9.5.9 bullet must pass through to count

[Hoofy]

Under the new rule in the blue book, that is a Mike. Under the old (red) book, that would have been an Alpha.

Agreed, but back to shred 's question. what if it is a no shoot?

Is there a penalty or not? I can see a very heated discussion on the range if the RO incorrectly says NS.

[mactiger]

So a bullet crease along a no-shoot doesn't count for a no-shoot then either???

I say score the highest zone touched.. and penalty zones touched too, no matter what the angle.

What if say a shooter hits a target from about 45 degrees. The start of the angled hole is touching the A-zone perf, but it heads off into the C-zone. Since the shot wasn't straight-on, the exit hole is well into the C-zone. Is it an A or C?

Per your description, it's an A, like always, as long as there's a hole in the target. The assumption is that it's a short, elongated bullet hole, right? In the case of a really long mark made on a target prior to the bullet actually passing through, as in vluc's example, you could only score the highest zone penetrated. Think about it in terms of "practical" defensive use of a handgun---would a graze count? (I know I used the "P" word, Flex. )

Maybe my idea of a "crease" isn't the same as everyone else's. I'm talking about an elongated mark that doesn't penetrate the target all the way. However, in vluc's photo, (the "crease" is on the right hand C zone and the left hand D zone) I'd score the highest zone hit that you could see daylight through--the A in this case, provided the target is cut all the way through like it seems to be. Does that make more sense? The rule hasn't really changed on how to score either perf or edge hits or elongated hits. Like I said, it was put in there for guidance on how to score very slow bullet hits on paper.

Hope this clears my statements up a bit. I'm sure there are about a million possible scenarios concerning where the bullet hole stops and starts, but I think using the criteria of "passing through" the target should clear up most confusion.

Troy

[JThompson]

It's as I thought in my last post then. That does clear it up.

Thnx

JT

[Flexmoney]

Think about it in terms of "practical" defensive use of a handgun---would a graze count?

It always has. And, it still does with every other type of hit.

However, in vluc's photo, (the "crease" is on the right hand C zone and the left hand D zone) I'd score the highest zone hit that you could see daylight through--the A in this case, provided the target is cut all the way through like it seems to be. Does that make more sense?

That doesn't jive with the new rule at all.

The new rule states that the bullet "must completely pass through the target." Vluc example is a Mike...as the bullet starts and stops on the face of the target...without completely going through.

[JThompson]

Think about it in terms of "practical" defensive use of a handgun---would a graze count?

It always has. And, it still does with every other type of hit.

However, in vluc's photo, (the "crease" is on the right hand C zone and the left hand D zone) I'd score the highest zone hit that you could see daylight through--the A in this case, provided the target is cut all the way through like it seems to be. Does that make more sense?

That doesn't jive with the new rule at all.

The new rule states that the bullet "must completely pass through the target." Vluc example is a Mike...as the bullet starts and stops on the face of the target...without completely going through.

It did go through though, it just went through sideways. It does have a hole in it too if you can see daylight through the rip.

[mactiger]

Think about it in terms of "practical" defensive use of a handgun---would a graze count?

It always has. And, it still does with every other type of hit.

However, in vluc's photo, (the "crease" is on the right hand C zone and the left hand D zone) I'd score the highest zone hit that you could see daylight through--the A in this case, provided the target is cut all the way through like it seems to be. Does that make more sense?

That doesn't jive with the new rule at all.

The new rule states that the bullet "must completely pass through the target." Vluc example is a Mike...as the bullet starts and stops on the face of the target...without completely going through.

Well, we're dealing with a target that's roughly 1/8" thick. The rule basically states that there has to be a hole in the target to score, right? That's a hole, IMO, regardless of how it got there. Besides, that rule wasn't designed, I don't think, to cover elongated bullet holes like this. As I said before, it was to cover weak loads not punching through. But, if competitors insist on applying that rule to turning or angled targets, you have to find some way to score it. It's harder to argue with an obvious hole, no matter how long it is, in a piece of cardboard, than with a bullet stuck in a target. It's hard to tell from the picture, but if that hole goes all the way through, it's a hit--has to be. All the way through is all the way through, no matter how you look at it. 9.5.5 could be applied, to further confuse the issue, but if you can prove that a bullet made the hole, then it's a hit, at least the way I read the rules.

Troy

[Flexmoney]

The rule basically states that there has to be a hole in the target to score, right?

