George Jones

A reshoot is the only correct ruling if it is found that there is no bullet in the barrel. Denying a reshoot because the round "didn't act as it should" would not be correct as long as the barrel is clear.

No! In the first instance the round did not go off at all. Reshoot. In the second instance there was a squib with the bullet stuck in the barrel. No reshoot. It's all about the squib.

If you're lucky. It could be someone more "physically imposing".

A shooter is responsible for his equipment. The unavailability of replacement ammo has nothing to do with RO judgment. I repeat: No single person ever ends a shooter's day. .......except the shooter himself.

There are a number of judgment calls in our sport. RO interference. Accidental discharge. Breaking the 180. Finger in the trigger guard. Unsportsmanlike conduct. Some of these shooter actions leave no residual evidence. Most have much more severe penalties than unsafe ammo. No "one person" has final authority on those calls. We have a pecking order in officiating and the shooter can appeal to the CRO, then RM, then to arbitration if necessary. Nothing about unsafe ammo tells the shooter that his day is done. He can keep shooting - his ammo can't. I do not recall evr seeing such a situation where squad mates or someone else did not offer suitable ammo. The last resort may be Wal-Mart but I've never seen a shooter just go home. YMMV

So, while the thread weaved around somewhat when a specific stage scenario was discussed, Flex's original conceptual question is still in play. Here is my perspective. Flex's original question: What constitutes "unsafe ammunition"? I think there are a number of answers. First, there is "demonstrated" unsafe ammo. The gun doesn't go "Bang!", it goes "BOOM". There is no doubt that this round was unsafe, but we don't know if there was any visible evidence before it was fired. In most cases I have witnessed, the gun is no longer in useable condition and is in need of some level of repair or reassembly. In some cases, it wasn't the ammo at all, it was the gun which fired out of battery, etc. Then, there is "suspected" unsafe ammo. A common example is a batch of ammo that has experienced more than one squib. Still no visible evidence. No way to prove it is unsafe without shooting it (not me), except by disassembling the round(s). Lastly, there is "visibly unserviceable" ammo. Perhaps nothing unusual has yet happened, but there is visible evidence to lead one to think the ammo might have problems. Cracked, deformed, or corroded cases, loose crimp, deformed or backwards primers. Some of these conditions could be considered unsafe, others not. Regardless, the shooter would be nuts not to weed out the visibly defective rounds before continuing. They may not be unsafe (therefore not subject to 5.5.5) but why would anyone continue with them? In the case of the sideways primer "poof" scenario (RO stops the shooter), there is no evidence of an unsafe condition. Had he not been stopped, the shooter could have continued safely. Rule 5.7.7.1 makes it quite clear that if the "suspected problem" (a squib) did not happen and lacking any evidence of any other specific unsafe condition, the only legitimate ruling is for a reshoot. Imposing any personal bias as to ammo safety would not be appropriate, IMO. Bottom line, for me, is that most of these situations require sound judgment. There will rarely be a simple answer (part of the reason why we should not formally define "unsafe ammo"). Before a final/formal decision can be reached, you have to assess all available information. For example, in the case of a squib, we have generally considered a solitary squib round NOT to be sufficient evidence of an unsafe lot of ammo. However, once a second squib happens (or the shooter provides additional information), we now have sufficient reason for the lot to be withdrawn - RM's judgment. Unlike Flex, I don't think the rules have a problem here. Sometimes a little vagueness is the best approach. Not everything can be pigeon-holed. That's why we expect our Range Masters to know their stuff.

Exactly!

Kyle, You are entitled to your opinion on what the rules "should" say. The fact remains that I completely disagree with your interpretation to the described event as the rules are written. Twist it any way you want, using any rules you choose, my comments on this event stand. The RO was correct to stop the shooter. No unsafe condition in the gun, No unsafe handgun, No bullet in the barrel - Reshoot! Further comments from me are not likely at this point.

You're kidding, right?

Erring on the side of safety is part of our game. It has long been accepted that taking the conservative approach should not penalize the shooter if the RO stops the shooter in a situation where the shooter could have continued safely.

You are mixing two rules and trying to combine their outcome. A (suspected) squib is a potentially unsafe condition. There was no actual squib. After the primer went "pop", there was no unsafe condition in the gun. Once that primer has gone "pop", that round can be racked out, a fresh round chambered and safely fired. The fact that that specific round had an incorrect primer does not affect the conclusion of the "event". Rule 5.7.7.2 applies. Since the RO stopped the shooter..... Reshoot! That scenario is similar to an actual squib where the bullet has left the barrel. The shooter could have racked the gun and continued, but since there was no bullet in the barrel - Reshoot! That would not preclude a discussion about the relative acceptability of the rest of that ammo batch (under 5.5.5). I would suggest that ammo with bad primers is certainly unwise and could be considered unsafe (and removed from the match) prior to it being "fired". The evidence of a spent bad primer does justify the inspection of the remainder of the ammo supply and the application of Rule 5.5.5

It's a burden we carry.......

