Barry Dueck, via 3 Gun Nation

There’s a reason that equipment divisions exist in 3-gun matches, and that’s to keep everyone competing at the same level. Pitting someone with a pump action shotgun and a 7-round 1911 against another shooter with a Saiga 12 and 33-round Glock 17 isn’t a fair comparison. Divisions keep people from being able to ‘buy’ their way to a championship, and make the competitions about shooters’ skills rather than who can buy the best muzzle brake. And at a national level competition, with professionally-sponsored shooters, you expect that a fair amount of attention would be paid to making sure that equipment is properly configured for your division. But for one shooter, a failure to properly read the rules recently kicked off a rather large controversy and might lead to a change in how rules are enforced at USPSA multigun events . . .

Let me preface this by saying that the shooter in question (Barry Dueck) is, by all accounts, a great guy. And from what I’ve been able to gather, there was no malicious intent at any point on his part. It looks like an honest mistake, and one that he has already made right. But it’s still a good idea to take a look at what happened, and how it might be avoided in the future.

Barry came in second place to Erik Lund (of Team FNH USA fame) at the Texas Multigun Championships in the Heavy Metal Optics division a few weeks ago. At that match, which features .308 caliber rifles, shooters were allowed one optical sight on their rifles. Normally the “heavy metal” division is restricted to iron sights only, making both recoil and target acquisition much harder. But since the Texas guys don’t follow USPSA rules, they can change the divisions however they like.

The following weekend was the 2013 USPSA Multigun Nationals in Las Vegas, Nevada. That competition used a different ruleset, one in which no optics were allowed on a heavy metal limited division rifle. Red dots were okay for the standard limited division (5.56 rifles), but not for the heavy metal shooters. Yet when Barry pulled his rifle out of his case, it still had an Aimpoint red dot mounted.

This is where reports of the incident become a little sketchy. One guy at Brian Enos’ forum says that Barry was made aware of the issue (his firearms not being within spec for the division) before the end of the match, but didn’t alter his equipment to comply and didn’t report himself. Whether that happened or not, at the end of the day when the scores were posted, Barry had won his division using an illegal firearm (in terms of the competition, that is, not the kind of illegal weapons that can land you in prison).

After a match is finished, competitors have a one hour period to challenge their scores and bring questions to the attention to the match staff. This is something that has bitten me in the past, finding things out only after the challenge period had ended. That’s a problem because once the challenge period ends, the scores are declared final. As in, not subject to change. Over.

So when it was revealed to the match director that Barry’s equipment was not in compliance with USPSA rules, the period for challenges had ended and the match staff said it was too late to change the scores. At that point, Barry accepted the win and picked a up a prize from the prize table.

The normal process when a competitor shoots with non-compliant equipment is to kick them into the “open” division and let them continue competing against everyone else. But since the challenge period had ended, there was nothing at that point that could be done.

There has been a ton of discussion online about ways to keep this from happening again, ranging from mandating equipment checks at the beginning of a match to allowing an exception to the 1-hour rule to alter match results. But at the end of the day, Barry himself decided to make things right. Here’s the post from his Facebook page:

Barry Dueck, winner in the Heavy Metal Limited division of the USPSA MultiGun Nationals has DQ’d himself from the match after discovering that he inadvertently shot the match with a non-compliant optic. Below is a copy of the message sent by Barry to Phil Strader, President of the USPSA several days ago.

“Phil, please invalidate my score in Heavy Metal Limited from Nationals. I Put my gear together specifically to fully comply with what I read in the rules online a couple weeks before the match. After reviewing the rules since returning from the match, my rifle did not comply due to a 1x non-magnified optic. I was confident that I had read the rules correctly but I was incorrect. I will send the Trophy and the prize from the match to Jeff Gross who with my score invalidated won the match. Thank you, Barry Dueck”

USPSA officials have responded acknowledging the difficulty of this situation. Rules where reviewed in to see if Barry’s scores could be transferred to the Open Division but since the match was completed this was not possible.

This is an unfortunate incident but not without merit. We can all use a reminder to check and double check our information, and when we find that we screwed up, own it, make it right and move on.

There are still all sorts of juicy rumors flying around, but since this story isn’t about shaming a shooter – someone about whom I can’t find a single bad comment anywhere on the internet – I won’t get into them here. Instead, let’s look at how this happened and how it can be avoided.

The biggest pain in 3-gun shooting is that every match seems to have its own ground rules, and reading the rulebook each and every time can be tedious. But if you’re competing for prizes, it’s something that you probably should do. Personally, I like to double check the rulebook the day before the match to make sure that I haven’t left something on my gun that will get me in trouble.

Another issue is that, whenever you see something happening at a match that you think is unsafe or against the rules, you need to let someone know. The only thing that keeps competition shooting so safe is strict adherence to the rules of the sport, so any infraction should be reported to the match staff. If there is an problem, it can be handled promptly and settled then, once and for all. If it’s a false alarm, no harm done.

In general, always err on the side of caution. For both competitors, and for match staff. And when in doubt, ask someone.

