The 18 And 19 Yard Line Should Be Eliminated Say Some

I see the move to eliminate the 18 and 19 yd. lines is still being discussed by some. The reason being the difficulty squadding enough shooters to make it profitable they say. I wonder if perhaps there's a bit of jealousy present when these short yardage wonders take away a few trinkets from those farther back. I noticed when 2 yard reductions were offered more than a few shoots were won by 19 yd'rs. So, is this the answer to fixing a broken handicap system?

 

Mandatory Reductions For All. BD

 

So how long must we wait 'till Harlan and others get their first "mandatory reduction"? By the look of the numbers we can reduce most shooters closer than the 16 yd. line and they still couldn't win. That said, moving shooters closer without moving others farther back accomplishes nothing.

 

Wha hoppend to the rest of this post??????

 

Roger, you have a PM

 

I think they should keep the lower yardage. It encourages less talented shooters to shoot the events. I think there should be a higher total registered targets shot to allow them to win everything. You need to discourage the sandbaggers. Win your yardage ok but if your a good singles shooter you can shoot a few hundred targets and establish a short yardage and have a distinct average. Especially on a windy day.

 

I completely agree with Mr Dysinger on this subject; mandatory reductions for all would go a long way towards fixing the current handicap system.

There are a few other steps to take from there, but mandatory reductions would absolutely be the best place to start..........

WL

 

When so many shooters can't carry a 16 yd. average as high as the Big Dogs handicap average just how far forward should we move them to be competitive?

 

18 yard shooters are not handicapped at all. It's ridiculous to call it such.

 

Participation trophies for everyone?

 

So what yardage do you think a female who shot 9,350 singles in 2014 with an .8333 average would be properly handicapped. I'll give you a little hint-Rick Marshalls HC average that year was .9613!

 

20 Yard

 

Toast!

 

While leaving Rick at the 27 with a 96+ average-nonsensical.

 

If one was to apply a little bit of logic based on distance being a shotguns worse enemy, it seems that shooting from the 18 or 19 yard line compared to the 16 yard line would give the pattern a little more time (distance) to open up and possibly be more effective ... The handicap at that point would be between a persons ears not in distance ... The graduated difference of 6 or 9 foot could make a big difference in the pattern (density) and give one more fringe on the pattern and increase chances of braking a target with a flyer ... This would also account for the increased difficulty once a shooter gets back to say the 23 or 24 yard line where accuracy becomes a factor due to the difference in the pattern from the greater distance ... WPT ... (YAC) ...

 

So those 18 and 19 yrd'rs. must really be eating Harlan's lunch at most shoots-NOT!

 

Worst mistake I made.
Went from the 22 to the 20 then the 18.
Then squading became a problem. Best I could do is 1 or 2 man squads.

I finally e- mailed Cathy Key. I would have taken the 25yd line to get off the 18.
Got back to the 20. No problems since.


Regards.....Gerald

 

You CAN NOT "fix" the current "ATA" handicap system, without separating the "social" shooters from the more serious shooters.

There are shooters STANDING on the 27, and the 18, that will NEVER be competitive. Trying to find something that "works" for them is silly.

They are NOT the shooters that quit because of the "under-handicapped" Pro shooters. They shoot for much different reasons than those who "are in it to win it" .....

So ..... doing ANYTHING do discourage the "social" shooter will only take attendance numbers down. Keep the 18, let people "shoot" from the 27, and work on what it takes to bring back "money" shooters .....

It was more than a single "thing" that screwed up "handicap" shooting ..... and it will take more than a single correction to interest those who now stay home .....

 

Keep the 18 yrd. line. Make reductions mandatory. Extend yardage to the 30 yd. line. Now you will have a much better equalization for handicap shooting.

I f you do not think this will work state why. The cost factor for adding yardage will not be a factor. Roger C.

 

I'm all in except for mandatory reductions. The only shooters affected by that rule are a few wannabes who shot their way to the 27 but really belong on the 21. I doubt any of them play a dime in options and simply enjoy living in the past. Most will be dead and gone in five years!

