Frank absolutely no it would not be safe to say! Once again it is not my call to make nor is it yours, there are elected officials within each organization, ISSA and ASSRA that are charged with interpreting the true intent of the rules as they are currently written. With that being said I would not build a rifle with the intent of shooting the traditional class around a replacement cartridge that might not qualify? I am not trying to prevent the gentleman from doing any thing, I am simply saying it might not qualify per the rules to possibly save him from a very expensive disappointment.

JLouis

Quote:


And what I'm saying is that there is more chance that the CPA "might not qualify" for the Traditional class if a official protest were lodge because of the thickside, large barrel thread and in many cases, the draw bolt but, you call these slight modifications? I call them major modifications. Much more intrusive than a primer size change, that could fall under the pre 1917 patent clause.

After all it is specifically addressed in the Quote:


Also, you never responded to my question on your thoughts about:

Quote:


OR:

Quote:


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

I do agree that it not yours or mine to dictate what the rules mean but, your original post was that it would not qualify. I was pointing out what the sprit of the rules are and that because of the special Wesson primer, there could never be a cartridge made exactly like the Wesson. Also, that a pre 1917 shooter could very well have made 30/30-40 Wesson cartridges out of the 38 XL.

Frank

7Groove interesting comment, would that fall under the loading techniques rule or the cartridge rule?

JLouis

Frank I will leave it to the governing powers that be from each organization to address your questions. My thoughts on the matter as are yours are really meaningless and without merit so I am done with with subject. I would suggest that you send in a written request of interpretation to both organizations and when you receive their written responses please scan and post the letters for all to review.

JLouis

BP they are actually key and very critical to keeping things in check thus I laid mine on the table with hopes others would do the same. Unfortunately in this instance it has now become meaning less and without merit and seems to be in need of an official interpretation from the powers that be. I would sure enjoy hearing your thoughts on the matter after fully reading and analyzing the rules as well as those from others. I have had enough of the current one and I am done with it but new ones would be quite refreshing to hash around. 


JLouis

Quote:


JLewis,

If you have issues with the various primer sizes that could be used, then if you are shooting traditional class, and following along with what I seem to be hearing is your line of reasoning, everyone had better submit chamber casts from their rifle to the Schuetzenmeister before competing in that class to verify that their chamber and throating fully comply with the original Manufacturer’s specifications per the 1917 rule.
If someone has used a throating reamer to modify the chamber from the Manufacturer’s specs, do you feel the rifle can no longer be used in traditional class? 
Is this where you really want to take things?

I agree with 40 Rod’s comment that traditional class does not equate with Amish class.

Easy way to solve the issue seems to be that if something is not already accepted as conforming with the 1917 rule, and you desire to use it in Traditional class, then do your research and provide your documentation supporting your position to the Schuetzenmeister for a decision about compliance.

PS: Don't think it would hurt things if you are planning on building a rifle (or having one built) to be used for traditional class, to submit your plans to the Schuetzenmeister to confirm compliance or for any needed revisions to your plans before spending a big chunk of change.

BP I no longer compete in the Traditional Class by my choice in equipment, all though both of my rifles  are in the Traditional style my choice of action and cartridge for the 28 do not meet the rules and I use a non traditional scope on my 52 CPA 32-40 as well as the 28. What I was trying to do was to determine the intent of the cartrige rule in the traditional class based on both the manufacture requirement and the pre 1917 criteria as spelled out in the rules. In other words I would like to know where the line in the sand has been drawn to insure that we can properly preserve this class and it's history for future generations. The rules have become so liberal that last year a rifle that did not fit the design criteria took first place honors in the traditional class at the National event. As you might know by reading some of the posts here by some of those who were elected or have volunteered to over see the health and wefare of this organization have stated that the Traditional class our roots and the organizations mission statement in there opinion is nothing more than a token class now. All though I choose not to shoot in the class it is imperative that the rules be stringently adhered to, to insure that our true heritage is preserved. If we do not question what the true intent of the four specific rules are it will go from a token class to being historically incorrect and then non-existant and we are rapidly moving in that direction. 

JLouis