New trap machines to throw harder targets? Dump PATS?

Does the world of trapshooting need to dump the PAT traps so we can throw a better / harder target?

 

I would say yes

GB....................................DLS

 

Keep the Pat traps...dump the pros. let them shoot in their own class.

 

The pros already shoot in their own class AAA Singles and AA Doubles. Unfortunately, they also break Handicap averages far in excess of most Singles shooters capabilities. Time to knock a target or two off those inflated handicap averages from the current max-27. Move 'em back!

 

There is nothing wrong at all with Pat Trap. They do what they are set to do.........they are a mechanical tool. If the person who is setting them is not competent then you have a garbage target. If shooters do not speak up if the targets look bad, then shame on them. If everyone wants different targets, then change the rules, quit bitchin and do something, don't blame the machine.
Steve

 

Personally, I'm not convinced Pat traps are the problem as much as the people setting them are ... Since I started shooting back in 1975 there are a lot of things that have been changed, altered, or modified since that make the game more consistent (easier) such as voice calls and targets set at narrower angles ... I was on the trap committee, was taught to set targets just outside of a straight away from post 1 and 5 (wider) and to the 50 yard stake, 9.5 to 10 ft through the hoop that we used for setting the height ... The men back then started at 22 yards for handicap and ladies and kids was 20 yards ( I think ), if you had a wind in your face or from behind you the targets obviously changed from the initial settings but there was no changing them once you started shooting ... The odds of drawing a hard (extreme) left or hard right target (maximum angle) during the course of a round was not all that great but if you did get them you knew it right away and they obviously assisted in keeping scores lower and less than perfect ... If a shooter posted a good score (98/99/100) it paid well if they played the money which it seems a lot more people did back then also ... I got bored shooting singles and didn't care for doubles, but really looked forward to the handicap events and usually played most of the money (just in case ) I had a good day ... My second year shooting my name was on the leader board in Vandalia for about 32 seconds with a 97, which pretty much paid for the entire trip with the money I got for it ... The game has been changed to entice new shooters which does not seem to be working, it also made it that much easier for the seasoned Pro's to break good scores ... Something has to be done, what that would be is any body's guess but the game as it is is driving more and more shooters away all the time and on to other shooting venues ... WPT ... (YAC) ...

 

Huh? Actually the PATs coast thru the hard lefts and rights and give more straightaways. I will be you any money on any day you will not get as many hard rights as 1/4 rights and not as many hard lefts as 1/4 lefts. It is a design flaw.

Make the bet large enough that you learn. Get TShot to invest some of his allowance money.

 

If you want to see harder targets on a Pat trap,have the target setter change the spacing of the magnetic pick-up from the 4 1/4 standard two hole to about 4 3/4 inch.This will widen the angles.Also a few extra turns on the main spring will cut the handicap scores down.We dont need a 30 yard line,just a few adjustments in the machines.

 

The Pat's were no good the day they came out. The OSTA was not going to certify them to throw registered targets. The ATA had a fit and over ruled the OSTA. Many people did not like them, but they were the only doubles trap available at the time. I will not go into the shortcomings of the machine, but you be the judge as to what happened to the sport when the ATA made them the official trap. The rules of target flight were change to facilitate the machine, not the other way around. There was a little hanky panky that happened before they were installed at the grand, I'm sure it helped the sale. Roger C.

 

Roger,I shot on a lot of different trap machines from Beomats to LaPortes and their dual turrets for doubles.Pats are not perfect but hold up well.If they had a revolving disk like the old winchester hands set where you could set the angles by changing the screw holes with a arm to control the launching plate.
Do you know of any trap made that could replace the pat trap.Our club uses the new Mec machines for skeet targets.We had Beomat skeet machines and they were one of the best machines for consistant skeet targets.You could put a bushel basket at the distance stake and the Beomat would put every target in the basket.Not so for the Mec machines.Our new Pat trap has a electronic interupter which is a little diferent than the mechanical one.Hand set Winchester were great,but one of the problems were the kids who set the targets.Some put them on the plate at a different location,some knocked the centers out of them.Some kids held the arm back so you got a slow pull.I was a trap boy and I know.
I am a fan of 3 hole target .I like the voice release.I have seen a lot of shooters turn down angle targets ,saying they were slow pulls.voice release solves some of the problems.

