What is the GAF?

[Major Matt Lewis]

There comes a time in every organizations existance where that organization should take sometime for introspection.  Introspection to determine what that organization is an what it should be.  I think it is time that maybe the GAF did that.  To determine just what we are and what we are about.  Are we a relevant organization?  If so, how do we stay relevant?  If we are not, how do we become relevant?  Do we wish to be relevant?  If we wish to be relevant, do we have people willing to step up and perform the work to become relevant? 

So, we have had three musters.  A number of color guard ceremonies (that benefit other organizations).   But what ARE we.  Are we a national organization capable of relevance or are we a loose affiliation of people sharing similiar interest with no goals?  Either one, is fine.  We just have to set expecations properly.  We have had our opportunities to shine. but we have also, as an organization let the momentum slip right through our fingers every time.  We have capitalized on nothing.  We have had some Musters, Lou Graham has put together a side match up in the Northeast, we have had Color Guards.  But in the 4 years or so, that I have been associated with the GAF, we have not been able to put any structure to ourselves.  We seemingly have not been willing to unite and speak as one voice, on just about anything.  Not one member, myself included has been willing to stand up and make the GAF BE something other than a loose collection of folks who have a common interest.  Is it our destiny to be nothing more than a web ring?  Do we as an organization based on our membership, deserve to be more? 

Some introspection for a sleepy December evening.  What will 2007 bring the GAF?  Is there any vision?  What are we to be?

[Trailrider]

I have the honor to reply to your communication of today.  You have raised some interesting points, and, indeed they do deserve careful thought.  While I have a number of ideas for answers, let me simply add some factors that I believe should be considered.

Several decades ago, I was very into model railroading.  It was a fun, interesting and creative way of relaxing and relieving the stress of my then careers.  About a half-dozen people I knew shared that interest.  We each had our own layouts of varying sizes and varieties.  Once a month or so, we'd meet at one-another's houses, "play railroad", have some refreshments, and just BS.  A few years later, a gentleman moved into our neighborhood who also shared our interests.  He joined our happy little band, and for awhile things were about as usual.  Then, he came up with an idea...  Why not get involved in some of the activities of the National Model Railroad Association (NMRA)?  In fact, why not join the Regional organization?  Sounded like a good idea...  But then an "opportunity" came up to sponsor the national convention!  We each started building individual modules that could be assembled into a giant layout (this was something relatively new at the time, 1977).  Great!  And we actually pulled it off!  The only problem was that in the process, there developed some tensions among the original members of the group and this gentleman.  Then internacine politics reared its ugly head.

Oh, yeah! We pulled off the convention, and it was touted as one of the most successful ever.  But our little original group grew apart in the process.  Some of us would attend the regional meetings, but then it got to be a matter of making sure we could make the meeting that month, etc., etc.  Gradually, most of us dropped out, and went back to our own layouts.  (Unfortunately, when I moved into my present home, although the layout "followed" us, it somehow never got put back together again.  Maybe this summer... or the next... or...?)

I shoot CAS matches because I like to shoot, and I love the social aspects.  I have no hope nor really the desire to be a "top gun".  I "joined" the GAF because of a deep interest in U.S. military history, especially during the last half of the 19th Century (as well as WWII), and because my CAS character reflected that interest.  I have participated in several Color Guards, but haven't been able, due to schedules and business to attend Musters, etc.  I have no aspirations for higher "rank" or position.

Let me make one thing clear:  I am willing to listen to all the viewpoints and recommendations of others.  Neither am I saying, at present that I would withdraw from participation in the GAF if the membership decides to make it a more formal and active organization.

But I would hate to have happen to this "happy few, this band of brothers (and sisters)" what I have seen happen to so many recreational organizations that got too wrapped up in "becoming something"!

I, too, solicit the comments of the command!

Happy Holidays to all!

[Sagebrush Burns]

Major Matt –

What, in your thoughts, constitutes “relevance”?  I’m thinking that GAF is as relevant at this point as the members want it to be.  Any increase in the level of activity will require quite a bit of time and effort of many folks.  For the most part people seem not to care to make that effort.  Even getting Departmental staff slots filled is problematic. 

I’m thinking that the annual muster and occasional events such as color guards and side matches fulfills the wishes of our members.  It is important to keep in mind that we are a rather small organization (about 500 total (?) world-wide) and extremely loose-knit.  Some of us are SASS type cowboy action shooters; some are NCOWS type cowboy action shooters; some are NSSA types; some are re-enactors; some are movie or history buffs and each group has a different slant on things.  Many of us are members of other organizations and the structures of the various other organizations is (at least to some extent) conflicting. 