27 Responses to Controversy At 2013 USPSA Multigun Nationals

  1. I am an attorney, so I am pretty used to reading arcane, and at times almost nonsensical, rules and regulations. However, I will say I almost tore up my degree when i tried to go through the rule book for a local Cowboy Action Shooting match.

  2. So… Why don’t the championship matches have check-in inspections to ensure that all firearms used in that competition comply with the rules of the day?

      • I kind of think if it passes inspection you close the book on it, unless the shooter discovers he was in violation and brings it up himself.

        • This.

          If there was an inspection, and the inspector signed off on a gun with a fscking red-dot sight attached, then it’s no longer a competitor’s problem.

          If someone passes inspection and subsequently attaches an optic (ie clips on a magnifier in front of a red dot) then yeah, they’re in violation. This sure doesn’t sound like that’s what is going on here.

        • Just because he was allowed to shoot by officials, doesn’t mean that fellow competitors should look away when they’re shooting against a non-compliant gun.
          That one-hour period after the competition is when another competitor should have filed a protest against Mr. Dueck’s equipment.
          It is as much up to the competitors to keep their fellows honest as it is the officials. Otherwise, anarchy results.

      • No major 3 gun match has a match official check everyone’s equipment at check in. You go get a badge that lists your division and a packet of score cards. There isn’t a line of people with all their guns and gear for an official to look at.

        Range Officers should have caught it on one of the rifle stages when looking at the division listed on the score card vs his gun. That none of them did is worrisome.

        • FITA archery matches have equipment inspections, down to arrow diameter, draw weight, and stabilizer length.

    • I am not a competitor, but that’s the kind of guy I want to be associated with. That’s the kind of guy you want your kids to know.

  3. Shit happens, and life goes on. He admitted wrong-doing and set the record straight. He should really check the rules and his gear for the next time, though.

  4. As my grandpa would say “One of the ways to measure a man’s character is to see how he handles his mistakes.”
    I think my grandpa would’ve like this guy.

  5. It’s amazing to me that despite all the people being reasonable in that thread, there are still quite a few taking the “I liked him before, but now he’s a cheating dirtbag shitbird and I hope he burns in hell” route. I don’t get angry like that, about anything, so I really can’t relate to those who do.

  6. Do competitors not see him shoot? Or were they also ignorant of the rules? They should have challenged this before the period expired. It was sportsmanlike of him to return the prize, but I feel like it should have never reached that point.

    • Who knows why people didn’t notice, in any case it’s a tempest in a teapot. Guy owned up.

  7. Wow. Gargantuan, Machiavellian rules sets that defy legal comprehension. What could possibly go wrong? I thought this was a bore BEFORE reading this; I’m convinced of it now.

  8. Most of the shooting competitions I enter use stock, or nearly stock firearms. Ones that you could actually carry and use for self defense. The super-tricked out guns clearly have a purpose, and I respect that, but I have much more respect for what a shooter can do with a weapon that could actually be taken on a hunt or carried and used in self defense. YMMV.

  9. Barry Dueck is an honest man. He realized he won illegally and as such, he forfeited his trophy and prize to the rightful winner. He went on the record to acknowledge this and as such should be applauded. Someone else could have just as easily said “The ruling body chose a winner, and I am he”.

  10. I was at a USPSA match earlier this month and I’m walking back after pasting targets and I see the trigger on a guys pistol so I naturally think that this guy’s pistol isn’t seated fully in his holster and is about to drop out on the ground, so I say, “Hey is your pistol all the way in, looks like it might fall out.”

    One of the safety officers heard me and come over and it turned into this small pow wow of what constitutes a legal/safe holster and the dude had to go get another holster. I kind of felt like a dick.

  11. Notice there is much more honor and integrity in the gun world as compared to the world of our egomaniac leader. No lies, complete disclosure, accepts blame and is accountable.
    The shooter owned up to his mistake, did not try to hide and blame it on a YouTube video.
    Too bad the rest of the world does not operate this way.

  12. All competitions held under the auspices of a sanctioning body should be observing the same rules and procedures, as published by that sanctioning body.
    NASCAR doesn’t allow each individual track owner/promoter to have their own set of rules as to the types of cars that may compete in a NASCAR race, or the equipment that can be used. We, in the shooting sports, should do no less. The competition is only fair when the “playing field” is level.
    All equipment should be inspected before the match for compliance, and subject to spot inspections during, and after, the match. If, at any time a “tech inspector” finds that the equipment is “non-standard” (does not comply with the rule book), the competitor should be allowed a chance to bring his equipment into compliance.
    If the competition is already under way, it would be the call of the Match Director as to whether the shooter should be DQ’d, or allowed to begin again (though that option does present competitive advantages to the shooter, and at this level of competition, probably should not be an option).
    It is up to the competitors to ensure that they are in compliance with the rules.
    I applaud Mr. Dueck for his honesty after-the-fact; perhaps in the future he will pay more attention to the jots-and-tittles of the rules prior to setting out to compete.

  13. I’m sorry, but I find it hard to believe that there was not one single person in his squad, or at the match that did not notice the optic.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *