I will agree With Neil Winston On This. (Longshot vs Neil Winston & Hunts) Pat Traps & Speed

And are you still?

 

I am an advocate of the present ATA rulebook and suggest those who want it to read differently to put their backs to changing it rather than merely constantly pissing and moaning.

N1H1

 

To readers here: I have now twice deleted a couple of posts I put up last night and deleted at about dawn (CDT) today. I deleted them since I think that posting here is pointless and a waste of time. Someone put them back up, I think just to breath a little life into this largely moribund website. I stand behind every word, of course, and regret that the people running this site did not respect my obvious wishes, and instead chose to cause trouble. But as WRH has shown us, "controversy sells newspapers." I myself deleted them because I have no interest in selling this newspaper.

N1H1

 

I am an advocate of the present ATA rulebook and suggest those who want it to read differently to put their backs to changing it.

N1H1

 

Now, he is an advocate of the rule book.

 

Neil,

Does this help, these highlights are from the Minnesota MTA Hall of Fame...

Neil was elected ATA Delegate in 1987 and held the post until 2000. Highpoints were; Jim Bradford, past ATA President, and Neil were able to get the misfire rule changed, and Neil was instrumental in getting the 3-hole target rule rescinded.

Birdddog

 

You have only tried to delete "a couple"? It is a forum. We post what we want others to see.

Congrats on the instrumental thing. That is a major lifetime achievement that should not be hidden.

Neil was instrumental in getting the 3-hole target rule rescinded.

 

When the decks are "stacked", it's hard to change the deal.

 

My 1995 letter, as printed in Shotgun Sports and posted on this website, was certainly "instrumental in getting the 3-hole rule rescinded" and I have hardly tried to "hide" that. In that letter, however, I did not advocate the two-hole target. I advocated the Board of Directors exercise the powers granted it by the By-Laws. As for the rest, I am willing to wait until HistoryBuff posts his response.

N1H1

 

Neil, Why would you post the above information? You were either for 2 or 3 hole or not. The logical thing to do was to determine an angle off the centerline of the trap, or a mathmatical angle or horizontal and vertical dimensions off #1 station and #5 station, and permanantly set angle stakes with a predetermined a slight fudge factor for non- level fields. X and Y stakes could have easily been set and marked.

Math, a protractor, and now ACAD.....easy.

 

Rosey, in 1995, as both my letter and minutes of the Annual Meeting attest , I did not express which I favored, only that the action of the EC, which I felt was contrary to the By-Laws, be overturned. By 1996 I did not have to advocate anything as an ATA officer, it was clear what was going to happen (and I liked what foresaw) , and did not speak (as I remember) at the meeting at all. Since then, I have not needed to advocate anything about the angles; it has been a dead issue for almost 20 years. I was, of course, an ATA officer for a dozen more years after that and have tried to enforce the rulebook as written. I am entirely content with the present rules about the minimum required angles and hope they are not changed, though I would continue to shoot, of course. I do think that it would negatively effect target participation as it apparently did in the 1995 and 1996 target years and do not think it in the best interests of the ATA.

In fact, I think at that any attempt by the ATA to impose wider targets without a huge (and successful) informational and public relations campaign well in advance would lead to disaster. As I have written here and on the other site countless times, no one has to shoot trap; there are plenty of alternative and competing industries hungry for our recreational time and dollars. And once a member skips a state shoot because he doesn't like what's going on, I think he will never attend another one. In this respect I am a passionate advocate of the tw0-hole - and, more specifically, not changing to the three-hole - not as a shooting question, but as a political one. A body like the BOD of the ATA has to preserve the Association's assets, one of this assets being the income from the membership by which it supports itself. The BOD has to consider the effect of any change not just as what the words now would say, but how, very specifically, members are going to react to the change. If the members don't like it, harm can ensue from which there is no recovery, since, as I say, I think that shooters who quit stay quit. I'm confident that the BOD, made up largely of persons successful in business, is completely aware that customer reaction is an issue of life or death for any enterprise. Get it wrong and you are goners. Approach change with that uppermost in your mind; consider not just what's intended , but everything else that it might lead to and be sure that the benefit convincingly outweighs any unexpected negative side-effects.

