Grease ring or no score?

[race1911]

grease rings can be used as an "aid" in determining whether it entered a barrel (full diameter) or no-shoot penalty target prior to the target...also possibly if two partial circumference hits are scored as a "double"...IN NO WAY should it be the determining factor on whether a full diameter hit is scoreable or not....you MUST go by the RULE BOOK, nowhere does it mention a hit must have grease marks to score

[StealthyBlagga]

22 hours ago, Diver123 said:

Yes they should look at other things such as, did the bullet hit anything on the way to the target? If yes what was it and more importantly was it a full diameter hit on the object it hit on the way to the target. If it is a partial the hole scores. A deflection off a barrel causes a hole. That hole scores period. Enlarged, oblong, round, and even without a crown or grease. Nothing else caused the hole but the bullet. A barrel doesnt cause it to break apart into fragments. Shooter got lucky. Next time maybe not so much.

 

20 hours ago, PatJones said:

A deflected bullet does count for score. Only if it passes completely thru the barrel is it called a miss.

--
Pat Jones
Firestone CO
USPSA #A79592
 

 

I agree that the RO should routinely be checking to see if the bullet passed full-diameter through anything deemed inpenetrable (target, hard cover), whether or not the hole in the target looks unusual (though the appearance may be a cue to pay extra attention). However, I do not agree with the assertion that we should otherwise automatically or by default assume any hole in the target was caused by the bullet (which I think is what you are saying). Instead, regardless of what we think might have happened, if the hole is larger-than-caliber then rule 9.5.5 should come into play - that's its whole raison d'être.

 

18 hours ago, broadside72 said:

 

How is the ammunition unsafe and be able to defend that to RM or arb committee?
Could you prove there was more than one projectile per cartridge?
 

You seem set on defending what several here find to be an incorrect premise.

 

 

My answer was a response to the specific (and may I say, slightly reductio ad absurdum) example of the hole made by bullets disintigrating out of the barrel. I referenced those rules because they seemed most appropriate for consideration, but of course they would not apply in all cases. The ammunition may or may not be unsafe, depending on the magnitude of the problem and what type of firearm is in use. As for the multiple projectile rule, you did see the LOL emoticon, right?

 

I don't believe I am being irrationally defensive. I think I have explained my position clearly, with reference to specific rules and definitions. That some here may not agree with the way I would handle the call does not make me wrong. If you disagree, please reference the RULE that contradicts my assertions.

 

 

14 hours ago, race1911 said:

grease rings can be used as an "aid" in determining whether it entered a barrel (full diameter) or no-shoot penalty target prior to the target...also possibly if two partial circumference hits are scored as a "double"...IN NO WAY should it be the determining factor on whether a full diameter hit is scoreable or not....you MUST go by the RULE BOOK, nowhere does it mention a hit must have grease marks to score

 

I agree. In the case referenced by the OP - a near-perfect hole without grease ring - the lack of a grease ring does not, of itself, negate the hit. However, in the specific case of a larger-than-caliber hole that I was responding to, the presence of a crown, grease ring or similar evidence of an actual intact bullet is required by 9.5.5 to negate the PRESUMPTION that the hole was caused by a non-scoring impact (examples given).

 

As a general comment, I tend to spend less and less time in this rules forum because the discussions often become defensive and personal. This is regrettable. If folks disagree with a position taken by someone, please explain with reference to a plain English reading of the rules as written (in the current rule book or in an official published ruling)... "we've always done it this way" or "some RMI said X" does not count.

[Sarge]

16 minutes ago, StealthyBlagga said:

 

 

I agree that the RO should routinely be checking to see if the bullet passed full-diameter through anything deemed inpenetrable (target, hard cover), whether or not the hole in the target looks unusual (though the appearance may be a cue to pay extra attention). However, I do not agree with the assertion that we should otherwise automatically or by default assume any hole in the target was caused by the bullet (which I think is what you are saying). Instead, regardless of what we think might have happened, if the hole is larger-than-caliber then rule 9.5.5 should come into play - that's its whole raison d'être.

 

 

My answer was a response to the specific (and may I say, slightly reductio ad absurdum) example of the hole made by bullets disintigrating out of the barrel. I referenced those rules because they seemed most appropriate for consideration, but of course they would not apply in all cases. The ammunition may or may not be unsafe, depending on the magnitude of the problem and what type of firearm is in use. As for the multiple projectile rule, you did see the LOL emoticon, right?

 

I don't believe I am being irrationally defensive. I think I have explained my position clearly, with reference to specific rules and definitions. That some here may not agree with the way I would handle the call does not make me wrong. If you disagree, please reference the RULE that contradicts my assertions.

 

 

 

I agree. In the case referenced by the OP - a near-perfect hole without grease ring - the lack of a grease ring does not, of itself, negate the hit. However, in the specific case of a larger-than-caliber hole that I was responding to, the presence of a crown, grease ring or similar evidence of an actual intact bullet is required by 9.5.5 to negate the PRESUMPTION that the hole was caused by a non-scoring impact (examples given).

