Target Brands

anyone using them--was told with the new White Flyer increase--the "Euro's" are $3.00 a case cheaper if they are purchase by a " container" load

$3.00 a case can really add up--especially for a high volume club

 

++++Chubs++++ making some $$$$$. LOL

 

Our club started throwing Euros a couple years ago. Club manager said cheaper and less shipping damage than White Flyer.
Notice no difference when shooting them.

 

Just heard today our club owner has ordered a container of Euro targets that should carry him thru November. Our Florida summers mean very few shooters due to unpleasant conditions and many shooters have returned northward. I was told $3 a case cheaper as well. I was amazed that ocean shipping added into the cost would still be so much cheaper. I imagine White Flyer will be feeling some pain very soon.

 

If I were Euro target rep I would be pushing for some funds to put up a big banner like Bowen has. This is the place right?

 

How many targets are in a container. Is the price in the $7.00 range.

 

A container hold 188,716- 108 mm targets

 

Just did a little math @ $3.00/ box--thats close to a $4000.00 savings when compared to White Flyer

 

That figures to 22.189 skids using 135 targets to a case, 63 cases per skid, and 22 skids in a semi. 22 skids is 1386 cases.

22 skids is 44 tons.

How many "chubbies" per carton to make up the .189?

 

Our latest price with the WF increase is $10.55

 

several clubs in Fl are switching to Euro Targets--Euro targets are 132 to each box any way 1386-1400 cases @ $3.00/ a case saving isn't chump change and will help any club keep their prices down and keep more people shooting

 

RR going to try them? I would like to shoot some and see how they compare. I DID NOT like the Bios RR threw several years ago.

 

We have been shooting them for about 4 weeks, tough to smoke ball a single.
Long yardage targets are breakable but don't expect any smoke balls.
If you want a cheap target, this is what you get.
There seems to be a difference in the weight of targets in a case.
You will need to put some spring on them to keep them up.
JJJM

 

RR used them a while ago-Euro had a quality control issue--back then, the targets broke the same as White Flyers

 

Didn't RR try Bios too with failed results?

 

Have these been ATA approved ?

Just wondering

 

They meet ATA specs, big difference from Bios--they work for Olympic shooters in Europe anything that helps keep clubs in the black is OK with me

 

A club near me got a container of them about 3 weeks ago. Went to a shoot there and shot them. Unfortunately it was a cool rainy/misty/humid/heavy air day but I thought they broke about the same as WF's. Would really like to see them break on a clear dry day to see if they look the same. Luckily I will get the chance since we picked up 5 cases of them from the club and are going to get a squad together and load a trap up with just them and shoot 'em. Want to make sure how they flow through our traps since we are currently using Canterbury traps. The club that has them are all PAT traps and said they have 0 issues with them.

 

Where is the patriotic attachment to WF? I hope Donald is not a member of this forum to see this shameful discussion.
I will write him a letter to increase 50% the import tax.
Euro's are communist , what is wrong with you?

 

I had a guy tell me that he would pay the extra 50 cents per round just to shoot American Made targets. He buys American and supports the USA.

He is a military Veteran with dedication to his country.

It was hard to go against his thoughts.

Not looking for controversy, Just saying.

 

Business as usual in the United States, if another country can make and import an equal quality product for less money something is off track locally ... Material and production cost (?) has to be a big difference for a company to be able to cut the price by a substantial amount with the additional shipping costs involved, this has to tell you something about the local pricing ... Targets are and have always been a competitive industry so it comes as no surprise that White Flyer is getting beat at their own game ... Personally, I will not pay extra money to shoot targets made in the U S A if they cannot compete in the market ... The clubs have to and are always looking for ways to cut corners and keep things affordable, this is nothing new ... Guns, Ammo, Targets be competitive or step aside ... Nothing new here ... WPT ... (YAC) ...

 

WF-shipped to Fl club $12.25/case--Euro--$9.20/case

 

I work in manufacturing. clay targets use pitch . Pitch is used as a binder in the aluminum smelting process. Demand for aluminum is rising. Pitch is a product of petroleum. Oil prices are rising. I think target prices will continue to rise. Our club doesn't need targets yet, but I think we will order now.

 

1,386 cases X $3.00= $4,158.00 savings per truck load

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

 

I'm a big fan of White Flyer Targets and the company has been supporting clay target shooting in many ways over the years. I know some of them personally and know that they have tried to keep the price as low as they can.

Besides, they are the oldest American clay target manufacturer and I just happen to be an old history buff.

Here's the oldest advertisement I have on file for them.

​

Found in Sportsmen's Review, May 1, 1898 on page 249.

Count this Navy Veteran with those willing to pay a little more to keep this historical institution in business.

HB

 

Define "pay a little more" and then tell me where that ends ... My point being targets being made out of the same materials, equal in quality, boxed, shipped, delivered for less money than those grown locally (within the United States ) tells me there is a problem or a degree of greed rearing its ugly head ... White Flyer has never been the cheapest but always deemed the best available, so if there is something of equal quality for considerably less money (shipping/ same quality) there seems to be a problem ... Gun clubs over the years have fought to keep prices competitively low yet stand to make a few dollars so they can stay in business ... To pay an additional $3.00 per case in todays world does not make sense if all things are equal ... White Flyer has always found away to stay competitive and retain its customer base, I cannot help but think they will do it again ... WPT ... (YAC) ...

 

Can't disagree with your view WPT. Also can't blame White Flyer for attempting to stay in business.

