DQ or no DQ? You make the call

[Jesse Tischauser]

Jesse,

I am not sure if this happened to you or not. That said I was at FNH this weekend and a shooter in my squad was DQed for abandoning his pistol this way. ROs were stumped on the call. MD came over and made the decision. Shooter handled the situation like a true professional.

Safe gun...yes.

Against the rules at FNH...yes.

Slim

It hasn't happened. To me it something similar to this and to Kurt's story of a round not in chamber but in gun has happened to me. As you have read opinions are all over the place on this topic. So one can never know exactly the result of the situation. Hopefully you have a quick tongue and the RM is your buddy!

[bikerburgess]

It should matter IF the safety is capable of being engaged. When out of battery, the safety cannot be engaged.

Can a 1911 be dumped at slide-lock if a loaded magazine is in it?

If a Glock can be dumped while fully loaded, can it be dumped if out of battery?

I think per USPSA rules a GLOCK out of battery should also be ruled unsafe. Per the rules the trigger safety is the primary external safety, and with the slide out of battery (far enough) the trigger would not be reset and the trigger safety would not be engaged, just because it is supposed to engage itself is irrelevant

[MarkCO]

Again, fault analysis is not even being considered by most people.

[kurtm]

Well now I'm confused. The shooter was D.Qed as per the rules for abandoning an unsafe gun.....how is the R.M. letting the shooter slide, friend or not? As for the sweep, the R.O. and C.R.O. both were not really in position to see if it had happened, but had the impression it had. The shooter had no input. When asked if the were sure both said not real sure, so benefit goes to the shooter...just like it always should.

You can try to make a scandal out of it all you want, but the rules were followed....Oh yeah and the M.D. was present durring the whole thing and he agreed with it as well.

Edited September 21, 2014 by kurtm

[SonOfSpartans]

Again, fault analysis is not even being considered by most people.

Mark, I am curious so I will ask directly. Do you think the way I would write the rule for handgun dumping is taking risk and fairness into account?

[MarkCO]

Fairness has to do with each competitors choices within each division. To marry competitive equality with safety should not be attempted when drafting safety rules. That is a basic tenant of safety engineering.

Passive safeties have different parameters than active safeties and those that have wear potential have different parameters. If we are going to enter the premise that everyone knows to keep their finger off the trigger and pointed in a safe direction, then all safety rules could be removed. But since I had a 1911 pointed at me by an RO at Blue Ridge who had his finger on the trigger, that that assumption would be false.

A passive, active and volitional safety control, at a minimum, should all be in the loop for an actual safety practice. When a lethal accident can occur, then there should be duplicity in at least one of those areas. Since two people do not check the firearm at the point if abandonment, the volitional double is out of play. Count the controls based on the conditions and go from there.

Realize that not all assumptions are accurate, like DQ for a rifle round on steel too close, at least the distance we use, has no foundation in safety, but in target preservation. A pistol round at 10 yards on steel is more dangerous than a rifle round on steel at 25 yards.

[Jesse Tischauser]

Again, fault analysis is not even being considered by most people.

Most of us don't know what it is either.

[StealthyBlagga]

Again, fault analysis is not even being considered by most people.

Mark, I am curious so I will ask directly. Do you think the way I would write the rule for handgun dumping is taking risk and fairness into account?

I agree with Mark. The rules are there to keep everyone on the range safe, and should incorporate layers of redundancy.

"Fair" should refer to competitive equity only - i.e. that all competitors should be treated the same way according to clearly written rules. As for whether the punishment fits the crime, that is for the rule writers to decide, not the RO/CRO/RM. Officials are there to fairly apply the rules, not cut folks slack because they think the penalties are too harsh.

Edited September 21, 2014 by StealthyBlagga

[MarkCO]

Again, fault analysis is not even being considered by most people.

Most of us don't know what it is either.

You went to engineering school yes? It should have been covered there. In any case, there are entire books written on things such as The Safety Hierarchy, FMEA (Failure Mode and Effect Analysis), fault tree analysis, etc. which are foundational to keeping people safe. The environment, risk and effects of an error or mistake all need to be considered and balanced. Much of my professional work history has been in either the creation of safety protocols, or finding the error of such when bad things have happened.

Both range safety accidents I worked on professionally this year had "safety rules" written by people who did not have the requisite experience to do so and that was directly related to the accidents.

[Jesse Tischauser]

Again, fault analysis is not even being considered by most people.

Most of us don't know what it is either.

You went to engineering school yes? It should have been covered there. In any case, there are entire books written on things such as The Safety Hierarchy, FMEA (Failure Mode and Effect Analysis), fault tree analysis, etc. which are foundational to keeping people safe. The environment, risk and effects of an error or mistake all need to be considered and balanced. Much of my professional work history has been in either the creation of safety protocols, or finding the error of such when bad things have happened.

