*Poll* Handicap Yardage 27 or 30

Please sound off.

 

My research tells me that at the altitude most of the ATA does its shooting at our shotguns are right at or maybe just a little bit beyond the range at which they can break (virtually) every perfectly-pointed target. Probably 28 would work too, but still there would be a very few more losses of birds which "deserved" to be broken.

To me it's a question of sportsmanship and fairness. Is it fair to randomly reduce a competitor's score in ways he or she cannot overcome by any level of skill just so you can beat him or her? I don't think so. If you want him or her out of your hair just shoot handicap in yardage groups. At least you aren't artificially corrupting the sport for the benefit of one group or another. So put me down for 27 yards. The best shooters simply are the best shooters and we might as well accept it and see what can be fairly done to "spread the wealth" if that's what's needed.

If you are serious about any of this, then get the ATA to give up on the 20 or 28 gauge events on a couple of traps at the Grand and switch to a serious test of longer yardages in an experiment designed by a statistician which will give some trustworthy answers. You could run it on trap 5 for the whole Grand and you would have comparable data from the same shooters in the registered events. Put ten or twenty grand into it to assure everyone was really trying and in one year you would have an answer worthy of consideration. That is, you would know whether those longer yardages were "fair" or not. Then it's up to you. Do you care if it's fair, or do you just want to win by any means you can get the votes for?

Yours in Sport,

Neil

 

What ever is fine with me. But what is your complete plan?

Are you going to change angles, target speed or shell speed?
What about mandatory reductions?
What about clubs that can't or won't pour more concrete?
Are we going to punch only for winning score?
No more 1/2 yard for a 96 etc.

Thanks

 

I would like to see 20 yard minimum and something beyond 27 yard (or at least a separate class for shooters on the 27 who maintain a handicap average 95+). Not because those shooters can't be beat, but instead because they are not being handicapped to the same extent as the other entrants.

Secondly, I would like hard and fast ATA rules governing where you stand. No refusing reductions or requests for additonal yardage. You should stand where your performance puts you. No camping out on the 27 because you shot a good score in 1983 in Vernal.

 

So Neil, your saying those old Remington 870's loaded with Remington Shur-shot shells and cardboard wads that guys made it to the 27 with back in the 60's was impossible? Trust me, I was there and the Handicap system seemed to actually work while ATA numbers were growing. The game always had a bit of "luck of the draw" and won't change at the 27/28/29 or 30. Until you can tell us exactly how much more luck is involved then you're doing nothing but speculating or simply blowing smoke!!

 

Ollie, I of course said nothing of the kind. What I said was that I think even today in the Midwest, the longest-yardage shooters are sometimes "robbed" of a perfectly-shot bird because the guns are not (quite) up to hitting them all all the time. How can adding more chance that the shooter cannot control no matter how well he or she shoots be considered good sportsmanship? on what evidence you you write that this won't be problem until 28, 29, or 30?

Neil

 

Shooters get hot and run good scores, they get cold and quit. The fact is that the best shooters are going keep winning no matter what the yardage is, changing angles, speed and yardage will change how everyone shoots but the cream will still come to the top.

 

There has to be a degree of difficulty that is equal to all, 34Degree 45 yard targets are not going to get it, no way, a 45 degree angle and 52 yard target at 10.5-11' ft at 10 yards, as a std, Shoot any shell speed up to 1250fps advertised speed, 1 1/8th oz shot, or do you want to use 1 oz shot @1325fps, you need difficulty, to make a test. Any test has to have standards for all. Not just a whim as is being suggested. Jeez that is what has been happening for the past 30 years now.

 

I'm sure the old timers thought that ribs on the shotguns were an unfair advantage and should be outlawed also.

 

The late great All-American Frank Little often said be believed an occasional target may have escaped through his pattern. He accepted it as part of the game. Since he averaged over 99% for decades it didn't seem to be much of an issue.

Since chipdaddy believes the 30 yd. line will not effect scoring and the so called "cream will rise to to the top" the issue according to him is much bigger than we care to admit!

 

Gary, I agree with much of you have written there. The degree of difficulty should be equal. My research tells me that yardages greater than 27 would add a (albeit small) random-birdloss - no-matter-how perfectly- shot factor to the scores of shooters at the new yardages, a handicap not experienced at shorter distances. Since hitting a hundred from the 20 is certainly possible, why would we want to have a group - say 30-yarders - faced with a challenge that skill cannot overcome? Doesn't that make a joke of the whole idea of competition?

When you speak of "test" I guess you mean what I have proposed to be done at the Grand instead of the enjoyable sub-gauge entertainment which now ties up a couple of traps which could (should) be used to answer some of the questions BOD member may be asked to face in the future. They need information to make the right decision. It's not right to ask them to vote on questions where they would have to guess when it would be so easy to give them the information they need to make a rational decision about the future of the ATA.

You write "Any test has to have standards for all. Not just a whim as is being suggested." That's right, and exactly why I wrote (above) ". . .a serious test of longer yardages in an experiment designed by a statistician which will give some trustworthy answers." Believe me, no one but someone who knows about testing can do this right, and getting his or her help will be worth paying for. This is a way to get answers. Real answers. Answers to these questions (and others which will, as time passes, come up.)

1. How would longer yardages work?

2. How would smaller payloads work?

3. How would slower shot-speeds work?

You can't ask a Delegate to even consider such questions without some data, without knowing what would be likely to happen. Seriously, this is what the ATA should be doing with a couple of its traps at Sparta. Without that they are flying blind and the membership deserves more competent leadership than that.

Yours in Sport,

Neil

 

Ollie, did he have that 99 average from the 27? That's what we are talking about - not shooting singles from the 30 and you know that - and references to the 16 just confuse things. Present-day 27-yarders accept "running out of gun" as part of the game too, but where's the fairness in intentionally increasing the (score-lowering) role of chance for one group and not another? Why not just roll dice on the internet and save the tiring trip to the gun club??

Neil

 

I disagree using smaller gauges in any test. We don't shoot them, and cannot be used in a expierement, or test, It absolutely has to have wider angles and 50-52 yards. I shoot them now in buddy shoots, and have very little problem breaking partners missed targets with 1 oz 7.5s loaded with 20 grs of 700-X, through my New to me Blaser F3 Older model 1 st design, using their full choke tube, First time out was last night with that Blaser, It was just updated by Blaser USA in Texas, it is the same as a Blaser F3 Super Trap except w/1st design Bbl w/triple rib. When you even talk about doing a test the angles have to be widened and distance increased to 50-52 yards, The angles is where it takes skill, almost anybody can break the 34 degree angles. Why do you have to pay someone for a test.

