Detail question about dropping a loaded magazine

[mikeinctown]

Thomas, I'm only getting into shooting now and trying to decide on which organization I want to go with, but I have to say that you really appear to be trolling here. The rule as you posted is pretty plain as to its language and inference. If a malfunction happens you clear the ammo and discard it without a penalty. It should go without saying that if you clear the ammo and discard it, that you would want to put a new magazine in to continue, especially in an organization that uses time as one of the competitive aspects. im sure if you were at the range you may do some inspection or clear one round and try again, but in a defensive situation, or in a competition, it should go without saying that you don't want to fumble around, but rather just get the job done and move on as fast as possible.

I would go far as to say that someone shouldn't be around guns if the language isn't clear enough.

[Thomas H]

Thomas, I'm only getting into shooting now and trying to decide on which organization I want to go with, but I have to say that you really appear to be trolling here. The rule as you posted is pretty plain as to its language and inference. If a malfunction happens you clear the ammo and discard it without a penalty. It should go without saying that if you clear the ammo and discard it, that you would want to put a new magazine in to continue, especially in an organization that uses time as one of the competitive aspects. im sure if you were at the range you may do some inspection or clear one round and try again, but in a defensive situation, or in a competition, it should go without saying that you don't want to fumble around, but rather just get the job done and move on as fast as possible.

I would go far as to say that someone shouldn't be around guns if the language isn't clear enough.

I would go so far as to say "Please read what I wrote before responding" as it is obvious that you didn't read what I said several times.

As I said several times---the part that seems odd to me is considering the situation a malfunction. The rule is indeed clear in terms of what the SO should and should not penalize in the case of a malfunction.

(I'll note that GOF is still wrong in that he says rule 3.11.3 tells the shooter what to do, which it obviously doesn't---it tells the SO what to do, and it tells the shooter what is allowed. As a comparison, rule 2.12.3.3.1 gives instructions to the shooter. Rule 3.11.3, however, tells the shooter that IF they do a certain thing, it won't be penalized, which is also an instruction to the SO.)

And, as I said multiple times, if that is the way the situation is handled, that's nice to know. It wouldn't have occurred to me to call that a malfunction, as the gun probably did exactly what it was supposed to do, and the shooter missed it (and thought it was something else). The shooter didn't clear a malfunction, the shooter reloaded and moved on. However, since the situation was called a malfunction, the shooter's mistake was covered.

(That isn't a comment on the shooter's ability, by the way. We all miss stuff sometimes.)

Again, my point is simply that I found it odd that it was called a malfunction clearance when it wasn't, and that is a useful thing to know (that it would be called a malfunction clearance) in the case of ever seeing it at a match.

Which, since I've now said that three times, should probably be enough for clarity?

Actually, it occurs to me to add something else, in response to this:

If a malfunction happens you clear the ammo and discard it without a penalty. It should go without saying that if you clear the ammo and discard it, that you would want to put a new magazine in to continue, especially in an organization that uses time as one of the competitive aspects. im sure if you were at the range you may do some inspection or clear one round and try again, but in a defensive situation, or in a competition, it should go without saying that you don't want to fumble around, but rather just get the job done and move on as fast as possible.

If I have a stovepipe jam, I'm not going to "clear the ammo and discard it"---I'm certainly not going to drop the magazine when I can simply sweep the casing off, rack the slide, and continue. I can think of any number of malfunctions where dropping the magazine is NOT a good idea as part of the malfunction clearance. (Dead trigger, for example. Or magazine not seated fully.) After all, tap-rack-bang is a fairly common malfunction-handling sequence, yes?

As such, while I want to get the job done and move on as fast as possible, the idea of "clear the ammo and discard it" seems quite a bad idea as an automatic plan.

So yes---IF your malfunction clearance causes you to drop a mag with rounds in it in an IDPA match, the rule states clearly and obviously that there will be no penalty.

