I will agree With Neil Winston On This.

I cannot find where Neil Wrote it, so I deleted my post
Dr.longshot

 

Dr. Longshot,

Why is it a poor decision? I've always got fairly consistent targets from them.

 

Deleted as no longer necessary. Thank you, Gary. But please don't put my name in any more thread titles. I value my privacy and ask others to respect it.

Neil

 

Neil Wrote it was a poor decision to purchase the Pat Traps, I just agreed w/him.
He said they did not throw a consistant angle target, his words not mine
Dr.longshot

 

Hey moderators, how about taking a little less time editing my truthful, factual posts and smacking down blatant, slanderous lies like this?

Does Longshot actually own the site or what? If not, why is he constantly allowed to get away with this BS?

-Gary

 

Bryant, cite the text in which I wrote that "it was a poor decision to purchase the Pat Traps" or withdraw that claim.

Bryant, cite the text in which I wrote that Pat Traps "did not throw a consistant angle target" or withdraw that claim.

Neil Winston

 

What happened to the 8 other traps that did not make it to Sparta? The trap committee should know where they went? Roger Coveleskie

 

Rodger, This is the first I've heard of 8 missing traps, have any creditable information or just hearsay?

 

OK, I have something to "contribute" to this argument (that's a requirement for me to post on this thread):

I don't believe for one second that Neil ever said "It was a poor decision [by the WSRC] on purchasing the Pat Traps." In other words, I believe it is a lie. In fact, I'm willing to "contribute" $100.00 to this website if anybody can prove that Neil said that.

If such proof is not forthcoming, that proves it was a lie. This website should then consider requiring that incendiary accusations such as this be accompanied by supporting FACTS.

For example, when I accused Longshot of being a hypocrite for crying about "P#ssy Targets" I also posted the FACT that he has willingly accepted reductions plus the FACT that his handicap average over his last 2000 ATA handicap targets (2011-today) is 85.5%.

That's the difference between someone who argues with FACTS and puts his money where his mouth is, vs. someone willing to post slanderous lies he can't back up.

-Gary

 

I am having a problem locating where he said it on this site so I am going to remve it until I find it, some of you may have seen where he wrote it.

 

I deleted what I wrote as I cannot find the thread

the GMV Superstar was a better trap, If I got the model right

 

Roger do you remember where NW wrote about the Pat Trap

 

Maby it was, but where would we be now?|

 

Of course you can't. That's the problem with making stuff up instead of dealing in FACTS.

-Gary

 

Might be a danged good idea to save a post here n there guys? You know, copy it and save it in a file just in case the writer deletes his/her posts a lot? Now why would anyone want to delete his posts if it was written in good faith? Hearsay I can understand but not an original writing unless it was learned later to be not completely accurate information?

HAP

 

Neil,

I think you will find as a former association "President", any statements of or about you, in the context of ATA Trapshooting, you will be considered a "public figure".

Good luck proving you have privacy concerns in the ATA Trapshooting arena. I suppose you could start by stopping to post, then you may have an argument in, well, many, many years.

I wish you the best.

I am not sure where this comes from, the PAT Trap seemingly does throw relatively a good target, it just does not nor will ever throw a target equivalent to a straight away from post 1 and 5. Hence the rule change.

It is interesting to note in 1980 this was written,

"MINUTES OF THE 1980 ANNUAL MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF
THE AMATEUR TRAPSHOOTING ASSOCIATION
Pursuant to the lawful notice and in accordance with the by-laws of the corporation, Mr. Len Burford, President of the Amateur Trapshooting Association, called the 1980 Annual Meeting of the Board of Directors of the Amateur Trapshooting Association to order on Aug. 21, 1980, at 8:00 p.m.
Mr. Wright (New Hampshire) as a member of this year’s Target Setting Committee, stated that the Committee had been setting two-hole, 49-yard targets and wanted some input from the Directors with respect to their manner of setting the targets.
Mr. Austin LaJuene (Wisconsin) and Mr. Vic Reinders, a Past President, vigorously argued against the soft target and spoke in favor of the three-hole target. A number of members, including Mr. Leslie Holbrook, Mr. Jack Duncan, and Mr. Dan McKenzie spoke in favor of the present two-hole target setting and it appeared from the consensus of the Directors that they were in agreement with the Committee’s present manner of target setting."

New Hampshire is where PAT Trap is located, coincidence, maybe. The maker of the PAT Trap apparently started shooting in 1985 in New Hampshire where they threw 2 hole targets, and thus begun his quest to build a new versatile target thrower. PAT Trap Inc, started in Aug. 1991. Just 1 year later in Aug of 1992 Daro Handy promoted such change to the written rule to narrow the target angle rule.

"ATA NEWS
Minutes of the annual meeting of the annual meeting of the Board of Directors of the Amateur Trapshooting Association of America
August 13, 1992

Mr. Handy of Oregon addressed the Directors and informed them that he was taking off his All American hat and putting on his State Delegate’s hat, and he made the following Motion :

“That the Official Rules be changed to provide that targets shall be thrown between 49 and 51
yards, with recommended distances to be 50 yards, and that all traps be set in the #2 hole.
Mr. Brown of Alberta seconded the Motion.
Upon a majority No vote, THE MOTION FAILED."

===================================================


Neil has said this on WW and Pat Traps on Nov 16th, 2013.

"1. The motion of the trap slows as it gets far-right or far-left so it spends more time there, increasing the chances that it will be there when the command to throw a target arrives and
2. The motion of the trap is fastest as toward the middle so it spends less time there, decreasing the chances that it will be there when the command to throw a target arrives.
The combined effect of 1. and 2. is that Pat Traps throw fewer angles and more straightaways than do either WW or GMV traps."

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

HAP MECTWEAKS stated something similar, "Pat traps tend to hang toward center fields more so than the old traps did without hanging at the extreme corners as long!!" and he also stated, "As Neil Winston said on TS a while back, adopting Pat traps nationwide was a mistake for our sport and I agree with his view for the reasons I outlined above."

So, it is not just Gary saying what Neil may have said. Did HAP remember wrong, maybe, but it would be unusual for HAP to post something blatantly wrong about what someone has said.


Shoot well.

John

 

GW in reference to your post accusing the doc of being wrong and slanderous....

It seems the doc was right and you should be making payments to Jhunts. Please refer to Jhunts post about Neil's' statement.

And then there is Hap's quote of Neil:

GW....the doc was right. Your were wrong. Again you added nothing but hate to the thread.

Advice....ship the Benjamin to Mr. Hunts asap and don't doubt the doc's knowledge of which you know so little.

 

It's real simple. Simply post a link where everyone can go see proof of Neil saying "It was a poor decision [by the WSRC] on purchasing the Pat Traps" and the $100 will be on the way to Americantrapshooter.com exactly like I promised.

Again, that's the difference between someone who deals in FACTS vs. a blatant, shameless liar.

-Gary

 

The money would go to the website, not me. Of course, calling someone a blatant liar without knowing what the facts may be, is a little suspect as well.

Maybe Neil would like to put the gauntlet down on HAP as well. Of course he would only do this is HAP was lying. In GW's world I guess we could say, "without Neil calling HAP a liar, Neil must be lying."

Maybe HAP is lying, but like I said, " it would be unusual for HAP to post something blatantly wrong about what someone has said."

Have Neil post that HAP is a liar and to post any proof he might have. Since HAP has not posted he was wrong, I think which he would, if he was. I can imagine there is something. He (HAP) posted something about saving threads from those who might delete, "

I am not sure that was about the DR. or Neil, but he appears to have pointed a finger at or given advise to someone, maybe us all.

It appears Neil has now left the building, do we bring that into any decision on judgment, of who is lying, I know it is difficult to prove without facts, though absence of fact is not fact. The Dr., did not say he was not telling the truth, he just said,

. Since two people have said it, or something very similar, it is not now, he said - he said, it is he said - THEY said and one of the THEY is held in high regard. The person they said, said it (or something very similar), has left.

Shoot well.

John

 

Neil W. will be back,,, he is just working up a new set of charts to back up his propaganda. As usual when Neil get caught with what he says,
Neil packs his bag and leaves the building.
Birddog

 

You know guys, it isn't always a lie when you say something that later may turn out to be incorrect.

At least JHunts has proven that the 2 hole targets were the preferred setting of the Board no later than 1980. Obviously the change had been widespread for some time prior to that.

 

Let's just spew some more hate and venom. Who gives a rat's butt, just a few of you. Who cares, not the majority of trapshooters who are content with the targets thrown, now call them a few names.

Why can't you help promote the sport instead of constantly ripping it down. Why don't you show your scores today as opposed to yesterday. these xxxxx targets should show the difference. DLS is constantly bragging and his scores for the last few years don't show him setting any records (before foot problem).

If what has happened makes it so easy then you all should be able to walk to the line and break a 100 in all three events. Please share your scores on these xxxxx targets, to put some validity in what you say

Who cares who said what 10, 15, 20 years ago it will change nothing. God grow up and move on.

Lefty

 

An unfortunate revelation, that the board did not enforce its own rules.

 

True about not following their own rules, and it put the decades later Boards in a tough spot. But not much of a revelation since just about everyone understands it was a widespread practice going back that far and beyond.

Most of the issues the OP blames on NW occurred years, even decades earlier than Neil's time, but the facts never seem to cut down on the derogatory posts. That is a shame.

 

Well said Bat

 

I am not sure why it comes up, the derogatory stuff. It seems both sides conduct themselves at times in an not so professional manner. I myself may have done that a time or two in the past and will probably in the future.

I know Neil has many times had not so nice things to say about me and many other posters on a meriad of subjects. Mayby all those will be deleted as well, even on other forums.

 

In fairness it would be more accurate to state that most Executive Committees over the decades, favored enforcement of the then existing rules regarding to "flights & angles". Some even implemented rule changes in an attempt to further explain the target setting rules as they related to the extreme right and left angles. On occasion though, a group of E. C. members (or majority thereof) chose to permit illegal target setting, even at the Grand American Handicap, in favor of higher scores for shooters instead of abiding by our written rules.

Several Presidents wrote articles discussing how some clubs were reportedly throwing narrow angles which was in violation of the rules and some discussions cautioned that shooters scores would be disqualified and gun clubs disciplined if they were found to be shooting illegal targets.

I believe if the A.T.A. had devoted a little more time and/or done a better job explaining the history of target setting to State Associations, Delegates and shooters, the occasional motion to narrow the target area would have been voted down every time. Please don't think that I'm saying the A.T.A. didn't make an effort to do this because they did several times. I just believe that all should have been continuously reminded to the Flights & Angles rules. At the bottom I've listed two very good efforts by the A.T.A. to explain the rules of target setting.

