Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

The Loading Table/Area -- Rules?


Dusty Devil Dale
 Share

Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, PaleWolf Brunelle, #2495L said:

LTO is applied differently from club to club. Blackjack Zak (MD at Winter Range) and Lassiter/Deuce (MDs at EOT) all agreed that t

These are match directors for those events. It's not ROC or the TG's voting/reinforcing a rule. As MD's they can decide how their match is to run. But do they speak for all the clubs?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Snakebite said:

PAGE 89 in the ROI pretty much makes it clear that there is a Loading Table Officer and what his/her duties are.  It has been "Clarified" to allow if a Loading table officer is not present that one of the shooters in line can act as the LTO

No one has been able to actually point to or reference an actual rule that says LTO's are required!

From the Shooters Handbook, UNIT 8: Match Positions & Roles. This section describes roles. And some may never be used at a match. As in expeditor. This isn't the section that says a LTO is required as a rule.

 

I can't find a page 89 in ROI.....Am I looking at the wrong book?

Edited by irish ike, SASS #43615
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If someone really needs another person to help them make sure they load their guns properly/safely ... I am sure the person next to them would be glad to assist ... (if asked). 

 

If this gun handling really is a problem for someone then they should perhaps back away from matches awhile until they can master this simple (but very important task).

... OR ...

take on a coach/partner/buddy until they feel comfortable. 

 

LTOs are cool (IMHO ... if you have enough folks) ... for things like "keeping a reasonable number at the table" ... "watching for the truly inept" ... "expedite .. keep things moving" ... "catching folks before they forget they have loaded guns and decide to run to the cart for more shotgun shells" ... "catch cocked/half cocked hammers" ... 

 

Otherwise ... who wants someone distracting you when you are doing something so very important. 

 

There are plenty of folks on this forum that want to let you know how important they used to be but to those folks ... I can only say ... "I know a club that had a Hawaiian shirt match just last month!! (and it sounded like they really had fun!!) ... fire.gif.e7bb1a9b122c54704205a0eac73c9297.gif 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Patagonia Pete said:

If someone really needs another person to help them make sure they load their guns properly/safely ... I am sure the person next to them would be glad to assist ... (if asked). 

 

If this gun handling really is a problem for someone then they should perhaps back away from matches awhile until they can master this simple (but very important task).

... OR ...

take on a coach/partner/buddy until they feel comfortable. 

 

LTOs are cool (IMHO ... if you have enough folks) ... for things like "keeping a reasonable number at the table" ... "watching for the truly inept" ... "expedite .. keep things moving" ... "catching folks before they forget they have loaded guns and decide to run to the cart for more shotgun shells" ... "catch cocked/half cocked hammers" ... 

 

Otherwise ... who wants someone distracting you when you are doing something so very important. 

 

There are plenty of folks on this forum that want to let you know how important they used to be but to those folks ... I can only say ... "I know a club that had a Hawaiian shirt match just last month!! (and it sounded like they really had fun!!) ... fire.gif.e7bb1a9b122c54704205a0eac73c9297.gif 

I for one, don't mind the distraction; particularly if it saves me a SDQ or an accident.   And don't think for a minute that an accident cannot occur from a live round under the hamner--particularly with half of our shooters using Rugers with transfer bars removed, or '73s with lever safety disabled.  We've all dropped firearms in the past. 

 

I think the intent in the rules is clear that a second person must observe loading and that loading procedures must be followed (thank you Snakebite for pointing that out).  My OP question wasn't about intent.  I was simply looking for the rule that says the shooter must load with an observer-- and penalties against the shooter for not doing so.  I think Snakebite pointed to that for us. 

Edited by Dusty Devil Dale
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Tyrel Cody said:

 

Obviously not since a lot of clubs ignore it and a lot of us feel it's not needed.

I hate to bring up liability, because it always comes across as a veiled threat.  That's not my intent here. 

