Wobble as an Amateur Trapshooting Association (A.T.A.) event?

Something I would like to see is creating a ATA event employing wobble traps. 100 targets wouldn't be needed as 50 straights I'm sure would be rare, or at least minimal. Make it a fifty bird event which would reduce cost's and you would only need two boxes of shell's. Unless your the type that needs your ego boosted by shooting powder puff targets, should be fun and more feasible for those of us that are financially impaired! Would make more sense to me then trying to create yardage doubles events, which was tried in the past and failed. Any thought's on this? Maybe someone should start another association where this is employed. One which isn't just geared towards big money and more of making the sport grow. I know the name of the game is throwing lot's of targets as more targets means more profit. But some money is better then no money as adding the cost of another 50 targets plus another two boxes of shell's is keeping some away. Thought's?

 

Already done. Known as modified international and it was a Grand Event along with some states. This was around in the 70’s and died off. Not enough participants. It crops up occasionally at local clubs and then quickly dies off!

 

Exactly addressed previously prior to my joining of ata in 91 but I heard about in my early days.
My practice trap throws a “3hole wobble” target. At one of my favorite trap ranges they have a wobble
trap in 1 field, we even shoot woobling doubles for fun sometimes

 

As you likely already know, the ATA’s philosophy has become “The easier the better” over time since the late 70’s. Seems the powers that be, and have been lately, do not ever enjoy or want a challenge.

 

"The International Clay Target Championship was shot off of Western
wobble traps and allowed the shooter 2 shots per target. From 1967 to
1977 the shooting distance was 16 yards.

The last three years of the event the shooter stood at 20 yards. The championship lasted for 14 years.
Some years the ATA included a preliminary International event.

Leo Harrison III holds the individual record by winning three titles, all in a
row between 1977 and 1979. No one else won it more than once. In 1971
the top three winning guns broke 100 straight, the only time this occurred."

 

The wind at the recent Spring Grand at Tucson proved that targets fluctuating up and down cause problems even for the best singles shooters. Replace current singles with 16 yd wobble.

 

I think the idea of International defeats part of the objective because once again it is requiring more shells . I don't agree with allowing a back-up shot. If you miss, you miss. A.T.A. is pricing themselves out of business. They seem to forget that they are competing for entertainment dollars. Due to inflation, that pot seem's to be getting smaller and smaller. Not to mention you have to have a gun that shoot's more then one shell.

 

The rest of the world calls it "Automatic Ball Trap" (ABT). I think it would be fun.

 

Back when Leo won his events we shot together and he followed me at the grand. He could read the up and down movement of the trap off of my shot, he kept the trap at about a 10 feet high. I think in the latter years we only got one shot.

At the 1974 grand (my first grand) I only had a model 12 to shoot but the rules let you shoot 3 and 1/4, 1 1/4 oz of nickle shot two shots a bird. I broke 97 the first day, never did hit a second bird, I think I broke the last 75. If I remember right I broke the first 75 the next day and missed 3 on the last trap for another 75. I never did hit a second shot. I got invited to the 76 olympic try outs in Missouri in the spring of 1975 on the strentgh of those scores. Didn't do well at the tryouts but I had fun trying.

 

The last time I shot wobble with Frank Little he broke all 25 with one shot. A 2-3-4-5 hole event with one shot is a better option.

 

Replacing current traps with wobbles is not cost effective.

 

If you're in the market for a new Pat trap -- another $825 is a buy -- I think it would bring some of the sporting clay shooters out in the winter. --Bringing this very subject up Saturday at our annual meeting.

 

It turns out to be a novelty for a few weeks and quickly forgotten. Spend the $825 for drinks at the club bar for a better ROI!

 

Oleolliedawg is right, we have a wobble trap, few will shoot on it. If they can’t break them they won’t use it. There are a few of us that shoot on it a few times a year, we like to shoot 27 yard wobble for fun, the rest of the time it’s on regular trap. Save your money!

 

My thinking is you wouldn't need to replace all the traps with wobble, especially if it's only to be a 50 target event , two traps should be enough.. Something needs to be done to revive trapshooting. Look at the number of 200's at the Grand last year. It's just an endurance testing marathon. You shouldn't have to break 200 in the event and then quite often another 200 just to be declared a winner. It's no longer a test of your shooting skill ,but rather a test of your endurance.

 

Trap shooting doesn't need fixed, the ATA needs fixed. Local clubs around NW Ohio are doing fine shooting practice and meat shoots. Other parts of the state have calcutta's and protector shoots. The mid size and large clubs that shot a lot of ATA are suffering for sure, but the smaller 2 trap member clubs are doing OK it seems to me.

