*Poll* Handicap Yardage 27 or 30

It was a time for bragging rights. It was well known manufacturers were juicing the shells.
I remember the practice traps full of people trying various shells and discussing which were hotter.

The practice traps only offered 10 birds so friends were swapping shells.

 

Family Guy, juicing shells.......within velocity limits, and payload limits, I wonder just how much these shells could be "juiced."

 

HUGE discussion here. A question comes to mind. What percntage of shooters are back far enough to be concerned about being able to go back further? And I guess one more question pops up, ammunition held to ATA current specs? Larry

 

Several contributors to this thread have reasonably asked what degree of degradation in patterns can we expect in going from 27 to 30 yards. I don't have time to graph the whole problem up, but here's the result of a test with Federal Papers and a recent MX-2000 with the popular 0.740 bore and 0.040 choke and 3-inch chamber. It is a very good shooter (though no different than the custom TM9-X Perazzi recently made for me with a 0.728 bore, a 0.040 choke, and 2 3/4 inch chamber.

What I'm looking at is the lower-right corner of the Shotgun-Insiight data sheets. Here's an example I used on the shotshell-speed thread today.



Down on the right look for "Probability of a hit" (a single-pellet hit) and look at the 10-inch central part of the pattern. This one is 99% indicating that if all the patterns in the even were like this one, the shooter would lose about a bird to statistical bad luck - pointed very accurately but a lost bird. This 99% is good, but the MX-2000 did better, averaging 98.1 over 10 shots with an SD of 2.4, , ranging from 100% and 99.9 to 96.6 and 92.2.

At the top right you see how Shotgun Insight lets you scale your patterns to distances different from the one you actually used, in this case 40 yards. I ran tests at 41, 42, and 43 yards to simulate the 28, 29, and 30 yard lines.

The degree of degradation of this probability statistic depended on the beginning value, with the best pattern little affected, the less good ones more.

1. The 100% at 40 yards dropped to 99.7 at 43 yards

2. The 99.9 at 40 yards dropped to 99.5 at 43 yards.

3. The 96.9 pattern at 40 yards dropped to 94.4 at 43 yards.

4. The 92.2 pattern dropped to 89.0 at 43 yards.

While this is no substitute for the testing at the Grand I advocate, I think that it's reasonable to predict that a shooter making near-perfect shots at 40 yards is losing, on the average, a couple of birds a hundred due to the inability of his gun to break them all at altitudes we mostly shoot at. Of course, sometimes he loses fewer and sometimes more. That's what chance is all about.

If he were to find himself at the 30, a reasonable estimate is that he would, on the average, lose a couple more due to physical laws he cannot control. Again, sometimes more, sometimes fewer.

Yours in Sport,

Neil

 

Winchester was the first ammo maker I recall, what Family Guy called "juicing" the shells sprung on us. Those were simply called Handicap Shells. They killed out of the front and crippled on the back! It certainly didn't take long for Federal and Remington to come up with their versions either.

Shells available to shooters at the Grand American in the 70s were labeled either 2-3/4 dr or 3 dr loads with 1-1/8 ounce of payload. It doesn't take an Einstein to feel the differences between a 1-1/8 ounce load at 1290 compared to one at 1200 FPS! Our rules and ammo makers along with SAAMI explanations cleared all that confusion up. A true 3 dr eq load still feels like a 1200 FPS load to me, not the 1290 crushers even though they are legal fodder today.

HAP

 

Neil....
I get it. You think shooting further away will be more difficult.

What you do not get is we all agree. I think I can speak for most folks that graduated from high school in that we all know moving backwards will be tough. For some harder than others. I do not need the stats to prove it.

Who or whomever needs the stats bs to understand that more yardage equals more inefficient patterns and challenges please pm me and just say you are clueless.

Neil...read the following-----> That is the purpose. The purpose is to handicap.

I think we would be better off knowing the names of the past presidents, ec members, bod, and delegates that have put the ATA where it is. Although the next election process is probably too late.

 

Neil, thank you for the chart and your work.

I'd hafta say it's probably a good thing you weren't around in 1955 when the yardages were increased to the new max of 27 yards? More than likely we'd still be shooting from the max of 25 yards. Can you imagine what your analysis charts may have looked like back then using those old guns and ammo of the day? Remember how soft that old chilled shot was? Speaking of pattern holes, I haven't seen such holes today that even comes close to those monsters!

That's one of the main reasons it took 9 long years before the first 100 was broken from the new 27 yard line! How long would it take any of the top shooters today before breaking a 100 from the 30 yard line? 9 years? I got a dime or so saying it wouldn't take near that length of time if enough of our top shots were shooting from there.

HAP

 

No, FG, you don't get it. Not at all, apparently.

Certainly it's harder to shoot from the 30 compared to the 27 because as you say, "shooting further away will be more difficult." But there's an added handicap to that of mere difficulty, the reduction in required gun performance. At most altitudes, guns are on the edge of their ability to support, 100%, the skill of a great handicap shooter from the 27. Moving that great shooter to the 30 would cost him or her a couple of birds in addition to whatever happened as a reullt of merely moving back.

