motosapiens Posted August 16, 2015 Share Posted August 16, 2015 I searched and read some old threads on hard-cover barrel deflections, and it still wasn't really clear to me what the story is. Today we had a shooter get a deflection off the barrel definitely a full diameter hit, but no penetration of the barrel. the bullet left a long crease and angled off around 20 degrees or so from it's original path, hitting a no-shoot on the other side of the scoring target. What's the call here? does the 'full diameter' part only come into play when it's a hole? The hole in the target was considerably larger than a bullet diameter, and might have had a hint of a grease ring or arc on one side. We called it a miss (on the no-shoot) after some discussion, figuring that we wouldn't score a bullet that bounced off the ground, for example, so why would we score one that bounced off barrel after a full-diameter hit, but no one was 100% sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
High Lord Gomer Posted August 16, 2015 Share Posted August 16, 2015 If it did not penetrate the barrel I would not consider that a full diameter hit on the barrel and would then score whatever it hit next. If it went on to go through a shoot target, was entirely within the scoring zone, and left evidence if a bullet hit (grease ring or arc of bullet), I would score the hit on the shoot target but not on the noshoot behind it. If it did not hit the shoot target (or did and touched the outer perf), I would score the hit on the noshoot behind it. I would also score a hit from a bullet bounced off the ground if there was clear evidence of the bullet going through a target afterward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danjordan78 Posted August 16, 2015 Share Posted August 16, 2015 The key is there has to be a grease ring or radius to score. If it hit the target sideways or was a piece of frag it is not scorable on either the target or no shoot. Same goes for either hard cover or soft cover barrels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yoshidaex Posted August 17, 2015 Share Posted August 17, 2015 (edited) Doesn't have to be a ring to score. 9.5.5 states a grease mark or crown is considered a hit. It has to be a hole of course... Edited August 17, 2015 by yoshidaex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted August 17, 2015 Share Posted August 17, 2015 The key is there has to be a grease ring or radius to score. If it hit the target sideways or was a piece of frag it is not scorable on either the target or no shoot. Same goes for either hard cover or soft cover barrels. Not always that simple. I have seen bullets tumble so bad it looked like a rock went through the target. No grease no crown, no nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted August 17, 2015 Share Posted August 17, 2015 (edited) I would also score a hit from a bullet bounced off the ground if there was clear evidence of the bullet going through a target afterward. Hi Buddy!! Then was does this mean?: 9.5.5 Enlarged holes in paper targets which exceed the competitor’s bullet diameter will not count for score or penalty unless there is visible evidence within the remnants of the hole (e.g. a grease mark or a “crown” etc.), to eliminate a presumption that the hole was caused by a ricochet or splatter. I believe I have been involved in rulings about rounds skipping off the ground into targets. They didn't get scored as hits. Edited August 17, 2015 by Sarge Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
High Lord Gomer Posted August 17, 2015 Share Posted August 17, 2015 Hey Sarge! LOL...I *knew* I was going to step in it with that answer! I completely missed the word ricochet when reading that and have always thought only of splatter as fragments of the material that was struck. I have learned something...I can go back to bed now. Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motosapiens Posted August 17, 2015 Author Share Posted August 17, 2015 Then was does this mean?: 9.5.5 Enlarged holes in paper targets which exceed the competitor’s bullet diameter will not count for score or penalty unless there is visible evidence within the remnants of the hole (e.g. a grease mark or a “crown” etc.), to eliminate a presumption that the hole was caused by a ricochet or splatter. I believe I have been involved in rulings about rounds skipping off the ground into targets. They didn't get scored as hits. That is exactly the phrase that caused confusion for us. What exactly is a 'richochet'? Is it a whole bullet bouncing off something (as opposed to fragments)? If so, why would a grease mark or a crown rule out a ricochet? Is there a good reason to treat a bullet bouncing off the ground differently from a bullet bouncing off a prop? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UncleTK Posted August 17, 2015 Share Posted August 17, 2015 Where do you find the definition of CROWN? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motosapiens Posted August 17, 2015 Author Share Posted August 17, 2015 Where do you find the definition of CROWN? same place as the definition of RICOCHET. (i.e., not in the rulebook). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wgj3 Posted August 17, 2015 Share Posted August 17, 2015 I fail to see how the competitor can be rewarded or penalized for a hit in a situation like this. He didn't earn it either way. He missed whatever target he was aiming at, he missed the no shoot. He hit the barrel. He shouldn't be penalized or rewarded for that kind of "luck"...IMO... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
