Conference noted::equitation

    Sometime recently there was a discussion in this note about bits.
    Somebody recommended a Dr Bristol as a bit for a particular situation.
    Somebody else said that they wouldn't recommend a Dr Bristol bit because
    it is too severe. I think the same person went on to recommend a 
    French Snaffle. 
    
    I have been looking for a definition of the difference between the two
    bits since then. I thought I knew but I wasn't certain. I finally found
    one and thought I'd share it.
    
    The Dr Bristol bit has two joints and a flat plate that sits an an
    angle between them. The French Snaffle has two joints and a flat plate
    that always lies flat in the horse's mouth.
    
    The action of the Dr Bristol depends on the orientation of the angled
    plate. IF the edge of the plate is set at right angles to the tongue,
    the action is severe. The plate can also be set so that it lies
    flat in the horse's mouth. In that orientation, the action of the Dr
    Bristol is similar to that of the French Snaffle. However, the Dr Bristol 
    bit is banned for competition use in some countries because it can be set 
    for severe action. It is legal for competition in the US.
    
    I have used a Dr Bristol w/eggbutt cheeks. I used it with the plate flat in 
    the horse's mouth on a horse that got its tongue over the bit. When used 
    that way, I didn't feel that its action was any more severe than an 
    ordinary snaffle. The horse eventually got over the tongue games and
    worked in an ordinary snaffle so I had some direct comparison of the
    action of the two bits on the same horse.
    
    If you use a Dr Bristol, I'd recommend that you pay attention when
    putting your bridle back together after cleaning it!

    OK, here's something I've been looking for an answer to for a long
    time and since it seems to fit here...
    
    What advantage is a full cheek snaffle supposed to give over an
    ordinary snaffle?
    
    How is the effect of a Fulmer snaffle different than a full cheek snaffle?
    The only difference I can see in the 2 is how the rings attach to the
    mouthpiece.

    I am not an expert but here goes:
    
    With a full cheek snaffle you are not only pulling at the corners of
    the mouth you are also pushing at the opisite side.  I think it gives
    more support and less discomfort to the horse.  Also, I think for young
    horses it avoids the problem with them opening their moughts and having
    the snaffle ring in it.
    
    As for a Fulmer and a regular:
    
    I have *always* used a Fulmer.  The free rings and keepers keep the but
    more natural I think.  Also, the reins always pull from the same place
    on the bit, where the ring connects.  On a regular full cheek, the
    cheek pieces are jointed and to me don't give constant support.  Have
    you ever watched a horse chomp and a bit with jointed cheek prices? 
    The joints will flex and lose contact.  
    
    Just my observations.  I have used a slow twist full cheek and a
    Fulmer.  I love my fulmer and have better luck with the young horses in
    that particular bit.
    
    Virginia

    Just wanted to revisit the severity article for a minute for 2 reasons:
    I made a couple mistakes and I want to compare the jointed Pelham to
    the regular Pelham. 
    
    First the mistakes: some in reporting and others in computation.
    I said that the Walker bit Dr Deb used had a thin mouth and high port.
    It was a straight bar with no port or arch.
    
    When scoring the bits I use in my double bridle, I just plain goofed. I
    was making notes in the margin of the magazine and talking to my
    brother at the same time. Inattention allowed me to cross some of the
    numbers. In the end, my bradoon should have rated 4 and the curb 7. An
    eggbutt bradoon like Jan's would rate a 2 because of the change in the
    joints. I doubt that one could use a bradoon thick enough(1/2") to rate
    a 1. Unfortunately, I don't think there is a dressage type curb on the 
    market that rates less than a 6 or 7 and you'd have to have 1" shanks
    to get a 6! The "just beyond mild" rating is basically because the
    curb chain attaches to the same rings as the cheekpieces of the bridle.
    If the curb chain attached to separate rings, my curb would drop from a
    7 to either a 5 or a 2 depending on the location of the rings.
    
    Now for the jointed Pelham. In an earlier discussion about bits for
    trail riding, I said that I sometimes used a jointed Pelham on horses
    that get strong when riding out. I like the bit because one can drop
    the curb reins and use it like a snaffle but have the power of the
    leverage action if needed. Someone reminded me that Dr Deb had said in
    an article last Spring that such bits should have the shanks joined by
    a rigid bar so that one-handed action by the rider didn't injure the
    horse's mouth.
    
    I decided to rate the particluar bit I use and see how it stacked up
    against the ordinary Pelham Dr Deb rated in the July 93 article(EQUUS
    189). The ordinary Pelham had 1.5" shanks, arched 3/8" copper bar
    mouthpiece; the shanks go through holes at the ends of the mouthpiece. 
    The jointed Pelham has 2" shanks, jointed 1/2" steel mouthpiece
    with no rigid bar between the shanks; the shanks attach to the mouth
    with an eggbutt shape. Both have a curb chain which attach to the same 
    place as the bridle cheeks.
    
    Even though the ordinary Pelham gets a bonus(-3 points) for the copper 
    mouth and the jointed Pelham gets a penalty of 10 points for not having
    a bar between the shanks, they are very close overall. The ordinary
    Pelham rated 13(she said 15 but she goofed) and the jointed Pelham 
    rated 14. 
    
    Why so close? The thickness of the mouthpiece! One of her questions 
    uses the thickness of the mouthpiece to determine a multiplier for 3 
    other factors. Another reason is the eggbutt joint on the jointed
    Pelham which gives it a 2 point break.
    
    A 1/2" mouthpiece gets a multiplier of 1 and a 3/8" mouthpiece gets a 
    multiplier of 2. The ordinary Pelham's thinner mouthpiece nearly 
    compensated for the jointed Pelham's penalty for not having the shanks 
    joined. 
    
    To make the comparison of more similar bits, what happens if we increase 
    the ordinary Pelham's mouthpiece to 1/2"? A similar ordinary Pelham with 
    a 1/2" mouthpiece would have rated 7 with a copper mouth; the same as my 
    Weymouth curb bit! 
    
    To really compare "apples to apples", let's look at an ordinary Pelham 
    with a 1/2" steel mouth and compare it to the jointed 1/2" steel mouth
    Pelham. The ordinary Pelham would rate a 10 because it loses the -3 bonus 
    for "flavored" mouthpieces. The jointed Pelham is still 14. Not as big 
    a difference as I would have expected with the 10 penalty for unjoined
    shanks.
    
    The fact that Pelhams are as strong as most curbs surprised me a bit
    because people frequently think Pelhams are fine bits for beginners
    while only "experts" should use a double bridle...

I mentioned in the base note that the fit of a bit was important but
that Dr Deb didn't address correct fitting in her article on bit severity.
In a side bar to her Apr 1992(EQQUS 174) article on bits, Dr Deb did 
discuss fitting.

I also mentioned that there had been X-ray studies which showed that thick 
bits aren't very mild for a horse that has a thick tongue and/or narrow jaw.
Curiously enough, these facts have been known to the horse world for many 
years. For example, De Carpentry has an entire chapter in "Academic 
Equitation" on selecting bits(size and shape, snaffle and curb) and in that 
chapter he mentions those facts. His book was written over 40 years ago and 
he doesn't claim credit for the 'discovery' of those observations. So, it 
ain't really news, folks. The info is just so old it's been forgotten and 
rediscovered.

The following note on bit fitting is a hash of Dr Deb's side bar and things 
from De Carpentry.

1. The correct width is important for all bits but especially so for 
jointed snaffles. A bit that is too wide will pinch the tongue(the dreaded
nutcracker effect) more than a correctly fitted bit. A too wide bit may also 
poke the roof of the horse's mouth with the joint. To get the correct 
width, use a wooden dowel or metal rod about 8" long. Put it in the horse's 
mouth where the bit would go and, after the horse stops playing with it,
mark the stick outside the horse's lips. The distance between the marks 
indicates the correct width. Actually, you'll have to round up to the 
nearest size that's at least that wide(e.g. a measurement of 4 7/8" 
requires a 5" bit, not 4 3/4"!)

2. To check the room inside the mouth, you have to check the jaw width, 
palate(roof of the mouth) and tongue. Put your fist between the horse's 
jawbones. If your fist doesn't fit easily and you wear a size 10 or smaller 
glove(Men's medium or Ladie's large), the horse has a narrow jaw.
To check the roof of the mouth, put your straightened index finger where 
the bit goes and wait for the horse to stop playing. Crook your finger and if 
it hits the roof of the mouth, the horse has a low palate. To check the 
tongue close the horse's mouth and lift the upper lip. If the tongue slops 
over onto the bars, the horse has a thick tongue.

Any of these situations will require a different type of bit than a horse with 
a wide jaw, thin tongue and high palate. In general, French link or Dr Bristol 
type snaffles, mullen mouth bits and/or curbs with low broad ports will help. 

De Carpentry shows a bit designed by James Fillis for horses with thick 
tongues. It looks a little like a French link but, instead of a plate in the 
middle, the bit has a large arch or 'hoop' to provide more room for the 
tongue. De Carpentry says that such a bit works well but only if the horse 
has a high enough palate to accept the 'hoop'. It may be necessary to use a 
slightly thinner bit to get tongue relief if the roof of the mouth is low.

3. Check the bars of the mouth. Various bit designs(especially those that
provide relief for the tongue) but more pressure on the bars of the mouth.
If the bars are thick and relatively low, that's no problem. If they are 
thin and/or high, such a bit would be uncomfortable(at best).
    
    So, we've talked about severity and fitting the bit to the anatomy of
    the horse's mouth. The only other variable in the equation is us and
    how well/poorly we ride...but that's another topic

    You mean that you actually put your hand in the horse's mouth to check
    this stuff out?  Did I read this correctly?  I don't ride, so forgive
    me if my questions appear naive.
    
    Carl

    John thanks for all this info - I've been studying this topic myself in
    hope of finding the right bit - this is very helpful!!!
    
