Scoring when no-shoots are used as vision barriers

[Steve J]

Scenario: COF has no-shoots offset from scoring targets by several feet. Competitor engages target twice and both shots pass through the no-shoot in front of it breaking the perforation of the non-scoring border. The competitor then leans out farther and engages the scoring target once more.

Result: I scored the target Alpha/Charlie with two hits on the no-shoot as it was obvious to me which holes in the no-shoot corresponded to which holes in the scoring target. Plus, since both hits on the no-shoot broke the non-scoring perf, all three hits on the scoring target counted, and the competitor received the highest scoring hits.

Argument: The competitor who happens to be an experienced master class shooter argued that he should receive a reshoot by rule since there was no way I could determine which hit on the no-shoot corresponded to the subsequent hit on the scoring target down range.

I searched the rulebook and found no paragraph referencing "scoring" or "reshoot" that supported his argument. Even if the hits had been fully in the scoring area of the no-shoot resulting in a Charlie/Mike/two no-shoots, I believe the scoring would have been justified.

What say you?

[XRe]

You scored it correctly. It doesn't matter which holes were on the no-shoot, as they cut the non-scoring border, and score on whatever they hit behind the no-shoot. All three holes "score" on the shoot target, so he gets the best two of the three - Alpha-Charlie-two-no-shoot.

Generally speaking, you can tell - there may be cases where you can't, sure, but... In general, we'd prefer not to use no-shoots as vision barriers, but in some cases, you can't help it, setting up matches the morning of like we do.

[JThompson]

Edited: You have it right I didn't read the second sentence on the perf....

JT

Edited September 30, 2008 by JThompson

[Steve J]

Edited: You have it right I didn't read the second sentence on the perf....

JT

Right. I agree with that as all three counted, but if the two no-shoot hits had not broken the perf, then you'd have to determine which one of the three holes on the scoring target actually counted. Right?

Ok. I caught you in mid-edit.

Edited September 30, 2008 by Steve J

[XRe]

Right. I agree with that as all three counted, but if the two no-shoot hits had not broken the perf, then you'd have to determine which one of the three holes on the scoring target actually counted. Right?

Yes.

[hf219]

I believe the rule he was citing had to do with hits on a target where pasters had fallen off or were not applied and the RO being able to determine which hits belonged to the shooter. As in the previous shooter was shooting a 9mm and the current shooter shooting a 40. It might be that with what he was trying to claim. Im not able to recite the rule book by heart, although when someone brings a rule to my attention and would like to apply it to the current situation, I politely ask them to show me in the rule book where it is stated. If your going to cite a rule back it up with the book. Sometimes people make mistakes and on occasion a rule may not seem appropriatly applied until you read it in the book.

Edited September 30, 2008 by hf219

[JThompson]

Edited: You have it right I didn't read the second sentence on the perf....

JT

Right. I agree with that as all three counted, but if the two no-shoot hits had not broken the perf, then you'd have to determine which one of the three holes on the scoring target actually counted. Right?

Ok. I caught you in mid-edit.

Ya Steve... I need to read before I type.

[George Jones]

You made the correct call. Since the NS hits broke the perf, they score on the scoring target. You scored the best two. Good work.

[lcs]

Scenario: COF has no-shoots offset from scoring targets by several feet. Competitor engages target twice and both shots pass through the no-shoot in front of it breaking the perforation of the non-scoring border. The competitor then leans out farther and engages the scoring target once more.

Result: I scored the target Alpha/Charlie with two hits on the no-shoot as it was obvious to me which holes in the no-shoot corresponded to which holes in the scoring target. Plus, since both hits on the no-shoot broke the non-scoring perf, all three hits on the scoring target counted, and the competitor received the highest scoring hits.

I hear "breaking/broke the scoring/non-scoring perf" a lot--just a point of clarification.

If a bullet diameter touches the scoring area of both a scoring target and a no-shoot, it will earn the score and incur the penalty. Rule 9.5.3

So if the bullet diameter touches the perf it is scored as rule 9.5.2 and 9.5.3 yes?

Edited September 30, 2008 by FullRace

[JThompson]

Scenario: COF has no-shoots offset from scoring targets by several feet. Competitor engages target twice and both shots pass through the no-shoot in front of it breaking the perforation of the non-scoring border. The competitor then leans out farther and engages the scoring target once more.

