"The vote" wording

[Tennessee williams]

  The current wording of item 2 we are voting on says "changing the penalty for a cocked revolver re-holstered with unfired round(s) remaining leaving the shooters hand will be changed to a MATCH DQ". If you click on my photo above, it states the reason for the proposed change is the fact that a cocked and released revolver with rounds in it is incredibly dangerous.

   I don't disagree with it being dangerous. BUT. It is no more dangerous than the loaded revolver that has its hammer hook on a coat, table, or arm and cocks. Or the revolver a shooter never lowered the hammer on at the loading table before coming to run the stage. All of these scenarios have the same situation. A loaded revolver with the hammer back on what is potentially a loaded chamber.

  With the current wording and absent a clarification the one who gets a MDQ is the one who has reholstered, not the one who came to the line with an initially holstered cocked loaded revolver or the accidental cocking, which could potentially be more dangerous. 

  With the current wording, I'd have to be a "no" vote even though I believe ANY holstered cocked, loaded revolver warrants an MDQ call. I don't believe it should be limited to a reholstered revolver.

I think we could avoid a whole heap of confusion and clarifications by not saying "re-holstered". Holstered should suffice.

 

[PaleWolf Brunelle, #2495L]

On 11/29/2025 at 11:20 PM, Tennessee williams said:

the one who came to the line with an initially holstered cocked loaded revolver or the accidental cocking, which could potentially be more dangerous. 

 

That scenario is covered under the "Two SDQs = MDQ " rule. 

Failure to adhere to loading or unloading procedures. 

+

Changing location with a cocked revolver. 

 

REF: SHB p.23

 

 

 

 

[Captain Bill Burt]

What if (I know, I’m sorry, I’m sorry) a shooter puts a cocked revolver in his holster at the loading table, takes his hand off of it and just stands there? SDQ?

[Tennessee williams]

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

 

That scenario is covered under the "Two SDQs = MDQ " rule. 

Failure to adhere to loading or unloading procedures. 

+

Changing location with a cocked revolver. 

 

REF: SHB p.23

 

 

 

 

Hey PWB! I have always assumed "changing location with a cocked revolver" actually meant "changing location with a cocked revolver in hand". If thats not the case, just about every time I have called a SDQ for a cocked revolver leaving the shooters' hand should have been a MDQ. How quick can you stop a shooter from taking a step while they're reholstering the revolver? Say you don't notice the hammer back until you see the shooter moving to the unloading table? I'd say 95% of those SDQ calls will now be MDQ calls. 

   I actually had 2 scenarios where a hammer may be back while loaded without being reholstered. How about the one where the loaded revolver was accidentally cocked? It is just as, if not more dangerous than the reholstered one. 

[Sedalia Dave]

3 minutes ago, Captain Bill Burt said:

What if (I know, I’m sorry, I’m sorry) a shooter puts a cocked revolver in his holster at the loading table, takes his hand off of it and just stands there? SDQ?

Per PWB this is a SDQ for failure to adhere to the Loading table procedures. As soon as that shooter takes a step it is then a MDQ. 

[Sedalia Dave]

3 minutes ago, Tennessee williams said:

Hey PWB! I have always assumed "changing location with a cocked revolver" actually meant "changing location with a cocked revolver in hand". If thats not the case, just about every time I have called a SDQ for a cocked revolver leaving the shooters' hand should have been a MDQ. How quick can you stop a shooter from taking a step while they're reholstering the revolver? Say you don't notice the hammer back until you see the shooter moving to the unloading table? I'd say 95% of those SDQ calls will now be MDQ calls. 

   I actually had 2 scenarios where a hammer may be back while loaded without being reholstered. How about the one where the loaded revolver was accidentally cocked? It is just as, if not more dangerous than the reholstered one. 

The deciding factor between SDQ or MDQ is whether or not there are unfired rounds in said revolver. 

[Tennessee williams]

11 hours ago, Sedalia Dave said:

The deciding factor between SDQ or MDQ is whether or not there are unfired rounds in said revolver. 