    Re: .5 absolutely!  But, you don't just stick your hand in or you could
    get bit - rather you can open the horses mouth to look in or you can
    pull their tongue to the side and hold it so you can put your hands in
    their mouth (they won't bite their own tongue so your hand is safe.)

    Yes, you do stick your hand in! I even go a bit farther than
    Janice(i.e. TOLKIN::BENNETT, not my wife Janice aka Jan aka
    DECWET::DADDAMIO). I put my index finger in the mouth where the bit
    goes. For Carl and others who don't ride, the  bit goes in a toothless
    area of the mouth called "the bars". There is a gap of several inches
    between the front teeth and the molars in the back. That's where the
    bit goes and where I would stick my index finger when checking for
    room inside the mouth. In other words, I don't wanna get bit either!
    
    BTW, many people may not have an 8" length of wooden dowel hanging
    around to use as a measuring device for bit size. A very appropriate
    substitute would be a wooden cooking spoon with a long handle. A brand
    new unsharpened pencil might also work but it might be a little on the
    short side.
    
    Another thing I've found is that my horses will play and open their
    mouths very wide for a very long time when I stick my hands in their
    mouth(Maybe they don't like the taste of Ivory soap?). To speed up the 
    process when this happens, I take the noseband off a bridle and put it 
    on the horse loosely while I'm measuring. Just taking the extremes out 
    of their play seems to make it less fun and they stop.

Anybody remember a folksinging group called "The Serendipity Singers" from 
the 60's? Well, back then, I didn't know what 'serendipity' meant so I had 
to look it up in the dictionary. Basically, it means stumbling onto exactly 
what you need by accident. 

What's that got to do with this topic? Yesterday, I went to the tack shop.
While I was there, I decided to look at full cheek and Fulmer snaffles to 
see if I could figure out why they act the way Virginia said.

I couldn't find the Fulmer snaffles so I had to go ask where they were. On
the way to the bit display, I walked passed their display of new books.
One of the books jumped out and grabbed me!

It was titled "Bitting: In Theory and Practice" by Elwyn Hartley Edwards 
published by J.A. Allen(who else?). It costs $14.95 at that tack shop.

I didn't want to get my hopes up because I've looked at books about bits 
before and have always been disappointed. They usually have a lot about the 
history of bits or their manufacture but very little about why one would 
use the bit or how it's action differs from similar bits.

This book is different! It discusses not only the history of bits and bitting
but the conformation of the mouth and how that affects bit fitting and the 
appropriate type of bit, types of bits and their variations in type and 
action, how additional equipment like cavessons and martingales change the 
action, etc.

In flipping through it, I saw a drawing of a Fulmer snaffle. In a page and a 
half, I learned about the advantages/disadvantages of various types of rings
and cheeks on snaffles. In one paragraph, he answered my question about the
differences between regular full cheek and Fulmer snaffles. In another 
paragraph, told me why one might use one of the full cheek snaffles instead
of a ring snaffle. All in all, a very practical book about bitting. I 
recommend it to anyone looking for help selecting the right sort of bit for
their horse.

In addition, I was flipping through a new tack catalog from Paul's Harness 
Shop(Colorado Springs, CO) that we had sent for because we want to get one 
of the blanket racks they've been advertising in Dressage & CT, EQUUS, 
Chronicle and other horse magazines.

On page 29, they offer a paperback entitled "Mouths and Bits" which might 
also be of help. The catalog describes it as follows: "Pictorial guide to 
information on bits, types and uses, tooth changes throughout life. Diagrams 
of rasping of teeth along with use of cavesons, bit holders, etc. Discusses 
various bitting problems and solutions." No author or publisher is given in 
the catalog and I can't make it out from the picture of the book. While I 
haven't seen this book and, therefore, can't comment on it directly, the 
price is $8.95 so it won't a great financial loss if it's a mistake.

John

So, what did I learn about snaffle rings/cheeks from Edwards' "Bitting: In 
Theory and Practice" ? 

Loose ring snaffles allow the horse to move the bit in the mouth more than
the other types. That's an advantage for some horses and a disadvantage for 
others. Moving the bit increases salivation which keeps their mouth moist 
and soft. But, some horses play too much and/or get their tongue over the
bit/out the side of their mouth, etc.

The main disadvantage of loose ring snaffles is that the lip can be pinched 
between the ring and the hole in the mouthpiece through which the ring 
passes. Especially true of bits with a large hole and/or lots of wear.

The regular full cheek snaffle was developed to push on the cheek opposite 
the rein action(like Virginia said) and reduce danger of lip pinching. The 
end of the mouthpiece flares into a tube. The cheek/ring piece fits into the 
tube. Edwards says that the push on the opposite cheek can be got from other 
ring styles like the D-ring and eggbutt or even a loose ring snaffle with 
very large rings.

The D-ring was developed from the regular full cheek snaffle by racing people 
who were concerned that the cheeks would injure/enter/compress the horse's 
nostril when strong one handed rein action was necessary. Basically, they 
chopped off the cheeks and enlarged the ring. So, they got the push on the 
opposite cheek without the dangers(real or imagined) that they saw in the
regular full cheek snaffle.

From the D-ring, the eggbutt snaffle was developed to completely eliminate 
the possibility of lip pinch. The eggbutt design changed the shape of the 
rings and the joint between the rings and mouthpiece. 

Summary so far, the loose ring snaffle allows the horse to move the bit 
more than the others but they (D-ring, eggbutt, full cheek) pinch the 
lip less. All styles have some push on the opposite cheek but, in the 
case of the loose ring snaffle, large rings are needed to get the effect.

The Fulmer snaffle(aka Australian loose ring snaffle) seems to combine
all the choices at once! The mouthpiece and full cheeks are forged from the 
same piece of metal(i.e. no joint). The loose ring goes through a hole 
*outside* the full cheeks. The full cheeks offer maximum push on the 
opposite cheek effect. The ring can't pinch because it's not close to the 
skin. The horse can move the bit around more. However, Edwards says that the 
bit keepers used with the Fulmer snaffle drastically reduce the amount that 
the horse can move the bit. 

Pay your money and take your choice! Frankly, I think most of the 
difference in ring/cheek styles(except the possibility of lip pinch) is 
in our minds and not the horses' mouths. What goes in the mouth is the more 
important part of the bit, IMHO.

John

    I finished reading the book on bitting that I mentioned back in .8 and 
    I highly recommend it even for those who are fairly knowledgeable about 
    bitting. The book is:
    
    "Bitting: In Theory and Practice" by Elwyn Hartley Edwards; published
    by J.A. Allen. The hardcover costs $14.95 but I think there's also a
    paperback version which is lots cheaper.
    
    As I mentioned, I've been severely disappointed in books on bits
    before but this one is excellent. It discusses not only the history of
    bits and bitting but :
    	1. the conformation of the mouth and how that affects bit fitting 
    	   and selection of the type of bit, 
    	2. types of bits and their variations in type and action, (e.g. 
    	   a snaffle with a pronounced arch relieves pressure from the tongue
           but transfers it to the bars. Therefore, it would be a good
           choice for a horse with a large/thick tongue but not for a horse
           with thin sharp bars)
    	3. additional equipment like cavessons and martingales and their
    	   effect, if any, on bit action
    	4. bridle selection, fitting and adjustment...

    A couple quick comments on some other things I picked up in Edwards'
    book.
    
    There are several new types of bits. Some on the market and some being
    developed. Those being developed don't fit the usual classifications
    and look pretty exotic to me.
    
    Edwards was fairly high on the new bits with plastic mouthpieces like the 
    Happy Mouth(or whatever those are called) as long as the pattern was 
    suitable for the horse.
    
    I'm not sure whether all the patterns would be permitted in US dressage
    shows for example. Plastic bits are definitely permitted but the
    mouthpiece has to be one of the approved shapes. In particular, there
    is one of these bits that is basically a mullen mouth snaffle but the 
    mouthpiece tapers from the ends towards the middle and then forms a 
    knob or knobs near the middle. While it seems a very mild bit, I'm not 
    sure that its shape meets the requirements of the dressage show 
    rules. Does anybody know if those are permitted? (If not, it's the rule 
    that needs changing)
    

On usenet, someone asked about the relative severity of a full-cheek,
copper-mouthed french snaffle with a slow twist on each of the cannons.
They were surprised at how much stronger the bit seemed compared to the
way her horses responded to a regular eggbutt snaffle.

I told her about the EQUUS article and it's rating scheme. So I thought 
I'd report the method here and you can apply it yourself, if you need to.

The article is long and complicated because it considered both curbs and 
snaffles in the same rating scheme. For snaffle(i.e. non leverage) bits,
it can be simplified. Answer the questions and write down the point 
value indicated. After you have answered all the questions, use the 
following formula to rate the snaffle:

Answer = Q1 + Q2 + (Q3 x Q4) + Q5 - Q6 - Q7 - Q8 
         where Q1 = value from question 1, etc.

Answers of 5 or less are mild; 6 to 19 moderate; 20 & up severe.
At the end of the questions, I rated her bit as an example.

