WtC? The Cocked Transition

[Branchwater Jack SASS #88854]

 

What's the call? But, perhaps even more importantly, this episode just might answer the question that y'all have been asking for a while...Are Branchwater Jack & Dudley Do-Wrong secretly the same person?

 

[Creeker, SASS #43022]

Hmm - I am hearing the word in the audio - but I'm missing the printed support for the contention of STRONG hand must remain in contact with a cocked pistol.

The shooter had TWO hands in contact with the pistols - there was no Hand Off; there was a change from two handed handling to a single hand handling, but at NO moment was there a transition FROM one hand to the other.

 

The rule was written to dissuade a un supported shooter from drawing the offhand pistol, cocking it and passing a cocked firearm from one hand to the other.

It was not intended to penalize a shooter who had two hands in contact with the pistol from safely holding a cocked firearm in a singular hand.

 

Now I am very sure this video was done in conjunction with the ROC and that all the information was verified as accurate prior to BWJ posting in.

But this is an incorrect call and assigning a penalty for a LEGAL pistol handling procedure (per the written SHB and per the examples in the video) way over steps the basic tenet of "Don't be a hard ass"

[Itchy Trigger]

Real Case: Pistol is drawn with right hand, then held with both hands close to equally, then cocked with the right thumb, right hand releases the pistol so that it can be shot duelist. Pistol is then shot and cocked with the left thumb for the remaining shots.

 

TO then called a stage DQ because the weight of the pistol was more than 50% (but less than 55%) in the right hand before it was released by the right hand!

[Branchwater Jack SASS #88854]

SHB pg 13

Quote

A cocked revolver may never leave a shooters hand, including from one hand to the other. This does not apply when loading or reloading on the firing line. 

 

The key here is not necessarily that the strong hand must remain in contact with a cocked revolver, the rule states that a cocked revolver may not be transferred from one hand to the other unless it is being loaded or reloaded.

 

I talked with Dudley and he said that he actually did not have two hands in contact with the pistol when the pistol was cocked. The cocking hand was in contact with the support hand and not the revolver until he transferred the revolver to the cocking hand where he gripped the revolver with by the top strap and trigger guard. Then, he took back hold of the grip frame with the support hand and went back to where his off hand was resting on his support hand.

 

Would you have allowed a duelist shooter to take their cocked revolver, transfer it to their off hand, and hold it in the same manner as Dudley in order to clear the hull?

 

I think we agree that the penalty also applies to an unsupported shooter who draws the offhand pistol, cocks it and passes the cocked revolver from one hand to the other. However, this is a convention that applies to everyone.

 

I'm not sure of the original intent of the rule, and I didn't run this one by anyone else...but it is making for some great conversation.

[Creeker, SASS #43022]

18 minutes ago, Branchwater Jack SASS #88854 said:

 I talked with Dudley and he said that he actually did not have two hands in contact with the pistol when the pistol was cocked. The cocking hand was in contact with the support hand and not the revolver until he transferred the revolver to the cocking hand where he gripped the revolver with by the top strap and trigger guard. Then, he took back hold of the grip frame with the support hand and went back to where his off hand was resting on his support hand.

 

Would you have allowed a duelist shooter to take their cocked revolver, transfer it to their off hand, and hold it in the same manner as Dudley in order to clear the hull?

 

With all due respect - that is a bit of a stretch to invoke Dudley after the fact incriminating himself.  And from what I have seen - we can't trust Dudley anyways.  

 

And No - The Duelist would indeed be responsible for a cocked pistol going FROM one hand to the other.

 

But in the video example prior to Dudley failing to plead the 5th...

I would contend the pistol was within both hands - never transferred one to the other after being cocked.

[Painted Mohawk SASS 77785]

I would be a no call based on your video...there was not a clear change of hands, the offhand was always in contact.

[Mister Badly]

Only one hand is around the grip at the draw. That is the grip hand. The left hand was the support hand and after cocking the grip hand was switched. Now I have big extended grips and can still only have one grip hand. Stage DQ

[Creeker, SASS #43022]

3 hours ago, Mister Badly said:

Only one hand is around the grip at the draw. That is the grip hand. The left hand was the support hand and after cocking the grip hand was switched. Now I have big extended grips and can still only have one grip hand. Stage DQ

Show me a "grip hand" rule.

