Is this a no-shoot?

[L9X25]

I don't really want to get into the design of the stage but it featured no-shoot targets that were behind steel targets.

While scoring the targets the scorekeeper came upon a jagged hole in a no-shoot target. The shooter argued that it was a fragment off of the steel and the score keeper claimed it was a partial bullet.

The hole had no discernable diameter or profile (nothing recognizable as a bullet) and was larger than a .45 while the shooter was shooting a 9mm.

What in the rule book distinguishes a "hit" from a bullet fragment?

This scenario could just as easily be on a shoot target as opposed to the no-shoot. How do you score "holes" in a shoot target that do not have an identifiable "diameter" or profile?

Thanks,

Leo

[Liota]

I believe the correct term is "splatter". The stage design should have been looked over for that possibility and allowances made for it with distance or another solution. The difference between an actual hit on a NS and splatter should be easy to discern. There is a hole with a grease ring on the NS for a hit. Splatter typically has tears and no grease ring.

Hope that helps,

Liota

[L9X25]

Liota,

I agree with your assertion completely. I believe that a hole that does not have a diameter or profile (as in a tumbling bullet) is not a hit on a no-shoot (or shoot) target and should simply be classified as splatter or a bullet fragment.

However, I am told that the current edition rule book makes no such distinction as to what is, or is not, a hit. While the course design may have been less than ideal, the situation occurred and we are looking for a decision supported by the current rule book.

Leo

[Nik Habicht]

Leo,

while I probably wouldn't score what you describe as a hit on a penalty target, I might score a tumbling bullet as a hit on targets and penalty targets alike. I can remember a time, when most of my bullets were plated and overcrimped, and they tumbled on targets more than ten yards from the gun....

[ErikW]

It seems to me a "hit" is whatever the RO says until you appeal up to the chief range officer and possibly the range master. And it doesn't cost you a dime to get the two extra opinions.

[Vince Pinto]

Leo,

Sadly the rulebook fails to provide a definition of what constitutes a legitimate "hit" so, for the time being, it remains up to the RO (and CRO/RM on appeal) to continue making judgement calls. Having said that, the subject is on my "To Do" list, but it's an extremely tough definition to write.

The real solution is to take preventative measures through good course design and construction.

However if I'm asked to make a call, I apply the following test: "Does the hole appear to have been clearly and distinctly created by a bullet which has travelled directly from the gun to the target?". If the answer is "No", I won't count it.

[Skywalker]

However if I'm asked to make a call, I apply the following test: "Does the hole appear to have been clearly and distinctively created by a bullet which has travelled directly from the gun to the target?". If the answer is "No", I won't count it.

I will second what Vince said:

ALL targets are impenetrable. Thus, splatter, ricochets or any other kind of perforation of a penalty target, caused by the very same bullet that hit a scoring target, better have to be clearly marked and identified as having partially struck the scoring target (i.e. external border of the scoring area cut, or hit on the external border of a metal target made visible by removed paint), otherwise it has to be considered as a shoot-through (the same as a paper scoring target).

Sounds like that particular target was designed specifically to be a PITA for the RO/CRO and to (possibly) earn money with the Arbitration Committee...

[Vince Pinto]

Hi guys,

I'm already trying to draft a clear definition of what constitutes a "hit" for our Glossary, but I'm not 100% happy with what I've written so far:

Hit - A hole through a paper target (or a mark on the face of a metal target) which a Range Officer deems was clearly and distinctly created by a bullet which travelled directly from the firearm to the target.

Anybody?

[Liota]

Vince,

Your definition sounds right on the spot to me. It still requires judgement on the part of the RO. If the competitor is not happy with the RO's call, he can use the usual chain of command to resolve the issue.

When I took my RO class from Jay Worden, he kept reminding us that the RO was to help the competitor, not try to hurt him. As a result, I always try to give as much benefit to the competitor within the confines of the rules and accurate scoring.

Liota

[Skywalker]

Hit - A hole through a paper target (or a mark on the face of a metal target) which a Range Officer deems was clearly and distinctly created by a bullet which travelled directly from the firearm to the target.

Hit - A hole through a paper target (or a mark on the face of a metal target) which a Range Officer deems was clearly and distinctly created by a bullet whose path goes straight (or slightly deviated from the impact with solid props or the edge of a metal target) from firearm muzzle to the target.

[Vince Pinto]

Skywalker,

As soon as you mention "deviated" and (preliminary) "impact", you're allowing splatter and ricochets to be included, and that defeats the purpose (not to mention your definition conflicts with Rule 9.1.6.1). Are we having fun yet? Believe me, this definition is the Holy Grail of IPSC rule writing - I haven't worked it out yet but, hey, it's only been 7 years, so quit rushing me

Liota,

You clearly have the right frame of mind, but there's a balance to strike between assisting one competitor and inadvertently screwing another bunch of competitors. This is the same argument which applies to the infamous "perfect double". If you use the dreaded "benefit of doubt" theory, you might make one guy happy, but you can also affect the outcome of the match.

