New Rule 2015 ?

[Deuce Stevens SASS#55996]

This is a post about a possible change of a pistol rule which by the looks of things would have a hard time passing . I used the new rifle rule as a line of comparison . I don't understand your post . "been posting" I asked a question and thanked PWB for an answer about whats the call if an expeditor touches the rifle in question . I would like to know what you think about this rule change . Agree or disagree thats fine, all that matters is that you have an opinion on the subject . Thanks

I think Phantom was responding to Harvey.

[Most Wanted]

I think Phantom was responding to Harvey.

 

Well then I am still confused . Phantom says the rule was changed and Harvey is talking about not changing the pistol rule . What am I missing besides my sanity .

[Phantom, SASS #54973]

Don't worry about it.

 

If I don't make sense to ya...which I apparently don't, move on.

 

And why you're bringing up this "Proposed" pistol rule change is IMHO just cuz you don't like the new rule regarding rifles.

 

Dress up your argument anyway ya like...try and make it sound like something it ain't, but it seems pretty clear to me.

 

My suggestion...since ya didn't ask for it, would be to just go out and shoot. Have fun...and don't think too much.

 

Phantom

[Harvey Mushman]

My comment was pointed at not changing the pistol rule (per the OP), for the reasons I stated.

 

I am well aware of the new (passed) rifle rule. Regret any confusion my post may have caused.

 

Harvey

Winter is sure fun

[Most Wanted]

Phantom , I did ask for your opinion about the rule and still have yet to get it. Any suggestions are always welcome. I am fine with the new rifle rule and would be very happy if this pistol rule would get some support. Some of the post on the rifle thread were telling people to stop giving their opinion (complaining) about a rule that had been passed. They were also asking where was the opinions about the rule before it passed. Yet some of those people have yet to give an opinion about something that has not been brought up in recent memory. I think you may have over thought my reason for this new rule. The rifle rule will save me some grief this year and bringing the pistol penalty more in line with the rifle rule might save me some more. Totally selfish I must admit but if it saves me it will save some others. I say to all that read this it's not about whether you agree or not it's about sharing your opinion on the rule.

 

PS : I will go out and shoot and have fun no matter what the rules. I also enjoy thinking , this stuff is simple.

 

PPS : I went back further on this thread and saw where you edited your post that nobody understood and replaced it with your opinion on the rule. Thanks

[Anvil Al #59168]

My opinion.

 

Like the new rifle rule.

But the pistol rule needs to stay as is.

And don't think your idea of this new rule will have any legs

and would be shot down faster than it could be brought up for a agenda item.

[Most Wanted]

Sadly Al you are probably right but a lot of the same logic that passed the rifle rule applies here : it happens under the current rule and the condition of the gun is harmless.

[Anvil Al #59168]

Not the same at all.

 

99% of the time the pistol is re-holstered. Not re-staged as a long gun is all the time.

 

You want to make a rule for 1% if the time when a pistol might be staged.

 

That makes no sense.

Why open it up for 1% of the time.

[Hawkshaw Fred SASS #36811]

Have to agree with Al and Phantom, as well as others on this one!

A cocked, holstered revolver is MUCH more dangerous than a staged long gun! Granted, if it is empty, there is no danger---BUT How do we know it is empty? and without a doubt, THE STUPIDEST THING I have heard of in years is pulling the trigger on a cocked holstered pistol to lower the hammer!!! Having seen this go afoul not once but TWICE (NOT in Cowboy shooting) and the resulting damage to the shooters leg/knee, this is total insanity! I won't even address the potential crossdraw injury aspect!

The new rule change is to prevent a penalty for someone who HAS EMPTIED their long gun, staged it and THEN the lever/action closes...NOTE: Has ALREADY EMPTIED IT! A holstered revolver may well have NOT been emptied!

Leave the current rule as it is!

JMHO

[Most Wanted]

Al , 99.9 % of the time the long gun and the pistol are shot dry. I want to open it up for anytime the gun leaves the shooters hand. Thanks for your reply you are in the majority but you can't blame I guy for trying. How do you feel about a cocked rifle leaving the loading table with no round in the chamber.

[Most Wanted]

I think another thing to remember is lots of the rules have an escalating penalty to be determined by the condition of the gun as in loaded or empty. That's all this proposal is about. The new rifle rule has three possible outcomes due to ammo. None of the outcomes have anything to do with rifle staging. The pistol has only one outcome sdq. How can a cocked pistol in leather over a spent or empty chamber be as dangerous ( same penalty ) as a cocked loaded long gun sitting on a table. I just think it's not consistent.

[Most Wanted]

Fred , the same way we find out with any gun we look. Then apply the penalty that fits. Like you said if it's empty there is no danger. Thanks for your input.

[Anvil Al #59168]

Well that cocked rifle leaving the LT is also a DQ.

[Most Wanted]

 

Well that cocked rifle leaving the LT is also a DQ.

Does that seem consistent with the new rule. I think that should be changed also to include location of ammo. But I will probably be pushing water uphill again.

