Target Shot in Half!

[BritinUSA]

This is the first time I have ever seen one shot completly in half.

Something similar happened to Mike Seeklander at the Single-Stack Nationals about 28 seconds into this Video

[Singlestack]

I made a Alpha, NPM call at the time. I still can't make a good case for 4.6.1.

I am thinking about a reshoot call for an unscoreable target. Like a point blank target that the shooter blasted all the pasters off or an unrestored target where the second shooter shot the same caliber.

[Schutzenmeister]

Wasn't there, so not sure whether or not to call it REF ... However - WRT the shot that cut the target in half: Was the entry point on the brown side or the white side of the target? (I can't tell by looking at the photo.)

Hint: It makes a difference!

[Singlestack]

Wasn't there, so not sure whether or not to call it REF ... However - WRT the shot that cut the target in half: Was the entry point on the brown side or the white side of the target? (I can't tell by looking at the photo.)

Hint: It makes a difference!

No one will ever know the answer to that question. I would venture a guess by looking at the evidence it hit the edge.

I would say it was a .10 split on that target and I don't believe he could have gotten one in the back....Mr. Reid was trying to make up some time that he left back on the star..

And it looked like he hit it with a bazooka. Wood flew everywhere. The damn thing exploded.

There was no way to tell which shot hit where or what.

[Joe4d]

I dont see the case for an A either, enlarged holes with no grease ring dont count, 9.5.5, further more a bullet which cuts a target in half did not pass through the target, the bullet was on each side of it so IAW 9.5.9 the slice across the target is in no way a scoring hit, none of which is relevant to this case,

4.6.1 clearly states the dispacement of paper targets is a REF. The rule doesnt list nay timeing or judgement decisions, REF reshoot.

[Singlestack]

I dont see the case for an A either, enlarged holes with no grease ring dont count, 9.5.5, further more a bullet which cuts a target in half did not pass through the target, the bullet was on each side of it so IAW 9.5.9 the slice across the target is in no way a scoring hit, none of which is relevant to this case,

4.6.1 clearly states the dispacement of paper targets is a REF. The rule doesnt list nay timeing or judgement decisions, REF reshoot.

I'm pretty sure I can see evidence of a bullet passing through the target. It made a hole I can see through. 9.5.2 lets me call an A.

[ima45dv8]

Back to the question at hand....regardless if I knew the shooter or not as a cert. RO, yes I took and passed the class I would have called that one a REF and issue a reshoot...I feel like that would be the correct call in "this" case because had the target not fallen I believe the 2nd bullet would have impacted the target in a scoring manor...guess I am more of a shooter than a RL...

The first issue which seems to need resolution is between you, the shooter, and Singlestack (the RO). We (the audience) need to know whether it was his first or second shot that hit the stick(s) unabated. Until now we've been working under the assumption it was his first shot that went astray and didn't cut the target in half, and the second shot made the clean cut. Which was it?

If you guys can't agree on the above, this thread is worthless and will be closed.

It comes down to whether the fault was "Range Equipment Failure" or "Shooter-Induced Equipment Failure".

If the competitor shot the target in half and left their self with no viable target to engage with their second shot, wouldn't that would ride on the shoulders of the competitor?

[Nik Habicht]

Wasn't there, so not sure whether or not to call it REF ... However - WRT the shot that cut the target in half: Was the entry point on the brown side or the white side of the target? (I can't tell by looking at the photo.)

Hint: It makes a difference!

No one will ever know the answer to that question. I would venture a guess by looking at the evidence it hit the edge.

So, where did you find evidence supporting the alpha hit? Could you actually identify a portion of the shooters hit on either of the two halves of the paper -- and definitively call that the alpha?

[aztecdriver]

I dont see the case for an A either, enlarged holes with no grease ring dont count, 9.5.5, further more a bullet which cuts a target in half did not pass through the target, the bullet was on each side of it so IAW 9.5.9 the slice across the target is in no way a scoring hit, none of which is relevant to this case,

4.6.1 clearly states the dispacement of paper targets is a REF. The rule doesnt list nay timeing or judgement decisions, REF reshoot.

I'm pretty sure I can see evidence of a bullet passing through the target. It made a hole I can see through. 9.5.2 lets me call an A.