 

I'm one who is just waiting to see how ↑ THIS ↑ is gonna be done at all the clubs that hold registered shoots throughout the year. Or are you just going to be content with a whole lot fewer clubs shooting registered handicap than you have now?

 

How many shooters do you expect at the 30 yd. line at your club?

 

That would depend on how EASY the "ATA" makes it to get there .....

If ..... you can get to the "30" with just the "high score" of several shooters , no matter how low that score is, and stay as long as you like ..... there may be a new social gathering on the "30" at many "clubs" .....

 

How many do you figure it will take before it becomes an issue?? More than 1?

 

WITH TODAYS RULES, ONLY ONE FIELD NEEDS TO BE POURED TO THE 30 YD. LINE. All hundred targets can be shot on one field. The rule does not specify that you must stand on concrete. Clubs that can not comply with the extra yardage could be given a dispensation from the rule. Most clubs would never see a 30 yd. shooter if the mandatory reduction was imposed. This is the only way to equalize the game of handicap. Roger C.

 

There are still a few clubs here in PA that only have yardage markers to the 25.

 

Adding the 30 yd. line will encourage those wannabe 27 yard shooters with low averages to move forward. No longer a glory hole!

 

Roger,
In response to your post of having mandatory reductions and extending yardage to the 30 yard line to "better equalize" the handicap system my short answer is; no, I do not believe it will result in any material improvement to the current handicap problem(s). My reasoning is twofold. First, the argument to place the more accomplished shooters at a greater yardage has been ongoing since the inception of the handicap system in 1900. The "flawed system" was noted after the results of the handicaps of the first Grand American whereby the solution at that time was to create a "professional class". History Buff has posted several articles from 1933/34 in another thread on this forum which show this argument being raised again and discussed by the ATA Executive Committee. The apparent solution then was a change from the former handicapping of shooters based on their 16 yard average and/or known ability to the inception of a handicap average which would dictate the shooters yardage (reference the 1934 rule book posted by HB in that same thread). Again it appears to have had a limited impact.Finally, we have all heard the story of the legendary Arnold Riegger whose handicap expertise resulted in the extension of the back fence from the 25 to the 27. I do not have any statistical data which would show what if any impact that extension had on the handicap system at that time, however considering that most of the accomplished shooters of the day reached the new "max" in relatively short order it would suggest minimal if any. Secondly, although I do agree that the 30 yard line will reduce scoring somewhat, given the current rules and direction of the ATA, said reduction would be nominal at best to (re)create a competitive handicap system. Unfortunately, the current ATA leadership is all in for easier target presentations and higher scoring. 1972 was my first year of registered shooting. Sadly since that time I have seen the ATA go from a fine shooting competition to a current jamboree and soon to be carnival exposition.

Now after that long winded response, let me give a few alternative recommendation(s) which in my opinion would create a more competitive handicap system.
1. Retain the current 18-27 yardages but increase the threshold average to 92 and impose mandatory reductions. Maintain the target review period at 1000.
2. Eliminate the earned yardage table. If you win or tie for high score you get a yard. I don't see any good reason why a loser should get a punch. I would also go back to a minimum requirement of 25 shooters to earn a yard. Although anyone shooting 100 no matter how many shooters deserves a punch. Forget about the 2, 1 1/2 and 1/2 yard tables. Keep it simple, you win, you go back a yard.
3. Throw out the current target rules. Target height should be reduced, target angle increased and target speed increased. I will leave it to the experts such as Brad D or Roger C to recommend what would be an appropriate and competitive target presentation. Personally I feel that height and speed are more critical than angle. Frank Little, Britt Robinson and Phil Kiner all have said that "speed kills" and I believe that they all were pretty fair handicap shooters.
4.Create a Target Mechanic position within the ATA whose responsibility it would be to inspect and oversee all trap fields and target machines for the Grand American and all clubs holding Satellite Grands to insure that the machines are properly maintained and positioned within the trap house such that an equal and consistent target presentation as stipulated by the ATA is being thrown across all fields. Whether its Odessa, San Antonio, Tucson or wherever, the target presentation should be the same.
5.Compulsory yardage purses at minimum for preliminary and championship hdcp events.
6. If all of the above fail to create a competitive system, by all means start pouring cement. Although I recently saw a YouTube video of George Digweed breaking a target a 130 yards so you may need a bigger truck.

