Black Outline on Non-Threat?

[RickT]

Sunday's IDPA match had a number of non-threat/hostage situations. Between the glare of a very bright sun and my single-prescription, 24" focus glasses I couldn't make out the edge of the non-threat overlapping the threat. Of course I know about where the edge of the outline is, but I'm wondering if outline the non-threat in black is legal in IDPA? Do non-threats and threats always wear the same clothes?

[Ted Murphy]

If you want to attempt to Use realism to justify this particular issue, I would like to draw attention to your custom shooting glasses. They may help you see the front sight better but they are not very good to ID threats. That would be a serious liability on the streets.

From a competitive perspective, as a 43 year old I feel your pain. I still use distance lenses as I'd rather shoot fuzzy bumps but be able to see the target when necessary.

The similar colored targets are part of the fun. I wouldn't want to outline then.

[robport]

I have the same problem. I could find nothing in the rule book that prohibits it, but our match officials don't allow it (I'm assuming there is some rule I couldn't find). When you are quickly shooting at targets, the all-brown targets just seem to blend together sometimes (our NTs are always a standard target with black hands stenciled on them).

We have a lot of scenarios where the head of the non-threat is touching or covering part of the down zero. At 10-15 yards, and in less than ideal light, I find it hard to see where the NT head is. It's OK when the two are separated by a few inches, but we often staple them together, eliminating any distinguishing shadows.

In order not to hit them, I have to remember where all the NT's are, which is sometimes difficult when other things don't go right.

Has anyone seen such a rule?

[Jim Watson]

I suspect you would find a "Anything that is not required is forbidden." approach from HQ.

I have run into the problem before, got me a HoNT last match.

[Rob Tompkins]

The tgt designation rule is:

4.11. Threat and Non-Threat Target Designation

4.11.1. Non-threat targets must be designated by displaying a pair of normal sized open hands of contrasting color, at least one of which must be visible from all shooting positions where the target may be shot.

4.11.2. Threat targets may be designated by displaying a normal sized threat indicator, like a firearm or knife that is visible from all shooting positions where the target may be shot. Threat target designation is not mandatory, but is highly recommended. In no case should a threat indicator and a hand be positioned on the same target. Threats indicators cannot look similar to non-threat hands. Targets must be easily identified as threat or non-threat.

4.11.3. Threats indicators of different kinds all have equal threat value and do not change target engagement priority. That is, a knife is equal in threat to a shotgun, rifle, or other firearms.

4.11.4. Threat and non-threat indicators may be painted or marked on the targets or covering clothing, or may be clipped or stapled to the target.

Should also consder the soft cover rules:

4.9. Hard Cover / Soft Cover Scoring Implications

4.9.1. Stage props are commonly used to represent "hard" cover or impenetrable objects such as walls, cars, barricades, and furniture such as desks and file cabinets. Truly impenetrable objects may also be used as hard cover in a stage.

4.9.2. IDPA requires that clubs/course designers standardize on Black for "Hard" cover simulation. IDPA recommends that clubs/course designers standardize on White for "Soft" cover simulation, or use props such as windows, curtains, shrubs, etc. - 19 -

4.9.3. Any shot that puts a full diameter hole in an object designated as "Hard" cover and continues on to penetrate a target will be considered to have missed the target, (whether the target is a threat or a non-threat.) If the SO cannot tell which shot through hard cover hit a threat target, remove the best hit from the target for each full diameter hole in the hard cover.

4.9.4. Shots that penetrate "soft" cover will be scored as hits, (whether the target is a threat or a non-threat.)

4.9.5. Threat and non-threat indicators painted or marked in the color black are not hard cover.

4.9.6. Threat indicators made of impenetrable material are considered hard cover.

4.10. Targets may be covered with clothing as desired. This is typically done with T-shirts, cut into a front half and a back half and one half is clipped or stapled onto the target sticks holding the target. Only a single layer of lightweight clothing material may be between the shooter and a score-able target.

Bottom line you could give all your Non-threats "soft cover" in any form or shape you want (use white paint) to acheive your goal but I would not outline them in black unless you want that to be "hard cover".

Edited January 15, 2015 by Rob Tompkins

[2MoreChains]

If the head is not part of the overlap, just shoot the head.

