How to check for a Squib.

[Skywalker]

What happens when the RM insists that you take your squib clearing load to chrono for a power factor check on those rounds?  Ruh Roh, Rorge! 

Arnie,

the squib is only part of the "cartridge". The bullet is already (stuck) inside the barrel, thus you can think of it sort of an extra-long cartridge.

I guess this won't make major in my .40" (due to lenght and reduced powder load), but it can be counted in the 3 rounds whose average is discarded when chronoing 6 of them for the chrono test...

I have never heard of being able to "safely shoot" a squib round out of the barrel.  Can this really be done?

Well, after I was told about this "trick" I tested a few (4/5) of them both in .40" and .45", and I guess (from the appearance of the spent brass) it was safe.

BigDawg,

I'll give your method a try this evening with dummy rounds.

[BDH]

If so, BDH, move over - I'm checking myself into the IPSC Centre for Mentally Battered ROs .........

If both you and Sky check in, we had better call up Drs. Christianson and McManus to provide care!

[hoser]

If so, BDH, move over - I'm checking myself into the IPSC Centre for Mentally Battered ROs .........

If both you and Sky check in, we had better call up Drs. Christianson and McManus to provide care!

BDH,

Better bring lots of cash, I don't do medical insurance!

Dr. Arnie

[hoser]

What happens when the RM insists that you take your squib clearing load to chrono for a power factor check on those rounds?  Ruh Roh, Rorge! 

Arnie,

the squib is only part of the "cartridge". The bullet is already (stuck) inside the barrel, thus you can think of it sort of an extra-long cartridge.

I guess this won't make major in my .40" (due to lenght and reduced powder load), but it can be counted in the 3 rounds whose average is discarded when chronoing 6 of them for the chrono test...

I have never heard of being able to "safely shoot" a squib round out of the barrel.  Can this really be done?

Well, after I was told about this "trick" I tested a few (4/5) of them both in .40" and .45", and I guess (from the appearance of the spent brass) it was safe.

BigDawg,

I'll give your method a try this evening with dummy rounds.

Luca,

Let me see if I have this correct. You have a squib, the bullet is still in the barrel. You then have another reloaded round, with a reduced powder load, bullet and all, and you fire it through the gun with both rounds coming out the barrel? Or, do you have a reduced powder load with some wax in the case to keep the powder from spilling out?

I would guess you are referring to having a round with wax in the case instead of a bullet since 99% of the squibs I have dealt with would not allow another round to be chambered.

I guess this would not be *too* dangerous since there is not a projectile in the case. But, I am more than happy to let you do the testing.

Arnie

[Garfield]

OTOH the dumber (negligent) shooter keeps on shooting - if the squib is reality the gun will malfunction big time or even selfdestruct, if the round was underpowered but the bullet left the barrel he can just continue shooting. So there is no way he can get an undeserved reshoot.

Hi,

Maybe I was too hasty in writing.

I was not talking about the result/reward being a safe ending of a COF, but a nice time/score for a COF in case there is no bullet in the barrel left.

A shooter who thinks he has a squib, stops himself, and then has no bullet in the barrel screws up his COF because he gets no reshoot, but the dumber shooter who just continues blasting away either gets to finish the COF or gets a reshoot if he is stopped by the RO.

That was what I was trying to say, am I making sense now ?

If you can draft a rule to show us a better way of dealing with such incidents, including how an RO can accurately assess a competitor's intent, I'm listening.

Well, there are other cases where a shooter's intent is judged, so it is not entirely a new concept, although maybe not preferably. Just think of the rule about intentionally removing eye/hearing protection, there the shooter's intention is mentioned literally in the rulebook:

10.6.3 A competitor who is deemed by a Range Officer to have intentionally removed or caused the loss of eye or ear protection in order to gain a competitive advantage will be disqualified for unsportsmanlike conduct.

But what about something where, in the case a shooter stops himself because he thinks he has a squib, the RO can judge whether the shooter was really stopping for safety reasons ? RO's are no more or less capable of hearing a "poof" as the next guy. So I could imagine a rule where it is up to the RO to judge whether the shooter stopped himself out of a concern for safety or to gain a competitive advantage.

Of course this is all about the case where there actually is no bullet left in the barrel as a proof of a squib load.

I feel that this might be something to consider, because this would really reward a shooter's concern for safety, whereas the current rules leave the possibility that a shooter who is really careful / concerned with safety has a disadvantage over a shooter who just keeps on blasting away.

