Scoring questions

[George Jones]

Isn't there something in the rulebook about radial tears? Or is what you're describing NOT a radial tear? If not, what IS a radial tear? I googled it and found only medical references.

A radial tear is best described as the "spider web" tears (ripping) which radiates outward from the center of the bullet hit. They are simply a tearing of the paper and are most commonly seen in paper targets, not so much in cardboard. It is possible to have some radial tearing in cardboard which runs along the internal ribs.

Radial tears are ignored in scoring since it a "failure" of the paper and not an indication of where the bullet diameter hit.

[lim10]

I agree, Mikes on both targets.

I’m left wondering why the wording is so different from 9.5.2 (and 9.5.3) to 9.5.9. In at least two rules, a bullet diameter that touches a scoring area is sufficient. 9.5.9 says that a bullet diameter touching a scoring area is not sufficient (considering the circumstances described in the original post).

Like George Jones said, “I don't see a problem with it beyond educating the masses.”

9.5.2 If the bullet diameter of a hit on a scoring target touches the scoring line between two scoring areas, or the line between the non-scoring border and a scoring area, or if it crosses multiple scoring areas, it will be scored the higher value.

9.5.3 If a bullet diameter touches the scoring area of both a scoring target and a no-shoot, it will earn the score and incur the penalty.

9.5.9 Hits upon scoring or no-shoot paper targets, must completely pass through the target to be considered a valid hit and count for score or penalty.

[racerba]

Isn't there something in the rulebook about radial tears? Or is what you're describing NOT a radial tear? If not, what IS a radial tear? I googled it and found only medical references.

Rule 9.5.4

Radial tears are tears in the cardboard as a piece is ripped, not cut by the bullet.

[remoandiris]

Thanks much for the explanation.

Isn't there something in the rulebook about radial tears? Or is what you're describing NOT a radial tear? If not, what IS a radial tear? I googled it and found only medical references.

A radial tear is best described as the "spider web" tears (ripping) which radiates outward from the center of the bullet hit. They are simply a tearing of the paper and are most commonly seen in paper targets, not so much in cardboard. It is possible to have some radial tearing in cardboard which runs along the internal ribs.

Radial tears are ignored in scoring since it a "failure" of the paper and not an indication of where the bullet diameter hit.

[Jay870]

So what about the case where a target is cut in half by a bullet moving edge to edge?

[racerba]

So what about the case where a target is cut in half by a bullet moving edge to edge?

it went through the target, did it not?

[lugnut]

Ok so pic 1 is the one I'm still struggling with. I think the bullet did go straight "through" the edge of the target, leaving a grease ring that I suspect an overlay would confirm broke the perf for a D hit- it just didn't leave a hole in the target. What if the bullet left the same grease ring but there was a piece of cardboard outside the perf that got ripped off from the bullet? What's the difference wrt to where the bullet hit the D zone? If the perf were an inch wider outside the D zone (hypothetically of course), there would likely be a hole and a scored D. Point is a think the bullet did go through the target... it just didn't leave a hole.

[Jay870]

So what about the case where a target is cut in half by a bullet moving edge to edge?

it went through the target, did it not?

Yes. Score it an alpha since it traversed the A?

[racerba]

Yes. Score it an alpha since it traversed the A?

yes, an "A"

[racerba]

Ok so pic 1 is the one I'm still struggling with. I think the bullet did go straight "through" the edge of the target, leaving a grease ring that I suspect an overlay would confirm broke the perf for a D hit- it just didn't leave a hole in the target. What if the bullet left the same grease ring but there was a piece of cardboard outside the perf that got ripped off from the bullet? What's the difference wrt to where the bullet hit the D zone? If the perf were an inch wider outside the D zone (hypothetically of course), there would likely be a hole and a scored D. Point is a think the bullet did go through the target... it just didn't leave a hole.

I would say that the bullet passed BY the target's edge, not through it. if it went through the target, then there would be a hole. If it ripped a piece of cardboard, then I would say it went THROUGH the target.