The ATA has made the rules they use too easy for the last 25 years and that is why there are so many 200's.



ATA fix would not be that hard. #1 make the angles wider (3 hole) #2 50 - 55 yard targets, #3 Manditory reductions, (this is not for singles but for the health of the ATA in the long run) #4 draw for banks at all shoots. (AT LEAST it will give the appearance of fairness)

Be assured none of this will happen. The ATA leadership is clueless.

 

Widening the angles brings 'em closer to back-fence shooters. Maybe that's why Kay Ohye's handicap average went UP .5% the year of mandatory 3-hole targets. I love drawing for banks but the prima donnas would protest too much to make it happen.

 

That would be the quick fix, but we both know how far that would fly with the ATA. I can remember when you could break a 95 or 96 in caps and at least get your entry money back. Not anymore, the scores are so high and the money gets split so much that it's not worth gambling $20 to to try and get $25 back. So most have quit playing purses, and if your still looking for Punkin have you checked across the road at Christy's? maybe she's having lunch..lol

 

I remember when lower handicap scores paid well too. That said, most of us shot 870's, 1100's and Model 12's with a sprinkling of others. When we called PULL we were at the mercy of some bubble gum chewing young lady more worried about her Saturday night date then pulling on time. Those were the days!

 

Widening the angles brings 'em closer to back-fence shooters. Maybe that's why Kay Ohye's handicap average went UP .5% the year of mandatory 3-hole targets. I love drawing for banks but the prima donnas would protest too much to make it happen.[/QUOTE]


Can we please stop spreading this horse manure! This crap was offered up as a means to justify the constant march to the “all straightaways” promised land. Below are Kay Ohye’s target totals and averages for many years before and after the so called one year mandatory 3 hole season. You can clearly see that Kay’s averages moved up and down prior to and after the magic 3 hole test year. I will give Dawg the opportunity to explain how wider angles bring the target closer to back-fence shooters before I blow that crap out of the water too. For the sake of our younger shooters and those that weren’t shooting back then we should at least commit to telling them the truth!

Membership: LifeTime Name: KAY OHYE
Year SGS Singles% Hcp Handicap %
2014 7000 98.34% 5800 91.10%
2013 2800 98.54% 2600 92.00%
2012 5600 98.89% 5400 91.20%
2011 5400 99.17% 4300 90.35%
2010 6450 98.70% 5950 91.24%
2009 7850 99.27% 6800 93.68%
2008 9450 99.40% 8400 94.48%
2007 8150 99.25% 7200 93.31%
2006 10150 99.39% 8800 95.07%
2005 10150 99.54% 9500 94.86%
2004 7450 99.41% 6900 94.07%
2003 8900 99.27% 8250 94.10%
2002 8600 99.15% 7850 93.38%
2001 7550 99.22% 6950 92.79%
2000 6800 99.21% 6100 93.51%
1999 6750 99.36% 5850 94.53%
1998 7700 99.12% 6300 92.27%
1997 7200 99.01% 5650 93.65%
1996 8500 99.00% 7900 93.90%
1995 8250 99.18% 7850 94.01%
1994 10150 99.34% 9000 93.89%
1993 6650 99.37% 6250 94.96%
1992 7650 99.28% 7000 94.30%
1991 6850 99.23% 6300 94.73%
1990 6850 99.26% 5500 94.98%.
1989 4500 99.18% 3800 94.11%
1988 3000 99.07% 2700 92.48%
1987 4500 98.82% 5000 93.44%
1986 6000 99.18% 5200 93.35%
1985 4100 99.20% 3600 92.64%

 

Can we please stop spreading this horse manure! This crap was offered up as a means to justify the constant march to the “all straightaways” promised land. Below are Kay Ohye’s target totals and averages for many years before and after the so called one year mandatory 3 hole season. You can clearly see that Kay’s averages moved up and down prior to and after the magic 3 hole test year. I will give Dawg the opportunity to explain how wider angles bring the target closer to back-fence shooters before I blow that crap out of the water too. For the sake of our younger shooters and those that weren’t shooting back then we should at least commit to telling them the truth!