Can you John? I'm seeing evidence that the bullet could have passed through the lengthwise edge of a target where one side of the target shreded the back side of the target face(noshoot side) and the other side of the bullet shredded the front face (scoring side). I'm not positive the entirety of the bullet passed from one face of a target THROUGH to the other side?

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.

Also, because this is an elongated hole, in essence -- though I can't see it - where is the radius on the target that designates that the bullet did that tear, and not a piece of wood flung from the stick - it might be or have been there - i just can't see it in the pictures...

9.5.5 Enlarged holes in paper targets which exceed the competitor’s bullet diameter will not count for score or penalty unless there is visible evidence within the remnants of the hole (e.g. a grease mark or a “crown” etc.), to eliminate a presumption that the hole was caused by a ricochet or splatter.

Just throwing it out there for some more discussion - these points came to mind while I was pondering --- and I'm still pondering... The REF question still is an interesting one... I'm wondering how this would play out if it was a swinger and the first shot hit and blew the left stick out and the target was just flapping in the breeze - seems to be a similar situation???

[Singlestack]

Wasn't there, so not sure whether or not to call it REF ... However - WRT the shot that cut the target in half: Was the entry point on the brown side or the white side of the target? (I can't tell by looking at the photo.)

Hint: It makes a difference!

No one will ever know the answer to that question. I would venture a guess by looking at the evidence it hit the edge.

So, where did you find evidence supporting the alpha hit? Could you actually identify a portion of the shooters hit on either of the two halves of the paper -- and definitively call that the alpha?

There were grease marks at the leading edge of the hole. The hole crossed all scoring zones and 9.5.2 makes that shot an Alpha.

IMO, it matters not which shot made the hole. I don't get to say I think the first shot did it. I can only score what I see on the face of the target. I saw one (big ass) hole in the target with grease marks (not a ring) at the entry point of the hole.

[Singlestack]

I dont see the case for an A either, enlarged holes with no grease ring dont count, 9.5.5, further more a bullet which cuts a target in half did not pass through the target, the bullet was on each side of it so IAW 9.5.9 the slice across the target is in no way a scoring hit, none of which is relevant to this case,

4.6.1 clearly states the dispacement of paper targets is a REF. The rule doesnt list nay timeing or judgement decisions, REF reshoot.

I'm pretty sure I can see evidence of a bullet passing through the target. It made a hole I can see through. 9.5.2 lets me call an A.

Can you John? I'm seeing evidence that the bullet could have passed through the lengthwise edge of a target where one side of the target shreded the back side of the target face(noshoot side) and the other side of the bullet shredded the front face (scoring side). I'm not positive the entirety of the bullet passed from one face of a target THROUGH to the other side?

I can. Look at pic #3. The hole in the stick is behind the target. The stick blew up and made the final bit of the cut. Look at the target where it is on the stick.

[BR]

I hate getting involved in domestic disputes. But, I think Joe4D is correct. The target was displaced, and 4.6.1 does not equivocate whether that displaced target was due to a shot [or the wind, or anything else] causing the displacement, or whether the displaced target was disappearing [or moving or static], or whether it was displaced before or after the first or the 100th shot. The rule simply, and completely, states that a displaced target is a range equipment failure and the shooter is required to reshoot.

A parallel situation at a recent match. First stage of the day, first shooter. Engage a paper close up and then a popper farther downrange that activated a swinger. The first shooter shot the paper, hit the steel, but the swinger did not activate. Why, because the shot on the paper target continued downrange and broke the wire connecting the popper to the swinger. Ostensibly, the failure was "caused" by the shooter, just as the target was displaced by the shooter in the OP's example. But, 4.6.1 does not provide for "shooter causation" or for any discretion on the part of the RO. Reshoot. [Yes, the targets in my example were moved to avoid the shoot-through on the wire].

Domestics suck. Cheers.

-br

[Nik Habicht]

Wasn't there, so not sure whether or not to call it REF ... However - WRT the shot that cut the target in half: Was the entry point on the brown side or the white side of the target? (I can't tell by looking at the photo.)

Hint: It makes a difference!

No one will ever know the answer to that question. I would venture a guess by looking at the evidence it hit the edge.

So, where did you find evidence supporting the alpha hit? Could you actually identify a portion of the shooters hit on either of the two halves of the paper -- and definitively call that the alpha?

There were grease marks at the leading edge of the hole. The hole crossed all scoring zones and 9.5.2 makes that shot an Alpha.

