When you have to shoot, shoot. Don't talk.
Joined:
Jun 2003
Posts:
17659
EE: 100% (59)
PA, USA
Posted: 4/3/2023 9:49:04 AM EDT
|
At the match yesterday I was ROing a CO shooter with a CZ DA/SA with safety. Actually we had a couple in the squad. I guess I just hadn’t noticed until then that these guys were all letting the hammer down and starting in DA with safety off. I get that the safety doesn’t need to be engaged but why is this the rule for CO? I get that you wouldn’t do both but why isn’t it shooter’s choice? If he were shooting an M&P with a thumb safety, it has no hammer, so does that safety need to be engaged? I mean, if the safety were removed then…. |
Whoever double-crosses me and leaves me alive, he understands nothing about Tuco. Nothing!
|
I don't believe there is any rule saying you can't engage/disengage the safety on DA/SA guns in Production or CO. Or for that matter safety-equipped striker-fired guns. BUT, you do have to start with the hammer down on DA/SA guns in Production and CO. The main thing is they don't want cocked and locked starts in Production and Carry Optics. |
Joined:
Feb 2023
Posts:
20
EE: 100% (49)
WI, USA
|
Good question, not sure on the reasoning. Limited can start hammer back with safety on. Not sure why a DA/SA gun in CO cannot. Maybe they think it's an advantage and want you to have that long and heavy first pull, LOL. The odd thing is that with a multi-string stage, it isn't a DQ if you holster the gun with the safety on and hammer back(In CO). So, it apparently isn't a safety issue. My best "guess" is that they want it on even ground with striker fired guns. |
|
Alot of those rules were made because someone on the rulemaking group was trying to fix a PERCIEVED advantage that someone else had. Perfect example is the Para Ordinance LDA series of guns that kind of end up in no-mans land because the name (Light Double Action) doesent match the actual operation of the gun (technically single action regardless of the fact the hammer moves). They named a gun LDA despite the fact that the operation is much closer to Glock's "safe action" than a double action revolver, mostly as a marketing gimmick, but then the purists came out and now a single stack was not welcome in single stack...  |
You got gun law problems, I feel bad for you son. I got 99 problems but a ban ain't one. -Sylvan
|
Originally Posted By Never_A_Wick: Good question, not sure on the reasoning. Limited can start hammer back with safety on. Not sure why a DA/SA gun in CO cannot. Maybe they think it's an advantage and want you to have that long and heavy first pull, LOL. The odd thing is that with a multi-string stage, it isn't a DQ if you holster the gun with the safety on and hammer back(In CO). So, it apparently isn't a safety issue. My best "guess" is that they want it on even ground with striker fired guns. Pretty sure when it was created it was based heavily on production rules which is where the start position came from. Originally Posted By barrysuperhawk: Alot of those rules were made because someone on the rulemaking group was trying to fix a PERCIEVED advantage that someone else had. Perfect example is the Para Ordinance LDA series of guns that kind of end up in no-mans land because the name (Light Double Action) doesent match the actual operation of the gun (technically single action regardless of the fact the hammer moves). They named a gun LDA despite the fact that the operation is much closer to Glock's "safe action" than a double action revolver, mostly as a marketing gimmick, but then the purists came out and now a single stack was not welcome in single stack... Lots of single stacks aren’t allowed in single stack. Silly division for sure. Should have just called it standardish 1911’s only no weirdness |
BikerNut:
Normal people like motorcycles. Real people like motorcycles.
People who don't like motorcycles are just... weird.
Normal people like motorcycles. Real people like motorcycles.
People who don't like motorcycles are just... weird.
When you have to shoot, shoot. Don't talk.
Joined:
Jun 2003
Posts:
17671
EE: 100% (59)
PA, USA
|
Originally Posted By Never_A_Wick: Good question, not sure on the reasoning. Limited can start hammer back with safety on. Not sure why a DA/SA gun in CO cannot. Maybe they think it's an advantage and want you to have that long and heavy first pull, LOL. The odd thing is that with a multi-string stage, it isn't a DQ if you holster the gun with the safety on and hammer back(In CO). So, it apparently isn't a safety issue. My best "guess" is that they want it on even ground with striker fired guns. Actually, one guy (RO) said it was a DQ but 10.5.11.2 says otherwise. My opinion would be that holstering would not be a DQ and if the shooter shoots a stage from that condition it would throw him into open. What say you? |
Whoever double-crosses me and leaves me alive, he understands nothing about Tuco. Nothing!
| If you holster without the safety on you’re done but I think you’re correct about getting bumped to open but I thought that was only if you started the stage that way. It’s been too long so I’m just not sure. |
BikerNut:
Normal people like motorcycles. Real people like motorcycles.
People who don't like motorcycles are just... weird.
Normal people like motorcycles. Real people like motorcycles.
People who don't like motorcycles are just... weird.
Joined:
Feb 2023
Posts:
157
EE: 100% (49)
WI, USA
|
Originally Posted By dogsplat: Actually, one guy (RO) said it was a DQ but 10.5.11.2 says otherwise. My opinion would be that holstering would not be a DQ and if the shooter shoots a stage from that condition it would throw him into open. What say you? Sorry, I missed this. No it is not a DQ if it's holstered with the safety on. Yes, it's a bump to Open. Although at a low level match you might just see the RO say something to correct the shooter, even though they don't have to. |