[Captain Bill Burt]

I guess I don't understand the need for consistency here. We load pistols and long guns differently, we fire them differently, we clear them differently, we stage them differently. They ain't the same animal, why would we want our rules to treat them the same?

 

I have the same response to the point about a DQ for a rifle coming of the LT with a cocked hammer vs a cocked hammer on a rifle after finishing a shooting string. In the first case the odds are pretty high the gun is loaded, in the second they're pretty high it isn't. Why treat both the same way?

 

It seems to me the underlying assumption behind this rule is that once you accept a certain status for a firearm under limited conditions you have to accept that status for all firearms under all conditions. I have to respectfully disagree with that position.

 

We play an inherently dangerous game, we have to accept certain risks in order to participate. It seems to me that we engage in a balancing act between total safety with no game to play and anarchy with bullet ridden bodies everywhere. So just because a majority are willing to live with the idea of a cocked, potentially loaded rifle sitting on a table pointed at the berm/downrange doesn't mean we should accept a cocked potentially loaded pistol being carried around the firing line in a holster. Trying to equate the two is a mistake. Just the view from my saddle, YMMV.

[Hawkshaw Fred SASS #36811]

MW, I understand your concern about consistency, I however believe in a differentiation between long guns and handguns in this safety discussion. I think a lot of it has to do with the long gun being staged and the revolver being re-holstered, and moving with it. I also think there is an issue even if the handgun is holstered under another rule no one has mentioned, in "moving with a cocked firearm".

I would also respectfully disagree that the coming to the line with a cocked firearm DQ be done away with. There is no way to tell without opening the rifle (which is what we are talking about) to know if there is a live round under that cocked hammer or not---and YES that has happened---happened at a major match when I was the TO and again at another major match where I was a spotter---One had a live round under the hammer and one was an empty case. No one knows for sure just how long that live round had been under that cocked hammer! Apparently a malfunction at the unloading table at the previous stage.

[Anvil Al #59168]

Yes it is consistent.

 

Because it is a DQ as soon as you MOVE with it.

 

You are MOVING with a cocked, loaded, closed, gun.

In our rules. You can't do that with any gun.

So yes. That is consistent with everything else.

[Most Wanted]

Bill it's just that a harmless gun is just that whether it be a pistol or rifle. The best argument and the one I agree with for the new rifle rule was that this has been happening for years and the new rule will not change that only apply a different penalty. No difference here. Pistols have been holstered cock for years. The safety of the game will not change one bit. Thanks for your reply and good to see you back

[Most Wanted]

Yes it is consistent.

 

Because it is a DQ as soon as you MOVE with it.

 

You are MOVING with a cocked, loaded, closed, gun.

In our rules. You can't do that with any gun.

So yes. That is consistent with everything else.

Good call but again shouldn't condition of ammo come into play. I already know you won't agree but I do appreciate your opinion.

[Anvil Al #59168]

Got to disagree with you again on post 52.

 

It does not happen all the time.

 

I have been shooting SASS for years. And I do shoot a fair amount.

And in that time. Have only seen a person holster a cocked pistol just a handful of times.

And. Have heard of someone shooting there own leg.

 

Rifle.

Someone closing the lever when restaging. Happens a lot.

And never heard of anyone getting hurt by it.

 

Just don't see your point of even wanting this rule or what you would get out of it.

[Most Wanted]

Trade a sdq for a msv. Nothing deeper than that. This year I know of 4 cases and in all the guns were shot dry and two were on half cock. You are correct not nearly as often as the rifle but all the more reason it should be ok to change. No one purposefully shoots 4 cocks for 5 then holsters. If the fear of shooting yourself ain't reason enough to not do it then NO rule is gonna change your mind. But it does happen by accident and if the gun is found to be shot dry why not msv.

 

Ps. I thought I said it has been happening for years. Not that it happens all of the time. I can't see post numbers on my phone so if I misspoke that's on me

[Hawkshaw Fred SASS #36811]

How many times have we all seen someone shooting a revolver string and holster a gun with one round left in it? I saw a VERY good shooter do this very thing a year or so back and thought to myself 'Nah, I must have miscounted' but I hadn't and he finished the stage and unloaded a live round at the unloading table!

Allowing him to holster his gun cocked would have put that live round UNDER the Hammer while he navigated the rest of the stage--a 'move forward shoot house type'----UNSAFE by anyone's standard! I realize that this would still be a penalty if the rule was changed like the OP suggested --HOWEVER the danger of a live round Under the hammer of a very sensitive revolver during violent movement would still be there and NO PENALTY would cure someone being injured by an AD.

I think a rule change like this would not be asking for trouble but BEGGING for it!

[Most Wanted]

Fred, I agree 100% that not much in the shooting sports is as dangerous as a reholstered cocked over live ammo pistol. So I would like to ammend my original rule change and make it a msv for cocked over spent ammo or empty chamber and a MDQ for cocked over live ammo. There are a few things that will get you a MDQ that aren't nearly as dangerous. That is a new rule that should be livable to all. But I've been wrong before.

