GAF Class Structure and Battle Rifle Standards

[Bow View Haymaker]

Is the Ruger Balck hawk allowed in the Scout cataogiry?  I have a EAA Bounty hunter that will be my main sidearm but was going to bring the Blackhawk as a backup if needed.  Otherwise I may borrow a Vaquero. 
thanks

[Texas Lawdog]

I don't think so. I know it is not allowed in NCOWS. It is allowed in SASS.

[RattlesnakeJack]

Although the Ruger Blackhawk is not specifically listed as either a "Allowed" or "Not Allowed" in the firearms section of the NCOWS By-Laws, that is because it clearly fails to meet both of the following general criteria set out therein:
- "Cartridge firearms shall be original to the period or authentic reproductions of original makes and models."
- "Sights for all firearms shall be of original design or configuration."

Having hopefully answered your question (though perhaps not the way you might have hoped), I must thank you for asking it, because while I was checking the specifics on the NCOWS website, I discovered to my absolute horror that the NCOWS "powers that be" have adopted a wording amendment which, by clearly requiring "Birds-head or Banana grips" for (apparently) all Webley revolvers, effectively disallows a great many (perhaps the majority) of pre-1900 non-military Webley designs!
    
I believe I know what they intended, because grip configuration is a fairly good and simple criterion for determining eligibility of War Department "service revolvers".   However, most pre-1900 non-military-issue Webley revolvers do not have such a grip configuration.  I will immediately be posting an alert in the NCOWS Chambers regarding this glaring error!!!

[Drydock]

For Handguns outside of our military concern, we generaly follow NCOWs practice, so no, the Blackhawk is not allowed.  Basicaly the only Ruger that can be used is the Vaquero/Bisley Vaquero.

HOWSUMEVER!  While we follow NCOWs practice in many ways, we are not part of NCOWS, we have our own rules package and requirements.  Our handguns shall be Milspec or of demonstrated Military use in the Victorian era.  This thus allows all Webleys of Jacks concern.  It also allows the use of the SAA and its clones, of which the Vaquero is considered to be one.  The Blackhawk does not meet this criteria.

[Dalton Masterson]

Bowview, I have a spare SAA if you need a backup gun.

So, where NCOWS directly states that Birdshead Vaqueros are not legal, and they are not military, are they illegal in GAF as well?
The gun is the same, its just different grips and grip frame.
Doesnt matter for the Muster, but it is what I normally shoot in SASS, so am curious.
DM

[Drydock]

"Or of demonstrated military use in the Victorian era"

Folks keep missing that for some reason.  Birds head gripped weapons were private purchased and carried by military personel in some instances.  Particularly by civilian scouts.  The Merwin and Hulbert pocket models, as well as the Colt DAs come to mind. 

In any case, for GAF, all Vaquero models are allowed, as they are considered a Colt Clone, regardless of grip configuration.  As always, if in uniform in a Milspec class, you will be judged on your uniform as a consideration for Brigade champion, and the sidearm is part of your uniform.

[Bow View Haymaker]

Thanks for the info,
O'll leave the blackhawk at home.

[pony express]

I discovered to my absolute horror that the NCOWS "powers that be" have adopted a wording amendment which, by clearly requiring "Birds-head or Banana grips" for (apparently) all Webley revolvers, effectively disallows a great many (perhaps the majority) of pre-1900 non-military Webley designs!
    
I believe I know what they intended, because grip configuration is a fairly good and simple criterion for determining eligibility of War Department "service revolvers".   However, most pre-1900 non-military-issue Webley revolvers do not have such a grip configuration.  I will immediately be posting an alert in the NCOWS Chambers regarding this glaring error!!!

I read that, and what I assume they mean by "bannana grip" is the usual webley grip, kind of round cross section, not much curve, kind of like if you cut a bannana in half. What I THINK they are not allowing is the really blocky shape grip, like on some of the later .38 cal ones.

[RattlesnakeJack]

I read that, and what I assume they mean by "bannana grip" is the usual webley grip, kind of round cross section, not much curve, kind of like if you cut a bannana in half. What I THINK they are not allowing is the really blocky shape grip, like on some of the later .38 cal ones.

Pony Express -  if I correctly understand your definition of "banana grip" - namely, that it would also allow grips shaped like those on the RIC models illustrated in the NCOWS Chambers topic I started on this issue  -  I suppose that would alleviate part of the problem, so long as that indeed was either the intended meaning or the actual interpretation in practice.  

However, that would still leave a major problem with many other pre-1900 non-military Webley models which do happen to have a "blocky" grip of the sort apparently banned - such as the No. 4, No. 5 and WG models also pictured in the above-noted NCOWS Chambers thread.

In any event, since Webley military service revolver models are apparently the only specific examples cited in the By-Laws ("MK1, MK2, MK4, MK5") -because the term "Mark" to designate a particular variant was strictly War Department (i.e. military) terminology - such a listing would be understood by persons familiar with  Webley revolvers to refer specifically to the military service revolvers only, leading in turn to the definite impression that the grip shape mandated by the rule must refer solely to the "birds-head" grip shape which all of those military service models have, like this. -



Actually, there is even one other wee problem with the current wording (which I have intentionally avoided mentioning so far.)     Strictly speaking, there are no such 19th-century Webley revolver models as are listed in the By-Laws!   When designating various "Marks" of a firearm (or any piece of military equipment) the Victorian-era British War Department invariably employed capital Roman numerals .... so the examples given would be correctly called "Mk I, Mk II, Mk IV, Mk V" ....  

Nitpicking?   Perhaps ..... yet when governing By-Laws are mandating what is allowed or disallowed, correct terminology is mighty important!