That doesn't make "dropping the mag" a good choice for automatic malfunction clearance. In a similar fashion, it has nothing to do with whether or not the situation described by the OP was actually a malfunction clearance, though as shown in the replies, it apparently would be treated as malfunction clearance in an IDPA match.

As one last comment: When deciding which organization to go with---choose all of them. IDPA and USPSA (among others) are all fun. Shoot 'em all!

[GOF]

Your strawman arguments to the contrary, the OP addressed a slide locking back with rounds remaining in the chamber. That was the issue addressed, and answered, until you started trolling.

[Thomas H]

Your strawman arguments to the contrary, the OP addressed a slide locking back with rounds remaining in the chamber. That was the issue addressed, and answered, until you started trolling.

Yes, because discussion of a situation shouldn't occur. Can't have that happening! (You sure you don't work for IDPA HQ?)

[mikeinctown]

Thomas, GOF is correct. The question of a stovepipe as you describe is neither spoken about with this rule nor is it discussed in this thread. And as much as you want to claim that the rule is for the SO, it equally applies to the shooter as well because it explains what they may do without incurring a penalty. Also notice it says that when clearing ammunition, not clearing jams, stovepipes, or other types of malfunctions. The wording of the rule does indeed imply that one should clear the potentially bad ammo, discard it, and will incur no penalty if doing so.

[Thomas H]

I had to break this apart, as it said several things, many of which contradicted:

Thomas, GOF is correct. The question of a stovepipe as you describe is neither spoken about with this rule nor is it discussed in this thread.

GOF said the rule tells the shooter what to do in the case of a malfunction. You said: "If a malfunction happens you clear the ammo and discard it without a penalty."

I gave the simple example of a malfunction in which you would not want to do that.

So: GOF said the rule tells the shooter what to do in the case of a malfunction, and you said indeed you clear the ammo (matter of fact, you said: "It should go without saying that if you clear the ammo and discard it, that you would want to put a new magazine in to continue, especially in an organization that uses time as one of the competitive aspects.")

...and so I gave a simple example of a malfunction where that is not true.

If you or GOF did not mean all malfunctions, then you should have said so. GOF claims the rule tells you what to do in the case of a malfunction. A stovepipe jam is a malfunction.

So your argument is what exactly? "It doesn't count somehow"?

And as much as you want to claim that the rule is for the SO, it equally applies to the shooter as well because it explains what they may do without incurring a penalty.

I believe that is what I said. Let me check, here's what I said: "I'll note that GOF is still wrong in that he says rule 3.11.3 tells the shooter what to do, which it obviously doesn't---it tells the SO what to do, and it tells the shooter what is allowed."

Yep, there we go.

It still does not tell the shooter what to do.

Also notice it says that when clearing ammunition, not clearing jams, stovepipes, or other types of malfunctions. The wording of the rule does indeed imply that one should clear the potentially bad ammo, discard it, and will incur no penalty if doing so.

So---you don't consider a stovepipe a malfunction? Jams are not malfunctions?

I also note that you are not correct---it does NOT say "when clearing ammunition." It says when clearing malfunctions.

I again quote the actual rule:

3.11.3. Malfunction Clearing Exception: When clearing a malfunction, the magazine or speed loader/moon
clip and /or ammunition that may have caused the malfunction does not need to be retained by the shooter and will incur no penalty if dropped.

The wording doesn't imply that you "should" do anything. Merely that during your malfunction clearing, IF you happen to drop a mag that has ammo in it, you won't be penalized.

So: in the original case, the entire point was that the specific situation mentioned by the OP was classified as a malfunction, which made leaving ammo behind legal. It seemed odd to me to be considered a malfunction (for reasons already stated) but since that seems to be the standard response, that is useful to know. (And now I've said that a fourth time.)

GOF went on the attack, claiming (among other things) that I haven't read the rulebook, and then claimed that the rulebook instructed the shooter on what to do. As numerous quotations of the actual rule have shown, this is not true.

