Hammer follow discharge and variants

[kevin c]

Another forum member and I were RO'ing some fairly green shooters at this weekend's club match. One, who had some IPSC experience, and a newly tuned gun, was having a hard time with his pistol's hammer following, and was getting obviously more frustrated with every stage he tried to shoot, despite efforts to fix the problem. In fairly short order, with each recurrence he went from groans to out loud swearing , and changed from racking the slide to get the hammer back to eventually thumb cocking the pistol (something I've seen a lot of people do). Well, unfortunately, while he was swearing at his pistol and trying to thumb back the hammer, it came forward again and the pistol discharged once (in a safe direction, finger off the trigger).

My friend stopped him immediately, if for nothing else than for having an unsafe gun, and partly because neither he nor I liked where this guy was emotionally. Still upset, saying repeatedly that the hammer was following, he proceeded, on command, to ULASC. He had an apparent mental lapse, and either decided to test his explanation for the discharge right then by thumbing back the hammer again with the magazine out, or was following his habit of thumbing back the hammer before racking the slide. Unfortunately, he still had a round in the chamber, and, yes, the hammer fell again and the gun put a second hole into the barricade immediately down range (finger again not on the trigger).

We told him he was DQ'd, and while he complained that he thought it was a gun malfunction, he didn't appeal, and said he was quitting for the day anyway. After the match my friend inspected the gun in the safe area, and found that it follwed intermittently on dropping the slide or thumb cocking the hammer.

***

So, my friend and I feel we did the right thing, but actually weren't sure at the time what in the rules backed us up.

10.4.4 defines one type of AD resulting in a DQ as a shot occuring during remedial action, though the shooter claimed exception under 10.4.9 (it's true he didn't present the gun immediately after the event, so technically it wasn't appealable, but, for the sake of arguement, let's say he did). Under that interpretation, he gets no score for that or any other stage not shot, but not the DQ. This is for the first discharge.

10.4.3 defines an AD for a discharge while unloading, including ULASC. But again the gun was malfunctioning. The shooter never even touched the trigger of his gun during the second discharge (nor the first). 10.4.9 might apply here as well.

I argued, though, for a 10.5 DQ for unsafe gun handling on the second discharge. While thumb cocking isn't unsafe in a normally functioning 1911/2011 pattern gun, the shooter had just demonstrated that his gun was malfunctioning, knew the nature of the malfunction, had just had a demonstration of how the malfunction could cause an unintentional discharge, but went ahead and performed an act that led directly to the second discharge. His head was also in a really bad place at that moment, and while being PO'd and swearing at your gun could be tolerated so long as you control the gun, I felt that the shooter just demonstrated that he wasn't thinking clearly enough to control his. Under most cirumstances, that might be hard to judge, but not here. Malfunction or not, he did something patently unsafe by thumbing back the hammer on a chambered live round that second time.

Comments? Opinions? Observations?

BTW, would you ever consider DQ'ing somebody who was losing it while shooting, on the grounds that the shooter might do something unsafe? This would be hard in a major match - only the squad members would know that a problem might be building from stage to stage. But in this case my friend and I, as the senior shooters on the squad and therefore the RO's for each stage, were becoming aware that this shooter at least, was really getting worked up.

Edited March 11, 2005 by kevin c

[Dead Buff]

BTW, would you ever consider DQ'ing somebody who was losing it while shooting, on the grounds that the shooter might do something unsafe? This would be hard in a major match - only the squad members would know that a problem might be building from stage to stage. But in this case my friend and I, as the senior shooters on the squad and therefore the RO's for each stage, were becoming aware that this shooter at least, was really getting worked up.

Yes!

Seen it done to one of my squad members at the Africa Champs in 2003. He was frantically trying to clear a jam. The RO stopped him, gave the ULSC command and DQ'ed the shooter for unsafe gun handling. The arbitration committee upheld the RO's decision.

[hopalong]

Kevin,

You did the correct thing in the correct way !

If I was in your place I would do it exactly the same way !

If he had not thumbed it back and AD the second time I would have told him to UASC, if he clears without any problems he then get to either have it fixed to where it is reliable or replaced. (giving him cool off time at the same time!)