Yes. Speaking only of loaded revolvers(and the 2 sdq=MDQ changhing locations with a cocked revolver+either of the other sdq calls). To me the most dangerous scenario is where there is a loaded revolver accidentally cocked. 

*We have a rule, you cant cock a revolver until it reaches 45° angle downrange.

*We have no rule against putting your finger in the trigger guard at any time. Reason being is we use single actions and they can't fire unless they're cocked. 

**Where this gets all horror movie on us is when a revolver is accidentally cocked and a finger finds its way into the trigger guard. That is more dangerous than about any scenario. People get a grip on their revolver while moving to the next location,  often while facing 90° down the line of fire. 

Edited December 1 by Tennessee williams
Added 2 SDQ=MDQ portion

[Tennessee williams]

14 minutes ago, Sedalia Dave said:

Per PWB this is a SDQ for failure to adhere to the Loading table procedures. As soon as that shooter takes a step it is then a MDQ. 

I think BB, is comparing the scenario of a hammer being back on a loaded revolver while standing at the loading table (SDQ)being the same condition as one reholstered with hammer back standing at the line of fire(proposed MDQ).

 

You have to speak BB to know sometimes he asks a question he already knows the answer to. Lol

[Captain Bill Burt]

54 minutes ago, Tennessee williams said:

I think BB, is comparing the scenario of a hammer being back on a loaded revolver while standing at the loading table (SDQ)being the same condition as one reholstered with hammer back standing at the line of fire(proposed MDQ).

 

You have to speak BB to know sometimes he asks a question he already knows the answer to. Lol

I am making that comparison and wondering whether under the proposed rule, the call for doing this at the loading table and not moving would remain a SDQ, while the call for reholstering on the line of fire (without moving) would be a MDQ.

[Colorado Coffinmaker]

OK.  Everybody just relax.  BREATHE

 

TW is just trying out for "Lawyer at Large."  Kinda like an episode of Twilight Zone, where there are 20 possible endings.

 

Peanuts!!  Popcorn!!  CrackerJacks!!  Get yer cold Beer Here!!  Comfortable seating available.

[Tennessee williams]

   Does anybody else have any thoughts on a revolver being in the holster with the hammer back with live rounds being a sdq vs a revolver being reholstered with a hammer back with live rounds being a MDQ? THE REVOLVER IS IN THE EXACT SAME POSITION. If the potential change just said revolver with hammer back with live rounds holstered then they would both be MDQ and no confusion. 

   Does anybody have any thoughts on someone holstering their empty revolver with the hammer not fully down(SDQ and taking a step(SDQ) to earn a MDQ? This will make a lot of sdq into mdqs. 

Edited December 3 by Tennessee williams
Nomenclature

[Equanimous Phil]

1 hour ago, Tennessee williams said:

Does anybody else have any thoughts on a revolver being in the holster with the hammer back with live rounds being a sdq vs a revolver being reholstered with a hammer back with live rounds being a MDQ? THE REVOLVER IS IN THE EXACT SAME POSITION. If the potential change just said revolver with hammer back with live rounds holstered then they would both be MDQ and no confusion. 

 

I fully agree, a differentiation between "holstered" and "reholstered" doesn't make any sense regarding safety.

 

Also, how is "reholstering" defined? Wouldn't it be technically reholstering everytime during the match except for the first time? Or is it called holstering after you reloaded the revolver at the LT? What if the pistols are staged on a prop and the shooter puts the guns in the holsters after shooting them (assume stage description allows that), would that be "reholster" although the guns didn't come from the holsters during the stage?

 

IMHO, a cocked and holstered revolver containing unfired rounds should be a MDQ, regardless how or when it happened. Please also consider that - unlike in other shooting sports - our rule book doesn't require the trigger guard to be be covered while holstered.

Edited December 3 by Equanimous Phil

[Shawnee Hills]

10 hours ago, Tennessee williams said:

Does anybody else have any thoughts on a revolver being in the holster with the hammer back with live rounds being a sdq vs a revolver being reholstered with a hammer back with live rounds being a MDQ?