Result: I scored the target Alpha/Charlie with two hits on the no-shoot as it was obvious to me which holes in the no-shoot corresponded to which holes in the scoring target. Plus, since both hits on the no-shoot broke the non-scoring perf, all three hits on the scoring target counted, and the competitor received the highest scoring hits.

I hear "breaking/broke the scoring/non-scoring perf" a lot--just a point of clarification.

If a bullet diameter touches the scoring area of both a scoring target and a no-shoot, it will earn the score and incur the penalty. Rule 9.5.3

So if the bullet diameter touches the perf it is scored as rule 9.5.2 and 9.5.3 yes?

Okay FR... let's go one futher. Is it the actual hole, the grease ring or what? I've seen this call go either way and uniformity could be better.

JT

[Matt Cheely]

It is where the bullet was that matters. Use the overlay, grease ring/actual hole has nothing to do with it. If the overlay touches the perf when centered on the hit, then it passes through the no shoot/counts for score.

[XRe]

It is where the bullet was that matters. Use the overlay, grease ring/actual hole has nothing to do with it. If the overlay touches the perf when centered on the hit, then it passes through the no shoot/counts for score.

If the "grease ring" (which is usually nothing of the sort, since most of us are shooting jacketed bullets...) doesn't matter, explain how you center an overlay on an edge hit on the target, please?

[Matt Cheely]

It is where the bullet was that matters. Use the overlay, grease ring/actual hole has nothing to do with it. If the overlay touches the perf when centered on the hit, then it passes through the no shoot/counts for score.

If the "grease ring" (which is usually nothing of the sort, since most of us are shooting jacketed bullets...) doesn't matter, explain how you center an overlay on an edge hit on the target, please?

The hole in the target should serve to correctly line up the overlay. Some rounds leave a nice ring, while others may not. Such as a partial hit on a no shoot, with a corresponding hit on the following scoring target. It might not have a grease ring, no?

ETA: I didn't see the reference to "edge hit" with the above response. In that case, the non scoring border should have enough room that if a hit is warranted, there would be a "hit" from the bullet on the outside edge, not just the grease ring. I use the actual hit to determine where the overlay goes. The grease ring may be evidence of the hit but it's not everything for every shot. You'll have to use your spatial skills to accurately line up the overlay, but that's what I do. If you're talking a extreme angle, then that's up for more debate I suppose as the overlay doesn't deal with those very well. I was thinking straight on hits.

Edited September 30, 2008 by Matt Cheely

[LPatterson]

To carry this scenario a little further since the hits were clearly on both sides of the scoring zone of the no shoot and the reference was made to the rule that says touching the scoring zone and Dave mentioned using the overlay (don't you just love run on). The "grease ring" or hole is not the determining factor when using the overlay, it is the outside of the line on the overlay. At least it is on my new one, if I measured correctly with my calipers.

Scoring a target using a paper no shoot vision barrier should not be any harder than using a steel vision barrier. If it hits the barrier and continues on to the scoring target then the points count on both targets.

[lcs]

I hear "breaking/broke the scoring/non-scoring perf" a lot--just a point of clarification.

If a bullet diameter touches the scoring area of both a scoring target and a no-shoot, it will earn the score and incur the penalty. Rule 9.5.3

So if the bullet diameter touches the perf it is scored as rule 9.5.2 and 9.5.3 yes?

Okay FR... let's go one futher. Is it the actual hole, the grease ring or what? I've seen this call go either way and uniformity could be better.

JT

JT,

After working numerous Area matches and Sectionals last summer, I am still not clear on grease ring and how the grease ring was viewed by different RMs. What I did learn was "If I have to pull out my overlay and a magnifing glass", the hole/holes in question are scored (by me) to the shooter's advantage. Judgement comes with working more matches and making dumb calls like I have and learning the hard way. The "uniformity" comes in "knowing" the rules. We all may "see" something a little different.

FR

[Flexmoney]

I don't score grease rings. I score holes in targets. Grease rings are just further evidence to help me in my effort to make a clear determination.

