Perfect Double

[MikeFoley]

This year at USPSA Nationals, I got a miss called on the closest target I shot through a tight opening where there was no place else for it to be. The hole looked oblong to me, and I asked for an overlay, then the ROs called the RM, and he studied it long and hard and I got the call. It does happen, and some people will maliciously ask for it every time they miss. I had never questioned a call until this nationals, but I saw many shooters come out ahead by doing so, me included. BTW, I had a legitimate miss on the same stage and I didn't question that one.

[dajarrel]

I believe it is any shooters perogative to call for an overlay when he/she believes a shot to be a double. It is also that shooters responsibility to accept the decision the RO/CRO/MD makes after applying that overlay.

FWIW

dj

Edited November 7, 2005 by dajarrel

[Joe D]

One thing that I am noticing is many of the younger shooter are yelling "Perfect Double" every time they miss. At the last Ga. IDPA Championship I noticed a young shooter calling doubles and wanting an overlay on any shot that was even close to a scoring ring.

The one "double" I saw him call was shot from 15 yds with a 9mm RN. Hole was in a nonpasted area of the target. As soon as he started walking to the target he started calling "Perfect Double". Boy, he must have great eyes to see that double from 15 yds. away.

I was helping paste while waiting my turn to shoot. The SO looked at me as if wanting me to call the shot. I simply said, shaking my head, "I know how I would call it -5, but it is your stage". Shooter got the undeserved double.

Come on guys, you know where your front sight was when you pulled the trigger. Take the miss and move on.

[boo radley]

I shoot a local match occasionally that's run under IDPA rules (although not sanctioned) and the scoring aspect is one of many things that drives me crazy, because I think there's a logical disconnect between "keeping score" and the rule book which states in many places:

p44 "Always award any question on the scoring to the contestant. If you have to look at the target very closely to determine if a shot has broken a higher scoring line you will automatically award the higher value to the contestant. At NO time will IDPA SO's use scoring plugs or overlays. When in doubt of a scoring call, always award the higher value to the shooter. This also applies to doubles."

p74 ..."If you have to closely look for more than few seconds at a hit, the higher value should be given to the shooter."

Sometimes I *do* think you have to study the d*mn target. <shrug>

[tightloop]

I learned from Col. Cooper, Ain't any such thing as a perfect double...

[Steve Moneypenny]

My bottom line is this, if i see a consistant circular hole and grease ring it's a mike. if the grease ring is deformed it's a double. This said, i also take into consideration the other targets of the stage... if the shooter has 2 ft. seperation in hits, a bunch of "lucky" head hits... then it's probabally not a double! Biased as it may be, i believe in consistancy of a shooter his grip and all other factors. if most of them are real close together it's much more believable to have a perfect double than if there are no 2 hits within 8" of each other.

[Ron Ankeny]

Oh yes, the perfect double. In my life prior to IPSC I spent countless hours wearing an "official" arm band surrounded by targets that were in dispute. Armed with overlays, magnification devices, and optical comparators, it was my job to determine the final score. For the life of me, I have no idea why optical comparators aren't seen more frequently in IPSC. In fact, I have never seen one used in IPSC, lol. FWIW, it's a simple matter to determine if two eccentric holes exist if they are just a few thousandths of an inch apart. It's real easy to tell two holes from a bullet that slides. Of course, this presumes you have the right equipment.

Benefit of the doubt (in other disciplines) means the person scoring the target believes there is an indication of a second hole, but he/she can not tell with 100% certainty. In that case a "double" can be awarded. If there is no indication at all of the second hole, the shot is scored as a miss. Where things get touchy is in the case of multiple shots on one target going through one ragged hole. A good example would be a Bill Drill where there is perhaps no way to reconstruct the scoring surface and the missing shot or shots could have passed through a hole the size of a quarter.

Edited November 7, 2005 by Ron Ankeny

[tightloop]

As I said, I have never seen a Perfect Double, doubt that anyone else has seen one in Action pistol shooting....

[Practical Use]

And all this time I thought that the perfect double was a date with twins.

[tightloop]

I guess Zhunter would be the one to make commentary on that statement...

[COF]

The only call I had to make as MD at the Missouri State match last month was on a 5 yard head shot. The SO called it a miss and the shooter called it a double. The top of the hole had a clean cut edge - the lower edge had an off center grease ring. That was clear enough to me. I've also seen the shooter do that on many occasions so I knew what to look for.

Jerry

[Duane Thomas]

Easy answer: Because IDPA is a SUBJECTIVE sport, not an objective one. SO's are free to assign or not assign penalties based on their opinion; why should scoring be any different than the rest of the IDPA "rules?"