Admittedly, I know nothing about Euro targets and would appreciate information on the factors you stated regarding, "targets being made out of the same materials, equal in quality, boxed, shipped, delivered for less money than those grown locally".

Are they equal in quality, boxing and delivery?

I can't keep from thinking that if everyone switches to Euro targets and White Flyer was to be drummed out of business, would the surviving leader in target manufacturing quickly go to a $3.00 / box increase due to no competition?

White Flyer sets up tents at tournament, has handouts, sponsors events, etc. Point is - they give back and they are shooting folks like us.

Gun club management also comes under fire when they increase the cost of shooting a round. I've always believed that a gun club raises target prices because they felt they had to and not to be greedy. Managers are usually shooters too and don't want to raise prices and know the complaints will come in. I know this from direct discussions with some club managers.

I have always supported a gun clubs decision to raise their prices and I support White Flyer's decision as well. My decision will change if I learn the increase was not truly necessary.

HB

 

Update: I've been told that this particular club is only throwing the Euro targets for league and practice. They will retain enough WF to throw for their registered shoots. That has not been confirmed by anyone at the club, only what I've heard. I am trying to get a quote from club management that this is true.

 

HB,
I can only go on the written word of those who say they have experience with the imported targets, I do not have any that I know of for sure ... I can't remember the last time I worried about or even asked what targets were being used at a shoot I attended, if they were White Flyers, or any other for that matter ... I have been in a position where I had to make the call on certain things while being involved with a gun club, many times its not easy to make changes that go against what you would normally do ... I have been a fan of White Flyer for as long as I can remember and am well aware of the support they provide the industry as well as the shooters ... I do not see White Flyer going away under any circumstances and the possibility you posed regarding a sudden $3.00 per case increase once the Euro Target maker gets a grasp on the business would surely impact their business in a negative way ... This is one of those catch 22's we always hear about, have to see what happens when it does ... WPT ... (YAC) ...

 

WF didn't increase their price by $3.00/ the cheaper Euro price combined with the White Flyer price increase = $$3.00/case

 

I sure wish the original Remington targets were available again. Best smoking target ever made.

 

This is obviously nothing new, has been going on for awhile ... WPT ... (YAC) ...

Deal, Injunction Trigger End To Skeet Target Patent Suit

Law360, New York (November 9, 2016, 8:42 PM EST) -- Reagent Chemical & Research Inc. has secured a permanent injunction preventing an Italian company from infringing its patent on nontoxic targets for skeet shooting, a ban that comes as part of settlement in a case filed in Pennsylvania federal court earlier this year.

U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III in Harrisburg ordered the injunction Monday barring Eurotarget SRL from importing and selling targets that infringe Reagent’s patent. The injunction will remain in effect until the patent expires in May 2017.

The order came as part of a confidential settlement the two companies have reached in an infringement lawsuit that Reagent brought in March. The case was dismissed with prejudice and the case closed in the same order.

Representatives for the parties couldn’t immediately be reached for comment after normal business hours Wednesday.

New Jersey-based Reagent makes launchable targets that are used in trap and skeet shooting. Among the targets it sells are the White Flyer Bio, a nontoxic and biodegradable target.

Conventional targets have for years been formed from pitch, a petroleum byproduct. This, according to Reagent, resulted in toxicity concerns, as the trap and skeet shooting often takes place in fields, where broken targets can remain once the event is over.

In its lawsuit, Reagent claimed that Eurotarget and an American distributor had started selling similar nontoxic targets in the U.S. sometime in 2015. Marketed as environmentally friendly, these were the only targets that Eurotarget was selling at the time in the U.S., according to the suit.

The lawsuit sought an unspecified amount of damages and an injunction to prevent Eurotarget from further infringement.

It is relatively rare that a judge grants a preliminary injunction in a patent case. One key requirement is that the patent owner show that it would suffer irreparable harm without one. The patent owner must also show a reasonable likelihood of success on the infringement claim.

In a filing in March, Reagent argued it met both those standards. With respect to harm, the company said that thanks to the scope of its patent protection, it had been the exclusive supplier of nontoxic targets in the U.S., a distinction that has provided it with “considerable brand recognition and prestige.”

“Although the U.S. is a minute portion of Eurotarget’s business, if its lower prices force Reagent to lower its prices, the impact will be substantial,” it wrote. “Additionally, even if this Court finds that monetary damages will be sufficient compensation, there is an inherent difficulty in enforcing a monetary judgment against a foreign corporation with no known U.S. assets.”

Judge Jones granted the request in what appears to have been a sealed order in early August.

Just a few months later, on Friday, a joint request was filed asking the judge to dismiss the case, as the two sides had agreed to a settlement, and to convert the preliminary injunction into a permanent injunction.

/////////////////

Eurotarget
Established in 1980 by the initiative of a group of individuals with extensive experience in the field the shooting sector, Eurotarget has rapidly gained a strong market position thanks to its competitive products providing cutting edge technical and structural features.

////////////////

White Flyer operates four state of the art target manufacturing facilities throughout the United States to ensure total coverage of this country and Canada. The facilities are located in...

• Coal Township, Pennsylvania, (Eastern U.S.)

• Webb City, Missouri, (South Central U.S.)

• Knox, Indiana, (North Central U.S.)

• San Bernardino, California, (Western U.S.)

 

Another aspect is the Euro Targets are much cleaner than WF as far as dust & debris is concerned--helps keep machines & trap houses much cleaner--their packing is spotless

 

Doe's anybody remember the "ECLIPSE" targets from Sylmar, Cal. ??????
We shot a lot of "SMOKEBALLS" with them !!!--------GB.

