Question, Are Short Stroked Rifles NCOWS Legal.

[Derby Younger]

"..NCOWS does NOT need to go down the same road that SASS is going down right now with the mod issues. To quote a song from CCR: "I see a bad moon rising."


Rio:

I totally agree. I would add that NCOWS does not need go to the opposite extreme, ie "stitch police".

[RRio]

I would add that NCOWS does not need go to the opposite extreme, ie "stitch police".

And I totally agree with that, also! 

[Major Matt Lewis]

Rio & Derby,

I agree with your sentimates.  The day I have to have somebody get a tape measure on my rifle to see if I am "legal" to shoot, is the day that the the campfire dies out for me.  The Spirit of the Cowboy is about freedom.  After all the S in NCOWS is for Shootists. 

Of course in looking at my wifes non-modified Marlin 1894.  Her throw is even less than my short stroked Uberti 1873.  So if I HAD to not use my 1873, I could always use go get a Marlin and slick it up and keep it legal.  I would have a shorter throw.  I wonder, will the move then be to outlaw the Marlin?  Is that the desired results of banning short strokes?  Getting an even shorter throw legal rifle?  Of course I could always get one of those Lightnings, you know, the pump rifle and with some practice (who actually does that ) I could get my times for a ten round dump down to around 2-3 seconds....I hear Cimarron has them in .357/.38 Special now.....

Also remember, the arguements around "Level Playing Field," "Not Fair" "Cost too much" are all arguments that Liberals (yes, I am talking about Teddy Kennedy) have made in things like Affirmative Action and other liberal pet projects. 

In my heart, I feel that this argument is not about authenticity, the Cowboy Spirit or any other noble reason.  I feel it is about a couple people who don't want to pay their dues to end up in the winners circle.  I wonder if I am pretty competitive because of my short stroked rifle, or the fact that I spend an hour a night in the basement dry firing? 

Folks,

Medoricty and ordinary are just that.  If folks want to pay their dues, and you don't and you still want to winner, you better be lucky.  Short Stroke or not.

[Advertising]

[Joyce (AnnieLee)]

Does anyone know if this item is going to be placed before the Congress?

If so, I have some suggested wording:
"In keeping with the varieties of lever throw arc in both original and reproduction rifles, and to keep the appearance of rifles as authentic as possible, the angle of arc between the stock and lever, when the lever is fully extended, shall be equal to or greater than 80 degrees."

Would anyone have a problem with that?

AnnieLee

[Cuts Crooked]

Does anyone know if this item is going to be placed before the Congress?

If so, I have some suggested wording:
"In keeping with the varieties of lever throw arc in both original and reproduction rifles, and to keep the appearance of rifles as authentic as possible, the angle of arc between the stock and lever, when the lever is fully extended, shall be equal to or greater than 80 degrees."

Would anyone have a problem with that?

AnnieLee

Nope! 

[Major Matt Lewis]

Sounds reasonable to me.

[Joyce (AnnieLee)]

I understand that, Joss, but OCB opened the can of worms regarding the dreaded short stroke, without proposing a means of verification. Since several folks have asked about such a means of how it would be looked at and enforced, and since this is a discussion about the matter, why not have a positive discussion about the possible wording of such a matter before it goes to the Congress?

The suggested wording was drafted without thoughts of SASS, nor of a "modification race," nor of any perceived "competitive or mechanical" advantage. It was crafted for NCOWS, in light of the NCOWS view on historic authenticity.

If the wording is something that the members can agree with, perhaps they, as individuals, can provide an overall consensus to the Congress?

AnnieLee

[Books OToole]

OCB just asked (12 pages ago) if a short-stroked rifle was NCOWS legal.  It seemed like a simple question.

It has evolved into the question:

                                             Should short-stroked rifles be legal?

I for one have learned alot.  I can only remember handling two short-stroked rifles.  One was a Browning .22 that came from the factory that way.  The other one was Major Matt's that only required about a 30 degree arc to cycle.  Apparently there are some that not that dramatic.

