Before we ask Gun Clubs to pour 3 yards of Concrete

We need to try 3 to 5 years of shooting wider targets, to 50-52 yard targets, no target narrower than 44 degrees, nor wider than 54 degrees,.

ATA to Fine a club $5,000 for first offense, and $10,000 for second offense, 3rd offense banned for life.

Delegates to supervise all Clubs Target Settings when at that club, Members to note Name of Club, Date, Time, Witnesses of target setting infractions, file written Complaint to the ATA Office for investigations.

Clubs to have 10 yard Stake at proper height for setting-Bar On to set target height, Distance and angle stakes at proper distances and angle stakes.

Proper enforcement of all ATA Rules. I am not anti-ATA I want to preserve it, This to me is one way for it to happen, doing nothing it will die a sure slow death. It's almost killed now.
Gary Bryant Dr.longshot

 

If you are sure it has to be that way then so be it.
That should finish the ATA for good.
Our little club will have to opt out of ATA targets.
The risk just isn't worth the reward.
When you make it that difficult we will likely call the PITA.

I understand from Mr Dysinger's comments they are a friendly bunch interested in growing the sport.

Good Luck

 

Wishbone,
Will you please post your real name or your ATA number if you have one. I would like to know you shooting record. You come on here like you are an expert on the sport. Roger Coveleskie ATA #40 15035

 

What does a "SHOOTING RECORD" have to do with anything. Some of the best coaches in sports can't play as good as their players. But they know how to bring out the best in a player.

Has our good dr. longshsot sent these demands to the ATA?

He was asking others to write letters to the ATA so I'm asking again, Please post your letters (dr. longshot) you have sent so the rest of us can use them for a draft to write ours. That way we will be on the same page.

Surely you wouldn't ask someone to do something that y0u yourself haven't done, would you?

 

Roger
No I don't believe I will post my real name.
I reviewed the forum rules when I signed up and I agree with them.

Personally I feel everyone is entitled to an opinion and if you don't like mine I'm OK with that.

"ATC strongly advises that members not use their real names.
Do not use or disclose personal information of members.
Do not use or disclose personal names of members unless they are in the public eye."

 

Wishbone you mean your club will not follow rules, deliberately disobey them for a fine?
Gary Bryant Dr,longshot

 

No Gary I mean we couldn't afford to risk a $5000.00 fine.
That would be a serious financial hardship for our small club.

We would be better off to throw a non registered or a PITA shoot.

Mistakes happen and I wouldn't want to be the one to cost the club $5000.00

 

You can simulate increased distance today, even with 17 degree targets. Reduce payload and reduce all shells to maximum 1200fps average.

Though as I have pointed out with a tailwind and PAT Traps throwing 17 degree targets and the Min/Max of 17 degree the compliance of 17 degrees cannot be met.

It appears though WW had a good design for adjusting the field (multiple holes). The change to any other hole from the number 3 setting was intended to be done in "strong" winds. Unfortunately it just lead to setting the targets not in accordance to the rule.

It would have been nice if when writing a new rule, the leaders at the time, in which Neil was one, though not the first. Would have worded it to say something along the lines of, " as the PAT Trap is to be the official trap of the ATA it is to be set to the 3 hole setting (20 degrees) for any wind condition. Any other trap that may be used is to comply with this minimum requirement of the 20 degree throwing angle."

This is not to convey that 20 degrees is a 3 hole setting (WW) or a straightaway from post 1 and 5, just that 20 degrees is the max setting for a PAT Trap, in the manual, from what I have read. I have read somewhere that the WW 3 hole was 22.5 degrees giving leeway for a tailwind as a straightaway from 1 or 5 is 22 degrees. I could be wrong. I will try to find it.

Of course it would have been nice if PAT Trap never came with a 2 hole setting, but that is what they threw in New Hampshire, apparently. So I can imagine that is what the designer based it on.

Enjoy the day.

Shoot well.

John

 

John: I also heard that was what he designed the Pat Trap on, I think it needs to hold on the extreme angles longer, the hydraulic fluid drain.s back through the solenoid valve bleed holes and lets it drift back on the angles, it is not a positive lock. They have a 3 hole target bar, you can still spread the sensors wider, for more angle.
Gary Bryant Dr.longshot

 

Dude, let it go. Times have changed and left you behind. All you do is complain about current events and reference things 20-50 yrs in the past. I have had enough of your negative attitude to an activity I enjoy. I come to this site to hopefully learn something and every other post is you complaining about the current state of affairs.

While we are bringing back the targets of the past lets bring back leaded fuel, a 55 mph speed limit, and get rid of these pesky computers and internet.

 

Lord Maker: You have not read JHunts threads or History buff ATA Minutes of Former ATA President Neal Causaby calling out Neil Winston on target angles politics/sending letters to delegates trying to get his narrow angles past, read then form your opinion of what has been going on with Mis-Information Neil Winston, trying to baffle you with his BS, read and learn, then decide, Times have changed/for the worse
Some of us that care for this fantastic sport of trapshooting are trying to bring it back, this is the site that cares.
Dr.longshot

 

I can appreciate that. On the other hand I really don't care. I enjoy shooting today as it is today. I started in 2012 so I have never had the big purses or the Grand in Ohio. I do get interested when the old timers talk about the cash of old, but that is gone too. And I think its more demographics than changes to ATA or trap shooting in general. In the 70's, in OH/MI/PA you worked for the big three with a high school diploma and made a decent living with enough income left to shoot. Now you and your wife have to work, pay 10k/yr in childcare per kid, and buy food that is inflating at 10% annually while hoping to keep your job and maybe get a 1-2% raise. And don't forget the 60k in college debt you have as a couple.

So take that into consideration. $34 targets at Grand. $60/flat for top guns, camping fees etc, and this is an expensive game. Maybe only behind auto racing and horses in total cost. And people just dont have the disposable income anymore, let alone care about the angles of the targets. Heck I would guess less than 20% of shooters know the angles or even the speed of the targets. They want to spend Saturday shooting 200 singles with their friends.

