Plastic barrels

[mhs]

I shot in a club match recently where plastic barrels were used as hard cover. There were several instances where the barrels were shot and the bullet continued on to hit the scoring target. When I was looking at the barrels I could find full-diameter hits that bulged out past the original edge of the barrel. These appeared as if they would have been partial diameter hits if the barrels were of a more rigid material, but the plastic barrel distorted around the bullet. How would you score the hit on the target from one of these bullets?

I will state prophylactically that I would prefer to use plastic barrels as soft cover, and use no-shoots or real hard cover to limit shooting lines.

[davidwiz]

It depends if the barrel was used as hard or soft cover. If hard cover, then no score on the target. Very few clubs use these plastic barrels as hard cover, for the reasons you state.

[Lee King]

Barrels suck as hardcover for all the reasons you just covered. Having said that, at my club we've used them as HC for years because they are cheap and easy to set up. I just took over as MD and would love to switch them to soft cover. But it's a paradigm shift and will take some time to work into the "best practices" of the club. In the meantime I try to use them for vision barriers only and keep targets away from them to avoid the issue. OR use NS on/near them to make a hard "line" so to speak.

Since we use them though, I personally only call a M IF I can 100% tell which hit on the barrel was the shooters. Sometimes it's pretty obvious by bullet path etc. There have been times where I know they hit the barrel, but there were full AND partial diameter hits on it already that could plausibly have been the hit in question. In those cases I just don't make a call at all.

You can't predict how far the barrel will deflect etc. so I apply the full partial rule regardless of deflection. It's gets particularly tricky when the plastic melts into a full diameter on what would've otherwise been a partial.

[aztecdriver]

They still suck as soft cover because

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 evidence 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.

Bullets hitting and then leaving a barrel, partial or full, tumble. They get slung at angles and change direction radically. I hate them. Gotta have a radius with a grease mark to call the hit. Making them soft cover just makes the mike you have to give the shooter sting more.

[pjb45]

e.g. means for example. It does not have to have a grease mark. It has to have visible evidence of which a grease mark is only one of many types of evidence that is permissible. I bring this up because too many RO believe a grease mark is the only evidence allowed.

A2 uses barrels as hard cover. They tape the holes so as to preclude any issues.

I was one a stage the other day when this issue came up. The RO called the shot a no hit because he heard the barrel hit. However, there were two holes in the target. The interesting part was there was no exit hole in the barrel. If you use barrels tape the holes.

[Pat Miles]

I am with the majority here who dislike plastic barrels as hard cover. Taping the hits on the barrel can be a PIA as the tape will not always stay put throughout a match. The torn out plastic of the barrels turns into a minor safety issue as it can open up flesh when people walk between them. handle them, etc.. Hits on them can be argued as the bullet can deflect differently as it hits and/or passes through and is sometimes deflected off at a different angle. There are just so many reasons not to use them instead of targets set up as hard cover (painted black) or as no shoots. Hits on hard cover targets or no shoot targets are very easily called in the correct way and much easier to accept by the shooter.

Pat

[aztecdriver]

e.g. means for example. It does not have to have a grease mark. It has to have visible evidence of which a grease mark is only one of many types of evidence that is permissible. I bring this up because too many RO believe a grease mark is the only evidence allowed.

A2 uses barrels as hard cover. They tape the holes so as to preclude any issues.

I was one a stage the other day when this issue came up. The RO called the shot a no hit because he heard the barrel hit. However, there were two holes in the target. The interesting part was there was no exit hole in the barrel. If you use barrels tape the holes.

I meant "or" instead of "and" -- plastic barrels frustrate me so much I can't type straight.

[AzYooper]

We do use the plastic barrels as hardcover out here in the desert at the ranges I shoot at. I would guess they are plentiful and easy to setup. I work as an RO at A2 and the CRO for our stage does score by what is on the target, not by what was a partial or full hit on the barrel. If there is a circumference on the target it is scored as a hit. We can hear and sometimes see hits to the barrel, but knowing it the hits are partial or full with tape flying off is difficult to call properly, so what is on the target is used.

I do not know if all plastic barrels are the same, but our barrels let some bullet types through and not others. I do not think it is fair to call them soft cover if only certain bullets can get through.

[mhs]

I work as an RO at A2 and the CRO for our stage does score by what is on the target, not by what was a partial or full hit on the barrel. If there is a circumference on the target it is scored as a hit. We can hear and sometimes see hits to the barrel, but knowing it the hits are partial or full with tape flying off is difficult to call properly, so what is on the target is used.