My preference would be use a friends RELIABLE gun for the rest of the match !!!!

GOOD JOB !!!!!

Hop

[Nik Habicht]

BTW, would you ever consider DQ'ing somebody who was losing it while shooting, on the grounds that the shooter might do something unsafe? This would be hard in a major match - only the squad members would know that a problem might be building from stage to stage. But in this case my friend and I, as the senior shooters on the squad and therefore the RO's for each stage, were becoming aware that this shooter at least, was really getting worked up.

Yes. I've long maintained that 10.5 gives the RO/CRO/RM considerable leeway --- and that's a good thing. As an RO, I've got a responsibility to protect every shooter and staff member at the match, to protect the host club and USPSA, and my own family. If there's an accident, it's likely that everyone is getting sued, and it's possible that a match could go away forever. Nobody likes informing a shooter that they just committed a DQable offense, but nobody wants to shoot with people who don't have their heads screwed on right at the range either....

Good job --- in what I'm sure was a difficult situation.

[PaulW]

I know this one by heart. It has to do with the magic words "Remedial Action"...the rule is 10.???

2 years ago at area 6 I got to shoot 12 rounds before being DQ'd for about the same thing. My hammer would not cock/reset. I would rack the slide and the hammer would follow. I then thumb cocked it, thought I felt the sear engage, when released it went bang, finger was off the trigger, bullet went into berm.

[kevin c]

Okay, Paul and Sam, I'm getting a slightly different take from each of you here...

Sam, your sense seems to be the same as my laboriously drawn conclusions - that the AD, during remedial action, was due to a mechanical failure of the pistol, and therefore the shooter is exempt from the DQ under 10.4.9. It was the second discharge that was preventable, because, even though the gun discharged because of mechanical failure both times, the shooter should have known not to risk the discharge by thumbing back a hammer that he already knew had not engaged the sear previously and might again fall on the FP while a round was still chambered. If he had racked out the round, no problem. He didn't, and the gun went off a second time - DQ.

Paul, correct me if I'm wrong, but this is one of the concepts I am struggling with here, it seems that the RO's issued you a DQ on just one unintentional discharge of your gun? Was it their opinion that, even though the gun was clearly malfunctioning, and that this malfunction caused the discharge, you were unsafe because you risked the discharge by thumbing back the hammer? In other words, it is patently unsafe to thumb back the hammer when a live round is in the chamber and the shooter knows the hammer is following?

I ask this because, while our decision seems technically correct according to the rules, I am still struggling with the idea that, if the hammer is following, it is unsafe to try to thumb cock. If so, it seems that the shooter could be DQ'd for just trying to thumb cock a following hammer with a chambered round, even if the gun did NOT fire. The way I applied the rules in this case can be summarized like this: it's safe if the gun doesn't go off, but it isn't safe if it does. That bothers me, because the idea I have always had is to prevent accidents while RO'ing by using rules in a preventive way - you don't want the AD to happen if at all possible.

[Flexmoney]

I am leaning toward no DQ in both cases...for the gun. But, I need to re-read some stuff here...and in a few other places.

[PaulW]

If you can prove it was from a broken part, I tried but could not in my case, then there would not be a DQ. However since I could not prove it was due to a broken part then the DQ stood. I need to luck up to rule, but it has to do with "Remedial Action". This could be a jam, hammer follow, and anything else where your not actually engaging a target.

[PaulW]

Oh yea, the RO was on my side when it came to safety, so safety was never an issue. He knew my finger was off the trigger, he also saw the bullet impact the berm. I was safely trying to remedy the problem when the AD happened. It would have been intersting had I started engaging targets by thumbing back and dropping the hammer (dumb but just theory)........but thats a whole new can of worms.

[sargenv]

I think that 10.6.1 would be the qualifying rule after the shooter was told to unload and show clear and he intentionally pulled the hammer back and the second shot fired.

10.6.1 Unsportmanlike Conduct - Competitors will be disqualified from a match for conduct which a range officer deems to be unsportsmanlike conduct include, but are not limited to, cheating, dishonesty, failing to comply with the reasonable directions of a match official, or any behavior likely to bring the sport into disrepute. The Range Master must be notified as soon as possible.

