Shoot Thru's - Advantage or Disadvantage?

[rmills]

As everyone is aware, in IDPA, any round that passes thru one target and enters another counts as a hit on both targets. While most of the time this situation is due to poor course design, sometimes it can be used to create a unique COF. Sometimes when designing IPDA COF's, I do provide a possible shoot-thru scenario, BUT the shooter has to move to a position that will possibly add more time to their score to take advantage of the target placement. I've seen shooters go both ways, engage the targets one by one or move a little extra distance and shoot less shots. The results are interesting as some competitor's scores are almost identical even though they chose different solutions to the COF. Once shooters see two indivduals shoot the COF two different ways, you can hear the gears in their heads start turning.

Does anyone else offer shoot thru's as an option on stages?

[MikeyG23]

On COF's that I set-up I try to avoid shoot throughs. Sometimes one sneaks in and for the guys who figure it out it's a bonus. But as for intentionally setting something up as a shoot through....never. I'm probably on the gamer side of this game but shoot throughs on a real world level aren't very likely with handguns, more so with rifles or shotguns with slugs

[Ted Murphy]

I've seen fellas get FTDR's by taking advantage of shoot thoughs. Circumventing stage design, rule 2. Was a shooter in a squad where it happened once. YMMV.

Ted

[Bill Nesbitt]

I try to avoid putting shoot throughs in a stage. I agree that it could lead to FTDR. I guess you could design it into a stage just to see what happens at a local club shoot. It has no place in a State or National match in my opinion.

Bill Nesbitt

[Flexmoney]

Bill,

Would you need to state in the walk-thru that the shoot-thrus were allowed if you choose to do something like this?

[rmills]

Bill,

Would you need to state in the walk-thru that the shoot-thrus were allowed if you choose to do something like this?

No. Shoot thru's are covered in the rule book. While most here are looking at shoot thru's as an advantage (and no, I've never seen a FTDR penalty for one, as when it happens the RO more times than not states "oops! Poor course design."), the fact that they are allowed can also be a disadvantage. For example, if a round goes thru a threat target and hits a non-threat target, points are given for the hits on the threat target and penalties are given for hits on the non-threat target.

[Bill Nesbitt]

Here are some of my thoughts on shoot throughs.

I would not design a stage where a threat target can be lined up with another threat target so that there might be shoot throughs. However I would design a stage where a non threat might be in front of a threat target. Then the shooter gets all holes scored.

I looked through the rule book and I can't find anything that prevents what rmills asks about. However I am not in favor of it. I would be sure that all SOs are on the same page. For instance: an 18 round stage with a possible shoot through of threat targets. A CDP shooter lines up on the shoot throughs and gets the required number of hits on all targets by only firing 16 rounds. He just saved a reload. Does he get an atta boy or an FTDR for circumventing the course design? If the course instructions stated to fire a minimum of 2 rounds at each target then I would award an FTDR.

Most times we are required to fire a minimum of 2 rounds at each target. I guess it would have to be in the stage instructions that you are going to allow shoot throughs and also how many rounds need to be fired.

I am very much in favor of using stages at local clubs that are of State or National match quality. If all stages follow all the rules all the time then your shooters will not be surprised when they go elsewhere to compete.

Bill Nesbitt

[rmills]

Keep in mind that in designing a stage that would allow shoot-thru's, the shooter would need to move to a point that would take more time to get to. It would be the shooter's choice to fire rounds from relatively close positions or move to other positions farther away and shoot less rounds but adding extra time for movement.

Again, this topic was to generate ideas (pro or con) in regards to the shoot-thru scenario.

On another note, since we try in IDPA to create possible real world scenario's, is it proper to have a steel popper, that when hit, opens a window or door to allow access to the targets behind?

Your thoughts................

[geezer-lock]

There is nothing I can find in the LGB that directly prohibits what you describe although I would not set up such a situation deliberately. I have had a few cases where a stage inadvertently had a pass through shot available. In such cases I make an additional notation or announcement that each shooter “owes” me X number of rounds minimum. After reading this thread I think I will make that a standard part of my “notes” on all CoF’s.

