live round under hammer

[PaleWolf Brunelle, #2495L]

Lets see if i can clear some small points up

! ! ther were 3 people involved ,TO,shooter ,and RO

...

TO was one of only 3 people who was "qualified to run timer

the other two were the shooter and me (RO)

That wasn't entirely clear in the OP...there was no reference to the "RO" vs the T/O (timer operator) as being two separate persons.

The terms are often used interchangeably.

 

i was at my cart when this all happened

and walked up on the Gallows and retrieved the pistols

See questions 4 & 5 (post #34).

 

and went to loading table not the unloading table

because he was the last shooter on the stage and it made

since to take them back to the loading area to speed

things up so we could move on to next stage>

That make sense, but has no bearing on the call

 

does any of this matter i dont know but ill bet you guys do

The answers to questions 1-3 in post #34 would be more helpful.

 

...

[Guest diablo slim shootist]

unfortunately i was at my cart and cant answer 1-3 sorry

guess i need to ask more questions from the other two involved

but when i asked the shooter if he knew there was a live round

under the hammer he pleaded ignorance.

[PaleWolf Brunelle, #2495L]

unfortunately i was at my cart and cant answer 1-3 sorry

Those are absolutely critical to making the correct call.

 

guess i need to ask more questions from the other two involved

Especially the T/O.

 

but when i asked the shooter if he knew there was a live round

under the hammer he pleaded ignorance.

"Selective memory" to inject "benefit of doubt" into the equation?

...or simply "brain fade" due to confusion following the interruption?

[Guest diablo slim shootist]

selective memory would be my first impression knowing this shooter

but i always give the shooter the benefit of the doubt

but in this case i may have been naive.

[Dubious Don #56333]

Amazing how things like this quickly degenerate into a skewed version of the original question! There isn't enough information in the ORIGINAL QUESTION to make a COMPLETE answer however the rules ARE pretty clear. Shooters CANNOT de-cock a revolver unless under the direct supervision of a TO. They also say that THE ROUND UNDER THE HAMMER MUST BE EXPENDED. Pretty clear to me.

 

From the information given, it would seem to me that the TO was defficient in not supervising his shooter.

 

The shooter should NEVER be given a penalty he did not earn OR, given a penalty because the TO screwed up.

 

Benefit of doubt goes to the shooter, ALWAYS.

 

Reshoot, no call on the penalty.

[C0ckr0ach, SASS #26100]

Learning

 

Unless the Shooter is shooting Slow Enough to be able to respond to coaching by someone (TO, Spotters) yelling at him/her, they should just shut up. Except for calling "Cease Fire" or "Stop".

 

 

In most cases, by the time a TO or Spotter can get words out of their mouth, the Shooter is already on the next firearm. (As in this case).

 

It is a lot better on the Shooter to get a Procedural or Minor Safety than a SDQ caused by someone yelling at him/her and breaking their concentration.

[PaleWolf Brunelle, #2495L]

Amazing how things like this quickly degenerate into a skewed version of the original question! There isn't enough information in the ORIGINAL QUESTION to make a COMPLETE answer...

Agreed.

...however the rules ARE pretty clear.

Shooters CANNOT de-cock a revolver unless under the direct supervision of a TO.

They also say that THE ROUND UNDER THE HAMMER MUST BE EXPENDED. Pretty clear to me.

The rules provide for DE-COCKING under some circumstances. In this case, either method of making the revolver safe would have been acceptable, given that a reshoot was in order.

 

From the information given, it would seem to me that the TO was defficient in not supervising his shooter.

That isn't known at this point. All we have is information from the RO (NOT the T/O) and questionable input from the shooter.

 

The shooter should NEVER be given a penalty he did not earn OR, given a penalty because the TO screwed up.

 

Benefit of doubt goes to the shooter, ALWAYS.

The issue of any "doubt" can be resolved by asking the T/O if he 'supervised' the de-cocking of the revolver by the shooter.

 

Reshoot, no call on the penalty.

Maybe...if it was a SDQ situation, there is no reshoot.

