Ok, how woudl you score this or prohibit it.

[raz-0]

http://abcmi3.com/index.html

Stupid gimicky ammo, but off the top of my head, I could see it being odd froma scoring perspective. For the sake of argument, I'll assume the mystery stats of this not yet for sale ammo suffice to make major in .45

5.56 states it must not discharge more than one projectile, but one could argue that as all the bits remain attached ot each other, it is one projectile.

Edited September 23, 2011 by raz-0

[Skydiver]

9.5.5 perhaps? The shooter is shooting for effectively no score... and has the job of replacing targets after he's shot.

Also seems like an effective way to kill a chrono.

Edited September 23, 2011 by Skydiver

[sperman]

Without seeing how the projectile impacts a target I am just speculating, but my guess is you would have a whole bunch of Mikes.

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.

[Sarge]

I would not allow it.

1) It uses "multiple impact bullet design".

2)Each shot fired would put 4 holes in the target including the piece that holds it together. How could it be scored accurately? Plus it would do a number on the targets.

#1 is the deal breaker I think. By it's own description it is producing multiple impacts on the target.

[Skydiver]

I tend to agree with Kevin's opinion, but the devil is in the details. The wording of 5.5.6 talks about number of projectiles discharged, and as the OP pointed out. with all the pieces held together it is still effectively a single projectile. (Think about some of those non lethal weapons that shoot out nets. Is it a single projectile or multiple?)

Now if the rule talked about multiple impacts, which seems to be the intent of the rule to discourage use of flechettes or shot, then it's pretty clear cut.

[ima45dv8]

Really???

This isn't a net.

It's multiple projectiles attached to one another. That doesn't magically make it one projectile.

Even the manufacturer states on their front page that it is "multiple-projectile scatter shot".

[wide45]

We don't score projectiles, we score bullet holes. Does this thing make bullet holes?

[GeorgeInNePa]

Really???

This isn't a net.

It's multiple projectiles attached to one another. That doesn't magically make it one projectile.

Even the manufacturer states on their front page that it is "multiple-projectile scatter shot".

This

There is already a rule that covers this.

non-issue

[Biloxi23]

Man, I can only imagine what these things cost per round! I've seen what they sell those premium "boutique self-defense" rounds for. Imagine shooting 300+ round match!

Edited September 24, 2011 by Biloxi23

[Charles Bond]

Man, I can only imagine what these things cost per round! I've seen what they sell those premium "boutique self-defense" rounds for. Imagine shooting 300+ round match!

From the looks of it if your good you can aim for the A and end up with 3 D hits. Having said that I would love about a dozen for my carry gun.

[aztecdriver]

Just because I feel like contributing --- and I can't seem to get that web page to come up - but it appears to fall under:

5.5.6 Ammunition must not discharge more than one bullet or other scoring projectile from a single round.

[Skydiver]

And so while the space shuttle, it's external tank, and booster rockets are all flying together attached by bolts, is it one projectile flying in the air, or 4 projectiles?

Edited September 24, 2011 by Skydiver

[JThompson]

And so while the space shuttle, it's external tank, and booster rockets are all flying together attached by bolts, is it one projectile flying in the air, or 4 projectiles?

Isn't that the artificial gravity thingamabob?

JT

[sperman]

On a completely unrelated note: They need to show how it penetrates ballistic gel. My airsoft puts holes in paper, but I'm not using it for home defense.

[Nik Habicht]

We don't score projectiles, we score bullet holes. Does this thing make bullet holes?

Yep. No evidence of a bullet hole, no hit....

[ima45dv8]

And so while the space shuttle, it's external tank, and booster rockets are all flying together attached by bolts, is it one projectile flying in the air, or 4 projectiles?

When you get a gun big enough to fire your space shuttle and its tank and rockets at one of the targets we use, I'll start worrying about how to score it.

(OK, that's just ONE of the things I'll be worrying about...but not until then.}

[Skydiver]

And so while the space shuttle, it's external tank, and booster rockets are all flying together attached by bolts, is it one projectile flying in the air, or 4 projectiles?

Isn't that the artificial gravity thingamabob?

JT

Nah, it was that thing that was supposed to be cheaper and safer to use for ferrying stuff up to space. Maybe it's just the power of the American dollar vs. the Russian ruble that makes the Russian rockets "more cost effective" now.

[Skydiver]

And so while the space shuttle, it's external tank, and booster rockets are all flying together attached by bolts, is it one projectile flying in the air, or 4 projectiles?

When you get a gun big enough to fire your space shuttle and its tank and rockets at one of the targets we use, I'll start worrying about how to score it.

(OK, that's just ONE of the things I'll be worrying about...but not until then.}

LOL! Probably will be considered unsafe ammunition. Also those mandatory reloads would be measured in weeks rather than seconds.

Getting slightly back on topic, though. The issue is that somebody figured out how to to get a regular gun to fire something that has all the pieces stay attached together.

[ima45dv8]

And so while the space shuttle, it's external tank, and booster rockets are all flying together attached by bolts, is it one projectile flying in the air, or 4 projectiles?

