9.5.9 bullet must pass through to count

[Flexmoney]

I'm still not sure we're talking about the same thing, but the simplest answer I can give you is to score where the hole is. If there isn't a hole, it doesn't count. If there is a hole, it counts. No interpretation, CSI, target thickness gauge or anything else needed. If the bullet made a hole in the target, it's a hit, and is scored--from the front, not the back. If there is no hole, no hit.

Troy

Thing is...the rule book tells us that is wrong.

The book says (and always has) to score where the bullet touches, not (just) where the hole is. Score the highest area touched. That is consistent with how we score everything else too.

That is pretty simple as well. Nothing else needed.

(none of the above was meant in an argumentative way)

[mactiger]

I'm still not sure we're talking about the same thing, but the simplest answer I can give you is to score where the hole is. If there isn't a hole, it doesn't count. If there is a hole, it counts. No interpretation, CSI, target thickness gauge or anything else needed. If the bullet made a hole in the target, it's a hit, and is scored--from the front, not the back. If there is no hole, no hit.

Troy

Thing is...the rule book tells us that is wrong.

The book says (and always has) to score where the bullet touches, not (just) where the hole is. Score the highest area touched. That is consistent with how we score everything else too.

That is pretty simple as well. Nothing else needed.

(none of the above was meant in an argumentative way)

No argumentativeness (?) taken. :-)

But, here's the thing. 9.5.2 states: "If the bullet diameter of a hit on a scoring target touches the scoring line..." (empasis mine),

not just "if a bullet touches a target", but a hit. 9.5.9 pretty much defines a hit, by stating that the bullet must pass through the target to be considered a valid hit.

So, if it makes a hit on a target, you score the highest zone touched by that hit. (Which should be confirmed with overlays, and may be a higher score, even if the hit doesn't look like it touches on the first examination. I'd say for consistency, you score the hole, and not any smear marks the bullet may make.

I've asked the rest of the instructors and John for their opinions. I'm willing to abide by the majority or by John's decision if he overrules us, so if it gets called differently, then I'll go with that, but for now, this is how I'd score the target.

Troy

[schoonie]

Thoughts:

It sounds as if we need to elimate the 'thickness' of the target. If the target was infinitely thin there would not be a problem.

Step 1. Did the bullet made a hole?

If it passed through the plane of the target (on a highly skewed angle of contact, only a portion of the bullet diameter will be the part passing through. Remember the target has no thickness, so if, as Troy says, there is light coming through, it penetrated). Since there is surface tension in the paper that has to be overcome before a hole is formed this might be the deciding factor for the hit evidence. Contrarily, with an infintely thin surface any mark could be construed to have passed through the plane. I don't like this interpretation since all trace marks could be construed as hits, so I'd fall back on the the Troy light test on any shot touching the surface of the target. The only place for a problem is if the highly skewed bullet ran out of paper target outside of the scoring area before it penetrated the back of the target (I am assuming the target is constructed with two parallel surfaces of paper seperated by another piece that is waffeled to create stiffness). In this case the shooter gets the mike. This does re-introduce thickness concept but it makes for an easy field test.

Step 2. Score the hit.

The crease leading to the hole (daylight) would be where the score would be derived. I believe our rules already make this allowance, especially if viewed using the concept of the 'infinitely' thin target. We would still need to make a distinction between radial tears and creases, which I think are pretty obvious anyway.

[vluc]

heeeey...that's Rayner's Range.

2004 Buckeye Blast. It was an activated, swinging target.

[shred]

I'm still not sure we're talking about the same thing, but the simplest answer I can give you is to score where the hole is. If there isn't a hole, it doesn't count. If there is a hole, it counts. No interpretation, CSI, target thickness gauge or anything else needed. If the bullet made a hole in the target, it's a hit, and is scored--from the front, not the back. If there is no hole, no hit.

Troy

But there's no definition of what a 'hole' is... both shots 1 and 2 in the picture are partial, but not complete 'holes' in the paper, yet #2 is a 'hole' and#1 isn't? I don't understand how I'm supposed to make the call of what is or isn't a hole without a specific measurable guideline to work from. 80% of a full circle? 50%? 30%? Any %?

[HoMiE]

"hole" = "bullet diameter"

Line up an overlay as best as you can, even if it's just a partial hit. If the line touches any part of a scoring area, it counts, for better or worse. On an edge hit, there is a 0.5cm perf right? In inches that is 0.1968", so even a 50% hit by a 9mm(.355) bullet will give you enough of an outline to use an overlay. Start getting lower than 50% hit on edge with 9mm and it's sure to be a miss, with a .45 caliber bullet you can maybey squeak by with ~44% hit (if my math is right?).

Edited July 12, 2008 by HoMiE

[Flexmoney]

(my take, summarized)

The new rule is goofy.

It was meant to cover a squib not going through the target (at least that is the story I have heard over and over, from good sources).

In it's wake, it caught the "glancing hit" that we always counted before.

------------------------

1. The wording of the rule doesn't allow for just any old hole. It requires the bullet to pass completely through the target.

-----------------------

2. If the bullet does pass completely through we can then score the bullet.

-----------------------

3. If it doesn't pass completely through, then it is a Mike.

-----------------------

4. If the bullet can be scored, then we score any spot that it touched, not just the "hole" portion.

----------------------

5. I don't know what to do with the edge hits that shred showed. The bullet touched the scoring surface in both examples. It made a partial hole in both examples. Did either pass completely through the target? Neither?

[Flexmoney]

If the new rule just pertained to squibs, then all of this controversy/speculation/confusion could go away.