The Pat trap does not throw MANY EXTREME angles, compared to a GMV trap. One club I shoot at has a Year old Pat Trap, angles are set with the 3 hole angle bar that was shipped with the trap, I know I watched it used in set up and it has never been changed, Shooters say not many hard angles are thrown. But it does very rarely. But that is my observation on this Pat Trap.

Pat Traps are the standard now, and angles are set with the Bar to locate the angle sensors, that is a good design.

Angles are the TRAPSHOOTER ENEMY, not straight aways.

Put a video camera behind the test traps, Traps set to 44 degree angles, 50-52 yard distance. Furnish the shells Win AA Super Hdcp 7.5s, & #8s, Federal Paper Hdcps 7.5s.& #8s, Nitro 27 7.5s & #8s., and the Lighter Shells all documented at 27-28-29-30 yards. But the problem is shooter abilities, some will be better than others, and this cannot be entered into an Equation. Absolutely no way to test skill from one shooter to another, they are all different. Let shooters shoot their favorite shells, just document what is being used.

The video camera recording shots taken can be scored later when being reviewed, does not take a Rocket Scientest to watch videos and score target breaks. And you don't need to pay big bucks for a so-called test.

I just don't see wasting money on a simple to do test, w/Video Cameras, recording shooting from Known established distances, on Traps Identically set up. Using Pads at 28-29-30 yards+existing 27 yard walks. This test is for the Longer Yards Right?

 

Running out of gun, I like that statement. Increase the yardage until the you run out of gun. That should make a profound effect on Trapshooting! Call me old fashioned but after 44 years of trapshooting I still enjoy it and I'm not sure where it's headed.

 

Neil, your posts are a refreshing dose of intellectual curiosity and fact based decision making. You know the old statement about opinions...every one has one! Without facts to substantiate an argument, all you have are opinions...... that tend to be circular arguments.......... where anger arises because no logical supported conclusion is ever arrived at.

 

Gary, thank you for your response. I did not suggest testing smaller gauges, only small payloads. People have suggested smaller loads will do something positive and before a future BOD (might) take up that question, they should know what they are getting into.

Your idea that we have to change two things in the test is why we need a professional consultant to advise us, though I can tell you you right now that he or she will tell us first that the way to do it is change one thing at a time. Angle (or something else) this year, each of the others as they come to mind, but just one at a time. It is a basic principle of scientific investigation and that's what we need, scientific investigation. The BOD should demand it. We have years to get to where we want and should do this piecemeal anyway. We "have to pay someone for a test" because we - I, you, the ATA - don't know how to do it right, how to come up with answers we can defend in a intellectually honest way. The membership is paying for competent and professional management and that's what they should get.

Look what happened when we didn't get the help we needed. How many times have we circulated questionaires and polls and what happened? Mostly it has been money down the drain and membershp anger to boot. Only one had any validity, one designed by Stacey Hodkey and sent to former members to ask whey they quit and whether they might ever come back. It had all the answers to the question posed on the other site about the causes in the decline in shooter participation. The only problem was that is was pretty clear that fixing things was not really possible for the ATA to do. Trapshooting is tough and expensive and not for everyone and many, many people join "by mistake." How are we to fix that? My solution when I had a voice was to support coach-training and I think that worked for young shooters but the adults are a big problem. Few seek the competent coaching they might get a clinic (videos help, in my opinion) and what they get the gun club and here on the internet is just, well, . . awful.

Having taken many hours of high-speed videos of trap targets breaking and will tell you what you suggest is more work than anyone who has not done it can imagine. And it wouldn’t tell us anything anyway. It really, really wouldn't. My proposal for testing at the Grand woould give the ATA a baseline - the same shooters' scores in registered shooting using what we use now - and that's the whole point. It answers the question "What would happen if .. ."

It's not simply a question for ATA management whether they want to even consider any changes. If not, then they will have to accept that things can go very wrong in ways the Association can not control. The BOD sits for a few hours once a year and in that short period they can do anyting at all and that's what the EC will have to carry out, logical or crazy. I think they owe it to the BOD to provide information they can use in their decisionmaking, if only to prevent something going haywire that might take years to fix.

It's cheap; it's easy; it's needed. This year is the right time to start.

Yours in Sport,

Neil

 

Neil, you still haven't answered a very basic question. How can shooters make it to 30 yd. line without skill? Yardage is awarded by breaking high scores-not divine intervention. If we've finally reached the point where winning scores are impossible-I doubt the 30-then the system moves that shooter forward. Since some of our very best shooters haven't smelled a reduction in over 30 years, we can safely say the system has failed.

Chipdaddy, only 44 years of Trapshooting and you're still wet behind the ears. I'm on year 51 and I do remember reloading paper shells with cardboard and filler wads and when a score in the 90's from the fence got you a pat on the back!!

 

LOL, Doc read what is written before you speak. Rick

 

Dr. Longshot you and Neil Winston should meet and do this test.

 

Neil Winston you and Dr. Longshot should meet and do this test.

 

Ollie, I never inferrred that a shooter could make the 30 yard line without skill and wonder why you ask. Were there a 30 yardline, only the best shoters would get there. And I think there would be plenty.

Now a 27-yarder in the Midwest can score very high and win and many do. But, in my opinion, the score they get is often, but not always, reduced by some small number by the inability of their shotguns to break (virtually) all perfectly-pointed targets from the distance they are shooting. As they would be moved back, they would (sometimes, but not always) suffer more lost targets and get a lower score than their skill should award them.

That's all. I don't think it's fair. If you do, then get a majority vote by the BOD and have at it. Just don't ever claim that your "victory" when you win with a 98 is on the up-and-up when someone farther back shot better than you did but was robbed by physics of the winning score his or her shooting that day deserved.

Neil

 

Dan. 90T, "Gary and I" are not appropriate subjects for this test, as the consultant we have to hire to advise us would tell us. We need to see what the effect of any of these proposals would be on a broad population of ATA competitors. That's why it would take the whole Grand (or two) and would need substantial cash rewards to get the number of participants we need and ensure they are really trying (a statistician could often tell us who was trying, who wasn't.)

I think that the motivation for any of this is to reduce the domination of handicap by the best shooters. And certainly that's the effect we would look for first. But it would be a big mistake to stop there. Equally important is what would happen to the other 98%, the ones the ATA depends on to pay the bills. What if (for example) wider angles affected them more? Well then, increasing the angles would make things worse, not better. The 30-yardline test would not affect most, but even there you have to look at all the effects. That's all I'm proposing. Enabling the BOD to move forward with some knowledge of what may happen, not just guess without any information to go on.