I've given you my opinion. You are dealing with two separate issues. The Event - As related, the gun went "pop", causing a suspicion of a squib. RO stops the shooter, the barrel proves to be clear, therefore no safety problem existed. Reshoot. The Ammo - If the shooter had more of that funny stuff, the RO/CRO/RM should order it removed. If you want a more official answer, you know where to go.

Equal competitive challenge. If you have such disparity in shooters, why push the limit so close? As long as the target is legal from one shooting position, you're met the requirement. The other positions don't matter. If you have a predictable problem, fix it before you build it. If you find it after it's built, fix it then. The rule in App B3 says "All of the upper A zone". It does not say "half and half".

I'll make some comments (hopefully to narrow this discussion). 1. The term "ammo", in the context of Rule 5.5.5, (IMO) means the "lot" of ammo, not one individual round. Identifiable bad rounds can be culled. Squib ammo cannot be identified, therefore the whole lot is suspect. 2. Rule 5.7.7 deals with an unsafe "event". If the suspected "event" didn't really happen, the shooter is required to reshoot. If the "event" happened, the time/score stand as is. 3. The application of Rule 5.7.7 may or may not involve unsafe ammo. If unsafe ammo is involved, then Rule 5.5.5 is also applied. They each have their distinct purpose. 4. Armor piercing and incendiary ammo are not unsafe, they are prohibited. Now a question - What, specifically, makes a backwards primer unsafe? Yes, it may make a "pop" sound (which could be perceived to be a squib), but nothing else happens. If it does ignite the powder, the round goes "bang!". So what makes it unsafe?

Woo Hoo!

Having only seen it in use (as a shooter) a couple of times, I'm looking forward to using it first-hand on a stage at the Nationals. Although I fully appreciate the benefits of "instant" scoring, etc, I admit to not being comfortable with it as a shooter. The issues that have concerned me in the past (perhaps some have been updated since) are: 1. The difficulties of seeing the Palm screen clearly when asked to confirm the total entries (glare, old eyes, etc). 2. The difficulty of quickly scanning and actually seeing your individual target scores in the usual format. By that I mean that the Palm displays "0" in what you normally see as a blank block on a paper scoresheet. Those zeros cause all the blocks to have an entry, making it difficult to find the actual individual hits on each target. That makes it hard to "verify" those entries under the pressure of time (got to run the next shooter). If the "0" could be changed to simple blank entry, I believe shooters would be more comfortable with the process. Offering this in an effort to see it improve.

Nothing prevents you from putting those shooters in the Division in which they rightfully belong. Note that the numbers in App A2 are "recommended" for Level I and II matches. Ultimately, it is the MD's decision as to what is "recognized".

That terminology (90-degree median intercept) was used since it is the "formal" way to describe the 180. The problem appears to be that when used in the context of this rule, the wording is somewhat different than in Rule 10.5.2 which says "further than 90 degrees from the median intercept". So I understand (and agree) with your confusion. What it should have said is something like "perpendicular to the median intercept". So I'll fess up. Since I was involved in writing some of this stuff, I will forward this to John Amidon for his review.

It is the Range Master's job to deal with such a situation and "fix" illegitimate calls.

The short answer is that after Single Stack Division was created by USPSA, the Single Stack Classic agreed to run under USPSA rules and become the Single Stack Nationals.

I note you mention Max Trap which was not mentioned by the original poster. It does provide a clearer picture of the scenario but does not change my response. The 9.9.x rules you mention apply to moving scoring targets. No-shoots are not scoring targets, they're penalty targets. Even 9.9.4 implies scoring targets by referring to "engagement" which is a term used for shooting at scoring targets. Thet target was visible. It was a legal target since it showed the whole upper A zone. Nothing prevented the shooter from engaging it prior to (or after) the movement of the no-shoot. Nothing in the rules directly requires a contraption to be activated. The rules do provide for penalties for failure to activate disappearing targets, which is not the case here. Note: the only Max Traps I've ever seen were behind a door. The shooter had no choice but to open the door (automatically tripping the Max Trap) unless he was willing to take all the Mikes on the targets behind the door. Using a Max Trap in plain view, with a visible upper A zone, allows the shooter to make a choice without penalty. 1. Shoot the upper zone without activating the MT, or 2. Activate the MT and gain a bigger target area P.S. In this particular scenario, activating the MT after finished shooting is a non-event.

That is highly doubtful (although I wouldn't presume to predict future rules changes). That rule (penalizing Misses on disappearing targets which were not activated) was specifically added several years back to prevent shooters from simply avoiding challenging target arrays. The harsh penalty made it a poor choice to skip disappearing targets by not activating them in the first place.

I may be misreading your comment, but..... If the popper falls on calibration, it's a Mike on the popper and two Mikes and one procedural for FTE on the paper. At this point, it does not matter if the paper target disappears or not - If the paper was not engaged, it gets the Mikes and the FTE.

If the shooter stops himself, without finishing the stage, he takes the chance of a whole bunch of penalties if the popper falls on the calibration challenge. (The best thing to do when a popper doesn't fall is to finish the stage, then call for calibration). If the popper went down on calibration, Mike on that popper, two Mikes and an FTE on the target. Once the shooter drops the popper, a calibration challenge is no longer available and the stage is scored normally.