9.5.5

[Catfish]

9.5.5

Enlarged holes in paper targets which exceed the competitor’s bullet

diameter will not count for score or penalty unless there is visible evidence

within the remnants of the hole (e.g. a grease mark or a “crown”

etc.), to eliminate a presumption that the hole was caused by a ricochet

or splatter.

Taking advantage of a lazy Saturday afternoon to familiarize myself with the new rulebook.....

Am I correct in interpreting this to mean that as of '08, in addition to using an overlay, other visible evidence must be present to score a "double" as two hits? Making a two part requirement for giving the shooter a double vs. the old method of a one part (the overlay) requirement?

[XRe]

No, that's not exactly how I read it - although I can see what you're saying. Its intending to eliminate "non-roundish", "non-bullet-like" holes from being considered as a competitor's hits.

Consider, for instance, the extreme case, where you shoot a disappearing turner, and catch at the right moment to leave a big stripe across the target with your bullet. You still have evidence of a bullet's passing, right? But splatter holes look different... They don't tend to have that bullet-like look to them.

I think you still have a case here where an oblong bullet hole could be counted as a "magic double", if it appears to be more than one bullet width wide when looking at it w/ an overlay....

Just my take on it, though...

[kimel]

I'd agree with Dave. I think the key is the latter part of the rule "to eliminate a presumption that the hole was caused by a ricochet

or splatter."

I do not see this as an attempt to eliminate doubles.

It will be interesting to see how this is handled for the Shotgun version though.

[Catfish]

Gotcha, and I do see what ya'll are saying about the splatter and ricochet.

Here's an example of what I've seen...

Shooter hits the target at an angle. There is just one hole in the target, although it is slightly oblong due to the direction and angle from which he shot the target. Since there is only one grease mark, but the hole is larger than the appropriate scoring ring on the overlay, how to you score the hit?

To this point, I have been giving the shooter a scored two hits. Should that change under the new rule book?

[AikiDale]

Gotcha, and I do see what ya'll are saying about the splatter and ricochet.

Here's an example of what I've seen...

Shooter hits the target at an angle. There is just one hole in the target, although it is slightly oblong due to the direction and angle from which he shot the target. Since there is only one grease mark, but the hole is larger than the appropriate scoring ring on the overlay, how to you score the hit?

To this point, I have been giving the shooter a scored two hits. Should that change under the new rule book?

Interesting. In the scenario you describe above I would only have scored one hit unless there were further evidence there was more than one shot in the slightly oblong hole.

[mactiger]

Gotcha, and I do see what ya'll are saying about the splatter and ricochet.

Here's an example of what I've seen...

Shooter hits the target at an angle. There is just one hole in the target, although it is slightly oblong due to the direction and angle from which he shot the target. Since there is only one grease mark, but the hole is larger than the appropriate scoring ring on the overlay, how to you score the hit?

To this point, I have been giving the shooter a scored two hits. Should that change under the new rule book?

Interesting. In the scenario you describe above I would only have scored one hit unless there were further evidence there was more than one shot in the slightly oblong hole.

Me, too.

This rule deals with large, ragged, non-round bullet hits caused by spatter, or jacket shear off steel, or something similar, not doubles.

Troy

[Catfish]

very good, thanks for the clarification folks.

[oldcurmudgeon]

This rule deals with large, ragged, non-round bullet hits caused by spatter, or jacket shear off steel, or something similar, not doubles.

Troy

I cannot find in the 2008 rules a definition of "ricochet" but the word appears on 9.5.5 in terms of scoring. Before assuming that "We all know what ricochets are, consider the following.

The case it point: Last Saturday, I shot a match where plastic barrels were used as hard cover. One shot grazed the barrel and was slightly deflected and tumbled - but hit the scoring area of the target and was clearly the hole caused by a single, intact bullet.

The RO claimed it was a "ricochet" and shouldn't count.

I pointed out 9.1.6.3

9.1.6.3 If a bullet strikes partially within hard cover, and continues on to

strike the scoring area of a paper target, the hit on that paper target

will count for score or penalty, as the case may be.

Arguably, any bullet striking "partially within hard cover" will be deflected to some extent if that hard cover is any more substantial than paper. Are those to be considered ricochets?

We get into other murky areas. On a stage I RO'ed, one shooter had some handloaded tumbling jacketed bullets that left no grease mark. Should these be counted as misses under 9.5.5?

I like Troy's statement as to intent, but being anal retentive, I'd like to see it stated more clearly.

Additionally, as a former editor of the written word, I'm bothered by "...unless there is visible evidence"within the remnants of the hole (e.g. a grease mark or a “crown” etc."

Evidence of what?

Might it be better if it said "evidence of passage of an intact bullet?"