Whom did the 34 Degree Angle help the most?

In the aftermath of the 34 degree angle targets, who got the most benefit from it? And why?
Dr.longshot

 

In the aftermath of the 37 degree angle targets, who got the most benefit from it? And why?
Dr.longshot

Who throws 37 degree targets?

 

Who is throwing 37 degree angle targets?

 

Assuming you meant 34 degree angle, Gary, commonly referred to as "Two Hole," you really can't answer that question as you have posed it. To use data rather than guesswork, you have to turn it around. Let's rephrase it - and it's more useful this way anyway,

"Whose averages are most degraded by 3-hole targets in contrast to 2-hole targets - good shooters or less-good shooters?"

Put that way we hardly need data, do we? Obviously, since the targets are more difficult, less-good shooters will suffer the most.

But how about the promise for "straightaway-from-one-and-five" which supported the abortive effort to impose harder target from early 1995 to until the Annual Meeting in August, 1996? We were told that since wind favored short-yardage shooters, the harder straightaway-from-one-and-five targets would favor them too and so short-yardage shooters would be MORE competitive under the new scheme. This ignored what turned out to be a critical difference, namely that wind makes targets unpredictably more difficult, while wider angles made them predictably more difficult. It should be plain that targets which are predictably more difficult are less of a problem for good shooters than not-so-good simply because they are better shots at all aspects of the trap game. They are just better equipped to deal with the increased challenge.

The promise of a more-level playing field was tripped up by the foregoing facts. The averages of best 40 shooters were little reduced, only half a bird in general, and not at all for the best among them.



I have no similar data for the "average shooter" but since at least 85+ percent of ATA shooters were averaging under 90, it's clear that this tiny decrease in the averages of the best handicap competitors did nothing to "level the playing field."

As readers here scan the posts about reviving 3-hole targets, they should ask the question you alluded to:

"Whose averages are most degraded by 3-hole targets in contrast to 2-hole targets - good shooters or less-good shooters?" Then they should ask themselves "Is this a good idea?"

Neil

 

Neil
Your graph doesn't show where many of the great shooters do not shoot on windy days if they can help it. It also does not show that the shooters chasing All American points are traveling to warmer climates to shoot. The novice / blue collar shooters are forced to shoot in harsher weather.

Without that data the graph is worthless at best.

The graph also does not show where many of the so-called All Americans were shooting 2-hole targets when they should have been shooting 3-hole targets.

The graph also does not show where many of the shooters were turning down wide angles previously because the rules were uninforced.

jmho

 

I think your missing the point of the graph or maybe you just want to argue. LOL
We don't know what kind of weather people shot in or what clubs they attend etc.

But we can look at the affect of 2 hole verses 3 hole on the top shooters.

The top shooters were only down an average of 0.5 targets.

Do you think the blue collar shooters would only be down 0.5 targets?
Do you think there averages would have increased?

If you believe the short yarder's would be down less then 0.5 targets or perhaps you think there average would increase? Then cast your vote for 3 hole targets(If you have a vote) LOL

Peace

 

One of the big reasons for going to the 2 hole was because the top shooters were only going to 2 clubs that were known for shooting 2 hole targets or less. (another ATA cheat scandal) Changing to the 2 holes targets was a "no change" for most of them.

The novice shooter would get a reduction in yardage. Also, many of the smaller clubs in the Midwest continued to throw 3 yard targets for quite some time. Those that did that for a few years were avoided by long yardage shooters.

 

The only thing that can actually reduce top shooters averages is moving them back farther from the house. I know of no cliff, precipice, invisible barrier or warp that exists beyond the 27!

 

Who got the most benefit of the 34 degree angle? the answer is simple and no one is seeing it. I made a typo a7 instead of a 4 I corrected it
Dr.longshot

 

Ollie: I think the return of the 44 degree angle and 50-52 yard targets would effect all shooters, it will not change the top dogs, they will always be top dogs, there just will not be a pile of them at the top.
There will be less GAH long yardage hdcp winners, more GAH short yardage winners. Like there used to be. A lot of things gave the long yardage shooters more money, the Four class Lewis Class one money, was one of them, Hi gun lewis classes was another one, that took a bigger share of the average shooters monies. The Four Lewis classes divided 50/30/20 put more money in the Short Yardage Shooters pocket.
The Great Eastern Purse put more money in the average shooters pocket, they are the ones playing the money too and deserved their share. It paid the top 6 scores, not hi gun.
Dr.longshot

 

Gary, Please tell us about it . Help us See It. I have no Ideal what you are Talking About . So Help us see.

