Not the ATA - It's OVER HANDICAPPED DELEGATES see list. (about hard targets)

I saved my last box of those green "shipped to the house" shells. After two moves in the past 15 years they got lost. IMO, the good stuff couldn't be bought anywhere. If you wanted it for the Grand you had to bring it from home.

 

If you really want to change the ATA do what I did, quit giving them money and stop shooting ATA. Go to the shoot and visit and shoot practice if you want. Registered shooting today is just organized expensive practice any way. If shooters stop supporting the EC will change or go out of business.

Get active with SCTP kids helping them, and tell them what is wrong with the ATA and what is right about trap shooting. Support the sport and not the organization.

Believe me that registered trap shooting today is a poor shadow of what I shot in the 70's and 80;s and even the early nineties. ebsurveyor remembers all the good shoots we had in the east in the 80's. Thurmont in Maryland and Elysburg in Pa were hopping back then. The money shooting in Maryland was great and the targets sucked. Neither Elysburg or Thurmont were easy places to shoot. When I went to Vandalia after shooting on all the bad backgrounds in the east the targets ALL looked like straightaways. I had my best grands as a Maryland resident because of it. Brad

 

Brad, we are on the same page. See post number 42 on this thread and post number 40 on the "How does an ATA Director Earn $186,000 a year " thread.

To my knowledge, the current EC and ED has not formally acknowledged nor have they demonstrated that they understand the need for change. It might very well take a drastic action like stop shooting ATA targets to get the EC and ED to understand the membership is serious about getting the rules, policies and procedures changed.

 

If the ATA ED, EC and BOD has not recognized there is a problem by now they never will ... The down word spiral has been going on since before the ATA relocated to Illinois ... The ATA posted a limit of squads one year before they left Vandalia so low and behold many less shooters showed up figuring they were not going to be able to shoot any way, they never got close to the limits they put on the number of squads either ... The Membership today consists of roughly 30/35% of what it was when I joined back in 1975 when it was growing in leaps and bounds ... The former ATA registered shooters still shoot, they just do not shoot registered thanks to the changes, relocation, and not wanting to support the habits of those who use the organization as a Cash Cow ... Drain the Swamp, out with the old, in with the new ... WPT ... (YAC) ...

 

Is it possible to put pressure to do the change or toooo late?

 

I think it is too late, the old guard is going fast. The average ATA member today knows nothing of Vandalia, money shooting, 55 yard 3 hole targets, 4000 shooter handicap events, and most important the FUN we all had back in the day. It's not their faults anymore than it's the snowflakes faults that don't know any american history. It just is. The common denominator is leadership and that's what has failed. Trump will have an easier time rebooting the United States than we will fixing the ATA. Brad

 

Let's hope the above quote is a call to arms. Time to have a little chat with delegates or is it too late?

 

Anyone who has put on significant shoots knows that fewer shooters will come to a club that throws harder targets. So, as long as soft targets are not only accepted but the norm, lone wolf clubs throwing harder targets will suffer in attendance. But that does not address the tedium and stultifying effect on the sport from making the targets soft as a default.

 

The problem is once a change is made its is far more difficult to un change it and go back to the way it was even if it would be an improvement over all ... The norm was always new shells at the grand when it was the grand, that was changed to entice shooters to attend the new and unimproved grand after the relocation .... If by chance the ATA would now say nothing but new shells again all they would do is drive even more shooters away ... The targets were set in the 3 hole when many of us first started shooting, nobody ever gave them a second thought, then they changed that so if they go back to the 3 hole setting you will probably drive a number of shooters away with that ... The fact that change is not always a good thing puts the writing on the wall, now its to the point where less shooters care what they do because they have moved on or just shoot practice and save some money ... There is no shortage of trap shooters, there is only a shortage of trap shooters shooting registered targets because of the changes ... WPT ... (YAC) ...

 

"There is no shortage of trap shooters, there is only a shortage of trap shooters shooting registered targets because of the changes"

And that, boys and girls pretty much sums it all up.