Membership: LifeTime Name: KAY OHYE
Year SGS Singles% Hcp Handicap %
2014 7000 98.34% 5800 91.10%
2013 2800 98.54% 2600 92.00%
2012 5600 98.89% 5400 91.20%
2011 5400 99.17% 4300 90.35%
2010 6450 98.70% 5950 91.24%
2009 7850 99.27% 6800 93.68%
2008 9450 99.40% 8400 94.48%
2007 8150 99.25% 7200 93.31%
2006 10150 99.39% 8800 95.07%
2005 10150 99.54% 9500 94.86%
2004 7450 99.41% 6900 94.07%
2003 8900 99.27% 8250 94.10%
2002 8600 99.15% 7850 93.38%
2001 7550 99.22% 6950 92.79%
2000 6800 99.21% 6100 93.51%
1999 6750 99.36% 5850 94.53%
1998 7700 99.12% 6300 92.27%
1997 7200 99.01% 5650 93.65%
1996 8500 99.00% 7900 93.90%
1995 8250 99.18% 7850 94.01%
1994 10150 99.34% 9000 93.89%
1993 6650 99.37% 6250 94.96%
1992 7650 99.28% 7000 94.30%
1991 6850 99.23% 6300 94.73%
1990 6850 99.26% 5500 94.98%.
1989 4500 99.18% 3800 94.11%
1988 3000 99.07% 2700 92.48%
1987 4500 98.82% 5000 93.44%
1986 6000 99.18% 5200 93.35%
1985 4100 99.20% 3600 92.64%[/QUOTE]

 

Can we please stop spreading this horse manure! This crap was offered up as a means to justify the constant march to the “all straightaways” promised land. Below are Kay Ohye’s target totals and averages for many years before and after the so called one year mandatory 3 hole season. You can clearly see that Kay’s averages moved up and down prior to and after the magic 3 hole test year. I will give Dawg the opportunity to explain how wider angles bring the target closer to back-fence shooters before I blow that crap out of the water too. For the sake of our younger shooters and those that weren’t shooting back then we should at least commit to telling them the truth!

Membership: LifeTime Name: KAY OHYE
Year SGS Singles% Hcp Handicap %
2014 7000 98.34% 5800 91.10%
2013 2800 98.54% 2600 92.00%
2012 5600 98.89% 5400 91.20%
2011 5400 99.17% 4300 90.35%
2010 6450 98.70% 5950 91.24%
2009 7850 99.27% 6800 93.68%
2008 9450 99.40% 8400 94.48%
2007 8150 99.25% 7200 93.31%
2006 10150 99.39% 8800 95.07%
2005 10150 99.54% 9500 94.86%
2004 7450 99.41% 6900 94.07%
2003 8900 99.27% 8250 94.10%
2002 8600 99.15% 7850 93.38%
2001 7550 99.22% 6950 92.79%
2000 6800 99.21% 6100 93.51%
1999 6750 99.36% 5850 94.53%
1998 7700 99.12% 6300 92.27%
1997 7200 99.01% 5650 93.65%
1996 8500 99.00% 7900 93.90%
1995 8250 99.18% 7850 94.01%
1994 10150 99.34% 9000 93.89%
1993 6650 99.37% 6250 94.96%
1992 7650 99.28% 7000 94.30%
1991 6850 99.23% 6300 94.73%
1990 6850 99.26% 5500 94.98%.
1989 4500 99.18% 3800 94.11%
1988 3000 99.07% 2700 92.48%
1987 4500 98.82% 5000 93.44%
1986 6000 99.18% 5200 93.35%
1985 4100 99.20% 3600 92.64%[/QUOTE]

Draw yourself a diagram. If you stand on an end post and draw a wider angle the target must be closer to a long yardage shooter. I'd rather throw a few more pellets on a target that's closer than one farther away-wouldn't you? If not, then explain how they won't. Those sporting Clays shooters have that figured out. The 3 hole mandatory target year was what-'95 and if so his average went up and if not, nothing truly affected his averages.

 

Dawg sir

You have admitted to being a cheat. You bragged about the easy illegal targets you threw for a generation. Is there anyone that has respect for you?

And Don…..you have no idea what kind of targets Ohye shot. If he shot where Ollie was throwing targets they were narrow. Worthless data.

Go shoot 100 straight from the 27 on three hole targets, that might mean something.

Dawg is an admitted cheat….SMH

 

First of all I couldn't break a 100 from the fence and neither can you-even in the one hole. In case you were alive then you'd know 3-hole targets were mandatory for one year and dropped. It proved nothing except Kay could break 'em in any hole provided. Of course, Frank Little had those souped up 1,300 FPS Remington shells as verified by ?? with his/hers $89 Chrony Chrono. Meanwhile, I'm waiting for someone who failed 10th grade Geometry.to explain how widening angles doesn't make them closer to the shooter on end posts.