What's the difference?  The end result of a loaded revolver resting hands off in the holster is the same.  Since it is commonplace for a shooter to insert their finger into the trigger guard while drawing the weapon, the potential outcome is severe enough to warrant a MDQ.

 

10 hours ago, Tennessee williams said:

Does anybody have any thoughts on someone holstering their empty revolver with the hammer not fully down(SDQ and taking a step(SDQ) to earn a MDQ? This will make a lot of sdq into mdqs. 

No step is needed to earn the penalty because the SDQ is earned as soon as the shooter removes their hand from the revolver.  This has bit me more than once and while I would hate to earn a MDQ I would understand it.  Even though the revolver is assumed to be empty, the count of rounds fired may be incorrect so there may still be a live round under the cocked hammer.  Given the proclivity of a shooter drawing with their finger in the trigger guard, the potential for a medical outcome exists.

 

Coming from other shooting sports, one of the big surprises was the allowance of the finger in the trigger guard when drawing and moving.  In my mind, a lot of safety could be gained by not allowing that to happen.  Yes, that would cause a considerable uproar of a lot of shooters but those of us that are already used to it would not be among them.

[Tennessee williams]

16 minutes ago, Shawnee Hills said:

What's the difference?  The end result of a loaded revolver resting hands off in the holster is the same. 

The difference is the proposed rule that this entire thread is about. The proposed rule would change a revolver that is cocked with any live rounds in the cylinder which has been REholstered to a MDQ while leaving a revolver with the hammer back with live rounds in the cylinder that is initially holstered still a SDQ. 

16 minutes ago, Shawnee Hills said:

Since it is commonplace for a shooter to insert their finger into the trigger guard while drawing the weapon, the potential outcome is severe enough to warrant a MDQ.

I agree. But. To me, it should be a MDQ whether initially holstered or REholstered.

 

16 minutes ago, Shawnee Hills said:

No step is needed to earn the penalty because the SDQ is earned as soon as the shooter removes their hand from the revolver. 

You don't smell what I'm cooking. The above is about an empty revolver. Yes, a SDQ was earned as soon as the revolver left that shooters hand. What you don't realize, is it was said that if that same shooter, after releasing that revolver takes a step before the TO can stop them and have them correct the hammer being back then they have then changed locations with a cocked revolver earning a 2nd stage DQ for the one stage. 2 stage DQ on the same stage equals a Match Disqualification. 

16 minutes ago, Shawnee Hills said:

This has bit me more than once and while I would hate to earn a MDQ I would understand it.

When you were caught with your hammer back, had you moved locations? If so, then it is said you should have gotten a MATCH DISQUALIFICATION instead of the sdq you received. That is with an EMPTY REVOLVER. 

16 minutes ago, Shawnee Hills said:

Coming from other shooting sports, one of the big surprises was the allowance of the finger in the trigger guard when drawing and moving.  

I understand and a lot of confusion of the rules comes from people equating rules from other shooting sports to SASS. The reason we can put our booger picker on the boom button is because we use single actions that will not fire unless cocked first. Hence no moving with a cocked firearm.

[Boggus Deal #64218]

On 11/30/2025 at 9:24 AM, Captain Bill Burt said:

What if (I know, I’m sorry, I’m sorry) a shooter puts a cocked revolver in his holster at the loading table, takes his hand off of it and just stands there? SDQ?

Or, if it were corrected at the loading table, would it be a no call? 

[Shawnee Hills]

1 hour ago, Tennessee williams said:

The difference is the proposed rule that this entire thread is about. The proposed rule would change a revolver that is cocked with any live rounds in the cylinder which has been REholstered to a MDQ while leaving a revolver with the hammer back with live rounds in the cylinder that is initially holstered still a SDQ. 

I agree. But. To me, it should be a MDQ whether initially holstered or REholstered.

Since a revolver that is returned to holster may have a round under the cocked hammer, there's still no difference.  A revolver initially holstered cocked with live rounds likely has a live round under the hammer.  We're agreeing on the same penalty here.

