Broken Gun = Not an AD?

[frag316]

I'll be honest here--I think there's a conflict between the 10.4.3 language and the 5.7 language, mostly because the 5.7 language seems to cover all malfunctions and 10.4.3 covers only malfunctions where a shot is fired. Does the 10-series set of instructions take precedence because of safety? Or does the 5.7-series set of instructions take precedence because of equipment failure?

[StealthyBlagga]

I'll be honest here--I think there's a conflict between the 10.4.3 language and the 5.7 language, mostly because the 5.7 language seems to cover all malfunctions and 10.4.3 covers only malfunctions where a shot is fired. Does the 10-series set of instructions take precedence because of safety? Or does the 5.7-series set of instructions take precedence because of equipment failure?

I always took it that 5.7 and its sub-rules provide guidance on how to handle the various malfunctions and breakages that cause either a slow time, an unfinished stage or a POTENTIALLY unsafe condition. So long as these conditions do not pose a safety threat to the competitor or others on the range, the competitor is free to attempt to rectify the situation within the limits described in 5.7. If the RO believes there is an imminent hazard (e.g. blocked barrel, following hammer etc.), he MAY stop the competitor in the interest of safety under 5.7. However, once an affirmatively unsafe phenomenon occurs (e.g. accidental discharge), then the provisions of 10.4 would kick in, and, with the demise of the broken gun alibi, would do so independent of 5.7. If this were not the case, why would USPSA ever have gotten rid of the broken gun alibi? This is just my interpretation, and I look forward to DNROI's take on the matter.

As an interesting point, the broken gun alibi, as written, used to absolve the competitor of ALL sins under 10.4... a round could be fired over the berm or at the competitors feet, while reloading AND moving AND transferring the gun between hands AND while clearing a malfunction. I for one was glad to see the back of it. I believe the specific and unusual case presented in this thread is a loophole that arose as an unintended consequence of the recent rules changes, and I am hopeful a clarification from DNROI/BOD will again banish the broken gun alibi from our lexicon in the US. Alas I will still bump up against it when working international matches (as I did at the World Shoot).

Edited November 13, 2014 by StealthyBlagga

[motosapiens]

, and I am hopeful a clarification from DNROI/BOD will again banish the broken gun alibi from our lexicon in the US.

I really don't think this is a case of a broken gun alibi. If the round hits closer than 10' or goes over the berm, or if the shooter is moving, it's still a dq whether the gun malfunctioned or not. Likewise, if the round goes further than 10', and doesn't go over the berm, and the shooter is not moving, it's not a dq, whether the gun malfunctioned or not. The more I think about it, the more it seems consistent to me.

[Nik Habicht]

OTOH, I personally have never witnessed a slam-fire in 3 years of shooting a couple matches a month (and RO-ing 5 different majors), so perhaps it's not as grave a problem as it sounds.

I have seen one in 4 years. As an RO in major matches I have run well over a thousand shooters. Over 1200 just last month at the World Shoot.

He was making ready and when he dropped the slide, the hammer followed and the gun went off. Finger clearly out of the the trigger guard. The gun was pointed in a safe direction, in fact the bullet hit a target. I know him and he is very good about keeping his guns in good working order. In this case a new part failed.

I have seen only one, but it was at an outlaw gun match a couple of years ago. The competitor was making ready with his pistol and the gun went off when he stroked the slide. The guy running him cleared him, he went and got a new gun, then shot the CoF--yes, they gave him a reshoot.

He never shot the stage, right? This happened before the beep? Then it's not a reshoot per se.....

[racerba]

OTOH, I personally have never witnessed a slam-fire in 3 years of shooting a couple matches a month (and RO-ing 5 different majors), so perhaps it's not as grave a problem as it sounds.

I have seen one in 4 years. As an RO in major matches I have run well over a thousand shooters. Over 1200 just last month at the World Shoot.

He was making ready and when he dropped the slide, the hammer followed and the gun went off. Finger clearly out of the the trigger guard. The gun was pointed in a safe direction, in fact the bullet hit a target. I know him and he is very good about keeping his guns in good working order. In this case a new part failed.

I have seen only one, but it was at an outlaw gun match a couple of years ago. The competitor was making ready with his pistol and the gun went off when he stroked the slide. The guy running him cleared him, he went and got a new gun, then shot the CoF--yes, they gave him a reshoot.