Question 1: How many pieces are there in the horse's mouth?
        A. 1 to 3 pieces                     1 point
        B. More than 3 pieces                5 points

Question 2: What kind of texture or shape does the mouthpiece have?
        A. Sharp(e.g. triangular or edged)   10 points
        B. Prickly                           10 points
        C. Rough(e.g. twisted wire or chain) 10 points
        D. Twisted metal                      5 points
        E. Wrapped with smooth wire           3 points
        F. Smooth                             1 point

Question 3: What is the ring shape?
        A. Round(i.e. rings are circles)       1 point
        B. Other shapes(e.g. egg, figure 8, D) 2 points

Question 4: How thick are the canons?
        A. 1/2" or more                        1 point
        B. 3/8" but less than 1/2"             3 points
        C. Less than 3/8"                     10 points

Question 5: Is it a gag/elevator bit?
        A. Yes                                 8 points
        B. No                                  0 points

Question 6: How are the rings attached to the canons?
        A. Through holes in the canons(i.e. 
           all loose ring snaffles except 
           Fulmer aka Australian loose ring)  1 point
        B. All others including Fulmer        3 points

Question 7: Are there players, keys or a cricket on the bit?
        A. Yes                                3 points
        B. No                                 0 points

Question 8: Is the mouthpiece copper, sweet iron, or a flavored material?
        A. Yes                                3 points
        B. No                                 0 points

As an example, her full-cheek, copper-mouthed french snaffle with a slow 
twist on each of the 1/2" canons(the part in the mouth) and non-round 
rings would rate as follows:

Answer = 1 + 5 + (2 x 1) + 0 - 3 - 0 - 3 = 2

That's pretty mild. An eggbutt snaffle with 1/2" canons and plain steel 
mouth rates a 1. Gee, would the eggbutt get a -2 if it were copper or 
flavored plastic? Note that even without the bonus for copper, the twisted 
bit would still come out as a 5; a slightly higher but still mild rating.

A similar copper-mouthed bit with 3/8" canons rates:
Answer = 1 + 5 + (2 x 3) + 0 - 3 - 0 - 3 = 6 (9 for plain steel)

John

    Does anyone know the mechanics of the Boucher snaffle?  It appears to
    have a mild leverage effect by having the cheekpieces attach to a 
    separate shank as opposed to attaching to the snaffle rings - possibly
    exerting poll pressure. It also appears to be a 'legal' lower-level 
    dressage bit.  Any experience with this?
    
    - Janice
                                      

    The Baucher snaffle is legal for dressage competition. Since the
    definition of snaffle is a non-leverage bit, the fact that the AHSA
    allows the bit in competition suggests that there is no leverage.
    
    I don't think there is a leverage effect from the cheeks on a Baucher
    snaffle. The rings are loose and at the level of the mouthpiece. Your 
    reins attach loosely to the rings rather than going into a slot.
    
    If the rings were attached solidly to the mouthpiece(e.g. like a D-ring 
    or eggbutt) rather than loose, you might get a mild leverage effect; 
    especially if the reins went into slots on the ring. 
    
    Although the Baucher snaffle looks similar to the Kimberwicke, they are
    different enough to have different effects. Kimberwickes can get some 
    mild leverage because:
    	the loop where the cheekpieces attach is square rather than round
    	the rings are solidly attached to the mouthpiece
    	and many have slots for the reins
    
    Because of the mild leverage and curb chain, Kimberwickes are curbs, 
    not snaffles.
    
    John

    re .15: I agree about the lack of leverage - I was trying to visualize
    the bit affect - and was forgetting that the reins 'float' on the ring
    snaffle-like rather than solidly attached to a slot (don't have bit to
    look at just picture).  It was suggested I try this bit on my horse as
    it might be a bit beefier than his hollow-mouth loose ring snaffle. 
    Other than the fact that I could use a thinner or solid mouthpiece - I
    was curious as to what features might make this a stronger bit?
    
                                                   
    -JB
    

    About the only thing that would make the Baucher stronger than a 
    hollow-mouth loose ring snaffle is the solid thinner mouthpiece.
    
    The purpose of the cheeks on the Baucher snaffle is said to be that,
    with correct adjustment of the bridle cheeks, the bit is suspended in
    the horse's mouth rather than laying on the bars. This takes some
    pressure off the bars. In effect, that *could* make it a little milder 
    than an ordinary snaffle.
    
    I've experimented with hollow-mouth snaffles on a couple horses. 
    I found that my hollow-mouth bit is too thick for many horses and 
    doesn't give them enough room for their tongues. I've also had horses 
    for whom the bit was too light in weight and they tossed it around 
    with their tongue! In both cases, I went to a 1/2" thick but solid 
    snaffle with good results. A 3/8" thick, solid snaffle would be
    somewhat stronger than the 1/2".

    Given the fact that my horse doesn't play with the bit excessively or
    even open his mouth (I do use a flash for schooling but find no
    difference with using it vs. a regular loose caveson), I may not have
    too large a mouthpiece (but this a good point to discuss  when the
    dentist arrives).  What he does do is pull and lean if I'm not careful. 
    All gaits have drastically improved in recent months but the canter can
    still be very quick/hurried/tense.   Side-rein/ridden lunge work is
    helping both of us considerably.  I will be trying the Boucher for my
    lesson on sunday and will see how it goes.
    
    - Janice
    

    Don't take this as criticism, I'm just curious. If you don't see any
    difference in his behavior using a flash or regular loose caveson,
    why do you use a flash?
    
    Re:
    > ... What he does do is pull and lean if I'm not careful.
    >All gaits have drastically improved in recent months but the canter can
    >still be very quick/hurried/tense.
    
    Do you really think this is a bitting problem then? Perhaps, he's just
    not balanced enough, strong enough and supple enough canter well. My 
    mare used to pull and lean if I kept her too short or short for too 
    long a time...she wasn't as ready for advancement as I thought and was 
    telling me by pulling/leaning.
    
    Another thought: Have you eliminated the possibility that the horse is 
    reflecting some tension/stiffness at the canter on your part?
    

    I think it's a combination of all factors mentioned - tension on my
    part causing him to tense, causing me to tense, causing him to tense
    ... you get the point.  I have the opportunity to take ridden lunge
    lessons on my horse while we are at the indoor this winter and have
    been working on all these issues...
    
    Keep in mind that this is the horse that has provided more unsuspecting
    people with his own rendition of Mr. Toad's Wild Ride.  I am currently
    boarding him at a stable where he lived prior to my buying him.  I've
    learned alot more about his history.  He has the tendency to bolt and
    take off - completely out of control (especially on the trail, usually
    after a few crossrails).  I *CAN* stop him I *CAN* get him back and I
    *DO* stay in control.  It's not elegant.  That's what were working on!
    
    I really enjoy working with him and I suspect that once he has learned
    to obey the aids (which he never really has) and I can learn to stay 
    relaxed we will be on our way.
    
    I think all factors have to be weighed and the decision to
    experiment with bits based on what's happening/not happening between the
    horse/rider and what factors are most important.  Obviously control and
    managing disobedience must be high on the list.  I'm not looking at
    ports and twisted wires here - I'm looking at minor differences in
    different types of snaffles.  I certainly understand that changing the
    bit isn't going to solve all problems under saddle (and rider
    imperfections :^}.  If all I get out of this is a better
    understanding of bits - so be it.
    
    Incidently, both my instructor and I liked his reaction to the Baucher
    - he kept a more consistent contact for longer periods and mouthed the 
    bit more than normal.                                                     
    
    
    JB

    >>>Don't take this as criticism, I'm just curious. If you don't see any
    >>> difference in his behavior using a flash or regular loose caveson,
    >>>>why do you use a flash?
    
    	Good question.  I bought the flash because this is dressage
    socially acceptable nose band. His problem is locking his jaw - not opening
    his mouth.  I spend a lot of time on flexion exercises (we do them so
    much it now relaxes him).  I honestly don't sense anything different
    when using a flash.  
                        
    JB
    

    JB,
    
    Sounds like you're doing pretty well with Mr. Wild Ride!
    
    None of us is perfect(well, except maybe Herr Oberbereiter Arthur 
    Kottas ;-)... If you're aware of and working on your own imperfections
    as a rider, you're ahead of the game. My compliments.
    
    Bitting is as much of an art as anything else in
    equitation/horsemanship. So, of course, some experimenting is
    necessary. Not every horse is happy with the socially acceptable eggbutt 
    snaffle so one has to try other bits. I never meant to imply
    otherwise.
    
    Glad to hear that he liked the Baucher snaffle.

To complete the "How to rate your bit" theme that I started a while back,
I figured I'd summarize the curb rating formula from last year's EQUUS 
article. This note is based on that article but I've simplified things.

A curb is any leverage bit. It may have shanks (like most do) or get 
its leverage through some other means(like the slots in the D-ring of 
a Kimberwicke matched with square rings for the cheek attachment). You 
can determine whether or not your bit is a leverage bit by answering 
this question: 

Do the reins attach below the level of the mouthpiece of the bit? 

If the answer to that is yes, then your bit has leverage.

The following formula can be used to rate curb bits:

Answer = Q1 + Q2 + Q3 + Q4 + Q5 + (Q8 x (Q6 + Q7)) - Q9 - Q10 - Q11 - Q12
         where Q1 = value from question 1, etc. In case anyone has 
         forgotten algebra or never took it, (Q8 x (Q6 + Q7)) means 
	 "Add the answers from questions 6 and 7. Then multiply that total
         by the answer from question 8."

Answers of 5 or less are mild; 6 to 19 moderate; 20 & up severe.
This formula is more complicated than the one for snaffles because 
there are more parts of a curb that have an effect. Therefore, very few
curbs are mild. Most will end up with a moderate or severe rating.