You cannot.

But I can show you that the gun never left the shooters hand AFTER being cocked.

Grip hand or support hand is immaterial.

 

Again the rule was written to cover the possibilities of:

A cocked pistol being dropped

Or

A cocked pistol being staged or holstered

Or

Unsupported shooters cocking the pistol AND THEN transferring it between hands

 

IF Dudley had cocked the firearm prior to the 2nd hand coming into contact with the pistol AND THEN had let loose of the pistol; then that WOULD be an exchange from one hand to the other with a cocked pistol.

 

But with BOTH hands in contact with the pistol prior to cocking - there is no transfer from one hand TO another.

And there is no additional verbiage requiring use of strong hand, grip hand or any other term.

And there is no requirement that a cocked pistol be held by the gripframe - just safely controlled and muzzle maintained within the 170.

[J.S. Sooner, SASS #73526]

Stage DQ, hand isn’t even holding the grip. No way to say both hands had equal control of the gun prior to transition or after.

 

Shooter could have kept pistol in right hand using left, support hand to clear shotgun. Pistol was drawn with right hand and controlled with right hand until transfer to left. 

 

 

[Captain Bill Burt]

Looks like a DQ to me.

[Dantankerous]

So...If a GF pulls both pistols he'd better get both back into leather before double-cocking them, if that is that shooter's method? SOL otherwise? Otherwise for a single gun cocker he could re holster the uncocked pistol, and with that free hand reach down and pull the shotgun hull before shooting the other, already cocked pistol? Now there's a mind bender on the clock.

[Randy Saint Eagle, SASS # 64903]

10 hours ago, Itchy Trigger said:

Real Case: Pistol is drawn with right hand, then held with both hands close to equally, then cocked with the right thumb, right hand releases the pistol so that it can be shot duelist. Pistol is then shot and cocked with the left thumb for the remaining shots.

 

TO then called a stage DQ because the weight of the pistol was more than 50% (but less than 55%) in the right hand before it was released by the right hand!

IMHO if the shooter was shooting in a duelist category the correct call should have been a Progressive “P” for shooting out of Category.

 

Duelist Style
  - Duelist – Duelist style is defined as shooting a revolver cocked and fired one- handed and unsupported. The revolver, hand, or shooting arm may not be touched by the offhand except when resolving a malfunctioning revolver problem or when transferring the revolver from one hand to the other.
- Duelists may shoot one revolver right-handed and one revolver left-handed in what is commonly referred to as “Double Duelist”. Double Duelist is NOT a standalone shooting category.

 

Procedural (P) infractions include:

  - Failure to attempt to fire a firearm, engage a prop, or perform a stage maneuver.
 - Shooting targets in the wrong order.
- Engaging the stage in the wrong order.
- Use of illegally acquired ammunition.
- Not returning revolvers to leather (unless otherwise specified).
- First offense in the same match for “shooting out of category.”
- Firing more rounds than specified in the stage instructions.

Sorry Dudley, this is straying from your situation..

 

Randy

 

[Hoss]

I’m in the SDQ camp. Right hand was strong hand. He cocked then passed gun to left hand. 

[Tucker McNeely]

Reading the rule book in the SDQ section it says when, “A cocked revolver leaving the shooters hand.”  The amplifying or clarification is not in the SDQ section.  I say no call.  “Shooters” is plural and not possessive. So to me it implies either hand without distinction of the “shooting” hand.  The revolver didn’t leave either of the hands or gravity would have prevailed.

[Hollifer A. Dollar]

I will add that scenario to the list of reasons to always shoot the shotgun last, when given the option.

[J.S. Sooner, SASS #73526]

9 minutes ago, Tucker McNeely said:

Reading the rule book in the SDQ section it says when, “A cocked revolver leaving the shooters hand.”  The amplifying or clarification is not in the SDQ section.  I say no call.  “Shooters” is plural and not possessive. So to me it implies either hand without distinction of the “shooting” hand.  The revolver didn’t leave either of the hands or gravity would have prevailed.