He never shot the stage, right? This happened before the beep? Then it's not a reshoot per se.....

it was an "outlaw" match...

[kcobean]

OTOH, I personally have never witnessed a slam-fire in 3 years of shooting a couple matches a month (and RO-ing 5 different majors), so perhaps it's not as grave a problem as it sounds.

I have seen one in 4 years. As an RO in major matches I have run well over a thousand shooters. Over 1200 just last month at the World Shoot.

He was making ready and when he dropped the slide, the hammer followed and the gun went off. Finger clearly out of the the trigger guard. The gun was pointed in a safe direction, in fact the bullet hit a target. I know him and he is very good about keeping his guns in good working order. In this case a new part failed.

I have seen only one, but it was at an outlaw gun match a couple of years ago. The competitor was making ready with his pistol and the gun went off when he stroked the slide. The guy running him cleared him, he went and got a new gun, then shot the CoF--yes, they gave him a reshoot.

He never shot the stage, right? This happened before the beep? Then it's not a reshoot per se.....

it was an "outlaw" match...

I think his point was not that the shooter shouldn't have gotten a re-shoot, it's that because the AD happened before the start signal, a "shoot" never occurred in the first place, no score was recorded, thus to call a second attempt a "re-shoot" is technically inaccurate. The first attempt at the CoF was the one that happened after the gun was replaced with a backup.

[Jadeslade]

Ok, still confused. Been reading the rules, RO course this weekend-I know should have taken it before, just never did. What is the upshot here? I get the ipsc vs Uspsa on the broken gun rule, and the parsing of the wording of load vs. reload vis-a-vis 2014 Rule book, but I'm not sure exactly what we are saying here- if you load after the beep and you get an AD, it's an AD, so it's a DQ, right? But if you load, and you have the gun aimed at a target (or at least at the berm) and the hammer follows, and gun fires-not an AD, right? That happens so fast I think most of us would yell stop, cause it seems like a shot fired while loading, which I think most of the time would be a finger on the trigger. So then if I realize that the shooters finger was not on the trigger-they get a reshoot cause no safety violation? Or do I need(or RM) to test the gun for hammer follow. If follow-no DQ, use another gun, no reshoot? If no follow, DQ? I get Stealthy saying I know it when I see it, but I think he means unsafe gun handling even though he said AD, I think we all do once we shoot enough, but this is very technical compared to 180, sweeping, and the general mayhem of new shooters. Please tell me this won't be on my exam this weekend.

Oh, what is meant by "broken gun alibi", not really familiar with that term or where it comes from. Thanks.

Edited November 14, 2014 by Jadeslade

[motosapiens]

I'm not sure exactly what we are saying here- if you load after the beep and you get an AD, it's an AD, so it's a DQ, right? But if you load, and you have the gun aimed at a target (or at least at the berm) and the hammer follows, and gun fires-not an AD, right?.

you have it backwards. an AD during load and make ready is always a dq. an AD that goes in a safe direction AFTER the beep is just a broken gun, not a dq. So like on an empty gun start, or a slide-lock reload, if you get a slam-fire, you are ok as long as the round goes somewhere safe.

[Jadeslade]

Ok. Any AD is a DQ, anytime. Got that. Not sure what you mean by slam fire-haven't seen that in a pistol, have in an AR. If this shooter had his gun down, would have been an AD. By definition, an AD doesn't go in a safe direction. I guess I'm asking just about this specific case. I think it difficult to determine in real time and I would probably have done exactly what the OP did. There seems to be some technical issues in the rules that is in dispute or conflict on what would be a consistent ruling according to the rules. Thanks.

Edited November 14, 2014 by Jadeslade

[kcobean]

Ok. Any AD is a DQ, anytime. Got that. Not sure what you mean by slam fire-haven't seen that in a pistol, have in an AR. If this shooter had his gun down, would have been an AD. By definition, an AD doesn't go in a safe direction. I guess I'm asking just about this specific case. I think it difficult to determine in real time and I would probably have done exactly what the OP did. There seems to be some technical issues in the rules that is in dispute or conflict on what would be a consistent ruling according to the rules. Thanks.

