wide45 Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 Guys,The application of Rule 10.3.2.4 is conditional on there being an actual (and verifiable) broken part, because a broken part is considered beyond the competitor's control. On the other hand, gun malfunctions caused by dirt are preventable if the competitor conducts regular cleaning and maintenance of his gun. Vive la difference! And the fact that your finger was clearly outside of the trigger guard is irrelevant to this particular rule, which deals with gun malfunctions, not competitor action. Red book rule 10.3.2.4The fact that the gun would drop the hammer while inserting a magazine (no finger on the trigger) meet the requirements of a broken gun. (Certainly isn't a "feature". ) Let's keep this thread on topic...feel free to start a thread on 10.3.2.4...if we don't have one alredy Looks like we have a difference of opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 wide45...I don't see it as a disagreement? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Merricks Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 Took over a year to figure that one out,,,rather not figure that one out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wide45 Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 If no parts are broken, the DQ must stand. Dirt in the action does not qualify. Misadjusted or misfitted parts do not qualify. Worn or bent parts do not qualify. Show the broken part that caused the discharge, or accept the DQ. Thems the rules. I've seen this rule overlooked several times. Not to say which way we should go, but I'd really like to see what we do, and the rules, be the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 In the case I stated from another thread, the shooter had a gun...that was previously serviceable..become unserviceable during the match, and it did so in a manner that caused the discharge. I don't think it was because it was dirty. I can't say if the parts were worn in such a manner that they choose this time to fail. I can say that, when the gun was examined in the safe area, inserting a (empty) mag would cause the hammer to follow. I don't think pieces or parts need to be falling out of the gun for it to be "broken", or have a broken part. And, I am not likely to start carrying my calipers and 1911 shop manual around at matches so that I can start mic'ing parts. Just my two cents. (I just don't want to have to DQ everybody that isn't shooting a Glock. ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
omnia1911 Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 ....or empty the gun of the mag and the round in the chamber before performing this particular kind of remedial action. Hind sight is 20/20? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 How/why did this thread suddenly get resurrected? Is it Easter already? Anyway, the relevant rule in the January 2004 Edition is: 10.4.9 Exception: When it can be established that the cause of the discharge is due to the actual breakage of a part of the firearm and the competitor has not committed any safety infraction in this Section, a match disqualification will not be invoked, however, the competitor's scores for that course of fire will be zero. The firearm must be immediately presented for inspection to the Range Master or his delegate, who will inspect the firearm and carry out any tests necessary to establish that an actual breakage of a part caused the discharge. A competitor may not later appeal a match disqualification for an unsafe discharge due to the actual breakage of a part if they fail to present the firearm for inspection prior to leaving the course of fire. In other words "Verifiable breakage AND no safety infraction = No DQ". So, if you had an AD over the berm, you would still be sent to the showers, even if the RO confirmed your finger was outside of the trigger at the time, and it was verified that part of your gun was broken. However the Rules Committee subsequently issued a Rules Interpretation on 6 August 2004 (available for download on the IPSC website): 10.4.9 Exception: When it can be established that the cause of the discharge is due to the actual breakage of a part of the firearm, the competitor has not committed any safety infraction in this Section, and a match disqualification will not be invoked, however, the competitor's scores for that course of fire will be zero. The firearm must be immediately presented for inspection to the Range Master or his delegate, who will inspect the firearm and carry out any tests necessary to establish that an actual breakage of a part caused the discharge. A competitor may not later appeal a match disqualification for an unsafe discharge due to the actual breakage of a part if they fail to present the firearm for inspection prior to leaving the course of fire. The subtle movement of the "and" effectively changes the impact of the rule to "Verifiable breakage = No DQ". In other words, you're given a "Get Out Of Jail Free" card because we accept that a genuine breakage is beyond the competitor's control, however I once again emphasise that a dirty gun is not a broken gun. The RM would need to see an actual broken bit before he could consider waiving the DQ under this rule. Also note that this rule only deals with ADs and broken guns. If you drop the gun or break the 90 degrees, you're toast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 This thead came back after I posted about a broken gun on another thread. That thread was about fixing the gun..this thread being the plcace to discuss the rules... Situation: I was running a shooter. During a reload, the shooter's gun went off. The