As for my own shooting, I couldn't care less; I'm an aimer, after all, and it's all the same to us. If it's a wider angle we just lead it more.

I personally think that those who claim that harder-angles targets favor less-skilled shooters are wrong and am unconvinced by their arguments to the contrary.

Just as I support the rulebook as written, I support the way it deals with rule-changes - that was my whole point in 1995, after all. All anyone need to make wider targets a requirement is change the rule, which means, get a majority of the BOD to vote for that. I have never, either at gun clubs or even on line, met anyone who would lift a finger to do so. Look around here! Has anyone made the sort of effort I did in 1995? I see typists, not activists. The field is open to them. Showing the success of such a program would go a long way to convince the BOD, it seems to me. If a few clubs started throwing wider targets and they thrived, it might spark some interest.

N1H1

 

N1H1
So you are given a lifetime achievement award such as getting into the HOF in MN. Among the accolades you received was the honor of being recognized as being instrumental in getting the 3 hole rule rescinded. As you were giving that acceptance speech did you by chance mention you were not an advocate of the 2 hole rule? I am sure you would not accept accolades for which you were not deserving.

I see you have not erased your bio on the MN HOF site?

 

Family Guy, I did not throw that question out there so someone could give Neil a hard time. My question was proposed so I could get some reasoning and insight regarding the 2 vs 3 hole target scenario, why Neil felt the 2 hole target was the way to go, and why it wasn't mandated on a firm diagram/mathematical terms.

My take on this whole thing is that the membership got a taste of 2 hole targets and the ATA (delegates, EC and BOD) feels the membership now likes the higher scores and averages and are now scared they may chase away members if harder targets were thrown. Also gives the clubs some latitude on angles when they set traps.

The genie is out of the bottle and will be tough to put back.

 

Why don't those of you with some pull at the Cardinal Center talk them into bring back the 3 Hole Target?
With the crowds they draw, when successful this could fast track the entire process.

 

How ridiculous can that suggestion be when our sport is all about high averages and scores throughout the shooting year? Of course shooters want easier to break scores, thats merely human nature. Taking away candy from kids would be easy in comparison and those writing these kinds of "suggestions" they already know that.

If one wanted to compare the average mans scores to actually see if the lesser shooters averages are better since the good switch, compare the years in question to see how he fares? What's today average shooters singles averages, our easiest game in which to score well? What were they in the 70s?

How would our growth numbers look if not for SCTP? That led to our AIM program being initiated also. Sure, those are great program building platforms that may pay off years down the road but is that enough? We're being convinced easy is better for our sport and if that's true, Rob Taylor has a better idea also?

HAP

 

Family Guy, as I said before, I look forward to HistoryBuff's research on my advocacy, in print, of two-hole targets.

N1H1

 

Rosey, while maybe I should be honored that that some on this site claim that I am responsible for the angle of the targets we now shoot, I doubt the Delegates were much swayed by anything but these two facts reflecting what they saw happening in 1995 and 1996 on the fields of the trap clubs in the states they represented.

1. The promised reduction in 27-yard scores did not happen.In the top 40, it was only about half a bird and average shooters do not lose to the big dogs by half a bird.



2. And the fact that people were reducing their shooting and 1996 was on track to be the worst year in almost two decades.



The Delegates acted in a the way they thought to be in the best interests of the ATA. And in fact, some shooters did come back, leading to a 10% gain in participation within four years after the official instatement of the two-hole. If the ATA were to go back to the harder target, I would expect the same, except that the recreational world has changed and I doubt many disaffected shooters would be willing to forgive and forget a second time.

H1N1

 

H1N1
I will post quickly before the above graph is again deleted from the forum. This is a graph you earlier deleted isn't it?

Your first graph only reinforces the fact that the better 27 yard shooters were not shooting 3 hole targets in 1996. They were doing their best to go to shoots that were known for throwing the easier targets. Much easier. That was an era of mega cheating. Some of the 27 yarders were shooting easier targets than 2 hole. This was one reason rational for changing the targets.

I get that one of your lifetime achievements is about rescinding the 3 hole rule. One reason we have that information is because you could not delete it. It is posted on the MN HOF site.

Of course we are all to believe you are not an advocate for the change.

Your creds are quickly diminishing. Delete and run while you can.

