DQ or no DQ? You make the call

[Jadeslade]

Now dump buckets are too small

FIFY

[sdhunterman]

What is the difference between a Glock and 1911 with functioning grip safety? I never understood the need for a safety to be engaged on a firearm with passive safeties, if other firearms are allowed to utilize the same passive safeties.

While I won't disagree with the ruling(per match rule set), I don't think a firearm in this condition constitutes a match DQ. The gun, in that condition, can not fire.

[MarkCO]

What is the difference between a Glock and 1911 with functioning grip safety? I never understood the need for a safety to be engaged on a firearm with passive safeties, if other firearms are allowed to utilize the same passive safeties.

While I won't disagree with the ruling(per match rule set), I don't think a firearm in this condition constitutes a match DQ. The gun, in that condition, can not fire.

The striker spring in the Glock is not under full compression and can not ignite a primer, even if the safety plunger was removed, in the event of a single failure. The 1911, with the hammer cocked, if there is a single failure, does have enough energy to ignite a primer.

The 1911, as we are required to abandon them, and the Glock, as we are required to abandon them, in the minimum accepted condition, mechanically, are at the same condition of safety.

[Jadeslade]

Unless the trigger is pulled, accidentally.

[MarkCO]

Unless the trigger is pulled, accidentally.

Whose mechanical trigger finger?

[kurtm]

And back to a previous statement...supine......Mark..... As Cleopatra said to Mark Antony....I'm not prone to argue. :)

[Jadeslade]

Ha. Good. Mine? I know what you are saying. I have plumbed the depths of Glock triggers with Charlie Vanek. You have more faith in Glock trigger safeties than I do. And I probably have more confidence in 1911 safeties than you do. But I shoot Glocks in 3 gun cause of rules.

[Jim Norman]

There is no simple answer.

1) Unload all guns, no ammo in abandoned gun. Great, but that gets us round dumping and speed unloads which have their own sets of issues.

2) Safety on if there is any ammo in the gun. We get the Striker vs 1911 issue and we also get the issue that started this post, ammo in the gun and no way to put the safety on.

3) ammo in gun OK if gun cannot be fired in its abandoned condition. This gets us into a lot of what is and other judgement calls.

Best if we have the gun abandoned either EMPTY, i.e. NO AMMO IN THE GUN AT ALL or THE SAFETY IS ENGAGED. No waffling, the rule will be a Match DQ for violation. saying a round inserted backwards is OK opens us up to judgement calls again. State the rules and stick to them.

[MAC702]

What is the difference between a Glock and 1911 with functioning grip safety? I never understood the need for a safety to be engaged on a firearm with passive safeties, if other firearms are allowed to utilize the same passive safeties.

While I won't disagree with the ruling(per match rule set), I don't think a firearm in this condition constitutes a match DQ. The gun, in that condition, can not fire.

The striker spring in the Glock is not under full compression and can not ignite a primer, even if the safety plunger was removed, in the event of a single failure. The 1911, with the hammer cocked, if there is a single failure, does have enough energy to ignite a primer.

The 1911, as we are required to abandon them, and the Glock, as we are required to abandon them, in the minimum accepted condition, mechanically, are at the same condition of safety.

Substitute the Walther PPQ for the Glock, then.

You probably can't justify the rule with mechanics. So it's just a rule we have to live with.

Most 1911's can't fire that way, either, from a single failure.

Was this actually answered definitively: Would a Glock in the same condition, out of battery with ammo somewhere in its frame, been a DQ also?

Edited September 24, 2014 by MAC702

[Shooter115]

Although some on this board feel there is no room for arbitration let's look at 2 different scenarios. With a 1911/2011 platform, which would you rather have pointed at your chest while clearing. A gun as pictured at the beginning of this thread, where the round obviously drops to the ground as soon as the slide is pulled back or a gun with a loaded chamber that has to be placed on fire before the gun can be cleared. Now obviously I don't want to be in front of either but I'd choose the first case any day. Yet in this thread the safer gun is considered a match DQ and the other is fine.

