Should the hits count?

[TreblePlink]

1. I can usually see bullets going through a barrel - but it's a good idea to keep the area close to the target taped to make it easy to tell.

2. If I'm not sure they went through the barrel, I give the benefit of the doubt to the shooter. Grease rings are helpful but not definitive.

[Singlestack]

1. I can usually see bullets going through a barrel - but it's a good idea to keep the area close to the target taped to make it easy to tell.

2. If I'm not sure they went through the barrel, I give the benefit of the doubt to the shooter. Grease rings are helpful but not definitive.

There is no such thing as "give the benefit of the doubt to the shooter". You score what is on the target.

[B_Ayers]

If bullets went thru the barrel, then the holes in the target would not be round. The holes in the target would be oval or enlongated (like a strike). If the barrels look like swiss cheese, score the targets as shot.

If the Ro had the open shooter do a calibration test, then the RO needs a refresher course. All steel must be calibrated with a 9mm factory 115gr. bullet @ a min. distance. If the popper goes down, score as shot. If the popper doesn;t go down, then Re-Shoot.

[Skydiver]

If the Ro had the open shooter do a calibration test, then the RO needs a refresher course. All steel must be calibrated with a 9mm factory 115gr. bullet @ a min. distance. If the popper goes down, score as shot. If the popper doesn;t go down, then Re-Shoot.

As somebody corrected me before... it's not "must" but only "should" and "recommended". Look closely at C1.2 and C2.14-15. A caliber is "recommended", but not required. A bullet weight is not required, but there is a power factor range that the bullet "should" achieve.

Given that it's only "should" and "recommended", as I sarcastically had pointed out in the past, somebody could technically calibrate with 175PF .45 ACP and still be within the rules. (No refresher course "required". ) Of course, it would be grossly unfair to shooters.

Edited October 25, 2011 by Skydiver

[matgyver]

Sorry for the drift on the popper reshoot.

It was an interesting sequence of events. Popper was in first 1/3 of the stage and I stopped myself after 4 clean hits that didn't fall it. (I knew then and now that I should have kept shooting the stage since it could have not been a REF). BUT I didn't have enough ammo to finish the stage, reshoot, and continue the match so I just stopped. In my mind I knocked down the ones earlier at 20+ yards so this 10 yarder should fall easy.

I looked back at RO an said "I'm done". Reply "uhh, IF you are done ULSCHDH, are you contesting?"

At that moment I said "let's take a look at it". Reply "no cant disturb it".

After the open shooter knocked the popper I walked up to inspect it and it fell forward about a foot (hinge was cracked in half). That's when the RO asked MD if it's REF.

So as you can see some of the RO replies were good and the outcome on the popper was okay. But the whole thing got me cooked up about the barrel thing do I started reading a lot when I got home to protect my score next time.

Moral of the story I've gathered from this:

Speak up if you think what's going on is wrong...even if you are a new shooter. Best case you could be right, worst case you get educated.

[TreblePlink]

At my CRO class, I was told to score what you see. If you suspect but cannot be sure of something, you give the shooter the benefit of the doubt, instead of going the other way.

And you cannot always be sure of everything ... target hit forensics can help, but are not always definitive in determining if the round passed through or simply rubbed a blue barrel. And there are always close-to-the-line hits that require judgment, even with an overlay. As hard as we try, it's not all black-and-white.

Is this not the correct approach? If there is doubt, are we to zing the shooter by default?

1. I can usually see bullets going through a barrel - but it's a good idea to keep the area close to the target taped to make it easy to tell.

2. If I'm not sure they went through the barrel, I give the benefit of the doubt to the shooter. Grease rings are helpful but not definitive.

There is no such thing as "give the benefit of the doubt to the shooter". You score what is on the target.

[sperman]

All steel must be calibrated with a 9mm factory 115gr. bullet @ a min. distance.

There is so much wrong with that statement I don't know where to start.

4.3.1.5

....

2. That the calibration will be done from a point on the COF where the calibration zone is available, closest to where the contested shot was fired.

Appendix C1

...

2. Prior to commencement of a match, the calibration ammunition must be chronographed using the procedure specified in Appendix C2. The calibration ammunition, when tested through each designated handgun, should achieve a power factor between 115.0 and 125.0 to qualify. 9x19mm is the recommended caliber.

