Jump to content

WTC – Schrodinger’s cat situation


Colonel Kraken
 Share

Recommended Posts

At an annual match last weekend we had a shooter who was using a Marlin rifle. At the end of the rifle string he levered the gun and laid it down on the table. The gun was placed down, lever open, on it’s right side. When the shooter was done a member or two from the posse said that there was a spent round on the carrier. On our posse we had a very experienced TO and a TO instructor. They converged on the rifle to assess the situation. The gun was lying flat on the table. You could not see under it to see if the spent case was on the carrier or just in the gap. Anyone would assume that the round was in the open space left by the carrier being retracted, but you couldn’t observe the round on/touching the carrier. When the rifle was gently raised up the round was left on the table. After a minute or two of discussion it was decided that it was a no call. No one could observe the round was on the carrier therefore the benefit of the doubt went to the shooter. I felt that was the right call since a penalty shouldn’t be assessed if the TO can’t be sure that a violation of the rules has taken place. Like the hypothetical Schrodinger’s cat, who was neither dead or alive until observed, the spent round was both on the carrier and not on the carrier until someone lifted up the rifle to check.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As specified by SASS rules, unless it is ON the carrier, it's not, and shooter gets the benefit of doubt.  No call.

Next shooter.  GJ

Edited by Garrison Joe, SASS #60708
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you get at least a P for bringing quantum physics to this page. :P
 

I’m more of a Pavlov’s dog guy myself… 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Hoss said:

I think you get at least a P for bringing quantum physics to this page. :P
 

I’m more of a Pavlov’s dog guy myself… 

 

I didn't know you were trainable. :P

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

8 minutes ago, Sedalia Dave said:

 

I didn't know you were trainable. :P

Show me a nice gun and I’ll drool!!!!

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cute analogy - wrong call.

 

The ONLY space the case could occupy with the action open and receiver FLAT on the table is within the action of the receiver.  (or within the chamber but that is assumed as not - because the case fell out upon raising).

 

ON the carrier does not HAVE TO mean in contact with the carrier - it means a non ejected case left within the receiver and/ or upon the lifter/ elevator.  It has zero to do with if it were in contact with the carrier (a Marlin rifle placed open action up and a non ejected case within the action is a penalty - there is no discussion of whether it is "on" or in contact with the carrier)

 

Minor safety - next shooter.

 

And contrary to what anyone may argue - the cat is dead as well.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Leaving empty or live round(s) in a magazine, action, or carrier of the long gun in which it was loaded.

SHB p.22 - Minor Safety Violation (MSV) infractions 

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

1 hour ago, Creeker, SASS #43022 said:

Cute analogy - wrong call.

 

The ONLY space the case could occupy with the action open and receiver FLAT on the table is within the action of the receiver.  (or within the chamber but that is assumed as not - because the case fell out upon raising).

 

ON the carrier does not HAVE TO mean in contact with the carrier - it means a non ejected case left within the receiver and/ or upon the lifter/ elevator.  It has zero to do with if it were in contact with the carrier (a Marlin rifle placed open action up and a non ejected case within the action is a penalty - there is no discussion of whether it is "on" or in contact with the carrier)

 

Minor safety - next shooter.

 

And contrary to what anyone may argue - the cat is dead as well.

You beat me to it. I had a plate full of burritos and tacos and beans. And that was right after Widder called and told me he was eatin' steak. He's like that you know.

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And all you non-No Call, give the shooter a MSV, folks are 100%, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that when the shooter laid the rifle down he didn't LAY IT DOWN with the ejection port covering a spent round that was already lying on the table?  Just stirring up the WTC caldron.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

PW has spoken.  Been there done that.  Ugh

Link to comment
Share on other sites

YEP..... MSV.

Just last week, Slater and I discussed this situation after a match and I told him it was a MSV.

He ask.... "but if its just laying there on the table but covered by the open port..."

I said....... "MSV.   Its still there"

 

P.S - and TW is correct.... I was having steak while he was feasting on Tacos and admiring some beautiful girl 

in the Mexican restaurant.

 

..........Widder

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to go with Creeker on this one.  It is not that I am a fellow Nevadan.  It’s not that I am a fellow gunfighter.

 

In fact, Creeker and I are often on the opposite side of a dispute.

 

However, the dispute of whether the case was “on the carrier or just in the gap”  That is NOT the issue.
 

SHB p22 states “Leaving empty or live round(s) in a magazine, action, or carrier of the long gun in which it was loaded.”

 

Is there any question that the shell was “in the action.”  The gun was flat on the table and not elevated by the case (although I wouldn’t consider that affecting the call.  MSV.

 

I prepared this prior to PW posting, but got distracted and didn’t look for new posts since Creeker’s.  Always happy when PW agrees with me.  

Edited by Nasty Nels
Clarification
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I'm with Lone Spur Jake on this one (even if he IS just stirring the pot). What if the shooter actually DID lay the rifle down, action open on a spent case that was laying on the table? Still not convinced? What if he did that AND it was observed by a range officer? Everything was done correctly by the shooter and he had the bad fortune of laying his rifle down on an empty (observed) and since it was technically "in" the action, he gets a penalty? I call BS on that one. Yes, the chances of this are not very high, but we do have to admit that most of us have seen some pretty crazy stuff happen. I think the key for me here is in the word "leave". He didn't leave it in the action, he ejected it and it was then covered by the action, basically placing it back in the action. I vote no call... but that's just me.

Edited by The Rainmaker, SASS #11631
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

I think I'm with Lone Spur Jake on this one (even if he IS just stirring the pot). What if the shooter actually DID lay the rifle down, action open on a spent case that was laying on the table? Still not convinced? What if he did that AND it was observed by a range officer? Everything was done correctly by the shooter, and he had the bad fortune of laying his rifle down on an empty (observed) and since it was technically "in" the action, he gets a penalty? I call BS on that one. Yes, the chances of this are not very high, but we do have to admit that most of us have seen some pretty crazy stuff happen. I vote no call... but that's just me.

 

In that (extremely RARE instance considering the rifle in the OP is a side-ejecting Marlin) it would be a NO CALL...IMO.

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

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

 

In that (extremely RARE instance considering the rifle in the OP is a side-ejecting Marlin) it would be a NO CALL...IMO.

And if you could pull that off with a '73, I'd love to see that. Awful early for an Oregonian!. Lol      Good morning PWB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

And if you could pull that off with a '73, I'd love to see that. Awful early for an Oregonian!. Lol      Good morning PWB

 

'Mornin'!
Yes, that would be a good trick, wouldn't it? ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Rainmaker, SASS #11631 said:

And if you could pull that off with a '73, I'd love to see that. Awful early for an Oregonian!. Lol      Good morning PWB

 

All you'd have to do to do it with a 73 is lay the rifle "upside down" on the table.   That is to say with the lever pointing straight up on the air.  Would also work for a Henry, 1866, or an 1892.  Would even work for an 1894 if someone is using one of those.   Would also work for a Lightning and a few other "rare" levers like the Burgess or anything else that ejects out of the top of the rifle.   Would not work with a Henry Repeating Arms rifle, as they are much more "Marlin like."

Yet another reason why I don't shoot Marlins.  :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

'Mornin'!
Yes, that would be a good trick, wouldn't it? ;)

Well..... I saw this happen once.  Shooter with a gentle levering action ejects empty case which just goes up a few inches into the air and returns back down into the action causing a stove pipe.

In fact, I saw the same shooter eject a shell from her 97 which bounced off the window frame she was shooting through and landed in the ejection port as she lowered it to put in the next shell.

Edited by Fretless
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Hoss said:

I think you get at least a P for bringing quantum physics to this page. :P
 

I’m more of a Pavlov’s dog guy myself… 

Does that mean we have to start using a bell instead of a timer beep for you?

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Will Kane said:

Does that mean we have to start using a bell instead of a timer beep for you?

Only if you want slobber on you!

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have had to call it twice at least.

We need to know if it is a call or not.

If it is a no call then that opens up the question of the backwards hull in my 97. It had to have come out in order to turn over.

I do watch the port to make sure the brass ejects so I know it came out. I had a shooter lay a Marlin down port down, I knew there was a empty laying on the table. When  she went to retrieve her gun there was no brass, I had her husband lift the gun and there were   two pieces of brass in the receiver. I had to give her a MS as the rules are written.

If you want to change the rules there is a process to get it done. I for one would like to see this one changed.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm with the "no call" on this one, here's why. In order for the Marlin 94 to not eject a spent cartridge, said cartridge is stuck on the bolt face by the extractor and would not be laying on the table when the gun was picked up. I also am with Tn Tombstone that this rule needs to be changed.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just personal experience...  I've had an empty stay in the port of my Marlin after I've opened the lever, sometimes flipped backwards, because I didn't rack the lever hard enough.  Lift up the gun from port down and there it is.  Another time I made it all the way to the unloading table before we discovered an empty in there. 

Have seen it happen to a shooter with a Henry BB also.  

I solved my Marlin problem by going to a coil-spring extractor.   

But, if the T.O. doesn't see the last case eject, they can't rule in your favor.  MSV.  Another reason for the T.O. to be keeping an eye on the gun and shooter.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Abilene, SASS # 27489 said:

Similar thing if the rifle was set down on its left side with the port up, and brass falls off the shooter's hat into the port.

 

Question as to how an empty case from a Marlin ended up on the shooter's hat?

  • Haha 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I been looking for the quote, and can't find it. Maybe I'm wrong but I could've sworn I remember something along the lines of "a spent round in the receiver OF A GUN FROM WHICH IT WAS ORIGINALLY LOADED". The Holler portion of this sentence would keep a piece of rifle brass falling into the port of a 97 from being a call, but in my opinion would also make it not matter if a piece of brass bounced off the wall and into the TO and back into the receiver. It'd still be a MSV. 

My personal opinion is don't change the call. It would make calling the MSV too objective. A good example is the first few replies on here and talk of not knowing how it got there or if it was touching the carrier etc.

 

PWB, am I miss remembering my remembrance or did I forget that I never knew in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Safety, Safety, Safety.  The rules we play our game by is there for the Safety of us and others.  The line has to be drawn somewhere and this is were it is at.  It is the shooter's responsibility to make sure all their firearms are safe when discarded.  Time is not and excuse to change the rule.  PWB has the answer.

My 2 bits from my saddle.  :)

Edited by Caladisi kid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Abilene, SASS # 27489 said:

Similar thing if the rifle was set down on its left side with the port up, and brass falls off the shooter's hat into the port.

Done that (it was even backwards) MSV

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Submitted for serious consideration -

 

If we really go back to safety fundamentals, there is a much simpler way to determine if safety has been endangered by this situation.   Situation being, a long gun has been restaged, but when picked up, has been found to be laying such that the gun's action was over an empty case.

 

A fired case never causes a true safety issue.   But, I also understand that we want to be cautious about when a fired case in a long gun might instead be a live round left in a long gun.  So, if the empty case is actually held within the long gun (in a chamber, crosswise in the action, trapped by the extractor, etc.) I suggest that case IS in the gun.  And that a round or empty "being retained" within the action would be perhaps one movement of a lever or pump away from a closed, cocked and "loaded" firearm.

 

But when the gun is picked up and a case is found to be laying on the table, that is NO proof that the case was in the gun at the time the gun was restaged.  And, of course, the long gun is not a danger of any sort now that it has been picked up and the empty is still lying on the table.

 

Our main opportunity to detect an empty case having been left in lever or slide action guns is when the shooter (or a safety officer) picks up the gun after the stage has been completed.  If an empty falls out during the pickup, well, let's call that the empty was in gun.   If the case stays on the table, empty declared not in the gun and this was a laid-down gun covering the case.  If the empty stays in the gun and rides all the way to the next inspection (unloading table), of course the gun was restaged with the case in it.  We have as much time as we want to take, when the shooter moves to pickup a restaged long gun.  This proposed approach seems like a much more easily understood situation, and one where we never penalize a shooter with a safety penalty, when there was no firearms safety issue ever having occurred.   All because we are implying that a empty on the table but covered by the action must have actually been in the action during restaging.  Even if the case was dislodged during slamming the gun down onto the table, it's now in a safe condition - laying on the table.

 

I believe would should penalize actual safety conditions, not implied conditions that we can take to the time to look at (after stage completed) and understand.

 

good luck, GJ

 

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thought to ponder... we've changed the rule for hammer not fully down on a rifle (pull hammer all the way back and pull trigger, fires; penalty, does not fire; no penalty). I have always had an issue with an EMPTY being on the carrier or in action and being a penalty (GASP!!!). What if we changed it to "brass (or hull) in the action: found to be a fired casing; no call. loaded round; penalty applies? We leave fired casings in pistols and that is not a safety hazard... Just a thought and don't stone me, please. Tell me why I'm wrong.

Edited by The Rainmaker, SASS #11631
  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Thought to ponder... we've changed the rule for hammer not fully down on a rifle (pull hammer all the way back and pull trigger, fires; penalty, does not fire; no penalty). I have always had an issue with an EMPTY being on the carrier or in action and being a penalty (GASP!!!). What if we changed it to "brass (or hull) in the action: found to be a fired casing; no call. loaded round; penalty applies? We leave fired casings in pistols and that is not a safety hazard... Just a thought and don't stone me, please. Tell me why I'm wrong.

You're not wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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