Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Null N. Void

Live Round on Carrier, Action Open

Recommended Posts

Shotgun and Pistols are not involved.  Shooter should shoot 10 in the rifle but only shoots 9.  The shooter opens the action, puts rifle down and finishes out stage with other firearms.  The rifle is not touched.  On inspection, the round on the carrier has half slide into the chamber.  I read the manual, and as far as I could find, the rules say that the penalty is a MS for a live round on the carrier or a spent round on the carrier or in the chamber.  It doesn't address the round that either slides fully or partially slides into the chamber with the action open.  

 

I think it's a MS but others argue for a SDQ for a live round being in the chamber when the gun leaves the shooters hands.  Your opinions?  If it's a SDQ, how much of the round has to be in the chamber?  

 

NNV

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My understanding is, if any part of the round is in the chamber, it is considered to be in the chamber, so SDQ.  If no part of the round is in the chamber, miss (for the unfired round) & minor safety.

 

Holler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this like have a 97 action not completely open??? It's not closed... Therefore it's open.

 

Without having access to the rules I would say it's a safety since the round is not in the chamber... It's partially in the chamber and equally out of the chamber ... How that for a non-helping answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's kind of my problem.  An action that is even a little open is considered open as far as the rules go.  Why wouldn't a round just a little on the carrier be considered on the carrier as far as the rules go.

 

NNV

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Null N. Void said:

That's kind of my problem.  An action that is even a little open is considered open as far as the rules go.  Why wouldn't a round just a little on the carrier be considered on the carrier as far as the rules go.

 

NNV

 

Because a round "just a little in the chamber" is considered LOADED / NOT CLEARED:


 

Quote

 

Cleared – no live or empty cases in or on the chamber, magazine, or carrier. 

...

Loaded Firearm – Any firearm with unfired round(s) in the action/chamber/magazine. 

 

SHB pp. 42-43

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not trying to be difficult, just understand.  If an unfired round is in the action making it a loaded firearm,  and that's the SDQ,  then what's the difference if it's in the chamber or on the carrier.  If the action is open, the rifle can't fire regardless of where the round is on the carrier, partially on the carrier or in the chamber.  Again, I may be confused, but I'll go with the ruling.   

 

NNV

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Null N. Void said:

Not trying to be difficult, just understand.  If an unfired round is in the action making it a loaded firearm,  and that's the SDQ,  then what's the difference if it's in the chamber or on the carrier.  If the action is open, the rifle can't fire regardless of where the round is on the carrier, partially on the carrier or in the chamber.  Again, I may be confused, but I'll go with the ruling.   

 

NNV

If any part of the round is in the chamber, it’s a SDQ, on the carrier is just a MS. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not truly in the chamber, but I can understand the SASS definition because if there was any amount of movement further into the chamber would pretty much void the possibility of a SDQ.

 

I hate subjective criteria like this.  And yes, it is subjective. How adverse are folks to making this violation a simple safety?

 

Phantom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Phantom, SASS #54973 said:

It's not truly in the chamber, but I can understand the SASS definition because if there was any amount of movement further into the chamber would pretty much void the possibility of a SDQ.
Actually, any further movement into the chamber would pretty much remove any doubt re the  SDQ, wouldn't it?

 

I hate subjective criteria like this.  And yes, it is subjective. How adverse are folks to making this violation a simple safety?

 

Phantom

 

It's relatively easy to observe whether any part of an unfired round is in the chamber of a long gun "at rest", IMO.

 

Quote

- A live round left in the chamber of a long gun. 

SHB p.22 - "STAGE DISQUALIFICATION PENALTY (SDQ)"

 

Quote

 

- A live round left in the chamber of a long gun carries a Stage Disqualification penalty.

- A live round left in the magazine or on the carrier, as well as an empty round left in the chamber, magazine, or on the carrier of the firearm in which it was loaded, results in a Minor Safety Violation.   

 

SHB p.27

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, PaleWolf Brunelle, #2495L said:

 

It's relatively easy to observe whether any part of an unfired round is in the chamber of a long gun "at rest", IMO.

