Author Topic: Extra shotshell in mag pouch?  (Read 478 times)

Kid Rich

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 72
Re: Extra shotshell in mag pouch?
« Reply #15 on: December 20, 2018, 05:30:07 AM »
I would think safety would be the reason NOT to carry a rifle or pistol round in the shot shell loop as it could be inserted into a shotgun. It would be very hard to insert a shotgun shell into your rifle or pistol.
kR

Happy Jack

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 689
  • Wild Bunch Committee Chairman
Re: Extra shotshell in mag pouch?
« Reply #16 on: December 20, 2018, 09:42:57 AM »
A couple of nuisances are involved in the OP question.  The rule concerning ammunition REQUIRED for reloads has been quoted by Flash.  However as I read the OP it relates to ammunition that may be used because of dropping, ejecting, etc. and not picking up that round but using the one carried to the line as a replacement. I consider the OP question to fall under the new rule concerning staging ammunition in bullet point 2 on page 15. A couple of things to consider when using this rule in the VERY unusual circumstance in the OP: #1 The reason for the mag pouch is because the shooter doesn't have enough of the correct pouches or other listed items to carry the ammunition as listed in the normal rule. #2 the ammunition must be staged before use. #3. To stage it you must place it down, remove your hand from it, and then pick it up for use.
   The reason for this new guideline is because sometimes shooters don't have enough pouches, loops, etc. and they need to stage additional ammunition. In the past just carrying it in your hand, tucking it in your belt, etc. made it illegally carried to the line. There is no reason to penalize a shooter for bringing their extra ammo to the line as long as the method for carrying it is safe.
1911's RULE !!!

Boggus Deal

  • WBAS Committee & Ambassadors
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 574
  • Wild Bunch Rules Committee
Re: Extra shotshell in mag pouch?
« Reply #17 on: December 20, 2018, 09:53:56 AM »
Thank you, HJ. A much better explanation than mine.