You must judge on the visible evidence, not with your heart, no matter how big it is

[L9X25]

Skywalker,

As soon as you mention "deviated" and (preliminary) "impact", you're allowing splatter and ricochets to be included, and that defeats the purpose (not to mention your definition conflicts with Rule 9.1.6.1). Are we having fun yet? Believe me, this definition is the Holy Grail of IPSC rule writing - I haven't worked it out yet but, hey, it's only been 7 years, so quit rushing me

Liota,

You clearly have the right frame of mind, but there's a balance to strike between assisting one competitor and inadvertently screwing another bunch of competitors. This is the same argument which applies to the infamous "perfect double". If you use the dreaded "benefit of doubt" theory, you might make one guy happy, but you can also affect the outcome of the match.

You must judge on the visible evidence, not with your heart, no matter how big it is

Vince,

I agree wholeheartedly with your analysis and definition of a "hit". I think that, in addition to what a "hit" is, you might consider some verbiage describing what a "Hit" looks like. It should be recognizable by the diameter or profile of the bullet. A bullet that is clearly deformed (by impact with another object) is splatter, regardless of how large the fragment might be.

Leo

[Skywalker]

Vince,

I wrote intentionally "deviated" and "impact", because a bullet that strikes a paper target, a metal target, or any other prop, and whose diameter is not completely inside the scoring area of the target, or inside the confines of the prop shall count for subsequent score or penalty, according to rules 9.1.5.3 and 9.1.5.4.

Your definition will not take into account this possible situation, granted by the above rules, de facto excluding them.

[SmittyFL]

I agree with the theory that you should be able to look at the target and say "Yep, that is a bullet" in order for it to be scored a hit. However, to play devil's advocate, in this senario the steel popper was hit, but it didn't fall. The bullet just grazed the edge of the steel and continued on to the no-shoot. So while it didn't look like a bullet, it obviously was the bullet.

It was just like a partial hit on two paper targets, it just happened to be steel. While I still agree, for ease of scoring and avoiding problems I think the rule should require the hole to "look" like a bullet. It should also address the partial hit on steel issue. In this senario, I think if the steel had fallen, it would have been a different outcome.

Personally I felt the stage design on the stage in question was outstanding. Rarely does one see a more professionally designed stage. It appeared it was designed, and set up by not only a good looking person, but smart and powerfull as well.....But hey, that's just my opinion.

[Vince Pinto]

Leo,

Thanks for the input, and I think it's a great idea to use your "A bullet that is clearly deformed (by impact with another object) is splatter" in the rules, much like we deal with radial tears. In fact, it might work if we deal with both matters under Rule 9.5.4. in addition to the Glossary entry.

Smitty,

Hmmm. I wonder who was the stage designer? Sounds like it was Colin Farrell, Mel Gibson or Brad Pitt The points you raise are also valid, and therein lies the challenge. I hate to use this expression, but it's like the US Supreme Court Justice who once said he (she?) couldn't define pornography, but he (she) could recognise it if he (she?) saw it.

Skywalker,

Point taken. Let's work on this some more. If we all use The Force, we might find a solution

[L9X25]

Smitty,

Vince's comment:"Hit - A hole through a paper target (or a mark on the face of a metal target) which a Range Officer deems was clearly and distinctly created by a bullet which travelled directly from the firearm to the target."

An RO (even a very good one) cannot "see" the bullet in flight and can only use the evidence left by the object passing through the target, as to what passed. If the hole looks like a bullet (either in profile or diameter) it is a bullet. If the hole has no recognizable shape it has to be ruled splatter or fragment. That is the only way to consistently score the targets.

Remember, this exact scenario could have happened on a shoot target. Suppose that a "hole" appears on the scoring surface of a shoot target within the "C" zone but has a portion passing into the "A" zone ... how can you determine where the bullet passed, and what is a lateral tear, when the entire hole is a tear. If there is no recognizable hole, that you can overlay or otherwise determine the boundary of the projectile, what determines if the competitor gets the "A" or the "C"?

The shooter in question was NOT me. I just had the unfortunate situation of being the RO at the center of this controversy. This is an honest attempt to find "the truth" so that the situation can be handled correctly in the future.

Thanks all,

Leo

[DogmaDog]

The problem is that any bullet splatter is essentially random, so if you attach a score to the holes made by bullet splatter, it's no longer a game of skill. Therefore, holes made by bullet fragments bouncing off steel or props designated as hard cover, or the ground, or whatever, shouldn't be scored.

However, bullets travelling through soft cover, and then striking targets should score, even if the soft cover is substantial enough to deform the bullet, or deflect its flight path. Bullets nicking the edge of steel targets or props, and then hitting paper targets should count.

I'm having a hard time improving Vince's definition. You might add that "ricochets are not hits" , or "bullet fragments cannot score hits" or something like that.

Man...this is a tough one. I'd rather just look at some pornography, to see if I'll know it when I see it.

