unsafe ammunition ?

[wide45]

Flex,

My call is no re-shoot. The RO heard a noise that sounded like a squib and stopped the competitor. (Right call --- protecting everyone.) Examination confirmed a problem with the ammunition -- the flipped primer. Hence, no re-shoot --- the competitor is solely responsible for the quality of the ammo going into the gun. The suspect noise would have been avoided with better quality control on the part of the shooter. Seems simple to me....

No

The competitor could have cleared the gun, and safely finished the stage. He was prevented by the RO.

Reshoot.

The competitor was stopped when the RO suspected there might be a bullet lodged in the barrel. That problem did not exist. See 5.7.7.2

Edited August 12, 2008 by wide45

[Flexmoney]

That is why I brought this one up.

Safe ammo = reshoot

Unsafe ammo = no reshoot.

Unsafe ammo is a gray area, not defined.

[shred]

I don't want to take this off topic, but I have to wonder how someone shows up at a match with a backwards primer. I just started re-loading, and every round I load gets looked at several times. If it's going to a match, it gets measured for length and gauged. If not, it still goes in the ammo box primer side up, and gets a close look to make sure every primer is seated properly. I'm only loading about 500 rounds a week. Maybe if you are doing several thousand a week you don't have time, but for a match why wouldn't you?

It's a local match and you've got a few hundred rounds left in the 'practice' bin and don't feel like loading? You threw one with a backwards primer into the bottom of your bag to dispose of it later and your GF accidentally picks it up and loads it while she's collecting some spilled rounds? Several reasons one could get in the mix.

Flex,

My call is no re-shoot. The RO heard a noise that sounded like a squib and stopped the competitor. (Right call --- protecting everyone.) Examination confirmed a problem with the ammunition -- the flipped primer. Hence, no re-shoot --- the competitor is solely responsible for the quality of the ammo going into the gun. The suspect noise would have been avoided with better quality control on the part of the shooter. Seems simple to me....

"problem with the ammunition" doesn't equal "unsafe".

I submit that a round with a backwards primer in it is probably safer overall than one with the primer in the right way around-- Here's a picture of what happens when a round with the primer in the right way around goes off outside of the chamber:

A backwards-primer going off outside of the chamber, well, looks like a loaded round with a burnt primer stuck in backwards.

Reshoot.

If you suspect a competitor of trying this to gain a reshoot, watch the racked-and-ejected round.. there is no way the slide will cycle and the bullet is obvious. Hit 'em with Unsportsmanlike Conduct if it was intentional.

[George Jones]

I'll make some comments (hopefully to narrow this discussion).

1. The term "ammo", in the context of Rule 5.5.5, (IMO) means the "lot" of ammo, not one individual round. Identifiable bad rounds can be culled. Squib ammo cannot be identified, therefore the whole lot is suspect.

2. Rule 5.7.7 deals with an unsafe "event". If the suspected "event" didn't really happen, the shooter is required to reshoot. If the "event" happened, the time/score stand as is.

3. The application of Rule 5.7.7 may or may not involve unsafe ammo. If unsafe ammo is involved, then Rule 5.5.5 is also applied. They each have their distinct purpose.

4. Armor piercing and incendiary ammo are not unsafe, they are prohibited.

Now a question - What, specifically, makes a backwards primer unsafe? Yes, it may make a "pop" sound (which could be perceived to be a squib), but nothing else happens. If it does ignite the powder, the round goes "bang!". So what makes it unsafe?

[Flexmoney]

Now a question - What, specifically, makes a backwards primer unsafe? Yes, it may make a "pop" sound (which could be perceived to be a squib), but nothing else happens. If it does ignite the powder, the round goes "bang!". So what makes it unsafe?

I think that is the point of the discussion.

I have my litmus test. You have your litmus test. The next RO has his/her litmus test.

The rule book reads "RO deemed unsafe".

(For the record, I don't think it is safe. I've fired some of it over the years, and I have more of it if anybody wants it. I don't want to shoot any of it in my gun, nor with me behind the gun. But, that is not really why I started the discussion.)

[shred]

(For the record, I don't think it is safe. I've fired some of it over the years, and I have more of it if anybody wants it. I don't want to shoot any of it in my gun, nor with me behind the gun. But, that is not really why I started the discussion.)

I don't think it's 'unsafe'. I don't shoot it once I find it, but if one does sneak in and go off, I don't worry about it.

I would feel better about dropping the hammer on a backwards primer of mine than a random round from the range floor.

[Flexmoney]

And, I would not.

[Nik Habicht]

Flex,

My call is no re-shoot. The RO heard a noise that sounded like a squib and stopped the competitor. (Right call --- protecting everyone.) Examination confirmed a problem with the ammunition -- the flipped primer. Hence, no re-shoot --- the competitor is solely responsible for the quality of the ammo going into the gun. The suspect noise would have been avoided with better quality control on the part of the shooter. Seems simple to me....

No

The competitor could have cleared the gun, and safely finished the stage. He was prevented by the RO.

Reshoot.

