What does a "grease ring" really mean?

[Chris iliff]

Years ago I called a miss at a shoot and made it up. Upon scoring the RO said it was an alpha, Mike. I said no, that's an alpha/Charlie.  He said i shot through the barrel, the hole in the paper had no grease ring and that proved it.  

That whole stage was a crap fest and I just went on about shooting the other stages  

 but.....

I don't believe a grease ring or lack of one, means diddly. 

 

What at do you think?

[RJH]

Shoot through one target into another and look at both holes. One will have a ring and one will not.   Since targets and hard cover are considered impenetrable "grease" rings are very important in people getting a correct score. 

Edited January 1, 2017 by RJH

[BC27]

The "grease ring" is the blackish ring the bullet will leave around the hole of the first thing it hits.  It's just carbon and bullet coating residue on the bullet and from the barrel.  I shoot Polymer coated Blue Bullets so my "grease rings" are blackish blue.  As mentioned above, if you have a "shoot though" from a plastic barrel, wood, or another paper target, the "ring' will be much lighter to non existent and is in fact a good indication of a "shoot though".

[Ultimo-Hombre]

Chris has been around for a while, he knows what a grease ring is. Question is, I'm guessing more related to what counts as a scoring hit on a target. 

You put a hole in a scoring area of a target with something that has a radius of a bullet, even partially, I say it scores dependent on what you shot through. 

If a match says that props and barrels are hard cover then you gotta look at the hit on the prop. ( and the props/barrels gotta be taped for each shooter) if it is not a full radius hit on the prop, then you get the points for the identifiable radius hit on the target.  

Wheres moto? He would set this straight damm quick!

[race1911]

25 minutes ago, Ultimo-Hombre said:

Chris has been around for a while, he knows what a grease ring is. Question is, I'm guessing more related to what counts as a scoring hit on a target. 

You put a hole in a scoring area of a target with something that has a radius of a bullet, even partially, I say it scores dependent on what you shot through. 

If a match says that props and barrels are hard cover then you gotta look at the hit on the prop. ( and the props/barrels gotta be taped for each shooter) if it is not a full radius hit on the prop, then you get the points for the identifiable radius hit on the target.  

Wheres moto? He would set this straight damm quick!

absolutely correct, look at the prop or hard cover and if there is no full radius hit through it then a hit on target (regardless of "grease ring") counts for score

[Chris iliff]

I started this because I don't think a grease ring is indicative of much of anything. And if it is, maybe it's not fool proof.  

I hear it referenced, a lot, as a good indicator of whether or not a bullet passed through hard cover before finding a target.  As was the case I cited above.

But, I don't use grease reloading and I'm positive I've taped up holes with no grease ring. 

 

So, I was hoping this might spark some interest and maybe be enlightening. 

 

 

[Ultimo-Hombre]

Amen. 

It all boils down to the rule book. I wish I had a hard copy, I'm not the type to search online versions so I guess my take on it means sh!t

come to think of it, how does a guy get a bound copy of the rules anyways?

[Sarge]

1. 9.5.5  Enlarged holes in paper targets which exceed the competitor’s bullet diameter will not count for score or penalty unless there is visible evi- dence within the remnants of the hole (e.g. a grease mark or a “crown” etc.), to eliminate a presumption that the hole was caused by a ricochet or splatter. 

[Sarge]

So, there is the rule, but like Chris I don't always buy into it. 

For one, I have seen bullets tumble so bad they basically look like you threw a rock through the target. No grease, no crown , nothing. AND I have seen RO's look at them forever when there wasn't even anything between the shooter and the target! Regardless of the rules, if a bullet leaves a barrel and sails through nothing but air and hits the target, I'm calling that a hit.

AND, I'll bet a ricochet could easily kill somebody! I know of a shooter that was seriously wounded by a jacket fragment from a ricochet.

 

[BC27]

In my experience as an RO and a competitor, I can't remember seeing a hit that did not have a "grease ring" unless it was a shoot though.  This is for all kinds of bullets (jacketed, plated and coated).  They should call it a "fouling ring" because it not typically "grease" in the literal sense.

 

[Ultimo-Hombre]

12 minutes ago, Sarge said:

1. 9.5.5  Enlarged holes in paper targets which exceed the competitor’s bullet diameter will not count for score or penalty unless there is visible evi- dence within the remnants of the hole (e.g. a grease mark or a “crown” etc.), to eliminate a presumption that the hole was caused by a ricochet or splatter. 

And there you go.

 

nearly 18k posts?

damm dude, last time I was on here you were at 10k

 

[Sarge]

4 minutes ago, Ultimo-Hombre said:

And there you go.

 

nearly 18k posts?

damm dude, last time I was on here you were at 10k

 

What can I say, this forum is my passion! lol

[Ultimo-Hombre]

Just now, Sarge said:

What can I say, this forum is my passion! lol

Well right on Sanders, Happy new year!

[9x45]

Just don't shoot thru target sticks or barrels.....

[Nik Habicht]

Actually target sticks don't exist -- so they can never be considered hard cover....

and "Target sticks ought to be trimmed to length needed."

 

[RangerTrace]

In real world shootings, grease rings mean a lot....even though they are not grease...

[Sarge]

28 minutes ago, Nik Habicht said:

Actually target sticks don't exist -- so they can never be considered hard cover....

and "Target sticks ought to be trimmed to length needed."

 

They need to work on that last part. It seems the new method is to leave them long enough to support mags in case it rains. I was told they did that at Nationals and now it's the new norm. Keeps bags from breaking necks on targets

[Chris iliff]

I am thinking not all rounds leave a ring.  And I mean rounds that only pass through the target and nothing else first. That's my premise.