[kevin c]

I don't believe there is anything that says the NT hands have to be in the middle of the target. If one or both happen to be on the border of the NT where it overlays the threat target, with the fingers/palms partly cut off by the edge of the NT, then wouldn't the border be, at least in part, more clearly defined in an acceptable way?

[Ty Hamby]

4.11.1. Non-threat targets must be designated by displaying a pair of normal sized open hands of contrasting
color, at least one of which must be visible from all shooting positions where the target may be shot.

As long as one contrasting color hand is visible from every position it can be shot at the NT is legal. The rest of the target surrounding the hands theoretically may be HC. I would never allow a NT to be any smaller than a paper threat target would be legal. So an edge of black, "if it made sense in the COF" could be allowed.

Edited January 29, 2015 by Ty Hamby

[RePete]

Like Ted said, it's your glasses.

I wear reading glasses, but when I got the prescription inserts for my shooting glasses, I went with a 21 foot focal point. No problems with identifying the targets now.

I use ESS ICE II's and one frame has clear lenses and the other have the dark. Both have the prescription inserts.

[kirbinster]

Here is an eyeglass approach you might want to try, that I employ. I have the lens in my dominant eye optimized for the distance to my front sight while the other lens is optimized for about 15 yards. Took a little time to get used to it, but works very well. Many people do the same in daily life with contacts, but I don't know of anyone else that does this with eyeglasses.

[RickB]

What's the point of the black tape outline, to signify that pass-throughs don't score?

I also have single-eye focus at work, with the strong eye corrected to front-sight distance, but my weak eye is corrected to infinity, so seeing downrange is not a problem; you don't have both eyes corrected for near vision?

[Racinready300ex]

I've been to matches where they put black behind the NS, so shoot trough's wouldn't count. That would give the same effect. I think Ted was running the stage I'm thinking of.

[MAC702]

4.9.6. Threat indicators made of impenetrable material are considered hard cover.

So if the full diameter of the bullet is inside the black gun painted on the target, it's a miss? I never thought about this rule before.

[Sarge]

4.9.6. Threat indicators made of impenetrable material are considered hard cover.

So if the full diameter of the bullet is inside the black gun painted on the target, it's a miss? I never thought about this rule before.

4.9.5

[Rob Tompkins]

4.9.6. Threat indicators made of impenetrable material are considered hard cover.

So if the full diameter of the bullet is inside the black gun painted on the target, it's a miss? I never thought about this rule before.

The rule says "made of impenetrable material" indicators are hard cover, i.e., if you used a 2x4 cutout to look like a rifle or had an old drill rifle / rifle stock, etc. it would be hard cover.

As Sarge pointed out rule 4.9.5 talks to "painted" indicators.

[ac4wordplay]

4.9.6. Threat indicators made of impenetrable material are considered hard cover.

So if the full diameter of the bullet is inside the black gun painted on the target, it's a miss? I never thought about this rule before.

The rule says "made of impenetrable material" indicators are hard cover, i.e., if you used a 2x4 cutout to look like a rifle or had an old drill rifle / rifle stock, etc. it would be hard cover.

As Sarge pointed out rule 4.9.5 talks to "painted" indicators.

You think a wood 2x4 is "impenetrable material" for our bullets?

[Rob Tompkins]

4.9.6. Threat indicators made of impenetrable material are considered hard cover.

So if the full diameter of the bullet is inside the black gun painted on the target, it's a miss? I never thought about this rule before.

The rule says "made of impenetrable material" indicators are hard cover, i.e., if you used a 2x4 cutout to look like a rifle or had an old drill rifle / rifle stock, etc. it would be hard cover.

As Sarge pointed out rule 4.9.5 talks to "painted" indicators.

You think a wood 2x4 is "impenetrable material" for our bullets?

If you want a round hole to score, it might just be.

BTW, if a light gammer load out of an SSP gun (105 PF) with soft lead bullets encounters a hard board, it might just not exit!

[MAC702]

4.9.6. Threat indicators made of impenetrable material are considered hard cover.

So if the full diameter of the bullet is inside the black gun painted on the target, it's a miss? I never thought about this rule before.

4.9.5

Ha! I went right past that one. Thanks!

Interesting points about MAKING them, instead of painting them. I'd not gotten to see that at a match yet. Might be something to start incorporating for some fun.