Is this a no-shoot?

[Skywalker]

Skywalker,

Without actually seeing the hypothetical hole    I guess I agree with your conclusion, the only difference is that I would change my train of thought from:

SKY: evidence is that, after grazing the tires, the bullet left a key-hole with some radial tears departing from it in the target.

VINCE: evidence is that, <snip> the bullet left a key-hole with some radial tears <snip>

SKY: My call would be that this is a scoring hit, because the bullet didn't completely pass through the tire pile, got deviated some 30 degrees from its original trajectory, and eventually hit the target (placed some 30 cm behind the tires) sideways.

VINCE: My call would be that this is a scoring hit <snip>

In other words, I would only consider evidence actually visible on the target - all the rest is presumption.

OK, time to unveil one of my juvenile errors as a competitor (who didn't know a damn about game rules):

I was the shooter in question.

The target (6 metres from me, with tires on its left side) was the last target I shot in a medium course: after having shot the target twice, I noticed an alpha-strange hole in the target. After initial puzzling, my guess was that, since the second hole didn't look like a bullet hit (key-hole, with radial tears) I wouldn't have been scored that hit, thus I shot a third round to the target, getting a third alpha with 1.5 seconds more time.

After holstering the gun, I tried to figure out what had happened with the RO, and he told me that I had a bad flinch on the second shot, that brought it to graze the tires, and ended up sideways on the target: I really wouldn't have needed that third shot.

Now, I know that I ran into an experienced and mostly attentive RO, who caught the whole scene, but it doesn't always works like this.

I posed the question to learn how a RO, who misses the bullet path, is expected to judge such a situation, and now I have learned it.

[Vince Pinto]

Hi guys,

Thanks for your further comments and input into the rules process. This has been a highly productive thread.

I've posted the draft rule to the IPSC Rules Committee Forum for consideration by the rest of the guys, and I'll report back with any comments.

[shred]

Slight drift, but how do we handle the case of frag-rips-a-hole-in-target, then the shooter shoots at it again, but there's no evidence of another hit? Score it like an untaped target? Assume the bullet could have gone through that hole?

[ivanhu]

Slight drift, but how do we handle the case of frag-rips-a-hole-in-target, then the shooter shoots at it again, but there's no evidence of another hit?  Score it like an untaped target?  Assume the bullet could have gone through that hole?

If you ask me, that should be scored as a miss. In this case, we might make fewer mistakes as if we'd do on the other way, and would score it as a hit (besides, suppose there's a scoring line nearby, how can you decide whether it's the lower or the higher value if there's no bullet mark to check against the scoring line). I mean, the possibility that it's "a hit on that hole" is much less than the possibility that it's a miss. Were we score it as a hit, we'd screw all the other competitors on that match; therefore, this interpretation means that we'll make a mistake to not give the shooter a deserved hit one times vs. those several cases when we do not make the mistake and give the shooter the deserved miss penalty.

So I'd prefer to score it as a miss. There's no visual evidence that a bullet passed through that hole, therefore it's a miss. Clear, simple, and IMHO fair enough.

[Vince Pinto]

Slight drift, but how do we handle the case of frag-rips-a-hole-in-target, then the shooter shoots at it again, but there's no evidence of another hit?  Score it like an untaped target?  Assume the bullet could have gone through that hole?

I think you've answered your own question. You have a "frag" (probably not counted, but it depends on the size etc.) and after the competitor shoots again "there's no evidence of another hit" (nothing to count).

When it comes to targets, I think we all agree that's there are no other shooting sport in the world as difficult to score as dynamic shooting sports. The bullets move, the targets move, the competitors move and, hell, sometimes even the things beneath your feet move (e.g. boats in little ponds, rope bridges etc.), and that's a whole lotta movin' goin' on.

Scoring targets in IPSC is definitely not an exact science, and the only solution I can think of is to base your call on the physical evidence actually on the target.

[wide45]

But if there is a an untaped hole of a larger caliber from a preveous shot, then a reshoot is called for in the case of no evidence of a hit.

US 9.1.4.2

If there was a big hole in the target, why would you not do the same, regardless of what made the hole.

[ivanhu]

But if there is a an untaped hole of a larger caliber from a preveous shot, then a reshoot is called for in the case of no evidence of a hit. 