[Guest diablo slim shootist]

After discussion with TO one the phone just now

he did not instruct the shooter to uncock the gun

for what ever reason-he may not have known he cocked

it or the shooter may have loaded improperly( doubt that- he

is a seasoned shooter)i should have given the shooter a SDQ>

[Blastmaster]

Interesting.

 

It is my personal belief that when I (as the TO) call the next shooter to the line, HE is in my 'direct supervision' as soon as he leaves the LT. He gets out of my direct supervision when he reaches the ULT. With that said, I would not have penalized the shooter for decocking the pistol in the cirmumstances stated. It would be much better if he would have stopped-stopped but never the less, if he did it with pistol pointed down range, then no call on my part.

 

YMMV

 

Blastmaster

[Red River Ray SASS#33254]

Interesting.

 

It is my personal belief that when I (as the TO) call the next shooter to the line, HE is in my 'direct supervision' as soon as he leaves the LT. He gets out of my direct supervision when he reaches the ULT. With that said, I would not have penalized the shooter for decocking the pistol in the cirmumstances stated. It would be much better if he would have stopped-stopped but never the less, if he did it with pistol pointed down range, then no call on my part.

 

YMMV

 

Blastmaster

 

 

I agree 100%

 

RRR

[Dubious Don #56333]

After discussion with TO one the phone just now

he did not instruct the shooter to uncock the gun

for what ever reason-he may not have known he cocked

it or the shooter may have loaded improperly( doubt that- he

is a seasoned shooter)i should have given the shooter a SDQ>

 

From PaleWolf:

Amazing how things like this quickly degenerate into a skewed version of the original question! There isn't enough information in the ORIGINAL QUESTION to make a COMPLETE answer...

Agreed.

...however the rules ARE pretty clear.

Shooters CANNOT de-cock a revolver unless under the direct supervision of a TO.

They also say that THE ROUND UNDER THE HAMMER MUST BE EXPENDED. Pretty clear to me.

The rules provide for DE-COCKING under some circumstances. In this case, either method of making the revolver safe would have been acceptable, given that a reshoot was in order.

Understood

From the information given, it would seem to me that the TO was defficient in not supervising his shooter.

That isn't known at this point. All we have is information from the RO (NOT the T/O) and questionable input from the shooter.

 

The shooter should NEVER be given a penalty he did not earn OR, given a penalty because the TO screwed up.

 

Benefit of doubt goes to the shooter, ALWAYS.

The issue of any "doubt" can be resolved by asking the T/O if he 'supervised' the de-cocking of the revolver by the shooter.

 

See previous quote by Diablo. Apparently not! However, I cannot see penalizing a shooter for the TO's failure. He SHOULD have properly supervised the shooter and I can well understand his reaction in "de-cocking" when directed to stop and go to the unloading table. HOWEVER, it is good to remember that the shooter could have simply said ' whatcha want me to do with this cocked revolver' before he continued on.

 

Reshoot, no call on the penalty.

Maybe...if it was a SDQ situation, there is no reshoot.

[Brother King, SASS #69031]

QUOTE (Dubious Don #56333 @ Nov 28 2010, 05:25 AM)

Amazing how things like this quickly degenerate into a skewed version of the original question! There isn't enough information in the ORIGINAL QUESTION to make a COMPLETE answer...

Agreed.

...however the rules ARE pretty clear.

Benefit of doubt goes to the shooter, ALWAYS.

The issue of any "doubt" can be resolved by asking the T/O if he 'supervised' the de-cocking of the revolver by the shooter.

We play the "benefit of the doubt" card on every scenario. Let's give the shooter that in this instance. The TO/RO's statement in the OP is that he was surprised to find hammer down on empty.

 

If the RO/TO didn't de-cock. And he definitely saw the shooter cock the pistol, then there is really only one conclusion that even the most impartial review committee can make. As to whether it matters 'what kind of gun' YOU CAN'T KNOW what has been done to the internals of ANY gun. Until you're proven right or wrong.

 

Unfortunately your ASS U ME may just make someone hurt. I've seen Rooogers with 4 stops and lacking a transfer bar. As an RO would you really make that assumption given that the next time someone could get seriously injured?