I bear you no ill will, and will even cook you a burger and give you a beer at the Ohio state shoot, I am in the 600 spots along the trees almost directly behind the last vendor building.

 

Get the clubs in OHIO to shoot these targets for 3 - 5 years and let us know how it goes.

Other than that you needed to bring your concerns up why back in the 60's to the 90's instead of overwhelming a fledgling website trying to promote trapshooting.

 

Regarding "baffle you with his BS" I'd say Neil has been pretty good about trying to be accurate under the onslaught of attacks he faces here. Dr. Longshot, I did not see anything in either Neal's or Neil's letters supporting your attacks. Yeah, I 'd guess Neil was in favor of keeping targets the way they had been for the previous 15 - 20 years, just like scores of previous Board members. You gonna slander Dean Bright and countless others either departed or still with us too?

But what you can't grasp is that the real issue discussed in the letter is not about target angles but about the EC continuing to try to change something against the BOD's wishes..... Gee, reminds me of many complaints I've heard recently! More of a governance matter. Although he probably did not agree with the EC's change, if you read it, it sure looks to me like he was saying go ahead and vote either way on the 2 hole/3 hole target issue, just make sure it is the BOD that does the voting, not the EC.

In reality, way before that - when they added the wording regarding "no less than 2 hole" in supposed reaction to clubs throwing 1 hole targets into high winds, it's another example of unintended consequences of a rule that was not specific enough. If a whole generation of trapshooters had not shot 2 hole targets their entire careers, it would have been much easier to stick with 3 hole. Unfortunately that was not the situation they faced. I don't care one way or the other, I never felt 3 hole made that much of a difference personally. I'm just afraid there are many, many others that don't feel that way. That's just my fear, certainly not anything I can be sure of. Neither can anyone else.

I still don't see why CC doesn't try throwing 3 hole targets (or 44 degree if you prefer). I really doubt they would be adversely affected. It's got to start somewhere if you think there are so many that want it.

 

Wishbone,
You can send me a personal message. If you do not You must be a TROLL then. I doubt if anyone will give your post any credence. Roger Coveleskie

 

Bat,
Do not put Neil on a pedestal he is not a candidate for the honor. Roger C.

 

Right on, Bat. Even if one doesn't agree with Neil, any decent, fair-minded person must respect the way he faces his unscrupulous detractors right on their home turf and despite their truth-challenged character assassination.

Also, great point in your last paragraph. The fact that the Cardinal Center -- a phenomenal, growing facility located smack dab in the epicenter of the dozen or so chronic whiners about fluff targets -- chooses not to even bother throwing the perfectly legal 3-holers, tells us everything we need to know about the business reality of this phony, antiquated "debate."

Like you, "I don't care one way or the other." I happily shoot whatever comes out of the trap house and have fun doing it just like 99.99% of all trapshooters. But I do marvel at the spectacle and relentlessness of the whiners, two decades after their battle was lost (actually four decades, if you include the initial, unofficial part of the 2-hole era which prompted the rule change).

-Gary

 

GW22,
You say you do not care. If that is true you are not a true trap sportsman. Everyone that is involved in the sport of trap shooting must try and uphold the integrety of our game. If you do not care about something why be involved in it? The battle was lost to cheaters. True men do not cheat at their sport to get better, they work at it to acheive their goal. People with the I do not care attitude should ask them selves why do I not care. Is it because they do not measure up to the challange. Roger C.

 

Roger:

"The battle was lost to cheaters"? Mr. Dysinger was honest enough to admit that he was a trap reader. Apparently so were most of the other old-schoolers. Was that cheating? I simply shoot the legal ATA targets that are offered, 2-hole or 3, without apology. That's the sport that exists today, so I guess by definition I am a sportsman. If the guy next to me could read the trap I'd be a fool if I didn't try to do the same. You do your best to play the game that exists and if you don't like it then at least get involved and actually do something to change it. There is no honor in relentless moaning from a computer decade after decade while actually doing nothing to fix the problem. Does Jack Nicklaus constantly cry about modern golfers having it easy? Times change.

Mandate 70 degree targets, I don't care. I'm in. No whining. I'd love to miss 10 targets and still have a chance to be in a shoot off. Make that happen for me if you can. I'll pay extra. Until then have fun and enjoy life while breaking some fluffers, Brother. We'll all be dead soon.

-Gary

 

I was told by longshot that I was too argumentive, now he has been beating this dead horse for over 3 years on two different sites...Play the game as it is or just quit...You would do us all a favour...

 

I might disagree as per the attack on the doc yesterday. He still has dodged the issue on us buying the pat traps. I will tell you more when I see that one settled.

The battle lost to cheaters was the ATA not enforcing the rules. It was also lost to those that coveted what Ohio and PA built. The battle was lost when the angry put their guns away.

 

Or how about quit and then piss and moan and be miserable until your last breath on earth? All the while disparaging and dishonoring all the younger people like the Bartholows, women like Nora and the Grand Slammers like Tom Strunk?

Noble, huh?

-Gary

 

See how much better it looks when you type in bold print...

 

These issues we are trying to tackle have little to do with Bartholows and Tom Strunk.
It seems DLS has been right about many of these issues as per Jhunts and History Buff and many others.

We are in this mess due to apathy within our ranks. We let it happen. We allowed our org to buy traps that we seem to have known were inferior. All this arguing and this is the first I heard about it.

If we had a forum like this in 2002 we would not be having this discussion. jmho

 

Very rarely do you see me use bold.

 

Ok sorry...but it does happen....

 

Leonidas- - - He is a lifetime member....it appears you do not even shoot trap.

Doc started a thread about pouring concrete. He is trying to solve problems although I do not agree always agree with him. Why are you on the thread?

 

When you start a web site I'll play by your rules.
But this is not your site and you don't call the shots.