Like any question of authenticity, this one will boil down to the age old question of:

                                                   Where do you draw the line?

I will not short-stroke my rifle. 
I will wear hand-sewn clothes made from authentic patterns.
     [Machine sewing is appropriate from the mid-1850s.  However my wife's machine is posessed.]
I will not remove the fillings from my teeth.

My line will be different from other NCOWS members. 

NCOWS members need to ask two questions.

                   Are short-storked rifles authentic?          And                How dramatic of a modification is exceptable?


Books

[gw]

6-1.  It is the responsibility of the individual to document the authenticity of all items of apparel, accouterments and firearms.
     
          I believe the by-law referenced above already covers this entire debate, unless of course, the membership wishes to create a "firearms police", in which case I would be happy to nominate anyone of your choosing to adminster such a law.

                                                                                     GW

[Joyce (AnnieLee)]

Ah, so what I am hearing is that as long as my rifle has the equivalent lever arc of an original, I need do nothing since there are no 'firearms police.' Why should I have to document something that is unseen? Are all women going to be required to document the existence of bras before they are allowed to wear one? Will they have to stop shaving their armpits and legs?

The wording I proposed takes the matter away from "modifications" and the firearms police and places it where it belongs: authenticity. If it looks authentic, who will gripe?

My question is: Can you live with the wording that has been proposed, and if not, can you offer a viable alternative?

AnnieLee

[Lars]

Does anyone know if this item is going to be placed before the Congress?

If so, I have some suggested wording:
"In keeping with the varieties of lever throw arc in both original and reproduction rifles, and to keep the appearance of rifles as authentic as possible, the angle of arc between the stock and lever, when the lever is fully extended, shall be equal to or greater than 80 degrees."

Would anyone have a problem with that?

AnnieLee

Annie Lee,

I do have a possible/probable one change to your wording. That is to limit it to reproductions of the toggle-link rifles.

So far the discussion has centered nearly entirely on "Short-stroking" the reproduction toggle-link rifles. On the SASS Wire and this BB there have been pictures showing that at least some shortstroking mods reduce the lever arc of the repros to that of the originals. Those toggle-link rifles made by Winchester have been considered, implicitly and explicitly, to be "pristine". I have also not heard any mention of intent or actuallity to "short-stroke" an original. However, just how consitant the lever arcs are on extant old Winchester toggle-link rifles seemingly remains to be demonstrated, as evidenced by some pictures and statements that some owners of both originals and repros find them to have the same lever arcs.

Although the factory lever arc of Marlins has been mentioned, no one has posted the arc angle for the lever. I don't have a Marlin so, cannot determine if your wording would eliminate it or not.

Lars

[gw]

I believe I just did. If you took the time to measure the lever arch, and corrected it yurself, aren't you then satisfying the existing by-law? Isn't that the way we're supposed to be doing things anyway?

                                                                                                                 GW

[Ottawa Creek Bill]

Booke's,
As this thing continues to drag on, and on, and on..............................., Your idea of having an NCOWS members only forum is looking better and better. How do we make a proposal to the Marshall. I think we need this forum where NCOWS MEMBERS ONLY, can discuss and share issues and pertinent information about our bylaws and rules, without outside and unwanted interference. We can keep the regular NCOWS forum for that...........................

Bill

[gw]

OCB----HERE. HERE.

                                                       GW

[St. George]

As I'd said earlier - 'you' are the one who does the documenting - 'not' NCOWS.

The whole thing falls on the invididual who wants to deviate in some manner from what was available and used during the time frame.

All that Ottawa Creek Bill did - beyond sending up a slap flare - was to ask a very simple question as to the 'legality' of a modification meant primarily to gain speed in an 'IPSC-With-Hats' match.

In so doing - he didn't have to offer any sort of By-Law change or possible alternative or method of verification.