Everyone (or at least a majority of delegates representing their individual States & Provinces) was so used to shooting 2-hole targets, that when the rules were amended by the E. C. in February 1995, striking all reference to the Western 1524 trap and hole setting, only trying to make it clear that the minimum hard angle setting was straightaway settings from Posts 1 & 5 (22 degrees) was the rule and had been for many decades. Some felt they were making the game harder going from a 17 degree hard angle to 22 degrees. That's exactly what the E. C. was doing but it was because they were seeking compliance with the written rules.

Kenny Ray

President’s Page​

(Ed. note: Following excerpts from a letter to ATA Delegates written by Texas Delegate and ATA President Neal Crausbay. The excerpts are being printed at Neal’s request.

President Crausbay is responding to an earlier letter to the delegates from Minnesota ATA Delegate Neil Winston, regarding the recent decision made by the Executive Committee to re-emphasize and enforce Section III, Rule N., Flights and Angles.

Of interest to all T&F readers is President Crausbay’s first-hand account of what went into making this decision – including the study of records and trends, both inside and outside the ATA trapshooting; and consultation with untold numbers of shooters and ATA officials, cumulatively representing a wealth of experience in the sport.

May 19, 1995

Fellow Delegates:

On May 18, 1995, Minnesota Delegate Neil Winston mailed to each of you a letter in which he attempts to entice your support of his views by telling you that it is “us” against “them” – Delegates against the Executive Committee!

Please allow me to respond with my views on the issues he addresses.

Before I continue, let me take a refresher course with you. What is an Executive Committee member? He is a Delegate that you elected to a five-year job. He is one of you, a continuance of the progression from the State level, a Delegate was chosen that would represent the shooters’ views at an annual meeting of the ATA. Each year, the Zones will elect from among themselves, their choice to serve on the Executive Committee.

There is no “us” or “them.” We are one of you trying to do what is best for the sport of Trapshooting at all times.

Let’s continue.

During the last 10 or 15 years (it varies by region), we shooters became obsessed with higher scores. We kidded ourselves that we had improved, whereas more realistically, the targets we shot got easier. For example, during the last few months, TRAP & FIELD published a listing of those who had shot a “Grand Slam” (200x200 singles, 100 handicap from 27 yards, and 100x100 doubles). Notice that during this last 10 to 15 years how many shooters accomplished this difficult feat compared to how many had done so prior to easier targets. We shooters didn’t suddenly become better, the targets just got easier, 100-yard dashes are now 95 yards, etc.

Gun Clubs complain that they buy trophies, schedule a shoot, and if the wind blows strongly, or other adverse weather occurs, shooters are so average conscious that they won’t shoot for fear of a bad or low score. The clubs then lose money or do not make a profit and have trouble staying open for our sport.

Let me mention one other item, and we will move on.

We have kept records of the percentage of shooters earning yardage during the last two Grand Americans. On those days that we have a full day of slightly adverse weather (particularly a North breeze) the percentage of 27-yard shooters earning yardage drops significantly and is replaced proportionately by short to mid yardage shooters. Therefore, it indicates that a more difficult target affects the winners in a more equitable spread. High scores have gotten so absurd that during one of last year’s major handicaps at the Grand, 98s did not even get to shoot off, only 99s and 100s.

Now we are there.

Recognizing the apparent and/or potential harm to our sport from emulating Skeet (perfection required) as compared to perhaps Sporting Clays (ask Mike Hampton, Executive Director NSSA/NSCA, which sport has been growing and which has been declining), your 1993 Executive Committee decided that a gradual step towards a more difficult target than was currently or then being thrown would be to require a “three-hole” setting “where ATA trophies were awarded.” The Committee believed that those other non-ATA shoots would do likewise as the shooters would want to shoot the same target as they would at the larger “ATA trophy awarded” shoots. Several of you told me and others on the Executive Committee, that the reason you rescinded that action was because of the non-uniformity, “Where ATA trophies are awarded application of target angles. Not one of you ever said in my presence that you believe a narrow, soft targets is healthier for our sport, nor have you indicated that this is what your home State shooters are asking for.

For more years than either you or I combined recall, our previous boards of Directors and Executive Committees have most obviously believed that Section III, Rule N, Paragraph three under Flights and Angles was appropriate in what it states:

“In singles shooting the trap shall be so adjusted that within the normal distribution of angles thrown by the trap, the right angle shall be not less than a straightaway from firing point 1 and the left angle shall not be less than a straightaway from firing point 5.”

While discussing the problem of the continuing assault on averages and records, from a the shooting of deliberately “soft” set targets, across the country, the decision was made that ignoring this violation of our rules would no longer be tolerated. This decision then brought up the question of not only distance but the explicit rule of target spread, “not less than a straightaway from one and five” was also being abused.

Knowing that this requirement of target spread had stood for untold years and had been addressed as recently as August 1993, and again found correct in that the Directors/Delegates did not change i. Therefore, your Executive Committee is obligated to enforce it.

With the coming of newer and perhaps more modern trap machines, the wording as it is now makes it easy to correctly set any brand or model machine the future should bring in that such machine would be adjusted to throw at least a straightaways from one and five and makes no reference to any “hole” setting. Pat Traps and some others do not use “holes” to determine spread. This straightaway wording also makes it easy for you and any other shooter to determine if their “XYZ Gun Club” is throwing a legally set target.

Can you imagine trying to determine if a target setting made under Neil Winston’s choice of “somewhat less than a straightaway from firing point one and five” is legal or not? What in the world would “somewhat less” be? Where did his request for a 44-yard doubles target as he is asking to have (his first ballot) originate? Perhaps a 44-yard 16-yard singles and/or handicap would be his next request.

Please talk to all your State shooters. Then bring their thoughts to our August 1995 Board of Directors Meeting, the correct and proper place to address any issue that affects our sport.

Above all, do not believe that your Executive Committee, of which I am honored to serve as President, would ever intentionally not follow your directives, keeping in mind that your support is vital for the Executive Committee to perform the duties required of them by our Articles of Incorporation and By-Laws.

Sincerely yours,

Neal Crausbay
ATA President
[ TRAP & FIELD, June, 1995, page 2 ]

ATA News
OFFICIAL NOTICE​

May 5, 1995

TO: ATA Gun Clubs/State Association Secretaries
RE: ATA Rule Compliance – Section III, Rule N. Flights and Angles

Gentlemen:

Several years ago, in order to stop some gun clubs from using the one hole when throwing targets into an extremely strong incoming wind, the wording:

“Under no circumstances shall a Standard Model 1524 trap be set in less

than the #2 hole. Any other trap machine shall be adjusted so as to throw

not less than equivalent angles.”

was added to the rules under flights and angles. Unfortunately, many clubs decided to use this setting under all conditions.

By decision of your Executive Committee in February, 1995, these two sentences were removed from the above mentioned rule contained within the Amateur Trapshooting Association Official Rules for the conduct of Registered shoots (reprinted March 1, 1994).

The Committee has further addressed our Association’s apparent lack of rule enforcement on flights and angles. It was decided that we should vigorously enforce our flights and angles rules. They are copied in their entirety below.

Section III, Rule N. Flights And Angles – “Targets, whether single or doubles,
shall be thrown not less than 48 yards (44m) nor more than 52 yards (47m)
measured on level ground in still air.

“Targets, whether single or doubles shall be between 8 feet (2.4m) and 12 feet
(3.7m) high, when ten yards from Point B. THE RECOMMENDED HEIGHT
IS NINE FEET. The height at a point ten yards (9m) from Point B is to be
understood to mean height above an imaginary horizontal straight line drawn
through the firing point and Point B. (See Diagram II in the rules booklet)

“IN SINGLES SHOOTING THE TRAP SHALL BE SO ADJUSTED THAT
WITHIN THE NORMAL DISTRIBUTION OF ANGLES AS THROWN BY
THE TRAP, THE RIGHT ANGLE SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN A
STRAIGHTAWAY FROM FIRING POINT 1 AND THE LEFT ANGLE
SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN A STRAIGHTAWAY FROM FIRING POINT 5.

“To help in determining legal angles, stakes should be placed on the arc of a
circle whose radius is 50 yards (46m) and whose center is Point B. One stake
should be placed where a line drawn through firing point 1 and Point B inter-
sects this arc and another stake placed where a line drawn through firing point
5 and Point B intersects the arc. These lines and stakes will assist in determin-
ing the required angles, but it is to be understood that the angle specifications
apply when the target is from 15 yards to 20 yards (14-18m) from the trap
rather than where the target strikes the ground. However, no target is to be
declared illegal unless it is more than 25 degrees outside the angles prescribed.
Distance handicaps, when used, shall be prolongations of the lines given in
Diagram I, commonly known as fan shaped. The distance between firing
points at 16 yards (14.6m) shall then be 3 yards (2.7m).

Should a trap be throwing targets that, although not necessarily illegal,
appreciably vary from the legal targets as previously described, any shooter
may request that management reset the trap even though prior squads have
shot. The final decision as to whether or not a trap is to be reset will be
made by shoot management.”

Therefore please accept this correspondence as notification that your club and/or State/Provincial Association is expected to be in compliance when hosting ATA registered tournaments. As you would expect, the Executive Committee also confirmed that all Grand American trap machines are to be set in compliance with the aforementioned rule.

ATA Delegates, State Associations, shoot management, and contestants are strongly encouraged to recognize and require legal targets as described above. All shoot management decisions must be in compliance with Amateur Trapshooting Association Official Rules.

We request that this notification be posted on your club bulletin board so that all shooters are informed regarding rule enforcement. If you have any questions with regard to this notification, please feel free to contact your respective Delegate and/or Divisional Vice-President.
[ TRAP & FIELD, June, 1995, page 26 ]

 

Great articles

Thanks for posting them

 

Great comment and that's the real point here. Why is one particular member allowed to post things about other members which are absolutely and irrefutably untrue and even happened long before the accused even had the authority to have done those things? Why is this tolerated of one or two particular unscrupulous, hateful members?

-Gary

 

History Buff, this is the exact letter that I posted on TS.Com. a year ago or so. Neil W. is and has been a wind bag for years. Some of these posters who are so quick to call Dr. Longshot a lair are also quick to give there favorite Chart-master a pass when he gets caught. Maybe Dr L isn't only the undefeated "grudge match" all time champ he might just get to chalk up Neil W's "internet credibility" scalp along side of bigdon's "trap shooter" one that hangs off his trap shooting belt. Good job Dr. Brad

 

Thank you for posting all that, HistoryBuff, but I bet it has many readers here scratching their heads, particularly the first letter from Past President Crausbay which was glued into the first page of an issue of Trap and Field. It is certainly worth re-reading and I hope everyone will do that.

"What can he possibly be referring to?" you must wonder. He does refer to a letter and here it is.

