What’s the call

[Bucky Buckskin]

Shooter during stage which was rifle shotgun pistols from three location shoots rifle then moves to shot gun which is a sxs and shoots two reloads shoots two opens shotgun shucks goes to move when the time operator notifies shooter stuck hull and then shooter swipes /slaps hand at stuck hull twice hit barrels more then hull and hull still in chamber sxs then declares shotgun broke sets down and finishes stage with pistols. 

[The Original Lumpy Gritz]

How was it called?

[Bucky Buckskin]

Minor safety shooter said no call since he declared it broke 

[El Sobrante Kid]

Was the hull stuck fully in the chamber, or just part way?

[Bucky Buckskin]

The hull was extracted by extractor before shooter could pick shotgun up off table after stage the time operator took his finger and popped shell out no issues to be clear the gun was is fully functional and still fully functional it was a stuck hull that shooter put little effort in to remove and declared broke instead of taking time to remove it like actually using fingers to grab hull and pull out 

Edited July 11 by Bucky Buckskin

[Cowtown Scout, SASS #53540 L]

Minor Safety

[Shawnee Hills]

27 minutes ago, El Sobrante Kid said:

Was the hull stuck fully in the chamber, or just part way?

Doesn’t matter.  As long as some part of the hull remains in the chamber it’s still a minor safety.  
 

It also doesn’t matter if the shooter called a ‘broke gun’.  He still has earned a minor safety and is flirting with a SOG if he persists with his argument.

[El Sobrante Kid]

Of course it matters. It was unclear in the OP where the hull was stuck.  If the hull is truly stuck all the way in the chamber and the extractor is either broken or slipped over the rim of the case and the shell will not extract, then the gun is BROKEN. If the extractor is working and the hull is partially out of the chamber and moveable, then the MS violation is valid. 

 

[Bucky Buckskin]

I felt strongly I was correct that you cant just say broke gun to get you out of your responsibility of clearing hull the shotgun hull. The shotgun did it’s part it opened and extracted shells. A hull that sticks is not a broke gun but he was adamant it was fine because he said broke gun. I just want to make sure I was right or I owe him a big apology because he was upset over it. I kind of hope I am wrong because I will never clear a stuck hull again will just declare broke. 

[doc roy l. pain]

I would side with your minor safety if the shooter made no attempt to pull the hull out. We’ve all been there where a hull wouldn’t fall out by gravity or even a hard shuck. If the extractors had pulled the round up and done their job, then I can see no grounds for declaring a broke gun in that situation and would apply the proper penalty. 

[Eyesa Horg]

 

32 minutes ago, El Sobrante Kid said:

Of course it matters. It was unclear in the OP where the hull was stuck.  If the hull is truly stuck all the way in the chamber and the extractor is either broken or slipped over the rim of the case and the shell will not extract, then the gun is BROKEN. If the extractor is working and the hull is partially out of the chamber and moveable, then the MS violation is valid. 

 

In the OPs follow up he says the TI just pulled it out with his fingers and the extractor had pulled them out. I vote the minor safety.

[Shawnee Hills]

1 hour ago, El Sobrante Kid said:

Of course it matters. It was unclear in the OP where the hull was stuck.  If the hull is truly stuck all the way in the chamber and the extractor is either broken or slipped over the rim of the case and the shell will not extract, then the gun is BROKEN. If the extractor is working and the hull is partially out of the chamber and moveable, then the MS violation is valid. 

 

Please see Bucky's third post in this thread.  If the hull was extracted and the TO flipped it out with his finger then the gun remains fully functional.

[Shawnee Hills]

2 hours ago, Bucky Buckskin said:

I felt strongly I was correct that you cant just say broke gun to get you out of your responsibility of clearing hull the shotgun hull. The shotgun did it’s part it opened and extracted shells. A hull that sticks is not a broke gun but he was adamant it was fine because he said broke gun. I just want to make sure I was right or I owe him a big apology because he was upset over it. I kind of hope I am wrong because I will never clear a stuck hull again will just declare broke. 

You were right to call the MS.  No shooter can simply call "broke gun" to get out of shucking their hulls.

