I have attended several special shoots that required much reloading on the clock. They may be called "True Grit" or "Uno Muy Malo Hombre" that essentially double the number of rounds going down range per shooting stage. You are correct, the Schofields have an advantage in the "reloading on the clock" shoots. Those who have Schofields dig them out of the gun safes for those occasions. Most SASS members do not have Schofields. The sport is expensive enough as it is. I happen to shoot in the Frontiersman category (cap and ball revolvers) but am allowed to stage charged but uncapped revolvers for the second set of ten pistol shots and do fine capping on the clock. To make regular and annual match scenarios that require on the clock reloading would indeed disadvantage the vast majority of SASS shooters who use SAA clones as did the patron saint of SASS: John Wayne. One thing you don't want to do to your paying customers is make the game harder for them to do well. The sponsoring clubs are in the entertainment industry. If you make the game more difficult you don't get more players the next match and the club declines. So keeping the SAA as the standard is a smart way to keep participation up at the shoots.
Please elaborate on "other (superior) single action designs of the period which collectively outnumbered the Single Action Army". Historically, the percussion revolvers and percussion conversions outnumbered the SAA up until the mid to late 1880s.
That’s what I’m talking about, between the cap and balls and conversions the Single Action army was outnumbered through most of the period. Then you can add in the other single actions, like the Remington 1875 for instance, not to mention the Smith and Wesson Schofield, Number 3, and Russian among others. And you also had the double actions (and later the semiautos like the C96, though I’d doubt you would likely have encountered one in the 19th century, but they were technically there). The Single Action Army was just not as common as Hollywood would tell you, just going by movies you might assume that’s all there was. It just feels as though SASS is going more by movies than reality.
I would say that MOST of those single action designs were arguably better than the Single Action Army or at worst on par, to say nothing of the double actions and semiautos.
Compare the Single Action Army to even a cap and ball, does it really have any advantage? To reload a Single Action Army would take about as long as reloading a cap and ball revolver using paper cartridges (which were what was normally carried in the period, not loose powder and projectile as most do today), and the cap and ball might even be easier. The only advantage I can think of is no cap jams, loose caps and better weather resistance. So not much of an improvement, which is why the cap and balls were still carried through the whole ild west right up until the early 20th century. Now consider that some cap and ball revolvers like the Remington 1858 could do cylinder hot swaps and now the Single Action Army is at a disadvantage. Then we get to the cartridge conversions and the Single Action Army is at best on par, but considering that some of those could still do hot swaps and it again gets a disadvantage. But I will grant that hot swapping might not have been that common so I will assume the Single Action Army to be roughly on par with a cartridge conversion but still, it was expensive and why would someone who already had a cap and ball revolver spend money to upgrade to something that is only on par? If they really wanted fixed metal cased cartridges they could have a cartridge conversion done for far less than buying a Single Action Army, and if they were buying a new gun the cartridge conversions were usually cheaper than a Single Action Army which is why the Single Action Army was not that common until much later.
That’s not even considering the top breaks like the Schofield which would all eat the Single Action Army’s lunch.
There were other single action gate loaders too which were at least on par with the Single Action Army like the Remington 1875 which were also cheaper I believe.
Also, correct me if I’m wrong, most if not all those other designs could load all six chambers safely, which would automatically give them an advantage over the Single Action Army. I could pick up my 1858 Remington and even if I don’t hot swap cylinders I can easily use the safety notch and load all six of my chambers, and the same would be true were it a cartridge conversion so right there, even if my reload were not any better that would be a superior design and it’s a cap and ball (or cartridge conversion), now add in hot swapping cylinders and it’s no contest. And that’s just one example, I’m sure similar can be said about most of the others, maybe without the hot swapping part though.
I get your point about most of the shooters in competition having Single Action Armys, due mostly to Hollywood most likely, but for an organization that strives for historical accuracy handicapping the other designs is not the way to go. As with everything else I hear about while researching this “know your character,” would the character likely have carried a Single Action Army? I think in most cases the answer is no, many would not have been able to afford one and others would just be using what they already had, at least until very late in the period. Say a cowboy for example, would a ranch hand who spends most of his money on basic expenses and most of the rest on gambling, whisky, and hookers (sorry “soiled doves”) in town at the end of a cattle drive likely have a new Single Action Army in say 1880? What about the average rancher or homesteader? The gambler maybe, but he’d probably prefer something concealable. An outlaw or lawman? Maybe, but there were better choices available, both in terms of function and economically. Most of the famous gunfighters for instance did not carry one, they had something else, for all of those reasons. The Single Action Army would eventually become very popular through marketing, but not until much later, so what period are you portraying? I think Single Action Armys are over represented in other words.
Like I said, I think the best solution would be to create another division, that way the shooters with things other than Single Action Armys could compete without a handicap and the shooters with Single Action Armys could compete with other gate loaders and cartridge conversions and possibly do a more action oriented match like you described, the "True Grit" or "Uno Muy Malo Hombre" matches, without being outshot by the Schofields and the like, no need to buy another revolver. But making everyone pretend they have Single Action Armys and that reloading doesn’t exist does not make sense.
I think everyone would benefit by creating another division.