round stayed within the range. I did not view the shooters finger in the trigger guard. No other saftey infractions were witnessed. I stopped the shooter and issued an UGH DQ under (red book) US 10.3.2.1 The shooter's gun was inspected in the safe area. The inspection showed that the hammer would follow upon inserting a magazine. The shooter was re-instated under 10.3.2.4 I agree with Vince that dirt is not an "actual breakage of a part". I also think it is the responsibility of the shooter to bring functional equipment to the match. However, I don't think we need to see bits and chucks as evidence that a part is broken (although that would be a clear example). I would consider a worn, bent, or deformd part to be "broken". And, considering all the different guns we see at matches, the RM can't be expected to be able to recognize a broken part with 100% certainty. However, the RM can clearly tell that a gun that was working has become unservicable...and needs repairs. (In this case, the hammer drops when inserting a mag...it's not supposed to do that. Broken.) Just my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 However, the RM can clearly tell that a gun that was working has become unservicable...and needs repairs. (In this case, the hammer drops when insertig a mag...it's not supposed to do that. Broken.) The way you've described it sounds good enough for me. I had an identical case at the Level III in Macau last weekend. The competitor was given a Match DQ by her RO, but she appealed to me as RM to overturn it. After the competitor (repeatedly) demonstrated the hammer follow-through to me, I reinstated her, but she got a zero for the stage, as the rule requires. POSTSCRIPT: I also declared her gun unsafe and ordered that she go to the safety area to repair it. However since it was her last stage, I let the poor girl go drown her sorrows with a Diet Coke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulW Posted October 26, 2004 Author Share Posted October 26, 2004 NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! Not living this one again!!! LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wide45 Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 The rule is extremely clear that there must be an "actual breakage of a part". Can we get an official interpretation that this part of the rule may be ignored? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 The rule is extremely clear that there must be an "actual breakage of a part". Can we get an official interpretation that this part of the rule may be ignored? Nobody is suggesting that any part of the rule be ignored. If a part of a gun fails to operate correctly as intended, then it's broken (i.e. it's a breakage). It's also possible that a broken bit may fall out of the gun, hence it will no longer be available as evidence. The RM has the authority to make the call, based on his inspection. In respect of the incident I personally handled in Macau, I was satisified that the inability of the hammer to be cocked and stay cocked was sufficient evidence that the gun was broken (i.e. a breakage had occurred). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wide45 Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 I very much doubt that your definition of "breakage" was intended when the rule was written. If I lighten my sear spring until it "fails to operate correctly as intended", is it broken? No. Regarding L9x25's post, the gun most certainly did not operate as intended. Did he not deserve to be reinstated? It's not that hard to tell if something broke, but you are telling me its ok not to look. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 I very much doubt that your definition of "breakage" was intended when the rule was written. I don't know, but I'll call the IPSC President this evening to find out, because I think he wrote Rule 12.02 (ii) for the 12th Edition (1995?). If he didn't write the rule, I'm sure he'll know the background. Regarding L9x25's post, the gun most certainly did not operate as intended. Did he not deserve to be reinstated? Possibly, but Leo decided not to challenge the call, so apparently he didn't think so. It's not that hard to tell if something broke, but you are telling me its ok not to look. No, I said "The RM has the authority to make the call, based on his inspection", and the word "inspection" means "to look". Unless there are pieces of the gun clearly visible on the range floor, the RM must inspect the gun, and the nature of his inspection can vary according to the nature of the incident, but it doesn't necessarily mean total stripping of the gun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wide45 Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 While we wait, I want to thank Vince for his patience, and willingness to persue this issue. I hope we get a chance to meet one day. I'd like to shake your hand, and buy you a beverage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 Thank you, kind Sir. Sorry for the delay, but Fearless Leader is presently in great pain due to some broken ribs, and he hasn't had a good night's sleep for over a week (he has to sleep sitting in a chair, not lying down), and it's painful for him to talk, so I'm reluctant to call him right now. When we spoke on Monday, I made a funny, which caused him to laugh, and he hasn't forgiven me yet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skywalker Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 When we spoke on Monday, I made a funny, which caused him to laugh, and he hasn't forgiven me yet Is that the reason of your exile in HK? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now