 

The shooter needs to understand that by his actions he is hoping to gain a competitive advantage by avoiding a penalty and that can easily be considered a SOG infraction.  I'm normally a pretty easy-going TO but would definitely call the SOG if someone did that and then got upset that I wouldn't let him get away with it.

Edited July 11 by Shawnee Hills
Remove redundant wording

[Bucky Buckskin]

It’s a hard line to blur. Any shooter who shucked and one shell fell out and one stayed in like what happened could argue I tried and then just declare broke and go about there day not taking the time to actually remove the hull which can be not fun at times but ultimately the shooters responsibility.  I would not have made the call if something was broke the shooter slapped at the hull once or twice but was hitting the barrels more then the hull and should have just taken the time to actually grab it with his fingers. I just don’t want to make a wrong call and he was very upset about my call

[John Kloehr]

I am going to be the contrarian. No call.

 

Explaining why... First, by at least most of the rules, MSV is the right call. The rules clearly state:

 

"

 

A shotgun is considered SAFE to leave the shooter’s hands in the following condition only

(some conditions may be corrected before firing the next firearm) :

- Empty.

 

"

 

Not empty, so this starts with a presumption of MSV. And:

 

"

 

A shotgun is considered SAFE for movement (in hand, while moving through a stage) in the

following conditions only:

- Action open, round in chamber or on carrier.

- Hammer(s) fully down on an empty chamber(s) or expended round(s), action

closed.

 

"

 

Can't close it as the spent round is partially out of the chamber. But being aware it would be safe for movement open with live rounds. The rules also state:

 

"

 

Malfunctioning firearms still containing rounds will not warrant penalties

(except misses for unfired rounds) so long as the malfunction is declared and the

firearm is made safe.

 

"

 

No distinction for live or spent rounds. The malfunction was declared.

 

Respectfully going to disagree with the call even though I see it in the rules. It looks like the call depends on if the malfunction is confirmed after the fact compared to determined under the stress of competition. This is wrong.

 

So someone is going to get an MSV for the shotgun because later inspection found the spent round was not actually stuck? But no penalty if it had actually been stuck? Even if it had been a live round? Not even if the shotgun with live rounds was jammed shut and could not open? Plus the shotgun would have been safe for movement open not only with a spent round but also with live rounds in the chamber? And a verified bad gun would have no safety penalty for live rounds (this event being a spent round partially out of the chamber)?

 

SOG? What about BOD? In this narrow case, BOD should go to the shooter. Shooter perceived bad gun and declared it so. TO had already prompted with "stuck shell." With the spent round partially out of the chamber, setting it down open and pointed in a safe direction is a safe discard for this declared bad gun. I would have tried specifically plucking it out, the OP states the shooter "slaps hand at stuck hull twice hit barrels more then hull" indicating he did connect with the hull. While the effort to clear it failed, there was a clear effort.

 

So respectfully, out of consideration for all possible declarations of a bad gun, I do not want to allow the possibility of a shooter not declaring a bad gun because it might result in a penalty after the fact if the alternative might be continuing and having something really bad happen.

 

Gee, was that a squib? Thought it was a squib, maybe. Already cocked the gun before I realized it. Better keep shooting as I don't want an MSV later if the barrel is clear. It has a cocked hammer and a live round in the chamber. Do I discard declaring bad gun? Maybe the barrel shows clear after the fact. What if the barrel does have a chunk of lead blocking it?

 

Edited July 11 by John Kloehr
grammar

[Shawnee Hills]

6 minutes ago, John Kloehr said:

I am going to be the contrarian. No call.

 

Explaining why... First, by at least most of the rules, MSV is the right call. The rules clearly state:

 

"

 

A shotgun is considered SAFE to leave the shooter’s hands in the following condition only

(some conditions may be corrected before firing the next firearm) :

- Empty.

 

"

 

Not empty, so this starts with a presumption of MSV. And:

 

"

 

A shotgun is considered SAFE for movement (in hand, while moving through a stage) in the

following conditions only:

- Action open, round in chamber or on carrier.