I didn't leave the ata, the ata LEFT ME

 

I started shooting registered targets in 1966. Have shot registered somewhat seriously, in streaks, off and on all my life. I have not shot registered in over 10 years for a couple of reasons but am shooting actively again and will shoot some registered soon.
Anyway.
The 3 hole, 2 hole? and adding handicap yards? arguments are nothing new, as everyone knows. Honestly, to some extent, after not participating in these discussions for quite some time, I thought it was simply more 71/2 or 8s? stuff.
But I have always believed that trapshooting competitively is tedious. Everyone knows that at any major shoot you have to shoot 200 straight singles to get in a shoot off.
I recall when 100 straight from 27 yards was considered to be almost impossible. I am not going to try to "freehand" when the first 100 straight from 27 yards happened or when the first few happened but I was around the mid 60s era with Dan Orlich, Gravestock, Little. And, for sure, from the 3 hole in a Western trap set to throw 52 yard targets it was REAL hard to do. (Not that it is easy to run 100 from 27 now. Its sure not. But its LOTS easier now than it was.)
But I get it. When I was the President of a major gun club in So. Cal. we had seen a trend of our big shoots having declining attendance. We threw legal targets that were at the maximum ATA limits of 52 yards and 22 (or slightly more) degrees R and L. We had another large club less than 2 hours away and their attendance kept increasing as ours was decreasing. We kept hearing how shooters preferred to shoot similar events at that club. Well, they were throwing 48 yard targets (or less) at 18 degrees R and L (or less).
We reset our machines to throw the softest targets allowed. Our attendance increased accordingly over the next 2-3 years.
So, when the ATA not only allowed but essentially changed the rule from "3 hole" (22+degrees) to "2 hole" (18 degrees) targets, if you coupled with 48 yards becoming standard you can not compete, and many ATA shooters will not attend, if you throw harder targets.
There is a reason clubs like Spanish Fork in Utah are famous and draw huge attendance at a relatively modest club. They throw the easiest possible targets in the thinnest possible air. Simply, they are easy.
That is all fine and good but then you end up with the full circle problem. Tedium. Its like trying to knock in 100 straight short putts.
Tell you another factor no one seems to discuss.
We should be shooting 1 oz or even less (7/8 oz.) loads. It would make the games more interesting, especially from the 27. Additionally, it would make the game more appealing to more people. Significantly less recoil (And recoil is an issue. How many ATA shooters use recoil reducing stocks and devices? Lots, that's how many.), potentially cheaper shells, less lead to have to deal with environmentally and to transport.
I have thought about this a long time and have shot a whole bunch of 1 oz and less shells at trap back to the 27 and I don't see a downside if ALL shooters were required to use lighter payload shells. And before a whole bunch of folks tell me I am wrong, go buy a flat of international bunker shells in 24 gr. of 7.5s and shoot them from 27 yards. They SHRED clays with a good point.
Anyway, that's my Saturday morning rant on this VERY old issue.
By the way, what is better, 7.5s or 8s? And does it make a difference if it is in handicap or singles? Inquiring minds want to know.
Jake

 

Our kids will not continue with a boring game that has little financial rewards. Who doubts this?

 

Not me. It's already ancient history.

 

Another meeting gone and the over-handicapped delegates did nothing that would make the 27 more challenging.

 

They fixed everything wrong with the system by eliminating the 18 yard line. After all, 5 or so shooters received punches from the 18 and 18.5 during Grand week , and only around 575 received honorary punches from the 27! Problems solved!

 

It is more than speculation, IF YOU LOOK AT IT< With an open mind, WOW so stupid it's unbelievable

GB.........................DLS

 

The Real prolem is when we ELECT what we think is a good delegate, they get told they have to vote the way the BOD & EC Decide, so you can be on OUR TEAM.

I personally Thought the election of Tonya Bluhm & Roger McNamer would bring about some change or attempt, they both seemed to go MUTE, no positive actions on attempting any change at the SPARTA ATA MEETING, name something they brought up, ANYTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Just like what happened at the Hrand Meeting I went to, and was not allowed to speak, was told to ask my delegate, he was as useful as TEETS on a BOAR HOG.

Gary Bryant.........................Dr.longshot a Life Member

 

My score was 13-0 on even a competetive avg. on assigned Yardage for any of them, being on the 27 w/such low averages is disgusting to this sport, Even they should admit it. I took all reductions to get my average back up since losing my left foot and then falling injuring my left shoulder and still cannot shoot trap for a 100 target event. Since April 2014.

GB..............................DLS

 

ATA shoots follow ATA rules.........
Could a club holding a registered event mandate 1oz loads as a max? Or 1150 fps as a max? Larry

 

Impossible!

 

Why? Seems ATA states maximum weights and speeds..... where do the rules say " you shall shoot........"? Larry

 

I was always under the impression a clubs rules are what that club follows over and above ATA rules, if they have a restriction on ammo I do not see why that would be any different ... I think the only problem you might find is getting people to show much like the big show in Sparta, Ill every year ... Would be interesting to see what happens ... WPT ... (YAC) ...