[Garfield]

Let me see if I have this correct. You have a squib, the bullet is still in the barrel. You then have another reloaded round, with a reduced powder load, bullet and all, and you fire it through the gun with both rounds coming out the barrel?

As I read it, there is no bullet in the "tool-cartridge", just a load sealed with wax.

I guess I would immediately DQ a shooter if one wanted to do something like that, because this is really dangerous on account of the large amount of air between the stuck bullet and the "tool-cartridge", thus compressing that tremendously causing an extreme temperature rise and probably blowing up the gun anyhow. At least, that is what I remember from reading some book about ballistics some time ago, I could be mistaking here ...

[shred]

In Hatcher's Notebook (an awesome reference book by a guy that got to go out and experiment on more or less whatever gun-related things he wanted, including blowing them up in a variety of ways), he did some experiments with blocked rifle barrels and powder-only cartriges. IIRC, the extra "air space" made no difference, and a pulled-bullet cartrige (NOT a "blank") was an effective way to rid the barrel of stuck bullets.

After all, a burning powder charge is a while stack of very hot air squeezing down a small barrel.

[BDH]

[DRIFT]

Head of Psychology at The IPSC Centre for Mentally Battered RO's

Arnie, just caught your updated tag line. ROTFL Now you owe me $5 for dry cleaning. Tell ya what, just send it to Dr. Pinto....

[/DRIFT]

[mactiger]

[Drifting even further...]

I'm not even on staff at that clinic--hell, it sounds like one of those places where the inmates are running the asylum.

Although, I could sign on as Director of Discipline....

Dr. McMeanus. Sort of has a nice ring to it, eh?

Troy

[Vince Pinto]

Well, there are other cases where a shooter's intent is judged, so it is not entirely a new concept, although maybe not preferably. Just think of the rule about intentionally removing eye/hearing protection, there the shooter's intention is mentioned literally in the rulebook:

Deeming that a competitor has intentionally removed his ear protection in an effort to secure a reshoot is a different matter entirely, because the RO makes his call based on visually observing the competitor's actions (e.g. the evidence is that the competitor is seen brushing his ear protection against a port or barricade - one day you'll see it happen, and then you'll know exactly what I mean). Hence "intent" is declared based on physical actions.

On the other hand, if a competitor stops mid-stream and says "I think I heard a squib", there's no visually observable evidence to confirm the competitor's intent, so it's a case of "Did he actually hear a squib or is he just trying to force a reshoot?". In this case, to determine intent, you need to get inside the competitor's head. Given that it's impossible to do so, the rules read as they do.

Of course if a competitor actually hears a squib and he continues shooting, he's a moron but, again, we'll never know unless he confesses, in which case Section 10.5 might come into play, right before we call the organisers of the Darwin Awards.

[Garfield]

On the other hand, if a competitor stops mid-stream and says "I think I heard a squib", there's no visually observable evidence to confirm the competitor's intent, so it's a case of "Did he actually hear a squib or is he just trying to force a reshoot?".

So you are saying that:

1) intent can only be derived by visible cues, and

2) the competitor is the only one able to hear a squib load.

I agree that intentionally removing eye/hearing protection probably is much easier to detect than a squib load.

But what if the RO heard a squib load too but reacted later than the shooter ?

[Vince Pinto]

So you are saying that:

1) intent can only be derived by visible cues, and

2) the competitor is the only one able to hear a squib load.

What I said is, well, what I said.

One type of intent is visible by actions, while another type of intent is not. If I take a swing at you with an axe, my intent is very clear. However if I just stand there with an axe in my hand, you don't know the intent inside my head, do you?

But what if the RO heard a squib load too but reacted later than the shooter?

Nothing changes from my earlier answer (my first post on page 1 of this topic). If the competitor stops of his own accord, he has a couple of options available to him, but none of them result in a reshoot. We simply don't award reshoots for competitor equipment failures.

[Garfield]

If the competitor stops of his own accord, he has a couple of options available to him, but none of them result in a reshoot. We simply don't award reshoots for competitor equipment failures.

OK, fair enough, let me try again at making my point:

Assume a shooter has a squib load which leaves the barrel (checked afterwards).

Now there are two options:

1. Shooter is stopped by RO: reshoot,

2. Shooter stops himself: no reshoot.

In case 1 the shooter clearly gets awarded a reshoot while having a "competitor equipment failure", so I don't agree with you on that account.

And in case 2 the prudent shooter has a disadvantage over the dumb shooter.

But I think we should end this discussion here, the original topic question has been answered and this is all very academic.

