Terminology: AD vs ND

[Langenator]

Maybe my military background is confusing me, but I can't be the only one...when rule sets refer to "Accidental discharge." (It hit me as a result of reading this thread.)

In my Army experience (20 years), there are two different terms for "weapon firing when it's not supposed to," based on what caused it.

An Accidental Discharge is the result of a mechanical failure of the weapon which leads the weapon to fire. The only time I've seen one of these in a shooting competition was when one of my squad mates at TXMG '12 had a sear failure on his pistol, and it went full auto. First round was intentional, the second and subsequent rounds were ADs. (He did manage to keep all the rounds downrange and into the berm. Took a zero for the stage and proceeded with his back up pistol.) A slamfire would be another example of an Accidental Discharge.

A Negligent Discharge is caused by the shooter pulling the trigger and firing the weapon when he's not supposed to, or when the weapon is pointed in an unsafe direction. Whether deliberate or not, the shooter pulled the trigger, and the weapon fired.

Most of what is described in various rulesets as "Accidental discharge" seems to be to be more properly called a "Negligent discharge. Why don't the rules descriptions use the term ND?

[eern]

I hear you on the what constitutes an accidental vs a negligent, but I think it just comes down to most civilians refer to both as accidental. We military people will always have different definitions of certain words. i.e.Bathroom vs Latrine. Part of what makes us who we are.

[usmc1094]

I think the 1st would be a weapons malfunction. The 2nd are one in the same.

[Sarge]

Military retired here as well. Just had to learn to let it go and adapt. When it comes to USPSA just fall back on the rule book. No such thing as ND in there and AD is very specifically defined.

[armydad]

For may years, LE and most folks, in my neck of the woods, used AD exclusively even when ND was appropriate. It's only been the last 10 or so years, that ND has caught on, and the distinctions between them more understood. Langenator - you have it right. Sarge has it right too with respect to the rule books. I think ND's should be called ND's, so people know, without a doubt, that they screwed up. Same for AD's. It's a safety thing, though some will argue semantics.

[Langenator]

I wonder if the rules just use AD for everything for insurance liability reasons - so if there's an unintended discharge, and someone gets hurt, a lawyer can't say "Look, right there in your rule book - it says 'negligent.' Pay up."

[armydad]

Sounds reasonable.

[Stlhead]

It doesn't matter what it says in the "book". Calling negligence an accident does not absolve the responsible party. There are discharges, and negligent discharges, but there are no "Accidental" discharges. Guns don't go off by accident.

[Benelli Chick]

Just to throw a kink in the works...anytime you have a miss, it's an accident...I mean aren't we all planning to hit the target...if it doesn't, we pulled the trigger at the wrong time or the wrong way...accident!!!

Don't worry, I'm just being a pain in the butt...But, on a technicality, every miss is an AD!

I just felt like being a contrarian this morning!

[frgood]

There are accidental discharges. As indicated a mechanical failure can cause an accident. Closest example that comes to mind is when my sear spring failed in my 1911. My first discharge was deliberate and intended. The second discharge down range, immediately after the first, was an unintended accident as the hammer fell with the slide. While the event was safe, due to following rules, the subsequent was an accident and required immediate mechanical repair.

[Sarge]

It doesn't matter what it says in the "book". Calling negligence an accident does not absolve the responsible party. There are discharges, and negligent discharges, but there are no "Accidental" discharges. Guns don't go off by accident.

Since we are in a competition based forum what it says in the "book" is all that matters.

I prefer accidental discharge to negligent discharge because negligence implies more ominous actions. If a shooter cuts it too close to a wall trying to score well and Rams his hand into it causing his finger to jerk and hit the trigger is an accident not negligence.

[Stlhead]

It doesn't matter what it says in the "book". Calling negligence an accident does not absolve the responsible party. There are discharges, and negligent discharges, but there are no "Accidental" discharges. Guns don't go off by accident.

Since we are in a competition based forum what it says in the "book" is all that matters.

I prefer accidental discharge to negligent discharge because negligence implies more ominous actions. If a shooter cuts it too close to a wall trying to score well and Rams his hand into it causing his finger to jerk and hit the trigger is an accident not negligence.

What "Book" would you say we should use as the end all be all of our existence? No matter what a given ruleset may say, it does not change the fact that having your finger on the trigger while it is possible your hand could come into contact with an object that caused a bullet to strike an unintended target is still negligent. Call it whatever you like, your hand, your gun, if your actions or inactions cause damage you are negligent in your duty to properly control and or maintain the firearm that you are using.

There are accidental discharges. As indicated a mechanical failure can cause an accident. Closest example that comes to mind is when my sear spring failed in my 1911. My first discharge was deliberate and intended. The second discharge down range, immediately after the first, was an unintended accident as the hammer fell with the slide. While the event was safe, due to following rules, the subsequent was an accident and required immediate mechanical repair.