On your first statement, no not really. This whole thread started because of a "slam fire" (or in this case hammer follow) in a pistol. After the beep, the competitor inserted a mag in his unloaded gun and when he racked the slide and the slide returned to battery the gun went off. Here's the rundown:

a: he wasn't moving or he'd have DQ'd under 10.4.6.

b: he didn't send the round over the berm or he'd have DQ'd under 10.4.1.

c: The round didn't strike the ground within 10 feet of him or he'd have DQ'd under 10.4.2.

d: His finger wasn't on the trigger or he'd have DQ'd under 10.5.9. This was confirmed by the RM after the fact, as the RM was able to reproduce the condition.

e: Because the gun was in battery with a fully inserted mag, per the strict definition of "loading", the action of loading was completed, so it's not a DQ per 10.4.3

So apparently the ruling is that the discharge was not a punishable action per any rule in Chapter 10 of the rulebook.

The question to DNROI is this: Should a slam-fire that occurs upon the slide's return to battery be considered a shot that occurs during loading/reloading or not. As strictly defined by the current rule-book, it's not. But it is clearly not an intentionally fired shot. The shooter has one hand on the gun and is not in the process of engaging a target. It's an uncommon circumstance, but it happens and it should (In my humble opinion) be clarified.

Edited November 14, 2014 by kcobean

[Jadeslade]

Yes. Thank you. I read the whole thread. I understand it did not fit in strictly defined definition, apparently, of AD. If he had shot himself in the foot, under the exact same scenario, it would have been an AD. That's what I meant about an AD is an AD, no matter when it occurs. I think 99 per cent of people running this shooter would have stopped him for AD while "loading", myself included. My question is what is the upshot of this discussion, happening, occurrence and thread? I get the issues. I am not disagreeing with you, I think using terms like"slam fire" which are not in the rule book, fogs the issue. Thank you.

[kcobean]

Yes. Thank you. I read the whole thread. I understand it did not fit in strictly defined definition, apparently, of AD. If he had shot himself in the foot, under the exact same scenario, it would have been an AD. That's what I meant about an AD is an AD, no matter when it occurs. I think 99 per cent of people running this shooter would have stopped him for AD while "loading", myself included. My question is what is the upshot of this discussion, happening, occurrence and thread? I get the issues. I am not disagreeing with you, I think using terms like"slam fire" which are not in the rule book, fogs the issue. Thank you.

Just to clarify, in your previous post you said "An AD is a DQ, anytime", not "An AD is an AD". That's why I said "not really"....This thread about the possibility that an AD is NOT a DQ in this one circumstance and whether it should or shouldn't be.

I *think* the upshot is that DNROI is taking this up with the RMI Corps to decide if a clarification or change to the rules/definitions is appropriate. As a CRO, I have no emotional investment one way or the other. I just need a clear set of rules to apply and I'm good to go. IF DNROI comes back and says the rules as they are written are sufficient and this particular instance should not be a DQ, that's ok with me. If they change the rules to indicate that an AD resulting from a verifiably malfunctioning gun is on the shooter and thus an DQ, I'm ok with that too.

As for the term slam fire, it IS what happened. I could say "broken gun" or "equipment malfunction" but it's quite different than something like a broken striker spring in that it caused a gun to fire inadvertently, which puts "broken gun" into "unsafe" territory. But I see what you're saying..it's an "undefined term" per the rulebook.

[ac4wordplay]

Ok. Any AD is a DQ, anytime. Got that. Not sure what you mean by slam fire-haven't seen that in a pistol, have in an AR. If this shooter had his gun down, would have been an AD. By definition, an AD doesn't go in a safe direction. I guess I'm asking just about this specific case. I think it difficult to determine in real time and I would probably have done exactly what the OP did. There seems to be some technical issues in the rules that is in dispute or conflict on what would be a consistent ruling according to the rules. Thanks.

On your first statement, no not really. This whole thread started because of a "slam fire" (or in this case hammer follow) in a pistol. After the beep, the competitor inserted a mag in his unloaded gun and when he racked the slide and the slide returned to battery the gun went off. Here's the rundown:

a: he wasn't moving or he'd have DQ'd under 10.4.6.

b: he didn't send the round over the berm or he'd have DQ'd under 10.4.1.

c: The round didn't strike the ground within 10 feet of him or he'd have DQ'd under 10.4.2.

d: His finger wasn't on the trigger or he'd have DQ'd under 10.5.9. This was confirmed by the RM after the fact, as the RM was able to reproduce the condition.

e: Because the gun was in battery with a fully inserted mag, per the strict definition of "loading", the action of loading was completed, so it's not a DQ per 10.4.3

So apparently the ruling is that the discharge was not a punishable action per any rule in Chapter 10 of the rulebook.

