Changing Cocked Rifle Penalty

[Barry Sloe]

26 minutes ago, The Rainmaker, SASS #11631 said:

A cocked hammer IS different than a hammer on the SAFETY notch. Ummm, that's why it's there. The rifle is safe, NC.

Hammer cocked... another story. And MUCH easier for the shooter and the LTO to see.

You're using common sense.  It's a SDQ for both.

 

BS

[The Rainmaker, SASS #11631]

But should it be???

[Jackaroo, # 29989]

The rule has already been discussed and accepted by the ROC, who agreed to the proposed change as per the original OP.

But it still has to be ratified at a TG summit whenever that is going to be?

 There have been some voting at TG meetings at various events last year and a electronic vote was discussed, but nothing has eventuated that I know of. 

So at present the rule still stands as a SDQ. 

At the end of the day it's no point discussing rule changes at TG meetings, passing them at ROC meetings, if there isn't going to be a TG summit cause there's no convention. 

Personally the TG meeting at EOT should be designated the summit, where these things can be confirmed, clarified or ratified or whatever else needs to be done!

 

[Cowboy Junky]

We have rules for sweeping people and they should ALWAYS be enforced. From what I have seen those are heavily enforced especially while shooting on the line but even on the way to the line and to the unloading table. That said if a person takes a rifle safely from the loading table and carries it safely to line and stages it safely down range there aren't really big safety issue to be concerned about. 

 

Since 1998 I personally haven't seen anyone leave the loading table pointing guns at people......I would hope IF that happened that shooter would be corrected in a way they would correct that for life...….lol. But like I said I haven't ever seen it happen. I would think that if it did that shooter would be corrected, sent home or not welcome they were a repeat offender or seen as too lack common sense gun safety. 

 

So IMO we have layers of overlapping safety and the first is so flagrant and not tolerated that it virtually erases the second. In every case I have ever seen the hammer back safety call made the shooter has safely went to the line, safely stages their gun and then safely got rewarded a SDQ for forgetting to put the hammer down on an empty chamber. Many times the call is discussed after the stage is over and the safety issue (if there was one) has passed anyway. 

 

I do get the fact that sweeping folks with a loaded gun is huge but again we have harsh penalties for that and SDQ's for sweeping folks with unloaded guns and they are enforced as they should be. 

 

I see both side but I'm not a fan of this rule. If you sweep people leaving the unloading table just enforce the SDQ or MDQ and teach that shooter proper firearm handling......that should fix the hammer back issue in the process. 

 

cough cough....Wild Bunch model 12.....cough cough

[The Original Lumpy Gritz]

11 hours ago, Barry Sloe said:

You pick up your rifle and either the hammer snags on your clothing or the lever hangs up on the table "cloth" as you turn and head towards the line. The latter happened to me two months ago.  Didn't feel it, but there it was.

 

BS

It's your firearm you're holding/carrying.

It's your responsibility to maintain 'control' of it.

OLG

 

[The Rainmaker, SASS #11631]

38 minutes ago, Cowboy Junky said:

...

I see both side but I'm not a fan of this rule. If you sweep people leaving the unloading table just enforce the SDQ or MDQ and teach that shooter proper firearm handling......that should fix the hammer back issue in the process. 

 

cough cough....Wild Bunch model 12.....cough cough

If you sweep someone LEAVING the UNLOADING table, aren't you off the firing line and not subject to SDQ/MDQ anymore? Just a good tongue lashing and as you mentioned, teaching that shooter proper firearm handling.

[Captain Bill Burt]

We have different penalties for dropping loaded and unloaded guns, why not different penalties for leaving the LT with a cocked hammer over an empty chamber vs leaving the LT with a cocked hammer over a live round?  Right now both get you a SDQ, when clearly one is a bigger safety issue than the other. 