Question 1: How many pieces are there in the horse's mouth?
        A. 1 to 3 pieces                     1 point
        B. More than 3 pieces                5 points

Question 2: What is the size, height and shape of the port? 
	A. No port and a broken mouth(i.e. more than 1 piece in the mouth)
           				     Use 0 for Questions 2 and 3
					     and skip to Question 4 
	B. High port with steep narrow tongue relief and the port 
	   meets the cross piece squarely(i.e. in 90 degree right angle)
					    10 points
	C. High port with broad tongue relief. Joint between port and cross
           piece is rounded		     5 points
	D. Medium or low port with broad tongue relief. Joint between 
           port and cross piece is rounded   1 point
	E. No port. Unbroken arched mouth    2 points
	F. No port. Straight unbroken mouth  3 points

Question 3: How is the port angled with respect to the shanks?
	A. Port slopes back more than the shanks	1 point
	B. Port is parallel to the shanks		1 point
	C. Port slopes forward more than the shanks    10 points

Question 4: How does the mouthpiece slope side to side?
	A. Broken mouth like a common snaffle *WITH* a solid bar 
           connecting the shanks			1 point
	B. Broken mouth like a common snaffle *WITHOUT* a solid bar
           connecting the shanks                       10 points
	C. Solid mouth which is perpendicular to shanks 1 point
	D. Solid mouth which slopes down to the shanks 10 points

Question 5: How are the shanks bent?
	A. They aren't bent.			3 points
	B. Backwards towards the horses chest	1 point
	C. Forward				5 points

Question 6: How long are the shanks? (For bits like Kimberwickes which
don't actually have shanks, measure between the mouthpiece and where 
the reins attach.)
	A. 1" or less 		1 point
	B. Over 1" up to 3"	2 points
	C. Over 3" up to 4"	4 points
	D. More than 4"		7 points

Question 7: What kind of texture or shape does the mouthpiece have?
        A. Sharp(e.g. triangular or edged)   10 points
        B. Prickly                           10 points
        C. Rough(e.g. twisted wire or chain) 10 points
        D. Twisted metal                      5 points
        E. Wrapped with smooth wire           3 points
        F. Smooth                             1 point

Question 8: How thick are the canons?
        A. 1/2" or more                        2 point
        B. 3/8" but less than 1/2"             3 points
        C. Less than 3/8"                      4 points

Question 9: Where does the curb chain/strap attach?
	A. To the same ring as the bridle cheeks	0 points
	B. Separate ring below the ring for the cheeks	2 points
	C. Separate ring behind the ring for the cheeks	5 points

Question 10: How are the shanks attached to the canons?
        A. Through holes in the canons(i.e. like most 
           Pelhams 				1 point
        B. All others including welded solid	3 points

Question 11: Are there players, keys or a cricket on the bit?
        A. Yes                                3 points
        B. No                                 0 points

Question 12: Is the mouthpiece copper, sweet iron, or a flavored material?
        A. Yes                                3 points
        B. No                                 0 points


John

Someone on internet asked about bit fitting and I posted a reply
similar to Note 1765.4. One of my occassional correspondents who is a
dressage rider and who began riding while living in Germany sent me mail.
She said that her German teacher had said that a snaffle could have as 
much as 1/2" excess sticking out of a horse's mouth. I interpretted that
to mean a bit up to 1" wider than the horse's mouth measured!.

I responded to her and we got into a fairly interesting discussion about
bit size and how nosebands may change/supplement bit action. So, I'm 
passing it on, in slightly edited form, starting with my response:

I was always taught that the snaffle should be fairly snug to the mouth.
Is it possible that you misunderstood that 1/2" excess recommendation?

I don't recall any author I've ever read suggesting that a snaffle should 
be that much larger than the horse's mouth. After reading your message 
about bit sizes, I did a quick survey of books in our library. Muesler and 
Seunig made no explicit recommendation that I could find. The U.S. Cavalry 
Manual, Podhajsky and DeCarpentry all say that the snaffle should be snug 
to the cheeks.

However, I did find 1/2" mentioned in the following quote which is why I 
asked if you had perhaps misunderstood. From Edwards' Bitting in Theory 
and Practice", page 95:

"The Snaffle Bit

A snaffle of any type should correspond as closely as possible to the 
width of the mouth. It should, therefore, fit closely to the cheeks, the 
butt end of a loose ring snaffle projecting on each side by no more than 
13mm(1/2 in). It is easier to obtain a snug fit with an eggbutt or 
full-cheek than with a loose ring, as with these forms there is no need 
to worry about the lips being pinched where the loose ring passes through 
the hole in the mouthpiece. 

A snaffle that is too narrow will obviously pinch the cheeks. Most snaffles,
however, fail because they are too wide for the mouth(probably because the 
owner is anxious to avoid fitting too narrow a bit).

If the bit is too wide, it will slide across the mouth, exaggerating its 
action on one side and possibly causing bruising to the tongue, bars and 
lips on that side."

For giggles, I measured the loose ring bradoon on my double bridle. I found 
that 1/2" from the butt end was barely inside the hole through which the 
ring passes. Was this, perhaps, the intention of the recommendation you 
mentioned?

Podhajsky makes similar comments about too wide a bit sliding in the mouth.
In pictures, captions, and footnotes, DeCarpentry makes the point that the
joint of a too wide snaffle may hit the palate.

Another thing comes to mind: Consider a simple lever effect. If the bars are 
the fulcrum, what is the effect of a wider jointed mouthpiece given the same
amount of force applied to the reins by the rider? Wouldn't the extra width 
be a longer lever(i.e. from the bars to the rings)? Wouldn't a longer lever
mean more force applied to the bars and/or tongue?

John

Hi John,

You are right - it doesn't make any sense that the bit should be much
larger than the horse's mouth.  It's what I learned in Germany, though,
and of course what one learned as a child must be correct!

I looked through my horse literature and although I couldn't find any
specifications on bit size, the diagrams of "correctly fitted" snaffle
bits in the German books all stuck out of the mouth quite a bit.
Furthermore, it's quite difficult to properly use a drop noseband
(Hannoveranisches Reithalfter) if the bit isn't considerably bigger
than the mouth.  And with a drop noseband and a thick bit there's
no problem with the bit sliding through the mouth, is there?  At
least I've never found it to be so with thick snaffles, which is
the only kind I use.

Another reason I'm into large bits is that my bits keep getting too
small.  I started L. with a 5 1/4" hollow mouth and I got him
a 5 1/2" thick KK when I was in Germany last summer, which ended up 
being too small for him when I got back! I tried it anyway, but
L. alternately went above the bit or grabbed it and pulled.  It
was quite a pain to sell the expensive KK again and to find a 
replacement but I now have a 6" fake KK that's doing the trick.

Actually, even that bit sticks out by only about 1/4" each side.
It's not a high-quality bit, but L., who turns up his nose
at some more expensive bits I've tried on him, picks it up when I
dangle it in front of his nose and goes on the bit once it's on.

I can't say that he doesn't pull, since that's the main problem
I have with him, but he he just pulls when he has an excuse, such
as a wide-open field with good footing that cries out for a good gallop.
If you have any miracle cure against that sort of pulling I'd be 
happy to hear it.  Proper dressage training will hopefully take care
of it, but it will be several years coming.  Meanwhile, I resort to
circles and shoulders-in at the canter when he is tempted to gallop.

Now that I'm fairly confident that his bit will continue to fit 
L. who's almost 5, I've noticed that he's grown out of his
second browband, which was the largest I could get at the time
he grew out of the first one.  I'll have to bite the bullet and
spend money this time, I guess.  And his 54" girth is getting
too tight - do you believe it?  Furthermore, it's a pain to get
on him bareback and brushing him and pulling and braiding his
mane are chores.  I do wish he'd stop growing and I wouldn't
mind at all if he shrank a bit.

P.

Hi P., 

> ... It's what I learned in Germany, though,
>and of course what one learned when one was a child must be correct!

Of course! That is a well established fact! ;-)

>Furthermore, it's quite difficult to properly use a drop noseband
>(Hannoveranisches Reithalfter) if the bit isn't considerably bigger
>than the mouth.  

I presume you mean that, when the drop noseband is properly adjusted on
the muzzle of the horse, the rings of a snugly fit snaffle would 
interfere with buckling the noseband. I can see no other way in which a
snug snaffle could make it difficult. If that is what you mean, I've never
had that problem. If that's not what you mean, please explain.

With most horses that I prefer a loose ordinary noseband(i.e. it's mostly 
decoration). I don't use a drop noseband unless it's *absolutely* necessary 
to keep the mouth closed. I generally give the horse the benefit of the 
doubt and assume that there may be a legitimate reason for opening its 
mouth. However, if I can't find such a reason, I will use a drop. The 
other effects of the drop can be achieved other ways.

I think the main reason the drop was taught as *the* noseband is simply that
it was specified by many European cavalry regulations. The reason it was
"regulation" for the cavalry is that they had to turn inept farm boys into 
troopers quickly. If remount training were done by separate squadrons, they 
had to get horses to a modest state of useability quickly. If not, the farm 
boys were doing the training. The drop works well in both cases. 

I think the drop remains de rigueur in dressage today because it's a "quick 
fix", something we modern folks seem to be obsessed with. Instructors would 
lose students if they said "You need 6 months on the lunge to improve your 
seat. That way your hands will become independent and your horse will keep 
its mouth closed." So, they say "Try a drop noseband to keep the mouth 
closed."

> ... And with a drop noseband and a thick bit there's
>no problem with the bit sliding through the mouth, is there? 

I wouldn't swear to that. Podhajsky recommends a thick fullcheek snaffle 
and a drop noseband for young horses. He specifically warns against the
snaffle being too wide so as to prevent sliding. Of course, he didn't 
define "too wide" so I can't say that 1/2" doesn't fit his opinion.

>Another reason I'm into large bits is that my bits keep getting too
>small.  

Hey, if L's happy, that's all that counts. Theory, regulations and
what-we-learnt-at-mama's-knee are guidelines to get close. To go from 
close to happy, we have to experiment.

> ... but he he just pulls when he has an excuse, such
>as a wide-open field with good footing that cries out for a good gallop.
>If you have any miracle cure against that sort of pulling I'd be 
>happy to hear it.  Proper dressage training will hopefully take care
>of it, but it will be several years coming.  Meanwhile, I resort to
>circles and shoulders-in at the canter when he is tempted to gallop.

The only "miracle cure" for that is a full bridle or maybe a Pelham.
Personally, I hope my horses *never* outgrow their desire for a good gallop.
I just hope they learn to ask permission for a gallop and respect my decision.

