Jump to content
Brian Enos's Forums... Maku mozo!
Sign in to follow this  
mike4045

Shooter with 9mm makes a 12 ga slug size hole

Recommended Posts

Does it score as hit or a miss? It struck the side of a barrel and passed thru the stick on another target leaving a 12 ga slug size hole in the scoring target.  Tried to look it up, but it was scored as amiss in the match.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1- If you can determine if it was a full diameter hit on the barrel, it's a miss (unless barrels were declared soft cover in the WSB)

 

2- If you can't make out a crown, grease ring, partial circumference of a bullet or other evidence that it was a bullet that made the hole and not a piece of barrel or frag or wood, it's a miss. 

 

Rule is 9.5.5

Edited by waktasz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, waktasz said:

1- If you can determine if it was a full diameter hit on the barrel, it's a miss (unless barrels were declared soft cover in the WSB)

 

2- If you can't make out a crown, grease ring, partial circumference of a bullet or other evidence that it was a bullet that made the hole and not a piece of barrel or frag or wood, it's a miss. 

 

Rule is 9.5.5

No evidence of a hit. We went with a miss on that one. There was evidence that the bullet grazed the barrel and took chunk out the stick. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a hit.  The bullet did not wholly pass through hard cover, and scores.  Neither skipping off a barrel (9.1.6.3) or passing through a stick (9.1.7) prevents the hit from being scored.  Grease rings or crowns are not a requirement for a hit to score.

 

See the excellent article "9.5.5: The Misunderstood Rule" by Jay Worden in the September/October issue of Frontsight.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BiknSwans said:

It's a hit.  The bullet did not wholly pass through hard cover, and scores.  Neither skipping off a barrel (9.1.6.3) or passing through a stick (9.1.7) prevents the hit from being scored.  Grease rings or crowns are not a requirement for a hit to score.

 

See the excellent article "9.5.5: The Misunderstood Rule" by Jay Worden in the September/October issue of Frontsight.

 

 

 

Agree—IF the shot was not WHOLLY through the barrel. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, waktasz said:

 

2- If you can't make out a crown, grease ring, partial circumference of a bullet or other evidence that it was a bullet that made the hole

 

I know we are talking about knowing something was hit before the target but the evidence of a hit rules need common sense applied on occasion.

  I RO’d a guy early last year and his rounds were tumbling horribly or maybe even disintegrating in flight. I watched him shoot several wide open targets at about 10 yards and it looked like a piece of gravel hit the target. There was technically no evidence of a hit per the rules but he certainly did hit the targets. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In this example the hole is the size of a quarter! I'm not buying it that that's counting as a hit. Tumbling bullets are much different

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do we know what made the hole?

Edited by teros135

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, waktasz said:

In this example the hole is the size of a quarter! I'm not buying it that that's counting as a hit. Tumbling bullets are much different

 

I understand and get that these would be a tougher call. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, mike4045 said:

There was evidence that the bullet grazed the barrel and took chunk out the stick. 

Both of those are "legal" for a hit - sticks are considered non-existent and barrel is a hard-cover with the hard-cover rules, i.e., if it goes through it doesn't count, if it at least partially doesn't go through, it's as if the bullet didn't hit the hard cover. 

 

The "grease ring" rule is actually just an example of what the evidence of a hit looks like, but it's not a requirement. Personally, if there is a hole in the target my staring position is that it is a hit, then I work backwards to see if I can prove it was something else. If not, the break goes to the shooter. 

 

In this case, I would start with the barrel. (If) It's a partial hit on the barrel, anything downrange counts and there is a good chance that the bullet will tumble and leave an odd-shaped hole. The next one is the stick. They are not considered for the validity of the hit, but they can create fragments. Wood normally doesn't fly backwards with sufficient force to create a massive well-defined hole, so I would look for a missing chunk in the wood. If it's just splinters, the hole is not from the wood. With those two out of the way, if it went through the target, it's connected to the bullet - what else could it be? If you cannot answer "what else could it be," it's a hit. If you can answer it, then you have proven it's not the bullet and it's a miss. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point is that instead of asking "how could bullet make such a hole?" I'm always asking "is there anything else that made the hole and what is it?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a hit.  It counts. Partial hit on the barrel-legal, through a stick-legal.

The stick is a bit of a bug-a-boo.  I would like to see a pic of the target, stick, etc.

 

I had a similar situation at the Desert Classic a few years ago.  A very big hole.  A very smart, experienced GM (MD also) said, "ask the CRO if it was possible for two shots to go through the hole, the first obviously made the hole, can the RO prove the second did not pass through the same hole?" 

The GM went on to say, 'on this stage most of your hits were next to each other.'  

 

 It was an interesting point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, pjb45 said:

I had a similar situation at the Desert Classic a few years ago.  A very big hole.  A very smart, experienced GM (MD also) said, "ask the CRO if it was possible for two shots to go through the hole, the first obviously made the hole, can the RO prove the second did not pass through the same hole?" 

The GM went on to say, 'on this stage most of your hits were next to each other.'  

 

 It was an interesting point.

 

It's not that interesting... unless I don't understand the situation. 

 

It's not up to the CRO to prove a second shot DIDN'T go through the big hole. It's his responsibility to find evidence of two scorable hits. Same as a PERFECT double - only one scorable hit. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...