"Dear Delegate,

A May 5, 1995, letter to ATA Gun Clubs/State Association Secretaries from David Bopp informed them, and us, that: “It was decided that we should vigorously enforce our flight and angle rules”, and further, in capitals:

“IN SINGLES SHOOTING THE TRAP SHALL BE SO ADJUSTED
SO THAT WITHIN THE NORMAL DISTRIBUTION OF ANGLES
AS THROWN BY THE TRAP, THE RIGHT ANGLE SHALL NOT
BE LESS THAN A STRAIGHTAWAY FROM FIRING POINT 1
AND THE LEFT ANGLE SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN A STRAIGHTAWAY FROM FIRING POINT 5.

This is a harder target than we’re used to throwing; this is a “3-hole”target.

Not only did then-Vice-President Crausbay tell us so in our August 1993
general meeting, but also we have the authority of the Winchester manual for the V1524C trap: (reprint 4-1-72)

“Remove spread adjusting screw...and relocate (it) in the No. “3” hole
which will cause extreme right and left targets to be thrown in line with
shooting stations No. 1 and 5 under normal light wind conditions.”

So we’re shooting 3-hole targets. But didn’t we just recently vote that down? I ask your patience with the following extensive quotations; they are reproduced so we can know for sure what happened in the past and what the stakes are for the future. The source is Trap and Field, April 1994 and December 1993 respectively.

In the summer of 1993 the Executive Committee decreed that more difficult 3-hole targets must be thrown at shoots where ATA targets are awarded. From the minutes of Executive Committee meetings commencing August 11, 1993:

“After discussion and on Motion of Vice-President Crausbay and
Second of Vice-President Nightingale, it was unanimously
Resolved that at all ATA Registered Trapshoots where ATA
trophies are awarded, all traps shall be set in not less than the
No. 3 hole. Official Rule III.N. FLIGHTS AND ANGLES,
shall be amended accordingly.”

The Directors were informed of this amendment and, after a free discussion, recinded it. The following account is taken from the minutes of the annual meeting of the Board of Directors August 19,1993:

“Mr. Bright discussed the Amendment to Official Rule III.N.
FLIGHTS AND ANGLES, which the Executive Committee
passed during their meetings at this Grand American, and which
Amendment was reported by President Bradford earlier in these
meetings in his report. Mr. Bright discussed the effect of requiring
traps to be set in the No. 3 hole and stated that in his opinion the
effect on the sport of trapshooting would be to make it more
difficult to break targets and would make the sport harder and
less enjoyable for the majority of shooters. Mr. Bright made the
following motion:”(makes motion to rescind the EC’s amendment).

“Mr. Bright requested a roll call vote on the motion. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Arvas of New Mexico, who likewise seconded
the request for a roll call vote.

Discussion on Mr. Bright’s motion included Vice-President Crausbay’s
comment that the traps commonly used cannot be made to throw a
straightaway target when set in the No. 2 hole.
Mr. Hastings of Delaware asked why, if it is not possible to throw a
straightaway target when the trap is set in the No. 2 hole as Mr.
Crausbay stated, are the traps set in the No. 2 hole during the Grand
American. Mr. Acklin of Ohio inquired why the Executive passed
the amendment to Rule III.N. requiring traps to be set in the No. 3
hole for gun clubs awarding ATA trophies only.

The question was called and a roll call vote resulted in thirty (36)
(quoted as written) votes for passage of the motion and eighteen (18)
votes against passage of the motion, and it was therefore, by majority vote,

Resolved that the Amendment in Official Rule III.N. FLIGHTS
AND ANGLES made by the Executive Committee shall be rescinded,
and Official Rule III.N. FLIGHTS AND ANGLES shall remain as
written in the Official Trapshooting Rules issued by the AMATEUR
TRAPSHOOTING ASSOCIATION (October 1, 1992 reprint).”

The effect of the February EC action and the May 5th enforcement letter is to reverse Mr. Bright’s motion. Can they do this? Put in its most basic form: Who runs this organization? The By-laws of the ATA begin with Article 1, Section 1. It is the shortest section in the book, and the easiest to understand:

The corporate powers of this corporation shall be vested in the Board of Directors.

The By-laws, recognizing that a situation requiring immediate action might develop between annual delegates’ meetings, give equal power to the Executive Committee and the Board of Directors. Article IV, Section 3.—Powers provides:

(c) The Board of Directors shall have the power and does by these presents delegate full and complete authority to do all things in
the time intervening between annual meetings that the Board
of Directors could do if it were in session.

This sort of setup would seem to invite a perpetual standoff between the Directors and the Executive Committee. If each has equal powers and is in session at different times, how can differences be resolved? The answer is to be found in Article V, Section 3:—

Duties

It shall be the further duty of the Executive Committee at all times to
carry into effect the directives of the Board of Directors.

There is no counterbalancing clause requiring the Directors to yoke themselves to the will of the EC.

Lawyers may try to confound us with the question “whether a motion passed by the Board of Directors indeed constitute a directive, within the meaning of the entire document...” and so forth, but snake oil, even if packaged in a Hoppe’s No. 9 bottle, is still snake oil. For years we’ve been passing motions without the preface “The Delegates direct...”; if, because of this omission, none of what we have passed has had any significance, then it’s all been a colossal sham and a waste of time.

The Association’s by-laws (Article IV, Section 2) impose duties on the Board of Directors. Among those duties are to

“...put in force...rules of all registered tournaments” and “specifically,
to see that the property, business and assets of the Amateur Trapshooting Association of America are efficiently managed to the
best interests of the corporation.”

Our annual financial report notwithstanding, surely this corporation’s only assets which will dependably provide for its future are the support, trust, and goodwill of its shooting members. To discharge our duty to preserve these assets, to restore our shooters’ trust and earn again their support, we are going to have to prove our own commitment to Article 1, Section 1, the cornerstone of the Association’s democratic structure:

The corporate powers of this corporation shall be vested in the Board of Directors.

What can we do? We can admonish the members of the EC to change their minds, we can remind them of their duties, but we need not beg them, since we don’t need to be at the Grand to change the rules.

The framers of the By-laws, surely anticipating a situation such as the one we now face, provided us recourse.

Article IV, Section 4, (d) Voting:

...Any action required to be taken at an annual or special meeting
of the Board of Directors, except those actions referred to in Article IV,
section 3, paragraph (c), may be taken without a meeting if a consent in
writing, setting forth the action to be taken shall be signed by a majority
of the delegates entitled to vote with respect to the subject matter thereof. Any such consent signed by a majority of such delegates shall have the same effect as a majority vote with respect to such subject matter at any annual or special meeting and may be stated as such in any document filed with anyone else.

Enclosed with this letter are two ballots. The first proposes changing the rulebook regarding target angles. Right now a gun club would have to hunt up a copy of the Winchester V1524C trap manual to know what we really intend to require of them.

Let’s tell them directly: the minimum setting is the No. 2 hole or the minimum setting is the No. 3 hole. Cast your vote for whichever you think is in the best interest of trapshooting.

The second ballot proposes changing the rulebook to permit shorter doubles targets than are now officially allowed. Tell me, who really throws 48 yards doubles, and who wants to shoot them? This amendment just brings the rules in line with near-universal practice. The choice of 44 yards is arbitrary, the leeway given to shoot-management should cover any situation where 44 is the wrong number.

Please mark your ballots and send them off right away. I have asked David Bopp to open and tally the ballots at once. We should be able to call Vandalia before our Memorial Day shoots so we can tell our clubs whether or not the heat is off.

Do not be deterred from casting your vote by fears of rocking an otherwise stable (may I even say too stable) boat. This is no prelude to anarchy; may it be instead the first signal of a renewed commitment by the Board of Director to take the active hand in the running of the Association that the authors of the By-laws charted for us.

Each of us is the temporary guardian of an office which has existed for 72 years; each will entrust it to an elected successor. If we choose inaction now, we will be obligated in the future to pass our position on with the following reservation:

“I transfer to you the title of Director, an office whose powers were annulled by unopposed executive edict in the spring of 1995. Regrettably, its remaining artifacts are little more than some clerical responsibilities, a locker, and a hat which says, but does not mean, ‘Delegate’.”

Yours in Sport,



Secretary Melton argued that the ballot I suggested was not valid according to the By-Laws and my personal attorney agreed with him. However, you will have seen that I did not favor any particular target setting; my advice to the Delegates was

"Let’s tell them directly: the minimum setting is the No. 2 hole or the minimum setting is the No. 3 hole. Cast your vote for whichever you think is in the best interest of trapshooting."

And as an earlier post by HistoryBuff recounted, when I made a similar motion to the BOD at the 1995 Annual Meeting I did not speak in favor of any particular target setting, but instead talked only about ATA governance which is sole import of the above letter. At the 1996 meeting, which did in fact pass Indiana Delegate Jon Moore's motion setting the two-hole as the minimum standard, I did not speak.

N1H1

 

They are not scratching their heads, it just goes to show how much you deceived so many shooters with your habitual mis-information, go back where they will believe you.
God Bless Neal Causaby as one of the best ATA Presidents who had BALLS to correct things
Gary Bryant
Dr.longshot

 

As I was scanning this thread I ran across a (properly attributed and accurate ) quote from a piece I wrote about Pat Traps and WW and GMV's a couple of years ago.

""1. The motion of the trap slows as it gets far-right or far-left so it spends more time there, increasing the chances that it will be there when the command to throw a target arrives and
2. The motion of the trap is fastest as toward the middle so it spends less time there, decreasing the chances that it will be there when the command to throw a target arrives.
The combined effect of 1. and 2. is that Pat Traps throw fewer angles and more straightaways than do either WW or GMV traps."

I must say I didn't even understand that, plucked from its context. As I read the source I wonder if it was the reason a couple of posters thought I didn't like Pat Traps. I think it is a good article and will be of interest to some of the technically-inclined participants here. As is noted above, it's from Nov 16, 2013. Here's the whole thing so readers here can learn a bit about some brand differences and the trigonometry which underlies those differences.

"Tim, you not only pass, you get the gold star with oak leaf cluster.

For those who don't watch tennis, a sine wave looks like this:



In your mind, label the horizontal axis "time" and the vertical axis "position." Then the slope of the snaky line will be "velocity" but think of it as "speed," how fast the trap is moving, side to side. This sine wave illustrates the travel of a Winchester-Western or a GMV or any other trap who's oscillation is controlled by a rotating disc.

Where the line crosses the horizontal midpoint, where the trap is in the center, the slope is greatest; that is, it's speed is the highest. In contrast, as the line (the trap) approaches its highest and lowest values (trap is approaching hard-left and hard-right) the slope lessens (the trap slows down) and at the extreme it stops before smoothly accelerating up to maximum speed in the other direction which speed will again occur when the trap is in the middle.