Mechanical failures are not accidents. They may be unavoidable, but the responsibility for them is no different. That is why we have the golden rules, If all guns are always loaded, we never point that always loaded gun at anything we do not intend to destroy, we keep our booger pickers off the bang switch unless we want the bang, and we are always certain of what is in front of and behind our intended target our negligent discharges will never do any damage so you can call them whatever you wish. A worn sear, a stuck firing pin, or even a cook are not examples of accidents. The faulty gun was placed into service, loaded, and charged on purpose and deliberately, no accident.

If I decide it would be prudent to juggle loaded cocked and UN-locked 2011's with pinned grip safeties but did not intend to shoot my buddies cat would I be responsible? I did not mean to shoot the cat, is that an accident? No, I undertook an action that did not follow the established rules of firearms and through my actions the cat was shot, not an accident, negligence. Running around with your finger on the trigger of a loaded weapon off safe banging into things is no more an accident, we just hope that the muzzle was not pointed at the cat. When a Jack Wagon points a loaded gun at me while at the range it is not an accident, no matter what ruleset we are playing under, that person should get DQed to keep him or her from shooting me or someone else. I also feel very strongly that people that point loaded guns at me and my friends, and or my children, should be whipped in addition to DQed, but that is another thread entirely. Calling poor gun handling an accident is a sure way to encourage it in the name of competition. We play with guns, the rules of safe gun handling are inherent to guns, and apply any time guns are used, including at matches, and need to be the bedrock of what is allowed no matter what the ruleset of any match may be.

[Sarge]

A book for end all be all existence?? Maybe the bible? But in regards to USPSA the only book that pertains is the USPSA rule book.

[Stlhead]

But what if your not shooting USPSA?

[Langenator]

If there are no "accidents"...ever seen a belt-fed machinegun go runaway gun without the trigger being pulled, the gunner's hand not even on the grip? Because I have. (Worn sear let the bolt go when the feed tray cover was closed - with authority - after loading a belt. And no, diagnosing a worn sear before it fails is not an operator-level maintenance task. It's generally beyond the ability of most unit armorers.)

Or the other mentioned examples where some part of the trigger mechanism failed, allowing the gun to go auto - who's negligent? The shooter who can't diagnose metal fatigue with the naked eye? The designer who didn't build the mechanism so that if the part fails, the gun will simply not fire instead of going Glock 18?

We're getting off topic, and I'm aiding and abetting thread drift in my own thread.

I guess my argument, rules wise, for differentiating between negligent (shooter error) and accidental (mechanical failure) would be that, if it was a mechanical failure, all rounds went in a safe direction, and the shooter is able to either repair the weapon and show the RO/MD/whomever that the weapon is now safely functional, or switch to a back-up weapon, that shooter would be able to continue (with a very ugly score for the stage where the gun went Tango Uniform, and any stage he was unable to shoot while conducting repairs) instead of getting a match DQ.

Or do the rules already address this?

[Sarge]

If there are no "accidents"...ever seen a belt-fed machinegun go runaway gun without the trigger being pulled, the gunner's hand not even on the grip? Because I have. (Worn sear let the bolt go when the feed tray cover was closed - with authority - after loading a belt. And no, diagnosing a worn sear before it fails is not an operator-level maintenance task. It's generally beyond the ability of most unit armorers.)

Or the other mentioned examples where some part of the trigger mechanism failed, allowing the gun to go auto - who's negligent? The shooter who can't diagnose metal fatigue with the naked eye? The designer who didn't build the mechanism so that if the part fails, the gun will simply not fire instead of going Glock 18?

We're getting off topic, and I'm aiding and abetting thread drift in my own thread.

I guess my argument, rules wise, for differentiating between negligent (shooter error) and accidental (mechanical failure) would be that, if it was a mechanical failure, all rounds went in a safe direction, and the shooter is able to either repair the weapon and show the RO/MD/whomever that the weapon is now safely functional, or switch to a back-up weapon, that shooter would be able to continue (with a very ugly score for the stage where the gun went Tango Uniform, and any stage he was unable to shoot while conducting repairs) instead of getting a match DQ.

Or do the rules already address this?

Nope. This is why the word SHOT is defined in the glossary as a round passing through the barrel. Your fault, my fault, nobody's fault, it's a DQ.

[Sarge]

But what if your not shooting USPSA?

Then I would be discussing it somewhere other than a USPSA forum I guess.

[Langenator]

If there are no "accidents"...ever seen a belt-fed machinegun go runaway gun without the trigger being pulled, the gunner's hand not even on the grip? Because I have. (Worn sear let the bolt go when the feed tray cover was closed - with authority - after loading a belt. And no, diagnosing a worn sear before it fails is not an operator-level maintenance task. It's generally beyond the ability of most unit armorers.)

Or the other mentioned examples where some part of the trigger mechanism failed, allowing the gun to go auto - who's negligent? The shooter who can't diagnose metal fatigue with the naked eye? The designer who didn't build the mechanism so that if the part fails, the gun will simply not fire instead of going Glock 18?