 

I am the safety officer/Sheriff for our club.  (And why I began this thread requesting clarification).  I personally have no intention of being the guy who is responsible for watering down or deliberately allowing players to ignore ANY safety rule or writren safety recommendation.  Any match official who would take that risk for the sake of convenience or popularity is not thinking things through, in our present day environment,  IMO.   And more importantly, I don't want to be the guy who facilitated an actual accident.   Having a functional LTO seems like a really easy thing to comply with given the allowances provided in the current RO Manuals. 

 

Edited by Dusty Devil Dale
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Dusty Devil Dale said:

>> I hate to bring up liability, because it always comes across as a veiled threat.  That's not my intent here. >>

 

I am the safety officer/Sheriff for our club.  (And why I began this thread requesting clarification).  I personally have no intention of being the guy who is responsible for watering down or deliberately allowing players to ignore ANY safety rule or writren safety recommendation. <<

 

 

Well then you have to be careful Dale (or have very robust partitipant waivers) as there are many more well documented safety rules to watch out for ... 

This is from page 14 of the Ruger New Vaquero manual ...

 

http://ruger-docs.s3.amazonaws.com/_manuals/newVaquero.pdf

 

handload.jpg.dd46d788412cddd1f6bc392754de1c6e.jpg

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I alway find it awkward to hold my pistols so another can check them, or look at others pistols to check them. Angle has to be just so. 
very few clubs I shoot at require LTO. one that used  be very strict about it no longer mentions it. while loading I try to follow a very set routine, using a loading block. I also eye the others at the table, checking hammers and fit shotgun shells etc. 
if we have a brand new shooter we generally assign someone to shepherd them thru the loading process, then hand them off to TO, then after shooting escort them to ULT. 
 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Patagonia Pete said:

 

Well then you have to be careful Dale (or have very robust partitipant waivers) as there are many more well documented safety rules to watch out for ... 

This is from page 14 of the Ruger New Vaquero manual ...

 

http://ruger-docs.s3.amazonaws.com/_manuals/newVaquero.pdf

 

handload.jpg.dd46d788412cddd1f6bc392754de1c6e.jpg

What you're pointing to is the result of advice that teams of attorneys have given to major clients, based on best judgment in our litigious environment.  They understand the potential or likely costs, both corporately and individually, of not having strong writtem and enforced safety policies and disclaimers to point to, if/when lawsuits arise.

 .

 

We don't have attorneys advising us, but if we did, I suspect our safety rules would harden substantially, as would enforcement.    None of us want to go to the point where attorneys control our every move.  But using good judgment in the case of easy things, like having an LTO, is low hanging fruit.  There is no good reason for us not to follow the simple ROC guidance.  Really, how difficult is it to follow the established LT procedures?  What do we really gain by ignoring obvious sound judgment?  What could we lose?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Dusty Devil Dale said:

What you're pointing to is the result of advice that teams of attorneys have given to major clients, based on best judgment in our litigious environment. 

I know you mean well Dale but you can't have it both ways ...

 

You can't say ...

"I personally have no intention of being the guy who is responsible for watering down or deliberately allowing players to ignore ANY safety rule or writren safety recommendation."

... and then ignore a safety recommendation because it appears in a major firearm manufactures manual (for equipment that is widely used in our game).  

 

That is why you have waivers ...

While some have been cleaned up ... there have been plenty of things in those handbooks that would make you just stop and wonder why/what was the point/motivation.  Beating_A_Dead_Horse.gif.e4dcad53ac5ee4315ce46078c023016f.gif  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tyrel Cody said:

If we add any more safety rules we won't be able to shoot.

 

osha_cowboy.jpg

 

Entertaining graphics, but I don't think anybody is talking about adding new,  additional rules.  My understanding, per Snakebite above, is that the rules already specify a SDQ for failure to follow loading and Unloading "PROCEDURES" (not necessarily just hardened rules).   The procedures are pretty well specified.

 

I do realize that it is impossible to eliminate all safety hazards or associated liability.  But I believe we can at least address safety needs as simple as this one.   

