To restructure or not to restructure - that IS the question

[Cole Bluesteele]

First of all, I believe it would be best if we develop a class structure that we can ask the posses to try out for a year before we make any permanent changes.

At the Berger Sharpshooters we are now offering the following classes:

Working Cowboy, One pistol & one rifle
Two Pistols and one rifle
One pistol & one shotgun
Two pistols, one rifle & one shotgun

Each of the above will be split into BP Duelist, Smokeless Duelist and Open (two handed grip and any powder)

We will also offer Pistoleer as it is now.

Junior and Senior classes are one pistol and one rifle classes.

As most of our shooters use smokeless it was unfair to lump the duelists into an Open class. Most likely this would cost us the smokelss Duelist shooters.  As they do not want to compete against two handed shooters and are unwilling to load BP rounds just  to be able to compete against other Duelists.

These class divisions in no way impact our historical requirements.

We feel they may encourage other WAS participants to try NCOWS.  It is our hope that will recruit new members, with
minimal impact to our existing shooters.  To date some of our WC's have moved to the 2 pistol & Rifle class, as have some 4 gun shooters.

Regarding "too Many classes"  That really depends on the number of NCOWS members.  If we had 400 shooters at a match I do not feel that the above would be too many classes.  I guess we need to decide if we want to have the attitude "if we build it they will come"  or just keep doing what we have always done.  Just remember " If you always do what you have always done you will always get what you always got."

If we really want NCOWS to grow maybe we need to research this issue and then decide.

[Books OToole]

I don't know about other posses but at JCR it would be a real challenge to hit our rifle targets with a pistol.

At the KVC it is a challenge to hit rifle targets with a rifle.

Books

[Books OToole]

At the Berger Sharpshooters we are now offering the following classes:

Working Cowboy, One pistol & one rifle
Two Pistols and one rifle
One pistol & one shotgun
Two pistols, one rifle & one shotgun

Each of the above will be split into BP Duelist, Smokeless Duelist and Open (two handed grip and any powder)

We will also offer Pistoleer as it is now.

Junior and Senior classes are one pistol and one rifle classes.

Add the Originals class and I like it.

Books

[Trap]

   Isn't the challenge what it's all about?

[John Smith]

Heck some of us have a problem hitting the pistol targets with a pistol. 

That would be me, my motto is, "I may be slow, but I'm highly inaccurate".

[Cole Bluesteele]

Books,

The Originals class is offered.  I omitted it because we are still working on having three members to participate.  Tascosa Joe is probably ready.  Maybe even Pancho.  Tom jack and i are still getting stuff together.

Ted 

[Books OToole]

Books,

The Originals class is offered.  I omitted it because we are still working on having three members to participate.  Tascosa Joe is probably ready.  Maybe even Pancho.  Tom jack and i are still getting stuff together.

Ted 

I am glad to hear that.  It seems that there is a movement afoot to eliminate the Originals class.  With 14 shooters who have already had their packet approved and seven more working on it, it is a much larger group than precieved.

Like the other classes, shooters who have shot Originals do not always shoot Originals.

Books

[Quick Fire]

Cole, and all,

     I don't post very often, but it seems to me that NCOWS has about the best rule that can be had, when a Posse can offer whatever classes it wants as long as they stay within the parameters of NCOWS rules and regulations. Why would we want to change this. Is it just for one shoot,(The Nationals)? Our club, The Blue River Regulators, has tried several new catagories over the last few years. I would hate to see it changed where we can no longer do this. Just my two cents worth.

                                           

Quick Fire

[Cole Bluesteele]

QF,

I do not think anyone is considering eliminating the ability of individual posses to offer unique classes at their matches.  i know I am not.  This restructuring if successful would only create the classes that are required at the national and regional level.

Ted

[Civil War Jack]

I agree, what I have been discussing is for the National Shoot level, to add one class- a pistols only class.  I agree with authenticity, and an all pistol class can be documented.  Wish to reiterate that a class should be offered for people that is affordable, historically accurate, and will be available for persons wishing to compete on the national level that due to permanent or temporary health issues can not at the present time only because of inability to shoot a rifle/shotgun.  This would include persons with a broken arm, sprained wrist, stroke issues involving on side of the body, shoulder problems, etc.  The way it is now, you can not participate on a competitive level at the National Shoot with any of these problems if unable to shoot rifle/shotgun.  I further feel it should be open to the general public as well as persons with "physical limitations" as listed in our bylaws.  This is called competition, which is the purpose of having the National Shoot to start with.  As far as shooting rifle targets with a pistol and everyone else is doing the same thing in the class-that is competition and can only blame myself for misses but not for missing a shoot to start with because I did not have a class to shoot in.  Besides it could only involve the pistol targets set up for the two pistol classes that are already set up for the other classes.  This would not require any additional targets to set for pistol only class.  This could be addressed by the match director.  Remember we are all getting older and could be us later in life.