 

Gosh, sometimes I wish Sir Neil was still alive. The break point for Handicap reductions was around 87%. Simple math indicates the average of all Handicap scores is app. 87%. So if Kay Ohye maintained 92+% -94% in any hole, simple math indicates it'll take a lot more than a wider target to defeat top shooters than some think.

 

Smithy,
You are 100% correct that neither Dawg or myself know what angle targets Kay shot at in 1995. So how could anyone attribute a small change in his yearly average to his supposedly shooting wider targets? Ohye’s handicap average only went up 0.12% in 1995. A far cry from the 0.5% Dawg stated. Kay’s singles average went down by 0.16% in 1995. I’m not sure why you felt the need to take a swipe at me but please read what I wrote. In no way do I feel wider targets help a 27 yard shooter break a 100 straight, just the opposite. If you still feel the need to crab at me you better go put your big boy pants on.

Dawg,
As stated above, Kay’s Hcp average shows an increase of 0.12% in 1995. Where is the 0.5% you stated? No need for me to draw a diagram of anything. I will wait for you to explain how a target traveling forward away from the trap house is getting closer to a shooter standing behind the house? Most traps I’ve shot over throw to both the left and right of center. If you are saying a hard left off of post 1 is getting closer to a 27 yard shooter, would the hard rights be getting farther away to balance things out? And what would be your explanation for Kay increasing his Hcp average by 2.26% from 1998 to 1999? Did they throw targets backwards from the house towards him that year? Station 8 skeet targets?

 

The 10th grade geometry thing is funny! So tell me Muhammad, if the target starts at 27 yards from the shooter and he misses does it land closer than 27 yards? Take your time with that one.

 

Let's try this again Don. Draw a diagram showing how it's not possible to increase an angle and not have it closer to a post 5 long distance shooter. I'm just using post 5 as an example and it also holds true for post 1 Better yet, the Terry Jordan wall chart at the bottom of this page will demonstrate it for you. Are you denying that extreme right angle wouldn't be closer to a shooter than the next closest angle. It's right there on the chart. BTW, my 10th grade Geometry "A" student and my engineering grad #1 son says I'm right. The bottom line on Kay that increasing angle with had "0" effect on his scoring.

 

Our late guru on target setting-the much-maligned Sir Neil often said distance and angle have the most effect on long yardage shooters. So, we might say increasing the angle but shortening the distance allows a few more shot on the target. We might then be able to say increasing the distance to the targets like a 30 yd line might have a greater effect on lowering handicap scores than simply widening angles.

 

Got 2 of Terry’s charts. A large Vandalia version that I bought from Terry and a second chart that I cherish as it was a gift from Terry. Now, let’s see if we can agree on a couple parameters for your geometry challenge. Let’s call the shooter point A and the center of the trap machine point B. Is that acceptable to you? Can we also agree to represent the path the target takes as a vector beginning at point B? Now here is where it might get tricky for you, the vector leaves point “B” at an unknown but obtuse angle from point A’s perspective to the line connecting points “A” and “B”. I realize I haven’t given you the velocity of the vector, but is there any point in time that the vector is closer to point A than it is at its beginning? I await your son’s answer.

 

Don…. Swipe retracted and not meant for you. And As a matter of fact the so called wide angle year really never happened. The targets stayed narrow. And I think dawg admits to cheating then too.

Have his son explain family ethics. That’s a better story.

 

Don I agree with you but math is hard for some people. The only thing in this conversation that I want to add is that Neil Winston was the biggest ass I ever met in trap shooting. But that could change.

 

Of course, Smithy is wrong again. I know for a fact the PSSA put their targets in the 3-hole for one year and I even encouraged it. That said, Smithy has stated targets were never set in the 3-hole and never changed anywhere. He must have spent so much time in traphouses he got some mildew on his brain. Now, according to Smithy, the whole country's families who managed trap ranges were disgusting cheats.

Yo Don, let's put it another way. Let's admit Kay's handicap average was unaffected by wider targets and shooting scores like he did on more difficult targets than thrown in the mid-west attests to his ability. You and Brad had every opportunity to throw wider angle targets at Cardinal Center but chickened out-why? You easily proved my point that wider angles alone will not affect long yardage scoring if that's your actual goal.