Neil

 

What you say is true and makes a lot of sense. Perhaps the 30 is too great of a jump. But anybody who has been paying attention at all can see that 27 is not enough.

 

Neil, you and I are going neck and neck from the fence for the Grand Handicap Championship. I go from 4 to 5 position and draw five hard rights and drop one. You go over to #5 and draw five easy straightaways and break 'em all beating me by one. I complain that wasn't fair. Yeah right!

 

Beyond my comprehension, when you do not toughen up the target angles (wider) and Longer 50-52 yards, you still get what we have had.
Soft Short Targets, that's not a test. I'm outta here.

 

Neil, pellets have been striking targets and not breaking 'em for as long as I can remember. All it takes is a short jaunt out in the field after a 16 yd. event and see how many have several pellet strikes and the target remained whole. Maybe it's even possible to say those angle targets I missed in our match had a slightly smaller profile compared to your straightaways and as a result you had an unfair advantage.

The late great Frank Little as the story goes never patterned his shotgun. The only time he ever did he became so distraught over the holes he viewed he lost all confidence in that gun!

 

Gary, I think you do not understand that my use of the word "test" is one most commonly used, that is a organized plan to see what the effect of a putative controlling variable is when applied to a controlled situation. You, Gary. use the word "test" to mean "challenge" as in "A marathon is a test of endurance for even the most fit athlete." Our different uses of the same word means we will never agree. I really think everyone who actually wants something to come of all this talk (writing this stuff and explaining it isn't easy, people) about "change" should read carefully my proposal and support it to his or her Delegate. It's is

1. It's the only way you are likely to get the change you advocate and

2. It's the only way to prevent "change" with unknown, (good or bad) consequences. I've gone to all the meeting and know that any of these could come up out of nowhere and most Delegates don't know the right response, which is to say, what response is appropriate for the long-term health of the Association and what may be the wrong thing entirely. It's not that then don't want to "do the right thing;" it's that they have no solid information not just on what the "right thing" is, but even what would happen, be it good or bad if any of the proposed changes (like the 30 yardline here) were accepted. It's an unfair position to put any responsible officer in, and they are, in my opinion, all "responsible" and have the best interests of the Association in their hearts, just not the information to do their jobs as they would like to.

Neil

 

Ollie, I can't understand why you do not get the distinction between random bad luck (applied to everyone equally) and planned bad luck (applied to the best shooters in the Association) It's really very, very simple. and has nothing to do with Frank Little or 16 yards of any of the other non-applicable examples you seem intent bringing up to avoid the fact that you want to beat these guys any way you can get the votes to do it, even when they shoot better. Put Harlan at the 30 and beat him when some of his shots literally could not be broken because it's impossible and while you might put the trophy on the mantle I'd hide mine.

Neil

 

Neil, how can unluckiness be planned? I see you keep telling us these superior trapshooters have hit some sort of invisible wall at the 27 yet are capable of an occasional 100 straight from that yardage. I'll even go out on a limb here and say that there are probably more 100's broken from the 27 than any other yardage. So you're saying Harlan, Tim, Sean, Rich, Pat and others would be averaging closer to 99% instead of 95-96%+ if targets weren't escaping their pattern centers. If their averages would go down a target or two and the average for all shooters is closer to 87% what difference would it make?

 

Neil, there are targets now that get hit or missed (within a pattern) that "deserved" to be broken. I imagine if you were shooting when the ATA went from 1 1/4 to 1 1/8 you would have been there jumping up and down saying, "but there will be targets missed that "deserved' to be broken." I wonder what did the paid consultant say about that move?

Ahhh.... in ATA trap Handicap, that is the purpose, for what ever reason to maintain competitors at a break point average. In other handicaps system, lower averaging contestants are given points where as the best competitors are not. In Trap handicap it is the opposite. It is harder for the best, as in from a longer yardage, and when the longest yardage is not long enough or hard enough, something else should be or needs to be done.

Neil, that is Handicap, Handicap is not always fair to the best. I have been to trapshoots when a 16yd line handicap was used based on score. A+0, B 3, C 6, D 9. The A shooter shot a 100 and a D shooter shot a 93, who do you think went home with the trophy? I mean, that is not fair is it, the score of the D shooter bested the A shooter by 2 in which the A shooter did not even have a chance to break. That is the handicap game.

I don't think spending money on a consultant is needed.

I also think other things can be done before adding cement. Changing the angles and/or shells that cost nothing to the ATA to institute besides ink and the will to institute. Why do we have to add cement anyway, there are stories of old when shooters competed behind the walkways in the grass or uneven ground.

Why, when a shooter from any other yardage except the 27 gets moved back when earning a punch. Is it to make it harder for them, to break the score they just did, I would say yes, and that occurs right up until the 27. At the 27 nothing is done, that to me is not fair, but it is the game we have. Do you have a person that averages 95 on the 20 yd line, no.

In the last month or so my son has received (earned) 4 punches from the 27. 2 -98's 1- 96 and a 94 in which he was HOA. Even he thinks something needs to be done.

I think he does, and planned bad luck is what occurs until the 27. I have said it before, a good handicap system is one where the best and not so great have as close to the break point as possible. By what ever means, yardage, shells, having homesteaded 27 yarders with 93+ averages giving up a few birds or whatever.

When I say moving back is planned bad luck, it is the assumption by rule if you shoot a good enough score from one yardage you move back as so you cannot shoot that high score again. If you do, you move, back, and back in the hope you average near the break point, if you fall below that average, you can get reduced. That is a planned system to achieve an end, parity among the best and not so best. When that fails to occur, parity, or the equal opportunity for any individual to achieve a winning score discontent reigns.

Maybe this fix would work. Instead of punches for wins, you only get a punch, 1/2 yd for 99 and 1 yard 100. If after each 500 targets your average is below 93 you get reduced 1/2 yard. That would keep people on their current yard to possibly achieve parity with a 27 yard homesteader and there would be no need to pour more concrete.

Just some thoughts, all probably wrong. Round and round we go.

Shoot well

John

 

Ah but Neil, isn't this the real motive of the those that constantly pursue the establishment of the 30yd line? Or is it jealousy in hoping to decrease the efficiency of commitment anyway they can?

 

Your right it's not what it use to be and like all things it will never be again, seems like the 50's were some of the great days. I was born too late.

 

I am not sure what "decrease the efficiency of commitment" means, but if it means to reduce ones commitment to the game, NO, if it means to provide relative parity within the game of Handicap with the best and not so best, YES, and the would entice more to be committed to the game, in my opinion.

Shoot well.

John

 

deepbackwoods, maybe if I shot from the 20 yd. line that comment was justified. Unfortunately I shot from the 27 for over 15 years and now at the 26. The 2013 average book has a shooter listed as carrying a 95.73 average on 1,500 targets from the 27 and another with 11,350 targets with an 87.97 average from the 23. Which one is more dedicated?

