SHOULD HAVE THE ATA SHELL SPECIFICATIONS BEEN CHANGED?

Should have the ATA shell specifications as in the original rules been changed?
Original rules stated 3 Dram max.

Why?

 

I kind of agree with the 3 dram rule, it seems that up to 1280 fps are normal, what happened to 1200 fps?

 

What do you mean by "original rules"? There's no mention of "dram" equivalents anywhere in the rule book I have, only velocity (as to certain shot loads). 1290, 1325, and 1350 for 1 1/8oz, 1 oz, and 7/8 oz. These are maximums.

 

Gary B., can you post the date of your rule book and page outlining exactly how the speed rule was written for a 3 dr load @ 1200 FPS? Back when. OR, was this a mis-representation made by club operators that merely ((ASSUMED)) that's what the rule meant?

I do know for a fact that clubs put such a speed limit dr eq on reloaders being able to use reloads at their tournaments and spelled out the velocity in their programs!

I'll wait for your information before commenting further.

HAP

 

What about shot size in cheap shells ??? At the club me and my buddies did a test ,we took a ash tray and cut open new Gun clubs ,Estates ,Winchester super targets,and Rio's all said 7 1/2 with a Mic. we found 9's 8's very few true 7 1/2 7 and a few 6 size shot in them every shell had a mix of all sizes ??? Technically illegal shells ??? We did the same with Federal Gold metal , STS, and AA they where all spot on for shot size ???

 

I have been told by many shooters at the clubs that I frequent, that 3 dram loads are all that you need to effectively break birds. The common belief is that a 3 dram load equals 1200 fps.

 

For every one who shot trap in the 50s-60s-70s 3 dram was 1200fps, SAAMI says 3 Dram=1200fps FACT Shell boxes today say 1200fps Look at the Top Guns, Gun Clubs, RIO's, this was and still is speeds based on the original BLACK POWDER STD.
The same STD that SAAMI uses today. The USA STDs had to have a baseline, and BLACK POWDER was that baseline, do the history, look up the STDs list, reading is believing. Hap you knew what 3 dram loads were in the day!! That's was the shell, you had a choice 2-3/4 DE or 3 DE, 1145fps or 1200fps, shells were in 500 to the case too. You remember that Hap.
None of you have an ATA Rule book from the 60s to look at, all based on the new printed rule books. That was my rulebook from the 50s-60s-70s they were all the same.

 

Dram was a black powder measurement before we had smokeless powders. Dram Equivalent was added to the advent of smokeless powder era as somewhat of a reference for velocities. In black powder loads, a 3 dram load was 1200 FPS.

HAP

(edited) Gary, no one is going to believe this without seeing what that old rule book said! YES, I know the rules I had to adhere to when I first began shooting registered targets because it was printed in the brochures from different gun clubs! The brochures specifically stated no loads exceeding 3 dr. eq. or 1200 FPS!

I don't happen to have a rule book from that era and that's why I asked you if you could post the rule/date and exact wording from an ATA rule in play at that time!!

 

Hap the rule books stated 3 Dram , you know that, the rule books did not state speed, the Shells used for Trap Mfgd and sold by all 3 three Major Mfgrs Printed on their boxes and cases 3 DE shells, no speed stated on the boxes, until later years. Problem is these new shooters were not familiar with what we shot Hap. You did shoot those same shells didn't you Hap.
Gary Bryant Dr.longshot

 

Gary, do you have an ATA rule book that was used during the early 70s?

HAP

 

Hap, I wish I kept mine, I would love to have a copy of one, I asked on the site years ago and no one had one.
Doc

 

If the rule applies to everyone equally WGAS. If the guy standing next to you is shooting 1250 fps rinos and you think he's better off than you are; I would suggest getting yourself some 1250fps rinos.

 

Way back in the dark ages (60's and 70's), 3 dram was considered (assumed) to be 1200 fps, , 2- 3/4 dram was considered to be 1150 (?) ... I recall reading it but can't or wouldn't bet money on when it was or when it was changed ... I think a lot of it was assumed and accepted as fact when in reality no body knew for sure ... wpt ...(yac) ...

 

Gary, you are making a big deal about the new velocity rule vs the old dr equivalent rule. You are correct in your interpretation of a 3dr equivalent being equal to 1200fps, but as Neil pointed out in a previous life, that velocity was to be given a plus or minus 90 fps leeway. What you haven't pointed out; however, is how that difference in velocity would actually amount to a difference on the scoreboard. According to the numbers that are printed on the Shotgun Barrels, Chokes n Ballistics chart, a #7 1/2 pellet at 1200fps has 1.26 ft lbs of energy at 40yds vs 1.3 ft lbs at 1240fps, a difference of .04 ft lbs.

Are you implying that a difference of .04 ft lbs is going to break a lot more targets that were previously hit and not broken? I doubt it. I also doubt that anyone could tell the difference in the lead required on a target with 1200 vs 1240fps. To break targets at any distance, the shot has to be placed on the target. A near miss with 1240fps ammo, is still a near miss. You have yet to prove to me that there is an advantage of the handicap shells vs the 1200fps ammo.

 

Jo2

It would make a difference. That is one reason the ATA will not make the change.
The new president wants the game to be even easier.

 

Family Guy, I don't understand, it would make a difference because you said so? You will have to come up with a more convincing argument than that. I would like to see someone actually come up with some statistical results to prove that there is an actual difference. How would you explain Devon Harris winning the first Martin challenge with 2 3/4 dr #8, other than the fact that he actually hit all the targets that he was thrown?

 

Adopting new shell speed limits didn't have the same effect on higher scores as did lessening the target speeds and angle!

I've shot the same kind of shells as Devon Harris shot to win the Martin hundred grand event. They smoked targets pointed correctly and broke some way beyond the 27 yard line also! If you mis-point a target behind, you'd miss even if it was the velocity of the speed of light!!

In the late 60s/early 70s Grand American shoots, ATA required new shells mandatory to compete. What load information was sprinted on the shell boxes available to all shooters? Hint; it wasn't Winchester Super Handicaps at xxxx velocity. Any old timers recall what was available in the shell house during that era?

Angles are the shooters enemy, long distance is the shotguns enemy!

HAP

 

If I use 1145FPS Top Guns and beat the guy next to me who's using 1250FPS AAs, it just makes my victory that much sweeter. Shoot what you brung; have fun.

-Gary

 

"Adopting new shell speed limits didn't have the same effect on higher scores as did lessening the target speeds and angle!" From Hap

THAT just about covers it!

Flyersarebest

 

The same way I would explain the fellow that jumped off the bridge and lived. I wouldn't bet on it unless you are the one jumping.

 

At Vandalia you went to the shell house to get the shells.

 

do you really think 50 more feet per second will make it easier to break targets? You still have to point the gun in the right spot.