Your description of GAF as a “loose collection of folks who have a common interest” is right on the money.  We share a lot of information, some interesting ideas, and a few events as you noted.  To ask for much more than that may be simply to court disappointment.

Respectfully,
Sagebrush Burns
Brevet Colonel
Department of the Platte

[Advertising]

[Dr. Bob]

Maj. Matt,

So far, we have been pretty much a Internet organization with a small number who have given much to put on 3 Musters and 3 or 4 GAF side matches.  We have no rules of our own and have shot under NCOWS & SASS rules at various places.  Leaves some with a split personality!

If we are going to be more than what we have been, we need to set our own rules for the annual "Grand Muster" at a minimum.  Side matches would probably be under the rules of the hosting club or the GAF rules at the hosts choice. 

Like any "all volunteer" organization,  dedicated people need to step forward and bear much of the burden.  Without a set of SOP's or bylaws that establish a system of governance, it is unlikely that we will be more than we are at present.  Brv't. BG Scout stepped forward and has kept the organization from going dormant when others went down other paths.  Since I have been involved [about 1 1/2 years]  no one has proposed setting up a formal organization and our own shooting & equipment & safety rules.  I am not criticising any one as I am among the "no one" mentioned above.

You have posed a most excellent question.

YMH&OS

Capt. R.H. Dorian
Brv't. LtC.  Chief Topographical Engineer
Grand Army of the Frontier

aka Dr. Bob

[US Scout]

I've been giving this some thought for some time now and will address it in more detail in due time when I make my annual "State of the GAF" posting.

However, in general terms, I see us as a fledgling organization that fills a niche.  We are growing - slowly to be sure - but growing nonetheless, and as we do we are evolving.  The question is, what are we evolving into. 

We initially started as a collection of SASS members who liked to wear uniforms when we shot our matches.  We've grown to become a historical discussion and exchange forum, and to holding our own type of CAS matches.  Granted, we are still mostly Internet based at present, but in this era of constantly changing forms of instant gratification through electronic communications that can be used to our advantage since we already have an international membership base to build on.   Our membership includes people from SASS, NCOWS, NSSA, reenacting, and just general history enthusiasts.  Not a bad beginning all things considered.

I see the introduction of the Battle Rifle concept as a positive move.  With care and foresight, we can develop that into our own expression of CAS. 

What we have to cautious of is trying to become all things to all people, and trying to do it so fast that we lose the very people we created the GAF for.  I'd rather see us gather around the computer, so to speak, than become so CAS oriented as to lose our non-shooting members, or so historically oriented that we lose our shooters with a casual interest in the frontier military.

The question is (and I've pondered this quite a while) is whether we want to incorporate, set up by-laws and assorted rules and regulations to govern us, hold elections, pay dues and maintain a bank account, and become something that was not initially conceived of when the GAF was founded.  On the one hand, I'd like to see it happen, on the other, I'm not so sure that we are ready for such a move since we are still scattered around the country, if not the world, and mostly connected through the Internet.  I fear that requiring dues at the present time will lose us more than we gain, so I'm reluctant to pursue that course for the moment.

Do I want us to move forward?  You bet!  But I also have a responsibility to the GAF, to you the members, to insure that the GAF remains true to its original goals and intentions, and doesn't move forward in a direction that will damage or destroy us.

US Scout
GAF, Commanding

[Drydock]

This is a group of folks gathered in the flickering light of their computer screens, drawn by a common interest:  The almost forgotten facts and lore of the Victorian era military.  Its a social organization, beset with the enjoyable nattering of uniforms and weapons, historic and Hollywood; with really only one formal event, the Muster. 

And thats as it should be, I think.   This is not an interest that suits itself to rapid growth and detailed orgainization.  We are but few, we merry few, we band of brothers (and sisters)

Perhaps we should simply concentrate on doing one thing for now, and doing it well.  IE the Muster.  A unique, yet attractive event in a matchless venue up there in Iowa.  If there is a need for growth,  well let us grow that, with a flavor all our own, letting the word drift out to the rest of the CAS world.  There is no need to spend our limited energies scattershot with SASS classes and NCOWS politics for now. 