You're welcome Neil. Always a pleasure. Please come back soon!

 

Neil .... 1
jhunts & Ollie .... 0

 

Running off and hiding is a 2 point deduction. Neil's down to -1!

 

I'm thinking Neil went to his back yard and is debating a tree stump.

 

Did you just realize what he thinks is fair or is that what you think is fair? Hope he watches his step, the stump may just win.

Shoot well.

John

 

Like Sir Neil says it's not fair if I beat Harlan from the 27 while he's shooting from the 30. I got news for Sir Neil, I'll betcha Harlan's gonna beat me from the 30 too along with 90% of the rest of the field-just not almost everyday!!

 

Neil,
You imply that the BOD and EC are so slow as to not understand that the 30 would be more challenging than the 27.
I am half convinced.

 

Don't forget, this is the same EC who believed free reductions would offset the need for more concrete and kicked the can down the road. We see how that went over!

 

Yeah, we need a test to see if it is easier from the 30.
Did we do a test to see if it was easier from the 16?

 

Neil, the ATA has problems because we have some folks at the top that like you would think they need this test.

 

I'm fine with Sir Neil's suggestion of a "try time"at the Grand in IL. It's a much better plan than Nero's who fiddled while Rome burned!

 

Neil has a good idea "If you are serious about any of this, then get the ATA to give up on the 20 or 28 gauge events on a couple of traps at the Grand and switch to a serious test of longer yardages in an experiment designed by a statistician which will give some trustworthy answers. You could run it on trap 5 for the whole Grand and you would have comparable data from the same shooters in the registered events. Put ten or twenty grand into it to assure everyone was really trying and in one year you would have an answer worthy of consideration. That is, you would know whether those longer yardages were "fair" or not. Then it's up to you. Do you care if it's fair, or do you just want to win by any means you can get the votes for?"

A side note: Anyone, besides me, ever notice that lots of long yardage shooters tend to shoot quicker then the typical "ride them out" short yardage shooter? Quick shooting could easily reduce the affect of long yardage by 2-5 yards.

 

I am just curious as too how large the sample survey would have to be to determine that it is harder to shoot from the 30 than the 27.

For me the survey sample size of rational people would have to be about 1 or 2. (give or take 1)

I do not have to wait until a shoot in Illinois to predict the sample outcome not considering those that are making the decision.

 

If you want the increased yardage to gain some traction, start speaking their language ..... All American Points.

Offer double points for each yard past the 27. And offer points for high score on each of the longer yardages.

All American Points is the new currency to those who may need the additional 'handicap'.

 

Oh yeah,
I forgot that one of the VP's or ex Presidents are quoted as implying most people that shoot registered do so to get AA points.

 

And you like Jeff Wagner really believe that most that shoot registered trap do so to get AA points?

 

Some do. Some don't. It is an amazingly effective reward program which costs the ATA very, very little and reaps big rewards for the ATA and member clubs. What's not to like about it? I doubt that "most" shooters much care, but some do and more power to them, I say. It's just an alternate way of keeping score, after all, and as trapshooters we all like to keep score.

Neil

 

"an amazingly effective reward program" ...... there you go ......

If there is something in it for the "under-handicapped ", they may like it.

 

So then are you saying that it is acceptable to out score another person because his equipment would not efficiently deliver adequate patterns to break all 100 targets thrown and thus in all probability out pointed you but you broke more?

In my life I've known some folks with substantial spare change. Marathon shooters. They shot substantial amounts of targets and really never got better. They didn't really care either as it was about quota not quality. No . I've also known young and middle age folks that were unfortunate to not have a lot of income and as such only were able to shoot a few hundred to maybe a couple thousand targets a year. But each year they improved over previous year. Reading books and asking questions. Only drawback was lack of disposable income. Who's more dedicated.

 

Dedication often means working two jobs to provide for your habit. You're making the assumption that the individuals (and there are many) with lower averages simply lack desire. I know one woman in FL. with 12,200 Singles in 2013 that I'd refrain to say that to!!

 

Jhunts, in your interpretation of planned vs random bad luck, you state that you feel that until a person is moved back to the 27 yard line, each move could be interpreted as planned bad luck. The only thing that is planned about it, is the move itself, the result is random, based on the shooters skill level. The common denominator among all the good handicap shooters is that they are all virtually perfect pointers. They see the target well, they have a controlled approach to the target, they see a perfect bird-bead relationship, and have perfect trigger control. They typically average well over 99 in singles and over 98 in doubles. The use of wider faster targets will not effect them (it didn't effect them the last time it was initiated in 1995-96). The use of faster targets won't effect them either as I witnesses in a shoot off between Hofer and Barthelow where the targets were 55 yards + and they continued to pound them.

You suggest that these top shooters should somehow be "handicapped" so their scores are closer to the break point that the average ATA shooter. The question is, how do you achieve that goal, bearing in mind that these guys are perfect pointers and will be perfect pointers out to 30 yards and beyond.

Neil has pointed out time and again, how a shot pattern is starting to degrade at the 27 yard line to the extent that targets will slip through the pattern untouched, not hit, and not broken as Andy is so quick to point out. Even at 27 yards there is a less than 100% chance that the target is going to be hit every shot, but at, say, a 98% chance, there is still a very good chance that that target will be broken, and that given randomness, a score of 100 could be shot. However, given that same randomness, a score of 96 could also result, given those 100 perfectly pointed targets.

So, let's look at the 30 yard line. Yes, it would be more challenging to the average shooter (the guy who averages less than 90%), but to the perfect pointers, the guys who would actually get there, (the target audience as it were), you are introducing a far greater degree of chance into the equation. At say, a 94% chance of breaking a perfectly pointed target, (I am simply using this number as an example), there is still a chance that the odd 100 could be broken at that yardage, but there is a equal chance that the shooter could score an 88 on perfectly pointed targets.

So, if our goal is to handicap the best shooters in the game by degrading their pattern to the point that it will make them equal to the average shooter, I have a suggestion. It is certainly far more cost effective than forcing gun clubs across the country to pour more concrete. When these hot shots win a yard, their barrel is sent to Tom Wilkinson (you would want it done right) to remove .001 from their choke, a 2 yard win would result in a removal of .002 etc. Each and every win would result in the removal of barrel constriction until their pattern is degraded to the point that they are no longer a threat to the average shooter. These few guys would have to be monitored on a regular basis, of course, you never know when one of them may cheat by pulling out a full choke. For the cost of pouring concrete on a very few trap fields, we have got those 10-20 guys out of our hair. I am being facetious, but effectively, this is what you are asking for.