 

Even with the benefit of the doubt- if you just read the OP.... there's no doubt that this shooter de-cocked this pistol wihtout the direct supervision and command of the RO>>>>>SDQ!

[Red River Ray SASS#33254]

We play the "benefit of the doubt" card on every scenario. Let's give the shooter that in this instance. The TO/RO's statement in the OP is that he was surprised to find hammer down on empty.

 

If the RO/TO didn't de-cock. And he definitely saw the shooter cock the pistol, then there is really only one conclusion that even the most impartial review committee can make. As to whether it matters 'what kind of gun' YOU CAN'T KNOW what has been done to the internals of ANY gun. Until you're proven right or wrong.

 

Unfortunately your ASS U ME may just make someone hurt. I've seen Rooogers with 4 stops and lacking a transfer bar. As an RO would you really make that assumption given that the next time someone could get seriously injured?

 

Even with the benefit of the doubt- if you just read the OP.... there's no doubt that this shooter de-cocked this pistol wihtout the direct supervision and command of the RO>>>>>SDQ!

 

Not trying ta be smart here but you say RO stopped tha shooter, RO saw tha shooter cock tha pistol, RO never told ta shooter to decock his pistol, RO knew for sure tha pistol was never fired as he was with him on tha line, Then tha shooter is sent either to tha ULT or tha LT to clear his gunz. What was tha RO thinking? That the pistol was still COCKED?

 

RRR

[Guest diablo slim shootist]

the TO and the RO were two different people.

[Elfego, SASS #50493]

So what's to be done with a cocked revolver when it is not safe to drop the hammer?

[Red River Ray SASS#33254]

the TO and the RO were two different people.

 

I reckon I still don't unnerstand this. Where I'm from tha TO is tha sole RO for tha shooter from LT to ULT.

So their was another person idling along with tha TO for safety instructions?

 

 

RRR

[Dubious Don #56333]

Not trying ta be smart here but you say RO stopped tha shooter, RO saw tha shooter cock tha pistol, RO never told ta shooter to decock his pistol, RO knew for sure tha pistol was never fired as he was with him on tha line, Then tha shooter is sent either to tha ULT or tha LT to clear his gunz. What was tha RO thinking? That the pistol was still COCKED?

 

RRR

 

Exactly my point! The TO SHOULD have verified that the shooter was SAFE to leave the firing line. He didn't. The shooter apparently took matters into his own hands lacking clear direction from the TO.

 

So what's to be done with a cocked revolver when it is not safe to drop the hammer?

 

You point it down range and FIRE the round!

[Adirondack Jack, SASS #53440]

the TO and the RO were two different people.

I don't care what the chore list says, or how many RO badges are out there, the feller with the timer in his hand is the RO in charge of the line, period.

[Allie Mo, SASS No. 25217]

the TO and the RO were two different people.

Hi Slim,

 

I think you are confusing Range Officer with Posse Marshal.

 

Regards,

 

Allie "who would have given a reshoot with no penalties" Mo

[Guest diablo slim shootist]

i agree the TO should have taken care of this problem before they

were handed off to me but that was out of my cotrol.Diablo ^_^i

just carried them to the loading bench by the barrels and then inspected them.

Thanks Allie

[Red River Ray SASS#33254]

You point it down range and FIRE the round!

 

 

Don I don't think that is what should be done either, If Elfego has a grandson that wondered downrange, shootin it off downrange ain't gonna be to good neither. If its a common firing line and tha kid wondered onto it 200' down tha line I'd be glad tha shooter stopped and decocked tha pistol even if it wuz a colt!

 

With tha poor instruction this cowpoke wuz given I think a pat on tha back is in order for him.

 

RRR

 

Th frist thing a shooter should do when told ta stop is stop and make his gun as safe as possible. As there is no idea as to what tha cause is.

[Adirondack Jack, SASS #53440]

1) Apparently so (based on subsequent actions taken by the T/O) even though T/O's attention was initially focused on the rifle.

