To DQ one, both, or none

[Barrettone]

Here's another one that came up as a result of shared equipment at the Area 5 3 Gun. One competitor is sharing anothers AR-15 for the days activities. After the first competitor has finished the COF, shown clear and racked his gun, the second competitor is called to the line to shoot. When the second competitor tries to load the rifle, he discovers he cannot due to what is later found to be a ripped case. The extractor had pulled the rear off of it, leaving the case wall stuck in the chamber. Now we have a "loaded gun" situation. Question is, who do you give the DQ??? The guy who showed clear, and was dismissed from the line, or the poor sap who picked up the rifle after him??? It is easy to see how the RO could miss this, as a case wall in a .223 is pretty thin, and you would see daylight through it when inspecting the chamber. Problem is, the first competitor wasn't caught with the gun, the second guy was...Can you ding him post-mortem??? Now, as for the second competitor, can he be DQ'd for picking up a loaded gun that was just cleared by the previous competitor AND the RO??? We could take a hard line, and say that this is merely an inherent chance you take when you borrow another persons equipment (not recommended), but people (including myself) often borrow equipment if I have a failure (to stay in a match), or if i want to try a $2000.00 piece of equipment out before I invest that much money on one of my own. If you were the RO or CRO, what would your call be???

Jeff

I'll post the results after a little feedback.

[Vince Pinto]

After the first competitor has finished the COF, shown clear and racked his gun, the second competitor is called to the line to shoot.  When the second competitor tries to load the rifle, he discovers he cannot due to what is later found to be a ripped case.  The extractor had pulled the rear off of it, leaving the case wall stuck in the chamber.

No DQ for anybody:

RIFLE 10.5.13 Having a loaded firearm other than when specifically ordered to by the Range Officer. A loaded firearm is defined as a firearm having a live round in the chamber or having a live round in a magazine inserted in the firearm or having a live round in a fixed (non detachable) magazine.

If I understand you correctly, there were remnants of an empty case stuck in the chamber, not a llive round.

[Barrettone]

Sorry Vince...This is in Area 5 in the United States. Under US 10.3.14..."For clarification purposes, Cycling of spent brass would be considered dummy ammunition". I apoligize if I wasn't clear in citing the rule.

Jeff

[ErikW]

No DQ in the U.S. either. If so, it's an easy win in arbitration.

[Vince Pinto]

Sorry Vince...This is in Area 5 in the United States.  Under US 10.3.14..."For clarification purposes, Cycling of spent brass would be considered dummy ammunition".  I apoligize if I wasn't clear in citing the rule.

Note that US10.3.14 is is merely a clarification of (then) IPSC Rule 10.3.14, and the words "in a safety area" in the primary rule do not apply to the incident you recounted.

[mactiger]

If this wasn't a live round, then it's not a DQ for anybody, as Vince and Erik have pointed out. It' s not dummy ammunition, either--that has to be ammo loaded specifically as a dummy round, not a torn up spent case left in the gun by faulty extraction.

Troy

[Neil Beverley]

I agree with the others. No DQ. However, I could understand an RO's initial reaction to be to call a DQ but once the dust has settled I would hope that the DQ would be withdrawn.

I would add that had it been a live round I would have to DQ the competitor on the line, ultimately it is his responsibility, and while I would want to have words with the other competitor and the RO I wouldn't take any further action against them.

It would go in my book though.

[Larry White]

No DQ for anybody. Larry

[Vince Pinto]

I would add that had it been a live round I would have to DQ the competitor on the line, ultimately it is his responsibility, and while I would want to have words with the other competitor and the RO I wouldn't take any further action against them.

Neil, if I disagree with you, with that affect our reputation as being mutual "Yes" men? And can we still hold hands and take long walks on the beach??

Seriously, under these highly unusual (and hypothetical) circumstances, if there actually was a live round in the chamber, I would issue a Match DQ to the (first) competitor who failed to clear his gun, because I believe he is responsible for the gun being in that unacceptable condition. To me, it seems incredibly harsh to DQ the second competitor who is effectively double-checking that a gun which had just been cleared a few seconds earlier was indeed clear.