 

I can tell you that despite 5 or 6 people here who have voiced objection, there are a huge number of CAS shooters who expect loading operations to be properly supervised.  With typical posse sizes of more than 9 or 10,  it isn't too much to accomplish.  We do it at every match, as do many other clubs.  During the first year of Covid we had posses as small as six.  We still covered the LT needs without complaint, by simply watching each other.  

 

If I took a position of ignoring that established expectation in our club, I wouldn't last ten minutes as the elected Sheriff.  Nor would I want to.  

Edited by Dusty Devil Dale
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Randy Saint Eagle, SASS # 64903 said:

Is this supposed to be somehow less safe than a Colt or Colt Clone?

 

Randy

 

We've gone over that at least a half-dozen times here previously.  We don't need to repeat. 

Ruger puts them in to pass the "drop test" here in California and some other states.   They were not able to  pass the test for sale in our state without the transfer bars in place.  

Edited by Dusty Devil Dale
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Dusty Devil Dale said:

We've gone over that at least a half-dozen times here previously.  We don't need to repeat. 

Ruger puts them in to pass the "drop test" here in California and some other states.   They were not able to  pass the test for sale in our state without the transfer bars in place.  

 

Is this supposed to be somehow less safe than a Colt or Colt Clone?

 

Randy

 

I apologize, I didn’t realize that your comment about Ruger transfer bars being removed was apparently only intended for California shooters and Clubs.


Randy

 

 

Edited by Randy Saint Eagle, SASS # 64903
Spelling
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Patagonia Pete said:

I know you mean well Dale but you can't have it both ways ...

 

You can't say ...

"I personally have no intention of being the guy who is responsible for watering down or deliberately allowing players to ignore ANY safety rule or writren safety recommendation."

... and then ignore a safety recommendation because it appears in a major firearm manufactures manual (for equipment that is widely used in our game).  

 

That is why you have waivers ...

While some have been cleaned up ... there have been plenty of things in those handbooks that would make you just stop and wonder why/what was the point/motivation.  Beating_A_Dead_Horse.gif.e4dcad53ac5ee4315ce46078c023016f.gif  

 

Your opinion.  Whatever. 

 

I agree with the graphic.  Some time ago I rec'd the answer to my question, originally posed in my OP.  I appreciate all who contributed.  We've been over all of the rest of this before many times.  We aren't going to change each others' minds with added rhetoric.  Let's just agree to disagree and hope we stay accident free. 

 

If you shoot at the Kings River Regulators, you will be required to comply with all SASS loading and unloading procedures.   It is expected here at the present time. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Randy Saint Eagle, SASS # 64903 said:

 

Is this supposed to be somehow less safe than a Colt or Colt Clone?

 

Randy

 

I apologize, I didn’t realize that your comment about Ruger transfer bars being removed was apparently only intended for California shooters and Clubs.


Randy

 

 

However the boot fits.  Apology accepted. 

Edited by Dusty Devil Dale
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Dusty Devil Dale said:

If you shoot at the Kings River Regulators, you will be required to comply with all SASS loading and unloading procedures.   It is expected here at the present time. 

 

For what it's worth I'm not against a LTO. If I'm at a match where a LTO is being used, fine; I'll not say a word against it.  If I'm at a match where there is no LTO, I'm also not going to demand we use one.

 

I'll never be at your range, but I would follow your rules if I were.

 

 

Yes you are talking about adding a rule, because currently there isn't one.

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Dusty Devil Dale said:

>> My understanding, per Snakebite above, is that the rules already specify a SDQ for failure to follow loading and Unloading "PROCEDURES" (not necessarily just hardened rules).   The procedures are pretty well specified.<<

 

>> I can tell you that despite 5 or 6 people here who have voiced objection, there are a huge number of CAS shooters who expect loading operations to be properly supervised.  With typical posse sizes of more than 9 or 10,  it isn't too much to accomplish.  We do it at every match, as do many other clubs. 

