Smaller targets cure handicap system

Would smaller targets help cure the trapshooting handicap system. A target that was smaller and a little harder may require a tighter choke.

 

Seriously?

 

Dont shoot clays anymore. A long time ago we shot some smaller targets at a course that were tuff to kill.

I am sure HB could confirm there have been targets used in the past that were hard to break.

 

First suggest how all those automatics in operation could suddenly be modified to shoot midis. I see you never set foot in a traphouse. Trust me, a squirrel on a treadmill is NOT loading those targets!

 

I agree dawg. That is not how the question was asked. If some type midi was made that would fit the machines it could help with handicapping.

Smaller target may cost less too.

 

Dawg

I used to handset targets. But again, that is not how the question was asked.

 

MIDIS are considerably more expensive than standards. Automatic traps could not easily be retrofitted to throw MIDIS if at all!

 

Now they cant be thrown on Pats. But maybe in the future. Midis are more expensive now. They are not made in bulk. They could be. There are many ways to make smaller targets.

For the sake of the op's argument they would not have to be made much smaller.

Design follows necessity.

 

How about just cranking up the speed to about 50 mph.

No need for smaller targets or lighter loads

Set trap on wobble and speed it up

Wouldn't cost anything.

 

Anything you do to the target will only make it tougher for the average shooter. Shooting for the money in handicap, unless you are an extremely good shooter, is simply a test for people who aren't very good at math.

Shoot for the fun of it and try to improve your game.

Jeff

 

Pumpgun

They were faster. The angles were harder. All like you say. The sport was dumbed down mid to late 90's although many in the west never saw a hard target anyway.

The end result will be that many of the SCTP kids will get better and find out that the sport is a game of perfection and is borrrrrring.

 

49-51 isn't much different than 48-52. Three hole targets have been gone for many years in the East. Voice activated systems were the primary factor for making Trapshooting easier.

I still remember a shootoff between the late Frank Little and a lesser known specimen. After putting the targets in the 4-hole and cranking up the spring Frank finally ate up his competition. Didn't bother him at all!

 

Tell White Flyer you get the contract if you can put a slightly smaller more aerodynamic bird on the pat trap and they would do it.

 

So instead of needing 3 pellet strikes on a standard sized target you'll now need the same amount on a smaller target to achieve a break. So that somehow is gonna improve the game and increase attendance. Wow!

 

It would make it tough on the back fence guys. Breaking a 100 would be more difficult. That is the purpose of the handicap system.

 

In My limited experience, It doesn't take a lot of speed to throw off most shooters. Pretty common out here to crank up the speed a couple miles an hour during, "games", shooting. On Our Pat traps, giving the bands an extra crank or 2 definitely lowers the amount of scored targets. If this is due to the speed, or the fact that it makes the targets climb much faster, I can't tell, but number of hits definitely go down. Bottom line, They are harder to hit, for a lot of people. IMHO it would lower handicap scores from the back fence, on average from tournament to tournament.

 

I once made a set of clamped on extension rails that mounted to two of the original rails for a Pat Trap that reduced the target placement position and permitted a Midi target to be loaded by the machine. Someone borrowed them to show and they never returned. To my surprise, they worked just as they were supposed to. Had a bit of fun when every 13th target was a MIDI instead of a standard and they threw just fine, a bit faster and farther. Never got around to making a full set. At the price charged for MIDI's the price per round would have to be increased..never tried to make another set.

 

GP traps use an aluminum sleeve insert on their standard machine to throw a 90. Same thing could be done on a pat. It wouldn't be cheap. Not sure who your buying your targets from but midis are cheaper where I get them. 144 per box vs. 135 per box for standards. Also come with 72 boxes per pallet compared to 63. It would be hard on the older guys. However, they seem to break just as easily.

Luke

 

Well, I haven't bought MIDIS for quite a few years when I ran a Sporting Clays course so I can't argue that one.

So making the targets smaller so even fewer 60-80 yo trapshooters can see 'em is the answer. I'm sure this suggestion comes from a current AA27AA ATA shooter. Whew!

 

Dawg

Cant shoot from the back fence as you ( i mean you dawg) as you cant see targets from back there? I suggest you tighten up them wooden teeth and take a reduction. Move to the front where you can see 'em. Everyone at the back would have problems with faster and slightly smaller targets. That's the purpose right?