Let us simply do what we enjoy, share our knowledge, and have our annual get together, timed to bring as much of us together as possible.  I'd like to see us better orient ourselves toward the weapons and tactics of our era,  and like USS, I see Battle rifle as a start to a unique yet accessible format.

Once more into the breach, dear friends . . .

[Trailrider]

This is a group of folks gathered in the flickering light of their computer screens, drawn by a common interest:  The almost forgotten facts and lore of the Victorian era military.  Its a social organization, beset with the enjoyable nattering of uniforms and weapons, historic and Hollywood; with really only one formal event, the Muster. 

And thats as it should be, I think.   This is not an interest that suits itself to rapid growth and detailed orgainization.  We are but few, we merry few, we band of brothers (and sisters)

Perhaps we should simply concentrate on doing one thing for now, and doing it well.  IE the Muster.  A unique, yet attractive event in a matchless venue up there in Iowa.  If there is a need for growth,  well let us grow that, with a flavor all our own, letting the word drift out to the rest of the CAS world.  There is no need to spend our limited energies scattershot with SASS classes and NCOWS politics for now. 

Let us simply do what we enjoy, share our knowledge, and have our annual get together, timed to bring as much of us together as possible.  I'd like to see us better orient ourselves toward the weapons and tactics of our era,  and like USS, I see Battle rifle as a start to a unique yet accessible format.

Once more into the breach, dear friends . . .

Amen!  (And watch out when you step into the breach...that someone doesn't slam it shut on you, and yank the lanyard!  )

[Books OToole]

I have said before, It is time for GAF to stop being the step-child of SASS &/or NCOWS.

GAF should have its own classes based on how Victorian era soldiers (Sailors and Marines) were equiped.  There are targets available that will stand up to Spencers, trap-door Springfields and Krags. (These with few exceptions are the only long arms used in the era by the U.S.)

For those who can not bring themselves to climb out of the SASS/NCOWS rut, we can have a Hollywood class.

Infantry class - Battle rifle only
Cavalry class - Carbine & revolver
Officer class - Sidearm only.
    There may have to be sub-classes for the three different long arms or a scoring handicap developed.
Scout class - Lever action rifle/carbine & revolver
Hollywood class - ? [not my cup of tea]

Attire of the shooter should reflect the class he/she is competing in.

There is room for civilian employees in these classes.  Buffalo hunters supplying meat to the column can shoot with the Inf. class and War Corresepondents can shoot in the Officers class.

I believe that GAF can be unique and still accomodate all types of WAS shooters.

Respectfully;
Michael "Books" Tatham
Capt. 5th Kansas Battery,
Acting Arty. Commander, Dept. of Missouri

[Guns Garrett]

This is a topic I find hard to respond to ...

I have always had a great interest and sense of pride in our nation's militry history, and through the GAF, I have been able to expand my interests farther.  My love of military history is what drew me to investigate, and eventually join the GAF, since it couples that with my enjoyment of Cowboy shooting.

I have read with interest Major Matt Lewis' postings, and his article in the Cowboy Chronicle, and I am in agreement with his views on how the members of the GAF can be integrated with the existing WAS organizations, in that a Military Category be established in whatever organization chooses to adopt it as a more-or-less "outfitting" or clothing-defined category, such as "Working Cowboy" or "B-Western".  Due to the weapons requirement for calibers, power, and course of fire, it (presently) is not possible to fire totally authentic military weapons in SASS or NCOWS matches.  I pictured a GAF member basically to be shooting WAS while portraying a military member in uniform, not necessarily shooting strictly military weapons. Reenactors get to shoot live rounds (Frenchyloved that!), and cowboy action shooters can wear COOL uniforms (who doesn't love that?) The mission of the Grand Army of the Frontier is stated on the GAF Home Page:
     
     "Our Goal is to promote and enhance the portrayal of Victorian Era Military Personnel, from all Nations, while actively
      participating in either of the hobbies of Cowboy Action Shooting and/or reenacting, while always striving to ensure
      our Attire and our Personas are appropriate to this Era, whether in the 100% percent authentic arena or while
      portraying a Hollywood version..."