Now in your mind replace the sine wave with simple saw-teeth, moving from one high to the next low, then the next high in straight lines. This is more like the motion of a Pat trap which hardly stops at all when it is changing directions.*

If the uninterrupted travel is the same, say ten cycles a minute, then you can see the differences. The speed in the center of the Pat trap is less, but the speed is maintained almost to the point where it reverses. So the WW (or GMV) trap spends more time at (edit: or) near the extremes for two reasons:

1. The motion of the trap slows as it gets far-right or far-left so it spends more time there, increasing the chances that it will be there when the command to throw a target arrives and

2. The motion of the trap is fastest as toward the middle so it spends less time there, decreasing the chances that it will be there when the command to throw a target arrives.

The combined effect of 1. and 2. is that Pat Traps throw fewer angles and more straightaways than do either WW or GMV traps.

I cannot agree with you, Tim, that you need to know the rotational speed of the platen or the linear speed of the Pat Trap. I think the ratios of time spent at the various points will be the same - and so the relative performance in respect to angles thrown - is not dependent on the speed at all.

Past-President Crausbay was the first to alert me that the machines differed in this respect and I thank him for his insight. I also think it is another thing to add to Gary's list of reasons people score better now than they used to.

Neil

*In fact the reversal is so quick it has spawned a theory of its own, namely that Pat Traps are designed/constructed in such a way that a bird is not thrown when it is an extreme angle. People have seen tiny reversals, brakings, or speed-ups to make this possible, but of course it's not true; the machine has no idea where it is so can't make any special arrangements based on its position."

While I don't see any hint of criticism of Pat Traps in any of that, I suppose a reader bringing a strong bias toward wider angles might not approve of them and would construe what I wrote to be "against' that brand, though, of course, no such words by me are in there.

N1Hi

 

What I do not understand is why Neil Winston babbles and talk so smarty like, then when History Buff posts his message,
Neil Winston graps his coat and runs out of the building. Strange, very strange to say the least....

Birddog

 

I do not get why Neil would or anyone that cared about the ATA did not fuss about purchasing Pat traps if he stated they threw bad angles or were inferior. Why?

 

Family Guy,
Anyone that had anything to do with trap machines as a dealer or repairman could have told the ATA that the Pat threw an inferior target compared to most other machines. That is the very reason why the target setting and flight criteria had to be changed. It was to accomadate the Pat trap. Someone should ask the person that was president as to why a letter was sent out to all trap suppliers not to send in their quotes. The wording was ( WE RECEIVED AN OFFER WE CAN NOT REFUSE) We were not told what the offer was only that we were out of the running. Roger C.

 

Leonidas,
About the four machines///
For legal reasons I can not pass on the info that was handed to me. All I can say is they went to two different places and the ATA paid for them. Roger

 

"The wording was ( WE RECEIVED AN OFFER WE CAN NOT REFUSE)" .... Like Sparta ?????

How can these 'no-brainer' decisions ... keep turning into 'brainless' decisions ?????

Unless ........ there may be more to the story(s) .........

 

As per Hap and DLS---Neil, who professes to be the expert on the angles, specifically implied we should not have purchased the pat traps or that they threw bad angles. So all these arguments we are having seems to come down to whether Neil said anything about us purchasing this equipment. Do I have this right?

 

In the interest of the website, I ask Neil if Hap and Doc are correct? Silence should be worth at least a Benjamin.

An extra Benjamin should go to DLS for bringing the thread forward.

 

I would suggest that if the wider hole 3 spacer is used, that a Pat trap would throw angles that are equally as wide as the old WW trap would throw. It is like everything else, if you use a narrower setting spacer between the sensors, of course it will not throw the wide angles a WW trap would throw in the hole 3 setting. We have to compare apples and apples here gentlemen.

 

Heck, I might send him a Benjamin just to sweeten his bitter soul. After all he recently posted that he doesn't even own a trap gun now. Let's start a fund and raise some money for him with a 4-hole Geezer Pleezer event at Cardinal. 70 degree minimum angle for manly men.

-Gary

 

With Neil refusing to answer it appears doc and Hap were right.

There is a difference between those that have been in a shoot-off and had a AA average and those that never will or could.

As far as Doc not owning a gun. I know one is heading his way in the mail.

 

FG - I am not so sure Hap is agreeing. See below in what I believe is a ref to DLS' tendency to post and then delete his inflammatory posts when they can not be substantiated.

If so, it seems jhunts and you ( by proxy) are repeating a recollection of a recollection as fact. Which , unsupported by any other fact, would be hearsay at best.

Maybe Hap will give us his first person account? Seems it would bring some clarity to this debate one way or another.

 

Funny where a good idea may come from ...

A ... "4-hole Geezer Pleezer event at Cardinal" ... would be fun.

Not to give the money to someone, but something different.

Putting up a 'jackpot' for a 100x100 in this (handicap)event would be interesting. Also making it where everyone has to shoot from the 27, to see if that type of handicap would interest non-27 shooters.

It would be a lot of work to take an 'idea' and turn it into an actual event ... but it would be fun and interesting to see if the talkers become shooters.

 

A jackpot for 100X100 from the 27 shooting 4 hole targets
I don't think you would need to worry about anyone winning that.

 

"I don't think you would need to worry about anyone winning that." ........

You must shoot in a different part of the country than I do. There are Kentucky 18-yard shooters that could break 100 ... 5-hole targets from the 30.

 

N1H1 or is it N1Hi,

They seem, though I do not recall exactly what the Dr said, HAPS is pretty clear, "As Neil Winston said on TS a while back, adopting Pat traps nationwide was a mistake for our sport and I agree with his view for the reasons I outlined above."

The way you are talking,

, it would seem you are saying you never wrote or said any such comment such as you were "against" the PAT Trap. I also conclude when you say,"Pat Traps throw fewer angles and more straightaways", it was not meant as a positive or negative, though when you produce an easier presentation, on average would seem to be a negative, to me. Hap did not either, it seems. He just made the statement very similar to you. HAP said, "Pat traps tend to hang toward center fields more so than the old traps did without hanging at the extreme corners as long!!". As he also said, a similar statement to the Dr., I think they (the comments) are two different things. One is a description of the product and the other is a comment on how you may have felt about the product.


The Dr. said he could not find it, and HAP is silent, so the obvious questions. Have you ever deleted any posts in the past? Did you delete or edit any such comment (about not liking the PAT Trap) from ts.com or any other type of forum? Have you ever vocalized or written such comment to anyone, suggesting or implying you may not or did not like the adoption of the PAT Trap? Have you ever written or spoken your thoughts, positive or negative, to anyone in any manner about the operation of the PAT Trap?

People are calling or at minimum insinuation the Dr. is a liar about this. Since it appears HAP MECTWEAKS has said about the same thing, by association they are insinuating HAP is a liar as well. Are you calling each of them, HAP and the Dr. liars? Liars about your thoughts of the PAT Trap (at any time) in any conveyance? Do you submit that your use of TS.com in any manner, was not used to convey your thoughts on the adoption/use of the PAT Trap. In as much, if any communication, spoken (recorded) or written should be brought forward, without you going to your personal lawyer.

The personal lawyer is in reference to you having and going to a personal lawyer to find out if ballot suggested, was handled in the correct manner or not.

Shoot well.

John

 

Hey User-1, it's kinda rude to put it like that! I'll have you know that my wife says I'm FULL of good ideas!

Well... she says I'm full of something.

-Gary

 

Years ago at the Missouri Fall Handicap the singles championship shoot-off was handled with 5 hole and 5 full turns on the 1524...Didn't last more than 3 rounds...

 

Sorry Gary ..... And please tell your wife I agree with her

 

My new trapgun is arriving today at 4:30pm

 

Great. Shoot with the butt pad in your navel so it shoots high enough.

-Gary

 

Leonidas,
I made a typo. It was 8 machines, and they were delivered to two different locations. Four to each place. Roger C.

 

Maybe I am not understanding your post. A recollection of a recollection?

I posted what the man said. I did not make any accusation or assertion whereby Neil (H1N1) claimed to have said something like, Neil (H1N1) was against the use of PAT Traps. Heck, I assume he wanted to use them from the beginning, as he may have known Mr. Patenaude and maybe wanted to help get a contract for him or maybe because they were an easier target (angle wise) and created a bigger class of dominant wanna be big dogs. Maybe he had a friend that was a distributor for the PAT Trap or he believes higher scores are better and that 50 ties in the championship are great. Spending additional time and money, both personal and the clubs to get to the winner. He may believe the 27 Yarder should be dominate in Handicap in order to ensure most AA point are given to the 27yders. Maybe he liked things that were run on hydraulics or maybe at the time they had the biggest target carrousel. I do not know ask him. I however, did not make the claim that he said or was saying, PAT Traps were not good, that was others. Accordingly, it has been said by others, "As Neil Winston said on TS a while back, adopting Pat traps nationwide was a mistake for our sport", which would make all the possibilities I mentioned as seemingly false.


Make know mistake, in order the officially use them (PAT Traps), a rule change was required. Though like with any hierarchal association whether it be Government or a Company or a non-profit. Rules (laws) do not seem to matter (to those in charge)and if they get in the way, change them. In the upcoming, it was wait a year.

Hearsay is allowed in certain cases, especially when information that proves an assertion of fact to a degree of more likely than not, that is otherwise attainable has been destroyed, or in this case, possibly deleted. In this case 2 people remember something about Neil (H1N1) not liking PAT Traps and knowing the poster Neil Winston has or had a history of deleting posts, this can be taken into account. I must say though the old system allowed the user to see deleted posts or that a post was deleted, which on here and TS.com, not so much.

Judging by the words it appears you had a setting in mind. Though as you say, "I did not speak.", may be true. It was probably not necessary.

It is interesting, the language, “us” against “them" you sound like you were perceived as a team player and works with others well.

"The effect of the February EC action and the May 5th enforcement letter is to reverse Mr. Bright’s motion. Can they do this? Put in its most basic form: Who runs this organization? The By-laws of the ATA begin with Article 1, Section 1. It is the shortest section in the book, and the easiest to understand:"

Apparently not by you, at the time. Is the above the motion you consulted your personal lawyer over, no wait it was your ballot you sent in the mail.

"Enclosed with this letter are two ballots. The first proposes changing the rulebook regarding target angles. Right now a gun club would have to hunt up a copy of the Winchester V1524C trap manual to know what we really intend to require of them."

That is funny, really whatever machine they have, including the V1524C, I think they knew what straightaway from 1 and 5 was, no really, it is a straight away from 1 and 5. To not set that was not just a mistake, it was purposeful. Who or what operator would not know after decades using the WW traps the #3 hole was a straightaway from 1 and 5.

