wgj3 Posted December 13, 2014 Share Posted December 13, 2014 Seems to me that he (Racerba) is saying that THE GUN was never READY to be fired. Ready would imply that it was in state where the shooter has the opportunity to fire or not fire the pistol. I get all the arguements... What I'm very unclear about is how we can allow someone to bring unsafe (firing without pulling trigger is unsafe and that seems clear) firearms to a match and not get a trip to Dairy Queen. A mechanical failure which prevents the shooter from being able to complete a course of fire is one thing; I agree that shooter should be allowed to continue shooting the match after remedying the problem or switching guns. However, when the failure creates an unsafe condition (firing without trigger manipulation) should not be allowed. I'm having trouble with saying that someome can bring an unsafe firearm to a match and as long as the malfuctions don't break any rules, it's ok. I think that allowing this encourages people (some of whom do not have the requisite knowledge) to tinker with firearms to a point of creating an unsafe situation where they or someone near them gets hurt. Bad juju. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
racerba Posted December 15, 2014 Share Posted December 15, 2014 Seems to me that he (Racerba) is saying that THE GUN was never READY to be fired. Ready would imply that it was in state where the shooter has the opportunity to fire or not fire the pistol. Yes, that is my argument. And broken is not necessarily unsafe... I see your point, but the broken condition may be cause by a broken piece. You really can't expect or foresee a piece to break during a match. Even if you were to use a new gun at every match, a piece may still break. That's why we have some rules such as "never point a gun at anything you are not willing to destroy." A broken gun will still be safe as long as we follow the 4 golden rules of firearm safety. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ktm300 Posted December 15, 2014 Share Posted December 15, 2014 Seems to me that he (Racerba) is saying that THE GUN was never READY to be fired. Ready would imply that it was in state where the shooter has the opportunity to fire or not fire the pistol. Yes, that is my argument. And broken is not necessarily unsafe... I see your point, but the broken condition may be cause by a broken piece. You really can't expect or foresee a piece to break during a match. Even if you were to use a new gun at every match, a piece may still break. That's why we have some rules such as "never point a gun at anything you are not willing to destroy." A broken gun will still be safe as long as we follow the 4 golden rules of firearm safety. Yes and I understand your argument, Several people, including me, just don't agree that is the way the rule is written. The simple version of Ready to Fire is the gun can go bang. It did, so it was ready to fire. In most cases in the rule book, if they want to make something more complicated that the simple reading they define that way. I find no definition to push me to go past the simple definition of Ready to Fire. Take movement for example. The simple definition is not good enough so they define movement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
racerba Posted December 15, 2014 Share Posted December 15, 2014 agreed to disagree... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nghthwk1911 Posted December 15, 2014 Share Posted December 15, 2014 So Racerba, what you are opening up to is this, a shooter "finishes a reload", take off to the next shooting position, stops, brings the gun up and takes up slack on the trigger and POP, they are DQ'ed because the gun was not "Ready to fire" yet. This is just a over exaggerated example, and RO lawyering and should be avoided. Trying to Define words beyond simple understanding for "situations" should be avoided IMO. Ready to fire is a Physical Mechanical condition that the pistol is in, it has nothing to do with the shooter or any other conditions. Ready is Ready. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
racerba Posted December 15, 2014 Share Posted December 15, 2014 (edited) So Racerba, what you are opening up to is this, a shooter "finishes a reload", take off to the next shooting position, stops, brings the gun up and takes up slack on the trigger and POP, they are DQ'ed because the gun was not "Ready to fire" yet. This is just a over exaggerated example, and RO lawyering and should be avoided. Trying to Define words beyond simple understanding for "situations" should be avoided IMO. Ready to fire is a Physical Mechanical condition that the pistol is in, it has nothing to do with the shooter or any other conditions. Ready is Ready. That is not what I am saying...not at all!!!!!! What you are describing is an AD on a gun that, in my opinion and KTM300 and others, was ready to fire...nobody argued that in your situation, the gun was not ready to fire... The gun being ready to fire means that it is in a state that it is "ready"...to be fire...ready to be manipulated so that it will fire At the point the slide closes on a new round, the gun would normally be at that state... But due to a broken gun condition, the gun fired as soon as the slide closes - instantaneously...At that point, the gun was never in a state of being "ready" to fire - it fired because it was capable of being fired...at no point was it in a state or condition of "ready" (IMHO). KTM300 and others believe that since it was capable of firing, it is therefore "ready" to fire... I was trying to differentiate the differences between the condition of being "capable" and being "ready"... They still believe they are the same, I believe they are different - so be it...we agreed to disagree... I was not redefining anything... Edited December 15, 2014 by racerba Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
