Drpped gun?

[Flexmoney]

Detlef put this up for discussion:

A competitor drops an unloaded SIG226 on the ground after the *Gun Clear, Hammer Down, Holster* command is given. i) what's the RO's call? ii) what will the arb committee do? iii) what will the RM do? iv) why were all documents dated Oct 13? v) did any of this make sense?

---------------

I said:

If a gun is dropped during the course of fire...that is a DQ, right?

The course of fire is over...when?

----------------

TIS posted:

I was under the impression that you aren't DQ'd for dropping an empty gun, whenever that may be.

----------------

Then Detlef again:

This was far from a joke, a real event that caused days if not weeks of discussion and aggravation. But let's get everyone's input first. Apparently (I wasn't there to witness it), competitor made honest attempt to stick gun in holster when finished, then it fell down. Maybe we can even get someone from the arb committee to say a word about this (but not right away, suspensesuspense...).

And yes, you *are* DQ'd for dropping a gun during the course of fire, loaded or not.

--------------

The TIS with the rule #:

Just re-read the rules. Rule number 10.3.5 seems to state it pretty flatly. Unless it was during a holster test I assume the competitor was DQ'd.

--------------

We thought this needed it's own thread.

I think we have established that a dropped gun (loaded or not) during a COF is a DQ...

So...when is the COF complete?

[Jake Di Vita]

The course of fire is completed after the firearm is holstered as per rule number 8.3.7. My original thought was that the course of fire is done after the command if the shooter is finished unload and show clear, but this rule put that theory to rest. I don't see a loophole as to get out of a DQ here. Anyone else?

(Edited by TheItlianStalion at 6:55 pm on Nov. 13, 2002)

[Lightnin]

 I agree with the Stallion.....8.3.7 states that only AFTER

the "holster portion" of "Gun Clear, Hammer Down, Holster" is completed is the course of fire actually ended.

Hence, 10.3.5, dropped gun during COF, applies.

[Vince Pinto]

I was there and I was a member of the Arbitration Committee which considered the appeal against the DQ.

We determined that the competitor had indeed holstered his gun (thereby ending the course of fire), however the holster failed to properly retain the gun.

We reinstated the competitor and banned the holster from the competition (this only affected two competitors who were able to find replacments very easily).

[omnia1911]

---

Quote: from Vince Pinto on 9:55 pm on Nov. 13, 2002

I was there and I was a member of the Arbitration Committee which considered the appeal against the DQ.

We determined that the competitor had indeed holstered his gun (thereby ending the course of fire), however the holster failed to properly retain the gun.

We reinstated the competitor and banned the holster from the competition (this only affected two competitors who were able to find replacments very easily).

---

What holster was banned?

[Vince Pinto]

The banned holster was the German made "Speedsec5" for the SIG226 which is pictured here.

[Singlestack]

I witnessed a DQ call this weekend at a local match that I thought was interesting.

The shooter was holstering his pistol after the holster command. He was using a Limcat holster. He failed to seat it correctly and it slipped out of the front of the holster and out of his hand. He caught the pistol against his thigh but his muzzel had turned uprange (he pinched it with his palm, pistol upside down).  He then quickly, grabbed it and holstered it safely.

Whats your call?

[omnia1911]

---

Quote: from Vince Pinto on 1:59 pm on Nov. 14, 2002

The banned holster was the German made "Speedsec5" for the SIG226 which is pictured

here

.

---

I translated the page with Babelfish, and the best I can tell is that the holster will allow the pistol to still be drawn even when it is in the locked position. Is this the problem that led to it being banned?

[Flexmoney]

John,

That seems to go back to...

When is the course of fire over?  If it isn't over until he has safely holstered, then it is a DQ under 10.3(.4 & .5)

Right?

If the course of fire is over...then???

[Jake Di Vita]

The gun never touched the ground though. If he was DQ'd it was probably for unsafe gun handling/breaking the 180.

[Vince Pinto]

The holster was banned because it was considered unsafe and likely to cause further problems.

Part of the reason is (if I recall correctly) is that there is no "muzzle catch" or "trigger guard stop", so you can slide the gun into the holster but there is nothing to stop it continuing forward and falling to the ground.

[THS]

That picture looks like the new USA Extreme from Frank Garcia.  

And, if the banning has to do with a muzzle platform or trigger guard stop then MANY others are headed for the scrap pile.  

Is this a precedent on design, as in a requireing a muzzle platform or trigger guard stop,  from IPSC?  

