Before we ask Gun Clubs to pour 3 yards of Concrete

The ATA doesn't feed me. The job I put 60 hours a week into feeds me.

I didn't leave the ATA. The ATA left me.

When I WAS shooting registered targets NO ONE, and I mean NO ONE, wanted to shoot them more than I did.
If I had to borrow the money to go to a shoot I did. I spent every frigging cent I made working 3 shifts in a steel mill for USS to support my traveling and shooting. I didn't have "disposable " income. I chose to do NOTHING with
My income but shoot ATA registered targets.
You might know graphs and numbers and be able to tell the "new" guys about your ATA accomplishments but you don't know jack s#%^ about me.

Flyersarebest

 

They are just harder to break.

Though he acknowledge the limited amount of data he gathered. It does appear that Dr. A C Jones concludes a faster spinning target breaks (comes apart) easier and a static target is harder to break than a spinning target. Chapter 28 in the book by Dr. A C Jones titled, "Sporting Shotgun Performance, -Measurement, Analysis, Optimism".

His (Dr. Jones) comparison was 1500rpm, 3000rpm and static. A couple of statements, page 225. "It was clear that in a number of cases a spinning target would have broken." and page 226, "The higher speeds of rotation of 1500rpm and 3000rpm increased significantly the effectiveness of lower energy pellet strikes."

On page 226, "Over the range of pellet energies considered, the higher target spin speed tended to increase the success rate of the single pellet strikes."

A header of a graph on page 227, "Higher pellet energies and clay pigeon spin rates increase the probability that a single pellet strike on the outer region (from the top of dome to the outermost circumference) of a clay pigeon will deliver a clearly visible brake.

On June 8th, 2011 Neil said, "Of course, there's only one way to find out and that's by doing the test with a Winchester hand set." Neil, did you find that WW hand set to test? Your test of the PAT Trap, at least the one you tested, was about 2000RPM, 1 rotation for 18 frames using a 600 frame/sec camera.

http://www.xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/threads/how-much-do-targets-spin-with-videos-updated.124055/#post-1202413

Shoot well.

John

 

Jhunts, I was surprised by the text you attribute to me above:

"N1H1 said: ↑
Non-spinning targets are not "hard to break."

I can't find it, though I have have (or may not have) edited my text above to make clear what people would see on those videos. What I do find is different in every way.

"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."

"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:"

I have not tested the spin-rates of targets off old hand-sets. You correctly quote me writing four years ago ""Of course, there's only one way to find out and that's by doing the test with a Winchester hand set." Since I am not the one making the claim that hand sets impart more spin to the target, it is not up to me prove it. Or even disprove it. More to the point, I doubt I have ever written that they don't (as I remember.)

I have illustrated in great detail, however, for the benefit of anyone who would like to do that, how it's done. I hope someone will do it. Personally, I think there's a better way, though.

Yours in Sport,

Neil

Addendum: I once calculated an estimate of spin, showing how I arrived at it so others could check on it, and got 3000 RPM. Since then, two persons I completely trust have told me that it's way more complicated that I thought and the number I got was wrong. I accept and appreciate their instruction and will, as time permits, correct my earlier error.

 

It is post #97 on this thread at this time.

You seem to ask and answer the question in your writing. I could be wrong.

Added.

On ts.com in thread noted earlier it was 4100rpm, Neil said, "The target is going 67 feet per second and that's about 68 bird-at-the-driving-band circumferences per second. A bird-circumference-at-the-band is also a revolution. So in a minute we would expect, with a rolling (perfect-friction} bird an off-the-trap spin of about 68 revolutions-per-second x 60 seconds =4100 RPM."

Shoot well.

John

 

I heard the Martins instructions on the payout of their added money was not followed 100% by the ATA
but that is here say, the true answer can come from the Martins, it was through their generosity and support of the ATA Trapshooting, that it was given, The Martin's deserve so much credit for their generosity.

Their generosity is now given to a smaller club out west. And we all owe them a Grand Thank You for their generosity, Thank you Mr. & Mrs. Martin

 

I would think the only way to calculate the RPM of the target would be with a high speed camera, and a bird painted Half White/ Half Black and a high speed timer tied together/paired together. The speed of the throwing arm/ length of the throwing arm/the grip of the rubber contacting the target, all figure in, I know the faster the target spins the better the break when hit by pellets. I may be wrong.
Gary Bryant Dr.longshot

 

If your remarks can't be proven you should delete them. We strive for accurate and truthful statements on this forum.

 

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?
( I seriously doubt many if but a few have done tests on clay target machines to actually find a pure number of rotations needed. Machine testing requires a certain speed it will throw an ATA legal size and weight target.)
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?
( Reminds me of a spinning top we used as kids, the longer push rod the more power applied to the spinning top making it spin a longer time in a stable platform before losing “spin” and falling over. The stable spinning clay is one that’s clearly capable of maintaining its sail pattern out at least to the point an average shooter has a better chance of connecting his shot charge with it. Un unstable clay is one without enough spin or speed to gain the necessary distance where most clays are shot at on a trap field.)
3. What does sanding the arm do for spin, on a Pat Trap, at least?
( I have no idea who sands the arm of a Pat trap. I can say that the rubber insert on the old Winchester hand-set arms would become hard with age, friction, wear and mixed with grime. Roughing up that surface allowed a better grip between the arm and clay target for a better thrown breakable target. A little Vaseline smeared on the arms rubber insert by playful kids led to some awful looking clay targets at the shooters call! Hardly any spin due to slipping on the rubber insert as it was thrown sometimes looking more like a knuckleball than stable clay target! )
4. Does a GMV impart more spin on a target than a PatTrap?
( Just a guess as the GMV seems to throw a better line target than a Pat set at the same speeds, especially with doubles. If speeds are the same, that leaves only one more possibility of a more stable target and that’s spin rotations imparted to the clay.)
5. What, again specifically, does spin do?
( Spin does play a major role in helping a target self destruct when struck by pellets or sometimes a single pellet. Without spin, a target would be without any centrifugal force from within much like the “top” I mentioned above? It couldn’t be thrown very far either.)
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?
( No, spin alone can’t break the target at ATA legally thrown speeds. If one could be spun fast enough, I suppose it could finally come apart due to centrifugal force alone. No spin targets can be broken with a shot charge, however, a fast spinning target hit with a fast pellet is far more likely to come apart! George Ross, a long time CA shooter of fame, Phil Ross’s father, once told me he’d hung clays on a barn wall and 94 was the best he could break of the hundred targets he shot! He said he punched holes in some that didn’t break. So, it’s not true that targets can’t be broken without spin! Sailing targets just don’t sail as well with less spin, much like a sailing frizzbee can’t either. That’s why I’ve stated that there’s nothing wrong with a Pat trap except we limit it with our low speed limit it can be set to throw our targets. It’s fine on a bluebird day till Mother Nature plays tricks on clay birds thrown with less speed and RPMs! )
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.
( In addition to watching videos of clays landing, they do maintain many more RPMs than most think at the ground level. BTW, hand catching clays thrown from a Pat trap is much easier done than one thrown from an old Winchester hand-set. I’ve tried that with both, give it a whirl sometime and let me know how that works out for you? Watch too how a thrown target acts when it hits the ground? Targets of old would hit the ground spinning and hopping around till the spin died down. Watch those thrown from a Pat with todays speed limit and how they react to stopping at ground level or how they react on windy days fighting their way through the wind. )

I know these aren't the answers you'd hoped to get but these are some of my findings in experimenting with speeds thrown in windy conditions.

HAP