 

I don't know the answer to this question. But I do know that damn few shooters would shoot such an event. Wouldn't want to soil their pristine ATA averages.
It is exactly this mentality that led to the institutionalization of the 2 hole targets. ATA members avoided shooting at clubs which threw difficult targets.

 

Impossible to police.

 

Agree with all the input above but it appears waiting for ATA to make any changes along the line of what this forum is suggesting is probably pointless........ I was just wondering if the clubs themselves could work within the framework of existing rules to increase the challenges for shooters that are perhaps "stagnating" with existing conditions......... Often an organization has to have its "tail yanked" to start change......... Larry

 

Larry,

I have no doubt that you could makeup a program showing a 3-hole, 1oz max ATA registered shoot and be fine. As long as everyone knows ahead of time, you won't have any issues.

 

If that be the case, and it is the wish of a majority of those involved why not push for a change on a local level rather that trying to get a non responsive ATA BOD to take action? Just a thought, just a thought...... Larry

 

OH and PA have more shooters at meat shoots than there are in some so called shoots with a grand title in the south.

 

I don't know but I suspect that just might be the case most everywhere Jim...... there are 5 clubs in this little corner of the state, only 2 of them hold any registered events...... one club has 2 and the other only 1...... other 3 clubs shoot only games... 25 shooters is about the average at the registered events and represent a few from each club...... the meat shoots and games have much larger attendance and are held regularly....... But if the question is how to change registered shoots then that is where the focus needs to be... registered shooters at registered events..... If its a change in ATA folks are after I suspect attendance at meat shoots probably does not enter into the equation......... ??? Larry

 

Larry, that is the whole point here. Many of these issues argued about here can be implemented at any time at a local ATA shoot. Just do it at your local level and see how it goes. If everyone loves it, maybe it will spread. Thing is, nobody does it???

 

It would seem then that "cleaning ones own house first" might be in order...... If I can figure out how to do it I might change a trap to "3 hole" targets just to see........ I could not tell you what they are now except that rights and lefts are straight aways from post 1 and 5..... at meat shoots and so on we are always shooting from "way back" anyway and one club has an annual 44 yard buckle shoot with great attendance. Perhaps clubs that want "different" should just start shooting "different". Seems current rules allow them to do so if they wish...........??? Could be the starting point for eventual BOD EC changes....????Larry

 

I've only been trap shooting for just over a year and 2019 will be my first registered year. 2 hole, three hole, what ever, there is still a limitation to the target pattern. Change it and a after a while a group of people will get the timing and swing movements/muscle memory down pat and it will be the same ole same ole complaint. It would end up with a group of people dominating the scores.

The few pot shoots I've attended have always had more participants then weekend practice shoots and more than I've seen in our local ATA shoot results when posted on the clubs sites. I think the reason may be that the targets are more challenging and less predictable when shooting follow the leader and parking lot annies. There are shooters and there are trap shooters, less predictable appeals to shooters and more predictable appeals to trap shooters.

The desire for predictable targets might explains the terms "good targets" and "bad targets" and why I see a lot of great seasoned trap shooters call it quits for the day when the wind picks up. I like the wind, it's challenging with it's unpredictability. At my club, when the wind picks up I can just about hold my own in handicap, when it's calm the seasoned trap shooters dominate.

Don't know what the answer is. There will always be great, natural talented shooters who dominate just as in any sport but trap seems to have an unusually high number. More unpredictability seems like the best option to prevent "learning" the sport.

 

Larry,

A straightaway setting on Post 1 & 5 is the 22° angle target that was the standard rule from 1955 until about 1997. That straight away setting corresponds to the #3-hole on the old Western-Winchester Model V1524 traps.

Prior to 1955 rules called for 45° (quartering) angles on both the right and left side of the center post with an additional 20° on each side still being a legal target.

I don't understand why anyone would want to reduce the angles with all the improvements everyone talks about (ie. voice callers, ammunition, guns, adjustable stocks, choke boring, allowable no-targets once scored lost, etc. Of course, those who know a little about our sport's history are aware that many of the above items were discussed over a century ago when ammunition was improved, choke boring had been done for years, adjustable stocks were available.

The sport is supposed to be a true challenge for the best and all the changes to make the shooters of less ability more competitive have failed. Even pouring more concrete.

Here is some interesting information on the subject.

