Jump to content
Brian Enos's Forums... Maku mozo!

Guy shows up with AR Pistol in 9mm with sig brace, but shoots it from shoulder as a pistol


minnesota1

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, StealthyBlagga said:

This forum is about USPSA/IPSC rules ONLY. It sounds like this was an outlaw match, so your question doesn't belong here. Hopefully a moderator will move it where it does belong.

Why does it not belong here? Rules can be change. It is a fair question.

Edited by usmc1974
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/7/2018 at 8:48 PM, minnesota1 said:

Just had a local steel match and a guy shows up with an 8 1/2" or so AR pistol with a sig brace in 9mm.  He shouldered it like a rifle and shot it like that through the match.  It's a handgun match.  He was told it was unfair and was upset about that saying it.  Is there any rules that forbid this in various shooting sports?  I just want to cite some rules from legitimate organizations on the subject so it won't be a problem in the future. 

 

Thanks for your help.

 

 

 

Well, if it was a Steel Challenge or USPSA match, being a pistol it requires a holster.  Did he have a holster?  No?  Then he couldn't use it.  Not to mention the rule already cited about

"Handguns with shoulder stocks and/or fore grips of any kind are prohibited."

 

13 hours ago, HCH said:

If you don’t allow PCC at your club match, why did you allow him to shoot his pistol shouldered through the match? (NOTE: I know USPSA’s ruling on shouldering a braced pistol)

 

USPSA ruling on shouldering a braced pistol?  Hm.  I'm not sure you are correct about that, because "shouldering" isn't anything ruled upon---the ATF may have made some decisions regarding that, but USPSA skipped it entirely by requiring the PCC to be a rifle.  Sarge already posted the rule about handguns with stocks/foregrips, but if you are talking about PCC, this is irrelevant, because in PCC it must be a rifle, not a pistol.  As such, this obviously does not qualify. 

 

That's the point, really:  If this was a USPSA/SCSA match, it wouldn't have been allowed, as the rules for handgun specifically disallow it, and the rules for PCC specifically disallow it.

 

OP:  Sarge posted the handgun rule 5.1.10, (plus the fact that handguns must be holstered in USPSA or SCSA), and the SCSA/USPSA rule for PCC is that it must be a rifle, not a pistol.  Specifically, Appendix D8.6:  "Must have stock attached and be capable of being fired from shoulder position. **Note: Sig Brace and any variant thereof is not allowed**"  If the stcok is attached (and it is a _stock_) then it must be a rifle, not a pistol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose I can understand some of the resistance to allowing PCCs in USPSA matches, but with regards to Steel Challenge (I realize the OP's match in question was most likely outlaw), I checked the SCSA website and their Nat's results from 2009 show a rimfire rifle division.  So people have been shooting rifles in SC for years before PCC came along.  I never heard any griping about that, probably because no one cares about HOA at a SC match.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, JAFO said:

I suppose I can understand some of the resistance to allowing PCCs in USPSA matches, but with regards to Steel Challenge (I realize the OP's match in question was most likely outlaw), I checked the SCSA website and their Nat's results from 2009 show a rimfire rifle division.  So people have been shooting rifles in SC for years before PCC came along.  I never heard any griping about that, probably because no one cares about HOA at a SC match.

And PCC was the second largest division at this years past wssc match. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, GunBugBit said:

I wouldn't care.  If he paid his match fee and it's a low level / informal match, let him have his fun, put him in the "fun gun" division or something.

The real issue is shooting organizations do not want to put themselves into a policing situation and pistols with arm braces can bring the wrong kind of attention from the ATF. If someone has the tax stamp for a SBR, they can shoot if the match allows or has division. If a match is a pistol only match and they only want pistols, go shoot somewhere else. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aside from the potential ATF issue, if they didn't have an appropriate Division for it, they stuck him in Open, where he's shooting a PCC directly against pistols.  Therein might lie the problem and the complaints of unfair advantage.  A local indoor range just held their first "competition" last week.  From what I heard from one of the competitors, they had NO divisions.  People were shooting .22's, magnums, compact carry guns, full blown race guns, etc all against each other as one group.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, JAFO said:
54 minutes ago, JAFO said:

Aside from the potential ATF issue, if they didn't have an appropriate Division for it, they stuck him in Open, where he's shooting a PCC directly against pistols.  Therein might lie the problem and the complaints of unfair advantage.  A local indoor range just held their first "competition" last week.  From what I heard from one of the competitors, they had NO divisions.  People were shooting .22's, magnums, compact carry guns, full blown race guns, etc all against each other as one group.

