4.3.1.6 -- REF on a Plate

[Sin-ster]

A simple 6" plate is struck fully within its scoring surface, but fails to tip over on its "lollipop" stand; the strike is centered directly over the hinge that attaches it to the steel stake. Under 4.3.1.6, a re-shoot for REF is required.

Is this an ideal circumstance? We can all agree that Reshoots in general are to be avoided-- we've got rules on paper targets to that effect (9.1.4), where if one can determine the proper scoring hits, the reshoot is negated. Why not for plates?

I've wracked my brain for an answer to this one and can't seem to come up with a good reason. The best I can manage is that in the event of an edge hit, or one that's half on the plate and half on any support structure, it could become a problem in terms of consistent enforcement-- but that raises the question of whether these hits actually constitute REF in the first place... How does one determine a hit on a plate-- by splatter marks, generally, which are not always present in these circumstances... (And much like 9.1.4, if there's any question, REF and reshoot are the response...)

Could/should plates be treated like paper targets, under 9.1.4-- or is there a valid reason why they fall under an REF by necessity?

It seems to me that the only reason they are considered equipment is because they are reactive; however, as they are not subject to calibration, and can (when painted) be verified as "hit" by a competitor, it seems to make little sense that they require a Reshoot if they fail to fall.

Now, given, on a Texas Star, PPR, or any other prop of that nature, it may become a problem in one way or another-- but a sub-rule could exclude those types of situations from the 9.1.4-like ruling that I'm hypothesizing...

And before anyone asks-- yes, this is a personal subject. But I'm totally open to learning/hearing what I'm overlooking in my assessment!

[splashdown]

If a steel plate is hit and fails to overturn or fall off the stand, you should stop the shooter and issue a reshoot for REF. Nothing says the plates should be hinged, but nothing prevents it either. They certainly are convenient though. We have some at our range, and they fail to fall all the time, especially with a partial hit or a hit from an angle.

The official position is a reshoot under REF 4.3.1.6.

My preference would be to discontinue the use of these plates.

[Sin-ster]

If a steel plate is hit and fails to overturn or fall off the stand, you should stop the shooter and issue a reshoot for REF. Nothing says the plates should be hinged, but nothing prevents it either. They certainly are convenient though. We have some at our range, and they fail to fall all the time, especially with a partial hit or a hit from an angle.

The official position is a reshoot under REF 4.3.1.6.

My preference would be to discontinue the use of these plates.

Right-- and based on your preference, you seem to see things from my point of view.

Would it be easier (on the clubs as well as the shooters) to create a rule similar to 9.1.4, where an obvious hit on said plate results in a scored hit, as opposed to REF?

Understandably, edge hits might be questionable or hard to spot-- but they're equally so in terms of the REF in the first place. Fall or stand, REF or Mike-- nothing really changes if you score the target if possible, other than the lack of a Reshoot.

[splashdown]

That would be interesting, but I'm not a 3-gunner so I'm not used to calling "HIT!!" on plates. I'm used to keeping my mouth shut when running a shooter b/c we're supposed to let them do it their own way without assistance or interference. The shooters would also not be accustomed to calling hits and could ask for a reshoot anyway under RO interference, even though it's not his/her position to ask. (Of course we know that if the RO interferes, the shooter will be offered a reshoot before seeing the hits or the time.) This (RO interference) is also the only case where a reshoot is optional. - interesting factoid.

[aztecdriver]

That would be interesting, but I'm not a 3-gunner so I'm not used to calling "HIT!!" on plates. I'm used to keeping my mouth shut when running a shooter b/c we're supposed to let them do it their own way without assistance or interference. The shooters would also not be accustomed to calling hits and could ask for a reshoot anyway under RO interference, even though it's not his/her position to ask. (Of course we know that if the RO interferes, the shooter will be offered a reshoot before seeing the hits or the time.) This (RO interference) is also the only case where a reshoot is optional. - interesting factoid.

9.5.1 is more the issue here. In Pistol matches, scoring metal targets must fall to score. The reasoning for 4.3.1.6 is that there is no way to calibrate plates. Now, they can either remove plates, change the fact that plates must fall to score, but just dealing with 4.3.1.6 is not enough. I'd be interested if someone could comment as to why falling steel is a must.

[splashdown]

Steel must fall to score. It's the Power in Accuracy/Power/Speed.

[aztecdriver]

Steel must fall to score. It's the Power in Accuracy/Power/Speed.

Except in the situation with plates - they don't measure power. They just must fall and are lumped into the same category as poppers which do measure power.

[High Lord Gomer]

I was getting ready to disagree with you about poppers measuring power but when I went to quote the rule, you were right.

4.3.1.4 Various sizes of metal plates may be used (see Appendix B5), however, metal plates must not be used exclusively in a course of fire. At least one authorized paper target or Popper must be included in each course of fire.

