9.5.5 question

[mchapman]

My question is if you have a shooter engage and hit a target from an extreme angle, and it creates an enlarged hole, does 9.5.5 apply? An example is shooting a 9mm and the hole is 9mm X 1 1/2 inch long.  I am thinking that 9.5.5 will not apply since the shot is not a ricochet or splatter. Others thoughts?

Edited November 13, 2019 by mchapman

[RadarTech]

This is pretty straight forward..

Is there evidence of a crown or a grease ring?

Can you put an overlay on it and see that it actually have a radius of the bullet size?

 

I've seen a drop turner cut almost in half, and it was obvious he shot it..

The other obvious thing to consider is stage design, to prevent this.

This year at an area match there was a target 4 feet away that could be shot within the 180 and would have yielded this.. but we blocked it with a no shoot...

 

BUT lacking that- it should be obvious and have an indication it was not splatter or ricochet.

 

[NickBlasta]

No because of the portion after "unless".

[HCH]

^^ and furthermore, the shot must go completely through the target; if it was at a hard enough angle to only crease the front, it doesn’t count. 9.5.9

[pjb45]

18 hours ago, HCH said:

^^ and furthermore, the shot must go completely through the target; if it was at a hard enough angle to only crease the front, it doesn’t count. 9.5.9

The threads says hole.

 

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.

e.g. means for example.  It is not limited to grease  mark or crown.

 

Shot scores. I hope the shooter did not assert both shots were in the elongated hole. 

[mchapman]

34 minutes ago, pjb45 said:

The threads says hole.

 

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.

e.g. means for example.  It is not limited to grease  mark or crown.

 

Shot scores. I hope the shooter did not assert both shots were in the elongated hole. 

No he had two of them in the alfa zone.

 

[HCH]

21 hours ago, pjb45 said:

The threads says hole.

 

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.

e.g. means for example.  It is not limited to grease  mark or crown.

 

Shot scores. I hope the shooter did not assert both shots were in the elongated hole. 

 

Yes. And holes are required for a shot to score. 

[theWacoKid]

On 11/13/2019 at 6:47 PM, RadarTech said:

This is pretty straight forward..

Is there evidence of a crown or a grease ring?

Can you put an overlay on it and see that it actually have a radius of the bullet size?

 

I've seen a drop turner cut almost in half, and it was obvious he shot it..

The other obvious thing to consider is stage design, to prevent this.

This year at an area match there was a target 4 feet away that could be shot within the 180 and would have yielded this.. but we blocked it with a no shoot...

 

BUT lacking that- it should be obvious and have an indication it was not splatter or ricochet.

 

No, no, no.  A scoring hit does not require a crown, grease ring, or radius.  Those are items you MAY use if there is some reason to believe something OTHER THAN the bullet made the hole.  If the bullet made the hole and completely penetrated the target from the scoring side, it scores.  Period.

 

 

 

On 11/13/2019 at 6:35 PM, mchapman said:

My question is if you have a shooter engage and hit a target from an extreme angle, and it creates an enlarged hole, does 9.5.5 apply? An example is shooting a 9mm and the hole is 9mm X 1 1/2 inch long.  I am thinking that 9.5.5 will not apply since the shot is not a ricochet or splatter. Others thoughts?

 

No need for 9.5.5, because 9.4.1 and 9.5.9 should suffice.  No need for 9.5.5 until you have a presumption something else may have made the hole.  

[MemphisMechanic]

37 minutes ago, theWacoKid said:

 

No, no, no.  A scoring hit does not require a crown, grease ring, or radius.  Those are items you MAY use if there is some reason to believe something OTHER THAN the bullet made the hole.  If the bullet made the hole and completely penetrated the target from the scoring side, it scores.  Period.

This.
 

If none of your projectiles left a grease ring and the RO watched you centerpunch 12 targets without the rounds hitting anything else...grease ring presense does not matter. It’s amazing how many ROs don’t get this.

 

The grease ring is not the be-all, end-all. It’s merely one of several factors you can use to score a bullet which nicked a barrel, etc.

 

We were never supposed to worship at the altar of the almighty grease ring.

 

Edited November 15, 2019 by MemphisMechanic

[wtturn]

1 hour ago, MemphisMechanic said:

 

 

We were never supposed to worship at the altar of the almighty grease ring.

 

 

amen

[DKorn]

3 hours ago, MemphisMechanic said:

This.
 

If none of your projectiles left a grease ring and the RO watched you centerpunch 12 targets without the rounds hitting anything else...grease ring presense does not matter. It’s amazing how many ROs don’t get this.

 

The grease ring is not the be-all, end-all. It’s merely one of several factors you can use to score a bullet which nicked a barrel, etc.

 

We were never supposed to worship at the altar of the almighty grease ring.

 

Well put. The grease ring is merely one example of “visible evidence of a hit”. 

[IL-SIG]

+1 

 

I couldn’t agree more!

[JayWord]

Grease ring again????

 

Elongated, is not enlarged. We score skidders all the time.  As long as the bullet penetrated the target from the front it scores.

 

Jay