Scoring shots that also hit a barrel

[obsessiveshooter]

I was reading the rulebook last night, and it says that if a shot "wholly" hits hard cover then hits a paper target, that's is counted as a miss.

If I remember correctly, I've seen glancing scrapes on barrels counted as a miss, meaning, it didnt pass through the barrel leaving an entry and exit hole, but just left a long scrape.

It seems to me "Wholly" hitting a barrel means entry and exit holes. And a glancing blow that does not leave holes would be a partial hit, which would make the paper targets score for points.

In matches, I remember that whenever someone hears a barrel take a hit, often the deciding factor on whether or not the holes in the target are counted as hits is determined by whether or not a grease ring is seen.

Maybe this is RO scoring 101, but I still think discussing this will be helpful for some. Definitely for me.

 

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

 

[motosapiens]

if it bounces off a barrel, it still counts. if it passes through a barrel, it doesn't count. this is why RO's who are paying attention paint barrels, because it is easy to tell whether a bullet just grazed the barrel, or whether it passed entirely through.

 

grease ring can be helpful in determining which bullet went through a barrel, but if you can't point to the hole on the barrel or other hardcover where that bullet went through, you're not going to get me to accept a mike just because there's less of a grease ring. If you're not painting barrels and you can't show me which hole in the barrel is mine, I'm going to argue for a hit or a reshoot.

 

Lazy and uneducated RO's may try other tactics at local matches tho.

[perttime]

We had some barrels at the local Level 2 IPSC Match. The powers that be decided that all of them were Soft Cover.

 

Perhaps they'd seen too many disagreements about shot-through hard cover barrels.

[Bhayden]

Agreed. A good CRO keeps all of their hard cover in repair. When hard cover is hit, duct tape, paint or your favorite repair method is in order.

That said, it can be a challenge at level 1 matches when the barrels are already pretty shot up.

[obsessiveshooter]

Bonus questions: what does the grease ring or lack of one really tell us? Especially when hits from crappy tumbling ammo still count for score.
And what is the "grease" actually? It's not the coating, because I've never seen green or red grease rings. And fmj still leaves a ring. Is it the junk the bullet scraped from the barrel?

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[CHA-LEE]

A grease ring is not required. A radius is required to determine a hit or not.

[broadside72]

Show me a full diameter hole in whatever hardcover I supposedly hit and prove that it was my shot, or count it.

[obsessiveshooter]

A grease ring is not required. A radius is required to determine a hit or not.

So if someone's ammo was tumbling, those hits with no radius should technically be scored a miss on every target? I can see the difficulty of scoring a Target where I one of those hits was on the a / C line. I'd feel weird calling it a miss on a 6-yard open target when it was wholly within a scoring Zone.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[outerlimits]

13 minutes ago, broadside72 said:

Show me a full diameter hole in whatever hardcover I supposedly hit and prove that it was my shot, or count it.

which is why you tape or paint barrels.

[MikeBurgess]

33 minutes ago, obsessiveshooter said:

So if someone's ammo was tumbling, those hits with no radius should technically be scored a miss on every target? I can see the difficulty of scoring a Target where I one of those hits was on the a / C line. I'd feel weird calling it a miss on a 6-yard open target when it was wholly within a scoring Zone.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
 

some evidence that the hole was made by the bullet is all that is required.  The weirdest I have seen is a half profile, as in the bullet hit a popper edge and half the bullet went through the target sideways you could clearly see the bullet shape on one side but no profile and almost no grease (soot) 

[motosapiens]

37 minutes ago, MikeBurgess said:

some evidence that the hole was made by the bullet is all that is required.  

 

yep, doesn't matter if it's tumbling or not. the grease ring or radius or whatever is something we look for in the case of large and weird-shaped holes so we can say they were made by a bullet rather than a fragment of plastic or wood

[RJH]

I got a question that kind of ties in with this.

 

Say a bullet hits a metal wall support and becomes really disfigured, then either that deformed bullet or possibly a piece of the wall support goes on to put a hole in the target (i honestly don't know which) in the A zone.  Now, the hole looks more like a small rock than a bullet, but it was not a rock, had to be the bullet or piece of the wall support, what is the call? 

 

Alpha? Mike? reshoot for REF? Something else?

[CHA-LEE]

The rule book is your friend....

 

9.5.5 - Enlarged holes in cardboard 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.

