Engaging Targets from under a wall – What is the proper call

[spanky]

By the hard cover definition some of you are using to assess an FTE, answer this:

A shooter is engaging an array around the side of a wall. He is in a hurry to leave the shooting location and his last two shots make full diameter hits through the wood 2x4 edge of the wall and both impact the scoring area of the final target in the array. Based on the position of the gun when the shots broke, no portion of the target's scoring area was exposed to the muzzle and scoring impacts were impossible based on the hard cover. Does he get an FTE there?

At what point does 2 Mike become 2 Mike/ 1 FTE through hard cover? 1 inch, 6 inches, 1 foot, 10 feet?

2 mikes should never become 2 mikes and a FTE, because there is no such penalty in USPSA, Nor is there a Cover penalty, or failure to neutralize, for all the people on this thread that keep saying the scenario should be scored a FTE, please tell me the rule in the CURRENT rule book that supports this.

There are no local rules and you cant just make up penalties that dont exist because there was one in an old IPSC rulebook.

An FTE is as wrong as a cover, or FTDR penalty on a USPSA scoresheet.

USPSA must have the wrong book up on the site then...

From the Index: Failure to Engage .... 10.2.7

10.2.7 - A competitor who fails to shoot at any scoring target with at least one

round will incur one procedural penalty per target, plus the applicable

number of misses, except where the provisions of Rules 9.2.4.4 or 9.9.2

apply.

Edited July 14, 2011 by spanky

[JThompson]

I don't think giving up a minimum of 30 points is a competitive advantage.

Are you sure?

Start in box A and engage as visible. I shoot the paper and steel and index over and blow a hole in the snow fence putting a shot on the paper to the right. I'll take the two mikes and not Max or anyone else is going to be able to get to that door quick enough to beat me. If I really want to plead ignorance I just drop to a knee and take the shot. Done deal I win for cheating, er not knowing the rules.

Nope, I can't shoot at what I can't see and if we had built the wall, of wood, and to the ground, we could not have seen it. Since the rules give us the option to not build to the ground or use materials we can see through, they give us definitions to make them the same as an opaque build from height to the ground and call all of it HC. IMHO they let us use the materials for safety and cost and then give us the rules to prevent just such an occurrence and to prevent an advantage from being gained by cheating a wall.

What we have here is an inequity... you are saying that a wall that is opaque and runs from height to the ground is treated one way, but if the wall doesn't run to the ground we treat the scoring another way. This is inconsistent and imo not correct. A wall is a wall is a wall... Either the target is available to shoot or it is not, we shouldn't treat scoring different because of what we construct our wall from and it appears to me, that's what we are considering here.

JT

Edited July 14, 2011 by JThompson

[GrumpyOne]

Nope -- the bullet holes exist. They are scored as misses per 9.1.6.1 -- a subsection Chapter 9: Scoring

9.1.6 Unless specifically described as “soft cover” (see Rule 4.1.4.2) in the written stage briefing, all props, walls, barriers, vision screens and other obstacles are deemed to be impenetrable “hard cover”:

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.

Nik, they can't be scored as misses..... You pointed that out in 9.1.6.1....."will not count for score....." A miss is a score. They don't exist. The only way its a miss is if he doesn't put 2 more rounds on it from a legitimate position, before the end of his course of fire. By definition, a miss means there are no holes in the target, and since those bullets stopped at that impenetrable wall, there are no holes in the target.

Better read Section 9.4 as well....

9.4 Scoring and Penalty Values

9.4.1 Scoring hits on authorized targets will be scored in accordance with the values assigned such targets. (See Appendix . Commentary: Appendices B2 and B3 cover paper targets -- scores are limited to A,C,or D for Classic Targets; to A, B, C, or D for Metric Targets. -- NH

9.4.2 Each hit visible on the scoring area of a paper no-shoot will be penalized the equivalent of twice the point value of a maximum scoring hit.

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).

9.4.4 Each miss will be penalized twice the value of the maximum scoring hit available on that target, except in the case of Fixed Time or disappearing targets (see Rules 9.2.4.4 and 9.9.2).

"Will not count for score or penalty" still doesn't mean that the hits aren't there -- just that they're scored as misses, in the case of targets, or not scored as penalties, in the case of no-shoot targets.

So you've got hits on paper, indicating that the target was engaged....

Nik, I'm sorry, must have missed the part of the OP's original post where he said he shot a No shoot....