John

Hi John,

About the drop noseband, I've never understood the American notion
that it was to keep the mouth closed.  I also don't see much point in
using an English noseband other than to break up the face.  I learned
that the noseband (i.e. the drop) was there to provide a connection
between hands and nose, via the bit, and to keep the bit in place in
the horse's mouth.  The noseband is fitted immediately below the edges
of the bit, so that any action on the bit is transferred partially to
the nose and the chin and so that pressure on the bit is partially
distributed as well. 

Unless a noseband is overly tight, it will hardly do much to keep 
the horse's mouth closed, or will it?  The young Trakehner stallion I
thought of buying before I found L. used to keep his mouth open
all the time when he was first introduced to the bit, and a flash on
him made no difference.  He was fine when he got used to the feel of
the bit in his mouth.

About L's desire to gallop when cantering out in the open, I wouldn't 
mind it so much if only there were an emergency brake. I might try 
a leather hackamore on him when we are just hacking around.  He likes 
hackamores, probably because they allow him to eat the leaves that 
persist in growing right in front of his mouth!  

I used one on him for a while for training, as well, when I didn't have 
a bit that fit him.  It makes one realize how helpful inside and outside 
reins are when they are effectively missing. It also makes one realize 
how much one can rely on legs and seat only.

P.

Hi P.,

>About the drop noseband, I've never understood the American notion
>that it was to keep the mouth closed.  I also don't see much point in
>using an English noseband other than to break up the face.  I learned
>that the noseband (i.e. the drop) was there to provide a connection
>between hands and nose, via the bit, and to keep the bit in place in
>the horse's mouth.  The noseband is fitted immediately below the edges
>of the bit, so that any action on the bit is transferred partially to
>the nose and the chin and so that pressure on the bit is partially
>distributed as well. 

I don't think it's an American notion that the drop noseband keeps the 
mouth closed. In fact, European publications I've read state that the 
drop noseband is the most effective type of noseband for that purpose. 
My point was only that keeping the mouth closed to prevent evasion of 
the bit by opening the mouth has become something of an obsession in 
modern dressage. I feel that that is the main reason for the popularity 
of the drop noseband in the US.

However, about the effects of the drop noseband...I was taught by a 
Dutchman born in the 19th Century and trained in Europe(i.e. This is 
neither an American nor a modern opinion). He taught me that the drop 
noseband places pressure on the nose by keeping the mouth closed when the 
horse tried to open it(e.g. in response to bit action). The pressure on 
the nose causes the horse to flex at the poll. Nothing that I have ever 
been taught by others or that I have read contradicts that opinion. 

Frankly, I don't see how bit action could be transferred from the bit to 
the straps in the way you suggest. The straps are below the bit. When the 
bit moves due to rein action, it moves away from the strap. It can't put 
any pressure on the strap. When using a jointed snaffle, the other side 
of the bit wouldn't move forward so it wouldn't put any pressure on the 
straps either. 

You're right there isn't much point in using the plain noseband as it's 
usually adjusted(i.e. higher on the muzzle and loose enough to insert a 
finger or two). Like I said, they're mostly decoration. The main reason 
I use them is that a noseband is required to show and I don't like tight 
dropped nosebands. Besides, my old mare is advanced enough to use a double 
bridle. I've found the drop noseband impossible to use with a double 
bridle. ;-)

Regards,
John

How does one measure the thickness of a bit?  When making comparisons
between 4/8" and 3/8", there's not a lot of room for error!  I assume
that I should take the measurement at the end of the mouthpiece(s)
(canons). Since the canons are usually rounded, I don't know whether 
to measure apparent width on a ruler (viewing bit from top, i.e. 
measure front to back? or viewing from behind the bit, i.e. top to bottom?)
or circumference, or some other way. If apparent width, do you just 
"eyeball" it? (now why don't I have calipers in the barn?!)

I think there are similar problems for measuring width of bit, and
it depends greatly on how the bit attaches to the rings or shanks, 
but that's a little easier for me since I can compare bits with 
known sizes.  I've found more variation with the thicknesses,
especially when trying to buy "a snaffle just like this one" in
the tack store, at the counter, with a line of people waiting 
behind me...

Having read all the previous bitting notes, I am well aware that
proper bit fit is more important than what the bit measures, in
case anyone is tempted to remind me of that fact! ;^)

    >How does one measure the thickness of a bit?  When making comparisons
    >between 4/8" and 3/8", there's not a lot of room for error!  I assume
    >that I should take the measurement at the end of the mouthpiece(s)
    >(canons). ... (now why don't I have calipers in the barn?!)
    
    Well, Carrie, you're right about where to measure the bit but the
    answer to the "how" part of your question is gonna sound a little wierd.
    You prbably *do* have calipers, if you have a tool kit in the barn, but 
    you don't know it! Mechanics call them adjustable wrenches. ;-) 
    
    Seriously, if your tool kit has a 3/8" wrench and a 1/2" wrench, you
    can use them to gauge the thickness of a bit canon. Just make sure they
    don't have any oil/grease on them. Your horses will think you're trying
    to poison them! ;-) If the 1/2" fits on the fattest part of the bit's
    canon, the canon is 1/2" or smaller. If it is quite snug, it's 1/2".
    If there's any daylight showing, it's smaller. Repeat with the 3/8"
    wrench to see if it's smaller than 3/8".
    
    If you only have an adjustable wrench, open the jaws until they measure
    1/2" and do the first test. Then, close the jaws down to 3/8".
    
    Re measuring width of bit
    I just use a cloth tape measure, the kind tailors/seamstresses/home
    sewers use. The cloth tape measure follows the arch of the bit pretty
    easily. Rulers and steel tape measures are harder to use.
    
    Re: especially when trying to buy "a snaffle just like this one" in
    >the tack store, at the counter, with a line of people waiting
    >behind me...
    
    Let 'em wait and don't feel guilty! Most tack shops won't let you
    exchange bits after they've been in the horse's mouth. So, any time you
    spend in the store trying to get it right is money saved if you don't
    have to go back for 1/4" larger/smaller size.
    
    John

    >If you only have an adjustable wrench, open the jaws until they measure
    >1/2" and do the first test. Then, close the jaws down to 3/8".
    
    Geez, why'd I say that? Must have been sleeping. I meant to say that
    you could adjust the jaws of the wrench until they just *barely* slip
    over the fattest part of the bit. Then measure the opening between the
    jaws of the wrench.
    
    John

This is why I revisited this topic and saw the adjustable wrench thing.
    
After my firend and I had that discussion about the effect of the drop
noseband, I experimented with it. It turns out that each of us was taught 
is correct but perhaps incomplete! 

I put a drop noseband on one of our horses, with my finger under the 
noseband. I adjusted the noseband so that it was as tight as I would 
normally have it. With my other hand, I applied a little pressure to a 
rein. There was a small amount of pressure on my finger.

Careful observation led me to believe that the bit acts on the corner
of the mouth which in turn stretches the lip. The stretching lip pulls 
on the strap for the noseband and, voila, there is pressure on the nose.

If that were true, then I figured that the strap wouldn't move and cause
pressure on my finger if the noseband were looser.

To test that theory, I loosened the noseband by 1 hole. There was no 
pressure on my finger due to rein action with the noseband a little 
looser. I enticed the horse to open his mouth. The action of the horse's
jaw caused substantial pressure on my finger.

I repeated the experiment with a flash noseband and found similar effects.
The bit pulls the lip and, if the lower strap is snugly fitted, pressure is 
transferred to the nose through the strap. 

So, I think it is quite clear that both the drop and flash nosebands are
as useless as the ordinary cavesson if they are loose. If they are 
adjusted snugly, they both have the dual effect of keeping the mouth 
closed and transferring a small amount of bit action to the nose. They 
would probably have slightly different effects in use due to the fact that
the pressure on the nose would be at different locations. 

John

    
    
    
    	Last Sunday my husbands horse got away from him on the trail, 
    	as she was traveling she caught her rein and put a pretty big
    	hole in her tonque.  The vet said there  was nothing you can do
        for tonque wound.. and it is healing nicely... 
    
    	Questions?
    
    	When can I start riding her again?
    
    	Would you use a rubber bit, until it completely healed?
    
    	Or a hackamore (she is a walker so I am worried she just run
    right threw it.. )
    
    	I have a bucket of bits at the barn she was on a twisted double
    	wire.  (this bit is used reg. on young walkers in training)
    
    	Thanks 
    
    	Donna
    

    
    	Donna, I am riding my walker in an eggbutt snaffle. You
    	can use any bit on a walker, unless you're at a horse 
    	show. A hackamore [properly fitted] should do you fine.
    
    	Sherry
    

    
    
    	I am so glad that you still here..   Shelly is a wonderful horse
    but, very strong.. 
    
    	I think for the weekend we might use a tie down and broken mouth 
    	piece with some of the rubber gauze, over the bit... 
    
    I think that since stepped on her rein the cut is probably lower than 
    	were the bit rests.. 
    
    	Doesn't bother her eating.. 

For several reasons, I thought I'd better update the discussion comparing the 
Dr. Bristol and French link snaffle in this note(i.e. see .12). Some of the 
reasons are:
	1. The Dr. Bristol has been banned in the dressage phase of
	   Combined Training events in the US and Canada in order to align 
	   the respective national rules with international rules.
	2. Some people have reported that the "bit checkers" at the events
	   have trouble telling the difference between the Dr. Bristol and 
	   French link snaffle
	3. There are new double jointed bits that are similar to the Dr. 
           Bristol and French snaffle but they're just different enough not 
	   to be covered explicitly by the rules.

I extracted the description of the Dr. Bristol and French bits from 
Note 1898.10  "USCTA & BHS HTG discussions". Refer to that note for more
on the rule change.

o Dr. Bristol Snaffle: Generally, double-jointed mouthpieces are joined in the
  center by a smooth, flat plate. In the Dr. Bristol family of bits, this plate
  lies at an angle to the tongue.

o French Snaffle: The French snaffle also has a plate link, but this lies flat
  all the time and the bit is therefore milder than the Dr. Bristol.