I've seen lots of full-diameter hits on barrels go right through and make a round hole in the target. I've also seen not quite full diameter hits on barrels go through targets and leave a radius with no grease ring. I don't think it is possible to correctly call these shots from the target.

[AzYooper]

I work as an RO at A2 and the CRO for our stage does score by what is on the target, not by what was a partial or full hit on the barrel. If there is a circumference on the target it is scored as a hit. We can hear and sometimes see hits to the barrel, but knowing it the hits are partial or full with tape flying off is difficult to call properly, so what is on the target is used.

I've seen lots of full-diameter hits on barrels go right through and make a round hole in the target. I've also seen not quite full diameter hits on barrels go through targets and leave a radius with no grease ring. I don't think it is possible to correctly call these shots from the target.

I would not say I have seen lots myself, but I have seen those situations. I see many more tumbling or splatter hits that do not have the radius. After a full day of shooters squeezing shots around a barrel the barrels can get chewed up and hard to tape. So I don't have the correct answer, except for the range buy all new hard cover, but I am listening.

[mhs]

I would not say I have seen lots myself, but I have seen those situations. I see many more tumbling or splatter hits that do not have the radius. After a full day of shooters squeezing shots around a barrel the barrels can get chewed up and hard to tape. So I don't have the correct answer, except for the range buy all new hard cover, but I am listening.

No-shoots

[murkish]

I hate to see plastic barrels used as any type of cover that might be shot.

I have seen too many bullets enter a barrel, do a few loop-de-loops and come back out in a far different direction. Sometimes straight back at the shooter, ROs, and peanut gallery.

Regards,

Jack

[aztecdriver]

A very, very wise man once commented on how much he'd love to just fill them up with sand. Then they'd be real hard cover and these issues wouldn't present. Then every range would need a forklift to build out...

[mhs]

This segues nicely into another question:

If you see splinters fly, or hear a barrel get hit, but the hard cover is too damaged to definitively say where the bullet hit, how would you score a bullet hole with no grease ring, assuming that the other hole had a grease ring?

I know that in a perfect world the hard cover would be taped/painted/pasted for each shooter, but in the club matches I attend this is unlikely.

[Nik Habicht]

This segues nicely into another question:

If you see splinters fly, or hear a barrel get hit, but the hard cover is too damaged to definitively say where the bullet hit, how would you score a bullet hole with no grease ring, assuming that the other hole had a grease ring?

I know that in a perfect world the hard cover would be taped/painted/pasted for each shooter, but in the club matches I attend this is unlikely.

If I can't make a definitive call, it's a reshoot. We like it when squads look at the set-up on their first stage, and mention problems such as those -- I'd rather staple up a no-shoot next to a port to provide a clean edge, than to have reshoots all day long.....

[Mistral404]

The RO should be looking at the gun and shooter not down range at the targets - IMHO. The score keeper should be looking for foot faults, etc. If I am running an Open shooter I usually double plug so hearing a hit on a barrel is probably not going to happen. Maybe this is the score keeper's job, except sometimes our score keeper is scoring while the shooting is still going - when it is safe and practical to do so.

I kind of like the plastic barrels. But I see their faults also. You can solve some of the problems by putting a no shoot or hard cover on the barrel. I prefer no shoots.

[Schutzenmeister]

This segues nicely into another question:

If you see splinters fly, or hear a barrel get hit, but the hard cover is too damaged to definitively say where the bullet hit, how would you score a bullet hole with no grease ring, assuming that the other hole had a grease ring?

I know that in a perfect world the hard cover would be taped/painted/pasted for each shooter, but in the club matches I attend this is unlikely.

If I can't make a definitive call, it's a reshoot. We like it when squads look at the set-up on their first stage, and mention problems such as those -- I'd rather staple up a no-shoot next to a port to provide a clean edge, than to have reshoots all day long.....

I look for any evidence that whatever went through that hole was a bullet. If there is no grease mark, then I need to some outline, or partial outline that I can identify as having the shape of a bullet ... the nose, the base, a radius that is appropriate for the shooter's caliber, whatever. If I cannot find such evidence, then per 9.5.5 it's a miss, not a reshoot.

[Nik Habicht]

This segues nicely into another question:

If you see splinters fly, or hear a barrel get hit, but the hard cover is too damaged to definitively say where the bullet hit, how would you score a bullet hole with no grease ring, assuming that the other hole had a grease ring?

I know that in a perfect world the hard cover would be taped/painted/pasted for each shooter, but in the club matches I attend this is unlikely.

If I can't make a definitive call, it's a reshoot. We like it when squads look at the set-up on their first stage, and mention problems such as those -- I'd rather staple up a no-shoot next to a port to provide a clean edge, than to have reshoots all day long.....