 

SHB p.22 - "STAGE DISQUALIFICATION PENALTY (SDQ)"

 

SHB p.27

In the chamber or touching the chamber walls?

 

Tip of a TC bullet inside the chamber by say .01" viewed at perpendicular to barrel a axis?

 

How is a round on a carrier less dangerous than a round in the chamber on a open action rifle pointed down range?

 

Phantom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Phantom, SASS #54973 said:

In the chamber or touching the chamber walls?

 

Tip of a TC bullet inside the chamber by say .01" viewed at perpendicular to barrel a axis?

 

How is a round on a carrier less dangerous than a round in the chamber on a open action rifle pointed down range?

 

Phantom

 

In the chamber.
Benefit of any doubt goes to the shooter.

 

The determination was made regarding "any part of a round" to resolve any dispute regarding "how far?"

The perceived safety question falls within the same category as empty cases/hulls being "unsafe"...the rules specify "empty"/"cleared" of all rounds.
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, PaleWolf Brunelle, #2495L said:

 

In the chamber.
Benefit of any doubt goes to the shooter.

 

The determination was made regarding "any part of a round" to resolve any dispute regarding "how far?"

The perceived safety question falls within the same category as empty cases/hulls being "unsafe"...the rules specify "empty"/"cleared" of all rounds.
 

 

And there's the subjectivity.

 

And I understand the rule, but my question is, how is a round in the chamber of a open rifle pointed down range more dangerous than a round on/in the carrier?

 

There must be a difference since there are different penalties.

 

Phantom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Phantom, SASS #54973 said:

And there's the subjectivity.

 

And I understand the rule, but my question is, how is a round in the chamber of a open rifle pointed down range more dangerous than a round on/in the carrier?

There must be a difference since there are different penalties.

 

I understand your question...given the fact that, if the lever happened to close in either condition, the result would be a live round under a cocked hammer;

but I'd have to do some deep digging into the archives to find the basis for the difference in penalties.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good luck looking into the port of a 97 and making a determination whether the shell is partially in the chamber. Another rule that is too questionable for the not so experienced RO. Better break out the vertical racks again.:o 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Assassin said:

Good luck looking into the port of a 97 and making a determination whether the shell is partially in the chamber. Another rule that is too questionable for the not so experienced RO. Better break out the vertical racks again.:o 

LOL. I guess. Some people could have trouble...if they really wanted to. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s funny to me, with all of the truly subjective rules we have in this game, this one is as Black and white as they get and still we bellyache. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Smokestack SASS#87384 said:

It’s funny to me, with all of the truly subjective rules we have in this game, this one is as Black an FYI white as they get and still we bellyache. 

Should we simply accept the rules they are... Or should we continually look for ways to improve?

 

Regarding a rifle with it's action open and pointed down range, tell me the difference in terms of safety between having a round on/in a carrier and a having a round in the chamber.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Phantom, SASS #54973 said:

Should we simply accept the rules they are... Or should we continually look for ways to improve?

 

Regarding a rifle with it's action open and pointed down range, tell me the difference in terms of safety between having a round on/in a carrier and a having a round in the chamber.

I think you misunderstood my point. Discussing what the penalty should be or how much of a safety concern it is is a legitimate conversation. Arguing that it’s too hard to tell if a round is in the chamber or outside of it isn’t IMHO. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Smokestack SASS#87384 said:

I think you misunderstood my point. Discussing what the penalty should be or how much of a safety concern it is is a legitimate conversation. Arguing that it’s too hard to tell if a round is in the chamber or outside of it isn’t IMHO. 

It's subjective.

 

When benefit of a doubt is the criteria used, you'll have different conclusions to the same condition which therefore enters inconsistency into applying penalties. Avoiding the use of the benefit rule whenever possible would be my goal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anyone ever had or witnessed a round go off when the rifle is out of battery? I have. Put a live round in your 73 and close the action.... then open the lever part way, to start backing the round out of the chamber... if you can get the hammer to drop, it will very likely make the round go off. Many rifles have had their trigger safety removed, and that is one of the major reasons that we see out of battery discharges..... So.... the penalty is a SDQ.