How sick is that to read, the writer seems to be saying, "tell me who really follows the rules, not me, and nor should you have to", seemingly. Maybe I am taking it in the wrong way.

"Lawyers may try to confound us with the question “whether a motion passed by the Board of Directors indeed constitute a directive, within the meaning of the entire document...” and so forth, but snake oil, even if packaged in a Hoppe’s No. 9 bottle, is still snake oil. For years we’ve been passing motions without the preface “The Delegates direct...”; if, because of this omission, none of what we have passed has had any significance, then it’s all been a colossal sham and a waste of time."

No, your intentions are not known, not at all, and then.

"Do not be deterred from casting your vote by fears of rocking an otherwise stable (may I even say too stable) boat."

As it appears this letter was based on changing the rule and the "too stable" leadership wanted straightaway from #1 and #5. I think your opinion is quite clear on the matter. It need not be said in an official setting, though I am quite sure (maybe), it would have and probably was said in a private or personal setting.

Though it seems this temper tantrum letter was not warranted and thankfully the ballot was not allowed. In the end, as it appears it was a personal agenda to get something less then straightaways in the book, a year later that mission sorrowfully was completed.

I have thought this, it is however sad to hear it is true. Of course you will have to supply the letter from 15 or so years ago for anyone to believe you.

I wonder was the offer directly sent or negotiated.

Shoot well.

John

 

John, I must say I enjoyed that, the way you reveal yourself in your writing, as painful as your often barely-intelligible text is to read. I used to think that the ignorance of trapshooting I see in your every word was due only to the fact that I've registered about ninety-seven times as many targets as you have (580,225 to 6000) . But it's more than that I see. Basically, it's that you don't know enough to keep your mouth shut about anything no matter that you know nothing at all about it.

Look at what you have written here!

"Hearsay is allowed in certain cases, especially when information that proves an assertion of fact to a degree of more likely than not, that is otherwise attainable has been destroyed, or in this case, possibly deleted. In this case 2 people remember something about Neil (H1N1) not liking PAT Traps and knowing the poster Neil Winston has or had a history of deleting posts, this can be taken into account. I must say though the old system allowed the user to see deleted posts or that a post was deleted, which on here and TS.com, not so much."

Of course what you wrote about hearsay is all made up, but there is no hearsay involved here. You quoted the text which is still available to us all here. Nor is the text you quoted presented as hearsay, it is a simple statement of fact. It is not true, but that does not make it hearsay. It's just a false statement. The original poster has not appeared with any evidence that it is not a false statement. He has had plenty of time to do so and I have brought it to his attention, twice. To me, his silence is more telling than anything I need say.

As I said above, one of your biggest failings, John, is that you don't know enough to check what you read and just repeat it even when any shooter should know that it is obviously wrong. I read the same post you did, but I knew it was hogwash, but you didn't know that and so just repeated as fact, with jhunts embellishments.

"Make know (sic) mistake, in order the officially use them (PAT Traps), a rule change was required. "

This is simply not true. No rule change was required to use them. How could you not know something as basic and simple as that?

N1H1

 

Are you sure? Heresay: information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate; rumor.

You may want to ask your personal lawyer. The rumor is you said something in not such a good light concerning PAT Trap using TS.com. Now I don't know that, but the information I received from a post on this site say you did. I have more faith in the posters of that information than I do you. So unless you provide information or the posters provide information, I think I will believe the rumor. The stated fact, though as unsubstantiated, a rumor gathered from information others, posted.



"It's just a false statement." That is what you say at this time, that part is true. Can you prove that it is false? Have you written and deleted any posts on TS.com at any time? Could one be about PAT Traps?

"This is simply not true. No rule change was required to use them. How could you not know something as basic and simple as that?"

If a trap was used that could not meet the objective of the rule, either it should not be used or the rule needed to be changed. Seems simple. I guess not. Though I will confess to not knowing the exact wording in 1991 - 2000. I am assuming "not less than a straightaway...". How it was ethically possible for the EC or the BOD to allow other than the stated rule is baffling.

With you setting, heck rules did not matter anyway.

I do enjoy your posts. Keep posting. They keep getting better and better.

Heck I could be wrong.

Shoot well.

John

 

NW did you or did you not write this on the other site, then called me at home, threatened to sue me if I did not remove it, then you called the ATA person and have him ask me to remove it, and he gave me a few hours to remove it, I told him since I wrote an actual quote from you I would not remove it, the same reply I gave you, Here is what you wrote:

It's like a graveyard around here. Just Mr. Bryant and I spreading old dry horse apples on the same unproductive ground that drove us both from TS.com to every one's relief.

You and I were both booted off that site. You threatened to sue me over this if I did not remove it.

You told the ATA site administrator you never wrote that, did you delete what you wrote? And denied you ever wrote it? Are you the liar here or am I the liar here?
Are you a man of your word or not. You got me banned for not removing my truthful direct quote of your statement. To me this is just like your partial statements of statisticts, using just what backs up what you say.

Speaking of prosecution Neil, you need an attorney on retainer, to defend you, and write checks.

The numbers you used from your Minnesota State Shoot and the GAH from different years is not complete w/o the number of shooters who broke those scores, There was actually an increase in the amount of the shooters who broke those 100s, 99s, and 98s on the later years, because the targets were easier.
Gary Bryant

 

JHunts,

What is it that prevents a Pat Trap from throwing a legal angle in the context of your post? It's adjustable, I don't understand how it is incapable of throwing a legal target, even under the old rules? I do admit that I don't know much about them, but I thought the switches could be set to throw a pretty wide angle?

 

John, I guess you didn't take to heart the observation I made in the first paragraph of the post you are apparently responding to. Specifically: "Basically, it's that you don't know enough to keep your mouth shut about anything no matter that you know nothing at all about it."

(Some edits in this paragraph to highlight the difference between "hearsay" in the common parlance and "hearsay" in the legal sense.) You are offering us a definition of "hearsay", "Heresay (sic) : information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate; rumor." Now anyone with any intellectual honesty or concern about his or her own reputation for accuracy would not have just offered this everyday definition and presented it as a fact, hoping someone would accept that it applied in this case. He or she would have looked up "Hearsay Evidence" (you did bring up the word in reference to court cases, after all) on Google and found, as the first example, these words from Findlaw:

"Hearsay is an out of court statement, made in court, to prove the truth of the matter asserted. In other words, hearsay is evidence of a statement that was made other than by a witness while testifying at the hearing in question and that is offered to prove the truth of the matter stated."

The reason your post is not hearsay in the legal sense is that you did not cite the other post as "proof of the matter stated;" in fact you wisely distanced yourself from it. "I posted what the man said. I did not make any accusation or assertion whereby Neil (H1N1) claimed to have said something like, Neil (H1N1) was against the use of PAT Traps." You are specifically not claiming it is true, only that such such as assertion exists.

Your point seems to be that that there are two such assertions.

1. Of course that was not true even when you wrote it, since the first one, at the start of this thread, had already been withdrawn. "I cannot find where Neil Wrote it, so I deleted my post" That poster, by the way, is even now hanging, twisting slowly, slowly in the wind, in another thread he stated just yesterday "Pat Trap Rubber Bands Question" and wherein he wrote "Pat Ireland expresses that angles should be more extreme and make trapshooting more competitive 82 replies to Pat Ireland posting," which he has not, yet at least, apparently be able to substantiate.

2. The second one has not been substantiated either. And there has certainly been plenty of time to do it.

Your faith in that that second poster is touching, but the objective truth of a statement is not dependent on who you, personally, trust; it's whether the statement can be substantiated in the face of challenge. So far, that has not been done and I think many would, in your shoes, begin to worry about whose memory he has been trusting.

Above in this thread we find a text that you apparently accepted, unwisely, as fact. It's the one I referred to as obvious "hogwash." The subject was the decision of the EC to buy, in 2004 (as I remember), Pat Traps for Vandalia and the WSRC. Here it is:

"Anyone that had anything to do with trap machines as a dealer or repairman could have told the ATA that the Pat threw an inferior target compared to most other machines. That is the very reason why the target setting and flight criteria had to be changed. It was to accomadate the Pat trap."

The problem with this, as any experienced ATA shooter would have instantly recognized, is the conflict of dates, to say nothing of the facts. The rule changed in August, 1996, as the result of a motion by Indiana Delegate Jon Moore. The decision to buy Pat Traps was made eight years later. Thus it is impossible that the rule was changed "to accomadate (sic) the Pat trap;" the two events occurred in the reverse order. And it's not true anyway; Pat Traps can throw targets under either the 3-hole or 2-hole rule. You should know that too, but apparently don't.

Your complete misunderstanding about any of this is attested to by this:

"If a trap was used that could not meet the objective of the rule, either it should not be used or the rule needed to be changed. Seems simple. I guess not. Though I will confess to not knowing the exact wording in 1991 - 2000. I am assuming "not less than a straightaway...". How it was ethically possible for the EC or the BOD to allow other than the stated rule is baffling."

There's really nothing I need add to that.

You write "Can you prove that it is false?" That fails on two points:

1. It is impossible to prove the non-existence of anything and

2. It is not my responsibility, as the apparent defendant in this developing disaster, to prove anything. That is the job of the prosecution. If that is not done, I am innocent.

H1N1

 

To to lighten the mood I'll throw this out there for discussion.

Seems Pat Trap is taking it on the chin from some for the machines not throwing as many angles as the 1524's. What about this: seems to me, based on what I have read here, that in reality the traps using a pivot arm and an oscillating circular plate actually were more flawed, at least if you think the traps should be designed to throw angles with an equal change of occurrence. Because of the limitations of the design, the 1524's spent more time at the extreme angles as the pivot occured, and they moved faster through the middle of the range.

 

The defendants are Doc and Hap.
Neil you seem to be accusing them of lying about your statement. That is was never made? Or was it? Please be blunt. What am I missing?

 

It seems my honor, memory, integrity among other facets of posting opinions are in question here for what I've written from memory. Granted, mine isn't as sharp as I'd like but it is what it is and I must live with it. Below is what I wrote on July 3rd 2013 and it wasn't the first or last time either.