The no shoot scenario has no bearing in this case...

[Schutzenmeister]

By the hard cover definition some of you are using to assess an FTE, answer this:

A shooter is engaging an array around the side of a wall. He is in a hurry to leave the shooting location and his last two shots make full diameter hits through the wood 2x4 edge of the wall and both impact the scoring area of the final target in the array. Based on the position of the gun when the shots broke, no portion of the target's scoring area was exposed to the muzzle and scoring impacts were impossible based on the hard cover. Does he get an FTE there?

At what point does 2 Mike become 2 Mike/ 1 FTE through hard cover? 1 inch, 6 inches, 1 foot, 10 feet?

Let's take a look at this ...

There are two things we need to keep seperate in our minds as we go about this: The laws of physics (or the real world) and the rules of USPSA (where we have in effect, "virtual" walls that are impenetrable when in fact bullets can and do go through them.) I will refer to these as RW and Rules.

In the OP case, we have a shooter firing through a Rules wall. In the RW he can see and actually hit the target, but under the Rules none of the "hits" count for anything ... score or penalty. It is very much as if he had not fired at all. In this case, the shooter was nowhere near a position where the RW and Rules worlds come together whereby he could have had a legitimate scoring shot at the target.

In your example, the shooter is at least on the border of the two worlds. He is on the edge where either just prior to or just after breaking the shot he can both see the target (RW) and have a legitimate shot at it (Rules.) In such a case, there can and should not be a question of FTE. He made a minor judgement error in his execution and the round passed through hard cover. By Rule, we simply do not score that shot as counting for anything. But, as he could see the target (RW) and was in a position to take a legitimate shot at it (Rules), we do not "penalize" it by saying he failed to shoot at the target.

The desire to place a specific measurement on the placement of the shot, I think would be ill-advised. It is a total facts-and-circumstances situation. The RO can and MUST exercise some judgement and common sense in the situation. I hate to bring it back to this classic argument, mostly because I don't remember who the justice was, but it's like the quote from the US Supreme Court in defining pornography: "I can't give you a good definition of it, but I know it when I see it." (My apologies if the quote is a word or two off, but you get the idea.) It's also like the difference between a milk snake and a rattle snake. You can see a thousand milk snakes, but when you step on your first rattler, you'll KNOW it. Similarly, the facts and circumstances on when to call an FTE for shots passing through hard cover deserve an analysis on the spot and rather than a cookie-cutter x # of inches.

[GrumpyOne]

But did he engage the target, if the bullets never got there? Hardcover is impenetrable...... If he had missed in his attempt when shooting through the wall, and the target was pristine, (they still would have hit the hardcover and as such would have stopped anyway), would you still say he engaged that target, even when you have no idea where the actual shots went? Do you know that the shooter wasn't intentionally dumping rounds? Only the shooter knows that......

Shooter is firing the first round at the last target on a stage. Shooter has a squib. Stage is scored as shot -- do you assess an FTE penalty?

YES.

5.7.7.1 If the Range Officer finds evidence that confirms the suspected

problem, the competitor will not be entitled to a reshoot, but will

be ordered to rectify the problem. On the competitor’s score

sheet, the time will be recorded up to the last shot fired, and the

course of fire will be scored “as shot”, including all applicable

misses and penalties.

If he only engaged one target, then all others should be an FTE...Kinda hard to engage multiple targets with only one round, don't you think?

[GrumpyOne]

If the paper target in this scenario was a popper and was shot from under a hardcover wall and knocked down, it would be considered REF because when the shooter reaches a place where the steel is available and eligible to be shot from, it would not be available to engage.

So what is the difference between this paper target and a steel target?

That's why I call REF and a re-shoot.

Edited to add: Or you can REF on the hardcover wall...did not stop the bullets.

The target did not fail.....If causing holes to appear in a target is a REF, then every stage you shoot is a REF....

Edited July 14, 2011 by GrumpyOne

[Dan Hefta]

Read post number 177... I think that I am going to take this as a lesson learned and go with what Troy posted. 2 mikes and 1 FTE.

I don't see where I posted anything to give you that idea. The blue text is from the OP's original statement; I didn't write that.

I respect your opinion, although I have yet to express mine here. I'm merely asking questions and trying to get you guys to think about it and actually read the rules. I think it's important that we don't make calls based on what we think the rule book says, or think it should say, or whether we think it's right or not. It's important to read the rule and apply it or them as written.