On the use of a popper to open a window or door, that is a fairly common use of steel and the presentation of hidden targets is a legitimate CoF technique.

I agree with Bill Nesbitt that we should stick to the guidelines on CoF’s though, I confess to ignoring the rule on the amount of steel allowed. Folks that shoot at more restricted ranges just love all the steel we have so I use it.

My bad.

geezer

[Flexmoney]

On another note, since we try in IDPA to create possible real world scenario's, is it proper to have a steel popper, that when hit, opens a window or door to allow access to the targets behind?

Your thoughts................

Two things here:

1. Knocking down a popper (bg) could cause the other targets (bg's) to react...thus, opening windows and doors.

2. "since we try in IDPA to create possible real world scenario's" It seems that lining up two targets for a shoot-thru would be a departure from RW? I could see it as a shooting test in a gamey competition, but maybe not the best idea to simulate RW? Even as a shooting test, there are likely other ways to provide a similar challenge?

[NEPAKevin]

On another note, since we try in IDPA to create possible real world scenario's, is it proper to have a steel popper, that when hit, opens a window or door to allow access to the targets behind?

We use activators quite often but usually to trigger movers. Maybe the steel could represent the bad guys' sentry. You can work pretty near anythng into a sceario's premise if you try hard enough.

Kevin

[rmills]

On another note, since we try in IDPA to create possible real world scenario's, is it proper to have a steel popper, that when hit, opens a window or door to allow access to the targets behind?

Your thoughts................

Two things here:

1. Knocking down a popper (bg) could cause the other targets (bg's) to react...thus, opening windows and doors.

2. "since we try in IDPA to create possible real world scenario's" It seems that lining up two targets for a shoot-thru would be a departure from RW? I could see it as a shooting test in a gamey competition, but maybe not the best idea to simulate RW? Even as a shooting test, there are likely other ways to provide a similar challenge?

In the old days (real world) when we used .357FMJ ammo to hunt dear, it was typical to see the other side of the beast blown out. Yes, hollow points do seem to want to enter and stay put. Again, just putting the idea out to to what other's thought of the idea since it is legal (unless the COF description says otherwise).

[kraut]

Think a shoot - thru is something to avoid in real world scenario. One reason why everbody wants hollow points or similar bullet design in LE/civilian(and even some military?) carry gun IS to avoid shoot thru endangering innocent bystander/comrade/hostage. More realistic is a NT behind the target that forces shooter to change position to avoid shoot thru in any case.

[rmills]

More realistic is a NT behind the target that forces shooter to change position to avoid shoot thru in any case.

Great idea! Truly a real world possibility. This opens the door to some very creative COF's.

[Bill Nesbitt]

The LGB says on page 18: "Non-threat targets shall not be located so that they will be hit when threat targets are struck."

There was a state match a few years ago that was a complete procedural/no-shoot trap. I think that's why no-shoots are limited now.

Bill Nesbitt

[rmills]

The LGB says on page 18: "Non-threat targets shall not be located so that they will be hit when threat targets are struck."

There was a state match a few years ago that was a complete procedural/no-shoot trap. I think that's why no-shoots are limited now.

Bill Nesbitt

Bill, you are correct (as usual).

[kevin c]

Shoot throughs may be legal, but IMHO they fall into the "cute trick" category. I can't see it happening in TRW except by pure chance ( who's gonna deliberately pick a shooting position to line up two threats, who in real life are moving anyway, and how effective is that round going to be on the second threat?).

[kevin c]

OK, as of the new ed. of the rules, the issue is now moot.

One change for the better...

[crday]

I don't have the book handy, so can't give a quotation, but this topic came up at a recent Regional Championship.

Stage had a steel popper that released two 'swingers'. The SO went out of his way to point out that Dave Zvigney (sp? sorry) had scored two hits on each target with 2 rounds fired and that he 'admired' such creativity. As luck would have it, when I came around the corner the targets just happened to be lined up and I fired two rounds, scoring three -0's and a -1.

A review of the book that night revealed that shoot-throughs on threat targets were not allowed. I'll check the book and post a direct quote.

Anyway, the Stage was thrown out, although I'm not positive that was the reason.