 

You may want to review this section of the rule book.

[Branchwater Jack SASS #88854]

8 minutes ago, Tucker McNeely said:

Reading the rule book in the SDQ section it says when, “A cocked revolver leaving the shooters hand.”  The amplifying or clarification is not in the SDQ section.  I say no call.  “Shooters” is plural and not possessive. So to me it implies either hand without distinction of the “shooting” hand.  The revolver didn’t leave either of the hands or gravity would have prevailed.

 

If you are only relying on one section of the rule book to make a call, let me divert the topic to ask you another question....

 

At what point, after leaving the stage following the course of fire, is a shooter subject to penalty for not following unloading table procedures?

 

But, let me pull your gravity thread.

 

Duelist shooter. Pulls pistol with the right hand. Cocks the pistol with their right hand. Goes, "Well, I need to pull the hull." Grabs the cocked pistol with their left hand using their thumb on the top strap and fingers on the trigger guard. They are now holding the pistol with both hands. They then move their right hand from the grip of the pistol to pull the hull from their shotgun. They then reach up, grab the grip with their right hand. They are now holding the pistol with both hands. They finally release the pistol with their left hand and shoot the round with their right hand, unsupported.

 

No call here, too, right, as the revolver "didn’t leave either of the hands or gravity would have prevailed"?

 

[Bart Slade]

22 minutes ago, Tucker McNeely said:

Reading the rule book in the SDQ section it says when, “A cocked revolver leaving the shooters hand.”  The amplifying or clarification is not in the SDQ section.  I say no call.  “Shooters” is plural and not possessive. So to me it implies either hand without distinction of the “shooting” hand.  The revolver didn’t leave either of the hands or gravity would have prevailed.

 

In that case, "Shooters" is absolutely possessive and not plural.   It is qualifying "hand" (who's hand?   The Shooter's hand.   Posessive.).   If this were plural, it would read shooters hands.

 

I'm not arguing the rule one way or the other mind you (although I do agree with Branchwater Jacks assessment).   But I don't think we get to redefine grammatical rules to fit our point.   Of course I'm neither a lawyer nor a politician....

[PaleWolf Brunelle, #2495L]

There are a number of missing "possessive" apostrophes on the list of edits for the 2023 SHB and RO course materials.

In this case, the reference is obviously to the "hand of the shooter" (singular possessive).

 

 

 

[Hoss]

I always struggled in grammar class. Singular possessive pronoun always sounded like the “Charlie Brown”  Wa Wa Waaa Wa Waa Wa to me!

 

however, this is one reason why the SHBs should be professionally written. 
 

but, for now, asking PWB to answer, what is the correct call? 

[Branchwater Jack SASS #88854]

6 hours ago, Randy Saint Eagle, SASS # 64903 said:

Sorry Dudley, this is straying from your situation

 

Which one? That people keep insisting that Branchwater Jack and Dudley Do-Wrong are the same person?

 

 

Personally, I see where they have the same sense of style. But, other than the belt, watch, and a couple odds and ends, I just don't see the resemblance.

 

But then again, my brothers are twins...

 

[PaleWolf Brunelle, #2495L]

IMO:

 

Dudley is apparently using BOTH HANDS to hold the revolver (regardless of whether the offhand is actually in direct contact with it or not)

...but it WAS...left-hand thumb was "touching" the hammer while COCKING it.
 

Quote

Two handed shooting style – aka “Traditional,” or shooter holds a single revolver with two hands.

SHB p.45

 

IF the left hand was NOT in contact with the right hand (or the revolver) while cocking the revolver, Dudley is guilty of FANNING.
 

Quote

Fanning – A handgun (revolver, pocket pistol, or derringer) shooting technique in which one hand controls the trigger and the other hits the hammer singularly or repeatedly without any part of the cocking hand remaining in contact with the handgun or the support hand.

SHB p.43
 

Quote

Any unsafe handling in the course of a draw from the holster or any “fanning” to shoot a revolver is strictly forbidden.

SHB p.14
SDQ p. 22

 

In this case, based on observing the video and the definition of "Traditional-style", transfer of the revolver from BOTH hands to either one would be a NO CALL.

 

IMO.

 

[Ranger Dan]

So the transfer from the left hand, holding the cocked revolver while the right hand is removing the hull from the shotgun and not in contact with the revolver, to the right hand is a no call also?

[PaleWolf Brunelle, #2495L]

11 minutes ago, Ranger Dan said:

So the transfer from the left hand, holding the cocked revolver while the right hand is removing the hull from the shotgun and not in contact with the revolver, to the right hand is a no call also?

 

IMO...

YES.
He went back to using BOTH hands to hold/fire/control the revolver (i.e., shooting "Traditional-style")

IF he had started shooting "DUELIST-style" after removing the empty hull, THAT would be a SDQ for:

"A cocked revolver leaving the shooter's hand"

SHB p.22

 

 

[Mister Badly]

5 hours ago, Tucker McNeely said:

Reading the rule book in the SDQ section it says when, “A cocked revolver leaving the shooters hand.”  The amplifying or clarification is not in the SDQ section.  I say no call.  “Shooters” is plural and not possessive. So to me it implies either hand without distinction of the “shooting” hand.  The revolver didn’t leave either of the hands or gravity would have prevailed.

Shooters is possessive. Plural would have been hands.

[Rye Miles #13621]

First of all I see no safety issue here at all so why a penalty at all? 
I agree with Creeker and PWB no call!

[Tennessee williams]

I like nanner puddin'.

[PaleWolf Brunelle, #2495L]

17 minutes ago, Tennessee williams said:

I like nanner puddin'.

 

Have you ever tried this? 

 

 

 

[Tennessee williams]

19 minutes ago, PaleWolf Brunelle, #2495L said:

 

Have you ever tried this? 

 

 

 

No, but I'm on the way to the store NOW!

[J.S. Sooner, SASS #73526]

1 hour ago, PaleWolf Brunelle, #2495L said:

 

IMO...

YES.
He went back to using BOTH hands to hold/fire/control the revolver (i.e., shooting "Traditional-style")

IF he had started shooting "DUELIST-style" after removing the empty hull, THAT would be a SDQ for:

"A cocked revolver leaving the shooter's hand"

SHB p.22

 

 

This statement goes directly against Firearms Conventions for Revolvers as shown in the latest shooters handbook.  Page 13 

 

The cocked revolver did leave the hand, from one hand to the other, twice.  Please advise?  Is this going to be changed too?

 

[Shamrock Sadie]

Words, words, words .... they are highly overrated. LOL

"A cocked revolver may never leave a shooters hand, including from one hand to the other. This does not apply when loading or reloading on the firing line."

This is a tricky statement, with the key word being "from." So, examples and discussion to clarify such rules is very helpful.

 

With that, Branchwater Jack is one of the best RO Instructors out there and I am sure folks really enjoy his instructional videos. Name one RO Instructor (or anyone else) who hasn't stated a rule incorrectly. I'm giving Banchwater Jack a buy on this one. Keep up the great videos, Jack!

[Branchwater Jack SASS #88854]

We're working on it, and improving all the time.

 

If reading through the responses is any indication, this call would have been made a lot of different ways out there by different TOs.

[Tennessee williams]

10 minutes ago, Shamrock Sadie said:

Words, words, words .... they are highly overrated. LOL

 

I'm giving Banchwater Jack a buy on this one. Keep up the great videos, Jack!

I see what you did there...buy instead of bye. 

[PaleWolf Brunelle, #2495L]

34 minutes ago, J.S. Sooner, SASS #73526 said:

This statement goes directly against Firearms Conventions for Revolvers as shown in the latest shooters handbook.  Page 13 

 

The cocked revolver did leave the hand, from one hand to the other, twice.  Please advise?  Is this going to be changed too?

 

The revolver went from TWO hands to one, then back to TWO hands...NOT from ONE hand (singular) to another HAND (singular).
It never left the left hand completely during the shooting string.

There is no intent to change anything in the SHB.

 

 

 

 

[Hoss]

#1 I agree no safety issue in this particular case. and I understand the PWB hath spoken….
 

but….. what does “from one hand to the other” mean in the SHB?  In my mind he changed hands twice.