[bowiemaker]

Any classes or class changes go deeper than just the nations and regional events. The by-laws state: "All NCOWS shooting classes, as established by By-Law, must be made available to all shooters at each National, Regional or Charter Posse Shoot"

Unless I am missing something that says that each posse must offer ALL classes at EVERY shoot. They may offer more classes but not less is the way I am reading this. So, any class changes would affect all shoots, and not just the nationals.

[Civil War Jack]

That is correct, but if the class is not in the bylaws it is not offered at the National Shoot but can be offered on local and other levels with match director approval.  But why leave people out of the biggest shoot of the year because of something out of their control.  Do we want to tell people on all levels of competition that they can not shoot with us because of a limitation.  The bylaws also state about "physical limitations".  We are saying yes you can be a member but no you can not participate-this is what I can not understand, if I did understand I would worry.

[Will Ketchum]

That is correct, but if the class is not in the bylaws it is not offered at the National Shoot but can be offered on local and other levels with match director approval.  But why leave people out of the biggest shoot of the year because of something out of their control.  Do we want to tell people on all levels of competition that they can not shoot with us because of a limitation.  The bylaws also state about "physical limitations".  We are saying yes you can be a member but no you can not participate-this is what I can not understand, if I did understand I would worry.

Jack, I appreciate your concern but having attended most of the National Shoots one of the things that has been consistent has been the accommodation of shooters who are unable do to physical limitations able to shoot the any of the classes.  I have seen people in wheel chairs, missing limbs, or many other problems.  We always find a way for them to participate.

Will Ketchum

[Civil War Jack]

I could not compete at the 2011 National Shoot.  Emphasis on competing, would allow me to shoot but not in a class or for score, just sling lead down range.  I did get to watch everyone else shoot and have a good time.

[Tjackstephens]

I have read all of the post on restructure of the shooting classes. I also know how NCOWS is set up and how it is governed. What we are talking about is a BIG change. It is my believe that every NCOWS member should be able to vote on this issue. Should not be our Congress, but every dues paying member. A ballot vote. This change will affect every member that shoot at a regional or national shoot. Also in a way every posse shoot at local levels. Let congress vote at the convention on which propossal and then mail a ballot to every member to accept or reject the propossal.
After review and review and much thought, I don't like any of what's been offered. I have to tell you I am growing tire of it all. guess we will see what happens. March is almost on us. Tj
There will be several that do not like this post. But then I have read many post here that I don't care for. Thank God this is still a free country and we still have freedom to voice our thoughts. Tj

[bowiemaker]

I don't know if it will go anywhere but I submitted a proposal to restructure the NCOWS shooting classes. There a few reasons that I feel the classes need to be restructured.

1. For an organization that strives for authenticity, our current classes do not reflect it. We have 10 shooting classes and 8 of them require two handguns, a rifle and a shotgun. Nobody in the old west carried two long guns.

2. To offer more authentic variety in gun combinations.

3. To make NCOWS more affordable and attractive to newcomers and prospective members.

4. To differentiate NCOWS from SASS.

5. To accommodate people who do not wish to shoot shotguns or have physical limitations that may prevent them from shooting long guns.

My proposal:
Combines two classes into one and removes the shotgun requirement (Senior and Elder).
It proposes making changes to two classes: Junior (changes from 4-gun to 2-gun) and Duelist (Drops the shotgun requirement making it a 3-gun class).
It proposes adding two classes; "Lawman" (1 handgun + 1 shotgun) and "Gunslinger" (2 handguns).
It leaves 4 classes unchanged (Pistoleer, Shootist, Working Cowboy and Originals).

The result would give us five two-gun classes (Junior, Lawman, Working Cowboy, Gunslinger, Originals), two three-gun classes (Senior and Duelist), and two four-gun classes (Pistoleer, Shootist). It provides a wider variety of firearm combinations; 2 pistols, 1 pistol + rifle, 1 pistol + shotgun, 2 pistols + rifle, and 2 pistols + rifle & shotgun.

It reduces the number of classes requiring a shotgun, especially for our older participants.

It provides two relatively inexpensive classes requiring only 2 pistols or 1 pistol + shotgun.

It provides many more options that are authentic to what was actually used in the period.

It provides a class for those who do not want to, or cannot, shoot long guns.

[John William McCandles]

I have read all of the post on restructure of the shooting classes. I also know how NCOWS is set up and how it is governed. What we are talking about is a BIG change. It is my believe that every NCOWS member should be able to vote on this issue. Should not be our Congress, but every dues paying member. A ballot vote. This change will affect every member that shoot at a regional or national shoot. Also in a way every posse shoot at local levels. Let congress vote at the convention on which propossal and then mail a ballot to every member to accept or reject the propossal.
After review and review and much thought, I don't like any of what's been offered. I have to tell you I am growing tire of it all. guess we will see what happens. March is almost on us. Tj
There will be several that do not like this post. But then I have read many post here that I don't care for. Thank God this is still a free country and we still have freedom to voice our thoughts. Tj

T Jack; I am in agreement with you. I have read the offered proposals and while I like parts of them all I can not agree with any one in particular.
The proposal to form posse level committees to submit restructuring plans seems to me the better action for the 2012 Congress.
Not everyone will be happy with any change but to change for the sake of changing is not good.
There needs to be a lot more thought and NCOWS wide input on this matter before any changes are made.  As this will affect NCOWS for sometime to come.
Most likely not what everyone wants to hear but that is my opinion.
Regards
JW

[Books OToole]

By my count, there are now six different proposals to restructure the NCOWS shooting classes.  Going by past experience of Congress meetings, each will take 45 minutes to an hour to discuss, hash and rehash.  This puts the meeting well past midnight without considering the elections, firearms approval process and the most important issue, fixing The Shootist.

Y'all, better pack a lunch.



Books

[J.R. Logan]

Just to add to more to this, from the book "Encyclopedia of Western Gunfighters, by Bill O'Neal" out of 255 gunfights.  There were 1 pistol used in 228, shotgun in 67, rifle in 121, derringer in 3, 2 pistols in 9, knifes in 14, bell guns or hideouts in 4.  Very few if any had more than one gun being used by one person.  From this research non of the shooting classes are historically correct, some less than others.  Non of the gunfights were divided by gun hold or powder, most were over in a few seconds at most.

Make of this what you want.

J. R. Logan

[Tjackstephens]

Bowiemaker, I could live with your proposal. Tj

[joec]

Bowiemaker, I could live with your proposal. Tj

I agree Bowiemaker's proposal is the one I like best and see it as an improvement over the current system. I'm new at this personally so don't know how much weight it carries but would like to shot more than just cowboy that I do now. Now I have the equipment to shot anything but cap & ball. I don't have the will to shoot 3 or 4 different guns for most of a day then spending time cleaning them afterward. I am also anal re-tensive when it come to cleaning my guns after I use them and can't let them sit a day or two. 

[Cliff Fendley]

Bowiemakers proposal effects current classes the very least and is the only one that would improve the overall class structure. It gives a large variety that would set NCOWS different from other shooting organizations. Of the few classes it modifies there are many other options added. It adds classes that would appeal to new shooters and those with physical limitations.

This proposal should be considered and very little time if any spent on any others. All the others would cause disappointment from too drastic of change.

[Bow View Haymaker]

I think Bowiemaker may be on to something.  I  ecpecialy agree with reason #5. 
I would suggest adding the option for rifle caliber rifles both repeaters and single shot.  that would cover almostall the gunsused on the frontier.  Still has a place for the 4 gun croud to compete but gives other combinations a chance. 
If stages take less tiime to shoot then shoot more stages in a day

[Tjackstephens]

I wish to remind all that read this post. At the start it ask you to vote restructure or not. Yes 27  No 24  Do not care 2.  With that kind of vote, there are not the numbers to restructure. About a fourth of those that voted yes have their own ideals. It is a mess. Tj

[Cole Bluesteele]

TJ

You are right it is a mess.  No class proposal made to date has been tested at any match.  So they are all speculative at best.  Do we really want to spend time discussing untried structures?  There is no way to determine if our shooters will embrace or reject any of these new structures?  Do we really want to approve a new system 3 months before the National match?  The responses to date do not indicate a great desire to restructure.  So why do we want to rush ahead and approve any changes at this congress?  I say any changes we make at this congress would be foolish and have unforeseen consequences.

That is the reasoning behind the proposal to establish an Ad Hoc Committee to investigate the feasibility of restructuring and to take 12 months to develop recommendations for the congress to consider at its 2013 session.

Ted