 

I have been shooting trap for about 5 years and never have I seen so much BULLSHIT as the Dr is putting out. Why don't he just shut up and fade away because he is n ot going to get his way. too many shooters like the way things are. I think maybe he should give skeet a try. Woody

 

LOL

 

In the year of reckoning, 1996, there is little doubt that votes against the EC's mandate to throw wider angles were cast do solely against circumstances. It is unfortunate when this happens. But knowing this discussion and ultimately voting on this item would be occurring at the Grand that year, our state delegate called for a discussion and vote at the state meeting in order to act as according to direction of his representation. The vote was 80 something to 1 to change back to reduced angles. Many long time shooters (is born and bread 3 hole shooters) no longer favored shooting the increased degree target. That would seem to reflect, at least in one state that the old way was no longer the way to proceed for the future. Atleast two adjacent states had similar results at their state meeting.

Unfortunately for the protectors of the game is that clubs started reducing the degree of angles many years prior to the EC's mandate in 95'. Possibly back to the 70's era.

I don't really believe that today's group of shooters favor the increased degree of angle. I would enjoy viewing results of a nation wide honest vote of every member and year they started. I imagine many of those votes would result from a group that have only shot the present day presentation. Yet others who shot the former (supposed) 44° target, no longer wish to.

For those wishing the past, I fear to much future has been involved between and now is what it wil be in regards to presentation.

 

deepbackwood
When the Vote was taken at our annual meeting that year over 95% were in favor of the 2 hole target. Most at that meeting had shot targets for a long time.

 

Yes. Many I knew from when I started in the early 70's.

 

Why is not a surprise people 'vote' for easy ????????

Why is not a surprise people want mass yardage reductions ???????

Heck ... offer a vote on a 5-target 'spot' on every event for those who need help .....

Or ... offer a vote to reduce entry-fees to half-price .....

Does it matter how long a 'want-to-be' shooter has been around ??????

You can not make it easy enough for the never-was shooter. You can water-down the sport to where it is only of interest to the never-was shooter.

 

Wishbone,
If I started a web site only ATA shooters would be able to post. I think that would leave you out. As you are afraid to be known, we must believe you are hiding for a nefarious reason. Roger C.

 

Well there was a couple grand slammers present. But can't specifically assert a degree of pointing efficiency to each voter. But I am sure none that was present would qualify to your degree of standards.

 

Roger....Wishbone has the right to his privacy on this site just like all of us. It is recommended that you DON'T use your real name...

 

"I am sure" ... really ???? what makes you an expert on how I feel ????

"But I am sure none that was present would qualify to your degree of standards."

Do tell what my "degree of standards" are ....

I respect anyone for a Grand Slam .... I also respect anyone who takes the time to attend a meeting.

So .... your point is ?????

 

Your ATA membership # is sufficient!

 

Here is some light reading.

POLL ON WIDER TARGETS
You have read my comments on throwing wider angles as written in the December issue. To gather shooters’ opinions regarding that proposal I sent out 250 letters and included a postcard for reply. These were sent to shooters who had shot 1000 or more 16-yard targets in 1958 but were otherwise picked at random. Three letters were returned undelivered, but from the other 247 I received 181 answers, or a 73% response, an exceptionally good response to any poll.
Ninety said to leave the angles as they have been, 87 said make them wider, four gave qualified answers making them impossible to count either way. Numerous letters were also received with various comments and suggestions.
Such a vote indicated that no great change should be made in the rules on angles, but it did indicate that shooters wanted the extreme angles to be at least as great as straighaways from positions 1 and 5. In fact, many shooters who voted to leave angles as they have been stated that in their area targets were thrown that way. Only one said to make them easier. Probably some people thought I was advocating some pretty extreme angles as one man said we might hit the man on the next trap.
A rule clarification made at the November Executive Committee meeting more precisely defines what angles are required and the rule has been rewritten for the 1960 rule book. Targets for the 1960 Grand will be thrown according to that rule. Most clubs will follow suit so that their shooters will be accustomed to the proper angles. Only the shooters themselves can bring about the universal enforcement of any rule.
Among the comments received five suggested longer yardage instead of 16 yards for singles, and six said to throw targets farther. One said to cut the load to one ounce of shot and another suggested variable elevation of targets.
Shooters seem to be quite willing and even eager to express themselves on these shooters’ polls. In the past year or so at least one out of every ten shooters had been polled on one subject or another and only one screwball answer has been received in the whole lot.
Remember, my offer to answer questions still stands. My deadline is the last day of the month – or one mother ahead of publication. Vic Reinders
Editor News and Views
[ TRAP & FIELD, January 1960, page 9 ]

=========

Set your targets as close to the legal specifications as possible. Do not throw either “soft” targets or “wild” ones. Some people seem to have the philosophy, “they paid for them; let them break them.” That makes a joke of our records books. Probably the commonest violation is narrow angles. The rules call for the extreme angles to be not less than straightaways from positions 1 and 2. typo should say 5
[ TRAP & FIELD, April 1961, page 20 ]

===========


...let’s throw targets 50 yards (set in still air), of proper height, and with angles that meet at least the minimum requirements of the rules. Quite a few shooters are becoming dissatisfied with the present tendency. If we have rules, let’s follow them.
[ TRAP & FIELD, August 1962, page 50 ]

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

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.

========

Our own local experience on the other side of the picture points to an opposite effect. We have always thrown as closet to legal as we could on both trap and skeet, and our shooters have never had to be ashamed of themselves when they went elsewhere. And it certainly hasn’t seemed to discourage our new shooters – as we probably develop more of them than any club in the country. They just expect legal targets, and get them, and even ridicule the soft targets they find some other places.
Vic Reinders