[crday]

Not entirely surprised by this....the 'book' is contradictory.

CoF 8 states, "No threat target shall be located so that it can be hit by shooting through another threat target."

Then, on pg. 47 in the discussion of Threat/Non Threat Designation..."...Hence the rule of thumb: All shoot-throughs count (except on hard cover).

So, it would appear that if a stage does allow a shoot-through, the stage itself is in violation of the book, but the shooter should not be penalized for taking advantage (if that's the right word) of the situation.

[Bones]

Not entirely surprised by this....the 'book' is contradictory.

CoF 8 states, "No threat target shall be located so that it can be hit by shooting through another threat target."

Then, on pg. 47 in the discussion of Threat/Non Threat Designation..."...Hence the rule of thumb: All shoot-throughs count (except on hard cover).

So, it would appear that if a stage does allow a shoot-through, the stage itself is in violation of the book, but the shooter should not be penalized for taking advantage (if that's the right word) of the situation.

"No threat" and "non-threat" are not the same thing - read it again. As written it excludes designs where (2) threats can be engaged with the same round. It does not mean you should shoot through threats without considering the non-threat target located behind them - sort of like Gun Safety Rule Number 4.

Page 8, C1 addresses "taking advantage" of the situation.

The rule book is handy - it's on the website.

Craig

Edited June 20, 2006 by Bones

[crday]

I guess I wrote too quickly.....

I was not addressing a situation involving a non-threat target, but rather a situation where two threat targets could be engaged with a single round without danger to any non-threats.

In that context, the book still seems contradictory to me. The CoF rules seem to ban such a situation, but the 'pass through' rule seems to mean that the shooter would not be penalized if such a 'double' hit on two threat targets occurred.

[Grump]

On another note, since we try in IDPA to create possible real world scenario's, is it proper to have a steel popper, that when hit, opens a window or door to allow access to the targets behind?

I'm with the majority I'm seeing here. A popper to activate other targets reacting to your shots is a valid depiction of possible defensive scenarios.

As for shoot-throughs, I'd just as soon have them possible on every course of fire, for both threat and non-threat targets. Seems like the "Know your target and what is beyond" rule should be actively trained, and let the gamers whine all they want when they get caught doing reflexive shooting instead of thinking shooting.

Let the penalties lie where they fall!

Flame on. I'm used to being a minority voice.

[bruce282]

So I'm slicing the pie around a door, there's a BG, but behind him I notice a NS that I will hit, so I step out a little to miss the NS and bingo 3 second PE for not using cover.

In my option the easiest way to handle it is just make every cardboard target impenitrable regardless of whether they are BG or NT.

As long as IDPA users a timer, its a game where speed is a part of your overall score. If we switch to judges and each shooters run through the COF is scored by panel, then time means nothing. BTW it's not "gaming" to try and have a good score. If it was Dave S. would have to be one of the all time great "gamers".

Bruce

[Grump]

So I'm slicing the pie around a door, there's a BG, but behind him I notice a NS that I will hit, so I step out a little to miss the NS and bingo 3 second PE for not using cover.

I guess IDPA doesn't allow some "no win" stages where the only way to do right is to not engage? I've heard of some *private* matches being set up this way, but it does infringe on our desires for trigger time.

With all rightful contempt for hindsight, perhaps that would be a time to flash past the doorway and use cover/concealment from the other side of the door... Would that briefest of exposures lead to a FTDR penalty? Duplicating possible realities leaves us, perhaps with too much need to read the stage designer's mind/intent...

In my option the easiest way to handle it is just make every cardboard target impenitrable regardless of whether they are BG or NT.

Bruce

Since shoot-throughs so rarely happen in real life (paths get changed, notwithstanding Oswald's "magic bullet"), this could be a reasonable conclusion. The book just keeps the shot-tracking problem down by prohibiting NS's behind threats. Perhaps it's a small sacrifice for admin convenience, like outlawing crossdraw and shoulder holsters. I really don't like those rules, but I'm a contrarian much of the time...

But hey, INDIANA JONES DID IT, SO I SHOULD BE ABLE TO DO IT TOO!!!!!!!