[lugnut]

Ok so pic 1 is the one I'm still struggling with. I think the bullet did go straight "through" the edge of the target, leaving a grease ring that I suspect an overlay would confirm broke the perf for a D hit- it just didn't leave a hole in the target. What if the bullet left the same grease ring but there was a piece of cardboard outside the perf that got ripped off from the bullet? What's the difference wrt to where the bullet hit the D zone? If the perf were an inch wider outside the D zone (hypothetically of course), there would likely be a hole and a scored D. Point is a think the bullet did go through the target... it just didn't leave a hole.

I would say that the bullet passed BY the target's edge, not through it. if it went through the target, then there would be a hole. If it ripped a piece of cardboard, then I would say it went THROUGH the target.

I'll make sure to request firm targets at the next match i go to then...

[JAFO]

Oooh! I vote for spray starching between shooters!

[Corey]

Oooh! I vote for spray starching between shooters!

people have a hard enough time helping with setting steel and taping targets, now you wanna add starching too?

[JAFO]

people have a hard enough time helping with setting steel and taping targets, now you wanna add starching too?

Brown starch! No taping required!

[dejadoo]

I'd say it's Mike and his brother Mike.

[Skydiver]

2 Mike.

[professor]

In scoring both of these targets, I'm going to consider the edge of the target [beyond the edge perf] to be a plane extending to infinity. I am also going to consider that the bullet created a slender cylinder in space, projecting from the muzzle of the gun to and through the plane of the target. When an RO uses an overlay to check the surface of a target, they are actually simulating the position of that slender cylinder as it interacts with the face of the target. When the cylinder to target plane is a 90 degree angle, interpretations are quite simple. Unfortunately, that is not the case in these instances.

So, what does that interaction between bullet cylinder and infinite plane target look like, when there is an acute [sharp] angle between the cylinder and the plane. In simple words, what would the bullet do to such a target, approaching it at a sharp angle?

You've seen the CSI people simulate the path of bullets using dowel rods inserted into bullet holes in walls [and victims]. Same sort of analysis.

In the first target, the bullet would make a hole through the target which starts at the perf and extends through the target somewhere in the extended 'edge' outside the D zone. This is clearly demonstrated by the fact that the bullet subsequently went through the target stick supporting the target. The plane of the target was penetrated by the bullet.

In the second target, the bullet would make a hole through the target which starts within the D zone, crosses the perf and exits the target somewhere in the extended 'edge' outside the D zone. This is clearly demonstrated by the fact that the bullet subsequently went through the target stick supporting the target. The plane of the target was penetrated by the bullet.

This demonstration, in both cases, eliminates George's contention that the bullet simply creased the face of the target, and did not penetrate the target. Had the bullet simply creased the target face, it could not subsequently penetrate the target stick. [And I would agree with him that a turning target with a grease mark scoring the entire width of the target would not qualify as a scoring hit, while a bullet cutting through the entire width of the target would score as an Alpha].

Also, the bullet obviously had the power to penetrate the cardboard of the target, as it subsequently penetrated the more substantial target stick. In the incident at the nationals, the bullet just dented the target and bounced off. .

Now that the plane of the target has been demonstrated to have been penetrated, scoring becomes a matter of determining the highest scoring zone that was hit by that bullet in its path through the target. And in both cases, that would be the D zone, as indicated in the first target by the path touching the perf, and in the second target by the outer arc of the grease ring left by the bullet within the D zone.

Another way to look at it is to consider a target that was hit by a bullet near the A-C or C-D zone, and then had all but a 1/4" of the target cut off to the right of the perf, which would include the hole where the bullet went through. You would end up with targets that look exactly like these edge hits.

Two Deltas.

Ok so pic 1 is the one I'm still struggling with. I think the bullet did go straight "through" the edge of the target, leaving a grease ring that I suspect an overlay would confirm broke the perf for a D hit- it just didn't leave a hole in the target. What if the bullet left the same grease ring but there was a piece of cardboard outside the perf that got ripped off from the bullet? What's the difference wrt to where the bullet hit the D zone? If the perf were an inch wider outside the D zone (hypothetically of course), there would likely be a hole and a scored D. Point is a think the bullet did go through the target... it just didn't leave a hole.

