IPSC Separating Plates

[Skywalker]

DB,

it all depends on how you look at it...

We don't want to hide part of the plate with hard cover, the intent was to have the whole plate available for scoring (as it is in IPSC appendix C3), and since with the actual design, to prevent the front posts to be hit and eventually dislodged, a shield is in order, the only solution we came up with was to have the shield act as the plate surface that is behind it (hence the shield bending in a V shape, instead of Flex's design).

I challenge unca Vinnie and anybody else to demonstrate that anything more than the (whole) regular surface of the plate is available for knocking it down the stand.

[Dead Buff]

The question is if a plate that is hit at the bottom is supposed to fall over. They are not used to check PF, but do all plates fall if hit very bottom, centre???

[Skywalker]

You have this very same problem with all designs.

That's what rule 4.3.1.6 is made for.

[Dead Buff]

Will have to change some of ours then...some have bigger footprints for wind and shooter who shoot posts etc...they have to be hit centre or higher with a 125.xxxPF 9mm to drop....

[Vince Pinto]

I challenge unca Vinnie and anybody else to demonstrate that anything more than the (whole) regular surface of the plate is available for knocking it down the stand.

I accept your challenge but I don't understand it ......

[Flexmoney]

DB,

it all depends on how you look at it...

We don't want to hide part of the plate with hard cover, the intent was to have the whole plate available for scoring (as it is in IPSC appendix C3), and since with the actual design, to prevent the front posts to be hit and eventually dislodged, a shield is in order, the only solution we came up with was to have the shield act as the plate surface that is behind it (hence the shield bending in a V shape, instead of Flex's design).

I challenge unca Vinnie and anybody else to demonstrate that anything more than the (whole) regular surface of the plate is available for knocking it down the stand.

Sky,

I think ye=our desing has likely meet your intent.

I believe the intent may be faulty, however?

(Per the rules?)

[Skywalker]

I believe the intent may be faulty, however?

(Per the rules?)

I guess not.

Let's consider this: the shield doesn't exist. Only the posts take place. A shot that hits the lower portion of the scoring surface of the plate can knock it down unless it hits a post, then a REF might be called if the plate doesn't fall. The design is not good, since it can lead to inconsistencies or re-shoots.

Now let's suppose the upper portion of the shield (angled towards the plate) is added. At the same time you're protecting the posts, and, ensuring that each and every shot striking the plate surface in the area that was previously free (and now protected by the shield) will knock down the plate without the hassle of debating if a strike on the post is a proper hit or not.

We're not incrementing the possibilities of an improper shot (on the stand or any other place) knocking down the plate, on the contrary we are ensuring that each and every shot striking in the area of the scoring surface of the plate will ensure proper hit and subsequent knock down.

And, as I said, the upper part of the shield is not meant to be declared hard-cover.

Why should this be against the rules?

[Neil Beverley]

I think the square shaped posts that are presented at 45 degrees to the shooter (as per my earlier drawing) may well be the solution?

Certainly with regards to shotgun, the round posts have stood up to a hammering over some 5 or 6 years with birdshot and buckshot, and often up close.

Luca, I'm sorry but the rules are explicit.

9.1.6 Unless specifically described as "soft cover" (see Rule 4.1.5.2) in the written stage briefing, all props, walls, barriers, vision screens and other obstacles are deemed to be impenetrable "hard cover". If a:

9.1.6.2 Bullet strikes wholly within hard cover, and continues on to hit or strike down a metal target, this will be treated as range equipment failure (see Section.4.6). The competitor will be required to reshoot the course of fire, after it has been restored.

[Skywalker]

So, Neil, if in the written stage briefing the shield is declared as soft cover according to 9.1.6, the problem should be solved, and all shots striking it and knocking down the plate are valid hits?

[Skywalker]

I think the square shaped posts that are presented at 45 degrees to the shooter (as per my earlier drawing) may well be the solution?

Maybe,

but they partially (marginally) obscure the plate surface, and I'm pretty certain of lots incoming debates about competitors who will claim they shot the plate and it didn't fall...

At this point, even if I don't like the idea, I might better accept to declare the shield (as suggested by Flex, angled 45° totally towards the ground) as hardcover, and having a smaller portion of the plate available for hitting.

[Neil Beverley]

And, as I said, the upper part of the shield is not meant to be declared hard-cover.

Your new post arrived just as I was typing this one!

Hmmm! I'm going to have think some more on this. Theoretically, I guess, what you're saying isn't specifically prevented by the rules because the match organiser "declares" objects "soft cover" or hard cover". On the other hand a metal plate, deflector or not, is de facto impenetrable.

[Vince Pinto]

Neil,

The solution is very simple - I'll email you privately.