===========

Executive Committee Investigates Possibility of Establishing #2 ½ Hole for Western Traps
The Executive Committee of the ATA has heard so many comments about the use of the #2 and the #3 hole in the Western electric trap that they recently made inquiries as to the possible establishment of a #2 ½ hole. The letter reprinted below was in answer to this question. Because of the discussion centering around targets thrown from these respective positions on the trap, the Committee felt that the content of the letter, to ATA President Robert Greek from Winchester’s trap and skeet manager Cliff Doughman, should be made available to the shooters.
“I have received information from our District Manager, Mr. Tom Lynott that you and some of the ATA delegates talked to him at the Golden West Grand pertaining to the #2 and #3 holes on our Western Electric Trap.
“I have had our engineers check this and they advised me that when the trap is set properly in #3 hole and the targets are set properly on the carrier arm, this trap will throw a dead straightaway from #1 and (in the number #2 hole) will throw approximately four degrees inside this point. With the trap set in #3 hole, this would mean that the targets would be in an area 22 degrees right and left of center.
“However, the Amateur Trapshooting Association rules allow the target to be 25 degrees beyond this point and still be legal. Naturally, if some of these targets are thrown wider than a straightaway from #1 and #5 stations, you will receive complaints from the shooters even though they are still legal targets.
“My suggestion would be to see that we have experienced help in the targethouses as well as good pullers on the trapline. As you know, these two factors are very important in running a good shoot.”
Olin Mathieson Chemical Corporation
Winchester-Western Division
Cliff Doughman
Trap and Skeet Manager
[ TRAP & FIELD, July 1963, page 61 ]

===========

From New Jersey”
“I’m not a great one for writing to editors and such, but I do want to compliment you – not only on your continuing column in TRAP & FIELD, but specifically upon your most recent one (September).
“Everybody likes to break as many targets as possible, but as you point out, it is possible to get too much of a good thing. One or two clubs in this area make quite a lot about the number of 200 straights and 100 straights made on their grounds. What this does is to cheapen outstanding performance by making it commonplace.
“Straight squads are not easy to come by, but I can recall one shoot this summer where there were between 8 and 10 of them – which takes something away from prior performances at this club, and at others in the area.
“I think I’ll go along with the theory that throwing legal targets does not discourage the beginner. As a matter of fact, it does just the reverse. And that also holds true for the big block of shooters that fall between the worst and the best. The thing that keeps most of us up on the line is the challenge of competition – with the course and with other shooters – even with ourselves.”

And from Colorado:
“I enjoy your ‘Views’ in TRAP & FIELD and agree with you 100% on doing away with soft targets.
“I would like to see the ATA go one better and add 3 yards to everyone. Instead of using the present 16 to 27 yards, make it 19 and 30 yards and use the #3 hole. We only shoot targets for sport and I believe the tougher the game is made the more people will patronize it. And a good score then would be something to be proud at. What do you think?”
Answer: I have some very definite thoughts on the subject. In the first place I do not think that more than 27 yards, if even that much, is necessary to equalize shooters if the shorter-yardage shooters are not over-handicapped and if targets are thrown according to rules. A goodly portion of the red-hot scores from long yardage you read about were shot on soft targets.
But, for the sake of argument, let us grant for the minute that a higher maximum yardage is necessary. Consider what would happen if the rule was changed to use 30 yards for 1966. At the ATA grounds it would mean that the walk now on the shooters’ side of the fence would have to be moved back at least 20 feet, which would put it back of the first row of trees. The railing would have to be moved back to the next row of trees, the bleachers would have to be moved, the drinking fountains and perhaps the underground water line would have to be moved back, and probably some undergrounds wires for the PA system and telephone system would need to be moved. And, of course, three yars of concrete would have to be added to each walk.
I do not know just what this would cost but am sure it would run near $20,000. Of course, we could avoid all of this moving and make it better for shooters besides by moving all the traphouses and walks forward by tearing out the old ones and building new ones. That would cost at least $50,000.

Similar changes and expense would be encountered by clubs all over the country. In many cases, however, they could not even extend their walks. Some of them cannot even have 27 yard under present rules due to interference by trees, buildings, roads, etc. So if it were necessary to increase to 30 yards, it would often be either physically impossible or prohibitively expensive.

If it ever does come to the point where greater yardage seems necessary, just think how much easier and cheaper it would be to walk out to each traphouse and tighten up the spring a few turns. That would accomplish the same thing by moving the target away from the shooter instead of moving the shooter away from the target. (I’ll be modest and only ask for 10% of the money saved by thinking of the idea.
Vic Reinders


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

One thing the 90's and to this day has shown the trapshooting community. The ATA, well the leadership of the ATA started the development of writing rules that were 1, not challengeable to any degree of conclusion and 2, writing them in a way just about any description of such could be concluded and thus never acted upon.

Two that have impacted the ATA were major parts of the game to provide equity and challenge in the game of handicap, shells and target/target angles. Each of which when considered separately, i.e. faster (on average) shells and narrower target angles, on total degrees and frequency given advantaged the 27 yard shooter. When put together it solidified the odds that in any given event on any given day the proficient 27 yard contestant would have a higher odd of winning. That is not the way the handicap game was meant to be.

As written by Kay Ohye,

"The purpose of the handicap event is to equalize potential and to insure equal competiveness on any given day. The return of the 50-yard, three-hole target would further enhance this equalization, rather than turning toward a reduced shot load for a hope of the same results... ...Let’s be more specific in standardizing the rules throughout the country so that each shooter has an equal opportunity to shoot well in any championship."
[ TRAP & FIELD, January 1981, page 39 ]


"Another point – the handicapping of shooters – is explained by reference to diagram 2. This shows how contestants are “set back” – the distance from the traps at which a shooter is placed in a handicap shoot. This is determined by his previous records.

Of course, the higher the percentage a shooter has made, the greater the distance he is required to stand back of the trap in shooting a handicap event. This provision aims to equalize the chances of all classes of shooters – 60 per cent, 80 per cent, 90 per cent or higher.

