Finger position / Re-holster

[mhs]

Remember that during a course of fire, the gun while in the holster may not point uprange more than 3' from your feet. Next time you dry fire at home, when you bend over to pick up your mags, see where the muzzle points.

Which rule is this?

None that I know of....?

JT

5.2.7 Competitors must not be permitted to commence a course of fire wearing.... 5.2.7.3 A holster with the muzzle of the handgun pointing further than 3 feet from the competitor's feet while standing relaxed.

The rule you quote is topical only for shooters who stand relaxed during the entire course of fire. I haven't seen one of those yet.

[coldchar]

I get that guys, but under 10.5.2 you can not break the 90 median except for the provisions of 10.5.6 and that rule only gives the 3 foot rule with regard to a "loaded" firearm. My point here is there is a conflict caused by the wording/word in 10.5.6. All they need to do is remove the word "loaded" and it would be less obtuse.

We are all about the letter of the rules and I feel this is somewhat contradictory.

Merry Christmas All!

JT

I don't see a conflict with 10.5.6 and 10.5.2. 10.5.6 is not a sub set of 10.5.2. To me 10.5.6 deals specifically with the shooters actions after the "if clear, hammer holster" command. The gun has been shown to be empty , hopefully, and the competitor is reholstering the gun. Maybe it should be so qualified.

[JThompson]

I get that guys, but under 10.5.2 you can not break the 90 median except for the provisions of 10.5.6 and that rule only gives the 3 foot rule with regard to a "loaded" firearm. My point here is there is a conflict caused by the wording/word in 10.5.6. All they need to do is remove the word "loaded" and it would be less obtuse.

We are all about the letter of the rules and I feel this is somewhat contradictory.

Merry Christmas All!

JT

I don't see a conflict with 10.5.6 and 10.5.2. 10.5.6 is not a sub set of 10.5.2. To me 10.5.6 deals specifically with the shooters actions after the "if clear, hammer holster" command. The gun has been shown to be empty , hopefully, and the competitor is reholstering the gun. Maybe it should be so qualified.

Hello Jim,

No, I don't see it as a sub either, but it's not just for after If Clear. 10.5.2 defines a match DQ for breaking the 90 median during a COF. At the end it states "Limited exceptions 10.5.6" which goes on to say that during a COF the muzzle must not break the 90 median except while drawing or reholstering. Now If it was stated just like that I would have no problem with it, but when you put "loaded" in front of it you have changed the meaning of the rule. Why would you define loaded, but not unloaded? Why even comment on the condition of the firearm as other rules do that, see 8.1-8.2.5.

It's really pretty simple and would be much clearer if they just removed the word "loaded." I know everyone is on the same page as to what this rule is for and how it's used. My only problem is that it is not clear and concise. It would take very little to make it so.

JT

Edited December 23, 2009 by JThompson

[coldchar]

I get that guys, but under 10.5.2 you can not break the 90 median except for the provisions of 10.5.6 and that rule only gives the 3 foot rule with regard to a "loaded" firearm. My point here is there is a conflict caused by the wording/word in 10.5.6. All they need to do is remove the word "loaded" and it would be less obtuse.

We are all about the letter of the rules and I feel this is somewhat contradictory.

Merry Christmas All!

JT

I don't see a conflict with 10.5.6 and 10.5.2. 10.5.6 is not a sub set of 10.5.2. To me 10.5.6 deals specifically with the shooters actions after the "if clear, hammer holster" command. The gun has been shown to be empty , hopefully, and the competitor is reholstering the gun. Maybe it should be so qualified.

I have to retract my comment. That is what I get from responding while shooting from the hip, no pun intended. While I don't see a conflict, I have to agree the term loaded in 10.5.6 in the rule causes my head to itch.

One of you who wrote the rule, like George, can you jump in?

Edited December 27, 2009 by coldchar