- Hammer(s) fully down on an empty chamber(s) or expended round(s), action

closed.

 

"

 

Can't close it as the spent round is partially out of the chamber. But being aware it would be safe for movement open with live rounds. The rules also state:

 

"

 

Malfunctioning firearms still containing rounds will not warrant penalties

(except misses for unfired rounds) so long as the malfunction is declared and the

firearm is made safe.

 

"

 

No distinction for live or spent rounds. The malfunction was declared.

 

Respectfully going to disagree with the call even though I see it in the rules. It looks like the call depends on if the malfunction is confirmed after the fact compared to determined under the stress of competition. This is wrong.

 

So someone is going to get an MSV for the shotgun because later inspection found the spent round was not actually stuck? But no penalty if it had actually been stuck? Even if it had been a live round? Not even if the shotgun with live rounds was jammed shut and could not open? Plus the shotgun would have been safe for movement open not only with a spent round but also with live rounds in the chamber? And a verified bad gun would have no safety penalty for live rounds (this event being a spent round partially out of the chamber)?

 

SOG? What about BOD? In this narrow case, BOD should go to the shooter. Shooter perceived bad gun and declared it so. TO had already prompted with "stuck shell." With the spent round partially out of the chamber, setting it down open and pointed in a safe direction is a safe discard for this declared bad gun. I would have tried specifically plucking it out, the OP states the shooter "slaps hand at stuck hull twice hit barrels more then hull" indicating he did connect with the hull. While the effort to clear it failed, there was a clear effort.

 

So respectfully, out of consideration for all possible declarations of a bad gun, I do not want to allow the possibility of a shooter not declaring a bad gun because it might result in a penalty after the fact if the alternative might be continuing and having something really bad happen.

 

Gee, was that a squib? Thought it was a squib, maybe. Already cocked the gun before I realized it. Better keep shooting as I don't want an MSV later if the barrel is clear. It has a cocked hammer and a live round in the chamber. Do I discard declaring bad gun? Maybe the barrel shows clear after the fact. What if the barrel does have a chunk of lead blocking it?

 

You’re way overthinking this.  The functionality of the shotgun has already been confirmed; nothing was broken.  The statement about the shooter being upset about the MS call suggests that either he doesn’t understand the rules or was trying to gain a competitive advantage by avoiding a penalty that he clearly earned.   MS is the correct call.

[John Kloehr]

14 minutes ago, Shawnee Hills said:

You’re way overthinking this.  The functionality of the shotgun has already been confirmed; nothing was broken.  The statement about the shooter being upset about the MS call suggests that either he doesn’t understand the rules or was trying to gain a competitive advantage by avoiding a penalty that he clearly earned.   MS is the correct call.

 

I'm recognizing it is the right call per the rules.

 

My problem is this call depends on verifying the gun is bad after the fact. Wrong philosophy from a safety standpoint. Someone declares bad gun due to a perceived squib, realized it after cocking for the next shot. After the fact, the gun barrel (a revolver for this example) is shown clear, no obstruction, no malfunction. SDQ for discarding a gun with a live round in the chamber under a cocked hammer (cocked revolver leaving the shooters hand)? That can not be right.

 

Edited July 11 by John Kloehr
add "barrel" and "no obstruction"

[doc roy l. pain]

37 minutes ago, Bucky Buckskin said:

It’s a hard line to blur. Any shooter who shucked and one shell fell out and one stayed in like what happened could argue I tried and then just declare broke and go about there day not taking the time to actually remove the hull which can be not fun at times but ultimately the shooters responsibility.  I would not have made the call if something was broke the shooter slapped at the hull once or twice but was hitting the barrels more then the hull and should have just taken the time to actually grab it with his fingers. I just don’t want to make a wrong call and he was very upset about my call

You made the correct call according to what you said happened.  Don’t second guess yourself.  If it was an experienced shooter that this happened to, they know you made the correct call, even if the shooters a little hot under the collar right now. 

[Stump Water]

23 minutes ago, Shawnee Hills said:

You’re way overthinking this.