outerlimits Posted December 15, 2014 Share Posted December 15, 2014 I still think this call is BS. Consider this one. Say the shooter had a revolver. We've all seen cases where a primer fails to ignite the round and the shooter keeps squeezing till the hammer strikes the same round a second time and it does ignite. i DQ'd a guy at a section match years ago when his gun didn't fire due to a light primer hit. He dismounted the gun to try to figure out what happened and it fired. When was that gun ready to be shot? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jadeslade Posted December 15, 2014 Share Posted December 15, 2014 This is getting old. If this happens to me, I will say Stop, AD, safety violation under 10.4.3. If you are the RM you can overrule me and we will all be happy. Doubt we will see this called in this manner again. I think common definitions of words are fine. That is the legal standard, anyway, even if it isn't standard in USPSA usage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bikerburgess Posted December 15, 2014 Share Posted December 15, 2014 The gun being ready to fire means that it is in a state that it is "ready"...to be fire...ready to be manipulated so that it will fire At the point the slide closes on a new round, the gun would normally be at that state... But due to a broken gun condition, the gun fired as soon as the slide closes - instantaneously...At that point, the gun was never in a state of being "ready" to fire - it fired because it was capable of being fired...at no point was it in a state or condition of "ready" (IMHO). Unless the firing pin is stuck forward and sets off the primer as the slide is closing it is not "instantaneous" if the shock of the slide closing causes the hammer to slip off the sear some time has passed between the slide going into battery and the firing pin hitting the primer. instantaneous and very quickly are not the same thing, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
racerba Posted December 15, 2014 Share Posted December 15, 2014 I still think this call is BS. Consider this one. Say the shooter had a revolver. We've all seen cases where a primer fails to ignite the round and the shooter keeps squeezing till the hammer strikes the same round a second time and it does ignite. i DQ'd a guy at a section match years ago when his gun didn't fire due to a light primer hit. He dismounted the gun to try to figure out what happened and it fired. When was that gun ready to be shot? You DQ a guy for his gun not firing???? Unless he is sweeping, what was the ground for the DQ? "Dismounted"???? Did you mean he open the cylinder? And a delay fire occurred??? I would rule this the same as a pistol when it detonates: 10.4.3.1 Exception – a detonation, which occurs while unloading a handgun, is not considered a shot or discharge subject to a match disqualification, however, Rule 5.1.6 may apply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
racerba Posted December 15, 2014 Share Posted December 15, 2014 The gun being ready to fire means that it is in a state that it is "ready"...to be fire...ready to be manipulated so that it will fire At the point the slide closes on a new round, the gun would normally be at that state... But due to a broken gun condition, the gun fired as soon as the slide closes - instantaneously...At that point, the gun was never in a state of being "ready" to fire - it fired because it was capable of being fired...at no point was it in a state or condition of "ready" (IMHO). Unless the firing pin is stuck forward and sets off the primer as the slide is closing it is not "instantaneous" if the shock of the slide closing causes the hammer to slip off the sear some time has passed between the slide going into battery and the firing pin hitting the primer. instantaneous and very quickly are not the same thing, Well, what if the firing pin was stuck in the forward location??? So you agree that it would not be in the ready state??? As to your second situation, I am not arguing over milliseconds, which cannot be timed during the course of fire between the closing of the slide and the shot fired... Either way, the gun was never at a "ready" point... According to http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ready(since everybody wants me to simply define every F&^%ing word!!!!!!!!) :properly prepared or finished and available for use Properly prepared or finished...since the gun and or parts of the gun was still moving (hammer/firing pin), it was not finished and therefore not available for use (available to be fired)... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkCO Posted December 15, 2014 Share Posted December 15, 2014 This is getting old. If this happens to me, I will say Stop, AD, safety violation under 10.4.3. If you are the RM you can overrule me and we will all be happy. Doubt we will see this called in this manner again. I think common definitions of words are fine. That is the legal standard, anyway, even if it isn't standard in USPSA usage. Yes! Agree! I can't believe that people are so focused on the "competition" that safety common sense goes out the window. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motosapiens Posted December 15, 2014 Share Posted December 15, 2014 Seems to me that he (Racerba) is saying that THE GUN was never READY to be fired. Ready would imply that it was in state where the shooter has the opportunity to fire or not fire the pistol. I get all the arguements... What I'm very unclear about is how we can allow someone to bring unsafe (firing without pulling trigger is unsafe and that seems clear) firearms to a match and not get a trip to Dairy Queen. A mechanical failure which prevents the shooter from being able to complete a course of fire is one thing; I agree that shooter should be allowed to continue shooting the match after remedying the problem or switching guns. However, when the failure creates an unsafe condition (firing without trigger manipulation) should not be allowed. I'm having trouble with saying that someome can bring an unsafe firearm to a match and as long as the malfuctions don't break any rules, it's ok. I think that allowing this encourages people (some of whom do not have the requisite knowledge) to tinker with firearms to a point of creating an unsafe situation where they or someone near them gets hurt. Bad juju. So if someone's gun doubles or triples (once), would you dq that person? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motosapiens Posted December 15, 2014 Share Posted December 15, 2014 This is getting old. If this happens to me, I will say Stop, AD, safety violation under 10.4.3. If you are the RM you can overrule me and we will all be happy. Doubt we will see this called in this manner again. I think common definitions of words are fine. That is the legal standard, anyway, even if it isn't standard in USPSA usage. the rulebook *clearly* defines an AD as something else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bikerburgess Posted December 15, 2014 Share Posted December 15, 2014 The gun being ready to fire means that it is in a state that it is "ready"...to be fire...ready to be manipulated so that it will fire At the point the slide closes on a new round, the gun would normally be at that state... But due to a broken gun condition, the gun fired as soon as the slide closes - instantaneously...At that point, the gun was never in a state of being "ready" to fire - it fired because it was capable of being fired...at no point was it in a state or condition of "ready" (IMHO). Unless the firing pin is stuck forward and sets off the primer as the slide is closing it is not "instantaneous" if the shock of the slide closing causes the hammer to slip off the sear some time has passed between the slide going into battery and the firing pin hitting the primer. instantaneous and very quickly are not the same thing, Well, what if the firing pin was stuck in the forward location??? So you agree that it would not be in the ready state??? As to your second situation, I am not arguing over milliseconds, which cannot be timed during the course of fire between the closing of the slide and the shot fired... Either way, the gun was never at a "ready" point... According to http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ready(since everybody wants me to simply define every F&^%ing word!!!!!!!!) :properly prepared or finished and available for use Properly prepared or finished...since the gun and or parts of the gun was still moving (hammer/firing pin), it was not finished and therefore not available for use (available to be fired)... your definition of "ready to fire" seams to be more like "ready to be fired by the shooter" I don't think these are the same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
outerlimits Posted December 15, 2014 Share Posted December 15, 2014 I still think this call is BS. Consider this one. Say the shooter had a revolver. We've all seen cases where a primer fails to ignite the round and the shooter keeps squeezing till the hammer strikes the same round a second time and it does ignite. i DQ'd a guy at a section match years ago when his gun didn't fire due to a light primer hit. He dismounted the gun to try to figure out what happened and it fired. When was that gun ready to be shot? You DQ a guy for his gun not firing???? Unless he is sweeping, what was the ground for the DQ? "Dismounted"???? Did you mean he open the cylinder? And a delay fire occurred??? I would rule this the same as a pistol when it detonates: 10.4.3.1 Exception – a detonation, which occurs while unloading a handgun, is not considered a shot or discharge subject to a match disqualification, however, Rule 5.1.6 may apply. hell yes I did. re-read the post-DQ cause it went off while he was looking at it-pointed down range but in the middle of remedial action. and no, it was a 1911. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