The question to DNROI is this: Should a slam-fire that occurs upon the slide's return to battery be considered a shot that occurs during loading/reloading or not. As strictly defined by the current rule-book, it's not. But it is clearly not an intentionally fired shot. The shooter has one hand on the gun and is not in the process of engaging a target. It's an uncommon circumstance, but it happens and it should (In my humble opinion) be clarified.

"e: Because the gun was in battery with a fully inserted mag, per the strict definition of "loading", the action of loading was completed, so it's not a DQ

per 10.4.3"

Your point "e" conclusion is not correct, nor is that an application of "the strict definition". Please recognize that you didn't quote the USPSA rulebook definition of "loading" (you omitted an important part), and that the definition also includes the clause "and ready to fire". See my posts (#47, #64, #66) and recognize that per the USPSA rulebook definition of "loading", the definition wasn't satisfied, and therefor was not completed. Per the USPSA rulebook rules and definitions 10.4.3 is the correct outcome.

Respectfully,

ac

[kcobean]

Ok. Any AD is a DQ, anytime. Got that. Not sure what you mean by slam fire-haven't seen that in a pistol, have in an AR. If this shooter had his gun down, would have been an AD. By definition, an AD doesn't go in a safe direction. I guess I'm asking just about this specific case. I think it difficult to determine in real time and I would probably have done exactly what the OP did. There seems to be some technical issues in the rules that is in dispute or conflict on what would be a consistent ruling according to the rules. Thanks.

On your first statement, no not really. This whole thread started because of a "slam fire" (or in this case hammer follow) in a pistol. After the beep, the competitor inserted a mag in his unloaded gun and when he racked the slide and the slide returned to battery the gun went off. Here's the rundown:

a: he wasn't moving or he'd have DQ'd under 10.4.6.

b: he didn't send the round over the berm or he'd have DQ'd under 10.4.1.

c: The round didn't strike the ground within 10 feet of him or he'd have DQ'd under 10.4.2.

d: His finger wasn't on the trigger or he'd have DQ'd under 10.5.9. This was confirmed by the RM after the fact, as the RM was able to reproduce the condition.

e: Because the gun was in battery with a fully inserted mag, per the strict definition of "loading", the action of loading was completed, so it's not a DQ per 10.4.3

So apparently the ruling is that the discharge was not a punishable action per any rule in Chapter 10 of the rulebook.

The question to DNROI is this: Should a slam-fire that occurs upon the slide's return to battery be considered a shot that occurs during loading/reloading or not. As strictly defined by the current rule-book, it's not. But it is clearly not an intentionally fired shot. The shooter has one hand on the gun and is not in the process of engaging a target. It's an uncommon circumstance, but it happens and it should (In my humble opinion) be clarified.

"e: Because the gun was in battery with a fully inserted mag, per the strict definition of "loading", the action of loading was completed, so it's not a DQ

per 10.4.3"

Your point "e" conclusion is not correct, nor is that an application of "the strict definition". Please recognize that you didn't quote the USPSA rulebook definition of "loading" (you omitted an important part), and that the definition also includes the clause "and ready to fire". See my posts (#47, #64, #66) and recognize that per the USPSA rulebook definition of "loading", the definition wasn't satisfied, and therefor was not completed. Per the USPSA rulebook rules and definitions 10.4.3 is the correct outcome.

Respectfully,

ac

"ready to fire" is a direct reference, per the rulebook, to the firearm itself, NOT the shooter. The firearm was ready to fire..we know this because it did. If a firearm either via a trigger pull or other means, discharges a round through the barrel, it was in a "ready to fire" condition. I'm not sure how that's not clear or how I didn't apply the strict definition.

ETA: I reviewed your posts (numbered above) and I completely disagree with your highly philosophical (and frankly irrelevant) assumption that in order for a firearm to be "ready to fire", it must also be "ready to not fire".

It doesn't really matter what I think of course, but I don't think your line of thinking is going to get much traction in this argument one way or the other.

