TargetTalk

A question for the rulebook experts:
Situation: I'm shooting 25m rapid fire stage and suddenly notice that my trigger weight has decreased dramatically (one of the trigger springs broke). The pistol still works, though, but is of course not legal anymore, as it has way less than the 1000gr trigger weight.
Q: Can I declare a malfunction and switch to the backup gun?

I read chapter 8 of the rulebook forwards and backwards, but can't find a answer to this...

I would think you would have to be disqualified.
If you can claim a malfunction and use a replacement pistol, anybody could deliberately lighten the trigger weight before the match and then on the last shot of the match claim a malfunction. I don't think this would be allowed.

This is one of those difficult areas.

It is obviously not included in any of the criteria for claiming an allowable malfunction under 8.7.4.3.1. Claiming an additional series should not be allowed by a Jury following that rule to the letter but I would suggest that most Juries would at least consider it under 6.6.3:-

"The Jury must decide all cases which are not provided for in the ISSF Regulations and Rules. Such decisions must be made within the spirit and intent of the ISSF Regulations and Rules. Any such decisions must be put into writing and sent to the ISSF Secretariat so that necessary rules may be clarified or changed."

Juries are not there to catch out shooters, they are there to ensure fairness.

If however you do do not try to claim an additional series then, IMHO, the position is a lot easier.
Rule 8.7.1 says "Should a pistol break down or cease to function, the shooter is allowed to repair the pistol." This indicates to me that a pistol does not need to have ceased to function to be considered as having broken down (e.g. sights fall off).
Replacement under 8.7.3.4 would then be allowed.

It is important to note that under 8.7.2 Range Officers or Juries must be involved in this process. This would, hopefully, prevent someone claiming a broken gun for something trivial just so that he/she could change to another gun.

I hope this helps.

A couple of you have alluded that changing to another gun would provide the shooters some sort of unfair advantage. I fail to see the advantage. Please enlighten me.

Anonymous wrote:A couple of you have alluded that changing to another gun would provide the shooters some sort of unfair advantage. I fail to see the advantage. Please enlighten me.

Shooter might prefer the balance or trigger (for example) of one gun in the Precision Stage but another in the Rapid Stage

What I think Nev C meant above is, that a shooter could delibetarelly lighten his trigger at the start of the match below the legal limit, shoot the whole match with an illegal and unfair advantage, and claim trigger malfunction right at the end to be safe in case of random tests. Of course in this scenario, he could just raise the trigger weight again at the end...

David, Markis -

Geez! I don't know which is sadder - my naivety about fair play in our sport or the lengths some will go to cheat.

Losing to a cheater takes the fun out of losing fair and square.

The way I think, winning by cheating would remove all the joy of winning...

If nobody cheated in this sport then we would not need gun checks would we:)

Anonymous wrote:Geez! I don't know which is sadder - my naivety about fair play in our sport or the lengths some will go to cheat......

.... or my belief/hope that breaking the rules is usually accidental rather than intentional.

Nev C wrote:If nobody cheated in this sport then we would not need gun checks would we:)

If only it was that simple Nev.

The most devious example I have seen, which was only made to prove what could be done and was not used in competition, was a GSP that lifted well over 1000g with the barrel vertical (for equipment control), but only about half that with the barrel horizontal.

Art 6.4.8 is clear about this: If the pistol is being inspected after a match and there is a non approval the shooter will be disqualifeid.

This rule is made for those who changes the pistols after approval.

The fact that your spring broke is no reason to change a rule
Shooter is responsible for a good condition of his weapon.

To say it with other words : shit happens

madmull wrote:Art 6.4.8 is clear about this: If the pistol is being inspected after a match and there is a non approval the shooter will be disqualifeid.

This rule is made for those who changes the pistols after approval.

The fact that your spring broke is no reason to change a rule
Shooter is responsible for a good condition of his weapon.

To say it with other words : shit happens

Not sure what you're trying to get at here, you simple run both your primary and back-up pistol through equipment check prior to the event. You can run as many pistols through as you'd like.

Interesting....?

If you completed the series and found the spring broken, you would have to claim a break and cease to function. (pistol is not performing in the intended manner and is to be concidered unsafe).
The options are to replace the pistol with one of the same type (ie auto or revolver) that has been through gun check or repair your pistol. Any remaining series will be completed if you return to the line within the allowed time.

If you stopped in a series and claimed a malfunction it could depend on the quality of the RO and what you told hjm. He is supposed to take the pistol, point it downrange and pull the trigger - if it goes bang you end up with a non allowable malfunction and a good argument with the jury about if the RO should have done that after you inform him of a trigger failure.
I will leave that one for the judges.

If you continued to shoot with the reduced trigger and it was checked at the end of the match as too light, then you would be DSQ.

Thanks to everybody for the input! To make sure, I forwarded the issue to a member of the ISSF technical pistol committee - luckily, there is one from Switzerland, so nothing was lost in translation :-) The answer was clear: David M's solution is basically the correct one. If you declare a malfunction in such a case, 8.7.4.4 (judge pulls trigger) would not come into play (just as it wouldn't in case of 8.7.4.3.1.7, doubling). But as it is not really described in the rulebook, there is a residual risk that the range officers see it differently. I think it would surely help if the problem didn't occur reight before the last series...