The competitor was stopped when the RO suspected there might be a bullet lodged in the barrel. That problem did not exist. See 5.7.7.2

Rich,

I disagree. The competitor was stopped because his shot sounded strange, which might have indicated a squib. Since the competitors ammo in fact had a fault (reversed primer) and the RO made the proper call in terms of safety, no re-shoot. This one's different than an improperly seated primer which goes click rather than bang. That one the shooter racks out and keeps going. In this case, the sound (ultimately caused by something in the shooter's control) requires RO intervention....

George -- is there an official NROI position on that scenario? Would you order a reshoot or score the targets as shot?

[wide45]

The RO was correct to stop the competitor, due to the possibility of a squib bullet in the barrel. It could have been dangerous to allow him to fire the gun.

What actually happened, was that the primer popped, and did not light off the round, leaving nothing wrong with the gun except a dud round to rack out.

When a suspected safety problem does not exist, a reshoot is required.

If you call a round with a backwards primer unsafe, you still have to allow that the round in the chamber was not unsafe. When the RO stopped the competitor, the primer had been fired, and was not a possible danger.

You don't stop the competitor to penalize him for loading bad ammo. It is only for suspected safety problems.

except for 10.2.11

[George Jones]

Rich,

I disagree. The competitor was stopped because his shot sounded strange, which might have indicated a squib. Since the competitors ammo in fact had a fault (reversed primer) and the RO made the proper call in terms of safety, no re-shoot. This one's different than an improperly seated primer which goes click rather than bang. That one the shooter racks out and keeps going. In this case, the sound (ultimately caused by something in the shooter's control) requires RO intervention....

George -- is there an official NROI position on that scenario? Would you order a reshoot or score the targets as shot?

I've given you my opinion. You are dealing with two separate issues.

The Event - As related, the gun went "pop", causing a suspicion of a squib. RO stops the shooter, the barrel proves to be clear, therefore no safety problem existed. Reshoot.

The Ammo - If the shooter had more of that funny stuff, the RO/CRO/RM should order it removed.

If you want a more official answer, you know where to go.

[Nik Habicht]

Rich,

I disagree. The competitor was stopped because his shot sounded strange, which might have indicated a squib. Since the competitors ammo in fact had a fault (reversed primer) and the RO made the proper call in terms of safety, no re-shoot. This one's different than an improperly seated primer which goes click rather than bang. That one the shooter racks out and keeps going. In this case, the sound (ultimately caused by something in the shooter's control) requires RO intervention....

George -- is there an official NROI position on that scenario? Would you order a reshoot or score the targets as shot?

I've given you my opinion. You are dealing with two separate issues.

The Event - As related, the gun went "pop", causing a suspicion of a squib. RO stops the shooter, the barrel proves to be clear, therefore no safety problem existed. Reshoot.

The Ammo - If the shooter had more of that funny stuff, the RO/CRO/RM should order it removed.

If you want a more official answer, you know where to go.

Thanks --- between Rich and you I've managed to see the light.....

I wasn't getting the message you guys were sending until your respective last posts...

[George Jones]

Thanks --- between Rich and you I've managed to see the light.....

I wasn't getting the message you guys were sending until your respective last posts...

It's a burden we carry.......

[lcs]

George,

From your earlier post:

1. The term "ammo", in the context of Rule 5.5.5, (IMO) means the "lot" of ammo, not one individual round. Identifiable bad rounds can be culled. Squib ammo cannot be identified, therefore the whole lot is suspect.

The shooter had a squib on the previous stage. Next stage the shooter is stopped because of another suspected squib; however, it turns out to be a sidways primer.

You now have a "lot" of ammo that has had problems and the RO declared the ammo unsafe. The shooter could be given a reshoot on the second stage because technically he did not have a squib as long as he has acquired new ammo ? or

Is the RO suppose to "supervise" the culling of the ammo to make sure the shooter has removed any sideways primer ammo? or

Are you saying the shooters ammo (lot) was not unsafe given a squib and the sideways primer ?

I agree you addressed a single sideways primer would get a reshoot if the bullet was not lodged in the barrel. I do not see the entire problem was addressed. Ammo unsafe or not?

Thanks

[Flexmoney]

The Event - As related, the gun went "pop", causing a suspicion of a squib an unsafe condition/ammo.

Therein lies the distinction.

It's NOT squib specific.

The barrel being clear isn't relevant. That is not the question.

The question is...what is "unsafe ammo". And, the answer is left up to the RO to determine.

It's is my opinion (determination) that a backwards/sideways primer is unsafe ammunition.

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

Further, like Nik, I can see a strong argument that the shooter was responsible for getting stopped. I realize that is not what the rule says, but perhaps it should. A precedent for that can be seen in the new rule book, where Rule 10.4.9 (Broken gun DQ alibi) was deleted.

We tend to put responsibility on the shooter. In this case, regardless of the safety issue, the shooter was the cause of getting stopped (by loading faulty ammo).

[HoMiE]

If you stop a shooter for a faulty primer and the shooter could have cleared it and continued the stage, the shooter should not be penalized because the RO stopped them. I think the shooter is being penalized enough time-wise having to clear the ammo malfunction and maybey they will take better care next time. Now if the shooter repeatedly, has ammo problems, then I would be inclined to deem "unsafe ammo".