 

I beg to differ! Pat Traps can as good an target as any trap we have 9 at my club and they are fine. Just get someone to set them right. Most clubs in my state use them.

 

T is "differing".
Tell T what makes the PAT trap throw an equal amount of hard lefts vs 1/2 lefts. Or an equal amount of hard rights vs 1/4 rights. Tell us why.

Hurry before dad finds out you are on his computer.

 

Palos shooter,
The Super Star machine from Sweden oscillated from a peg hole just like the Winchester. I sold the machines, when I sold a doubles trap I would bring it in to my plant and set it in my lot. It was not shipped to the customer until I could throw 9 out of ten doubles targets into two 5 gallon buckets that I had set in the parking lot. They will not ship machines into this country any more. There are many things keep the pat's from giving a good target presentation. Most of the parts on a Super Star, were interchangeable with the Beomat machines. Roger C.

 

The rules of target flight were change to facilitate the machine, not the other way around.

 

I love reading these threads! Currently the only viable trap out there is the "Pat" Trap that I'm aware of. At PSSA we had GMV Superstars for over a decade, but with the company going out I believe, parts were hard to find. Shyda's Services and our Staff did a good job maintaining them, but like any mechanical device, they wore out. When we purchased those, Pat wasn't able to guarantee the 52 traps we needed in the time frame, but were able to several years ago. Good, bad or neutral, they're the new industry standard and if set properly I feel throw a good target.

I hear all this "we need to make things harder", but most fail to realize the "Big Guns" will quickly adjust and the B,C,D shooters will again be frustrated!! We can all argue till we're blue in the face, but the bottom line is you don't see the PGA making the game harder because of Tiger or Jordan Spieth, or Tennis because of Federer or Williams Sister's?? And since we all can't live in perfect climates, we do what we can to better ourselves with "practice and hard work"! Never saw anyone become a Champion by typing!! JMHO

Jeff Graupp

 

Do any of todays shooters remember the Remington 4100 trap machines? They never excelled as trap machines because they were known as motor surge fire machines. The Pat's are also. If it were not for the voice calls they would have the same reputation that the Remington machines had. SLOOOWWW PPUULLLSSSS, even with the best pullers. That is one flaw, there are more. Roger C.

 

Sure did. I remember those slow pulls but they never really bothered me. I also remember those funny micro switches that always seem to need adjustment. Let's not forget the splash system for lubricating the clutch that made pulls even slower until the unit warmed up. I blotted out most of the old memories of working on 'em. Since they also only held one case of targets frequent trips to the traphouse were necessary. Those were the days.

 

GOLF - Actually they have been moving the tees back. Bad analogy. Of course you could have used Michael Jordan but they made the game easier for him. Three steps. They did change the game of basketball for Wilt Chamberlain since he could dunk from the foul line. They also created a 3 point shot to penalize the teams with the Wilts.

And also by using the Pro Tennis player analogy you are comparing "Pro" Tennis to "Amateur Trapshooting". Is there a pro only trapshooting association?

No I think you are missing the point. The wider angles hurt the 27 yard shooters. The pat traps throw fewer wide angles.

 

Our 2 pat traps don't have slow pulls.Why would the voice call make a difference.

 

oleolliedawg,
My company was the manufacture distributor for all Remington machines and replacement parts. there is not much need for either now. When the Pat's first came out they were told they needed a solenoid releasing system on the machine, also make the arm longer, plus a few other things that would improve the target flights of the equipment. I ain't changing my machine for anyone. That was the reply we heard.
I hooked up a Super Star and a pat to the same release button, the Super Star was 10 ft. out of the house ahead of the Pat. I did the same with an old Win. 1524 and the results were the 1524 was 15 ft out ahead of the pat. that was with the Pat's arm set right on the edge of a fire thru. You are right those were the days, I'm glad I lived with them. Roger C.

