Is this considered a ND?

[uxo2]

she intended to fire and pulled the trigger. No ND.

[hambam105]

Be glad she admitted it, now you know where you need some work. Good for her. Good for the both of you.

In competition, generally speaking , competitors have the, "180 Degree Rule". And that is fine.

When you work as a team, you want to narrow that rule down to about 10 degrees. In short, the BGs and GGs are often intermingled and there is no 'Down Range', just No Shooting or Shooting opportunities. In the interim I just call it muzzle control or muzzle awareness at all times. Some understand it and some don't. I apologize if I went too Mall nija on you.

It is really good to have open communication with armed friendlys.

[Gunsmith Dan]

If she shot in a direction that is restricted for shooting at

AND

She took aim

AND

She pulled the Trigger

AND

There was no one calling a cease fire or range not clear

AND

Nothing was hit that was not on the range area for shooting

Then there is no ND

There is however a NWA (Negligent Waste of Ammo) since there was no real target to shoot at

[ElDub1950]

It is clearly not a negligent discharge, as she intentionally pulled the trigger and fired her shotgun. An ND is when a person does not intent to fire their weapon, but does so inadvertently, or by mistake.

^ This

[hambam105]

Nobody was hurt. You get out of your training what you put into it. Apparently everybody had some fun shooting and they are discussing what happened. Sometime that is half the fun. I just take myself a bit too seriously.

[russ69]

In ATA trap rules, it is allowable to discharge your gun before the bird is called. If I remember correctly. I think this was for guys shooting a release trigger. As long as it your turn to shoot and the gun is pointed within the boundaries, you can discharge your gun, until it's not your turn anymore. In American trap your turn would end at your taking one shot or not shooting at the called bird.

[as_rocketman]

I'd also call this an Accidental Discharge, not Negligent. Safety rules were followed, the shot was inherently safe, just pointless.

I've had a couple of AD's like that. One I can recall with a friend's Mini-14 with a really strange trigger reset, so I fired before establishing sight alignment. Another more serious one was with a different friend's WASR with a worn sear -- it doubled on me, and then it discharged while I was making it safe, and my finger was nowhere near the trigger when it fired. That one was a bit spooky. But while in both cases I had no target to speak of, the muzzle was where it belonged, I knew the range and had a solid backstop, and thus the round was under control as a result.

Negligent discharge to me means either not knowing, not paying attention to, or flagrantly breaking the safety rules. While an AD may shake you up it should have virtually no chance of harming anyone, whereas an ND is potentially dangerous.

[hambam105]

Good post, Rocketman.

When you are responsible, and remember, and want to share...excellent case studies such as yours surface for the rest of us to learn from.

NDs and Driving Drunk; both are potentially dangerous, yes?

[ja308]

I'd also call this an Accidental Discharge, not Negligent. Safety rules were followed, the shot was inherently safe, just pointless.

I've had a couple of AD's like that. One I can recall with a friend's Mini-14 with a really strange trigger reset, so I fired before establishing sight alignment. Another more serious one was with a different friend's WASR with a worn sear -- it doubled on me, and then it discharged while I was making it safe, and my finger was nowhere near the trigger when it fired. That one was a bit spooky. But while in both cases I had no target to speak of, the muzzle was where it belonged, I knew the range and had a solid backstop, and thus the round was under control as a result.

Negligent discharge to me means either not knowing, not paying attention to, or flagrantly breaking the safety rules. While an AD may shake you up it should have virtually no chance of harming anyone, whereas an ND is potentially dangerous.

Hadn't thought of it that way, but it sure makes sense . Thank you for the concept.

[diverwcw]

She aimed and intended to shoot. It was not a ND.

[Sabesimpson]

At least she is out shooting! At what? I have no idea but still shooting!

[bigbearbear]

Thanks for the input everyone, it was a strange case for us.

[Corsair415]

I'd say it was an ND, she wasn't sure of her target after all.

[ChrisC]

she intended to fire and pulled the trigger. No ND.

That and she needs glasses or her eyes checked if she thought she saw a clay when one was not present.

[billrd]

Maybe she caught sight of a low flying UFO?
Or maybe a high jumping Brown Recluse!
Well, she fired on SOMETHING she thought she saw.
No ND, no harm , no fowl, no witnesses, carry on.

A dove - really fast.