The RO "Did not see his finger on the trigger"
The match gunsmith says " Trigger group works, but doesn't look right" in other words it could have malfunctioned, it may have, it may not have.

The round did not leave the range, it impacted the berm. Can we safely assume that the gun did not leave the table on being fired? THat is remained facing downrange and was in no other way presented in an unsafe manner?

I would go with benefit of the doubt to the shooter, although I would declare the particular firearm unsafe and require he use a substitiute for the balance of the match.

Jim

Yes, and AD did occur but the shot landed safely and no penalty should be asessed. The competitor's gun should be removed from the rest of the match under " 5.1.6 Handguns must be serviceable and safe. Range Officers may
demand examination of a competitor’s handgun or related equipment,
at any time, to check they are functioning safely. If any
such item is declared unserviceable or unsafe by a Range Officer,
it must be withdrawn from the match until the item is repaired to
the satisfaction of the Range Master." Rule 10.4.6 doesn't apply properly to this incident due to competitor's hand touched the gun on the table ( was the start position behind the table?) The table should also be checked to ensure that is not interfering with proper retrieval of a gun from it to prevent future incidences.

well, it was an unsafe gun for any reasons or we don't know if the competitor is telling the truth that he did not accidentally pulled the trigger since the event was so fast that even RO wasn't able to noticed it! so to be safe and fair to all shooters and officials I would delare it DQ.We all know that a competitor must be responsible with his equipment to be safe and serviceable during the course of fire and our aim is to produce safety through out the entire duration of the competition.

After reading & reading the original situation & the statement of the match gunsmith, I can not find anything that absolves the shooter of the responsibility for the AD and would uphold the DQ. While we all hate to send a shooter home early, we can not allow ourselves to second guess a safety problem. Yes we could use the words of the gunsmith "things in the trigger group don't look right" to consider the use of 5.1.6 as meaning an unsafe gun, however, the gun did not cause the AD.

A few data points:
1) The start position was directly behind the table.
2) The table did not interfere with the function or retrieval of the gun in any way.
3) Both the RO and the competitor stated that the competitor did not have his finger on the trigger.

Safeties? We don't need no stinking safeties?

5.1.6 may apply if safeties were inoperable. 8.1.1 and 8.1.2 (and sub-sections) also may apply if the competitor did not have the handgun in the proper ready condition (safeties not applies, hammer not de-cocked, etc.).

However, this is not a DQ because the conditions of 10.4 do not apply (although 10.4.9 may).

If the conditions of 5.1.6 and 5.7.6 apply (and I think they do in this case) then apply 5.7.6.1. Fix the gun or get use a replacement gun. Score for the stage is zero.

If this is not an unsafe firearm then it is a failure to comply with 8.1.1 or 8.1.2 and therefore 8.2.1 (Competitor Ready Condition) was not satisfied. The RO should never had started him/her in the first place. Reshoot the stage.

I would say reshoot. Nothing conclusive was determined when the gun was examined, and the RO admitted that he didn't see the competitor with his finger in the trigger guard. If the RO cannot CONCLUSIVELY determine that the competitor was doing something unsafe, then the shooter should be reinstated (he said it happened too quickly to make a determination). When the RO waffles like that, you have no other choice IMHO. You gotta see it, not think you kinda maybe saw something.

Jeff LaFave
B23

The round hit the berm ... not an AD.

The gun was not declared 'unsafe' by a competent gunsmith ... the gun isn't ejected from the match.

Ruling: reshoot, no penalty, no DQ.

Comment: I want to know why the gun discharged, if the gunsmith said it was not unsafe and the RO said the shooter didn't touch the trigger. Bad call by the RO? Unsafe gun that wasn't detected by the gunsmith?

I would ask the RM to take the shooter and the gun to a safe 'functional fire' bay and see what happens when he attempts to replicate the situation. That's a Geek Solution, admittedly, but the situation is unclear (if contrived), and it's worth the extra effort to get more information to determine whether the contradiction is due to the RO failing to observe, the shooter is unaware of his actions, or the gunsmith is unable to definitively determine that there is a mechanical failure of the gun.

In other words, it's 'Testing', 'Software', or "Hardware' failure, and ... preliminary evaluation being incapable of determining the cause, further attempts to resolve the issue are required.

Note: The question, as posed, offers no clear solution. Any answer which penalizes the shooter, allows the shooter to continue with the same equipment, or otherwise fails to re-evaluate the situation is unfair, unsafe, unwise and incomplete.