I believe what we have with the way the GAF is currently set up is quite desireable, specifically because it is flexible.  Members can determine their own authenticity standards, whether it be clothing, weapons, or both.  I would not object if a member of my posse, portraying a member of Custer's 7th, were to shoot his match with a stainless steel Ruger Vaquero in .357, an 1894 Marlin, and a '97 "Chinkchester" clone shotgun.  I would only be upset if he beat me.  I would be happy to see people like Lefty Longridge and Race Gunner join the ranks of GAF members - even though they aren't totally authentic in their attire, and I'm sure they'd beat me.  With the present GAF organization, there is room for both the purists or "originals", and the more casual members.  If a line gets drawn between the two, problems arise, cliques develop, and pretty soon another "splinter" group wants to form their own organization.  I have seen this happen with CW reenacting groups, with "weekend warriors" ("FARBS") on one side , and the "hard-corps" ("stich Nazi's", "PC Police") on the other, and it ruined reenacting for those involved - units dissolved, events cancelled, and interest evaporated.

Unfortunately, I have heard and read comments - at events, and on this forum and others (SASSWire, TFS [old and new], Open Range, etc.), that while they may not depict these lines being drawn, they seem to be "being surveyed".  Some folks don't join NCOWS because they place too much emphasis (so it's said) on authenticity, or won't join SASS or W3G because it's not authentic enough, or "all about speed".  I don't see GAF as being a step-child of any other WAS outfit - we're an "e-lite fightin' unit", made of members (and non-members) of all of them.  Our common bond is our love of military history, and the desire to portray these honored heroes to the best of our ability or desire. 

Just my opinion - I could be wrong.
Guns

[Frenchie]

"That man talks well, don't he?" 

Guns, right or wrong, that's one hell of a dead-on speech and I agree with every word in it.

Gentlemen, if it isn't in a state of disrepair, one is not wise in attempting to mend it.

[US Scout]

I appreciate all the comments.  They provide me with valuable information on what the membership wants.  If you have something to say, but would rather not post it, send me a PM or e-mail.  I take everyone's contribution into consideration before I make a decision.

We can't be all things to all people (look at SASS, NCOWS and NSSA for example), but we should be able to evolve ourselves in such a manner that we keep those we have, and attract more to our ranks.

Overall, I'm satisfied with the direction and speed we're moving, but it helps to know where we're trying to march to. 

US Scout
GAF, Commanding

[Ol Gabe]

Sirs, Staff & Etc.,
The following quote has been purloined via an earlier Posting by Mr. Guns G., to wit:"Our Goal is to promote and enhance the portrayal of Victorian Era Military Personnel, from all Nations, while actively participating in either of the hobbies of Cowboy Action Shooting and/or reenacting, while always striving to ensure our Attire and our Personas are appropriate to this Era, whether in the 100% percent authentic arena or while portraying a Hollywood version..."
As he so succintly described, as have others in this Posting, we are striving to do as good a job as is humanly possible. However, it has been brought to the attention of this Office by some that do not Post but still have a deep and well-defined interest in the "...Victorian Military Era..." that the most recent Muster and the forthcoming one planned for September next, has been and will be centered around The War of Northern Aggression, aka The Civil War, and NOT a conceptual or collative effort of "...Victorian Era Millitary Personnel..." involved in that time span. They all questioned "Why?" Why, indeed.
Now, with that said, and this Office is certainly not trying to open a Pandora's Box of nit-picked eras, it would seem deemable that the GAF as an entity that has already established its own time slot, follow through and adhere to same, i.e, NO American Civil War scenarios at any Muster. Granted, many of our erstwhile members belong to or have all the accoutrements for same, but this IS a "...Victorian Military Era..." and should remain as such and adhere strictly to that era only, otherwise it is only a cookie cutter event of another orgs designs, and most certainly not what our ideals are centered around.
Alas, NCOWS is suffering the same malady as some of those members have seen fit to make a cross-over effort to the NSSA and other CW orgs to bring in some of those attributes, this Office applauds that effort if it is only an ideal to bring in new members, the same applies here if we as GAF members go forth to other era events and 'recruit' SASS or NCOWS or others, this is a given. However, to allow an event under the auspices of GAF and use the 'other' time slot/era for all scenarios is detrimental and contrary to the original concept and what our cyber membership has come to accept. I implore all here to think about this in a serious tone and urge all to consider what the overall effect might be. Yes, it is good to 'do' all time periods if you have all the gear, etc., but no it is not within the collective groups purvue to 'do' something earlier than the era they have established, nor is it effectively utilizing all the efforts of the cyber membership to bring in any new members, i.e., if they want to 'do' a C.W. event., go to Virginia.
By allowing all SASS-style accoutrements such as the infamous Short-Stroke kit, Shotgun Slides, Mouse Fart loads, etc., etc., etc., and some of these were seen by this Office at the last Muster, we as an enigmatic group of History Buffs have let our guard down and may suffer in the long run by not demanding a purist or as much as is possible effort to use what WAS used then. This Office has no bearing nor opinions on any standards set for the most recent or future Musters, this is only an observation as to what was seen used and that it did not meet the "...Victorian Militarty Era..." qualification as stated on the website. All the fun and fellowship aside, it was a great event but a C.W. event and not a Victorian event and a full-bore Victorian Military-style event will most certainly bring in a crowd of interested parties and participants.
What to do, what to do...it truly is a cunundrum of gigantic proportions, we must as an organzation adhere to what we feel is the basis for our cyber-org and yet be malleable enough to allow such equipment as is available to enjoy the hobby. With that in mind, I should like to propose a member-based cadre of known Victorian Military experts to proffer a set of guidelines for all future Musters regarding allowable equipment and accoutrements, etc., and specify that none else is allowable at same due to the specificity of the event and era. If that means we only have one period-correct rifle to use, that is what we use, write the scenarios to fit the amount of period-correct equipment available and go forth in Glory!
I am sure, and certain, this will raise the hackles of some and calm others, however, this Office has no bearing on same and only proffers the above as plain and simple observations and suggestions to bring the collective GAF fold back in line and ready to "....Present Arms!".
I remain, etc.,
'Ol Gabe
Bvt. Capt.,
Adjt.,
Dept. of the Missouri,
GAF
c/o Dunbar Station, Iowa Territory
 