A volume or so could be written on “inside” trapshooting, but an understanding of the fundamentals can be quickly acquired by watching a trap shoot and knowledge of the features covered here."
[ BASEBALL MAGAZINE, December 1916, page 93-94 ]

and

This is not a new problem. (The old-timers will tell you that almost all our problems are reruns.) But each time the use of so-called #2 targets has spread, the shooters themselves have demanded that the rules be returned and that the game be kept a challenge.
In the past, however, the practice of throwing the shorter-distance, less-angle target has been limited to one or more sections of the country, and the rules book targets were the standard for the Grand.
In recent years, more and more clubs and states have succumbed to the illusion that the higher scores resulting from #2 targets mean better shooters and better shoots. Even at the Grand, when trapshooting committees have used the #2 setting, they were backed up by delegates, though it was far from unanimous.
There is hope. Already some of the better shooters are beginning to speak up about this “watering down” of the sport. (See Kay Ohye’s column in the January T&F, and Vic Reinders had written about this for years.) Ultimately it will be up to the shooters to demand from their clubs, from their state associations and from their ATA delegates that all registered targets conform to the rules. You can be sure that when sufficient shooters speak through the proper channels, the ATA officials will hear and heed. The dedicated trapshooter doesn’t want the sport made easier; he just wants to learn to shoot better.
Some of you will remember that in 1968, when many shooters had learned to “read” the traps, a then record number of 44 shooters tied in the Clay Target Championship and that the next revision of the rules (1970 book) contained a requirement that in order for targets to be registered, the traps from which they were thrown had to be equipped with an interrupter. This time we don’t have to wait for a rules revision or change; we just need to enforce the rules we have.
Two notes about the above paragraph – first I am aware that all traps do not have numbered settings; they all do have adjustable settings that are equivalent. Second, I am also aware that certain weather conditions can affect the angles and distances that targets are thrown, resulting of legal targets from a #2 setting; the rules describe the distances and angles required for targets to be legal, not the trap setting necessary to produce those angles and distances.
These rules have stood the test of time, let’s abide by them.
Good shooting !
Douglas T. House
ATA President
[ TRAP & FIELD, March 1981, page 26 ]


and Phil Kiner,

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


Shoot well.

John

 

Voting to make it better for yourself is not necessarily in the best interest of the body as a whole. Democratic rule is actually "rule by the mob". That is why our Nation is a representative government and not a democracy. The move to tickle the egos of shooters by making it easier to break better scores has not strengthened our sport but, IMHO, is leading to its demise. But, then again, H1N1 once referred to me as a malcontent. So be it!! JBB

 

If your club follows the rules, They risk nothing, They would show INTEGRITY.
Gary Bryant Dr.longshot

 

Mr. Rob Taylor you still have time to make an executive order to make a 44 degree+10 degree angle, going 50-52 yards, mandatory for the 2015, 2016, 2017 target years for evaluation of whether 30 yard line, should be installed at all ATA target throwing Clubs. That makes all trap fields uniform, and legal.
Gary Bryant Dr.longshot

 

dr l

I must respectfully disagree with you. We do not want any A.T.A. President or Executive Committee issuing executive orders on amendments to the rules. There is established a Rules Committee who has the responsibility of first reviewing suggested changes before sending their recommendations to the E. C. All amendments of the rules must come before the Board of Directors for a vote.

Some of the problems experienced in the past were hasty decisions. As an example I'll point out the number of times the target year has been changed or the time the age for the Veteran category was change and returned to its original age. For a long time (decades) we've had Executive Committees making unilateral decisions without discussing them with the Delegates. Sometimes our Delegates rose up and rescinded actions by the E. C. Many times our Delegates just remained silent. Our A.T.A. can only be managed best when our Executive Committee communicates all important decisions with the BOD and when our BOD demands it.

There have been times when Delegates first learned of upcoming votes on rule changes only after arriving at the Grand American tournament. They had no time to discuss proposed changes with their State/Provincial Associations or with their shooters.

In my opinion there is no reason why all proposed rule changes should not be given a year for discussion, thus calling for a vote at the next year's BOD annual meeting during the Grand American.

I would however permit and support the E.C. taking immediate action on safety issues in cases of imminent danger and Delegates were immediately notified. After all, Safety First.

Kenny Ray

 

As an after thought I agree 100% Kenny, that was a stupid suggestion, regarding what has happened in the past
Dr.longshot

 

Twodogs,
What are you afraid of? If someone wants to target you they can easily find your name and address in the ATA records. I feel fairly secure in signing my name. After all anything I may write on here is how I feel about the situation and I can defend my name or property. Roger C.

 

Me and two dogs is gonna have a brewski at the Southern Grand and continue to debate. I'm gonna take Tammy along chust in case it gets physical. Stay tuned!

 

Gary you talking integrity that is to funny. For all the BS you post.
Best laugh in days.

You really are more entertaining when you let someone else write your stuff.

 

What was funny about the integrity post. You do know the meaning of the word do you not? Roger

 

Misquotes and outright lies we absolutely have much different definitions of integrity.

 

Wisbone, as per your post.

Where are the outright lies?

 

You can read the posts and make up your own mind.

Its up to you if you want to drink the kool-aid.

I am sure most are smart enough to figure it out.

 

Yes, I can make up my mind....but where are what you think are lies?

 

Maybe wishbone has a comprehension problem. along with other things.

 

This quote as written by Jhunts quoting Vic Reinders is a classic:

Isn't this what that Dysinger fellow has been preaching?

 

Sure, we can turn up the springs a few more turns and throw 'em 60 yds. but tell me what the rulebook says about that!

 

Oleo
What rule book??????? The one that is not followed by cheating clubs and shooters. Or the one that many shooters want to live by?
How many times can you nay sayers read this ( the only way to equalize the handicap problem is to add yardage.) It will not hurt anyone that is now on the 27 yard line that is struggling. It will not hurt the unaccomplished shooters that will never even reach the 27 yard line. How much plainer can I explain it? You people are not looking for a solution to this problem you just want to complain about it. Any club that can not comply with at least one field with a max. yardage of 30 yrds most likely will never have a 30 yrd shooters . All I read on here are complaints but no sensible fixes. Roger C

 

Roger, as you already know I agree the best solution is adding three more yards before all else!

 

I don't believe we should ask all the clubs across the country to add more concrete. I do however firmly believe we should further handicap those proving they've somewhat mastered our game of handicap though. All that's needed is to do that while not affecting the masses is to add yardage for wins at major shoots and not just on score alone in order to advance toward that new goal. Wins and ties only advance with no cheap punches toward a new shooting goal.

If we'd followed the trend of further handicapping the so-called masters of our handicap game, we would have added two yards in the early 80s after seeing lots of 100s shot from the max.

