Santa Fe River Stan,36999L

Thanks for the information Zak and Congratulations! Stan

The Last Stand! The Horse & Carriage targets were rather large. Good times! Stan

Correct Were all the correct TYPES hit. “Of targets” is an adjectival prepositional phrase telling us which or what kind of TYPES. Stan

Ahhhh I see....this is a I’m smarter than everyone else let me prove it post. Peace out. Enjoy. Stan PS. The question were all the correct TYPES hit. “Of targets” is an adjectival prepositional phrase telling us which or what kind of TYPES.

You’re not saying it verbatim. It Does not ask if all the targets were hit. It asks if all the correct type of targets were hit. That allows for the correct type of target to be hit in the wrong order and not be counted as a miss. Until you accept that you will continue to struggle with theses calls. If you call my example a P and a Miss you’re wrong. The ROC says you’re wrong. The only reason the other thread went sideways was the intermingling of reactive targets and stationary targets and folks confusing them as different types. I doubt any any of those guys would call my 10 target example a P and a Miss because it’s not. Stan

If you’re referring to the other thread No. in that instance the shooter was allowed to make up the miss with the shotgun. P only

Again you are phrasing the flow statement incorrectly. It does not say did the shooter hit all the targets....It says....did the shooter hit all the correct type of targets with legally acquired ammo? There is a difference. 10 rifle targets....single tap each target is the instruction. Shooter double taps the first target. The last target never gets hit. What is your call? Stan

You keep saying target 10 wasn’t hit....you can’t assign another miss to it because of the P. 9 rifle rounds hit 9 rifle targets.....resulting in 1 miss not 2. That’s seems pretty straight forward. Stan

Point agreed upon...... Stan

Bill if the wording was written like you originally thought I would say that those KD's are still rifle targets. Just because they could be hit with the shotgun at some point doesn't mean they are no longer rifle targets. Let's say you have 10 targets that you sweep with the rifle and then with the pistol. You wouldn't say that once target 1 was hit with the rifle it was now just a pistol target .....think double tapping the first target with the rifle. It would be P even though the next hit on target 1 should have been from the pistol. Stan

The flow chart doesn't ask if target 10 was hit......it asks if all the correct target TYPES were hit.....meaning were all the rifle targets hit with rifle rounds.....were all the pistol targets hit with pistol rounds and were all the shotgun targets hit with shotgun rounds Yes or No? In this case NO so we assess misses.......there was a miss on 5th shot fired from the rifle. The other 9 rifle rounds HIT rifle targets. So we assess 1 MISS Were the targets hit in the correct order except for any misses? Yes or No? In this case NO they were not. The 7th round fired did not hit the target that was designated to receive the 7th shot. So we assess a Procedural Shooter has a Miss and a P.....correct? This particular stage gave the shooter the ability to "make-up" the miss on that occurred on the knockdown which the shooter did take advantage of thus he only got the P. Stan

To play devils advocate.....following the current flow chart. If you hit the incorrect target type for the firearm you are shooting it's only a MISS.....if we create 2 targets types (reactive and stationary) then doesn't it stand to reason then that the round fired at the stationary target that hit the reactive target was a MISS only and no P would be earned. Stan

If we create 2 different types of rifle targets wouldn't it then be just 2 misses and no P? Instead of changing it to mean what people thinks it means......why don't we educate them on the correct way to make a call? Stan

Take out the ability to make up the kd with the shotgun. So you want a shooter to HIT 9 out of 10 rifle targets and give them two misses and a P. Stan

So in an effort to have consistency you want to add another layer to the "Correct Target Type" to differentiate between rifle knockdowns and stationary rifle targets.....doesn't it stand to reason that doing so would create more confusion? It's pretty straight forward as it is......a target this is supposed to be hit with the rifle is a rifle target regardless if it is a stationary or reactive target. Just because some folks tried to make it more complicated than it was doesn't mean we need to revamp the rules. Stan