[The Original Lumpy Gritz]

13 minutes ago, Captain Bill Burt said:

We have different penalties for dropping loaded and unloaded guns, why not different penalties for leaving the LT with a cocked hammer over an empty chamber vs leaving the LT with a cocked hammer over a live round?  Right now both get you a SDQ, when clearly one is a bigger safety issue than the other. 

To me-All guns are loaded all the time. Treat'em as such.......

OLG

 

 

[MBFields]

So for all the proponents of this, you are basically saying it is worth taking the chance that there might or might not be a loaded round in the chamber. When it happens that someone drops or accidentally pulls trigger on the way and rifle goes boom who is going to be hurt or worse? Not wanting it to happen but @@@@ happens. Feel it is best to leave the way it is, feels and sounds strict but that is a very simple yet effective deterrent. I have had this happen and while hard to swallow has made me very, very aware of hammer position on rifle and pistols. Rules are not always bad when they protect lives. Shooters need to be that responsible even if new, they can be helped by older shooters. Leave the way it is so there is no room for the tiniest safety scare.

[Captain Bill Burt]

1 minute ago, The Original Lumpy Gritz said:

To me-All guns are loaded all the time. Treat'em as such.......

OLG

 

 

Then you think the penalty for dropping an unloaded gun should be a MDQ right?  After all, if treat all guns as loaded means a cocked hammer over an empty chamber should be treated the same as a cocked hammer over a loaded chamber then shouldn't dropped guns also all be treated the same?

[Blast Masterson]

A hammer in 'half cock' is not the same as 'cocked'. Pulling the trigger does not let the hammer fall.

 

This penalty is about 'safety'.

Requiring the shooter to circumvent the guns 'safety' (half cock) decreases the safety margin. Should not be called.

 

Also, allowing some to walk around with a 'full cocked' gun also decreases the safety margin. Should be called.

 

If you can't keep tract of your hammer on your way to the line, you need some work. It's part of the process. A SDQ is a learning tool. If your so concerned about getting one, maybe you should pay better attention to what your doing. Your score time is not just about how many targets you can hit. You have to do the rest of the process as well.

 

There are several other penalties that make no sense to me what so ever, this is not one of those.

[The Original Lumpy Gritz]

1 hour ago, Captain Bill Burt said:

Then you think the penalty for dropping an unloaded gun should be a MDQ right?  After all, if treat all guns as loaded means a cocked hammer over an empty chamber should be treated the same as a cocked hammer over a loaded chamber then shouldn't dropped guns also all be treated the same?

CORRECTION-I miss read CBB's post as SDQ--not MDQ as he wrote.

I support a SDQ, NOT a MDQ on first occurrence.

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

Yes I do. ONLY IF, the gun did not fall from the result of a prop failure. 

I see a cocked hammer-to me, and from my training, it's a 'hot'(loaded)gun.

OLG

 

[MBFields]

5 minutes ago, Blast Masterson said:

A hammer in 'half cock' is not the same as 'cocked'. Pulling the trigger does not let the hammer fall.

 

This penalty is about 'safety'.

Requiring the shooter to circumvent the guns 'safety' (half cock) decreases the safety margin. Should not be called.

 

Also, allowing some to walk around with a 'full cocked' gun also decreases the safety margin. Should be called.

 

If you can't keep tract of your hammer on your way to the line, you need some work. It's part of the process. A SDQ is a learning tool. If your so concerned about getting one, maybe you should pay better attention to what your doing. Your score time is not just about how many targets you can hit. You have to do the rest of the process as well.

 

There are several other penalties that make no sense to me what so ever, this is not one of those.

In full cock trigger can be pulled and goes boom!

[Captain Bill Burt]

6 minutes ago, The Original Lumpy Gritz said:

Yes I do. ONLY IF, the gun did not fall from the result of a prop failure. 

I see a cocked hammer-to me, and from my training, it's a 'hot'(loaded)gun.

