Holstered gun...during fall

[Flexmoney]

I gotta agree with Jim on this one, in that...

There is a conflict between 10.5.2 and 5.2.7.3

5.2.7.3 is an exception to 10.5.2

I don't know what to do about chair starts and such. Clearly, we all use chair starts (and such) all the time. And, it should be apparent that muzzles get pointed beyond the 1m mark...while holstered.

I don't recall ever hearing of this being a problem...when the gun is in a proper holster?

[LPatterson]

Jim,

I think you are splitting hairs arguing about your Galco. The FBI cant is 15 degrees and if it were worn directly on the side of your hip (belt loop) would require you to almost put your chest on your knees when getting up for the muzzle to point beyond the 1 meter allowance. With an FBI cant the gun is usually worn behind the point of the hip to allow the hand to grasp the gun without a major break to the wrist which means you would really have to lean over for the muzzle to point to the rear.

Since the orginal post delt with falling forward with the gun in the holster lets stick to that issue.

[Vince Pinto]

There is a conflict between 10.5.2 and 5.2.7.3

We're never going to agree on that, but I could always add the words "(exception: see Rule 5.2.7.3)" to the tail end of Rule 10.5.2 if that would make you happier

5.2.7.3 is an exception to 10.5.2

Precisely, my dear Watson, and we have numerous other exceptions throughout the rulebook.

BTW, I use chair starts and bed starts all the time, however I always use a chair without arms, to prevent competitors getting their gear entangled on the way up. If I use a lounger where it's possible the competitor might sweep themselves or someone else, the gun will be on a table nearby.

[Sestock]

On a side note about the stage at the nationals.

Having arms on the chair was an accident waiting to happen. I was deathly afraid of my magwell getting caught on the arm and my gun coming out as I was standing up.

[Barrettone]

Well, we aren't going to really know anything definitive until a competitor arbitrates that the act of falling forward with a loaded and holstered gun was not an unsafe action. I know I would vote that it was not unsafe, but your mileage may very. OK...I am officially growing weary from this subject, and have lost the will to fight...Stick a fork in me, 'cause I'm done. Next topic....

Jeff

[Jim Norman]

I never said anything about a Chaise Lounge. I think I indicated a steel folding chair.

Point is, that we have a rule that says one thing and then we have another rule that directly contravenes that rule. That leaves us open to the RO deciding based upon how he feels or what he had for breakfast.

This is a problem that will always be encountered when you have rules. the more rules we have, the more likley, not less likely this is to occur. Further it becomes harder and harder to simply know what is right.

And even harder to explain to a new shooter.

I still like the idea of a General Prudential Rule. That essentially comes under heading of UNSAFE GUNHANDLING.

Back to the discussion at hand. Even a staight up and down holster will point beyond 1 meter if you bend forward while rising from a simple metal folding chair. I simply make it a point not to stand directly behind a shooter with that type of start.

Jim

[Flexmoney]

Jim,

I don't know how the number of rules is an issue?

If somebody wants to count them up, I am sure there are x number of things that will earn a DQ.

I can't see how a "General Prudential Rule...that essentially comes under heading of UNSAFE GUNHANDLING." could do anything but make the RO open to making a jugement call. ???

-----------

I recalled seeing (on the Squad 30 Video DVD that Shred put together) my 'shooting partner in crime' take a stumble on the stage that I think Smitty is talking about.

Shred was able to provide the video clip: (click here...and contact Shred about getting a copy of the whole match for $10)

This chair also served as a holster test for some.

But, lets not get into drifting about the chair...lets stick to question that Smitty brought forth.

[mactiger]

FWIW, here's what I think:

5.2.7.3 is an exception to 10.5.2, but it applies to holstered guns while the competitor is standing erect (just like there is an exception to the sweeping rule, as Vince noted). In the example given, if the competitor fell forward, causing the muzzle of his holstered gun to break the 180, by the rules, there is no call other than to DQ the competitor for breaking rule 10.5.2. That rule is quite clear, and makes no exception for a holstered gun (as noted previously). If you fall and the muzzle breaks the 180, it's a DQ, sorry.

As for the canted holster argument, rule 5.2.6 may be brought into play on that one, but it's a different question.

Troy

[Jim Norman]

I am all for splitting this thread into two separate threads.

One about falling with a holstered gun and one about having a holster that meets the safe criteria in that it does not point rearward while standing, but may when rising.