 

I had the privilege to see 2 boxes of Remington All American shells tonite, one read 3DE-7 1/2 1-1/8thoz 2nd box read 2-3/4DE-8 no mention of any speeds on either box, these were sold in the 1960s when shells were 500 to the case in 20 boxes of 25 shells.

 

Gary, what is it that bothers you about the rules now? Is it the fact that the velocity has increased from 3 dr (1200fps) to 1250fps, or that they record the velocity of the ammo as 1200fps instead of 3 dram, or that the cases of shells used to be 20 boxes instead of 10. At the end of the day, none of these changes have really had any effects on the scores, (and if they have, you will have to prove it to me) so what difference does it make. There is one change that has occurred since the mid 60's that isn't necessarily better; a lot of us are 50 years older!

 

The shells are now allowed to be 1250fps, and there is a definite difference between them and the 1200 I know I have shot both and the 1250fps shells have a definite advantage, add in the fact of narrower target angles, softer targets, it's like the difference between a Ping Pong Ball and a Tennis Ball. I can break more targets, and break them harder with the 1250fps at 30 yards like I did in the Challenge Shoot I literally destroyed those 30 yard targets w/them. If you saw the 1200fps shells on the 25yd targets you saw me shoot behind them dusting them, BIG DIFFERENCE. That's what bothers me and that is why there are so many hundreds and such a great increase in 100s from the 27 yard line,Grand Slams went from 42 to over 450 in a short time. Just look at the records I DID.
Both changed the Trapshooting Game to a Game Of Precision w/easier target angles/faster shells, cut out leading targets. That's a Fact
Dr.longshot

 

1250fps has a definite advantage, especially on slower/narrower target settings.

 

Gary, I am looking for a number as to what one could expect as far as an advantage is concerned. What does that BIG DIFFERENCE translate into in the real world?

I am not sure if you meant 25yd or 52yd targets, but regardless, a dusted target is typically a raked target where the pellet simply slides across the angled section of the target, not a direct hit on the a flat section of the target. Why would a pellet that slides across the angle of the target that started off at 1250fps break a target when a pellet that started off at 1200fps wouldn't? You claimed that you shot behind targets that you shot at with the 1200fps loads, do you mean to imply that those targets would have been hit with the 1250fps loads? I doubt it.

I feel the numbers of 100 straights has more to do with the adjustability of the shotguns, both for poi and stock fit. If you want to reduce the 100s from 27 yards, give everyone a Model 12 or a Browning broadway and see how they do with these flat shooting guns of yesterday.

 

What goofy person would say he can compete better with slower less effective shells? Please name one and tell me how many championships that person won. And then I will name those competing with more effective shells.

Somehow you remind me of the silly ATA President that lead the charge to create this debacle.

 

Family Guy, I did not say that you can compete better with slower shells than with the handicap shells. What I am saying is that at the distance that 27 yard handicap targets are shot at, there is no difference, or so little difference that it has no effect on the results. It is a little like saying that a 300 Win mag is a far better deer rifle than a 30-06 on a lung shot deer at 100 yards. The results are the same, there is no deader than dead, or in the case of trapshooting more broken than broke.

 

Balogna.....that is exactly what you are implying. It is why you are on the thread.

 

Every logical person would imply that a shotshell delivering more energy to the target would break more targets. This is the type of nonsensical crap your pal Neil brought to the table. The worst President in the history of the ATA. jmho

 

Absolutely those dusted targets would have been broken, Why the shot would have gotten there sooner, you need expierence shooting the 1250fps Winchester AA Super Handicap shells to see the difference between 1200fps and 1250fps + the pellet energy is quite a bit more, I consider myself a very good judge of shell functionality, I've shot from 1200-1575 I know what shell speed can do. The 1250fps can break
targets that will be lost due to dusting them, if you would have watched the grudge match at CC and seen the 30yd target breaks Vs the 25 yd target breaks, only difference was 1200fps shells. That is why some shooters use them on the 16yd, less lead on angles, you will say if you are on the target it will break, Yes but the 1250 will do it with more Authority, 52 yards is not in the equation, unless you mean the target distance. A target going farther is traveling faster, like a 38mph target vs a 44 mph target, big difference + the 38 mph target will not have as much spin on it. The narrower angle 38mph targets are easier to break to a certain extent. You will break more bricks with a 10 pound sledge hammer than you will with a Carpentry Hammer, and in more pieces. That is why in Europe they use #7 shot in International Shooting.
If I had a choice I would use Nickel Plated shot, less deformity, better/tighter patterns, that is why International shells are Nickel Plated
in some of their programs, they want every advantage they can get, also nickel plated shot saves LEAD contamination of the soil, it serves 2 purposes.

 

I was having a conversation with one of the long time "All Americans" after finishing his clinic , was told to use the handicap version of what ever shells I am shooting, that there is an advantage ... I have shot good scores with 1250 Nitro 27's and with Estates 1250 fps -7 1/2's but do feel that the Nitro's are more consistant and hit a lot harder ... Based of that and only that conversation and reading the breaks I feel there is an advantage to faster shells ... Not sure if its my imagination or because the seed was planted during that conversation but I can tell the difference ... ( I think) ... wpt ... (yac) ...

 

Are you shooting at a full box of targets to get more breaks? ,When shooting handicap you just shoot one at a time.

 

Jo that is not even a decent comparasion of dead being dead/compare a 22 lr Hp vs a 17HMR on a Coyote, same cartridge necked down to .17 caliber, Kill distance is farther w/.17HMR it is going faster than the 22lr at 1200fps which is normal velocity for the .22. Nothing is better than deader than dead, they call it over kill.

 

Well Doc, you just hit upon my second passion. I have shot 55 coyotes so far this year, and feel the need to correct you on a couple of fronts. First, the 17 HMR is based on the .22 magnum case, not the .22lr. Secondly, the 17HMR is virtually useless for coyotes unless it is to dispatch them in a trap.

What I want from you is a NUMBER OF TARGETS over the period of a trap season average wise, that you feel would be gained by using 1250fps vs 1200fps ammo. A simple request.

 

Family Guy, you are correct in assuming that Neil is a friend of mine. I respect the lengths that he has gone to, to either prove or disprove some of the "gun club myths" that are regularly seen here and on other forums. I also happen to disagree with your allegation that he was not a good President of the ATA.

As far as you knowing exactly what I am implying, let me correct you. I am simply saying that there is no disadvantage to using 1200fps vs 1250fps ammo. Please don't put words in my mouth.

 

Did you know that the .17HMR has been known to penetrate/Go Through a bullet proof vest because of the small diameter?

 

Now try the AA Super Handicaps @1250 over the 1235 Nitro's

 

I think the Pellets in the Nitro 27s are more consistant than the RIO's because European Metric shot is smaller than US Std.shot

 

Doc, if you want to wound more coyotes than you kill, use a 17 HMR.