1 hour ago, Tennessee williams said:

You don't smell what I'm cooking. The above is about an empty revolver. Yes, a SDQ was earned as soon as the revolver left that shooters hand. What you don't realize, is it was said that if that same shooter, after releasing that revolver takes a step before the TO can stop them and have them correct the hammer being back then they have then changed locations with a cocked revolver earning a 2nd stage DQ for the one stage. 2 stage DQ on the same stage equals a Match Disqualification. 

Yes indeed and so be it.  If it happens there's only one person to blame.

1 hour ago, Tennessee williams said:

When you were caught with your hammer back, had you moved locations? If so, then it is said you should have gotten a MATCH DISQUALIFICATION instead of the sdq you received. That is with an EMPTY REVOLVER. 

Done on stand-and-deliver or revolver last stages and I caught and called them on myself.  TOs can't catch everything.

1 hour ago, Tennessee williams said:

The reason we can put our booger picker on the boom button is because we use single actions that will not fire unless cocked first. Hence no moving with a cocked firearm.

Is not the shooter's arm and hand moving when returning revolvers to leather?  Is a cocked revolver with a live round under the hammer not a concern when returned to a holster that might not have clearance for a finger in the trigger guard?  I know I'm splitting hairs here but the fact does remain.

 

Fundamentally, is there reason for the proposed rule change?  Have there been problems with how it's already written?  If it hasn't been a problem then there's no need for discussion or a change.

[Tennessee williams]

24 minutes ago, Shawnee Hills said:

I sure wish I could find that horse I'm having to beat on. 

24 minutes ago, Shawnee Hills said:

 

 

Since a revolver that is returned to holster may have a round under the cocked hammer, there's still no difference.  A revolver initially holstered cocked with live rounds likely has a live round under the hammer.  We're agreeing on the same penalty here.

No. Right now those are both sdq penalties for a stationary shooter on the line of fire. Let me try this again. Doesn't matter where the live round is as long as there is atleast one in the cylinder under the proposed rule change. The current rule is a SDQ for the hammer to be back on an empty revolver as well as a revolver with a live round in it in the holster out of hand whether it has been unholstered and reholstered or has not been out of the holster yet. We agree they SHOULD be a mdq. The proposed rule change will only change the call on the one where the revolver has been unholstered and then REholstered to a MDQ. The revolver that has not been unholstered and reholstered will remain a SDQ.

24 minutes ago, Shawnee Hills said:

 

Is not the shooter's arm and hand moving when returning revolvers to leather?  Is a cocked revolver with a live round under the hammer not a concern when returned to a holster that might not have clearance for a finger in the trigger guard?  I know I'm splitting hairs here but the fact does remain. 

I don't want to try to understand any of this^, lol.

24 minutes ago, Shawnee Hills said:

Fundamentally, is there reason for the proposed rule change?  Have there been problems with how it's already written?  If it hasn't been a problem then there's no need for discussion or a change.

Yes. There are very real concerns by various people who believe this should be a Match DQ instead of the SDQ that it currently is. I just happen to believe it should be a Match DQ on ANY holstered revolver with live rounds in the cylinder and the hammer back. Not just a re-holstered one.

[Randy Saint Eagle, SASS # 64903]

2 hours ago, Tennessee williams said:

I agree. But. To me, it should be a MDQ whether initially holstered or REholstered.

 

I agree that a holstered, cocked revolver, with unfired rounds in it should be an MDQ, no matter how it ended up that way.

 

1 hour ago, Shawnee Hills said:

Fundamentally, is there reason for the proposed rule change?  Have there been problems with how it's already written?  If it hasn't been a problem then there's no need for discussion or a change.

 

I think the fundamental reason for the proposed rule change is SAFETY. 

 

Randy

[Eyesa Horg]

Bottom line, don't be putting a cocked revolver in a holster period! 

[Tennessee williams]

34 minutes ago, Eyesa Horg said:

Bottom line, don't be putting a cocked revolver in a holster period! 

Perzactly 

[Shawnee Hills]

6 hours ago, Tennessee williams said:

I don't want to try to understand any of this^, lol.

This is actually supportive of your earlier points about an accidentally cocked revolver.