Edited September 24, 2014 by Shooter115

[Vlad]

You guys are forgetting the human component. It isn't all about mechanics, it also about a knowing the shooter went through a well defined series of steps to safe his firearm and payed attention, not a random series of steps the lead to a random state for the abandoned firearm.

Basically this is also a "are you paying attention and are you competent" test as well, at least at some level.

I say again, if you don't like the rule write to the MD or don't shoot the game. No one is twisting your arm.

[oak hill]

Very interesting topic and discussion.

If I were to be MD / RM at a major match, I would be very inclined to go against the grain and impose a new rule stating all grounded guns must be completely empty, nothing in the chamber, mag, tube or other. This would effectively nullify any potential controversy and ultimately keep everyone on course to execute each COF safely.

[Dan Sierpina]

Very interesting topic and discussion.

If I were to be MD / RM at a major match, I would be very inclined to go against the grain and impose a new rule stating all grounded guns must be completely empty, nothing in the chamber, mag, tube or other. This would effectively nullify any potential controversy and ultimately keep everyone on course to execute each COF safely.

I got DQ'd at York this year for an AD while unloading. I'm not sure if I had brain fade, or because of numbness due to Carpal Tunnel, which was dealt with yesterday. So, requiring guns to be unloaded on the clock will not do away with the trips for frozen dairy treats either.

[Jim Norman]

Very interesting topic and discussion.

If I were to be MD / RM at a major match, I would be very inclined to go against the grain and impose a new rule stating all grounded guns must be completely empty, nothing in the chamber, mag, tube or other. This would effectively nullify any potential controversy and ultimately keep everyone on course to execute each COF safely.

I almost agree, but then I think back on a few instances of 'speed unloading' that I have seen and wonder if that is worse. Rifles and handguns are simple, hit the mag release and rack out the round, gun is now or should be empty. Shotguns are a bit more problematic, how do you empty an X-Rail quickly and safely? So do we now have two separate grounding conditions? One for Rifles and Handguns and one for Shotguns? The best way I have seen is to have bunkers that are placed so no one can walk in front of them and that will completely retain the firearm in question in a safe manner. Now you can abandon the firearm, empty, safety on or hot and there is as close to zero a chance of an issue as it is possible to have.

[Shooter115]

Very interesting topic and discussion.

If I were to be MD / RM at a major match, I would be very inclined to go against the grain and impose a new rule stating all grounded guns must be completely empty, nothing in the chamber, mag, tube or other. This would effectively nullify any potential controversy and ultimately keep everyone on course to execute each COF safely.

I don't think this is the answer either for the same reasons as mentioned above. Specifically the shotgun unloading. This is actually how all the MN matches were run up until a year or two ago and typically how the shotgun was emptied on the clock was to just burn rounds over a down target till the gun was empty. To me this is safe, but some folks feel differently. I do see it as a horrible waste of precious ammo though. Eventually the matches here changed their rules to align with what pretty much all the other matches were doing to establish a safe gun, which is either empty or on safety engaged.

[oak hill]

Dan, Jim and Shooter115: all very good points!

Yes, we could debate whether speed unloads are safer or simply engaging the safety.... I thought how such a rule would work if applied to 3 Gun Nation type fast and furious stages..... and it would certainly add more potential safety issues than simply dumping a gun in the standard fashion we have come to accept.

[Jim Norman]

Is this really that hard of a question?

Is the gun EMPTY? That is NO AMMO IN THE GUN, NO AMMO IN AN INSERTED MAGAZINE? then it is as safe as a stick

If the answer to the above is NO, then apply the safety. Can't apply the safety? Then see #1 above, empty the gun of all ammo.

All the rest of the arguments are red-herrings. I am sorry if you have to take an extra couple seconds to empty your choice of firearm over what it takes me to empty mine. Too bad. Look people we play a game akin to running with scissors here and to many range owners probably worse. An accident that we can avoid as simply as having scrupulously following one of the two scenarios above can shut down a match. Not just for the time it takes to get EMS there, but in all likelihood forever. Is that really worth the couple seconds it takes to follow the rules?