High Lord Gomer Posted August 17, 2015 Share Posted August 17, 2015 Exactly why most people dislike using barrels as hard (or soft) cover. But the rule is: 9.1.6.3 If a bullet strikes partially within hard cover, and continues on to strike the scoring area of a paper target, the hit on that paper target will count for score or penalty, as the case may be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poppa Bear Posted August 17, 2015 Share Posted August 17, 2015 If the target was in line with the barrel, target is scored. Op said about 20 degrees off so hole is a ricochet and not scored. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poppa Bear Posted August 17, 2015 Share Posted August 17, 2015 If the target had been a piece of steel it would be REF so paper is no different Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motosapiens Posted August 17, 2015 Author Share Posted August 17, 2015 If the target was in line with the barrel, target is scored. Op said about 20 degrees off so hole is a ricochet and not scored. After thinking more about it, and reading all the responses, I am tending to lean in the same direction as you (unless somewhat smarter and more experienced than both of us provides a definitive ruling). I suspect that if the bullet had a clean bullet-shaped and sized hole and some sort of grease ring, we probably would have counted in even if it had glanced off the barrel, but in this case there was really nothing to prove that it was a bullet and not a fragment or even a piece of plastic. Thanks for sharing your experiences, gentlemen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motosapiens Posted August 17, 2015 Author Share Posted August 17, 2015 Exactly why most people dislike using barrels as hard (or soft) cover. But the rule is: 9.1.6.3 If a bullet strikes partially within hard cover, and continues on to strike the scoring area of a paper target, the hit on that paper target will count for score or penalty, as the case may be. That rule makes sense when we are talking about wood (or painted hardcover on a target), where the bullet passes mostly straight through, going mostly the same direction, and the hole still looks like a bullet hole. In this case, when viewed from the barrel of the gun, the bullet definitely impacted the barrel at full-diameter, but instead of passing through, it glanced off in an entirely new direction (and was deformed significantly). I'm comfortable saying that's not a striking 'partially within hard cover'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAFO Posted August 18, 2015 Share Posted August 18, 2015 We had a situation a while ago where a competitor shot at a target partially obscured by a barrel. The bullet obviously impacted the barrel, as the hole was very misshapen. There was a mark on one side of the hole that might have been a grease mark. The barrel had several holes, creases, marks, etc, and there was really no way to tell where the bullet actually impacted (wholly or partially). The RO called it a mike because of the shape of the hole and the fact that it was several inches away from the barrel from angle at which it was engaged. The shooter thought it should have been a hit per 9.5.5 because of the grease mark. I supported the RO's call because it looked like a ricochet. How would you call it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poppa Bear Posted August 18, 2015 Share Posted August 18, 2015 We had a situation a while ago where a competitor shot at a target partially obscured by a barrel. The bullet obviously impacted the barrel, as the hole was very misshapen. There was a mark on one side of the hole that might have been a grease mark. The barrel had several holes, creases, marks, etc, and there was really no way to tell where the bullet actually impacted (wholly or partially). The RO called it a mike because of the shape of the hole and the fact that it was several inches away from the barrel from angle at which it was engaged. The shooter thought it should have been a hit per 9.5.5 because of the grease mark. I supported the RO's call because it looked like a ricochet. How would you call it? Hit. No way to tell where the bullet impacted the barrel so the call goes to the shooter due to the "grease mark" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motosapiens Posted August 18, 2015 Author Share Posted August 18, 2015 We had a situation a while ago where a competitor shot at a target partially obscured by a barrel. The bullet obviously impacted the barrel, as the hole was very misshapen. There was a mark on one side of the hole that might have been a grease mark. The barrel had several holes, creases, marks, etc, and there was really no way to tell where the bullet actually impacted (wholly or partially). The RO called it a mike because of the shape of the hole and the fact that it was several inches away from the barrel from angle at which it was engaged. The shooter thought it should have been a hit per 9.5.5 because of the grease mark. I supported the RO's call because it looked like a ricochet. How would you call it? depends on what 'might have been a grease mark' means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAFO Posted August 18, 2015 Share Posted August 18, 2015 A dark color on the cardboard on one side of the hole. There was not much of an identifiable radius to the hole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motosapiens Posted August 18, 2015 Author Share Posted August 18, 2015 A dark color on the cardboard on one side of the hole. There was not much of an identifiable radius to the hole. Sounds like it's probably a mike. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bret Posted August 24, 2015 Share Posted August 24, 2015 We had a guy shoot through a barrel, in the WSB the barrels were hard cover, the target had a full diameter hit. The R.O. said it was a miss, he saw it go through the barrel and saw the barrel jump. He was over ruled. I think the R.O. was correct, I can also see why he was over ruled, because if it went further up, he would have been over ruled,,even though it clearly went through the barrel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bret Posted August 24, 2015 Share Posted August 24, 2015 (edited) Duplicate Edited August 24, 2015 by bret Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
High Lord Gomer Posted August 24, 2015 Share Posted August 24, 2015 The only way I will use a barrel as hardcover is if it is going to be painted after each hit so you can know if the hole belongs to the current shooter. Another way is to staple a no-shoot or two to the barrel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bret Posted August 24, 2015 Share Posted August 24, 2015 This was a new barrel, the R.O. is very good, he watched it go through the barrel and the holes were not in it before this shooter shot the stage. The previous shooter had a shot on the same target, just below this one and through the same barrel. I can see it was a bad idea to use barrels as hard cover now. I am glad they don't paint them, I get paint all over me bad enough with the steel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now