If RO did not see competitors finger on trigger,and bullet impacted the berm {safe direction} and no other rules broken, the match gun smith said the triger group did not look right, replace or repair fire arm and reinstate competitor

using rule 5.1.6. I would declare the handgun unsafe under rule 5.1.4. (function safely as originally intended). Then under rule 10.4.9 grant an exception,give the shooter a 0 for that course of fire,then under rule's 5.1.6 and/or 5.1.7. a chance to repair or replace the handgun before continuing the match. In the case that the shooter choose's to replace the gun rather than repair it in the safety area, the handgun would have to be inspected to ensure that it is functioning safely as originally intended before being allowed to be used again at any match.

It's a reshoot for RO interference :)

10.4.6 doesn't apply in this situation. The shooter was not moving. The RM should have re-instated the competitor instantly and skipped all the rest of the "drama"!

10.4.6 Would be my call. To error on the side of safety is always prudent.
As for 5.1.6 : the gunsmith probably said enough (diplomatically),that the RM was probably asking the shooter to acept the AD and forget trying to get his gun back into service until a gunsmith can replace all the (not exactlies) and the (don't look rights).The next shot could go through his foot.

A couple of points: it may or may not be a DQ, but it's not a reshoot. If the competitor is reinstated under the broken gun rule, he gets a zero for the stage. It's also not RO interference.

However, to date this is a pretty interesting discussion, and for the record, it's not a contrived incident: it really happened several years ago.

Troy

• There's no such thing as "benefit of doubt".
• This was not an "AD" as defined in Rules 10.4.1 to Rule 10.4.7, so the RO's initial basis for the call was incorrect, especially since the criteria for "movement" under Section 8.5 were not satisfied.
• The gunsmith did not find an "actual breakage", hence Rule 10.4.9 does not apply.

Using the USPSA "green book", this is a very difficult call, but I would be inclined to reinstate the competitor, but order that his gun be repaired or replaced, subject to Rule 5.1.7. As an aside, IPSC changed Rule 10.4.9 to read:

10.4.9 Exception: When it can be established that the cause of the discharge is due to a broken or defective part of the firearm, the competitor has not committed any safety infraction in this Section, and a match disqualification will not be invoked, however, the competitor's scores for that course of fire will be zero.

Hence, if this incident occurred at an international match, the "defective part" would enable Rule 10.4.9 to apply.

So Troy, do I get a cookie or not?

Troy - When I stopped the guy that shot a hole through the pan at the Limited Nationals (I DQ'ed him for unsafe gun handling) The RM reinstated him AND gave him a reshoot and called my stopping him RO interference as no real safety infraction had incurred.

I find the differences in these calls by experienced RM's way more disturbing than the actual incident.

I should clarify that my experience was in 2003 before the latest rule book took effect.

I would not consider stopping a competitor for what you considered an AD "RO Interference", nor can it be found defined as such in the rules.

There are no provisions in the rules for "function firing" a gun to test whether it's broken or not: the procedure for this is spelled out.

Vince and several others get cookies.

Stay tuned for another "Hot Topic" soon!

Troy

So what if the gun went bang? We have all been "surprised" more than a few times when our gun went off. It landed downrange and into the berm. There was no reason for the RO to stop the competitor, no reason to check the gun for safety, no reason to contemplate a DQ. Shooter gets a reshoot because RO got a bit too excited.

DC

Under the rule book at the time, or the current one, there are several reasons to stop a competitor if their gun goes off when they are 1) not holding it in their hand and 2) not actually aiming at a target.

A careful re-reading of the original scenario will show that the competitor had not yet actually picked his gun up off the table-he was in the act of retrieving it. There were, in fact, several reasons for the RO to stop the competitor.

The rules from the current book that address this issue are 10.4.6 (the competitor was moving), and 10.4.9 (the broken gun rule). 5.7.6 also applies, because a gun that goes off without someone having actually pulled the trigger is an unsafe gun. 5.1.4 and 5.1.6, and 5.1.7 are also applicable.

Any time a gun goes off unexpectedly, the RO should pay attention, and may be required to stop the competitor. Sometimes this is an "early" shot; most times it's an unsafe act. If erring on the side of safety is getting a "bit too excited", then I'd want a lot of "exciteable" RO's on my staff.

Troy