Smaller targets would not have been my first go to but none of you have knocked too many holes in the op's suggestion.

 

Surprise, carrying too high an average from your current yardage and you'll be stuck there for another 1,000 targets. Bigger surprise, I took a 3 yard reduction from the 27 and soon got back 2 yards. The ATA is comprised mostly of half blind old men. So your idea of making the game better is to make it tougher on them. Tell us again how that will boost attendance. Then tell us again how many non-ATA affiliated local clubs will tell you to stick that idea up where the sun doesn't shine. Add three yards and enjoy the game the way it was designed!

 

Dawg.......the idea was not mine as I said but again you failed to knock a hole in it. You said:

Dawg before you take a nap --the game was designed with wider angles. Your mind cannot have deteriorated that far to not know that.

Your own previous posts implied that making it more difficult for those at the back fence would increase competitiveness and removes perfect scores. Have you changed your stance on that philosophy?

Again dawg about the statement:

Please show us in any previous rule books where the standard back fence was the 30 yard line.

Also as far as the op's post. I doubt the op knew that the target shapes and designs have morphed over the years. You knew that right? After all you shot in the 60's. It must count for something.

 

We have a friendly fellow at our club. When the targets go to far for him he yells "speed kills".

 

The game was designed with wider angles that the better shooters knew exactly where they were going since trap reading was the accepted practice of the day. I see you never heard of little things like "locking the trap"

Making the targets smaller will simply make it easier for perfectly pointed targets to escape a shot pattern.

The standard back fence was the 25 yd. line and may have been even closer at one time. The ATA recognized Arnold Rieger was simply too good at that yardage and moved everyone back two more yards.

If you want pictures of targets from the sixties I've got a few to the left of me that are nearly exact copies minus some dimples.

You might find that anything I posted didn't change anything for the only 99.99% of todays shooters that are quite happy with today's target size. Why don't you simply poll all the shooters at your local clubs asking them if they are in favor of smaller targets? Please wear a flak jacket and helmet when you tell 'em that's what you're planning to do. Then prepare for an empty parking lot!

 

I have never heard that was a problem with the international or sporting clays crowd. It would require a perfectly placed shot. Not buying that one Ollie.

 

Most Sporting Clays courses tend to throw MIDIS a bit closer to the shooter and are designed to make the shooter believe they're farther away.

If you think "Bunker" is the answer just attend a typical shoot with a typical few attendees. Besides bunker boys get two shots at one target.

So what kind of attendance increase should we expect by reducing target size and why?

I suggest you contact your ATA delegate to make that proposal at the next meeting. Wanna see a vote of 50-0 against while hearing the laughter several states away!

 

Costs offset with the cheaper targets.

Ollie you did say they would have to be perfectly pointed. Maybe not so...

Rieger struggled at the 27.....so much for reading the targets or locking.
-------------

Quit throwing these underhand dawg.

 

Rieger shot paper shells with cardboard wads and soft shot. My guess is ammo quality alone-not ability- slowed down his scoring.

Cost offset will be a wash when shooters realize they'll need more shot to increase effectiveness. Those less is better shot boys will now be shooting full loads.

Now about that proposal. How many delegates do you actually believe will vote in favor of your proposal? Until you can answer that question this nonsense can go nowhere!

 

According to the experts (can't think of the book right now, Dr. from England) there is not much of a difference in patterning from a plastic encasement wad to a fiber wad or in hardness of shot, if I remember correctly.

Not necessarily, though they all would be using a full choke, if they were not before.

Probably not many, though those that do would not necessarily be wrong, just on the losing end.

 

Targets in the past were much easier to break. Since automatic traps came into use the composition was changed making them a bit harder so the newer traps could handle 'em. It's pretty obvious you don't shoot anymore or know much about targets!

 

Again dawg it was the op's suggestion. One you even remotely failed to poke a hole in. The delegate numbers would probably add up to the same you have for more concrete. We know how that has worked out.

Just giving support to an idea not posted here.

 

You imply that a lot/to others that disagree with you. Is that due to your age?

 

Terribly wrong on the first.

So a full choke is necessity even if the shooter doesn't have one.

If all showed up it would be 50-0. I can't wait for that proposal to hit the floor if it's even possible to get a delegate to make it!

 

butterfly, I doubt you even shoot trap. If so, please give us your ATA averages so I can be called a bit unknowing. I'm sure you believe you could be AA in all events if you actually shot.

