US Carbine Association

[rob_s]

Sean,

-Transitions- Need to be better clarified. If you run dry you can just dump the rifle and go for the pistol as opposed to the drop rack procedure. Though it's on the shooter to know the difference otherwise it'll result in a DQ. The drop and rack procedure is for situations where the course designer doesn't want to restrict how or when you draw your pistol however doesn't want to use barrels. So you drop the mag rack it and transition. OR maybe you were on a limited start stage and you loaded a full mag and didn't run dry... what do you do? Drop rack and then transition and engage.

That is definitely not how it is worded in the rules right now. I wasn't advocating slinging a hot carbine, but your current rules only offer the option of clearing the gun. Requiring clearing as part of a stage? Bad stage design.

And you and I have gone 'round enough about the holstering a hot pistol on the clock. I think it is majorly stupid, adds nothing to the game or the stage, is dangerous, has little to no "real world" application, and that a good stage designer can accomplish the same thing without requiring it.

[ToddG]

I have no comment on the carbine related rules.

Requiring a shooter of unknown skill level to holster a loaded pistol on the clock in a competitive environment is extremely dangerous.

[Martin-USCA]

I have no comment on the carbine related rules.

Requiring a shooter of unknown skill level to holster a loaded pistol on the clock in a competitive environment is extremely dangerous.

It's about as dangerous as telling them to load and make ready, or draw on the clock. I'm more wary of someone drawing from a Serpa than putting a gun in a holster like they just did 10 seconds ago. I don't see the practicality of throwing away your pistol. I do see the practicality in real world in that people could be in vehicles and engaged with their handgun and go for their rifle and they have to do something with their pistol while getting that carbine out. I do see the practicality in drawing your pistol to shoot an immediate threat if your primary goes down and then holstering it before fixing the rifle. Again most of the incidents with handguns that I've seen have been people drawing the gun and putting their finger on the trigger prematurely however we generally don't start pistol matches (IDPA, USPSA) with the pistol in the hand. There is a degree of risk with any sport especially when they are firearms related. And again USPSA one of the biggest and safest organizations out there has provisions for holstering a hot gun on the clock. 8.5.2 If a competitor holsters a loaded handgun at any time during a course of fire, it must be placed in the applicable handgun ready conditions (see Section 8.1). Violations will be subject to match disqualification (see Rule 10.5.11).

FDCC has been around for 13 years in that time we've had a wide variety of shooters at our matches. Some having never shot a gun before. The most dangerous things I've seen mainly went on behind the line. Which is something I nipped in the bud very soon after taking over.

Tac Reloads are just an approved reload. They aren't often required or used but I do see validity in practicing the skill of retaining partial magazines as opposed to dropping them all around. But that's a whole other discussion.

The safety on a Beretta should be disengaged long before your sights are on target and putting the safety on is the same as hitting a de-cock lever so again I don't see the advantage. If you draw properly as soon as your gun clears the area of your body parts and is coming up on target the safety should be getting taken off.

[ToddG]

It's about as dangerous as telling them to load and make ready, or draw on the clock.

No, it's not. And candidly, if you believe that, I suggest you spend more time participating in and learning about existing action pistol sports such as IDPA and USPSA before going too far down the path with your own rules. I've never been to a match that expected people to holster their pistol under stress on the clock. I've been to plenty that involved shooting the gun until it was empty so the shooter could either dump it or reholster it empty.

It's got absolutely nothing to do with whether someone may in real life have to holster hurriedly. People in real life may need to move their muzzle past the 180, too. Safety rules aren't in place to mimic reality, they're in place to prevent unnecessary injury. Accidental discharges during "load & make ready" are almost 100% guaranteed to hit something other than the shooter, but an AD while holstering has a very high likelihood of causing an injury. There have been some spectacular examples of that happening even off the clock at major matches... which is why no one runs stages where shooters have to do it on the clock.

And again USPSA one of the biggest and safest organizations out there has provisions for holstering a hot gun on the clock. 8.5.2

That's incredibly disingenuous. The actual text of 8.5.2 reads:

8.5.2 Re-holstering the firearm during the course of fire is not recommended. If a competitor holsters a firearm during the course of fire, the following will apply:
8.5.2.1 For a single action self-loader the safety must be applied
8.5.2.2 For double action self-loaders and revolvers the hammer must be down.

(emphasis mine)

The organization you used to justify your rule specifically recommends against doing what you're trying to allow.

Watch 100 relatively new shooters speed-reholster their "tuned" Glocks and, if you're lucky, you'll just have your opinion changed out of terror. If you're unlucky, you'll have to clean the blood off your clothes before you get to the computer and change your rule.

FDCC has been around for 13 years in that time we've had a wide variety of shooters at our matches. Some having never shot a gun before. The most dangerous things I've seen mainly went on behind the line. Which is something I nipped in the bud very soon after taking over.

No disagreement whatsoever. People can do unsafe things anywhere. That doesn't seem like a good justification to introduce a dangerous practice into the courses of fire, though.

The safety on a Beretta should be disengaged long before your sights are on target and putting the safety on is the same as hitting a de-cock lever so again I don't see the advantage. If you draw properly as soon as your gun clears the area of your body parts and is coming up on target the safety should be getting taken off.

I assume this was directed at someone else but since I have a bit of experience with Berettas and the folks who carry them on duty both LE & mil, I have to disagree with your assessment. Asking someone to decock a SIG before holstering, sure... that puts the gun in the only carry mode for which it is designed and intended by the manufacturer. When the gun is drawn, all the shooter has to do is pull the trigger. Requiring someone to put his Beretta on safe -- especially given how few professional and private gun carriers actually carry a safety-equipped DA pistol that way -- means not only does he have to contend with the longer and heavier trigger pull (like the SIG's) but also has to disengage the safety.