"I can duplicate those settings somewhat with a PAT trap but it will never throw the same difficult target as the old hand-sets did. It can't stay at the corners as long as the older traps did for the harder angles.
When a shooter must lead right angles from 1 and lefts from 5, things will change in a hurry when coupled with the old speed/distance settings. That's without mother nature involved also.
PAT traps can't be compared to the old traps when talking straights from 1 and 5. PATS move instantly off those corners making for a lesser total of extreme angles in a hundred targets. I'd still wager on target difficulty as opposed to how the targets are released!!
Hap" (Copied from the thread that began on 6/28/2013 and ended on 7/4/13)

How does one present a defense in his honor when posts are deleted and gone forever I ask any of you? Neil does in fact delete his posts once in a while and it's gone. He may have said Pat traps wasn't the best of choices or something similar that gave me the impression they were bad for our organization? I certainly can't produce any posts from that thread that was deleted by either Neil nor my friend Martin Wilbur, the (pheasantmaster whom also deleted his posts to that topic)

I'll continue believing Neil stated that the adoption of Pat traps wasn't the best thing for our sport and may one day be able prove it without threats of some damned lawsuit or other threats?

HAP

 

FG, I do not believe I have called either of the persons you mentioned a liar. Edit: I may have in the first post I put here, but since it immediately got the result I intended, I took it right down as no longer relevant.

Edit again: Oh look! They are back! Or did I just not see them? How glad I am to see that to see that did not call anyone a liar. If they have been reposted I want to thank the administrators of this site for refreshing all of our memories with the facts. I do think, however, now that the point has been made it might be nice to consider the other poster's preferences in this and remember he deleted his claims. If he doesn't want them up, I will certainly not object if they disappear again.

In my years of study in psychology in graduate school at the University of Minnesota, as well as my undergraduate degree in it, I have accepted current thinking on memory, particularly as based on the pioneering work of Susan Loftus. Memory is not a "movie" of what happened; it is instead a construction of the past that makes sense of the millions of things we experience simultaneously all the time and need to pare down and organize. As a result, we all "remember" things that never happened, recall being at events which we could not have possibly attended, recollect reading things we never read, and so forth.

Here's what time had to say about it:

http://science.time.com/2013/11/19/...nt-study-shows-false-memories-afflict-us-all/

I think of a lie as the conscious production of a statement the writer knows at the time to be false. I respect the difference between mistaken recall and a lie.

N1H1

 

Referring to two posts above this, thanks for posting that. I think what you quote as your own posting earlier is a fair assessment, inaccurate in only minor, inconsequential detail. While you wrote "I can duplicate those settings somewhat with a PAT trap but it will never throw the same difficult target as the old hand-sets did." is more a case of Pat Traps (probably; my theory has never been definitively tested, after all) not throwing quite as many extreme angles as some other machines, though it will, in fact, throw targets just as wide. If the theory apparently shared by Past-President Crausbay, the late Pat Ireland, and me is correct, the difference between the targets would show up as (small) differences in the numbers of occurrences rather than the maximum angles of the targets.

I have no doubt you think "As Neil Winston said on TS a while back, adopting Pat traps nationwide was a mistake for our sport and I agree with his view for the reasons I outlined above." I am equally certain I never said that.

I'm willing to leave it at that.

N1H1

 

N1H1, have you never said there's but very few maximum angles thrown off a Pat trap? (Your's, Pat Ireland's and Neal Crausbay's theory of "not throwing quite as many" extreme angles off the Pat traps? In my writings, I've never stated they couldn't throw that extreme angle, just not nearly the number the old 1524s threw due to machine make-up. Another farce during the experimental years of 95/96 throwing 44 degree angles. Of course the difference between 1524s and Pats are different due to the machines different make-ups and I still say Pats are inferior to 1524s to match the numbers of difficult angles presented! As if 34 degree angles weren't soft enough from the old Winchester hand-sets our sport is blessed with the Pat!

Your willing to leave it at that, but most here will continue doubting I speak the truth! I can't leave it at that at all and say you stated some of what I've written about!

My integrity and honor is at stake here too sir!

HAP

 

Hap, I don't recall ever saying " there's but very few maximum angles thrown off a Pat trap." It doesn't sound like me because I can't substantiate it with any numbers, either calculated or experimentally derived. As my blue graph above shows, circle-derived oscillations spend more time at the extremes than do saw-tooth-derived oscillations. But since I have no evidence about numbers,- and that what that quote refers to - I can't believe that I would have written " there's but very few maximum angles thrown off a Pat trap" because I simply don't know how many there are. I did try to answer that question during the Handicap Championship at San Antonio a few years ago but found that would be a big project requiring a lot more time and expense than I was willing to expend, particularly since Pat Traps have taken over anyway and complaining about that will get us nowhere.

It may be after all, that Ms. Patenaude will tomorrow post the results of experiments which show that Past President Crausbay and Pat I. and I are all wet and her traps throw more angles and I would of course accept that - and acknowledge my mistake - since I always favor experiment over calculation anyway.

Of course I know what you were getting at in both cases, but you can hardly now say "In my writings, I've never stated they couldn't throw that extreme angle" when the text you posted at 10:47 today reads "I can duplicate those settings somewhat with a PAT trap but it will never throw the same difficult target as the old hand-sets did."

I think you (and others here) are so committed to the idea that fewer hard angles are, to use your word, "inferior" that when you read me saying that our calculations predict fewer hard angles we are saying that Pats are "inferior." But that's your judgement, not mine. I, personally, mean no such thing, describing (I think), and thinking of the two designs as "different" rather than "good" and "inferior."

If anyone on this website thinks that trying to trash Pat Traps is a good idea they should keep in mind that it is a tough, uphill struggle against hundreds of gun clubs who use them and are proud of the targets they set and thousands of shooters who like the targets off Pat Traps just fine and suggest you shoot only at clubs where you can shoot something else if this really troubles you so, but otherwise just stay off our backs, please, if you will.

N1H1

 

I personally find all this to be extremely distasteful and think it must be a terrible bore to anyone who has had the poor judgement to try to plow through it all. So I'll take Bat's lead and try to lighten the mood a little.

There have been two references above (edit: not "above", the other is on another thread.) to an old presentation I made on TS.com regarding the winning scores over several decades of shooting at the Grand and the Minnesota State Shoot. I think the results are interesting and many will find them as surprising as I did. Here's what I wrote:

"Short History Lesson (with history)

This is the first of two threads addressed to the question that’s so hot right now on TS.com: “What happened to “shooting” as target-setting rules moved from wider, faster birds in the 1970’s to the narrower, slower target of today?” “Shooting” here means scores, classes, handicap winners & yardages, that sort of thing. It can be summarized as “In the last twenty-nine years, what’s changed on the field and at the trophy desk?” A second question, addressed at the end, will be “What can we learn from it?”

I’ve read I don’t know how many three-hole-promotional threads and while I’ve always found the logic abysmal, I presumed that the proponents were working from history, just as another current thread promises. Where that past should have lead us today is open to interpretation and that’s why the discussion goes on and on, but we’re all starting from the same place. Aren’t we? I mean, there is only one past, right? And it’s the one we are being told about here, right?

What always gets mixed into three-hole threads is the idea that class scores are too high, it takes NN to win lower-class XYZ and it shouldn’t (!) and so on. Following Pat’s lead on another thread, I thought I’d take a look. What I found there made me ask “What if all this Good Old Days stuff isn’t true either?”

So, courtesy of Betty Ann Foxworthy and Maureen Beuning, return with us now to those thrilling days of yesteryear. We’ll start right at the top, the Grand American.

Singles:

As a result of today's power-puff, feel-good targets, have the scores needed to win moved over the last three decades from “just about right” to “so high it’s killing trapshooting?” Let’s take a look, not through the prism of memory and preference, but rather through the pages of Trap & Field.


Hmm. All these changes and not much has changed? That’s not what I’ve been told. Maybe the Grand isn’t the place to look; let’s step down a level to the Singles Championship at the Minnesota State Shoot.


I don’t see any trend. All I see is shoots with scores-required-to-win so similar they could be consecutive years, not twenty-nine and forty-seven years apart!

Doubles:


Well, if anything, those are opposite to what I’ve been lead to expect. What was going on in 1978? Big, wide, 50-yard doubles – and the winning scores in classes were better?

Minnesota?


Here it’s a little the other way. To move things on, I’ll accept, combining the Grand and our State Shoot, that not much has changed in terms of the score needed to win any class. That’s amazing, not only in terms of what people want me to believe, but just mechanically. Over-bores, voice-pulls, PAT-traps, narrow and short targets, a clinic-a-month, and it hasn’t bought the winners a bird?

Handicap

Handicap finally? It’s about time – that’s what it’s all about anyway, isn’t it? What do we need to control those pros and put things right again? Concrete? Three-hole? Bigger springs? Lighter loads? Something as-yet unrealized? All of them? Whatever it is, we’ve got to get back to the 70’s and see if we can start over. We do that; we’re in clover.


Well finally! Now I see what used to happen, why everyone wants to go back in time. I’ll not only call these data unequivocal, I’ll even save some potential posters, seeing their proof before their eyes, the trouble of typing.

“In the 3-hole, 50-yard halcyon days of the 70’s, a mid-yardage shooter had a chance to shoot a winning score in the Grand American Handicap, a chance he hardly has now at all. All he wants is for the mid-90’s score he can occasionally break to get him something, not just be buried in the stratospheric tallies of the pros.”

I’ll even personify today’s victim: a journeyman shooter, on his way up who needs a victory to keep his hopes up, his dedication on-track, or on the way down who’ll quit if he can’t score some hardware pretty quick. I know these shooters; you do too. Lots of them.

So let’s look a bit harder to get an even clearer picture of them.

Now wait a minute; what’s this? They aren’t shooting the scores we imagined from my personification at all; they are all breaking real high 90’s! On harder targets with all the impediments in equipment and targets I mentioned above! These are the shooters Jerry found in the average book. Maybe, as I speculated in his “data” thread, it all boils down to the way punches worked then. Or that people shot a lot less, as Buzz-gun has apparently guessed. One thing’s sure. Harder targets aren’t going to bring these “people we want to have a chance” up to shooting scores like this. Concrete? Three-hole? Bigger springs? Lighter loads? I can’t see how any of that would help at all. King-sized reductions and no automatic punches might help, but I still can’t see it working that well, not to produce results like this.

I hope you were as surprised by all this as I was. I don’t see those by-gone days as much better or even much different, not nearly as different as I would have guessed.

As I promised: “What can we learn from it?” My answer is

"If you want a little real history go to Trap & Field; that’s where it is, not here."

N1H1"

Thank you for your attention; I hope you enjoyed this look into the (real) past.

N1H1

 

If Pat's aren't the best, why does CC have a BUNCH of them?

 

There's so many variables when comparing limited data over few years it becomes meaningless. Weather conditions alone account for the biggest variable. Wasn't 1978 the year Reg Jachimowski broke the first 100 in the GA Handicap from the fence-with a Model 12 no less? Must have been bluebird conditions or none flew through his pattern that day!

 

You are correct, Ollie. Reg broke the first 100 from the 27 and I had a copy of the T&F commemorating it so that's why I chose that year. The other date was chosen because it was 20 (correction, 30) years later.