 

Second Row Down, third from the right....

 

That's wonderful!
Does he drive his Chevy or Ford or Dodge to the gun club and does he shoot his American made shotgun?

Or does he drive a rice burner and shoot an Italian made gun?

 

It is my understanding WF purchased the Eclipse plant and used the Eclipse molds. They were given the nick name of West Coast WF targets by shooters. Now my information is dated. I will see a WR rep next week and try to get an update.

I asked a fellow a time back about the old Midwest Target. He used to buy those. They smoked rather nicely. He said the WF targets were less at the time.

 

Amen, loved them.

 

Smelly, It just ain't that simple. You can easily do a search and find that ALL "U.S." car manufactures use parts and pieces sourced from various places out of the country and make many of their models for the U. S. market in Canada and Mexico. At the same time, Toyota, BMW and other non- "U.S." car manufactures make many models and cars for the U.S. market in the U.S.

Big business doesn't give a damn about being loyal to the U.S. Face it. We live in a global economy whether we like it or not.

Now, ya could buy a Tesla. That car was dreamed up, designed, developed and is completely manufactured in the U.S. Course, ol' Elon Musk was born in South Africa but is now an American citizen. So, there ya go.
Jake

 

MidWest is still in business, small family business in Illinois. We bought several semi-loads from Jon in years past. The targets varied in weight so much and flew at different heights we had to switch to W-F. They did smoke, almost as much as the ole Remys.

 

The Tesla and all these magic electric cars (Eco /friendly) are worse for the Ozone layer and leave a worse footprint that liquid fuel burning vehicles do ... There have been many article's printed and confirmed (not by me ) of this being the case ... My Step brother had a Prius, actually had 4 of them until he got one that did not have problems, traded it with less than 200 miles on it, was taking no more chances ... My neighbor had one for a week took it back and got a Mini Cooper (JUNK) took it back and threatened the dealer until they gave him a full refund ... He bought a Kia and loves it ... I quit buying American made cars when half of the parts were not made and or produced in America and get 10 year / 100,000 mile warranty's on them ) ... I will buy American cars/trucks again when it benefits and creates jobs in America ... Goggle it and see for yourself (Tesla) ... WPT ... (YAC) ...

 

Sounds familiar. Lol

 

Can someone weigh (on a gram scale) 5 targets for us and tell us what they weigh?

N1H1

 

Talking about cars-go to youtube --look up "auto Expert" out of Australia--he's a no BS guy--every car made shares some s--t from each other & they all use the same crap software--he is the real deal

The only difference is materials & design

 

The difference in pricing is because our competitor is selling a resin target rather than a pitch target. If their target was pitch it would be actually higher than White Flyer's because pitch is 3x more expensive in Europe. They stopped making pitch targets completely because of the costs and have gone to this resin target exclusively - hence, the $2.00 difference between cases. Unfortunately, in their sales pitch they fail to tell the gun club/customer the difference. On paper, it looks like a big savings for the gun club, but when you compare "apples to apples", the resin targets are substantially cheaper than the pitch targets but are 100% comparable with White Flyer Biodegradables price-wise.
Understanding how gun clubs operate and having the experience of running Beretta's Prince Georges Shooting Center near Washington,DC, I totally understand how gun clubs must do what is necessary to maintain their bottom line. Even $0.10 a case difference can put the gun club in financial troubles. All I'm saying is that you need to ask questions because sometimes the full story is not being told.
White Flyer Targets will continue to produce the highest quality target out there and will continue to support our shotgun games; the shooters and gun clubs as we have the past 25 years - competition is not bad and we welcome it. We truly believe our targets are the best in the world and their quality and the scores show it. For those that have been loyal and have stayed with White Flyer, we sincerely appreciate your business. For those that are trying to save money, in the long-run, you really aren't. White Flyer Targets will continue to be here now and the future to handle your target needs and promote our target games and our ever important, gun clubs.
I do not intend to get into a long discussion with any of you on all this or start a long argumentative thread - all I wanted to do was explain what you need to know and why ?? If any of you want to contact me directly, please use Murray826@aol.com and I'll be glad to answer questions you might have. Otherwise, I just wanted to take a few moments, to explain that there is always two-sides to any story and it was important that I stated the facts. Whether you agree or disagree on all this, still go out and try to have fun busting clay targets and enjoying what you are doing. Somewhere along the line we have forgotten about having fun and worrying about stupid things that we have no control over anyway.

Phil Murray

 

Thank you for your explanation Phil Murray. Could you please elaborate as to the reasons a pitch target is preferable to the resin formula. I can understand why the price is different, but what should a shooter expect from resin targets? My home
Club hasn't made any changes and I don't think they will, but traveling who knows.

 

$3.00/ a box difference--is the cost differential--been shooting th Euro's for a month--if you hit them they disappear & I have seen some smoke

 

Thanks Phil,

I truly miss our chats at the GAH.

Thanks White Flyer for all your support to the shooting sports.

 

Lawry Targets?

 

Phil,
I am a White Flyer fan from way back, having trouble understand why W F does not go the resin route versus pitch to lessen the cost to the clubs if there is that much of a difference in money ... Apples to Apples, call for a target and one or the other (apple) comes out of the hole and appears to be basically the same, though one is considerably less cost ... What advantage does pitch have that resin does not and vise versa ..? Phil you have been around trap shooting long enough to know clubs are always looking to cut operational cost and still give the customers /members what they expect just like they have for years ... How much would White Flyers be if they were made of resin or can they do it being as the E T uses that process and may have legal restrictions on the books ...