That's all. We just have to decide if applying an avoidable score tax of a couple of birds is a sporting way for us to fix the rules so we can beat them. I don't think so. You may.

But don't say it's just "moving back." It's moving back and putting the gun beyond the range it can deliver to the shooter the score his skill should earn him, some of the time.

Neil

 

Hap, I wasn't around then. But I am now. People can take it or leave it. But at least they understand what is being proposed. What happened in 1955 makes no difference today. Only changing the rules today will affect the future. It's better to understand what you are doing than to blindly go forward based on what was needed in 1955.

Unless they shoot faster (can that be done with the accuracy which will be required from the 30?) or maybe swithced to 8's, I think the 30 can't be "mastered" sinne chance will play a larger and larger role in a shooter's score. But that's why we need that test at the Grand. People who want the 30 yard line should be screaming for it!

Neil

 

Yes, that is the point Neil.

It is called handicapping.

You can't handle the yardage, can't shoot the bird quick enough then Simon says take one step forward. Shoot a 99 and Simon says take a step backwards.

What would the trapshooting world be like if the system worked like that again?

 

Neil, your analysis today would have had a lot more merit and validation at the last yardage increase than today! Look at all the gun/ammo/shooter improvements that's taken place since that last increase? If those guys went blindly into our future by increasing the yardage back then, they made a wise decision!

HAP

 

FG, it would correctly be called "Handicap by distance with an added random, variable, and unavoidable score-reduction factor applied to some competitors but not others.(edited and shortened for the sake of peace.)


Neil

 

As far as I'm concerned, 100 straights in handicap should be extremely rare. They are not rare currently. And a great percentage of them are from the 27 yard line. You can not argue with the fact that a certain percentage of entrants are not being handicapped while others are. That is a real problem in my eyes.

 

But didn't the ATA hand out wholesale free reductions to combat the realization that most shooters are over-handicapped while some shooters are under-handicapped? In that case it might be necessary to reduce every shooter until he's capable of shooting most scores in the 90's (we all know the big dogs are carrying averages in the mid-nineties). Then keep reducing him sufficient yardage each year until he reaches that goal. After all, if increasing yardage is regarded as some form of punishment by some than reducing it must be regarded as a reward.

So instead of creating that 30 yd. line let's make greater use of the 16 and 17 yd. line. I see that's where some people are heading!!

 

Neil, how about Further Handicapping those deemed to have somewhat mastered our game of handicap? That is, under our current rules for fairness toward all competitors shooting more or less difficult presentations.

What if, just those making a new grade to a new max were mandated to accept a reduction if they couldn't maintain a specified average? Then, they would shoot under the same criteria as the rest of our organization does except their reductions would be mandatory. AND, they could still shoot with their 27 yard buddy's depending on the spread!

To me, a new yardage isn't for the purpose of beating anyone handicapped beyond reason, it's to further handicap those winning with perfect scores from a max yardage that's out dated by almost 60 years!

HAP

 

Maybe we need to look at this from another absurd point of view. Maybe what we need to do is assign each shooter to the 21. If he can't average the composite average of the top 10 handicap shooters in the country then he wins a 2 yard reduction. That'll take him to the 19. If he's not still up to par he'll move to the 17 the following year. There ya go, no need for that 30 yd. line, saves concrete, no more worries about taking yardage and a mostly 2 tiered handicap system. Problem solved except I doubt there's enough vacancies at Walmart for the former big dogs!

 

Look, Hap, people can do what they want, I really don't care. But you were among those who wanted some facts to work on before committing yourself. You now have those facts.

The central problem is that no Handicap system can work because range of skill in shooting in the ATA is too great. The really good shooters are so much better than the rest that they run out of gun before they run out of skill and for most it the other way around. You can't make this "fair."



Good shooters are good at everything and are just far, far better than most. You couldn't even start equalize things until you get their averages down to about 90 and how do you propose doing that? To really equalize things, you would have to go down to about 87.

People who really, really want "fairness" in handicap need to introduce yardage groups, as I did in the 2008 Grand. That's the only way.

It lasted until I was out of office which told me that this is all talk. People don't want "fairness." They want to make the rules favor them no matter who they are, the best in the nation or just an average shooter who thinks he has a "right" to have an equal chance to post a winning score as a man or woman who has spent a lifetime learning how to shot. "Fairness" would give the trophy to the person who did what was needed to win. No one apparently wants that.

Neil

 

I just did it. Read my previous post. Only problem is a $10 Lewis bet would likely be worth around a $7 return. That outta really stimulate ATA shooting!

 

Neil .... again, with all due respect ..... the problem with your chart is .... You Can Not Have ... the current higher averages from any yardage other than the 27.

A 95 'average' says you have scores over the automatic yardage punch points. A 97 moves a yard or more. So .... how can a 20 yard shooter have a 95 average, unless every score was a 95, with no wins, or high scores of the day with enough shooters.

