1887 Update

[Lone Gunman]

Since the previous discussion had gotten off-track and divisive it has been replaced with this quick, to the point post from NCOWS Judge John Torrence:

  I have been in contact with Mike of Coyote Cap in regargs to the 87. It seems there will be two molels. The w-20 which loads just like the original , and the wcse-18 which does not. It sounds like the former may be OK.
  CAUTION, this is NOT an official approval, only trying to keep you informed of progress.

                                                                                       jt

[Trap]

  I was just over on another board reading about a bunch of 87s that just came into the country. Appears they are the standard model but all have the drop 2 loading setup. I guess we'll just have to wait until someone can test one out to see if they are enough like an original to be approved by the congress. Someone asked about loading 1 at a time... I would imagine that would work, but again this is not an approval. That will have to wait until July.             jt

[Standpat Steve]

Howdy Joss House,

In the interests of clarity and something approaching technical correctness, I offer this as the owner of original 1887's. The 1887 shotgun can hold four shotshells in the magazine tube, plus one on the carrier when it is in it's lowered position, plus one riding on top of the shell held in the lowered carrier, for a total of six rounds. Since many cowboy matches observe a load no more than two rule, the magazine is seldom loaded (unlike the 1897 pump guns where the second round actually makes it into the magazine tube).

Normally, in an unaltered 1887 you load one shell onto the carrier and push it to the bottom of the receiver-then start the second shell into the actual chamber mouth, before closing the lever (action). This cams the started shell into position for firing. This works consistently well, but is not as fast as single loading an 1897. If you simply drop the second shell on top of the shell in the lowered carrier, my experience is you will have a 50/50 chance of either successfull chambering of the first round or a misfeed. This is where the "load two" or "drop two" modifications come into play. They do not require that the top shell be manually started into the chamber for reliable feeding.

I hope this seems clear and not overly wordy. It is offered only for information and not to add fuel to either side of the NCOWS firearms acceptance debate

Respectfully.
Steve Baxter     

[Advertising]

[Wild Ben Raymond]

Standpat Steve, You are correct about the loading procedural of the model 87' shotgun, with/without the two drop. I explaned this prodedural before on another post. But that post was deleated for some reason......... Wlid Ben Raymond

[Capt. Augustus]

Although I am not a member of NCOWS, I did recently purchase an IAC 1887 shotgun.  It will do the load two.  It does take some finesse, in that if the lifter is pushed too far down, the top shell will not line up with the chamber.  With some practice, I hope to be haster than with my hammered shotgun.

[Capt. Augustus]

Upon more fooling around with the IAC 1887, we seem to be believing that the load two is working.  However, I'm starting to believe that there is something missing to make it more stable than it is.  The carrier drags on the magazine follower which makes one think it is working, but it is touch and go.  I'm waiting to see a real Cap shotgun before I make up my mind.  It may be possible the IAC would fit under your rules.

[Quick Fire]

I recently examined one of these shotguns at my local gun dealer and I saw no difference in how it operated than in my original that does not have the drop two modification.

[French Jack]

Just brought this back up, since this was posted, in July 2006,  Congress met and examined the examples of the 87 which were provided to demonstrate the "drop two" mod, as well as an original without "the mod".

There is essentially no difference between models with or without.  The drop two mod on the models examined was facilitated by friction on the carrier and lifter sections. 
If finesse is used in loading, it will operate fairly dependably with two shells loaded.  If any excess pressure, and I do not mean any great amount of force, it will jam without fail. 

Consequently, practice loading is the key to operation, not any mechanical modification to the firearm. 

As a result, the Congress voted to approve it for use.

[Trap]

   Quickfire! your'e still alive! I heard you was dead! good to see you here.    jt

[Montana Slim]

For NCOWS use, I'd simply stoke it up on the clock whenever allowed per the scenario instructions 

Regards,
Slim

[Pancho Peacemaker]

For NCOWS use, I'd simply stoke it up on the clock whenever allowed per the scenario instructions 

Regards,
Slim

That's what I do with mine.  It's a whole lot more fun, than just 2 shots at a time.