 

Now we have gone beyond stating the majority of Grand Slam winners had no integrity, and are actually accusing the top handicap shooters in the nation of being cheaters? Wow!

 

Neil,

Prior to you posting and deleting the previous graph the following post was made:

Your graph doesn't show where many of the great shooters do not shoot on windy days if they can help it. It also does not show that the shooters chasing All American points are traveling to warmer climates to shoot. The novice / blue collar shooters are forced to shoot in harsher weather.

Without that data the graph is worthless at best.

The graph also does not show where many of the so-called All Americans were shooting 2-hole targets when they should have been shooting 3-hole targets.
The graph also does not show where many of the shooters were turning down wide angles previously because the rules were uninforced. "
We have both the previous response and your graph because the mods will not let you post and delete.

 

No Bat. But if you are going to take an average into consideration, you have acknowledge that many of the 27 yard shooters were naturally going to events that had easier targets.

If the CC announced they were going to throw 3 hole targets then their attendance would be hurt.

 

N1H1

As to your last graph. I think it was answered well by the dawg. On another thread where you deleted much again he typed:

 

FG, when you say "Your first graph only reinforces the fact that the better 27 yard shooters were not shooting 3 hole targets in 1996. They were doing their best to go to shoots that were known for throwing the easier targets. Much easier. That was an era of mega cheating. Some of the 27 yarders were shooting easier targets than 2 hole. This was one reason rational for changing the targets" it sure sounds to me like calling them cheaters.

For the record, I think the top shooters tend to shoot a lot of targets at the biggest shoots, not cherry-picking little clubs. What rule was changed because of your supposed 27 yarders shooting less than 2 hole targets in 1996?

 

Bat
It was common at the time for clubs to throw less than 3 hole targets. It was a time when ATA AA points were not handed out. Those guys were picked. If you wanted on the "program" you had to have a great average. Ask around what the program meant.

 

Squatty...your post implies that you do not understand that the handicapping part of the sport is broke. No surprise.

 

I thought the AA teams were determined by average before it went to the current point system? Maybe I'm wrong, seems that way to me though. What are you talking about? I really don't follow your point about 27 yarders shooting "less than 2 hole targets", and that led to some rule change? That makes no sense to me, the only thing I can imagine you are talking about was when they put the "not less than 2 hole" wording in the rules, but that predated the time you are talking about by a longshot.

 

The more it would be by average the more you would select shoots that were throwing an easier presentation.

Also, the less you would shoot at targets during bad weather.

The graph presented by Neil shows none of these statistics. It is worthless ink. If anything it shows how little some of the top 40 shooters were shooting 3 hole targets in the previous year.

 

You certainly can read more from a graph than I sir, I'll give you that.

 

To readers here: You may have not been paying close attention and so are confused by some of the posts in this thread, particularly the ones regarding my "advocacy" of two-hole targets.

Remember that I have twice tried to delete the post I am about to quote but since it keeps getting put back, I think there's no point in not quoting it - you can find it if you want anyway.

I wrote:

"I must say that in the past ATA officers were far more outspoken in print than seems to be norm today. And I include myself in the "today" group. Readers here surely believe that I have somehow been a public champion of the two-hole target we now shoot. As long as you have the records and know how to search and accurately quote from them, I wonder if you can find and post here some of the times I advocated two-hole targets in print as an officer of the ATA in official publications, much as the men you quoted above used their office and ability to get their words printed to press their cases. And no. as you said, I am "not fearful of any comments made by (HistoryBuff.)" They are just facts, after all."

That text is now being cited as a denial that I was an "advocate" of the two-hole target. As you see, this is not just not true. I wrote "I wonder if you can find and post here some of the times I advocated two-hole targets in print as an officer of the ATA in official publications, much as the men you quoted above used their office and ability to get their words printed to press their cases." There no denial in there that I can see. I think you would be justified in forming an opinion of those who say otherwise.

As for the rest, particularly the responses to my chart of the averages of the top 40 shooters in two different years: It's something I won't help you with, other than to say your gun club or any long-time shooter friend probably has the 1996 average book. You can flip right to page A44 and see who is being described. I would caution you, however, against even hinting at any of them; Don't do it! I hope you will take my advice on that as a personal favor to me.

Again, I think you would be fair if you based you opinion of the integrity of the poster on what you find there. (Boy, I love that word "integrity"! If it turns you on as much as it does me this site is the place for you!)

Otherwise I guess you are on your own. However, I'm not too worried about my "cred."

N1H1

 

The old AA system was never a pure average approach, at least not for category shooters.

In the early 90s, probably 92 or 93, my brother shot enough targets, shot in multiple state shoots, basically everything needed to qualify including the application and didn't make the SJ team. A couple months after the AA team was published Trap & Field published the high average list. He was on this list and had a better all around average than three or four of the AA team. If I recall the used a subjective factor of 'Quality Wins'.

the results of Neil's graph don't surprise me. The best shooters should be less affected as they tend to shoot more targets at nice venues.

What would be interesting to me is the same analysis on the top 40 shooters by state. I would suspect a larger average spread as many in this group would be shooting fewer targets allowing a bad score or two to have more of an impact on their average.

I would do the analysis but my 92 - 97 average books went missing.

 

The more targets you shoot, the more fees the ATA gets. Thats why the qualifcations are what they are. Unfortunately, it also takes money and time, so those with money and time, and some ability are on the team, not necessarily the best shooters.

Kinda like politics.

 

It's a little more than that, Rosey. You need quite a few targets to be sure that the performance the All-American Committee (who are working constantly to improve their criteria) sees is representative of the shooter's overall record. The travel requirements just insure that the places shot at are not just of one type, high-altitude for example. After all, there are plenty of 100 averages at singles every year - does that make them the best singles shooters in the country?

When my advice was sought I was often asked about some AA detail and I had to beg off and recommend that the questioner ask the mother of a junior or sub-junior shooter since, in my opinion, they are the only ones who really understand the whole, mind-boggling system. While I enjoy occasional placement on a team, I have never thought is was worth it to try to figure any of it out and never have spent two minutes on it.

NeH1

 

Well Boys, lets get to work and elect ATA Delegates who support our wishes, make the changes, Lets have 3 hole targets for 4 or 5 years.
Add another yard or two of cement at one trap house per gun club or a 100 miles region and lets go at it and see what happens. If the memebership is told up
front this is for a 4 or 5 year trial, I believe most shooters will back us on it. Just tell them what is going on, do not hide
it. Enough talking and bullshit. We know the mess we are in and there is no place to go but up.. It will take a major effort
on our part to elect the right ATA Delegates and that will not happpen in one year. Maybe, besides a major effort it will take
a miracle from above to get it done.

Birddog

 

Great post, Bd. All Delegates are elected every year in every state, province, and now country. The election is at the required annual meeting in the last couple of days of the State Shoot and that's the place to start. Generally, all members can speak at these meetings so get your speeches ready! You will even get feedback to help guide your next move! Can we count of hearing from you at Alex this year, Bd?

N1H1

 

N1H1, Personally, I am waiting for the miracle from above.....????

BD

 

Dave Berlet would you be open to run as a delegate?

 

Neil,
I do not have the rule books. It probably goes back to when I was building machines, most likely in the late 80's and early 90's. W.W. had a print of trap house dimensions. It gave the bench mark for the pad in the trap house so that the target on the arm in the battery position was at foot level with the shooting pads.
When the Pat's came out the arm was way to high and this affected the target flight path. The magazine was also to high to fit in some of the older houses so the roofs had to be raised. When Jaqua's installed the machines the OSTA would not certify them. Some one over ruled that decision.
None of this would have happened if Stuart had listened to some very accurate advise that he totally ignored. It came from machine builders not from shooters. Most of the problems are still in the equipment.
I agree it was not a very thought out decision to purchase the traps with out even seeing the offers that other manfacturers had to offer.

 

Roger, I have the rulebooks. And I have what I believe to be the WW blueprints (at least they are the ones the ATA sent to clubs) and will scan and post them if you like. Only if you ask. For my part, they do not seem to agree with what you say.

In 1940 and 1966 and starting again in my collection from the early 1980's, to 2002 there is no mention at all (that I can find) of where the bird is to sit. At least in that period, it was not an ATA rule. Many think it is a rule and it's been quoted to me many times, but it's not. For the last 10 years there have been "recommendations" but that's as far as the rulebook goes.