The difference is that there is a slight twist to the joint where it connects 
to the plate on the Dr. Bristol. This twist is generally about 45 degrees.

A recent rec.equestrian posting said:

|>By the way, I've been told that there is a bit on the market that acts
|>like a french snaffle but has a little roundish ball instead of the
|>link. 
|>
|>Sigh, what will they think of next!

I think those bits are called "Sofmouth" snaffles. The ones I've seen didn't 
have what I would call a ball replacing the center. The center link was 
oval and round rather than being a flat oval. The center piece is shaped 
like a cough drop(well, at least like the brand I use ;-)! 

They're probably as mild or even milder than regular French snaffles
because there's no edge to the center link. Unfortunately, they aren't 
an "approved" bit for competition in dressage because they don't
match the profiles given in the rule book. I don't know whether they would be
acceptable under the CT rules or not. The CT rules simply say double jointed
snaffle where as the dressage rule says "French snaffle and thou shalt not
deviate from the picture" and, of course, the picture shows a flat link.

According to the 1994 AHSA Rule book, the Dr Bristol is still allowed in 
straight dressage competition.

John

    Hi,
    
    Just to let you know that here in the UK the Dr Bristol has not been
    allowed to be used in any kind of dressage test at all.  The French
    Link or snaffle is permitted - the mouth piece laying flat on the
    tongue unlike the Dr Bristol.
    
    We also have people who tack check, they even check length of spurs and
    that you are wearing the correct riding attire!
    
    Wendy
    

    The following was copied from the August issue of Practical Horseman in
    the Saddle Ways & Bridle Whys section:
    
    The Question was this:
    
    "The United States Combined Training Association has recently
    disallowed Dr. Bristol bits in dressage competition, but it still
    allows French snaffles. The two three-piece bits look similar; I'm
    wondering what the difference is that's caused the USCTA to ban one but
    not the other." 
    			Barbara Havhill
    			Branchport, NY
    
    The answer from Jim Wofford was this:
    
    "Although the Dr. Bristol bit is thinner than the French snaffle,
    functionally there isn't a lot of difference between them; the
    double-jointed action of the two is basically the same. The argument
    against using the Dr. Bristol for dressage is that the bit is easy to
    place so the middle link becomes a blade against the horse's tongue,
    making the bit considerably stronger than a regular snaffle. But
    because a French snaffle can also be rotated in the mouth to create a
    blade, I think the distinction between the bits isn't really helpful;
    I'd rather see regulations forbid using either bit in this manner. I
    personally do like the French snaffle, but I'm careful to place it so
    the link is flat on the horse's tongue.
    
    	Note: Jim Wofford 
    
    "A member of the United States Equestrian Team from 1965 to 1986, Jim
    Wofford was five times US national three-day-eventing champion. He
    teaches and trains at his Fox Covert farm in Upperville, Virginia, and
    gives clinics throughout the US. His "alumni" include Karen and David
    O'Connor, Wash Bishop, Jil Walton, Bea and Derek DiGrazia, Don Sachey,
    Packy MacGaughan, and Ann Hardaway-taylor."
    
    
    Shawn

I was asked for more info about the X-ray studies of a bit's action 
in a horse's mouth. I had mentioned these studies when discussing 
bit fitting. I did some rummaging and found the articles. I'm 
posting the references as well as a summary. 

The research was done by Dr. Hilary Clayton(a vet and PhD who is 
now a professor at the Western College of Veterinary Medicine in 
Saskatchewan) and Dr. Robin Lee, PhD. The research was done while 
Dr. Clayton lived and taught in Scotland. Drs. Clayton and Lee 
published their results in The Journal of Equine Veterinary Science 
in 1984 & 1985(Vol 4 No 5 and Vol 5 No 2). Their research was also 
reported in 2 lay publications: Cornell's "Animal Health Newsletter" 
(Page 6, Vol 3 No 12, Feb 1986) and "EQUUS" (page 56, #100, Feb 1986).

They used a fluoroscope, TV monitor and VCR to record pictures of 
the action of various bits in the horse's mouth. Fluoroscopes are
X-ray machines that pass the image onto a screen rather than film.
Those of you who are "mature" enough may remember fluoroscopes from 
the shoe stores of the 1950's. They let Mom see how your new shoes fit! 

They evaluated 10 different types of bits. Sorry, Western riders. They 
didn't do Western bits but they did look at curbs and a high ported 
Pelham. So, you still might be interested. The bits included: eggbutt 
snaffle, full cheek snaffle, mullen mouth snaffle, Dr Bristol, double 
mouth snaffle(aka W mouth snaffle), mullen mouth Pelham, Hanoverian 
Pelham, Kimberwicke, double bridle bits(bradoon & curb) and a 
bar-mouthed breaking bit w/keys.

They found several things that contradict "tradition":
	1. Thicker = milder. Inaccurate. They found that the tongue 
           nearly fills the entire mouth and that bits fit by squashing 
	   the tongue. A thick bit in a small mouth = pain, not mildness

	2. Jointed snaffle = nutcracker. False. They found that pressure 
	   was evenly distributed across the tongue when both reins 
	   were used equally.

	3. Jointed snaffles allow independent rein action. False. 
	   They found that the joint transferred at least some of 
	   the rein action to the other side of the mouth.

	4. Jointed snaffles lie across the tongue & bars with the 
	   joint pointing towards the roof of the mouth. False.
           They found that the joint of a correctly sized and 
	   adjusted snaffle actually points towards a horse's front
	   teeth. If the bit is too wide or placed too low in the 
	   mouth, the joint is even closer to the front teeth. This 
	   caused the horses to play with the bit in unacceptable ways 
	   such as getting their tongue over or getting the bit between 
	   their teeth.

They also reported some *very* specific stuff about the individual bits:

1. A full cheek snaffle without keepers lies in the mouth the same 
way as the other jointed snaffles and, therefore, has the same sort 
of action. However, when keepers are added to the full cheek snaffle, 
the mouthpiece is more horizontal in the mouth. The joint no longer 
points towards the front teeth and it does not move as freely in 
the mouth. 

2. Mullen mouth w/loose rings. The curve of the mouthpiece allows 
more room for the tongue and lies higher in the mouth. They claim 
that the solid bar moves less with rein action and is more difficult 
for the horse to grab or get its tongue over. It also seems that the
solid bar and loose rings allow the horse to push against the bit 
with its tongue to counteract rein pressure.

3. Dr Bristol. Their study proved that the Dr Bristol lies *flat* 
when placed in the mouth one way and at a severe angle when placed 
the other way. This gives the bit a Jekyll & Hyde personality: it's 
either very mild or very severe depending on which way you place it.

4. Pelham w/ mullen mouth. No surprises. Using the snaffle reins 
gives effects similar to the mullen mouth snaffle. Using the curb 
reins gives a curb effect. If both sets of reins are used or a 
converter(rounding) is used, the effect is muddled because the 
snaffle action interferes with the curb action.

5. Hanoverian Pelham. This bit has a high port & long shanks. The 
high port presses on the roof of the mouth when the curb reins are 
used. This caused the horse's to open their mouths to avoid the pain. 
Since a high port & long shanks are features common to many western 
curbs, the action may be similar. 

6. The Kimberwicke is generally considered to be a variety of Pelham. 
However, the ring styles make an important difference. On the type 
with large unslotted D-rings, tradition says that the curb effect is 
achieved by the rider lowering the hands before using the reins. The 
researchers found that this is true but that the reins slip around.
Overall, this type of Kimberwicke produces less curb effect than the 
type where the reins are in a slot.

7. Double bridle. They found that the bradoon rests against the curb 
and that this changed the position of the joint in the mouth in a way 
similar to putting keepers on a full cheek snaffle: the joint points 
at the roof of the mouth rather than the front teeth. They also say 
that poll pressure is stronger on a curb than a pelham. It's hard to 
tell from the pictures but they might have been comparing bits with
different length shanks. I measured the pictures in the article and the 
curb shank seems longer. However, their finding might hold true even 
with the same shank length because the ratio beween the upper and lower 
shank lengths is different in the 2 styles of bit.

8. Breaking bit. Nothing surprising here. Sure enough the horses 
played with the keys which improves bit acceptance and keeps the mouth 
moist but they also opened their mouths to play with the bit!

John

    I was asked why I didn't include comments from the X-ray study 
    about the double mouth snaffle. well here goes
    
    First of all a description of the bit: It has 2 jointed mouthpieces.
    Each mouthpiece is made of fluted or twisted wire,usually made of copper. 
    Each mouthpiece has a long and a short arm. The long and short arms are 
    reversed in the 2 mouthpieces. so the bit has the joints offset like this:
            --0------
            ------0--
    
    The lower of the 2 mouthpieces is oriented the same way as other
    snaffles. The upper mouthpiece rests on the lower one so that the joint
    of the upper one points more toward the hard palate. They said that
    because of the offset joints the bit is difficult for the horse to move
    in its mouth. They said the horses acted as if they were very
    uncomfortable in this bit.

    Last month, I wrote to Dr. Hilary Clayton about her bitting 
research. She sent me copies of her original articles on bitting
that were published in The Journal of Equine Veterinary Science back
in 1984 & 1985. She also answered some of my questions about the 
French snaffle.


          Dear Dr. Clayton,
          [snip]
          Your work also raised some questions in my mind about the French
          link snaffle:
                   1. Since the Dr. Bristol can be set to lie flat in the
          mouth and it has a twist in the canon near the joints, doesn't
          it follow that the French snaffle with its straight canons lies
          at an angle to the tongue? If so, why is it considered a mild
          bit while the Dr. Bristol is actually banned from competition
          because people believe it is severe?

