kcobean

I've watched myself in a few videos at local matches just before and after the MD state match, and I can see exactly what I'm doing wrong. I shuffle between shooting positions rather than sprinting up on my toes. I enter shooting positions and THEN present the gun, I pause before leaving shooting positions. I feel like I'm moving fast but the videos say otherwise. I can easily see 75+ percent of the time difference between me and the top shooters occurring during non-shooting clock time. At least it's easy to see where I need to improve.

I agree! I'm the CRO that DQ'd the shooter in question and while I didn't agree with the RM at the time, having had time after the fact to walk through the specific definition of "loading" and to analyze the scenario against all of the other possibly applicable rules, I'm glad he overturned my decision and allowed the shooter to continue. The real bummer is that the shooter brought a known bad gun to a major match and ultimately it ruined his match because he took a zero for the stage. There's a lesson there too.

You didn't think this through very well did you? Let me show you how easy it is for someone who lives in the overwhelming majority of the states with no stupid limits to cross over from IDPA SSP to USPSA Production (with a 15 round limit): stick five more rounds in the magazine. Man, that was a tough barrier to overcome......... I have yet to hear a solid, non-refutable reason why USPSA Production should not be 15 rounds like IPSC. Other than: because 'Murica..... Take a look through the production gun list and tell me how many guns on that list won't hold 15 rounds. Hint: There are a LOT.

No.... Production is Production 10. I don't see what's so hard to understand about having a division that by rule makes competition about the shooter and not the gun. The round limitation is an arbitrary number. I don't think it matters whether it's 7 rounds, 10 rounds, or 15 rounds. The point is to have everyone adhering to the same gun standard. If you want your gun or ammo capacity to factor in to the competition, shoot a division that allows modification and or unrestricted capacity. The divisons seem just right the way they are, IMO.

My XDm 9 holds 19+1 from the factory. In a division that by design levels the playing field so it's more about shooter than equipment, that would give me a competitive advantage over a guy using 10 round Glock mags because that's all he can own where he lives. As for the question of "why not 15 instead of 10", same reason IMO. 15 rounds is a huge competitive advantage over 10 rounds. on a 32 round field course, that's 2 reloads instead of 3. That's a 1 second difference to the average shooter. Production is a great division if you want it to be all about the shooter (for the most part). For people who enjoy the technology of the game and being able to tweak their gun, Limited is the ticket. I think Production is exactly as it should be.

Hi Kevin. Fellow Northern Virginian here (Sterling). Lots of matches around our area! You shot the MD State match didn't you? Your name looks familiar.

Can you tell me what the Height-over-bore is on a Springfield XD compared to, say a 1911? How about grip angle? It's pretty much the same height over bore and the same grip angle, just a double stack so it's wider. Plastic frame so it's lighter. It does flip more. If you want a low bore go with the M&P, Glock or the lowest and most controllable would be the CZ. This was the point I wanted to make. As much as I hear the high bore-axis myth about the XD, the gun was purposefully modeled after the 1911, which last I checked, is a pretty respected firearm in competitive circles. I put probably 8k rounds through my M and the only failure to cycle I ever had was due to an ammo problem.

Can you tell me what the Height-over-bore is on a Springfield XD compared to, say a 1911? How about grip angle?

That seems very logical to me. Thanks.

Xd all the way if that's what you have. I shot an XDm for 3 years and it never failed me. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Gary let me pose this question to you: If the RM had NOT been able to replicate the issue, what would the correct call have been?

Hi Gary. In this case it is an unsafe gun *because* it is broken, correct? And since the shooter did not technically commit any of the DQ-able actions defined in Chapter 10, he would be covered by 5.7.7 & 5.7.7.1, which would entitle him to a re-shoot (which I believe is exactly the guidance you gave). I think the question is whether 10.4 and its sub-paragraphs are concise enough. Specifically if there is an exclusion for detonations (10.4.3.1), should there be a specific inclusion in 10.4.3 to specify that a gun that slam-fires (and yes that term would need to be added to the rule book as well) is considered a violation and thus a DQ? i.e. I'm envisioning a rule like this: 10.4.3.2 Exception -- A slam fire that can be reproduced (in accordance with 5.7.7.1) shall not be subject to match disqualification. or 10.4.3.2 A slam fire that can be reproduced (in accordance with 5.7.7.1) shall be considered to have occurred during loading/reloading and will be subject to match disqualification Glossary: Slam Fire - An accidental discharge that occurs at the moment the firearm goes into battery after loading or reloading, but without the trigger being pulled.

On your first statement, no not really. This whole thread started because of a "slam fire" (or in this case hammer follow) in a pistol. After the beep, the competitor inserted a mag in his unloaded gun and when he racked the slide and the slide returned to battery the gun went off. Here's the rundown: a: he wasn't moving or he'd have DQ'd under 10.4.6. b: he didn't send the round over the berm or he'd have DQ'd under 10.4.1. c: The round didn't strike the ground within 10 feet of him or he'd have DQ'd under 10.4.2. d: His finger wasn't on the trigger or he'd have DQ'd under 10.5.9. This was confirmed by the RM after the fact, as the RM was able to reproduce the condition. e: Because the gun was in battery with a fully inserted mag, per the strict definition of "loading", the action of loading was completed, so it's not a DQ per 10.4.3 So apparently the ruling is that the discharge was not a punishable action per any rule in Chapter 10 of the rulebook. The question to DNROI is this: Should a slam-fire that occurs upon the slide's return to battery be considered a shot that occurs during loading/reloading or not. As strictly defined by the current rule-book, it's not. But it is clearly not an intentionally fired shot. The shooter has one hand on the gun and is not in the process of engaging a target. It's an uncommon circumstance, but it happens and it should (In my humble opinion) be clarified. "e: Because the gun was in battery with a fully inserted mag, per the strict definition of "loading", the action of loading was completed, so it's not a DQ per 10.4.3" Your point "e" conclusion is not correct, nor is that an application of "the strict definition". Please recognize that you didn't quote the USPSA rulebook definition of "loading" (you omitted an important part), and that the definition also includes the clause "and ready to fire". See my posts (#47, #64, #66) and recognize that per the USPSA rulebook definition of "loading", the definition wasn't satisfied, and therefor was not completed. Per the USPSA rulebook rules and definitions 10.4.3 is the correct outcome. Respectfully, ac "ready to fire" is a direct reference, per the rulebook, to the firearm itself, NOT the shooter. The firearm was ready to fire..we know this because it did. If a firearm either via a trigger pull or other means, discharges a round through the barrel, it was in a "ready to fire" condition. I'm not sure how that's not clear or how I didn't apply the strict definition. ETA: I reviewed your posts (numbered above) and I completely disagree with your highly philosophical (and frankly irrelevant) assumption that in order for a firearm to be "ready to fire", it must also be "ready to not fire". It doesn't really matter what I think of course, but I don't think your line of thinking is going to get much traction in this argument one way or the other. Just sayin'.

Just to clarify, in your previous post you said "An AD is a DQ, anytime", not "An AD is an AD". That's why I said "not really"....This thread about the possibility that an AD is NOT a DQ in this one circumstance and whether it should or shouldn't be. I *think* the upshot is that DNROI is taking this up with the RMI Corps to decide if a clarification or change to the rules/definitions is appropriate. As a CRO, I have no emotional investment one way or the other. I just need a clear set of rules to apply and I'm good to go. IF DNROI comes back and says the rules as they are written are sufficient and this particular instance should not be a DQ, that's ok with me. If they change the rules to indicate that an AD resulting from a verifiably malfunctioning gun is on the shooter and thus an DQ, I'm ok with that too. As for the term slam fire, it IS what happened. I could say "broken gun" or "equipment malfunction" but it's quite different than something like a broken striker spring in that it caused a gun to fire inadvertently, which puts "broken gun" into "unsafe" territory. But I see what you're saying..it's an "undefined term" per the rulebook.