Since shotgun shooting competitions began, there's always been those wanting to make any game easier? That same mentality is how we adopted the current set of shooting rules today with less speed and angle difficulty. Trap&Field published in it's magazine in the early 70s that Trap Shooting was the fastest growing single participant sport in the nation and the safest too! Safer than ping pong? Yes, that's from memory? For a small fee, T&F will look it up for you, or would have at an earlier time?

Under the current set of circumstances holding onto trap shooting's downward trend, we must be extremely careful and diligent in how we treat our sports changes? We've had enough of the hair brained ideas to last a lifetime in making our handicap game easier. All in the name of better scores for the little guy but we all know that wasn't the real INTENT! Check out the singles scores for the lesser shooters from years ago and compare them to todays scores? Not enough real difference to be concerned with unless for the sake of being correct to the smallest of degree.

HAP

 

Hap,
Most clubs will never see a 28 yd. shooter let alone a 30 yd. shooter. Any other changes to the game will hurt the less skillful among us. That last statement includes you and me////// I have a motor on its way to me.

 

Agreed Roger!

Good motor news too!!

HAP

 

If you look at the expierenced shooters, the long yardage shooters like Kay Ohye, Phil Kiner, recommendations to the BOD and EC at the Meetings at the GAH they said to keep the wider angles and longer yardage targets, re: 44 degree angles, 50-52 yard targets, and did not get listened to, and now you have seen the results. You read Vic Reindeers comments, which coincided with Kay Ohye and Phil Kiner.
The target rules they suggested will almost completely nullify the need for the 30 yard line, and pouring of more concrete.

Giving yardage only at major shoots as previously suggested I believe is a good idea. The other suggestion of if you cannot keep the average to stay where you are standing, mandatory yardage reduction must be taken.

Earning yardage for scores less than a 97 in hdcp, should be abolished at all shoots.

This will not affect the short yardage shooters, as they were the ones that were winning the GAH over the years. They will put more money in their pockets, most by going back to the 50/30/20 Lewis Classes, that are not Hi Gun, just like they used to, in the early years. The hi gun lewis classes favored the long yardage shooters.

All one money lewis classes give the top dogs more money, in reality 30% more.

Why they take 12 lewis class payouts, and put it in 4 one money places, which they get the top one. And usually they get the first 2 money payouts.

Short yardage shooters should quit playing all Hi Gun Lewis classes, all Hi Gun options of any kind. You will save money.
Gary Bryant Dr.longshot

 

Gary, 3-hole targets will affect top long yardage shooters little if any. Voice activated systems did more to make the 27 yd. line easier than any other change. Besides, Pat traps throw few wider angles than the old Western hand sets. Putting targets back in the 3-hole without adding yardage won't accomplish anything!

 

I really think it will make a change, especially if the shooter has to maintain a specific average, clubs cannot add 3 more yards, most do not have the room, if they do should the ATA absorb half the cost to do it? The real test is do the angles and distance first, that will give the ultimate answer. And use a longer angle setting bar on the Pat Traps, GMV and other traps can throw the wider angles w/o problems.
Dr.longshot

 

The last Grand American Handicap saw Over 40 shooters from the 27 yard line with a score of 97 or better. That was one event.

Look at the scores at the Satellite Grands, Zone shoots and State Shoots. Lots of score greater then 97 from the 27.

If you don't completely re jig how yardage is earned you will need to pour concrete at a lot of clubs both large and small.

 

True Wishbone, but if the goal is to address the "pro's" just put a requirement in to maintain a 92% - 93% avg or get a mandatory reduction from the 28 - 30 yrd lines back to the 27. Have to shoot at least a 98 (maybe 97) to get punched past the 27.

Could be set up to address the best of the best without many clubs needing to add concrete at all.

 

Bat
It would be interesting to see how many now maintain a 92% - 93% avg.
I think that number is higher then just a few years ago.
But you could adjust the requirement upward as required.

We might create a whole new class of sandbaggers.
Those trying to avoid the 30 yard line. LOL

 

And by the time the rule made it past the BOD and EC it might look very different then what anyone here is proposing.

 

With our economy in the state it's in, why even suggest we put all clubs in a financial bind in adding more yardage? That's a sure negative toward your argument I'd think? Gary, you're just wrong in your thinking if we'd just go back to the angles of yesteryear. Why do I say that;

The 44 degree angle from a Pat trap won't throw as many difficult angles as did the old Winchester hand-sets although it could throw them. The speed limits were also changed which adds up to an easier thrown target. That leaves us with a tri-fold dilemma, angle and speed mixed with what Mother Nature throws at us day in and day out through the shooting year. That's the reasons I've stated the experimental year of "3 hole" targets wasn't a fair comparison at all! Not fair to our sport first and certainly not fair to Pat traps because of the angle chosen.

I've put my thoughts in writing in how we may adopt a yardage increase but to only certain shooters attempting to further their handicap yardage goals. It shouldn't be just another place to nickel and dime yourself to attain either in the same fashion some of us made the current max! One change at a time, not a wholesale slaughter of things concerning changes to our sport some may deem unnecessary. Nothing begins without a first step and that depends on who you select as your delegate!

HAP

 

Hap: 3 yr test of the 44 degree angles, 50-52 yds, & a question to Pat Trap Mfg Co, what can you do to get more hard angles on your traps.

 

Scores this year: Florida Hdcp: 1-96/ Dixie Grand 1-96/2-98s/1-97/5-95s/1-97/and 2-96s totals of each hdcp.Silver $ Open:2-95s/1-97/1-95/2-95s totals of each hdcp no run-away scores

All scores from RJ Stuart

 

Just because I like to hash things out, I'll ask: why is it that the goal is not to have a machine that provides an equal (or as close as possible to it) chance of throwing any particular angle? Seems to me a trap that is designed to throw a greater proportion of certain angles would not have been the choice back when all the guys with integrity were designing the game?