 

I think (seem to recall) Roger put a Super Star in the hole on trap 5 at the Old Phx club, I do not remember the number of targets off of that machine but it never missed a lick ... We used to shoot Friday night games on that trap as well as being used every day, so it got used more than any other trap on the grounds ... Friday nights games, we would throw 70 yard targets that just missed the skeet house of the angles (talk about challenging ) but we had a blast after the steak or fish dinner ... WPT ... (YAC) ...

 

WPT, Those were very enjoyable times, to bad they had to end. But we lived them I doubt if any of the newer shooters will ever experience those times. Five dollars for a beautiful new york steak, baked potato, and home made cake. Life was good was it not. Roger C.

 

Slow hand pullers, the properly set Voice Calls are much better than a slow hand pulled


GB.............................DLS

 

Rn3,
Many of todays new shooters have never seen an instant pull. Have a puller turn off the voice calls, and ask them to hand pull a round for you. Then you will know what some of the old timers mean when they talk about bad pullers. Roger C.

 

Smithy
How can they not throw random targets? There is no way to control what comes next. Is there?

 

I'll bite as it is a "polite cast"?
It is not that the Pats throw "non random" as in you never know what is next. Most in the field (like Coveleski) will tell you the pat traps tend to continue thru the hard angles. If you count you will find that you do not get an equal amount of hard rights or lefts distributed. They will throw hard rights. They will throw hard lefts. Just not equally as compared to other areas of the legal field.

 

They have many traits that the average shooter never notices. And they will cost you targets. They do put targets in the air, that is all I can say about them. You be the judge as to the quality of the presentation. The problem is most shooters today do not know what a quality target looks like. Roger C.

 

But to my point, making the courses tougher, or game rules has made only made the 'Top" players seem even better. Like the restrictor plates in NASCAR, the cream still rises when you try and level the playing field. And since we have no "Pro" circuit, and after the Sporting Clays version was such a failure, how would Trap expect a better result going to one?

As to the angles, if I recall the one year (escapes me as I'm typing) the ATA went back to a 3 Hole target, almost all the Major Handicaps at the Grand and Grand Satellites were won by 27 yarders and after much complaining by shooters it was changed back.

Jeff Graupp

 

The handicap system was designed to handicap. You cant shoot from the 25 now with easy targets. Take a reduction.

Until the targets were made easier we went close to 30 years with only one 27 yard shooter getting a perfect score at the GAH. The 27 yard shooters mega struggled with the 3 hole targets. Where do you get your facts?

 

To fact check the posts above. It was not until 1983 when Roger Smith broke a perfect score from the 27 and in '88 when Brit Robinson did it. Between 1955 and 1994 only two 27 yarders won with a 100.



Thanks to all those in the trenches that provide the information I post.

I report. You decide.

Merlo out

 

Very of a few 27's won with perfect score pre '95 you may also note that it was extremely rare for a 25 yarder to win with any score.

I report. You decide.

Merlo out

 

Jeff, I see your averages went down considerably the year of the 3-hole target return. The biggest complainers about 3-hole targets that year were the marathoners. Those of us who managed gun clubs remember them asking for the shortest and narrowest target we could possibly throw.

 

Better check your facts, Reggie Jachimowski broke 100 straight from the 27 at the 1978 Grand American Handicap. Tom

 

Yes did not mention that one. It is shown in the winner listing above. Only 3 until 95. It is nice to hear people care enough now to check on the facts. Without people checking on the facts the posts become meaningless.

I report. You decide.

Merlo out

 

What year was that? And my averages were never great, as I shot in some pretty dismal conditions early in the target years and running a gun club and shooting never proved to be a good formula for high scores. As for the target requests, when I was Officer Manager at South End, we had very few requests, as we went out of our way to accommodate shooters.

Jeff Graupp

 

I'll refresh your memory Jeff-1996. Check it out!

 

Just did some quick research and Stafford, Harrison, Marshall among others all posted Higher Handicap averages that year! Kinda reinforces what I said above????

As for me, I wasn't AAA27AAA capable until after 1999 and a Private lesson from Frank Hoppe. So 1996 again helps my argument as it dramatically affected the B-D shooters!! If you only look at it from an average standpoint.

