Kermit I am currently putting together a proposal which would put the table shoot at frendship as a sanctioned event. I am getting a real education on what it takes to get to proposal put together. As soon as I get it put together I will be running it past a couple of the other table shooters regionally. I hope to presents it to the rifle committee at the fall shoot in friendship which of course means that it could possibly move to the Western if the Association chose to do so. I guess to answer your question we are trying to write the benchmarks now.

Kermit,
Being close by and being involved with the table game on a first hand basis, I assure you that what everyone sees that Robin is doing is only a small part of what he does.This game is starting to take on a life of its own and requires constant attention. A few of us make ourselves available as sounding boards and I know that Robin takes input from all of the board members and participants very seriously.
Mark

From what I've been told and the shoots I've been to, most of the clubs are following the guidelines that Paul and Robin developed. Some of the changes that I am aware of have been made on an individual club basis for whatever the reason may be. Just like chunk shooting as long as there is a standard for the equipment  in place, other factors can be adjusted to suit the individual shooter or range that is holding the match.
Mark

I was just wondering why is the table shoot at 30 yards? A 50 yard match just makes more sense to me, chunk gun is shot at 60 yards or there abouts why would you cut that disance in half? Just Asking?

RB

Mark is correct 30 yards was it distance shot in the Wabash Valley shoots. Which is what we used as a hevey model. When developing the current table shoot. We also felt while we were designing the table for people with physical challenges, that 30 yards would be a more appropriate distance.

rhbrink wrote:

I was just wondering why is the table shoot at 30 yards? A 50 yard match just makes more sense to me, chunk gun is shot at 60 yards or there abouts why would you cut that disance in half? Just Asking?

 

RB

Last edited by dag (8/06/2014 12:51 PM)

Dag’s response is not entirely accurate.
During the development of what we now know as the table shoot. We spoke of the Bloomsdale shoot, but decided it had too many safety concerns and as you will see in the posting that I copied and pasted from the fraternal order of log shooters website that the Bloomsdale shoot was not much more than a footnote in our decision-making process with all due respect to the gentleman that shoot at Bloomsdale and they do have a very nice shoot and I believe to have lasted that long, very successful. It was not the base model for what we now know as the table shoot. In fact, probably the only thing they have in common is the 30 yard distance.
You will notice that the posting written by Paul copied and pasted below was very early in the process and some changes were made before we actually had our first trial shoot and very little tweaking was done after the first trial shootThe table shoot was never intended to be the Bloomsdale shoot it was never intended to be a bench shoot nor any other kind of shoot. It was intended to be exactly what it is, a way to keep older shooters shooting, Draw the interest of younger shooters and facilitate the physically challenged. Paul and I were fond of thinking that we had used some old ideas to come up with something new and different. Now you have a complete answer.

Posted by Paul on October 26, 2012, 6:50 am
64.112.218.34Back a few years ago Billy Burtt & I, heading back from The York, got to talkin about the possibility of setting up a match along the lines of the table shoots such as Bloomsdale. The Walbash Valley shoots came to mind also. Shooting simular to the matches described in Aubrey Williams book. These days Robin & I have been drawing up some guidelines & equipment for a trial run sometime soon.

Of course it goes without saying that part of our motivation is the fact that there are those among us who can no longer or are having trouble getting up & down off the ground at the chunk matches. Actually there seems to be little trouble getting down, it's getting back up that seems to be the problem.

First & formost it must be stated that as we set up guidelines & equipment for this possible form of shooting our motives are dictated by the directions that we have seen other forms of compititon go. We are trying desperately to have a ground work that will keep this game from turning into an equipment race. It is our intentions to set up a game where the spirit that existed in chunk say 25 years ago will not be allowed to be left behind by yet to be seen forms of tech. It goes without saying that no matter what rules that are drawn up that guns will be built that push these rules to there limits, but by placing limits at this point in time, we can check where these special guns are headed. We are not setting up a match for guns that exist now, we are laying down rules for guns that are yet to be seen. Many of the thoughts concerning rules will be in conflict with rules of matches that are already being held. But again as we look at these matches we see "modern nascar" as opposed to "shade tree mechanic" racing as it was 75 years ago. Also the rules would rule out some antique match rifles. Of course the old rifles ususlly do not pose much of a threat to the integrity of the game but new made rifles of 25 to 60 lbs would completely change the face of this game. It would become the bench line at Friendship. AND don't get me wrong there's absolutely nothing wrong with that form of shooting, we're just heading a different direction. Just as you can't shoot a Browning in a smoothbore match, there will be many rifles that will not fit into this match.

Some of the thoughts at this time:

A common bench & muzzle rest all will use,this is a given as without this some would have monsterous benches & others would have an old wobbly ironing board. And it's the way it was done at the matches a hundred years ago. Many old photos of old chunk matches exist where there's a common chunk all would use. No problem seeing where that's went.

Some gun weight & caliber limit, undecided at this point but will almost certainly be low enough to make the game more closely ressemble an off hand looking match as opposed to an unlimited bench match. Shooting out of a bag should be seen again. Personally I will enjoy leaving the house with a gun, bag & jug in the back of the truck as opposed to the pallet of goodies I fork truck in for a chunk match.

X center scoring.

Some form of peep sights, again the wording is not complete, but it will rule out $500 modern micrometer type stuff.

Possibily no teflon patch. Not sure what the patent date would have been but my gut feeling is that Gilbert Angel probably used a cast iron frying pan.

Don't start on the inlines Jim....... ain't gonna happen!!!

So wha'da'ya think? We can throw in a large sum of money & have a regular good old knife fight.

Mark
I wouldn't worry about the good old knife fight. Paul's humor was unique. His remark about the large sum of money in a good old knife fight was his way of asking for input, with a spirited discussion. The throwing a large sum of money part was his way of saying don't be talking just to hear yourself talk.

Boy, you don't let moss grow in your shade, do you? This is great. I'm really looking forward to the final wording, especially as regards rifles--barrel length, caliber, weight, action, etc. So far a dedicated gun is still in Phantasy Land.

Kermit,
Not to steal any of Robin's thunder but if the NMLRA doesn't see fit to make any crazy changes, the rules wll stay pretty much as we have all discussed regarding rifles, targets, distances etc. I think you, and everyone involved, will like what has been proposed and I can say that Robin has garnered some major support from the rifle committee and others who have some clout at Friendship. We are going in optimisticaly.
Mark

Robin, if coil spring sidelocks would be okay, is it reasonable to surmise that coil spring underhammers might also pass muster? Thinking the Allen Foundry actions.

The more I think about all this, I'm getting inclined to just keep trying with my .50 x 48" flinter. The sights suck for precision shooting, but I'm not ready to muck up the gun. At some point I may have to try a different gun though.

Thanks, Mark. I'm just letting my brain idle while waiting patiently to learn what the NMLRA adopts.

There seems to be a bit of a misconception that the NMLRA will write the rules for for the table shoot. The proposal has been sent, with the rules that are desired, also what would appear in  program. As Mark said, we have received good feedback from some people I consider to be in the right places.

To answer your spring question Kermit I don't believe we want to get into inspecting springs in locks, it was the original intent to have this be a fairly simple game. So in short yes a coil spring under hammer would be allowed. I had kind of hoped that we wouldn't get to the point where we were talking the inter workings of the lock or trigger, so long as they were of a traditional style

Some of the other sites have decided that UH actions are not traditional and therefore do not speak if them. I disagree and have said as much. I agree that they should be included.
Mark