Loves2Shoot

Will your bullets go through impenetrable "hard cover?"

I've cited it several times, in several ways, per rule. Cliff note version: Walls are not required to stop bullets physically, by rule they stop them. That's just wrong. No rule "stops" bullets. The bullets continue on their way to where they were aimed. The rules tell us how the results are scored. Firing a shot aimed at a target, fulfills all requirements to fire at shot at that target. No rule requires that you must see the target to aim at it, or hit it, or shoot at it. No rule states that you can't shoot through a wall at a target. The rules only state that such a shot won't be scored as a hit. No rule prevents it from being a shot at a target. Please feel free to explain how bullets continue through impenetrable "hard cover" by rule. There are rules to deal with unfair advantage, and I think if you have bullets that you want to go through impenetrable hard cover, that is an unfair advantage 10.6. Read 9.1.6 Unless specifically described as “soft cover” (see Rule 4.1.4.2) in the written stage briefing, all props, walls, barriers, vision screens and other obstacles are deemed to be impenetrable “hard cover”: Definition of IMPENETRABLE 1 a : incapable of being penetrated or pierced The rule stops the bullet at the wall by definition.

I've cited it several times, in several ways, per rule. Cliff note version: Walls are not required to stop bullets physically, by rule they stop them. Intentionally shooting through a wall (since by rule you can not shoot under them) would only give the shooter an unfair advantage if they did not get the FTE (see previous posts on unfair advantage rules)and they did not shoot at them from another position where they could legally be engaged with a scoring hit, per this example. If you give them a reshoot, you also give them an unfair advantage if there is no exploit of a loophole or safety issue. 9.1.6 and 9.1.6.1 What you are saying is that walls don't stop bullets unless they go to the ground, and that is not what 9.1.6 or 9.1.6.1 say. You could have a 12" wall at 6' high, and by rule it goes to the ground and will stop bullets. Having the "holes" on the target is not important if you know as a RO that the only way they could have been put there is through a wall that stops bullets. Seems reasonable to me, since not scoring it with a FTE would give the shooter an advantage over a shooter who just skipped the target and did not try to shoot through an impenetrable wall.

No, the sights, slide and barrel are the only differences. That's strange, that they would not try to fix the roll pin issue. In the 1 year I shot the xdm in competition I had 2 break on me. Another guy at my club also had 2 break on him in 1 year What roll pin issue? Third season for my 40 XDm, and have yet to break one. I have had the pin out a few times, but it is still the original pin. If it ain't broke, don't fix it, I always say. Having said that, I do carry spares Stop drinking the kool aid..Its broken for many people. Im not trying to rain on the hype. Its a honest question. They break only for the people who don't maintain their pistol, and that is an honest opinion. I've seen a lot of folks who don't change their springs to and wonder why they get weak or break too, but I don't consider that defect, as they only have so many spring backs in them also.

I've 10's of thousands of rounds through our XD's and have yet to break one, but I change them regularly, just like springs.

No, the sights, slide and barrel are the only differences.

You paid $750 for an edge? I'll give you your money for it.

Through a solid -- as opposed to imaginary -- wall, you're close to being right. I once put rounds through a wall -- knocking down steel each time -- twice in a row, while engaging a badly set, not yet activated swinger. On the third crack at the stage, I finally managed to miss the steel..... Wasn't unsportsmanlike, wasn't malicious, was just a shoot-through no one had considered.... This is not my statement, I was quoting someone else replying to the target presentation in this example, not incidental hits, and it makes perfect sense to me.

You are leaving out rules to say 1.1.5 is king, you can't leave out 9.1.6.1 and 9.1.6 and say, well you can see it, because they are in the book and they do apply. The rulebook clearly states that you don't have to build the walls to the ground and the rules 9.1.6.1 and 9.1.6 address how to deal with shots taken under the lower edge of a wall that is 2-6 feet off the ground. The rules state you can't shoot under walls, because they go to the ground and stop bullets. Show me the loophole and I would agree with you on the FA since they didn't state their was a safety issue. Shooting at a wall is not a loophole IMO, it is just not good strategy. I agree, the modification BEFORE the stage starts would have been ideal, and I don't think it was a good presentation, but it looks to be legal.

