What does a "grease ring" really mean?

[Sarge]

I'm as big a stickler for the rules as anybody. Anybody who knows me will attest to that. But sometimes I do let common sense play a part in my calls.

[Sarge]

1 hour ago, IHAVEGAS said:

Especially if it is just a local match?

Any match. And regardless of my rmi taking exception to me saying regardless,  , he seemed to support calling it a hit in his comments above. 

[js1130146]

Does the bag on a bagged target eliminate a grease ring?

[rowdyb]

depends on the bag, how close it is to the target and so on.

[George Jones]

Sarge,

I don't have a problem with your solution/decision.  If you read my lengthy comments above, you will see that the rule gives the grease ring as an example of evidence and that I support a RO ruling on other bits of evidence, including what he clearly saw.

I have a problem with the particular blanket statement that you made.  I thought I taught you better than that. 

A CRO is not superior to the rules, he works with them and sets an example for others.

[Nik Habicht]

7 hours ago, Sarge said:

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.

Not George by a long shot, but what would your call be if there was single hole in the target, with no evidence of other impact?  I'm assuming you'd score that as one hit, one miss -- unless you had evidence within the hole that it was a double.....

I shot plated bullets for a while, but couldn't solve the tumbling problem.  Some of those rounds went through the target sideways, but all left behind some visual evidence of a hit, that the RO could score.....

And once upon a time, I hit a smoking draw and split on a three yard target, that scored Alpha Mike -- because I let the second shot fired go to soon, and it sailed right over the headbox.  But hey -- it looked good....

You're talking about  a one in a million case, where a competitor might need to eat a miss due to lack of evidence on the target.  Generally, if there's no evidence, it was a miss.... 

[Sarge]

59 minutes ago, Nik Habicht said:

Not George by a long shot, but what would your call be if there was single hole in the target, with no evidence of other impact?  I'm assuming you'd score that as one hit, one miss -- unless you had evidence within the hole that it was a double.....

I shot plated bullets for a while, but couldn't solve the tumbling problem.  Some of those rounds went through the target sideways, but all left behind some visual evidence of a hit, that the RO could score.....

And once upon a time, I hit a smoking draw and split on a three yard target, that scored Alpha Mike -- because I let the second shot fired go to soon, and it sailed right over the headbox.  But hey -- it looked good....

You're talking about  a one in a million case, where a competitor might need to eat a miss due to lack of evidence on the target.  Generally, if there's no evidence, it was a miss.... 

Hardly one in a million. This past season there was a local guy who had tumbling issues the better part of the summer. I guess I should have taken a picture. NOT! Many, even most, there was some evidence of a hit. It depended on how the bullet struck. There were several that literally looked like a piece of gravel was thrown threw the target. Target was simply ripped open.

as for doubles, some are and some are not. Point is?

[race1911]

I don't believe in "perfect doubles", one in a million odds someone is hoping the RO will make the call when they have had a miss

[Sarge]

11 minutes ago, race1911 said:

I don't believe in "perfect doubles", one in a million odds 

 

Edited January 3, 2017 by Sarge

[Sarge]

[wgj3]

Rules don't appear to "REQUIRE" presence of a grease ring, only stating that it can be good indicator of whether or not a scoring hit was fired. Seems that a "crown" is just as sufficient evidence of a hit...

Did I miss something?

I have noticed lately that my JP GMR 9mm has a tendency to put close range, quick shots into very close proximity. I think it the result of a fairly hefty barrel and handguard that truly doesn't move much in recoil from light 9mm rounds. I recall at least one occasion where it appears that both rounds went through the same hole. It was a situation where I was in a stationary position firing through a port at an array of 3-4 targets. There were no-shoots on the targets, so I was being fairly deliberate with my aiming as I went across the array. And the target in question was in the middle of the array, not on entry of exit from the port. When we went to score targets there was only one hole in the 2nd target, and none in the adjacent no-shoots. There was only one grease ring. I didn't even have to argue for a "double". The RO who had been watching me said there was no way that I could have completely missed the target array with my gun and self moving no more than I/it did. There was a definite grease ring, but not 2. He scored it as a 2 hits. If there had been no grease ring, would it have been 2 mikes?

[George Jones]

Quote

Total absence of a grease ring, lacking other evidence, does not disqualify the hit, but it should prompt a closer look at other possible options (shoot-throughs, etc.).

However, a single hole should be overlayed to determine if it could be a double.  Lacking evidence of a double on the target, it should be scored as One Hit, One Mike.

 

[DukeEB]

1 hour ago, race1911 said:

I don't believe in "perfect doubles", one in a million odds someone is hoping the RO will make the call when they have had a miss

I had one once, and the RO called it as such.  He said he was watching the target and actually saw the perfect double  lucky me!