N1H1

 

There were also far fewer 27 yd. shooters in 1978 than 2007. Since there were far more back fencers in 2007 it tells me we've made it too easy for them to dominate the handicap event. Some of us might remember we shot white domed hand pulled targets in 1978 too or was that the first year for florescent orange targets?

 

The yearly outlines of winning scores needed to win, place or show says nothing about the total scores that were tied to get there at all in any year. At all major shoots for years it's taken a great score to place. Especially at our Grand American!

" Hap, I don't recall ever saying " there's but very few maximum angles thrown off a Pat trap."

I wish you would have also said ( I may have or some such wording) to address the memory things you so eloquently eluded to in the post above priming minds with possibilities of doubt, toward me of course.

Feeling like a cornered varmint I give this back to you to possibly refresh your own memory.


From:pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailtom@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2013 7:46 AMTo:Geno@vailaz.com
Subject: TS.com PM Alert
To: Hap MecTweaks From: Neil Winston Subject: Pat Trap angles
You are exactly right about the lack of hard angles with Pats vs handsets. I've had to test the "fairness" of traps at some clubs to see if they were narrowing the field as a complaint alleged. I often had to watch a whole squad, 125 targets, to see even one maximum angle. If the ATA had been awake, it would _never_ have let those traps throw registered targets! Neil
Click here to view your private message

If only you didn't delete so many of your messages there'd be less memory issues.

HAP

 

It is all bullsh*t without the numbers of the shooters that shot those scores, it is all a delusion toNW N!HI, Number of shooters that broke those scores related to the year shot.
We know the score will be the same it is the #of shooters that broke those Scores, we are not as stupid
as you think NW N1H1, try again to dazzle us with your bullsh*t. Numbers of shooters, Numbers of shooters, number of shooters, GET IT RIGHT FOR ONCE IN YOUR LIFE.
Gary Bryant Dr.longshot

 

Oh, oh!

 

NW Deleted his post.
Dr.longshot

 

NW are you going to answer the posting above where you made a post on the other site? Your Quote not mine.

It is like a graveyard around here, just Mr. Bryant and I spreading old dry horse apples on the same un-productive ground, that drove us both from TS.com to everyone's relief.

Did you write this? Did you delete your thread? Did you threaten to sue me if I did not delete my post? Am I a Liar, or are you the liar, Did you contact the ATA info. administrator and ask him to have me delete the post? Am I a liar about this too? Or are you the liar?
Gary Bryant Dr.longshot, Internet Champ, Grudge Match Champ

 

I cannot speak on the 1978 Minnesota data but I can say that using the 1978 GAH scores may be unreliable because it is assumed they were made on 3-hole targets and it is highly likely that the assumption is incorrect, thus comparing 2-hole targets off Western Model 1524s with 2-hole targets off PAT Traps.

The problem with "soft illegal target" setting dates back to shortly after the Model 1524 trap was introduced (1950). Despite attempts by the A.T.A. by threatening DQ'd scores and sanctions on clubs, the problem continued to grow.

It was even a problem at the Grand American Handicap well before 1978. And even after the E. C. corrected the problem at the 1962 G.A.H., it didn't last long and there were many more times in the future that 2-hole targets were set during Grand events in violation of the existing rules and with the blessing of the Executive Committee. Below is an example from 1962.

A.T.A. NEWS
LEGAL TARGETS – DISTANCE AND ANGLES
By DWIGHT L. BROWN
Southern Zone Vice President​

During the past several years, gun club operators have followed a continuing trend toward easier targets. Many clubs throw targets that fall short of the minimum distance and in addition, pull the angles in so that they fail to meet the minimum requirements as set forth in the Rule Book. This practice, while popular with some shooters, has caused 16-yard races to become more a test of endurance rather than one of gun-pointing ability.

Legal targets are defined on Page 18 of the 1962 Rule Book. Regarding flights and angles, paragraph(a) states:

“Targets, whether singles or doubles, shall be thrown NOT LESS THAN 48 YARDS
nor more than 52 yards, measured on level ground in still air.”

Regarding angles, paragraph (c ) states:

“In singles shooting, the trap shall be so adjusted that within the normal distribution
of angles as thrown by the trap, the extreme right angle shall be NOT LESS than a
straightaway fro firing point 1 and the extreme left angle shall be NOT LESS than a
straightaway from firing pint 5.”

It is suggested that those who set the traps at the various clubs become familiar with the setting of said traps by experimenting on a calm day. It is a simple matter to adjust a trap to throw 50-yard singles and then readjust it to throw 50-yard doubles, noting the number of turns required on the mainspring to change from singles to doubles. If a trap is set in this manner, it is a simple matter to change form singles to doubles and back again by merely counting the number of turns. The trap should then be checked from time to time on calm days to determine whether the mainspring has lost some of its tension. Unless some system such as this is used, it is next to impossible to throw targets the proper distance when there is any wind. Either a head win or a tail wind will cause targets to fall short.

Regarding angles, it is suggested that all traps be set to throw at least the minimum angles as set for the in the Rule Book. Targets which do not meet this requirement are just as illegal as broken targets, “flippers,” etc., and cannot be legally registered under our rules.

On Thursday, prior to the Preliminary Day contests at the Grand this year, the Executive Committee inspected the flight of the targets. The traps had been set in the same manner as during the past several years. Upon examination, it was found that the extreme angles, both right and left, were inside and short of the minimum requirements. Some 40 targets were thrown, and not a single one went wide enough to meet the rule. The test trap was readjusted and then it was found that out of another 30 or 40 targets which were thrown, all except two were exact straightaways from positions 1 and 5, and those two were only wide by about two feet. As most of you know, the Committee requested that the trap be set to throw the wider angles, and they were left that way throughout the Tournament. It was necessary that we do this in order to comply with the Rule Book.

THE SAME ANGLES WILL BE THROWN DURING THE 1963 GRAND AS WERE THROWN THIS YEAR.

In order to keep trapshooting a test of gun-pointing ability and to insure every contestant an equal opportunity, the Executive Committee urges all gun club operators to provide contestants with LEGAL TARGETS as provided by the rules.
( TRAP & FIELD, November 1962 )


I offer the following articles to show that 2-hole targets were being thrown at the Grand American Handicap around the 1978 year.

ATA Board of Directors Annual Meeting
August 16, 1979​

Thereupon, there was a discussion by the Directors concerning the definition of a legal target. Directors speaking on the issue included Mr. Ted McHugh, Mr. Austin LaJuene, Dr. T. E. Dillon, Mr. Ray Stafford and Mr. Joe Roach, plus Mr. Vic Reinders. As a result of this discussion, a motion was presented by Mr. Austin LaJuene, seconded by Mr. Tom McKay, requiring the rules to reflect a three-hole target was defeated by a majority of the Directors of the Corporation present at the meeting.
( TRAP & FIELD, November 1979 )

MINUTES OF THE 1980 ANNUAL MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF
THE AMATEUR TRAPSHOOTING ASSOCIATION​

Pursuant to the lawful notice and in accordance with the by-laws of the corporation, Mr. Len Burford, President of the Amateur Trapshooting Association, called the 1980 Annual Meeting of the Board of Directors of the Amateur Trapshooting Association to order on Aug. 21, 1980, at 8:00 p.m.

Mr. Wright (New Hampshire) as a member of this year’s Target Setting Committee, stated that the Committee had been setting two-hole, 49-yard targets and wanted some input from the Directors with respect to their manner of setting the targets.

Mr. Austin LaJuene (Wisconsin) and Mr. Vic Reinders, a Past President, vigorously argued against the soft target and spoke in favor of the three-hole target. A number of members, including Mr. Leslie Holbrook, Mr. Jack Duncan, and Mr. Dan McKenzie spoke in favor of the present two-hole target setting and it appeared from the consensus of the Directors that they were in agreement with the Committee’s present manner of target setting.
( TRAP & FIELD, November 1980 )

 

Yes, Hap, as that message says, over the years as Delegate, I was sent (or sent myself) to check on some alleged cheating by some clubs. A couple were, indeed, throwing narrowed targets. To find that out I had to often watch a several squads to be sure and the reason it took so long to see one was (according to my theory) the reduced number of hard angles. It was, as my message clearly says, "those" traps, the narrowed ones, that should not have been allowed. A word was all it took, generally, to put things back to where they should be.

Once again, the traps I found to have been narrowed were the cheating ones. If I had meant Pat Traps in general, I would have written "If the ATA had been awake, it would _never_ have let Pat Traps throw registered targets!" Instead I wrote "If the ATA had been awake, it would _never_ have let those traps throw registered targets" to refer to the narrowed ones I tested; after all, I didn't visit those particular clubs by chance. Far, far more often however, regardless of what I may have heard, I found nothing wrong, Still, you did have to watch several squads to be sure and in the end I found the only way to be sure was to hope it was a G model trap and you could measure where the spacer was supposed to be, although I can't remember finding a spacer in any traps at any club except one which had them all. Generally, I decided it was virtually impossible to tell legal from illegal thrown by any trap by observation; even checking where unbroken targets fell doesn't work because you can't tell if it was the setting or the wind. And as John pointed out, the rule forbidding setting any trap more narrow than the two- hole meant that in a strong head wind, all the hand-set traps would throw illegal targets and it was against the rule to change that. Bryan Pierce's "Angle Master" solves all these problems and I am so convinced that they are a benefit for setting that I have purchased several and given them to clubs who seemed to need help setting the angles on their traps. I have done the same with radar guns at appropriate places.

(edited here for brevity)

N1H1

 

Regarding "It is like a graveyard around here, just Mr. Bryant and I spreading old dry horse apples on the same un-productive ground, that drove us both from TS.com to everyone's relief."

1. Yes I did write that.

2. Apparently I did not delete the thread since it is still there: http://www.shootata.com/ATADiscussi...mid/1/postid/163/scope/posts/Default.aspx#163

3. I did threaten to sue you if you did not remove a post on TS.com years and years ago, but not since then, I believe. I may have done it regarding the ATA site, but I don't think I did. It looked certain to me that the administrator would do the right thing for the ATA once he or she was alerted to what was being posted on the ATA forum.

4. Yes, I did ask him or her to delete the posts which I (and apparently he or she) considered defamatory or not in the interests of the ATA to have on their own website.

5. I don't see why this makes either of us a liar. I have never denied any this, after all.

6. However, your statement on an earlier post, "You and I were both booted off that site," is not true, as I continued to post on that site and could now if I chose to.

N1H1

 

Neil- - -I do not know how to respectfully say that I think you should be ashamed of yourself. You dragged doc thru the mud seemingly because you could.

You incited anger against the doc. Then when politely challenged you feigned and dodged. I know a better word. But I will not use it.