 

I called Pat Traps Mfg today and talked to their tech Charles, he said on the newer model traps, 5 1/4"inch bar is 44Degree angle. each inch of length bar increases the angle 10 degrees, The interrupter is a 24 second timer, it holds that position where ever it might be until a target is thrown, and repeats the 24 second pause again, I don't understand what he meant by a 1 second pause,. He said that is the design of the trap, and it, the interuptor is not adjustable, the trap he said can throw a 60 degree angle at max angle setting. I asked him if the trap can be set to throw more hard angles and he said no, you can spread the sensors though, but that changes the angle.
Dr.longshot

 

Bat, that's a great question! Speaking of the "integrity" portion of your question is answered by our sports history. Some had it and some didn't. Some have always wanted an easier target while some wanted more difficulty! Especially to those who seem to master the handicap game as Arnold Reigger was said to have done? It's said his domination of handicap was directly responsible for our current max of 27 yards.

History also says "trap shooting" was to somewhat simulate the trials and tribulations of live bird shooting! Possibly we're today just using straighter flying pigeons than the old time trap shooters did? Some even complained increasing the yardage to the 16 was a mistake too way back when?

We've had a max of 27 yards for 60 years now. I feel it's time we stretched the barrels of all those who've stood on one yardage for decades while breaking perfect scores from there. With a different set of standards of attaining that new max and certainly not in how we got there as merely a place to stand while shooting our 60s and 70s scores forever? A new max may give our sport a shot of spice needed in helping our sports growth again?

HAP

 

Regarding the traps, my point might not be what you are thinking.

 

Bat, we can tell your a pretty sharp guy from your answers and questions with your past writings. I may not have addressed your question as you'd prefer so can you share with us exactly what point you were making? I'm always open to learning something, new or old even. I for one would most certainly appreciate hearing your thoughts!

HAP

 

Hap, I'm just going off on a tangent here. My point is that if you and I were organizing this sport, I would think we would want to have the angles as random as possible, without any prejudice for either straights or angles (to the extent possible). If everyone disagrees with me so far, that's fine, but it is the way I would have been looking at it. Now, it seems to me that by the nature of the design, the trap that does not fit this ideal is the 1524 and like machines with the circular plate and pivot arms.

If we are worried about the "rebound" in the Pats, set them a little wider to compensate. Again, this is admittedly off on a tangent, just feel like Pat's are getting bashed quite a bit and I'm not ready to buy into it yet.

 

Why not drop to 7/8 oz of lead?

 

My favorite 27yard load is a 1oz. payload of 7.5 shot @ 1250fps.... i have shot some 7/8oz. #9 shot in skeet and #8 is a good 16yard load out of my old 32"fixed full choked 870tb that i shot for years... As a friend says if your on the bird it only takes a few pellets to break a bird.

 

Thank you Bat! I have said prior that there's absolutely nothing wrong with the Pat trap! The Pat trap, due to design, is stymied by our speed limit only! Speed up the targets and it throws a very breakable target, matter O fact, an even more breakable one at that. More RPMs mean the targets will self destruct better. Try it on your own Pat traps and you'll find the same thing, especially on doubles when wind interferes from the back or front.

As for setting the targets wider than 44 degrees, here again we're into the rule violation thing and that just can't be. Same thing for those infernal low speed limits!

HAP

 

I'm just thinking the angles on the Pat's seem pretty flexible if we put the work into getting them where we want them. I don't know how accurate the complaints are about the rebound effect, but imagine it isn't really all that much of a difference. If, like we hear on this site over and over, the Pat's don't stop at the outer limits, why can't we just set them a touch wider so we get the angle we are really looking for? If the statement here are true about not throwing the max setting, just set it a little wider and the actual results would seem to be manageable to get what we want. There is no rule against setting it for 46 degree targets if in fact it will only throw 44 degrees at that setting. See what I mean?

 

Hap: You are sadly mistaken, you quoted several times before the Pat Traps do not throw enough angles, that they throw more straightaways, as they are centered in the center area, I may not have that word for word, but It is close enough, where you were agreeing with NW on Pat Trap purchases were not a good idea.
I think JHunts has this documented on one of his threads. Come on Hap Integrity.
Dr.longshot

 

Hap, one question

Take Pat trap, GMV and what ever others are out there throwing the same speed targets, do the pat trap targets have less spin or did I misunderstand something?

 

Some of who were around those old Western automatic traps remember how poorly targets broke off 'em. Short arm and less spin ='s poor break quality!

 

"Hap: You are sadly mistaken, you quoted several times before the Pat Traps do not throw enough angles, that they throw more straightaways, as they are centered in the center area, I may not have that word for word, but It is close enough,"

Gary, your reading comprehension is suspect. I have said they don't throw the same amount of difficult extreme angles as did the old Winchester hand-sets due to design. It's true, they throw more straight targets than the old hand-sets did, again due to design.

Read this too; Pat traps could throw a better quality breakable target if not stymied by our rule books speed limit! To get a Pat trap to throw about the same extreme angle as did the old hand-set traps, it would have to be set at more than 44 degree angles. If you must ask why that is, read all you can on the operation of both types of traps then you can tell me?

Don't worry yourself about my integrity, when I post something I'm 100% sure I believe it to be the truth or will state it AS AN OPINION.

HAP

 

Leonidas, I know almost nothing concerning other models of traps except the Winchester hand-sets and the Pats. Pat traps have a shorter throwing arm than the old hand-sets. To get the RPM count up on a Pat to stabilize a target better takes speed where the old traps, due to a longer time on the throwing arm imparted more RPMs with the same speed.

HAP

 

Hap: Isn't that what I said you said? I said I may not have it word for word, but it is what you said, only worded a little different, but we both agree on the inequities of the Pat Trap.
Dr.longshot

 

Sorry gentelmen, it's really the only and best target thrower we have..

 

Two of the clubs I shoot at hit the rubber with course sandpaper every day before a registered shoot for grip. I didn't know about the shorter arm but can see the reasoning for sanding the rubbers so often now.

 

Hap, while I don't doubt the sincerity of what you say, it seems like gun-club talk to me, not the result of serious analysis confirmed by experiment or supported by other testable evidence, for example physics and/or mathematics It's no more than "what makes sense" for the most part, it seems to me. Most of what I hear about targets and trap machines is "just talk" and commonly wrong , since it's more complicated and surprising than it seems.

