No-shoot Behind A Popper

[Ron Ankeny]

From time to time I run into a no-shoot paper target placed at about ground level directly behind a popper. Obviously, the course designer intends to punish those who miss the popper. Last summer I was running a shooter who shot the popper, didn't think he hit it, then shot the popper a second time as it was falling. The bullet glanced off of the popper and put a perfectly round hole in the no-shoot. I didn't penalize the shooter because I saw what happened.

Just curious, how do you guys feel about a no-shoot placed behind a popper? Good idea, bad idea? What if I shoot over a popper and nail the no-shoot then shoot the popper twice and claim a ricochet hit the NS? Not that I would do that, but some one might.

[mcb]

What about the popper that falls forward? I have never shot one but I have heard about them. If you put one of the forward falling poppers in front of the no shoot target then you would not have to worry about the ricochets.

mcb

[folsoml]

It can't be too bad. There is a classifier that has this. CM 3-12 "ironsides" has two poppers with no shoots right behind them.

[lynn jones]

no shoots behind pp's are just another challenge to over come.

lynn

[Loves2Shoot]

Not un-common around here at all.

[diehli]

I like 'em. The FFP idea is a good one.

[shred]

I think they mostly penalize less-skilled shooters. Every so often, OK, but all the time, what's the point? So somebody can say "ha ha, you shot the no-shoot!"?

[Jake Di Vita]

I'm with shred.

Not very fond of them but they go good in some stages.

[CRubio]

From time to time I run into a no-shoot paper target placed at about ground level directly behind a popper. Obviously, the course designer intends to punish those who miss the popper. Last summer I was running a shooter who shot the popper, didn't think he hit it, then shot the popper a second time as it was falling. The bullet glanced off of the popper and put a perfectly round hole in the no-shoot. I didn't penalize the shooter because I saw what happened.

Just curious, how do you guys feel about a no-shoot placed behind a popper? Good idea, bad idea? What if I shoot over a popper and nail the no-shoot then shoot the popper twice and claim a ricochet hit the NS? Not that I would do that, but some one might.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think the shooter earned the no-shoot. Had that been a shoot target, he would most certainly have accepted the hit as valid.

[Jim Norman]

A couple years ago, Kyle Lamb had 5 poppers and a plate in line, at 75 yards with a NS behind them. You engaged with your rifle, BUT you had to shoot through a small slot with your rifle turned on its side!

We have a couple club members that will include a NS behind a popper every so often, make you slow down and change pace. It can be quite disrupting to your timing. Too bad, just shoot the darn targets!

Jim

[ErikW]

Nothing should ever be behind backward-falling pepper poppers. Unless there is something else to shoot (and I mean multiple shots) after hitting the popper, shooters will hit it multiple times. When it is falling back, it is a bullet ramp, launching nearly-intact, high-velocity projectiles over your berm.

[Wakal]

The Texas State 3-Gun has a row of five poppers. Two full size, then a half-size, then another full-sized, and then a last half-size.

The three full-size have springs mounted on the bases. They hit the base, and then "sproing" back up. And down, and up, and down, and up...quite annoying, actually.

We built a little cover for the whole row of poppers (belting material from a gravel pit) that solved the "over the berm" problem.

Did I mention that the row of poppers is set up behind a steel doughnut?

On either side is an array of two small poppers and one big popper, the big popper having the obligitory no-shoot behind it. I like arrays like that, expecially when the paper is far enough back to not catch the bouncing shots

Alex

[mactiger]

I agree with Erik. Putting something that must be shot behind another popper is an invitation to put rounds out of the range. I also think that putting a penalty target behind a popper is marginally poor course design. While it does force the competitor to slow down a bit, it also causes scoring problems cause by splatter and fragments. IMO, this particular setup should be used sparingly.

Troy

[Ron Ankeny]

Troy:

So, if a bullet fragment penetrates the no-shoot leaving a hole, is there a penalty? In fact, if a ricochet bounces off of a stone, prop, anything...and hits a NS is it a penalty?

[sargenv]

I think we've always scored fragments and stuff that hit one target and then penetrated a no shoot as just that, not a penalty since all targets are thought to be impenetrable (like hitting a no shoot behind a target that had a full diam hit on it,

Range equip failure). If it was a bullet that had started to tumble after hitting a steel target and was a glance off it as it fell, then I'd say no. If the shooter fired after it fell and it left a nice clean hole, then yes, it's a penalty. A more experienced RO and CRO would be looking for this and score accordingly. If I were the shooter, I'd mention that unless it was a blatent full or partial hole (on the target's perfs around the edges) I'd protest that it was range equip failure.

I'm pretty sure this line of thinking holds water..

