Holster Angles

[Sarge]

I am shaking my head in confusion. I agree the rule should have loaded removed.

[GuildSF4]

Either that or be re-worded as in post 25.

[Sarge]

Either that or be re-worded as in post 25.

agreed. The whole"going prone drift" still has me scratching my head. It has absolutely nothing to do with drawing or holstering.

[ac4wordplay]

Would you prefer this wording?

10.5.6 While facing downrange, allowing the muzzle of a handgun loaded or unloaded to point uprange beyond a radius of 3 feet from a competitor’s feet while

drawing or re-holstering.

That would be okay, but I might prefer this:

10.5.6 While facing downrange, allowing the muzzle of a handgun to point uprange beyond a radius of 3 feet from a competitor’s feet while drawing or re-holstering.

[GuildSF4]

Either is fine with me, no vested interest. Saying loaded without saying unloaded just makes no sense.

[9146gt]

Would you prefer this wording?

10.5.6 While facing downrange, allowing the muzzle of a handgun loaded or unloaded to point uprange beyond a radius of 3 feet from a competitor’s feet while

drawing or re-holstering.

That would be okay, but I might prefer this:

10.5.6 While facing downrange, allowing the muzzle of a handgun to point uprange beyond a radius of 3 feet from a competitor’s feet while drawing or re-holstering.

Knees bent or straight...I hate stupid rules that are hard to enforce.

Tom

[bikerburgess]

It gets more complicated next year when facing down range becomes a defined and is specific for the direction of the feet, hips, shoulders and head

So the facing down range portion probably needs rewording as well.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

[ac4wordplay]

It gets more complicated next year when facing down range becomes a defined and is specific for the direction of the feet, hips, shoulders and head

So the facing down range portion probably needs rewording as well.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

Interesting! That could get quite awkward! How would you like it to be worded?

[Skydiver]

Since humans don't have reversed knees (unless you have blade prosthetic like Pistorius), bent knees will only make things safer. Perhaps what you really meant to ask was whether bent forward at the waist or not.

As an aside, I had designed a stage where the start position was kneeling facing downrange. If the muzzle had to be within 3 feet of the shooters feet, then some muzzles would have definitely been pointing past the 180 to comply with the 3 feet. Obviously this is not the result you would want. We want the muzzle within to 3 foot cone defined by shooters waist projected towards the ground.

Edited November 30, 2013 by Skydiver

[coldchar]

I believe the wording, as is, is appropriate. Without that wording, the inadvertent 30 degree violation, after the shooter has complied with the unload and show clear command, would not result in a DQ. The point of the rules are safety, not how many can we throw out.

Jim G.

Edited December 3, 2013 by coldchar

[Sarge]

I believe the wording, as is, is appropriate. Without that wording, the inadvertent 30 degree violation, after the shooter has complied with the unload and show clear command, would not result in a DQ. The point of the rules are safety, not how many can we throw out.

Jim G.

Disagree. Any gun pointed uprange beyond what is considered safe in the cited rule.(3 feet)is a bad thing. Inadvertent does not factor into it either. I'm sure nobody ever MEANS to violate a rule that results in a DQ. I have had a shooter make it all the way to "holster" and decide to reach down and pick up a mag. He swept his hand and pointed the gun uprange between his legs. I know that gun was clear but there was no doubt in my mind it was unsafe and deserving of a DQ.

[bikerburgess]

I believe the wording, as is, is appropriate. Without that wording, the inadvertent 30 degree violation, after the shooter has complied with the unload and show clear command, would not result in a DQ. The point of the rules are safety, not how many can we throw out.

Jim G.

I think you are missing my point if 3' is ok with a loaded gun why is it not with a unloaded gun? imagine a shooter has a FBI cant holster that meats the holster angle requirement ( less than 3' from feet while standing) they come to the line and you say Make Ready they, they begin to draw their pistol and as soon as the trigger clears the holster you say Stop and issue a DQ for breaking the 180 as at that moment they are in violation of rule 10.5.6 because the gun is not loaded. I agree we are not in the business of trying to issue DQs and I have never seen 10.5.6 enforced this way although I know i have seen the rule broken. what I think we need is for the rule to be written so it matches how it is being enforced.