Pancho

[Cole Bluesteele]

Per conversations with 87 owners of whom I am one there are numerous "drop two" mods being done.  None of the mods that allow you to load the tube are totally fool-proof and require practice to get it right.  The latest mod that is supposedly foolproof does indeed eliminate the use of the magazine tube and only permits the loading of two rounds at a time.

[Montana Slim]

That's what I do with mine.  It's a whole lot more fun, than just 2 shots at a time.

Pancho

Pancho, it was a plasure to observe you in action at the Nats (with the 1887 that is) 

Regards,
Slim

[Roscoe Coles]

I have been reading, and contributing, to the discussions on the load two conversions to the 1887 and I have been interested in the responses from the people who have them.  Primarily, they can be characterized as "it does not make any difference."  This is essentially the same argument that people with short stroked 73s make about their guns.  I have two responses to this claim about the 1887 mods.  1) if there is in fact no difference in performance, why are people paying to have it done?  2) This is NCOWS, not SASS.  We justly banned the short stroked 73 because it is not period and we should do the same to the "shoot two" mods on the 1887 for the same reason.

Just my 2 cents.

[Pancho Peacemaker]

I have been reading, and contributing, to the discussions on the load two conversions to the 1887 and I have been interested in the responses from the people who have them.  Primarily, they can be characterized as "it does not make any difference."  This is essentially the same argument that people with short stroked 73s make about their guns.  I have two responses to this claim about the 1887 mods.  1) if there is in fact no difference in performance, why are people paying to have it done?  2) This is NCOWS, not SASS.  We justly banned the short stroked 73 because it is not period and we should do the same to the "shoot two" mods on the 1887 for the same reason.

Just my 2 cents.

Roscoe,

I think that would be difficult to police.  First, with the right finesse, you can 'drop two' in a stock '87 (As noted by French Jack and my personal experience).  Second, there are at least three "action jobs" out there that claim to improve the 'drop two' (there are probably more, I personally know of three).  As Cole noted above, none are terribly reliable.  I can personally attest to that, as I own one.  Third, 2 of the available action jobs leave no externally visible alteration to the receiver.  Someone with strong experience in the '87 action would be needed to evaluate the presence of an internal modification.  The remaining job leaves an external set screw which is clearly visible.  I believe even SASS has ruled the mod with the external set screw illegal.

Scenario:  A shooter drops two into what appears to be a stock IAC '87.  The Match Judge declares an illegal equipment infraction.  The shooter protests, declaring his IAC '87 is stock and he can 'drop two' by means of technique, not equipment modification.  We then hail the local '87 expert witness from the neighboring state to review the firearm.

My points:

1)  If you can drop two in a stock, 87:  this should not be an illegal proceedure.

2) An 87 with a noticible external modification or an internal modification that results in it's operation deviating from the stock '87 (i.e. mag tube is no longer functional) should be outlawed

3)  If the "drop two" maneuver is found to be historically inaccurate, then the maneuver should be outlawed by NCOWS.  '87 shooters should only be allowed to load single rounds, OR they can load the magazine (on the clock) and fire the rounds held there.

Pancho

Pancho, it was a plasure to observe you in action at the Nats (with the 1887 that is) 

Regards,
Slim

Slim,

It was an honor and a privilege to have you as posse marshall.  I am looking forward to our next National Match.

Pancho

[Roscoe Coles]

Actually, it should be pretty easy to police.  According to at least one posting here, you have a 50-50 chance of the two round trick working on an original.  So, just go look at the gun of anyone shooting an 1887 two shots at a time who never seems to have a problem.  Odds are, its been modified.

I'm fine with making magazine loading the norm for magazine shotguns.  This would end the 97 single shot as well as the shoot two 87.

However, I am also aware that more rules do not always make a better experience.  Part of the reason SASS is as bad as it is today is because of all the rules.  Rules don't just tell you what you can't do, they tell you what you can get away with.  The more rules you have, the more loopholes there are.  The rules for NCOWS are still fairly straight forward and the key one is historical authenticity.  If we stick to that, things stay pretty simple and I would hope that folks would respect the mission of the organization.  It is not as though there is not someplace for you to go if you want to shoot modified guns, SASS awaits.  This is something different, something elegant.   I would hope folks would do the right thing here simply because it is the right thing. 

But hey, I'm an idealist.