Just sayin'.

Edited November 14, 2014 by kcobean

[ktm300]

Ok. Any AD is a DQ, anytime. Got that. Not sure what you mean by slam fire-haven't seen that in a pistol, have in an AR. If this shooter had his gun down, would have been an AD. By definition, an AD doesn't go in a safe direction. I guess I'm asking just about this specific case. I think it difficult to determine in real time and I would probably have done exactly what the OP did. There seems to be some technical issues in the rules that is in dispute or conflict on what would be a consistent ruling according to the rules. Thanks.

On your first statement, no not really. This whole thread started because of a "slam fire" (or in this case hammer follow) in a pistol. After the beep, the competitor inserted a mag in his unloaded gun and when he racked the slide and the slide returned to battery the gun went off. Here's the rundown:

a: he wasn't moving or he'd have DQ'd under 10.4.6.

b: he didn't send the round over the berm or he'd have DQ'd under 10.4.1.

c: The round didn't strike the ground within 10 feet of him or he'd have DQ'd under 10.4.2.

d: His finger wasn't on the trigger or he'd have DQ'd under 10.5.9. This was confirmed by the RM after the fact, as the RM was able to reproduce the condition.

e: Because the gun was in battery with a fully inserted mag, per the strict definition of "loading", the action of loading was completed, so it's not a DQ per 10.4.3

So apparently the ruling is that the discharge was not a punishable action per any rule in Chapter 10 of the rulebook.

The question to DNROI is this: Should a slam-fire that occurs upon the slide's return to battery be considered a shot that occurs during loading/reloading or not. As strictly defined by the current rule-book, it's not. But it is clearly not an intentionally fired shot. The shooter has one hand on the gun and is not in the process of engaging a target. It's an uncommon circumstance, but it happens and it should (In my humble opinion) be clarified.

"e: Because the gun was in battery with a fully inserted mag, per the strict definition of "loading", the action of loading was completed, so it's not a DQ

per 10.4.3"

Your point "e" conclusion is not correct, nor is that an application of "the strict definition". Please recognize that you didn't quote the USPSA rulebook definition of "loading" (you omitted an important part), and that the definition also includes the clause "and ready to fire". See my posts (#47, #64, #66) and recognize that per the USPSA rulebook definition of "loading", the definition wasn't satisfied, and therefor was not completed. Per the USPSA rulebook rules and definitions 10.4.3 is the correct outcome.

Respectfully,

ac

"ready to fire" is a direct reference, per the rulebook, to the firearm itself, NOT the shooter. The firearm was ready to fire..we know this because it did. If a firearm either via a trigger pull or other means, discharges a round through the barrel, it was in a "ready to fire" condition. I'm not sure how that's not clear or how I didn't apply the strict definition.

ETA: I reviewed your posts (numbered above) and I completely disagree with your highly philosophical (and frankly irrelevant) assumption that in order for a firearm to be "ready to fire", it must also be "ready to not fire".

It doesn't really matter what I think of course, but I don't think your line of thinking is going to get much traction in this argument one way or the other.

Just sayin'.

<< As a CRO, I have no emotional investment one way or the other.>> Perfect

<<ETA: I reviewed your posts (numbered above) and I completely disagree with your highly philosophical (and frankly irrelevant) assumption that in order for a firearm to be "ready to fire", it must also be "ready to not fire". >> +1

[Gary Stevens]

This topic has morphed into a broken gun. The guidance I gave was in reference to an unsafe gun. Broken gun exception isn't in the rule book.

[kcobean]

This topic has morphed into a broken gun. The guidance I gave was in reference to an unsafe gun. Broken gun exception isn't in the rule book.

Hi Gary. In this case it is an unsafe gun *because* it is broken, correct? And since the shooter did not technically commit any of the DQ-able actions defined in Chapter 10, he would be covered by 5.7.7 & 5.7.7.1, which would entitle him to a re-shoot (which I believe is exactly the guidance you gave).