IMO, it matters not which shot made the hole. I don't get to say I think the first shot did it. I can only score what I see on the face of the target. I saw one (big ass) hole in the target with grease marks (not a ring) at the entry point of the hole.

Fair enough. I'm guessing that you failed to find evidence of a second hole? That would make sense, given your scoring call.....

[ihatepickles]

The first issue which seems to need resolution is between you, the shooter, and Singlestack (the RO). We (the audience) need to know whether it was his first or second shot that hit the stick(s) unabated. Until now we've been working under the assumption it was his first shot that went astray and didn't cut the target in half, and the second shot made the clean cut. Which was it?

This is immaterial. If the shooter wanted a 3rd, 4th or 15th shot at the target it had shifted and wasn't a "fair and equitable challenge". It's REF under 4.6.1.

If you guys can't agree on the above, this thread is worthless and will be closed.

What's up with this? Am I reading this right that the logic is "discuss rules topics within the moderator's false premise or we'll close the thread? Seems like useful discussion is taking place here and this ultimatum is heavy handed in light of the cordial tone throughout this post.

It comes down to whether the fault was "Range Equipment Failure" or "Shooter-Induced Equipment Failure".

If the competitor shot the target in half and left their self with no viable target to engage with their second shot, wouldn't that would ride on the shoulders of the competitor?

Again I'd just follow up and say the 4.6.1 applies. If we're suggesting the shooter attempted to dislodge the target on purpose, in my view this is unsportsmanlike and 10.6.1 applies. However, that's not what I'm reading described.

[Nik Habicht]

First, I'd like to say thank you. I appreciate that you brought this situation here for discussion, because it's infinitely easier to think it through over several days, than it is to render a decision on the range.....

I was leaning heavily toward range equipment failure, at the beginning -- with some "are you able to score it" concerns as well, that I think Singlestack addressed and resolved nicely. The arguments put forth, had me shifting to and fro, so I pulled out the rules....

4.6.1 Range equipment must present the challenge fairly and equitably to all competitors. Range equipment failure includes, the displacement of paper targets, the premature activation of metal or moving targets, the failure to reset moving targets or steel targets, the malfunction of mechanically or electrically operated equipment, and the failure of props such as openings, ports, and barriers.

4.6.1 defines range equipment failure for us, but doesn't tell us to do anything about it.....

4.6.1.1 The declaration and/or use of any loaded (see Appendix A3) or unloaded firearm as “range equipment” is prohibited.

Not relevant to the current discussion.

4.6.2 A competitor who is unable to complete a course of fire due to range equipment failure, or if a metal or moving target was not reset prior to his attempt at a course of fire, must be required to reshoot the course of fire after corrective actions have been taken.

Now we get to the interesting part: Was the competitor able to complete the course of fire? I'm not certain that the argument that the mover was at rest when it failed (unavailable) should have any bearing -- unless the target was displaced after the competitor had finished engaging it. In other words, if a competitor engages a target, moves on, the target becomes displaced, and the competitor never returns to it -- that competitor was able to complete the course of fire.....

In this situation, I would have ordered a reshoot......

[sperman]

This is the first time I have ever seen one shot completly in half.

Something similar happened to Mike Seeklander at the Single-Stack Nationals about 28 seconds into this Video

I almost started this exact thread after seeing the Seeklander video back in May. Mike's score on that target was A-M. The first shot definitely cut the target in his case. Since the guys at the SSN are consistently some of the best RO's in the business, I assumed they knew what they were doing when they made that call.

[ima45dv8]

If you guys can't agree on the above, this thread is worthless and will be closed.

What's up with this? Am I reading this right that the logic is "discuss rules topics within the moderator's false premise or we'll close the thread? Seems like useful discussion is taking place here and this ultimatum is heavy handed in light of the cordial tone throughout this post.

Apparently, no, you're not reading it right.

[Singlestack]

Now we get to the interesting part: Was the competitor able to complete the course of fire?

Yes

I'm not certain that the argument that the mover was at rest when it failed (unavailable) should have any bearing -- unless the target was displaced after the competitor had finished engaging it. In other words, if a competitor engages a target, moves on, the target becomes displaced, and the competitor never returns to it -- that competitor was able to complete the course of fire.....

That's exactly what happened. The shooter fired 2 shots at the target and left for the other side of the stage never looking back. Of course, he had seen the wood flying everywhere and as he was running I heard him say "Sorry Randal!", which was pretty funny. You got to know these two...