 

And imagining/dreaming up every possible scenario that could possibly happen... including with guns that have nothing to do with the situation.

 

 

37 minutes ago, John Kloehr said:

Gee, was that a squib?

 

How the hell is that even applicable here?  Left up to you the rule book would be a law library.  

 

It's an MSV.  

[doc roy l. pain]

22 minutes ago, John Kloehr said:

 

I'm recognizing it is the right call per the rules.

 

My problem is this call depends on verifying the gun is bad after the fact. Wrong philosophy from a safety standpoint. Someone declares bad gun due to a perceived squib, realized it after cocking for the next shot. After the fact, the gun barrel (a revolver for this example) is shown clear, no obstruction, no malfunction. SDQ for discarding a gun with a live round in the chamber under a cocked hammer (cocked revolver leaving the shooters hand)? That can not be right.

 

First off, you’re getting off track with the situation as it existed in original post.  But, to answer your question as best I can, as a TO I would not allow you to lay down a cocked revolver after a so called squib. I would allow you to lower the hammer and make the gun safe under my supervision, then ground the gun and continue on with the stage. If you lay it down cocked, you’ve brought on the penalty yourself. 

Edited July 11 by doc roy l. pain

[El Sobrante Kid]

2 hours ago, Eyesa Horg said:

 

In the OPs follow up he says the TI just pulled it out with his fingers and the extractor had pulled them out. I vote the minor safety.

 

3 hours ago, El Sobrante Kid said:

Of course it matters. It was unclear in the OP where the hull was stuck.  If the hull is truly stuck all the way in the chamber and the extractor is either broken or slipped over the rim of the case and the shell will not extract, then the gun is BROKEN. If the extractor is working and the hull is partially out of the chamber and moveable, then the MS violation is valid. 

 

 

2 hours ago, Shawnee Hills said:

Please see Bucky's third post in this thread.  If the hull was extracted and the TO flipped it out with his finger then the gun remains fully functional.

 

You can armchair quarterback all you want to, I won't get in your way. But you can't claim to know all the facts before they are presented. My question was asked based on the limited information presented in the OP in his first and second post. The additional info about the hull being partially out of the chamber came after I posted the question. If you actually are able to divine information without the aid of facts, then accept my apology... and my admiration.

[John Kloehr]

43 minutes ago, doc roy l. pain said:

First off, you’re getting off track with the situation as it existed in original post.  But, to answer your question as best I can, as a TO I would not allow you to lay down a cocked revolver after a so called squib. I would allow you to lower the hammer and make the gun safe under my supervision, then ground the gun and continue on with the stage. If you lay it down cocked, you’ve brought on the penalty yourself. 

 

OK, I can go along with this. Hammer is still down on a live round. Which means your instruction results in "a live round is under the hammer, a Stage Disqualification penalty is assessed." The escape here is the declaration of a bad gun.

 

Maybe I am over generalizing. Off track only because I was searching for a clearer example for why a bad gun call should not potentially carry penalties after the fact.

 

My point is if a shooter calls bad gun and it later turns out to not be a bad gun, should retroactive penalties apply? A shooter should not have to worry about a penalty if a safety call is wrong, it is a safety call. Other than this consideration, it is an MSV.

[doc roy l. pain]

4 minutes ago, John Kloehr said:

 

OK, I can go along with this. Hammer is still down on a live round. Which means your instruction results in "a live round is under the hammer, a Stage Disqualification penalty is assessed." The escape here is the declaration of a bad gun.

 

Maybe I am over generalizing. Off track only because I was searching for a clearer example for why a bad gun call should not potentially carry penalties after the fact.

 

My point is if a shooter calls bad gun and it later turns out to not be a bad gun, should retroactive penalties apply? A shooter should not have to worry about a penalty if a safety call is wrong, it is a safety call. Other than this consideration, it is an MSV.

Hammer is not down on a live round. I specifically said that the gun is made safe under the supervision of the TO before it is laid down. That means on a spent round or on the empty chamber.  Sometimes, by your answers, I don’t think you fully know how the firearms in our game actually work. 