OLG

 

I feel the same way when I see a cocked hammer.  The assumption is that it's loaded and it will be treated as loaded until I verify otherwise.  However, if upon inspection the rifle is found to not have a round in the chamber I lean towards either no call, or maybe an MSV, but a SDQ seems a bit much.

[The Rainmaker, SASS #11631]

And if it's on the safety notch... it's um, safe... right?

[Blast Masterson]

10 minutes ago, Captain Bill Burt said:

Then you think the penalty for dropping an unloaded gun should be a MDQ right?  After all, if treat all guns as loaded means a cocked hammer over an empty chamber should be treated the same as a cocked hammer over a loaded chamber then shouldn't dropped guns also all be treated the same?

Let's twist this whole thing up as much a possible shall we? ...

 

If you drop a gun on the way to the loading table, where we know the gun is unloaded (the gun has bee previously cleared at the unload table) and the action is always to be open on the way, is not the same as dropping a gun while on the line in the process of shooting now is it?

 

I often have my SxS close on me as I take it out of the cart. I don't just continue my way to the loading table. I take corrective action. No one on the range can say that a closed action (off the LT/Line) is/is not a loaded gun. The same with the hammer 'cocked'. It's not about 'what could happen'. It's the simple fact that the gun is 'cocked'. Breaking the 170 is still breaking the 170 regardless if you sweep someone in the process.

[Captain Bill Burt]

Just now, The Rainmaker, SASS #11631 said:

And if it's on the safety notch... it's um, safe... right?

Not necessarily.  I've seen both rifles and pistols that will drop the hammer from the safety/half cock notch if the trigger is pulled.  Now will the fall with enough energy to pop a primer, I don't know.

[MBFields]

Just now, Blast Masterson said:

Let's twist this whole thing up as much a possible shall we? ...

 

If you drop a gun on the way to the loading table, where we know the gun is unloaded (the gun has bee previously cleared at the unload table) and the action is always to be open on the way, is not the same as dropping a gun while on the line in the process of shooting now is it?

 

I often have my SxS close on me as I take it out of the cart. I don't just continue my way to the loading table. I take corrective action. No one on the range can say that a closed action (off the LT/Line) is/is not a loaded gun. The same with the hammer 'cocked'. It's not about 'what could happen'. It's the simple fact that the gun is 'cocked'. Breaking the 170 is still breaking the 170 regardless if you sweep someone in the process.

Having the hammer cocked is about what could happen. That is the point of keeping the penalty stiffer. That is the point of all firearm safety rules!

[The Original Lumpy Gritz]

4 minutes ago, Captain Bill Burt said:

I feel the same way when I see a cocked hammer.  The assumption is that it's loaded and it will be treated as loaded until I verify otherwise.  However, if upon inspection the rifle is found to not have a round in the chamber I lean towards either no call, or maybe an MSV, but a SDQ seems a bit much.

 

A SDQ is a powerful learning tool. BTDT........

OLG

[Captain Bill Burt]

3 minutes ago, Blast Masterson said:

Let's twist this whole thing up as much a possible shall we? ...

 

If you drop a gun on the way to the loading table, where we know the gun is unloaded (the gun has bee previously cleared at the unload table) and the action is always to be open on the way, is not the same as dropping a gun while on the line in the process of shooting now is it?

 

I often have my SxS close on me as I take it out of the cart. I don't just continue my way to the loading table. I take corrective action. No one on the range can say that a closed action (off the LT/Line) is/is not a loaded gun. The same with the hammer 'cocked'. It's not about 'what could happen'. It's the simple fact that the gun is 'cocked'. Breaking the 170 is still breaking the 170 regardless if you sweep someone in the process.

I'm not sure what the 'twist' comment is supposed to mean.  I'm just discussing the topic of the thread, giving my position on it and my reasons for that position.

 

So what is the point of your comparison of when you drop a gun?  You're correct, those two situations are not the same, and the penalties are not the same either. 