[SteveU]

If bullets went thru the barrel, then the holes in the target would not be round.

This is not categorically true.

We use barrels for walls and vision barriers all the time at BGSL and sometimes the holes are round and sometimes they are elongated or enlarged.

Usually the grease-ring trick works....HOWEVER

The arguments we used to have about which hole in the barrel it went through, the failure (and our lack of inclination) to keep barrel edges taped, and the fact that it slows down scoring so much have led us to declare barrels soft cover when used immediately adjacent to targets.

It makes the sport so much more fun.

[Skydiver]

Usually the grease-ring trick works....HOWEVER

The arguments we used to have about which hole in the barrel it went through, the failure (and our lack of inclination) to keep barrel edges taped, and the fact that it slows down scoring so much have led us to declare barrels soft cover when used immediately adjacent to targets.

It makes the sport so much more fun.

That's a very expedient solution! I like it. By going this route, I would assume that any of the targets adjacent to the barrels are full targets. Remember that partial targets are not allowed behind soft cover. (4.1.4.2)

[Skydiver]

Sorry for the drift on the popper reshoot.

It was an interesting sequence of events. Popper was in first 1/3 of the stage and I stopped myself after 4 clean hits that didn't fall it. (I knew then and now that I should have kept shooting the stage since it could have not been a REF). BUT I didn't have enough ammo to finish the stage, reshoot, and continue the match so I just stopped. In my mind I knocked down the ones earlier at 20+ yards so this 10 yarder should fall easy.

I looked back at RO an said "I'm done". Reply "uhh, IF you are done ULSCHDH, are you contesting?"

At that moment I said "let's take a look at it". Reply "no cant disturb it".

After the open shooter knocked the popper I walked up to inspect it and it fell forward about a foot (hinge was cracked in half). That's when the RO asked MD if it's REF.

So as you can see some of the RO replies were good and the outcome on the popper was okay. But the whole thing got me cooked up about the barrel thing do I started reading a lot when I got home to protect my score next time.

Moral of the story I've gathered from this:

Speak up if you think what's going on is wrong...even if you are a new shooter. Best case you could be right, worst case you get educated.

True, you can't disturb it, but you are allowed to walk up and look at it. If it does get disturbed by the match officials, then you get a reshoot, if anybody else disturbs it then you get a miss. (Appendix C1.6.c)

[Skydiver]

At my CRO class, I was told to score what you see. If you suspect but cannot be sure of something, you give the shooter the benefit of the doubt, instead of going the other way.

A shooter standing 2 feet in front of a target shoots it twice, but you find only 1 perfectly round hole in the upper A zone. The overlay shows it to be perfectly round. I will assert that the correct score is Alpha Mike, because you score what you see. It cannot be 2 Alpha by virtue of giving the shooter the benefit of the doubt that they couldn't have missed from 2 feet away. (Perhaps the target was blown back by the muzzle blast from the first shot when the second shot was fired. Of course, REF should have been called in that case.)

[SteveU]

Hmm:

4.1.4.2: cover provided merely to obscure targets is considered soft cover. Shots which have passed through soft cover and which strike a scoring target will score. Shots that have passed through soft cover before hitting a no-shoot will be penalized. All scoring zones on targets hidden by soft cover must be left wholly intact. Targets obscured by soft cover must either be visible through the soft cover or a portion of the affected target(s) must be visible from around or over the soft cover.

I guess the italic portion is the part you are referring to, Skydiver, and I have to admit I haven't considered it basically because I think of the barrels/walls used as soft cover as different than "cover merely provided to obscure targets"

In other words, I saw 4.1.4.2 as a rule governing (among other things) putting black plastic in front of a target: you wouldn't want a partial target hidden behind that because you can't see to aim for a scoring portion.

Whereas a barrier or wall that serves additional purpose as a piece of range equipment within the construction/design of a course, if specifically designated soft cover per the WSB, and may not actually cover the target unless you engage from a certain angle.... Is that also soft cover but not the same as governed by 4.1.4.2?

In short, we use partial targets near barrels all the time, designate the barrels soft cover, and didn't think anything was wrong with it.