I would say that the bullet passed BY the target's edge, not through it. if it went through the target, then there would be a hole. If it ripped a piece of cardboard, then I would say it went THROUGH the target.

[MarkCO]

I sure hope that some of the responses on this thread are not from NROI certified ROs.

[lugnut]

I sure hope that some of the responses on this thread are not from NROI certified ROs.

Some certainly are...

[sperman]

c'mon guys. Arguing with Nick and Flex is one thing. Two different NROI instructors have given you their opinion. These are the guys who helped write the rules. I'm pretty sure they know how to make the corret call.

[Mark R]

In scoring both of these targets, I'm going to consider the edge of the target [beyond the edge perf] to be a plane extending to infinity. I am also going to consider that the bullet created a slender cylinder in space, projecting from the muzzle of the gun to and through the plane of the target. When an RO uses an overlay to check the surface of a target, they are actually simulating the position of that slender cylinder as it interacts with the face of the target. When the cylinder to target plane is a 90 degree angle, interpretations are quite simple. Unfortunately, that is not the case in these instances.

So, what does that interaction between bullet cylinder and infinite plane target look like, when there is an acute [sharp] angle between the cylinder and the plane. In simple words, what would the bullet do to such a target, approaching it at a sharp angle?

You've seen the CSI people simulate the path of bullets using dowel rods inserted into bullet holes in walls [and victims]. Same sort of analysis.

In the first target, the bullet would make a hole through the target which starts at the perf and extends through the target somewhere in the extended 'edge' outside the D zone. This is clearly demonstrated by the fact that the bullet subsequently went through the target stick supporting the target. The plane of the target was penetrated by the bullet.

In the second target, the bullet would make a hole through the target which starts within the D zone, crosses the perf and exits the target somewhere in the extended 'edge' outside the D zone. This is clearly demonstrated by the fact that the bullet subsequently went through the target stick supporting the target. The plane of the target was penetrated by the bullet.

This demonstration, in both cases, eliminates George's contention that the bullet simply creased the face of the target, and did not penetrate the target. Had the bullet simply creased the target face, it could not subsequently penetrate the target stick. [And I would agree with him that a turning target with a grease mark scoring the entire width of the target would not qualify as a scoring hit, while a bullet cutting through the entire width of the target would score as an Alpha].

Also, the bullet obviously had the power to penetrate the cardboard of the target, as it subsequently penetrated the more substantial target stick. In the incident at the nationals, the bullet just dented the target and bounced off. .

Now that the plane of the target has been demonstrated to have been penetrated, scoring becomes a matter of determining the highest scoring zone that was hit by that bullet in its path through the target. And in both cases, that would be the D zone, as indicated in the first target by the path touching the perf, and in the second target by the outer arc of the grease ring left by the bullet within the D zone.

Another way to look at it is to consider a target that was hit by a bullet near the A-C or C-D zone, and then had all but a 1/4" of the target cut off to the right of the perf, which would include the hole where the bullet went through. You would end up with targets that look exactly like these edge hits.

Two Deltas.

Exactly what I was trying to say...just didn't say it that way. I think the rule book needs a review and edit for clarification of rule 9.5.9 "...must completely pass through the target...". Adding the word "plane" after target would alleviate all confusion.

What or where is the advantage the shooter gained by having a miss on a D zone hit? Was someone threatened by his miss/D hit?

I was always taught the shooter get the benefit of the doubt.

Edited to add question mark on first question...my bad.

Edited May 20, 2011 by Mark R

[Mark R]

c'mon guys. Arguing with Nick and Flex is one thing. Two different NROI instructors have given you their opinion. These are the guys who helped write the rules. I'm pretty sure they know how to make the corret call.

Just because it's written and existing CRO's agree, doesn't mean it's correct. Maybe NROI needs a review.

[mhs]

In scoring both of these targets, I'm going to consider the edge of the target [beyond the edge perf] to be a plane extending to infinity. I am also going to consider that the bullet created a slender cylinder in space, projecting from the muzzle of the gun to and through the plane of the target. When an RO uses an overlay to check the surface of a target, they are actually simulating the position of that slender cylinder as it interacts with the face of the target. When the cylinder to target plane is a 90 degree angle, interpretations are quite simple. Unfortunately, that is not the case in these instances.