 

Snakebite

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 On page 16 of the SHB it states, "If the action is opened and a live/unfired round is ejected, a Stage DQ will be assessed for a long gun with a "live round under a cocked hammer having left the shooter's hands".  If the round is not connected to the extractor and slides partially in the chamber the round will not eject  or even open depending on how far back.   It seems  to me it is saying two conditions must be met to be a stage dq.    Will call it the way PW states.  If the action is closed when discarded it is easy to understand.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shooter shoots 9 rounds safely grounds rifle, action open T.O doesn't catch the round count on the rifle. Shooter picks up his rifle before it's realized he only shot 9 and live round falls out, was it in the chamber or on the carrier?  Seem's like there should only be one choice of a penalty for the situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Deadshot Dan said:

Shooter shoots 9 rounds safely grounds rifle, action open T.O doesn't catch the round count on the rifle. Shooter picks up his rifle before it's realized he only shot 9 and live round falls out, was it in the chamber or on the carrier?  Seems like there should only be one choice of a penalty for the situation.

 

That is a different situation than the OP.

If it is unknown exactly where the 10th round was before it fell out, "benefit of doubt" goes to the shooter...MSV + the Miss.

(BTW - there are 4 others on the line who should have been aware that only 9 shots were fired.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We can take the rules we have (which have been painstakingly considered by many in the position to) and apply them in a safe manner, giving the benefit of the doubt to the shooter, or we can get on the wire and whine about it. Do I think an empty in an open action is a problem? No... Is it a penalty? Yes. I have to live with it. It has been determined a live round left in the chamber (yes, any part of it) is a SDQ. Apply benefit of the doubt and deal with it. Thanks you PWB for your exhaustive explanations in this matter. Go shoot...have fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Rainmaker, SASS #11631 said:

We can take the rules we have (which have been painstakingly considered by many in the position to) and apply them in a safe manner, giving the benefit of the doubt to the shooter, or we can get on the wire and whine about it. Do I think an empty in an open action is a problem? No... Is it a penalty? Yes. I have to live with it. It has been determined a live round left in the chamber (yes, any part of it) is a SDQ. Apply benefit of the doubt and deal with it. Thanks you PWB for your exhaustive explanations in this matter. Go shoot...have fun.

How do you uniformly enforce benefit of a doubt in this particular case???

 

Or do you even really care?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Phantom is making a valid point.  Penalties should be proportional to the seriousness (is that a real word?) of the infraction.  Management trainees are taught the "hot stove" rule of discipline:

 

copied from http://www.whatishumanresource.com/hot-stove-rule

  1. When you touch the hot stove, you burn your hand. The burn was immediate. Will you blame the hot stove for burning your hand? Immediately, you understand the cause and effect of the offense. The discipline was directed against the act not against anybody else. You get angry with yourself, but you know it was your fault. You get angry with the hot stove too, but not for long as you know it was not its fault. You learn your lesson quickly.
  2. You had warning as you knew the stove was red hot and you knew what would happen to you if you touched it. You knew the rules and regulations previously issued to you by the company prescribing the penalty for violation of any particular rule so you cannot claim you were not given a previous warning.
  3. The discipline was consistent. Every time you touch the hot stove you get burned. Consistency in the administration of disciplinary action is essential. Excessive leniency as well as too much harshness creates not only dissatisfaction but also resentment.
  4. The discipline was impersonal. Whoever touches the hot stove gets burned, no matter who he is. Furthermore, he gets burned not because of who he is, but because he touched the hot stove. The discipline is directed against the act, not against the person. After disciplinary action has been applied, the supervisor should take the normal attitude toward the employee.

I have trouble with the concept of a "minor safety".  Something is either safe or not safe.  Gradations of safety infractions are difficult for me.  And I think that is what Phantom is driving at.  Forgive me Phantom if I am wrong, no offense intended.

 

Perhaps the question is not how far the cartridge is into the chamber; perhaps it should be what is safe and what is not safe.

 

Perhaps if a penalty is not eliminating how frequently an unsafe condition occurs, we should be looking at the penalty, not the condition.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Phantom, SASS #54973 said:

How do you uniformly enforce benefit of a doubt in this particular case???

 

Or do you even really care?

If I didn't care, I wouldn't comment at all. I take what I do with my involvement in SASS VERY seriously. Like was mentioned in another thread, R.O. is the one to make the call, no one else. THEIR call on benefit of the doubt. If the R.O. has doubt, call goes to the shooter. Simple

Ask me if I care... Nice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As long as humans are making the calls they’re not going to be 100% consistent. That’s true in many sports, not just SASS. I thought one of the Georgia O line definitely held (multiple times) during the SEC championship, but no call. Should the fourth team in the CFP have been OK, or UGA? Was that Fury Wilder match really a draw? How come different umps have different strike zones?

 

The official should know the rules and apply them as consistently as possible but you’re never going to get to 100% consistency.

 

So do we eliminate the holding call because it isn’t always applied consistently? Replace the ump with a computer? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, The Rainmaker, SASS #11631 said:

If I didn't care, I wouldn't comment at all. I take what I do with my involvement in SASS VERY seriously. Like was mentioned in another thread, R.O. is the one to make the call, no one else. THEIR call on benefit of the doubt. If the R.O. has doubt, call goes to the shooter. Simple

Ask me if I care... Nice

When you talk about how painstakingly considering... Getting on the Wire and whine...Yea, I question your desire to improve the game and hence my comment on whether you care.

 

With that said, how can we have a subjective call on a safety issue?

 

If someone can tell me how a round on/in the carrier is any different as it relates to safety, to than a round in the chamber on an open rifle pointed down range, I'd appreciate it.

 

Phantom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Captain Bill Burt said:

As long as humans are making the calls they’re not going to be 100% consistent. That’s true in many sports, not just SASS. I thought one of the Georgia O line definitely held (multiple times) during the SEC championship, but no call. Should the fourth team in the CFP have been OK, or UGA? Was that Fury Wilder match really a draw? How come different umps have different strike zones?

 

The official should know the rules and apply them as consistently as possible but you’re never going to get to 100% consistency.

 

So do we eliminate the holding call because it isn’t always applied consistently? Replace the ump with a computer? 

It's easy to eliminate inconsistency in the case at hand.

 

An unfired round in a long gun with it's action open is a procedural.

 

Done

 

No benefit of a doubt subjectivity... No computer needed.

 

Phantom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it's that simple. 

 

For example what constitutes an open action?  Just a tiny bit? So the lever is open just a bit, the bolt has retracted let's say a quarter of an inch, is that open?  If so is that safe? A live round in the chamber with the bolt just back from it, hammer cocked? 

 

If you don't view that as safe (I don't) then must the action be all the way open and what constitutes all the way open?  Didn't we just change the rule so we don't have to call people back to closed long guns?  

 

I don't think changing that rule removes subjectivity at all, it just moves it to other criteria, so it's not how far in the chamber the round is, it's now how open the action is.

 

I think the real question is whether or not a SDQ is the appropriate penalty for a long gun with an open action and a live round in the chamber, not the subjectivity of the call that is made.

 

As it stands everybody knows the rule, or should, keep track of the number of rounds you've fired or take your lumps.  I personally don't care much whether it stays a SDQ or is changed to an MSV, but I don't think it's as simple as you want to make it sound.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Captain Bill Burt said:

I don't think it's that simple. 

 

For example what constitutes an open action?  Just a tiny bit? So the lever is open just a bit, the bolt has retracted let's say a quarter of an inch, is that open?  If so is that safe? A live round in the chamber with the bolt just back from it, hammer cocked? 

 

If you don't view that as safe (I don't) then must the action be all the way open and what constitutes all the way open?  Didn't we just change the rule so we don't have to call people back to closed long guns?  