On your first statement, no not really. This whole thread started because of a "slam fire" (or in this case hammer follow) in a pistol. After the beep, the competitor inserted a mag in his unloaded gun and when he racked the slide and the slide returned to battery the gun went off. Here's the rundown: a: he wasn't moving or he'd have DQ'd under 10.4.6. b: he didn't send the round over the berm or he'd have DQ'd under 10.4.1. c: The round didn't strike the ground within 10 feet of him or he'd have DQ'd under 10.4.2. d: His finger wasn't on the trigger or he'd have DQ'd under 10.5.9. This was confirmed by the RM after the fact, as the RM was able to reproduce the condition. e: Because the gun was in battery with a fully inserted mag, per the strict definition of "loading", the action of loading was completed, so it's not a DQ per 10.4.3 So apparently the ruling is that the discharge was not a punishable action per any rule in Chapter 10 of the rulebook. The question to DNROI is this: Should a slam-fire that occurs upon the slide's return to battery be considered a shot that occurs during loading/reloading or not. As strictly defined by the current rule-book, it's not. But it is clearly not an intentionally fired shot. The shooter has one hand on the gun and is not in the process of engaging a target. It's an uncommon circumstance, but it happens and it should (In my humble opinion) be clarified.

I have seen one in 4 years. As an RO in major matches I have run well over a thousand shooters. Over 1200 just last month at the World Shoot. He was making ready and when he dropped the slide, the hammer followed and the gun went off. Finger clearly out of the the trigger guard. The gun was pointed in a safe direction, in fact the bullet hit a target. I know him and he is very good about keeping his guns in good working order. In this case a new part failed. I have seen only one, but it was at an outlaw gun match a couple of years ago. The competitor was making ready with his pistol and the gun went off when he stroked the slide. The guy running him cleared him, he went and got a new gun, then shot the CoF--yes, they gave him a reshoot. He never shot the stage, right? This happened before the beep? Then it's not a reshoot per se..... it was an "outlaw" match... I think his point was not that the shooter shouldn't have gotten a re-shoot, it's that because the AD happened before the start signal, a "shoot" never occurred in the first place, no score was recorded, thus to call a second attempt a "re-shoot" is technically inaccurate. The first attempt at the CoF was the one that happened after the gun was replaced with a backup.

The stuck feeling just before lock in is probably the mag catch spring loading up as the mag goes by the catch. That's normal. Have you pulled your follower and spring out to see if the mags will drop free without a follower in it?

That's correct. The shooter was about 3 feet behind the table in the make ready position. He got the start signal, stepped forward to the table, picked up his gun, a mag, stuffed the mag in the gun, racked the slide and when the gun went in to battery it fired. So does your original input still stand? Was the shooter good to go or DQ'd?

Here's my heartburn with the way these rules are structured. If you pick up a gun off a table, put in a mag, rack the slide and the gun fires into the dirt 20 feet in front of you, you're ok (that's the current discussion). However if you were to pick up the gun and begin moving to a shooting position 6 feet away while inserting the mag and racking the slide and the gun fired and the round hit in the exact same location, you'd be DQ'd because 10.4.6 makes no exception for a slam fire, it says that a shot that occurs while moving, except while actually shooting at targets. Why is one ok, the other is not? There should either be a specific clarification to say that slam-fires that do not violate 10.4.1 or 10.4.2 are allowed, or a clarification that says a shot fired while not engaging targets is a DQ.