Interesting. I don't know the answer to that one.

[Singlestack]

At my CRO class, I was told to score what you see. If you suspect but cannot be sure of something, you give the shooter the benefit of the doubt, instead of going the other way.

And you cannot always be sure of everything ... target hit forensics can help, but are not always definitive in determining if the round passed through or simply rubbed a blue barrel. And there are always close-to-the-line hits that require judgment, even with an overlay. As hard as we try, it's not all black-and-white.

Is this not the correct approach? If there is doubt, are we to zing the shooter by default?

1. I can usually see bullets going through a barrel - but it's a good idea to keep the area close to the target taped to make it easy to tell.

2. If I'm not sure they went through the barrel, I give the benefit of the doubt to the shooter. Grease rings are helpful but not definitive.

There is no such thing as "give the benefit of the doubt to the shooter". You score what is on the target.

There is no "zing". It is what it is. You score the target. The hit is there or it is not. If you can't tell, it's not there.

To do anything else is to "zing" every other shooter...

[Steven Cline]

As an RO if I DO NOT see or hear something which indicates the shot passed through the barrel WHEN SHOT, the shot is presumed to have NOT passed through the barrel.

If I saw or heard something indicating a shot into the barrel, I look for the evidence on the target of a shot into/through the barrel.

If I see evidence of a shot into/through the barrel and then shot does not count.

I communicate to the shooter this as well- "Hey, Kevin, I heard a round strike the barrel. This bullet hole is oblong and lacks a grease ring. I have to call it a miss."

The lesson I take out of this is to use blue masking tape on our barrels before the match so there are no previous holes and leave the tape there with instructions at the shooters meeting to look for holes and cover any new holes with the tape so that a new hole through the barrel is clearly identified.

I think you got the hose on this one, or maybe the RO poorly communicated what he heard and saw.

Good lesson for us all.

[Steven Cline]

Hmm:

4.1.4.2: cover provided merely to obscure targets is considered soft cover. Shots which have passed through soft cover and which strike a scoring target will score. Shots that have passed through soft cover before hitting a no-shoot will be penalized. All scoring zones on targets hidden by soft cover must be left wholly intact. Targets obscured by soft cover must either be visible through the soft cover or a portion of the affected target(s) must be visible from around or over the soft cover.

I guess the italic portion is the part you are referring to, Skydiver, and I have to admit I haven't considered it basically because I think of the barrels/walls used as soft cover as different than "cover merely provided to obscure targets"

In other words, I saw 4.1.4.2 as a rule governing (among other things) putting black plastic in front of a target: you wouldn't want a partial target hidden behind that because you can't see to aim for a scoring portion.

Whereas a barrier or wall that serves additional purpose as a piece of range equipment within the construction/design of a course, if specifically designated soft cover per the WSB, and may not actually cover the target unless you engage from a certain angle.... Is that also soft cover but not the same as governed by 4.1.4.2?

In short, we use partial targets near barrels all the time, designate the barrels soft cover, and didn't think anything was wrong with it.

Interesting. I don't know the answer to that one.

And,

4.1.4.1 Cover provided to hide all or a portion of a target will be considered

hard cover. When possible hard cover should not be simulated

but constructed using impenetrable materials (see Rule

2.1.3).

I find it interesting that the steel was clearly designated hardcover... but the barrels weren't. What fun!

[Skydiver]

Yup, it was the "All scoring zones on targets hidden by soft cover must be left wholly intact." part of 4.1.4.2 that I was referring to.

For example, in the original post, if the barrels were designated soft cover, I don't think that the target presentation of the stacked targets behind the barrels is legal.

[Nik Habicht]

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.

Hmmm, pretty sure there's nothing in the rules about not using open guns for calibration. Now the ammo coming out of the open gun should be between 115-125 pf, and ideally in 9x19.....

[glefos]

Just out of curiosity, did any of your other bullet holes leave grease marks?

[matgyver]

Just out of curiosity, did any of your other bullet holes leave grease marks?

To varying degrees, yes. But that does not prove that these went through a barrel.

Rule states that the bullet must completely pass through the hard cover to not count as a hit.

