Should the hits count?

[matgyver]

So assume ya got 2 Classics stacked beside and slightly behind two 55 gallon blue barrels (best 2 on each IPSC Score). The barrels are shot up and as "Holy" as most of my socks.

Barrels are not described as Soft cover in stage description so they were considered hard cover by rule. 9.1.6

I had 2 hits on each Classic. None were scored because RO says, "I don't see grease marks on these holes so they must have gone through the barrel."

Now, this was match 3 for me and first at this range and at the time I was thinking ...let's not rock the boat, RO's always right... "Whatever, Yeah I agree."

So it's scored as misses.

Fast forward and I'm reading more and more rulebook, at first I was thinking since the targets were left wholly in tact that the barrels were soft cover and shoot through is OK. But since they were not declared as Soft Cover in the stage description they are not soft.

EDIT: Ok, so the barrels didn't totally obscure part of the target, but NO SHOOTS were stacked in the mix

What say y'all?

Edited October 25, 2011 by matgyver

[matgyver]

Here's the stage in question. And I noticed that they put that the steel was hard cover.

When looking at 4.2.4 I noted that the targets were at one point or another fully visible (except for what was covered by the no shoot). Wouldn't this cause the barrels to be Hard Cover.

So to satisfy all requirements would the WSB have to say what is soft cover? Seems to put the definition in limbo.

4.2.4

When the scoring area of a paper target is to be partially hidden, course

designers must simulate hard cover in one of the following ways:

4.2.4.1

By actually hiding a portion of the target (see Rule 4.1.4.1).

4.2.4.2

By physically cutting targets to remove the portion deemed to be

hidden by hard cover. Such targets must be fitted with a

replacement non-scoring border, which must extend the full

width of the cut scoring area (see Rule 4.2.2).

4.2.4.3

By painting or taping the portion of the target deemed to be hidden

by hard cover a single and visibly contrasting color.

[Amerflyer48]

Without seeing the shooters view from the course ( barrels ,classics and NS) it is hard to say.. However I will dive in..

Grease marks ???? were the holes round or oblong ?

If I were RO I would probably have gone back to shooting box,.. can you see the hits ? if no and/or oblong are the answer then ,.. NO

I probably would have designed the course so that the barrels were something else if it were to be hard cover..removes these problems when it is cardboard painted to look like bricks

You being a newer shooter, and seasoned ROs should be able to tell I would think they would encourage a new shooter by walking back to the box and sighting it or benefit of the doubt but explain that these shots are questionable and the benefit of doubt is being given..

I also encourage new shooters I take to matches with me to shoot for the center of the largest area available,... 2 D's are better than 2 misses or 4 in your case,. and to avoid tight hard cover shots if possible until you get comfortable with the setups (gun,ammo,props etc.)

Because as a wise man once said,... you can't miss* fast enough to win...to which I will add * or get scored a miss *

John

P.S. this is also why I practice longer shots because as I see it from your drawing you may have had a longer shot on a fuller profile ??

Edited October 25, 2011 by Amerflyer48

[matgyver]

There were long shots, but the whole target was visible from shooting location (as were hits) There was no "defined shooting location" and the targets had an area of engagement that was determined by shooter's physical makeup. Luckily I am short enough that I could shoot under some low places without hitting the deck.

They were round holes. Funny enough they were long shots and A zone hits. The question remains whether it was really hard cover or not.

I will definitely go back to shooting location next time and take a look.. Thanks for the idea!

Edited October 25, 2011 by matgyver

[B_Ayers]

Actually, Not all bullets will leave grease marks on the targets.

If you are shooting lead cast bullets - yes you will see grease rings.

If you are shooting FMJ's not all of them will leave a grease mark, because there is no grease.

The USPSA rules state, that a bullet must pass through the target for score.

[sperman]

The question remains whether it was really hard cover or not.

I think the more important question is whether the RO can determine that the bullet passed wholly through the barrel. If the barrel already looks like swiss cheese, I would have a hard time determining without a doubt, that the bullet passed through the barrel,and that it wasn't a glancing blow.

Here is the rule on what determines a hit on a target IF you can't prove that it went through hard cover.

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.

[aztecdriver]

I think the more important question is whether the RO can determine that the bullet passed wholly through the barrel. If the barrel already looks like swiss cheese, I would have a hard time determining without a doubt, that the bullet passed through the barrel,and that it wasn't a glancing blow.