So Longshot was rather right. You blindsided the web site. Some even defended your honor. How ironic is that?

You again removed posts....lots of them.

Your apology should not be lost in this large thread. It should be at the top of a new thread. Your apology with your name in the title. Don't forget about Hap. jmho

 

The forthcoming apology from GW should be followed by a copy of the $100 he owes the website.

What is the over/under bet on the number of posts that will be erased by GW or Neil today?

Bonjour

 

Wow, that historical info is surprising, goes back much , much further than expected. Seems easy targets where being thrown even at the grand in 1960 and possibly back into the 1950's. does that mean Dr. L's list of respected grand slams will change to zero?

 

Roger, I don't understand what it is about the target that a Pat trap throws, that is inferior. The arm seems to put sufficient spin on the target to achieve a stable flight and consistent breaks. I will concede that, because there is no centre hole, the field is more difficult to centre and getting level doubles is sometimes a pain in the ass, but an inferior target?

Yes, I suppose that without holes to set angles on, the rules on target setting would have to be changed. After all, it would be difficult to have a rule that declares that targets have to be in a minimum of a hole 2 (or hole 3) setting, if the Pat trap does not have a hole 2 (or 3) to set into.

So, I guess I am asking, what is it about the target that a Pat trap throws, that makes it inferior?

 

Jo2, there's not much wrong with the Pat traps at all except this. On a bluebird day they're fine and dandy. It's when Mother Nature interferes somewhat and coupled with our standard rule of speeds that problems can arise. The targets thrown on such a day doesn't have the velocity and spin rotation to stabilize it out to where the average ATA shooter might stand a chance of a better score! No settings are going to have much effect on our top shooters scores regardless. It severely hurts those we're attempting to hook on our game for life though? Those are the one's we should be concerned with in my opinion.

Angle degree is the setting, numbered "hole" is in reference to the old traps used for many years. 34 degrees today and 44 degrees plus on the old rule. Ask some of the in the know club managers how they set targets when mother nature interferes with their shoots under inclement conditions? They will adjust the target height and use speeds necessary to stabilize the target! This isn't done to benefit our top shooter, it's done for the average shooter to break a better score!

AND, some clubs won't change the speed at all!!

HAP

 

Could you post the post where I said or pointed out, specifically, "in a strong head wind, all the hand-set traps would throw illegal targets". Also point out the apparent fact that there was any rule forbidding setting the "trap more narrow" than 2 hole setting.

Shoot well.

John

 

The point is that the rule should never had been changed at all. And for many years the majority of shooters (even the top shooters) were against making targets easier. The rule was only changed because a majority of shooters were unaware and/or didn't care about the history of the sport. Those pushing the change to more narrow targets convinced the majority that it was best for the sport. Higher scores for all sure sounded good and would surely keep shooters in the game and those on both sides of the issue believed their position was in the best interest of trapshooting. Personally, I thought higher scores on easier targets was a good idea until Kay Ohye rose to speak at our State Shoot in the mid-90s during the 3-hole debate. I believe the majority of shooters were in favor of returning to the 2-hole setting until Mr. Ohye gave us a history lesson. Our vote that day provided a clear instruction for our Delegate to support the 3-hole setting during the annual BOD meeting at the Grand.

I'm still trying to verify just when the A.T.A. amended the rulebook and narrowed the angles from 45 degrees + 20 degrees more outside to the 22 degrees + 25 degrees outside. I have an article by Past A.T.A. President Vic Reinders in which he says the 45 degree normal legal target area was in the 1954 rule book and changed to 22 degrees in 1955, but I'd want to verify this myself and will someday soon.

The rule was fairly clear but for years only specified the maximum angle and no minimum. "In singles shooting the recommended area for throwing targets shall be that between a line drawn through number 1 firing point and the base of the trap and another line drawn through number 5 firing point and the base of the trap. Thus right and left angles are to be straightaways from firing points 1 and 5 respectively. However, no target is to be declared illegal unless it is more than 25 degrees outside of these limits."
Because of this, some gun clubs started throwing narrow angles and even short targets, as shoot management believed : “They paid for ‘em; let ‘em break ‘em.” This impaired equity of competition a phrase extensively used in the rule book.

In about the 1959 target year the rules were again amended and specified both the maximum formerly included and also a newly included minimum for angles. This minimum was identified as 22 degrees right and left of center – which is what straightaways from #1 and #5 positions measure out to if the shooting positions are legally laid out. The language regarding the straight away angle setting from Post's 1 & 5 had been in the rules since 1955.

The 45 degree + 20 more degrees outside target area I mentioned above was not a typo. The original rules called for targets set at 45 degrees. This complimented the descriptions from both live bird shooting and early target shooting whereby the left and right flights of pigeons and targets were described as a quartering (45 degree) bird.

So when your looking at scores from the old timers, starting from the late 1800s, and you see the crowning of champions with scores of 94 & 95, realize that they were shooting legal targets sometimes thrown to a maximum of 65 degrees on each side of the center stake. Our extreme maximum angle today is but 27 degrees.

Discussions on high scores are nothing new. As I've said before, today were just rehashing discussions from the past. Here's a discussion from 1890.

CHANGES IN GUN STOCKS.​

"The improvement in guns and ammunition is also responsible for the uniformly high scores of the present day, even in cases where the conditions are more difficult than those formerly prescribed. When Captain Bogardus made a score of 81 out of 100 live birds, under the English rules at thirty yards rise, about sixteen years ago, it was, I believe, the highest score on record. We have to-day hundreds of men who can greatly better this score. Hundreds of better scores have been made.

"Among the changes in guns other than those made in weight are the substitution of straight for crooked stocks. Most of the lighter guns have straighter stocks than formerly, and this style is yearly growing in favor.
(SPORTING LIFE, November 15, 1890 )

Did you know that at one time the rules called for your target to be called lost if you forgot to load a shell into the chamber? Today its a Failure to Fire. Not a loss.

Kenny Ray

 

Hap, I still don't get it. If you put more spring on the WW traps, they threw the target faster and with more spin. Why can't you put more spring on a Pat trap to accomplish the same thing? Tough conditions (30 mph crosswind) are a challenge to set hittable targets in, regardless of the trap that is being used in my experience. The WW trap had a wind gauge that could be used to take the curl out of a target, but other than that the Pat is fairly easy to work with.

 

BAT: It really makes me wonder now, whew.
Jo2: I guess you sand the rubber strips, to make the target spin more.
Dr.longshot

 

At the clubs in southern Ohio the young kids like the harder angles, and are breaking them very good, ask your buddy Jerry, he soots against them at Charlie's and Hocking Vally Sportsmans Club, and they are beating us old farts, ask Jack Bluhm, we both know, we got cleaned by them in shoot offs.
We should keep the targets at the 44 degree settings, that teaches them the complete game, they like those targets, We had a 14 year old girl shooting registered w/ her dad and mom, she shot those 44 degree targets, and di very well, Dad is buying her a more expensive gun, having it fitted to her for this years ATA shoots.
Dr.longshot

 

Jo2, yes, you can do just that, speed can be added to a Pat trap to stabilize the targets! According to our rule book that isn't allowed according to our club manager following our rule books speed limits? 39 mph for doubles only works well on a good day, when the breezes are from the back or front, only the top of the line shooters score well.

There's no problems at all setting the heights that may be illegally high but don't mess with the mph of thrown targets!!

The old Winchester hand-sets throwing 34 degree angles (ie 2 hole) had a throwing arm long enough to impart more rpms than does the Pat trap set likewise.

It's a case of some making decisions in changing rules making the game easier but only on a bluebird day will that work well with the Pat traps. Some club managers are smarter than others when it comes to setting a breakable target for the most people. Some adhere to that infernal speed limit like it's one of the ten commandments! Another vastly disregarded rule is the height setting rule in our book, 8 to 10 foot 10 yards out. It's even violated at the Grand American too? Heck man, why even have a rule book that no one follows?

HAP

 

Of all the things said during the course of this thread, I have to say that Kenny Ray keeps excellant track of ATA Trap Shooting History and should be congratulated for it. Hap Mec Tweaks is as knowledgable about Trap Shooting as any one and there is no doubt about his Honesty or Integrity

Birddog

 

It is good if you get to shoot clubs with experienced setters.
I have shot a lot of clubs with setters who were not so good.
These are not people who I would give a lot of latitude.

 

I can assure you Neil Winston is not fearful of any comments made by me. He is very proficient in the realm of “verbal jousting.” And had I taken the time to read my examples instead of using the cut & paste feature, I would have used examples from earlier years, thus avoiding the possible appearance of “bashing” anyone, which is not my style.

HB

 

JO2.
One of the problems with target presentation on the Pat's was they did not meet the rule book height rule as to where the target was to start out from. ( THE TARGET ON THE ARM IS TO BE LEVEL WITH THE NO. 3 SHOOTING PAD. ) They sat to high in the trap house to be adjusted properly. It was almost impossible to keep the field centered for doubles, the machines would drift off location. The first ones installed in Vandalia would not fit in the houses. The roofs had to be raised up and set on blocks. This gave the shooter an odd view of the field. I'm not sure how many model changes they have made to improve the machine, but there have been a few.
I probably see a lot of things about target presentation that the average shooter never notices. I spent over 20 years building repairing and improving trap,skeet, and sporting machines. Roger C.

 

"One of the problems with target presentation on the Pat's was they did not meet the rule book height rule as to where the target was to start out from. ( THE TARGET ON THE ARM IS TO BE LEVEL WITH THE NO. 3 SHOOTING PAD. )"

Roger, while I may have missed or forgotten it, where in which year's rulebook can we find the text "THE TARGET ON THE ARM IS TO BE LEVEL WITH THE NO. 3 SHOOTING PAD." As a whole rule, that is. not with an important part left out . . .?

N1H1

 

HistoryBuff, I never take offense at any of your citations. In fact, I can't tell you how much I enjoyed reading about all the problems of those long-ago ATA spokespersons and their fight to get clubs to throw the sort of speeds and angles the rulebooks of the time required.

I also very much appreciate the text you once posted from the minutes of the 1995 Annual meeting and the tenor of the argument I made regarding overturning return to straightaway-from-one-and-five targets.

I must say that in the past ATA officers were far more outspoken in print than seems to be norm today. And I include myself in the "today" group. Readers here surely believe that I have somehow been a public champion of the two-hole target we now shoot. As long as you have the records and know how to search and accurately quote from them, I wonder if you can find and post here some of the times I advocated two-hole targets in print as an officer of the ATA in official publications, much as the men you quoted above used their office and ability to get their words printed to press their cases. And no. as you said, I am "not fearful of any comments made by (HistoryBuff.)" They are just facts, after all.

Neil

 

N1H1, Were you a major advocate of the two hole setting?