It has been said before that NROI is not in the 'gotcha' business. I think every shooter should have a fair chance to complete to CoF. It just seems better to lean towards the side of safety since at the speeds this game takes place, you don't know for sure whether it's a squib or a sideways primer, or whatever the case may be.

First time, shame on me(for stopping you). Second time, shame on you(for not being diligent).

[George Jones]

The Event - As related, the gun went "pop", causing a suspicion of a squib an unsafe condition/ammo.

Therein lies the distinction.

It's NOT squib specific.

The barrel being clear isn't relevant. That is not the question.

The question is...what is "unsafe ammo". And, the answer is left up to the RO to determine.

It's is my opinion (determination) that a backwards/sideways primer is unsafe ammunition.

You are mixing two rules and trying to combine their outcome.

A (suspected) squib is a potentially unsafe condition. There was no actual squib. After the primer went "pop", there was no unsafe condition in the gun. Once that primer has gone "pop", that round can be racked out, a fresh round chambered and safely fired. The fact that that specific round had an incorrect primer does not affect the conclusion of the "event". Rule 5.7.7.2 applies. Since the RO stopped the shooter..... Reshoot!

That scenario is similar to an actual squib where the bullet has left the barrel. The shooter could have racked the gun and continued, but since there was no bullet in the barrel - Reshoot! That would not preclude a discussion about the relative acceptability of the rest of that ammo batch (under 5.5.5).

I would suggest that ammo with bad primers is certainly unwise and could be considered unsafe (and removed from the match) prior to it being "fired".

The evidence of a spent bad primer does justify the inspection of the remainder of the ammo supply and the application of Rule 5.5.5

[Flexmoney]

I figured somebody would bring up the "gotcha" angle. I don't think it would apply. If the shooter is stopped because of their ammo, and the ammo proves faulty, then the shooter shouldn't get a reshoot. That is consistent with most of the rules in the USPSA rule book, which put the responsibility on the shooter.

The RO wasn't in error to stop the shooter. The shooter's actions (ammo/gear brought to the match) was what cause the shooter to be stopped.

(note: this is a philosophical point of view...that is not how the current rule book reads)

[Flexmoney]

The Event - As related, the gun went "pop", causing a suspicion of a squib an unsafe condition/ammo.

Therein lies the distinction.

It's NOT squib specific.

The barrel being clear isn't relevant. That is not the question.

The question is...what is "unsafe ammo". And, the answer is left up to the RO to determine.

It's is my opinion (determination) that a backwards/sideways primer is unsafe ammunition.

You are mixing two rules and trying to combine their outcome.

No, I am merely applying the actual wording of 5.7.7

Read the rule closely. A squib is merely an example of "unsafe ammunition". It is not exclusive to a squib.

In look through the rule book for references to "unsafe ammunition" we find that is is not defined. Our closest bet is 5.5.5

[George Jones]

Erring on the side of safety is part of our game. It has long been accepted that taking the conservative approach should not penalize the shooter if the RO stops the shooter in a situation where the shooter could have continued safely.

[George Jones]

Read the rule closely.

You're kidding, right?

[Flexmoney]

After the primer went "pop", there was no unsafe condition in the gun. Once that primer has gone "pop", that round can be racked out, a fresh round chambered and safely fired.

I see that as irrelevant. It's not a matter of what could have happened in the future.

It is a matter of whether the RO stopped the shooter for good reason. If not, then a reshoot should be ordered. If the RO stopped the shooter for just cause, then the stage should stand as scored.

I'll make the argument that the rule should read that the shooter doesn't get a reshoot...becuase they were responsible (faulty ammo). That is how the rule should read...which would make it consistent with other aspects of the rule book.

Regardless, I see a backwards/sideways primer as unsafe ammo. If it is not, then why is there all of this talk of culling it from the shooter's remaining ammo?

5.7.7 says "unsafe ammo"...not merely a squib. I say the ammo was unsafe, therefore...no reshoot. If you say different, the we have a hole in the rulebook (which was the point of me starting this thread). We need to define this in the future.

[wide45]

Once the primer popped, the competitor no longer had "unsafe ammo", therefore the safety problem does not exist.

I can read too.

[Flexmoney]

And, then there is:

5.7.6 Where the handgun has failed after the Start signal, the competitor must not be permitted to reshoot the course of fire or string. This includes the instance where a handgun is declared unserviceable or unsafe during a course of fire or string. >

[Flexmoney]

Once the primer popped, the competitor no longer had "unsafe ammo", therefore the safety problem does not exist.

I can read too.

Sure, what you don't get is that is doesn't matter. Your chronology is off.

The call was made to stop the shooter AT THE MOMENT OF THE POP.

Was the call justified? Yes, because that ammo that went POP was unsafe.

[George Jones]

Kyle,

You are entitled to your opinion on what the rules "should" say.

The fact remains that I completely disagree with your interpretation to the described event as the rules are written. Twist it any way you want, using any rules you choose, my comments on this event stand.

The RO was correct to stop the shooter. No unsafe condition in the gun, No unsafe handgun, No bullet in the barrel - Reshoot!

Further comments from me are not likely at this point.