Nah...that is what I thought, until I read it closely. But, that is not what the rule reads. (That is the reason I started this thread. I was asked about it at the range and thought I knew, but didn't have the rule book and the actual wording in front of me at the time.)

Maybe John or George (or whoever wrote it) meant it to mean that, but we can't run matches on what they meant. We gotta make calls according to the book, right?

The book says hits must completely pass through to count. Cutting/grazing a hole isn't completely passing through.

[shred]

I think the problem is with consistency on edge hits and hard-cover (this was my objection to the wording on the completely-pass rule when it was proposed, to no avail)--

Say a bullet hits right on a hardcover or non-scoring line-- half in and half out. To be consistent with the 'must completely pass through' interpretation, it would be a miss-- half the bullet did not penetrate the scoring area, so it didn't 'completely pass through'. Yet, even if 99.9% of the bullet hole is in the black today, yet it barely touches the brown, it counts as a 'hit'-- the equivalent of a grazing hit if I ever saw one.

Thus to be consistent, all 'grazing' hits should count or none of them should. It would be much easier to go with the former than give a Mike for every hole that touches a non-scoring border.

[Flexmoney]

...that rule wasn't designed, I don't think, to cover elongated bullet holes like this. As I said before, it was to cover weak loads not punching through.

Yeah...I think that is the seed of the issue. The way the rule got written up, it snagged the elongated hits, not just the squibs.

[Nik Habicht]

Troy,

so all the way through could be construed as penetrating the target from front to back or as penetrating the top brown layer from side to side in case of an angled target?

[Flexmoney]

I think the problem is with consistency on edge hits and hard-cover (this was my objection to the wording on the completely-pass rule when it was proposed, to no avail)--

Say a bullet hits right on a hardcover or non-scoring line-- half in and half out. To be consistent with the 'must completely pass through' interpretation, it would be a miss-- half the bullet did not penetrate the scoring area, so it didn't 'completely pass through'. Yet, even if 99.9% of the bullet hole is in the black today, yet it barely touches the brown, it counts as a 'hit'-- the equivalent of a grazing hit if I ever saw one.

Thus to be consistent, any 'grazing' hits should count or none of them should. It would be much easier to go with the former than give a Mike for every hit that touches the non-scoring border.

+1

We lost some continuity and consistency in the rules/calls due to the wide net thrown by this new rule...which was put in to cover something that just doesn't happen much (squib boinking off a target face).

[mactiger]

The rule says "hits", not complete bullet diameter, etc., so IMO (and I've been talking to the rest of the instructors on this), if the hit penetrates the target, it's a hit.

Troy

[mactiger]

The rule basically states that there has to be a hole in the target to score, right?

Nah...that is what I thought, until I read it closely. But, that is not what the rule reads. (That is the reason I started this thread. I was asked about it at the range and thought I knew, but didn't have the rule book and the actual wording in front of me at the time.)

Maybe John or George (or whoever wrote it) meant it to mean that, but we can't run matches on what they meant. We gotta make calls according to the book, right?

The book says hits must completely pass through to count. Cutting/grazing a hole isn't completely passing through.

A hit that makes a hole in a target, without remaining stuck in the target, is a hit, because it completely passed through.

[mactiger]

I think the problem is with consistency on edge hits and hard-cover (this was my objection to the wording on the completely-pass rule when it was proposed, to no avail)--

Say a bullet hits right on a hardcover or non-scoring line-- half in and half out. To be consistent with the 'must completely pass through' interpretation, it would be a miss-- half the bullet did not penetrate the scoring area, so it didn't 'completely pass through'. Yet, even if 99.9% of the bullet hole is in the black today, yet it barely touches the brown, it counts as a 'hit'-- the equivalent of a grazing hit if I ever saw one.

Thus to be consistent, all 'grazing' hits should count or none of them should. It would be much easier to go with the former than give a Mike for every hole that touches a non-scoring border.

Shred, I don't think I'm completely following you on this. The rules about hard cover and no shoots refer to the bullet diameter, which means that only a part of the bullet has to touch to score. The words "completely pass through" don't mean that a whole bullet has to impact in a particular scoring zone. Is that what you mean?

Troy

Edited July 11, 2008 by mactiger

[shred]

I think the problem is with consistency on edge hits and hard-cover (this was my objection to the wording on the completely-pass rule when it was proposed, to no avail)--

Say a bullet hits right on a hardcover or non-scoring line-- half in and half out. To be consistent with the 'must completely pass through' interpretation, it would be a miss-- half the bullet did not penetrate the scoring area, so it didn't 'completely pass through'. Yet, even if 99.9% of the bullet hole is in the black today, yet it barely touches the brown, it counts as a 'hit'-- the equivalent of a grazing hit if I ever saw one.