Hmmmmm

Tom

[omnia1911]

These excerpts were taken from the holster in question's website. The sentence structure is a little funky from being translated from German to English with Babelfish. Sounds like the locking mechanism isn't, or wasn't intended to be all that secure:

LOCK/UNLOCK mode, pulling in both modes possible.

One can start even in the locked condition (e.g. with one sucked. Holstertest exercise in the IPSC ). Because with the pulling procedure of the weapon automatically with the middle finger always the safety device, likewise with zero-resistance, is deactivated.

[Detlef]

Garcia markets that holster in the US, It's the same one. Maybe we should add that ONLY the SIG226/CW5 combination was banned, and ONLY for that one competition.

--Detlef

[Vince Pinto]

Detlef is 100% correct that only the SIG226 version of that holster was banned, and it was only banned for one match (WSXIII).

THS: No, it was not banned because it lacked a trigger guard stop or muzzle stop. It was banned because when we asked the competitor to demonstrate his holster during the arbitration, it failed to retain the gun half the time.

Having said that, IPSC does indeed have a duty to consider if any equipment is unsafe. It was less of an issue a few years back but, these days, some designs are starting to sacrifice safety for speed, and we must remain vigilant.

[omnia1911]

---

Quote: from Vince Pinto on 4:04 pm on Nov. 17, 2002

Detlef is 100% correct that only the SIG226 version of that holster was banned, and it was only banned for one match (WSXIII).

THS: No, it was not banned because it lacked a trigger guard stop or muzzle stop. It was banned because when we asked the competitor to demonstrate his holster during the arbitration, it failed to retain the gun half the time.

Having said that, IPSC does indeed have a duty to consider if any equipment is unsafe. It was less of an issue a few years back but, these days, some designs are starting to sacrifice safety for speed, and we must remain vigilant.

---

That's odd. You said that you banned the same holster being used by another competitor at that same match. Was it also a SIG226 version, and did it fail the same holster test? If there is a design flaw with that particular SIG226 version, why is it not banned from all competition, rather than just one match?

[Ross Chevalier]

Couple of points,

Firstly, Vince commendations on your call on the DQ situation where the holster failed.  This is the kind of innovative yet practical thinking that great range officers come up with to maintain safety and provide the greatest benefit of doubt to the competitor.  I hope that if I ever find myself in a similar position, that I think this through as thoroughly.

On the subject of the banned holster, is there a repository of information on this sort of thing available to Range Officers?  I was on a different squad in SA, but did hear about this holster issue while I was off the range attending to illness.  I see a great many of these holsters in Canada, predominantly on the belts of some of our top competitors, and in the interest of keeping people in the sport would like to be able to provide guidance on this sort of thing.  We have very few competitors with Sigs, but are seeing more variety as Production catches on.  Your guidance would be appreciated.

Best,

Ross

[Vince Pinto]

Omnia1911,

The exact words I used were "We reinstated the competitor and banned the holster from the competition (this only affected two competitors who were able to find replacments very easily).".

We wanted to prevent further use of the particular holster which was the subject of the safety issue and arbitration (i.e the SIG226 version), but we also wanted to be reasonable and not ban other versions of the same holster (e.g. the Glock version), which had not proven to be a safety risk.

Moreover, an arbitration committee's authority only applies to one match.

Ross,

Thanks for the kind words. Sadly we have no central repository for such rulings yet, but we are working on establishing one under the auspices of IROA.

Presently the IROA FAQ primarily deals with questions about divisions, but we are in the process of compiling more general information about arbitration rulings and other advisories.

We have a full agenda at the moment, so it'll take us a few months to improve the FAQ, but I hope the finished product will be worth the wait.

[Detlef]

another interesting quirk is that current rules would not catch an *unsafe* holster (i.e. one that poorly retains a gun when in the condition that competitors usually start in, let's call it *unlocked*). The rule that appears to be applicable for that purpose (Holster test) permits the test being performed in the *locked* condition. In fact, the rules do not even mention *locked* vs. *unlocked* condition. Maybe worth a revision? Along the lines of *...must start in same condition as passed holster test ...*

--Detlef

(Edited by Detlef at 12:37 pm on Nov. 18, 2002)

[Vince Pinto]

Detlef,

Have you been spying on me again, dude ? Here is the text of a message I sent to my colleagues on the Handgun Rules Committee last week:

"I think the issue of holster tests needs to be revisited, and I have two conflicting views on the issue!

On one hand, I see little point in conducting holster tests where a competitor locks his holster for the test but where we don't require the lock to be applied for all other courses of fire. To be consistent, we should probably treat locking devices the same as we treat straps (Rule 5.3.5), because they arguably serve the same purpose.