And (heaven forbid) if I was the RO who supervised the first competitor unload and I failed to detect a live round in the chamber, I would supervise proper clearance of the gun by the second competitor, and I would then summon the RM and volunteer to recuse myself from further RO activity at that match, because that subject failure on my part would be the most unforgiveable thing I could ever do as an RO.

I've never said "Gun clear" (or "If clear") when there's been a live round in a chamber before, and I truly can't imagine my anal retentive self ever doing so in the future, but if I ever did, I would feel an obligation to retire from IROA for the sake of the cadre.

[Jim Norman]

Hold on to your hats.

I agree with Vince.

Jim Norman

[mactiger]

And (heaven forbid) if I was the RO who supervised the first competitor unload and I failed to detect a live round in the chamber, I would supervise proper clearance of the gun by the second competitor, and I would then summon the RM and volunteer to recuse myself from further RO activity at that match, because that subject failure on my part would be the most unforgiveable thing I could ever do as an RO.

Plus, we'd give you the "White Cane" award at the RO appreciation dinner.

Troy

[Neil Beverley]

Neil, if I disagree with you, with that affect our reputation as being mutual "Yes" men? And can we still hold hands and take long walks on the beach??

I still love you sweetie!

I just re-read the original. The first competitor "racked his gun" I have taken this to mean that he has placed the gun on a gun rack and has then walked away. Neither the first competitor nor the RO have personally handed the gun to the second competitor. A time duration between the first competitor shooting and the second competitor shooting is not specified.

I have therefore been assuming that there is a break between the two them shooting in which case my take on this is: There was no proof that the gun left the previous stage with a live round in the chamber. For that to have occurred it would have missed 2 visual checks AND a hammer down without firing.

With 3 checks in total having failed to discover a live round it would be wrong to assume guilt on the previous competitor at the stage. The round may have been chambered subsequent to leaving the stage. In the absence of irrefutable evidence then I believe it would be wrong to make the asumption that the last competitor is at fault.

If the first competitor simply handed his gun to the second competitor and the second competitor immediately went to the line then I would agree with you.

[Vince Pinto]

Neil,

I definitely need new reading glasses, dammit. I missed the part about "racked his gun". Under those circumstances, yes, I must agree with your assessment and DQ whoever comes to the line with a round in the chamber.

However this presents us with quite a dilemna, old boy! Due to increasingly tough travel restrictions with airlines, I predict there will be far more matches with competitors borrowing guns at destination (think Bali, for example), and I think the Rules Committee needs to seriously consider this potential scenario.

Imagine if there's a vendor (or another competitor) making guns available to competitors who did not (could not) bring their own gun to the match. Under our current rules, as soon as the "borrower" handles that gun for the purpose of checking it, he's guilty of our most serious offence and is subject to a match DQ, should there be a live or dummy round in it.

Proposed Solution: My immediate thoughts are that borrowed guns must be returned to an "intermediary" Range Official (let's call him the QM for now) by the first user. The gun must then be double-checked by the QM and, if clear, racked. If not clear, we know who to DQ.

When a subsequent "borrower" arrives to collect the gun, the QM must present the gun and "show clear" to the subsequent competitor before the gun is accepted by him. If clear, the competitor goes on his merry way. If not clear, he says "No way, Jose" and the QM takes corrective action. However once a subsequent competitor accepts a gun, he accepts all subsequent responsibility until he, in turn, goes through the secondary clearance.

Of course an RO running as stage can act as the QM (observing the same "double-check" procedure), if a gun is immediately transferred between competitors in his presence.

Will this work?

POSTSCRIPT: Neil, I did a quick scan of the rulebooks and I think the best place to handle this issue would be as "Section 5.8 - Shared or Borrowed Guns".