 

Dawg,
There you go again assuming facts not in evidence. How do you know what the target angles were at the Cardinal Center from 2006, the first year I helped set targets there, through 2013, the last year either Brad or myself served as tournament director? I won’t have time to play with you today as I’m off to study for my 10th grade geometry G.E.D. I assume what you so poorly tried to articulate is the line representing a wider targets flight path is closer to a 27 yard shooter if the targets are thrown at wider angles. We didn’t have time last night to discuss gun movement, forward lead and actual target breaking distance on those wider angles but we can pick that conversation up at a later date if you like. I’m also surprised that a man with access to as much brain power as you are, would rely on an old cartographer’s conclusions regarding how to repair a handicap system he helped to destroy.


Smithy, we are good. I knew you and I were on the same side of the fence on this one.

 

Oleo, Is trying to justify his years of cheating. He will never understand what you are trying to explain to him. You could have a more under standing conversation with WPT's toaster. Roger C.

 

So, you did or didn't set 3-hole targets at Cardinal Center all those years you and Brad claim to set targets. You already know it's within the rules to pretty much set targets as wide as you feel necessary to save trapshooting. If a wider target is needed to save trapshooting is Cardinal Center throwing 'em and why not? I've been going there many years and never noticed a tougher wider target. I've got a great idea. You Ohio boys make mandatory wider target settings in your state-I'm sure your delegate will be on board with this. Ohio will then be able to make the claim they toughened up back fence shooting and all those short yardage wonders will start playing the options again and trapshooting will be saved. The ball is in your hands.

 

Rog old buddy, show us the paragraph in the ATA official rulebook that says you can't.

 

The rule book doesnt say you can’t set the targets at the old three hole. The book doesn’t say you can’t pick your nose while at the line. And what rational person would imply the rules say either?

The 3 hole setting would put the targets at straightaway from one and five. Out side those boundaries could be called legal.

WHAT THE RULES SAY:

However, no target is to be declared illegal unless it is significantly outside normal parameters (e.g., more than 10 degrees outside normal).

That would make many of the targets illegal by today’s rules.

If any tournament director would set targets that would be legally tuned down, he would be fired.

 

OLEA, THE RULE BOOK IS WORTHLESS. YOU CHEATERS DESTROYED IT, AND THE ATA DID NOT HAVE THE BALLS TO ENFORCE IT.
Roger C.

 

Section XIII E defines the parameters for setting targets. It states the minimum angle for the "normal distribution" of targets. There is no stated maximum angle for the "normal distribution" in Section XIII E.

"the normal distribution of angles as thrown by the trap, the right angle shall not be less than 17 degrees measured to the right of center (3BF), and not less than 17 degrees measured to the left of center (3BF), with a total angle between outside target limits of not less than 34 degrees."

So, I can set my “normal distribution” at 27 degrees left and right if I like. Also by the rule, a target would have to be at least 10 degrees outside that “normal distribution” to be illegal. So, if I set the targets at a 27 degrees left and right "normal distribution", a target would have to be at least a 37 degrees angle to be called illegal.

If you think wider targets will enhance trapshooting and shooters will beat your door down to shoot them, there is nothing to stop you from throwing them at the clubs where you have influence (CC?). Show us all how to do it. Lead by example!!

 

The clubs in Ohio that are prospering are the smaller 2 trap clubs that DO set wider harder farther targets and don't shoot ATA. The ATA Ohio State shoot has lost about half of their shooters since Don and I left the board. If you care to check that out look at Stuart's web page and compare the numbers.

When I was the TD at the Cardinal Center we used a T-Bar and a 50 yard stake. Radar Guns set shitty targerts. I don't care what the ATA does and if it makes you feel good about yourself shooting narrow and short targets for ribbons and no money have at it.

Anyone that thinks 3 hole targets are easier for 27 yarders than 2 hole needs to explain to me why before the 3 hole was eliminated from the grand most of the trophy winners in handicap were from short yardage and today from the 27.

 

And a 3 hole target that would be legally slightly wider than a straightaway from one and five would be illegal.

So you can set them as three hole targets but the angles can be turned down.

 

They're doing that now-turning down legal targets.

 

Maybe it's about time to gather the delegates at the annual meeting and have the rule book declared null and void. It's obvious some here either don't believe the rulebook or are unable to understand what it says. Meanwhile, those who believe in talk therapy should make an appointment with a physician that specializes in that area. Sir Neil, are you looking down at me now?