[Skywalker]

Arnie,

Garfield and Shred had it correct.

My "squibs puller cartridge" is:

- primed brass,

- reduced powder load (approx 2/3 of normal load for the lodged squib),

- thin cardboard disk to prevent wax contacting powder while pouring it and to keep powder togheter,

- wax to seal cartridge poured up to case mouth.

As I have said, I exeprimented with it a bit in .40 and .45, and found no signs of dangerous pressions on the fired brass. My guess is that even if there might be a considerable amount of air between the powder and the lodged bullet (but in my experience the squib stops at the very beginning of rifling), air is one of the most compressible gasses, and it won't do any harm; at least (as already reported) I found no evidence of pressure peaks on fired brass.

Now back to my original question: is this kind of "squibs puller cartridge" a legal means to eject a squib during the execution of a COF and then not having to stop?

[Garfield]

Now back to my original question: is this kind of "squibs puller cartridge" a legal means to eject a squib during the execution of a COF and then not having to stop?

Hmm... it's no "tool" in the literal sense, so I guess that it would be allowed "per the Rulebook".

But: Ask yourself how you would feel if you were RO-ing some stranger, who then has a squib and then pulls out some cartridge of unknown composition, loads it into the gun and prepares to fire his gun ?

If I were the RO I wouldn't allow it for safety reasons. It can very well be that this shooter has experimented with it in his own time and had good results, but I have no way of knowing that when he is on the range under my supervision.

Vince what do you think ?

[Skywalker]

If I were the RO I wouldn't allow it for safety reasons. It can very well be that this shooter has experimented with it in his own time and had good results, but I have no way of knowing that when he is on the range under my supervision.

Along this line of reasoning, you shouldn't allow any competitor to shoot any kind of reloaded cartrdige: he might have exeprimented with good results in his own time, but you have no way of knowing that when he is on the range...

Moreover: the kind of "squib puller" I have used in the past is not unsafe or dangerous "per se", and this view has been supported by Shred's post concerning Hatcher's Notebook, thus it falls in the same category of reloaded ammunition.

They are not dangerous "per se", they can become if not properly loaded, but there is no way for the RO to know this without having at least a single round fired...

If we allow shooting on the basis that the competitor is responsible for the safety of his own equipment (gun, ammunitions, and so on), I don't see a single valid reason not to allow a "squib puller".

[jhgtyre]

3. Hence, any instrument of use or service.

The quote above is from dictionary.com and it, in my opinion, fits this scenario. The squib removal round is a tool that is specifically designed for a particular use or service.

-ld

[Flexmoney]

Now back to my original question: is this kind of "squibs puller cartridge" a legal means to eject a squib during the execution of a COF and then not having to stop?

I'd copy and paste the rule here, but I don't have the means (can anybody point me to a copy&paste version of the rules online?).

The "New" 5.1.2 defines the minimum standards for a cartridge and a bullet.

5.5.5 says that ALL ammo used must satisfy the division requirements.

5.5.6 says any ammo deemed unsafe by the RO must be removed.

I don't see the "clearing round" as quilifying as ammo...so, they would be a tool, right? (Strike One)

If they were ammo, then they would need to make power factor for the division. (Strike Two)

The RO could "deem" them to be unsafe. (Strike Three)

[Vince Pinto]

1. Shooter is stopped by RO: reshoot,

2. Shooter stops himself: no reshoot.

In case 1 the shooter clearly gets awarded a reshoot while having a "competitor equipment failure", so I don't agree with you on that account.

Arvid, I'm hanging in here one last time on this issue, because I'd really like you to understand the differences and the conventional wisdom of the Rules Committee.

If the RO stops a competitor because he hears a sound which he thinks indicates a squib load but, on inspection, no barrel obstruction is found, then there's no hard evidence of the competitor's equipment having failed, thereby presenting a legitimate safety risk. Hence a reshoot is awarded, because the RO has interfered with the competitor's attempt at the COF, albeit with good intentions (and there's that word again).

On the other hand, if the competitor self-stops (allegedly) for the same reason, and no barrel obstruction is found, he's free to continue his attempt at the COF, but I can't think of any other way to deal with the very real possibility that a competitor might use a "suspected squib" excuse in order to gain a reshoot for a COF which has not gone well.

Now if you continue to disagree with the rules and/or consider them to be inequitable, fine, but please don't challenge the status quo without proposing a better solution.

The squib removal round is a tool that is specifically designed for a particular use or service.