For example, I've never seen any serious reports of testing any of this, particularly the rate of spin. Except Baker & Winston, of course. For example:

1. What's the argument that longer arms impart more spin and how was the theory tested? Where? By whom? And how can we find the results?

2. What is the relationship between spin and stability? Specifically, what is meant by the word "stability" and how can you tell a "stable" bird from an "unstable" one and why is rate of spin related to either one?

3. What does sanding the arm do for spin, on a Pat Trap, at least?

4. Does a GMV impart more spin on a target than a PatTrap?

5. What, again specifically, does spin do?

6. We are told that clubs and on line that spin is what breaks a target, and that "You can hang a target on a fencepost and shoot at it all day and it won't break." Is this true? How likely is it that the claimant actually has hung a target on a fencepost and tried it? Or tried to find a trustworthy answer any of the questions I pose here, for that matter?

7. We are told that we need 7 1/2's for the second bird of doubles because bitrd2 has "lost a lot of its spin." "How much?" is what I always wonder, and "How do you know?" which applies to everything I listed above.

Since we went through this on another thread and so you know at least some of the answers, I hope you will wait until some other readers here have a chance to respond. Similarly, I hope that any who respond with evidence-based observations will cite their sources. These are, after all, scientific rather than opinion questions and in that arena, evidence is all that counts and where that evidence comes from is part of the conventions of the discussion.

Yours in Sport,

N1H1

 

Hang a target on a fence post and it's difficult to break-a fact for those who've actually tried it.

Anyone who shot targets off an old Western short armed automatic traps remembers how poor targets tended to break-fact.

Maybe the old time rubber sanders knew more about spinning a target than charts and graphers-the jury remains out on that one but they believed it spun a target faster and I never argued with any of 'em!

 

Fair enough and good questions too. I will wait to answer those in which I have my own first hand experiences and from from trusted sources.

HAP

 

I don't quite know what you mean by "difficult to break." Could you expand on that? Maybe with some specific examples from your own experience?

My question about sanding the arm was about Pat Traps. The jury is not out on that one, I think.

I also think that "Maybe the old time rubber sanders knew more about spinning a target than charts and graphers" seems to be promoting the idea that opinion. or "common knowledge," or even "What makes perfect sense" trump testing. Do I have that right?

N1H1

 

Thank you, Hap. Your holding off will make this a far more interesting discussion and I look forward to you returning after a while.

N1H1

 

You've obviously never shot a target off an old Western Automatic trap-have you? The parallels between both events-stationary target and low spin will be obvious!

 

I don't know if I ever shot over the Old Western Automatic trap. If you are talking about the "International" one I certainly did and it was just fine, but otherwise I'm at a loss.

You should understand, however, that "common knowledge" or "what everyone says" is not necessarily correct (though it sometimes is, of course.) Much of what was and is still passed around gun clubs and now shows up on the internet is is just something someone was told by an uncle or coach or a "well known shooter" or even a "trusted source" but is just wrong.

Let's look at that old saw about hanging a target on a fencepost and not being able to break it. You have heard it a hundred times, I'll bet. Your version is well toned down from that, being no more than "Hang a target on a fence post and it's difficult to break-a fact for those who've actually tried it." As I said, I don't know what you meant by "difficult to break" but I am one who has actually tried it and found that while the relative number of hit-but-not-broken targets increased from my evidence-based rate of that happening on the field, the difference was not great, perhaps similar to what happened with "low-recoil" shells we tested.

Am I going to quit there? Just type, lay out an assertion and hope people believe it? While that would be par at the club or on the other site and especially here on americantrapshooter.com, my personal standards require me to go further. I think that shooters deserve (and should require before they themselves take a stand and repeat) more than that.

How "hard" are non-spinning targets to break? Not very and a lot do break, and in the range of quality much like we see on a trap field. The breaks, in general, do not resemble the breaks we see on a trap field, but are surely "breaks" by anyone's fair definition:

http://www.mn-trap.org/target_chall...final/target_break_movies/TBF_catergories.mp4

I hope that readers here will remember those last few, the "smoked" ones when next they hear the common but erroneous putative "explanation" of how a bird is "smoked." It goes something like this (as if the speaker really knew!) "A bird smokes when an early pellet breaks it and then a whole swarm of pellets come through the pieces and reduce those pieces to dust." As these videos show, a smoked bird is really just one which is hit so hard it shatters, turning to pieces and dust all at once.

I pointed out (above) the clear differences between the breaks of spinning and non-spinning target, not their existence but their "quality."

Here Ron Baker and I tried to match similar (soft or hard) breaks of the two types as might be seen by the shooter.

http://www.mn-trap.org/target_chall...al/target_break_movies/TBF_shooter_middle.mp4

Last we have then side-by-side in case anyone remained unconvinced.

http://www.mn-trap.org/target_chall...ks_final/target_break_movies/TBF_2_breaks.mp4


Non-spinning targets are not "hard to break." They only break differently, or rather, what we see on a trap field is the inter-reaction between angular momentum and aerodynamics, not where the pellets which missed the targets were when the targets broke, which is the totally erroroneus assertion of the guys who claim to tell people where their shot was centered based on what they imagine the break
tells them the core of the pattern was. They are just wrong and I think the Baker & Winston videos have at least lessened their destructive effect so our time, work, and expense have been well worth it.

Yours in Sport,

N1H1

 

Hap, my questions have not generated any interest here at all so we might as well just get on with. Post whatever you want, any time you want.

It's not a very game crowd here, is it? Is Ollie the best champion they can put forward? On the other site our "Target Break Reading Cyber Challenge" drew almost 40 players and the task was much, much tougher than just answering a question or two. Oh well, at some clubs you can drum up a game, at some clubs not . . .

Yours in Sport,

N1H1

 

"Oh well, at some clubs you can drum up a game, at some clubs not . . ."

The ATA and the Martins found that out at sparta........

 

. . . and so, once again, an americantrapshooter.comer bites that hand that feeds him.

N1H1