Thus to be consistent, all 'grazing' hits should count or none of them should. It would be much easier to go with the former than give a Mike for every hole that touches a non-scoring border.

Shred, I don't think I'm completely following you on this. The rules about hard cover and no shoots refer to the bullet diameter, which means that only a part of the bullet hole has to touch to score. Is that what you mean?

Troy

Well, on one hand, we're saying that the graze across the face of a target leading up to a hole doesn't count because it's not 'enough' of a hit, yet on the other hand a graze across the side of the target (either at the non-scoring border or hard cover line) going the other direction does count as a hit for the highest area grazed. Both should count or neither should count. I vote both.

[Boris Zaretsky]

And the score is?

Mike, of course. Thanks for good visual.

Perfect example and interesting topic all together. There was a rule before that if the bullet leaves the mark of more than double diameter it would score a miss. I even have an overlay somewhere with an added semi-circle to make this call. The BOD got away with this rule and I think it was right decision.

[JThompson]

It could be said that any target (side on) is equal to the diameter of the bullet being fired. That way the rule works even if it's interpreted to need to

"fully pass through." If it rips through sideways you still have a full diameter hitand have fully passed through.

Edited July 11, 2008 by JThompson

[shred]

Here's a picture as an example of what I'm talking about:

The hole marked "1" creased the paper on it's way off the target (it did 'completely' pass through the target-- at least one edge, but the notch in the back only touches in the Non-scoring area). The hole at "2" barely ticked the edge of the scoring border (note that it didn't 'completely' pass through the target if we're going to get anal about that too-- part of the bullet never hit paper)

Shot 1 hit 'more' of the scoring area of the target than 2 did, but by the 'creases don't count' rule, would be a miss while 2 would be a hit. That's what I don't like from a consistency standpoint-- if the 'edger' in 2 counts, the 'edger' in 1 should too.

"what scoring zone did the bullet touch?" should be the only question that needs asked as long as the bullet isn't stuck in the target.

[Flexmoney]

I think the problem is with consistency on edge hits and hard-cover (this was my objection to the wording on the completely-pass rule when it was proposed, to no avail)--

Say a bullet hits right on a hardcover or non-scoring line-- half in and half out. To be consistent with the 'must completely pass through' interpretation, it would be a miss-- half the bullet did not penetrate the scoring area, so it didn't 'completely pass through'. Yet, even if 99.9% of the bullet hole is in the black today, yet it barely touches the brown, it counts as a 'hit'-- the equivalent of a grazing hit if I ever saw one.

Thus to be consistent, all 'grazing' hits should count or none of them should. It would be much easier to go with the former than give a Mike for every hole that touches a non-scoring border.

Shred, I don't think I'm completely following you on this. The rules about hard cover and no shoots refer to the bullet diameter, which means that only a part of the bullet hole has to touch to score. Is that what you mean?

Troy

Well, on one hand, we're saying that the graze across the face of a target leading up to a hole doesn't count because it's not 'enough' of a hit, yet on the other hand a graze across the side of the target (either at the non-scoring border or hard cover line) going the other direction does count as a hit for the highest area grazed. Both should count or neither should count. I vote both.

Yeah...that can be the only fair and consistent way.

This defines what counts (not what it ought to say or what was meant):

9.5.9 Hits upon scoring or no-shoot paper targets, must completely...pass...through the target to be considered a valid hit and count for score or penalty.

I don't like that wording, but we are stuck with it.

So... does the bullet completely pass through the target or not? (it does not in the picture that vluc posted...it grazes along the face...it does make a hole, but doesn't pass through).

If it doesn't pass through, we are done. It is a Mike.

If it does pass through, we can score it.

We have the same wording here we have always had:

9.5.2 If the bullet diameter of a hit on a scoring target touches the scoring line between two scoring areas, or the line between the non-scoring border and a scoring area, or if it crosses multiple scoring areas, it will be scored the higher value.

That is just the same (which is consistent) as edging the A-zone on a straight on shot. You edge it, you get the score.

I can't read that any other way. It might not be how I want it to read, nor how it should read, but that is what it says.

[Flexmoney]

"what scoring zone did the bullet touch?" should be the only question that needs asked as long as the bullet isn't stuck in the target.

Yep. That is where we need to be.

