Hey Hap what you think about this???

Before I stir the pot, I for one like most of your posts and respect the views even if I don't always agree.
I see all the stuff about 3, 4, 5 hole targets, 30 Yard line (I don't think this will work because most clubs--ours included---don't have 3 yards between the 27 and sidewalk). I am not un-happy with the current rules and I am not disagreeable with making the game harder. Question: I wonder what it would cost as a retro-fit from the trap makers to add a 3 second delay? That would definitely change the game to be more difficult and if reasonable cost wise, do-able at any field. What you think????

 

Here's what some shooters thought about it some years ago (1979).






Vic Reinders also discussed it later in his September 1979 article.

If anyone is interested in "Vic's Views", I'd be happy to post it.

 

Jim this would be quite expensive. On a shooting day at the Cardinal Center that doesn't have weather issues or emergency stoppages or an unusual amount of trap trouble they will run 6 squads per hour per bank. If you add 2 seconds per shot(little delay to 3 second delay) you will add over 4 minutes per squad per trap. This takes you from 6 squads to 4 squads per hour. This cuts your efficiency by 1/3. Example 24 squads at 6 squads per hour =4 hours. 24 squads at 4 squads per hour = 6 hours. Big difference in cost to club which will be passed on to the shooter. Also in some cases at the large shoots there would have to be more trap fields added.

Dave Berlet

 

I'm ok with the 1 oz on singles and doubles...I'll have to believe Ray Stafford on the Handicap.

 

Dave thanks for doing the numbers on the 3 second delay.
I wouldn't enjoy slowing the game down that much and it looks like it would cost the clubs money.

 

Jim Porter, how boring would life be if everyone agreed on everything? I sure hope you've read the entire T&F article Kenny posted above!

I remember those days of people discussing a timed release for trap shooting very well and I agreed it would help our game tremendously! Anything to cut down on wasted clays for no good reason, cuts shooting expenses for the clubs, possibly not so much for the shooter. While I'm on wasted targets topic, since we began using auto voice calls, I've seen far more wasted targets than I ever did with hand pulled targets!! That includes either fast or slow pulled targets when we used people pullers by many times!

I've suggested the need of change toward a more difficult target but under far different circumstances than our last yardage increase! I say that knowing how tough it is to get most anything changed in our rule book. The suggestion I offered was to further handicap only those who've mastered our max yardage and proves it all the major shoots across the nation. In the prelims at this years Grand, depending on the numbers of shooters in that event, when Harlan breaks them all, he will be awarded the max yardage allowed currently on the book. So. it's entirely possible his next like event must be shot from the 29-1/2 yard mark! Only wins and ties earn such yardage. No cheap yardage punches beyond the 27 for score only. How may traps would need banks of 30 yard marks under that change? Not very many and possibly never, your club wouldn't either unless you gather enough shooters to award All-American points with enough shooters to qualify for such yardage.

My ideas is merely a suggestion for much needed changes to help our sport grow once again. We must destroy the false perception others have of our game being one of almost perfection! In the article above, read the nay sayers prediction of losing clubs and their reasoning back then? To date, we've lost so many we've all lost count for petes sakes! So many clubs have been lost for various reasons leads me to think if we didn't have all the ATA zone, Satellite Grands, our target count yearly wouldn't amount to much shooting at all! Gone is the little clubs we once relied so heavily on to supply new shooters to ATA it's almost pathetic! No wonder our growth rate has suffered so drastically?

Your idea of a timed device is probably more needed today than when that article was written in 1979!! Wholesale changes just ain't gonna happen regardless of how much chatter we make. Our sport does need a more difficult target than we currently shoot for more potential drawing purposes for new members. Our membership numbers when that article was written? Probably close to 100,000! Today, 29,000 or so members? Something drastically changed and it wasn't all concerning the economy because trap has always been an expensive sport!

HAP

 

Kenny, please post Vic's articles for all of us again? Very interesting reads!

Wishbone, did you read all of the article Kenny posted above? How we'd lose more shooters and drive up costs through changes? We almost managed to change ourselves out of gun clubs to shoot at these days! Why is that?