Here is the rule on what determines a hit on a target IF you can't prove that it went through hard cover.

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.

Bingo. Greese marks don't matter, a scoring radius matters. Progression - are those hits on the target, yes. Are there full diameter hit on the barrel? Yes or no - CAN YOU TELL. In this situation, unless he is telepathic and can tell which hole is yours, and which is not (or through the use of tape, paint or some other marking method), the score stands as shot.

The key is, you have to determine the full diameter hit on the hardcover first - and looking at the amount of dirt left by a bullet isn't a way to do it.

[98sr20ve]

Grease rings mean nothing. If it was possible to put a bullet in the target with out hitting the barrel you score it as a hit. You can't just assume it went through the barrel.

[Singlestack]

Grease rings mean nothing. If it was possible to put a bullet in the target with out hitting the barrel you score it as a hit. You can't just assume it went through the barrel.

Grease rings do mean something. Read 9.5.5 again.

[aztecdriver]

There were long shots, but the whole target was visible from shooting location (as were hits) There was no "defined shooting location" and the targets had an area of engagement that was determined by shooter's physical makeup. Luckily I am short enough that I could shoot under some low places without hitting the deck.

They were round holes. Funny enough they were long shots and A zone hits. The question remains whether it was really hard cover or not.

I will definitely go back to shooting location next time and take a look.. Thanks for the idea!

So, let me get this straight.... they looked like normal bullet holes... they weren't distorted, made bigger, or anything else, just didn't have a lot of dirt in the center of the hole?

Let me also point out that you are questioning whether the barrels are soft cover or hard cover? Short of being declared soft cover - they are hard cover. Nothing in the COF can "change" them into soft.

[aztecdriver]

Grease rings mean nothing. If it was possible to put a bullet in the target with out hitting the barrel you score it as a hit. You can't just assume it went through the barrel.

Grease rings do mean something. Read 9.5.5 again.

Only if he is trying to determine whether a bullet or bullet fragment passed through the target. Granted, if there is one round that went through the barrel and the other that didn't (and I paint my barrels) I'll use the alignment and the difference in marks to determine which round passed through the barrel. I *think* they've stated they were normal round hits.

[98sr20ve]

Grease rings mean nothing. If it was possible to put a bullet in the target with out hitting the barrel you score it as a hit. You can't just assume it went through the barrel.

Grease rings do mean something. Read 9.5.5 again.

That is talking about elongated holes. He said the holes were round. It doesn't apply.

[Singlestack]

Grease rings mean nothing. If it was possible to put a bullet in the target with out hitting the barrel you score it as a hit. You can't just assume it went through the barrel.

Grease rings do mean something. Read 9.5.5 again.

Only if he is trying to determine whether a bullet or bullet fragment passed through the target. Granted, if there is one round that went through the barrel and the other that didn't (and I paint my barrels) I'll use the alignment and the difference in marks to determine which round passed through the barrel. I *think* they've stated they were normal round hits.

Well duh. Of course we are trying to figure out whether the bullet passed through the barrel first. No crown or grease ring = no hit.

[Skydiver]

Yup, the post on #4 notes that they were round holes, not enlarged holes as indicated in the beginning of 9.5.5.

And then there's also that old long thread about people shooting underneath walls. I bet the holes made by those shots were round (or oblong) and would have had grease rings.

[matgyver]

Round normal holes, just no grey ring in the tears. Was shooting WWB 9mm fmj. No distortion.

The same WWB that failed to knock down a popper at 10 yards after 4 calibration zone hits. (got a reshoot after we confirmed the popper was broken)

Of course, when I contested the calibration the same RO asked for another 9mm shooter to come shoot it from same spot. The other shooter knocked it down with one hit (and my 4). Of course his was hand loaded. And he had a comp on his gun so it probably was loaded a bit on the strong side.

This same match had almost every shooter in our squad have to reshoot at least one stage. I hade 3 reshoots on one in particular.

Rough day at the range for all.

[98sr20ve]

So you are going to argue (not meant negative) that the bullets passed through the barrel and lost it's grease ring and therefore should not count (but somehow managed to stay perfectly aligned to make a round hole). Were you could just as easily say he shot them from the other side of the barrel and the hits should count (despite no ring). You don't have to see a grease ring to count it as a hit.