Like Matt, I use overlays. I center the overlay on the hole, then I look to see what the outside line on the overlay touches. On edge hits, the non-scoring border will usually leave and arc (though no hole). I use the arc in the same manner as I use a hole. I line up the overlay, using the arc to tell me where the hole was. Then look to see what the line on the overlay touches.

The hole or arc will ALWAYS be contained within the circle on the overlay (on a straight on hit) because the the cardboard sucks back in...to a diameter which is smaller than the actually bullet that made the hole...and smaller than the circle on the overlay. Let me repeat that. The hole is ALWAYS smaller than the overlay used to make the call.

I used to be of the mind that, if I had to pull out an overlay, then I'd just give the shooter the benefit of the better hit. With the thinking of...if I gotta look that close, then it's there. That is not the right way to do it.

The proper way is for the RO to have two overlays on them and be able to get them out quickly and easily. Then, slap them on the target (any hole within a quarter inch on a scoring line) and make the proper call, by using the overlay. It's quick. It's accurate.

I have heard others coach new RO's not to use their overlays. The thought behind that is that the shooter will think you are wishy-washy...and try to bully the call. That has never been a problem on any stage I've been on. Then again, I don't make wishy-washy calls. I use my tools, and make my call. If the shooter asks, I will look at it again. If they are right, then I will change my call. If not, then the call stands. Pretty simple. The shooter then has options they can ask for (RO>CRO>pull target for RM).

[XRe]

ETA: I didn't see the reference to "edge hit" with the above response. In that case, the non scoring border should have enough room that if a hit is warranted, there would be a "hit" from the bullet on the outside edge, not just the grease ring. I use the actual hit to determine where the overlay goes. The grease ring may be evidence of the hit but it's not everything for every shot. You'll have to use your spatial skills to accurately line up the overlay, but that's what I do. If you're talking a extreme angle, then that's up for more debate I suppose as the overlay doesn't deal with those very well. I was thinking straight on hits.

You may or may not having much target removed by the bullet. The important thing to note here is that the so-called "grease ring" was actually touched by the bullet. The external edge of the grease ring generally marks the outside edge of the bullet diameter. If you take a shot placed dead center of target, and center an overlay over it, you'll find that the full "grease ring" falls inside the diameter of the overlay (usually with just a smidge of brown, too). The nose profile of the bullet will determine how much target it punches out - I've seen cases where hits in the non-scoring border that have potential to touch the perf don't appreciably remove any target from the border, and certainly not enough target to judge exactly where to center the overlay without any other reference.

Full and most partial diameter hits are pretty easy to judge, but for edge hits, that "grease ring" can be an important indicator about where the bullet actually struck... So... it does matter... in some cases...

[XRe]

On edge hits, the non-scoring border will usually leave and arc (though no hole). I use the arc in the same manner as I use a hole. I line up the overlay, using the arc to tell me where the hole was. Then look to see what the line on the overlay touches.

You're still not using a hole, in this case, though... and you're relying on the physical properties of the cardboard to bend in a way you expect... Edge hits aren't always cut and dried (luckily, they're usually pretty obvious, though). Point is - at the point you don't have actual missing target to accurately align the overlay, you're kind of stuck with an educated guess. Bent cardboard, grease ring, whatever... at that point...

The hole or arc will ALWAYS be contained within the circle on the overlay (on a straight on hit) because the the cardboard sucks back in...to a diameter which is smaller than the actually bullet that made the hole...and smaller than the circle on the overlay. Let me repeat that. The hole is ALWAYS smaller than the overlay used to make the call.

Well, except for .45 cal SWCs... or full on .38 wadcutters...

I have heard others coach new RO's not to use their overlays. The thought behind that is that the shooter will think you are wishy-washy...and try to bully the call. That has never been a problem on any stage I've been on. Then again, I don't make wishy-washy calls. I use my tools, and make my call. If the shooter asks, I will look at it again. If they are right, then I will change my call. If not, then the call stands. Pretty simple. The shooter then has options they can ask for (RO>CRO>pull target for RM).

I've had a few smart alecks say "if its that close, you should give it to the shooter" when I pull out an overlay - half the time its on crappy targets with light perfs, or on targets that need to be changed, where the scoring line is obscured. I've used a variety of responses, but the funniest is to call out the low score... and then let them ask me to overlay it, and then respond "Oh, now you think it might need an overlay, huh?"

