ivanhu Posted April 17, 2004 Share Posted April 17, 2004 Well, during the debate about the safety angles, a question has occurred to me. Situation: the shooter is on the line, shooting at the targets. At one point he lowers his gun, with the finger still in, and stands still. He is not clearing a malfunction, therefore 10.5.8 doesn't apply. He is not during loading, unloading or reloading, therefore 10.5.9 doesn't apply. He is not during movement, therefore 10.5.10 doesn't apply. He just stands still, with the lowered gun, finger in. But indeed, is it unsafe? Is it a DQable offence? Whaddy think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AikiDale Posted April 17, 2004 Share Posted April 17, 2004 It violates rule 3 of the 4 Rules of Gun Safety, but it is not a DQ'able offense as you have described. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tman33_99 Posted April 17, 2004 Share Posted April 17, 2004 Ivan, In my rule book, the appropriate sections are 10.3.10 "finger/malfuntion", 10.3.11 "finger/loading-unloading", and 10.3.12 "finger/movement". I do not see anything that warrents a DQ. I will take it one step further and lets say while holding the gun in this position it goes "BANG"....Now what. In my opinion 10.3.1 may come into play as an Accidental Discharge and thus a DQ, BUT only if the bullet leaves the berm, or strikes with-in 3 meters of the shooter. I don't believe 10.3.2 "Unsafe gun handling" comes into play, because there is no reloading, or remedial action of a malfuctinon (10.3.2.1) and it isn't during movement (10.3.2.2). This is probably a grey area that Troy would like to help with. Travis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yoda Posted April 17, 2004 Share Posted April 17, 2004 Ivan, as you describe it it is IMO not a DQ'able occurence. The reasons already have been stated by Tman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted April 18, 2004 Share Posted April 18, 2004 You guys seems to have the rule question covered, but I gotta ask this... What the heck is the shooter standing there for?!?!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted April 18, 2004 Share Posted April 18, 2004 Hi guys, Don't forget the opening words of Section 10.5 which state "Examples of unsafe gun handling include, but are not limited to:". Having said that, I don't necessarily think that Ivan's hypothetical case warrants a match DQ but since it's virtually impossible for us to write rules to cover every possible scenario, the opening words of Section 10.5 give the RO leeway to deal with situations which are not specifically covered by the rules but which the RO considers to be unsafe. In such a case, the issue would be ultimately resolved by an appeal to Arbitration if the competitor (and the CRO and/or RM) did not agree with the RO's initial call. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mactiger Posted April 19, 2004 Share Posted April 19, 2004 I'd have replied to this one sooner, but I can only argue with Ivan on one front at a time. I agree with Vince. An RO is not limited to only the examples given under Unsafe Gun Handling. Having said that, UGH should also not be used as a "catch-all" for when the RO is unsure of what to do. In the hypothetical example that Ivan posed, I agree with everyone else's call--it's probably not a DQ offense, but, like Flex$, I'd be wondering what the he** was going on, and you can bet that he'd have my full and undivided attention while he stood there. Troy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivanhu Posted April 19, 2004 Author Share Posted April 19, 2004 Thank you all, I also think that it's not a DQ, but I wasn't (still am not) sure whether it's unsafe. After all, having the finger is is unsafe if at the same time, any other activity takes place. If the shooter just stands still, in itself it perhaps is not unsafe. And why would the shooter do that? Well, some shooters lower the gun after finishing the course, and some just waits 'til the RO asks "if you are finished". I've just wondered what if he forgets to remove his finger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Habicht Posted April 19, 2004 Share Posted April 19, 2004 I've just wondered what if he forgets to remove his finger. I'm pretty sure we've got rules to deal with the situation if anything happens... I'm not nuts about loaded sight pictures, but they're still legal under USPSA rules, and realistically speaking not any less safe, than what the shooter will be doing after the buzzer goes off.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivanhu Posted April 19, 2004 Author Share Posted April 19, 2004 I've just wondered what if he forgets to remove his finger. I'm pretty sure we've got rules to deal with the situation if anything happens... Oh, if the shooter shoots himself, then yes, sweeping has occurred, and that's a DQ. But, for whatever reason, I'd prefer to prevent that... If he shoots and the bullet strikes a rock and the ricochet leaves the range, well, I wasn't sure we'd have any rule to DQ the shooter. Remember the case of that mortal double ricochet, do you? Yet, if someone stands still, then it's very unlikely that he'll shoot accidentally (unless a bee stings him, for example). But of course, the very purpose of the safety precautions is to lessen the possibility of something going wrong as much as possible. I'm not nuts about loaded sight pictures, but they're still legal under USPSA rules, and realistically speaking not any less safe, than what the shooter will be doing after the buzzer goes off.... Yup, I also never understood why some match organizers ban that, but now it seems their lobby won... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