I am asking for a NUMBER of targets that one could expect to improve using the faster shells on 100 targets on average.

 

Not the rules now, how the rules were changed, Neil using SAAMI +90fps or- 90fps this is mfgrs specs in mfgring shells, not specifics.
mfgrs should be able to hold a 5% tolerance w/o problems, the 3 dram shell is 1200fps and is the mfgrs target. They held it here for years before Neil put his fingers in the pie, the more pies he puts his fingers in the more pies get messed up, he has messed up way too much already. He is killing Registered Trapshooting/Has Killed(sic)

 

Yes you do, but it does it with a lot more Authority

 

So Doc, are you saying that the difference is that if you break 94/100 from 27 yards with 1200fps loads, that you will break 94/100 with 1250fps with more authority? Numbers please.

 

And this quote farther down the thread.

Gary, these two quotes above don't make a lot of sense to me? Are you saying International shooters would fare better with American made shells because they hit harder? If the European shot isn't larger than our's, how would they hit any harder in Europe?

Ask Charlie P. next time your there if my breaks were puny on called birds with my 2-3/4 dr 1-1/8 ounce 8s or 7-1/2s? Those bios he throws are some of the toughest to break targets around!

HAP

 

I seen him shooting from the hip in his videos, SMOKE, Hap did you know you can shoot faster from the hip? I know as I do it too, all you have to do is look at the target your brain/computer does all the calculating, they taught that to me in the Army during basic training,

 

Hap it is hard to understand as it was a combination quote from another post where they mic'd the shot and found various sizes. The International loads are a different breed, some are Nickel.

 

I had a 1995 rulebook laying around that states 3 dram 1 1/8 oz to be max to be defined by the sporting arms and ammunition manufactures institute Inc. specifications. If you go to there site and read the specifications for a 1 1/8 oz 3 dram load it shows 1,200 fps But where the 1,290 came into play is SAAMI also states a +- 90 fps tolerance so the 1,290 speed is correct.

 

So Doc, if I am reading you correctly, you are not in favour of the new ammunition specifications, not because they result in higher scores but simply because they break targets with a lot more authority? If they don't result in higher scores, why is this issue a hill that you seem prepared to die on, on this and other forums? If the faster ammo does not result in an advantage score wise, let's just drop the subject and never hear of it again from you.

 

Just out of curiosity, who is measuring what each shooter is shooting?

Every sport, ever, has evolved over the years, for a myriad of reasons, why would shooting be any different?

Tell me the rules, let me know when you kick me out.

 

Duff,

In basketball they did not lower the rim. Although the ATA seems to have done that.

 

Duff,

In basketball when the tall guys were dominating inside they made the painted area larger.

 

Duff,

When the golf clubs were hitting the balls further they moved the tees back.

 

Jo2

We are still waiting for the list of point chasing all americans that think shooting slower less effective shells is a great idea. You cant. You wont.

When you can do that, like you I will believe the earth is flat.

 

In reply to all your posts

Yeah, I know all that, that was my point.

I do know a guy, that accidentally bought 3 DE, and is burning through them, to get back to his norm, he's a AA27AA.

 

Family Guy;

I can name at least 3 current All-Americans who shoot nothing but 2 3/4 DE loads for everything but if you believe I am going to name them on an open forum to someone who won't even sign his own name you better think again. You really should take note of people like Brad and Dave as they always sign every post. I may not agree with what they believe a-lot of the time but I still respect them . I thought that was what this site was supposed to be about.

As far as the original question Gary posted, I have broke big handicap score with everything fron Fed extra-lite 7 1/2's to super handicap 8's. If you are on them it does not make a wit of difference. Let them shoot what they want to. The best shot will win anyway.

Ken

 

Ken,

I can name way many more that want every advantage possible. Of course all on the site understand that fact.

Your are blowing smoke signals and there aren't any Indians in the hills.

Abe

 

Not that it matters.

Correct for what? A load with a 1200fps NMV could within it's tolerance having a shell that could as it's outside limit achieve a max speed of 1290fps. I would agree, and that tends to make the statement 1200NMV load is max because it could have a tolerance of up to +90fps, and that is the max speed listed.

A 3 dram load is a load using the components that have been tested to have a muzzle velocity of 1200fps. A 3dram load, 1200fps, can have shells, through differences in loading, equipment used and the tolerances of the components used give us that tolerance. If it is a 1200fps NMV load it will have the components of a 1200fps Load, not the components of a 1250fps load. Powder is dropped +-, shot is dropped +-, each wad has a little different ability to seal and weight +-, each hull is a little different, though for the most part manufacturers are able to keep the tolerances pretty good and the loads generally are stated +-35fps. If the goal at the time was to allow 1250fps shells it should have been worded as such, 1250fps NMV max, instead of treating each different weight group differently. I think 1200fps NMV is better for all weight groups and 7/8 1200fps NMV would create a better, more competitive game where no concrete needs to be added, and would be little cheaper, at least for those who reload.

In a 1957 loading manual I have a acquired it just lists trap load 12ga 3dram 1 1/8oz. No velocity listed. In my 1967 loading manual it discusses how dram equivalent of obsolete, though describes it as "comparison between the velocity of a shot charge driven by an unknown amount of smokeless powder to that of a similar charge driven by a given number of drams of black powder. My newest manuals describe DR EQ as, "consequently, the term '3dram equivalent,' '3 1/4 dram equivalent,' etc. in describing a load means that the amount of smokeless powder used produces the same shot velocity as would 3, 3 1/4, etc. of black powder."

Just like in another thread on shot, if assumptions of definition are the same in a rule book, I can conclude #7 shot should and is legal for ATA trap. Using the tolerance as stated within SAAMI of target shot having a tolerance of .005 and a size 7 1/2 shot is .095" of which adding the tolerance to would be .10" and that my friends is a #7 shot and if my bag of #7 shot has a pellet larger than .10" I can just say, well it came from the factory, how was I to know.

So, using SAAMI as the guideline, shell rule says the following.

3. Any load with a velocity greater than 1290 FPS (Feet Per Second) with maximum shot charge of 1 1/8 ounces, or 1325 FPS with a maximum shot charge of 1 ounce, or 1350 FPS with a maximum shot charge of 7/8 ounces or less, as measured in any individual shotshell. These velocities are maximum and no individual shotshell shall exceed these limits for the designated shot charge. In addition, no load containing more than 1 1/8 ounces or any shot larger than Number 7 1/2 can be used.