 

As a general comment, I tend to spend less and less time in this rules forum because the discussions often become defensive and personal. This is regrettable. If folks disagree with a position taken by someone, please explain with reference to a plain English reading of the rules as written (in the current rule book or in an official published ruling)... "we've always done it this way" or "some RMI said X" does not count.

To be fair, the bullet strikes I witness were not from "disintegrating " bullets. Just big holes from radically tumbling roll crimped 9mm rounds. Fired at about 5-8 yards through clear blue sky onto paper. No grease rings, crowns etc. They were hits.

[IVC]

17 minutes ago, StealthyBlagga said:

That some here may not agree with the way I would handle the call does not make me wrong. If you disagree, please reference the RULE that contradicts my assertions.

...

I agree. In the case referenced by the OP - a near-perfect hole without grease ring - the lack of a grease ring does not, of itself, negate the hit. However, in the specific case of a larger-than-caliber hole that I was responding to, the presence of a crown, grease ring or similar evidence of an actual intact bullet is required by 9.5.5 to negate the PRESUMPTION that the hole was caused by a non-scoring impact (examples given).

 

It is NOT required.

 

Here is the rule: 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.

 

The "e.g." stands for "for example" from Latin exempli gratia. It's a sufficient, but not a necessary condition. As such, it is NOT required, whether there is a presumption that the hole was made by something else or not. Rule 9.5.5 deals with debris and splatter, not with scoring of deflected bullets. It also allows hole of ANY size to be scored as a hit/miss/penalty per section 9.1 regardless of the grease ring. It is just the the grease ring is a "visible evidence." 

 

[StealthyBlagga]

On 8/12/2020 at 11:05 AM, IVC said:

 

It is NOT required.

 

Here is the rule: 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.

 

The "e.g." stands for "for example" from Latin exempli gratia. It's a sufficient, but not a necessary condition. As such, it is NOT required, whether there is a presumption that the hole was made by something else or not. Rule 9.5.5 deals with debris and splatter, not with scoring of deflected bullets. It also allows hole of ANY size to be scored as a hit/miss/penalty per section 9.1 regardless of the grease ring. It is just the the grease ring is a "visible evidence." 

 

 

Please re-read my statement above - I never said a grease ring is required.  I said "the presence of a crown, grease ring or similar evidence of an actual intact bullet is required by 9.5.5 to negate the PRESUMPTION that the hole was caused by a non-scoring impact (examples given)". I think this is a reasonable interpretation of 9.5.5.

 

Your statement above that (and I quote) "Rule 9.5.5 deals with debris and splatter, not with scoring of deflected bullets" is factually incorrect... rather, 9.5.5 deals with RICOCHETS and splatter (read the rule). I think if you asked the average shooter whether the word "ricochet" refers to a bullet or a piece of other debris, they would say it refers to a bullet.

 

A bullet may ricochet and become so deformed that, when it travels on to hit a target, it no longer leaves a crown-like arc that can be scored. Because such a hit is indistinguishable from that of a rock, piece of wood or other secondary missile, rule 9.5.5 instructs us to presume it to be a non-scoring impact. While the shooter may feel that they deserve the hit, 9.5.5 says no.

[StealthyBlagga]

On 8/12/2020 at 11:03 AM, Sarge said:

To be fair, the bullet strikes I witness were not from "disintegrating " bullets. Just big holes from radically tumbling roll crimped 9mm rounds. Fired at about 5-8 yards through clear blue sky onto paper. No grease rings, crowns etc. They were hits.

 

Understood. This is one of those unusual situations that the rules don't really anticipate. An experienced RO will use it as a teachable moment - the poor guy was probably wondering why he was not getting any hits past 10 yards. 

Edited August 14, 2020 by StealthyBlagga

[IVC]

Just now, StealthyBlagga said:

 

Please re-read my statement above - I never said a grease ring is required.  I said "the presence of a crown, grease ring or similar evidence of an actual intact bullet...

 Fair enough,  I apologize for misunderstanding. 

 

Just now, StealthyBlagga said:

A bullet may ricochet and become so deformed that, when it travels on to hit a target, it no longer leaves a crown-like arc that can be scored. Because such a hit is indistinguishable from that of a rock, piece of wood or other secondary missile, rule 9.5.5 instructs us to presume it to be a non-scoring impact. While the shooter may feel that they deserve the hit, 9.5.5 says no.

We still have a disagreement about this - bullet can be deformed, it still scores. Ricochet is about bullet on a *different* target hitting a target. Those don't count. 

[Sarge]

40 minutes ago, StealthyBlagga said:

 

Understood. This is one of those unusual situations that the rules don't really anticipate. An experienced RO will use it as a teachable moment - the poor guy was probably wondering why he was not getting any hits past 10 yards. 

