The 180 Rule

[Sarge]

3 hours ago, GigG said:

 

There is no way for an RO to look where one is standing and decide if the shooter stands there with a gun that the 180 will or won't be broken.  

Whuuut?

[GigG]

Oh, come on guys.  We've all seen targets that can be shot that are right on the edge of breaking the 180. Hell, I've seen them where one side of the A zone would be safe and the other wouldn't, and shooting positions and stance would make the difference in breaking the A zone. 

 

If asked that question about a target the proper answer would be, "If you can do it without breaking the 180, sure."

[GigG]

42 minutes ago, pjb45 said:

There is no harm is asking a rules questions to the CRO or RO but NOT OK to expect them to tell you how to shoot it or how others shot it.

Of course, it is OK to ask about the rules.

[Racinready300ex]

"am I up range of that target from here?"

 

That's how I'd ask. 

[Schutzenmeister]

4 hours ago, broadside72 said:

 

Some range lawyers will say that 2.1.3 defines Safe Angles of Fire and does not mention specifically call out "180 issues" only ricochet and berm issues. 

 

2.1.4 does not explicitly specify this, but the reference to "as and when visible" actually is back to the language in 1.1.5.

[perttime]

2.1.4 is under the heading "Course Construction and Modification"

 

It is clearly saying that you cannot design and build a course where you can see a target when it is outside "safe angles of fire" AKA 180.

[shred]

6 hours ago, perttime said:

2.1.4 is under the heading "Course Construction and Modification"

 

It is clearly saying that you cannot design and build a course where you can see a target when it is outside "safe angles of fire" AKA 180.

That is what Ray & Troy said in my CRO class at Nationals. 

 

When we were doing the on-range exercises for that class and noticed there was a target at said Nationals that was visible well past the 180 (an awkward shot nobody in their right mind would do; diagonally backwards all the way through the Frostproof shoot house), he kind of said 'you do the best you can"-- but it was fixed by the next match.

 

Angle the target, stick a wall or barrel stack or no-shoot in front of it if necessary.

 

 

 

[pjb45]

On 5/9/2023 at 1:32 PM, TaterHead said:

Here is the rule as written. Does anyone know what “the median intercept of the backstop” actually means? I have always understood the rule to be 90 degrees off the centerline of the stage, not the bay the stage is setup in. That is, a stage may need to be setup at an angle within the bay. The 180 would be relative to the stage, not the bay. The definition of the word “median” hardly seems appropriate in this context. Lawyers please proceed.
 

10.5.2 If at any time during the course of fire, a competitor allows the muzzle of his firearm to point rearwards, that is further than 90 degrees from the median intercept of the backstop, or in the case of no backstop, allows the muzzle to point up range, whether the firearm is loaded or not (limited exceptions:

Yeppers.  Since I know that was the way we did it because there was to be no shooting in the east side of the berm.

 

[pjb45]

On 5/9/2023 at 1:52 PM, shred said:

The backstop controls the location of the 180.

 

Rotated stages need to have redefined 180's set by the MD/RM or it's still the backstop.

At Rio we have run in the gullies.  No back of the berm.  And the gully is not in a straight line.  

Yet relative to the target if you pass the target target and turn back to shoot it--a DQ would probably be called.

[pjb45]

On 5/17/2023 at 7:14 AM, GigG said:

 

There is no way for an RO to look where one is standing and decide if the shooter stands there with a gun that the 180 will or won't be broken.  

I disagree.  Having worked stage set up for a few major matches, I know for a fact that are stage designers and construction staff always evaluate those type of situations.