First it says, "Any load", which could mean NMV and a box listed as 1290fps would be legal, but then it says, " no individual shotshell shall exceed these limits", which precludes a 1290fps nmv load as through its nature there is a tolerance and most assuredly there are shells in a 1290fps NMV load that exceed 1290fps. Then in the same rule it says, "any shot larger than Number 7 1/2 can be used", a 7 1/2 shot has a diameter of .095", does that mean .095" is the limit or would it imply .01" is the limit as target shot tolerance by SAMMI is .005".

I say the above, as it my understanding within the ATA and PITA hierarchy that if the box says 1 1/8oz 1290fps it would be legal. Which I do not agree, but apparently it is so.

Like I said in the beginning, "not that it matters".

To answer Gary's question, No.

Shoot well.

John

 

Family - you might check who won the $100,000 at the Grand with 2 3/4 dram Feds. Listed at 1150 fps. If you would have traveled to the Indiana State shoot last year and shot in or watched the miss and out. Fed furnished the shell and they started at the 27 with the same 2 3/4 1150 fps. It took many rounds to narrow the field and the last 6 or 7 were shooting from at least the 35 or 40 yd line and smashing targets. This kind of ruins your theory that you can't do it with 1200 fps load. I know also several AA's that shoot lighter loads, it's what you are accustomed to.

Lefty

 

And where did I say you can't do it with a 2 3/4 dram shell? Facts be damned right?

The ATA points chasers don't think it is as easy with slowwwer shells. Hmmm wonder why?

Evidently you missed Mr. Hunts dissertation above.

 

Family Guy, if no one can or will tell me how much scores improve by using 1250fps loads, maybe you could enlighten me as to how many targets per 100 the ATA points chasers would be forfeiting by using 1200fps loads? You imply that, because some good shooters use a particular ammunition, that that is proof enough.

As an example, Foster Bartholow used 3 dram #8 AA to break 200 in the 2008 Clay Target Championship plus 900 more in the shoot off. Using your rational, this should be interpreted as THE shell for 16 yard singles. How would you explain the fact that Leo Harrison matched his scores and was declared co-champion of the event while using 2 3/4dr Federal #7 1/2. He should have been at a disadvantage after all, since Foster was using the faster ammo. He wasn't of course, and neither are the shooters who don't use the 1250fps ammo in handicap.

 

Jo2,

There isn't anyone in this forum or any forum that thinks slowwwer shells are the road map to success at the 27. Not even you.

 

Jo2: You have no conception of what has happened and why, you either understand what has been done or you don't no middle of the road.
It is not worth discussing it with you, you need to look at what has happened, and study it, you don't comprehend what has happened to this sport, that used to have Integrity, Honesty, Sportsmanship, Competetion, you need to talk to someone else besides me, I cannot help you and will not try, I am too old for that, do not have time to teach you History on Trapshooting, I am not going to get involved in any arguing!!!

 

Ok, I give up Family Guy. Neither you nor Gary seem prepared to commit to a number of targets that could or would be seen as an improvement in average handicap scores by switching from 1200fps ammo to 1250fps ammo, other than to say that the good shooters use them or they break the targets with more authority and that should be proof enough of their superiority. My question to you is: should the faster shells be outlawed

 

Doc, on the contrary, I have been around trapshooting since 1976 and have seen the good times as well as the decline in shooters in recent years. I attended a number of Grands in Vandalia as well as every Grand in Sparta. To say that integrity, honesty, sportsmanship, and competition has been taken out of the sport is simply wrong. To blame the EC, past and present, for the decline in shooters, while convenient, is also wrong. You would have to be crazy to say that shooters quit because the angles were narrowed, or the shell speeds were increased. The best shooters of today would be unaffected by 3 hole targets, just as they were in 1995 when Neal Crausbay mandated the change back to 3 hole targets and they would still be breaking 100s with 3dr ammo.

Things happen that we don't always agree with, but going around making inaccurate allegations and incorrect assumptions, all the while complaining because things aren't the same as they used to be, gets a little tiresome after a while.

 

Everything was awesome in 1965, now everything sucks.

 

Jo 2 I must respectfully disagree with your comment that "Neal Crausbay mandated the change back to 3 hole targets."

According to what was reported in Trap & Field, the Executive Committee discussed reports that various gun clubs across the country chose to interpret Official Rule III, N. FLIGHTS AND ANGLES, in such a manner that the “hole” number in which the Standard Model 1524 trap, when used, is set in at the lowest number possible, and results in illegal “soft” targets. It was also reported that some clubs were even throwing registered shoots with the trap in the #1 hole.

Since there gun clubs were using a variety of traps, many of which did not use a "hole" for setting, they amended the rule, deleting reference to the Model 1524 and hole setting. The rule stayed the same as it had been for decades, the standards for a “legal” target remained unchanged as clearly set forth in Rule III, N., and those standards simply said that targets will be set not less than a straightaway from position 1 and position 5, and also must comply with height and distance requirements.

The Executive Committee was simply trying to enforce the rules and as most people knowledgeable on the subject of target setting knew . . . the 2-hole setting threw targets that violated the existing rules as the the right angle target had to be at least a straightaway from Post 1, and the left angle had to be at least a straight away from Post 5. And remember, there was an additional 25 degrees beyond or outside of the right and left angle that was still considered to be a regulation "legal" target.

The Winchester V-1524 trap (in proper working order) set in the #3 hole threw a 22 degree target, which was a straightaway from Post 1 & 5. Using the #2 hole reduced the target area to 17 degrees, thus not in compliance with the rules. And those clubs using the #1 hole their hard angles were only 13.5 degrees right and left of the center stake.

So, as I understand it, President Crausbay did not mandate the "change back to 3 hole targets, rather the Executive Committee and the majority of Board of Directors agreed on the decision to amend the rules to help everyone better understand the true angle requirements as they had been written.

The first time the ATA rules permitted left and right angle target settings less than a straightaway from Posts 1 & 5 was effected in the 1997 target year, as passed by the Board of Directors at their August 1996 annual meeting.

If I've misinterpreted the issue please correct me, as I only wish my statements to be accurate and truthful.

Kenny Ray Estes

 

Kenny, to add to, but not contradict, what you wrote above, I think it's important to remember that III, N, Flights and Angles (1994 and other years) contained the text:

"Under no circumstances shall a Standard Model 1524 trap be set in less than the #2 hole."

It was that sentence that clubs used to justify using that setting. I helped set traps at the Grand for at least 15 years (as the observer at the stake) and except for the last half of 1995 and the whole of target year 1966 (save Friday and Saturday after the vote) they were set in the #2 hole. This is the setting that was used as a standard in the Central Zone for the 12 (at least) years before the 1995 action by the EC (not Past-President Crausbay, as you point out.)

I can't find any text that deletes references to 1524 traps until Delegate Thyer's motion in 1996, the one you cite. However, since the #2 hole was included in the motion, the 1524 was still there, though not cited by name.