[Books OToole]

I acknowlege the distinguished Officer and Adjutant from Iowa, and his contribution to the discussion.  However I must point out that Queen Victioria ascended to the throne in 1837 and reigned until her death in 1901.  Therefore the late hostilities between the states falls well within the Victorian Era; 1837-1901.  As do the uniforms and equipment used in the War between Mexico and the United States, 1846-1848.

Developing a fair handicapping system for muzzleloading arms competing with breech loading single shots, (let alone repeaters) will be a challenge.  But if the system is developed it would make for a facinating shooting match.

Respectfully;

Michael "Books" Tatham
Capt. 5th Kansas Battery
Actin Arty. Commander, Dept. of Missouri

[Trailrider]

Guns-

"I would not object if a member of my posse, portraying a member of Custer's 7th, were to shoot his match with a stainless steel Ruger Vaquero in .357"

Well, I object!  I say, if it ain't .45 Colt's/.45 Revolver Ball or .44 WCF, in that stainless Vaquero, what good is it?  An' what's the matter with Co. G, 3rd Cavalry?  

Seriously, I think you are dead on target!

" If a line gets drawn between the two, problems arise, cliques develop, and pretty soon another "splinter" group wants to form their own organization.  I have seen this happen with CW reenacting groups, with "weekend warriors" ("FARBS") on one side , and the "hard-corps" ("stich Nazi's", "PC Police") on the other, and it ruined reenacting for those involved - units dissolved, events cancelled, and interest evaporated."

I seen it happen!     The problem with some of these proposals, especially those requiring the use of "authentic" arms is that many local clubs don't adhere strictly to SASS or NCOWS or WAS standards during monthly matches, and would probably look sideways at a shooter utilizing a M1873 Springfield, even with loads reduced to .45 LC levels, simply due to the added time required for a shooter so-armed during each stage.  In addition, getting enough participants in a military catagory might be problematic. (Wait a minute, that way I might actually be able to win a match!   )   I am about the only shooter that shows up at my local club dressed in uniform, though several do wear slouch hats or trowsers (sic) with a military flavor.

Neither am I very sanguine about getting all RO's to be convinced about the use of cavalry draw holsters that are historically correct (riding at the 20-22 deg. angle off vertical), even if the belt loops were made large enough to permit adjusting to vertical just prior to the draw.

I'm just afraid we'd be opening Pandora's container if we get too formal about all of this!

Happy Holidays to all!