IMHO it is not the "big dog" 27 yarder that is problem with todays handicap system but instead the volume of high scores which demoralizes the average shooter and has taken whatever money was in the game out of it. There is no one shoe fits all solution. These proposals are solely for those who I consider to be tournament shooters, that is shooters that shoot 1000+ targets and that travel to several major shoots annually. The likelihood of the ATA taking any of these recommendations under consideration is as probable as me shoving a wet noodle up a bobcats a$$ but they fun to think about.

 

Who is breaking "the volume(s) of high scores" ????? It IS the "big dog 27 yarder", shooting free shotguns and skids of free shells at "easy targets", NOT the "18 yard shooter" with a "83 singles average" ......

There is NO DOUBT about, "the volume of high scores which demoralizes the average shooter and has taken whatever money was in the game out of it", but you may want to re-think the "it is not the big dog 27 yarder that is problem with todays handicap system" .....

The scores have to come down to within the "average shooter's ability" ..... WITHOUT making it a "Club Score", so a 20 dollar option pays 2 bucks .....

 

I agree with 10Guns. Save the concrete and adjust machine. I preferred the day when a 96 really paid and won something.

 

10guns,
If you make the targets harder for the 18 to 20 yard shooters you have defeated leveling the playing field. The targets are easier than years ago and still the majority of shooters can not even master the 16 yd. line. The top dogs as they are called are dedicated competitive shooters. The only way to challenge them is to add yardage. That will add to the difficulty of their targets with out making it more difficult for the less accomplished shooters.
# 3. In your post has already been thrown out. Very few clubs set targets to the rule book. The ATA will not enforce the rules. #4 If the ATA will not enforce the current rules, why do you think they will do so with a target manager? #5, I would have liked the idea years ago, It will never work in todays atmosphere. #6 Save a lot of time and skip right to the added yardage. It will work.
How many of the ATA shooters do you think could stay on the 27yd. line if mandatory reductions were put in force? How many of you shooters are against added yardage? How many of you could ever attain a 30 yd. Pin?
Anything that is done to make the game harder for the good shooters, will be twice a hard on the less accomplished. Roger C.

 

Absolutely correct. Make the targets harder for shooters who are not competitive (the vast majority) simply makes them stink even more. So some think dropping the typical 85% to 86% average handicap shooter down to 81% will somehow bring option money back into the game defies logic!

 