HAP

 

For you HAP, I certainly will.

And you'll note that Mr. Berlet nailed the main reason in opposing it . . . . . added time.

 

I did read the articles. I still don't support delayed release.
I think back in the day before interrupters were mandatory it might have made sense to fool the trap readers.
I do believe it would make long days longer.

Doesn't mean some change isn't required I just don't think the delayed release is the answer.

 

It was an effort to thwart trap readers and multiple target turndowns. No longer worth discussing today with voice systems!

 

Wishbone, have you actually noticed how many shooters/posters are tickled pink with todays targets? Think it's human nature to want easy is better and quicker. I don't think we have too much to worry about concerning more change unless it's for the lesser shooter again.

No one suggestion is the proper answer but merely an opinion, mine. Right or wrong, I'm for almost anything to help grow our sport again. Would you or anyone else happen to have a suggestion we might discuss that might prove an actual help in growing our sport again? If we assume the number of negative responses toward ANY suggestion in changing our rules for more participation is an indicator, no changes will ever happen again.

Like Vic R. spoke of using one ounce loads, which BTW, almost completely contradicts Ray Staffords findings earlier? Using 1 oz reloads and some new, I find the same results as Vic did. The one oz load will smoke a target pointed properly, even beyond the 27. (I broke a couple 97s from the 26/27 with them) I can only imagine what the top shooters could do in comparison to this old crippled up shooter with them. Debbie O. Neilson broke 100 from the 27 with them? just thought I'd throw out that info. again, 11% savings in lead with an added benefit of less felt recoil. I feel I'm almost done with any suggestions in an attempt to get a discussion going that MAY one day help our sport grow once again. I gotta shoot more for self improvement for the good days I have left.

HAP

 

Hap It would be great if we could grow the sport again. I don't have the ear of those that make changes so my ideas will never really see the light of day.
I don't have the time or money to try an get myself in a position to make changes but I applaud those that do.
I think there are plenty of workable ideas already put forth. They could be tested, refined and implemented in a relatively short time.

I agree change would not be embraced by the majority of the membership.
I firmly believe we have these easier targets because the majority of shooters wanted them.

Every time our leadership makes a change that is not supported by the majority they get slammed for not listening to the wishes of the members.
Maybe the BOD and EC are reluctant to piss off the rank and file by bringing in tougher targets.

Just some of my thoughts

 

I don't think the BOD or the EC are reluctant to piss off the rank and file as Wishbone stated, since when have the EC or many of the BOD worried or even cared what the rank and file wished or hoped they might be listened to. Again just a thought.

 

I read the articles too. And it seems for the most part it was for a by-gone time when hand pullers were used and for sure you did get some "interesting" pullers! Been there---done that. What I wonder is--dispense with lights and such. See if Pat can make an "interrupter / time delay from 0 to 3 seconds as an add on inside the house; nothing visible to the shooter. As far as time, I agree with Cardinal assessment to a degree. Looks like 125 shots per squad with a average of 1.5 seconds per shot for a little over three minutes. I have shot with plenty of shooters who take longer that that to clean their glasses and clear their throat between station moves. AND IF the game became somewhat harder and there were less ties-----less shoot-offs = less time overall. As far as the club is concerned dollar wise, one must remember hat shoot-offs are FREE targets!!! Added expense!! As stated, I am going to shoot what ever is thrown and be happy for the privilege and time with friends. Heck, if we can devise a game where you throw and shoot AT three targets, I'll do that too!!!
p.s. Never been to Cardinal and hope one day to go (I'ts behind enemy lines for us Mississippi boys). I have shot at a lot of places and have never seen this time efficiency where three minutes would make or break you. I believe you because you said it!! I just want to experience it one time.

 

Jim, you asked and I opined with my personal opinion on how I'd perceive our game quality wise if adopted. Any suggestion toward any more difficulty is always met with scorn, always has been too, some react as if you'd called someone a bad name.