You create a huge advantage for people who can get their hands on a G-model (decock only) Beretta as opposed to the more common but otherwise identical F-model (safety/decock). The same will be true for HK pistols, some of which can be put on safe and some of which cannot.

[Odin Bravo One]

Tac Reloads are just an approved reload. They aren't often required or used but I do see validity in practicing the skill of retaining partial magazines as opposed to dropping them all around. But that's a whole other discussion.

The safety on a Beretta should be disengaged long before your sights are on target and putting the safety on is the same as hitting a de-cock lever so again I don't see the advantage. If you draw properly as soon as your gun clears the area of your body parts and is coming up on target the safety should be getting taken off.

I can see the use of a true tactical reload, under certain, very specific circumstances. Of which, I have never heard those very specific circumstances discussed when the TRL is being taught/practiced outside of certain organizations. I have never attended an open enrollment course, LE course, or competition where the concept was discussed and explained giving the students all of the facts, and providing proper perspective. I find it very difficult to envision a scenario or situation where a TRL would be the primary decision any time where rapid engagement of targets is the order of the day. What is the criteria that tells the shooter that a TRL is the appropriate technique to be used in a given situation?

To continue down the rabbit hole.........how many people remember where/when we saw the modern day version/implementation of the TRL or "Reload with retention" concept come to pass? Or ever even knew? The Why? I find it comical at IDPA matches especially (but also featured prominently at other matches) to hear the various explanations as the "experts" discuss "the real world", and why that rule is in place. I've yet to meet one of those "experts", RO's, Match Directors who actually understood themselves. They never watched the process as it unfolded and was then implemented in the military. As goes the military so goes domestic LE in many cases, and this was one of those times. Military guys then get out, became cops, became trainers, and the techniques continued to get watered down generation of shooter/trainer after generation of shooter/trainer to the point that no one knows the why, or bothers to apply critical thinking to use of the technique and if it is still valid as a technique in practical applications in gunfights to be taught, discussed, or addressed as part of a curriculum, or competition.

As for the Beretta.............my Sig doesn't have a safety. My Hk is a decocker only version. I don't have an extra step, use of a fine motor skill, or manipulation before I can break my first shot. I can go straight to my grip, and onto my trigger without the possibility of a hiccup along the way due to having to manipulate another lever. So there is an advantage, especially given the way the lever is disengaged on the Beretta. And more to my point........say dude is actually a LEO, and his department policy is to carry hammer down, safety disengaged, retention devices in place (as is the most common method of carry I have seen the M9/92F in domestic LE) ........he trains that way every time he touches his gun. Except when he comes to the match that requires the safety to be engaged. Ultimately, requiring the safety to be engaged while the pistol is holstered is simply an illusion of safety. It is no more safe than that 226 or Hk, and it is no more dangerous than the Sig or Hk examples that I used, if a shooter de-cocks an M9/92F, disengages the safety, and holsters. I don't have a dog in the fight as I don't own, get issued, or shoot the M9/92F platform.......but I know for a fact that I am faster to my first shot without having to manipulate a safety than I am when I do have to manipulate a safety.

I'll go ahead and bow out of the discussion at this point. I am not on the forum to be the gun, gear, competition rules, or tactics police. Nor am I a member of PF.com to try to get rules changed for an organization of which I am not even a member or casual participant. These final thoughts were mostly brought out so other members can self-assess and consider both sides of the issues we have been discussing, so as to form their own opinions to utilize in their own training and employment of their gun systems.

I know you guys have your reasons for creating the rules that are in place, and it is your show, you get to direct it however you want. Based on your collective training, competitions, and experiences you have put forth a program to try to kick start a new sport shooting discipline. A worthy and ambitious endeavor. Who am I to criticize? As I nit pick through some of the items we have discussed here, I am reminded of part of a Roosevelt speech I recall and use often when a situation arises where it is appropriate:

It's not the critic who counts. Not the one who points out how the strong man stumbled, or how the doer of deeds might have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena...............

Best of luck to you, and your organization.


ETA: Looks like TG and I were hitting the Sig/Beretta topic at the same time. Those are his thoughts, mine are mine. We didn't coordinate.

[Little Creek]

If I show up at a USCA match and find out that a COF requires the competitor to holster a loaded pistol under stress on the clock, I will turn around and leave. I do not want to be part of a match when someone gets shot because of such a rule.

That being said, I hope the rule writers of USCA do the right thing and prohibit the holstering of a loaded pistol under stress on the clock during a course of fire. It is an accident waiting to happen.

[Failure2Stop]

If I show up at a USCA match and find out that a COF requires the competitor to holster a loaded pistol under stress on the clock, I will turn around and leave. I do not want to be part of a match when someone gets shot because of such a rule.

That being said, I hope the rule writers of USCA do the right thing and prohibit the holstering of a loaded pistol under stress on the clock during a course of fire. It is an accident waiting to happen.

I very sincerely agree.
I could see a lot of sponsors getting squeamish about that.

Typos brought to you via Tapatalk and autocorrect.

[Kyle Reese]

If I show up at a USCA match and find out that a COF requires the competitor to holster a loaded pistol under stress on the clock, I will turn around and leave. I do not want to be part of a match when someone gets shot because of such a rule.

That being said, I hope the rule writers of USCA do the right thing and prohibit the holstering of a loaded pistol under stress on the clock during a course of fire. It is an accident waiting to happen.

Concur. I see no rational basis for such a rule.