In 1906 the decision was made to increase the yardage marks in 1907 from 22 to 23 yards.

THE INTERSTATE
ANNUAL BUSINESS MEETING IN NEW YORK CITY
Grand American Handicap Goes to Chicago – Changes in Conditions
of Trophy Events – Manager E. E. Shaner’s Complete Report​

New York, Dec. 8.—The annual meeting of the stockholders of the Interstate Association was held at Oakland, Bergen County, N. J., December 6, 1906, at 10 A. M. The meeting was duly adjourned to meet the same date at 2 P. M., at the "Grand Hotel, New York City. The adjourned annual meeting was called to order at 2 P. M., with President J. A. Haskell in the chair.

By resolution it was decided that the handicap distances at all tournaments given by the Association, the Grand American Handicap included, shall be from 16 to 23 yards, in place of 14 to 22 yards as formerly.
[ SPORTING LIFE, December 15, 1906, page 12 ]

In 1924 the 24 and 25 yard marks were added and handicaps were assigned from 16-25 yards based on your singles average. The 11 ATA shooters who held a 97 or higher averages were placed at 25 yards.

Here's what ATA President George McCarty had to say:

"President McCarty and other members of the board are of the opinion the systems of classifying and handicapping the shooters will tend to drive out the competition of the tournament chasers, men who participate in the sport for financial returns only. Under the new classification there will be new optionals for each class, making it possible for the shooters who desire to indulge in wagers to wager with shooters of their skill.
"As there are only 11 97 percent shooters in the United States, which include the objectionable tournament chasers, President McCarty contends these 97 percent shooters will recognize their winnings will be small for their competition will be confined to themselves.
"Placing these 97 percent men on 25 yards in the handicap contests may not necessarily prevent them from winning some of the handicaps, as all of them will equip themselves with properly bored guns and special loaded shells to overcome long distance shooting. And those 11 97 per cent shooters know the remedy to overcome this handicap. When they step on the 25-yard mark they can have 80 percent of the other contestants out-gunned in equipment.
"It was contended at the meeting that the attendance at large open tournaments was kept to a minimum because of the absence of class optionals and the advantage these 11 97 percent shooters had over the large field of Class A shooters in the country. But the placing of a double A Class in the rule books should preclude any further trouble for the 11 double A class shooters will not journey 500 or 1,000 miles to take part in a tournament when they have to compete among themselves."

Some might be interested in how shooters were given "lost" targets in the old days. This is one of the many factors that has reduced the difficulty and challenge the sport once had.

BROKEN TARGETS​

"Other changes in the rules are in reference to the accepting and refusal of targets. The 1924 rules makes no provision for broken targets. When a contestant shoots at a broke target it shall be regarded as an accepted target and the result must count. A new rule was written into the trap shooting code in reference to shooting doubles. During the 1924 season no balks, or doubling of guns will be recognized. All balks will be counted as misses. If a contestant is using a pump gun and the fore-end ejector jams on the second shot, the target must be scored as "lost." If a contestant is using a double gun and it doubles, discharging both shells, both targets must be scored as "lost," even though the first target was broken. That both targets must be scored lost is because a double quantity of shot was used to break the first target.
[ PITTSBURG-POST GAZETTE, February 24, 1924 ]


Handicaps in the 1934-1936 Grand American Handicap programs were assigned from 16 - 27 yards, however, the 25-yard post being the maximum mark used, not one contestant was placed on the 26 or 27.

In 1955 the handicap post were increased to 26 & 27 yards. Here's the report.

Annual Trapshoot Expected To Draw Record Entries

VANDALIA, Ohio – Aaron Bird, resident manager of the American Trapshooting Association, said Tuesday that this year’s grand American tournament was expected to have a record entry of about 2,050 sharpshooters from all over the world.

The grand one of the nation’s most colorful and most noisy of sporting events, attracted a record 2,009 shotgun experts last year.

The ATA made a number of changes for this year’s target shooting, including increased yardage on the firing line and a switch in the program.

Trapshooters at the 56th annual grand American tournament opening Friday will be shooting at distances up to 27 yards for the first time in history. Only eight of the nation’s best scattergunners however will have to fire at the new maximum 27-yard handicap distance, two yards further back from the trap house than in previous years.