He never looked back.

If a disappearing target falls off after it has disappeared, does it affect the shooters attempt at the CoF?

In this situation, I would have ordered a reshoot......

I still can't get there for a REF. That don't mean I can't change my mind though. Just sayin...

A target that I can not determine an accurate score for?...

If you look at pic 3 you can see where another shot hit the stick below where the shot that cut the target hit. That hole has a grease mark. If I were allowed to use that evidence in scoring, I would say that that was the second shot (grease ring, target was gone) and would have passed through the target if it had been there (no grease ring).

[Singlestack]

This is the first time I have ever seen one shot completly in half.

Something similar happened to Mike Seeklander at the Single-Stack Nationals about 28 seconds into this Video

Ok, I just got around to watching this video. That's what happened here except it was after the drop turner had moved, not before like in the video and the bottom half fell, not the top. The target appeared 3 times and had stopped or was stopping.

I would have called it a REF if it had appeared after being cut.

[Nik Habicht]

If you look at pic 3 you can see where another shot hit the stick below where the shot that cut the target hit. That hole has a grease mark. If I were allowed to use that evidence in scoring, I would say that that was the second shot (grease ring, target was gone) and would have passed through the target if it had been there (no grease ring).

Obviously, I wasn't there. I fully believe that you guys made the best call it was possible to make at the time.....

Still -- the part bolded above, would have had me ordering a reshoot. If the shooter's first shot on a target, changes that target's presentation, as hung on the sticks -- that's where I'd probably call REF....

[Singlestack]

If you look at pic 3 you can see where another shot hit the stick below where the shot that cut the target hit. That hole has a grease mark. If I were allowed to use that evidence in scoring, I would say that that was the second shot (grease ring, target was gone) and would have passed through the target if it had been there (no grease ring).

Obviously, I wasn't there. I fully believe that you guys made the best call it was possible to make at the time.....

Still -- the part bolded above, would have had me ordering a reshoot. If the shooter's first shot on a target, changes that target's presentation, as hung on the sticks -- that's where I'd probably call REF....

I don't see in the rules where I can use that evidence. How do I know that hole was not there already?

[DrawandDuck]

If you look at pic 3 you can see where another shot hit the stick below where the shot that cut the target hit. That hole has a grease mark. If I were allowed to use that evidence in scoring, I would say that that was the second shot (grease ring, target was gone) and would have passed through the target if it had been there (no grease ring).

Obviously, I wasn't there. I fully believe that you guys made the best call it was possible to make at the time.....

Still -- the part bolded above, would have had me ordering a reshoot. If the shooter's first shot on a target, changes that target's presentation, as hung on the sticks -- that's where I'd probably call REF....

I don't see in the rules where I can use that evidence. How do I know that hole was not there already?

Common Sense???? How do you know it isn't the shooters bullet? Is the cup half full or half empty?

Edited September 5, 2011 by DrawandDuck

[B.Reid]

From my perspective, as the guy who shot this target, I saw and engaged what had gone from 1 full size drop turning target with three looks to a target with 2 halves of a full size target. At the time I fired the second shot the turner was closing up yet still visible. I deemed it to be range failure once I was through. It strikes me as a plate on a stem that turns sideways yet fails to fall off. All evidence indicates the second shot would've been a solid hit.

Edited September 6, 2011 by B.Reid

[Flexmoney]

...a target which was at that point unavailable because it had completed it's turn, and hit the stick supporting the target.

Ya can't "deem" it unavailable. And, looking at the physical evidence presented, it certainly doesn't appear clear that it was not available.

The grease mark on the target stick is of no matter (as targets sticks don't exist, by statute).

[Flexmoney]

Wasn't there, so not sure whether or not to call it REF ... However - WRT the shot that cut the target in half: Was the entry point on the brown side or the white side of the target? (I can't tell by looking at the photo.)

Hint: It makes a difference!

No one will ever know the answer to that question. I would venture a guess by looking at the evidence it hit the edge.

I would say it was a .10 split on that target and I don't believe he could have gotten one in the back....Mr. Reid was trying to make up some time that he left back on the star..

And it looked like he hit it with a bazooka. Wood flew everywhere. The damn thing exploded.

There was no way to tell which shot hit where or what.

Based on those two responses...sounds like a reshoot.