I think you telling him to unload and show clear, and him not following your directions immediately, could be grounds for a DQ under that rule.

Vince

[Flexmoney]

Lets break this down some and see what we come up with...

[shooter]...was having a hard time with his pistol's hammer following...

5.1.6 Handguns must be serviceable and safe...

Perhaps the RO should have stopped the shooter at this point? Does hammer follow make the gun unsafe? Unserviceable?

it [hammer] came forward...and the pistol discharged once (in a safe direction, finger off the trigger).

To me, this is a clear indication "broken" part. I don't think we can expect to get into expert gunsmithing debates while RO'ing. The litmus test for me is, "is that how the gun is supposed to work?"

When the hammer on a 1911 derived gun goes back...it is supposed to stay back, until the trigger is pulled.

I don't think this would be a DQ...because of the exception under 10.4.9

I would be pretty lenient on the "...prior to leaving the cof" part of 10.4.9 also. I am pretty sure that clause is in there so that a shooter that gets a legit DQ can't run off with his gun and stick a bogus part in it...then try to claim it was broken.

My friend stopped him immediately, if for nothing else than for having an unsafe gun...

Good call.

...and partly because neither he or I liked where this guy was emotionally.

This one sure is tricky.

While I completely disagree with Nik's "10.5 gives leeway" theory, this might be a case where it could apply. However, 10.7.1 seems to have better wording (though it is under different section)

10.7.1 All persons are required to be in complete control both mentally and physically during IPSC matches.

...thumbing back the hammer again with the magazine out, or was following his habit of thumbing back the hammer before racking the slide. Unfortunately, he still had a round in the chamber, and, yes, the hammer fell again and the gun put a second hole into the barricade immediately down range (finger again not on the trigger).

Again...I don't see grounds for the DQ. Thumbing the hammer back might his way of doing the ULASC. I think he could argue that same Exception under 10.4.9 that he had earlier...AND, it looks like he gets a bonus exception under 10.4.3.1

...he didn't appeal, and said he was quitting for the day anyway.

Sounds like a smart move on his part. Some days are rough. However, under what I have read, I think he could have continued with a "fixed gun" or a substitute.

Tough one. It sounds like it worked out the way it needed to for that day.

[kevin c]

Kyle,

Thanks for the reminder on 10.7.1. That might have applied here.

In the case of the second discharge, the shooter knew the hammer was following, and that, because of what he had just experienced a few seconds before, that the hammer might not stay cocked when thumbed back, and might discharge the gun if it went forward. Doesn't that argue that it is unsafe to risk the same thing again? And doesn't the actual second discharge prove the point?

I thought that a "detonation" (10.4.3.1) didn't apply here.

I might not have been clear in my thinking and recollection about thumb cocking in general. Lots of people do it at LAMR (with an empty chamber). Occasionally I see people do it iduring a stage when the hammer follows. Most actually would at first rack out the round and drop the hammer on a fresh round, assuming a dead primer rather than hammer follow. The thumb cocking comes after realizing that the hammer isn't dropping with the trigger pull. I'd wondered before just how safe thumb cocking is in this situation, since there is a live round in the chamber, no safeties applied, and nothing but the sear to hold the hammer back, and that last is iffy.

For the sake of the discussion, let me ask this - if the gun is completely mechanically sound, and is deliberately put into a hammer down, loaded chamber condition, is it safe to thumb back the hammer? If your thumb slips and the gun discharges because the sear was never engaged, and this happened during a COF, wouldn't that be an AD and the fault of the shooter? Again, I get to an uncomfortable conclusion: it's safe if the gun doesn't go off, but isn't safe if it does. In the hypothetical case above, it is the shooter's mistake in not handing the gun safely (not being sure the sear was engaged, as Paul notes in his experience). In the actual case it was a mechanical problem in the gun compounded by the shooter's actions after the first discharge (still unsafe gunhandling, IMO).

I am still struggling with the idea that thumbcocking is safe if you get away with it. I'm not talking about LAMR, I mean during a COF with this hammer follow situation. We don't let people break the 180 even with an unloaded gun, because the actual discharge uprange isn't need to convince us that the situation cannot be allowed to go unaddressed. Doesn't that apply here as well? Isn't thumb cocking a following hammer really asking for an AD, and shouldn't we consider preventing that by invoking a 10.5 unsafe gun handling DQ even if there is not even a first discharge?