We're getting off topic, and I'm aiding and abetting thread drift in my own thread.

I guess my argument, rules wise, for differentiating between negligent (shooter error) and accidental (mechanical failure) would be that, if it was a mechanical failure, all rounds went in a safe direction, and the shooter is able to either repair the weapon and show the RO/MD/whomever that the weapon is now safely functional, or switch to a back-up weapon, that shooter would be able to continue (with a very ugly score for the stage where the gun went Tango Uniform, and any stage he was unable to shoot while conducting repairs) instead of getting a match DQ.

Or do the rules already address this?

Nope. This is why the word SHOT is defined in the glossary as a round passing through the barrel. Your fault, my fault, nobody's fault, it's a DQ.

I don't think I've ever seen shooting through a barrel being a DQ, unless the barrel is also a barrier. Most of the barrels at matches I've participated in were downrange, and get shot quite a bit, especially if they're obscuring shotgun targets.

[Sarge]

If there are no "accidents"...ever seen a belt-fed machinegun go runaway gun without the trigger being pulled, the gunner's hand not even on the grip? Because I have. (Worn sear let the bolt go when the feed tray cover was closed - with authority - after loading a belt. And no, diagnosing a worn sear before it fails is not an operator-level maintenance task. It's generally beyond the ability of most unit armorers.)

Or the other mentioned examples where some part of the trigger mechanism failed, allowing the gun to go auto - who's negligent? The shooter who can't diagnose metal fatigue with the naked eye? The designer who didn't build the mechanism so that if the part fails, the gun will simply not fire instead of going Glock 18?

We're getting off topic, and I'm aiding and abetting thread drift in my own thread.

I guess my argument, rules wise, for differentiating between negligent (shooter error) and accidental (mechanical failure) would be that, if it was a mechanical failure, all rounds went in a safe direction, and the shooter is able to either repair the weapon and show the RO/MD/whomever that the weapon is now safely functional, or switch to a back-up weapon, that shooter would be able to continue (with a very ugly score for the stage where the gun went Tango Uniform, and any stage he was unable to shoot while conducting repairs) instead of getting a match DQ.

Or do the rules already address this?

Nope. This is why the word SHOT is defined in the glossary as a round passing through the barrel. Your fault, my fault, nobody's fault, it's a DQ.

I don't think I've ever seen shooting through a barrel being a DQ, unless the barrel is also a barrier. Most of the barrels at matches I've participated in were downrange, and get shot quite a bit, especially if they're obscuring shotgun targets.

Barrel of a gun.

[Stlhead]

But what if your not shooting USPSA?

Then I would be discussing it somewhere other than a USPSA forum I guess.

This is not a USPSA forum, it's a multi-gun forum. USPSA may be the big dog in pistol shooting,but it is the red headed step child of 3 gun.

[Sarge]

Even 3 gun has rules. They may be written on napkins and different for every match but they must have at least some rules.

Point is we're not going by military rules and if you feel you were negligent then say you ND'd and watch the," what the hell is an ND?" Faces appear.

I personally wouldn't feel negligent unless I purposely put somebody in danger. Other than that it's an accident.

[Sarge]

True multi gun has rules if it's USPSA multigun. Even outlaw 3 gun has rules. They may be written on napkins and different for every match but they must have at least some rules.

Point is we're not going by military rules and if you feel you were negligent then say you ND'd and watch the," what the hell is an ND?" Faces appear.

I personally wouldn't feel negligent unless I purposely put somebody in danger. Other than that it's an accident.

[openclassterror]

It seems to me that in our emasculated, afraid to hurt people's feelings society that calling it a negligent discharge has the potential to make someone feel bad about themselves, hence the use of the word accidental. I personally thing that if someone does something stupid (like an ND), the embarrassment helps to sear the lesson into a permanent emotional scar, which helps reduce the likelihood of re-occurrence. It is true that they might get butt-hurt and quit shooting, but if they are putting people in danger and yet don't want to be called out on it they will continue to be a danger to others.

But then again, I got spanked as a child. Toughening up is a way of life when you grow up on a farm. Learn your lessons and become a better person.

[FullMetalJacket]

Im of the mindset that there is no such thing as an AD, but the 2 you described are perfect examples

[Jim Norman]

Gun goes Bang when you didn't want it to, you are done. Whine about it, do we really care? An AD or ND call it what you will can close a range. There was a move to allow the shooter to continue if it could be proved that the gun malfunctioned. I do not think this is a good thing. If your equipment breaks in a manner that causes it to be unsafe, i.e., ND/AD then I think you should be done. If it breaks so it will not fire, then a substitute is OK. Too many armchair gunsmiths out there and allowing a ND/AD due to a gun malfunction encourages moving too close to the edge.

My opinion of course and yours may vary.