The crackshots penalized an extra two yards include Mrs. Evelyn Primm of Los Angeles, the only woman ever to be handicapped at the maximum yardage; Maynard Henry of Los Angeles, ATA president this year; Arnold Riegger of Seattle; Dan Orlich of Reno, Nev.; Julius Petty of Stuttgart, Ark.; and Merle Stockdale of Los Angeles.
[ THE NEOSHO DAILY NEWS, (Neosho, Missouri), August 16, 1955, page 6 ]

It has been written that there is no handicapping rule that will make the poor shot a good shot.

Current discussions on equalizing competition closely mirror those documented back to at least the 1880's.

The below appeared in a sporting journal in 1895:

A New Handicap – A Plan For Trap Shooters to Examine, and One
Which Has Never Been Tried Before

The handicapping of the expert is still a much mooted question, and every now and then a new plan is given to the trap shooters, which promises to remedy all the existing evils and place all shooters on an equal footing, according to their present shooting ability, but as soon as one of these new plans or systems is tried it is found that there is still a weak point and some objectionable features attached to them in one way or another, and the shooter with a long head will again sit down and endeavor to figure out some plan by which the much abused 60 per cent amateur can be made a winner, and the “bloated bondholder” combination of paid experts, manufacturers’ agents and professional gun sharks will not take all of their money, even if they (the experts) do make an average of 97 per cent.

There is no handicapping rule that will keep those long-yardage shooters who work harder than the rest of us at becoming and staying a top shot, from winning.

While you may think that increasing the handicap distance to 30 yards will help to equalize the poorer shot's chances of winning, history shows it will not.

Here's a discussion from 1900:

HANDICAPPING BY DISTANCE
This System of Equalizing Shooters’ Chances Will be Popular​

"Handicapping by distance" in target shooting is still a fruitful topic of conversation among trap-shooters. The recent large tournament of the Interstate Association has done much to arouse fresh interest in the sport of inanimate target shooting, for so many people now see that it is possible to handicap shooters according to their ability and yet give a fairly average shot a show. The great drawback to handicapping by distance that many clubs will experience is the way in which their shooting platforms are arranged. On some grounds it will be impossible to put men back of 20 yards unless the shooting platforms are rearranged: on some grounds the platforms will only permit of shooting from the 16-yard mark. It is safe to say that such a system will become more and more popular the more it is tried. It is also safe to prophesy that the experts will soon catch on to breaking targets from the 21 and 22-yard"- mark, and the best of them will then seldom go below 90 per cent, at that distance. A great deal of course depends on the background: the poorer the back ground the harder will be the shooting the further the shooter is placed from the traps. On a ground where there is a "sky background" the handicap by distance will not be so severe on the expert who shoots in quick time. – N. Y. Com. Advertiser.
[ SPORTING LIFE, July 14, 1900, page 12 ]

Trapshooting was made equal and fair when Class and Yardage was introduced. It allowed all competitors to shoot with others of approximate ability.

If a poor shot decides of their own free will to play high-gun purses and feels they can win over or place among the top shots there should be no complaint when they do not. They placed a low-percentage wager that was highly likely to not pay off.

Is it equitable and fair for a shooter on the old 18 yard mark competing in a yardage group with those on the 20?
How do Class D shooters feel when they are averaging 180x200 and they quickly learn that it takes a 194x200 at some state shoots just to tie several other Class D shooters?

In my view the current handicap system is about the best known. It could be better if our governing body did not place more emphasis on straight scores instead of winning scores in the mid to upper 90's. It would also be better if handicap committees tried a little harder to properly assign shooters and utilized the known ability rule. Has anyone else seen shooters known to have posted a couple 198s in the current target year only to be placed in Class B at the GAH?

Just my view,

HB

 

We have never had a shooter complain or comment on our angle....... they just shoot. Bit of grumbling from time to time about speed and height... We set speed with radar and height with T-bar..... many have learned that their calibrated "eye-ball" is no match for radar......... There are times we need to re-center though so we try to remember that before each shoot.
There are comments about class and yardage though, what we do is go by ATA on our computer.....
The club had its 100th birthday last year, new concrete was poured in 1966 (?) using the old lanes as a pattern.... current traps are mounted as the old traps were set............. History is wonderful, shooting is fun and we are happy......... Larry

 

Larry, We have a club in So. Cal., Redlands, that has a trapshoot once a month that is run much like an ATA shoot but NOT registered. They shoot 100 singles, 50 caps and 50 doubles. I think clubs could successfully hold such events with more difficult targets. Possibly, even using wobble for the singles and caps and with 1 oz loads.
I guarantee if it was within a reasonable distance, I would regularly attend.
And the ATA cuties would not have to worry about averages and such.
Jake

 

Traps set in 2-3-4 and 5 hole. Challenging and fun too.