 

I've never thought yardage increases were mandated to make it more fair for the average shooter at all. We have a singles and doubles game with classes to take care of those games and people playing them. Since time beginning, the game of handicap has taken on an entirely different approach. I still believe our game is fair to everyone that plays it by the rules! No matter how easy or difficult it seems to some but look at the averages of those we consider that have somewhat mastered our handicap game? When the highest handicap averages surpass the masses averages at the 16 yard line, something needs done.

I believe what T. Jefferson said concerning history; "those ignoring history will surely repeat the same mistakes made" and that may not be an accurate quote but it's certainly close enough. I don't think mandating the 27 yard line was a mistake at all in 1955. Today, I still feel we need a new yardage mandate even with your analysis. Actually, we should have increased our max yardage a couple yards in the late 70s early 80s when lots of 100 straights were shot from the 27.

Just how good is our best shooters in ATA? We actually have no idea since they are stuck at a max yardage our leadership doesn't want changed! I said a few years back if we had a 30 yard line mandated, Leo H. would have more than likely been the first to not only attain it but remain there also! Our top of the rank and file handicap shooters number many today, not just one dominate shooter as it was for the last yardage increase!

Misread a target by a few inches, mispoint it a few inches and it results in a loss and that happens to everyone including our top shots. As you so eloquently point out with your charts above, some can do and most can't.

HAP

 

Of course he can't. User1. That's why the only the only way to "equalize" handicap (under the present "all-inclusive system) would be to bring all those shooters in red up on the right of my graph down to exact middle.

That's why a single handicap system can't, I repeat, can't work. It can't be fixed as it now is set up no matter what you do. The good shooters are just simply too good and we can't match them. There's no solution.

Look at that graph again, user 1. See how the colors segregate into groups. 27-yarders are a fairly uniform group as are the others. That is the only way to get "fairness" when it's "competing against people with about equal skill." There it is. Fairness.

Neil

 

Actually we do know how good they are, Hap, and it's right on that graph. Look at the singles. The best ones virtually hit them all. The rest of us can't. They are in another sphere entirely. Not our sphere, theirs alone. It's like chess - the best players are playing an entirely different game from the rest of us. Try a few games with an International Master as I used to do at the Festival of Nations against the Hungarians that ethnic group provided. Four moves, six moves and I was totally beaten and I could't see how it was done. It looked like magic. Shootoffs at the Grand look like magic because it is. It's just a completely different game, that's all. It looks the same, but it's not.

Yes, handicap has always take a different approach but it doesn't work anymire and nothing can be done to make it work. How are you going to make all those ultra-skilled All Americans average 87?

The single handicap system has run out of range. It doesn't work anymore, "overtaken by events" as they say in the UK. There's no point in trying to "fix" it; just assign it to the past and go forward with a new system which would reestablish the fairness everyone thinks they want . . . Until they get it!

Neil

 

Neil, we need to make the handicap system harder, more earned yardage. I have not seen anyone asking for a 87 average for the best shooters.

I get it....you think it is unfixable or so you say. We haven't given up quite yet. I am not sure of your motives but maybe you should be less of an obstructionist.

 

If we could get past the "fairness" portion of handicapping our most proficient shooters, the masses (changed to will from may) never catch up with the best of the best! I agree with all that. BUT, how many do we need at the top of the rank and file shooters in handicap to which man or woman is the best we have? Do we need hundreds of them or even 50 which take turns winning under the current settings? What we have managed to do though is to destroy the perception our handicap game once afforded our game.

I do agree a test of sorts would be nice to actually see if shooters can break a 100 from 30 yards. I'd even throw a few bucks myself into a pot that must be won with a 100 straight only from that yardage! That's the only way the top shooters would partake anyway and give it their best shots! I'd also wager it wouldn't take 9 years to do so either as did our last yardage increase! Any takers besides a few of the obvious objectors?

HAP

 

As I say, I don't really care. If you can get done what you want I'll still shoot as much as I do now, which is a lot.

I have to spend all my energy on something else for an uncertain length of time so I'll have to leave this all to you, all of you. Good luck with it! And I mean that. This site is a lot of fun with a number of posters - and way, way more readers, I think, - who take a genuine interest in shooting. Look at the hits on some of these serious and technical threads! Some people are really, really interested in factual discussion. That's always fun, talking with people who care.

Yours in Sport,

Neil

 

It would appear after reading all previous information that if history has anything to do with us that going to 30yds would require improvements to guns and shells as was done when going from 25yds to 27yds Man being the inovator that he is I am sure this would be accomplished very shortly.

 

Maybe, which is why I would like to see the angles changed as well.
One war at a time.....Lincoln

 

Wow

 

Family Guy, if I read your reasoning correctly, I have to wonder why it was changed in the first place? From 44 degree angles to 34?