                   2. A common reason the French snaffle is used is the
          belief that it reduces the nutcracker effect of the ordinary
          jointed snaffle. Indeed, many horses are happier with the French
          snaffle than a regular eggbutt. Since your work demonstrated
          that there is little or no nutcracker effect with a jointed
          snaffle, how is the action of a French link different from that
          of an eggbutt? My guess would be that the French link allows a
          little more room for the tongue and moves some of the bit's
          action from the tongue to the bars.
          [another snip]
                                            John N. D'Addamio


          Dear John:
	  [snip]

	  In answer to your specific questions:

		1. Yes,the Dr. Bristol can be set to lie flat on the 
		tongue, but if reversed the plate lies perpendicular
		to the tongue - hence a "severe" action. The French
		snaffle lies at a slight angle to the tongue, but 
		seems to be flat enough to have a mild action.

		2. I agree that the French link is more comfortable 
		because it allows more room for the tongue, i.e. a U 
		shape instead of a V shape. Every horse's mouth has 
		a different conformation in terms of width between 
		the mandibles, fatness of the tongue, etc., and this
		has a bearing on which horses need more tongue space.

	[snip]
	Dr. Hilary M. Clayton, BVMS, PhD, MRCVS
	Professor and Head of Department of Veterinary Anatomy
	Western College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Saskatchewan
    
    
    P.S. the mandibles are the lower jawbones. 

The burning question among many riders these days, especially dressage 
riders, seems to be: "Do I need to buy one of those expensive KK
snaffles?" There are no look-alike bits being made now because the KK 
line is patented and the manufacturer enforces the patent. The KK 
snaffles are different than other bits. However, in many cases, I think 
the answer is "No, there's a cheaper bit that will work." 

Furthermore, I think we are always too ready to think of bits as
"magic bullets" and beleive that all our riding problems would be 
solved as soon as we find the right one. While it is true that you 
have to find a bit that suits your horse, you must *first* consider
your riding as part of the equation. If your seat is not 
independent or you use your hands for balance, no bit will solve 
your problem. My personal belief is that the rider(including me!)
causes 90% of the problem and therefore should be at *least* 90% of 
the solution.

I examined KK bits in a couple local tack shops and checked their prices 
against catalog prices. The lowest price I could find either in a shop or 
a catalog was $80. (Hint: State Line does not have the lowest price; 
My local tack shop and another catalog offered them for $80.) One place 
wanted $100 for the bit. I found 2 things that distinguish them from
ordinary snaffles: the metal and the shape. I'll discuss those 
differences and the alternative bits.

Here's what one catalog says about the KK bits: "Made by Herm 
Sprenger in Germany...The KK's unique mouthpiece shifts pressure 
away from the lips and corners of the mouth and towards the middle 
of the tongue...[made] of German silver metal, a superb alloy for 
bits because of its high copper content."

ABOUT THE METAL

One catalog says that German Silver is "a unique composition of brass, 
nickel and copper. The copper causes the German silver alloy to oxidize...
[which] stimulates the production of saliva. As a result, the 
horse's mouth becomes softer and more responsive. ... German silver 
bits are somewhat heavier than conventional and hollow mouth bits." 

Other catalogs say German Silver is copper, nickel and zinc rather 
than brass. That's the nature of alloys; they vary in composition 
from one manufacturer to another. In fact, brass is an alloy
of copper and zinc w/varying (lesser) amounts of various other
metals. So, these 2 definitions aren't *that* far apart!

German silver is a very soft metal. It will wear faster than 
stainless steel. Because it oxidizes when exposed to saliva, it 
will wear more quickly than you think. Oxidation is the same process 
that produces rusting so think how quickly rusty metal wears...
In the days before stainless steel, people often found that snaffles
wore thin at the joints and then broke in use. So, watch for wear
around the joints. Don't worry; we're talking years and years; not 
months. The other thing about oxidation: It dulls the metal. You have 
to polish the metal if you want it to shine.

Because of the nickel content, you can't put German silver in the 
dishwasher. They turn a blackish green which is more nuisance to 
clean off than horse spit...

Apparently, these drawbacks caused Herm Sprenger to start making the 
KK's in another alloy they call Aurigan. Aurigan is 80-85% 
copper(depending on which catalog you believe) and has no nickel content. 
This alloy is said to be very strong. But, it's still softer than steel 
which is why they make the bit rings out of stainless steel! Because 
it has no nickel, you can probably put it in the dishwasher. 


ABOUT THE SHAPE

Basically, the KK snaffle is a loose ring, double jointed bit. If 
you want another ring type, you're out of luck! It looks very similar 
to a French link snaffle with an unusual shaped link. The link is 
rounded instead of flat. 

The only other difference I can see is that the joints of the KK are at 
right angles to those of a French snaffle. Look at the circles at the 
joint of a regular snaffle: one side lays flat and the other is straight 
up and down so it goes through the one that lays flat. 

Now look at a French snaffle. The flat plate in the middle forms one 
half of the joints. So, they had to use the straight-up-and-down part 
of a regular snaffle joint for the other half of the joints. If they 
used the flat half of the joint, the plate would stand on edge in 
the horse's mouth.

By changing the center link to a round shape, the KK bit designers 
could blend the straight-up-and-down half of the joint into the 
center link. The other half of the joints could then lay flat.

The result is a change in the weight distribution of the bit. I 
compared the KK to both a French snaffle and to an ordinary loose ring 
snaffle. All bits were of similar thickness and made of German Silver. 
I compared weight distribution by laying the bits across my hand. The 
KK distributed its weight evenly across my hand. The other bits put more 
of their weight toward the outside of my hand. I suspect that this is 
what the catalog meant by "shifts pressure away from the lips and corners 
of the mouth and towards the middle of the tongue." I then compared the 
KK's weight distribution to a Mullen mouth snaffle and found them to be 
similar. Unfortunately, the Mullen mouth was stainless steel so the 
comparison isn't exact.

One catalog shows a drawing of the KK snaffle as having the branches 
of the bit being markedly curved. I didn't notice such a curve in the 
bits I saw. I checked my observations against those of another 
person and believe that the catalog's drawing exaggerates the shape.
Even if the shape were the same as shown in the drawing, it ain't all 
that unique. I have a $20 stainless steel snaffle that I bought years 
ago that has a similar shape.


THE ALTERNATIVES

I've said that I found 3 positive things about the KK bits:
	1. They're made made of a material which encourages a 
		wet/soft mouth
	2. They're double jointed so they won't hit the roof of the 
		horse's mouth
	3. The center link being round causes even weight distribution
		across the tongue

Since I have both Mullen mouth and French snaffles at home, I'd try
one of them before I spent $80 for a double jointed snaffle that
had a weight distribution similar to the Mullen mouth.

You'll hear lots of testimonials about how KK bits improved this 
horse or that horse. Most of the time, the rider will say something 
like "The weight of the bit helped my horse accept the bit" or "My 
horse's mouth got wetter and softer with the KK." Well, according to
the catalogs quoted earlier, those effects are caused by the
German silver metal rather than the shape of the bit.

The Miller's, Libertyville, Dover Saddlery and State Line catalogs 
*ALL* have German silver snaffles of various types in the $20 - $40
price range. In fact, Miller's has a loose ring French snaffle 
in German silver for $28. Libertyville has a full cheek French 
snaffle for $40. I'd try one of those *long* before I'd pay $80-$100 
for a KK!

A possible advantage that the KK line has over the other German silver 
snaffles are that they come in 3 thicknesses 14mm(0.55"), 18mm(0.71") 
and 21mm(0.83") and widths up to 6". Personally, I would not buy a 
21mm thick snaffle. They're just too thick for most horses. One bitting 
book I read said that the thicker the snaffle, the better except that 
there is no need for a snaffle thicker than 3/4"(i.e. 0.75"). I've found 
that to be true with my own horses and, therefore, would not consider a 
21mm thick bit. 

Miller's catalog shows loose ring, D-ring and eggbutt snaffles in German 
silver. Some of the styles offer 2 thicknesses. However, none come wider 
than 5 1/2" and most are only available in 5". State Line carries the 
same brand(Korsteel) but I didn't see all the same bits. Libertyville has 
loose ring, D-ring, eggbutt and full cheek German silver snaffles. All 
styles come in 5" and 5 1/2" but only one thickness. Other catalogs may 
have similar variety. 

Let's go back to the German silver for a minute. It's the copper in
the alloy that causes the wetter/softer mouth effect. Copper mouth bits 
will do that too. So will bits made of sweet iron or flavored 
plastic. Practically every catalog carries bits with copper or 
plastic mouthpieces. For example, Miller's has copper mouth
eggbutts, full cheeks and D-rings for under $25. The other catalogs
have similar bits and prices. Consider one of those or a plastic bit. 
(Be careful; some of the plastic bits are strange shapes and 
therefore not permitted in dressage competitions or the dressage 
portion of 3-day competitions.) The Libertyville catalog also carries 
a few sweet iron snaffles for something like $28.

SUMMARY

Here is a list of alternatives to the KK that I found in catalogs:
	1. Unbroken mouth snaffle(flavored plastic or stainless steel)
	2. French snaffle(German Silver or stainless steel)
	3. Ordinary snaffles(German Silver, copper, sweet iron or 
				flavored plastic)

All these bits have at least one of the positive features of the KK. 
If you have one or more of these already(or can borrow them), try 
them. If what I had didn't work, I'd examine the horse's mouth.
Many horses have mouths that will accept an ordinary single 
jointed snaffle if the bit isn't too thick. I'd try one that was made 
of a "slobber starting" material. If the horse's mouth had a flat roof 
or big tongue, I'd try a German Silver French snaffle or an unbroken 
plastic mouth bit first.