I'm still seeing about a 50/50 split on this call. Some supported rather elegantly by rule, some just more or less: here it is, take it or leave it.

Carry on.

Troy

Now I'm realy confused... I am a black and white kind of thinker... too much grey in our rulebook...

[GrumpyOne]

By the hard cover definition some of you are using to assess an FTE, answer this:

A shooter is engaging an array around the side of a wall. He is in a hurry to leave the shooting location and his last two shots make full diameter hits through the wood 2x4 edge of the wall and both impact the scoring area of the final target in the array. Based on the position of the gun when the shots broke, no portion of the target's scoring area was exposed to the muzzle and scoring impacts were impossible based on the hard cover. Does he get an FTE there?

At what point does 2 Mike become 2 Mike/ 1 FTE through hard cover? 1 inch, 6 inches, 1 foot, 10 feet?

Those are errant shots, not shots deliberately placed into hardcover, therefore no FTE.

[sperman]

Joe,

Both Troy and Gary have referred to the "failure to shoot at face of target" penalty as an FTE. There's enough confusing information in this thread without trying to create more.

[bluenite]

Didn't he just ask for more examples of rules that apply ...

Yes what I wrote should have been more like this

Edited to add: it was not confirmed by troy.

But it got me to look at it from the other side, to see if I could find a rule to support no fte. Where I may have found a very tiny hole.

I had thought that because our walls are deemed as hard cover, it meant you could not see through them, but I could not find a rule to support this.

We use construction mesh fence “orange”, and you can see through it.

I have never seen or heard of a shooter shooting through it.

But on a 30 rd course only -20 points may work out.

It could also be done in an attempt to get a reshoot.

So I am asking myself if every WSB we use should list this as a forbidden action

So there can be no conflict with 1.1.5.

Post 19 is how I though at the start of this thread, now I am not as sure.

The WSB and what the wall is made of could change the out come.

[spanky]

But did he engage the target, if the bullets never got there? Hardcover is impenetrable...... If he had missed in his attempt when shooting through the wall, and the target was pristine, (they still would have hit the hardcover and as such would have stopped anyway), would you still say he engaged that target, even when you have no idea where the actual shots went? Do you know that the shooter wasn't intentionally dumping rounds? Only the shooter knows that......

Shooter is firing the first round at the last target on a stage. Shooter has a squib. Stage is scored as shot -- do you assess an FTE penalty?

YES.

5.7.7.1 If the Range Officer finds evidence that confirms the suspected

problem, the competitor will not be entitled to a reshoot, but will

be ordered to rectify the problem. On the competitor’s score

sheet, the time will be recorded up to the last shot fired, and the

course of fire will be scored “as shot”, including all applicable

misses and penalties.

If he only engaged one target, then all others should be an FTE...Kinda hard to engage multiple targets with only one round, don't you think?

"...first round at the LAST target on a stage..."

Edited July 14, 2011 by spanky

[GrumpyOne]

But did he engage the target, if the bullets never got there? Hardcover is impenetrable...... If he had missed in his attempt when shooting through the wall, and the target was pristine, (they still would have hit the hardcover and as such would have stopped anyway), would you still say he engaged that target, even when you have no idea where the actual shots went? Do you know that the shooter wasn't intentionally dumping rounds? Only the shooter knows that......

Shooter is firing the first round at the last target on a stage. Shooter has a squib. Stage is scored as shot -- do you assess an FTE penalty?

YES.

5.7.7.1 If the Range Officer finds evidence that confirms the suspected

problem, the competitor will not be entitled to a reshoot, but will

be ordered to rectify the problem. On the competitor’s score

sheet, the time will be recorded up to the last shot fired, and the

course of fire will be scored “as shot”, including all applicable

misses and penalties.

If he only engaged one target, then all others should be an FTE...Kinda hard to engage multiple targets with only one round, don't you think?

"...first round at the LAST target on a stage..."

It's freestyle....unless the WSB states where to start, there is no correct beginning or end. Start in the middle if you want to....The rule doesn't say he has to start at "A" and end up at "B", only that at the squib, the any shots he hasn't made are misses and penalties...He engaged one target, the rest are misses, with applicable FTE's...