 

If this is a serious enough safety issue then the rule should also prohibit a finger inside the trigger guard until the revolver is pointed at least 45 degrees down range.  Yes, that is redundant to what’s already written but helps cover a multitude of scenarios. 

[Captain Bill Burt]

8 hours ago, Shawnee Hills said:

This is actually supportive of your earlier points about an accidentally cocked revolver.

 

If this is a serious enough safety issue then the rule should also prohibit a finger inside the trigger guard until the revolver is pointed at least 45 degrees down range.  Yes, that is redundant to what’s already written but helps cover a multitude of scenarios. 

I think that would be a real challenge for TO’s to consistently enforce.

[Tucker McNeely]

TNW, I had similar questions and got a similar response from PWB. Yes, a loaded cocked revolver in the holster should be a MDQ.  You are sweeping a human with a cocked and loaded revolver.

[Renegade Plowboy]

On 12/4/2025 at 8:01 PM, Tucker McNeely said:

You are sweeping a human with a cocked and loaded revolver

How so? The own shooters foot probably but If your sweeping another shooter, than your breaking the 170 as well. That in itself is a different penalty that hopefully would be addressed long before a shooter got so distracted as doing it with loaded pistols as well. 
 

For the rest of ya; How many of you in normal life carry concealed with a round in the chamber? How many do it with a semi auto with internal hammer that is cocked as well? Is this considered incredibly dangerous as well so you’re going to stop that? 
   My opinion, I see more shooters forcible discard (throw down or drop with enough force that the long gun bounces) long guns, especially the rifle, with rounds still in it. To me this poses a larger chance for a possible AD than the pistol scenario.  Are you going to whine that that is a dangerous practice and a MDQ should apply in that case instead of a SDQ as well?  Sheesh, that would MDQ at least 2 shooters per event many times more. (This of course is dependent on whether the TO  took the time to observe where the live round was as to it being a loaded or unload gun out of shooters hand, which I rarely see happen before shooter picks rifle back up, closes it and fires the last round) 
 

my opinion, everything we do “could be incredibly dangerous”. Just because it could be incredibly dangerous is not a good enough reason to change the current penalty system from a SDQ to a MDQ. 
 

I’m a NO on changing. 
 

My opinion, the rules should be applied equally. Pistols, rifles, shotgun should all be following the same guidelines. The same for each at the loading table through the unloading table. Be consistent with every single gun! If you can walk from the loading table to the firing line with hammer back on rifle, and you get to pull trigger and if a round does not go off, you get to complete the stage, than similar rules should apply to pistols as well. 

Edited December 8 by Renegade Plowboy
Clarification. Hopefully.

[Captain Bill Burt]

8 hours ago, Renegade Plowboy said:

How so? The own shooters foot probably but If your sweeping another shooter, than your breaking the 170 as well. That in itself is a different penalty that hopefully would be addressed long before a shooter got so distracted as doing it with loaded pistols as well. 
 

For the rest of ya; How many of you in normal life carry concealed with a round in the chamber? How many do it with a semi auto with internal hammer that is cocked as well? Is this considered incredibly dangerous as well so you’re going to stop that? 
   My opinion, I see more shooters forcible discard (throw down or drop with enough force that the long gun bounces) long guns, especially the rifle, with rounds still in it. To me this poses a larger chance for a possible AD than the pistol scenario.  Are you going to whine that that is a dangerous practice and a MDQ should apply in that case instead of a SDQ as well?  Sheesh, that would MDQ at least 2 shooters per event many times more. (This of course is dependent on whether the TO  took the time to observe where the live round was as to it being a loaded or unload gun out of shooters hand, which I rarely see happen before shooter picks rifle back up, closes it and fires the last round) 
 

my opinion, everything we do “could be incredibly dangerous”. Just because it could be incredibly dangerous is not a good enough reason to change the current penalty system from a SDQ to a MDQ. 
 

I’m a NO on changing. 
 

