The Perfect Double

[Jasonub]

BS mode on:

I had the same problem when i was doing .2 splits. One hole on all targets all are 2 shots inside a hole. Its not that noticeable on swingers.

The cure was to increase the split to .25 and i can get groups of 1 inch apart for 2 shots. on swingers i try to give it .26 of a seconds since sometimes the shots are still touching each other

Seriously, as long as there is no second diameter its an alpha mike. If its a perfect 1 hole shot its still counted as a/m.

the reason is the probability should be 1 billion to 1 on our type of shooting. (moving, fast shots, swinging targets, etc)

[eric nielsen]

PaulW:

Jack Barnes started a thread on that very subject. It was reeeeally interesting. Some of the responses made me laugh. You 2 think alike.

Erik:

That sounds familiar. A champion shooter had at least 99.999% of a bullet hole in hardcover - including the overlay. Got the target pulled, run up & down & all around. The circumstances & the shooter involved *made* the doubt. No miss was scored.

Another champion shooter held up our chrono session at a Nationals, to plead that his chrono time the next morning was too early (cold). No dice. He squeaked thru at Major. Thank you, Nationals staff.

ANOTHER champion shooter shot the "fence" stage at the '99 Florida Open. One bullet grazed the fence & left for parts unknown. Alpha Mike. The CRO & I pointed to the place where he fired the shot (a ways out) and the hole in the fence, and how nice & round that one hit in the target looked. Jerry Barnhart, bless his heart, signed his scorecard, shook our hands, and thanked us for doing a good job as Range Officers.

Thank you, Jerry.

[Flexmoney]

We are starting to get off base here.

I'm not talking about the snake-bellied cheaters. Not really asking about the "odds".

A perfect double can happen...and likey has. And, the measurements that I posted support the likelyhood of it happening more than we likely imagine. But, it sounds like we are all going to score it as a MISS.

If we want to say that there needs to be two visible scoring rings (or some such wording that applies) then perhaps we should think about putting that in the rule book?

I don't know if that would cut down on the BS claims of doubles, but it would give the RO a clearer means of making the call.

[diehli]

I agree with Flex. If you put it in the rules as he's suggested, you get rid of some of those damned fools that swear up and down its a double.

Overlay it. No discernable second ring, kindly tell the competitor to STFU and take it like a man.

[Vince Pinto]

Hi guys,

Which part of the following rules from the IPSC January 2004 Edition rulebook:

9.6.4 Any challenge to a score or penalty must be appealed to the Range Officer by the competitor (or his delegate) prior to the subject target being painted, patched, or reset, failing which such challenges will not be accepted.

9.6.5 In the event that the Range Officer upholds the original score or penalty and the competitor is dissatisfied, he may appeal to the Chief Range Officer and then to the Range Master for a ruling.

9.6.6 The Range Master’s ruling will be final. No further appeals are allowed with respect to the scoring decision.

9.6.7 During a scoring challenge, the subject target(s) must not be patched, taped or otherwise interfered with until the matter has been settled. The Range Officer may remove a disputed paper target from the course of fire for further examination to prevent any delay in the match. Both the competitor and the Range Officer must sign the target and clearly indicate which hit(s) is (are) subject to challenge.

9.6.8 Scoring overlays approved by the Range Master must be used exclusively, as and when required, to verify and/or determine the applicable scoring zone of hits on paper targets.

-:is not clear?

[Detlef]

yes, Vince, backing targets are used by some UIT disciplines. And no, I did not want to advocate using them in IPSC. Indeed logistically infeasible. Notwithstanding all that's been said here, I do not consider "perfect doubles" a significant scoring problem in IPSC...

[DogmaDog]

Hmmm,

From my highpower rifle days:

If, after a rapid fire string (10 shots at either 200 or 300 yards, in 60 or 70 sec), there are 9 holes in the "aiming black" (9, 10, or X ring, or 8 - X ring), the shooter may accept the value of the 9 hits, or take an alibi (=reshoot).

So even when there are 10 shots into a ring about the size of an A-zone, and only 9 apparent holes, the "benefit of the doubt" only rates a reshoot--there is no "perfect double".

Oh, and an example of "the benefit of the doubt" not covered by rules Vince has quoted:

I shot a stage with a couple no shoots placed several yards in front of a target, forcing the shooter to move and lean to shoot around them (obvious shoot-through issues). I called a bad shot and fired a make-up. The target had 2A and 1C hits, and there was a hole in the no-shoot. The RO looks through the hole in the no-shoot, to the target several yards beyond, and declares that I get "A-C", and that one of the As passed through the no-shoot.

I think I deserved "the benefit of the doubt" --2A, no-shoot. I don't think the RO could constrain the path of the bullet by looking through the hole, especially when there was a large shooting box I was moving around in.