Jhunts, if your son thinks he is not handicapped enough, have him screw in the light modified choke. That should do it.

 

Somehow this game functioned with those obviously degraded patterns produced by shells loaded with cardboard over powder and filler wads. Shooters made it to the 27 and scored quite capably with Model 12's, 870's and Ithaca 4E's. No barrel work, adjustable combs, adjustable ribs, voice systems and even on three hole targets. Now we have an endless debate over the possibility top shooters might lose a target or two because it somehow slipped through their pattern. When Arnold Reiger dominated the Handicap event the ATA responded quickly by adding two more yards. That was back in the 50's before some say there's a magical invisible barrier or cliff at the 27 that so degrades effective shotgun patterns it will somehow destroy the game. I doubt anyone is willing to contest the idea that more 100's are broken from the 27 than any other yardage and maybe even combined.

That said, I enjoyed working at the old gun club pouring an extra two yards of concrete needed when the ATA mandated the 27. Those older WWII vets saw a need and responded just like they did when asked to charge that pillbox. Today, we lesser souls endlessly debate ways to not make the game just a little bit tougher. God, I miss those guys!!

 

Andy, I hope that you are brighter than you are letting on. The reason that there are more 100s shot at 27 yards is because that is where the best shooters are, period. The guys that shoot 100 from 27 are perfect pointers and probably luck played a role in that 100, in so far as, that 6 inch hole in the 30" pattern did not overlap the target (on one or two or three or four instances, for that matter).

You are correct in your observation that the old ammo was not up to today's standards, and that, relative to the other shooters of the day (the late 50s and 60s) the 27 yarders had comparable scores, but not compared to today's 27 yarders.

Neil's point was and mine is, that it is not fair to send someone into a competition when the most that they can expect to shoot, based on probability not luck, is a 94 or 95, when the others in the competition have the equipment (but not necessarily the skill) to break 100.

The ATA had a couple of options as to how to make the handicap system more equitable: move some shooters back or move some shooters ahead. The least expensive and probably easiest solution was to move shooters ahead (in some cases to 18 yards) to make some of the less competitive shooters more competitive. When one of those short yardage shooters wins a competition, the pissing and moaning that ensues is virtually unbearable.

 

Jo2, you're correct that those that have somewhat mastered the handicap game have learned how important precise pointing is and apply it to their game!

A spinning target @ 2000 RPMs set up as a stationary target at some handicap distance and shot off a table rest as one would shoot a rifle. How many out of 100 could be broken? How many would one have to shoot, before it was the pattern holes spoken of so often, before we'd miss that target? That is, using quality ammo as does the top shooters for their handicap shooting. OR, would that test not tell us much of anything or would it tell us a lot more than we now think we know?

HAP

 

It's amazing the power of what Neil says ....

"Neil's point was and mine is, that it is not fair to send someone into a competition when the most that they can expect to shoot, based on probability not luck, is a 94 or 95, when the others in the competition have the equipment (but not necessarily the skill) to break 100." ....

And to think all those years ago they knew to stop at the 27. Because in the future Neil would agree with their decision to not over-handicap shooters, by moving them back past the ability of their shotgun.

A 2-D piece of paper can not predict the result of a 3-D shot-string. That "hole in the pattern" is moving, as is the 'target', so the 'timing' of the two that would result in a miss would 'differ' on each shot, with random results.

From what I see, those "perfect pointers", could give up a target or two and still produce scores that the 'masses' can not produce from the 16, on a regular basis.

So .... If this longer yardage thing could 'bait' some back in, why fight it so hard ?????

 

So I guess what you're saying it was fair to stand at the 27 yd. line back in the 50's with obviously inferior shells and guns and the ATA at that time recognized that shooters would not be over-handicapped with that equipment. Sounds fair to me. Your failure to recognize how much changes to make scoring even easier for today's long yardage shooters baffles me. And to think they didn't even have magnum shot!

Of course we know the best shooters stand at the current fence and account for the most hundred straights. Does that make it easier for the remainder of the field to digest the results?

 

"Your failure to recognize how much changes to make scoring even easier for today's long yardage shooters baffles me."

Really ???? Is that what I said ???????

 

Well, were significant changes made to make long yardage scoring easier or weren't there any?

 

I suppose that whether the back fence is moved to 30 yards of not is of concern only to the small percentage of registered shooters who now shoot from the 27 or who aspire to do so. But I wonder where these people will practice, earn their yardage or compete if some of the clubs that host once- or twice-a-year registered shoots decide that they don't have the inclination or the room to extend the runways on a trap or 2 another 10 feet to accommodate the long-yarders?

 

User 1, I am sure that when they introduced the 27 yard line "all those years ago," that they were using ammo that produced patterns that had way more holes in them than todays ammo would produce (with the harder shot and better wads etc). Possibly that is why it took so long to shoot 100 from 27 yards, after the new yardage was introduced. These shooters had demonstrated that they were perfect pointers, and it was probably the ammo that was the limiting factor.

As to a 2-D piece of paper not being able to predict how 3-D shot-string is going to perform, you are partially correct. A pellets' position in the shot string at 40 yards does not necessarily predict where it will end up in the string or pattern at 45 yards, in other words a pellet in the lower left quadrant of a pattern at closer range may end up in the upper right quadrant of a pattern at longer range. The pellets have no spin so therefore act the same as a knuckle ball, moving in relation to the other pellets in the shot string. It is therefore safe to assume, as you pointed out, that while there may be a hole in the pattern on a 2-D pattern sheet, it may not be in the same location of the pattern at the distance that the target is shot at. It is also safe to assume that if a hole exists in a 2-D pattern, there are also holes in a 3-D pattern, possibly in a slightly different location but a hole that a target may slip through never the less.

You are also correct in your assumption that these few guys that dominate the handicap events would still probably beat the average 16 yard shooter, given the fact that they average right around 90. The fact still remains, is it fair to handicap someone to the point that their equipment is not up to the task at hand, any more than it is to tap them on the shoulder and explain to them, that to make them more competitive with the rest of the shooters, you are going to penalize them 4 targets in the interests of fairness.

 

The reason more 100 straights are shot from the 27 is because a 27 yarder shooting a straight, stays on the 27. An 18 yarder shooting a straight is no longer on the 18. So his next straight won't count for his previous yardage. Make a 30 yard competition and see where the most straights are shot from after a couple of years.

What makes one think that a pattern runs out of gas at the 30 yard line range? Other sports shoot 60-70 yard crossing shots. Are they bitching that their pattern may have holes in it? Of course not, they bare down and shoot, instead of bitching. Go for 30, and after a while it will level out for everyone.