[Fireant]

It is where the bullet was that matters. Use the overlay, grease ring/actual hole has nothing to do with it. If the overlay touches the perf when centered on the hit, then it passes through the no shoot/counts for score.

If the "grease ring" (which is usually nothing of the sort, since most of us are shooting jacketed bullets...) doesn't matter, explain how you center an overlay on an edge hit on the target, please?

Yep, I hate the "grease ring" statement. I about stroked out when a RO at the nationals, while explaining to me why my hit was from behind the target and a squad mates was from the front, gave me the he could see the grease ring answer. and that's all I'm saying about that right now, I feel my blood preasure rising again.

[Flexmoney]

The external edge of the grease ring generally marks the outside edge of the bullet diameter.

No, not really.

If you take a shot placed dead center of target, and center an overlay over it, you'll find that the full "grease ring" falls inside the diameter of the overlay (usually with just a smidge of brown, too).

Right.

I don't see how your two sentences aren't in conflict with one another?

[Flexmoney]

I've seen cases where hits in the non-scoring border that have potential to touch the perf don't appreciably remove any target from the border, and certainly not enough target to judge exactly where to center the overlay without any other reference.

I see what you might be saying. (that the grease ring may be your only good evidence)

The arc is going to be a constant. It's a circle. So, the grease ring can provide a reference.

In some situations, I will put the overlay on the target juuussst to the point where it would touch the line. It can then be evident whether the bullet was there or not.

[XRe]

The external edge of the grease ring generally marks the outside edge of the bullet diameter.

No, not really.

Yes, really...

If you take a shot placed dead center of target, and center an overlay over it, you'll find that the full "grease ring" falls inside the diameter of the overlay (usually with just a smidge of brown, too).

Right.

I don't see how your two sentences aren't in conflict with one another?

Because you're missing two things - the word "generally", and the way the cardboard tends to tear. This causes the very outside most part (we're talking very very small amount, here - diameter of the line on the overlay or less) to press outwards, and later back in, while a good part of the cardboard folds into the hole and then springs back out. The part that folds wipes the sides of the bullet and gives you the dark mark people mistakenly call a "grease ring". That mark is - roughly speaking - right about where the outside edge of the bullet is, but slightly inside (again, due to properties of the cardboard). That mark, if made by the competitors bullet, is usually more reliable to align an overlay than the small hole in the middle of it - certainly, its valid as a reference on straight on shots - as much so as relying on spatial alignment skills (so people have zero, here, so...).

[Flexmoney]

The external edge of the grease ring generally marks the outside edge of the bullet diameter.

No, not really.

Yes, really...

I just don't agree with that, Dave.

I have done live experiments. Measured bullets with calipers, then measured (with caliper) the holes left in the target by the bullets. (I think I have that target sitting in the garage still. I was going to send an article in to Front Sight, but I don't have the means/skills to take the pictures that need to go with it.)

We may be beating around the same bush here?

One thing I can say with certainty, the hole left in the cardboard...including the grease ring...is a smaller diameter than the bullet that passed through the target.

So, the bullet doesn't...generally...mark the outside edge of the bullet diameter.

The target sucks further back in after the bullet passes through it. (I'm not sure if you are saying the same thing?)

I haven't measured wadcutters or SWC's, so I can't say one way or the other on those.

Regardless, we put the overlay over "where the bullet went" and center it up. Then, we use the circle on the overlay to score. I would hope we are on the same page there ?

Here is a bit of disconnect... When I hear somebody talking about using the edge of the hole or grease ring...that means they are skewing the overlay to one side. Not centering it over "where the bullet went."

[George Jones]

One thing I can say with certainty, the hole left in the cardboard...including the grease ring...is a smaller diameter than the bullet that passed through the target.

Absolutely correct.

Even though you can develop a pretty good eye for for it after a while, the overlay is the only correct way to make a close call.

[Bret Heidkamp]

The "grease ring" or hole is not the determining factor when using the overlay, it is the outside of the line on the overlay. At least it is on my new one, if I measured correctly with my calipers.

LeRoy, you are a wise man!! I never thought of measuring my overlays to see if they were actually PRINTED to the correct diameter! Way to go!

Edited September 30, 2008 by Bret Heidkamp