[John Kloehr]

7 minutes ago, doc roy l. pain said:

Hammer is not down on a live round. I specifically said that the gun is made safe under the supervision of the TO before it is laid down. That means on a spent round or on the empty chamber.  Sometimes, by your answers, I don’t think you fully know how the firearms in our game actually work. 

I know how my guns work. I do not know all guns in this sport (ex: cap and ball). But fine, I could go through the manipulations to go to half cock and rotate the cylinder back to a spent case and lower the hammer. If this is correct, then even if I am still wrong in my question, the side question was worth it.

 

My core question remains, and referring to:

 

"

 

Malfunctioning firearms still containing rounds will not warrant penalties

(except misses for unfired rounds) so long as the malfunction is declared and the

firearm is made safe.

 

"

 

Can or should a penalty apply if the declared malfunction is not verified after the fact. And how safe can a shotgun with an apparent spent stuck shell be made? Set down with action open in a safe direction is the only option I see. I see no other option to continue with the stage. And no-one above is questioning how it was set down, it is a question of confirming the malfunction after the fact.

[wyliefoxEsquire]

Based ONLY on the initial post, No call.  The shooter did attempt to clear the gun, per the OP. At this point it is all speculation as to the shooter intent.  No-Call.

 

Does the third post include any valuable information?  All I read is opinion. ---> no call

 

Did the shooter spend enough time to clear the gun?  That is a matter of opinion based on the posts.

 

Did the shooter declare "Bad gun" to gain an advantage?  Opinion!!!   

 

Should there be another rule to enforce regarding the effort performed by the shooter?  Let your TG know.

 

[Shawnee Hills]

33 minutes ago, wyliefoxEsquire said:

Based ONLY on the initial post, No call.  The shooter did attempt to clear the gun, per the OP. At this point it is all speculation as to the shooter intent.  No-Call.

 

Does the third post include any valuable information?  All I read is opinion. ---> no call

 

Did the shooter spend enough time to clear the gun?  That is a matter of opinion based on the posts.

 

Did the shooter declare "Bad gun" to gain an advantage?  Opinion!!!   

 

Should there be another rule to enforce regarding the effort performed by the shooter?  Let your TG know.

 

While he hasn’t stated it explicitly, the information that Bucky has provided in his replies strongly suggests that he was the TO.  The TO has a front row seat to what a shooter is doing on the line but his calls are just opinions??  The MS penalty in this case is about as clear as it gets; no “opinion” about it.  
 

Regarding the shooter’s behavior afterwards, yes, it is possible that he wasn’t trying to gain a competitive advantage but his claiming that declaring “broke gun” when it wasn’t certainly suggests that he was.  At the very least, he was trying to get the TO to reconsider his call.  Depending on the severity of the behavior, the shooter risks an “unsportsmanlike conduct” call.

 

If we’re not going to enforce rules then why have any at all??

[doc roy l. pain]

32 minutes ago, John Kloehr said:

I know how my guns work. I do not know all guns in this sport (ex: cap and ball). But fine, I could go through the manipulations to go to half cock and rotate the cylinder back to a spent case and lower the hammer. If this is correct, then even if I am still wrong in my question, the side question was worth it.

 

My core question remains, and referring to:

 

"

 

 

Malfunctioning firearms still containing rounds will not warrant penalties

(except misses for unfired rounds) so long as the malfunction is declared and the

firearm is made safe.

 

"

 

Can or should a penalty apply if the declared malfunction is not verified after the fact. And how safe can a shotgun with an apparent spent stuck shell be made? Set down with action open in a safe direction is the only option I see. I see no other option to continue with the stage. And no-one above is questioning how it was set down, it is a question of confirming the malfunction after the fact.