[Ronnie j]

We at our local club's 3 gun call for chamber flags or mag blocks on long guns before they are declared clear. I think in MOST of the hypothetical cases this would solve the problem.......... except In the case we had of two freinds sharing a Benelli shotgun . Shooter a the borrower ulsc and flags the shotgun , shooter b the owner come to the line to lamr removes the chamber flag releases the bolt and chambers the round that the benelli had hidden on the shell lifter or something. I don't remember the outcome maybe Ima45dv8 will chime in and remind us what really happened.

[ima45dv8]

We were at one of our early local 3G matches, and I had my new Benelli M1S90. A friend who borrowed it for a slug stage accidentally left a slug round in the magazine (last shooter on that stage). Neither he nor the RO were accustomed to activating the latch on the lower right side of the receiver that allows a round to feed from the magazine while being manually cycled. For that matter, I wasn't too familiar with it myself (read the book, yes, but not yet fully assimilated). So, although he cycled the bolt handle several times, and they both thought the gun was Clear, it wasn't. Gun with round in magazine is bagged and we proceed to the next stage.

We were using a "loading table" and when I was the on-deck shooter I was told to unbag my gun and load my magazine, but not the chamber (correct instruction).

When the loading gate wouldn't lift, I cycled the bolt a few times. Still wouldn't lift to allow loading. Ahhh, I know why! I hit the little latch, and cycle the bolt. Now I can feed rouds very nicely! As most of you have already guessed, I also loaded that slug into my chamber. Finished loading magazine.

When I'm called to the line a few minutes later and instructed to LAMR, I cycle the action to load the chamber, and a slug pops out. In a display of uncharacteristically-quick reaction time, I think I completed the phrase, "Where the f*ck did that come from?!?!" before the round even hit the ground.

The previous shooter, the previous RO, the current shooter (me), the current RO working the loading table all missed this.

What's the right call? Who, if any, gets DQ's/excused?

[Vince Pinto]

In a display of uncharacteristically-quick reaction time, I think I completed the phrase, "Where the f*ck did that come from?!?!" before the round even hit the ground.

Thanks for recounting what must have been a harrowing experience. To answer your question under the current rules, you were the one found with a loaded gun, so you would get the Match DQ.

Of course if the previous competitor confessed to being guilty, then there really is no alternative but to give you both a match DQ, because you're both guilty, although in your case you were "less guilty". If the other guy denied all knowledge of the stray round, you'd very likely be hitting the showers alone - there's something about "possession being 9/10ths of the law" !

Poor old Jeff (God bless his cotton socks) has unwittingly stumbled across a possible scenario which we can help rectify and eliminate with a new "preventative procedure" rule or two, similar to how we handled the new Vendor Area rules.

And Jeff, forgive me for not saying this earlier, but "Thank You". I think we'll be able to save a few DQs by dealing with this issue now, and that's a good thing.

[ima45dv8]

Well Vince, that's just what happened.

The RO (another very good friend mind you, who did a difficult deed without flinching) DQ'd me. And I knew he was correct to do so. There was nothing personal in his actions. He felt bad about it but that's simply what he HAD to do.

The previous shooter and RO did admit their error(s), and felt absolutely, sincerely terrible about what happened. But my friend with the timer still made the right call.

Still the frustration got to me, DQ'ing on the last stage of a long match, and I looked at my friend who had borrowed my SG and said, "Thanks for helping me get my first DQ."

I'll telling you right now I felt like a total piece of shit as soon as the words left my mouth. I'm no stranger to saying stupid things, but I couldn't believe I said that. I apologized 20 times, but I still felt bad because I let my injured pride treat him that way.

Happy Ending: One of the match officials suggested I should consider an appeal to the DQ, so I did and received a favorable reversal. In fact, my friend who DQ'd me was one of the folks who encouraged me to appeal.

While I'm gushing Thank You's to all involved, someone realized the stage was already torn down. "NO PROBLEM!" I said. "I'll take a Zero over a DQ any day!" They wouldn't hear of it, and despite me telling them not to, about 10 people rushed over and set the stage up again just so I could get a score.

As much as I love shooting for shooting's sake, people like this are why I'm involved in this sport.

