External safety on a Striker fired pistol

[Southpaw]

3 hours ago, RJH said:

On the striker fired guns, the safety does not have to be applied at MR, or when it's dumped, as long as the trigger safety is operable.  For guns with a hammer and a decocker or safety, if the hammer is back, the safety must be applied.  If the hammer is down, no safety.

Regards,

Troy

So what about the Sig 320?  It's a striker fired gun with no manual safety or trigger safety!  Is the 320 now illegal for USPSA?   Is the striker fully cocked on the 320 a la M&P and XD or partially cocked like a Glock?

[Schutzenmeister]

9 hours ago, Southpaw said:

So what about the Sig 320?  It's a striker fired gun with no manual safety or trigger safety!  Is the 320 now illegal for USPSA?   Is the striker fully cocked on the 320 a la M&P and XD or partially cocked like a Glock?

 

OK ... Now we're just being silly.  The P320 is specifically listed as approved on the PD list.  I don't think we need to look any further than that.

[Schutzenmeister]

13 hours ago, Nik Habicht said:

8.1.2.4 only gives you final authority if the gun is a single action pistol or a selective action pistol.  [...]

I'm not sure you find an arb committee to uphold the DQ.  I'm not likely to vote to uphold for this scenario.....

 

10 hours ago, Nik Habicht said:

Mike -- I agree with you, if the RM is "within the scope of final authority" in the rulebook.  [...]

 

Here's where I think you and I are looking at 8.1.2.4 differently.  I think what you are saying is that the rule authorizes the RM to determine if the gun is SA or DA and then apply the thumb safety rule accordingly.  What I'm trying to say is the rule acknowledges there can be doubt on this matter:  "[...] In the event of doubt, the Range Master is the final authority on this matter. [...]"  I think that can be read as if there is doubt as to whether or not the shooter should apply the safety, the RM is the final authority.  It says nothing about having to determine what the actual action of the gun is.  RMs can be in doubt too!  This RM chose to err on the side of caution and require the safety be applied.  (More on this in a minute ...)

 

Let's look at the timeline here as it presents itself in the thread:

 

- Question arises, doubt exists, RM is called.

- RM reviews the situation, scratches his head, and makes the best call he can, and to the best of his belief, consistent with the rules:  Apply the safety.

- A 3rd party (RJH - Again, thanks!) says he has information from DNROI that contradicts the RMs decision.  The RM places a call to the Director (simulated here by asking RJH to provide copies of the communication for review) to clarify the situation.

- The shooter then decides to ignore the RMs decision, NOT apply the safety, and proceed with his run with the stated intend of fighting it out in arbitration.  (Nik - YOU handed me this one!)

- AFTER all the above transpired, the RM receives his simulated reply from the Director and finds he needs to reverse his original ruling.

 

OK - Given this timeline and sequence of events, I would still DQ the shooter.  I would have reversed my call and allowed the shooter to do exactly what he desired had he waited and given me the chance to so do.  He did not.  (Remember Nik, you effectively established the sequence of events here.)  I believe the RM had given the shooter a reasonable direction, within the rules, and the shooter deliberately chose to ignore those instructions.  We're no longer talking about a 10.5.11 DQ ... The charge is now 10.6.1 for failure to follow the reasonable directions of a Match Official.

 

Everyone, please remember ... This has been an "academic exercise."  No real shooters were harmed in the discussions here!  I strongly believe a shooter is never justified in ignoring the directions of a Match Official ... especially when that official is the RM.  The shooter clearly does so at his own peril.  The proper way for the shooter to resolve the situation is to ask to go down the line-up and not be required to shoot until the RM has the chance to confer with another authority - in this case, the DNROI.  I believe the shooter, in this case, would deserve a DQ for taking it upon himself to publically flout the RM's call as opposed to seeking an administrative remedy prior to taking his place on the line.

 

Also - Note I have withdrawn my argument concerning the application of the safety - just as I would have done in the field, given the chance.  However, should the shooter take the path of "Screw you, RM - I'm going to do it anyway and bet I can beat you in arbitration ..."  Well, he needs to consider there's more than one tool in the bag.  I'm really NOT on a power trip here, but generally speaking, it's not wise to flagrantly piss on the RM ...

[Nik Habicht]

Mike -- I'm fine with most of the above argument.  I'm not certain that you get to reverse a DQ under 10.5.11 only to immediately reinstate under 10.6 -- and I'm not sure that a DQ holds up under 10.6 if you cite both rules at the moment of disqualifying a competitor (hypothetically me :-) ).  I'd argue that it's tough to call a "wrong call" a reasonable call -- especially if the competitor is also an experienced CRO.  [Translation -- the hypothetical competitor has put his time into studying the rules, and is certain that his start position is legal because his gun falls under 8.1.2.2 ]

 

Two things are certain: I would never put us into that position on the range by disregarding your ruling, and while I'd semi-confidently argue the 10.5.11 DQ, I like my chances a lot less under 10.6.

 

Thanks for the education, Mike -- I got something out of this thread and more specifically out of your arguments.  :-)  

[Sarge]

Issuing a 10.6 for this seems spiteful more than anything. The way I have heard it 10.6 DQ's are EXTREMELY rare. That's because they are used in EXTREME situations. 

 The analogy I received when I asked about it was, "I think I can count on two hands the number of 10.6's issued in the sport". Are we really going to start counting our toes over this when there are obvious examples of cases where disrepute was brought upon the sport and 10.6 was not used?

[Schutzenmeister]

I've been an RO for over 20 years now and an RM for the last 5 or so.  I've never personally issued a 10.6.1 DQ, nor do I recall one at any match I've worked.  I came close to issuing one about a year and a half ago, but the shooter finally got the message and complied with my instructions.  (It was a safety issue.)

 

That said, my "academic" response to the situation Nik presented was intended to illustrate there are other tools available to the official, if really needed.  Nik and I haven't seen each other in years, but he does know me.  I'm pretty sure he understands and we both know it is unlikely the situation would actually unfold in this manner.  However ...

 

Kevin - You and I are both retired military.  We've both seen situations where someone has done something really dumb and we had little choice but to deal with it ... using whatever tools were available to us at the time.  Can't say I necessarily liked having to use those tools, but that didn't mean I didn't know what they were or how to use them.  I suspect you have your own recollections along those lines ...

[Sarge]

1 hour ago, Schutzenmeister said:

I've been an RO for over 20 years now and an RM for the last 5 or so.  I've never personally issued a 10.6.1 DQ, nor do I recall one at any match I've worked.  I came close to issuing one about a year and a half ago, but the shooter finally got the message and complied with my instructions.  (It was a safety issue.)

 

That said, my "academic" response to the situation Nik presented was intended to illustrate there are other tools available to the official, if really needed.  Nik and I haven't seen each other in years, but he does know me.  I'm pretty sure he understands and we both know it is unlikely the situation would actually unfold in this manner.  However ...

 

Kevin - You and I are both retired military.  We've both seen situations where someone has done something really dumb and we had little choice but to deal with it ... using whatever tools were available to us at the time.  Can't say I necessarily liked having to use those tools, but that didn't mean I didn't know what they were or how to use them.  I suspect you have your own recollections along those lines ...

Of course! Thanks for your service!!

But, I rarely recommended an article 15 when a good ass chewing would get the same result. 

 

[Schutzenmeister]

5 minutes ago, Sarge said:

Of course! Thanks for your service!!

But, I rarely recommended an article 15 when a good ass chewing would get the same result. 

 

PM Sent ...

[.45 ACP nut]

Thank you,  RJH for your inquiry to Troy and for posting the exchange.