 

Some people claim small trap clubs in their state are doing great running meat and money shoots and care less what that book of suggestions (the ATA rulebook) states. They seem to have forgotten the lack of reloading components and ammo along with the covid effect has drastically reduced attendance. Simple math and a good 20 squad meat shoot begs to differ. 20 squads ='s 100 entries @$6 /shooter and you pull in $30/squad. Multiply that by 20 gives you a gross of $600 Target cost is app-$13/case @$260 and maybe paying trap help and you can subtract another $100. In a good day you might net $240-not rich by any means. Hopefully, your trap doesn't break anything and your bar business makes up the difference. Living in the past maybe?

 

Oleo, You declared the rule book obsolete when you did not set the targets per the instructions. You are a self avowed cheater, nothing you say has any value, The B.O.D. is as worthless as your advice. They do not know who they are supposed to represent. Roger C.

 

Ollie what are you talking about??? One of those clubs holding meat shoots once a month is Cloverdale and they have about 15 to 20 squads, a lot of shooters shoot more than once, club members do the work. Cloverdale has the best food at any trap club in Ohio. The food is so good that the public will stop in on Trap Shoot Sundays to eat and to take home food. Club members do that work too.

I don't know what your point was. When a club has members giving free help and it is run for the members by the members costs aren't that much. It cost $18 to shoot the program and that is for members and non members alike. My membership is $15 a year. I get to vote and use the rifle range. Not a bad deal.

We see more BT 99's and Model 12's than K 80's by far. There are a couple known democrats that shoot there also. Maybe 3 I might not know everyone.

 

Brad&Don you should know better than to argue with the challenged folks on here. First they baffle you with BS and then they beat you with experience.

Dave Berlet

 

At our local club Moulton Gun Club the only help at the trapshoots that get paid is the scorers and the loaders of the traps. I believe that similar situations are the normal at most of the small clubs in our area. The folks that volunteer their time are the folks that keep these clubs going and they need thank you's from every one who participates, or is a member. At these shoots lots of fun and lots of smiles from the shooters all at a very reasonable price.

Brad is correct about the food at the Cloverdale club. Very good food, very good prices' very well prepared, and very nice selection.

Dave Berlet

 

I don't see how you get that. In defining the "normal distribution," the rules set minimums of 17 degrees left/right, 34 degrees total angle, but don't actual specify what the maximum angle has to be.
The bit about no target being illegal unless significantly outside normal parameters (e.g. more than 10 degrees outside normal) appears to speak toward consistency with the normal distribution.
If you set your targets go 22.5 degrees left/right, 45 degrees total angle and establish that as your "normal distribution," only targets that go over 32.5 degrees left or right should be declared illegal. Under these settings, it would seem you could have the occasional hard left or right that went 25 degrees and it would still be legal.

 

The term illegal target is not plural. You can turn down an illegal target. You don’t tell the scorer the targets are out side the distribution. You can only turn down one at a time. Need Wpt’s toaster.

3 hole settings would throw illegal targets since they legally can be 10 degrees outside of straightaways from station one and five. They would be well outside the 37 degrees.

 

Where did you get that misconception? The rule book says no such thing.

 

Charles….setting targets as straightaway from one and five would have lots of illegal targets. The targets don’t keep the exact same path in the wind. You would have a lot of illegals.

 

From the rule book…..

“However, no target is to be declared illegal unless it is significantly outside normal parameters (e.g., more than 10 degrees outside normal).”

The old 3 hole setting would give you illegal targets. You would have many targets more than 10 degrees outside normal, (which is 17 degrees).

 

I can read someone’s posts and often guess the home state of a forum member. Charles must be from Mississippi or Illinois.

Ohio shooters and Western PA are very proud of their challenging targets. I can’t understand why anyone would want to take the sport out of trapshooting. But, it happened.

The clubs in my area still throw the hard targets when money is on the line. Pusssy settings for ATA.

 

Point shooting was created to prop up Unwanted Sparta. The money shooters in Ohio and PA were not going to travel to Illinois.

 

17 degrees left and right is the MINIMUM normal distribution you can set. You may set a wider normal distribution if you like. If you set a normal distribution of 25 degrees a target must be at least 35 degrees (25 + 10) to be considered illegal.

Reading comprehension matters.

 

where does it say that? Please quote.

 

Section XIII E defines the parameters for setting targets. It states the minimum angle for the "normal distribution" of targets. There is no stated maximum angle for the "normal distribution" in Section XIII E.

"the normal distribution of angles as thrown by the trap, the right angle shall not be less than 17 degrees measured to the right of center (3BF), and not less than 17 degrees measured to the left of center (3BF), with a total angle between outside target limits of not less than 34 degrees."