Carelessness in 2003 lead to:

"It is recommended that the throwing surface (throwing arm or plate) of the trap machine be on the as that of Post 3 and the target-height setting pad, plus or minus 1.5 inches (38.1 mm). All new trap fields built after September 1, 2003 shall conform to these specifications. It is recommended that all trap fields conform to these specifications to give uniformity to all fields." You see the problem. If the houses are built to these specs and other houses now exist that don't meet them, then there can be no uniformity to all fields. What will happen is there will be two kinds of houses at the club and you know what that means!

So from 2004, the last sentence about uniformity disappears. I favored adding something like:" Clubs are advised to try to match new houses with the old ones to give uniformity to all fields" but I couldn't get the votes.

Thanks for your response,

N1H1

 

Neil,
When we sent out info on how to build a trap house that was the print we supplied. There was a dim. on how far below the pads that the base for the machine was to be.
If it was a rule or not, I am not sure. But it was what the machine manufacturer recomended to set a proper trap house.
If we do not get uniformity back into our sport it is going to degenerate down to a local contest much like sporting clays is today. How can you have a national contested arena when there is not a uniform target thrown in all areas so that the difficulty is on a level playing field?
We must set rules and enforce them some how. Impress on all contestants that everyone must compete at the same level of difficulty. It is difficult to find two clubs that set their targets the same, is this because of the lax rule enforcement or lack of knowledge on the part of club management. A simple letter sent to all clubs that throw ATA registered targets should outline just what is expected of them. If they do not conform them explain what the consequences will be. Let them know that the ATA is in charge of this sport and cheating will not be tolerated. We have let the tail wag the dog for much to long, it will be very hard to bring the reins back into the ATA hands.
This is some of what I think must be done. What are yours. Roger C.

 

Thank you for your response, Roger. You may recall the traphouse blueprint which has two sets of specs, on the left one for pitted houses, on the right, one for frame houses.

The left plan sets the top of the place for the trap at 12 inches below grade. The right one, the frame house, specifies a distance from grade to the place for the trap as "8 to 15 inches." Thus I think we can both cite evidence for our assertions.

I just wanted to be sure that no one thinks that clubs with differing trap placements are cheating. No only is the rule so many cite not a rule at all, the rulebook is explicit in allowing a lot of variation. In the 2013 book, XIII, E, flights and angles, we read:

"Target height may also be set based on the height of the target at ten yards as measured above the level of the trap arm in the house rather than the height as measured from the number 3 shooting station. This is the recommended procedure at facilities where the installation of traps in the houses is inconsistent as to height."

and

"If the trap machine manufacturer specifies a dimension other than 1 foot 6 inches, that dimension may be used in construction of the trap house. Clubs constructing new trap house and fields should use the same point B measurement as their existing fields to keep all fields as consistent as possible, provided the same trap machines are being used."

Variations in trap placement and traphouses are everywhere in the community of ATA clubs and the rules acknowledge that.

N1H1

 

Neil,
I do not dispute the dimensions that you quoted are now in the rule book. Were they adopted before the apperence of the Pat trap or after? It has been a long while since I have read the rule book, but I do not remember the part you quoted. Can you please give me a time line? oops//
Just reread you third paragraph rule appeared in 2013. Roger

 

The for decades, dating at least back to the 1950s, the only provision in the ATA rulebook relating to the position of the target thrower was that the shooting distance of 16 yards was measured from the #3 shooting position to the center of the trap. I’ve never found any reference relating to the location of the target or throwing arm until recent times and thankfully it is a requirement contained in the ATA rulebook.

Winchester-Western provided prints for Pitted and Non-Pitted trap houses, new construction of concrete and Frame and even for altering existing trap houses.

The center of the Western White Flyer Model “X” trap (v1524C) was considered to be the front facing mounting holes in the base. The top of the concrete pier measured 1ft. 2in. lower than the grade at No. 3 shooting station. By deducting the thickness of the 2-inch oak mounting plank, the bottom of the trap base was 12in. below the level line from No. 3 firing point. Measuring up from the top of the oak mounting board to the height of the target should provide the answer to your question regarding the relationship of the target to the grade at No. 3 shooting post. I suspect it’s pretty close to Roger’s recollection.


