Proposed standards for "Battle Rifle" usage

[Books OToole]

Beware:  Some .30 US cal. model 1895s are 30-03.  And they are just about worthless.

[A friend of mine bought one of them thinking it was 30-40 and was assured by the salesman that it was.  It wasn't]

Books

[St. George]

TR's Model 1895 was a commercial model - serial number #7588.

Before everyone races out to buy a Winchester Model 1895 for 'their' version of a Spanish American War military rifle - 'The Winchester Book' - by Madis - has this observation on page 481.

"Winchester had great difficulty in getting the adoption of the Model 95 by the Army.  Upon the recommendation og General Miles, Commander of the Army, an order of 10,000 muskets was placed with Winchester in May of 1898.  The Ordnance Corps was having difficulty in repair and maintenenace of the huge variety of arms already in use by the armed forces at that time:  the demand for arms and ammunition was heavy due to the demands of the Spanish American War.

When the component parts and muskets had been inspected by the the army inspectors at the Winchester factory, a large number had been rejected for unsubstantial reasons.  After some discussion, the 10,000 muskets passed inspection.  In 1899, one hundered of the muskets were issued to the Philippines, but the Ordnance Board there gave an unfavorable report and the one hundred muskets were returned to the United states and were sold to a boston arms dealer.  The remaining 9,900 were sold to a New York dealer, who shipped them to Cuba in 1906."

Commercial Model 1895 Winchesters were available - but there weren't 'issue' carbines, since the Model 95 that was contracted for was the Musket.

When the Contract was let in May, 1898 - the Rough riders were then in San Antonio, and by August of that year, were aboard the transport 'Miami' - steaming out of Santiago Channel, on their way to folding their flags on September 15, 1898.

The Winchester drama would play itself out while they were operational, and issued with Krag carbines.

Vaya,

Scouts Out!


 

[Books OToole]

I think what we are talking about here is a new shooting class for the '07 Muster.

You can still shoot what ever CAS weapons you want in the other classes.  But for the "Battle Rifle" Class your uniform should match (be appropriate to) your weapon.  Your side arm should like wise be appropriate.

Not quite like the NCOWS "Originals," but a step in that direction.

Books

[Advertising]

[Drydock]

While we have a general cut-off date of 1902, weapons can be accepted/rejected on a case by case basis.  The 98 is simply too identified with both the world wars of the 20th century, and world wide use as a sporting action, to be a truely victorian weapon.  The Mauser 98 is the definitive bolt action of the 20th century, and its inclusion makes for too many problems.

Bookes, that was entirely my intent.  We allready have plenty of classes for the fantasy/hollywood cowboy/soldier.  The Battle rifle concept was meant to accomodate those among us more historicaly interested in shooting the Milspec weapons and calibers of the Victorian era.  A run what ya brung sillouette weapons class defeats the purpose of this, and is doomed to controversy and failure, IMHO.

Drydock.

[US Scout]

Some good discussion going on here. 

We need to define what is and what is not acceptable for use as a Battle Rifle, particularly when it comes to the more "modern" bolt actions like the '98 Mauser.

I have charged Sgt Drydock to come up with the Battle Rifle requirements.  I'm sure he will welcome your comments, but he is the lead on this endevor.

As stated in another post, I see the development of the Battle Rifle, in our unique Muster type events, as being what will set the GAF apart from other CAS-type shooting sports.  Consequently, we need to take some care in how we pursue this course.  As I've learned with the awards and in our organization, it is difficult to make changes once we make a decision. 

I think the Battle Rifle concept is important enough that we need to think out what we want it to be and how we want to get to the end result so that we don't have to backtrack.

For what its worth, I would prefer the GAF to stick to "mil-spec" for the Battle Rifles, and not allow any sporterized arms to be used.  I fear that if we do allow sporterized rifles, even with the best of intentions to get the Battle Rifle concept moving, it'll backfire later on when we start seeing "race-guns" begin to appear.  Better to nip the idea in the bud now so we don't have to rewrite the rules later and frustrate a lot of people who think because it was allowed in the beginning, it should be allowed later.  NCOWS has taken a stand on this, and many in SASS wish they had done the same years ago. 

I don't see a problem allowing a different cartridges, along the same lines as NCOWS permits. 

US Scout
GAF, Commanding

[Gripmaker]

US Scout,

Thank you for verifying the established authority for this class, ie. Sgt Drydock.

Drydock
Thank you for your definitive answer. It is much easier to accept a ruling when the rationale is also provided, especially when things don't  seem to make sense.  I shall just have to start looking for another Battle Rifle to purchase and restore. Thanks, my wife cannot possibly turn this one down. Please give me a call at 417-359-8880 as I need to talk to you (let me know it is you by alias as I don't know your given name.)