I just spent 2 hours on the phone with a friend of mines son who is a ( Doctorate degree ) Chemical Engineer, I have known the kid since he was a baby (literally) ... I explained this discussion and told him about targets, asked what the difference between resin and pitch as an agent involved in the making of same ... I took the liberty of sending Phil Murray's post to him so he has a basis to start with and had valuable information ...
His question was :

1 ... If they are the same design, weight, and fly the same what are the concerns ..?

2... I explained the cost differential being $3.00 per case, the imported targets being the lesser of the two ...

3 ... I asked if he could or would see what the environmental (?) hazard difference could be between the agents ..?

4 ... He was searching as we were talking and he said it appeared to be 6 or 2-3's difference ... But there has to be a
substantial cost differential for there to be that much of a difference with the additional transportation involved ...

5 ... He said he will try to see why the difference, but he can't see why it would take an engineer to sort it out ...
The price being the factor that business's work on and go by all the time ...

6 ... I asked if he could make a chart or a graph, and said a what and why ..?

Joe,
I expect you will see ET's on board sooner or later if and when they are fully established ... (if they get to that point )
Competition is a good thing but at some level there comes cause for an explanation to sooth the savage beast in all of us ... Three dollars a case is a lot of money, much more to some clubs than others when it comes to the bottom line and staying open or closed ... WPT ... (YAC) ...

 

wpt, I don't believe that electric cars harm the Ozone layer. Remember, the Ozone layer was harmed by flourocarbons (CFCs) used as a propellant in spray cans. Despite cries by the right that regulating the CFCs was not necessary, they were heavily regulated in the late 70s and by international treaty (Montreal Protocol) in the mid-late 1980s. As a result, the Ozone layer made a signifigant comeback and we don't hear much about the depletion of the ozone layer now.
Global warming/climate change is significantly caused by burning carbon (gasoline and coal). Electric cars do not put out that pollution. The only real knock on them is the toxins in the batteries and that is improving by great strides.
I owned a Prius and it was a great car. Drove it for 8 years and only changed the oil and tires. I gave it to my secretary and after 10 years she (I) had to have 2 battery cells refurbished for 400 bucks. It still runs great.
I have been driving a Tesla for 2 years. Everything about the car is positive. It is a blast to drive and is blindingly fast. Nothing beats it "off the line." Nothing. It makes no noise, handles like a Corvette or Ferrari and there is essentially no maintenance. (The engine literally has 1 moving part.) It is cheap. We get discounted power rates after midnight to 6 AM. The car automatically charges starting at 12.02 A.M. We do our dishes and some laundry after midnight. Our electric bill has gone down since I bought the car. It costs me less than nothing to drive.

 

I understand you like your car ..... but ..... that is a bit of a stretch .....

My brother-in-law, my sister's husband, works for Tesla ..... their daughter, my niece, also ..... they worked on some of the R&D projects for Tesla .....

Having said all that, I have wasted many years on firearms and cars ..... so, I wouldn't put much money on the "NOTHING" involving your pride and joy .....

Just for fun look up "farm truck" ..... and watch how what is supposed to look like junk, humbles many who feel the same about "nothing" out there .....

 

Jake,
I have a article that was sent to me by my step brother who is a "Green Freak" when it come to our planet, (Earth) , the environment, he will spend all kinds of money to save money in the long run ... He had a Prius, had nothing but problems, took it back 7 times, they opted to give him a new car ... He anticipated problems (admittedly) because of the first one, didn't have it long and back to the dealer again ... Long story short after all was said and done the dealer gave in and he got a full refund ... He told me about the hazards to the ozone layer etc. and this article he sent me explained it ... I printed off several copies and gave them to all of my "Green Freak " friends and neighbors that are way over the standard of protecting the environment, which I am admittedly not one of but I try to do my part on occasion ... My Step brother said if they offered him a Prius for free he would turn them down ... He said Tesla is worse for the environment over all, I do not know anything other than what I read in that article and what he has told me ... I will try and find it and post it so you can use your own judgement ... I will tell you, that you do not want to stand behind the 67 Plymouth I have with the Hemi in it, you won't be able to breath the vapors very long .. 7 MPG if you do not get your foot in it ...

Ahhh Farmtruck, eats all them furners up ... Saw him out at the Drag strip out here, what a nice bunch of guys with some cars that are over the top ... I asked Farm truck / AZ how much NO2, he said a bunch ... lol ... They announced that anything that was considered street legal they would run for money, had two takers they both lost .... Ryan Martin (Fireball Camaro ) is probably the nicest guy you could meet and talk to ... WPT ... (YAC) ...

 

Tesla S - P-100 D goes 0 to 60 in 2.4 seconds! It does 1/8 mile in 6.7 seconds (100 MPH). It is dead silent. The tires do not spin. No smoke. No nothin.
Nothing touches it.
And it costs zero in gas or in emissions.
Just sayin.
Honest wpt, go down to your nearest local Tesla location and tell them you want to drive the "Ludicrous." They will be happy to take you out for a drive. Your their demographic. That's how they got me. I stumbled into the showroom while my wife was shopping in the mall. They couldn't wait to get me in a car. They will be happy for you to stomp it from a standing start.
After you get your breath back, go on the freeway and put in in self drive.
It will blow your mind.

 

The trouble with a Tesla, if you live in FL & a storm comes--you'll never get out with a 300 mile range--

 

Heck, if I drove a Prius to a Chrysler dealer, my wife's van would feel crazy fast for a test drive .....