GneJ

 

Nudie, those 60-70 yard crossers amount to less than 10% of the total targets in a competition and everyone shoots at that distance, not a select few as there would be on the 30 yard line.

 

So, if everyone shoots em, and not everyone breaks them, they shouldn't allow them. After all, aren't you supposed to break every target. Or at least in trap you are, (so has been said). 27 yarders mastered the 27, so give them a challenge, master the 30. Put those punches they receive to work. No way is it fair for a shooter to recieve hundreds of yards of punches and stand in the same place to get more.

 

My point of view:
Some here contend that it's not fair to move shooters beyond 27 yards. "Probability" might cause them to miss a target. What about this same probability causing me to miss targets because I don't have and get can a barrel capable of 100% from the 27 yard line. Most big guns shoot custom barrels and chokes that are not available to average shooters. And then there is ammo, do the ammo manufactures still ship "custom" ammo to the big guns? In the late 80s early 90s I received "custom" ammo directly from the manufactures. This ammo was much better than over the counter ammo. So much better that some big guns would risk disqualification and shoot this custom ammo at the Grand. How many of the big guns do you see at walmart buying their shells for the Grand? I think they mostly shoot their "custom" ammo that they got directly from a manufacturer. I hear lots of talk about the "hot" loads that are being sold. Don't the same talkers realize that special "custom" ammo was being supplied to big guns. Has that practice stopped? IMO the ATA would benefit from "leveling the playing field". Example: break a score = get a punch. 30 yards would be a start. The big guns would soon have barrels and ammo that would allow them to dominate from 30 yards.

 

Well , Jo2 to answer this ..... "is it fair to handicap someone to the point that their equipment is not up to the task at hand" .......

I will say this .... I don't think the 'proof' is there to support that. And I don't think "fair" is the correct way to put it.

If it is for the betterment of the sport, then sure, at this point people are looking for something they agree with.

Do I think it will have the 'effect' that some are thinking it will ..... no. It may lower scores to the point to where some may share in some option money, but the All American Teams and that kind of thing will be mostly unchanged.

It may well be the time to stop with all the supposition on what may happen, and let whatever happens ... happen.

 

At that point he will get a reduction. Isn't that the purpose?

 

I suppose what ebsurveyor mentioned earlier went way over the heads of many posters. Some might want to ask how many times Krieghoff switched barrels with Harlan as he wasn't completely satisfied with their performance. Us mere mortals might want to try that and see how far we'd get. So the "big dogs" have ammo and barrels not available to the peasants yet when it's suggested we make it a little tougher some cry foul. Kinda throws a fly into the ointment and makes any real evaluation of performance null and void-doesn't it?

Charts and graphs become quite useless when you're not playing with the same sets of variables!

 

They have buddy shoots regularly at our club. Some shoots they mandate factory loads. They move back to the 35 for shoot-offs. You may need more than a pocketful of shells for that.

It sounds like you fear that the handicap system could actually work again. Oh my!

 

"At what distance will the holes in the pattern present a measurable obstacle to a shooters skill?"

If you pattern a shogun at 30 yards, and you see holes large enough in the pattern to 'miss' ...... And you shoot 16-yard targets at 14-yards from the 'arm' ..... would your answer be the 16-yard line ????

 

Squatty,
What seems to bother you is that my answer was about a set of facts. Your comments were about mystifying dreams, theory, guessing, and supposition.

I get your frustration.

 

It doesn't matter. At the point when the shooter can no longer maintain an adequate average for that yardage he will take a step forward.

That is the purpose of the handicap system. That point will vary per shooter. Those than can adapt will keep walking back. Otherwise Simon says. Take one step forward.

Every thing else is dreams, theory, guessing & supposition.

 

If you stood on the roof of the house, directly above the arm .... you would then have a 14 or 16 yard density pattern if you shot it at that distance.

So the pattern board is relative to the distance from you, and where you break the target.

 

"the distance at which a statistically hampered pattern occurs , based on equipment, should be determined." .... by who ????

It can not be done in 'theory' .... the flight of the target is not 'uniform' enough ..... the production of the targets are all over the place, in weight, size, and so on .... A 'pattern' is random from shot to shot ..... you don't get 5 shots at one target to get a 'base line' ..... 5 of the 'same' targets from the same post are different in some way.

Just who is qualified enough to take this kind of 'data' and give a definitive answer to some type of 'result' ???????

 

"the distance at which a statistically hampered pattern occurs , based on equipment, should be determined."

You're all forgetting not all shooters have access to the same ammo and the same barrels. Break good scores = move back. Break poor scores = move front. Where does it say "have the highest handicap average in the country" and stay where you are?

 

No nudie, it is not a matter of everyone shooting them at 60-70 yards and not everyone breaking them, so they shouldn't be allowed. It is a matter of equity. In other words, if everyone shoots at 6 or 8 of those targets in a round of 100 targets the system is equitable, as in a sporting clays match. What I am saying, is that it would be unfair for someone to be forced to shoot 100 targets at a distance (it may be 28 yards or 35 yards) that, with the best of equipment, they can not expect to break 100 perfectly pointed targets, when the other shooters that they are shooting against are limited by their skill, not their equipment. If everyone in the event shoots at the same distance, things are equal, and it is game on. As in all competitive pursuits, skill should always be the determining factor who comes out on top, not whose equipment failed them the least.

 

Jo2, but the only way a 27 yard shooter would move to the 30 would be by shooting a good score. If unable to shoot a high enuf score, guess what, he stays where he is, or better yet, gets a reduction that he probably would refuse. So, no one is "forcing" a shooter to shoot at the 30. You might say he "qualifies" for the opportunity. If shooter shoots a good enuf score, guess what, he is rewarded with yardage, same as everyone else. Why do some think they are entitled to stay in the same place for years, except that the rules allow it as they are now?

 

News flash: One can not expect to break 100 perfectly pointed targets 100% of the time, even from the 16 yard line. I thought everyone knew that.

 

YIKES!! I'd say it's a good thing our prior leadership making the decision to mandate a 27 yard line didn't have to meet the same criteria some of you are asking for today!! That max yardage mandate happened in 1955 and soft chilled shot, inferior wadding etc. was the flavors of the day. That's the reason it took so long before a 100 straight was shot from the 27. Beginning in 1965, all kinds of ammo/gun/shooter improvements were taking place! Had the same wise men been in charge in the late 70s as in 1955, we'd have had another two yard increase then due to a lot of 100s from the new max!