I think we need a ruling that states that 9.5.9 (make a hole through it) was meant for, and only applies to, squib loads.

[mactiger]

"what scoring zone did the bullet touch?" should be the only question that needs asked as long as the bullet isn't stuck in the target.

Yep. That is where we need to be.

I think we need a ruling that states that 9.5.9 (make a hole through it) was meant for, and only applies to, squib loads.

That's a pretty good example, Shred. I'd score "1" as a miss, and "2" as a hit. We do have an answer to "what scoring zone did the bullet touch" in 9.5.2, provided that the hit made a hole in a scoring or penalty zone of the target. It applies to long hits, too. This is consistent and equitable. Suppose that same target was a no-shoot target: I can almost guarantee that any competitor would want it scored my way, especially for hit #1.

If you count everywhere the bullet touches, how would you score a long, non-penetrating crease in a turning target? Highest zone touched, or a miss? 9.5.9 doesn't just apply to squibs; it basically defines a hit as one that makes a hole in a target.

Troy

[HoMiE]

On hit #1 in Shred's picture, would you throw an overlay and try to center it up on the diameter part? So the crease that touches the perf is ignored on hit #1?

[shred]

"what scoring zone did the bullet touch?" should be the only question that needs asked as long as the bullet isn't stuck in the target.

Yep. That is where we need to be.

I think we need a ruling that states that 9.5.9 (make a hole through it) was meant for, and only applies to, squib loads.

That's a pretty good example, Shred. I'd score "1" as a miss, and "2" as a hit. We do have an answer to "what scoring zone did the bullet touch" in 9.5.2, provided that the hit made a hole in a scoring or penalty zone of the target. It applies to long hits, too. This is consistent and equitable. Suppose that same target was a no-shoot target: I can almost guarantee that any competitor would want it scored my way, especially for hit #1.

If you count everywhere the bullet touches, how would you score a long, non-penetrating crease in a turning target? Highest zone touched, or a miss? 9.5.9 doesn't just apply to squibs; it basically defines a hit as one that makes a hole in a target.

Troy

I would score a long crease the way they've always been scored, since I started this game 15 years ago-- as a hit on the highest scoring zone touched. I don't care if the shooter edges the side of the scoring zone or the front of it. Anything else would be inconsistent. No shoots the same way-- 9.5.2 clearly says that a bullet diameter that hits the target earns it, regardless of the impact angle. (FWIW I can also almost guarantee any competitor will love any ruling that doesn't give them a no-shoot, no matter how correct it may be.)

To state that the bullet in 1 didn't pass completely through the target while the bullet in 2 did doesn't make sense to me - both show an exit mark on the rear of the paper and neither punched a full bullet diameter hole anywhere on the paper. How much of the circle is needed to 'completely pass'?

9.5.9 says nothing about where on the target the hole is (or even what the definition of 'pass through' is), while 9.5.2 (and 9.5.3 and 9.5.5) is clear about what the bullet diameter hits is what counts.

The slippery slope is what if shot #2 in the picture weren't fired straight-on perpendicular to the target, but at a slight angle, say ten degrees from the same angle as #1-- it would look exactly the same from the front, but the back of the hole would be angled just a bit away from the line.. making it also a miss, right?. Any hit just touching a line will need an analysis of where the shooter was and the exact bullet impact angle to determine if it's a hit or a miss. I don't want CSI-Barry out with lasers and tapes just to figure out the score.

Where do we draw the line? We can't ask the RO to put calipers and overlays on the back of the target, can we? Does an official target even need to have borders on the back and do they have to line up with the ones on the front?? What if multiple targets are layered? Do we peel them apart to see if the bullet got through all of them before exiting to one side?

Much easier to give the best touch of the bullet diameter on the front paper as in 9.5.2, 9.5.3 and 9.5.5 and drive on. What happens if say a no-shoot is butted up against the scoring line of the shoot target with shot #1 on it? Does the shooter get a no-shoot hit even though there's not a mark on the front of the no-shoot in the scoring zone? If not is it scored a miss that somehow snuck between two overlapping targets without hitting either??

We've already had to toss stages due to targets with different dimensions at a major match; are we now going to have to measure cardboard thickness and maintain consistency there??

9.5.9 is a flawed rule as-is and should be interpreted as narrowly as possible until it can be fixed.

[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

[mactiger]

On hit #1 in Shred's picture, would you throw an overlay and try to center it up on the diameter part? So the crease that touches the perf is ignored on hit #1?

Yes and Yes.

Troy