james h Posted April 19, 2004 Share Posted April 19, 2004 Sorry Ivan I am going to wander a bit here onto the sight picture issue : why allow them loaded or unloaded ? we may as well start with the gun aimed and ready as per trap/skeet. the point is we are testing each persons skill on UNPRACTISED stages. taking sight pictures is well practising a COF before shooting it to some extent and as a shooter i dont do it, as an RO i HATE shooters that faff about doing it. back on topic, there are some who beleive that merely indexing between targets is "movement" and the finger must be off or its a DQ. I AM NOT ONE OF THEM. to my mind movement is covering ground so if your feet are not moving neither are you so no problem with finger in trigger guard. the reason behind finger out is in case you trip stumble and or fall to prevent AD's. james Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted April 19, 2004 Share Posted April 19, 2004 I'll drift with that topic a bit... I think that taking a sight picture and running thru a practice rountine with the gun are two seperate things (of course, I'll do both if the rules allow). The point I'd like to bring up is that a sight picture is something a shooter ought to do during LAMR. The Open shooters have to turn their dot on, and makle sure that it is working. The Limited shooters need to make sure they haven't knock that front sight off of the gun (while working their butts off to reset the stage, for instance). I recall taking a sight picture at a Major match during the LAMR, I noticed some mud on the front of my gun. I was able to point this out to the RO, who had me unload and show clear...then off I went to ensure that the gun/barrel was clear of obstruction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivanhu Posted April 19, 2004 Author Share Posted April 19, 2004 I am going to wander a bit here onto the sight picture issue :why allow them loaded or unloaded ? we may as well start with the gun aimed and ready as per trap/skeet. the point is we are testing each persons skill on UNPRACTISED stages. taking sight pictures is well practising a COF before shooting it to some extent and as a shooter i dont do it, as an RO i HATE shooters that faff about doing it. James, following that train of thought, we should ban the walk-through either. After all, if we're back to the roots of the sport, it's very unlikely that the thugs will allow the law abiding citizen (the intended victim) to practise and to find out the best possible solution to neutralize them... But even if we abstract of those roots, I feel something wrong with the logic to provide ample time for the shooters to evaluate (and practise!) the COF, then prevent them to take sight pictures because we want them to be tested on the unpractised stage... This argument therefore doesn't sound too convincing for me. Being a standard shooter myself, I don't really care, be it on one way or the other. I just don't know why was it necessary - and I, the RO, has already enough things to take care of, ain't need no more (IMHO unnecessary) bans to deal with.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted April 20, 2004 Share Posted April 20, 2004 Hi guys, Allowing walkthroughs is a safety issue, the object being that competitors can familiarise themselves with "the lay of the land" to hopefully prevent unsafe behaviour after the start signal. For example, in former times when we used to have "surprise" courses of fire, we often had competitors running past targets, then backing up to re-engage them, and this presented an unacceptable safety risk. Taking a sight picture (defined in the rulebook as "Aiming at a target without actually shooting at it"), has nothing to do with safety. Competitors can just as easily check their dots (or confirm that their front sight is still attached and mud free!) by aiming their gun at the ground in front of them, and they can do so before chambering a round. In any case, allowing or prohibiting unloaded sight pictures is the Match Director's call. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivanhu Posted April 22, 2004 Author Share Posted April 22, 2004 Taking a sight picture (defined in the rulebook as "Aiming at a target without actually shooting at it"), has nothing to do with safety. Apparently, just don't come and tell me that it's prohibited because we don't want the shooters to practise the stage - they practise it during the walk-throughs, that sight picture is rather just the part of the ceremony. This reasoning therefore is just not good enough. Yet, it's the rule, and I don't really care much about the rationale behind it, I'll enforce it without reasoning... But indeed, why was it banned? Inquiring minds want to know... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted April 22, 2004 Share Posted April 22, 2004 This reasoning therefore is just not good enough. Well, using your logic, perhaps we should allow competitors to conduct their walkthrough with an unloaded gun? Hell, we allow competitors to handle their unloaded firearms unsupervised in a safety area, so what's the big deal and rationale behind prohibiting competitors from taking a sight picture with an unloaded gun during the walkthrough? While you're preparing your answer, I'll go take my anti-sarcasm pills ........