 

Redlands earlier times (1896 & 1923).

​

 

Of course they are . . . but not as challenging as the targets our forefathers shot. Shooting was a lot tougher in the old days and top scores by the top shots were not 100 straights from the back fence, nor were they 200 straights at 16 yards. That only happened on occasion.

The reason why was not the many improvements which I believe did have a small impact, but it was the wider angles and difference in speed and distance. There was no perfect target.

Here's one of my favorite old articles on the subject of handicapping and targets.
Only written 113 years ago.

STUDY OF HANDICAPS


"This handicap business in trap shooting still holds its own as a much discussed and otherwise cussed subject. Just as long as there are good shots who win and bad shots who lose there will be murmurs of discontent. The bad shot is always clamoring for a handicap, which will enable him to come out even or at least win his target money. At the same time the good shot is just as persistent that handicaps are a nuisance and any plan which prevents him from earning a fair day’s wages, which he loses by laying off from his work in the sawmill, or agricultural pursuits, is a delusion and a snare.

"There has been all kinds, shapes and forms of handicaps tried on the unsuspecting and patient trap shooter, each in turn to receive a thrust from the javelin of one or many of this craft. Only one plan has ever been submitted that fairly glittered with jewels for the ordinary shot, but no gun club possessed sufficient temerity and coin to try it. This was the McMurchy "holly-hock" system. This plan briefly outlined was as follows: All events, 15 targets, $1.00; all who broke straight got $5.00; all the others got their money back. Just where the gun club profited in the transaction the originator failed to divulge, but he did state that the shooters would be satisfied for once in their lives. It’s unfortunate that a gun club giving a tournament must perforce make a small profit. The targets cost, say one-half cent each and the Standard Oil Company would say that a club was justified in charging two cents each or a profit of 300 per cent, on the targets. This profit goes like breakfast food to breakage, trappage and shrinkage, thus cutting down the club’s fortune to a few paltry dollars for a day’s hard work by fifteen to twenty members. In face of this someone kicked on the handicap. The handicap may have been by distance where the man with longest gun barrel or the biggest feet had to shoot from the mark furthest away. Then again, an added handicap, or "something for nothing" plan, gave a 70 per cent, shot who found a new load and knocked out 85 per cent., an addition which brought his score up to 109 out of a possible 100. Of course, the committee were excusable in not knowing beforehand what this new lend would do.

"Another plan suggested some years ago was to make three sizes of targets. The 70 per cent, men had targets tossed in the air as large as washtubs. The 80 per cent, men got them about the size of milk pans, while the 90 per cent, shots had to squint at targets the size of a silver dollar. Even then some of the poor shots wanted it reduced to as big as a nickel.

" Another plan tried some years ago was two sets of traps. The poor shots were to shoot at slow, easy-going targets, that wobbled with old age, about 45 yards away. To even things a trifle the experts were to shoot at targets thrown as fast as the traps could throw them and remain seated. As the shoot wore on it was discovered that the old traps used for the experts couldn’t throw a target over 50 yards to save their lives, while the new set purchased purposely for the young and budding amateurs could not be made to throw less than 50 yards without splicing on an inch of spring, or using a rubber band in place of the spring. And in spite of the $2000 added money the poor shots complained on the handicap and failed to win, as in former shoots.

"The "speed" handicap was tried here two years ago. Three different sized wheels on the Magautrap threw 40, 50 and 60-yard flights. At first it worked well and fooled the good shots. Nothing fools the poor shots for they miss as many one way as another. But the next time the "speed" handicap was tried the experts put more speed on their time and broke more of the 60-yard targets than the poor shots could break with a hammer, and the targets in a bushel basket. Again the poor shots wailed. They are an unsatisfied class anyway. But the experts chuckled as they folded rolls of greenbacks into their wallets. And it came to pass that the "speed" handicap died a speedy death.

"Still another form of handicap, which had an inning, was the allowance of extra targets for each poor shot to shoot at. The only trouble with this plan was that sometimes there were not enough targets on the grounds to permit some of the unskillful members to reach a possible score by continual shooting. This was considered too one-sided as the weaker shots got the most practice. They needed it anyhow.

"There were other handicap plans on the money system. Just how it worked we never had time to figure out. It was something like taking the earnings of the good shots and dividing it up among the losers so that all came out even. But this plan never reached national acceptance. There were plans tried which required a corps of bookkeepers, stenographers, managers and a floor walker, and after all said and done the contestants, good, bad and indifferent, were unable to tell just exactly how they came out. Of course the gun club made money.

