Does CM99-60 comply with the current rule book

[LT45]

The classifier CM99-60 CUT and RUN has a no-shoot pepper popper that is setup not to fall to score penalty points.

This is a quote from the classifier setup notes "No-shoot popper is set not to fall when hit; paint between competitors."

The no-shoot popper is a scoring metal target... it scores penalty points.

So according to 4.3.1.5:

Scoring metal targets must be shot and fall or overturn to score.

Scoring Poppers which fail to fall when hit, are subject to the provisions of Appendix C1, 6 & 7. Scoring metal targets which

a Range Officer deems have fallen or overturned due to a shot on the supporting apparatus or prematurely fallen or moved for

any reason will be treated as range equipment failure. (See Rule 4.6.1).

But then there is 9.4.3:

Each full or partial diameter hit visible on the frontal surface of a metal no-shoot will be penalized the equivalent of twice the point value of a maximum scoring hit, regardless of whether or not it is designed to fall (see Rules 4.3.1.7 and 4.3.1.8).

So which is it? I don't see a definitive answer...the way I'm reading it, if 4.3.1.5 is correct.. does CM99-60 need to be retired for non-compliance with the rule book?

[High Lord Gomer]

The way I read it a no-shoot is NOT a scoring target but rather a penalty target, so 4.3.1.5 does not apply to no-shoots.

[aztecdriver]

I think you may need to continue down the rest of the rules to see more:

4.3.1.8 Metal no-shoot targets which are designed to fall when hit, but which fail to fall or overturn when struck by a full or partial diameter hit, shall incur the penalty or penalties in accordance with Rule 9.4.3, and is not grounds for a reshoot per range equipment failure.

4.3.1.9 Metal no-shoots targets must, if hit, be repainted after each competitor ends their attempt at the course of fire, failing which subsequent competitors must not be penalized for hits visible on their surface.

4.1.3 No-shoots must be clearly marked or be of a single color different from scoring targets. Metal no-shoots in the general size and shape of authorized paper targets may be used. Metal no-shoots do not have a non scoring border

I believe that the rules delineate that all metal targets that are to be counted as scoring hit - ie., a required hit for score, MUST be falling targets. Meaning that you can't have a metal scoring target in the shape of a USPSA metric target that you require a hit on to score that doesn't fall.

Metal no-shoot targets don't have the same restriction, and the design of said target is important. It's sort of implied but it's there. All targets deemed valid are valid, in order for a required scoring hit to be valid on metal targets - they must fall.

[aztecdriver]

The way I read it a no-shoot is NOT a scoring target but rather a penalty target, so 4.3.1.5 does not apply to no-shoots.

That's what I am getting at:

read completely - there is a difference between scoring targets and no-shoot targets:

4.1.2 Scoring targets used in all USPSA Handgun matches must be of a single color, as follows:

4.1.2.1 The scoring area of scoring paper targets must be of a typical cardboard color.

4.1.2.2 The entire front of scoring metal targets must be painted a single color, preferably white.

4.1.3 No-shoots must be clearly marked or be of a single color different from scoring targets. Metal no-shoots in the general size and shape of authorized paper targets may be used. Metal no-shoots do not have a non scoring border.

[mlmiller1]

A no-shoot, whether steel or cardboard is not a scoring target. It is a penalty target. There is no need for it to fall for any reason.

MLM

[LT45]

This question came about from a friend of mine who recently took an RO class and had a question concerning an answer that the instructor marked as wrong on his test. The question on the test was # 5:

Do penalty metal targets need to fall to receive a penalty?

friend answered No: Rule 9.4.3

Instructor came back and said: Yes: Rule 4.3.1.5

Is the instructor right?

When my friend first mentioned this to me, my initial response was "I thought the instructor's reply was wrong", based on my recollection of a current classifier that has a no-shoot pepper popper that is setup not to fall to score penalty points,

it's CM99-60 CUT and RUN.

This is a quote from the classifier setup notes "No-shoot popper is set not to fall when hit; paint between competitors."

What's the correct answer... by the book?

Edited June 6, 2011 by LT45

[Corey]

I just went and looked up my test when I submitted it in Feb:

5. No (9.4.3)

And it was correct for me. Sounds like the instructors need to get on the same page.

[mactiger]

It's possible, even probable, that I'm the instructor in question here, and that I may have made an error in grading the exam. There are a couple of questions which are close to one another on the exam. One is this question, the other has to do with popper calibration issues. If it was me, and I incorrectly corrected this students exam, he should have contacted me about it. We do make mistakes from time to time; given the number of exams we grade each week, it's inevitable. It has nothing to do with being on the same page. I will go back and check, though.

Having said that, no-shoot poppers do not have to fall to earn the penalty, so no, this classifier doesn't have to be removed. The answer, by the book, is No, per rules 9.4.3 and 4.3.1.8.

Troy

[LT45]

It's possible, even probable, that I'm the instructor in question here, and that I may have made an error in grading the exam. There are a couple of questions which are close to one another on the exam. One is this question, the other has to do with popper calibration issues. If it was me, and I incorrectly corrected this students exam, he should have contacted me about it. We do make mistakes from time to time; given the number of exams we grade each week, it's inevitable. It has nothing to do with being on the same page. I will go back and check, though.

Having said that, no-shoot poppers do not have to fall to earn the penalty, so no, this classifier doesn't have to be removed. The answer, by the book, is No, per rules 9.4.3 and 4.3.1.8.

Troy

Thanks for clearing this up.