2) & 3) It would appear that the shooter may have de-cocked the revolver as soon as the "whoa" (cease fire) command was given?...but, given the proximity of the T/O to the shooter, this could be considered 'under the direct supervision' IF the T/O observed the action. A command/request to do so is not necessary. If so, why was the T/O 'surprised' to find a live round under the hammer at the LT??

4) & 5) It seems that the T/O may have been aware that at least one of the revolvers was in a potentially unsafe condition.

SHB p.23/ROI p.16

 

"...under the direct supervision..." means that the T/O is AWARE of the firearm's condition at all times.

Based on the T/O's method of handling the firearms, this appears to be the case...if so, it's a NO CALL.

IF it is the T/O's position that the shooter decocked the revolver UNsupervised (and the T/O was completely unaware of the fact until the condition of the revolver was discovered at the LT) the call is a SDQ.

Those are the questions I would ask if the DQ call was disputed by the shooter.

IMO (pending addtional information...what is the shooter's side of the story?)

 

 

I don't necessarily buy the fact that the guns were carried muzzle up to the ULt as meaning anything about WHERE the rounds were in the pistol. At our club, ANY time a gun leaves the line with rounds on board (most often a jammed rifle, but can be a jammed revolver), they are carried in that manner to the ult where the ULT is told "loaded gun" and the gun is guarded until the shooter arrives to clear em.

 

To conclude carrying the guns muzzle up means the RO knew there was a gun with a round under the hammer is a conclusion drawn from insufficient evidence. Unless the "RO in charge" (guy with the timer) allowed a decock, or directed a round to be expended into the berm, our intrepid shooter who was "frozen" by the "stop" command, should be standing there asking "waddaya want me to do? I got a cocked pistol here."

 

I got a THEORY about what happened. The TO was watching the rifle as it wiggled or looked like it might fall, and while still looking at the rifle, yelled "stop, fix yer rifle" or some such, while the shooter had already cocked jhis pistol. Reflexively, the shooter tried to back the train up, decocked the pistol and turned his attention to the rifle. He may not even remeber doing it, as he was focused on the rifle and how he was gonna get a SDQ if the rifle fell......

My theory is "no good deed goes unpunished." the TO tried to save the feller's stage,and in the end, made matters worse unintentionally. But ultimately the SHOOTER blew it when he did anything besides freeze when told "stop".

[Guest diablo slim shootist]

All three of us goofed up-I git it now

TO should not have interfered but it was his job to make the wepon clear

the shooter should have said cocked gun or asked what to do-he uncocked on his own

and when i found the live round under the hammer i should have questioned the TO

and come to the conclusion that he deserved a SDQ. End of Lession!

[Guest diablo slim shootist]

I don't necessarily buy the fact that the guns were carried muzzle up to the ULt as meaning anything about WHERE the rounds were in the pistol. At our club, ANY time a gun leaves the line with rounds on board (most often a jammed rifle, but can be a jammed revolver), they are carried in that manner to the ult where the ULT is told "loaded gun" and the gun is guarded until the shooter arrives to clear em.

 

To conclude carrying the guns muzzle up means the RO knew there was a gun with a round under the hammer is a conclusion drawn from insufficient evidence. Unless the "RO in charge" (guy with the timer) allowed a decock, or directed a round to be expended into the berm, our intrepid shooter who was "frozen" by the "stop" command, should be standing there asking "waddaya want me to do? I got a cocked pistol here."

 

I got a THEORY about what happened. The TO was watching the rifle as it wiggled or looked like it might fall, and while still looking at the rifle, yelled "stop, fix yer rifle" or some such, while the shooter had already cocked jhis pistol. Reflexively, the shooter tried to back the train up, decocked the pistol and turned his attention to the rifle. He may not even remeber doing it, as he was focused on the rifle and how he was gonna get a SDQ if the rifle fell......

My theory is "no good deed goes unpunished." the TO tried to save the feller's stage,and in the end, made matters worse unintentionally. But ultimately the SHOOTER blew it when he did anything besides freeze when told "stop".

BINGO!! WE HAVE A WINNER!