Some are saying, prove to me the shotgun runs out of steam at the 27, others say it has not? Sounds like a stalemate to me of sorts. At what yardage will the shot charge fail the shooter when he points it correctly? No one here can truthfully say it's this or that distance! Why? Because it hasn't been attempted to find possible answers that some don't want answered at all? Hardly anything is ever settled with arguing except anger, vile words and hurt feelings.

HAP

 

Surveyor, I'm gonna disagree with ya there. I always EXPECT to, but most always shoot under my expectations.

 

Well Hap, maybe you inadvertently came on to something in your last post.

How about making the 27 yard line shooter take something away from their guns in leu of a yardage gain the rest of us would have to take at our yardage. You know like release triggers, adjustable ribs, fancy stocks, etc, etc.

 

Andy,

"Shooters made it to the 27 and scored quite capably with Model 12's, 870's and Ithaca 4E's. No barrel work, adjustable combs, adjustable ribs, voice systems and even on three hole targets."

Actually they didn't for some several years.

The truth is, when the 26 & 27 yard line was introduced for the 1955 target year, only a few shooters were able to earn their way to the “back fence” by the Grand American Handicap tournament.

Of the 2,025 GAH entries, only five (5) shooters were 27-yarders. Dan Orlich was the only one to break in the 90s in the main event, when he carded a 92. The other four were Vic Reinders (88), Ned Lilly, (86), Maynard Henry (78) and Evelyn Primm (75).

Two shooters you may have heard of (both THOF Inductees) who had some trouble on the 26 yard mark were Pro Herb Parsons with 81 and Phil Miller, 79.

A couple of notable names stood out as 25 yard men, Bob Allen (95), Joe Hiestand (91, Prof. Tom Frye (87) and Prof. D. Lee Braun (82), all Hall of Famers.

At the 1956 Grand the long-yardage shooters still had not figured out how to break a respectable score. Of the 2136 entries, only 14 stood on the 27 post. They were : Bob Allen (84), Morris G. Carpenter (83), Herbert Longden (84), Tom Lynott (90), Orley B. Milligan (70), Dan Orlich (92), H. R. Peterson (86), Julius E. Petty, Vic Reinders (85), James Rexroat (85), Johnny Sternberger (85), Merle Stockdale (90), Fred Waldock (89), Ray Zwinger (89).

Here’s a few name you might have heard about who were handicapped to the 26 mark : Beuford Bailey (87), Herschel Cheek (80), Homer Clark Sr. (81), Joe Devers (83), Maynard Henry (89), Al Ljutic (84), Phil Miller (76).

When I saw my old buddy George’s name I had to chuckle and then include it here:
21-Yard Line – George Snellenberger (94)

I had never heard that the ATA considered dropping the 27-yard handicap until I read this:

In The Press Tent
With Jimmy Robinson​

The press boys missed several of their favorites this year, among them Helen Thomas, Mrs. Frances King and the pudgy Arnold Riegger, the most colorful trapshooter since the days of Mark Arie. . . . The boys were laying two to one that the 27-yard line would be tossed out next year. Came close to being thrown out this year.
[ TRAP & FIELD, October 1956, page 56 ]

I think you may find the below comments of HOF Inductee Bob Allen in his Trap & Field article “Shooting With Bob Allen” interesting.

Shooting with Bob Allen

WASH ROOM RUMORS​

It was in the wash room at the Grand that I learned that Arnold Riegger had quit trapshooting, ostensibly because of the 27-yard handicap.

THIS YEAR AT GRAND​

This year at the Grand American I shot from the 27-yard line for the first time. I broke a snappy 84 in the preliminary handicap but the targets were so high and windy that nobody broke a very good score and I wasn’t too alarmed. However, the next day in the Grand when the targets were beautiful, and I still only broke an 85, I started to worry a little. Then in the open handicap on Saturday when I broke another 84 – I became seriously alarmed. On all three hundred of these targets I worked like a demon – tried every secret in the book, held a low gun, a high gun, shot fast, shot slow, changed shot size, and nothing helped or changed the score. Looking back at the Iowa State Shoot where I first shot on the 27-yard line this year, I found that I had only broken 82 and 84 there so am beginning to thnk that my handicap average is going to be about 85%.

If anyone can tell me how to break them from the 27-yard line I wish they’d speak up as I’m confused but good. I also think that the other 27-yarders are in the same boat with me as I note that most of their scores are in the low eighties, too. The 27-yard squads I shot in all ran about the same – on one trap there would always be one shooter who would break a 23 or 24 giving hope to the rest of the crew. Then on the next tap the high shooter would drop down to an 18 or a 19 and someone else would be the hero for an event. When the smoke cleared away after the 100, almost all were in the same category as far as score was concerned. Maybe none of us have enough experience on this yardage to know what to do. I hope so as it gets darn discouraging to stand back there and waste ammunition. It would be nice to see some shooter come along who could prove that it can be done so that the rest of us would have some hope.
[ TRAP & FIELD, October 1956, page 76 ]

Let’s see how many of the long-yardage shooters were handicap trophy winners in the 1957 Preliminary & Grand American Handicap events :

1957 Prelimiary Hdcp – 7 Winners; yardage & score 1-7 – 20, 98; 21, 98; 19, 98; 22, 97; 22, 97; 22, 97; 20, 97

1957 GAH –
Ch. – C. R. “Senator” Crawford (20yds) 98 +25
2nd – Cecil Mitch (19yds) 98 +24
3rd – Harvey H. Blair (22yds) 98 +23
4th – Don Renbarger (20yds) 98 +20
5th – Glen Anderson (20yds) 97 +25
6th – Gene Wenz (23yds) 97 +24-23-22
7th – Henry Whited (20yds) 97 +24-23-21
8th – H. O’Neil Akers (20yds) 97 +24-21
9th – Edward Heister (23yds) 97 +23-23
10th – R. A. Kunning (20yds) 97 +23-22-23

I hope this is beneficial to the conversation.

HB

 

Nudie, I agree, we are getting ahead of ourselves when we are discussing shooting from the 30 yard line. Someone has to get there first. I also agree with Neil, when he says that a test should be done at the Grand, to determine what effect the 30 yard line has on the results of the BEST SHOOTERS IN THE ATA. Maybe, just maybe, many of you are correct in your assumption, that the guns and ammo are up to the challenge of 30 yard targets, but until a test is carried out and the results are in, it is only speculation on everyone's part. I am basing my opinion on conversations that I have had with Neil and Tom Wilkinson, both of whom, based on their expertise in the area of shotgun patterning, could be considered authorities on the subject. Both maintain that the 27 yard line is about max when it comes to being 100% certain of breaking a perfectly pointed target.