9.5.5. Is about elongated holes. Not round holes. It doesn't apply. Show me the rule that a bullet hole only counts as a hit if you can see a grease ring?

[aztecdriver]

Well duh. Of course we are trying to figure out whether the bullet passed through the barrel first. No crown or grease ring = no hit.

Right on. I'm just trying to point out grease isn't the only indicator of a barrel hit - or non-hit. How many times have you seen a barrel hit that skipped off the edge and tumbled the bullet, without ever penetrating the barrel. The only way to determine whether that happened is evidence on the hardcover itself. According to the original poster - they were already baby-swiss cheese.

We have a legitimate hit (because there is a crown) on a target. How do we now fulfill this rule to remove the scoring hit?

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.

[Singlestack]

We are debating the same point.

We don't "remove" scoring hits. We don't score barrels. If the barrel is "swiss cheese" we don't even look at it for evidence of any kind. We only score what is on the target face.

[98sr20ve]

Well duh. Of course we are trying to figure out whether the bullet passed through the barrel first. No crown or grease ring = no hit.

So what about this?

[aztecdriver]

We are debating the same point.

We don't "remove" scoring hits. We don't score barrels. If the barrel is "swiss cheese" we don't even look at it for evidence of any kind. We only score what is on the target face.

You say Tomato - I say---

[ima45dv8]

Matgyver,

The definitive answer is......I don't know. And neither does anyone else who has responded.

We weren't there.

I mention that only because in the case of "rules questions" based on the appearance of the target (and/or obstacles in between), we really can't know.

What I can say with a high degree of certainty is I hate barrels as soft cover because as you said, they often wind up as swiss cheese. Which ain't so bad until the next match when they start out as swiss cheese. Declare them as soft cover or do the due dilligence of covering or painting all hits, and have the discipline to maintain their integrity throughout the match.

If not, people get screwed. . . . .like you probably did.

[sperman]

Grease rings mean nothing. If it was possible to put a bullet in the target with out hitting the barrel you score it as a hit. You can't just assume it went through the barrel.

Grease rings do mean something. Read 9.5.5 again.

That is talking about elongated holes. He said the holes were round. It doesn't apply.

The word "grease" appears in the rulebook twice. Once at 9.5.5, and once at 9.4.2.1, which isn't pertinent in this discussion.

If the RO wants to use the grease ring as an indication of the hit, he can't ignore the fact that a crown also indicates a scoring hit. Maybe 9.5.5 is the wrong rule, but it appears to be the rule the RO was trying to use to deny a hit on the target (unless the RO was just making up his own rules.)

[sperman]

Of course, when I contested the calibration the same RO asked for another 9mm shooter to come shoot it from same spot. The other shooter knocked it down with one hit (and my 4). Of course his was hand loaded. And he had a comp on his gun so it probably was loaded a bit on the strong side.

I have to follow up a little on your thread drift. They had an open shooter take a calibration shot on a popper that didn't fall?

[Poppa Bear]

Of course, when I contested the calibration the same RO asked for another 9mm shooter to come shoot it from same spot. The other shooter knocked it down with one hit (and my 4). Of course his was hand loaded. And he had a comp on his gun so it probably was loaded a bit on the strong side.

I have to follow up a little on your thread drift. They had an open shooter take a calibration shot on a popper that didn't fall?

I was thinking the same thing. With this being the same RO, I would think it might be time for some remedial training. With Swiss cheese barrels you score the hits, and you do not use an open gun for calibration.

[remoandiris]

Of course, when I contested the calibration the same RO asked for another 9mm shooter to come shoot it from same spot. The other shooter knocked it down with one hit (and my 4). Of course his was hand loaded. And he had a comp on his gun so it probably was loaded a bit on the strong side.

I have to follow up a little on your thread drift. They had an open shooter take a calibration shot on a popper that didn't fall?

I was thinking the same thing. With this being the same RO, I would think it might be time for some remedial training. With Swiss cheese barrels you score the hits, and you do not use an open gun for calibration.

I didn't read it the same way you did. The Open shooter knocked down the popper. But, the OP had already said he got a reshoot because of a broken popper. If the RO had denied the reshoot because the Open shooter dropped the popper, I would agree the RO needs a refresher.

Could be the RO asked his Open buddy to see if he can knock it down. Seems like a waste of time and ammo, but whatever.