DogmaDog

[Vince Pinto]

DD,

The way you describe it, that's not a case of "benefif of doubt" - it's a bad call.

Under the rules, if the shot which passed through the PT can be identified with certainty as an Alpha, you should've been given "1A, 1C, 1PT". If no certainty, then "2A, 1PT" would've been correct.

And when can I get to RO such an honest competitor?

[Sam]

Way to go Flexman Springer! Great topic! Gentlemen....... fling your chairs. (I'm a victim, a VICTIM I tell you! Everytime I go to a match, I shoot those dang immaculate doubles....)

All kidding aside, I do have a serious question. Is a competitor, wishing to avoid the "immaculate double" better off shooting wad cutters or round nosed bullets. I would think wad cutter, because it is easier to see a sharp ring. But then round nosed might make the outline more fuzzy. Which might lend doubt, to the benefit of the doubt.

As an R/O, I would rather make a ruling on a wadcutter anyday. As a shooter, I'm wondering are bullets like wimmen, where rounder is definately easier to appreciate?

[IPSCDRL]

What about when the "crowd" actually sees the shot hit the same hole? Assuming that no hard evidence exists to refute the double, should the RO be swayed by multiple eyewitness accounts? The last match I shot, three or four of us saw one happen, but fortunately you could make out a second radius even without the overlays. But what if you couldn't and people still saw it happen?

Well Rhino, what the crowd sees makes not a bit of difference as I can attest. Arnie has had the pleasure of seeing a double that was so close that it was scored as an A/M. 2000 Limiteds stage one, the final target was about ten feet away. The members of my squad standing behind me saw the target flex and the hole open/close on the second shot. RO could only see one hole. CRO only saw one but I knew that there were two bullets through there so I asked them to call the Range Master for a ruling. I walked away while Arnie approached and declared the target an Alpha Mike. I thanked Arnie for coming over and taking a careful look. He was surprised to find out it was my target but I did not want him to know before making the call.

[Ron Ankeny]

In my limited view of the universe, it's really simple to score a double. Either there are two holes so closely spaced that a scoring device is required to located the penetrations, or it's a miss.

When used as a comparator, the human eye is an amazing measuring device. Anyone who is skilled in the use of overlays and/or optical comparators can find eccentric penetrations with centers only a few thousandths of an inch apart. Scoring officials in the precision shooting sports don't seem to have a problem with the concept. Either there is evidence to award a double or there isn't.

[Matthew_Mink]

There is a shooter here in Arkansas that claims to have shot a perfect double in a match. His claim is backed up by a few other guys that were there and reviewed the tape later. He was in a box not moving, and was firing rapidly at several targets. He had a boatload of A's and an uncalled Miss. The overlay didn't find 2 hits so he took his licks. Later on, he and several other shooters were watching the tape of the match and they realized that he wasn't moving in the box, yet there were 2 impacts on the berm in the same place when he shot the target with the mystery miss. So, gun and shooter not moving, 2 impacts in the same place on the berm and one hole in the target may indicate that the perfect double was performed. But with the billions of billions of targets shot, one would have to believe that it would have to happen occasionally. I haven't seen the tape in question, but about 5 people of good repute swear on it, so ya never know.

[Ron Ankeny]

Just because the scoring official didn't find the hole doesn't mean it wasn't there. In my younger days I spent countless hours wearing my "official" arm band, 10X optical comparator and overlays in hand, rendering scoring decisions. It's amazing what a 10 or 20 power visual boost will reveal, but I have never seen magnification used in an IPSC match. What's up with that?

[hoser]

Geez, Michael, I would have thought you would have gotten over that proper call by now! The story does seem to get better every time you tell it, though.

Have a very happy Holidays, Michael, maybe, just maybe, I owe you one.

Arnie

[Vince Pinto]

Ron,

I use a simple magnifier like this, but if we start offering electron microscopes at IPSC matches, you can kiss your regular 3 day match schedule good bye, unless we charge a "challenge fee" of US$10 per hole being challenged. Hmmmmmm

Michael,

If Arnie says it's an Alpha/Mike, I wouldn't dare argue with him. Sure, I'm bigger than he is, but he knows Kung Fu and seven more Chinese words

[DogmaDog]

Vince,

Yeah...I don't think an RO can have any "reasonable certainty" about which of 3 holes was caused by a bullet passing through another target several yards closer.

Someone said here previously that the shoot-through would yield a hole without a grease ring, and if that were cited as evidence, then I'd buy it, but it wasn't.

Anyway, get me a couple tix to Hong Kong and I'll shoot with you any time!

I want the points that I earned, and I want the scoring system to reward me for my skill, I want the RO to make his calls based on what he sees on the target, and not on any assumptions based on my classification, or the fact that I'm new, or the gun I'm shooting. And no match result is important enough to be worth compromising my integrity. If I really called 2 good hits, and there's only one hole, I'd challenge the target if the RO called a mike, and then accept the mike if several judges inspected the target carefully, and couldn't see evidence of two holes.

I think most USPSA shooters are like me in that regard, and most ROs score fairly and correctly, and when they don't it's mostly because of honest mistakes.

Sam,

I wouldn't let this issue influence my choice of bullet (it comes way behind reliability, accuracy, and weight). But if it's all the same, use the semi-wads. Better to blast all doubt out a larger hole than to leave some doubt in the hole. Probably will benefit you more in terms of "close to the line" calls than in "perfect double" disputes--you're likely to have a few close to the line shots in each match, and doubles much less often.

DD

[Flexmoney]

Darth,

Those rules you quoted are all clear and good. I don't think anybody is questioning them, so don't get your light-saber out...yet.

And...where do I sign-up to get one of those electron microscopes???

[Vince Pinto]

Hi guys,

This thread has got me thinking about another devious stunt I (we?) can pull on a suitable victim.

If I can keep a straight face, and it's a huge IF, when the right guy challenges a call and thinks it's a "perfect double", even after I've done my usual due diligence, I'm gonna say "Hey, no problem. We'll send it to the lab for analysis".

BWA-HA-HA

(Yes, yes, I know - no more Tennessee Eggnog for Uncle Vinny)

[BSeevers]

Hey The only perfect doubles I have seen, I shot.

Happy Holidays

[Sam]

Thanks DD, you're right. I've got more important bullet selection issues to worry about.

A possible good answer for major matches would be to put the targets farther away.

Oh, I can hear the groans already. Hear me out. I don't doubt that some very well placed shots, through no fault of the shooter, have been scored mikes. If the targets are farther away there is more room for shot to shot dispersion to develop. True, an absolutely perfect double will be the same from 1 foot to infinity. But, we all know it is much easier to shoot a one hole group at ten yards than it is at one hundred.

In my humble opinion, stationary targets at 3 to 5 yards don't do much to test skills anyway, and they do make it much more likely that an RO isn't going to be able(sans microscope and an expert legal team) to tell if two bullets passed through the same hole. Result, the better shooter gets screwed when targets are very close.

Another stage design solution is to put plenty of no shoots and hard cover very tight around close targets when they are used. Then either the bullets went through the same hole or they went into hard cover or penalty targets. This is one area where the benefit of the doubt could have a lot less doubt.

[Ron Ankeny]

I am not talking about a freaking electron mocroscope, I am talking about using an optical comparator (with concentric rings on the lens) to speed up the scoring process on targets that are pulled and put under protest. These handy little devices are used all of the time in the precision shooting sports because they are fast and accurate (like my shooting) but I never see them at IPSC matches. I think most IPSC shooters are just happy to hit the target and the idea of scoring targets quickly with precision and settling a protest on the spot is a concept that escapes them.

[lynn jones]

folks it's simple... if you're a GM or M it's a double, anyone else, it's a mike.

lynn

[diehli]

settling a protest on the spot

Vince, this is what I was talking about if the rules were amended. Rather than having a lengthy arbitration process on these "immaculate" doubles, the RO can simply point to a rule after using the overlay and say "you can arbitrate if you want, but the lack of two distinct visual cues (or whatever the hell you want to call them) guarantees that the ruling will be the same all along the line."

Maybe I'm in the minority, but I don't like being held up because some douche decides that he'll try to be a thorn and get the call he wants.

[BDH]

Wow! I had one of these at the FGN this year.... GM.... World Champ.... only upper AB zone, and shot on the run..... that's right, BOTH shots exactly through the same hole. The RO scored it..... Bravo Mike..... called me up and after looking as hard as I could, I scored it Bravo Mike.... of course the RM was called up, who also looked very hard for the double, but scored it Bravo Mike. Is it 'possible' that it was a two Bravo? I suppose so, but chances were so low, how could we possibly give that call?

I remember speaking with the RM later about this one, and the advice I got was 'call em the same for everyone that walks up..... D shooter..... GM.... it doesn't matter. You are looking at the same hole in the same target. Call it to the best of your abilities, and call it consistently, and everything will work out'. I am probably paraphrasing a little bit here, but that made sense to me.

After all, if it truly was a GM and a World Champ who was going to shoot a perfect double on a running upper AB zone target.... why wouldn't he have shot two Alpha?

Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays, and Happy New Year to all.

[SmittyFL]

I can't believe we've had 4 pages about a Mike.