Let's try to keep this constructive. Comments like that aren't.

like a hole that is wallered out more than the other.

"Wallered"? Now that's a new one on me. I like it! What exactly does it mean?

Come on guys, you know where your front sight was when you pulled the trigger.

Sadly, this is not always true.

[tightloop]

Duane

Wallered, is a folk, slang or coloquial term used primarily in the South, meaning "...not exactly round any longer due to various or sundry external forces."

[Flexmoney]

We waller out holes and such in the rust/coal belt as well. (Though it might be spelled wallowed. )

One thing I hear a lot of is the "lack of likelihood" of shooting a double on a moving target. Oddly, I see more evidence that a double on a moving target is likely. Don't know why.

While not a "perfect double", I have shot figure eights (bullets touching) on most every Texas [Windmill] that I have encountered. (I just need to move those hits from the edge of the target to the center )

[Clay1]

wal·low ( P ) Pronunciation Key (wl)

intr.v. wal·lowed, wal·low·ing, wal·lows

To roll the body about indolently or clumsily in or as if in water, snow, or mud.

To luxuriate; revel: wallow in self-righteousness.

To be plentifully supplied: wallowing in money.

To move with difficulty in a clumsy or rolling manner; flounder: “The car wallowed back through the slush, with ribbons of bright water trickling down the windshield from the roof” (Anne Tyler).

To swell or surge forth; billow.

n.

The act or an instance of wallowing.

A pool of water or mud where animals go to wallow.

The depression, pool, or pit produced by wallowing animals.

A condition of degradation or baseness.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Middle English walowen, from Old English wealwian. See wel-2 in Indo-European Roots.]

[tightloop]

Clay 1

Appreciate your dictionary and the help it provides, but in this case the meaning is closer to what I said..IMHO

[Clay1]

I agree. I just thought that they last part of the definition spoke to the Perfect double part of the thread: "The depression, pool, or pit produced by wallowing animals."

Wallowing animals describes some shooters very succinctly.

[tightloop]

Very true....

[andrewcolglazier]

As an SO, I watch the gun very closely. On close targets it is possible to "know" the shooter hit the target by observing the orientation of the pistol to the target.

I have given doubles to shooters when they fired twice but had one hole based on the fact that I KNEW from seeing the weapon/target orientation that they COULDN'T have missed the target based on what I saw.

Andy C.

[Mayonaise]

At big matches the score keeper or another SO should be tasked with watching the targets while the CSO watches the shooter's gun. If you've been around enough you can spot the doubles pretty well. If the SO isn't sure, make a call, benefit of the doubt should always go to the shooter.

[Loves2Shoot]

I just read MV's article on doubles in FS. If it is a perfect double you have to score it Hit Value and Miss. If there is no evidence of two shots, you can't give two scoring hits, that is just the way it should be IMHO.

[Clay1]

Again, an IDPA match prompted this thread in combination with reading Saul Kirsch's new book: Thinking Practical Shooting.

I did just read Michael Voigts article in Front Sight as well and it mirrored Saul's thoughts. Good timing on Front Sight's part.

Rick

[Liota]

Gentlemen,

With all due respect to Mr. Voight, there was an instance in our section where an individual claimed a double, but was scored Alpha-Mike. The target in question was pulled for the RM to look at and the score was confirmed. The competitor threw the target in the back of a trailor where it lay for about six months with boxes piled on it. When the target surfaced again, there were clearly two holes where only one had been seen on match day.

v/r,

Liota

[Clay1]

Liota, the RO and the RM looked at it and scored it Alpha / Mike. So months later it resurfaced and there were CLEARLY two holes?

So what happened in your opinion?

[Loves2Shoot]

Gentlemen,

With all due respect to Mr. Voight, there was an instance in our section where an individual claimed a double, but was scored Alpha-Mike. The target in question was pulled for the RM to look at and the score was confirmed. The competitor threw the target in the back of a trailor where it lay for about six months with boxes piled on it. When the target surfaced again, there were clearly two holes where only one had been seen on match day.

v/r,

Liota

What you see on match day is what should count, rigth? Without the evidence to score the hit (ie. a hole) should a scoring hit be issued? I've seen so many people miss that claim a "perfect double" and I've seen may be 1 or 2 that have been dang close to perfect doubles. As a scorekeeper it makes sense to score what is visible on paper, doesn't it?

Knowing the extremely rare frequency of true perfect doubles, it seems it would be fairest just to score the visible hits instead of issuing hits for misses, which occurs much, much, much more often.

We have targets so that we can score each run. The evidence of the score is a hole. Seems simple enough, but then again I can be very simple minded. YOMV