So, what does that interaction between bullet cylinder and infinite plane target look like, when there is an acute [sharp] angle between the cylinder and the plane. In simple words, what would the bullet do to such a target, approaching it at a sharp angle? In the second target, the bullet would make a hole through the target which starts within the D zone, crosses the perf and exits the target somewhere in the extended 'edge' outside the D zone. This is clearly demonstrated by the fact that the bullet subsequently went through the target stick supporting the target. The plane of the target was penetrated by the bullet.

This demonstration, in both cases, eliminates George's contention that the bullet simply creased the face of the target, and did not penetrate the target. Had the bullet simply creased the target face, it could not subsequently penetrate the target stick. [And I would agree with him that a turning target with a grease mark scoring the entire width of the target would not qualify as a scoring hit, while a bullet cutting through the entire width of the target would score as an Alpha].

Your infinite plane idea is difficult for me to reconcile with the idea that a target may be creased (as in a late shoot on a turner) and not penetrated. It would be vanishingly unlikely for a shot to touch the target and not have its slender cylinder penetrate the infinite plane. It would need to be perfectly parallel. Please explain how you reconcile these ideas.

This demonstration, in both cases, eliminates George's contention that the bullet simply creased the face of the target, and did not penetrate the target.

Actually, this demonstration shows that the bullet penetrated the plane of the target. That's all.

[Nik Habicht]

What or where is the advantage the shooter gained by having a miss on a D zone hit? Was someone threatened by his miss/D hit?

Probably any of his competitors in class, and possibly division. Some of the fiercest rivalries I've seen locally have been in class races.....

I was always taught the shooter get the benefit of the doubt.

When, and by whom?

Just because it's written and existing CRO's agree, doesn't mean it's correct. Maybe NROI needs a review.

That's certainly possible. Of course it's equally possible that longstanding members might need to take an RO refresher class. Sitting in on a level 1 class in 2010 was a vastly different experience from sitting in my first class in 2002.....

[Nik Habicht]

In scoring both of these targets, I'm going to consider the edge of the target [beyond the edge perf] to be a plane extending to infinity. I am also going to consider that the bullet created a slender cylinder in space, projecting from the muzzle of the gun to and through the plane of the target. When an RO uses an overlay to check the surface of a target, they are actually simulating the position of that slender cylinder as it interacts with the face of the target. When the cylinder to target plane is a 90 degree angle, interpretations are quite simple. Unfortunately, that is not the case in these instances.

So, what does that interaction between bullet cylinder and infinite plane target look like, when there is an acute [sharp] angle between the cylinder and the plane. In simple words, what would the bullet do to such a target, approaching it at a sharp angle? In the second target, the bullet would make a hole through the target which starts within the D zone, crosses the perf and exits the target somewhere in the extended 'edge' outside the D zone. This is clearly demonstrated by the fact that the bullet subsequently went through the target stick supporting the target. The plane of the target was penetrated by the bullet.

This demonstration, in both cases, eliminates George's contention that the bullet simply creased the face of the target, and did not penetrate the target. Had the bullet simply creased the target face, it could not subsequently penetrate the target stick. [And I would agree with him that a turning target with a grease mark scoring the entire width of the target would not qualify as a scoring hit, while a bullet cutting through the entire width of the target would score as an Alpha].

Your infinite plane idea is difficult for me to reconcile with the idea that a target may be creased (as in a late shoot on a turner) and not penetrated. It would be vanishingly unlikely for a shot to touch the target and not have its slender cylinder penetrate the infinite plane. It would need to be perfectly parallel. Please explain how you reconcile these ideas.

This demonstration, in both cases, eliminates George's contention that the bullet simply creased the face of the target, and did not penetrate the target.

Actually, this demonstration shows that the bullet penetrated the plane of the target. That's all.

We can only score targets, not planes. Per the rules, we need evidence of a hole that penetrates all the way through the target, not an adjacent plane....