Vince

[mcb]

I agree with Erik.  Putting something that must be shot behind another popper is an invitation to put rounds out of the range.

{snip}

I have not shot enough to have an educated opinion on whether or not the arrangement of a popper in front of a no-shoot makes for a good stage but I thought the whole point of the forward falling popper was to ensure that a quick follow-up shot on the popper would not get ricocheted up into the air and possible past the backstop. A shot that hits the forward falling popper after it is falling gets directed down into the ground. Seems it can be done safely even if it of questionable merit as far as making a good stage goes.

mcb

[GuildSF4]

Nothing should ever be behind backward-falling pepper poppers. Unless there is something else to shoot (and I mean multiple shots) after hitting the popper, shooters will hit it multiple times. When it is falling back, it is a bullet ramp, launching nearly-intact, high-velocity projectiles over your berm.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree with Erik's comment about backward falling poppers. All the poppers with NS targets behind them that I have seen here are forward falling (fairly common here). I just consider it another test of the shooter, and you would be amazed how many good shooters still hit the NS.

[Skywalker]

It never bothered me, it's just another skill test.

BTW, two weeks ago, at the EuroMed Cup, I managed to miss a popper without hitting the NS behind it ...

...it's the Force, baby, it's all all in the Force...

[pisgahrifle]

I'm with the dissenters. I had a friend of mine lose his class because the angle of the popper drove bullets straight up into a NS. This happened to several folks, but Wade was unlucky enough to not have a good enough grasp on the ear of the MD. It finally got fixed when it happened to a match sponsor who made a big enough stink.

[folsoml]

Troy:

So, if a bullet fragment penetrates the no-shoot leaving a hole, is there a penalty? In fact, if a ricochet bounces off of a stone, prop, anything...and hits a NS is it a penalty?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Shouldn't this be considered a full diameter hit on the target, and therefore not a penalty on anything else it strikes?

[Ron Ankeny]

FWIW, I have no problem with a NS behind a popper as far as a test of skill. In fact, it wouldn't bother me to see a bank of poppers at 50 yards with no shoots behind each of them.

I am asking the question from a match administration point of view because we have a couple of NS targets behind poppers at our upcoming match in two days. I am just covering my bases. The forward falling poppers are the answer, but we don't have any and neither does the neighboring club. Time to retrofit a couple of existing poppers for sure. For now, I think I'll pull the no shoots and avoid potential hassles altogether.

Btw, the question about the hit from a ricochet does presume a full diameter hole.

[Flexmoney]

Ron,

We use them in Ohio often enough. Including the last few state matches. We have used them with backward and forward falling poppers

No problems. The RO's need to pay attention is all.

[mactiger]

Troy:

So, if a bullet fragment penetrates the no-shoot leaving a hole, is there a penalty? In fact, if a ricochet bounces off of a stone, prop, anything...and hits a NS is it a penalty?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The answer is: most of the time, no.

But, there are instances when a partial hit on the steel will then also hit the paper behind it. My general rule is that if I can find an arc, indicating part of a bullet diameter, with an overlay, then the hit counts, whether it's on a NS or a scoring target. If not, it's spatter or jacket fragments, or whatever, and it doesn't count. This is one of the problems encountered when using real hardcover. However you call it, it's an administrative problem at times.

Troy

[Flexmoney]

Troy,

Knowing yuor guideline, this is the question that I've been meaning to ask you since the Nationals.

Background: At the Nationals, I was shooting the dark house. The dark house had true hard-cover walls. There was a target around one of the corners of a hard cover wall...directly behind the corner.

I managed to nail the edge of that hard cover. There was ample indication and evidence that about 85-90% of my bullet hit the hard cover. With that evidence in mind...the remaining 10% of the bulet traveled on (which is more than enough to score)...along with all the splatter and fragments.

As it was scored a mike, I had the target pulled for the RM (which happened to be Troy M.).

Troy pulled out his overlay and found arc. There had to be one in that mess of a target someplace...there was no way for the the bullet, and all the resulting frags, not to be there...it was that close to the wall.

My question is...what if the bullet is tumbling so badly that it hits sideways? If it doesn't go straight in...there likely won't be an arc, right? Can we...shouldn't we...then have to dig a bit deeper into all the evidence?

[Flyin40]

I'm with Flex on this one. Matches here in Ohio tend to have the no shoots behind the poppers. The first stage I shot this yr had them I really slowed down not to hit the no shoots. Today I had a match in another part of the state and they also had no shoots behind poppers. I'm used to them now. I might of added .10 to each shot to make sure I hit the popper solid. I used to add at least a full second to make sure I hit it solid.

Flyin40