I recall shooting when most clubs did adhere to our 44 degree settings rule and saw 100 straights broken in handicap! If the powers that actually changed those, why do you think they'd want to change back today? Going back in time to see when our most proficient shooters began breaking 100 from there with some regularity tells us a story, but, only if we're paying attention to what works and what doesn't for the best for the sport and not for the gifted few? We must look out for our sports integrity rather than egos and false pride of shooting easier targets. AND, personal arguments arising among those so wishing to be right at any and all costs?

I must totally disagree with Neil that our handicap game has run it's course. BUT, how did it get to this point? It got there through changes made that weren't best for the sport is how in my less than humble opinion! Wishbone, it would be a SUPER WOW!! if settings became even easier as some in charge now would like to see happen!

HAP

 

Watched a program a few nights ago.... Phoebe Mosley and Frank Butler. Rules did not change, guns and loads were what they were, shoot till there is a miss........ Changing the rules changes things for everybody. Best shooter or perhaps best eyes or best luck or best gun? If someone wants to win that is what shoot offs are for. Larry

 

Why would anyone want to compete from a distance that does not allow a pattern with reasonable assurance of hitting or breaking a target as compared to other contestants ? Maybe for fun.

Add money to the event and sandbagging to avoid the new distance will become an everyday accepted art form.

 

Hi Squatty,

I am sure this answers your question. It is username History Buff's post about that. It is on the earlier page and easy to miss if you go straight to page 2.

Just my opinion but it will always be hard to top this fellows dedication to the sport.....Thanks for the info Kenny Ray!

 

Squatty,
Your are implying I think that this generation is not as honest as the shooters of the generation noted above. Would you mind naming one of the big dogs you think will cheat?

 

No Family Guy, what is most appalling and certainly most difficult to reconcile is the fact that someone is dumb enough to believe this BS.

Maybe, as one of the "hot shots" of yesteryear, Brad Dysinger would like to comment on the special ammo that was of such superior quality, that the ammo companies only offered it to the select few.

 

Jo2, before you flap your jaws you might want to be looking up the record of the shooter who made that claim. 40 years of mostly AA27AA scores and more time at the 27 than most anyone I know!

 

I had to check to see what site I was on.......
If the objective is to test the skills of shooters with the presentation of a more challenging target there is a fairly simple way to do that without buying land or concrete or building a new range. I suspect most clubs are not in a condition to spend dollars for the changes discussed in the posts above. If it is not an option to move the shooter why not do something with the target? One or two or three turns on the crank would present a target with a new set of challenges to shooters........ trajectory, speed, distance traveled....... There have to be some options out there that might "fill the bill" that do not cause great expense to clubs or lead to name calling.......... Larry

 

How about classes, like singles. Your average determines your yardage.

D = 20 yards
C = 22 yards
B = 24 yards
A = 25 yards
AA = 26 yards
AAA = 27 yards

Average determines yardage, no exceptions. High scores shoot off for event championship, just like singles.

 

Larry--the Buckeye Classic and the Cardinal Classic both threw 50 yard minimum targets. That alone kept many 27 yarders from the top. The old 3 hole setting would do it.

 

They already have Bunker if cranking the spring is the answer! Those of us who watched All-American Frank Little in a shootoff for the PA State Singles championship many years ago on 4-hole cranked up targets realize the only ones negatively affected were average Joes-certainly not Frank!

 

You gotta be kiddin. I can break a 100 at 16 yards and would tie for low score (or worse) at the 27. Some seldom shoot handicap, so penalize them?

GneJ

 

PC, wouldn't that leave us with games called short and long singles? Any change made must not nullify or diminish the accomplishments past shooters that shot great scores under tougher circumstances? Further destroying our sports history?

HAP

 

Your handicap average, not your singles average. Everyone start on the 20, just like now. Movements from there depend on your handicap average.

 

I hear that silly comment, "long singles" all the time, but never really understood it.

Explain to me why today's handicap is not long singles?

 

FC,
What were the comments made about the 50 yd targets? Did everyone shoot them? Was there a general acceptance of the different approach? The rules and the targets need to be the same for all that shoot, if not then you no longer have one sport, you have a different sport built around each set of rules.
I do not believe the accomplishments from the past are diminished because changes are made to fit todays attitudes and desires. One must not forget the past but use the past as a foundation to move into the future. I am a member of a club with a history of over 100 years, reading the newspaper articles from 1900 reveals that sometimes they shot 35 shots, sometimes only 20, squads were 3 or 5 or 6 or ??? Our activities last Sunday and using ATA rules from today did nothing to lessen what those folks did........ Larry

 

Larry, you typed FC I am assuming you meant FG as in family guy.
My comment was that at the Buckeye Classic and the Cardinal Classic at the Cardinal Center, they threw 50 yard targets. It kept the pile up from the 27 smaller. I do not have the answers. The manager was Brad Dysinger last year. He has since retired from that position.

As far as lessening what the folks did......we have done the equivalent to lowering the rim in basketball. Is that good?