Jeff Graupp

 

All of you posters,

Can any one tell me if you can come up with an equal way to increase the difficulty of handicap, other than increased yardage? No mater what you change, but yardage is going to increase the difficulty for the less qualified shooters. Softer targets, narrower angles, reduced yardage, lighter loads, shorter distance, higher target settings, non of these seem to have helped any one but the cream of the crop. You be the judge, but please post you solution. Roger Coveleskie

 

Nobody has a desire to hurt fellow shooters or our wonderful sport.

Those who support the partial return to the old target setting rules have every right to their view that narrowing the target flights and angles has not proven to be beneficial to our sport.

It is true many others believe returning to the old 22° angle requirement (calling for left and right angles to be thrown at a minimum of a straightaway target from Posts 1 and 5) will be harmful to both the above and cause a widespread departure of shooters from our sport. However, since many shooters openly admit they cannot tell the difference between the 17° and 22° angle, I tend to disbelieve the perceived ill-effects that are often being touted.

I believe history is on my side since the number of gun clubs, competitions and shooters continued to increase from the initial so-called 3-hole target rule that was introduced for the 1955 target year.

Since the traps used at the PSSA (Pennsylvania State Sportsmen's Association) were mentioned above, I would like to remind everyone that three great shooters who have been enshrined in both the PSSA Trap HofF and the Trapshooting Hall of Fame, Charles Newcomb, Steve Crothers and Walter Beaver all shot prior to the new 1955 Flights and Angles rules. Mr. Newcomb won the World Championship Cup in 1910 and was the 1915 GAH Clay Target Champion, Mr. Crothers was a 14-time PA State Singles Champion and won the GAH Clay Target Championship in 1925. Mr. Beaver won the 1933 Grand American Handicap and was crowned GAH Clay Target Champion in 1934 & 1946. So, what were the target rules when they shot?

​

Yes, the rules for inanimate targets from the 1880s up to and including the 1954 target year called for 45° targets which were known as a "quartering" shot. These are from the 1924 ATA rules when the amateurs assumed control of trapshooting.

Note the total legal target area of 65° on each side of the center stake. That's a legal target area of 130°. Today legal targets must be thrown in an area of 54°.

And look at the setting for doubles. Didn't the ATA Executive Committee realize that 32° doubles would cause shooters to leave the game?

32° double targets back when the ATA was organized up until 1955 and today's shooters complain and are unwilling to shoot such difficult and severe 22° angle settings. And some even believe the achievements of today are equivalent to those made in the early days. Well, while they are great achievements, I'm sorry, but they are not of like equivalency.

Perhaps the return to the 22° Flights and Angles Rules if only for a trial period would be of value. While they don't possess the level of difficulty as those targets thrown when the sport was created, It could just be in the best interest of trap shooting.

Enjoy Our History !

HB

 

Jeff, I suppose you also fail to remember the South End Gun Club was the last area holdout still throwing 3-hole targets. The late Bill Hunsberger won his state titles at that very club back in the 60's and shooting a Model 12 too. Yes Jr, I was there.

 

Did anyone ever prove that attendance dropped because of easier targets? I know many people who do not shoot doubles because it is "too difficult" for them. Some people just don't want to work hard enough to improve their ability. I know other who won big in handicap at a major shoot and stopped attending major shoots because they got punched and their scores went down . They attend the local shoots until they get a reduction. You cannot shoot solely to win money. Even Harlan cannot make a living from shooting alone. Based on my experience attendance will decline if the sport gets more difficult. Even in little league shoots people drop out when their average sucks.

NOTE, I'll still shoot under whatever conditions, but many others will not. Enjoy the sport!

 

In 1996 54,336 ATA members shot at registered events and in 1997 53,787 member shot registered targets.
That's only a reduction of 549 shooters or a 1% loss. I don't think the enforcement of 3 hole targets scared anybody away.

 

Earth to DEDPAIR....making that targets harder is about the handicaps. IT IS ABOUT THE HANDICAPS .

D shoots against D anyway.

No actually that you posted that shows you missed the point. The hard targets were thrown at the GAH. They fell on their face. Easy targets from club managers were the norm. They still are.

