Chris Leong Posted June 13, 2001 Share Posted June 13, 2001 How far off the perpendicular can you go from a target before the bullet hit becomes a radial hole rather than a circle and doesn't qualify to be a hit? The RO I shot with the other day told me to approach a set of targets "more squarely" (losing time, of course). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulW Posted June 13, 2001 Share Posted June 13, 2001 I am not 100% sure but I believe that whole radial tear thing has gone away with the new rule book. You can cut the target in half and get the hit. I'll have to re-read the rule book on that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ErikW Posted June 13, 2001 Share Posted June 13, 2001 I think what you mean is an oblong hole, which you'll get when you shoot a target from a position that is not more or less perpendicular to it. Round or oblong, a hit is a hit. The bad thing about courses which allow these shooting angles is oblong holes can be argued as doubles instead of one hit/one miss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
38supPat Posted June 13, 2001 Share Posted June 13, 2001 A radial tear is the tearing away from the hole on a straight clean shot through a target. Not angled shots. If you look closely there are tiny tears radiating away from the hole, these don't count but a full horizontal shot at a target scores the highest point zone it crosses, usually an A. This is one of the biggest scoring errors you will run across, RO's don't appear to know english too good. You can shoot targets at any angle they present them to you (staying inside the 180). Remember we are shooting a three dimentional sport on two dimentional targets. Pat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Leong Posted June 14, 2001 Author Share Posted June 14, 2001 Okay, I'm going to be dense, just for the sake of super-clarity. Please note the following course: M M M P P POP / / B P P / P / A / / / Okay, so M is metal P is paper POP is a popper / represents a prop wall with a hole in it. A & B are two possible shooting positions. There is nothing specified in terms of target engagement, save to get the popper first. The wall has a low port and all the targets behind the wall are low. Distance from A to low targets, between 3 and 8 yards. Obviously you're crouching or kneeling at position A. Distance from B to two paper around 5 yards, to the metal around 6 yards. Distance from A to B, around 10 yards. Is there anything stopping me from shooting all targets from Position A? From A to furthest target (that most people go to B to engage) is around 20 yards. The spacing is tight but doable, since there are no no-shoots in that group. In my mind, it's faster to get down to A and stay there for all the rest of the targets. Much faster than shooting A, getting up, running to B and hosing from there. Right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benos Posted June 14, 2001 Share Posted June 14, 2001 Chris, Often what appears "right" in these scenarios is not the quickest way to solve the problem. Without going into too much detail, you'd be surprised how often it is quicker to run up as close to the targets as possible. Over the years, I've learned tons experimenting in this area. Unfortunately there is no formula, or even a "rule of thumb" to guide you. In each situation, you'll have to consider the target size, distance (and distance you have to move), risk factor, and your current skill level. After some experience, as usual, you'll be better equiped to make a decision. sorry, be Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Leong Posted June 15, 2001 Author Share Posted June 15, 2001 Hey be The reason why I was asking is that the RO said to me that I COULD NOT shoot the second group from position A because "the bullet holes would be radial, or oval shaped, and not round, and some people would not count them as direct hits". That's why I was posting this topic. Is there a minimum angle (other than 90 degrees, perpendicular to the target) that is permissable by IPSC/USPSA rules? 45 degrees to one side? 30 degrees off? Or is it "if you can see your way to the A zone, you can shoot it"??? That's really the question I've been asking. More about legal shots than about advisable ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
38supPat Posted June 15, 2001 Share Posted June 15, 2001 The RO has no idea what he is talking about. If you can see it you can shoot it. That RO doesn't understand the radial tear rule. Tell him to look it up as well as tell him that, as I said before, we shoot two dimentional targets on a three dimentional range, theres alway going to be angle shots. It is up the the course designer to lay it out to avoid this problem. But when presented with it any hit counts no matter how long. This is not a radial tear. A radial tear are the tiny tears eminating away from the hole, even on a direct perpendicular hit. It apples and oranges. Pat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted June 15, 2001 Share Posted June 15, 2001 Freestyle baby! Gotta love it. Chris, your thinking shows that you are shooting with an open mind (awareness). I am inspired. Knowledge is power. I have to keep looking up the rules online. I misplaced my little red rule book. If you still have yours then read up, and take it with you to your next match. Give'um hell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Leong Posted June 15, 2001 Author Share Posted June 15, 2001 Cool, dudes. Dudical, in fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Austin Hemphill Posted June 15, 2001 Share Posted June 15, 2001 In the RO1 calss I just took, it was explained that under the new rules any hit will be scored as the highest scoring area it crosses. This does include cutting the target in half. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Merricks Posted June 15, 2001 Share Posted June 15, 2001 Does that mean completely in half or just partially in half? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
38supPat Posted June 16, 2001 Share Posted June 16, 2001 Partial half? Pat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Merricks Posted June 16, 2001 Share Posted June 16, 2001 Just trying to get him ready for when he is asked dumb questions on the range? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benos Posted June 16, 2001 Share Posted June 16, 2001 Here's one for you: If it takes 6 guys 3 hours and 20 minutes to dig a hole 6 feet deep - how long does it take 3 guys to dig half a hole? be Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Merricks Posted June 17, 2001 Share Posted June 17, 2001 Brian, Are you trying to get us ready for next months question? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Habicht Posted June 17, 2001 Share Posted June 17, 2001 Brian, Is that half of that particular hole or half of an unspecified in size hole? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich Bagoly Posted June 17, 2001 Share Posted June 17, 2001 Its a trick question, there was no English Football Cup in 1945. Once you have dug a hole, thats what it is. If you have not dug yet, it is not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich Bagoly Posted June 17, 2001 Share Posted June 17, 2001 In theory you could have a scoring hit on the target, without cutting it at all. Say your bullet was fired at an angle approaching parallel to the target, and only left a mark across it. You should receive the score for the highest zone it touched. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulW Posted June 18, 2001 Share Posted June 18, 2001 You can't dig a hole! It's a hole...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
38supPat Posted June 18, 2001 Share Posted June 18, 2001 Is that a whole hole? Pat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulW Posted June 18, 2001 Share Posted June 18, 2001 Ok here's one. There are 2 Indians standing on a bridge. One is the father, of the other ones son. What relation are they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Merricks Posted June 18, 2001 Share Posted June 18, 2001 Father and Son or Grandfather and Father Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich Bagoly Posted June 18, 2001 Share Posted June 18, 2001 He did not say they were both male. I can't figure out the Indian part....and why a bridge? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulW Posted June 18, 2001 Share Posted June 18, 2001 Wrong wrong...keep trying..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now