WTC: reholstering pistol(s)

[Barry Sloe]

Me thinks that if you start giving shooters SDQs for holstering their revolvers, you are going to see a huge decline in participation.  This is another area where a good dose of common sense needs to be applied.

 

Using Bidenomics, that's my 27 cents worth,

BS

[Lucky Lead Pepper]

15 minutes ago, Hoss said:

For me, if he is going to holster there is no way I would call that. 
# 1 he is not sweeping anyone

#2 he has to be able to safely reholster

#3 absent photo evidence (which cannot be used) there is hardly any way to be sure “did he or didn’t he?”

 

 I think this is where common sense/RO III comes into play!

 

I agree with every point you made.  I'm almost certainly guilty of holstering/ unholstering the same way we see in this photo.  However, unless I misunderstanding (likelihood of that is high) this thread is saying this is an SDQ.

[The Rainmaker, SASS #11631]

The problem comes in where folks actually have their pistols pointed behind them after clearing leather and on reholstering; I've seen it and warned immediately.

Believe me, when you see the hole in the muzzle, it gets your attention.

[Presidio]

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

The problem comes in where folks actually have their pistols pointed behind them after clearing leather and on reholstering; I've seen it and warned immediately.

Believe me, when you see the hole in the muzzle, it gets your attention.

Is their rig canted that way?  Are the holster positions to far back on the belt or too low hung?  How was they're overall physical appearance and posture?  (Spare tire like me?)

 

I ain't doubting ya' or trying to be a smarty pants or anything.  Just being curious as to how that muzzle hole could've been seen that easily.. Ain't saying it ain't happening or that'll probably not again happen in the future.

[The Rainmaker, SASS #11631]

I don't remember specifics but I'm pretty sure its from lazy fundamentals. From what I remember, it was an older fella.

[Presidio]

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

I don't remember specifics but I'm pretty sure its from lazy fundamentals. From what I remember, it was an older fella.

Yeah I can understand your point of view and yep, that's an attention getter fer sure and fer certain.

 

Too bad it happens more than we'd like for it to.

 

Guessing I best ride that fence line again.  With or without the tar and feathers.  Maybe I'll remember Widder's sandwich and Pepsi this time.

[Tennessee williams]

4 hours ago, Hoss said:

For me, if he is going to holster there is no way I would call that. 
 

   My opinion is it should be a no call too, but it's been clarified as being a SDQ. Your post shows what we will have is some TOs who will call it and some who will not. That doesn't make for an even match.

[Tennessee williams]

   My proposal for changing without changing any SHB or RO material: 

   The current interpretation is SDQ for breaking the 170 when bringing pistols straight down to 180° while they're not in the mouth of the holster during the draw or holstering. This is due to the word "immediately" in the following screenshot of the SHB pg3 under holsters being interpreted to mean "before the barrel leaves the holster mouth when drawing" and "after the barrel enters the holster mouth" when reholstering. Meaning the only time you are allowed to be straight down is while your pistol is holstered. Which to me goes against the intent of the allowance.

 

 

If we instead interpret the word "immediately" to mean "the first action you do upon drawing is aim downrange" and "the first thing you do after going down 180° is enter the holster" nothing would have to change in any material and it could be a no call. It would mean you could go straight down 180° when in the act of holstering or drawing. To me, that's the intent of the allowance anyway.

Just my thinking and trying to lawyer around some TOs calling a sdq that, to me, shouldn't be.

 

[Hoss]

30 minutes ago, Tennessee williams said:

   My opinion is it should be a no call too, but it's been clarified as being a SDQ. Your post shows what we will have is some TOs who will call it and some who will not. That doesn't make for an even match.

Not disagreeing. But from that picture I just don’t see it. Shooter is not being unsafe.  I’ve certainly seen worse not called. The problem is it happens in a split second. By the time you ask was it or wasn’t it it’s too late to make a definitive call, which = a no call. If I SEE a violation, no doubt in my mind, I have and will call it.   

[Phantom, SASS #54973]

Words like "immediately" are subjective...can't be enforced uniformly. 

 

Now stabbing at a holster at 180 degrees isn't a hard call...even though many won't call it.

 

So...shall we discuss the "Cone Of Safety"?????

 

Phantom

[Presidio]

42 minutes ago, Phantom, SASS #54973 said:

Words like "immediately" are subjective...can't be enforced uniformly. 

 

Now stabbing at a holster at 180 degrees isn't a hard call...even though many won't call it.

 

So...shall we discuss the "Cone Of Safety"?????

 

Phantom

Refresh my memory on that "Cone of Safety" will ya'.

 

Getting so that I can't hardly remember having dinner last or not.

[Phantom, SASS #54973]

2 minutes ago, Presidio said:

Refresh my memory on that "Cone of Safety" will ya'.

 

Getting so that I can't hardly remember having dinner last or not.

Basically the idea is that if the muzzle is pointed within a certain size diameter centered around the shooter, then there is no call.

 

Other's that were around to discuss it when it was first introduced can perhaps chime in on it...

 

Phantom

[Lone Spur Jake SASS #7728]

Ahhh, takes me back to when Black Jack Zak was trying to promote something like that.  He had a couple of us locals, especially cross draw shooters, participate in a video he was doing at that time.  Too bad it didn't fly, thought it was very safe.

[Presidio]

Now that kinda falls under my common sense feelings.  Onliest difficult thing to determine would be the diameter allowed at the base. (Did that make any sense?) 

 

More'n likely it'd wind up being another can of worms squiggling about.

 

Have been considering the Calvary Draw with my left hand on my crossdraw, then passing over to my strong right hand,  and then reholstering like I normally do...but ain't quite sure how it'll be perceived by others.. If I could get it right, it'd eliminate the "twist".

 

 

 

Figure Widder ought to be more'n ready to eat cactus sandwiches about now.

[Phantom, SASS #54973]

21 minutes ago, Lone Spur Jake SASS #7728 said:

Ahhh, takes me back to when Black Jack Zak was trying to promote something like that.  He had a couple of us locals, especially cross draw shooters, participate in a video he was doing at that time.  Too bad it didn't fly, thought it was very safe.

At the time I was a no-go on the deal...but over time I've come to think otherwise.

 

Phantom

[Phantom, SASS #54973]

Just now, Presidio said:

Now that kinda falls under my common sense feelings.  Onliest difficult thing to determine would be the diameter allowed at the base. (Did that make any sense?) 

 

More'n likely it'd wind up being another can of worms squiggling about.

 

Have been considering the Calvary Draw with my left hand on my crossdraw, then passing over to my strong right hand,  and then reholstering like I normally do...but ain't quite sure how it'll be perceived by others.. If I could get it right, it'd eliminate the "twist".

 

 

 

Figure Widder ought to be more'n ready to eat cactus sandwiches about now.

Well if I recall...there was something in there that one still can't sweep anyone while holstering/reholstering. Again, would be fun to revisit.

 

The whole purpose was to eliminate or greatly reduce the close calls where one competitor gets dinged and another that commits the same infraction doesn't. 

 

Phantom

[Stump Water]

 

[Phantom, SASS #54973]

6 minutes ago, Stump Water said:

 

Well...at least I'm consistent once I change my mind.

 

 

Phantom

[SGT. ELI 35882 GUNFIGHTER]

43 minutes ago, Phantom, SASS #54973 said:

At the time I was a no-go on the deal...but over time I've come to think otherwise.

 

Phantom

I was the same, but it's basically what we have now. 

[Stump Water]

25 minutes ago, Phantom, SASS #54973 said:

Well...at least I'm consistent once I change my mind.

 

 

Phantom

 

Good to know Covid didn't change your mind.  

 

I think what really shot the CoS down was the camp proclaiming that it would allow people to do pirouettes on the firing line with a long gun... pointed at the ground.

[Phantom, SASS #54973]

14 minutes ago, SGT. ELI 35882 GUNFIGHTER said:

I was the same, but it's basically what we have now. 

In all practicality...you're right. The CoS was really just a way to make calls on minor angle violations more consistent. 

 

Phantom

[Stump Water]

6 hours ago, Presidio said:

Just being curious as to how that muzzle hole could've been seen that easily.. Ain't saying it ain't happening or that'll probably not again happen in the future.

 

Imagine if you will... long gun staged on the hay bale.  Pistols shot first.  Once the last pistol shot is down range the shooter bends at the waist as he is holstering to pick up the long gun...

 

 

[Presidio]

2 minutes ago, Stump Water said:

 

Imagine if you will... long gun staged on the hay bale.  Pistols shot first.  Once the last pistol shot is down range the shooter bends at the waist as he is holstering to pick up the long gun...

 

 

Yeah, that would be sight to behold.

[Widder, SASS #59054]

1 hour ago, Presidio said:

Refresh my memory on that "Cone of Safety" will ya'.

 

Getting so that I can't hardly remember having dinner last or not.

 

1 hour ago, Presidio said:

 

Figure Widder ought to be more'n ready to eat cactus sandwiches about now.

 

You not only forgot having dinner, but you forgot my sammich and cold Pepsi.

While you at it, get one for my friend Phantom also.

He works up a good thirst trying to keep everydangbody straight on the Wire.

 

Eating a cactus sammich keeps me from having to use a toothpick afterwards..... 

 

..........Widder

 

[Presidio]

Shucks.  Done made the sammich fer ya'.   Ya' got any idea how far I had to go to pick just the right size tender ones!?. Gonna have a wait fer Madeline to finish with the molasses so I can run some of the stil makings through it, tho.

 

But I found some nice pies just cooling in the breeze out there fer Phantom !

[Tennessee williams]

On 11/3/2023 at 2:45 PM, Hoss said:

Not disagreeing. But from that picture I just don’t see it. Shooter is not being unsafe.  I’ve certainly seen worse not called. The problem is it happens in a split second. By the time you ask was it or wasn’t it it’s too late to make a definitive call, which = a no call. If I SEE a violation, no doubt in my mind, I have and will call it.   

   I'm not saying it is unsafe at all. Quite the contrary. But, do you see the pistol breaking the 170°? Do you see the muzzle of the pistol is not yet in the mouth of the holster? SDQ.

 

 

Edit: It should NOT matter the time frame in which a violation takes place. We have different speed shooters. Super duper speed shooter A has a revolver that is pointing almost straight down breaking the 170° and is 2 inches out of his holster for a millisecond VS super-duper slow shooter B in the exact same position for 1/2 of a second has violated the same rule. Guess which one gets called on it most. That's Bulldookery.

Phantom, you are welcome to use the word Bulldookery.

 

[Hoss]

14 minutes ago, Tennessee williams said:

   I'm not saying it is unsafe at all. Quite the contrary. But, do you see the pistol breaking the 170°? Do you see the muzzle of the pistol is not yet in the mouth of the holster? SDQ.

 

 

Edit: It should NOT matter the time frame in which a violation takes place. We have different speed shooters. Super duper speed shooter A has a revolver that is pointing almost straight down breaking the 170° and is 2 inches out of his holster for a millisecond VS super-duper slow shooter B in the exact same position for 1/2 of a second has violated the same rule. Guess which one gets called on it most. That's Bulldookery.

Phantom, you are welcome to use the word Bulldookery.

 

Shooter is allowed to break 170 to reholster in legal holster. Looking at that picture, I do not believe he has broken the 180. 

[Assassin]

The shooter should own the stage. No one on his side, TO an arms length behind. Get rid of Stand and Deliver crap and lateral inline micro movement stages. Shooter shoots and moves downrange, the safest way to shoot. Just ask Phantom.

 

[Phantom, SASS #54973]

1 hour ago, Tennessee williams said:

Phantom, you are welcome to use the word Bulldookery.

Ooooohhhhh...

 

I like!

 

 

[Phantom, SASS #54973]

41 minutes ago, Assassin said:

Shooter shoots and moves downrange, the safest way to shoot. Just ask Phantom.

Oh yeah!

 

[Assassin]

9 minutes ago, Phantom, SASS #54973 said:

Oh yeah!

 

I need to copyright "micro movement stage". 

[Tennessee williams]

1 hour ago, Hoss said:

Shooter is allowed to break 170 to reholster in legal holster. Looking at that picture, I do not believe he has broken the 180. 

Hoss ole buddy, I think you have totally missed the whole point of this thread. It has been clarified that the shooter IS ONLY ALLOWED TO BREAK THE 170° WITH THE REVOLVER WHILE THE MUZZLE OF THE BARREL IS INSIDE THE HOLSTER. Therefore, when you see a pistol breaking the 170° i.e. 171° and the muzzle ain't in the holster it's an SDQ. 

  Now do you agree it is Bulldookery?

[Hoss]

9 minutes ago, Tennessee williams said:

Hoss ole buddy, I think you have totally missed the whole point of this thread. It has been clarified that the shooter IS ONLY ALLOWED TO BREAK THE 170° WITH THE REVOLVER WHILE THE MUZZLE OF THE BARREL IS INSIDE THE HOLSTER. Therefore, when you see a pistol breaking the 170° i.e. 171° and the muzzle ain't in the holster it's an SDQ. 

  Now do you agree it is Bulldookery?

Double bulldookery!

 

but page 17 shooters handbook when discussing the 170 has an exception. I could not cut and paste from phone, but basically says an exception to the 170 exists to allow shooter to reholster. Says nothing about barrel being in holster. 

[Phantom, SASS #54973]

10 minutes ago, Tennessee williams said:

Hoss ole buddy, I think you have totally missed the whole point of this thread. It has been clarified that the shooter IS ONLY ALLOWED TO BREAK THE 170° WITH THE REVOLVER WHILE THE MUZZLE OF THE BARREL IS INSIDE THE HOLSTER. Therefore, when you see a pistol breaking the 170° i.e. 171° and the muzzle ain't in the holster it's an SDQ. 

  Now do you agree it is Bulldookery?

Totally Bullstoopid!

 

Primarily because it's impossible to consistently enforce. Since we're a game that involves holstering, a better system would be nice to figure out...and if we have to stage our pistols...I'm outta here! To me, the whole idea of a 180 (more common in other games), involves moving with with a pistol (leaving long guns outta the discussion). Holstering with hammer not cocked...not sweeping anyone...no call. Afterall, we're shooting SA revolvers. 

 

Phantom

[PaleWolf Brunelle, #2495L]

6 minutes ago, Hoss said:

Double bulldookery!

 

but page 17 shooters handbook when discussing the 170 has an exception. I could not cut and paste from phone, but basically says an exception to the 170 exists to allow shooter to reholster. Says nothing about barrel being in holster. 

 

That's quoted (and answered) on the first page of this thread:

 

"The "noted allowance" refers to the previously quoted rule from p.3 of the SHB regarding the 180° exception."