Source: Plate E Trap Houses & Wiring Diagrams for Western (4/1/72)
White flyer Electric Trap V1524C, (Model “X)
Modified clay Pigeon Trap V1579C, (Model “XS”)
International Clay Pigeon Trap V1581C, (Model “XE”)

SHOTGUN SHOOTING FACILITIES PLANS - National Rifle Association, Compliments of Remington Arms Co.
Diagrams of both Pitted and Non-Pitted Trap Houses

The Remington manual for their old Model 4100 trap provides a few details for its installation which helps us better understand the proper method of setting up this trap. It was a large 225 lb. trap with a top magazine that held 154 targets. A "Note" near a trap house diagram in Part III Installation states: "The target leaves the trap at a point approx. 26" above level mounting board.” This makes it clear that the top of the pier on which a trap is mounted varies in height based on the construction of the trap. And it appears that Remington is using a location reference where targets leave the trap. Most likely that reference is on level with that of the No. 3 shooting post, but why was it not so stated.

 

HistoryBuff,
My Co. was the manfacturer dist. for the Remington traps and I do not remember a diagram of trap house dim.
The phone # of my old Co. is 1-800-942-0425 Ask for Al he may be able to supply more info than I can remember about the Rem. info. Roger

 

I've always thought the position a clay is launched was to simulate a boxed bird throwing a live pigeon from ground level? After all, trap shooting was patterned after live bird shooting and somewhat similar?

HAP

 

Roger,

I don't need any information. I was giving you an answer to your question. The base was 12 inches below the level of No. 3 shooting post. That's for the Western 1524 trap. This placement appears to put the target or carrier arm at about level with No. 3 shooting post grade.

The below is from the NRA publication called Shotgun Shooting Facilities Plans - Compliments of Remington Arms Co.

 

Roger and HistoryBuff, here's the plan for the frame houses the ATA sent to clubs who asked for advice on how to build one.



I changed the 10 to 17 inch range in the plan to 8 to 15 (above) to account for the wooden plank HistoryBuff mentioned.

I think, Roger, the 2003 is the first time the position of the bird was mentioned, though I don't have all the rulebooks, of course. I did look in many and found nothing.

The above diagram explains why the 2003 said "recommended," and that was extended to the houses in 2004. The other recommendation (mine) , that houses be built the same, was put in later but I don't know when or by whom.

The problem the ATA faced in 2003 was that there are countless clubs throwing ATA targets with varying (see the above) or no apparent dimensions at all. Without "recommended," putting a new house would have meant building differently-dimentioned ones at the same club or tearing out the old ones and starting again.

The EC thought that, rather than incurring the expense of two (or more) houses, many clubs would just decide that throwing ATA was uneconomic for them and drop out of registered shooting. Since the goal of uniformity of challenge across the country is unattainable anyway - what do we do with high-altitude clubs, make them move to Iowa? - we'd settle for "local" uniformity at each club and that's what the present rule tries to establish but even that is, of course, unattainable. Do we say that there can be no gully in front of trap 2 or the tree beyond trap 7 has to be cut down? I guess that's why we never banned airplanes at Vandalia. . .

N1H1

 

N1H1

Your print (whatever the year) is virtually exact to the prints by the Winchester Western Division for Western White Flyer Electric Trap House construction in 1956 & 1972. Same measurement of 10"-17"

I did notice that lower horizontal line did not measure to the top of the concrete pier but actually about an inch or so below. So I understand the reason for the broadened measurement recommendation.

Since the rules now recommend the throwing surface (arm or plate) as the location where the target is approximately at the same level as No. 3 firing point, its now a moot point. However, I'd be interested in learning the actual distance measurement from the bottom of the the base on a WWF 1524C trap up to the carrier arm just for the sake of knowing.

I wonder why the location of the target or carrier arm was not noted in the old prints. It certainly would have made it clear that they wanted the target to leave the house somewhere near the grade level of the firing line.

KR

 

HistoryBuff, the other thing mentioned here, that the Pat Trap and the WW put the bird in a different place is also, according to my memory, at least open to question. I do not know the answer, but I think I recall looking at a blueprint for a Pat Trap that told me that the bird-placement was a least similar.