You can not engage a target under a wall per 2.2.3.3 and 9.1.6 only through them. 2.3.1.1 Doesn't say you can issue a FA for a scoring issue, only safety and loophole for unfair advantage. (see above) The only reason someone would shoot through a wall at a target they supposedly cannot see, is to not take a penalty for FTE, that is gaming and gaining an advantage, though many would say unsportsmanlike as well. 6.10

A factory/OEM magazine release which extends only the length of the magazine release may be used. A magazine release which provides larger surface area (paddles, buttons) may only be used if it is an OEM part available on an approved model of gun. • Externally-visible parts from “custom shop” guns will only be considered “OEM parts” if the customshop gun is on the NROI list of approved Production guns. The rule book is your friend

Here is the "by rule" how to apply a FTE in this case: If someone shoots through a wall at a target, you log the time but do not score and call the RM, he will decided if it is a situation for a FA, if he agrees he will issue a reshoot, change the WSB and anyone else that does it (it is read in the WSB they cannot) will get a zero. 1.1.5 states they may engage as when visible, 9.1.6.1 states that any round that passes wholly through hard cover will not score, 9.1.6 states vision screens, barriers, props, walls and other obstacles are deemed to be impenetrable “hard cover” 2.3.1.1 and 3.2.6.1. The only reason someone would shoot through a wall at a target they supposedly cannot see, is to not take a penalty for FTE, that is gaming and gaining an advantage, though many would say unsportsmanlike as well. 2.3.1.1 In lieu of modifying course design or physical construction, a Range Master may explicitly forbid certain competitor actions in order to maintain competitive equity. The stage already started, so you can't alter the stage without FA. a. Declaration of a Forbidden Action may be made to prohibit competitor movement which is likely to result in an unsafe condition or to prohibit exploit of an unintended course loophole in order to circumvent a course requirement and/or gain unfair competitive advantage. If the target presentation was legal, not unsafe, not a loop hole and did not give a competitive advantage, a FA can not be applied per this rule, by rule. So, by rule 2, M 1 FTE, unless the RM determines there was a safety issue that allows them to make a FA, as it is obvious there was no exploit of a loophole. On a non rule related note in this particular case, the shooter would be given a huge advantage if you give them a reshoot. Not be given those 30 penalty points is not fair to his competitors, because he chose not to shoot the stage in a way in which he could make shots that could score all his hits. Thanks to those that helped me understand how the rules work together.

No tin foil here, I have a paperclip, and was instructed to try this by one of the two people who make it.

We've been shooting walls you can see through for a long time as we have a windy range, we even had two national here with said walls, so I do understand the as when visible. I do know you can see through walls and under high ones. I never said it was good stage design, only keep in mind what you are proposing as a call opens a lot of doors I don't think you want to open in "gamers" eyes. What you say you would do if someone gave you an FTE for shooting at targets you couldn't hit because you didn't see the huge wall and know that it does go to the ground unless they says it does, I can't agree with because it would give you an advantage over your competitors for your mistake and the choices that you made in shooting the stage by getting a reshoot. I also agree that you are free to send it to arb. The ONLY reason I've tried to figure this out is so hard is I want to know what the current state of the rules are. If you can make a FA because a shooter did something the stage didn't allow for and you can score it, then score it and move on. The ruling I was advised is the misses plus penalties and if they don't like it 6.10. Who likes that? I won't waste your time if I'm not making valid points, but if you can engage (shoot at) a target that you can't score hits on, I think a few more people than myself might benefit from knowing that, as it seems a lot of folks would give a procedural for it. If you can make a FA for an action that is not related to safety, loophole exploitation, or competitive advantage, then what are the limits? That is why I posted in this thread also.

Troy, What was the scoring issue on the under the wall stage since you can't shoot under a wall since all walls go to the ground per rule? I posted per rule in the other thread how it can be scored exactly as it was "educated" to me. He did not shoot under the wall, he shoot at the wall. What I "think" you are saying now that you would make a rule that would say in essence in your FA, "You still can't shoot those targets from that position and expect the hits to score because there is a wall right there." You would just be repeating the rules already in place. If I'm not getting it, please let me know because, it was starting to make sense. Scott, part of the problem with doing nothing -- and potentially having other competitors do the same thing -- is that at some point someone's going to file an arbitration to have the stage tossed, because the low target violates 1.1.5. That's on top of the ongoing discussion of the scoring issue that will occur for those competitors -- RO scores it two mikes, appeal to CRO, who upholds it, appeal to RM -- at which point the target gets pulled. That stage backs up quickly.... So the FA -- and that section could possibly be used to actually hide the target from view, by throwing up another wall panel that extends to the ground -- would essentially eliminate the logjam..... Think of it as an in-match fix for a design/set-up issue that wasn't addressed prior to the first shot.... How does the low target violate 1.1.5 1.1.5 states they may engage as when visible, 9.1.6.1 states that any round that passes wholly through hard cover will not score, 9.1.6 states vision screens, barriers, props, walls and other obstacles are deemed to be impenetrable “hard cover”, so anyone intentionally shooting a wall that they think may have a target behind it whether you see or not, would have a penalty of a miss at the least, they may if the RO sees it as unsportsman like conduct, could DQ under 10.6 I'm not sure why Troy won't explain what he would change or what I'm off base about, maybe you will. 9.1.6.1 and 9.1.6 apply for EVERY stage already. 9.1.6 seems to be to have been created to deal with just such an action. You could add a vision barrier and it wouldn't change how you could shoot the stage one bit because of the previous two rules, but it why would you give a reshoot and a FA? Their is no loophole, their is no competitive advantage for missing targets, and their is not a safety issue. Is that not clear and supported by the appropriate rules?

buy some paint

Poppa Bear, since you can't skew the hit factor by shooting through (by rule you can't shoot under them unless it is specifically allowed) a wall, since you could just run by them anyway without firing shots, and be even faster. If you can, it is a super bad design and the good shooters will all run by it.

Per rule, you can't shoot under a wall unless it is specifically allowed. I think that is what derailed everyone. The shooter on post 1 did not shoot under ANY WALL, he shoot at a wall, because per rule (as stated in my post #375 how you can score the stage rule by rule) he shot at a wall, not under one.

Troy, What was the scoring issue on the under the wall stage since you can't shoot under a wall since all walls go to the ground per rule? I posted per rule in the other thread how it can be scored exactly as it was "educated" to me. He did not shoot under the wall, he shoot at the wall. What I "think" you are saying now that you would make a rule that would say in essence in your FA, "You still can't shoot those targets from that position and expect the hits to score because there is a wall right there." You would just be repeating the rules already in place. If I'm not getting it, please let me know because, it was starting to make sense.

Troy, Can you shoot under a wall unless it is specified that you can do so? Was their any advantage gained by shooting at the wall if you can not shot scoring hits? If you say no to both of those, what allows you to make a FA? EDIT: The key here would be "circumvent course requirement " ergo going to another position to shoot the target. 2.3.1.1 In lieu of modifying course design or physical construction, Range Master may explicitly forbid certain competitor actions order to maintain competitive equity. a. Declaration of a Forbidden Action may be made to prohibit competitor movement which is likely to result in an unsafe condition or to prohibit exploit of an unintended course loop- hole in order to circumvent a course requirement and/or gain unfair competitive advantage. I see what you mean though as the consideration already has a rule just not one that we are all agreed on. I don't want to drag this thread back to debating the under wall deal though... JT After getting "educated" in the rule changes if you try to blow in a hole where there is none in a stage where there is none 10.6 is there.

No Spanky, you don't win....You were just on the winning side..... He thought he won... If you try to break a hole in a stage where there is none 10.6 is right there waiting for you.

Troy, You did make it to 16!!! One of the rules of handgun safety, know what you are shooting at and the backstop. There is no rule or rule book definition of the phrase "to shoot at" thus, you ask a question with no correct answer. I've read the book 10 times cover to cover at least and asked someone who could provide the answer if it existed. You call the RM and let him decide when you can not make the call. When I was a certified RO and actively shooting, there was not the FA and understanding how it is being applied changes my views I've posted so far.

It appears we may all be wrong... I've learned a lot about the rule book changes and how they are interpreted though. 1.1.5 states they (targets)may engage as when visible, 9.1.6.1 states that any round that passes wholly through hard cover will not score, 9.1.6 states vision screens, barriers, props, walls and other obstacles are deemed to be impenetrable “hard cover”, so anyone intentionally shooting a wall that they think may have a target behind it whether you see or not, would have a penalty of a miss at the least, they may if the RO sees it as unsportsman like conduct, could DQ under 10.6 2.3.1.1 is forbidden action, which could make the competitor reshoot and the WSB changed to include the forbidden action and then 3.2.6.1 and 10.2.11 come into play. Since 1.1.5, 9.1.6.1, 9.1.6 all apply, I don't see any advantage was gained and the stage seems to be legal already and properly set up, so no modification or declaration is needed, 10.6 if the RO sees it as unsportsman like conduct. FTSA / FTE seems to still be a very gray area with no feedback on yes or no on a definition of TSA a target fully behind hardcover.

Are you required by rule to shoot all the targets on a stage from positions where you can score a hit? The wall thread was about scoring and someone brought FA into it. If you can "shoot at" or "engage" targets through impenetrable barriers intentionally, then walls changed from steel, wood and brick to bullet proof glasses. That is no small change.

I don't think you even have to do the math, as you can skip any target you want by rule, it just comes down to scoring. If intentionally skipping a target, or shooting at one you know you can't score on is enough to justify a ruling, rule and reshoot, you just wrote a blank check to RM's.