 

Huh,

Only if that is what would be needed and desired, could compete with cylinder if they wanted, it is a social event after all. Shoot whatever to get the results they want. You mean I need a shotgun if I want to compete in trap, what if I don't have one?

Take that up with Dr. AC Jones, for the most part I thought his book was pretty good.

50-0, it may be, I am not for changing the target size, it is something that is not needed, though it is a great idea. There are other ways that cost nothing to the ATA and should be implemented first prior to any major expense item.

ADDED: At this time there is no great desire to bring the Handicap game into the ATA's stated objective.

 

Just offer to supply those obscure smaller clubs in equally obscure small states with some driveway chalk to mark a few lines beyond the 27. Then they'll hope and pray Harlan doesn't show up wanting to shoot.

Cardboard wads and soft shot are quite effective for Singles and short yardage Handicap. They do reach a limit in effectiveness. There was a good reason why a score in the 90's back in the 60's got you a pat on the back. As you (or at least I) remember quite well how Dan Bonillas's scores took a jump when the Winchester Super Targets with a plastic collar came out.

FYI I shot thousands of 'em in the early and the mid-60's and loaded even more with an H-wad and 2-3/8" felt wads in a Federal paper so I can attest to their capabilities. Anyone else ready to make that claim?

So you want to lower the scores and make Handicap competitive again-just ban plastic wads. While your at it invest in shares of Hornady and MEC. Those single stage reloaders will be flying off the shelves again!

 

Ditto on..." Dan Bonillas's scores took a jump when the Winchester Super Targets with a plastic collar came out".

 

I offered that suggestion to a long term (45 year) ATA trap club manager in PA today. He's already broken numerous 200's, a 100 from the 27 and will be inducted into the PA HOF this year. He said the only shooters he ever knew wanted targets bigger-not smaller and where did that silly idea come from. He'll soon be a member of this site!

 

I had a discussion with that old ATA club manager today. He kinda chuckled when someone suggested speeding up the targets will take down the big dogs. It reminded him of the time years ago when he shot on a squad with the late great Frank Little up in NY. One of the traps was throwing a target what appeared to be at least 60 yds. They stopped the squad and asked Frank if they should call for a trap adjustment. He commented plenty of squads shot that trap before him and it wouldn't be fair. Of course, Frank broke that trap and the rest of the 200 that day.

The moral to the story is dream on. It doesn't mean crap-only to the lesser specimens!

 

I have enough trouble with the Midi on the Sporting Course.

Whatever it takes to increase ATA membership will work for me. I don't shoot enough trap anymore to be competitive. Mostly when I do, it is to squad with dear friends.

 

None of the big dogs ever broke 100 straight from the 27 at the GAH until the angles were made easier.

"Never"! Until the angle changes. Tell stories about the great Frank Little but in the end he couldn't do it either.

 

Reggie broke a hundred from the 27 in 1978. He might not of been a big dog, but he was the biggest on the grounds that day. That was about 15 years before the angles were legally narrowed! Roger Smith and Britt Robinson did also.

 

What year was Brit?

 

Voice systems made the 27 yd.line easier while the big dogs were still quite adept at reading targets even though many of the old Western handsets then possessed interrupters. What made it more remarkable was Reggie did it with hand pullers. He must have had four good ones that day!

 

Kay Ohye's average went UP .5% the year 3-hole targets were mandatory again. I'll betcha more than a few wannabe 27 yd. shooters went down too. If you're trying to either make targets smaller or widen the angles to affect top dogs think again. The only one affected will be you!

 

I have to agree with the Dog. The cream always rises to the top. Again, whatever it takes to attract and retain new shooters.

Sporting has figured this out. Part of it is the relaxed social setting while on the line. We all know that if we hoot and holler about good shooting on the Trap line, we will get funny looks, if not a dressing down. We will also throw extra targets. Got to be a solution somewhere.

 

Making target angles narrower, and shortening the distance the targets go was the WRONG THING TO DO.

Yours in Sport
Gary Bryant..............................Dr.longshot

 

The only thing shortened was the Doubles. I'd call that a mistake!

 

Oleo, If the interupters were working properly NO ONE could read a hand trap all the time. First of all if you were antisipating where the target would be going you were not ready for the times you were wrong. Roger C.