"There were various pink and red devices to draw wary trap shooters by making the better shots pay more money into the purse than their less adept brethren. But bless you, didn’t the good shots go home in a Pullman car just the same as before. The good shots simply won their own surplus entrance and the other fellows, too.

"There has been all kinds of money divisions to help the poor shots, but this struggling, generous free-library establishing class never won any money that was not given to them by their kind-hearted but more clever associates. The jack-rabbit system pays each one something for every target he breaks. In the end he is not quite as rich in purse as when he started, neither is the good shot, reeking in wealth over and above his target money. It don’t amount to much more than paying for your targets anyhow; the poorer you shoot the more you pay for them. At the same time the really good shot who does not have a loss of memory and now and then forget where to point his gun will just about get his targets for nothing.

"Then came the sliding handicap. If a shooter could not break over 75 or 80 per cent, he never felt its stinging blow. He remained stationary like a cigar store Indian. It was the good shot as usual who was socked to 19 or 20 yards, where he likely performed almost as lively as at 16 or 17 yards.

"The beauty of the sliding handicap is the alternating hope of a money prize. When a scrub shooter gets a bad start and sees his chances slip away with the nerve destroying call of "lost" from the phonographic voice of the hard-hearted referee who can’t see small pieces half as well as you can, then comes the opportunity. The scrub gun man gets discouraged, down hearted and blue and his score in this event is so poor that he easily gains the nearest goal to the traps. Now watch him smash straight In the next scrapple and see how hard the good old professionals have to dig in their toes at 19 or 20 yards. This is the common working man’s chance. Of course next time he goes back to 19 yards where he never did belong anyway. But behold, don’t he fall down there so hard a dent is made in the ground, and won’t his eager, expectant face be found again on 16 yards in the following race? Thus he slips up and down vacillating from 16 to 19 yards, alternating with good and bad scores, but at the cashier’s office the fellow who spent a thousand dollars for his education in the trap shooting college will receive several diplomas manufactured by "Uncle Sam" with 5 and 10 stamped on them, while the jumping-jack shooters will be handed a small portion of the loose change. Again the handicap failed to bring Christmas joy. Out in the breezy west a handicap was devised which did not handicap. It only divided the money equally among all who hit over a certain number. It was like playing solitaire with yourself for $1 a game. You know beforehand that if you could not shoot over a certain standard you would never be invited to the office at night to receive your quota of the donation. The 79 per cent. man was exactly where he left off when the story was continued to the next week’s paper. He was still in doubt whether the villain fell from the cliff or whether he floated away on hope.

"Coming back to the pith of the story you may as well figure it out that no handicap has ever been devised or ever will be which will let everyone win the prize. The man who dances has to chuck his coin in the hat for the gentleman who wrestles with the violin. The better you dance the least inclined you are to chuck in any heavy amount. When it’s all ended and you take "Old Betsy" home in a leather case you find out that you know just as much about handicaps as you do after perusing this article."
[ SPORTING LIFE, April 8, 1905, page 21 ] The sporting journal out of Philadelphia

 

Jake, we do much the same in Wallowa........ mostly we jus shoot together....... someone picks a handicap distance and folks join in and shoot it......... last two weeks I loaded trap 2 with OLD white BIO birds....... we need to get rid of them..... Lots of comments and NONE WERE NEGATIVE........ Jeez!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! they look as big as dinner plates and so on. Not one comment on whether or not they broke like pitch............. Loaded them again last Sunday and folks were looking forward to shooting the white birds...................... We just have fun.............. Larry

 

Jake, Going to load trap 2 with white birds again....... as we will need to order birds soon we might as well shoot up the BIO and get white pitch. In reading posts and threads about ATA directors and management not making rule changes it seems to me most of what some are asking for is legal under existing rules????? I am referring mostly to angles and so on. It seems to me the 3 hole targets is what we are shooting here anyway and we have never had a complaint..... and as far as shoots that are not registered clubs can do whatever as long as its safe and legal????? Seems to me the ideal place to start for change is on the local level...... set the traps at whatever folks want to change to and "letum shoot".... get a following and try for a change (if needed)..... here we do not have enough shooters or even registered shoots to impact much...... but we do enjoy ourselves........
Much of what History Buff seems to indicate that in "day's of old" shooters were more interested in doing things just cause they could and because they were fun......... not a bad scheme I would say.......... Larry

 

Allowing shooters to refuse a yardage reduction should be taken out of the rule book.

