Ha! You nailed it - I was thinking of that stage specifically when I wrote that post.Originally Posted by Gio
Ha! You nailed it - I was thinking of that stage specifically when I wrote that post.
"When the phone rang, Parker was in the garage, killing a man."
This is conjecture (i.e. my opinion, not a hard fact) as I have no direct or indirect knowledge of the engineering development of CZs. Would love to hear from someone with direct knowledge, but I fear they aren't going to be easily found on the web.
It seems to me it is similar to how in Glocks the metal tab that sticks up on the triggerbar prevents the striker from being able to move forward until the triggerbar is moved enough to the rear the tab can clear the striker, in spite of the fact Glocks also have a firing pin block.
I think it is good to have redundancy in internal safety mechanisms, as evidenced by Glocks with aftermarket triggers and stock Caniks not being drop safe despite having firing pin blocks.
It wasn't an RO, but this official match cameraman decided to, for some reason, plant himself at about the 178 degree line. I saw where he was out of the corner of my eye when I was shooting an earlier part of the stage and remember thinking "OK before I get over to those targets near him he's going to move, right?"
Nope.
In this case, it seems fairly apparent that IPSC/USPSA rules require those shooting some pistols, in this case CZ's, to circumvent a safety built into the pistol's design. If it is found that requirement was a contributing factor to the chain of events that resulted in the RO's death, then the organization would be negligent if they didn't change the rules to prevent such an occurrence.
Tragedies in the shooting sports are rare enough that there should be a precedent for change if a mechanical design or procedure are found to be a proximal cause of tragedy.
Regarding the rules, seemingly simplest thing simplest thing to me would be another division:
1) Selective action pistols, which are not equipped with a decocking system will be required to compete in the 'single action/metallic sights' division. Said pistols will be carried IAW portion of 8.1.2.3 declaring chamber loaded, and hammer cocked with external safety engaged
ROs standing at 181 degrees to see if you break the 180 is probably the perfect example of how ass-backwards some ROs are when it comes to thinking about safety. How dumb is it that people are standing where the gun is practically pointing at them, just to see if you break the arbitrary line of "safety" signified by the 180? The whole point of having a 180 degree safety angle is to make sure the gun doesn't point at anyone... In no way is it worth adding the risk of getting killed just to make sure you can keep people from going to 181 degrees, which honestly would have been perfectly safe if everyone stood back and didn't crowd up against the 180.
Lots of questions. Was it a CZ, was it Production, at what point in the stage did this occur. Dropped how?
As for CZ in general, there is alot of interesting history in USPSA NROI, DNROI Benos et. al. about what where the hammer needs to be on guns like a CZ that don't have a decocker. This is what is in the current rule book.
"When in the ready conditions as specified under 8.1, a gun with an external hammer must be hammer down. A hammer is considered to be in the "hammer down" position when the hammer is placed there by pulling the trigger while manually lowering the hammer (manually decocking) or by activating the decocking lever if present. Manually decocking to the half-cocked position is not allowed and will result in the competitor being moved to Open division."
How big of an advantage is being at the half cock notch vs. all the way down and the risk associated can be for the USPSA to decide...if that is even a factor.
Has there been a statement from the USPSA HQ yet?
Last edited by nwhpfan; 11-12-2020 at 11:39 PM. Reason: add info
A71593
Well, the *simplest* thing would be to just take them off of the Production gun list and thus force them into Limited where they would all compete as SAO anyway.
I think there's a strong argument that you could have simply stopped, declared the camera guy to be unsafe, and demanded a re-shoot minus the distraction of worrying about his position relative to your line of fire.
To me it sounds like crazy talk to start moving guns into different divisions or adding new divisions when:
1. DA/SA CZs are not the only non-drop safe guns at these matches. I bet many of the limited, open, singlestack, etc. guns are not drop safe. Many of the striker fired guns with extensive trigger work may not be either.
2. These guns are also shot in CO so you would have to figure out what to do with those guns, can't just make a new ironsighted division or slap those in Limited.
3. None of these guns would be competitive with minor scoring in Limited.
4. These are some of the most popular guns in the sport and yet the number of fatalities over multiple decades relating to these guns appears to be the grand total of 1.
Ned Christiensen has an explanation of this--but he's also trying to sell a product: The thumb safety on a 1911 prevents the hammer from falling by blocking the sear with one of its lobes. That works great if your sear and pin remain intact when you drop your gun, because the sear can't move out of the way of the hammer--the safety is holding it in. If those components don't remain intact and stationary, then the full-cock notch drops right off the sear, and pushes it out of the way. It'll also pop the thumb safety off, as well. Perfect world, yeah, it shouldn't go off. Real world, on a gun with wear, then you're into "degrees of drop-safety". And I've already shot out a factory hammer and sear once. Fortunately, I was already halfway through the magazine when it did that.
Maybe "good working order" is a big strong--perhaps appearing to be in good working order. I'd wager that most people with 1911s never once disassemble them past a field strip, much less function-check every component. Also note that I'm not knocking the gun--1911s are great! I own two. But I also allow that they're not perfect--like everything else I own--they just occupy a different position on the performance/reliability/price/durability/etc spectrum.
I have a question--from a dopey-ass BE shooter and NRA CRSO that would maybe do USPSA if the apocalypse ever ends. Let's say I'm at a match, I step up to the box, and I see something like that. What recourse do I have as a competitor? What do I do if my complaint isn't sustained locally and I refuse to shoot that particular stage?It wasn't an RO, but this official match cameraman decided to, for some reason, plant himself at about the 178 degree line. I saw where he was out of the corner of my eye when I was shooting an earlier part of the stage and remember thinking "OK before I get over to those targets near him he's going to move, right?"
Nope.
I've always taught people that if they see something they're not comfortable with, to take it to whoever is in charge of the particular area in question, and if the issue doesn't get resolved, proceed to the match director. If that doesn't work, then it's time to noap on outta there. I myself have noaped on out of an NRA sectional match (which was a real punch in the dick for me, points-wise) because I walked in only to find the "NRA referee" tech-inspecting the guns and muzzling a room full of people who didn't seem to mind.
I'm not trying to put you guys on the spot--I totally get the pressure of being forced to compete in substandard conditions because management is dumb. Been there, done that. In BE, I was forced to eat the match fee and miss the points--and our matches are simple, you have to really try to fuck up. But there was still no way to advance my case. I think that's a problem in shooting sports. I mean, we say that anyone can call a cease fire at any time, but do we really mean that?
Reply With Quote