DogmaDog

[38SuperWes]

<<Smitty,

Hmmm. I wonder who was the stage designer? Sounds like it was Colin Farrell, Mel Gibson or Brad Pitt>>

heck....Grandmaster Smitty could out drink, out shoot and out..... well...at least he could out drink em and out shoot em.....but it might be hard to out "Cuss" Colin or out "chick" Brad...and old Mel does look pretty tuff in a skirt, oops... I mean Kilt...and come to think of it...Colin does ok in the "supermodel" dept..think he has about ten "kids" with supermodels by now...hmm and Brad does have the "Jen"....thats kinda tough to beat... ...but I am sure it would be close! And hey..... shootin and drinkin are cool and Smitty can sure do that!! (Cept not at the same time!!)

WES

[schoonie]

If by definition a "scoring hit" is the result of a bullet leaving a recognizable hole (round, radiused,etc.), then any shot that impacts a target will have to be scored. This would by default have to include any form of ricochet, carom, or deflection where the bullet was not sufficiently deformed beyond the obvious.

I think that the RO would have to score only by the evidence on the targets and would have to disregard what he or her saw. This case being an excellent example; the shooter's shot nicked the popper and continued on into the penalty target. The penalty target's score then depends soley on the amount of bullet deformity not on the observation by the RO at the time of the shot.

[SmittyFL]

Leo,

I agree with you. I had splatter on the right no-shoot from the angle at which I shot the left popper, but the popper fell so we didn't score the "splatter". I orginally had full size poppers there, but then we ran out of poppers needed for the other stage so I replaced them with the USP's. I think full size poppers would have helped, but maybe not cured the problem. I probably should have removed the no-shoots all together, or used a vision barrier to force a straight on shot, I didn't forsee shooters engaging them at such an extreme angle.

That being said, and ingoring the stage set up to talk about the rule issue. It would be tough to write the rule, I'm glad I don't have to do it. It's one of those grey areas like a "safe AD" or whatever you want to call it. Where the shooter knows they AD'ed, the RO knows, and everybody watching knows. But it was in a safe direction and impacted the berm. For scoring purposes, we have to clearly define a DQable AD.........In our senario, although I didn't see it, I think all agree it was the bullet that passed through the target. By virtue of the angle of engagement and "dinging" the steel without it falling. But it doesn't look like a bullet so how do you score it?

Jim and I talked about it on the way home, I think there are good ideas on here. I agree it must look like a bullet. I think for fairness and consistancy of scoring, you need to be able to look at it and/or overlay it and tell it is some kind of bullet hole and disregard all "splatter".

[L9X25]

Smitty,

In this particular instance, Vlad was shooting the array from the extreme left side and was engaging the poppers at about 45 degrees. The no-shoot targets WERE NOT behind the USPSA poppers from the angle he was shooting. He hit a USPSA popper on the side of the popper (not on the face) and the bullet (or a fragment of the bullet) ricocheted into the no-shoot. It was not a linear impact at all as the hole in the no-shoot appeared nearly a foot to the left of where the popper was hit (using line of sight). This was not a partial diameter hit where the remainder of the bullet continued rearward (in a straight line) and struck the no-shoot ... it was clearly a ricochet of a portion (or all) of the bullet. The “object” that struck the no-shoot did not leave a “grease ring”, diameter or profile. It left a jagged hole about .50 cal in diameter that looked like a series of lateral tears. There was nothing identifiable as being made by a bullet.

My contention was, as you clearly stated, that "you need to be able to look at it and/or overlay it and tell it is some kind of bullet hole and disregard all 'splatter'"." We cannot score any hole in a no-shoot as a no-shoot.

Leo

[Skywalker]

Smitty,

I think your suggestion

to be able to look at it and/or overlay it and tell it is some kind of bullet hole and disregard all "splatter"

would at least fail in the following example.

A shooter engages a target which is partially covered by a pile of tires (quite common here in Italy). He shoots, and his bullet skids on the edge of a tire, to impact the target leaving a key-hole in it.

According to the rules, since the bullet had not passed completely through the prop (impenetrable hard cover in this case), it has to be scored.

But, according to your suggestion it is not to be scored, because it's a ricochet and it doesn't leave an "overlayable" hole.

I think this argument deserves a bit more of discussion.

[L9X25]

Sky,

I see your concern and that is the reason that I have consistently used the terms diameter or “recognizable profile” to indicate a tumbling bullet.

Vince seemed to indicate that ricochets should not be counted. If a bullets fragments significantly upon impact with a tire, it would be very difficult to differentiate tires from other hard cover.

This topic is far more difficult than I anticipated.

Leo

[SmittyFL]

Again, I agree with both of you (Sky,Leo). I think this boils down to a case by case judegment call, which makes it even more difficult to write a rule for.

"This topic is far more difficult than I anticipated."

Well said.

[Vince Pinto]

This topic is far more difficult than I anticipated.

Ha! And you probably thought I was exaggerating when I said this has been on my mind for 7 years. No Sir, I kid you not. This is the Holy Grail of rule writing. The only thing which has been on my mind longer is getting a date with Michelle Pfeiffer. Yes, yes, I know. It'd be easier writing the damned rule, but I can dream, can't I?

Jokes aside, at the end of the day I suspect that no matter how we cut it or write it, the answer will probably always be an RO's judgement call, but it would be useful if we could at least provide some guidance in the rulebook, as we do with many aspects of course design and construction.

Further input would therefore be appreciated.