 

what top shooters only go to two clubs? any shooter going for aa points travel around to lots of states for the larger shoots.

 

Since FG termed my contribution to this thread "worthless,"

"Without that data the graph is worthless at best."

I feel I should defend it. Here it is again



I hope readers here will notice how limited its claims are. It simply compared the averages of the top 40 handicap shooters listed in the average books during the (minimum) three-hole shooting year of 1996 and the (minimum) two-hole year on 1998. It does not address wind or rain or sunny days or anything like that. It just shows how little the averages of the top shooters in the country differed under the two angle schemes. That's all. It answers Gary's question for at least one group, fully and clearly.

Readers are asked to compare my presentation actual data entriely relevant to the question Gary posed to this barely intelligible response:

"Neil
Your graph doesn't show where many of the great shooters do not shoot on windy days if they can help it. It also does not show that the shooters chasing All American points are traveling to warmer climates to shoot. The novice / blue collar shooters are forced to shoot in harsher weather.

Without that data the graph is worthless at best.

The graph also does not show where many of the so-called All Americans were shooting 2-hole targets when they should have been shooting 3-hole targets.

The graph also does not show where many of the shooters were turning down wide angles previously because the rules were uninforced. "

when they decide which of us, I or the responding poster I quoted, knows what he is talking about.

Neil

PS Readers are also encouraged to consider how much easier (or not) it is now to achieve, for example, a Grand Slam, when the quality of shooter likely to get a Grand Slam shoots two- and three-hole targets about the same.

 

In that era shooters were going to shoots to pad their stats. They were not getting ATA points. The AA teams were picked. There were no perfect scores in Vandalia from the 27. Some shoots even had 1 hole targets. The graph showing the following results of the pros shooting 2 hole targets the following year only goes to show they were previously shooting 2 hole targets at best.

Another baseless claim by Neil to defend his choice to go to the fluff targets. Implying that some shooters shoot the easy targets as well as the harder targets. Good grief.

The best thing about Neil's last few posts is it gives us further discussions on the lack of integrity and enforcement of our own rules.

 

Like taking a thread "off topic" Leo? Like getting everything wrong? Like not being able to to put one coherent thought after the other? Try to figure this out:

" The graph showing the following results of the pros shooting 2 hole targets the following year only goes to show they were previously shooting 2 hole targets at best."

Again, my graph just shows the avarages. That, at least, is beyond argument. It showed this very, very select group of top ATA shooters shot two- and three-hole target about the same over the course of a year. That's all. That's all Gary asked. It answered his question.

I do find it amazing, however, how impervious to fact many of the posters here are. Look at that graph. Read the comment:

"Another baseless claim by Neil to defend his choice to go to the fluff targets. Implying that some shooters shoot the easy targets as well as the harder targets. Good grief. "

This is what I mean by "getting everything wrong." It is not baseless; it is based on the published averages in the ATA's annual book.They do shoot them about the same. Anyone can see that!

Neil

 

Family Guy..You have been soo brainwashed by people on here it is unbelievable......Now name us the clubs that were thhrowing 2 hole targets when they should have been throwing 3 hole..

 

Two Dogs....that was one of the justifications for the change.

Neil,

You imply that the graph was narrow in scope.....I implied it was far narrower in scope. The same subject.

Your quote below:

It is a baseless claim Neil....

 

It is not "baseless" to people who understand data, FG.It is a data-supported claim.

By the way, the "justifications" for the change is not consistent with the topic of the thread. It is about who is most affected, not why the change was made.

By the way, again. I did not "imply" my graph was narrow in scope. I said it did just one thing, compared the averages of our top shooters under two different conditions. You did not, if fact, show that it was narrower than that. To the extent we can understand your writing, you seem to think that it should have been broader, that is, included wind and I don't know what.

That's not what "narrower" means to most native speakers of English.

Neil

 

FG are you going to tell us what clubs?

 

Neil

As discussed earlier, the change was made because of "Who" was going to be affected. Those that wanted the change the most were affected the most. That is those that were going to shoots that were throwing easier targets to pad their scores now were able to shoot the easier targets without being labeled cheaters.

You hate that anyone criticize your push for the easier targets. It irks you. Get over it.

 

No, I just object to nonsense, FG. And made-up histories. And flatout lies, of course.

Neil

 

Yes....flatout lies

 

1-hole targets? Didn't our good friend Earl Scripture tend to narrow the angles and shorten the distances much to the delight of some in pursuit of their Grand Slams? Used, abused and subsequently thrown to the wolves was old Earl!