Or am I just getting worked up over nothing?

I have a headache. My wife is telling me to hit the sack, and I think I will...

***

OK, I'm definitely tired - I managed in all of this to forget the halfcock notch. That would be expected to hold the hammer off the FP if the sear disengaged or wasn't engaged in the first place, assuming finger off the trigger, right? So thumb cocking should be safe, if the gun is mechanically sound, and, even if not, should still be safe, if the hammer slips to the halfcock notch only. But if when thumbing back the hammer the gun discharges when the hammer falls and with no pressure on the trigger (sear/trigger engagement so off that there is not engagement anywhere), then I still argue that once that happerns, thumb cocking a second time is unsafe.

You're right, Kyle, too much to think about on the spot. But stopping the shooter and sorting out the mess afterwards had to happen, and I think a 10.5 DQ on the second discharge is still in order.

Kevin

Edited March 11, 2005 by kevin c

[short_round]

Hi,

I'm the friend that kevin c is referring to who was the RO at the time.

I've been giving this a lot of thought all week ...

From the rules perspective:

it [hammer] came forward...and the pistol discharged once (in a safe direction, finger off the trigger).

To me, this is a clear indication "broken" part. I don't think we can expect to get into expert gunsmithing debates while RO'ing. The litmus test for me is, "is that how the gun is supposed to work?"

When the hammer on a 1911 derived gun goes back...it is supposed to stay back, until the trigger is pulled.

I don't think this would be a DQ...because of the exception under 10.4.9

.

I had to stop the shooter for unsafe gun. So far no DQ.

...thumbing back the hammer again with the magazine out, or was following his habit of thumbing back the hammer before racking the slide. Unfortunately, he still had a round in the chamber, and, yes, the hammer fell again and the gun put a second hole into the barricade immediately down range (finger again not on the trigger).

Again...I don't see grounds for the DQ. Thumbing the hammer back might his way of doing the ULASC. I think he could argue that same Exception under 10.4.9 that he had earlier...AND, it looks like he gets a bonus exception under 10.4.3.1

The discharge occured before 8.3.7 ICHDH. No DQ for this. Furthermore, I agree that 10.4.9 could be used as an argument.

The closest rule I have to justify the DQ is 10.4.1 regarding a shot travelling in an unsafe direction since the discharge travelled through a couple of barricades before impacting the berm. However, since I know that the barricades were not "specified in the written stage briefing by the match organizers as being unsafe" I believe this could have been argued to.

That's basically all I have from the rules perspective.

...and partly because neither he or I liked where this guy was emotionally.

This one sure is tricky.

When I first read this, I didn't like it because it seemed so subjective. The more I think about it, the more it seems this also applied to the situation. After I issued the stop command, I had to issue the ULSC command a few times as the shooter's emotional state continued to escalate. This culminated into the second discharge. This might have been a good time to call 10.7.1.

Included in our squad was two people who were shooting at our club for the first time and one shooter who was shooting his very first IPSC match. With the exception of kevin c and me there was no one else in the squad that was really comfortable being the RO.

The first thing on my mind as always is safety. This may be unreasonable, but the number of less experienced shooters and the new guy in that squad made me feel more responsible for them and more cautious overall.

I like the shooter this happened to. I didn't want to do it. I'm not happy about it. I hope he comes back and doesn't think that I was just trying to be an a$$hole. All I can say is that I honestly did what I felt was right at the time to ensure the safety and "comfort" of the squad.

The good news is that no one was hurt and I have a better understanding of 10.4.9 now.

It's times like these I want to join the guys over in the "I don't want to RO" thread.

Tough one. It sounds like it worked out the way it needed to for that day.

Yes it was tough and I'm glad kevin c was there. Thanks kevin c.

[short_round]

For the sake of the discussion, let me ask this - if the gun is completely mechanically sound, and is deliberately put into a hammer down, loaded chamber condition, is it safe to thumb back the hammer?

It has to be because this is not restricted in USPSA production. Review Appendix D4.17 which does not exist in US Appendix D9.

