Several times I've said to myself, "This is one LOG argument I'm going to stay out of."  Aww, the hell I am.

First, my thanks to frnkeore for setting down the Traditional Class rules.  As I read them and re-read the various arguments here, it seems to me that for those specific items which the rules fail to specifically address - and let's face it, no one of us, much less a committee, can ever think of or remember everything - the "out" for the affected competitor is the discretion of the Schuetzenmeister.

As an example, say I show up at a match with a Winchester Schuetzen mounting an original L. C. Cummins Duplex scope.  The Duplex, made in the 1890s through the very early 1900s, is internally adjustable; hence by the letter of the Rules, I can't compete in a Traditional match with my outfit.

However, again, as I read it, the match Schutzenmeister can choose to waive me in; and being an individual of intelligence, experience, and common sense, I'd be very surprised if he/she did not do so.

But even if the Schutzenmeister refuses my plea, the worst case is that I try shooting competitively in another match at another range and decide to petition the ASSRA to make a Traditional Rules modification.

Finally, to those who seem at worst to be saying "Rules? We don't need no stinkin' rules", oh, yes, we do.  Without rules, an organization has no framework and must eventually collapse.  Therefore, do not insist that you can always "do your own thing".  Instead, if you must aforethought and with sound historical precedent challenge the Traditional Rules in a particular competition, rely on the Schutzenmeister's discretion to grant you an exception.  Beyond that, petition for a rule change.  In both cases, I'd very strongly guess that you'd win.

Oh, one more thing.  If you want the low-down on the technology available to early-20th century shooters, I recommend Edward Farrow's American Small Arms, published in 1904.

Bill Lawrence

Bill thee most important rule of all is to show up and have fun with whatever you might be bringing. If it doesn't quite make the traditional rules it just moves one up into the pre-say modern class where you will be just as competitive and not the end of the world by far. In all honesty it's the people who come out to play that really makes Schuetzen so enjoyable and some of the finest folks one could ever hope to meet. Some are serious and some just like to shoot and it is the shooting the Bull that is the main event and where everyone ends up at the top at the end of the day. Some Damn nice rifles also show up to look at so it's a win win win by just showing up. 

JLouis

JLouis wrote on Jul 24^th, 2018 at 2:15pm:

But, it is not in the spirit of the pre WWI concept. ASSRA wanted competitors to use the same equipment as they did and that was why the ASSRA created the Traditional class.

Frank

Thanks, Redsetter, I didn't know or had forgotten about the early Stevens-Cummins tie-in (likely I should reread my early Stevens catalogs more closely).

However, for what it's worth, the majority of his advertising envelopes that show up nowadays, most cancelled in the late 1890s, picture Winchester rifles under a Cummins scope.

Bill Lawrence

Frank the ASSRA was founded in 1948 so it is really not that difficult to understand that the Traditional rules were established at that point in time. The why's home comes and reasons they chose to do what they did are well beyond me. Those born in 1917 would only have been 31 at that time and their fathers were still probably shooting starting well before World WarI. There might be some of those still around all though probably in their 90's that could actually share what actullay took place at that and why the rules were created as they are. 

JLouis

An FCC chairman said back in the 60’s that TV was a Vast Waste land,I wonder what he would have thought about this discussion of scope rules.  Ledball

JLouis wrote on Jul 24^th, 2018 at 5:26pm:

JL, you think that the Traditional rules, were made in 1948? Not so.

Frank

I have a Winchester A5 in Mann-Niedner -modified Winchester mounts that have the "click spring" as described above.  The scope is mounted on a Pope-rerifled Stevens in .32 Ideal.

Now the rifle clearly predates 1917.  From my research, it seems most likely that the scope is among those Niedner modified in early 1917.  Moreover, while the scope and rifle have obviously been together for many decades, due to an extra rear scope block screw hole, the scope is also surely at least the second one mounted on the rifle.

So, again as an example and for sake of clarification (because, yes, JLouis, I'm all for having fun, too), is this an outfit that would likely not be allowed in a Traditional match except at the Schuetzenmeister's discretion?

Bill Lawrence