Oh, you aren't sure about the rules? RTFM, the rules for all matches are generally posted. can't find them, ASK the CRO on the stage. We don't get pleasure from tripping up a fellow shooter. We are happy to explain a requirement, much happier to do so BEFORE an incident that explain why we told you that you DQ'd

[dcloudy777]

Is the gun EMPTY? That is NO AMMO IN THE GUN, NO AMMO IN AN INSERTED MAGAZINE? then it is as safe as a stick

The Four Rules disagree.

[Jaycwebb]

This thread is awesome

Letter of the law vs Spirit of the Law

What is the meaning of "safe"

Now dump buckets are too big

Yep.

I think that if the gun was left in a state that met the requirements for a DQ in the rules, a DQ should have been issued.

I also think that it's retarded to write rules that DQ a shooter for things that aren't unsafe, such as abondoning a gun in a state where it would be impossible to fire. I don;t remember if it was this thread or another where I read someone was DQ'd for abandoning an otherwise safe shotgun because a spent hull was caught in the port. Seems kind of

[MAC702]

You guys are forgetting the human component. It isn't all about mechanics, it also about a knowing the shooter went through a well defined series of steps to safe his firearm and payed attention, not a random series of steps the lead to a random state for the abandoned firearm.

Basically this is also a "are you paying attention and are you competent" test as well, at least at some level...

This, and your earlier comment about some types of malfs can go into battery very easily, are very valid and useful to the discussion. Thank you.

I say again, if you don't like the rule write to the MD or don't shoot the game. No one is twisting your arm.

This is not useful to the discussion, and nothing more than argumentative for argument's sake. There is nothing wrong with a detailed discussion of the rules and their reasonings while possibly formulating a response to the imperfect people who help us by developing these rules.

[Vlad]

There is nothing wrong with a detailed discussion of the rules and their reasonings while possibly formulating a response to the imperfect people who help us by developing these rules.

The people writing the rules do so most often in reaction to a problem they had to solve. You may or may not agree with it rules, and sometimes the reasoning can't even be put on paper to protect someone's privacy. I've seen rules who only appeared in 3gun rulebooks as specific reactions to events I've witnessed, but they are sometime events one doesn't speak about in public.

Sometimes rules have something to do with the land owner of the range who may have strange ideas of their own.

My point is that it isn't always as simple as X is safe and Y isn't and sometimes the reasons are far more complex then they first seem,

Edited September 24, 2014 by Vlad

[J.Schmitt]

When the penslty is steep like a DQ it helps to channel caution for most. Some of course are just plain reckless. Some who havd been around a little while and have been DQ'd themselve operate within a greater scope of caution/safety.

I have had to deal with speed abandonment this year with all 3 guns. Many shooters are throwing them into the dumps and not treating them as if they were loaded, and some are loaded. Respect for the lethality of the gun has for some been replaced with a desire for pure speed.

I attribute some of this to newer shooters watching, on the range and on TV and youtube, experienced competitors move fast. Or what they attribute as fast which may actually be deliberate skill.

So while none of us want that situation to happen to us and end our match I think the rules cover the infraction with no other explanation or addittion needed.

Jay

[Jadeslade]

Jay, you run a really good match. But if a rule seems arbitrary and is made because of perceived issues that are not discussed and then you say no explanation needed, that just sounds like kind of "whatever" and our rules are our rules because. That does nothing to further the cause of safety. Real safety would be steel vessels for abandonment. Clearing by shooter only. We are working with suboptimal dump buckets most of the time and the exigencies of moving X amount of shooters through a match. Agree with you on not giving loaded arms respect and going too fast at abandonment.

[J.Schmitt]

Slight confusion on my part, I guess I was trying to say is that a rule to govern abandonment is needed. No ammo in the gun is a clear rule it seams in this case. So I am not suggesting a 'whatever' but affirming that a rule of no ammo in the gun, barring safety, is clearly stated.

Jay