 

I don't really get the point of your last comment either.  So you see the action of your SG closed and then you open it, so what?  What does that have to do with discussing the topic at hand?  I feel pretty confident that most cowboys who observe themselves departing from the rules correct course to the extent they can, how does that have anything to do with discussing the appropriate penalty when a rule is violated?

 

The rules are very much about what 'could' happen.  The worse the potential 'could happen' is the more significant the penalty for violating that rule.  Rules for the sake of rules isn't where we are.  I don't think anyone is debating what constitutes a violation of the hammer cocked rule, that's pretty straightforward, if it's not fully down, it's cocked. 

 

[Captain Bill Burt]

9 minutes ago, The Original Lumpy Gritz said:

 

A SDQ is a powerful learning tool. BTDT........

OLG

A MDQ is an even more powerful learning tool.  Perhaps we should make all rules violations MDQs.

[The Original Lumpy Gritz]

39 minutes ago, Captain Bill Burt said:

A MDQ is an even more powerful learning tool.  Perhaps we should make all rules violations MDQs.

You get the MDQ with a 2nd SDQ.........

The SDQ is a 'wake-up' call/warning.

OLG

[Null N. Void]

3 hours ago, Jackaroo, # 29989 said:

The rule has already been discussed and accepted by the ROC, who agreed to the proposed change as per the original OP.

But it still has to be ratified at a TG summit whenever that is going to be?

 There have been some voting at TG meetings at various events last year and a electronic vote was discussed, but nothing has eventuated that I know of. 

So at present the rule still stands as a SDQ. 

At the end of the day it's no point discussing rule changes at TG meetings, passing them at ROC meetings, if there isn't going to be a TG summit cause there's no convention. 

Personally the TG meeting at EOT should be designated the summit, where these things can be confirmed, clarified or ratified or whatever else needs to be done!

 

Thank you Jackaroo!  That's what I remember from last year.  If there isn't going to be a TG Summit, then I think the ROC approval should enough to change the rule.  All the above discussions were had last year on this forum, and at the end, the ROC accepted it as you stated.  I think the only issue was should it be a MS or Procedural vs. a no call.

[Captain Bill Burt]

14 minutes ago, The Original Lumpy Gritz said:

You get the MDQ with a 2nd SDQ.........

The SDQ is a 'wake-up' call/warming.

OLG

I don't think I want you as my TO OLG, you remind me of R. Lee Ermey.  "If you ladies leave my island, if you survive recruit training, you will be a weapon.  You will be a minister of death praying for war."

[McCandless]

1 hour ago, MBFields said:

So for all the proponents of this, you are basically saying it is worth taking the chance that there might or might not be a loaded round in the chamber. When it happens that someone drops or accidentally pulls trigger on the way and rifle goes boom who is going to be hurt or worse? Not wanting it to happen but @@@@ happens. Feel it is best to leave the way it is, feels and sounds strict but that is a very simple yet effective deterrent. I have had this happen and while hard to swallow has made me very, very aware of hammer position on rifle and pistols. Rules are not always bad when they protect lives. Shooters need to be that responsible even if new, they can be helped by older shooters. Leave the way it is so there is no room for the tiniest safety scare.

 

So, what do you want to do with the rebounding hammer Winchesters, where when you close the action and drop the hammer, the hammer automatically resets into the safety notch.  Now shooters who use a Winchester are ok to have the hammer in safety, but everybody else gets penalized? 

 

I have a Uberti in my hands now.  Safety notch does not allow the trigger to be pulled or the hammer to be dropped.  I can't even make it budge by pushing on it.  (Just for grins, I tried it on my original Winchester... works just the same way).  The safety notch is just that, for safety. 

 

If by any chance there was a live round in a chamber, walking with the hammer down, firing pin on the primer, is much more dangerous.

 

 

[The Original Lumpy Gritz]

1 hour ago, Captain Bill Burt said:

I don't think I want you as my TO OLG, you remind me of R. Lee Ermey.  "If you ladies leave my island, if you survive recruit training, you will be a weapon.  You will be a minister of death praying for war."

