Frank if you would have posted the rest of the rules beyond where you opted to stop
as it would also have included the following very specific and restrictive information.

Currently there are no restrictions placed upon any equipment other than the rifles, sights, cartridges, and loading techniques.

Please do not falsely use me to push your agenda as it is becoming quite obvious that you do not agree with the current rules and would like to establish your own by the very liberal portion of the rules you posted while leaving out the four very specific restrictions that are not so liberal. It is clear that our forefathers who included cartridges as one of the restrictions clearly felt an important need for them to do so. It possibly could have been to insure preservation or possibly something other than. The bottom line is the rules do exist, are specific in restricting four defined categories and cartridges is one of them and it surely has nothing to do with me but it must have been extremely important to them!

JLouis

John,
What I posted was The Sprit of the Rules. Here they are again, highlighting and underlining are mine:


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.

Now I ask you. What is the diffinition of cartridge? Is it not devise of ASSYMBLED, case, primer, powder and bullet? Will you now require people to shoot only a cartridge in traditional matches as that is what the rules say and stipulate by your diffinition of them.

I really believe the people that put the rules together ment that the chamber had to be original (common since).

typical and/or appropriate, I believe that this statement would cover what we've been talking about and doesn't hold any part or the Traditional rules as "hard and fast". Anyone in our sport (with maybe one exception) would think that it is reasonable for golden age shooters to adapt any case (w/o changing the chamber) to their needs if they had that case in hand and wanted to shoot it, because of availablity or any other reason.

Frank

Obviously another thread evolved into a pissing match between Louis and Frank. Referee'd by 40-Rod. 


            Joe.

Also, by your strick inturputation of the Traditional rules, the CPA would not be legal.

Since it was not made by Stevens, or by modifing a Stevens, the barrel thread would disqualify it. Breech block safety measures have been done to  original Stevens but, I do not know of any Stevens receiver ring ever being bore out and rethreaded to a larger thread diameter.

Frank

I'm not missing the point in anyway. You are trying to make a perfectly legal and traditional chambering unavailable to compete in matches. Is that the intent of the governing bodys? Tell me what the following quote  means and most of all tell if the CPA meets the Traditional rules as YOU put them forth.

Quote:


Also tell me what this quote means in your opinion:

Quote:


Would that include Pope, Zischang and other Golden age shooters?

Frank

PS
Don't forget your opinion on the CPA. I believe it clearly doesn't conform to your diffinition.

Can someone please explain what is 30 American brass ? tia

30-30 brass with small primer pocket. I think. 

         Joe.

Frank I have never said that the CPA did not qualify, I simply questioned the slight modifications. I received clarification from the powers that be and I am good with it. I might add that all of my Traditional Class honors over the years were shot with my CPA so why in the world would I want to shoot myself in foot!

Questioning the rules is healthy, if our mission statement is preservation it is our duty to see that it does indeed remains preserved. Whether or not someone agrees with the rules is neither here nor there but it is critcal as good stuarts to insure that they are being adhered to as the are written. I might also add that I never said that I agree with the cartridge rule as I read it you took it upon yourself to make that determination.

JLouis