 

But, FG, I've already spent more time on this than it merits. It's just that Gary's question is a good one and I happened to have the answer to half of it already at hand.

Of course, the ATA is never, ever, in a million years going to change the target angles. But still it's worth considering what group of shooters would be most affected and whether that's what we want. Not that it will happen because it won't, but rather what we should support in the pointless idle chatter of gun clubs and americantrapshooter.com.

I have more productive ways to spend my time, so I turn the floor over to you. I think readers here have seen enough already to decide which of us knows what he talking about and which does not.

Goodbye for a while, FG.

Neil

 

dawg..Mr Scripture threw what he called a blue-print target, they were perfect in all ways, he even shimmed the front of the machine (1524) to show more face. By no means were they easy or illegal, they were ferfect.

I asked him one day how he threw such a great target, and he replied maintenance,maintenance,maintenance...
Scriptures run-in with the ATA had nothing to do with how he threw the target..

 

Please tell me how shimming up the front of an old Western handset trap has anything to do with more target face! More target face can only be accomplished by lowering the traphouse. I see how easy it was for old Earl to BS someone once again!

 

dawg...Why don't you ask Earl???

 

You may be right Neil. The accomplishment of your dreams. That which you are relentless in defending. A lesson to those that have seen the near destruction of a great sport.

 

Earl got a lifetime ban.

Those that shot there should have had their phony slams removed. Only the ignorant will allow one to rewrite history. Only the stupid allow it to be repeated.

 

I don't have to ask Earl. I ran a 6 field ATA trap club with Western handsets for 20 years. I sanded plenty of rubbers too. If the trapboys were any good the targets would be better-not shimming machines!

 

I still haven't figured out what the headlined 37 degree angle refers to, much less why so much typing goes on over something that is perfectly fine under ATA rules. Throw 3-hole, 50 yd targets at your next registered shoot, it's fine as far as the ATA is concerned. Just do it, what the heck is stopping you?

 

Bat,
The old setting for a 3 hole target was 45 degrees. 65 degrees and the target would still be legal but illegal today. The argument has been to enforce a harder target as such-- but the "I" word in the ATA keeps getting in the way.

 

Seems to me the argument is to throw 3-hole targets, which we all know are perfectly legal in ATA competition. Just throw them, nobody is going to stop you.

 

Bat....read the post above you closer. Or read this one again.

The old 3 hole 45 degree targets were legal up to 65 degrees. That would be illegal to throw in the ATA. If you are still confused please search the posts by History Buff.

And again the important thing is the enforcement. But to repeat for you the I word would get in the way.

 

You can throw 3-hole targets. You can throw 4-hole targets if they will make it out of the house and are high enough. They are perfectly legal. Just read the rulebook. But read it. Or cite the text that says otherwise.

Neil

 

Neil
The rules do not allow a 65 degree target do they? We are talking about the old 3 hole setting as quoted by History Buff. Please show me as you are the expert.

Would we not need an old rule book. I know my area would not appreciate the change.

 

That's not what I wrote. Read it.

"You can throw 3-hole targets. You can throw 4-hole targets if they will make it out of the house and are high enough. They are perfectly legal. Just read the rulebook. But read it. Or cite the text that says otherwise."

So what's stopping you?

Neil

 

Sorry Neil I was quoting FG

 

FG, if you wish to change the rules to throwing 65 degree targets, that's your business. The issue I keep seeing here is throwing 3 hole targets, and they are perfectly legal. 3 hole targets are about 22 degrees each side of center, aren't they. If you are proposing that we actually throw wider targets than that, just make it clear that you are not wishing for clubs to throw 3 hole targets, but actually throw targets to the extreme allowance under the old rules, which did not happen even in the good old days, for all practical purposes.

If ATA doesn't allow tough enough targets for you, that is your business and you are entitled to your opinion. That's fine as long as the readers understand that ATA current rules allow 54 degree targets at 51 yards. You can try to confuse readers as much as you want, but that there is a fact. Maybe there are thousands of shooters that want wider targets than that, but if so, why don't any of you at least throw even puny 44 degree targets?

 

Neil....
You seem to be changing the subject which I thought you did not want.
As you know the following

The 2006 rules narrowed the outside normal extreme angle to just 10 degrees, making the setting at 17 degrees + 10 on each side of the 50 yard center stake. As per Kenny Ray's previous post.