In short, I'd try a KK if I wanted a German silver bit for a horse that 
had a dry mouth or some bit acceptance problem(e.g. tosses the bit around 
with their tongue) *AND* had a mouth that didn't suit the German silver 
snaffles offered by other manufacturers. 


YMMV
John

Do you ride in a double bridle? If you get any of the dressage 
specialty catalogs, you've probably seen these marvelous German curb
bits in various styles for prices tags like $125 - $175 ... A little 
steep for your pocket book? Rejoice! There are alternatives.

Most of those high priced curbs are expensive only because they're
German. Most are made of German silver. Some are made of the 
Aurigan alloy. 

Those bits are very nice and well designed. The upper cheeks spread 
so that they don't rub the horse's cheek/lips. (Straight upper 
cheeks can rub because the horse's head widens above the mouth). 
Some have special features like wider ports, lower ports etc.

However, most of these bits aren't patented so there are look-alikes 
made in stainless steel. I recently bought such a bit for $30 at my 
local tack shop. They ordered it from the Eiser's catalog. (Eiser's 
won't take orders from individuals anymore so you have to go through 
a tack shop.) It's medium thick with a wide & low port; the upper 
cheeks spread properly; the ratio between the upper & lower cheeks 
is ideal; the balance is perfect; The German made one is $130.

Some of the styles are also available in German silver from other 
manufacturers/suppliers. For example, Korsteel makes a Mullen mouth 
and a standard port Weymouh curb in German silver. Miller's offers 
them for $45. The medium thick, wide & low port stainless steel curb 
I bought? I saw the same bit made of German silver for $50 in the 
Libertyville catalog. In fact, Libertyville has a least 5 German 
silver curbs of the Serlohn Stahl brand for $50. The German made 
versions are $125 - $145.

So, next time you need a curb, don't just buy what's in the dressage
specialty catalogs! You might be able to save yourself $100 bucks if
you do a little looking.

John

    
    My friends new horse (Gem) a 3yr old Morgan, keeps his tounge OVER the
    bit.  We can not keep his toung under the bit.
    
    We were told my our instructor that sometimes a egg butt helps, cause
    it fatter - we tried the egg butt, but it has not worked.  
    
    We put on the bridle and then physically take his toung and put it
    under the bit - then we put on a flash nose band and try to sinch it up
    quick before he gets his toung over - but he's too quick for us.
    
    He keeps this tounge over no matter what - if he is just standing, or
    on a nice walking trail ride or in the ring.. what can we do?
    
    He has no teeth problems at all.
    
    I'm sure he does it becasue he's young, will he grow out of it, or is
    this something that will get worse?
    
    Louisa

    Louisa,
    
    Not all eggbutt snaffles are thick. You can get 'em thick, and you can
    get 'em thin. How high in his mouth is the bit (how many wrinkles in
    each corner of his mouth)?  Can you make it any highter without it
    being uncomfortable?
    
    One of the boarders in our barn has a horse that has a tendency to do
    something similar - he used to hang his tongue out the side of his
    mouth. I'm not sure whether it was over the bit ot not.  What she did
    was 1) use a bit with a port so it was more difficult, and 2) when she
    went back to a snaffle, she added a large wad of latex around the joint
    - about golf ball sized.  It seems to have done the trick for her - I
    haven't seen the horse's tongue in over a year.
    
    ymmv
    kathy

    
    The egg butt that we have is thick.
    
    There are 3 wrinkels and we can't really make it tighter.
    
    I to had a friend who's horse hung his tounge out the side, but he
    didn't hang it out with the toung over the bit - it was under  like it
    should be.
    
    Someone sugguested a Dr. Bristle bit ?
    
    

    Been there! And w/ a 3 YO Morgan. The tongue over the bit trick
    is one reason I never use those "breaking bits" with toys on them. It
    teaches the youngster too many tongue tricks.
    
    Anyway, back to the question...
    
    Some common causes of horses getting their tongues over the bit are:
    	1. Bit adjusted too low in the mouth and/or
    	2. Bit is too wide (e.g. a 5 1/2" when the colt needs a 4 3/4")
    	3. The bit is uncomfortable for his tongue so he pulls it out to
    	   get relief.
    	4. Young horses like to play and this seems like fun
    
    Problems 1-3 can be easily fixed by using a bit that suits the horse's
    mouth and adjusting it correctly or perhaps even a little higher than I
    would ordinarily do (e.g. 2 wrinkles) 
    
    If the colt has a tongue that seems too big for his jaw, I'd try a
    bit that provides some tongue relief(French snaffle, Dr Bristol or 
    a mullen mouth snaffle). The Herm Springer company makes a KK snaffle
    with a port that might be useful too but they're very expensive and the
    soft metal wouldn't hold up well aginst a colt's chewing teeth.
    
    With the 3YO Morgan in my case, I found the Dr Bristol worked well
    because the middle piece is larger than the middle piece of a French
    snaffle. That made it harder to get the tongue over. Just be sure you 
    put the Dr Bristol in so that the plate lays flat over the tongue. 
    (The other way it stands on edge)
    
    I tried fatter bits including rubber or rubber covered bits which are
    huge. Also tried wrapping latex on steel bits. None of them helped.
    
    If a good fitting comfortable bit adjusted slightly higher doesn't stop
    the tongue games, the colt's a "player". In that case, I'd go to a
    Pelham of a kind which has a port. She can use just one rein attached
    to the snaffle rings if she doesn't want to use two sets of reins. A
    good sort of Pelham for this purpose is the Kimberwicke with rein slots 
    in the D-rings. The Kimberwicke is usually used w/ one pair of reins.
    Use the upper slot and it's just a ported snaffle. 
    
    
    Whatever she does, she should *NOT* use a tighter noseband. It won't
    help.
    
    Once the horse learns not to stick the tongue over, she can switch to 
    French snaffle or even an eggbut.
    
    
    John

    >The egg butt that we have is thick.
    
    Maybe it's *TOO* thick. A bit that's too thick is uncomfortable for a
    horse's tongue. (The tongue gets squashed). See my post of a few
    minutes ago. Tongue discomfort is a primary cause of getting the tongue
    over the bit. Try a thinner bit, especially a French snaffle or a 
    Mullen mouth with a nice arch to it.
    
    >There are 3 wrinkels and we can't really make it tighter.
    
    It's already too tight. Try loosening it until there are NO wrinkles.
    

    
    We seemed to have fixed the toung over the bit problem.  We tried the
    Dr. Bristle etc - but with in seconds (a blink of the eye) Gem had his
    toung over the bit.  Our vet suggusted we try a thick stright rubber
    bit.  We did, and Gem could no longer get his tounge over.
    
    He only fussed for less then 10min, and they he just went on his way
    and enjoyed his trail ride.  We did the whole ride with the tounge
    where it should be.  The next day, we went to ride we thought Gem would
    fuss again, but he didn't.
    
    We hope to only use this bit for a week or so, then switch to a thinner
    straight rubber bit and then take it from there.  We hope to have him
    back in a snaffel in a month.
    
    Louisa

You can get straight (no joint) rubber 'dogbone' snaffles, if you 
want to keep using that style bit.

    
    We don't want to keep using that bit.  Once we start to show Gem, that
    kind of bit is not allowed.
    
    We are on the 5th day of riding and Gem has not put his tounge over
    once and he is not fussing at all :-)
    
    Lou

    
    In what type of show are you planning to show in that doesn't
    allow a straight rubber snaffle?  (Just for my editifcation)
    
    Mary Jo 
    

    
    Dressage.  They requier a 1 jointed bit.  Not even the Dr. Bristol is
    allowed (since it has 2 joints) and since the rubber bit has no joint,
    it would not be allowed.
    
    We just completed hunter pace this weekend with the straight rubber bit
    and Gem was a "gem" :-)
    
    Lou

    I thought a 'kk' bit was allowed, and it has two joints.  You might
    want to look into the allowed bit issue further.  I thought a 'mullen
    mouth' snaffle was allowed, this has no joint.  These are all in "tack 
    in the box" the mullen mouth is advertized for 'horses with a low plate
    and/or those who do not like tongue pressure.  The arched shape of the
    mouthpiece allows ample room for the tonque.'  Your horse dentist would
    be able to tell you if your horse has a low pallet or thick tonque.
    
    The rulebook would tell us for sure about the bits and I don't have
    one.  There was an article in Dressage today on this, I'll try to find
    it.

    Lou,
    
    You're wrong. I don't know who told you that dressage rules require a
    single jointed bit but they are dead-wrong. AHSA rules specifically
    allow the Dr Bristol, the French snaffle and the KK snaffle (all double
    jointed bits). Furthermore, FEI rules allow the French snaffle as a
    bradoon in a double bridle. Unjointed bits are also allowed under AHSA
    rules as are rubber or rubber covered bits.
    
    So, if this bit works well, there is no reason you can't show under
    AHSA rules with it. Now, if you're talking about some unrecognized 
    schooling show put on by a local organization, that may be different
    but they usually follow AHSA rules too just for convenience.

    
    I was talking about small schooling shows.  and I remember when I ran one
    3yrs ago, we were told that we had to have a person at the gate and we
    had to stick our fingers in the horses mouth and make sure that that
    bit had 1 joint, anything else would be disqualified.
    
    now, I don't own an omnibus, I was  just goint by experience.
    
    Lou

I'd get a copy of the rule book(s), read it carefully, and when
you want to go to any schooling shows, make sure you know what
rules they are following, and bring the rule books with you in 
case you need backup reference.  If necessary, call the show 
organizers to find out what rules they are following, if it is not
clearly stated in the prize list.

There's no reason why a straight bar snaffle (rubber or otherwise) 
should not be allowed. With the proliferation of double-jointed bits 
these days, if the bit is a french link or Dr. Bristol, I would be 
prepared - know the difference between the two, and be prepared to 
unbridle to show that you are using the correct bit.

kathy