[spanky]

But did he engage the target, if the bullets never got there? Hardcover is impenetrable...... If he had missed in his attempt when shooting through the wall, and the target was pristine, (they still would have hit the hardcover and as such would have stopped anyway), would you still say he engaged that target, even when you have no idea where the actual shots went? Do you know that the shooter wasn't intentionally dumping rounds? Only the shooter knows that......

Shooter is firing the first round at the last target on a stage. Shooter has a squib. Stage is scored as shot -- do you assess an FTE penalty?

YES.

5.7.7.1 If the Range Officer finds evidence that confirms the suspected

problem, the competitor will not be entitled to a reshoot, but will

be ordered to rectify the problem. On the competitor’s score

sheet, the time will be recorded up to the last shot fired, and the

course of fire will be scored “as shot”, including all applicable

misses and penalties.

If he only engaged one target, then all others should be an FTE...Kinda hard to engage multiple targets with only one round, don't you think?

"...first round at the LAST target on a stage..."

It's freestyle....unless the WSB states where to start, there is no correct beginning or end. Start in the middle if you want to....The rule doesn't say he has to start at "A" and end up at "B", only that at the squib, the any shots he hasn't made are misses and penalties...He engaged one target, the rest are misses, with applicable FTE's...

Okay. I didn't think it was that difficult of a concept. He "engaged" 15 targets and the squib occurred on the first attempted shot on the 16th target.........

[Schutzenmeister]

2 mikes should never become 2 mikes and a FTE, because there is no such penalty in USPSA, Nor is there a Cover penalty, or failure to neutralize, for all the people on this thread that keep saying the scenario should be scored a FTE, please tell me the rule in the CURRENT rule book that supports this.

There are no local rules and you cant just make up penalties that dont exist because there was one in an old IPSC rulebook.

An FTE is as wrong as a cover, or FTDR penalty on a USPSA scoresheet.

Joe

Your position on the non-existence of a penalty called "Failure to Engage" has been noted, addressed, and shot down by numerous folks. Your failure to accept the inclusion of the term by reference in the index of the current USPSA rules does not equate to the non-existence of the infraction. Please don't get hung up on the concept because you disapprove of term A vs term B.

I also remind you the overarching title of this forum is USPSA/IPSC Rules. Hence, it is fair game to, when appropriate, refer to the international rules. Like it or not, our rules are an outgrowth of and continue to be influenced by IPSC rules, to one degree or another. In recent years our "independence" in rules has become more pronounced, but NEITHER set of rules exists in a vacuum. From my experience over the last 10-12 years in particular, there are numerous instances where each has influenced and impacted the other. Hence to ignore in totality the international rules is to ignore what our rules are and how they got that way.

If a history lesson will help, prior to the adoption of the FTE rule, failure to engage all targets on a stage was treated as a DNF ... Did Not Finish ... in the rules. (This was about 20 years ago or so.) The effect was that by forgetting to engage just one target you received a ZERO score for the stage. In 1995 the USPSA adendum to the IPSC rules included the following: "Failure to engage (shoot at) a target in the stage description is a procedural error. [...] Failure to engage will not result in a DNF unless the failure is due to the competitor's equipment failure, loss of ammo, etc. [...]" (US Sec 11.00, 7th Edition 1995)

I bring this up to demonstrate the clear origins of the term and remind you that the CURRENT version of the USPSA rules still list, on p.95 of the index, the term "Failure to Engage" and points to the rule at 10.2.7 where it describes the "Failure to Shoot At" rule. The terms are synonomous. Please accept that.

[GrumpyOne]

Well, perhaps Nik should have been more clear( ), but I get the gist now...No, there would be no FTE, as he tried to engage the target, but there would obviously be misses. The rule on the squib is quite clear....scored as shot, up until the squib...then he has two misses.

[Schutzenmeister]

I cannot find the original question with reference to the squib ... So ... Included by reference!

In order to shoot at a target one must actually fire a shot. (I think in previous threads it has been long established that one cannot simply point the gun and say "Bang" then call it "engaging" the target!) IF we can agree on that, I offer the following:

From the Glossary:

Shot - A bullet which passes completely through the barrel of a firearm.

Squib - A bullet or solid obstruction lodged inside the barrel of a firearm.

Hence, as I recall the question: The shooter experiences a squib as he attempts to fire his first shot at [the last target as he chose to solve the CoF.] Is this an FTE?

Answer - Yes. By definition and under the circumstances, no round exited the barrel hence no shot was fired. Accordingly, he did not "shoot at" the target in question.

