should be. I don't really care what cases you or others use as parent cases to form into others as long as they meet the current rules. I cannot tell if they do or if they do not meet the traditional rules there are those holding positions within the governing organizations elected to make those determinations. I can tell you that the use of 357 Max. cases in order to replicate traditional 30-30 Wesson cases in my personnel opionion is indeed apples and oranges and they would not be traditional.
Chambers were mentioned briefly by another poster thus the prior comment.
JLouis

I think the question has already been answered. For years people have been using the 30 American brass to make 32-40 in the belief that the small primer has more accuracy potential. To the best of my knowledge no one has ever protested it and so by president it is legal. 
  Personally I would consider any honest attempt to recreate an obsolete case with the closest available commercial brass as being “Traditional”. For example if someone wanted to make up a modern .32 Ideal case out of .222 rimmed or 5.6 X 50R magnum brass I would consider that an honest attempt and allow it in Traditional class. Remember it is a Traditional class not Amish class.
  It is important to remember here that I am not the Schuetzenmeister and my opinion should in no way be construed as carrying any weight beyond that. It is completely within the schuetzenmeister’s purview to tell me I am wrong and, at that point, I am.

40 Rod

What I do agree with is the use of a parent cartridge case to exactly replicate an original design for those cases that are no longer available / obsolete. For those that do not meet the criteria of the 1917 rule same as the rifles they would be more than welcome in the non traditional / modern class. 

JLouis

40Rod there has to be a line drawn in the sand somewhere least we loose all hope of preservation per the mission statement as well as to honor the rules as they are currently written for the traditional class. If a traditional rifle using a traditional cartridge has a non traditional scope mounted on it, it no longer meets the traditional rules. Should a traditional rifle with a traditional scope using a non traditional cartridge then meet the rules? How does one define an original cartridge as meeting the 1917 rule? I would think one would use the same patent design criteria used to qualify a rifle. To address your twist question a 1-16 was indeed the standard twist for the 32-40 but during that point in time you could also custom order what you wanted. 

JLouis

Quote:


So then, in that same vein, you can also custom order your cartridges and brass from a custom cartridge maker. The same as ordering a modern Douglas or other maker in 15, 14, 12 or even a 10 twist barrel.

Or am I thinking out of the box?

Frank

Frank here are the rules and they are pretty specific as well as simple to understand.

Section 1.30:  Traditional Rifle Rules
Any single shot rifle, foreign or domestic, manufactured prior to 1917. Reproductions of pre-1917 patents are allowed. Examples of traditional actions include, but are not limited to, the Ballard, Remington, Sharps, Stevens, Bullard, Maynard, Sharps-Borchardt, Remington-Hepburn, Winchester, Farrow, and Wesson.
Technology cutoff of circa 1917 as regards patents, sights, cartridges, loading techniques, and general configuration of the Schuetzen rifle.
Acceptable cartridges would be those manufactured by the above approved manufactures while still adhering to the 1917 rule. They both go hand in hand, a good example would be the 28-30 Stevens it being the only 28 manufactured by one of the above approved manufactures thus makes it the only acceptable 28 cartridge that would meet the rule.
No where does it state that a manufactured cartridge case meeting the above requirements can be reformed and or modified and still meet the rule. A good example would be to take the 30 Wesson case neck it down to 28 and then expect it to still be accepted, it does not work because Wesson never manufactured it for sale. An other example would be to blow out the 25-35 WCF to 28 and then to call it a 28-38-50 Ballard in an attemp to make it acceptable of which will not work as Ballard never manufactured it and offered it for sale.

JLouis

Frank what I am saying is read the traditional rules as they are currently written and they are the same to my knowledge for both the ISSA and the ASSRA. It does not matter what Pope or anyone else might think they did not have a hand in writing these rules. They are what they are and they need to be adhered to and accepted as such. If you can't seem to accept them then I would make a request to have them revised but I am not sure how that could be accomplished without also revising the ASSRA 1948 Mission statement in regards to preservation. I did not make the rules, I am simply pointing out what they are saying so please don't take it personnel as if they are only being directed to you. If the rules are actually saying something other than what I am reading please specificaly point it out.

This subject almost replicates the liberals approach to the 2nd. amendment, change the true meaning until it fits a particular need.

JLouis

The patented Wesson primer is to short to be used in a case made by any other manufactor and the Wesson primer pocket is to shallow to allow any standard primer to be used.

(You need to Login or Register to view media files and links)

Scoll down to the Wesson primers

The following is actually in the ASSRA rule book:

The success of the Traditional Class depends upon the shooters themselves. Radical, fringe interpretations of the rules will not be productive towards preserving our Schuetzen heritage. Traditionally minded shooters have a common sense grasp of what was typical and/or appropriate for the pre-1917 competitor. It is not the intention of the Traditional Class to exclude or in any way restrict participation in the Schuetzen discipline. Since the inception of Traditional Class there have been many questions regarding what modern equipment is allowed.

The Blue highlighting, just doesn't apply to ASSRA or ISSA rules, It applys only to "Wildcating" 28 caliber cartridges, in the Traditional 28, non sanctioned matches. Again apples and oranges.

Frank