 

Well, one letter out of 2 was right..........
My trapshooting life began about 2.5 years ago, I really have no knowledge of the more recent changes that got us where we are with trap today.
In the mid 50's I set in the traphouse and risked life, limb and fingers for the Wallowa County shooters of that day.... I now see there is much comment and dissention about how things should be done and since I am new to this I really do not have a very big dog in the fight. Our club has only 1 and sometimes 2 registered shoots per year, LaGrande has the Oregon State ATA shoot this year so the total will be perhaps 4 in 2015 but the ATA rules are adhered to and used to keep things safe and uniform each and every time someone walks to the line. With any change in rules the impact will go beyond registered shoots and beyond the performance of today's top shooters as little clubs like ours will keep on with our little shoots and the kids we work with will grow up using whatever rules folks come up with. I suspect changes centered around the top class of shooters will bring way more change and impact to the rest of those that follow the sport...... Its obvious there are strong feelings about the current status and I hope that when and if changes are made consideration will be used for the 99% that follow the rules but will never make it to the 27/28/29/..................... Larry

 

Sir Neil, how much accuracy, does it take to break a 17 degree angle. w/a 1250fps shell, I am afraid not any way near as much accuracy it used to take to break a 45+degree angle we used to shoot with a 1200fps shells. It does not take a GENIUS to figure this one out.
Just look at the total 100s from all yardages that were broke since your 2 hole target invention. Compared to the amont of 100s from the 3 hole 45 degree target angle. I rest my case.
Dr.longshot

 

Handicap yardage should go to infinity. Ammo should be subjected to random tests/checks and all winners ammo should be tested.

 

ebsurveyer,
I had 13 cases of those given to me by a very good friend back in the early 90's. I cried when they were gone. The special shells ended in the min 90's. OH/ by the way they crono. at 1390 t0 1395 with out fail.
Ollie,
you should tell Neil that common sense should dictate an increase in the yardage for Hdk. Anything other than that is going to make a bigger challenge to the less skilled shooters than to the more skilled. I believe two very skilled shooters shot from the 30 yd. line up at Vernal and they both broke 97 or better. I guess maybe they were lucky. Roger Coveleskie

 

Neil your tests are over 10 years old, too many refinements since then, for your graphs to apply.

It has been shown over the years that all Shell Mfgrs that made shells for the grand had a little more shot, more powder.
Federal Papers had 510-515 grs of shot, Shells were marked Grand American, same as all the rest.
I remember when the first Silver Bullets marked with ++AA++ chrono'd 1320fps smoke that Neil.
Dr.longshot

 

Doctor wisdom (longshot), just for the record, how long since you actively shot ATA targets?

 

Whenever someone runs out intellectual answers quite often you hear the same ole "what's your ata number, how many targets, how long have you been shooting? Fortunately most of those types are on another site hanging out with the guy that uses another members child photo on an avatar.

I for one know the doc was shooting when those hot shells first came out. I shot them. By the way Nudie, you can pm me your ata number and the number of targets you shot last year.

 

And why would I be inclined to do that? That isn't a part of the comversation is it? Oh, and I failed
To see yours posted also.

 

Log in to ATA and type in a name, you can get all the scores and dates and stuff you desire.
Is that the way it works? If you are a big name and shoot a long yardage and have 30 years of membership you get all the votes?
Sort of seems we got off topic...... Larry

 

Hillary Clinton it is a guy thing, 18 yd Hdcp is long singles, no better way to put it!!!!!!

 

Larry there is no substitute for expierence, The ATA's 17 degree angles is their way to substitute Expierence

 

For the benefit of those new to the game, what caused the change?
Where did the idea come from?
Which group supported the change?
What was the objective of making a change?
I suspect the power structure was shooters of long standing (no pun intended) and much experience wanting to do somthing different?

Larry

 

Larry,

In all honesty, it was like anything else. Good folks with good intentions held different views on the same subject.

On one side were those who favored making the game easier in order to attract and keep new members, keep shooters coming back to the clubs where they shot well, and thought allowing the poorer shots to break higher scores would accomplish this goal.

On the other side were those who believed the game should not be made easier, that it should remain as it was intended (to be a difficult test of skill) and that a multitude of straight or high scores would actually create more problems and cause more shooters to be discouraged and leave the sport.

Oh, and there were those who wanted to make it harder for those who worked to become an accomplished shooter by making them shoot at long distances, only to later support narrowing the angles. I've never understood this view.

The disagreement has been ongoing for the last 100 years and will continue. That, I'm sure of.

So who's right ?

 

Three years ago I walked into the game with a shotgun and a couple boxes of shells, I love to shoot, I enjoy the reloading, I am learning about guns and chokes and hulls and primers and so on and so forth....... The rules??? harder back when? easier now? Wonderful topic to fuss and fume about and spit and slobber..... But whatever the angle and the distance you have to walk to the line and take your shot.
I like your opening line, good folks with good intentions............. Often the posters I read display a bit of temper but I am sure they are good people with good intentions too.
ATA says I am a C class 20 yard shooter. But today shooting club league I shot a 25 from the 16 and a 19 from the 27 (league handicap is singles score +2) Whatever ATA, PITA, or other organizations come up with folks like me will be "club shooters" and have fun at it. ATA members should work together to further the sport and the organization because they are, like you indicated, good people with good intentions.
Thanks for your informative, good to read response.