If a Tesla was all that, you wouldn't drive it everyday because you would always be putting tires on it ..... not from driving it hard all the time, but having a tire on it that will not get killed when you do ..... I don't care what car you have, it is all about where the rubber meets the road ..... And, public roads everywhere leave a lot to be desired when it comes to performance cars .....

Look at what is "possible" from a street car with street tires, and note they use "it claims" and "if true" about the Tesla under the video ..... https://www.roadandtrack.com/car-culture/videos/a30529/quickest-0-60-time-possible/ ..... the ~ 2.05 second 0-60 mph is based on a 2014 Corvette Stingray convertible at "3362 lbs curb weight", 60-0 braking at "90 ft", with it's down force, and available tires ..... the Tesla Model S P100D shows "4941 lbs curb weight", and 60-0 braking at 109ft .....

I have to say Tesla is the very best at one thing ..... that would be getting people to blindly believe their propaganda .....

 

I got a follow up to yesterdays conversation with the Chemical Engineer, there is no significant difference to the environment and or impact on same between to the two agents (resin versus pitch) based on his findings ... I told him to contact Regent Chemical who makes targets with pitch and he said he is working for NASA, met Buzz Aldren yesterday and making to much money to think about leaving ... WPT ... (YAC) ...

 

The environmental impact is interesting ..... but, I wonder what the logistical difference would be (resin versus pitch) for a U.S. manufacturer .....

 

I cannot imagine White Flyer would not of changed over and used resin if there is that much cost differential ... The Makers of the E T's might have a legal claim (patent ) keeping them from going that route for a certain number of years ... Donny (Chemical Engineer) said if he stumbled across anything significant he would get in touch with me ... He did say he found Phil letter to be informative without being conclusive ... I asked if there was a possibility of resin being a fire hazard once the fields got over laid with the target debris, he said he was not sure ... WPT ... (YAC) ...

 

New study: Electric cars may be worse for the environment than gas-powered
byJason Russell
| June 23, 2015 01:03 PM


Ads by Revcontent

Electric cars are worse for the environment per mile than comparable gasoline-powered cars, according toa new studypublished by the National Bureau of Economic Research. This contradicts the common assumption that electric cars are cleaner. In spite of this, the federal government still pays $7,500 for every electric car purchased — a subsidy the nation would be better off without, say the authors.

The study was authored by four economics and business professors: Stephen Holland (University of North Carolina, Greensboro), Erin Mansur (Dartmouth College), Nicholas Muller (Middlebury College) and Andrew Yates (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill).

In monetary terms, electric cars are about half-a-cent worse per mile for the environment than gas-powered cars, on average. This means that if a government wants to tax a car based on how much it pollutes, electric cars should be taxed half of one cent more per mile driven than gasoline cars.






00:31 / 01:21


Hugo's Corner
Watch Full Screen to Skip Ads
Much depends on where the car is driven. Gas-powered cars do worse in congested urban areas. For example, in Los Angeles, electric cars are 3.3 cents per mile better for the environment than gas-powered cars. Outside of metropolitan areas, electric cars are 1.5 cents per mile worse than gas-powered. In Grand Forks, N.D., for example, electric cars are 3 cents per mile worse.

Despite this variation, the federal government maintains a one-size-fits-all electric car subsidy. There may be ways to improve the current policy without eliminating it altogether, but the authors argue that elimination would be better than the current policy. "Because electric vehicles, on average, generate greater environmental externalities than gasoline vehicles, the current federal policy has greater deadweight loss than the no-subsidy policy," the authors write.

In theory, it would make more sense for state and local governments to offer their own subsidies, since the electric versus gas-powered calculus changes in different localities. But this, too, would create problems.

In 38 states, an electric car purchase reduces air pollution in that state. But residents in other states should be worried. "This purchase makes society as a whole worse off because electric vehicles tend to export air pollution to other states more than gasoline vehicles," the authors write. "Over ninety percent of local environmental externalities from driving an electric vehicle in one state are exported to others."

Rather than subsidizing vehicle purchases of supposedly-green cars, governments should tax cars per miles driven, say the authors, with tax levels varying depending on environmental consequences.

Although the typical assumption is that electric cars are cleaner than gasoline-fueled cars, the power for electric cars has to come from somewhere, and it's often from coal-fired power plants. "Rather than simply accepting the assertion of environmental benefits from electric vehicle use, this paper conducts a rigorous comparison of the environmental consequences of gasoline and electric powered vehicles, specifically by quantifying the externalities (both greenhouse gases and local air pollution) generated by driving these vehicles," the authors write.

 

Study: Electric Vehicles Pollute More Than Gas-powered Cars
Written by Selwyn Duke

• font size
  • Print
  • Email

Are electric cars more environmentally mean than green? This may be the case, as a new study indicates that electric vehicles actually emit more harmful pollutants than internal-combustion cars do. How could this be? Citing the study, conducted by Peter Achten and co-author Victor Timmers at the University of Edinburgh, theDaily Callerexplainsthat electric cars' “zero tailpipe emissions” selling point is deceptive:

Electric vehicles tend to produce more pollutants from tire and brake wear, due in large part to their batteries, as well as the other parts needed to propel them, making them heavier.

These pollutants are emitted when electric vehicle tires and brakes deteriorate as they accelerate or slow down while driving. Timmers and Achten’s research suggests exhaust from traditional vehicles is only about one-third of the total emissions.

In other words, while people understandably focus on what’s released from exhaust pipes, the research indicates thattwo-thirds of total emissions come from other sources. And these particulates may be especially problematic. As theCallerfurther relates:

“We found that non-exhaust emissions, from brakes, tires and the road, are far larger than exhaust emissions in all modern cars,” Achten wrote in the study.

He continued: “These are more toxic than emissions from modern engines so they are likely to be key factors in the extra heart attacks, strokes and asthma attacks seen when air pollution levels surge.”


That conventional vehicles pollute less isn’t quite as shocking when you consider, asAmerican Thinker’sThomas Lifsonpoints out, “that internal combustion engine performance has improved so radically over the past several decades that they actually emit very few pollutants compared to engines of the past. The internal combustion engine is the most highly engineered product on the planet, having been worked on for well over a century by hundreds of thousands of engineers all over the planet.”

The proof is in the pudding. Consider the evolution of popular sports car the Chevrolet Camaro: While the2017 versionis actually about300 pounds heavierand has horsepower approximatelyequalto orgreater than the 1970 version, it also goes fairly close to twice as many miles on a gallon of gas.

But electric vehicles have gone 10 times as far on a gallon of hype. Just consider the findings of former plug-in advocate and General Motors engineer Ozzie Zehner. Author of the bookGreen Illusions, Zehner once built his own hybrid car that could run on electricity or natural gas. And as he wrote in a 2013 article entitled “Unclean at Any Speed,” he was convinced cars such as his “would help reduce both pollution and fossil-fuel dependence.”

But he now says, “I was wrong.”

Zehner begins with the simple matter of powering electric cars. He writes that while it’s “relatively easy to calculate the amount of energy required to charge a vehicle’s battery,” even the cleaner options for generating electricity (as opposed to oil or coal) have effects that are both real and hard to assess. He elaborates, “Natural gas requires burning, it produces CO2, and it often demands environmentally problematic methods to release it from the ground. Nuclear power yields hard-to-store wastes as well as proliferation and fallout risks. There’s no clear-cut way to compare those impacts. Focusing only on greenhouse gases, however important, misses much of the picture.”

And the picture only gets more complex from there. Zehner makes the following basic points (all quotations are his unless otherwise indicated):

• Electric cars cannot currently be charged on a wide scale with renewable resources such as solar. Even if they could, however:

Solar cells contain heavy metals, and their manufacturing releases greenhouse gases such as sulfur hexafluoride, which has 23,000 times as much global warming potential as CO2, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. What’s more, fossil fuels are burned in the extraction of the raw materials needed to make solar cells and wind turbines — and for their fabrication, assembly, and maintenance. The same is true for the redundant backup power plants they require. And even more fossil fuel is burned when all this equipment is decommissioned.

• A more responsible electric-car analysis would consider not just charging the vehicle, but also “the environmental impacts over the vehicle’s entire life cycle, from its construction through its operation and on to its eventual retirement at the junkyard.”

• An electric car’s battery pack is extremely heavy, which causes the manufacturer to compensate by constructing the remainder of the vehicle with “lightweight materials that are energy intensive to produce and process — carbon composites and aluminum in particular. Electric motors and batteries add to the energy of electric-car manufacture.”

• The rare earth metals used in many magnets in electric cars are expensive and uneconomical to extract on a wide scale. And the “global mining of two rare earth metals, neodymium and dysprosium, would need to increase 700 percent and 2600 percent, respectively, over the next 25 years to keep pace with various green-tech plans.” Alternatives do exist, but exploiting them would involve efficiency-and-cost trade-offs.

• The extraction and processing of materials found in batteries — such as lithium, copper, and nickel — “demand energy and can release toxic wastes.” In addition, extracting them in poorly regulated areas imperils not only workers, but also “surrounding populations through air and groundwater contamination.”

• A National Academies’ study considered multiple dimensions of electric vehicles’ associated effects — such as “vehicle construction, fuel extraction, refining, emissions, and other factors” — and “concluded that the vehicles’ lifetime health and environmental damages (excluding long-term climatic effects) are actually greater than those of gasoline-powered cars”; in fact, “the study found that an electric car is likely worse than a car fueled exclusively by gasoline derived from Canadian tar sands.”

• When electric cars’ total effects are considered, the level of “greenhouse-gas” emissions associated with them is only marginally lower than that associated with gas or diesel vehicles. A Norwegian study and a University of Tennessee study of electric vehicles in China drew similar conclusions

• Combustion vehicles’ emissions are concentrated in wealthier urban areas whereas the activities necessary to obtain the substances for the creation and operation of electric vehicles — such as nuclear-fuel, heavy-metal and mineral extraction, and energy generation — occur mainly in more depressed rural regions. This means that electric technology may just shift the pollution burden from the rich to the poor.

• Even when projecting technological advancements out to 2030, there still appears to be no advantage to embracing electric-vehicle technology.

Having said all this, it’s not really fair to conclude that there’s no “green” aspect whatsoever to electric vehicles. After all, some companies do make quite a bit of money off them.







Jake, I found these two articles above just by googleing electric cars and the environment ... There are a bunch more and I will continue to try and find the one I was telling you about .... WPT ... (YAC) ...

 

Back to the targets :

I found an article on "Google" about resin versus pitch when making clay targets ...