[JThompson]

If the new rule just pertained to squibs, then all of this controversy/speculation/confusion could go away.

Was this an issue at some point? I mean just how often does this happen to need a rule anyway?

[Punkin Chunker]

(my take, summarized)

The new rule is goofy.

It was meant to cover a squib not going through the target (at least that is the story I have heard over and over, from good sources).

In it's wake, it caught the "glancing hit" that we always counted before.

------------------------

1. The wording of the rule doesn't allow for just any old hole. It requires the bullet to pass completely through the target.

-----------------------

2. If the bullet does pass completely through we can then score the bullet.

-----------------------

3. If it doesn't pass completely through, then it is a Mike.

-----------------------

4. If the bullet can be scored, then we score any spot that it touched, not just the "hole" portion.

----------------------

5. I don't know what to do with the edge hits that shred showed. The bullet touched the scoring surface in both examples. It made a partial hole in both examples. Did either pass completely through the target? Neither?

FWIW (my $0.015):

The bullet must pass completely through. Not "mostly" through, or "99%" through. Completely through. So with an enlongated tear (a glancing hit that shows the beginning of the hole and the end of the hole on the same side of the target -- per the example) the bullet did not pass completely through.

If, somewhere about mid-tear, there were a few paper fibers connecting the top and the bottom edges of the hole, then fine -- the bullet passed completely through. But the enlongated hole shown is no more an example of a bullet passing completely through than if the shot was a squib that became lodged in the target.

Mike.

Edited to add the twist:

9.5.9 requires the shot to pass completely through. It does not specify whether it means the entire bullet must pass completely through, or that the hole itself must go completely through the target (I think my comment above illustrates my thoughts). Soooooo . . . .

Some shooters might argue that 9.5.9 could mean that the hole must be completely through, and any dimple that will show light through the target would count, therefore Shred's example would score for the highest value.

Just to toss the ball up in the air again.

Edited July 12, 2008 by Punkin Chunker

[shred]

9.5.9 requires the shot to pass completely through. It does not specify whether it means the entire bullet must pass completely through, or that the hole itself must go completely through the target (I think my comment above illustrates my thoughts). Soooooo . . . .

Some shooters might argue that 9.5.9 could mean that the hole must be completely through, and any dimple that will show light through the target would count, therefore Shred's example would score for the highest value.

I could go with "stick a straightedge (say, an overlay) along the edge of the cardboard at the suspected hit-site. If any light shows on the target side of the straightedge, it's a hit and the 'where did the bullet diameter touch?' rules kick in"-- that would allow both shots #1 and #2 in the example to be hits, but nothing at more of an angle than #1. Simple to test, no more judgement needed than today to call a shot on a line or not.

I would prefer 9.5.9 be narrowed to squib or ricochet-type cases only, but failing that...

[Flexmoney]

Edited to add the twist:

9.5.9 requires the shot to pass completely through. It does not specify whether it means the entire bullet must pass completely through, or that the hole itself must go completely through the target

I was expecting somebody to bring that up sooner. I think the wording..."completely PASS through"...means what it says. Or, at least it says what it reads. If they had said..."bullet must make a hole in the target"...that would be different (and might not cover the squib thing they were trying to cover).

[Flexmoney]

I would prefer 9.5.9 be narrowed to squib or ricochet-type cases only, but failing that...

I agree. That is the best fix.

Even more...that seems to be the very reason the rule was written. So, why not clear it up?

[Flexmoney]

If the new rule just pertained to squibs, then all of this controversy/speculation/confusion could go away.

Was this an issue at some point? I mean just how often does this happen to need a rule anyway?

I've never seen it, and only heard of it happening once.

[Punkin Chunker]

Edited to add the twist:

9.5.9 requires the shot to pass completely through. It does not specify whether it means the entire bullet must pass completely through, or that the hole itself must go completely through the target

I was expecting somebody to bring that up sooner.

Yeah, wouldn't ya know I'd be the one . . . .

I think the wording..."completely PASS through"...means what it says. Or, at least it says what it reads. If they had said..."bullet must make a hole in the target"...that would be different (and might not cover the squib thing they were trying to cover).

20 years ago, it was a LOT easier, 'cause there weren't as many Range Lawyers! Now folks can get into the quibble mode on decockers, holes, et alia ad nauseum. BUT -- at least it's good-natured quibbling.

I tend to agree with you. The thing is, the book says "the SHOT" must pass completely through the target, not "the bullet". The shot is not a projectile, it is an act which begins with activating the primer, and ends with the bullet coming to rest. So technically, if somewhere in between the two a target is completely penetrated, the rule would seem to be satisfied.

Edit to add:

For the bullet to pass completely through, the hole would have to start on one side of the target, and end on the other. Not graze, or start and finish on the same side.

What got me thinking (a dangerous situation, sometimes) about this is an analogy:

Try sticking an arrow through your head and leaving it there, with the tip on one side and the fletching on the other (kids, don't try this without adult supervision).

Now to you, that arrow would go completely through your head, even though it's still stuck there. To the paramedic, the penetration wound (i.e., the hole) would completely penetrate, but the arrow didn't.

So it seems that the point of reference is the main thing -- are you the shooter, or the scorer?

It only needs to happen once to become an issue. What's great is that it is clarified before a title or prize money is on the line.

I anticipate the resolution will either be that there has to be evidence that the bullet completely passed through the target, whether it is a squib or a full-charge, or that the center of the enlongated hole will be the point at which the score is taken.

Edited July 13, 2008 by Punkin Chunker