 

[Bristow Kid]

I am pretty new to GAF as most of you know.  So I really don't have much of an opinion as yet.  But I would like to say that I liked Books' post about the different classes.  Would make scoring easier I would think.  I think everyone has had alot of good comments.  I personally like the GAF that I shot with in Ackley.  There was no pressure and everyone was friendly.  I didn't feel in the least bit out of place being dressed in civilian clothing.  Although the Muster really got me interested in getting a uniform.  What can I say they look cool.  I am all for the GAF growing if it grows with out the back biting, name calling, and other unattractive growing pains that some other organizations have suffered recently. Just my $.02 worth.

Bristow Kid
Mule Skinner & Teamster
Dept. of the Missouri

[Major Matt Lewis]

Sirs, Staff & Etc.,
The following quote has been purloined via an earlier Posting by Mr. Guns G., to wit:"Our Goal is to promote and enhance the portrayal of Victorian Era Military Personnel, from all Nations, while actively participating in either of the hobbies of Cowboy Action Shooting and/or reenacting, while always striving to ensure our Attire and our Personas are appropriate to this Era, whether in the 100% percent authentic arena or while portraying a Hollywood version..."
As he so succintly described, as have others in this Posting, we are striving to do as good a job as is humanly possible. However, it has been brought to the attention of this Office by some that do not Post but still have a deep and well-defined interest in the "...Victorian Military Era..." that the most recent Muster and the forthcoming one planned for September next, has been and will be centered around The War of Northern Aggression, aka The Civil War, and NOT a conceptual or collative effort of "...Victorian Era Millitary Personnel..." involved in that time span. They all questioned "Why?" Why, indeed.
Now, with that said, and this Office is certainly not trying to open a Pandora's Box of nit-picked eras, it would seem deemable that the GAF as an entity that has already established its own time slot, follow through and adhere to same, i.e, NO American Civil War scenarios at any Muster. Granted, many of our erstwhile members belong to or have all the accoutrements for same, but this IS a "...Victorian Military Era..." and should remain as such and adhere strictly to that era only, otherwise it is only a cookie cutter event of another orgs designs, and most certainly not what our ideals are centered around.
Alas, NCOWS is suffering the same malady as some of those members have seen fit to make a cross-over effort to the NSSA and other CW orgs to bring in some of those attributes, this Office applauds that effort if it is only an ideal to bring in new members, the same applies here if we as GAF members go forth to other era events and 'recruit' SASS or NCOWS or others, this is a given. However, to allow an event under the auspices of GAF and use the 'other' time slot/era for all scenarios is detrimental and contrary to the original concept and what our cyber membership has come to accept. I implore all here to think about this in a serious tone and urge all to consider what the overall effect might be. Yes, it is good to 'do' all time periods if you have all the gear, etc., but no it is not within the collective groups purvue to 'do' something earlier than the era they have established, nor is it effectively utilizing all the efforts of the cyber membership to bring in any new members, i.e., if they want to 'do' a C.W. event., go to Virginia.
By allowing all SASS-style accoutrements such as the infamous Short-Stroke kit, Shotgun Slides, Mouse Fart loads, etc., etc., etc., and some of these were seen by this Office at the last Muster, we as an enigmatic group of History Buffs have let our guard down and may suffer in the long run by not demanding a purist or as much as is possible effort to use what WAS used then. This Office has no bearing nor opinions on any standards set for the most recent or future Musters, this is only an observation as to what was seen used and that it did not meet the "...Victorian Militarty Era..." qualification as stated on the website. All the fun and fellowship aside, it was a great event but a C.W. event and not a Victorian event and a full-bore Victorian Military-style event will most certainly bring in a crowd of interested parties and participants.
What to do, what to do...it truly is a cunundrum of gigantic proportions, we must as an organzation adhere to what we feel is the basis for our cyber-org and yet be malleable enough to allow such equipment as is available to enjoy the hobby. With that in mind, I should like to propose a member-based cadre of known Victorian Military experts to proffer a set of guidelines for all future Musters regarding allowable equipment and accoutrements, etc., and specify that none else is allowable at same due to the specificity of the event and era. If that means we only have one period-correct rifle to use, that is what we use, write the scenarios to fit the amount of period-correct equipment available and go forth in Glory!
I am sure, and certain, this will raise the hackles of some and calm others, however, this Office has no bearing on same and only proffers the above as plain and simple observations and suggestions to bring the collective GAF fold back in line and ready to "....Present Arms!".
I remain, etc.,
'Ol Gabe
Bvt. Capt.,
Adjt.,
Dept. of the Missouri,
GAF
c/o Dunbar Station, Iowa Territory
 

Sounds to me like we have found a new GAF Muster Match Director.  Well....works for me. 