Of course I realise that a strap on a traditional "carry" or "duty" holster is also an "anti-snatching" device, but gun-snatching is not an issue at IPSC competitions!

On the other hand, our real concern is that the holster retains the loaded gun between the "LAMR" command and the "Start signal", a period which is usually only a few seconds and while the competitor is standing still. If I'm not mistaken, most locking devices these days are used to prevent a gun falling while the competitor is walking around with an unloaded gun.".

There have only been two responses so far:

(1) "This is a tough one. On one side you have the holsters where the lock has been created to prevent the gun from being bumped out (eg. Rescomp and the likes), on the other hand you find the Safariland line where no lock is found and the tension of the retention device can be adjusted or the Gilmore orthopedic device which has a Race mode and a Lock mode. It is with these types that you see competitors fumbling around right before they have to start the stage. If we adress this we probably need to divide all available gun retaining devices into seperate holster types, which will need frequent updating as the industry invents and develops very quickly.

Second thought about this - if we adress this in a rule the rule must also be enforced without too much trouble. Non-enforcable rules are worthless!

I agree with Vince that right now the real purpose of the holster test is often not met because of the locking mode of most holsters. I'm not sure yet which is the right way to go.".

(2) "Have we reached the point of no return on holster test?  How can we possibly cover every holster out there with a rule?

We have rules that cover should a holster not retain the gun during the course of fire, it is the competitor's responsibility to have their equipment follow the rules.

Maybe the best and easiest solution would be to do away with holster test, and let the gun fall where it may.".

I would welcome input from BE Forum members.

[Detlef]

that's an easy one: Remove from the rule book the holster test in the same way that it has de facto already been removed from matches! In the last 4 level 4+ matches that I attended, I saw no holster test as part of a stage (i.e. before or after), mandatory for everyone to go through. If not at these matches, when are we going to see our existing rules applied??? Just LOOK at these holsters, no TRACE of practicality left! That is assuming that the holster test rule was indeed mainly invented for enforcing *practicality*, not safety. We already *have* safety rules in place that deal with guns dropping from holsters.

At the same time, get rid of the other totally unenforced rule involving holsters: The *max. 5 cm from body* rule. I have seen competitors at these Level 4+ matches that had their guns as far away from their bodies as their arms were long! Noone cared....

--Detlef

[omnia1911]

Wasn't the holster test enacted to insure that a competitors gun would be retained in the event that a stage design required the competitor to climb or jump over a stage prop, which would first necessitate securing their firearm in their holster? I don't see many of those types of stages anymore, and have never taken a holster test.

If you eliminate the holster test, will you also have to ban stage designs that require shooters to climb or jump over props, and where both hands are needed to accomplish the task?

(Edited by omnia1911 at 10:37 am on Nov. 18, 2002)

[Detlef]

stage design will have to accomodate the fact that the loaded gun can drop from the holster any second. But...this is already 100% practice in the US, and only one stage at the last WS had such an issue (you climbed up a ladder pretty far with a holstered gun). I don't like it at all, but for the most part, all physical challenge has already been removed from IPSC stages, and before too long I believe holsters will be eliminated alltogether, along with scenarios, large caliber pistols, running and moving etc asf. People always complain about the rules made up by IPSC, but in reality new rules often just reflect current stage design and refereeing practice! Rules are not leading, they are trailing the development! Holster tests have been eliminated long ago, let's update the rule book!

--Detlef!

(Edited by Detlef at 12:47 pm on Nov. 18, 2002)

[omnia1911]

You have to admit that IPSC/USPSA has been pretty silent on the evolution of some of these holster designs. Yes, they fall within the guidelines of the rule book, except for the ability of some designs to pass a holster test,  making them unsafe, plain and simple. Isn't safety job one in IPSC?

(Edited by omnia1911 at 12:31 pm on Nov. 18, 2002)

[cpty1]

I was the RO who DQ'd the competitor that Singlestack mentioned.  The only issue in my mind at the time, and now, and the reason for the DQ was that the 180 was severely broken.  It wasn't a lateral 180 sweep; the weapon ended up perpendicular to the 180, pointing up range directly at the gallery.  I always give the shooter the benefit of the doubt but didn't have a choice in this matter.  The unload and show clear command was given and confirmed, so if the shooter hadn't pinned the weapon against his leg, thereby pointing it uprange, and just let it hit the ground, I would have determined the gun just fell out of the holster, and I, as RO, could have picked up the unloaded weapon and it would have been a much happier ending.