[RJH]

6 minutes ago, CHA-LEE said:

The rule book is your friend....

 

9.5.5 - Enlarged holes in cardboard 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 get this, but there was no presumption that it was hit by a ricochet or splatter,   odds are pretty good it was the actual bullet.  That is why i was asking, since wall supports "are not there" and such.  And while it might have passed through the wall support, it didn't ricochet off of the support.  Just clarifying, it didn't happen to me, but i did see it happen

Edited October 4, 2019 by RJH

[CHA-LEE]

The answer is in the hit evidence on the metal wall. If the hit on the wall is full diameter then its a mike regardless of what is seen on the cardboard. If the hit is not full diameter then you need to find evidence of a grease mark or crown in the hole within the target as the rule states.

[RJH]

11 minutes ago, CHA-LEE said:

The answer is in the hit evidence on the metal wall. If the hit on the wall is full diameter then its a mike regardless of what is seen on the cardboard. If the hit is not full diameter then you need to find evidence of a grease mark or crown in the hole within the target as the rule states.

 

Sounds good, but one more clarification.   It did not hit the wall, it hit the wall support, which if i remember right is like target sticks and considered to not exist. But, i don't remember any evidence of a grease ring, etc., so mike sounds right.  The only reason this stuck in my mind is because the supports are not supposed to exist so the scoring would seem to be the same as a bullet passing through a target stick, assuming i am remembering everything correctly

Edited October 4, 2019 by RJH

[CHA-LEE]

The hit evidence is still required. If a bullet hits a metal wall support how do you know if the hole in the cardboard isn't metal from the wall support and not the bullet? That is why you need to look for a grease ring or crown in the hole.

[d_striker]

There’s a good article in the most recent USPSA magazine on this very subject. 

 

ETA- page 64 in Sept/Oct 2019 issue

Edited October 6, 2019 by d_striker

[perttime]

2 hours ago, d_striker said:

There’s a good article in the most recent USPSA magazine on this very subject. 

 

Any simple conclusions, there?

(I'm not an USPSA member)

[HoMiE]

6 hours ago, perttime said:

 

Any simple conclusions, there?

(I'm not an USPSA member)

 Online magazine can be found here

 

https://uspsa.org/magazine/view//2019-09#page=64

[perttime]

59 minutes ago, HoMiE said:

 Online magazine can be found here

 

https://uspsa.org/magazine/view//2019-09#page=64

Error

Login required to view the frontsight magazine online.

 

Please enter your member number and password.

[d_striker]

8 hours ago, perttime said:

 

Any simple conclusions, there?

(I'm not an USPSA member)

 

The most relevant point to me was regarding the part of 9.5.5 that mentions a "grease mark or crown."  The article states that the "e.g." in this rule makes "grease marks or crowns" EXAMPLES of evidence of a hit and that they are not  a REQUIREMENT to be scored a hit.  

 

And even then, rule 9.5.5 is only relevant for enlarged or irregular holes in paper.  How many times have you heard an RO say that there has to be a grease mark on a perfect bullet hole in paper?  

Edited October 6, 2019 by d_striker

[theWacoKid]

On 10/4/2019 at 6:11 PM, CHA-LEE said:

The hit evidence is still required. If a bullet hits a metal wall support how do you know if the hole in the cardboard isn't metal from the wall support and not the bullet? That is why you need to look for a grease ring or crown in the hole.

 

Evidence of the like is required if there is a presumption that the hole was made by something else. If there is no piece of wall missing large enough to cause the hole then you don't need grease ring or crown, the hole is the evidence. 

[theWacoKid]

On 10/6/2019 at 12:13 PM, d_striker said:

 

The most relevant point to me was regarding the part of 9.5.5 that mentions a "grease mark or crown."  The article states that the "e.g." in this rule makes "grease marks or crowns" EXAMPLES of evidence of a hit and that they are not  a REQUIREMENT to be scored a hit.  

 

And even then, rule 9.5.5 is only relevant for enlarged or irregular holes in paper.  How many times have you heard an RO say that there has to be a grease mark on a perfect bullet hole in paper?  

 

You're exactly right and it's become a subtle mission of mine to do my part to correct this common misunderstanding. 

[gnoyesiv]

I was at a match recently that had a lady shooting at wide open targets and not leaving grease rings. I don't know what ammo she was shooting, but again, no grease rings. if that is the standard test we must go by then she wouldn't have hit any target at the match.