[Flexmoney]

In the case of the second discharge, the shooter knew the hammer was following, and that, because of what he had just experienced a few seconds before, that the hammer might not stay cocked when thumbed back, and might discharge the gun if it went forward. Doesn't that argue that it is unsafe to risk the same thing again? And doesn't the actual second discharge prove the point?

In real life...probably so. In arbitration land..."the RO gave me the ULASC command...and that is what I was doing."

There are more than a few shooters that won't rack their slide without cocking the hammer.

I thought that a "detonation" (10.4.3.1) didn't apply here.

The way it looks to me is that...in the green book..."detonation" has lost the meaning that it had in the red book.

For the sake of the discussion, let me ask this - if the gun is completely mechanically sound, and is deliberately put into a hammer down, loaded chamber condition, is it safe to thumb back the hammer?

That is the way most of the guns I shot worked when I was a youngster.

I am still struggling with the idea that thumbcocking is safe if you get away with it. I'm not talking about LAMR, I mean during a COF with this hammer follow situation. We don't let people break the 180 even with an unloaded gun, because the actual discharge uprange isn't need to convince us that the situation cannot be allowed to go unaddressed. Doesn't that apply here as well? Isn't thumb cocking a following hammer really asking for an AD, and shouldn't we consider preventing that by invoking a 10.5 unsafe gun handling DQ even if there is not even a first discharge?

I am sure somebody could jump in the IPSC way-back machine and relate a story of how they had to finish a stage/match by cocking the hammer for every shot.

I don't know if that would be considered an unsafe gun or not? If "not", I don't think you'd have to DQ the shooter under UGH, just stop them under 5.1.6.

Or am I just getting worked up over nothing?

I think you are fine. I would have likely did the same as you guys did. Better to be safe...than sorry.

I would have likely DQ'ed the shooter too. But, if I were on sitting on the arb. committee...and the shooter made the right arguement...I can see overturning the DQ. (I don't know that the RO can prove the shooter wasn't following the ULASC command.)

[Flexmoney]

short_round,

Just to be clear...if I were the CRO/Range Master, I am pretty sure I would have backed-up your call. The rest of this thread has been about playing out the "rule book exercise" of the situation.

As an RO, you kept safety in mind...stepped up to make a tough call... set a good example for the new shooters...and, showed that "poor shooter behavior" isn't really welcome on the range.

Good job.

[hopalong]

Kevin

Flex has is down pretty good I think !!!!

Safety is the Number 1 issue here and you getting him stopped was right on !!! Period...

OK now that he is stopped we know he has a loaded gun that is not working correctly..... ULASC if he manages this safely we'll go with the "go fix it or replace it". (again I would be more comfortable with a replacement)

I would have to DQ him for the 2nd round through the barricade for "Unsafe gun handling" Shot during remedial action (if he was trying to unload and a shot going off then fits in this catagory)

Now as far as his emotional state....NEVER let someone go too long before they become dangerous to ANYONE....

I have stopped a few in the past due to this and when they asked why I did not "tell" because I thought they were losing it.... I told them I thought they had a Squib round, checked the gun sent them to the back of the line with time to cool off....(Local match both times) worked good the next time up they were way more in control...

Ya'll still did the right thing !!!

Hopalong

[JT Johnson]

What is meant by the "emmotional state" of the shooter?

I can imagine him being a little upset that his gun wasn't functioning. A new trigger job would take a big portion out my paycheck. Sounds like the shooter did a good job keeping his finger off the trigger and the pistol downrange. Perhaps his emmotions weren't that big of a factor?

I don't like the unsportsmanlike conduct DQ suggestion. Seems like UCDQ is the catch all rule when you really want to DQ, but just can't seem to find a better rule.

I'm no RO and I don't pretend to be one, but unless we define the exact process for unload and show clear I don't think the shooter should get the DQ.

I hope that if my pistol ever gets unsafe and I either don't realize it, or unknowingly continue, that the RO will stop me too.

[hopalong]

JT,

To me the emotional state is how well he is handling the situation....

Is he getting so mad he is getting careless with the gun ?? Dangerous to himself?? Others ??

HTH.