Oh yeah, they were all Delta's with a few Charlies!

[ampleworks]

200gr wadcutters our of my STI leave no grease ring. I wonder if the RO will try to say all of my shots went through hardcover when shooting an El Prez? 

[Nic_USPSA_C]

I am the MD at our small local matches, small is 2 squads with 10-12 shooters and 4 stages.  At this type of match if there is a hole in the target the diameter of the bullet I would have called a hit and kept moving.

 

If shooters get argumentative with a call I ask for the $100 for arbitration, that usually ends it,

[Sarge]

1 hour ago, Nic_USPSA_C said:

I am the MD at our small local matches, small is 2 squads with 10-12 shooters and 4 stages.  At this type of match if there is a hole in the target the diameter of the bullet I would have called a hit and kept moving.

 

If shooters get argumentative with a call I ask for the $100 for arbitration, that usually ends it,

You may not realize it but you are doing a disservice to the shooters by having that attitude. You will eventually find that no matter how small a match is the vast majority follow the rules closely and try to score 100% accurately.

[RJH]

1 hour ago, Nic_USPSA_C said:

I am the MD at our small local matches, small is 2 squads with 10-12 shooters and 4 stages.  At this type of match if there is a hole in the target the diameter of the bullet I would have called a hit and kept moving.

 

If shooters get argumentative with a call I ask for the $100 for arbitration, that usually ends it,

Unless you are charging $100 for an entry fee to your small match, you might want to skim through the rulebook one more time.......

[Sarge]

2 hours ago, RJH said:

Unless you are charging $100 for an entry fee to your small match, you might want to skim through the rulebook one more time.......

There’s that too!

[Nic_USPSA_C]

14 hours ago, Sarge said:

You may not realize it but you are doing a disservice to the shooters by having that attitude. You will eventually find that no matter how small a match is the vast majority follow the rules closely and try to score 100% accurately.

Don’t get me wrong, we follow the rules as close as we can, however I am not a walking rule book.  In this case if the RO witnessed the shot through the cover and can prove it, pointing this out would have been a better service than saying no grease ring no score.

[Nic_USPSA_C]

14 hours ago, RJH said:

Unless you are charging $100 for an entry fee to your small match, you might want to skim through the rulebook one more time.......

Did not realize that it also referenced the match fee.  

[Nic_USPSA_C]

11 hours ago, Sarge said:

There’s that too!

Let’s all make fun of the small town local match holder that offers $5.00 entry fees, loans out equipment, tries everything he can to get new shooters to just show up an see what it is all about.

 

Need to get youth into this sport or it will be gone.  
 

[71Commander]

On 8/10/2020 at 8:36 AM, Sarge said:

One nice blue ringed hole and one clean. I called it a mike. He argued. I showed him the NS with blue ring. He said it wasn’t his.

Doesn't matter. If it was the last shooter and got missed and he didn't check before he shot, he bought it.

[Racinready300ex]

On 9/14/2020 at 12:18 AM, Nic_USPSA_C said:

 

Need to get youth into this sport or it will be gone.  
 

 

Everyone says this, but I don't think it's accurate. 

 

It's great to see youth in this sport but most young people can't really afford this game. The future of this sport is guys in there 20's and 30's who have enough disposable income to play. 

 

Also a $5 entry fee? How do you pull that off? You have to pay $3 per shooter to uspsa if you're running a classifier, and you're required to run a certain number of classifiers a year. So that only leaves you $2 per shooter to cover targets and pasters etc. That probably wont last. 

[Nic_USPSA_C]

1 hour ago, Racinready300ex said:

 

Everyone says this, but I don't think it's accurate. 

 

It's great to see youth in this sport but most young people can't really afford this game. The future of this sport is guys in there 20's and 30's who have enough disposable income to play. 

 

Also a $5 entry fee? How do you pull that off? You have to pay $3 per shooter to uspsa if you're running a classifier, and you're required to run a certain number of classifiers a year. So that only leaves you $2 per shooter to cover targets and pasters etc. That probably wont last. 

We charge $5 per shoot on our Thursday night match.  We do not shoot classifiers on Thursday nights.  We also tend to use recycled targets from our monthly match.

 

We hold a once a month USPSA match on a Saturday and charge $15 for that match which usually consists of 1 classifier.

[Racinready300ex]

2 hours ago, Nic_USPSA_C said:

We charge $5 per shoot on our Thursday night match.  We do not shoot classifiers on Thursday nights.  We also tend to use recycled targets from our monthly match.

 

We hold a once a month USPSA match on a Saturday and charge $15 for that match which usually consists of 1 classifier.

 

With out a classifier you only have to pay like $1.50 per shooter I think right?

Edited September 18, 2020 by Racinready300ex

[Sarge]

35 minutes ago, Racinready300ex said:

 

With out a classifier you only have to pay like $1.50 per shooter I think right?

Right. If it’s a sanctioned match USPSA always gets a cut.