Both range safety accidents I worked on professionally this year had "safety rules" written by people who did not have the requisite experience to do so and that was directly related to the accidents.

I guess the school I went to taught us to design stuff that doesn't fail.

[MarkCO]

They taught you fairy tales then, get your money back.

Edited September 21, 2014 by MarkCO

[Wild Gene]

I am an RO in another shooting sport. I have shot gun games since the 1980's. I have won a few things, local, state and regional.

I've seen this happen in other sports. You have a rule, the rule is not followed, shooter talks way out of rule applying to this instance because "it doesn't matter" in this case. The real question the RO should ask is "how would I apply this rule to everyone else at this match"? I don't care what the rule is, as long as it is applied equally among all shooters at the event. I am not referring to anyone in this thread!

It depends on the rules. If rules state you need to leave a gun open and empty OR any and all safeties engaged, pointed in a safe direction, this does not meet this criteria. If the rules say leave your gun at "X", it is fine. I have been to an introductory 3-Gun shoot that started with pistol and after finished with that you were to place the loaded gun pointed safely down range toward a berm and it was cleared by an RO, but there was only lateral movement, no down range movement.

The Glock vs 1911 argument does not apply here, because you choose what to shoot before the match. When you choose to shoot a 1911, you know that you have a safety that you have to specifically manipulate.

Is this gun likely to cause bodily harm in its current condition? Highly doubtful. Would I be concerned about it? No more than any abandoned gun. Is it "open and empty or have all safeties engaged", no. Could have the shooter taken a bit more care to properly abandon the gun, absolutely. Was it abandoned within the requirements stated in the rules of the match, don't know.

This is probably a better lesson on how to properly write a stage description or match rules than a question of is the gun safe.

[kurtm]

Wild Gene and several others have given very good answers to this question. Several immediately responded as to what they would do as the R.M. even though further coaxed for an "answer". The reason for this is that the pistol, in this case, is an inanimate object. No matter the condition it is in it can't be inherently "safe" or "unsafe". The "safety" aspect only occures when a human interface is added. The question can not be answered one way or the other without the context of the "rules".

I fully agree with Mark on the fact that many rules are written without any form of fault analysis.....yes even a "rock licker" was made aware of the concept of this at the school he attended, and I don't even claim to have an engineering degree.

Perhaps someone is just grumpy that he wasn't let out to play at the Trijicon World Shoot, or FNH and is taking out his frustrations on his key board.

[Vlad]

I think it is a DQ, and a match one at that. Personally I don't understand the notion of stage DQ, and I don't understand the notion of a time penalty for a safety violation.

I'll up the stakes for the basic questions at the start of the thread, I ran across this issue recently:

Stage was mostly shot shotgun/rifle but a lot of shooters chose have their handgun "loaded" and holstered and by "loaded" I mean magazine inserted, empty chamber, hammer down.

Shooter starts that way with 2011 type firearm, loaded mag, empty chamber, hammer down, and shotgun in his hands. Later in the stage he correctly grounds the shotgun, and before picking up his rifle he decides to also ground his handgun, he safely draws it and places it in the bucket has holstered, empty chamber, mag inserted, hammer forward, safety OFF.

The final call is DQ, because the handgun had ammo in it and the safety was off. I don't have a problem with that call, the rules for the match were clear that ammo in a gun with safety off is an early trip home, but I wonder how we can consider that specific condition safer then cocked and locked for the purpose of holstering it but less so for abandonment.

I know lots of people despise thick rule books, but rule books get thick by solving these type of issues.

[Tom Freeman]

DQ.

[MAC702]

...I don't understand the notion of a time penalty for a safety violation...

Like shooting a hostage?

While this is a "sport," it has its roots in practical shooting. Some things are not so much unsafe in the sporting event as they would be in real life. We have varying levels of penalties in attempting to compensate for that.

A pistol that can NOT fire is not "unsafe." So we only have the rules of the sport to go to.

I simply don't know the rules of Multigun well enough to answer the question of the rules in the thread, but what Jesse has ALSO done is ask for a discussion on what SHOULD it be. This is a fair question, and when the posts have stayed on this topic, I've enjoyed seeing the discussion.

If a fully loaded Glock can be dumped, then we have some good questions about what else can be dumped. We have all these rules about other gun designs, and the sport is about the rules instead of just the safety.

Edited September 22, 2014 by MAC702

[Vlad]

...I don't understand the notion of a time penalty for a safety violation...

Like shooting a hostage?

That is a make-believe safety violation, a no shoot it placed there to act as a possible trap for the shooter and it doesn't actually bleed when shot. A safety violation can result in real people bleeding all over the ground and a that is a completely different story then a cardboard hostage.