As I read it - it was a legitimate question and nothing more - until it morphed into something larger and included both NCOWS, the GAF, the lessening of rules, leg-shaving, hybrid matches, Marlin vs Winchester degrees of lever throw, 'who' should be a Life member' - 'what' qualifications a Posse Rep or Territorial Senator needs - and so on and so forth.

C'mon...

If this truly 'is' a problem for the bulk of shooters in NCOWS - which I seriously doubt - talk it over with your Posse members and tell your Reps so that it can be discussed with 'your' input - and in doing so - think about it and offer a couple of possible suggestions to assist them in their deliberations.

That's the difference between SASS and NCOWS - the fact that NCOWS is member-driven.

It's this sort of 'discussion' - the type that has no end in sight, and veers wildly - that 'colors' others' impressions of the organization as being without a clear plan.

An 'NCOWS Members Only Forum' may really be the solution...

But so would forethought and realizing that more folks read these comments that you'd think.
Hopefully, not for amusement - but to learn something...


Vaya,

Scouts Out!

[Lars]

6-1.  It is the responsibility of the individual to document the authenticity of all items of apparel, accouterments and firearms.

I may be out of touch with this comment, maybe even should read the rules carefully again, BUT, I have to ask, "IF someone documents the authenticity of some firearm, modified or not, or a feature on that firearm, in the case where that firearm or that modification is on the "nonacceptable" list, which prevails, the documentation or the list?"

I do consider 6-1 to be a valuable provision because of the room it provides for better understanding of the range of "authenticity". The lists of acceptable and unacceptable firearms are valuable to those contemplating purchase of additional firearms for participation in NCOWS.

Lars

[Joyce (AnnieLee)]

I believe a discussion about a members only forum is off topic for this thread. I am attempting to stay on topic and offer a viable solution to what some members perceive is a problem. Please stick to the topic at hand.


GW has a point. If you are correcting a problem with your rifle so that it has the equivalent throw arc of an original, why would it be an issue?


Thank you,

AnnieLee

[Ottawa Creek Bill]

St. George,
Very well said.........

Annee Lee,
So, since I am the original author of this thread that started with a very simple question, don't I have a right to change it as others have through 14 pages of off topic discussions? Or, is it me personally, or my ideas that offend you and that is the real reason I don't warrant the same considerations as others that post here such as yourself? For example, it seems like the discussion of, or, encouragment of changing NCOWS rules to please the few is also off topic regarding my original post.....Don't you think??
The NCOWS MEMBERS ONLY forum is the way to go in my view, and my view is the one that is important to me, not what some non member thinks.

OCB

[Major Matt Lewis]

Lars,

Following the GAF Muster, I will be most happy to post pictures of a stock Marlin, a SS 1873 Border Rifle and that of a regular lenght 1860 or 1866 Uberti. 

Now,

One method of SS a rifle is welding.  I have not heard that mention of that.  Only kits. 

[Joyce (AnnieLee)]

The topic is the issue of short stroked rifles. There is a perception that a rule should exist in the by-laws to eliminate them.

Regulating short strokes is not an issue to enter into without some contemplation. Should members be expected to have someone take a screwdriver to their firearm?

Then there is the issue of how far is too far, and if short strokes are allowed, what's next? Will the "IPSC with hats" modification race continue until a round can be extracted and chambered with 10 degrees of lever throw?

It has been mentioned that adapting a firearm to meet the specs or looks of an original is already allowed in the by-laws. I agree with that concept. The words I have proposed would continue that line of thought and eliminate the possibility of "creep". There'd be no need for a "firearms police," nor any need to take a screwdriver to someone's rifle. Most folks know what 90 degrees looks like. 80 degrees allows some room for error.

Lars, you make a good point, but by including Marlins with the toggle links, this eliminates the possibility of short stroking Marlins in the future. Gunsmiths are a creative lot, who knows what they will devise next? 

Respectfully,

AnnieLee