 

>>During the first year of Covid we had posses as small as six.  We still covered the LT needs without complaint, by simply watching each other.<<  

 

 

My goodness ... do you even shoot?? If you are already handing out SDQs w/ Snakebite then why are you bothering people here???!?

 

If you were already doing it w/ "posses as small as six" ... then you guys got it covered!!

 

For everyone else ... that would leave the TO ... three spotters ... and the shooter ... (that's 5) ... and only one person at the loading table (that's 6!!).

No one to pick brass ... no one at the ULT etc ...

Wow ... who was watching "each other" at the LT with only one person there???? .. Did the TO or shooter give a glance when they had a chance??

 

If you can't load you guns w/o assistance .. AND/OR ... can't ask someone next to you to help ... Then getting pumped up about an LTO and how to penalize people is not really the problem.

 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/17/2021 at 7:32 PM, Tyrel Cody said:

Definitely had those at EOT this year,  at least on  my posse. We always have them at TN State too.

:D I’m a HUGE supporter of a LTO…EOT Posse 14 had a LTO because I didn’t want anyone to get a DQ because of nerves/silly mistake. It happened on at least one other posse.  I worked the LT, too. While at LT, I helped two shooters when they had issues loading firearms and needed to unload them - they were seasoned shooters but did NOT know how or were uncomfortable removing cylinder to unload pistol bc of high primer and a rifle that didn’t load smoothly - unloaded and reloaded. Just those two incidents COULD have been bad…or distractions to the other shooters at the LT…

 

Redundancy is important…even for us.

 

Big hugs!

 

Scarlett
 

 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dusty Devil Dale said:

We've gone over that at least a half-dozen times here previously.  We don't need to repeat. 

Ruger puts them in to pass the "drop test" here in California and some other states.   They were not able to  pass the test for sale in our state without the transfer bars in place.  

Single action revolvers are exempt in the Ca drop test.

Just ask CA-DOJ 

The Ruger t'bar is a Ruger lawyer thing.

OLG 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Patagonia Pete said:

 

My goodness ... do you even shoot?? If you are already handing out SDQs w/ Snakebite then why are you bothering people here???!?

 

If you were already doing it w/ "posses as small as six" ... then you guys got it covered!!

 

For everyone else ... that would leave the TO ... three spotters ... and the shooter ... (that's 5) ... and only one person at the loading table (that's 6!!).

No one to pick brass ... no one at the ULT etc ...

Wow ... who was watching "each other" at the LT with only one person there???? .. Did the TO or shooter give a glance when they had a chance??

 

If you can't load you guns w/o assistance .. AND/OR ... can't ask someone next to you to help ... Then getting pumped up about an LTO and how to penalize people is not really the problem.

 

Whew!

I really don't know how to respond.  Sensibility appears to be displaced here by personal preferences. 

 

We had a fun, safe shoot with as few as  6 on the Posse on several occasions, and we didn't cut any safety corners.   We also couldn't do all the Posse chores simultaneously, so it did cost minor delays.  But so what if  stages took a bit longer for a posse of 6? 

  What else can I say?  

Edited by Dusty Devil Dale
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Original Lumpy Gritz said:

Single action revolvers are exempt in the Ca drop test.

Just ask CA-DOJ 

The Ruger t'bar is a Ruger lawyer thing.

OLG 

You're correct.  My error on Ruger's reasoning. 

 

But the Ruger lawyers are certainly aware of drop accidents that have occurred on guns with T-bars removed.  I am aware of at least one (not in a SASS match) that I understand was a fatality and lawsuit. 

 

 But again, the thread was not just about this Ruger example.  Rather, It was asking about rules affecting the Loading Area; and not necessarily about their  justification or propriety.  As always, the content drifted. 

Edited by Dusty Devil Dale
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Dusty Devil Dale said:

We've gone over that at least a half-dozen times here previously.  We don't need to repeat. 

Ruger puts them in to pass the "drop test" here in California and some other states.   They were not able to  pass the test for sale in our state without the transfer bars in place.  