I disagree. If I understand correctly, the subject item is nothing more than a "blank" round, so calling it a "squib removal device" is akin to calling an axe a weapon or an anvil a doorstop. In other words, although an item can have many uses, there is a primary intended use which prevails as the definition.

Axes are designed to chop wood, anvils are designed to serve as a base for hammering, and blank rounds are designed to replicate the actions of a live round but without a lethal projectile. As such, I do not consider a blank round to be "a tool", particularly in the context of Rule 5.7.1 which, when it states "..... rods, or other tools", clearly means "rigid hand tools".

And, as a general comment to everyone, please don't blame the Rules Committee if discussion of such items and micro-analysis of individual words eventually leads to more rules, more definitions and a rulebook which will ultimately need to be carried in a wheelbarrow. However if that's what's required to eliminate the possibility of different interpretations from official to official, or match to match, then my colleagues and I are more than willing to do what's got to be done, no matter how much time or paper it takes.

[Skywalker]

Sorry Flex,

but I do believe that it would still qualify as ammo: bullet is there (in the barrel), brass, powder and primer is there (in the "squib puller").

If it doesn't qualify as ammo, I guess you won't have any problem standing in front of the muzzle when this non-ammo is being fired, aren't you?

Vince,

can I request an official position of the IPSC rules committee about this issue? I'd be very interested in the official call and the argumentations.

[Skywalker]

Arvid,

on second thoughts, would you be so kind to point out for me what rule would allow you to DQ a competitor that is using what you deem to be unsafe ammunition?

[Vince Pinto]

Hi guys,

After giving the matter more thought, it's clear that the Rules Committee is guilty of failing to provide a clearer definition of "tools", for which I accept total responsibility. In an effort to correct my shortcomings, I've come up with the following proposed amendment:

5.7.1 In the event that a competitor's handgun malfunctions after the start signal, the competitor may safely attempt to correct the problem and continue the course of fire. During such corrective action, the competitor must keep the muzzle of the handgun pointing safely downrange at all times. The competitor may not use rods or other tools (e.g. fixed blade knives, folding knives, "switchblade" knives, "out the front" knives, pocket knives, "multi-tools", ice picks, screwdrivers, metal files, wood files, nail files, nail clippers, nose clippers, wooden dowels, metal dowels, synthetic dowels, hammers, dremel tools, lathes or other heavy machinery, nuclear devices, live rounds of ammunition, blank rounds of ammunition, paintball rounds of ammunition, rounds of ammunition containing rubber or any other projectiles, rounds of ammuniton which use a wax or other sealant to contain the powder, keys, tweezers, cotton buds or other ear cleaning devices, dental floss, toothbrushes, toothpicks, dental examination implements, surgical implements, pens, pencils, scissors, letter openers, belt buckles, improvised explosive devices, TNT, C4, "Semtex", swords, bayonets, daggers, paper clips, hand grenades, hand grenade pins, spurs, hat pins, pieces of live or dead foliage from domestic or imported plants, golf clubs, golf tees, knitting needles, sewing needles, crochet needles, drinking straws, fibrescopes, endoscopes, anything available from the hardware section of Walmart or similar retailers etc.) to correct the malfunction. Violations will result in a zero score for the stage and twenty lashes with the cat o' nine tails, administered by the Range Master.

The above list is not yet complete, but it's a start

[Vince Pinto]

Vince, can I request an official position of the IPSC rules committee about this issue? I'd be very interested in the official call and the argumentations.

Sure. Send your formal request to rules@ipsc.org.

[Skywalker]

Is this blank to be considered a tool, according to rule 5.7.1, or is it legal (i.e. a cartridge)?

No, I don't consider a "blank round" to be a tool.

The competitor may not use rods or other tools (e.g. ... rounds of ammuniton which use a wax or other sealant to contain the powder...)

So, have you changed your mind, are you just pulling our legs, or are you just taking time waiting to post a definitive answer?

I guess at this point you'd better state that competitor is allowed to use his/her bare hands, and nothing else, to clear a malfunction, if this is the intent of the rule.

Vince,

can I request an official position of the IPSC rules committee about this issue? I'd be very interested in the official call and the argumentations.

Sure. Send your formal request to rules@ipsc.org.

I'll surely do, but since I suspect the answer would equally come from you, we'd waste less time if you could do it right here.

[jhgtyre]

Rule 5.7.1 which, when it states "..... rods, or other tools", clearly means "rigid hand tools".

If it said "or like tools" it would be clear. The use of the word "other" is vague and would include any type of tool.

-ld