 

Roger, you're sort of right. Most could be read but not with the accuracy without interrupters. Let's just say those good trap readers were able to adjust. I couldn't!

 

Oleo, I made those machines for 20 years, and I could not read them. If some of the lobe was removed from the flat interuptor gear then it was possible but not likely to be achieved more that 95% of the time. Like I said if you were thinking about where it was going you were not in the frame of mind to break it if it did not go there. More 100's were run by not trying to read than were broken by reading. Roger

 

I once watched Frank Little deal with the "opposites" which is what I called those targets that were nowhere near where they were supposed to be. He actually moved his gun a little bit more than usual!

 

The PAT traps are easier to read than the old Win. hand sets. The electronic interuptors only change when the pegs are changed. Are you saying Frank was a trap reader? Roger C.

 

Can I prove it-no-neither did I ever ask him. He sure never moved his muzzle much!

 

You made the same misleading statement before. Many of the big dawgs continued to chase the averages by going to the cheat clubs that were still throwing the easy targets.

The cheat clubs were one of the reasons for the change. Unfortunately someone from the NW Zone said it was a regular rite in the west.

Certainly no sober person thinks making it harder from the back fence makes it easier from the back fence.

 

2 people shot 100 from the 27 prior to the targets being narrowed. If it were easy they all would have done it.

They had problems from the 25.

 

The Kay Ohye I know shot most of his targets on the East coast. I suggest most of our clubs followed the mandate that year. Anyone know any that didn't comply please respond. That said, that old club manager remembered when Frank Little appeared at his club that year and everyone said he'd take a bath on his targets. Another 100 straight that day under his belt-nothing to it!

 

Voice activated systems made the life of a 27 yd. shooter much easier than a few degrees on the angle setting. Some of us still remember standing on the 27 yd. line and almost shaking hands with the shooter next to you on the adjacent trap. The rest of us remember standing on the fence and getting two or three targets we never called for-especially on stations one and five. Either you weren't there or have issues understanding a few facts!

 

Someone with the initials DH comes to mind about stations 1 & 5.

 

That is BS Ollie. That was when you made the AA team based on puffed up handicap average. If you want to point to a person's average then you know you have to point to where they shot.

As far as the Frank Little crap you mentioned. Frank was on the record for being against the easier targets and the outcome. Frank knew easier targets are easier. Why can you.

If Frank would have lived longer, I believe he was one of the few big shooters that would have fought Neil and his sportless invention.

If you read Franks writings he did talk a lot about sustained lead and how important it was for those hard angles. But he understood the limit of the 1200 fps shotshell.

1/2 of Franks motto was sustained lead....the other half was power to the bird. You dont have much time. Time and distance equals lost targets.

 

Sure, harder targets were harder for Frank. Unfortunately, they were twice as hard for the average Joe. Frank handled anything thrown at him as evidenced by a shootoff many trapshooters remember at Elysburg when they did everything to make the targets more difficult in a shootoff. Of course, Frank just ate 'em up.

It' pretty obvious you're not willing to admit voice releases made the fence far easier that a few degrees in angles. Tell us about your experience at the 27 yd. line without 'em!

Heck, Frank shot whatever Remington handed him for free. How do you know how hot they were? Frank also said many times the 27yd. line was his most difficult game. Maybe those thousands of free green shells just weren't good enough.

Are wider angles closer or farther away from a fence shooter from an end position?

All-American teams were often a popularity contest before the point system was initiated!

 

According to the statistics, that being that only 2 shooters were capable of shooting a 100 straight from the 27 at the GAH, the distance could have been the same to Uranus. They could not do it.

 

dawg to continue.....

the following quote from Dan Bonillas on this forum.

I asked Dan what he thought one of the biggest problems are with registered shooting and without hesitation he replied, "making the targets easier. Now everyone can go out and get a good score."

"People keep saying you are living in the past. Well the past was darn good."

 

Yup, and I remember the time he tried shooting that DB-81 and couldn't hit the side of a barn. I suspect the targets may have been wider then too. Of course, the targets are easier. They're no longer black and white, most are orange and some are actually green. They actually throw 'em now when you call for them-not at the whim of some 16 yo bubble chewing worried about tonight's date girl either. The trap boys aren't very bored anymore either and no longer feel the need to pull the target stop a little farther back-and-believe it or not-there aren't any!