[Nik Habicht]

If the paper target in this scenario was a popper and was shot from under a hardcover wall and knocked down, it would be considered REF because when the shooter reaches a place where the steel is available and eligible to be shot from, it would not be available to engage.

So what is the difference between this paper target and a steel target?

That's why I call REF and a re-shoot.

Edited to add: Or you can REF on the hardcover wall...did not stop the bullets.

You really can't because we have specific rules to deal with these situations. To summarize those: In the event of a full diameter hit on a wall that continues to strike a cardboard target, we can score that as a miss, and the shooter has the opportunity to reengage that target (whether from the same location or elsewhere is immaterial to this specific discussion in this post only); if the round through the wall knocks down a steel target, that should be a miss, but the shooter has also lost the opportunity to reengage/engage from elsewhere -- hence REF.....

Ideally steel targets should be hidden with either steel hardcover or steel no-shoots.....

[GrumpyOne]

I cannot find the original question with reference to the squib ... So ... Included by reference!

In order to shoot at a target one must actually fire a shot. (I think in previous threads it has been long established that one cannot simply point the gun and say "Bang" then call it "engaging" the target!) IF we can agree on that, I offer the following:

From the Glossary:

Shot - A bullet which passes completely through the barrel of a firearm.

Squib - A bullet or solid obstruction lodged inside the barrel of a firearm.

Hence, as I recall the question: The shooter experiences a squib as he attempts to fire his first shot at [the last target as he chose to solve the CoF.] Is this an FTE?

Answer - Yes. By definition and under the circumstances, no round exited the barrel hence no shot was fired. Accordingly, he did not "shoot at" the target in question.

Except in this instance, where obvioulsly the squib exits the barrel, yet they are still calling it a squib.....

10.4.2.1 Exception — A bullet which strikes the ground within 10 feet of

the competitor due to a “squib”.

Nik never said the so called squib never left the barrel, or if it did leave the barrel....So one is an FTE and the other is not? That don't seem right....

[Nik Habicht]

Here is a bit of thread drift, but an intersting question.

No one said (unless I missed it) how far away from the competitor the paper target was. It it was closer than 23 feet, substitute a steel target for the paper target, and do we have a DQ?

Yes. And once again bad stage design, if the competitor could get that close to the steel.....

Re the OP, I started in the 2 mike/1 FTSA camp, now I'm leaning towards 2 mikes and 2 procedurals under 10.2.2 (one per shot, significant advantage) because the targets were not engaged as visible from within the shooting area.

Might be a stretch, and would have a great possibility to go to arb.

These are interesting discussions. They will certainly make me a better RO.

That's a stretch. We have a double penalty interpretation on USPSA.org:

First the rule:

10.2.2 A competitor who fails to comply with a procedure specified in the written stage briefing will incur one procedural penalty for each occurrence. However, if a competitor has gained a significant advantage during non-compliance, the competitor may be assessed one procedural penalty for each shot fired, instead of a single penalty (e.g. firing multiple shots contrary to the required position or stance). Do not apply two different penalties for the same offense, (e.g. not firing the required rounds in a Virginia Count stage; competitor gets a miss and no procedural).

The bolded part was essentially the question asked of John Amidon, that led to the interpretation. Here's the text of the answer:

It is scored as a miss with no procedural for failing to fire the 6 rounds, the competitor is already being penalized for the infraction. 10.2.2 stipulates a procedural per shot for failing to comply with a stage procedure, this would mean for example, carrying a briefcase while engaging targets, the competitor leaves it behind and shoots without it.

So, no, no assessing two procedurals in this instance....

[Schutzenmeister]

Except in this instance, where obvioulsly the squib exits the barrel, yet they are still calling it a squib.....

10.4.2.1 Exception — A bullet which strikes the ground within 10 feet of

the competitor due to a “squib”.

Nik never said the so called squib never left the barrel, or if it did leave the barrel....So one is an FTE and the other is not? That don't seem right....

Fair enough, oh little man of great stature ...

In this situation there is one of three possible outcomes:

1 - The RO stops the shooter, inspects the gun, finds no obstruction, and then must issue a reshoot.

2 - The RO does not stop the shooter, the shooter remedies the malfunction and continues to shoot. (Presumably, no FTE here.)