 

I don't think changing that rule removes subjectivity at all, it just moves it to other criteria, so it's not how far in the chamber the round is, it's now how open the action is.

 

I think the real question is whether or not a SDQ is the appropriate penalty for a long gun with an open action and a live round in the chamber, not the subjectivity of the call that is made.

 

As it stands everybody knows the rule, or should, keep track of the number of rounds you've fired or take your lumps.  I personally don't care much whether it stays a SDQ or is changed to an MSV, but I don't think it's as simple as you want to make it sound.

 

"Action open" is defined in the SHB (Glossary of Terms p.42)

 

I believe some of the confusion here is that there are two situations being discussed:
1) In the OP the action was open with a live round half way in the chamber.

...that falls under the SDQ rules previously quoted from p.22 re a "live round left in the chamber of a long gun"

2) The other scenario is a long gun discarded/out of hand with the action closed with a live round being ejected upon opening (SHB pp. 16-17)

...the SDQ in that situation is for “live round under a cocked hammer having left the shooter’s hands”; which still involves a chambered round, but the safety concern is much more serious in that condition.

 

In either case, there is a live/unfired round "in the chamber", subject to SDQ penalty under current rules.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Phantom, SASS #54973 said:

It's easy to eliminate inconsistency in the case at hand.

 

An unfired round in a long gun with it's action open is a procedural.

 

Done

 

No benefit of a doubt subjectivity... No computer needed.

 

Phantom

 

 

I think I see where you are going, but, when implementing that, we may want to recind the current rule limiting procedural penalties to one per stage.

 

If you meant that we should be done at an unfired round in a long gun with it's action open is a Minor Safety, then we don't need to think about it as a shooter can currently earn multiple Minor Safety penalties in a single stage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, PaleWolf Brunelle, #2495L said:

 

"Action open" is defined in the SHB (Glossary of Terms p.42)

 

I believe some of the confusion here is that there are two situations being discussed:
1) In the OP the action was open with a live round half way in the chamber.

...that falls under the SDQ rules previously quoted from p.22 re a "live round left in the chamber of a long gun"

2) The other scenario is a long gun discarded/out of hand with the action closed with a live round being ejected upon opening (SHB pp. 16-17)

...the SDQ in that situation is for “live round under a cocked hammer having left the shooter’s hands”; which still involves a chambered round, but the safety concern is much more serious in that condition.

 

In either case, there is a live/unfired round "in the chamber", subject to SDQ penalty under current rules.

 

 

 

Since the chambered round is a much more serious situation, perhaps this should be a progressive penalty.

 

Live round on the carrier or partially in the chamber with open action=MSV

Live round chambered with a closed action=SDQ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, PaleWolf Brunelle, #2495L said:

 

"Action open" is defined in the SHB (Glossary of Terms p.42)

 

I believe some of the confusion here is that there are two situations being discussed:
1) In the OP the action was open with a live round half way in the chamber.

...that falls under the SDQ rules previously quoted from p.22 re a "live round left in the chamber of a long gun"

2) The other scenario is a long gun discarded/out of hand with the action closed with a live round being ejected upon opening (SHB pp. 16-17)

...the SDQ in that situation is for “live round under a cocked hammer having left the shooter’s hands”; which still involves a chambered round, but the safety concern is much more serious in that condition.

 

In either case, there is a live/unfired round "in the chamber", subject to SDQ penalty under current rules.

 

 

 

I understand how we currently define an open action for a lever gun, but my point was, would that definition be adequate if we instituted the rule change Phantom advocates.  I think the answer is no.  If we're saying that a live round anywhere in the action of a long gun with an open action is going to be an MSV instead of a SDQ (if chambered), then I don't think defining an open action as 'bolt not closed completely' gives an adequate level of safety.  Under those two rules (open action as currently defined and Phantom's desired change) we could have a live round in the chamber, cocked hammer, bolt barely retracted situation and the only penalty is an MSV.  I think in that condition the line between situations 1 and 2 above is a very fine line indeed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.