Euro target's last coal tar pitch target was produced early this spring and delivered in June. Euro target no longer makes coal tar pitch targets and here's why:

Coal tar pitch targets are banned in Europe due to environmental standards and studies. Over the past many years, Euro target and other European manufacturers have been developing "ECO" targets. Euro target perfected their molds and formula about three years ago and offered both types of targets to the North American market. Our original quotations offered clubs both style of targets. As with anything, the original costs of the ECO's was higher than the pitch targets. Subsequent development and refinement has eliminated that pricing disparity. The ECO's are a composite resin target. They have been tested by (5) independent laboratories in the EU as part of the product vetting process initiated by the European Union. Our targets are not water soluble, but they do not emit any toxins into your soil. The material is recyclable, which Euro target Italy is actively engaged in doing at ranges throughout the EU, much in the same manner as their lead shot reclamation program. I attempted to upload the certificate to this website several times, but an error won't allow me to post them at this time.

We also sent out a communication to our clients early last month warning them of the newest information regarding coal tar pitch targets. Once again, I tried to upload the form, but was blocked from doing so. Here is an excerpt from the documents:

COAL TAR PITCH It’s a Coal derived binder, defined “extremely dangerous to humans and nature” from all the

most important International Institutions for the Protection of the Environment. The contact with skin and the powders born from usage are highly dangerous and carcinogenic. Who uses these products exposes himself, his cooperators and shooters to serious risks!!!

Despite this, many manufacturer of Clay-targets use this Carcinogen material as binder for target production with average percentage from 30% to 35% of the weight. This means that every 25 targets series, release into the environment almost
1kg of this substance. International Authorities know the subject and are carrying out checks. The responsibilities falls mainly on end-users who may be held liable for serious crimes with catastrophic consequences.
In the market today, there are Coal Tar Pitch Free products. Our Company was the first that introduced, in their manufacturing process, a special thermoplastic resin binder, free from hazardous substances.

Today, all EURO TARGET products are COAL TAR PITCH FREE.

The National Cancer Institute released the following: Occupational exposure to coal tar pitch is associated with an increased risk of skin cancer. Other types of cancer, including lung, bladder, kidney and digestive tract cancer, have been linked to occupational exposure to coal tar and coal tar pitch.

It's been reported and it's not unlikely that a potential World-Wide ban on coal tar pitch targets may be put in place by 2018 by the World Health Organization (WHO). Like it or not, that's the reality of the situation. Euro target's products presently meet every current and known future environmental standard. Our clients are already using them and they've reported to us that they can't tell the difference between our old pitch targets and the new ECO targets as it relates to performance, appearance and now costs. Euro target is also currently engaged in research on a whole new generation of targets and that research will proceed forward and information will be released at an appropriate time in the future once all of the R&D is completed.
WPT ... (YAC) ...

Euro target USA, LLC. is pleased to announce that earlier today the Amateur Trapshooting Association (ATA) confirmed and verified that the targets manufactured by our company are legal and acceptable for use in ATA sanctioned/registered events. An independent testing laboratory in the United States examined a random sample of (6) factory sealed cases of 108mm American Trap/Skeet/Sporting Clays targets and found ALL examined targets to be within the standards and regulations set forth in the ATA rule book. A copy of the full report was sent to the ATA. A copy of the ATA's certification letter is attached for review.

ATA allows Euro Targets :

Euro target USA Attn: Re: Certified Testing Laboratories, Inc. Report Allen, I am in receipt of the results of the independent tests of the Euro target 108mm American trap targets by Certified Testing Laboratories, Inc. and the certified calibration report of the scale used for the testing. All results shown on the reports indicate that all targets are within the perimeters specified in the Official ATA Rules (Section XIII, D.) for targets to be used for ATA competition. Please accept this letter as confirmation and verification that these targets are acceptable for use in ATA registered competition. Regards, Lynn A. Gipson Executive Director E WPT ... (YAC) ...

 

Thanks for the clarification Bill !

 

I have diligently searched for anything that would forbid W F (Regent Chemical ) from making targets with the resin base as compared to the pitch based targets, I have found nothing on Public Record to support there is a restriction ... If the reports are accurate pitch targets are going to probably be classified as Hazardous Material in the not to distant future as compared to the resin based material in EURO targets ... Houston, We have a problem ... WPT ... (YAC) ...

 

wpt:

White Flyer has been making a pitch free target for some number of years. They call it their biodegradable You will recognize them when you shoot them as a well centered hit gives a white powder look feedback instead of the black smoke like we are accustomed to seeing from a traditional pitch target. I do not know if White Flyer uses a thermoplastic resin binder in their Bio or some other binder formula.

Mr. Murray, a White Flyer representative, stated in this thread that their biodegradable is offered at a price point which is on par with the Euro Eco. I have no reason to doubt what he has stated here. It could easily be disproven if false. The pitch used in the traditional target appears to me to account for the price disparity between target composition offerings.

I looked into pitch a little. A domestic pitch manufacterer states it is petroleum pitch used in clay target production.

http://www.raincarbon.com/products-.../coal-tar-and-petroleum-distillation-products

If the European Union has banned coal tar pitch in clay targets; I wonder what they use for a binder in asphalt. I also wonder how they refine benzene free gasoline. It seems coal tar pitch has a medical use in an ointment to treat psoriasis.

Euro Target is certainly free to speak ill of pitch in their marketing now that they no longer offer a pitch target. I wonder why they did not do so when they made and sold them.