3 - The shooter stops himself, the RO issues IF YAFULASC. (I emphasize the IF only to indicate the RO did not "Stop" the shooter ...) I would support the argument that a shot has been fired (by definition) and thus the target was engaged (shot at.) No FTE.

[Nik Habicht]

2 mikes should never become 2 mikes and a FTE, because there is no such penalty in USPSA, Nor is there a Cover penalty, or failure to neutralize, for all the people on this thread that keep saying the scenario should be scored a FTE, please tell me the rule in the CURRENT rule book that supports this.

There are no local rules and you cant just make up penalties that dont exist because there was one in an old IPSC rulebook.

An FTE is as wrong as a cover, or FTDR penalty on a USPSA scoresheet.

You're absolutely right. FTE became FTSA (Failure to Shoot At) with the 2004 rulebook. Unfortunately I've been playing the game longer than that, and mostly hang with a group of folks who've been in the game longer than that -- so FTE still gets used in conversation regularly.....

However, all of us would, I'm sure cite the actual rule number on the scoresheet, not just three little initials.....

Ultimately, regardless of terminology, the penalty hasn't changed....

[Nik Habicht]

Nope -- the bullet holes exist. They are scored as misses per 9.1.6.1 -- a subsection Chapter 9: Scoring

9.1.6 Unless specifically described as “soft cover” (see Rule 4.1.4.2) in the written stage briefing, all props, walls, barriers, vision screens and other obstacles are deemed to be impenetrable “hard cover”:

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.

Nik, they can't be scored as misses..... You pointed that out in 9.1.6.1....."will not count for score....." A miss is a score. They don't exist. The only way its a miss is if he doesn't put 2 more rounds on it from a legitimate position, before the end of his course of fire. By definition, a miss means there are no holes in the target, and since those bullets stopped at that impenetrable wall, there are no holes in the target.

Better read Section 9.4 as well....

9.4 Scoring and Penalty Values

9.4.1 Scoring hits on authorized targets will be scored in accordance with the values assigned such targets. (See Appendix . Commentary: Appendices B2 and B3 cover paper targets -- scores are limited to A,C,or D for Classic Targets; to A, B, C, or D for Metric Targets. -- NH

9.4.2 Each hit visible on the scoring area of a paper no-shoot will be penalized the equivalent of twice the point value of a maximum scoring hit.

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).

9.4.4 Each miss will be penalized twice the value of the maximum scoring hit available on that target, except in the case of Fixed Time or disappearing targets (see Rules 9.2.4.4 and 9.9.2).

"Will not count for score or penalty" still doesn't mean that the hits aren't there -- just that they're scored as misses, in the case of targets, or not scored as penalties, in the case of no-shoot targets.

So you've got hits on paper, indicating that the target was engaged....

Nik, I'm sorry, must have missed the part of the OP's original post where he said he shot a No shoot....

The no shoot scenario has no bearing in this case...

Of course it doesn't --- but I figured that the question would come up if I didn't proactively answer it..... :roflol:

[Mark R]

Phew...after 12 pages, I'm ready for the proper call/NROI ruling. My head hurts.

[Nik Habicht]

Well, perhaps Nik should have been more clear( ), but I get the gist now...No, there would be no FTE, as he tried to engage the target, but there would obviously be misses. The rule on the squib is quite clear....scored as shot, up until the squib...then he has two misses.

O.K. -- so the bullet doesn't have to actually reach the target, for the target to have been shot at.....

So shooting at the wall, in the general area of the target satisfies engagement.... :devil:

Squib, hardcover -- what's the difference.....

[Nik Habicht]

I cannot find the original question with reference to the squib ... So ... Included by reference!

In order to shoot at a target one must actually fire a shot. (I think in previous threads it has been long established that one cannot simply point the gun and say "Bang" then call it "engaging" the target!) IF we can agree on that, I offer the following:

From the Glossary:

Shot - A bullet which passes completely through the barrel of a firearm.

Squib - A bullet or solid obstruction lodged inside the barrel of a firearm.

Hence, as I recall the question: The shooter experiences a squib as he attempts to fire his first shot at [the last target as he chose to solve the CoF.] Is this an FTE?

Answer - Yes. By definition and under the circumstances, no round exited the barrel hence no shot was fired. Accordingly, he did not "shoot at" the target in question.

Fine. Round exits the barrel, lands on the ground or is stuck on the front face of the target without penetrating through. RO doesn't stop the shooter -- who unloads and shows clear. FTE?