There is a history lesson in the shell-speed subject of this thread too, one which I doubt you are aware of and I hope you will drop back to enjoy when I get to it. The short version is that the whole idea that the speed of the shells on the field has been changed since 1990 is a mistake. We are are shooting the same-speed shells now as we were then; only the names have been changed. In 1990 we called them "Heavy" or "3-dram;" now we call them "Handicap." But they are the same shells, that is, they are all going the same speed.

Neil

 

I have a few minutes but then I have to get to real work. So this will be a lot shorter than usual.

First, Gary Bryant's post:

"Not the rules now, how the rules were changed, Neil using SAAMI +90fps or- 90fps this is mfgrs specs in mfgring shells, not specifics.
mfgrs should be able to hold a 5% tolerance w/o problems, the 3 dram shell is 1200fps and is the mfgrs target. They held it here for years before Neil put his fingers in the pie, the more pies he puts his fingers in the more pies get messed up, he has messed up way too much already. He is killing Registered Trapshooting/Has Killed(sic)"

attributing the present speed rules to me is just nonsense. The alignment of SAAMI and ATA speed designations was done sometime in the 1990 timeframe but it was not my motion though I did vote for it. That is the total extent of my involvement in the present ATA shot-speed rules other than offering advice which was, in general, not taken. Oh, and Past-President Kaiser and I did take out references in the metric system and I, individually, changed some values to integers from floating point. Specifically, I did not write the present speed-based rules which I think work fine but have exactly the logical and statistical problems which jhunts cites earlier in this thread. I will say that when I was in a position to change them I didn't. I couldn't figure out a way to make them any better and I had learned by that time it's disastrous to mess with rules which work. It's way too easy to get it wrong in ways you never anticipated.

What we are shooting today as "Handicap" we shot in 1990 as "Heavy" or "3-dram." Here are results of testing seven lot numbers with a Oehler Model 71 inductive chronograph, the shells being from 1990 and earlier; whatever I could get my hands on locally. Only Winchester was marketing "Handicap" shells at that time, though the others were selling the same sort of shells in boxes marked "Heavy" or "3-dram."



So the speed of fast shells available to us has not changed since at least 1990.

A retest in 2001, this one with a pair of consumer chronographs but carried out with similar care and accuracy, shows the same speeds but with different labels.



The message is that there is nothing new about the shells today except that there are now three labeled speeds where there used to be but two. This has made it possible for shooters to get shells more in the speed range they like. But still, they are only going get in the "range" of what they want; exact speeds still elude them.

Yours in Sport,

Neil

 

Thanks, Kenny and Neil for the correction. After looking at some of the posts on here that suggest that the EC and President tell the delegates how to vote, I fell into line by suggesting that Neal Crausbay did just that, when in fact he didn't.

Neil, when you say that you helped set targets at the Grand for 15 years, what 15 year stretch was it? Thanks.

 

Jo2, I did it with a friend who was on the trap-setting committee from the early or mid 1980's until about 2000, at least several days of each Grand. When we started there were no radios and I'd spread my arms for "Too long" and beckon toward myself for "too short." We'd set them in the "zero" hole and birds centered with the windage lever, and when we were done we'd remind the guy in the house, "Put 'em in the 2 hole!." A freshly-rebuilt hand set would throw remarkably consistent targets but by the time we knew that the 1524 was done for they were not being maintained anymore and setting them right was a lot tougher. We'd get to Vandalia early and try to corral all the good ones for our banks, or at least get rid of the worst ones.

Neil

 

Neil, it is interesting to hear from someone who has actually "been there and done that," when it comes to hole 2 vs hole 3 targets. If targets that were thrown at the Grand in the early 80's were actually 2 hole targets, probably most of the shooters who tallied targets in that era were actually shooting those narrow targets that they so vehemently oppose now. Thank you Neil.

 

Thanks, Jo2. I think that the number of hits on threads like this are a testament to the fact that members here are interested in this sort of thing, more interested in fact than they are in some other topics brought up here.

There's another thing you should note about that I wrote, the windage lever on Winchester hand sets which was always used in setting a field. There's no such lever on Pat Traps and though it can be done with the spacer bar in place, I don't see it ever done (but I don't go to Tucson and there they are super, super careful about target setting and it shows in the scores.) The result of no windage lever with Pat and similar traps (but not GMV) is that in a side wind one side is narrow, the other wide. I don't think it makes a bit of difference, of course, but it should make us worry a little less about "hole" numbers, since today I'm likely to shoot 2-minus hole targets going to the left and 3-hole targets going to the right and I'm unlikely to ever notice.

Neil

 

Neil, for those that constantly complaining about easier targets, are they all AAA27AAA?

It would seem to me, you'd have to be pretty good then, and really good now, or the argument doesn't hold water.

 

Hello Neil .... nice to read your posts again .... and in the 'spirit' of ..."to add to, but not contradict, what you wrote above" .....

Please tell why this .... "Under no circumstances shall a Standard Model 1524 trap be set in less than the #2 hole." ... had to be added.

Some get lost in all the "facts" ...... "those that constantly complaining about easier targets, are they all AAA27AAA" .....

Wasn't the 'need" for this 'change' because some were 'cheating' to be "AAA27AAA" ....

And cheating is cheating .... be it falsely reported targets for close yardage or inflated scores with "some clubs were even throwing registered shoots with the trap in the #1 hole." ....

Some demand a reversal of the result of possible cheating .... yet overlook other possible cheating ..... could this be because of the way 'facts' are presented ????

 

Tell me duf, when you go a real, as opposed to a fantasy, trapshoot, do you hear discussions of the rules of target width? Not something specific to a club and this event like like "Trap three is throwing some real right-handers today!" but the ATA rules themselves? I never, ever do. Just as it has never been mentioned at an annual meeting in almost 20 years, it's just not on most members' minds at all. Same with shot speed. Members seem satisfied that the ATA lets them shoot the sort of thing most of them want (if they can find them!) These are the sort of rules which largely work and so are, in my opinion, unlikely to be changed.

For that reason I don't dwell on them at all, except to correct the occasional post which seems counter to my personal experience or evidence. If others want to worry about it, I have no reason to want to stop them or judge their competence, regardless of their positions. There aren't very many of them anyway, apparently, since I never, ever, meet even one at a trapshoot.

Neil

 

I didn't add it, User1, and in fact it didn't appear until (say) 1991 or 1992 as I remember. I don't know why it was added especially since the predictable result was the opposite from that which was probably intended. All this stuff is more than 20 years ago and I have other interests now and will leave its dissection to those who care more than I now do. Other people run the ATA now and they have been elected to do it and I wish them, and the organization with which they have been entrusted, success.

I am only competent to cite "facts" which I think I remember being involved in, though the recent research in memories should warn us all to add "I think" to most of what we write. I'll tell you, just shooting is a lot more fun than having to worry about any of this and that's pretty-much where I am these days. I just opened the choke on a TM-1 just a bit and it may be above freezing tomorrow and I'll get to test it! Now that's what trapshooting is for me, finally, again. Hooray!

