Jump to content
Brian Enos's Forums... Maku mozo!

Scoring a elongated bullet hole


dmshozer1

Recommended Posts

Paper target was set so a shooter could shoot it at an extreme angle to save foot movement.

The bullet would hit in the C zone, go across the A zone and continue across the C zone.

The bullet mark went from C to C. I know, it sounds like a song.

I don't think 9.5.5  solves the scoring problem.

We scored it two A's.

What do you think?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Fishbreath said:

The NROI blog answered a very similar question a year or two ago, here.

 

TLDR: if the hit penetrates the target, score it as the highest scoring zone it touches. 2A is the right call.

Perfect!

Thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Schutzenmeister said:

If it was ONE shot I would only score ONE hit (A, in this case.)  Or am I missing something in the OP?

That's exactly what I was thinking, why 2As???  Sounds like it was only 1 shot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Schutzenmeister said:

If it was ONE shot I would only score ONE hit (A, in this case.)  Or am I missing something in the OP?

I should have explained it was two shots across the target most times.

In some cases other shooters would have a C or A hit.

Sometimes there was only one hit on the  target.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most of this could be fixed with benefit of the doubt always to the shooter - even if just one long tear across the target C to C, far in excess of a measurable single bullet hole, wouldn't you always have to give the shooter 2 A if 2 shots were attempted?  How do you know the 2nd one didn't go through the same tear, its not like there's a grease ring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, IL-SIG said:

For future purposes it sounds like a better positioned target would have minimized this issue. 

It was not meant to be engaged that way,

It turned out to be a gaming thing to save about six steps.

You know how that goes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, sfinney said:

Most of this could be fixed with benefit of the doubt always to the shooter - even if just one long tear across the target C to C, far in excess of a measurable single bullet hole, wouldn't you always have to give the shooter 2 A if 2 shots were attempted?  How do you know the 2nd one didn't go through the same tear, its not like there's a grease ring.

 

If there is no evidence of a second bullet's passage through the gash, it's a miss.  There's no 'benefit of the doubt' in the rules anymore (way back when it was, it was abused). 

 

If for any reason the target can't be scored accurately, it's a reshoot, not a free alpha.

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, sfinney said:

Most of this could be fixed with benefit of the doubt always to the shooter - even if just one long tear across the target C to C, far in excess of a measurable single bullet hole, wouldn't you always have to give the shooter 2 A if 2 shots were attempted?  How do you know the 2nd one didn't go through the same tear, its not like there's a grease ring.

 

Wrong ... There is no such animal as "benefit of the doubt" when scoring in this sport.  You must have evidence of two hits in order to score two hits.  While you ask "How do you know the 2nd one didn't go through the same tear, [...]" I ask how do you prove it did.  By surreptitiously rewarding ahooter A you wind up penalizing his closest competitor, shooter B.  This is scoring 101.

 

4 minutes ago, shred said:

There's no 'benefit of the doubt' in the rules anymore. 

 

Sorry Shred, but this never existed in the rules to my recolection of the last 30 years ...

Edited by Schutzenmeister
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, shred said:

 

If there is no evidence of a second bullet's passage through the gash, it's a miss. 

 

If for any reason the target can't be scored accurately, it's a reshoot, not a free alpha.

 

 

 

 

 

^^^^THIS^^^^

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/6/2022 at 7:25 PM, Schutzenmeister said:

Sorry Shred, but this never existed in the rules to my recolection of the last 30 years ...

 

Noob :D  In the 1980s there was 'reasonable doubt' in the scoring section around extra hits on targets at least, and at least one Front Sight article in the 1990s telling everyone to knock it off with the 'benefit of the doubt' because it was done and gone from the rules and policy.

 

But yeah, it's been gone for 30 or more years, yet persists as some undead zombie shambling about.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/6/2022 at 7:25 PM, Schutzenmeister said:

 

Wrong ... There is no such animal as "benefit of the doubt" when scoring in this sport.  You must have evidence of two hits in order to score two hits.  While you ask "How do you know the 2nd one didn't go through the same tear, [...]" I ask how do you prove it did.  By surreptitiously rewarding ahooter A you wind up penalizing his closest competitor, shooter B.  This is scoring 101.

 

 

Sorry Shred, but this never existed in the rules to my recolection of the last 30 years ...

You are correct - it’s not in the rules (currently) - just saying some of the would be easier / faster if it was - no arguing over immaculate doubles, etc, and no reshoots needed…just “ looks good to me”.

 

I apologize if this mentality goes against the current rule set, was only an opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, sfinney said:

You are correct - it’s not in the rules (currently) - just saying some of the would be easier / faster if it was - no arguing over immaculate doubles, etc, and no reshoots needed…just “ looks good to me”.

 

I apologize if this mentality goes against the current rule set, was only an opinion.

 

Forgive me ... The myth of "benefit of the doubt" is something NROI has tried VERY hard to get rid of for at least 10-15 years now.  Every time it appears to finally have died, someone brings it up again - generally along the lines you espouse.  The scoring of targets must be done as accurately and impartially as the RO can reasonably do it.  Anything less is a disservice to the sport and, frankly, the individual competitors involved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...