[Neil Beverley]

We at our local club's 3 gun call for chamber flags or mag blocks on long guns before they are declared clear. I think in MOST of the hypothetical cases this would solve the problem.......... except In the case we had of two freinds sharing a Benelli shotgun . Shooter a the borrower ulsc and flags the shotgun , shooter b the owner come to the line to lamr removes the chamber flag releases the bolt and chambers the round that the benelli had hidden on the shell lifter or something. I don't remember the outcome maybe Ima45dv8 will chime in and remind us what really happened.

Chamber flags are now compulsory under the 2004 shotgun and rifle rules.

However, we must bear in mind that flags that pass through the mag well and ejection port satisfy the rule but don't prove the chamber empty. They do prevent the bolt from fully closing. Furthermore we treat a live round in a magazine inserted in the gun or as an integral part of the gun as still being loaded.

Your comments clearly point out good practice and the benefits of using chamber flags.

I had to think twice when the idea was first put to the committee but as time has gone on and with the benefit of actual use I am very much in favour of them. They cost very little and aren't a problem in use.

[Jim Norman]

Are we discussing two seperate issues here? Related? Yes, but definately different.

First instance was a seperated case hed, which was not a "Live Round" Second issue was a "hidden round" in a Bennelli, definately a "Live Round".

I like the idea of passing a fiream to an intermeadiary rather than directly to the next competitor. It removes, or at least greatly diminishes the chances for this situation to occur.

Action Blocks and Chamber flags are a good idea. THe NRA sells Chamber Flags for about $1 each.

Jim Norman

[davidwiz]

Chamber flags are worthless, IMHO. I was at a rifle match a few months ago, and some %$#@ %@ who had a flag in his gun, while showing his rifle to another person, proceeded to point it at the 6 people who were down range. The ^%$@ idiot and the RO both said that it, "wasn't a big deal, because there was a flag in the rifle and it was empty." I've had too many "empty" firearms pointed at me in the brief 9 years that I have been shooting.

[JohnL]

A little clarification on Barritone's post. I was the RO on the stage where this happened. The "round" was a spent case that had failed to extract not a case with a head separation and so should have been apparent at the "make clear". This happened on the stage immediately before mine. The rifle was then loaned to a second shooter who came to my stage with the rifle the case was discovered at the "Load and Make Ready Command". When the Range Master was called it was learned that he had not been notified that the second shooter was using a substitue rifle.

[Barrettone]

You were all correct, no DQ was issued, but a stern warning was giving to the competitors about "shared equipment", and how it can bite you in the rump. Sorry for the misprint John L, I though it was seperated. Boy...someone really blew the "if clear". Hope it was the stage before you!!!!

Jeff

[Jim Norman]

Chamber flags are worthless, IMHO. I was at a rifle match a few months ago, and some %$#@ %@ who had a flag in his gun, while showing his rifle to another person, proceeded to point it at the 6 people who were down range. The ^%$@ idiot and the RO both said that it, "wasn't a big deal, because there was a flag in the rifle and it was empty." I've had too many "empty" firearms pointed at me in the brief 9 years that I have been shooting.

Dave,

No amount of safety equipment can make you safe! The only safety equipment that does that is what is between your own ears. The MD or the Ro or someone should have handled that situation in the proper way, to say no big deal is not an acceptable answer.

A significant number of firearms accidents happen with "Empty" firearms.

Jim Norman

[Barrettone]

Vince:

Thank you for the pascal blessing of the socks...They need it after this past weekends activities (the dogs is a barkin' - arf-arf). As for being unwitting...I truly represent that remark.

BTW...I was taught in both my level 1 and 2 classes that a spent case is still considered "ammunition" and subject to match DQ if you have them in the safety area...why is it not considered a "loaded" gun then, if this is the definition being given in the NROI classroom???

Jeff

[mactiger]

There are two separate rules involved, Jeff. One deals with cycling spent brass in a safety area, the other deals with what constitutes a loaded gun. In this case, the competitor was not cycling spent brass in a safety area (no dummy ammo)--the RO previous missed the case not extracting. Under the definition of a loaded gun, this one didn't qualify, hence no DQ.

Troy