Personally I am a bit afraid that we'll see a move by some to ban seated starts unless the gun is on a table or other stationary prop.

In reply to Flex that a General Prudential Rule would have the RO making judgement calls, I would say that we alerady have that to a very large degree. Did the shooter break the 190? or did it just look that way from here, or rather, from here it looked fine, but I KNOW that the muzzle had to have passed 180 to make that move. Or I KNOW you were not engaging a target when the gun went boom. and so on.

Unsafe Gunhandling already is in my opinion the GPR.

But that is a drift and I don't want to do that. Split a third thread out...

Jim Norman

[Flexmoney]

So...back on the original topic...

As it reads now...even if the gun is holstered...it is a match DQ if it breaks the 180.

Is there any support for a rule exemption if the gun is safely holstered (and remains so) during a 180 break (getting up, falling etc.)?

[shred]

Not from me... except maybe on a 'getting up as a required part of the COF', in which case spectators and other non-bullet-resistant riff-raff can be cleared out of the way in advance (this is a "predictable" 180 break and can be managed in advance)

(minor rant-- what's with moving all the spectators even 20 yards back out of the way on every turn-n-draw? Are we expecting the shooters to break the 180?)

Safe these holstered pistols are.. within reason, but nothing is 100% safe. Who wants to volunteer to throw a loaded locked-in-the holster gun into an operating clothes dryer for a while? I sure don't want to be around when somebody's quick-off holster comes unscrewed and dumps the whole loaded shebang on the ground.

Belt-n-suspenders safety-- have to break two rules to hurt something. We don't know that you haven't been emery-boarding your sear in the hotel room such that a minor impact will release it, so we sure don't want to find out when you fall on your face (and holster) at a match.

We don't overturn 180 DQ's on the grounds that "the shooters finger was off the trigger, or the gun didn't go bang, so therefore it was safe" do we?

[Neil Beverley]

Not from me... except maybe on a 'getting up as a required part of the COF', in which case spectators and other non-bullet-resistant riff-raff can be cleared out of the way in advance (this is a "predictable" 180 break and can be managed in advance)

(minor rant-- what's with moving all the spectators even 20 yards back out of the way on every turn-n-draw? Are we expecting the shooters to break the 180?)

Safe these holstered pistols are.. within reason, but nothing is 100% safe. Who wants to volunteer to throw a loaded locked-in-the holster gun into an operating clothes dryer for a while? I sure don't want to be around when somebody's quick-off holster comes unscrewed and dumps the whole loaded shebang on the ground.

Belt-n-suspenders safety-- have to break two rules to hurt something. We don't know that you haven't been emery-boarding your sear in the hotel room such that a minor impact will release it, so we sure don't want to find out when you fall on your face (and holster) at a match.

We don't overturn 180 DQ's on the grounds that "the shooters finger was off the trigger, or the gun didn't go bang, so therefore it was safe" do we?

Shred

Well said. Yours is a better example than the one I posted earlier.

[Vince Pinto]

No support from me for an expanded exception. - the Rule 5.2.7.3 exception is more than enough to deal with holster angles.

A loaded gun pointed directed uprange is totally unacceptable under any circumstances.

[Flexmoney]

That is 3 against, 0 for.

[Skywalker]

That is 3 against, 0 for.

That's 4 to 0, you silly sleepless kid , I too won't support an exception to this rule.

http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?...ndpost&p=214095

[Garfield]

5

[Yoda]

6 - 7 - 8 ... I'm a big guy and can be VERY convincing No Vince - no details please or I have to bring my tactical tulips again next week!

[Jim Norman]

The current exemption is enough to deal with holster angle? Really.

So are we saying that as long as the gun is within the allowed limits "while standing erect" that any body motion, whether aquiring a seated position or standing from seated, or stepping into a run is acceptable?

We have a rule that allows for 1 meter while standing erect. I'll recast the question, If the holster that fits the rule as currently written is worn and the shooter assumes the prescibed start position and the muzzle now points uprange beyond the 1 meter exception, what is the call?

Jim Norman

[Vince Pinto]

The current exemption is enough to deal with holster angle? Really.

Yes. Would you like an affadavit?

I'll recast the question, If the holster that fits the rule as currently written is worn and the shooter assumes the prescibed start position and the muzzle now points uprange beyond the 1 meter exception, what is the call?

Unsafe holster under Rule 5.2.6, as Troy mentioned earlier, if I thought it was an isolated case.