Please remember that originally, the target game provided for a 45 degree normal regulation angle on each side of the center stake. And targets thrown wider were still legal targets until they exceeded 65 degrees. This also from Kenny Ray's post. Please see his post. He deserves the credits.

So what rule book would I find that a 65 degree angle would be legal?

I would expect you to fight and justify your narrow/easier targets to the end. Fight on. It is your legacy.

 

Getting silly now. Nobody but you is looking to throw 65 degree targets. Glad we pinned that down. Nobody ever threw 45 degrees each side of center stake from a modern traphouse either (in regular competition), so why do you post this silly stuff?

 

FG, you wrote

"The 2006 rules narrowed the outside normal extreme angle to just 10 degrees, making the setting at 17 degrees + 10 on each side of the 50 yard center stake. As per Kenny Ray's previous post."

I have not seen Kenny Ray's previous post, but the above text is an error in many respects and would have expected better from him. Or maybe you just misquoted him. But if you have that right, he was simply wrong.

The year was not 2006; it was 1996. It set the right and left angles a 17 degrees. Maybe plus some fraction of a degree, I don't remember, but 17 is the practical numbers as the description of how to get it makes clear. And the maximum target to the right and left which would have to be shot at was an additonal 25 degrees on each side. I cannot see how anyone gets 65 (I get 94 degrees) degrees out of any of this, but that's just ancient history anyway and in no way affects what can get legally thrown in Ohio tomorrow.

Later, and it may have been 2006, the angles which constituted an illegal target were changed (using similar language to the text it replaced)

"However, no target is to be declared illegal unless it is significantly outside normal parameters (e.g., more than 10 degrees outside normal)."(XIII,E, Flights and angles.)

Though I only seconded and voted for the change from 25 to 10 degrees was simply that 25 degrees was totally unrealistic in that few birds at an angle of 42 degrees would get out of many traphouses. You don't want to force shooters to shoot birds which are clearly mistakes, would you?

Notice the use of the word "normal." That's what makes it legal to throw 3, 4, 5 hole birds if you can get shooters to pay for them. If, for example, the Cardinal Center were to throw 3-hole targets this year, a "normal" hard-right bird would be 22 degrees right and you wouldn't have to shoot one if it were more than 32 degrees to the right and so forth.

Remember, it's the target which is illegal, not the setting, by the way. You can use any spread (greater than 34 degrees included angle) and the target which may be turned down steps right out there with them.

Neil

 

Sure. I see no problem with forcing a shooter to shoot a target that by luck came out 10 degrees to the left or right. Shoot the damn bird. Screw the word normal.

The game was not meant to be a game of perfection. That is a legacy you seem to continue to defend from all angles.

 

He would have to shoot it. Aren't you ever going to read the rules, FG? I put them right in front of you in hopes you might begin to understand how these thing work.

Neil

 

Neil
I could care less about a new rule book. I read Kenny's post and the rule book he quoted. They have a search feature on the site. Use it.

 

Nah, you post it. I found the rulebook quote. I've got better things to do.

Neil

 

I am sure glad that I have Neil Ignored on my Computer, what he writes and shows graphs on are made out of what information you feed it, poor information = poor silly graphs, and poor info.
I would like for Neil Winston to come to Knox Gun Club July 18th and I will challenge him on 44 degree angle 50-52 yard targets +the 10 degree allowable legal targets. Even w/my bad ankle.
Dr.longshot throws down the Gauntlet on Neil W. July 18th Knox Gun Club. Columbiana County, Ohio or at Cardinal Center it's your choice Neil I will let you decide.
Dr.longshot

 

The ATA will never go back to the 3 hole target, and here is another ditty for you to have nightmares about....The GRAND AMERICAN left Ohio....

 

Nobody has attempted to answer the Thread, Whom has the 37 degree angle helped the most? It has been the Long Yardage shooters beyond any questionable doubt.
1st Top wins
2nd More Grand Slams
3rd More money
4th More trophies
5th More ATA Points
6th No Earned yardage
7th to be added by others TBD
8th TBD
9th TBD
10th TBD
Add yours to this list
Come on guys add to the list, how much more did it help anyone?
Dr.longshot

 

There is no 3 hole targets, PAT TRAPS are used, and no Dram Equivalents any more ONLY FPS, The Grand American Was Founded in Ohio.
The Grand was founded in Ohio it is where a group of concerned shooters bought the property to have a fixed Shooting Place for the GAH Tournament, A HOME.
Illinois Destroyed ,(correction) I WILL SAY IT HAS NOT HELPED
Dr.longshot

 

Yes sir... and thats the way it's going to stay..