One thing you might have noticed is that in 2003 the maximum height of the trap house roof was raised by two inches. I see from from your post that the WW (correction from NB: Remington) auto trap held 154 targets, about a squad's worth. The Pat Trap (and competing automatic traps) hold a lot more; 480 for the Pat seems familiar. The result of more targets was a much speeded up throughput at the traps. After a round over the (Remington) , the trap had to be reloaded and that took time and a dedicated loader for every trap. With a Pat the next squad could start right away and a loader introduced mid-round during a post-change. One loader could service two traps, at least in singles and handicap. The convenience to the shooters and the cost-savings to the club can hardly be overstated. More targets meant higher roofs.

And the whole thing was moot anyway. There were, by 2003 all kinds of trap houses. My 2003 manual for the Pat Trap shows some clearance dimension as required and a two-inch higher one was recommended. Nothing is more frustrating than trying to load a forward stack of targets into an automatic when there is insufficient vertical clearance; you end up doing it a bird or two at a time and again, that takes time, time when a squad is often waiting to shoot, time when a loader is being paid.

I think that ATA and its clubs have come to many common-sense accommodations balancing the often conflicting goals of uniformity and economics.

Yours in Sport,

N1H1

 

N1H1, that was the Remington 4100 trap that held 154 targets. I believe our club replaced the old WW 1524 with the Rem. 4100, a big heavy trap and I'm pretty sure they had to lower the concrete pier so the target would be at about the same level as No. 3 shooting post.

The larger target carousels were a big improvement for sure.

I've seen people trying to load the front tubes. I prefer going in the house and load as the next squad shoots. I sit and wait for the front tubes to move to the back and I load them there. I'm all loaded up and leave the house while the next squad is coming to the line.

As we agree . . . . . the measurements that many of us wanted to see in writing in the past are now in the book so its a moot point.

KR

 

HB, the reason my memory about all this is so hazy is that I never saw any of what everyone still talks about. You know, sensitivity to this or that bird starting higher or lower, more face/less face, setting problems and so forth. I was in the room while all that was being ardently hashed over and it always seemed to me to arguing over angels dancing on the head of a pin. I just kind of tuned out and left it to the experts so I can't trust my memory on any of it.

For example, I think it's true that some traps at a popular midwest State Shoot were installed a couple of feet behind others on the same ground for a long, long time. I never heard anyone even mention it. As I say, I am content to leave worrying about that kind of thing to the many experts who look for reasons to miss. I don't do that. But then we aimers just try to put the bead where we want and don't notice anything else when we are shooting well.

And that might be the critical difference, the reason all this is way over my head. It may be that all the "see only the bird" advocates use a lot of set timing and locked-in responses. While I don't believe for a minute that an inch or three in where the bird was sitting before it was launched would ever cost a bird, it might well show up in the (lack of) dead-centeredness of some few breaks, and thus lead the shooter to change something and that can lead to losses for sure.

N1H1

 

Neil,
The fact that no one seemed to care about where the machine was in the house is probable the begining of no one caring about any of the other rules that our sport was founded on. It seems to have been a gradual reduction of fairness in our sport. There is little honor in skirting the honor in any sport to win. Roger

 

HisoryBuff,
I was only trying to tell you where more info might be found. I did not mean to imply that you needed more info.

 

The notation missing is the target on the arm was to be on the same level as the shooters feet on the shooting pad. Where the bottom of the machine was was not important. The relation from the arm to the shooting pads was. Roger C.

 

As I was scanning this thread I ran across a (properly attributed and accurate ) quote from a piece I wrote about Pat Traps and WW and GMV's a couple of years ago.

""1. The motion of the trap slows as it gets far-right or far-left so it spends more time there, increasing the chances that it will be there when the command to throw a target arrives and
2. The motion of the trap is fastest as toward the middle so it spends less time there, decreasing the chances that it will be there when the command to throw a target arrives.
The combined effect of 1. and 2. is that Pat Traps throw fewer angles and more straightaways than do either WW or GMV traps."

I must say I didn't even understand that, plucked from its context. As I read the source I wonder if it was the reason a couple of posters thought I didn't like Pat Traps. I think it is a good article and will be of interest to some of the technically-inclined participants here. As is noted above, it's from Nov 16, 2013. Here's the whole thing so readers here can learn a bit about some brand differences and the trigonometry which underlies those differences.