However it's virtually impossible for this situation to arise on my watch, because if there was any chance that some competitors would face such a problem, the start position would be modified before anybody came to the line.

How am I doing as an RMI?

[Yoda]

We have a rule that allows for 1 meter while standing erect. I'll recast the question, If the holster that fits the rule as currently written is worn and the shooter assumes the prescibed start position and the muzzle now points uprange beyond the 1 meter exception, what is the call?

Jim,

this risk should be recognized by the RO before starting the shooter. At this moment you MUST apply the following rule:

IPSC 5.2.5.3 Unless specified in the written stage briefing, or unless required by a Range Officer, the position of holsters and allied equipment must not be moved or changed by a competitor during a match.

As RO I will require any competitor with a holster in a wrong postion when starting to move their holster to another safe position.

Vince - you came close but the answer was not complete - so only a silver star and no cookies tonight!

[Jim Norman]

OK, so an approved holster in the approved postion is not OK in certain cases.

Suppose we expound a bit.

It has been said that such a situation would never occur in a match run by some people. Lets take a three day match, 100 shooters per day, on day three 20 shooters from the local LEO show up with canted holsters, they have shot all the courses except the chair start, 280 other shooters have all completed the stage, How do we change the start as has been suggested?

Do we change it just for team LEO? Do we toss it out? Do we DQ the team? Keep in mind the holster meets the rules.

The following pictures are to illustrate the point. I held a long dowel rod in the holster to show the muzzle angle. What is the RO's call on Holster #2?

Standard straight holster, rising nearly breaks the allowable angle as given in the rules.

Canted holster, while perfectly acceptable at rest will quite often project to this angle on rising. At what point would you take remedial action? The shooter's holster is within the allowance as described in the rules, yet rising from or sitting down on a chair could easily cause the situation shown. Would you DQ the shooter? Wopuld you demand a change of holster or position of the holster? Would you change the stage, thus requiring all the previous shooters to reshoot the stage?

Jim

[mcoliver]

However it's virtually impossible for this situation to arise on my watch, because if there was any chance that some competitors would face such a problem, the start position would be modified before anybody came to the line.

How am I doing as an RMI?

Again I now realize why most of our seated starts back here have the gun somewhere (and usually unloaded).

[Vince Pinto]

It has been said that such a situation would never occur in a match run by some people.

Gee, I wonder if "some people" means me?

Lets take a three day match, 100 shooters per day, on day three 20 shooters from the local LEO show up with canted holsters, they have shot all the courses except the chair start, 280 other shooters have all completed the stage, How do we change the start as has been suggested? Do we change it just for team LEO? Do we toss it out? Do we DQ the team? Keep in mind the holster meets the rules.

I can only speak for "some people" but, on my watch, a chair start will never include a holstered gun and, as McOliver noted, that is the SOP used in the Philippines, where some of the best and most creative course designers in the world reside.

However as I don't want to be accused of not answering the question asked, if I was suddenly dragged away screaming from sHooters and called to stand-in as RM on the last day of the described match, and if I was faced with the problem posed, I would require that the 20 LEOs moved or changed their holsters.

In the event that moving holsters just didn't work, and in the unlikely event that we could not find any replacement holsters from the other 280 competitors, ROs or vendors, I would then invoke Rule 2.3.3.1.

So, don't keep me in suspenders .......... how am I doing as an RMI?

[Garfield]

Hi,

Additional question: here in NL we posted this case on our NROI forum to challenge our RO's a bit, and someone said that you cannot apply 10.5.2 here because the gun was not "handled" and the 10.5 section title is about "gun handling", ergo not applicable.

I stated that the section titles are merely to be used as an indicator for the reader, but that the rules must be followed litterally. So in this case, where the shooter falls with his holstered gun and the muzzle is pointed rearwards, a mtch DQ per 10.5.2 should be applied.

What do you think about the "section titles" thing ?

[Nik Habicht]

I can only speak for "some people" but, on my watch, a chair start will never include a holstered gun and, as McOliver noted, that is the SOP used in the Philippines, where some of the best and most creative course designers in the world reside.

Vince,

that's dandy --- but there's a few smart people in USPSA too --- and they managed to approve classifiers that start the shooter seated and holstered. Obviously I'm not one of those smart people --- for I've been shooting and r.o.ing these classifiers for a while, and never noticed the problem......

Someone want to message Amidon for a rule interpretation?

I'm only designing table starts for the gun from now on....... on seated stages that is, until this resolves one way or the other.....