Ebsurveyor, tell me a little more about this custom crafted ammo that you claim to have knowledge of. Who made it, who shot it, and how did a person go about getting it? I assume that since you had access to this special stuff, you can supply all the details. Special barrels? How would one of these barrels differ from one that Tom Wilkinson worked on? Until you give us a few more details on these two allegations I remain sceptical as to the authenticity of them.

 

HB, Those 1957 scores look like a normal shoot today, till Friday when the BigDogs pull in.

 

HB, those scores are, were the norm with soft chilled shot. I guess that's why Arnold Reigger always used a 2-3/4 dr load when he was whuppin up on the boys.

I tried patterning with it and it doesn't like speed at all! Felt and cardboard or all plastic wads, righteous patterns for sure.

HAP

 

Mr. Jo2, here's the dark dirty secret: 20 years ago special runs of special ammo were being delivered to some shooters homes. Everyone that's been around the "in crowd" back it the day knows about it. My guess is that most of the 1st team All Americans back then were on "The Program". I do not know if the practice continues, the "official" word is that it has stopped. But does anyone besides me wonder why it is no longer necessary to purchase Grand ammo from the shell house? As to barrels, my point is most shooters use off the shelf equipment.

 

Ebsurveyor, we are still in the dark as to who manufactured that ammunition. You have disclosed that it was the " in crowd" that had access to them but what was it that was so special about them? I suspect that what was so very special about them is that they were FREE. As to the reason why it is no longer necessary to purchase Grand ammo from the shell house, I don't think that there was any conspiracy to give one shooter an advantage over another. Neil has posted results of ammo testing that he has done that was sourced at the Grand, and it looked to be of top notch quality to me.

 

Grand ammo back in the days of Vandalia was certainly not standard production line stuff but showcased that companies product line. To doubt eb's claim that companies didn't provide higher quality ammo to top shooters rejects the mindset of companies in the earlier years.

If exchanging nearly a dozen barrels with a major gun company with hopes of getting a better one doesn't make you think, then maybe you should realize that those are the barrels you're now shooting!

 

Andy, I assume that the individual that you are referring to is Harlan Campbell, that exchanged barrels until he found ones that suited him. I have no idea what he was after, but it may have been that he was looking for a certain poi, or in the case of the o/u barrels the same poi for both barrels. Possibly it was balance he was after, but regardless of what he was after, he sent those barrels to Tom Wilkinson for barrel work (according to Tom's ad in Trap & Field magazine). Anyone, including myself (I have sent 3 Perazzi combos over the years), if they are prepared to pay for the service, can send their guns to Tom, and receive the same service.

 

So how many times? Which barrels? Which combo/combos? Are you sure of the reason? What can be done "special" to a barrel that average Joe Trapshooter can't obtain?

No. The handicap system was formed based on a shooters skill, not equipment failure.

 

Jo2 ... have you shot any Challenger handicap shells ??? I have, and they were not purchased from a retail store. They had a 'thump' without the 3-k stock to go with them.

I think the 'details' keep glossing over the fact that many are tired of the double standard.

I know someone, not know of ... I know him, that camped out on his computer to 'pre-squad' at the fall handicap. To his surprise the 'best banks' were not available at the time you could access the site. He complained on the 'other site' and was belittled by the normal few that guard the 'elite' with vigor.

To say that those on top are not treated 'different' is asinine. They want to feed from the same bowl, but get there on a different path, and some are starting to be fed up with it. No amount of 'devotion' should allow protection by something intended for all.

 

If I could be so bold to ask, User 1, give us some names of those on top, so we can address some of the allegations.

 

You know what I REALLY like about this site .............

When the 'conversation' turns uncomfortable to the guardians of the gates .... they get stopped when they want to deflect with requiring names ... ATA numbers ... and all the other smoke to take cover in.

 

deepbackwoods, handicap trapshooting has always been about shooter self improvement and awards. (More Yardage) There's never been any rule addressing equipment failure that I've read in regard to distance. That term is used by Neil W. a lot but even he doesn't know the exact line where a target escapes a shot charge due to the loss of center mass.

I hope you realize that since trap shooting began, those same kinds of statements have been made concerning a shotgun running out of pattern to break or kill targets? Even before we had ATA the same song was sung too. When the powers that be was increasing the max yardage from 22 yards to 23, some said they'd never be able to break/kill targets from that ridiculous distance! (We know today how accurate those naysayers were at the time?) That's happened every time more difficulty was added to our game of handicaps! BUT, one can only know that if he knows our sports history? Another point, Neil Winston is SO much better at getting his points across than most anyone I've ever read. He does do a lot of work and it's hard work most will shy away from, I do appreciate his work in dispelling shotgun myths! We've learned a lot from his work but the fact remains, he can't tell anyone where that line exists but simply alludes to one, possibly.

Proof is always in the pudding recipe where I'm from. Make a statement, prove it or otherwise it's merely an opinion based on possible desires. In my less than humble opinion, the 27 yard line isn't the line where our current gun/ammo runs out of patterns to break all the targets. When the 27 was mandated in 1955, that was mostly true and it took 9 long years before a 100 was broken from there. Inferior soft shot was the primary culprit as to why it took so long, not the shooters or guns. Look up all the gun/ammo/ improvements since that max line was mandated? You'll learn some very interesting facts in doing so.

HAP

 

Not sure why you singled me out for telling someone who I took to be a smart$%& an answer that I felt was appropriate.

How do you know or have any idea of my knowledge of this sport based one sentence? Have I stated my personal belief/conclusion/intention concerning necessity or lack of concerning a longer yardage need?

 

"trapsetter18 said: ↑
At that point he will get a reduction. Isn't that the purpose?"

You took this as a smart$%& answer? I certainly can't see that in those words at all.

" not equipment failure." This was my point made to you to ask where you found this statement you made and only that.

You're correct guy, I have no idea what your thoughts may be toward anything except I know of no wording in our rule books past or present addressing equipment failures as a basis for any handicap intent. The first part of your response was spot on which I didn't address, merely the last portion.

HAP

 

Of all the issues in the history of the ATA this one is the most appalling. The best shooters had or may still have special runs of ammo the average Joe could not get. This is something that is hard to reconcile.

 

User 1, what I really don't like about sites like this is when, under the veil of anonymity, people make preposterous claims, and when asked for corroborating evidence to back up these claims they simply fade away. How would Remington, Winchester, or Federal make this special ammo? What would they do different?

You may be correct in your assertion that some clubs treat some shooters different when it comes to who gets what banks, etc.

Andy is correct in his assertion that the Grand was a showcase for the ammunition companies to demonstrate the overall quality of their products. I think that it was more an issue of quality control (Winchester had some issues with soft loads one of the last years the Grand was in Vandalia), than actually trying to assemble a markedly different shell for the Grand.