I think the question is whether 10.4 and its sub-paragraphs are concise enough. Specifically if there is an exclusion for detonations (10.4.3.1), should there be a specific inclusion in 10.4.3 to specify that a gun that slam-fires (and yes that term would need to be added to the rule book as well) is considered a violation and thus a DQ?

i.e. I'm envisioning a rule like this:

10.4.3.2 Exception -- A slam fire that can be reproduced (in accordance with 5.7.7.1) shall not be subject to match disqualification.

or

10.4.3.2 A slam fire that can be reproduced (in accordance with 5.7.7.1) shall be considered to have occurred during loading/reloading and will be subject to match disqualification

Glossary:

Slam Fire - An accidental discharge that occurs at the moment the firearm goes into battery after loading or reloading, but without the trigger being pulled.

Edited November 14, 2014 by kcobean

[Gary Stevens]

Part of the reason the broken gun rule was removed was because too many could not separate broken from worn or Improperly fit parts.

I'm not a gunsmith, and don't play one on TV, but I do know that improperly fit parts can contribute to an unintentional discharge without being broken.

Send any suggestions to DNROI, I am sure he appreciates all of them.

And finally, thank you for stepping up and working so that others may shoot.

Your call was the absolute correct call based on your observed facts at the time.

Gary

[ac4wordplay]

Ok. Any AD is a DQ, anytime. Got that. Not sure what you mean by slam fire-haven't seen that in a pistol, have in an AR. If this shooter had his gun down, would have been an AD. By definition, an AD doesn't go in a safe direction. I guess I'm asking just about this specific case. I think it difficult to determine in real time and I would probably have done exactly what the OP did. There seems to be some technical issues in the rules that is in dispute or conflict on what would be a consistent ruling according to the rules. Thanks.

On your first statement, no not really. This whole thread started because of a "slam fire" (or in this case hammer follow) in a pistol. After the beep, the competitor inserted a mag in his unloaded gun and when he racked the slide and the slide returned to battery the gun went off. Here's the rundown:

a: he wasn't moving or he'd have DQ'd under 10.4.6.

b: he didn't send the round over the berm or he'd have DQ'd under 10.4.1.

c: The round didn't strike the ground within 10 feet of him or he'd have DQ'd under 10.4.2.

d: His finger wasn't on the trigger or he'd have DQ'd under 10.5.9. This was confirmed by the RM after the fact, as the RM was able to reproduce the condition.

e: Because the gun was in battery with a fully inserted mag, per the strict definition of "loading", the action of loading was completed, so it's not a DQ per 10.4.3

So apparently the ruling is that the discharge was not a punishable action per any rule in Chapter 10 of the rulebook.

The question to DNROI is this: Should a slam-fire that occurs upon the slide's return to battery be considered a shot that occurs during loading/reloading or not. As strictly defined by the current rule-book, it's not. But it is clearly not an intentionally fired shot. The shooter has one hand on the gun and is not in the process of engaging a target. It's an uncommon circumstance, but it happens and it should (In my humble opinion) be clarified.

"e: Because the gun was in battery with a fully inserted mag, per the strict definition of "loading", the action of loading was completed, so it's not a DQ

per 10.4.3"

Your point "e" conclusion is not correct, nor is that an application of "the strict definition". Please recognize that you didn't quote the USPSA rulebook definition of "loading" (you omitted an important part), and that the definition also includes the clause "and ready to fire". See my posts (#47, #64, #66) and recognize that per the USPSA rulebook definition of "loading", the definition wasn't satisfied, and therefor was not completed. Per the USPSA rulebook rules and definitions 10.4.3 is the correct outcome.

Respectfully,

ac

"ready to fire" is a direct reference, per the rulebook, to the firearm itself, NOT the shooter. The firearm was ready to fire..we know this because it did. If a firearm either via a trigger pull or other means, discharges a round through the barrel, it was in a "ready to fire" condition. I'm not sure how that's not clear or how I didn't apply the strict definition.

ETA: I reviewed your posts (numbered above) and I completely disagree with your highly philosophical (and frankly irrelevant) assumption that in order for a firearm to be "ready to fire", it must also be "ready to not fire".

It doesn't really matter what I think of course, but I don't think your line of thinking is going to get much traction in this argument one way or the other.

Just sayin'.

I respectfully disagree.