 

 

I love it, except for 22s that are a little too airsoft for men:roflol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, RJH said:

 

I love it, except for 22s that are a little too airsoft for men:roflol:

 

I imagine it was mostly kids running rimfire, but I wasn't there.  There might have been some serious gamers with Open Rimfire pistols looking to mop up the competition.  ?

Edited by JAFO
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Flatland Shooter said:

 

Insurance?     What insurance?

 

Yeh, I guess some explanation is in order. While there may or may not be insurance available from USPSA, there is insurance available to the club running the match. The problem is, are there any standards or exclusions that might preclude a club from seeking coverage for defense and indemnification from a lawsuit should someone be injured by this guy using an improper firearm in competition?

 

But let's say that liability insurance does apply at the club level. The club could expose itself by simply allowing the Sig Brace super tactical wannabe to compete in violation of standards and rules sanctioned by the USPSA. This opens the club to possible exemplary or punitive damages that could effective extinguish the club. The club's land could be confiscated in the judgment as well. Boom, a shooting venue is gone. 

 

I wonder if this club that allowed him to compete ever thought that by allowing this, they could be losing their ability to put on competitions. 

 

That was where I was going. And with any lawsuit with a significant exposure, EVERYONE gets sued: The people in the squad, the squad leader, the match director, the entire board of directors, the land owner, the brace manufacturer, the ammunition manufacturer, and heck, maybe even the ATF for allowing the use in that open letter. Sigh...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Nevadazielmeister said:

 

Yeh, I guess some explanation is in order. While there may or may not be insurance available from USPSA, there is insurance available to the club running the match. The problem is, are there any standards or exclusions that might preclude a club from seeking coverage for defense and indemnification from a lawsuit should someone be injured by this guy using an improper firearm in competition?

 

But let's say that liability insurance does apply at the club level. The club could expose itself by simply allowing the Sig Brace super tactical wannabe to compete in violation of standards and rules sanctioned by the USPSA. This opens the club to possible exemplary or punitive damages that could effective extinguish the club. The club's land could be confiscated in the judgment as well. Boom, a shooting venue is gone. 

 

I wonder if this club that allowed him to compete ever thought that by allowing this, they could be losing their ability to put on competitions. 

 

That was where I was going. And with any lawsuit with a significant exposure, EVERYONE gets sued: The people in the squad, the squad leader, the match director, the entire board of directors, the land owner, the brace manufacturer, the ammunition manufacturer, and heck, maybe even the ATF for allowing the use in that open letter. Sigh...

 

So they’re going to get sued because he was using a pistol in a manner deemed acceptable by the authorities?

 

what about when someone gets injured by a custom Open gun? Or a stock G17? 

 

And we STILL don’t know if this was a uspsa/sc match.. for all we know, this could be four guys standing around shooting at dueling trees. 

Edited by HCH
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, HCH said:

 

So they’re going to get sued because he was using a pistol in a manner deemed acceptable by the authorities?

 

what about when someone gets injured by a custom Open gun? Or a stock G17? 

 

And we STILL don’t know if this was a uspsa/sc match.. for all we know, this could be four guys standing around shooting at dueling trees. 

 

So the ATF is an authority on firearms?  Now THAT is funny. Thank you for the chuckle. 

Edited by Nevadazielmeister
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Chills1994 said:

We haven't seen hide nor hair of our OP since Saturday morning.

 

Methinks we are being trolled.

Actually, he was around about 49 minutes ago. Don't mean he ain't a troll though

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...