Did you miss the thread where a chain shoot was stopped because an EC member was pressured by an All American to make the targets easier.

 

I'm still waiting for an answer to my question of how to equalize the handicap part of our sport. We do not need graphs , just tell us how to do the job. People have turned down many difficult sports venues for ever, it is the ones that they have no chance at that leave for good. Roger C.

 

The first year we only lost 1%.

You could be an EC member with that attitude. Going from growth to a 1% loss is acceptable? What business school teaches that model as acceptable?

Time for a graph.

 

130* target area. According to DEDPAIR , harder targets drive the scores higher. Crank 'em up and spread 'em out.

 

Nothing to do with harder vs softer targets, it's all to do if the working guy can afford to shoot that spicific year.

1993--55,620
1994--54,686
1998--54,208
1999--54,978

 

Less than 30k now and 1/4 of them are SCTP shooters forced to be members. And the Executive Director earned a bonus?
Again?

 

Another cup of purple KOOL AID please.
There it is. The economy.

 

Thanks to Donald Trump we now have full employment. By that standard Trapshooting (especially ATA Trap) should have exploding growth-not!

 

With the economy booming all these gun clubs should be able to afford to change out all their traps!

 

Please don't be CNN and use my comments out of context. I made two completly different references and you reversed. I simply was stating that 3 hole targets made little difference to overall handicap averages among some top shooters, and second was about my personal experience. If you're going to troll the thred at least get facts in order. As for the EC members target request, please list shoot and his name please.

Jeff Graupp

 

JEFF, I will give you the place, Tuscon Arizona. Shoot Spring Grand. No name will be mentioned. Roger C.

 

The dispute was the use of the Pierce Angle Master to set the angles on Pat Traps. Rob Taylor (EC) insisted spacer bar be replaced in Pat traps. Tom

 

Smelly dog,
Many of the ATA shooters did not leave for financial reasons. Look at the growth in the Sporting Clays game. It is more expensive than trap. At the large Clays shoot in Tuscon last year I was told by management that the cost to shoot the whole shoot was between $3000,00 and $4000.00. That is not chump change.
We lost many trap shooters because of the poor business practices of the EC and Bod of the ATA. The way money splits have been moved to the top scores,, along with the easier targets, and no idea of how to rejuvenate the game, has left many shooters to either seek other shooting venues or they quit all together. The economy is not the only reason for the lack of shooters. Roger C.

 

Jeff - if you are going to troll at least get your facts in order.

 

Pull2012 Taylor? Does he still have a membership? Hard to believe he could be influenced by a disgruntled All American shooter afraid of hard targets? LOL

 

Union Strong,
Yes, He is still around and so are the minions that let his nefarious actions happen. No pride, no shame. Roger C.

 

Really?? Where did I not have my facts straight?? I simply made an observation, that happened to support my opinion and one turns it completely around, and now you accuse me of trolling? As for the Satellite Grand, I wasn't there, so have no Dog in the argument and was simply being inquisitive. Sorry I ever posted here, as simply posting an opinion, supported by some basic facts gets attacked! This will be my last post on this matter as apparently any differing opinion is not welcome here???????

Jeff Graupp

 

The above is your quote Jeff. It is a quote where you accused someone of being a troll despite the poster had their facts straight.

You called someone a troll and then whine someone is attacking you. What nicey nice planet is that normal? Altho I get this is a last man standing forum......so quit the whining.

Fact is Roger gave you the person / EC name that stopped the shoot because the targets were tooooo challenging although they were legal.

Again Jeff, I think it is fair to say get your facts straight and get used to be challenged here. It is what they do and expect the same. I think.

 

DEDPAIR,

I, along with most posters here, welcome differing opinions. It's what gets us thinking straight and besides, opposing views are sometimes very interesting. You've given responses you believe to be factual and I for one, appreciate you taking time to offer your comment. But, do understand that others may see your facts in a different light. I'll give you one example of your statements I happen to disagree with.

The above statement is somewhat ambiguous, leaving readers to believe the ATA changed the rules for one year (1996 target year) and mandated the 22°, 3-hole, straightaway from Posts 1 and 5 as the minimum left and right target angle.

No rules were changed back!