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mactiger Posted April 22, 2004 Share Posted April 22, 2004 Not an unloaded gun, but a "walk-through stick" would be nice. Troy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivanhu Posted April 22, 2004 Author Share Posted April 22, 2004 Well, using your logic, perhaps we should allow competitors to conduct their walkthrough with an unloaded gun? Hell, we allow competitors to handle their unloaded firearms unsupervised in a safety area, so what's the big deal and rationale behind prohibiting competitors from taking a sight picture with an unloaded gun during the walkthrough? I don't think my logic or words would suggest your logic. For clarity, here're my statements naked: a. We allow the shooters to practise the stage (during the walk-through). b. We don't allow the shooters to take sight pictures in order to prohibit practising. Therefore, we don't allow something that already has happened. Now your hyperbole statements naked: a. We allow the shooters to handle their guns unattended in the SA. b. We should allow them to handle their guns unattended during the walk-through. The two logics have nothing to do with each other. In short, My logic was: We cannot prohibit something that actually has happened. Your logic was: We should extend one of the permissions to another situation. Wait with those anti-sarcasm pills, Vince, you should find another example, this one didn't work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted April 23, 2004 Share Posted April 23, 2004 See my earlier message where I said: Allowing walkthroughs is a safety issue, the object being that competitors can familiarise themselves with "the lay of the land" to hopefully prevent unsafe behaviour after the start signal. For example, in former times when we used to have "surprise" courses of fire, we often had competitors running past targets, then backing up to re-engage them, and this presented an unacceptable safety risk.Taking a sight picture (defined in the rulebook as "Aiming at a target without actually shooting at it"), has nothing to do with safety. Competitors can just as easily check their dots (or confirm that their front sight is still attached and mud free!) by aiming their gun at the ground in front of them, and they can do so before chambering a round. In any case, allowing or prohibiting unloaded sight pictures is the Match Director's call. You (not me) keep saying that taking a sight picture is "practicing the stage". Unless all the targets are within a few metres and are in full view (a very rare set-up), you cannot "practice a stage" just by taking a sight picture on one or two targets while standing at the start location. The point I'm trying to make is that the only way to truly practice a stage while taking a sight picture is to allow sight pictures and the walkthrough to be conducted concurrently. Failing that, taking a sight picture is just a time-wasting rigmarole. In any case, it's the MD's call. Anyway, this matter is totally off-topic, so I'm done here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted April 23, 2004 Share Posted April 23, 2004 ...taking a sight picture is just a time-wasting rigmarole. As I stated earlier, there are VERY valid reasons to take a sight piture. They have little to do with practicing a stage (or the first array, for that matter). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted April 24, 2004 Share Posted April 24, 2004 As I stated earlier, there are VERY valid reasons to take a sight piture. They have little to do with practicing a stage (or the first array, for that matter). I'm willing to be convinced. Please explain why it's absolutely necessary to take a sight picture (i.e. by actually aiming at targets) instead of just pointing your gun towards the ground in front of you, in order to check your sights? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivanhu Posted April 24, 2004 Author Share Posted April 24, 2004 As I stated earlier, there are VERY valid reasons to take a sight piture. They have little to do with practicing a stage (or the first array, for that matter). I'm willing to be convinced. Please explain why it's absolutely necessary to take a sight picture (i.e. by actually aiming at targets) instead of just pointing your gun towards the ground in front of you, in order to check your sights? Well, depending on the current angle the sun is above the horizon, there might be cases when the brightness of the dot could be more easily fine tuned, were it done on the target and not on the ground. It also might depend on the current terrain, too. Not that important, I agree, and it doesn't happen too frequently when it would have had even this small importance. But let me turn it back: what says against the sight picture? That "wasting the time" is again not that convincing - the longest sight picture I've ever seen lasted perhaps five-ten seconds. When it was not a rule but a policy of some MDs, I always wondered why they prohibit it, and was unable to find it out. Please understand, I don't really care, but IMHO, here we have a rule that could be deleted without any harm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted April 24, 2004 Share Posted April 24, 2004 Please understand, I don't really care, but IMHO, here we have a rule that could be deleted without any harm. For somebody who doesn't really care, you certainly are persistent. Anyway, I don't know how many times or different ways I can say this but: Unloaded sight pictures are not prohibited It's up to the Match Director - argue with him. And, since the original question in this thread has been answered, I'll close this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts