Question - when can you touch SG loads?

[Ashley D Austin]

Some clubs I go to say you can never touch shot gun loads that are on a table or in your ammo belt/bandolier when beginning with the shotgun. Other clubs say you can touch your SG loads if the scenario calls for Shooter in Ready Position or SASS Ready, but not when the scenario calls for two hands on a long gun. What is the rule on this? I understand the loads must remain in the belt or on the table and not in hand until the clock begins.

Edited July 30 by Ashley D Austin

[oak creek martin]

There is no SASS rule. It is strictly dictated by what is written in the stage at each club’s discretion. Generally, both hands on Shotgun when starting with Shotgun, unless otherwise stated in written stage.

[Abilene, SASS # 27489]

You can only have hands on ammo if the stage specifically states so.  If any clubs have a "policy" of being able to touch shells during the shotgun "at the ready" or "in hands" then they should state so.

[Marauder SASS #13056]

You should Never touch shotgun shells.  They are very dangerous and should only be handled by professionals...
Such as the not-so Secret Service??

 

[The Original Lumpy Gritz]

Only in the dark when no one can see you

[Chief Rick]

SHB p. 13

If no starting position is given, the shooter shall stand upright with revolvers holstered, hands at the sides and not touching any firearm. (SASS default).

 

If varying from this, the stage instructions should tell you what to do.

 

If stage instructions do not specify for a shooter's hands to be doing something specific (both hands on gun/touching hat/touching table), shooter should default to SASS default.

 

If stage scenario says shooter is to start at position A facing downrange, SASS default is how the shooter should stand while at position A waiting for the beep to begin.

[Tennessee williams]

1 hour ago, Chief Rick said:

SHB p. 13

If no starting position is given, the shooter shall stand upright with revolvers holstered, hands at the sides and not touching any firearm. (SASS default).

 

If varying from this, the stage instructions should tell you what to do.

 

If stage instructions do not specify for a shooter's hands to be doing something specific (both hands on gun/touching hat/touching table), shooter should default to SASS default.

 

If stage scenario says shooter is to start at position A facing downrange, SASS default is how the shooter should stand while at position A waiting for the beep to begin.

SHB page 27 is the source you're looking for under ammunition covenants. It is correct that stage instructions can supercede shb covenants other than safety rules.

 

 

 

[Phantom, SASS #54973]

3 hours ago, oak creek martin said:

There is no SASS rule. It is strictly dictated by what is written in the stage at each club’s discretion. Generally, both hands on Shotgun when starting with Shotgun, unless otherwise stated in written stage.

There are conventions regarding both starting position and ammo. location (ie: touching), when specific stage requirements are not spelled out.

 

Phantom

 

(see someone already responded with the ammo. convention...)

Edited July 30 by Phantom, SASS #54973

[Go West]

You may touch shells after the beep unless otherwise directed by the stage instructions.

[Seminole Sam]

I have a rifle that can only hold 10 rounds if I start with one in the chamber.  Since I can't do that one round is going to have to be manually loaded at some point.  I have gotten fairly adept at moving the lever just far enough that I can manually load a round without anything coming out of the magazine, so I figure I'll load that round at the start rather than the end.

Everyone I se eon YouTube is faster than I can be anyway, so its not like I'm ever going to win anything

[Cowtown Scout, SASS #53540 L]

This tread is about shotgun ammo specifically. If your rifle only holds 9 in the magazine then it is not really suited well for shooting Cowboy Action. If you have not been to a match yet you really should do that before you buy any more firearms. Maybe you already had this rifle and did not purchase it recently for CAS.

[Colorado Coffinmaker]

 

As has been pointed out, there are no hard and fast rules in the shooters handbook about when you can or can't "touch" your shotgun shells.  It's up to the stage instructions.  You will also discover, there are many many "Experts" offering rules that don't exist and "others" whom have never actually read the rules.  Caveat Emptor fer sure.

[Larsen E. Pettifogger, SASS #32933]

When can you touch the shotgun shells?  After you have paid for them.

 

 

 

 

 

[Edward R S Canby, SASS#59971]

16 hours ago, Seminole Sam said:

I have a rifle that can only hold 10 rounds if I start with one in the chamber.  Since I can't do that one round is going to have to be manually loaded at some point.  I have gotten fairly adept at moving the lever just far enough that I can manually load a round without anything coming out of the magazine, so I figure I'll load that round at the start rather than the end.

Everyone I se eon YouTube is faster than I can be anyway, so its not like I'm ever going to win anything

What rifle are you shooting and what is the overall length of you ammunition?  By shortening the rounds a bit and cutting off some turns of the magazine spring perhaps you can load and reliably cycle ten rounds.  This works for my wife's carbine.  However, I have a 44-mag carbine that won't cycle short rounds reliably.  Tell us what you shoot and maybe someone has a solution.

 

Don't think you can't win anything.  After a few years of consistent shooting, you may be wearing a buckle for a category win at a major match.  However, your rifle as it won't get you that buckle.

[H. K. Uriah, SASS #74619]

Shooter starts at position 1 with 1 shotshell in hand and shotgun staged on the prop.

At the beep, shooter picks up shotgun and loads the 1 shell and engages the 1 SG target.

With shotgun open and empty, shooter moves to position 2 and places shotgun on prop.

 

10-10-4 sequence to follow.  

 

Never seen such a stage.  Not saying it would be good or bad, but if this is what the instructions call for, it would be what you do.

[Tennessee williams]

3 hours ago, Colorado Coffinmaker said:

 

As has been pointed out, there are no hard and fast rules in the shooters handbook about when you can or can't "touch" your shotgun shells.  It's up to the stage instructions.  You will also discover, there are many many "Experts" offering rules that don't exist and "others" whom have never actually read the rules.  Caveat Emptor fer sure.

In my opinion the "buyer does NOT have to be aware" with regards of when one can touch shotgun shells or any other ammo for that matter. It's in the handbook on pg 27 under ammunition conventions. In the absence of stage instructions specifically saying you can touch your ammo, you cannot. That is pretty black and white to me.

[Larsen E. Pettifogger, SASS #32933]

Actually the rule on page 27 is - 

 

The following are SASS Conventions for Ammunition

- Shooters may not start a stage with ammunition in hand(s) unless otherwise directed by stage design/description

 

For the sake of argument "in hand" does not appear to be defined.  The convention does not say you cannot touch your shells.

 

If you are shooting duelist you can have your off hand on your revolver while it is in the holster while you are shooting the other gun.  The revolver is not in hand until it is out of the holster (or off the stage prop if the revolver is staged).  Is your shotgun ammo "in hand" if it is still in the shotgun belt?

[Phantom, SASS #54973]

17 minutes ago, Larsen E. Pettifogger, SASS #32933 said:

Actually the rule on page 27 is - 

 

The following are SASS Conventions for Ammunition

- Shooters may not start a stage with ammunition in hand(s) unless otherwise directed by stage design/description

 

For the sake of argument "in hand" does not appear to be defined.  The convention does not say you cannot touch your shells.

 

If you are shooting duelist you can have your off hand on your revolver while it is in the holster while you are shooting the other gun.  The revolver is not in hand until it is out of the holster (or off the stage prop if the revolver is staged).  Is your shotgun ammo "in hand" if it is still in the shotgun belt?

Re-write coming up!

 

Phantom

[Larsen E. Pettifogger, SASS #32933]

Just to expand a bit.  I use to be the TG for Winter Range so I attended the conventions and other meetings where the rules were discussed and voted on.  I am now old and semi-Joe Biden but for Duelist the rule reads -

 

o The competitor shall not have two loaded revolvers in hand at once.

 

Scenario, revolvers are staged on a table.  A Duelist shooter grabs both revolvers and shoots one of his guns.  The other gun was "in hand" but not totally off the table. My recollection is the rule interpretation was that as long as the muzzle of the second gun is in contact with the table it is not "in hand" and there is no violation of the Duelist category rules.  Maybe my recollection is incorrect BUT I don't think so!

[wyliefoxEsquire]

42 minutes ago, Phantom, SASS #54973 said:

Re-write coming up!

 

Phantom

I did a Google search og "in hand"

 

under control

If a situation is in hand, it is under control. The event organizers say that matters are well in hand. 

 

What does something in hand mean?

If you have something in hand, you have not yet used it and it is still available: I had enough money in hand to buy a new car.

 

Based on the above definitions any shells in a belt are under control, ready to use and available, therefore not allowed.

 

But!!!  in hand(s) plural, does not get any search results.

I would suspect (I do not know) the original authors may have meant "holding" which does not address "touching".

[Phantom, SASS #54973]

5 minutes ago, wyliefoxEsquire said:

I did a Google search og "in hand"

 

under control

If a situation is in hand, it is under control. The event organizers say that matters are well in hand. 

 

What does something in hand mean?

If you have something in hand, you have not yet used it and it is still available: I had enough money in hand to buy a new car.

 

Based on the above definitions any shells in a belt are under control, ready to use and available, therefore not allowed.

 

But!!!  in hand(s) plural, does not get any search results.

I would suspect (I do not know) the original authors may have meant "holding" which does not address "touching".

Context is important...just using the words "in hand" does not mean that you can equate it to the definition that you referenced.

 

The intent of those that wrote the rule becomes important. An indicator of their intent could be seen in how the rule has been interpreted paying close attention to those that interpreted the rule during the earlier years of SASS. The general convention that has been used for many years is that the shooter does not start a Stage with their hands touching their gun(s) or ammo unless the Stage instructions say otherwise.

 

Therefore, unless I'm missing something that is documented in the Handbook, "in hand" should be clarified.

 

Phantom

[Colorado Coffinmaker]

 

So, is your Big Mac "In Hand" as you try to get it out of the box in one piece??

[Branchwater Jack SASS #88854]

15 hours ago, Larsen E. Pettifogger, SASS #32933 said:

Just to expand a bit.  I use to be the TG for Winter Range so I attended the conventions and other meetings where the rules were discussed and voted on.  I am now old and semi-Joe Biden but for Duelist the rule reads -

 

o The competitor shall not have two loaded revolvers in hand at once.

 

Scenario, revolvers are staged on a table.  A Duelist shooter grabs both revolvers and shoots one of his guns.  The other gun was "in hand" but not totally off the table. My recollection is the rule interpretation was that as long as the muzzle of the second gun is in contact with the table it is not "in hand" and there is no violation of the Duelist category rules.  Maybe my recollection is incorrect BUT I don't think so!

Revolver in hand is defined in the SHB

 

Revolver in hand – when the muzzle of the revolver clears the mouth of the holster, or breaks contact with a prop where it was initially staged.   

 

[Larsen E. Pettifogger, SASS #32933]

Glad my recollection is correcrt.  Not glad I forgot it was in the definitions.  However this raises an interesting question.  When interpreting rules one of the rules of interpretation is that when a term is used that term has the same meaning throughout the document.  In this case the logical interpretation of "shooters may not start a stage with ammunition in hand" is that it should have the same meaning as in hand elsewhere in the rules.  So does this mean shotgun shells in hand means when the shells clear the loops of a belt or leave the prop if staged?

[Idaho Gunslinger]

1 hour ago, Larsen E. Pettifogger, SASS #32933 said:

Glad my recollection is correcrt.  Not glad I forgot it was in the definitions.  However this raises an interesting question.  When interpreting rules one of the rules of interpretation is that when a term is used that term has the same meaning throughout the document.  In this case the logical interpretation of "shooters may not start a stage with ammunition in hand" is that it should have the same meaning as in hand elsewhere in the rules.  So does this mean shotgun shells in hand means when the shells clear the loops of a belt or leave the prop if staged?

That sounds reasonable to me!

 

Though I've been taught that the rule means I'm not allowed to touch my ammo at all. So on stages that start with shotgun and say hands anywhere but touching; the posse gets told not to touch ammo either and hands are usually floating over the shotgun and the shells in the belt. Granted that example is getting out into the "stage instructions can alter the rules" weeds.

 

I don't recall if I have ever shot a stage that says I can have my hands anywhere and it starts with shotgun. Probably 90-95% of the stages I have shot end in shotgun. And I imagine less than 5% of the stages let me put my hands anywhere. 

[Ranger Dan]

3 hours ago, Branchwater Jack SASS #88854 said:

Revolver in hand is defined in the SHB

 

Revolver in hand – when the muzzle of the revolver clears the mouth of the holster, or breaks contact with a prop where it was initially staged.   

 

But this only applies after the beep. Say pistols are staged, yes a duelist can grab both pistols after the beep and shoot one as long as the other stays in contact with the table. Holstered is the same, you cannot touch your pistols until the stage starts at the beep. The "in hand(s)" rule applies during the stage. Start position, default is not touching guns or ammo unless specified in stage description.

[Barry Sloe]

I forsee a 10" thick SHB.  

 

BS

[Colorado Coffinmaker]

 

Let us also remember, the "DEFAULT" SASS starting position is standing with hands at sides (not a direct quote).  So, if no qualifying stage instructions are provided, we revert to the SASS DEFAULT position, standing on yer hind legs wid yer hands at yer sides.  At your sides does not equate to "wrapped around yer shotgun shells."  I see it as actually pretty simple.  No touchy unless instructed you can do so.     

[John Kloehr]

3 minutes ago, Barry Sloe said:

I forsee a 10" thick SHB.  

 

BS

Or tolerance for creativity... Start position with hands on hat... Did not say hat on head. 

[Colorado Coffinmaker]

 

Now, about having that Big Mac "In hand . . . . " 

[El Chapo]

On 7/31/2024 at 7:05 PM, Phantom, SASS #54973 said:

Context is important...just using the words "in hand" does not mean that you can equate it to the definition that you referenced.

 

The intent of those that wrote the rule becomes important. An indicator of their intent could be seen in how the rule has been interpreted paying close attention to those that interpreted the rule during the earlier years of SASS. The general convention that has been used for many years is that the shooter does not start a Stage with their hands touching their gun(s) or ammo unless the Stage instructions say otherwise.

 

Therefore, unless I'm missing something that is documented in the Handbook, "in hand" should be clarified.

 

Phantom

 

Rules do not ever have "intent."  They are the work of a collective body, and none of us know why those who voted on them were okay with them.  Many of those who vote on the rules might have had different intent.  Rules have meaning and the meaning governs.  This idea is not mine, it is basically the life's work of the late and great Justice Scalia.  Either fingers touching shells is "in hand" or it isn't, but what that means is not governed by some unstated intent.  If anything, I think the plain meaning of "in hand" would have to suggest that the shells were outside of the loop that holds them, such that the only thing keeping gravity from taking its course was the fingers.  I don't think merely touching the shells renders them "in hand."  But my opinion on what the definition should be is just that, my opinion.  But in support of my opinion, I submit that "Texas Surrender" does not make revolvers "in hand" either.

 

If SASS wanted to make a rule that explicit stage instructions were needed to start a stage touching guns or ammo, I wouldn't oppose doing that, but in its absence, I don't think it's right to read into the rules a rule that is not there.

[Fretless]

1 hour ago, El Chapo said:

If SASS wanted to make a rule that explicit stage instructions were needed to start a stage touching guns or ammo, I wouldn't oppose doing that, but in its absence, I don't think it's right to read into the rules a rule that is not there.

1 hour ago, El Chapo said:

but what that means is not governed by some unstated intent.

 

The handbook has this to say, which appears to cover situations where the intent is somewhat obvious.  Maybe not touching ammo is one of those times.

 

SHB p11

When a shooter has Spirit of the Game, it means one fully participates in what the competition asks.  You do not look for ways to create an advantage out of what is, or is not, stated as a rule or shooting procedure. Some folks would call Spirit of the Game nothing more than good

sportsmanship. Whatever you call it, if you don’t have it, Cowboy Action Shooting™ is not your game.

[Idaho Gunslinger]

9 hours ago, El Chapo said:

 

Rules do not ever have "intent."  They are the work of a collective body, and none of us know why those who voted on them were okay with them.  Many of those who vote on the rules might have had different intent.  Rules have meaning and the meaning governs.  This idea is not mine, it is basically the life's work of the late and great Justice Scalia.  Either fingers touching shells is "in hand" or it isn't, but what that means is not governed by some unstated intent.  If anything, I think the plain meaning of "in hand" would have to suggest that the shells were outside of the loop that holds them, such that the only thing keeping gravity from taking its course was the fingers.  I don't think merely touching the shells renders them "in hand."  But my opinion on what the definition should be is just that, my opinion.  But in support of my opinion, I submit that "Texas Surrender" does not make revolvers "in hand" either.

 

If SASS wanted to make a rule that explicit stage instructions were needed to start a stage touching guns or ammo, I wouldn't oppose doing that, but in its absence, I don't think it's right to read into the rules a rule that is not there.

I kind of agree with this. I think rules can have intent but they need to be written so that you can properly interpret them without necessarily knowing that intent beforehand. 

 

When I say rules can have intent, they are usually written with the intent of either allowing or disallowing a specific thing. 

 

Take the duelist rule where it clearly defines what revolver in hand means. We can assume their intent was to prevent shooters from getting an advantage by drawing both guns at the same time (or just drawing that 2nd gun too early). We don't know that for sure but they wrote the rule clear enough that we don't need too. 

 

In the case of shells in hand I imagine if you asked people who had never shot cowboy before 9 out of 10 of them would likely say that touching the ammo is OK you just can't pull them out of the belt. But my guess is the intent of the rule was that you weren't even allowed to be touching the ammo. That was probably announced when the rule was updated/added and has been carried on as tribal knowledge rather than being clearly defined in the handbook. 

[Fretless]

@Idaho Gunslinger The SASS default starting position (upright with hands at sides) pretty much takes care of this "tribal knowledge".  It's a small logical leap to connect that default stance to the intent that you shouldn't be touching your ammo.  That's how I would explain that intent.

[El Chapo]

40 minutes ago, Idaho Gunslinger said:

I kind of agree with this. I think rules can have intent but they need to be written so that you can properly interpret them without necessarily knowing that intent beforehand. 

 

When I say rules can have intent, they are usually written with the intent of either allowing or disallowing a specific thing. 

 

Take the duelist rule where it clearly defines what revolver in hand means. We can assume their intent was to prevent shooters from getting an advantage by drawing both guns at the same time (or just drawing that 2nd gun too early). We don't know that for sure but they wrote the rule clear enough that we don't need too. 

 

In the case of shells in hand I imagine if you asked people who had never shot cowboy before 9 out of 10 of them would likely say that touching the ammo is OK you just can't pull them out of the belt. But my guess is the intent of the rule was that you weren't even allowed to be touching the ammo. That was probably announced when the rule was updated/added and has been carried on as tribal knowledge rather than being clearly defined in the handbook. 

 

You simply restated your earlier point, which I am saying is the wrong way to go about learning the meaning of a text.  Rules do not have intent and we cannot assume anything.   Rules have meaning which we must apply even if that results in consequences those who drafted them may not have "intended."  Anything else is just inventing our own version of what the rule really means and then claiming we know what the intent was of the many people who drafted and voted upon the rules.  All of them might have had different "intent" for all we know.  The rule that results from their collective work does not have intent.  It has meaning that we are required to apply, without reading something else into it that isn't there.

 

If you ask 9 out of 10 people what they think without showing them the text and ensuring that you're asking them what they think the text means in this context, you are turning the concept of a rule's meaning into a democratic vote.  The meaning of words is not subject to democracy.  Whatever it means in a given context is fixed in the universe.  Our goal in applying the rules should be to give the most faithful interpretation of the meaning of those words and their context, not to figure out how many people we can get to vote for an erroneous reading simply because we believe the results they cause was not "intended."

 

Rules can never have intent outside of a dictatorship.  And if we had a dictator, we don't really need written rules because we can just as the dictator what he thinks and if he doesn't like the results the rules create, he can just change them to something else.  As long as the rules are made by a collaborative and collective process, they have no intent, because we will never know why the many people thought that bundle of words was okay, we only know that they eventually agreed that those words, and any resulting consequences from applying them, would be our rules.

 

BTW, the interpretive philosophy you are applying is called "purpisism."  As should be obvious from my post, I despise purpisism because I think it allows the person interpreting the rules to rationalize any possible interpretation that they claim was the "intent" of its drafters.  A famous purposist was Justice Steven Breyer, although a great deal of the leftists who have served on the Court in the last 70 or 80 years used this approach to deviate from the text of the law.  Justice Scalia is famous for his approach rejecting purpisism and using my approach, which is called textualism.  Purpisism is not a legitimate method of interpreting a text.  It's just one that some people like because it allows them to rationalize any answer they want.