Those clubs who had been throwing 2-hole targets were not complying with ATA rules. To support my position I point to every annual ATA rulebook from 1955 and prior to the September 1, 1996. All require the "straightaway from Posts 1 & 5" target angle as the minimum. That setting is equal to approximately a 22° angle.
Nowhere will you or anyone else find an allowance for the 2-hole, 17° angle before the Delegate vote in August 1996. The only return to the 3-hole target came from gun clubs being notified that there would be consequences if they continued to throw illegal targets during 1996 target year.

I also respectfully disagree with your statement above about making it harder and that "Big Guns" will quickly adjust. Some will, but most will not, especially the 27-yard shooters with 89-92 handicap averages.

It has been said that the reduction system will work better with more difficult targets. Easy punches that re-start the 1000-target review for reductions for those who didn't even come close to win anything, would be much less common. I happen to think the move to a less difficult target was not in the best interests of our sport.

Here's an opinion to ponder :

"Would it not then be best to lower these handicap winning scores so that the non-AA shooters would see handicaps being won with scores more like what they are themselves capable of shooting? This, of course, can best be done with a more difficult target."

"I have been told that a more difficult target than the easy “2-hole” would lower scores to the point that a new shooter would become discouraged and quit. Bull! New shooters would be a lot more discouraged watching someone on the 27 break more targets than they can from the 16."

Please consider treating my differing opinion as I have treated yours and so there is no misunderstanding, my comments are not meant to be attacks.

Enjoy Our History !

HB

 

HB,
Your comments are spot on. E-mail a copy to the EC and BOD. But type very slow so they can understand what you are saying. They seem to be very dense and a little slow in the understanding of the English language. Roger C.

 

My understanding is a few don't even own a computer-at least in the recent past.

 

Are there any opinions on the old Outers Flightmaster ATD machines. We have eight in the ground at our club and they keep going and folks like the target displays. Occasionally we will have a machine act up and start breaking targets but for the most part they work with some love and attention. Just was curious what some of the opinions are on these machines. We're constantly being pressured to update to PAT but our trap club doesn't have the following or the money to just put in new machines. Thanks for your response.

 

mslisaj,
Use what you have. the Pat's will not through a better target, and the cost will never be recovered by the club. Roger C.

 

Well Roger you hit the nail squarely on the head there. Our club can't afford the new machines and the point of all that is we would never recover the costs. Last year we had two machines that acted up during an ATA event and our club was lambasted for keeping these old machines. Well I have stepped up and volunteered to service, adjust and repair them as I think I can keep them running. The learning curve is vertical but I've been a professional mechanic all my working career and these machines are simple. Just wish I could get some real information on adjusting them as I'm working on trial and error now. But thanks for your feedback as I so appreciate it. The encouragement is good too.
Best regards, Lisa

 

What if, and I'm just thinking out loud, if the trap was set up like a bunker trap set up.
On a computer program.
In bunker, the "scheme" or round is set up so every shooter sees the exact same targets in a round. Just not in the same order.

Is it even feasible in American trap?

 

Who would want it to be?

 

It was just a thought.
Would make the round even among all squad members.
Everyone sees the same 25 targets.

Probably should have posted in a different thread.

 

Smelly dog,
If you like bunker trap shooting stick with it. We do not need our game changed. Roger C.

 

Everyone does NOT see the SAME targets in wobble trap. As least have a faint idea what you're talking about!

 

I can say the same to you.
I mentioned BUNKER not WOBBLE!!

Not the same game and in BUNKER, everyone DOES SEE THE SAME TARGET IN A ROUND!

 

So we need add hardware and multiple bunker type traps at a huge cost to help eliminate long shootoffs. Kindly tell all of us how cost effective your grandiose plan will somehow make ATA trap more interesting! I doubt you've ever shot either discipline.

 

Yes, we do.

 

It's actually a massive cost savings to eliminate not only shootoffs, but long competitions. A Bunker match can be settled in 100 targets.

 

Please come up with a cost factor and report back with your findings.

 

Why? So you can tell me again about "huge cost" and how " grandiose" it is?

No thanks, I'll just sit back and read the threads for awhile.