CA drop test earliest mention is 2001. Transfer bars incorporated into rugers starting with the "new model" in 1973.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/17/2021 at 5:42 PM, Snakebite said:

From the Original ROI  course:

Posse Marshals cannot perform all of the Range Officer functions themselves, but must ensure Range Officer assignments are made and the rules and regulations are being followed

You're referring to a rule that no longer is written this way. I asked and no one responded,,,,there is no ROl page 89 that you referred to.  I checked every handbook and RO book that SASS has their website! The only thing I can find is the description of the LTO's duties. No where I can find anything that says an LTO is required? They also list a description for an Expeditor that no one uses!

 

Pale Wolf do you have  a reference location for a rule requiring an LTO?

Thanks

Ike 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Allie Mo, SASS No. 25217 said:

PaleWolf (spokesman for the ROC), Snakebite (former chairman of the ROC), and the ROC indicate (in no uncertain terms) that the LTO is required.

Allie, no one can give a reference to an actual rule. The only thing I can find is a description for the duties of an LTO.

 

Snakebite; This is from the ROI course before it was summarily re-written. The rules have NEVER been changed. Only two things can change them. A vote of the TGs or someone using their Power to do it. If the ROl course book was re-written then the rule was changed since ROC edited/revised it and then issued it as the new set of rules!

Edited by irish ike, SASS #43615
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Dusty Devil Dale said:

You're correct.  My error on Ruger's reasoning. 

 

But the Ruger lawyers are certainly aware of drop accidents that have occurred on guns with T-bars removed.  I am aware of at least one (not in a SASS match) that I understand was a fatality and lawsuit. 

 

 But again, the thread was not just about this Ruger example.  Rather, It was asking about rules affecting the Loading Area; and not necessarily about their  justification or propriety.  As always, the content drifted. 

My post had nothing to do with 'thread drift'. 

You posted a boldly inaccurate statement about Ca handgun drop testing.

End of story.....

OLG 

 

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Ike and others,

 

I've never favored a LTO. After all, the firing line is expected to be hot. I've never disagreed to an ULTO as the rest of the range is expected to be cold.

 

However, the party line is that there must be a LTO, whether dedicated or the next person in line to shoot.  The only way to conformity seems to be an amendment to the SHB.

 

Regards,

 

AM

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, irish ike, SASS #43615 said:

Allie, no one can give a reference to an actual rule. The only thing I can find is a description for the duties of an LTO.

 

Can someone quote where an unloading table officer is required?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Allie Mo, SASS No. 25217 said:

Hi Ike and others,

 

I've never favored a LTO. After all, the firing line is expected to be hot. I've never disagreed to an ULTO as the rest of the range is expected to be cold.

 

However, the party line is that there must be a LTO, whether dedicated or the next person in line to shoot.  The only way to conformity seems to be an amendment to the SHB.

 

Regards,

 

AM

I would question whether the party line being in favor of a LTO is true, if it were there would be a rule stating that there is a LTO at every match. SASS isn’t the Wire and the Wire isn’t SASS. None of the four clubs down here that I frequent have a LTO. Occasionally a posse may have one but there are no LTO’s, designated or show the next shooter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Yul Lose said:

I would question whether the party line being in favor of a LTO is true, if it were there would be a rule stating that there is a LTO at every match. SASS isn’t the Wire and the Wire isn’t SASS. None of the four clubs down here that I frequent have a LTO. Occasionally a posse may have one but there are no LTO’s, designated or show the next shooter.

Hi Yul,

 

I based that comment on earlier posts stating that PWB (spokesman for the ROC), Snakebite (former chair of the ROC), and the ROC have all said one is required.

 

AM

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Allie Mo, SASS No. 25217 said:

Hi Yul,

 

I based that comment on earlier posts stating that PWB (spokesman for the ROC), Snakebite (former chair of the ROC), and the ROC have all said one is required.

 

AM

How do they enforce that? 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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