When you get a gun big enough to fire your space shuttle and its tank and rockets at one of the targets we use, I'll start worrying about how to score it.

(OK, that's just ONE of the things I'll be worrying about...but not until then.}

LOL! Probably will be considered unsafe ammunition. Also those mandatory reloads would be measured in weeks rather than seconds.

Getting slightly back on topic, though. The issue is that somebody figured out how to to get a regular gun to fire something that has all the pieces stay attached together.

So? It's still multiple projectiles (their own words). Not permissible in USPSA matches.

[West Texas Granny]

And so while the space shuttle, it's external tank, and booster rockets are all flying together attached by bolts, is it one projectile flying in the air, or 4 projectiles?

Depends on how you define projectile. If you define it as a mass in motion then there are 4 main projectiles with many minor ones such as ice, insulation or other debries shed by the shuttle during launch.

If you define it as an object with it's own self contained fuel source then you have 3.

As far as the OP goes the ammo described is more akin to shotgun ammo thus not qualifying it as ammo for use.

[GrumpyOne]

5.5.6....or 10.6.1.....either will work....

[raz-0]

9.5.5 perhaps? The shooter is shooting for effectively no score... and has the job of replacing targets after he's shot.

Also seems like an effective way to kill a chrono.

Without seeing how the projectile impacts a target I am just speculating, but my guess is you would have a whole bunch of Mikes.

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.

Sorry for ignoring the topic, it never seemed to come up in view new content for me.

I think the first two have the best answer. Still not entirely complete, as it seems to be targeted primarily at determining the difference between ricichet or splatter damage vs. a bullet hole. But it is vague enough in the right places to make a guy with gimmicky ammo feel bad about wasting his money.

I find it hard to argue the multiple projectile thing. It leaves one hole in the target with one shot. Trace the edge, I'm sure if you pull the target once, and hit the target, you won't be able to find more than one hole. while you might feel good about calling the thing flying through the air multiple things, when your "multiple holes" are all connected by one and only one outside edge, they aren't multiple anymore. 5.5.6 from it's wording seems to be specifically targeted at rounds such as the quadramaxum (something like that, a .357 with 4 stacked disk shaped projectiles made sometime in the second half of the 80s), or maybe shotshell ammo. As for aiming for an A and getting 3 Ds, it makes a giant hole that passes through the a zone, it's an A.

Calling unsportsmanlike conduct seems lame to me as an MD. If I wanted to go down that road, I would start DQing everyone who pushed the limits of the written stage briefing. I know I WANTED to on several occasions, but in the end that's nothing more than saying "It's my match, and it'll be scored the way I want it to," which is an attitude I don't dig when on the receiving end of it. I want it scored according to the rules. Trust me, in my heart of hearts, I don't want to be tolerating this kind of useless gimmick, but I'd rather someone go home pissed off that they spent money on a truly useless item for any USPSA match, rather than just being thrown out by me for not liking their ammo.

[aztecdriver]

I find it hard to argue the multiple projectile thing. It leaves one hole in the target with one shot. Trace the edge, I'm sure if you pull the target once, and hit the target, you won't be able to find more than one hole. while you might feel good about calling the thing flying through the air multiple things, when your "multiple holes" are all connected by one and only one outside edge, they aren't multiple anymore. 5.5.6 from it's wording seems to be specifically targeted at rounds such as the quadramaxum (something like that, a .357 with 4 stacked disk shaped projectiles made sometime in the second half of the 80s), or maybe shotshell ammo. As for aiming for an A and getting 3 Ds, it makes a giant hole that passes through the a zone, it's an A.

Calling unsportsmanlike conduct seems lame to me as an MD. If I wanted to go down that road, I would start DQing everyone who pushed the limits of the written stage briefing. I know I WANTED to on several occasions, but in the end that's nothing more than saying "It's my match, and it'll be scored the way I want it to," which is an attitude I don't dig when on the receiving end of it. I want it scored according to the rules. Trust me, in my heart of hearts, I don't want to be tolerating this kind of useless gimmick, but I'd rather someone go home pissed off that they spent money on a truly useless item for any USPSA match, rather than just being thrown out by me for not liking their ammo.

I really am lost on what you are talking about - the round that you linked, leaves the barrel and immediately turns into about 10" diametered multiple projectile device with a center plug connected to 3 equidistant thirds of a portion of the surrounding jacket. How is this anything less than a round intended to have multiple projectiles? just because they are connected by a piece of string doesn't make it any closer to one projectile.

I'd have the ammo removed, and when the competitor refused, they would DQ themselves for 10.6.1 for attempting to cheat after they were told the ammo was not valid per 5.5.5, 5.5.6.

But it's not more than one scoring projectile you say! Then why shoot them in the first place? What do we use to determine a scoring hit in enlarged holes? A radius right? What does this thing fling out - 3 equal radiused portions of a bullet.

It doesn't belong at a match... in fact, why would you allow it for even no score - it's going to tear up targets and sticks and all kinds of other mess?! If they insisted on using the ammo, I don't have any other option than 10.6.1 - failing to comply with a range official. It's not mean spirited - it's just what the rules allow!

[JON]

Bring on a target half covered by a no-shoot