 

In other words you have no idea. I see you've never managed a trap range. No, there's not a squirrel on a treadmill in that house moving and loading the machine.

 

Doing some quick math it should take around $200,000 for a typical bunker including 15 traps, concrete, speakers and computer systems. I do tend to underprice most things. I'm sure you'll be willing to donate at least half to your local gun club. Just think of all those marathon 300 bird shootoffs that'll no longer be necessary. At $10/case of targets the savings will certainly pay for that bunker in short order.

 

Ok Ollie.
I never suggested Bunker as the fix.
I questioned the possibility of a computer system similar to the sysytem bunker uses.
Programmed to a Pat trap for American trap.
Set up like bunker so all 5 shooters over 5 posts would see the same 25 targets. Every shooter would see the same number of rights, lefts, 1/4 rights and lefts and straight aways. RANDOMLY WITH NO PATTERN.

Now do you understand?

 

So #1 shooter gets 2 straightaways, 2 left angles and 1 quarter left. I'm on post 5 and I have the same expectations when moving from 5 to 1. Not very random-is it? Just like in live birds-I clean two from the far left boxes and narrow the field somewhat. Besides, current ATA traphouses are too high for anything but trap targets. Think a little!

 

You have obviously never shot bunker.
Shimmy on down to Dalmatia PA and shoot at Alan Chubb's Keystone Shooting Park.
Shoot some bunker. Then you'll maybe get the gist of what I'm talking about about.

 

American Trap is NOT bunker. If you enjoy it so much spend more time there and send Alan my love. So you believe shooters would somehow be encumbered by shooting one target on a station then moving for the next? With the average age and weight of today's trapshooters you'll need to add oxygen at each station-another added expense. That would sure slow down the shootoffs. If I was desperate to shoot bunker I'd simply journey 1/2 hr. to Ontelaunee but be sure to stay up wind on a hot day.

 

You still don't get it.
Let me clarify AGAIN!
I'll explain AGAIN in all capital letters so maybe you'll get

A ROUND WITH FIVE (5) SHOOTERS WOULD STILL BE SHOT WITH FIVE (5) SHOTS PER POST.
ARE YOU STILL WITH ME?
AFTER THE FIFTH SHOOTER HAS SHOT AT HIS/HER FIFTH TARGET, THE SHOOTERS ROTATE TO THE POST TO THEIR RIGHT WITH THE SHOOTER ON POST FIVE (5) MOVING TO POST ONE.
SOUND FAMILIAR?
THIS SEQUENCE WILL REPEAT ITSELF UNTIL ALL FIVE (5) SHOOTERS HAVE SHOT AT TWENTY- FIVE (25) TARGETS.

THE ONLY DIFFERENCE WOULD BE IS THE COMPUTER PROGRAM WOULD INSURE THE EACH SHOOTERS TWENTY- FIVE (25) TARGETS WOULD BE THE SAME.
EXAMPLE:
Shooter#1 on post 1 will see 5 targets.
1 straight, 3 hard right and 1 hard left
NOT ALL SHOOTERS WHEN THEY GET TO POST ONE (1) WILL SEE EXACTLY THOSE SAME TARHETS!
THE SYSTEM WOULD INSURE EVERY SHOOTER THE SAME TARGETS AT SOME POINT IN THE ROUND.
EVERY POST WOULD HAVE DIFFERENT TARGETS RANDOMLY THROWN AT EACH POST.

THE ONLY RESEMBLANCE TO BUNKER IS THE COMPUTER PROGRAM.
FIELD STAYS THE SAME AS AMERICAN TRAP.
FIVE POSTS ON RADIUS 16- 27 YARDS FROM TRAP.

GOT IT NOW?

 

And the end result is spending more money on a computer program to accomplish exactly nothing. Do you really think if one shooter gets 5 hard lefts off station 1 while the next shooter gets all straightaways trapshooting will somehow be improved? Gee, if only the next time I get into a shootoff with Harlan I'm gonna kick his butt because of target fluctuations. Just what we need-a computer stand at each trap allowing for exacting standards. I'm sure it never rains or the temperature drops below "0" where you're shooting. Of course, the financial aspects and the fact that many clubs don't even have someone with computer skills. Are you really thinking straight?