 

The Grand was NOT founded in Ohio.It settled there in 1924 as it's permanent location, but was on the road many years before that...

 

Great posts but I believe Neil has won this one by a bird. I once heard someone say after a breezy afternoon I wish we had the older heavier targets that flew faster. I know one club that can't throw a target without a slice or a hook.

 

FG,

This post by History Buff?

The 2006 rules narrowed the outside normal extreme angle to just 10 degrees, making the setting at 17 degrees + 10 on each side of the 50 yard center stake.

Here's the ATA flights and angles rules from 1934, printed in a book put out by Hercules Powder.

Gary,

What is amazing is the description "2 hole" and "3 hole" is still used as a guide to set Pat Traps. Seemingly one of the best arguments against anything that was, is that, it is not in the rule book, now. Though the equipment used and regulated by the ATA, uses what is now not in the rule book, as a guide or reference.

2 – HOLE TARGETS
The 4 ¼” spacer bar between the Left and Right Angel Reed Switches allows for a 5 7/8”
of total cylinder rod travel, which equals a Two-Hole (34°) Target.
A 5 ¼” spread between the switches allows for a 6 7/8” of total cylinder rod travel, which
equals a Three-Hole ( 40°) Target.

Does anyone know why there was #'s 1,2,3,4,5 holes on a 1524 Trap?

Shoot well

John

 

JHunts
Thanks for Kenny's post.

I would guess to stop cheating.

 

Adjusting the field for strong headwinds or strong tail winds. The #3 was the standard setting and for a headwind to keep the desired field angles use the #2 hole or #1 hole and for tailwinds the #4 and #5 hole could be used.

 

I explained it to you, it is in black and white, somebody interpret this to Dan90T, How much plainer can I get it?

 

If Vandalia was it's permanent location, it was Ohio Shooters who bought the Location, Built the Building
it was a group of trapshooters from National Cash Register, Dayton Trapshooters who took the iniative to find the Home Grounds at Vandalia, the cross road of America, just as the sign reads coming into Vandalia

 

Ollie it was quite frequently done to give the target more face angle, it is not BS, out west in dry air, high altitude, targets broke easily w/#8 shot, Ask Mr. Hunter, from Ca. Hunter Woodworks the Pallet Mfgr. He shot those targets Earl Scripture Threw at that club.

 

Yes Dr. that is true...BUT it was not Founded in Vandalia...It settled there..

 

Thanks jhunts for the information.

Would changing the hole on the 1524 trap change the angles? tia

 

Nope, you jack up the front base of the trap and you'll then change the elevation. If you raise the targets you'll then have to lower them and they'll look the same again. If your traphouse is at the lower end of the requirements you'll slightly increase the face if the trap throws the same height target as the traphouse built at the higher end of spec.

You can improve target quality by leveling the trap if the concrete pedestal is not perfectly level. All bets are off if the trapboy sucks!

 

Both plans seem logical Ollie, maybe it is a steeper angle to the 10 yard pole, how would you get more target face?

 

Two Dogs: Show us some of your statistics of what clubs threw 44 degree targets, and what yardage totals shot them, how did they finish, back-up your proof they are lies, easy to state lies w/o proof.
Dr.longshot

 

Bat: Show me in the rule book that the ATA allows 54 Degree targes, quote the year of the rule book and page # of the rule that states that

 

How about the current one, Gary? It's available here:

http://www.shootata.com/Portals/0/pdf/ata_rulebook_web.pdf

Go down to section XIII, E, "Flights and Angles." It's on page 46 of this rulebook.

There you will find:

"In Singles shooting the trap shall be so adjusted that within the normal distribution of angles as thrown by the trap, the right angle shall not be less than 17 degrees measured to the right of center (3BF), and not less than 17 degrees measured to the left of center (3BF), with a total angle between outside target limits of not less than 34 degrees. (See Diagram II) Trap machines shall be adjusted so as to throw not less than equivalent angles."

Yours in Sport,

Neil

 

Dr. Longshot,

I'm trying to be accurate here, and expect the same from others. You keep posting about this so much, but then you ask me about a fact that anybody involved to such an extent as yourself should already have a clear understanding of? Seems strange to me.

As Mr. Winston pointed out above, the ATA rule is 17 degrees each side of center as a minimum. You can throw targets an additional 10 degrees each side of center and still be legal. 17+17 = 34. 17 +10 = 27. 27 +27 = 54. That is what I am talking about. What we all refer to in conversation as 3 hole targets are perfectly legal.