Neil

 

Good luck with your 'smoke-pole' ....

History is just history ..... some use it as a learning tool, others not so much.

 

Neil,

In my mind, I only concentrate on the things I can control. I have never worried or thought about where a target is going to be, or where it should be. Putting that in my mind is too much. I've heard comments on targets, but I never let that interfere with what I'm doing, I prefer to call for the bird, then go after it, where ever it goes.

This is why, I don't get the guys that constantly want to talk about easy targets, three hole, or the speed of the shells.

You have all the data on shell speed, it is my belief, there is no advantage of faster shells until you get past 23 yards. When closer than that, I think, pick a shell, practice your leads, that's the end of it. Slower shells, bigger lead, faster shell shorter leads. As long as no one is mandating a shooter to switch back and forth, there is no competitive advantage.

 

To answer the question ... NO.

I really don't see the need. If most the AA are using max loads it's because they feel it gives them an advantage or keeps them on the same level as the competition.

Gary, stated his results with 1200fps shells in one event as being evidence of thier inferior target breaking abilities. I'm not a scientist, but that certianly doesn't seem like a very good test to me.

Let's give 10 shooters a mix of shells 1250 & 1200. They would have to look identical but be marked so that we knew what shell was fired each time. After say 500 targets the results are tallied, without consideration to quality of breaks. As we all know, trap is SCORED not GRADED!!!

If after the results of this 5000 target experiment it is shown that 50 fps makes a difference then there can be a debate on the rules.

 

I all I can add is if you are on it breaks if you are off it don't. I can miss just as well with good shells as cheap but I just started shooting last year again so I know little. But I do like this sight and have learned a thing or two ...

 

Hello Neil,


I trust all is well with you in the land of “L'Etoile du nord.”


Please see my responses below.

Kenny, to add to, but not contradict, what you wrote above, I think it's important to remember that III, N, Flights and Angles (1994 and other years) contained the text:

"Under no circumstances shall a Standard Model 1524 trap be set in less than the #2 hole."

I intentionally did not mention the above sentence. It was never stated in the rules for the first 45 years the Model 1524 trap was used at the Grand and it only caused more confusion to the regulation target controversy.

It was that sentence that clubs used to justify using that setting.

You are absolutely correct. In my opinion, the language regarding the #2-hole was all some focused upon . . . completely ignoring the longstanding rule of higher significance, that which stated: “the minimum angle of not less than a straightaway from posts one or five.” Though well intended, it was a bad attempt to better explain the rules and I can only assume that the #2 hole language was inserted to cover claims that worn traps and/or improper target placement on the carrier arm, were throwing angle targets a little wider than a straightaway from Posts 1 & 5 and that setting (#2-hole) was available if needed. It was never meant (in my opinion) to eliminate the required minimum angles from Posts 1 & 5. If it was, those demanding narrower angles would have also demanded the removal of the minimal angle language (straightaway from Posts 1 & 5). The minimum angle rule remained and was of higher importance to the subordinate #2-hole.

It’s sort of like how some shooters believe the rules permit them to turn down a target, because the rules say they get two failure-to-fires per sub-event. They completely overlook the fact that if the target is on time and legal, it’s a lost target if you don't shoot.

The language regarding the longstanding minimum angle setting as a straightaway from Post 1 & 5 was only removed in August 1996 when the BOD voted to amend the rule adopting the narrower target effective for the 1997 target year.

I help set traps at the Grand for at least 15 years (as the observer at the stake) and except for the end of 1995 and the whole of target year 1966 they were set in the #2 hole. This is the setting that was used as a standard in the Central Zone for the 12 (at least) years before the 1995 action by the EC (not Past-President Crausbay, as you point out.)

I don’t doubt what you’re saying one bit. The "soft target" violation had been going on for many years and even at the G.A.H. tournament. However, from all the past EC & BOD minutes and articles by several Past Presidents, I have not found any authorization of a rule change that permitted throwing angle targets less than a straightaway from Posts 1 & 5. So, in some or many years, and even at the Grand American tournament, those in charge of managing tournaments openly permitted violation of our own rules.

But not in all years, In 1962 Southern Zone Vice-President Dwight Brown included the following statement in a Trap & Field article under ATA News, under the title "Legal Targets - Distance and Angles."

" Regarding angles, it is suggested that all traps be set to throw at least the minimum angles as set for the in the Rule Book. Targets which do not meet this requirement are just as illegal as broken targets, “flippers,” etc., and cannot be legally registered under our rules.


On Thursday, prior to the Preliminary Day contests at the Grand this year, the Executive Committee inspected the flight of the targets. The traps had been set in the same manner as during the past several years. Upon examination, it was found that the extreme angles, both right and left, were inside and short of the minimum requirements. Some 40 targets were thrown, and not a single one went wide enough to meet the rule. The test trap was readjusted and then it was found that out of another 30 or 40 targets which were thrown, all except two were exact straightaways from positions 1 and 5, and those two were only wide by about two feet. As most of you know, the Committee requested that the trap be set to throw the wider angles, and they were left that way throughout the Tournament. It was necessary that we do this in order to comply with the Rule Book."

THE SAME ANGLES WILL BE THROWN DURING THE 1963 GRAND AS WERE THROWN THIS YEAR.

What I have found was hollow threats from the E.C. and Past Presidents many times over the decades, that clubs found to be setting targets to be thrown less than the minimum angles of a straightaway from Posts 1 & 5 would be subject to disciplinary action and all shooters scores would be disqualified.


Vic Reinders wrote many articles over many years deploring the act of clubs throwing soft targets. Articles about legal target setting were also written by Southern Zone VP Dwight Brown; ATA President Robert Greek. In 1979 Randy Clark and Doug House advocated target setting in accordance with the rules for the GAH. Shooters such as Frank Little & Kay Ohye spoke their objections to soft targets.


The 2-hole vs 3-hole argument is still in play after 50 years of debate and long after the end of traps with hole settings. Some today even ask what’s a (2 or 3) hole-setting?


I remember reading in the old minutes that Delegate Wright as a member of the Target Setting Committee about 1980, asked for direction from the Directors on setting the targets because they had been setting 2-hole 49-yard targets. Even though Delegates were reminded that the 2-hole setting did not conform to and was in violation of, the rule on legal angles requiring a minimum straightaway from Post 1 & 5, a majority of Directors agreed with the Committee’s manner of setting targets for the GAH.


When Doug House was President in 1981 he gave a wonderful review of the issue in one of his “President’s Page” articles which explained the entire controversy. He called for enforcement of the rules as they are written. President Larry Scott did the same thing when he was president in 1983.

