Bouncing bullets

[BSeevers]

I saw this happen the last 2 weekends and it makes you think.

1. Shooter engages targets around a wall barricade thats angles out. There is a target and a noshoot beside it. Shooter bounces 2 off the wall and instead of going through wall one bounces into the no-shoot How would you score it.

2. Today there is a target behind a big wood spool. Shooter bounces a couple shots off spool into target.

Does it matter if bullet enters target sideways?

It was stated both times all props are hard cover.

[Jake Di Vita]

If all props were previously deemed hard cover, than it shouldn't be counted against the shooter.  That is assuming you can be sure beyond a reasonable doubt that the bullet richoched off the prop before going into the target.

[Flexmoney]

BSeevers,

I brought that up today when we walked thru that stage with the big wire spool.

I don't think it matters if the bullet goes into the target sideways.  As for the hard-cover...I'm thinking that if it is not a full bullet diameter on the hard-cover then the bullet can still score hits (or NS) on the target.

Then again...I am going off memory, and I need some shut-eye.  DBChaffin has a post around here that may deal with this issue.  I'll see if I can dig it up.

[Flexmoney]

Here is the link:

http://www.brianenos.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard...27&topic=44

[BSeevers]

Yea but I am talking about a bounce. Not a full diameter penetration. A lot of those spool hits were bouncing because of the hard round surface. Another problem is the spool kept getting softer and smaller as more chunks were taken out.

But the real question is "Is a bounce a hit and can you call it every time?

[Vince Pinto]

If the hits visible on the shoot targets were caused solely by bullets ricocheting off something else, the competitor has failed to shoot at the targets, therefore Rule 9.5.9 applies.

By the same token, similarly occasioned hits on a penalty target would not count for penalty.

As far as bullets entering a target "sideways" (i.e. they tumbled in fight), the old "double diameter" rules no longer exist in the 14th Edition. However in view of the sentiments expressed in Rule 9.9.3, we would award the competitor the highest scoring zone achieved.

Hence if the elongated hole stretches across both the A and C zones, he would be awarded the A. Also see Rule 9.1.5.

[BSeevers]

Vince

So how are you going to explain to a shooter 1 procedural and 2 mikes??When there are 2 holes in the targets and remember a divot but NOT a full diameter penetration? I thought at first Range equipment failure but logic says if I was the target a bounced hit would injure me as much as a direct one. I know the rules and have shot a long time but still want to figure this one out. You are one of the RO guru's so help us out. The targets were mounted on the spool. The the curved portion or (part the wire goes on) was where the half exposed target was mounted. Imagine a convex HARD hard cover over the bottom half of the target. This is very hard to put on paper. I could show you in 10 sec

ALSO let me turn this around which is what happened the previous weekend. Lets say its a Noshoot so you are not going to say 2 noshoots when you score? You cannot even give a procedural for that then.

[Vince Pinto]

Hi Bill,

The question (which is a bit unclear in the first post), is whether the competitor shot at the targets and hit them directly or merely "bounced" shots off a prop.

Of course this is a judgement call for the RO, and how the shots visible on the target came about may not have been seen by him. In such an event, then he would have to score what he sees on the target.

However if the RO sees that the competitor fired one or more shots which hit the prop and then hit the target, he should not award the hits unless the competitor backed up the "bounced" shots with direct hits. In this case, there would be more than two holes visible on the target.

The best way to avoid such difficult calls is, as usual, better course design and construction, by ensuring that the part of the target adjacent to the wooden spool has a hard cover section painted on it. This way, "bounced" shots are more likely to hit the hard cover painted on the target, so any holes within the scoring area would represent genuine hits.

I realise the original question is one of those "you had to be there" posts, so the best I can do is give you the theory and relevant rules.

By the way, the same practice applies to penalty targets. I worked the 2002 Australian Nationals over Easter, and my stage had a penalty target which occasionally received hits from ricochets from shots passing through a shoot target uprange. Of course I did not record those as penalties for the affected competitor, because my fellow RO's and I were watching the subject penalty target very carefully so we saw the holes were caused by ricochets.

Of course once we realised the problem, we added more sandbags to minimise the probem, but I still had to deal with the first competitor who's actions brought the matter to light.

[Bigbadaboom]

  My question is, if the RO is watching the gun and the score keeper is watching the shooter for foot falts and such then what officiating person, during the course of fire, would see a "bouncing shot" and could make the call any other way than by what holes are in what targets? Spectators are the only people that "SHOULD" be watching the targets while the course is being ran and thier opinions don't legitimately count in makeing the scoring calls.

 

[Vince Pinto]

The Range Officer with the timer must, of course, keep his eyes primarily on the competitor and his gun, however experienced ROs can walk and chew gum at the same time

The assistant ROs are directed to watch other areas of the course of fire where rule breaches may occur, but this is by no means limited to fault or charge lines.

At the 2002 Australian Nationals, I had a 32 round long course with numerous challenges including charge and fault lines, three doors (potential sweeping and breaking 90 degrees issues), movement and reloading issues plus the penalty target which later started receiving ricochets.

It was 12 metres beyond the shoot target, and ricochets were not predictable during my COF inspection (although other issues like potential "shoot-throughs" were), but we dealt with the problem penalty target as soon as it came to light.

Three of us worked the COF, and I allocated different tasks to each of us, and there were no problems.

However I would not have started the first competitor if, during my preliminary inspection, I saw a target which would clearly be a potential source of dispute, such as the one described at the start of this thread.