 

Par4 ,
Having read the posting about resin versus pitch I do not find that Euro (Eco) Targets are saying anything detrimental about pitch targets but the findings came back from independent labs after testing that points to targets made with pitch are on the verge of becoming Hazardous Materials ( Euro Target is passing that information on), that might possibly cause Cancer due to the carcinogens used in them ... I would have to wonder why this has never been pointed out by Regent Chemical, Euro(Eco ) Targets as well as other target manufactures ... So far as the UK and the binders in asphalt, I do not know nor do I care, think Resin maybe or a form of maybe ..? I do not fault W F for making money, nor do I fault Euro Targets for jumping on the band wagon and they do present a strong case with a brief summary ... I got the information gathered by me in about a minute thanks to google, so obviously anyone else can also ... If Regent Chemical (White Flyer ) is producing targets that are a health hazard I hope they go broke and lose all assets in litigation, though I doubt this will ever happen ... In summary Euro (Eco ) Targets may of just showed White Flyer how it should be done so they better hurry and catch up ... If the pitch targets have to be phased out due to health concerns and or regulations at some time in the future W F best get set up for the changes, apples to apples is not the case ... I would not think for one second that Phil Murray would condone anything that could or would be considered a health hazard and have no doubt his intentions are not to hide anything from his customers or the shooting public ... WPT ... (YAC) ...

 

If you know someone who has cancer and it could be linked to pitch exposure---(the new asbestos litigation)--lawyers will have a feeding frenzy--in all reality trap ranges as well as target manufactures who continue to use pitch based targets are leaving themselves wide open

And if ET promotes their product using the EU info

 

I would look at the lawry target brand. they are cheaper than the white flyer and are really good targets.

 

Years ago Lawry targets sucks-I was always bad mouthing them, until a Lawry rep contacted me--I said Harlan was holding a clinic a\@ a NC club & I said I'll buy Lawry's for a test run--well, Lawry stepped up to the plate & provided the targets grautis


At the end of the clinic , the club Pres. asked everyone including Harlan="What did you think of the targets?" zero complaints

The club Pres. said" just to let you all know you've been shooting Lawry's for th past two days"

If they fly straight & if they smoke when you hit them--they work

Remember the gas crisis in the 70's--brand loyalty went into the shit can- whatever you could get worked

Targets are headed that way

 

635G:

The known carcinogen in pitch is benzene. It is found in gasoline. Coal tar pitch is used in the manufacturing of aluminum and other products including paint. Petroleum is used in the making of plastic. I think the chemical engineer who was quoted as saying plastic resin binder targets were no more environmentally friendly than targets made with pitch used as the binder knew of what he spoke.

I do not wish cancer on anyone. However, I do not think anyone here will stop using their car. I do not think I will remain indoors during daylight to avoid the sun. I may even use saccharin when no splenda is available. I do try to avoid aspartame though. Who among us is going to cease tossing lead as long as we are able?

Remington made targets with pitch. They no longer have a supplier of petroleum pitch due to demand elsewhere.. I am just not able to see White Flyer as a stand alone source of a chemical so widely used in other applications.

https://www.shotgunworld.com/bbs/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=48778#p358401

 

Has anyone noticed a reduction in BLACK smoke with the WF targets as of late ?

My club throws the Pitch targets, and when we turn them to a kazzilion pieces what we used to call "Soot Balls", they just don't seem to give that Black Cloud they used to.

They break the same, but no cloud of dust seems to be floating in the air any more.

Any comments ?

 

I believe the manufactures owe the shooters/clubs an explanation or at least let them know what if anything is being done ..? This is far to important than to just let it die ... I sent Phil Murray an e mail per his request in the above posting, never heard anything back from him ... This is not a good way to do business ... WPT ... (YAC) ...

 

We want automatic traps that handle targets with minimal breakage and still smoke like the targets made for the old Western handsets. Good luck with that.

 

New Jersey-based Reagent makes launchable targets that are used in trap and skeet shooting. Among the targets it sells are the White Flyer Bio, a nontoxic and biodegradable target.

Conventional targets have for years been formed from pitch, a petroleum byproduct. This, according to Reagent, resulted in toxicity concerns, as the trap and skeet shooting often takes place in fields, where broken targets can remain once the event is over.

In its lawsuit, Reagent claimed that Eurotarget and an American distributor had started selling similar nontoxic targets in the U.S. sometime in 2015. Marketed as environmentally friendly, these were the only targets that Eurotarget was selling at the time in the U.S., according to the suit.

The lawsuit sought an unspecified amount of damages and an injunction to prevent Eurotarget from further infringement.

It is relatively rare that a judge grants a preliminary injunction in a patent case. One key requirement is that the patent owner show that it would suffer irreparable harm without one. The patent owner must also show a reasonable likelihood of success on the infringement claim.

In a filing in March, Reagent argued it met both those standards. With respect to harm, the company said that thanks to the scope of its patent protection, it had been the exclusive supplier of nontoxic targets in the U.S., a distinction that has provided it with “considerable brand recognition and prestige.”

“Although the U.S. is a minute portion of Eurotarget’s business, if its lower prices force Reagent to lower its prices, the impact will be substantial,” it wrote. “Additionally, even if this Court finds that monetary damages will be sufficient compensation, there is an inherent difficulty in enforcing a monetary judgment against a foreign corporation with no known U.S. assets.”

Judge Jones granted the request in what appears to have been a sealed order in early August.

Just a few months later, on Friday, a joint request was filed asking the judge to dismiss the case, as the two sides had agreed to a settlement, and to convert the preliminary injunction into a permanent injunction.


KEY WORDS : underlined in the above stated legal proceeding ...
Conventional targets have for years been formed from pitch, a petroleum byproduct. This, according to Reagent, resulted in toxicity concerns, as the trap and skeet shooting often takes place in fields, where broken targets can remain once the event is over. WPT ... (YAC) ...