I'm one 'hard' SOB, when it comes to gun safety.

I will not allow myself, or anyone around me to be put in danger, with a case of 'stupid'.

That is why I support the SDQ for cocked hammer.

It also falls in line with the fact we can't move with a cocked hammer and closed action, during the stage. 

OLG

 

                PS-PLZ see the correction to my post to CBB. I miss-read what he wrote as SDQ-when in fact he wrote MDQ......MY BAD

 

 

[Assassin]

1 minute ago, The Original Lumpy Gritz said:

I'm one 'hard' SOB, when it comes to gun safety.

I will not allow myself, or anyone around me to be put in danger, with a case of 'stupid'.

That is why I support the SDQ for cocked hammer.

It also falls in line with the fact we can't move with a cocked hammer and closed action, during the stage. 

OLG

 

 

Didn't you carry a 1911 cocked and locked?

[MBFields]

17 minutes ago, McCandless said:

 

So, what do you want to do with the rebounding hammer Winchesters, where when you close the action and drop the hammer, the hammer automatically resets into the safety notch.  Now shooters who use a Winchester are ok to have the hammer in safety, but everybody else gets penalized? 

 

I have a Uberti in my hands now.  Safety notch does not allow the trigger to be pulled or the hammer to be dropped.  I can't even make it budge by pushing on it.  (Just for grins, I tried it on my original Winchester... works just the same way).  The safety notch is just that, for safety. 

 

If by any chance there was a live round in a chamber, walking with the hammer down, firing pin on the primer, is much more dangerous.

 

 

If you're talking about the miroku's, the ones I had, do not remember the hammer ever being on safety as you are referring to, has been  4 years since shot one.

[The Rainmaker, SASS #11631]

Head, wall, head, wall, head, wall...

[The Original Lumpy Gritz]

1 minute ago, Assassin said:

Didn't you carry a 1911 cocked and locked?

Still do. 

What's that got to do with SASS? 

JMB designed the 1911 for condition 1 carry.

The thumb safety locks the sear against the hammer when cocked, and the grip safety stops/blocks any trigger. movement.

OLG

[MBFields]

Thought the Miroku's had rebounding firing pin not hammer.

[Captain Bill Burt]

44 minutes ago, Assassin said:

Didn't you carry a 1911 cocked and locked?

Is there another way?

[Assassin]

48 minutes ago, The Original Lumpy Gritz said:

Still do. 

What's that got to do with SASS? 

JMB designed the 1911 for condition 1 carry.

The thumb safety locks the sear against the hammer when cocked, and the grip safety stops/blocks any trigger. movement.

OLG

Watched a guy pull out his Colt 1911, 38 super, when he flipped the safety off the pistol discharged. He never touched the trigger. Just saying, it happens. There's a big difference between on the safety notch vs. full cocked. If there's a round under the hammer It's a whole different ballgame. Don't we have a rule for coming to the line with a round in the chamber with a closed action. The hammer back rule is like double jeopardy. 

[McCandless]

1 hour ago, MBFields said:

Thought the Miroku's had rebounding firing pin not hammer.

 

Here's the Miroku at rest, hammer is in the same position as a Uberti on safety... SDQ

So, T.O.'s now have to be inspecting which rifle has the hammer back.  Despite a rifle with a round in the chamber is safer on safety notch than with the firing pin resting on a primer...  The rule doesn't make a whole lot of sense.  

If you want full cock to be an SDQ, fine... but a rifle in safety should be as the ROC advised.  

 

[Marshal Stone, SASS #53366]

1 hour ago, Assassin said:

Watched a guy pull out his Colt 1911, 38 super, when he flipped the safety off the pistol discharged. He never touched the trigger. 

 

If that happened the pistol is defective and needs to go to a gunsmith for immediate repair.

 

Marshal Stone