 

If my premise is correct, I want this widely known.  I don't want RO's calling misses because it was a tight shot and they assumed, since there is no grease ring, then it's an obvious miss.

Shedding light on this, either way, is my goal. I'm totally ok if I'm wrong, it's the learning that's important.  

 

I might need to gather some evidence by way of pics. Or, if anyone has some pics that might prove my premise, please post. 

This is why I came to the forum first. Usually someone always knows. 

[mscott]

I am not a fan of using grease rings as evidence. Unfortunately most renges do not keep barrels, walls, and other props patched, so when a bullet goes through a target sideways it's sometimes difficult to make a call wether is went clear through a prop or just glanced off. The shooter gets the benefit of doubt for me if I can't see or prove it through evidence. Rifle bullets are particularly problematic in this area. 

[George Jones]

Let's see if I can shed some light on this "dark" subject.

The term "grease ring" is simply a reference to the dark ring you commonly see around the bullet hole.  I have yet to see a bullet that leaves no such evidence, so the total lack of a "grease ring" is the first indication that something odd is at play.  If all the hits lack a ring, those magic bullets will score. 

An attentive RO may have already seen the shoot-through into a wall, prop or no shoot which explains the lack of a ring on the target being scored.  If the shoot-through was not witnessed, it now needs to be investigated by looking at what the bullet may have first hit on its way to the target being scored.

Rule 9.5.5 gives examples as "e.g." which means "for example".  That means to me that there are other potential bits of evidence I can use.

It's a combination of evidence which allows for a correct score.  The presence or absence of a grease ring is not enough.  The next issue is whether it was a full-diameter shoot-through or a partial diameter.  Since all props, walls, etc. are hardcover by rule (unless specified as soft cover in the WSB) it's important to determine if the suspect hit still scores or not.

So if there is no evidence of a shoot-through found, what are the other possibilities?  Tumbling bullets will rarely leave a mark.  Cheap plated bullets commonly do this.  Other deformed bullets holes will usually be evident on other targets on the stage.  Use that visual evidence to determine if it was a bullet or some odd frag.  If you determine it was a tumbler, score it.

Another possibility of hits with no grease ring include a bullet fragment from an edge hit on steel or deflected by an edge hit on a wall or prop (it scores).

The last thing I will mention is the very rare event when the RO actually sees the hit when fired, but later finds inconsistent or conflicting evidence on the target.  I propose that what you actually saw happen... happened as long as you are certain.  Make the call you know is correct.  If the shooter disagrees, well there's an appeal process.

As to target sticks, they "don't exist" so a subsequent hit on the target scores in spite of no grease ring since you have evidence of the shoot-through.  The is no rule about trimming them, simply an appearance issue mentioned on App B1.  Local matches rarely trim sticks, but a major match "should".  The recent clarification is in the event of forecast rain where the sticks should be slightly above the top of the target to avoid deformation of the target from rain bags.

HTH

I should add that poorly maintained props at a local (or major) match make this whole issue difficult on the RO.  But there is no rule which says "benefit of the doubt".  Fix the underlying problem if you want to score the stage fairly for all shooters.  Anything else is meaningless in the context of the rulebook.

Edited January 2, 2017 by George Jones

[IHAVEGAS]

8 hours ago, Chris iliff said:

I am thinking not all rounds leave a ring.  And I mean rounds that only pass through the target and nothing else first. That's my premise.

 

If my premise is correct, I want this widely known.  I don't want RO's calling misses because it was a tight shot and they assumed, since there is no grease ring, then it's an obvious miss.

Shedding light on this, either way, is my goal. I'm totally ok if I'm wrong, it's the learning that's important.  

 

I might need to gather some evidence by way of pics. Or, if anyone has some pics that might prove my premise, please post. 

This is why I came to the forum first. Usually someone always knows. 

If there is a barrel (or similar) close and a fuzzy bullet hole and every other bullet you shot left a grease ring, you are going to get the Mike.

It seems like I am always either the scorekeeper or more recently the r.o., and I can't ever remember this being a problem. Often when you are running the shooter you see the hard cover react to the hit, then later when you score the target you get visual feedback of what those hits look like, probably whoever is calling your hits has seen a whole lot of hard cover pass throughs and has a good feel for what they are looking at (and where the points are on the stage that this is likely to happen). 

What I hate is tumbling bullets, for the reason Sarge noted and because some folks think a tumbled Alpha Mike is actually always two Alpha. 

[IHAVEGAS]

14 hours ago, Sarge said:

Regardless of the rules, if a bullet leaves a barrel and sails through nothing but air and hits the target, I'm calling that a hit.

Especially if it is just a local match?

[George Jones]

Sarge,

"Regardless of the rules"

Really?

I know who certified you as a CRO and what that RMI would say to that.

[IHAVEGAS]

11 minutes ago, George Jones said:

what that RMI would say to that.

"You can't use your common sense man, we have rules for this!!"

   

 

 

[Sarge]

49 minutes ago, George Jones said:

Sarge,

"Regardless of the rules"

Really?

I know who certified you as a CRO and what that RMI would say to that.

So if you were Ming a match and I saw a shooter put two rounds on a target right in front of us with nothing but air between him and the target you would say it's not a hit because the bullet left no grease or crown. Keep in mind I saw the bullets hit the target.

edited to add. I assume you would call it a miss by the rule. But the point is the rule is flawed in this instance.

Edited January 2, 2017 by Sarge