Roger,
My recommendations were premised from a competitive major tournament perspective. That is to say the ATA leadership would need to decide if it wants to return to a competitive shooting sport or continue along its "kumbaya lane" where everybody gets a high score and a trinket to match. The target presentation would only apply to the Grand American and Satellite Grands. Of course, for this to make any sense there would need to be significant purse/option monies. As for the 18-20 yard shooters with the 80's average, when was that shooter ever competitive? Since inception of the handicap system in 1900 when has there ever been a level playing field for that shooter? There have always been "big dogs" and there always will be. "Pop" Hiekes a renowned shooter for over 20 years won the first GAH in 1900 from 22 yards. Mark Arie dominated the sport in the early 1900's, tying for the GAH in 1917 from then max yardage of 23 only to lose in a shoot off and in 1923 he ultimately did become the first shooter to win the GAH from the max (23 yds). Arnold Riegger's handicap expertise and domination of the Western Jackpot shoots in the 1950's allegedly resulted in the extension of the fence from 25 yards to 27. Dan Bonillas handicap average in 1975 was 95.01 on 8050 targets which was exceed by only six shooters in 2016. With 5000 being the most targets shot by any of the six. Ray Stafford held a 95+ average on handicap targets for 15 years, 1984-1998. Yet over all these years, by many considered to be the "hayday" of trapshooting, the little guy continued to compete under the perception that he/she had a reasonable chance of winning (something). I don't know of any shooter that at least did not play the lewis and 25's (60/40 back then). The difference today is the high scoring and with all due respect I just do not see the extreme dominance of the 27 yd shooter. However I will concede that there appears to be a greater dominance in the western and mid-west venues vs the eastern and southern venues. How is adding yardage going to materially impact the scoring? Okay, so Campbell, Marshall, Nagel, Hawley, the Bartholow brothers etc, etc are moved back and now they're posting 92's & 93's with the occasional 96. How will this magically reduce scoring? Look at last years GAH. There were approximately 120 scores of 96 or higher. About 45 of those were posted by 27 yard shooters. Remove all of the 27 yard scores and there are still 70-75 scores of 96+. Look at last years Cardinal Classic handicaps, scores of 96 or better for four of the six hdcps were 44, 57, 64 and 60 respectively. Of those totals 17, 11, 23 and 20 were posted by 27 yd shooters. Again, remove all the 27 yard scores. Where's the significant impact on overall scoring? And yes, I know that of the 15 high scores in the Classic Hdcp championship 11 were 27 yard shooters. but lets not "cherry pick". Of the 2016 58 state and provincial hdcp championships only 8 were won by a 27 yard shooter. In addition by imposing mandatory reductions more shooters would be moved to a more competitive yardage which would further increase scoring under the current target presentations. Lets be honest the easier target presentation, which if you look at the annual hdcp averages of most of the top guns of the day, appears to have occurred much earlier than the inception of the infamous Mr. Winston's 2-hole targets in 1996, was never for the benefit of the 18-20, 80's avg shooter. It was for the "pretenders", that group of AA/A, 24/25 who just couldn't quite make it over the hump. The result is that today every Tom, Dick & Harry is camped out at the 27. How many stay at the 27 if mandatory reductions were enforced. My guess probably no more than 10%-15%. I've been to the 27 and back again and will be the first to admit I'm not competitive at that yardage. How many shooters could reach the 30? I suspect a similar number as to when the 27 became the fence, 20-25. I may be wrong but I believe it was Sean Hawley and Jerry Paar who tested 30 yds several years ago at Vernal with each able to post a high score of 97. However, I doubt few if any could sustain that yardage for long. I don't necessarily agree with patronizing the little guy. The game should be hard for everybody. There is no handicap system in the world in any sport that "equalizes" the novice with the expert. If there's enough incentive, the little guy will play despite the odds. Most of us buy lottery tickets don't we?

Unfortunately Roger I think we can both agree that the likelihood of the ATA returning to a competitive tournament program is pie in the sky. My scenario is more fantasy than possibility. I fear that the sport will soon look more like a skeet tournament than trap. More and more games will be added to the program(s) to further enhance the carnival atmosphere. Given these circumstances I'm not adverse to additional yardage. It would be simple enough to test out at numerous sites. Who knows you may right. If so I'll be the first to buy you a cold one.

 

10guns, You made a very good reason for more concrete, It is still the only way to level the playing field. The only thing that is missing is an ATA leadership that has the balls to implement the rules and enforce them. They are now a paper tiger,and it has no idea how to lead. Sad but it seems to be very true. I think we owe Neil Winston a very big vote of thanks for the demise of the ATA. Roger C.

 

Who would pay for all this extra concrete?
Would it be done by Union Carpenters and cement finishers?
Would it be done at the 121 trapfields at the WSRC or only at clubs in " Mecca"(Ohio, PA and Michigan) as it seems those states are the only ones that matter?

 

The same people that we pay to shoot targets. It is called the cost of doing business. Roger C.

PS I do not think we have to worry about the fields at SPARTA very much longer. Most clubs would most likely have volunteer labor for the added concrete. I'm sure the cost would not be excessive.

 

Here's some old figures to look at for those interested.

​

HB

​

 

Win 101,
As you can tell from my prior posts, I am not an advocate for more concrete. I will concede however, that for a handful of shooters 27 yards is no longer a challenge which arguably defeats the current handicap system. Considering that our present ATA leadership has no desire to return to and enforce a competitive target setting Roger C's argument for a 30 yard fence is probably the most viable alternative. I also agree with Roger that the cost factor would be inconsequential. Most major shoot venues which would have to address the additional yardage should have at least one or two fields that could be extended with a minimal financial burden to the club(s). As for the Mom & Pop local clubs whether or not they would ever see a 30 yard shooter is not the issue. I may be wrong but I believe any club that wants to throw registered targets has to have their field(s) certified by their state ATA official, director or delegate. If said certification mandates the 30 yard line, it would pose a problem. I shoot once month at a small local club that has two fields. A typical shoot will draw 15-20 shooters of which only three of us are/were at 27 yds. Although it is highly unlikely the club would ever see a 30 yard shooter, there is no possible way that either field could be extended for purposes of certification without a significant cost which the club could not sustain. That would be the end of registered target shooting anywhere in my area within a 2-3 hour drive. I'm sure that this is a scenario that would probably play out across the country. I would think that the ATA would want to at a minimum allow for 16s and doubles rather than lose a club/members. I'm sure others following this thread have more knowledge than I on this matter and can provide further clarification.

 

Although I've only been part of trapshooting since 1963 I still can remember a few of the old timers pouring two extra yards of concrete with a portable cement mixer. They may be long deceased but those 27 yard concrete pads are still there. Almost 60 years of a stagnant handicap system!

 

Hmmm. Cement mixer. Pretty upscale. My old man gave my brother and I a tub and two shovels and said "go at it boys"!

 

This "gets me" when everyone starts with "who wins what" ......

Lets say at Big Shoot X there are 10 handicap events ..... and 5 were won by "27 yard shooters", and 5 were won by "20 yard shooters" .....

A "20 yard shooter" can ONLY win one event, then they become a 21 or 22 yard shooter, so there would be 5 different "20 yard shooters" with a win ..... a SINGLE "27 yard shooter" could win the other 5 .....

It IS apples vs oranges .....

 

If a small club can not add the yardage, the ATA could extend an exclusion that any shooter that is handicapped at more than 27 yds. can shoot from the longest yardage available at that club. With or without concrete.

The club at Vernal, Utah has all of their fields poured to the 30 yd. line. We can thank the cheaters on target setting , and the lack of back bone in many of our past officials in the ATA for the mess our organization is in now. Many of todays shooters do not know or understand that this is a game of contenders not a place for feel gooders. The game was dumbed down for the under achievers and want to be's who could not, or would not, make the effort to master the game. The ATA allowed this to happen, do to not enforcing the rules.

 

Thanks Roger. Good to know.

 

User 1,
You are absolutely correct. However, if you are referring to the analysis posted by HB I don't believe the importance of individual event winners is all that relevant. What I find interesting is how heavily weighted the entries, winners and purse winnings were to the low and mid-yardage shooters (19-23). Also the range of winners scores which show the greatest volume 88-91. If an analysis were to be done on recent GAH's, I'm sure it would show the weight shifted to the long yardage shooters (25-27) with the majority of winning scores 97-99. Obviously the game was much more competitive back then than now. It would be interesting to have a decade by decade analysis to see just how the game has progressed or as many of us believe declined to its current state. The ATA used to provide much more statistical information in the annual average book. Not any more, I guess maybe it became to embarrassing to print.

 

We should remember Kay Ohye's handicap average went UP .5% the year of mandated 3-hole targets. Obviously the 27 yd. line was insufficient then as it is more so now!

 

I was "referring to" ..... those who do not understand the "dominance" of a growing number of "27 yard shooters" ......

You need to only invest time and money to ATTEND "Big Shoots" to "see" what is "going on" ...... Sitting at home looking at "a decade by decade analysis" tells a FALSE story .....

Again, the "ATA" LOST those GOING to "Large Shoots" having their ass handed to them by this GROWING number of "PRO" shooters ...... NOT those who do it for "social" reasons on a local level .....

 

Adjust the machines to what?

 

Much of the problem we have with the shorter yardage shooters was the adding HI-GUN feature to the pay out of options. If you have a hi-gun note on an option and it states it pays 40-30-20-10% , and you have 4 shooters with the same high score, they take all the money. The 25's used to pay 60% for 25 and 40% for 24's, now only pay 100% to the 25's. The 50's now pay 60%-40% formerly it was 50-30-20%. This is one reason the lower class shooters do not play the options. The ATA is not supporting the average shooter. I do not agree with trying to take away from the good shooters, but it must be fairer for all shooters.In money divisions and the difficulty of winning an event. I still think the better shooters will prevail, but we must level the playing field. Roger C.

 

O-dawg,
Yes, thats true and several years after that on the "fluff 2-hole" targets his avg went down about 1.5 points. If you look at the hdcp avg histories of the top guns like Ohye, Stafford, Bonillas, Harrison etc, etc most have maintained a 93-95+ avg for over 30 years.
The slight variations in annual avg.'s can probably be attributed to a few bad days and/or weather conditions more than anything else. But I get your point and agree that going to a harder target presentation is not going to stop these guys from eating your lunch and probably your dinner too. As I said in a prior post I agree that for a certain group of shooters the 27 yard line has not been a challenge for many years. But the sport has always had its top guns. Whether it was through hard work and dedication or god given talents they are simply better than 99.9% of us and always will be. In 1901 the solution was to create a pro class and maybe that should be a consideration today but lets leave that for another debate. My argument is that the biggest problem today is the volume of high scores as a result of an easier target presentation not to mention gun technology advancements, better ammo, voice calls etc. As Roger C correctly pointed out, todays game has been dumbed down for the pretenders snd under achievers that could not or would not make the effort to master the game. Personally, I feel that a more difficult target presentation would bring the overall volume of high scores down to a greater extent than adding concrete and merely moving a handful of those who have mastered the game to a longer yardage. However, again I will refer you to Roger's prior posts where he makes a very valid argument for more concrete. And, as I have stated given the current direction and leadership of the ATA his argument is probably a more viable option than my recommendations. That is not to say that I am a convert for pouring more concrete, but I will not argue against at least giving it a test run. Perhaps both alternatives could be tested? I will support anything that will bring the game back to a legitimate competition.

 

Adjust the machines to eliminate so many ties. I say more spring and less face. Do it any way you like.

At any larger shoot the number of shooters on the earned yardage table is astounding. Shooters play money shoot well enough to earn yardage and don't get enough back to pay for the shells.

Again, I say set the target so when a shooter has a good day and breaks 96 or 97 they win or at least win something other than a punch. I've been to a number of shoots where a 96 is tied for tenth place. Signed, Losing Interest

 

I also believe when the less talented shooter sees the money won using the above idea will make them try harder and get better. Just like every shooter used to have to do.

 

Roger,
Amen brother!! Let's make that two cold ones I owe you. A few years back I broke 99 in the Kolar Hdcp at the Grand, tied with 12 other guys for 2nd place and made a whopping $562 between the regular and Martin Lewis's. What do you think that 99 would have paid me in 1975? I've asked our state president for years to look into different options to put into the program for the average shooter. I suggested looking at the old Rose system, although I'm not quite sure how that worked, and possible alternative lewis pursues in addition to the typical 60/40 hi-gun lewis. Unfortunately, all to no avail. I believe it was at one of the major shoots in Tucson that there was some sort of optional lewis purse in the program but I never could find out how it was set up or what the payouts were. Also I feel that at least for the championship events there should be compulsory class and yardage purses. It wouldn't have to be much, maybe $3-$5, but at least then everybody has some skin in the game. A novice or E class could even be established with a $1 entry. I'm not saying that the money should not go to the top scores but I also believe with the cost of shooting today the average shooter needs some incentive to keep him/her coming back.

 

10Guns, I had lunch with Don Savage in the early 90's he won the preli. Hdk. at Vandalia with a lone 99. The payout was over $27000.00 that was when that was a lot of money. Every one played the options then. At the Ohio state shoot there was an handicap option that paid down about 10 places. I can remember shooting in the high 80's and getting back all of my option money. At that time just about every one played the options. I think Aden Caufman was the originator of it. Roger C.

 

Please explain how to set a target faster with less face. The current rules call for a target distance from 49-51 yds. while the older requirement was 48-52 yds. So I see you believe 51 yds. is insufficient. What is your recommended distance 55-60 or more and a height of 6ft. or less? The only way I remember to show more target face was to have traphouses built to the lower height of ATA requirements. Are you suggesting we require clubs to elevate their current traps to show less face? I'm confused!

 

I'm not a trapsetter but I bet the machines can be changed.
Sounds to me like you want more than 12 tied with 99's at the next Kolar Handicap?

 

Roger,
Yep. Even at the small local shoots you could make a few bucks. I can remember popping a 24 on the final box on a cold windy day to make enough to cover my entry fees and shells. Now your lucky at any shoot if you get your option entry back for a 25. What do you get if you win the GAH, maybe $10K -$15K at best. That's not chicken feed but a far cry from the $50K-$60K plus a car back in the 70's. Unfortunately, I doubt we will ever see purses and option monies like there used to be at Vegas, Sage Hill, Linn Creek and the Grand among others. Last year it cost the wife and I almost $4K to attend the Grand and we probably only shot half the events over the two weeks. I have always enjoyed the Grand be it at Vandalia or Sparta, but as age and health are catching up with me I doubt I will be attending many more.

 

10Guns. The gentlemans name was Don Slavich. Sorry about the poor memory.

 

It is impossible to show less or more face on a target and maintain the 9 1/2 height and 50yrd, distance. I do not know who started that false idea that if you raise the front of the machine you will show more face. That is total bull shit. As soon as you set the height to the 9 1/2 ft. you have negated the raising of the front of the machine. The people that know the least about target setting always seem to be either the setters or the shooters that want to tell them how to do it. The dumbest thing clubs ever did was to let anyone raise or lower properly set targets. They say when shooters shoot good scores they come back. BULL-- If that were true we would have 5000 shooters at the Grand every year. Poor target setting and easier targets along with all of the added catagories has not worked out to well for the sport has it. MAYBE IT IS TIME TO TRY WHAT WORK FOR MANY YEARS AGAIN. Roger C.

 

It's pretty obvious you never set a trap. It might be best to defer to others who've set many!

 

O-dawg,
I too am not a trapsetter. After nearly losing my fingers in the house back in the day, I've stayed as far away from those damn machines as possible. Maybe you or Roger can help with my confusion on a few things. Am I crazy or are the targets today set much higher than they were years ago (I shot mostly PA, Ohio an NY in the 70/80's) ? I've also heard that todays automatic machines cannot be set to throw the wider angle (3-hole) target? Lastly, and again it's probably my imagination but it appears at times with these automatics (pat-traps) the target speed and angles suddenly change in the middle of the round? Personally I still like the old western trap. I think it threw a much more consistent target than what we have today. Not complaining guys. Just curious. I should add that I stepped away from the game for about 20 years and when I came back in the late 90's the difference in the target presentation was pretty obvious.

 

This thread ..... http://www.americantrapshooter.com/index.php?threads/pat-trap-owners.3276/ ..... is short, but may answer " Lastly, and again it's probably my imagination but it appears at times with these automatics (pat-traps) the target speed and angles suddenly change in the middle of the round?" .....

 

10Guns, You are correct about the height of targets in our game today. Many clubs do not even have a bench mark for a height pole to set targets. .User 1, The rubber band on the Pat traps is the worst thing that ever happened to the game of trap. The pat never was the best machine for throwing targets. The rubber bands did not improve it at all. Rubber does not contract the same consistently.

We can thank the lack of back bone to enforce the target setting rules. Soon we will all have to wear tutu's to shoot competition. Roger C.

 

Thanks guys. I guess the old eyes aren't as bad as I thought they were. Yep, Roger, the old T-bar is history. Now everything is set by radar guns. I don't know if that's good or bad. And please don't get me started on doubles. Last year at the Southern Grand the right hand target would get about 10' out of the house and make a right turn. I called over the trap mechanic to have a look. Said it was the wind, nothing could be done???