My opinion, the rules should be applied equally. Pistols, rifles, shotgun should all be following the same guidelines. The same for each at the loading table through the unloading table. Be consistent with every single gun! If you can walk from the loading table to the firing line with hammer back on rifle, and you get to pull trigger and if a round does not go off, you get to complete the stage, than similar rules should apply to pistols as well. 

There are so many things wrong with this post I’m unsure where to begin.

 

1. The shooter is sweeping himself (herself) with a loaded cocked firearm that does not have a safety  and they’re likely doing it without knowing they are snd it’s during a competition when things are happening very quickly.

 

2. Equating that firearm status to a holstered, cocked self defense firearm that has a trigger and/or hammer safety engaged is not even close to a valid comparison.

 

3. Your profile says you’re a guest, not a SASS member, but you’re offering an opinion on the rules of an organization you don’t belong to?

Edited December 8 by Captain Bill Burt

[Renegade Plowboy]

23 hours ago, Captain Bill Burt said:

There are so many things wrong with this post I’m unsure where to begin.

 

1. The shooter is sweeping himself (herself) with a loaded cocked firearm that does not have a safety  and they’re likely doing it without knowing they are snd it’s during a competition when things are happening very quickly.

 

2. Equating that firearm status to a holstered, cocked self defense firearm that has a trigger and/or hammer safety engaged is not even close to a valid comparison.

 

3. Your profile says you’re a guest, not a SASS member, but you’re offering an opinion on the rules of an organization you don’t belong to?

3). Am I breaking any rules by offering any input on this thread, topic, forum? Did the OP only ask for input from SASS members only? If he did, I missed that. It’s also my understanding that SASS membership is not directly voting on this issue. The TG are. TG represent the SASS affiliated clubs. So if a person is a SASS affiliated club member and the TG poles his club members, than he is getting the advice of his club members who may not be SASS members as well. You going to discredit a TG vote because the club they represent has non SASS members on its roles as well? 
 

2).  I shoot Uberti pistols with 4 click hammers. (Well they have 4 distinct clicks as I pull the hammer back) I shoot a 73 rifle. Both of these guns have what I think are called safety notches in there hammer. The ubertis  have a half cock notch I think it’s called as well (hammer position to let the cylinder spin to load/unload it). The only time either of these guns will allow the hammer to fall is when the hammer is at full cock position. Giving someone a MDQ for a gun that’s on a safety notch, or half cock notch that you can’t pull the trigger and release the trigger with is overboard.  An SDQ ruins your stage.  An MDQ ruins your day and possibly a multi day event. As it’s been explained to me by high ranking SASS members at the club I do belong to, a gun that comes to the line with the hammer in any position except fully down is considered loaded and cocked and the appropriate rules need to be followed to figure out if it’s considered loaded or not and if or what penalties apply. This scenario plays out with 73 rifles quite often. Yes, long ago I got enlightened to this with the hammer of my 73 being in the safety notch. (At least that’s what I think it is referred to as). 
Gun Safety's aren’t 100% fool proof. As noted recently by a manufacturer who pulled a model from their line because of too many safety failures/accidental discharges/unintended discharges or whatever they classified them as. Years ago a MFG had to take action because a model of their bolt action rifles were having AD because of issues and safety’s not keeping the cocked hammers from falling and causing them to fire. 

1). Please explain to me how they are sweeping themselves. Again, yes the shooter is sweeping their foot and possibly leg. The shooter is also doing this with every time they carry their pistols in their holster. 
Giving someone a MDQ for a pistol with the hammer in a safety notch is overboard, still my opinion. Just like rifles, there should be steps to take to determine what level, if any, of penalty should be assessed. Not just a broad blanket and anything less than hammer fully  down equal MDQ.. 

 

To add: the proposed rule does not differentiate from where a live round in the pistol can be for the penalty. It just says “with unfired rounds” It is possible that the unfired round is not under the hammer of that pistol. 
 

if the conversation is never had, no one can ever learn. 

[Eyesa Horg]

If I show up at your club, I'll be sure to not be near you!

You also haven't been reading all the Moderators warnings about scammers. You might want to remove your email addy from your profile. The foot you shoot may not be your own.