SAM

[short_round]

What is meant by the "emmotional [sic] state" of the shooter?

Main Entry: emo·tion·al

Function: adjective

1 : of or relating to emotion

Main Entry: emo·tion

Function: noun

2 c : a psychic and physical reaction (as anger or fear) subjectively experienced as strong feeling and physiologically involving changes that prepare the body for immediate vigorous action

Main Entry: state

Function: noun

1 a : mode or condition of being <a state of readiness>

Perhaps his emmotions [sic] weren't that big of a factor?

In my judgement they were. However, Flex is right. We are going through this exercise in order to determine how to specifically apply the rules.

I don't like the unsportsmanlike conduct DQ suggestion.  Seems like UCDQ is the catch all rule when you really want to DQ, but just can't seem to find a better rule.

This DQ was issued under 10.4.1 accidental discharge in an unsafe direction for the second discharge. Rule 10.4.9 was not appealed for by the shooter on the instance of the second discharge/detonation. As a result 10.7.1 was not pursued by the RO and ARO for the events leading to the second discharge. The rules for 10.6 Unsportsmanlike Conduct were not applied at anytime.

I'm no RO and I don't pretend to be one, but unless we define the exact process for unload and show clear I don't think the shooter should get the DQ.

We do have a process. Review section 8.3 specifically 8.3.6 and 8.3.7 for the unload and show clear procedures.

I hope that if my pistol ever gets unsafe and I either don't realize it, or unknowingly continue, that the RO will stop me too.

The RO should, as was done in this case, stop you.

[chuckbradley]

10.4.4 on the first shot is correct.

In this situation I would have allowed 10.4.9 for the second shot as well as the first if the broken part was found. If not the DQ stands.

Hammer following isnt a broken part in itself. Neither is a lightly tensioned sear spring.

10.4.3.1 is talking about a detonation where the bullet does not travel down the barrel. It was put in there for rounds detonated on the ejector while unloading. We went back and forth on this over the years. Finally somebody got some sense and put this rule in.

10.5 would not apply. Examples of unsafe gunhandling are given and what he did didnt match any of them.

[short_round]

Hammer following isnt a broken part in itself. Neither is a lightly tensioned sear spring.

Wow ... I didn't think of it this way. I was considering "broken gun" = "broken part" under 10.4.9. Technically a "lightly tensioned sear spring" is not a broken part seems like an interesting thing to consider.

10.5 would not apply. Examples of unsafe gunhandling are given and what he did didnt match any of them.

10.5 was not considered for application in this case.

[chuckbradley]

Nope, there has to be a broken part that is causing the problem. I saw this happen at the nationals once and the shooter challenged the DQ. they took his gun to the gunsmith and he had a broken disconnector. He was reinstated. This used to be reffered to as the Robbie Rule.

[Nik Habicht]

10.5 would not apply. Examples of unsafe gunhandling are given and what he did didnt match any of them.

Chuck,

Section 10.5 specifically mentions that it's not an allinclusive list:

10.5 Match Disqualification – Unsafe Gun Handling

Examples of unsafe gun handling include, but are not limited to:

Hence, a 10.5 DQ could exist that the rulewriters haven't thought of yet.....

Kyle and I kicked this around for a while --- and I've modified my stance to the point where I'd be reluctant to base the call for a DQ on that principle. But I'm aware, that a shooter could come up with an all new example of unsafe gunhandling.....

[chuckbradley]

In my desire to do away with the catchall, unarbitratible(?) unsafe gunhandling rule I purposely neglected to consider the , not limited to, part of the example list.

I have always felt this was a rule to allow an RO to issue a DQ and not have it arbitrated. If you are going to DQ somebody then you best know what they did and what rule it broke. After 30 years of this sport I thnk our rules cover just about everything that is unsafe but maybe not everything a particular RO may dislike and thats the part that I dont like. This rule is there to give absolute unquestioned authority to an RO.

One example was given here on this thread. A shooter wasnt clearing his jam to the liking of the Ro and he Dq'd the shooter. Didnt Dq for sweeping or breaking hte 180 or an Ad. Just Dq'd him because he didnt like the way he was clearing a jam. Thats what I dont want to see in our sport.