 

Oleolliedawg,
You must stop insinuating that smellydog is capable of thinking straight. He really thinks his computer could handle the target direction on a single machine, so that every one on the squad received the same amount of angles but not on the same posts. It can be done in a bunker set up because of the stationary machines. On an ATA wobble trap that moves left and right and also up and down, NOT SO EASY.
There is nothing wrong with target presentation that can not be fixed. I just requires an EC with balls enough to do the job. Bunker and ATA are two different games, trying to mix the two are not in the best interests of either game. Roger C.

 

Then what's the solution smarty pants?

Some have suggested changing trap brands.
Some have suggested doing away with voice release.
Come on all-knowing Ollie.
What should we do to satisfy all those trapshooters in the trapshooting Mecca of PA and OHIO?
You seem to shit on everybody's thoughts or suggestions.
What's your "grandiose" plan?
Huh?

Go back to hand set traps and 3 hole targets and hand pullers?

We've progressed beyond that quite awhile ago.

Come on, wake up. Your still dreaming of yesteryear Ollie.

 

Stop searching for a solution for which there's no problem! Since most trap clubs now shoot over Pat-Traps they're not going away. I doubt you're shooting in any 300 target shootoffs nor engaging Harlan in any either. My suggestion is go play at your local bunker where you'll find plenty of ATA washouts and pretenders.

 

There is no such thing as "American Trap." It was a game played worldwide that evolved out of the late 19th Century, into the 20th Century. In America, the game stopped progressing, altogether, while the rest of the world kept increasing their level of competition.

ATA Trap is literally the easiest form of Trap in the world.

In Europe, ATA is essentially Down the Line, or "DTL." DTL is shot with a load a little less than an ounce.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down-The-Line

"DTL is perhaps the 'easier' single shot to make of any clay shooting discipline, but the result is an incredibly high standard of competition. Even a small club shoot will see almost perfect scores posted by the better shots, so concentration and mental strength are the real talents displayed by competitors." [HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!! I want to see a shooting match, not a concentration match.]

Here's the range of disciplines we could be shooting if American shooters were of tougher stock.

https://www.cpsa.co.uk/disciplines

Have a look at "All Round." Looks like fun and a great way to settle the question of the best shotgun shooter.

Oleo is saying that you "wash out" of ATA when you learn to shoot a shotgun well.

 

Why do you continually mention Harlan?
Got a man-crush there or what, Ollie?

 

As stupid as you sound with your off the wall suggestions I figure you're really a dumb, blond female.

 

All these words of wisdom from a non-shooter who stated he can't afford to shoot and hasn't in over four years. So you admit you're not tough and broke? If you so admire foreigners so much just leave this remarkable country and shoot where your tremendous talents would be recognized. The charlatan speaks but no one listens.

 

Anyway son, the toughest shotgun shooting game has nothing to do with clay targets. Empty mommies piggy bank, save your school lunch money and spend a day at a pigeon shoot. Get ready to drop $500 just getting in the game and figure another several hundred in bet money. With your tremendous talents when you get to that 25th bird I'm sure your knees won't get wobbly and you won't care if that last bird is a black driver from the farthest right box. You'll just head to the window and collect your earnings at the end and laugh at those pitiful Americans and Europeans who donated. No pink ribbons or fake gold coins for prizes either. Run along son-you're a nobody!

 

...you, evidently.

Quit duckin' and a dodgin', bwaakin' and a squawkin', and show us what you do at Bunker. If talking broke targets, you'd have a gold medal.

 

I'm sure if they charge more than $1 for 25 bunker targets you'll be forced to point your finger at other shooters targets and yell "bang" while pretending to shoot. Of course, if you're that good other shooters might feel sorry for you and occasionally offer you a free box of shells. Mommy must have started to hide her purse better for the past four years since you admitted you could no longer afford to shoot. Too bad, your amazing talents go wasted.

 

Nope, not blonde.
You? Or where you when you still had hair?

 

Still have plenty of hair. Unfortunately it's not on top of my head. You need sensitivity training as I'm now very upset.