US 9.1.4.2

A good question. But my answer is simple: that's a USPSA rule, not an IPSC one, so if the USPSA BOD thinks that in case of large holes the reshoot is due, they'll amend this IPSC rule, too.

More seriously, IMHO the difference is who's responsible for that large hole. In case of untaped target, the shooter is not guilty for sure. In case of hitting the edge of the prop, the shooter is guilty - after all, it was he who hit that prop.

But you see, IMHO the IPSC version is actually better - it orders the reshoot only if it is not obvious to the Range Officer which hits were made by the competitor. The miss is a "hit" (or the lack thereof), so if it's obvious that the shooter's "hit" is scored as a miss, because there's no hole with the right caliber, then that's the correct call.

Some shooters sometimes say "but I saw that hole and thought that it's a hit". Okay, but I won't score by the shooter's thoughts - I'll score by the visible hits. The shooter is responsible for all the shots he takes - if he cannot tell that it was a miss, then it's his problem, next time he'll aim more carefully.

Now, may I claim for the "bastard operator from hell" title? After all, I do work as a system administrator...

[Jim Norman]

If it is a "BULLET HOLE" it should count as a hit. If it hits the steel and there is a fragmented peice that hits the paper, I think in good consceince that it is a hit on the steel (if it falls) and no penalty on the paper. BUT if there is a hole on the paper that looks like a bullet hole 'O' then it is reasonable to assume in all cases that a bullet made the hole. If the penalty target behind a piece of steel had an untaped large torn ragged hole in it the shooter gets the buy, no penalty.

If the target is paper then the round passes thru and hits the NS, it is fairly easy to see. It is when the target is truly impenetrable as in a Popper that the trouble arises. The edge hit, if the round actually split in half and the half that hit stopped and the half that overhung the edge continued on, you'd have a hole in the target that looks like a 'D' since that doesn't hapen, we get fragments and splatter. In my book I say if its a hit, its a hit, if not its a miss. That is, a "O" is a hit anything else (Obvious angle hits excluded for purposes of this discussion) a 'D' or a ragged hole is not a hit on the penalty.

My thoughts for what they are worth.

Jim Norman

[Radagast]

Vince, just a bit of thread drift here. If with a turning target the shooter rips the target in two by shooting it edge on, or cuts it three quarters of the way across by shooting it as it almost finishes turning away, is that scored as the largest zone cut or not at all?

BTW I like your definition. It seems to define what most ROs actually do, and it allows for tumbling rounds to be scored.

Ken

[Vince Pinto]

Ken,

The situation you describe would most likely fall under Section 4.6 Range Equipment Failure and, since such a situations are so rare, I'd most likely order a reshoot. Even if there was physical evidence on the target that a legitimate (albeit extended) bullet hole was visible, the fact is that if the tear caused the target to cut in half or hang, the competitor could not be expected to complete the COF.

I ordered a reshoot at the Australian Nationals in 2002 because one competitor's first shot hit the extreme edge of the Delta zone and shattered the target stick, so the target totally sagged and flapped about.

[zorba]

Here it is...

Picture a swinging pt , behind it is a target aprox 3 inches away.

My bullet strikes the side of the frame of the swinging pt and continues on to strike the scoring target.

There is slight splatter to the left of the deformed bullet hole which may or may not be mine.(the splatter)

The hole is key hole shaped and is scored a mike by the ro who is also competing in the same event........

I have to argue for my score rule 9.1.6.3 simple..

My point is that we must have clear guide lines and they must take into account this type of situation.if ricochets off the sides of tyres are not going to be scored then rule 9.1.6.3 needs to disapear...

Grease marks etc .. cant be used as evidence, i shoot copper and when the bullet is traveling side ways its not going to leave any marks on the target.

[Vince Pinto]

Picture a swinging pt , behind it is a target aprox 3 inches away.

That's called "asking for scoring trouble" and it's a terrible target array. Overlay the PT over the scoring target on the same swinger and you won't have a problem.

Course Design 101.

[mactiger]

Amen, and Hallelujah! The worst example on the neatest setup I ever saw were some electrically operated moving no-shoots with electrically operated pop-up targets behind them. There were so many holes in the no-shoots it wasn't funny. Hard as hell to score, but fun to watch.

Troy

[zorba]

Back to cource design, makes sence to me.