Case Head Separation = Squib = DQ if cleared?

[Jollymon32]

Level 1 match - user experiences a partial case head separation during the COF.  The case head is separated just enough so that the extractor cannot eject the case, however, the case head is still attached to the rest of the case.

 

Shooter proceeds to get an L shaped rod out of their pocket, and inserting it from the front of the muzzle, proceeds to clear the case.  

 

Shooter DOES NOT sweep themselves while clearing the spent case due to the shape of the rod.

 

Shooter continues to complete the COF.

 

Discussion then ensues as to a DQ based on 10.5.2

 

Shooter argues successfully that a spent case suffering from case head failure is not a squib.

 

However, weeks later (as I take the NROI exam) I visit the definition of a Squib:  "A bullet or solid obstruction lodged inside the barrel of a firearm."

 

Being that the spent case with the partial head separation impedes access through the barrel, it meets the definition of a solid obstruction.  As such a case head separation during a COF and ANY attempt to clear, be it with the L shaped squib rod or with a pocket knife would be a DQ'able offense under 10.5.2.

 

Thoughts?

 

Edited August 2, 2021 by Jollymon32

[NETim]

RO should have said, "STOP!"  and checked for a blockage in the barrel with a zip tie or the like.  

 

https://nroi.org/ro-best-practices/squib-confusion/

 

As far as I'm concerned, while technically NOT a squib, it should have been treated as such.   ULSC, send them off to clear it (with another RO preferably) and score the stage.  

 

I wouldn't be comfortable with anyone jacking around the muzzle on the line no matter what the shape of their squib rod.   

Edited August 1, 2021 by NETim

[Rnlinebacker]

2 hours ago, Jollymon32 said:

Level 1 match - user experiences a partial case head separation during the COF.  The case head is separated just enough so that the extractor cannot eject the case, however, the case head is still attached to the rest of the case.

 

Shooter proceeds to get an L shaped rod out of their pocket, and inserting it from the front of the muzzle, proceeds to clear the case.  

 

Shooter DOES NOT sweep themselves while clearing the spent case due to the shape of the rod.

 

Shooter continues to complete the COF.

 

Discussion then ensues as to a DQ based on 10.5.2

 

Shooter argues successfully that a spent case suffering from case head failure is not a squib.

 

However, weeks later (as I take the NROI exam) I visit the definition of a Squib:  "A bullet or solid obstruction lodged inside the barrel of a firearm."

 

Being that the spent case with the partial head separation impedes access through the barrel, it meets the definition of a solid obstruction.  As such a case head separation during a COF and ANY attempt to clear, be it with the L shaped squib rod or with a pocket knife would be a DQ'able offense under 10.5.2.

 

Thoughts?

 

It's not allowed any more. Instant DQ under 5.7.2.1

[Rnlinebacker]

 

[Jollymon32]

Sorry to have been so obtuse in the original post, the question was not “what not to do in the event of a squib” but rather “what constitutes a squib”.  For most, including the shooter, a case head separation is not a squib - the bullet has long left the barrel. However, the definition of a squib includes a stuck bullet and or anything “solid” stuck in the barrel.

 

That is what I wanted other’s thoughts on.

 

Thanks!

Edited August 3, 2021 by Jollymon32

[teros135]

 

27 minutes ago, Jollymon32 said:

Sorry to have been so obtuse in the original post, the question was not “what not to do in the event of a squib” but rather “what constitutes a squib”.  For most, including the shooter, a case head separation is not a squib - the bullet has long left the barrel. However, the definition of a squib does not seem to have anything to do with a stuck bullet, but rather with anything “solid” stuck in the barrel.

 

That is what I wanted other’s thoughts on.

 

Thanks!

 

In that case, by your description it was a solid obstruction of the barrel (and the shooter using a rod to clear it confirms that).  So, yes, 5.7.2 applies.

 

And yes, "stop" would have been the right call. 

 

Edited August 1, 2021 by teros135

[Nolan]

The shooter could argue it was not an obstruction of the "barrel."  The obstruction was in the chamber.

 

I know, I know semantics, but....

 

 

Nolan

[teros135]

Yes, semantics. 

[motosapiens]

words mean things. everyone knows what a squib is, and it's NOT a case/head separation or partial separation. not only is the obstruction not in the barrel, but it's not a solid obstruction. it's just part of a spent case. clearly not a squib, clearly something you are allowed to clear and continue.

 

 

Edited August 2, 2021 by motosapiens

[Jollymon32]

25 minutes ago, motosapiens said:

words mean things. everyone knows what a squib is, and it's NOT a case/head separation or partial separation. not only is the obstruction not in the barrel, but it's not a solid obstruction. it's just part of a spent case. clearly not a squib, clearly something you are allowed to clear and continue.

 

 

Except that for most firearms the barrel is inclusive of the chamber and the bore.

 

But you are right in that it is not a "squib" as we all know a squib to be.  

 

It appears that in the process of making the clearing of a squib a DQ'able offense in the recent rules updates, the definition of a 'Squib' was not reviewed.

 

Maybe it should say "solid obstructions in the BORE of the barrel"

 

 

[David.Hylton]

I would say it's not a squib. It's a failure to extract the case. If it was a squib then anytime a case was stuck in the chamber it would be a squib. 

 

I'd have watched the shooter like a hawk and stopped him if he ran out of time or did something unsafe. 

[twodownzero]

20 hours ago, Nolan said:

The shooter could argue it was not an obstruction of the "barrel."  The obstruction was in the chamber.