Even elongated hits could count since a glancing hit that doesn't strike wholly within hard cover could tumble. Of course an elongated hole would have to have some type of crown or grease mark to count. - visible evidence rule 9.5.5

9.1.6.3 - partial hard cover rule.

Edited October 26, 2011 by matgyver

[Steven Cline]

Yup, it was the "All scoring zones on targets hidden by soft cover must be left wholly intact." part of 4.1.4.2 that I was referring to.

For example, in the original post, if the barrels were designated soft cover, I don't think that the target presentation of the stacked targets behind the barrels is legal.

I think your right if the barrels were soft cover. I hadn't delved into that rule very deep.

But then one might argue that the barrels must not be soft cover because of the target array. Also, that pesky rule 4.1.4.1...

4.1.4.1 Cover provided to hide all or a portion of a target will be considered hard cover. When possible hard cover should not be simulated

but constructed using impenetrable materials (see Rule 2.1.3).

The barrels are cover provide to hide all or portion of a target so are considered hard cover.

[ima45dv8]

The lesson I take out of this is to use blue masking tape on our barrels before the match so there are no previous holes and leave the tape there with instructions at the shooters meeting to look for holes and cover any new holes with the tape so that a new hole through the barrel is clearly identified.

That works. I've done it. It's also a pain in the ass.

What I'm finding more and more is a better solution is to just spray paint the hits before the match and check for new hits after each run. If found, score appropriately and paint the new ones. When I first saw this approach I thought "No way will this work", but my mind was changed after seeing how effective it was.

[LPatterson]

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.

Hmmm, pretty sure there's nothing in the rules about not using open guns for calibration. Now the ammo coming out of the open gun should be between 115-125 pf, and ideally in 9x19.....

But there is something in the rules about using a designated gun for calibration before the match and that does mean not grabbing any other 9mm during the match. I think the many uses of should and recommended in the rules are to keep people from arbitrating that a match is not following USPSA rules therefore it can not be a sanctioned match.

This really points out the fact that the rule book needs to be read several times to learn how different things can be done and are scored.

[Steven Cline]

The lesson I take out of this is to use blue masking tape on our barrels before the match so there are no previous holes and leave the tape there with instructions at the shooters meeting to look for holes and cover any new holes with the tape so that a new hole through the barrel is clearly identified.

That works. I've done it. It's also a pain in the ass.

What I'm finding more and more is a better solution is to just spray paint the hits before the match and check for new hits after each run. If found, score appropriately and paint the new ones. When I first saw this approach I thought "No way will this work", but my mind was changed after seeing how effective it was.

Esplain how that works, holmes?

Use a different color so the new hole has a fresh blue plastic edge showing through?

[ima45dv8]

The lesson I take out of this is to use blue masking tape on our barrels before the match so there are no previous holes and leave the tape there with instructions at the shooters meeting to look for holes and cover any new holes with the tape so that a new hole through the barrel is clearly identified.

That works. I've done it. It's also a pain in the ass.

What I'm finding more and more is a better solution is to just spray paint the hits before the match and check for new hits after each run. If found, score appropriately and paint the new ones. When I first saw this approach I thought "No way will this work", but my mind was changed after seeing how effective it was.

Esplain how that works, holmes?

Use a different color so the new hole has a fresh blue plastic edge showing through?

Yeah, even plain ol' white paint works great. And I'm not talking about painting the entire barrel before the match; just the existing hits.

Any new hits are obvious if the RO is checking.

[Steven Cline]

The lesson I take out of this is to use blue masking tape on our barrels before the match so there are no previous holes and leave the tape there with instructions at the shooters meeting to look for holes and cover any new holes with the tape so that a new hole through the barrel is clearly identified.

That works. I've done it. It's also a pain in the ass.

What I'm finding more and more is a better solution is to just spray paint the hits before the match and check for new hits after each run. If found, score appropriately and paint the new ones. When I first saw this approach I thought "No way will this work", but my mind was changed after seeing how effective it was.

Esplain how that works, holmes?

Use a different color so the new hole has a fresh blue plastic edge showing through?

Yeah, even plain ol' white paint works great. And I'm not talking about painting the entire barrel before the match; just the existing hits.

Any new hits are obvious if the RO is checking.

Cool, thanks.