Mark today on your calendar.

[Graham Smith]

Except in the situation with plates - they don't measure power. They just must fall and are lumped into the same category as poppers which do measure power.

And that's why they don't have to be calibrated. HOWEVER, we do check them just the same and adjust them just the same for the same reason we adjust poppers.

As far as I am concerned, the no calibration of plates rule is a huge glaring oversight. If the plates have to be knocked over to count but you don't verify in advance that a minor load will actually knock them down, then you might was well just hang up a big sign that says "REF's available here!".

After much debate, we got 4 hinged plates from GT Targets this year and after two matches everyone has given them very positive feedback. They sit on 2x4 which go into large heavy H stands and are easy to adjust just like a popper is. So while the rules say you don't have to calibrate them, there is nothing to say you can't.

[aztecdriver]

Except in the situation with plates - they don't measure power. They just must fall and are lumped into the same category as poppers which do measure power.

And that's why they don't have to be calibrated. HOWEVER, we do check them just the same and adjust them just the same for the same reason we adjust poppers.

As far as I am concerned, the no calibration of plates rule is a huge glaring oversight. If the plates have to be knocked over to count but you don't verify in advance that a minor load will actually knock them down, then you might was well just hang up a big sign that says "REF's available here!".

After much debate, we got 4 hinged plates from GT Targets this year and after two matches everyone has given them very positive feedback. They sit on 2x4 which go into large heavy H stands and are easy to adjust just like a popper is. So while the rules say you don't have to calibrate them, there is nothing to say you can't.

Let's clarify something here.

4.3.1.6 says

Unlike Poppers, metal plates are not subject to calibration or calibration challenges....

Basically, what we are saying is there is no mandate that a plate be shot with calibration ammo prior to the match starting, and that there is no challenge available. It doesn't mean that they are not to be set properly to fall. We CAN shoot them with a calibration round to validate they fall properly - there is just no rule that requires us to do so.

[jdphotoguy]

Maybe you need to shoot a bigger caliber Sin-ster, not those powder puff 9mm loads

Congrats on your MS Classic finish

[LPatterson]

I find it interesting that no one has made a comment about the OP's mention of a 6" plate. A review of Appendix B5 shows metal plates may be 8" round, 6" square/rectangular, 12" round and 12" square/rectangular. Most courses of fire are based on a common round plate so if it were a round 6" plate wouldn't that be illegal?

[aztecdriver]

I find it interesting that no one has made a comment about the OP's mention of a 6" plate. A review of Appendix B5 shows metal plates may be 8" round, 6" square/rectangular, 12" round and 12" square/rectangular. Most courses of fire are based on a common round plate so if it were a round 6" plate wouldn't that be illegal?

8" minimum 12" maximum - I agree. Something for me to keep in mind.

[Sin-ster]

I find it interesting that no one has made a comment about the OP's mention of a 6" plate. A review of Appendix B5 shows metal plates may be 8" round, 6" square/rectangular, 12" round and 12" square/rectangular. Most courses of fire are based on a common round plate so if it were a round 6" plate wouldn't that be illegal?

I didn't measure the thing.

It was probably an 8"-- I own no plates, so I don't really keep track of the specifics. I always thought the smallest round ones were 6", and no one has corrected me until now. I'd wager the plats were regulation-- it was a very well put together match.

Maybe you need to shoot a bigger caliber Sin-ster, not those powder puff 9mm loads

Congrats on your MS Classic finish

Much appreciated.

It's interesting you mention it, because... this plate was the direct cause (amongst other things of course-- none more than the foul mood it put me in for the next 2 stages) of me not finishing higher. My final kept run was roughly 33% slower and down 2 extra points than the first one. (The second one, the same plate either had not been reset or had toppled over prior to my engaging it. Funny how that works...) The steel had all been painted, and the strike was clearly visible; the RM was there to see it, and a REF/reshoot was called upon quickly by the RO's without needing to confer with him.

Stuff happens; it's inevitable, we all have to deal with it, and I'm sure if I had borked the first run or two and smoked the third, I wouldn't be as interested in the rule. But that's just as a big of a problem-- reshoots can be your saving grace, or your downfall.

We're going for consistency and fairness for all competitors, and I've always been impressed by the vast majority of the rules to this end. This particular one seems to leave something to be desired-- on top of extending the time a squad spends on a stage, and the ammo spent by the shooter! (I shot over 100 rounds on that stage...)

It's one of only a few rules that don't make sense (to me), but it's the only one I see as being something of a problem. It took me screwing up to realize it... but as I said before, vastly improving over a run that could have been scored and kept is just as bad in regards to the ultimate finish in the match.

To clarify-- I'm did not set out to gripe in this thread, although... well, come on; I am a little bit. Mostly I was just curious as to whether or not I was missing something that made this a requirement, and not just an oddity. From the sound of things... not so much.