Now, mike claims that jams and stovepipes aren't malfunctions, and that all malfunctions should be cleared by removing all ammunition from the gun, and that the rule IMPLIES that the shooter should do so.

And yet----they call ME a troll. Hm.

[GOF]

Gee Thomas, it must be really tough to do your trolling when the whole world seems to be against you.

But, I'm glad I'm still on the top of your list for people to attack in your trolling. I feel like I'm a celebrity

Edited to note that no editing was done to this post.

Edited November 18, 2014 by GOF

[mikeinctown]

Thomas, this entire thread is based on the question regarding if it is acceptable to drop a loaded magazine. the rule as states clearly deals with it, and go so far as to define a specific malfunction.

Are there other malfunctions that can possibly happen to a gun, well I guess a frame could crack in half but then that rule probably wouldn't apply and the OP wouldn't have asked his specific question. Your arguments are pointless as they do not deal with the original question where a specific rule in the book does.

I've read other posts of yours in the IDPA section and they are spot in, in my opinion, but on this one you want to continue arguing a wrong point and continue to come up with a discussion which is not being discussed. You want to keep splitting hairs on a bald man. Also, your difinition of a stovepipe is NOT discussed in this rule because a stovepipe is NOT ammunition, it is a spent case. The rule specifically talks about AMMUNITION involved in the malfuction, not one of your other scenarios.

[Thomas H]

Thomas, this entire thread is based on the question regarding if it is acceptable to drop a loaded magazine. the rule as states clearly deals with it, and go so far as to define a specific malfunction.

Whereupon, in the following discussion about how that seems odd that it is called a malfunction, there were claims made not supported by rules. And then a discussion about the rules (in the rules forum) occurred.

Are there other malfunctions that can possibly happen to a gun, well I guess a frame could crack in half but then that rule probably wouldn't apply and the OP wouldn't have asked his specific question. Your arguments are pointless as they do not deal with the original question where a specific rule in the book does.

I'm thinking that if you meant "only the malfunction in the OP, as opposed to the general discussion currently being had" you should have said so---particularly because you were talking about what the RULE says. The rule isn't limited to any one situation, and you were making claims that the rule said you had to do something in particular given a malfunction--and that isn't true, as I showed by simply mentioning other types of malfunctions.

I've read other posts of yours in the IDPA section and they are spot in, in my opinion, but on this one you want to continue arguing a wrong point and continue to come up with a discussion which is not being discussed.

Arguing a wrong point? I'm arguing about specific incorrect statements made not supported by the rules---particularly the ones that were made about the rules in general.

GOF answered the OP's question pretty much right off the bat by saying what happens in matches. (Which I noted.) After that, the discussion turned to other things related to that topic. Pretty normal.

You want to keep splitting hairs on a bald man. Also, your difinition of a stovepipe is NOT discussed in this rule because a stovepipe is NOT ammunition, it is a spent case. The rule specifically talks about AMMUNITION involved in the malfuction, not one of your other scenarios.

Mike, you said:

The rule as you posted is pretty plain as to its language and inference. If a malfunction happens you clear the ammo and discard it without a penalty.

My point was simply in response to that---which was, the rule doesn't say you have to do that, and in many cases of various malfunctions (a couple of which I listed) you don't want to drop the ammo.

IF you discard the ammo, it isn't a penalty. But the rule doesn't say you HAVE to do so, which is what GOF claimed, and you are supporting. (Or at least, that is what you have said. Maybe that wasn't what you meant?) Hence my responses, because I think it is important for folks to know that they are NOT required to clear the ammo out of the gun for all malfunctions.

Yes, the rule says the shooter will not be penalized for dropping magazines with ammunition. It doesn't say the shooter has to drop magazines with ammunition. Rather an important distinction, and one that seems to be lost on GOF, which is why this whole thing started.

Oddly enough, you seem to be arguing something other than what is being said, which is what you are accusing me of.

[GOF]

"Troll, troll, troll again, merrily down the stream, merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily, life is but a dream...