[Phantom, SASS #54973]

Does anyone think this idea is a good one???

 

I mean...other then the OP?

 

Long guns ain't pistols...and visa versa. Holstering is different then staging on a shelf...table...or rack.

 

Cheers!

 

Phantom

[Blastmaster]

my opinion... I am a minority and know it!!

 

It is poor gun handling and poor safety procedures to leave (knownly) any firearm in a closed and cocked hammer position (safety off,,, open carry,,,, unholstered, unrestrained, ready to rock-n-roll),, with unknown or doubtful/questionable cartridge in chamber condition.. be it a SASS competition or a CCW/home-protection firearm... even if it is pointed in a supposed safe direction. Only possible exception (a stretch at that) is a CCW gun in a home, in another room, and you are the only one (supposely) in the home. You don;t know how many times I've seen a well meaning expiditor move a long gun while shooter and RO was down range. I do not approve the restaged longgun (closed & cocked) supposedly pointed in a supposed safe direction no more than reholstering a cocked and supposed empty handgun.

 

With all that,,,,, the powers to be has approved the recent rule about leaving a long gun action closed & hammer cocked.,, after 30years that said it wasn't OK,, for the benifit for the top 5% to run-n-gun with an increased degree of carelessness without penalty. How many other shooting sports allows this???

 

the barn door is open and the horses are out.

 

again, my opinion so restrain from flaming,,, if you can.

 

Blastmaster

[Most Wanted]

Does anyone think this idea is a good one???

 

I mean...other then the OP?

 

Long guns ain't pistols...and visa versa. Holstering is different then staging on a shelf...table...or rack.

 

Cheers!

 

Phantom

 

 

Wow , third post and all of them say you don't like the proposed rule change (well one post needed a rewrite) . I would have expected to see your responses start to have some decent substance by now . It's like you're just phoning it in . Nonetheless I appreciate the effort .

 

Down the hatch !

Most Wanted

[Phantom, SASS #54973]

I'm sorry that you can't see the substance in my responses...perhaps if I rambled on then it would seem more substantive.

 

However, I don't see this as my problem.

 

Keep up the good work in trying to improve the game that you are so intimately involved in.

 

Oh, and Cheers as nothing to do with drinking...Cheers!

 

Phantom

[Hawkshaw Fred SASS #36811]

Blastmaster, I THINK there may be some confusion about the new rule change (the one that actually took place at Convention). It does not allow a shooter to just "drop (a long gun) and run" nor was it supposed to. The intent was to empty and open the long gun and IF when placing it back on a table or prop the action closed to incur no penalty. I don't see this as something that will be of any major benefit to the top 5% any more than anyone else. IF they drop and run and leave an empty case or hull in the chamber then they eat a penalty much worse than any time saved by 'dropping' the gun.

ANYONE who breaks the 170 or sweeps anyone down range or up range or home on the range SHOULD be assessed the proper penalty depending on whether the gun is loaded or not (expediters included, after all if they drop a gun they are expediting they incur the penalty).

I am not too keen on expediters handling other peoples guns ESPECIALLY if there is a question of an infraction. JMHO

Even with all this discussion, I am STILL NOT IN FAVOR of being able to holster a cocked revolver and incurring no penalty. I have seen nothing here, nor do I feel that anything CAN be presented to cause my thoughts to change on this issue--I COULD be wrong on that but can't think of anything to cause that change of mind.

[Blastmaster]

Blastmaster, I THINK there may be some confusion about the new rule change (the one that actually took place at Convention). It does not allow a shooter to just "drop (a long gun) and run" nor was it supposed to. The intent was to empty and open the long gun and IF when placing it back on a table or prop the action closed to incur no penalty. I don't see this as something that will be of any major benefit to the top 5% any more than anyone else. IF they drop and run and leave an empty case or hull in the chamber then they eat a penalty much worse than any time saved by 'dropping' the gun.

ANYONE who breaks the 170 or sweeps anyone down range or up range or home on the range SHOULD be assessed the proper penalty depending on whether the gun is loaded or not (expediters included, after all if they drop a gun they are expediting they incur the penalty).

I am not too keen on expediters handling other peoples guns ESPECIALLY if there is a question of an infraction. JMHO

Even with all this discussion, I am STILL NOT IN FAVOR of being able to holster a cocked revolver and incurring no penalty. I have seen nothing here, nor do I feel that anything CAN be presented to cause my thoughts to change on this issue--I COULD be wrong on that but can't think of anything to cause that change of mind.

No confusion on my part, I understand what the new ruling allows. A further laxation of safety. I could go on but the horses are out of the barn now.. The majority of the minority of clubs that casted a vote have changed the rules,,,, legally. And that is how it goes!!

[Most Wanted]

Hawkshaw Fred , No where on this post is anyone looking to holster a cocked revolver with no penalty. I just want the time to match the crime. A loaded firearm and a shot dry firearm in most of sass rule does not carry the same penalty. If you have time reread my last response to you. Thanks