I can't find any text that deletes references to 1524 traps until Delegate Thyer's motion in 1996 did, the one you cite.

Mention of the Model 1524 trap & #2-hole setting was short-lived. It came into the 1990 rules and was last seen in the initial 1995 rules (reprinted October 1994), which appeared in the 1994 Average book printed in January 1995. At their February 1995 meeting, the E. C. voted to eliminate the language, due to other style traps being used which had no “hole setting” and because it was well documented, even by Winchester, that the #2-hole did not throw targets as per the defined angle rules.


At the annual BOD meeting, August 15, 1996, Indiana Delegate Mr. Moore, (according to the minutes) made the motion to amend the Flights & Angles rule, returning the reference for the Model 1524 trap and the #2-hole setting. This of course inspired a lively debate and it was at this time that Ex-Officio Crausbay spoke of opposition to the motion.


I was not aware of a motion by Delegate Thyer on this subject. The only motion I found referenced in the minutes by Delegate Thyer was as follows :

“Mr. Thyer of Iowa addressed the Veteran category age requirement established at the 1995 Annual Directors meeting. At that meeting the Directors lowered the age at which a member shall be classified as Veteran from sixty-five (65) years of age to sixty (60) years of age, effective at the beginning of the 1996 Target Year. Mr. Thyer stated that he believed age sixty (60) was too young for classification as Veteran, and he made the following motion:”

Neil

There's a lot more history relating to target setting in the old days and the game was not created to be easy. No sport was. It was meant to be much more challenging that it is today. I believe those who chose not to consider the history of any sport is actually doing a disservice to that sport.

An example of this would be the change after 70 years of throwing trap targets with a minimum left and right angle of 45 degrees with an additional 20 degrees outside, still being a legal target, history was overlooked when the angle was cut in half to just 22 degrees with an additional 25 degrees outside sometime around 1955. It appears to me that history was once again overlooked when the angle was reduced even more to just 17 degrees with 10 additional degrees wider still being withing legal limits. Now that old minimum angle, the straightway from Post 1 or 5, is viewed by many as a wild target and often turned down.

Regards,

Kenny Ray

 

Thank you, Kenny. I thought it was Delegate Thyer who made the 1996 motion but I see it was Delegate Moore. Thank you for the correction. And I certainy do not remember the EC eliminating the reference to 1525. What did the rule say then? Just "straighaway from 1 and 5?" Nothing about "holes?" Unfortunately, the average book for the relevant year does not have the rulebook.

I appreciate you taking the time to reply.

Delegate Thyer is a friend of mine, but his disastrous (successful and I voted for it) motion remains my favorite examples of getting everything wrong while trying to "do the right thing." The following year, the BOD was about to half-way correct things by changing 60 to 62, but I laid out a multi-point explanation of what a special catergory needed to be to work (well covered by Secretary Melton in the minutes) and I was able to secure a unanimous vote to put things back the way they had been back to 65.

When I was asked by a sitting member of the EC about making new categories a few years ago I repeated to him my list of requirements for a special category to do what it was intended to do. What we have now, instead of special categories based on any rational criteria, is exactly the "added trophies for AA and AAA shooters" that Executive Director Bopp warned us against so often. Probably in the case of vet and senior-vet there was nothing to be done, but what, I ask you, makes a 55 year old male shooter "special" in any competitive respect? In fact, a vet who isn't AA or AAA would be crazy to declare vet, since he will be buried and forgotten long before the shootoff is over, if he even gets there. So what was designed to be a reward for hanging on and sticking with ATA shooting has become a punishment (though self-inflicted on those who don't think things through.) Again, the change in demographis probably made this unavoidable, but I wish we had thought about it more and maybe developed a plan to counteract it.

Again, thanks for responding.

Neil

 

The Junior Gold is the category that absolutely puzzles the hell out of me.

 

I believe Junior Gold is here to stay.

I think with our demographics we would be better served with a Super Vet Category (Over 75).

 

Wrong. There's at least one.

 

Well, that is about the nicest thing you have ever said, when my sign on name has been involved.

Quotes from Neil, 2007

Truly, as I stated earlier in the thread, when using guidelines as stated within SAAMI, the application of understanding within the rules set forth should be consistent. 7's in particular or shot having a measurement of .10 inches or less is legal, when using guidelines set forth in SAMMI (target shot). The understanding within the rule of "MAX" or "any larger than" as a term or phrase, includes tolerance within SAAMI. If the MAX (any larger than) size of 7.5 was literal the rule would have state #8 shot as the outside tolerance of #8 shot is .095 or #7.5.

Oh, but people have, you and the ATA are or were not listening. In the definitions in SAAMI 3 dram is 1200fps. Nothing secret about that, it just is and has been since 1870 (no SAAMI in 1870) or so. Lyman has a great chart about Dram EQ. Though, as you have written the past couple of days, I think, I understand what you were trying to say, whether as a side show or with honesty, about the rule stating "3 dram max" in the old rule as 1200fps max. That is not the case. As I have stated earlier, concluding outcomes or understanding of rules with the same context with the same outcome. Max (any larger than) shot 7.5 and Max 3 dram, shall have the same conclusion as stated in SAAMI + or -. In the case of shot .005 inches or shell + 90fps per second. That is not to say 3dram = 1290 fps but if a shell that was loaded with 3 dram equivalent components, a shell of any speed would be exceptable, well within +-90fps hopefully, but if the shell was loaded with other than or more than 3 dram equivalent components it would not be.

For instance, I will use a 1200fps load from Alliant, if using WWHS hull, win 209, WWAA12 wad, 18.0 grains of RD, 1 1/8oz shot has a Alliant tested 1200fps velocity, 3dram eq. If someone challenged those shells and there was 18.5 grains of RD, that would exceed 3dr eq. and would be disqualified. If the shell had more than 507grains of shot, it would be disqualified and so on. There is not specific velocity which is to fast, just that it be loaded with the components of a tested 3 dram load.

From SAAMI:

DRAM EQUIVALENT
The accepted method of correlating relative velocities of shotshells loaded with smokeless propellant to shotshells loaded with black powder. The reference black powder load chosen was a 3 dram charge of black powder, with 1 1/8 oz. of shot and a velocity of 1200 fps. Therefore, a 3 dram equivalent load using smokeless powder would be with 1 1/8 oz. of shot having a velocity of 1200 fps. or 1 1/4 oz. of shot and a velocity of 1165 fps. A 3 1/4 dram equivalent load might have 1 1/8 oz. of shot and a velocity of 1255 fps. Abbreviated Dram Equiv.



The above has been posted many times in this discussion over the years, I am not sure anybody has read it, read it all. Notice, "... allowances must be made for factors which can influence both the average and the variability of velocity observed. Factors such as components, sampling error, differences in test methods and equipment."