"Tim, you not only pass, you get the gold star with oak leaf cluster.

For those who don't watch tennis, a sine wave looks like this:



In your mind, label the horizontal axis "time" and the vertical axis "position." Then the slope of the snaky line will be "velocity" but think of it as "speed," how fast the trap is moving, side to side. This sine wave illustrates the travel of a Winchester-Western or a GMV or any other trap who's oscillation is controlled by a rotating disc.

Where the line crosses the horizontal midpoint, where the trap is in the center, the slope is greatest; that is, it's speed is the highest. In contrast, as the line (the trap) approaches its highest and lowest values (trap is approaching hard-left and hard-right) the slope lessens (the trap slows down) and at the extreme it stops before smoothly accelerating up to maximum speed in the other direction which speed will again occur when the trap is in the middle.

Now in your mind replace the sine wave with simple saw-teeth, moving from one high to the next low, then the next high in straight lines. This is more like the motion of a Pat trap which hardly stops at all when it is changing directions.*

If the uninterrupted travel is the same, say ten cycles a minute, then you can see the differences. The speed in the center of the Pat trap is less, but the speed is maintained almost to the point where it reverses. So the WW (or GMV) trap spends more time at (edit: or) near the extremes for two reasons:

1. The motion of the trap slows as it gets far-right or far-left so it spends more time there, increasing the chances that it will be there when the command to throw a target arrives and

2. The motion of the trap is fastest as toward the middle so it spends less time there, decreasing the chances that it will be there when the command to throw a target arrives.

The combined effect of 1. and 2. is that Pat Traps throw fewer angles and more straightaways than do either WW or GMV traps.

I cannot agree with you, Tim, that you need to know the rotational speed of the platen or the linear speed of the Pat Trap. I think the ratios of time spent at the various points will be the same - and so the relative performance in respect to angles thrown - is not dependent on the speed at all.

Past-President Crausbay was the first to alert me that the machines differed in this respect and I thank him for his insight. I also think it is another thing to add to Gary's list of reasons people score better now than they used to.

Neil

*In fact the reversal is so quick it has spawned a theory of its own, namely that Pat Traps are designed/constructed in such a way that a bird is not thrown when it is an extreme angle. People have seen tiny reversals, brakings, or speed-ups to make this possible, but of course it's not true; the machine has no idea where it is so can't make any special arrangements based on its position."

While I don't see any hint of criticism of Pat Traps in any of that, I suppose a reader bringing a strong bias toward wider angles might not approve of them and would construe what I wrote to be "against' that brand, though, of course, no such words by me are in there.

N1Hi

N1H1, Mar 3, 2015

------------------------------------------------

All the above posted by N1H1

 

It was on the other site, I cannot get on there to PROVE IT several years ago, have not been on there for over 7 years now

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

 

I have had people delete things they posted on occasion so once I saw what was happening and who was doing it I started keeping a file of posting by certain people that I determined could not be trusted to stand by a posting if its get debated and found to not be accurate ... I went so far as to tell the people that I made a file on so anything that could or might possibly be deleted if it got debated that there was a record of same ... I would suggest anyone who happens across someone who is lacking on Integrity and likes to eliminate any and all evidence of same make a file ... (Copy and Paste into the file ) Its not a difficult process and does not take up much space in your archived files .. WPT ... (YAC) ...

 

To any new shooters that have read this post all the way from the first to the last post. You can compare the sport of trap shooting as it was in days past and now. You decide if the changes were in the best interest of our great sport . We have lost over 50% of our shooters, but the yearly target count has not fallen as much as the membership has.
Sporting Clays has taken over as the chosen venue of the masses. This is because of the poor management of the ATA and EC, They let this happen, why, only they know. Could it be todays contestants want a more difficult venue? They must they are not shooting trap or skeet. Roger C.

 

Bump since Longshot and Neil have been mentioned lately. Two that have helped influence trapshooting

 

just curious joe....did your website ever get its 100.00?
btw.....im still tossing 3 holers at my club next weekend out of a v1577 ww.
boy does it wake everyone up.
matter of fact...all the old timers beg me to livin' up the game with 3 holers!