[Drydock]

Let us not grow too broad a spectrum here.  THough we talk of the Victorian era, we really started out meaning the late era, circa 1865 to 1901.  Though I admire and enjoy the Muzzleloaders of the earlier era, there can be no doubt that there are well established and plentiful venues for those, IE NSSA among others. 

When we first began the discussions that led to GAF, we truely were interested in what may be termed the "transitional" military period, IE that time from the end of the US Civil War to the establishment world wide of the Mauser bolt system, IE just after the turn of the 20th century.  A time of expansionisem and experimentation, black powder cartridges and the first forays into smokeless.  These weapons simply do not have an established venue for use and enjoyment.

TO me, this is what the GAF can do that is unique, and we need to concentrate on this, and not spend our energies duplicatiing what others allready have done. 

IMHO, have a cup of coffee on me.

[Dr. Bob]

My oh my!   Where to start?  

IIRC the GAF web site defines the GAF period from 1858 to 1902.  That seems pretty clear.  I am a recent member so I was not in on the discussions which resulted in the formation of the GAF.  When I entered, I got special dispensation from US Scout to wear my 1839-51 uniform.

Bolt action rifles were in use in Europe from the second half of the 1860's.  Swiss 1869/71 Vetterli.  French & German bolt actions in the late 60's as well.  The US lagged behind in adoption of "MODERN" firearms.  The Swiss 1873 [?] revolver was in 10.4 mm as was the rifle.  Gee, what a concept!  Rifle and pistol that shoot the same ammo.  BTW, the Vetterli bolt action uses the magazine/carrier system from the 1866 Winchester!!  Even Japan had bolt action rifles well before the us adopted the Krag in 1898 [?].

I am not at all interested in stages based on the ACW.  There are so many other possibilities and no GAF requirement to wear a uniform of any particular army or navy, or any specific era, other than 1858 - 1902.  I am not a potential Muster director!!!  I am interested in Victorian Military history!  Just not the ACW.  For me, too many involved in ACW are still fighting the war, and I'm not.

[Frenchie]

For me, too many involved in ACW are still fighting the war, and I'm not.

   Me, neither! My side won, we can afford to be magnanimous.

[Ol Gabe]

All,
I would like to thank Books for his reminding comment on the time span that Queen Victoria served and that it did cover the years of the C.W. and the turn of the Century. I agree wholeheartedly that this is considered by Historians and History Buffs alike to be THE 'Victorian Era', all the books in my personal Military History collection and those dog-eared tomes I've read and reread on the Small Wars fought in India, Africa, etc., deem this as a given and I most certainly do not dispute that fact, I embrace it. Again, thank you Books for the clarification and reminder.
In my earlier post I attributed several comments to those interested in our era that do not post here but do contact me off-line with questions, views and observations. No doubt many of you have E-friends like that who for whatever reason do not participate in forums but will engage you in off-line posts. I posited their comments in what I felt was a formulative manner with observations and suggestions, if they seemed overtly segmented to the years following the C.W., I can only reiterate that these are their observations and not mine and that if they did not come across clearly I am at fault for that and will clarify future statements. 
Not all of our cyber members shoot or even attend any shooting venues, many simply read the forum provided here on CasCity. I think that most all here would agree that in the broadest of terms, and that until we as History Buffs began to delve deeper into our desired field, we agreed with that mindset that the Victorian Era ran from shortly after the C.W. up through the turn of the Century.
The suggestion for a cadre of experts to proffer a set of guidlines for any event-oriented equipment is sound, but is it doable? Perhaps not, but still sound if the cyber-org intends to stay in a purile format, and perhaps that is what the original opening post in this thread is all about, no doubt this will come into the discussion at some time in the future.   
As I stated earlier, I have no opinion as to what was done or has been planned for the most recent or future Musters and that although it did fall into the specific years of the "...Victorian Military Era...", those that posted me felt the time span selected seemed a decade early. This perceived misconception can be easily corrected, it only takes time and gentle ongoing discussion amongst our postings here and will no doubt be a topic of interest to many of our viewers.
I thank the members that think I have the desire or ability to be a Match Director after reading my earlier comments, but I have no desire to do so now or in the future and gracefully defer that to those with youth and good health in their stead for they are the future leaders, movers and shakers in this cyber-org, this...the GAF.
Best regards and good thinking!
'Ol Gabe