racerba Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 The gun being ready to fire means that it is in a state that it is "ready"...to be fire...ready to be manipulated so that it will fire At the point the slide closes on a new round, the gun would normally be at that state... But due to a broken gun condition, the gun fired as soon as the slide closes - instantaneously...At that point, the gun was never in a state of being "ready" to fire - it fired because it was capable of being fired...at no point was it in a state or condition of "ready" (IMHO). Unless the firing pin is stuck forward and sets off the primer as the slide is closing it is not "instantaneous" if the shock of the slide closing causes the hammer to slip off the sear some time has passed between the slide going into battery and the firing pin hitting the primer. instantaneous and very quickly are not the same thing, Well, what if the firing pin was stuck in the forward location??? So you agree that it would not be in the ready state??? As to your second situation, I am not arguing over milliseconds, which cannot be timed during the course of fire between the closing of the slide and the shot fired... Either way, the gun was never at a "ready" point... According to http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ready(since everybody wants me to simply define every F&^%ing word!!!!!!!!) :properly prepared or finished and available for use Properly prepared or finished...since the gun and or parts of the gun was still moving (hammer/firing pin), it was not finished and therefore not available for use (available to be fired)... your definition of "ready to fire" seams to be more like "ready to be fired by the shooter" I don't think these are the same thing. My definition of "ready to be fire" means the gun is in a state that is ready to be fired by an external force on the trigger, be it the shooter or what not. Yes, it would be the same thing because the gun is in a state that is waiting for an external force...a force acting on the gun/trigger that is not related to the loading process...i.e. movement of the slide...if no external force acts on the gun, the gun will remain in the ready state forever... The firing pin or hammer being released by the slamming of the slide is not an external force...it is part of the force of the slide during the loading process... If you (and others) are claiming that because of the millisecond between the gun going into battery and the gun going off, the gun is/was ready to fire...I offer you this scenario: Shooter goes to do a reload...drops his mag, and inserts a new mag - all while his finger is outside the trigger guard. As he seats the new mag, his finger hits the trigger and a round goes off - in a safe direction more than 10 ft away from the shooter but not at a target...what is your call? Remember - by your definition: - The loading is over because once the magazine seats, the gun is ready to fire... - His finger was never in the trigger guard while loading - according to your definition of when the loading was finished - It was about a millisecond between the seating and his finger hitting the trigger I would say that every single one of you will call that a DQ (10.4.3) because a shot occurred during loading/unloading... My scenario is no different that releasing the slide and a round goes off...a millisecond later... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
racerba Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 I still think this call is BS. Consider this one. Say the shooter had a revolver. We've all seen cases where a primer fails to ignite the round and the shooter keeps squeezing till the hammer strikes the same round a second time and it does ignite. i DQ'd a guy at a section match years ago when his gun didn't fire due to a light primer hit. He dismounted the gun to try to figure out what happened and it fired. When was that gun ready to be shot? You DQ a guy for his gun not firing???? Unless he is sweeping, what was the ground for the DQ? "Dismounted"???? Did you mean he open the cylinder? And a delay fire occurred??? I would rule this the same as a pistol when it detonates: 10.4.3.1 Exception – a detonation, which occurs while unloading a handgun, is not considered a shot or discharge subject to a match disqualification, however, Rule 5.1.6 may apply. hell yes I did. re-read the post-DQ cause it went off while he was looking at it-pointed down range but in the middle of remedial action. and no, it was a 1911. I probably agree with you and DQ also, but it is also a grey area because one could argue: 10.4.3.1 Exception – a detonation, which occurs while unloading a handgun, is not considered a shot or discharge subject to a match disqualification, however, Rule 5.1.6 may apply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nghthwk1911 Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 Racerba, You have it exactly!!! This is now a Huge issue and the fine line between what is and is not has caused all this discussion. In your case you can not issue the DQ, as the "Reload is Complete". As the RM at the MD State match where this originally occurred, this decision and process at the match took a while to puzzle out, and I know when I make the call with the help of seasoned RM's both in person and on the phone that the fall out would be crazy, just not this crazy. Troy has weighed in a few times on the thread (some edited) along with others of the RMI/RM core. The issue at the heart of the matter is the shooters gun was broken (proved on the rage), and be definition he did not meet any the requirements for a DQ under 10.4 at all, and because of that I had to fall back to rule 5.7.7.1. But back to your last post ,your scenario is in fact something that might just happen, the chance that an RO is in just the right spot and has the visual acuity to see the mag in and fully