[kurtm]

Let,s ask this question then. If this pistol is not "unsafe", would anyone be willing to stand in front of the muzzle while it is cleared? Is a pistol that is not " unsafe" deemed "safe", or are there varying degrees of "not unsafe"?

[Nik Habicht]

Gun was grounded as you see it here. I don't care what the rules of any match say. I'm asking what you think or consider a safely grounded pistol.

Given that this is the rules forum, that may be a little much to hope for.....

[Nik Habicht]

If you ask this question on enough forums you will get the answer you want......somewhere.....somehow.

There isn't a right answer. It's a discussion. No need to be a disrespectful.

OK, it's a discussion. How about you provide the rest of the story -- did this actually happen at a match? Run under which rules? What was the outcome?

[Nik Habicht]

Most matches...rounds in the magazine of a shotgun, safety not engaged is a penalty of some sort.

Could be a match DQ depending on the match.

I understand the point about the 1911 vs. Glock. It is a conundrum. I have no good answer. I would like to penalize the Glock for that kind of sloppiness as well, but...as Doug said, no ones' rules are perfect. They are the best we can come up with.

Glock vs. 1911 - not fair. But, sometimes life...say it with me...It's just NOT FAIR!

Denise

Glock vs. 1911 is perfectly fair. On one of those guns the primary safety is applied when the trigger is released; on the other that requires another specific action, rather than being passive. Competitors however are free to choose either gun to compete with -- and one of the factors in that choice might well be whether the primary safety is actively or passively applied.....

[Nik Habicht]

Let,s ask this question then. If this pistol is not "unsafe", would anyone be willing to stand in front of the muzzle while it is cleared? Is a pistol that is not " unsafe" deemed "safe", or are there varying degrees of "not unsafe"?

I don't think that argument works. I wouldn't want to stand in front of any gun being cleared.....

[Jesse Tischauser]

If you ask this question on enough forums you will get the answer you want......somewhere.....somehow.

There isn't a right answer. It's a discussion. No need to be a disrespectful.

OK, it's a discussion. How about you provide the rest of the story -- did this actually happen at a match? Run under which rules? What was the outcome?

Someone mentioned it earlier.

It occurred to a shooter at the FNH match this past weekend.

As per the rules which state the gun must be on safe or empty or something like that the shooter was DQ'd.

Anyone that has shot even a little 3-gun or RO'd a little has seen a lot of empty chamber ammo in gun type of DQ's such as this.

Edited September 22, 2014 by Jesse Tischauser

[Dan Sierpina]

OK, it's a discussion. How about you provide the rest of the story -- did this actually happen at a match? Run under which rules? What was the outcome?

I'm sorry to have taken so long to chime in on this. After 8 hours drive, unloading the truck, then heading to the hospital to visit my mother who was taken there on Friday morning after a fall and head laceration, this didn't seem so freaking important.

This did happen at a match. It was FNH 3 Gun, using their rules, which are made available prior to the match.

Competitors received an email August 20th with a link to the rules from statistician Linda Chico.

I was the stage CRO and regretfully had to make the call. It was a clear violation of the rule, 2.5.3.2 For some reason cut and paste does not work on this computer for this site.

The photo was a recreation. No phone or camera was inserted into the dump bucket at the match, so, it has to be a recreation.

Could the round have discharged the way it landed? No, it could not, it was wedged between the slide and the barrel ramp. The gun did have ammo in it, however. This rule is a yes or no situation. Had the MD / RM overridden this decision, I would decline to work the match in the future.

It was unfortunate, but, the shooter had a good intention, but, incompletely executed action. He didn't try and whine his way out of it, and simply said he would agree to whatever decision was made. We both reviewed the said rule, as a copy of the rules were in every stage binder in the match. He is a class act, he may regret the decision to have posted the recreated photo, much like the celebrities whose nude photos are now floating around the internet.

There are no standardized rules for most 3 gun matches. Each match seems to have variations of a basic rule set. The rules for this match were followed.

It's interesting to hear from "experts" that were not present. It seems like Alinsky tactics are trying to make in roads to the shooting sports.

Now, Jesse can ask if a drawn handgun during the walk through should be a DQ!

[kurtm]

Nik, it wasn't ment to be an argument. It was ment to point out that inducing the human element to an inanimate object is when safety is perceived or not. I.E. most people would feel just fine if this was on a table or in a dump barrel, but the minute it is in someones hands that whole paradigm shifts.

Dan, it seems that there is quite a bit of that "expert not present" going on in this thread.......You made the right call based on the rules in your stage binder. Not fun for sure, but the right call.

Edited September 22, 2014 by kurtm