Single action revolver discusson and general shenanigans

[fatdog]

I do not remember the size of the targets typically used in “cowboy action” matches, but, they may well be considerably larger than the true vital area of a human opponent, and, as I understand it, any hit that “rings steel” is acceptable. So, “cowboy action” matches may not be a best preparation for defensive sixgunning. To be clear, I am not “hating” the sport of “cowboy action,” overall. Some matches may well be quite challenging, especially in the shoot-off stages used to narrow-down the higher-placing shooters, and, any competitor can choose to aim carefully, rather than being content with edge hits on steel.

CAS broke in two directions a while back. SASS seemed to all become about how fast you can run the gun, big targets up close for all guns, pistol, shotgun, and rifle. The last match I shot had pistol targets about the size of a B/C target all at about 7 yards, almost no aiming required, just run the gun in their general direction. Rifle the same but 12-20 yards. I am sure it varies a bit club to club.

NCOWS on the other hand rebelled against this paradigm, set a real minimum power factor, as shot locally if there was a target at 7 yards, you had about a 4" area to get a hit and targets out to 15 or 20 yards would have a 12" area, rifle targets started at 25 yards (10" circle plate) and went out to 100 yards (probably 12x18"), shotgun targets were at the 8-12 yard range but all were the size of a clay pigeon, nothing larger. Most NCOWS shooters locally like myself were also black powder shooters which had become rare and unfashionable in SASS. Severe 10 second penalties for each miss.

I completely lost interest in SASS once I started shooting the NCOWS matches. However nationally NCOWS did not get much steam as there were probably 15% the number of clubs shooting that version that you could find shooting SASS. All of it has suffered demographically the last ten years as the enthusiast, mostly early boomer crowd, aged out of being able to shoot any of it. I know one SASS club match I used to shoot routinely had 60+ competitors and they struggle to get more than a dozen or so these days.

[feudist]

And Colt quit making the Bisley in 1915 with less than a thousand target sight versions.

Kings would do a short action conversion on SAA and probably a cockeyed hammer if you wanted to stay on the solid frame single action type.

John Taffin has one.
https://americanhandgunner.com/handg...d-school-cool/







He had it refinished

https://americanhandgunner.com/handg...l-restoration/




.Short action for faster lock time

[SwampDweller]

John Taffin has one.
https://americanhandgunner.com/handg...d-school-cool/







He had it refinished

https://americanhandgunner.com/handg...l-restoration/




.Short action for faster lock time

How in the world did that set off primers? I gotta think those were extra finicky on primer sensitivity, even with Federals.

[Jim Watson]

The short action cost $8.50 plus $5.00 for the cockeyed spur. Plus adjustable sight, plus vent rib and front sight, plus new barrel and cylinder. King would have reblued it for $6.00

https://histandard.info/King/KingCat..._1024_768.html

[jh9]

John Taffin has one.
https://americanhandgunner.com/handg...d-school-cool/

Well it doesn't have the hammer modification and does sport a Bisley grip... but if this trips anybody's trigger you can get a bizarrely similar gun right now: https://www.collectorsfirearms.com/p...um-c19509.html



$4,500

I wonder if that barrel/sight combination was a common aftermarket "thing" for 1st gen .357s.

[Malamute]

I think it was custom work such as the guns in previous posts as well as other work that helped influence Ruger and Colt to bring out adjustable sighted SAs.

One older variation on the SA type I realy like is the Colt Flat Top Target, Uberti has made some, Dixie has a few left apparently, I wish it were in my budget.

https://www.dixiegunworks.com/index/...ATTOP+45LC+7.5

I like the front sights on them, I had one of my Rugers done in a similar style and would do others if I had someone able to do it that I could afford.

[Jim Watson]

The Flat Top Target Colts, both Bisley and Frontier, had sights to meet the then Bisley requirement of sights not adjustable without tools. Changes in the wind and light, hold for it.

I wonder if that barrel/sight combination was a common aftermarket "thing" for 1st gen .357s.

There weren't any first generation .357 Bisley Colts, the model was discontinued in 1915.
But like Taffin's, there were a lot of first generation Colts with .357 barrels and cylinders installed.

I don't know what King's output was, but they show up pretty regularly on the S&W board, I haven't looked hard on the Colt board.

[awp_101]

I think it was custom work such as the guns in previous posts as well as other work that helped influence Ruger and Colt to bring out adjustable sighted SAs.

One older variation on the SA type I realy like is the Colt Flat Top Target, Uberti has made some, Dixie has a few left apparently, I wish it were in my budget.

https://www.dixiegunworks.com/index/...ATTOP+45LC+7.5

I like the front sights on them, I had one of my Rugers done in a similar style and would do others if I had someone able to do it that I could afford.

I'm not a fan of 7.5" barrels but you may have just changed my mind about what I was planning to buy next...

[feudist]

I'm not a fan of 7.5" barrels but you may have just changed my mind about what I was planning to buy next...

Not gonna lie...something moved.

[jh9]

There weren't any first generation .357 Bisley Colts, the model was discontinued in 1915.
But like Taffin's, there were a lot of first generation Colts with .357 barrels and cylinders installed.

I don't know what King's output was, but they show up pretty regularly on the S&W board, I haven't looked hard on the Colt board.

Interesting. I didn't know the Bisley configuration was discontinued beforehand. The Collectors' gun is one they advertise as a barrel/cylinder change, and they note both a refinish and that the serial number dates to 1904 (before the .357 caliber existed in 1935). The cylinder looks like a first gen to me, and the post-1922(?) barrel markings also looks to be vaguely period correct for a mid/late 1930s gun. They appear to be first gen parts, but this is exactly why I don't really think about buying a first gen gun. Because that's deep water, with a lot of alterations and fakes, and the people faking them know more about them than I do.

For comparison, here's one they list as "second gen" from 1939. I assume that's a typo, even accounting for the earliest second gen guns made in the 1950s from pre-war parts? https://www.collectorsfirearms.com/p...ag-c19815.html $6,995, with ivory grips. The shipping records were presumably lost sometime in the early 1930s, but the production records are still available. So you can verify a first-gen gun was originally shipped as a .357 but not things like barrel length or finish. In this case the letter confirms the caliber.

At this point I assume any first gen gun not advertised by a reputable seller as "completely 100% original" has parts changed.