seated, and the finger slip in the trigger guard and stroke the trigger and light off a round, well that would be impressive and that is a very lucky shooter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bikerburgess Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 Racerba, in your example a DQ is not supported by the rules. are we as RO's likely to call it as a DQ? Yes, but it would be a incorrect call per the rules, just because many are likely to make the same mistake does not make it correct. if most RO's would make a call contrary to the rules we should probably change the way the rules in question are worded so they support what the RO's obviously feel is right. I think there are many areas in our rule book that could be improved, but until that happens we have to enforce the one we have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
racerba Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 Racerba, in your example a DQ is not supported by the rules. are we as RO's likely to call it as a DQ? Yes, but it would be a incorrect call per the rules, just because many are likely to make the same mistake does not make it correct. if most RO's would make a call contrary to the rules we should probably change the way the rules in question are worded so they support what the RO's obviously feel is right. I think there are many areas in our rule book that could be improved, but until that happens we have to enforce the one we have. However, it has been ruled that way since forever...because we don't have a way to measure the millisecond and the exact point the completion of the reload and the exact locatin of the finger at that point in time...so the DQ is the call and has been accepted by all to this day...doesn't make it scientifically right, but it is the correct call...for consistency...And no RO is making the call because they "FEEL" it's the right call...they are calling it the way it's been call in the past...again consistency... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kcobean Posted December 20, 2014 Author Share Posted December 20, 2014 So here's my takeaway from this thread (distilling out the misc. discussion): I called it a DQ when it happened. It was a fair and reasonable call in the moment. The RM was able to confirm that the gun was in fact broken and it was not a shooter action that caused the discharge, so conditions in 10.4.3 did not occur. Shot didn't go over the berm or within 10' of the shooter. So what rule are we left with that can be used to DQ the shooter? There aren't any, so the proper course of action would be to give him a zero for the stage and let him switch to his backup gun and continue the match. That's exactly what happened and ultimately I'm glad the RM overturned my initial decision because I would have felt awful for wrongfully ending the shooters match. The only heartburn I have with the shooter is that he brought a firearm with a questionable operational state to a match and by doing so, he created risk for his fellow competitors. He should have started the match with his backup gun. Discussion about "ready to fire" and whether that state can occur in any fractional time slice between inserting a mag and a slam-fire discharge has no bearing on the events in the OP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teros135 Posted December 20, 2014 Share Posted December 20, 2014 Thanks for that apt summary, kcobean, and for putting the situation In its proper perspective. Now hopefully we can put this thread to rest (and stop wringing the English language until it's writhing in agony). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StealthyBlagga Posted December 20, 2014 Share Posted December 20, 2014 (edited) ... Discussion about "ready to fire" and whether that state can occur in any fractional time slice between inserting a mag and a slam-fire discharge has no bearing on the events in the OP. I disagree. The situation as I see it is that the shooter did something that the "reasonable man" would consider to be unsafe and DQ-worthy (fired an unintended shot while in the process of loading his gun as the term is commonly understood). He got reinstated only because of a loophole/ambiguity introduced by the recent change in the definition of "loading". The fact that a loophole/ambiguity exists does not make the conduct right. IMHO this is what happens when the rules are written so strictly as to tie the hands of the RO with respect to unsafe actions. The question is whether DNROI can/will do anything to plug this loophole/ambiguity, such as by clarifying the meaning of "ready to fire". I look forward to his considered opinion in due course. Edited December 20, 2014 by StealthyBlagga Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
racerba Posted December 22, 2014 Share Posted December 22, 2014 The only heartburn I have with the shooter is that he brought a firearm with a questionable operational state to a match and by doing so, he created risk for his fellow competitors. He should have started the match with his backup gun. I doubt he knew it was in the "questionable operational state" and ready to break, else he would have rectified it before the match (IMHO). Why would you go to a match to possibly get a zero on a stage? No one knows when something is going to break all the time. If that knowledge was possible, nothing would ever go wrong... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now