The question has never been answered concerning all the changes we've had in the last 20 or so years either with satisfaction. Has those changes added quality to our game? Has it also increased our ranks? Are clubs better off today than they were prior to all these changes?

SO, what I think is; our membership elected enough easy riders to adopt a rule violation/revolution that began in earnest in the early 80s. Most had no idea of the historical progression path leading to what they wanted changed. All they were interested in was an easier to (HIT) target, period. The excuse used frequently was to validate such changes by using lesser shooters ability to score well? BTW, those same once in a while shooters still perform the same way today on easier targets, average wise. Their singles averages can't begin to match the averages to the top line shooters handicap averages from our max yardage! So much for that excuse?

"Has those changes added quality to our game? Has it also increased our ranks? Are clubs better off today than they were prior to all these changes?"

What we've managed to do with all these changes is (CHANGE) the perception our sport once had to attract shooters to stick around longer!

HAP

 

Hap I would like to see your answers to your questions? The reason is you have stated there ain't going to be any changes, so do not hold your breath. Do you want changes to bring this sport back to what it once was?

I want this sport to be competitive again. The EC and BOD and posters on here also know where I stand. And I am Proud of it.

Gary Bryant Dr.longshot

 

Gary,
I have a feeling you are not standing alone, but there are not enough shooters who want to turn back the hands of time and make the game what it once was ... I would not take that as a personal attack on your Integirty if I were you but more so a statement to what you are made of as a competitor based on even knowing the difference between then and now ... There are many shooters who have never and will never shoot the higher degree of difficulty targets many others have, so they will never realize the difference ... The scores from years ago (3 hole) should be separated from the (2) hole targets if only for those who know the difference , * is all it takes when posting ... The shooters of later years feel about the same as the older shooters did when they started from a competition stand point ... If there was a shoot held and nothing was said about the dificulty difference there would no doubt be some sour faces walking about, and a lot of people scratching their heads wondering what the Hell happened ...? Your postition is very well known and many others also, but thats as far as it goes and I think you know that ... The ATA would slit its throat even worse than they have already if they made an attempt to go back and shoot the higher degree of dificulty targets ... I'm betting you know that also, so its not going to happen and everybody knows that ... WPT ... (YAC) ...

 

WPT At the Autumn Grand in Tuscon, targets were set wider than ATA regulations? Why someone took all the 2 hole bars from the traps.

Rob Taylor ATA Pres, Burke and Radway had discussions.

Rob Taylor said replace those 2 hole bars immeaditly.

Looks like the shooters at Tuscon wanted Competetive targets, wonder what the scores were.

Gary Bryant Dr.longshot

 

http://shootscoreboard.com/
Click on the past shoots, scroll down to the Autumn Grand and all the scores are there from the Autumn Grand 2014.

HAP

 

Does not look like wider angles did not bother the Autumn Grand
2-97s

4-98s 6 97s

5-99s 4-98s 9-97s

2-100s 4-98s. 9-97s


2-99s, 5-98s 8-97s

Listed from last Hdcp event to earlier ones.

Those are not bad scores for the wider angles Guys

GB DLS

 

Because there weren't any wider angles, I shot them along with everyone else. There may have been spacers missing yet the targets were still set at 34 degree angles.

HAP

 

I'm all for a random delayed release of 0-2 seconds.

 

Are you sure about that? Maybe less angle, maybe more angle, if you did not check it first hand, and why was the ATA pres. admonenet about them missing, and kaking statement, you just found this out,8 months later.

 

Gary, as I've done almost since beginning my ATA shooting, I look for a true straight away! Years back, when 44 degree angles was the norm, I looked from all posts, today with 34s, I look for true straights from 2,3 AND 4 only. 1 and 5 set accordingly will be all angles of one degree or other requiring a little to slightly more lead.

SO, yes, I can tell when the targets aren't set accordingly, I pay attention when I'm on the line shooting. However, I do know of one club that sometimes throw true straights from posts 2 and 4? Those BTW are 10.75 (instead of 15) degree angles! Don't ask how I know.

Ask Rob Taylor, not me.

HAP