Larry

 

Larry: I have never heard of this What you break on the 16 + 2 yards, That must be a 27 yard shooting league, not a true League shoot.
A true league shoot give new shooters a handicap score, that when added, never exceeds a total of 25, the better you shoot over time the lower the handicap.
Gary Bryant Dr.longshot

 

Hillary Clinton: That is a better Hdcp than the ATA is presently using or has used in the past.
Gary Bryant Dr.longshot

 

Good morning Gary,
I have no idea what a 27 yard league shoot is nor have I had experience with a "true League shoot".
The shoot I am describing is simply what we locally call winter league and is something the clubs have been doing forever.
Individuals from LaGrande, Union, Cove, Baker City and Wallowa sign up and pay $10 each to compete, they then shoot at their local club or at any of the other 4 if they choose to. Resulting scores are sent to LaGrande to be put together.
The shooters are put into teams of 3, The club puts the teams together based on "good, better, and best" shooters for each team.
The shooter goes to the line and shoots a 16 yard score....... for example a 20.
Then 2 is added to that score and the result, in this case 22, becomes the shooters handicap yardage for his second trip to the line.
The shooter shoots another score, for example they shoot another 20.
The two scores are added together for a weekly "league" score.
We do this for 6 weeks.
At the end of that 6 weeks 3 places are paid, and those individuals that have signed up for "high gun" (an extra $2) have their scores evaluated for total and High Gun wins.
It is only based on local habit and custom, everyone enjoys it and it gives some (like myself Sunday) a trip to the 27 yard line.
The clubs used to do this twice a year with 15+ teams, last year there were 8 teams for Fall League and 6 for Winter League. This year LaGrande hosted only a winter League and there are 9 teams. Locally the issues with shells, powder, shot, primers and the economy in general have reduced the number of shooters at the clubs..
Be well
Larry

 

I'd think the average shooter today shows about the same ability to break targets as did those in years past as a group. Only the shooters themselves can adapt to shooting better scores, not some ATA rule change. The last few decades of change to an easier format does favor the accomplished long yardage shooter more in my opinion. The attempt at legislating good scores for the masses with easier angles and less speed will never work according to trap history.

Good intentions culminating in almost disastrous results is a part of changes we should be aware of and try our best to avoid in the future. Due diligence in all aspects of our sport should always be the first rule of decision making, not someone's idea of what's better for them or a group. Sometimes change is needed and necessary but only when it's better for the sport of trap shooting and not any particular group. How others perceive our game is mighty important also!

HAP

 

I guess no one wants to admit plenty of those great trapshooters of that era were also adept trap readers. It wasn't hard to straighten out those angles or shoot what was thrown if you knew what was coming. Those old Western trap machines without interrupters were real easy to read. I know as I just learned the system before the traps were changed!

 

Andy, the last change toward more difficulty was the interrupter rule in 1969. At the time, there was no rule saying that traps couldn't be read either? Seems to me your giving some of the jawbreakers here more fodder to chew on when those guys weren't cheating anyone! BTW, there was many claims made that just wasn't true about abilities to read a locked down trap! True enough that some could do it with a squad they shot with all the time but the timing had to be perfect for it to work. Lots of targets were lost when most only thought they could read a trap! You could tell when a shooter thought so, call, swing the ol model 12 to the left and the target went a different direction!

The mandated interrupters was an attempt to stop a perceived advantage that was mostly false, for most shooters. At least our ATA officials did what they thought was right at the time. What's been done since? Besides making the game easier after that mandate?

HAP

 

Hap, not altogether correct. If you maintained a certain call for time you'd likely get the same target as the guy before you got. If you didn't want to shoot that one you delayed your call and straightened it out. One Grand American HOA champion from the 60's, Bob Diefenderfer, was noted for his uncanny ability to shoot nothing but straightaways from post one or five. The unfortunate recipient, another top shooter, of all his left angles on post 1 eventually went into a left angle slump until he figured out what was happening. If you watched top shooters adjust to the interrupters you'd see how they made some interesting moves when targets went opposite where they thought they'd be.

I'm sure Brad will verify what I'm saying!

 

Andy, I think most traps were equipped with interrupters by the time Brad went on a shooting mission. I did say some were good at reading the trap, hence the mandate.

HAP

 

So have we developed a plan to move forward?
Can we unveil it at this years Grand? LOL

No worries I will be there either way

 

Ah but the early rules were explicable when the disposed of the standards permitting "known traps & and known targets" for "unknown traps and unknown targets." As the game evolved and shooters became more proficient, they were not supposed to know the actual target flights.