[Sarge]

2 hours ago, DukeEB said:

I had one once, and the RO called it as such.  He said he was watching the target and actually saw the perfect double  lucky me!

It's hard to convince some, but I have seen them too when running shooters.

[IHAVEGAS]

2 hours ago, Sarge said:

It's hard to convince some, but I have seen them too when running shooters.

What I get more of is folks wanting a double whenever the hole is not perfectly round, either due to just the way the cardboard tore or the shot being at an angle to the target. 

[Nik Habicht]

On 1/2/2017 at 7:11 PM, Sarge said:

Hardly one in a million. This past season there was a local guy who had tumbling issues the better part of the summer. I guess I should have taken a picture. NOT! Many, even most, there was some evidence of a hit. It depended on how the bullet struck. There were several that literally looked like a piece of gravel was thrown threw the target. Target was simply ripped open.

as for doubles, some are and some are not. Point is?

Point is -- you need evidence of a hit on the face of the target to be able to score the target.  In your example of the local guy, how did you make the call when the hole simply looked like a piece of gravel was thrown through the target, and the hole crossed a scoring line?  Without an ogive, or other evidence of a hit, I can only call that a miss....

Shooter chooses the ammo and the gun -- and is responsible for the consequences of those choices.

 

[race1911]

6 hours ago, DukeEB said:

I had one once, and the RO called it as such.  He said he was watching the target and actually saw the perfect double  lucky me!

 

3 hours ago, Sarge said:

It's hard to convince some, but I have seen them too when running shooters.

..the RO running a shooter is supposed to have their eyes on the gun and shooters trigger finger, NOT the target.......sounds like they didn't know what  overlays are for either
 

Edited January 4, 2017 by race1911

[Sarge]

6 hours ago, race1911 said:

 

..the RO running a shooter is supposed to have their eyes on the gun and shooters trigger finger, NOT the target.......sounds like they didn't know what  overlays are for either
 

Well, I have a fair idea what overlays are for. AND, Sure, an RO's primary responsibility is to watch the gun. BUT, I primarily watch the gun while shooters are moving, fixing issues with it, switching hands, etc. You know, all the gun handling between shooting stuff. Once a shooter plants himself in a shooting location, I look down to make sure he isn't faulting and then focus beyond the shooter at no shoots, walls, barrels etc while keeping the gun in just enough focus to see anything unusual. At the end of a COF I prefer to say, "Alpha mike no shoot. You drilled that ns right in front of you but I clearly saw it was the A zone hit that counted." As opposed to, "Sorry dude I have no idea which of those holes count because your loads don't really produce clear grease rings, but you sure do a great job pulling the trigger!"

RO's need to multi task to be effective. Isn't that how you run shooters?

[race1911]

...yes Sarge, good description.....I still think though that except for the EXTREMELY rare "perfect double" that you might encounter once or even a couple times in your entire shooting experience that more than likely  when a shooter asks for a call  as a "double" he  has had a mike and is hoping the RO will call a "double" (the other hundreds, or thousands of times)

Edited January 4, 2017 by race1911

[DukeEB]

1 hour ago, race1911 said:

...yes Sarge, good description.....I still think though that except for the EXTREMELY rare "perfect double" that you might encounter once or even a couple times in your entire shooting experience that more than likely  when a shooter asks for a call  as a "double" he  has had a mike and is hoping the RO will call a "double" (the other hundreds, or thousands of times)

With the one time I had it, I didn't see it, and I would have accepted a Mike. I think it was my first year of competition.

[MemphisMechanic]

I've SO'd (it was an IDPA indoor) for one perfect double on a 4yd target that I'm still completely confident was a perfect pair of shots through the same hole. I was focused on the target and it was obvious that it was hit twice.

 

That was the one and only time I haven't marked the shooter down for a miss.

 

Regarding grease rings? If the shots passed right next to a barrel and one of them involves a jagged torn hole with no evidence of a ring... I've always scored those as a miss because it passed through a hardcover barrel in order to get to the paper. This happens whether I see the barrel stack twitch or not - although if I see it rock I will inform the shooter of such.

Edited January 30, 2017 by MemphisMechanic

[cas]

Did you see the bullets hit, or the target simply react to muzzle blast? 

[MemphisMechanic]

3 hours ago, cas said:

Did you see the bullets hit, or the target simply react to muzzle blast? 

Bullets impacting paper. The first hole punch, and then that exact same spot twitching again.

[IHAVEGAS]

A gang that doesn't bathe often? 

[Bram]

Shooter at our recent club match had the drop turn close on him......he insisted this was a 'Alpha Charlie'..... RO said 'Alpha Mike'...... he went to the RM who said 'Alpha Mike' because there was no grease mark.

I told him it's a miss because the hole wasn't the diameter of his bullet.

 

Whats the correct call?