I look for any evidence that whatever went through that hole was a bullet. If there is no grease mark, then I need to some outline, or partial outline that I can identify as having the shape of a bullet ... the nose, the base, a radius that is appropriate for the shooter's caliber, whatever. If I cannot find such evidence, then per 9.5.5 it's a miss, not a reshoot.

Also have to consider:

9.1.6.1 If a bullet strikes wholly within hard cover, and continues on to strike any scoring paper target or no-shoot, that shot will not count for score or penalty, as the case may be.

9.1.6.3 If a bullet strikes partially within hard cover, and continues on to strike the scoring area of a paper target, the hit on that paper target will count for score or penalty, as the case may be.

[mhs]

I look for any evidence that whatever went through that hole was a bullet. If there is no grease mark, then I need to some outline, or partial outline that I can identify as having the shape of a bullet ... the nose, the base, a radius that is appropriate for the shooter's caliber, whatever. If I cannot find such evidence, then per 9.5.5 it's a miss, not a reshoot.

Also have to consider:

9.1.6.1 If a bullet strikes wholly within hard cover, and continues on to strike any scoring paper target or no-shoot, that shot will not count for score or penalty, as the case may be.

9.1.6.3 If a bullet strikes partially within hard cover, and continues on to strike the scoring area of a paper target, the hit on that paper target will count for score or penalty, as the case may be.

I think 9.5.5 is a general rule, but the 9.1.6 rules specifically define how to handle cases involving hard cover. I don't think 9.5.5 applies here.

[mhs]

This segues nicely into another question:

If you see splinters fly, or hear a barrel get hit, but the hard cover is too damaged to definitively say where the bullet hit, how would you score a bullet hole with no grease ring, assuming that the other hole had a grease ring?

I know that in a perfect world the hard cover would be taped/painted/pasted for each shooter, but in the club matches I attend this is unlikely.

If I can't make a definitive call, it's a reshoot. We like it when squads look at the set-up on their first stage, and mention problems such as those -- I'd rather staple up a no-shoot next to a port to provide a clean edge, than to have reshoots all day long.....

I agree that this would be the correct thing to do, but what rule supports it? All I can see is REF maybe.

[MarkCO]

e.g. means for example. It does not have to have a grease mark. It has to have visible evidence of which a grease mark is only one of many types of evidence that is permissible. I bring this up because too many RO believe a grease mark is the only evidence allowed.

A2 uses barrels as hard cover. They tape the holes so as to preclude any issues.

I was one a stage the other day when this issue came up. The RO called the shot a no hit because he heard the barrel hit. However, there were two holes in the target. The interesting part was there was no exit hole in the barrel. If you use barrels tape the holes.

Agreed. I shot three major matches this year that used barrels as hard cover. One was very good at taping the barrels and making the correct calls. Another stated they were hardcover, but then did not score it that way. The third was even worse in that some squads with good ROs taped and called them correclty, but then whole squads went through ignoring the barrel hots and thus a few shooters who should have had misses did not get them called that way.

[22 shooter]

I try to black out the area on the target covered by the barrel, so if they do shoot through it it hits hardcover on the target.

[High Lord Gomer]

At Area 6 this year we had blue barrels painted black. It was easy to tell what holes were new since we painted them whenever they got shot.

[Schutzenmeister]

I try to black out the area on the target covered by the barrel, so if they do shoot through it it hits hardcover on the target.

I think there's better than a 50/50 chance that, if you are declaring the barrels soft cover, painting part of the target behind it black for hard cover would violate 4.1.4.2. (... All scoring zones on targets hidden by soft cover must be left wholly intact. ...)

[sperman]

I try to black out the area on the target covered by the barrel, so if they do shoot through it it hits hardcover on the target.

I think there's better than a 50/50 chance that, if you are declaring the barrels soft cover, painting part of the target behind it black for hard cover would violate 4.1.4.2. (... All scoring zones on targets hidden by soft cover must be left wholly intact. ...)

There was a stage like that at a recent Level 2 match. One competitor was considering filing an arb because he trashed the stage. Fortunately he thought better of it.

In my mind, this is more confusion about definitions (obscured, hidden, available, etc.) I would think 4.1.4.2 is applying to targets behind landscaping fabric, where you can only see the head. Is a target hidden by soft cover if you can see 2/3rds of the target from one side of a barrel, and the opposit 2/3rds from the other side of the barrel?

Plastic barrels don't work well as either hard cover or soft cover. It would be nice if all hardcover were steel, but I don't think that is very realistic (and doesn't work if your hard cover is closer than 26 ft.)