[Steeldust Dan, SASS #2631Life]

Diablo,

 

Thanks for posting this. Very interesting, and VERY informative. I know I will use what happened to you as a learning experience. I also can only imagine how difficult this was to post and live through the responses. Again, thank you for opening up.

 

Here's what I am reminded:

 

1. TO is in charge of the firing line and must take control of the situation when the situation demands it (check or instruct that weapons are clear, in this specific situation);

2. It is important for TO to know when to step in and when to let things happen;

3. So many times, we don't experience a single isolated "incident," but a series of of them that can result in a catestrophic "accident;"

4. It is ultimately the Shooter's responsibility for safety and control of his/her weapons/actions.

 

Thanks again,

Steeldust Dan

[Guest diablo slim shootist]

Diablo,

 

Thanks for posting this. Very interesting, and VERY informative. I know I will use what happened to you as a learning experience. I also can only imagine how difficult this was to post and live through the responses. Again, thank you for opening up.

 

Here's what I am reminded:

 

1. TO is in charge of the firing line and must take control of the situation when the situation demands it (check or instruct that weapons are clear, in this specific situation);

2. It is important for TO to know when to step in and when to let things happen;

3. So many times, we don't experience a single isolated "incident," but a series of of them that can result in a catestrophic "accident;"

4. It is ultimately the Shooter's responsibility for safety and control of his/her weapons/actions.

 

Thanks again,

Steeldust Dan

thanks Steeldust

[Gold Canyon Kid #43974]

i agree the TO should have taken care of this problem before they

were handed off to me but that was out of my cotrol.Diablo ^_^i

just carried them to the loading bench by the barrels and then inspected them.

Thanks Allie

Who gave you the right to handle someone else's guns at the unloading table? I understand carrying a gun handed off to the unloading table, but put the darn thing down and back off. If you took it upon yourself to handle my guns at the unloading table, I would be pretty upset.

[Nate Kiowa Jones #6765]

TO's and RO's are called officer's for a reason. Once they step in they should take charge of the whole situation. That's what rank is for, to take control. They shouldn't be focused on just the known. Their job is to control the situation until all is safe. To not do that is possible creating an even more unsafe situation.

It is just not practical to ask a shooter that is in full race live fire mode to instantly shift to make fully safe on his own. To change directions like that should be under the full control of the officer in charge.

[Steeldust Dan, SASS #2631Life]

Who gave you the right to handle someone else's guns at the unloading table? I understand carrying a gun handed off to the unloading table, but put the darn thing down and back off. If you took it upon yourself to handle my guns at the unloading table, I would be pretty upset

 

GCK,

 

With an attitude like that AND finding out you had a live round under the hammer I imagine you would be asked not to come back to our club. Politely, of course.

 

First, it was the Loading Table. Next, Diablo stated he was the RO, which we have determined he probably meant to say the Posse Marshall. He was asked to assist the TO, which he did. Chill out, cowboy.

 

Steeldust Dan

[Guest diablo slim shootist]

Who gave you the right to handle someone else's guns at the unloading table? I understand carrying a gun handed off to the unloading table, but put the darn thing down and back off. If you took it upon yourself to handle my guns at the unloading table, I would be pretty upset.

noted ;i hope i never have to touch yours you seem awful particular

all i did was look at the position of the rounds with the gun closed and saw the

problem -i guess you might feel that way if you had something to hide

many times im asked to clear guns for someone having a problem which

i do for safety sake but this not the case.would you have left the round under

the hammer knowing it was unsafe, i hope not.

thats the last post for me on this subject-thanks to all who chimed in to help me!

[Gold Canyon Kid #43974]

Who gave you the right to handle someone else's guns at the unloading table? I understand carrying a gun handed off to the unloading table, but put the darn thing down and back off. If you took it upon yourself to handle my guns at the unloading table, I would be pretty upset

 

GCK,

 

With an attitude like that AND finding out you had a live round under the hammer I imagine you would be asked not to come back to our club. Politely, of course.

 

First, it was the Loading Table. Next, Diablo stated he was the RO, which we have determined he probably meant to say the Posse Marshall. He was asked to assist the TO, which he did. Chill out, cowboy.

 

Steeldust Dan

 

It doesn't matter, if you are the TO, RO, posse marshal, or whomever, you do not have the right to handle/examine someone else's gun, at the loading table/unloading table without the shooter present and the shooter manipulating the gun for you, unless you have the shooter's explicit approval to do so. Lay the gun down safely if you are carrying it and back the heck off til the shooter arrives!!!! It is the shooters job to unload his guns especially an unsafe gun, not the TO, RO, posse marshal or whomever. Obviously the shooter has a range officer overseeing this unloading process. If there is a suspicion that there could be a live round under the hammer, it is assumed the range officer will be particularly diligent in his oversight but that does not include touching/manipulating the gun while being inspected.

 

There are lots of times guns have failures that end up with live rounds in the chamber under the hammer that can not be removed on the firing line and the gun is handed off. In none of these situations can someone besides the shooter start fondling the gun at the unloading table until the shooter arrives and asks for help. It is quite proper to hover around the gun and make sure no one touches it until the shooter arrives.

[Guest diablo slim shootist]

OK you got the last word in you happy now Kid!" go away you bother me"W C Fields

[Adirondack Jack, SASS #53440]

OK you got the last word in you happy now Kid!" go away you bother me"W C Fields

 

Sorry, but I gotta throw in with GCK on this point. If I'm RO-ing, (or more often spotting) and a gun is handed off with rounds in it, it is MY JOB to take it to the ULT, where I place it safely on the table, facing the berm, assure that the ULT officer knows it is loaded and he is told "just guard it till the shooter gets here to unload it." If a round was suspected of being under the hammer, same deal. A gun placed on a table and guarded so it is not moved will NOT go off, and even if it did, will only poke a hole in the berm. THE SHOOTER will clear the gun. if he has issues with a jammed gun he may ASK FOR HELP from a more experienced pard, but it's his gun, his responsibility to get it cleared, nobody else's. The ONLY time that changes is if the shooter is taken ill, injured, or otherwise incapable, but normally NOBODY else unloads a man's guns without he gives em the "OK".

[Steeldust Dan, SASS #2631Life]

AJ and GCK, I agree with you in principle. However, I thought the discussion was about a specific event as stated by Diablo. In this case, to my understanding, no one unloaded the weapon for the shooter. It was taken to the Loading Table, because the shooter had been awarded a Reshoot. In the course of laying the revolver down, IN THIS SPECIFIC INSTANCE, Diablo noticed there was a round under the hammer. It turned out to be a LIVE round( as it HAD to be since the weapon was never fired). I don't believe he stated who unloaded the weapon to check, but maybe he did. If so, I apologize.

 

The point I was trying to make is this: place yourself in the boots of the shooter. You've just been stopped. Weapon handed off. There IS a live round under the hammer. And now you are going to get pissy because someone "checked" your weapon? Come on. You're already facing a SDQ. Do you want to go for a MDQ. I would think a little humility is in order, not arrogance.

 

Come on.

 

Steeldust Dan

[Guest diablo slim shootist]

AJ and GCK, I agree with you in principle. However, I thought the discussion was about a specific event as stated by Diablo. In this case, to my understanding, no one unloaded the weapon for the shooter. It was taken to the Loading Table, because the shooter had been awarded a Reshoot. In the course of laying the revolver down, IN THIS SPECIFIC INSTANCE, Diablo noticed there was a round under the hammer. It turned out to be a LIVE round( as it HAD to be since the weapon was never fired). I don't believe he stated who unloaded the weapon to check, but maybe he did. If so, I apologize.

 

The point I was trying to make is this: place yourself in the boots of the shooter. You've just been stopped. Weapon handed off. There IS a live round under the hammer. And now you are going to get pissy because someone "checked" your weapon? Come on. You're already facing a SDQ. Do you want to go for a MDQ. I would think a little humility is in order, not arrogance.

 

Come on.

 

Steeldust Dan

i like the way you think Dan-im putting you on my Xmas card list :opps i said i was finished sorry