home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!darwin.sura.net!haven.umd.edu!mimsy!polymath.tti.com
- From: hollombe@polymath.tti.com (The Polymath)
- Newsgroups: rec.guns
- Subject: Re: More on dry firing
- Message-ID: <1992Dec21.234414.15865@ttinews.tti.com>
- Date: 22 Dec 92 00:01:12 GMT
- Sender: magnum@mimsy.umd.edu
- Organization: The Cat Factory
- Lines: 32
- Approved: gun-control@cs.umd.edu
-
- In article <1992Dec16.075612.29021@netcom.com> pauly@netcom.com (Paul Yoshimune) writes:
- }In article <1992Dec16.014824.12112@ttinews.tti.com> hollombe@polymath.tti.com (The Polymath) writes:
- }#Well, _I'm_ going to use the decocker lever as God and SIG intended, rules
- }#or no rules.
- }#
- }#Harumph! (-:
- }#
- }#(Seriously, would this be a rules violation? Sounds pretty silly, if so).
- }
- }Actually, not silly at all. The point of "show clear, hammer down, holster"
- }is to make the gun safe. Showing clear makes sure there is no round in the
- }chamber. Hammer down (using the trigger) makes *damn* sure there is no round
- }in the chamber. Note that even though the RO checks the chamber, if you drop
- }the hammer and it goes bang, you get DQ'd.
- }
- }When using the decocker, you nullify the safety check the hammer drop is
- }intended for. By USPSA (and IPSC, I believe) rules, the hammer *must* drop
- }by function of the trigger.
-
- ~sigh~ I _really_ should know better by now. My thanks to all who
- explained and/or chastised (and rightly so).
-
- Nothing in the SIG manual says I shouldn't dry fire, but nothing says it's
- ok, either. Would chambering a snap-cap and dropping the hammer on that
- satisfy the requirement? I prefer to play safe with anything that
- expensive.
-
- The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe, M.A., CDP, aka: hollombe@polymath.tti.com)
- Head Robot Wrangler at Citicorp Do not meddle in the affairs of
- 3100 Ocean Park Blvd. (310) 450-9111, x2483 dragons, for you are crunchy
- Santa Monica, CA 90405 and go well with ketchup.
-
-