Looking at your results, I think I can see the above at play. What were your results when you tested your equipment with the "reference load" shells listed within SAAMI. If you were doing testing on behalf of or using your results for any kind of conclusion for the ATA (a governing body) to make. I would assume you did use specific "reference load" ammunition so as to apply any corrections as necessary.





I bet you can guess what the average velocity of the Trap Reference load is.

It seems, you are not quite remembering (not to be a slight, it happens) things correctly, it was awhile ago. So as to make any comment on what the discussions behind the scenes were would be futile. Phil Kiner ( http://www.xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/threads/apologies-to-jhunts-and-dr-longshot.201805/ , http://www.xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/threads/apologies-to-jhunts-and-dr-longshot-2.201984/ ) posted what he believed happened, I concur with what he said, I think I surmised in a previous post to his about the same thing, but I was not there, and in 1990 I was in service to this country, so I cannot ascertain the qualification of your statement about what shells were available in 1990.

When you or whoever found out the 3dram shells of the era where averaging in excess of a 3dram equivalent velocity. Did anyone in the ATA talk to a manufacturer representative and show your results? Did you or anyone check the LOT numbers in your testing against what the manufacturer had for same lot numbers? Who paid for the testing (equipment and shells) and why did you or anyone feel it necessary to do (as apparently today the understanding within ATA, is that a manufactured load is pretty untouchable as far as testing and not viable for disqualification)? Would it not have been easier just to query the manufacturer? I would assume the ATA would have had or has the clout to ensure the manufacturers were/are producing a product that abided by the rules of the ATA, instead of the ATA changing the rules to accommodate what the manufacturers were doing.

To me, it would have been important to maintain the status of the rule book and not let wording on a package or a velocity war of the manufacturers to dictate a change in the rules of the ATA. I can guess though, many people, people shooting from the fence, wanted to maintain and come up with a rule to include them (greater than 3 dram eq), within the rule. In appearance, it looks achieved, in reality it is no rule at all, especially since the understanding is that any manufactured shell with a NMV of 1290fps or less is untouchable, though in reality a high probability of illegal shells in the midst.

I am pretty confident when 3dram max was installed into the rule book, it had the intention of 1200fps NMV and was to be applied the same, as the designation of #7.5 shot max (No load containing..., ..any shot larger than Number 7 1/2).

Now, Pheasantmaster has been hot on the apparent fact that Stafford apparently shoots Extra lights from the fence and has a 96+- average over the last many years. Maybe we should go to 7/8oz 1100fps. Of course that would ruin the recoil reduction business.

That should about do it for me on this subject.

One addition, I guess it is important, that any information provided be from a AAA27AAA, the above is endorsed by a AAA27AAA shooter. The AAA27AAA shooter I am referring to would also like to see "no less than a straight away from post 1 and post 5" re-instituted.

Shoot well.

John

 

Readers here may have been misled by the text above:

"From SAAMI:

DRAM EQUIVALENT
The accepted method of correlating relative velocities of shotshells loaded with smokeless propellant to shotshells loaded with black powder. The reference black powder load chosen was a 3 dram charge of black powder, with 1 1/8 oz. of shot and a velocity of 1200 fps. Therefore, a 3 dram equivalent load using smokeless powder would be with 1 1/8 oz. of shot having a velocity of 1200 fps. or 1 1/4 oz. of shot and a velocity of 1165 fps. A 3 1/4 dram equivalent load might have 1 1/8 oz. of shot and a velocity of 1255 fps. Abbreviated Dram Equiv



Since it gives every indication that it is "From SAAMI" since it is introduced with those words. The lower part, "Velocity specifications" and following, is in the SAAMI booklet and available here:

http://www.saami.org/specifications_and_information/publications/download/209.pdf

The introduction, "The accepted method" and so on, is not. It is a fake citation. It is presumably an invention on the part of the poster, jhunts

This is my error. The above quote is in the SAAMI manual, just not where the citatioin above leads us to think it is. It is in the Glossary, explaining the historical derivation of the term. The present usage of 3-dram is on page 8, in the column headed

"Velocity feet per second
Mean instrumantal velocity at 3 feet
(±90)"

Note that this is "mean velocity," which means the whole box may be +90 fps, not a single shell. That means, of course, that some will be faster.

You have been warned.

Neil

 

It is all available to read, I agree.

No warning required.

Ahhh... the "Accepted method" is the words of SAAMI, not I.

Below is a copy, direct copy of Glossary of terms within SAAMI. Nice try though.

http://www.saami.org/glossary/display.cfm?letter=D

DOUBLING
Unintentional firing of a second shot.
DOUGHNUT PATTERN
See Pattern, Doughnut.
DRAM EQUIVALENT
The accepted method of correlating relative velocities of shotshells loaded with smokeless propellant to shotshells loaded with black powder. The reference black powder load chosen was a 3 dram charge of black powder, with 1 1/8 oz. of shot and a velocity of 1200 fps. Therefore, a 3 dram equivalent load using smokeless powder would be with 1 1/8 oz. of shot having a velocity of 1200 fps. or 1 1/4 oz. of shot and a velocity of 1165 fps. A 3 1/4 dram equivalent load might have 1 1/8 oz. of shot and a velocity of 1255 fps. Abbreviated Dram Equiv.
DRAW MARK
1. Ammunition - a longitudinal scratch on a cartridge case caused by foreign material on either the draw punch or die during fabrication.
2. Arms - See Witness Mark.

Shoot well.

John

 

OK, it is (elsewhere) in the manual and I apologize for getting that wrong. My warning, however, stands, since you are going on about 3-dram and the ATA rules no not mention 3-dram at all. Shot speeds limits are defined as speeds. Period. As my 2001 data show, all the shells I tested was perfectly legal. That's the end of the story.

Well, not quite. Here's a handicap shell from the 1970's sent from his collection to me for testing and, Ollie, I really apreciate it.



Thus, fast shells are not exactly a new thing.

Neil

 

You seem to be admitting to getting these things wrong quite often. Does that make your post have right or half wrong?

 

Well, sure, why not admit when you are wrong? It doesn't bother me in the least though I try to make it as rare as I can manage. I think it adds to, not detracts from, my credibility.

Neil

 

Yeah, now that we know you are wrong you have more cred.

 

Admitting you have issues is the first step to salvation. Thanks Neil!

 

Readers here should compare what I wrote, that I acknowledge mistakes when they are brought to my attention, with Ollie's total and intentional misrepresentaion of my words, that I "admit I have issues." He is, obviously, a deceiver and a fraud, convicted here by his own misbehavior. Readers here should take that into account when they read Ollie's posts, if they do.


Neil

 

Neil, I completely understand. Since you haven't been around this game as long as me you're entitled to make mistakes. While you were playing with motorcycles I was in the trenches. I forgive you!!