John, all declared broke guns have been verified after the fact as long as I have been in this game.  It doesn’t necessarily mean the gun is broke, it’s just not capable of finishing the stage with. Could be gun or ammunition problem, or even operator error. Even if as a shooter, you suspect that you had a squib and you declare broke and ground the gun, it will be inspected for a squib. If one is found, you get a reshoot. If none is found, shooter receives appropriate penalty.  Same goes if the TO instructs you to ground the gun because he suspects a possible squib.  The rules may not be perfect, but they are what they are.  I’ve never seen a sxs laid down and declared broke for a stuck hull unless something mechanical went wrong like mentioned above where maybe the extractor jumped over the rim and would not allow the hull to be pulled out by hand. 
I understand your question about assessing a penalty or not after the fact, but I don’t see any other way of doing it.  There’s no great prize money awarded in this game so each participant has to take it upon themselves whether to risk a penalty or the safety of themselves or others for the sake of a fast time or not. I will always act toward safety. I also will not ground a firearm and declare it broke just to save a few seconds.  I still stand by my statement in an earlier post that if this was an experienced shooter, they knew exactly what they were trying to achieve. 

[Captain Bill Burt]

Minor safety. What’s that you say? The shooter wants to argue about it? Minor Safety.
 

Still arguing? Unsportsmanlike conduct. Next shooter.

[The Revenuer]

Clear minor safety in my opinion 

[Jackalope]

10 hours ago, doc roy l. pain said:

Even if as a shooter, you suspect that you had a squib and you declare broke and ground the gun, it will be inspected for a squib. If one is found, you get a reshoot.

Howdy Doc,

 

I agree with everything you spelled out, but I don't think this statement is accurate.  It's my understanding, in this case, that a reshoot is only applicable if the RO instructs you to ground the gun for a suspected squib which does not actually exist.

[Jack Spade]

Minor Safety is the correct call, Next shooter. 

[Lucky R. K.]

This has been a really long string about what should have been a simple answer. Woulda, coulda, shoulda had nothing to do with this. If the description of the actions is accurate, per the OP, the guy should have received the MSP and if he argued about it the SOG.

Lucky 😁

[doc roy l. pain]

1 hour ago, Jackalope said:

Howdy Doc,

 

I agree with everything you spelled out, but I don't think this statement is accurate.  It's my understanding, in this case, that a reshoot is only applicable if the RO instructs you to ground the gun for a suspected squib which does not actually exist.

You’re probably right about that, but I’ve seen several times where the shooter would recognize a squib and turn to the TO and say I’m gonna ground it and the TO would agree. In that case the TO did not actually tell the shooter to ground the gun, so if the gun was found after the fact that the barrel was clear, I’m not sure that would warrant a penalty or not. I’d let the match director handle that call. Lol

[wyliefoxEsquire]

18 hours ago, Bucky Buckskin said:

and then shooter swipes /slaps hand at stuck hull twice hit barrels more then hull and hull still in chamber sxs then declares shotgun broke sets down

 

11 hours ago, Shawnee Hills said:

While he hasn’t stated it explicitly, the information that Bucky has provided in his replies strongly suggests that he was the TO.  The TO has a front row seat to what a shooter is doing on the line but his calls are just opinions??  The MS penalty in this case is about as clear as it gets; no “opinion” about it.

19 hours ago, Bucky Buckskin said:

stuck hull that shooter put little effort in to remove

Based on the three posts, I would agree that the shooter took advantage of the "stuck hull" and choose to declare the gun "bad" in order to save time.  

It is possible the shooter suspected something was not right with the firearm, and in the shooters opinion at that time it may have been  a malfunction versus a stoppage. What to do?  

21 hours ago, Bucky Buckskin said:

the time operator took his finger and popped shell out no issues

Now the problem is amplified.  Ideally the TO would only allow the shooter to handle the gun as the TO suspected it was not a malfunction.  At which point the shooter demonstrates how easily the hull was removed.  Now, what to call?  The TO could say something like "You saw how easily the hull was removed, you should have taken the time, MSV.  If the shooter argues, SOG.

Because the TO handled the gun, then a warning would be appropriate, benefit of doubt goes to shooter.  SOG next time.

 

 

 

[Bucky Buckskin]

The time operator never handle gun till after stage was done and then he did not handle it he just flicked the shell out of gun laying on table where shooter placed it when shooter declared it broke to demonstrate to shooter it was not broke just needed to be pulled from barrels as the extractor removed it as far as it could