If you reject my explanation of "ready to fire", then you are embracing one, or both, of the following:

• "Ready to fire" = the firearm can't fire when the trigger is manipulated (this means the act of firing can't be controlled by the operator)
• "Ready to fire" = the firearm fires without any trigger manipulation (this means the act of firing can't be controlled by the operator)

In the first, the firearm can not fire. In the second, the firearm cannot not fire (intentional double negative, meaning that it must fire). In both cases, the trigger, and its manipulation (or non-manipulation) is useless to the user/operator and irrelevant. This seems at odds with any rational understanding of "ready to fire", which means the user/operator can control (through manipulation of the trigger) if and/or when the firearm fires.

If "ready to fire" doesn't mean what I assert it to mean, then what does it mean? And what does the 'other' meaning of the phrase add to the definition (of "loading", "reloading", and "unloading", with that specific language/phrasing? )

I too have no emotional investment - I'm just looking at the USPSA rulebook through a strict, logical, and unbiased lens. If I've made a logical error then I'll drop the aspect that is in error and re-examine the position.

Respectfully,

ac

[Jadeslade]

I like Gary's much clearer explanation better today. I don't really think anything needs to change. Why we have Range Masters, right? So call it as you see it. We could put in: if you shoot yourself in the foot, you just bought dinner for entire squad, and you are DQ. With a remedial class in Florida at USA in Frostproof, all expenses paid by President. In January.

Still would like to know what "broken gun alibi" is.

[Gary Stevens]

Back in the day a famous shooter had an AD and was issued a DQ. He appealed and argued that the gun was broken causing the AD. He prevailed, if I remember correctly, and soon after a formal rule appeared regarding broken guns.

I actually was involved in one at the Reno Nationals. Shooter's gun discharged during movement while not shooting at a target hence a DQ. Shooter claimed a broken gun. I took the gun to a very reputable gunsmith who was present to be examined for a broken part.

Gunsmith found that one side of the disconnector was broken (fractured) and confirmed that this easily could have caused the discharge. New disconnecor and a zero for the stage the shooter continued on in the match.

Later the rule was removed partially for the reason I stated earlier.

Gary

[StealthyBlagga]

I like Gary's much clearer explanation better today. I don't really think anything needs to change. Why we have Range Masters, right? So call it as you see it. We could put in: if you shoot yourself in the foot, you just bought dinner for entire squad, and you are DQ. With a remedial class in Florida at USA in Frostproof, all expenses paid by President. In January.

Still would like to know what "broken gun alibi" is.

The "broken gun alibi" existed in USPSA rules until 2008, and still exists in the IPSC rule book:

10.4.8 In this Section, if it can be established that the cause of the discharge is due to a broken or defective part of he firearm, the competitor has not committed any safety infraction in this Section, and a disqualification will not be invoked, but the competitor's scores for that stage will be zero.

10.4.8.1 The firearm must be immediately presented for inspection to the Range Master or his delegate, who will inspect the firearm and carry out any tests necessary to establish that a broken or defective part caused the discharge. A competitor may not later appeal a disqualification for an accidental discharge due to a broken or defective part if they fail to present the firearm for inspection prior to leaving the course of fire.

As Gary indicated, it was often problematic in application, which is likely why it no longer sullies the USPSA rulebook.

[Jadeslade]

Thank you. I read it just last week in the IPSC shotgun rules. Probably been years since I read it. Excellent story. Lore of IPSC. That would be a video game. Off to RO class. Feels like first day of kindergarten

[kcobean]

Back in the day a famous shooter had an AD and was issued a DQ. He appealed and argued that the gun was broken causing the AD. He prevailed, if I remember correctly, and soon after a formal rule appeared regarding broken guns.

I actually was involved in one at the Reno Nationals. Shooter's gun discharged during movement while not shooting at a target hence a DQ. Shooter claimed a broken gun. I took the gun to a very reputable gunsmith who was present to be examined for a broken part.

Gunsmith found that one side of the disconnector was broken (fractured) and confirmed that this easily could have caused the discharge. New disconnecor and a zero for the stage the shooter continued on in the match.

Later the rule was removed partially for the reason I stated earlier.

Gary

Gary let me pose this question to you: If the RM had NOT been able to replicate the issue, what would the correct call have been?

[Gary Stevens]

Since the shot fired didn't fit in any of the DQ rules it would have required further investigation.

If the shooter maintained and the RO confirmed that the gun fired without any trigger manipulation I would have called an unsafe gun and the result would have been the same. The act of being able to duplicate the malfunction was a cherry on top of the ice cream.

Edited November 15, 2014 by Gary Stevens