 

I know, I know semantics, but....

 

 

Nolan

 

19 hours ago, teros135 said:

Yes, semantics. 

Semantics is the linguistic school associated with meaning.  If semantics doesn't matter, we don't need a rule forum anymore.

 

The chamber is in the barrel.

Edited August 2, 2021 by twodownzero

[ltdmstr]

1 hour ago, twodownzero said:

If semantics doesn't matter, we don't need a rule forum anymore.

 

Like he said.  It's not a squib and not an obstruction.  So, 5.7.2.1 doesn't apply.  However, 5.7.2 and 5.7.3 do.  If the shooter managed to clear the broken case while keeping the muzzle in a safe direction and finger outside the trigger guard (and didn't sweep himself as per OP), then no DQ.

[AHI]

Amazing the shooter had a tool to remove a case head separation. 

Removed the said separation on the clock with out  sweeping them self.

With out breaking the 180.   Amazing.

5.7.2

In the event that a competitor’s

firearm

malfunctions after the Start signal,

the competitor may safely attempt to correct the problem and

continue the

course of fire.

During such corrective action, the competitor must keep the

muzzle of the

firearm

pointing safely downrange at all times.

Edited August 2, 2021 by AHI

[pjb45]

Very interesting thread.

Words and definitions matter.

As a point of contention (see below underlined text), I would suggest the wordings from the exam ....or solid obstruction....does not lend itself to define 'solid'.

• The bullet is a solid obstruction. Fine 
• Case separation is NOT a solid obstruction I would offer since if the barrel was out of the gun and looking down the barrel I could see light at the other end.  The barrel is not solidly blocked. A potentially correct finding and conclusion.  

However, weeks later (as I take the NROI exam) I visit the definition of a Squib:  "A bullet or solid obstruction lodged inside the barrel of a firearm."

 

Being that the spent case with the partial head separation impedes access through the barrel, it meets the definition of a solid obstruction.  As such a case head separation during a COF and ANY attempt to clear, be it with the L shaped squib rod or with a pocket knife would be a DQ'able offense under 10.5.2.

 

[Nolan]

26 minutes ago, pjb45 said:

Being that the spent case with the partial head separation impedes access through the barrel, it meets the definition of a solid obstruction.  As such a case head separation during a COF and ANY attempt to clear, be it with the L shaped squib rod or with a pocket knife would be a DQ'able offense under 10.5.2.

 

 

Then in that case (excuse the pun), if a shooter's gun failed to eject, i.e. left an empty case in the chamber and the shooter pried out the empty case with his pocket knife without first determining whether it was a partial case head separation, the shooter would be subject to DQ.

 

So how many on this forum should have been DQ'd for that offense?  I can think of one PCC only match where 98% of the match would have been disqualified!  LOL! 

 

Nolan

[SGT_Schultz]

The rules imply that clearing a squib is so inherently unsafe that even trying to do it is grounds for a DQ.

 

Is it?  How so?  What, exactly, about the act of pushing a dead bullet out of a barrel is so dangerous?

 

Sweeping oneself?  There's already a rule for that.

[Jollymon32]

7 hours ago, Nolan said:

 

Then in that case (excuse the pun), if a shooter's gun failed to eject, i.e. left an empty case in the chamber and the shooter pried out the empty case with his pocket knife without first determining whether it was a partial case head separation, the shooter would be subject to DQ.

 

So how many on this forum should have been DQ'd for that offense?  I can think of one PCC only match where 98% of the match would have been disqualified!  LOL! 

 

Nolan

Exactly my point.  We have been clearing these jams forever.  Heck, there is even a thread on Enos on how to do it on the clock…

I opine that the definition of ‘squib’ needs to be revisited.

 

 

 

[waktasz]

Whatever the answer is, NROI is going to clarify this in their blog within the next month or so, and it will be a DQ going forward. All of their articles are responses to Enos threads, it seems. 

[Boomstick303]

11 minutes ago, waktasz said:

All of their articles are responses to Enos threads, it seems. 

 

I was thinking this very thing the other day.

[twodownzero]

19 hours ago, ltdmstr said:

 

Like he said.  It's not a squib and not an obstruction.  So, 5.7.2.1 doesn't apply.  However, 5.7.2 and 5.7.3 do.  If the shooter managed to clear the broken case while keeping the muzzle in a safe direction and finger outside the trigger guard (and didn't sweep himself as per OP), then no DQ.

 

So we have a hollow obstruction in this instance?

[StealthyBlagga]

By this logic, cycling the slide to clear an unextracted case or a misfired round would be a match DQ. Another example of the law of unintended consequences caused by an overly-micromanaging rules document.

[ltdmstr]

1 hour ago, twodownzero said:

 

So we have a hollow obstruction in this instance?

 

I wouldn't call it that, but if you want to that's fine.  Guess that's a reasonable interpretation. But even under that reading, 5.2.7.1 still doesn't apply because it's not a squib.

[MHicks]

Are they just concerned about any clearing of the gun that has to come from the muzzle end even if it's a bent rod? Maybe they need to change the name from "squib rod".

[ChuckS]

In 2004 we had this:

"5.7.1 In the event that a competitor’s handgun malfunctions after the
start signal, the competitor may safely attempt to correct the
problem and continue the course of fire. During such corrective
action, the competitor must keep the muzzle of the handgun
pointing safely downrange at all times. The competitor may not
use rods, or other tools to correct the malfunction. Violations will
result in a zero score for the stage."

 

 

It was fixed in 2008