I don't know that this was really a problem until innovation produced an automatic single trap of he electric type. Prior to that time trappers changed the angles by hand and shooters had no idea of the target path. The earliest patented interrupter I'm aware of was granted to Willis J. Sutcliffe, of Cedar Heights, Iowa in October 1931 (No. 1, 880, 292).

Reading traps was certainly understood to be a problem for the ATA but it was surprisingly not discussed much until 1969.

Vic Reinders spoke of it in his monthly Trap & Field column that year (1969). Finally the ATA took action in 1970 :

Executive Committee Passes Unknown-Angle Resolution​

Two significant actions taken by the Executive Committee at their Oct. 30-Nov. 1 meeting are being widely discussed. One resolution passed stipulates that all clubs holding registered shoots must have traps equipped to meet the unknown-angle rule by Jan. 1, 1971. In addition, all state and zone shoots where ATA championship trophies are awarded must meet this requirement in 1970.
In other action, the Committee restored the Champion of Champions race to a separate 100-bird one, following Monday’s program at the Grand American as in prior years.
The official minutes of the meeting will be published in the January, 1970 issue of TRAP & FIELD.
[ TRAP & FIELD, December 1969, page 52 ]

Andy, I seem to remember seeing a video on trap reading the Western Model 1524 trap with the Rhodeside Interrupter installed and working. It was by Brad Dysinger and Morris Stinebring. Its been years since I saw it but I think Dysinger was facing and talking to the camera and showing how he could not only throw starightaway targets every time but also call angles. It would be neat to see that old video again.

Kenny Ray

 

Thanks Ken, I see I do know a bit of what I speak!

 

Goodness sake I just found that old VHS "Shoot Better Trap" by Brad Dysinger & Morris Stinebring in my old videos. The only problem is I no longer have a VHS player. Wonder if it still works?

 

How many Brads/Morries andLeos were reading the traps after the interrupter mandates were successful? Not many in my opinion. If it was so widespread both prior and afterward, what's that say about our historical records? Less convincing that trapshooting was better then? A fierce competitor will take advantage of any glitch while abiding by the rules to win so we can't blame him for winning can we? It's a fact some were capable of reading a trap but most had no idea how to do that!

A few are fairly adept today timing their call on Pat traps after the shooter on the left shoots too. They get the same target as was shot prior with perfect timed call.

HAP

 

I agree Hap, it was probably only a few of the good shooters who read traps and even they were not 100% correct.

Here's how the interrupter worked at the 1969 Ohio State Shoot :

Trapshooter’s Corner​

On The Firing Line​

As predicted in last week’s column, a record number of shooters turned out for the 83rd Ohio State Trapshooting Championship at Vandalia. The only one of the 11 events that failed to set a record was the opening 16-yard program on Wednesday when rain caused many prospective participants to hold off for the later events.


Any doubts as to the effectiveness of the trap interrupters were removed during this five-day event. While 44 200s were posted in one 16 yard program at last year’s Grand American, there were none in the first and only three in the second such event at the State shoot. Many AA shooters found themselves posting scores in the 80s on each 100 target event. One of the nation’s top shooters, now a professional, had to settle for handicap scores in the low 80s and high 70s.
[ THE WASHINGTON C. H. RECORD-HERALD, (Washington Court House, Ohio), June 25, 1969, page 3 ]

 

Looks like there were far more very capable trap readers than we're willing to admit. That's why I keep saying 3-hole targets didn't mean much if you knew where they were going. Of course, that was then and this is now, although some of today's shooters claim they can still read most of 'em.

I know because I was there. Maybe this was about the same time clubs started cheating and throwing narrower targets and catering to the vocal former trap readers!!

 

I remember when the interrupters were added to existing machines.

At the little club I set targets at, it was a button the setter would push.

We were told to push it a least once a round but could push it as often as we liked.

 

What was our membership numbers in 1969 and number of shooters attending those two shoots? 44 breaking a 200 straight at the Grand and 0 and 3 were shot in the Ohio state shoot in two like events after the mandate says the interrupters worked as intended. 44 perfect scores when our membership was over xxx,000 sounds like a reasonable number to me. We'd expect most all of the best of the best to show up and shoot those two shoots. The Grand was the largest and think Ohio was third largest at that time, Pa. was second?

How many 200s have been shot at the last few years Grand's during the singles championships out of what membership number?

I said and knew some could read the traps very well but not by many especially after the interrupter mandate.

I shot my first 34 degree targets in Ca in 1982 and it wasn't the shooters demanding that setting. That was the club operators idea.

HAP

 

If it was a sanctioned shoot wouldn't ATA have had to give a blessing? Larry

 

Hap,

At the 1969 Grand there were twenty (20) 200s (17 in AA, 1 A and 2 industry reps) in the Class Event.

In the North American Clay Target Championship 14 broke 200s (13 amateurs, 1 industry rep).

Bernard Bonn, of Fairborn, Ohio posted the lone 99 of 2,881 entries to win the GAH title.