 

Dean Townsend seems to be holding his own.

 

Winchester did the same thing as Remington. I tested a lot of their silver bullets at 1396 FPS. Had 13, 20 box cases of them, loved them. These were loaded for a very good friend. Cried when they were gone. These were the original silver bullets. Roger C.

 

It seems to me there have always been some big egos in trapshooting.

 

How long since you shot Colorado targets? None at 40 yds. that i have shot in the last few years.

 

Current rule for doubles:
In doubles shooting, targets shall be thrown not less than 44 yards nor more
than 46 yards.

If set "a little soft" they will be shorter than 44 yards. In fact it is not uncommon to find lots of targets less than 40-44 yards from the trap, if you go look after a shoot. I have never shot in CO so things might be different there.

In Elysburg it seems like some targets are still going up at 44 yards.

 

Lot of times local targets look longer than 44-46 yards although i have never physically measured them. Very few if any clubs have a distance or an angle stake set. Would really help this old one eyed shooter if these stakes were set. Would affect and help greatly my leads etc. that lack of depth perception do not allow me to see now. 35 years ago averaged in the 94+ area. Now go back and forth between C-D class depending on my last shoot. Just a suggestion which i have made to every club i shoot and have yet to see any of them put these stakes in. I have gone so far as to offer to set these for the club but have had no takers. Almost seems like the clubs not want you to really know what you are getting. I just shoot them and do the best i can.

 

Someone asked on another thread about the problems with the occupy the 27 group. It is because delegates tend to make rules that help themselves. And from the above averages that means whatever it takes to keep them on the 27 with their cronies.

 

Are any of these delegates members of Congress or running for congress

 

As to shoot with your friends, that goes to the local leagues as well. Here in Pa, sign ups are a pain in the ass. More than once, "put my buddy on post 2, he is on his way". Or someone is on their phone "hey Joe where are you. I signed us up and were next."

 

Plus the members pay their expenses for them to be there to represent the membership ... WPT ... (YAC) ...

 

Hey Smithy. If you are going to flame all these delegates, at least take the time to see how they spell their names correctly. In New York we spell our delegates name Dave Cichelli, not Cichely.

 

Ok Make it clear readers. The delegate with an 82 average is D-a-v-e C-i-c-h-e-l-l-y.

Pointing out why this delegate would want easier targets not harder is now called “flaming”!

Username Help me, ........I fixed it for ya.

 

Whatever Smithy! Where I come from it still sounds like a flame on all the delegates. Anything to bad mouth the ATA.

 

There ya go. Showing mathematically why theses delegates will never vote for harder targets is bad mouthing the ATA. Unfortunately username “Helpme” is comprehensively challenged.

The title of the thread is “It’s not the ATA”.

It’s C-I-C-H-E-L-L-I right? The delegate with the 82 average that doesn’t want harder targets. Double Checking. It isn’t the ATA.

 

Easy there. The forum needs HelpMe on the forum. You need someone to defend the indefensible even if all he can do is point out a spelling error and complain you are bashing.

What would the ATA be like if the delegates always voted for what was best for the sport? Is Cichelli in favor of mandatory reductions? 82 average...…..wow!!!!

 

I don't think HelpMe has shot for a few years. And then he only shot a few hundred. Lots of talk for a never shot. Don't ask how I know.

 

With very few practicing, you can expect the delegates to have even lower averages this year. Those 82 averages could be in the 70’s.

 

What is a "bore" hog?

 

Bumping to matching the Dysinger thread.

 

Multifired, The word is BOAR, it is a male pig. They have no need for teats. You know what they are used for do you not?
Roger C.

 

I would like to see an update on the delegates averages.

 

Delegate Robert Pennock from Arkansas had an 85.6 average from the 27.

Will he vote for harder targets?

 

Louis Diprete from Rhode Island has a 85.08 average and stands on the 27. Although there aren’t enough active shooters in the State to fill a squad, he has the same voting power as a Delegate from OH.

 

Mississippi Delegate Jerry Tharp is nursing a 75 average right now from the caps. This is the state that pushed for easier yardage. Who thinks Jerry wants harder targets?

 

Is Peter Grant Blind, disabled, a Quadrapledgic?

 

What the hell kind of remark is that?

Jon Reitz

 

Who is Peter Grant? Roger C.

 

Three years later have they gotten any better?