Out of battery detonations are specifically excluded per 10.4.3.1 Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hey guys, so here's the update: I did two things: 1. I switched to 200gr Bayou bullets and loading them on 4.3 grains of N320. 2. I had a smith look at the gun. The barrel link pin was loose and it seemed like the accuracy would come and go depending on whether the pin was centered or sitting off to one side. He replaced it with an oversized pin that is pressed in. The gun is now accurate as can be. Here's a video of me shooting Stage 9 of the Maryland State Championship. 28 pieces of steel, all at pretty good distances: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOo2yvGn33w

Very interesting and educational thread. I guess when it comes right down to it, we are allowed to have AD's, as long as they don't go in an unsafe direction or occur when moving (and not aiming at targets). We generally don't DQ people for a gun that doubles or triples either as long as the shots don't go in the defined unsafe directions. I assume everyone present agreed that the shooter was standing stock still loading his gun, right? As a mathematician, I tend to think of the loading process as a closed interval, including the endpoints, so that the exact moment the slide closes is still part of the loading process, and the very next quantum unit of time is NOT during the loading process. I think reasonable people could argue both sides of that, so a clarification that explicitly declares slam-fire or hammer follow as a non-dq (when not moving) would not be a bad idea imho. Yes he was standing completely still when the AD occurred. His next action would have been to engage a target directly in front of him prior to moving. And I agree...a clarification stating that a slam-fire or hammer-follow AD (that does not create or occur under conditions specified in other rules) is NOT a DQ offense is a good idea.

And there ya have it. As I told you at the match when you overturned the DQ....I firmly support the RM even if I don't agree with him so we can move on. But like you, I wanted to dig around and see if it was the correct call after the fact. No ego, just a desire to be a more knowledgeable CRO. You know you're in a grey area when even the RMI/NROI Instructors have differing opinions on the matter. Now, the question is, although this is a rare situation, should NROI publish an amendment to clarify that a slide-fire or slam-fire during reload is not a DQ? Thanks for jumping in to the thread. I think this was productive for all of us. Kelly ETA: And recording his time would not have changed the outcome of his match. He would have zeroed the stage regardless of whether we gave him a DNF or 4 seconds, 29 mikes and 15 FTEs. At least in that regard, the way it went down didn't negatively affect the shooter one way or the other.

Thanks guys.

I see the point you're making. It could be argued either way: the loading process was complete and the AD was a separate action, or the AD occured *as* the gun was going into battery, which is part of the loading process. I lean toward the latter myself, if for no other reason than it encourages competitors to ensure their firearm is in safe operating order before bring it to a match. The shooter in question stated that he'd had a similar occurence with the gun the day prior to the match and he still chose to bring it out and shoot it. It can't be argued either way, If the gun went off it was by definition in battery. "slide forward or cylinder closed and ready to fire" So what rule are you going to use to DQ him? Yes I want people to show up with safe equipment but I also want to follow our rule book. I'd say the moment the slide goes forward, if you are still holding the gun like you are reloading and you haven't got a firing grip or started to line up the sights with your eyes, you are still in the process of reloading and an AD at that point is a DQ. The problem is that is not what the rule book says. It says loading is done when the gun goes into battery. <<IMHO, for loading to be complete>> I don't care about your opinion, I care about what the rule book says. If you want to add that to the definition of loading talk to NROI. As it is we have a definition and need to follow it. The rule book has lots of gray but that definition seems pretty black and white to me. Unless the gun fired out of battery, which from the description it didn't, you can't use the 10.4 section to DQ the guy. By the definition in the rule book he was done loading. If the gun goes off at the same time as it goes into battery it is still in battery when the gun goes off. You can wander into the 10.5 section and try and make something fit but I don't think you can use 10.4. No argument the gun is not safe and needs to be removed from the match. I fired off an email to the RMI/NROI instructor that taught both my RO and CRO class and presented him with the specific details listed in my OP. He agreed that a DQ per 10.4.3 was the correct call in this case (i.e. the shot fired during loading.) Circa 2008, there was a 'broken gun alibi' in the books, but it was removed.