 

Hap,
There were clubs in the central zone in the mid. to late 90's that removed the interruptor gear and were throwing (ONE) hole targets. The ATA demanded that all machines be certified by a mechanic and the results be forwarded to the ATA. The state pres. tried to bully my man into signing the paper that they were in compliance with the ATA rule. He refused to do so, the Pres said we have some All Americans pumping up their averages here. My man left and would not certify the machines.

 

Thank goodness for people with integrity and who follow all of the rules. Non-compliance coupled with the ATA sometimes looking the other way was not in the best interests of the sport. I'm sorry to learn this Roger but glad the ATA in this case demanded compliance.

Kenny Ray

 

Larry, yes it was an ATA shoot. Clubs are sanctioned to hold ATA shoots and agree to abide by the ATA rules and pay all the fees. That club didn't abide by the setting rule and nothing was ever done by ATA for violating the standard settings either.

Thanks for the information Roger C. I've asked before, why have rules if some can get by with violations at any level?

HAP

 

Howmany remember the Win. Interuptor Growling, Solenoid noise, before the Mechanical Interuptor?
Dr.longshot

 

Yup!

 

The Rhodeside electric interrupter was used during the 1969 Grand American tournament and Winchester manufactured their mechanical interrupter which was install on all 53 fields of the 1970 Grand according to reports.

 

The same year, those shells Neil tested, were made. Hmm wonder if they were from the Grand that year. That would be interesting.

Ollie, did you get those shells that Neil tested at the 1970 grand, or do you know if they are from the Grand?

John

 

Heck no and I'll bet the previous owner is dead. The secret is in a grave!

 

Never let the facts get in the way of a good story. LMAO

 

How many shooters do you know of that's had their scores disqualified for violating our speed limits? I know of none in that area. There have been some disqualified for using either too much shot or shot bigger than our rules allow. We can't check out a shell after it's been fired either.

Check that out and let us all know how many times that has happened, facts not speculations. I have no problems at all with speeds as they are, you still hafta shoot on the money side of all targets to break them.

HAP

 

When's the last time you say anyone checking shells? Was the chrono certified, how often, last time and who did it? That was easy-"no" two times!

Heck, the ATA doesn't even check scoresheets to see if the shooter actually shot the targets he claimed!

 

I would say shells are checked about as often as they they were supplied to shooters that chronographed at 1390-1395 fps. In other words never.

 

"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?"

Jo2 ... this shell thing seems to be a sticking point for you. And I can understand when people give vague answers to serious questions it makes it worse.

For a long time manufacturers have used their own quality control to their advantage. An example is a buyer like Walmart. It is common for Remington to set aside wood and other components of firearms, that are of a lower standard, to make a product run for Walmart. This a win-win for both because it used parts that may disappoint the little buyer, and gave Walmart a highly discounted product. Other manufactures do the same with this type of buying arrangement.

Shell manufacturers will do the same. To say they formulate 'special' shells for anyone is silly. To say they take advantage of quality control/lot numbers for their distribution would apply. I doubt you will ever buy shells in Walmart that have the same lot-number as the 'free' shells that are used by the elite. And it is safe to say these 'free' shells run on the 'high-side',if not over, their quality control limits.

It is simply American marketing at its finest. No one can blame either party for taking advantage of it. And, does it give some 'unfair' advantage to some .... well it certainly doesn't hurt.

To keep saying that those who get the pick shotguns, pick shells, pick banks, and every other protection from the organization, does not have an accumulated advantage, only makes those who keep saying it look foolish.

I hope this answers, "What would they do different?", for you.

 

Jo2,
Weather you believe what I said or not is of no importance to me. I did not accuse any one of wrong doing I stated fact. Did I say they were made for someone, or that a very good friend gave them to me. But for your information they do make a very big difference in performance. Roger Coveleskie

 

Dr.
The solenoid only growled when it was not operating properly. Mainly caused by low by low voltage coming into the machine. Or if the trigger had a hollow spot worn into it. Roger C.

 

HAP;
How can we get one of the shell manufacturers to run some tests on the effectiveness of our legal trap loads on targets thrown at 50 yds. from the 30 yd. line. I think it is time to get a second opinion on the effectiveness of our modern ammo and the new guns that we use. Neils word is just not suffecient to make this decision on. I for one do not believe that our equipment is not able to do the job. Roger C.

 

Roger C., now that you've got your shop going again, you too can help with such verification. We need to chat.

HAP

 

The reason I insisted that a test run at the Grand be professionally designed and paid for by the Ata is that testing is hard and complicated work and no place for amateurs . You can waste a ton of time and money and never get valid data.

What do you have in mind, Roger? How many shots and what will you be judging?

Neil

By the way, I never said my words is sufficient - that's why there has to be a professionally-designed independent test! But that test will come out as I predict! Heck, guys, you are already swimming in the exact data you need and you cited it here! You just don't realize it!

 

If it was the black ones, they were from 74'.

 

Looking at the lot number Neil put in his test, it looks like the shell was made in 70, at least with the data I have seen.

Thanks.

John