I still don't follow you on the 37 degrees issue though, what is that?

 

Bat, while your post is correct in every respect, it does not quite do justice to the care with which the ruebook is written. The ten-degree allowance before a target can be called illegal is a general condition, not tied to any particular set spread of the targets. It reads, in the section cited above:

"However, no target is to be declared illegal unless it is significantly outside normal parameters (e.g., more than 10 degrees outside normal). "

And the operative word here is "normal." While it would be 17 +10 degrees when the targets are set to the minimum 34 degree spread, when the targets are set to what we will call the 3-hole, 22 degrees to the right, that 22 degrees becomes the "normal" one and the targets which must be shot at move out to 22+10 and so are 32 degrees right and left, totalling 64 degrees.

This floating-valued "normal" continues out to any degree of spread (larger than 34 degrees included angle) you can get to exit the house and/or tempt people to pay to shoot.

Neil

 

Longshot...you've never told it straight on either site.When I started shooting Findlay Oh. threw 3 hole targets,even the great Brad D. shot them there, we both took a few cases of Winchesters back in those days..

 

Sometimes wording can be left to interpretation, depending on the outcome of the argument that is wanted, though not necessarily interpreted to have been. When interpretation is left to someone that is deceptive by nature, it is nice to have a pictorial view of the interpretation described. Page 54 and Table II on page 55 of the current rules seems pretty definitive if the description of normal and legitimate, no matter what someone may say the rule says.

The description of BDEFGHB is the area of a LEGITIMATE target or lets call it the area of a LEGAL TARGET. That area defined by points BDEFGHB is definitive in its pictorial application as 27 degrees left or right of what is defined as centerline of point B to point F. If under the current rule NORMAL is still within 27 degrees of centerline, no matter what some may say.

It is also immediately apparent using the fixed 2 hole (17 degree) setting of the PAT trap, the field when shooting with a tailwind does not meet the expectation of the minimum 17 degree angle, does it. It does if the application was at the trap, but the angles are not considered at the trap as by rule they are to be determined 15 to 20 yards from the trap, as written on page 47.

Shoot well.

John

 

I think you may want to check that, John.

Neil

 

Which portion?

pg47

In Singles shooting the trap shall be so adjusted that within the normal distribution of angles as thrown by the trap, the right angle shall not be less than 17 degrees measured to the right of center (3BF), and not less than 17 degrees measured to the left of center (3BF), with a total angle between outside target limits of not less than 34 degrees.

These lines and stakes will assist in determining the required angles, but it is to be understood that the
angle specifications apply when the target is from 15 yards to 20 yards from the trap...

The trap shall be adjusted so the angle of target spread is not less than 34 degrees. (which is normal setting of PAT Trap)

This 17 degree angle refers to the flight line of the target from the house to 15 or 20 yards out
and can be used for singles, handicap, and doubles targets.

pg 54
BDEFGHB: AREA OF LEGITIMATE TARGET

pg 55

 

Well, John, for example this part.

Your text:

" If under the current rule NORMAL is still within 27 degrees of centerline, no matter what some may say."

as contrasted with the rulebook:

"In Singles shooting the trap shall be so adjusted that within the normal distribution of angles as thrown by the trap, the right angle shall not be less than 17 degrees"

which makes clear what "normal" means and it's 17 degrees right and left, not 27 as you claim.

Neil

 

Come on guys, let's not take this off on a new (well, more specific) issue.

Dr. Longshot, the OP here and one of the biggest complainers and posters regarding ATA target setting rules and constantly asking 44 degree targets to be thrown, asked a question that seems to indicate he does not understand much about what ATA target requirements currently are.

I still don't follow his 37 degree issue, and I can't figure out why he thinks 44 degree targets (22 x both sides of center) are illegal under ATA rules.

 

Neil,

Normal is, not less than 17 degrees of center at 15 to 20 yards. 27 is the max for any target and can be considered NORMAL. If you set 3 hole you only have 5 degrees of play not the 10 as you convey. If you set a 27 degree target than there is no leeway under the current depiction of legitimate target area. If PAT Traps of today were set to the 3 hole setting it would give the most favorable condition to meet the legitimate target area as well as the Normal minimum distribution angle of 17 degrees. A small head wind and or a small tailwind and target angles may still be met.

In the case of a normal PAT Trap setting (2 hole) a field shot with a tailwind will not meet the angle requirements at 15-20yards. With a 3 hole target it is likely with a strong headwind the target will fall outside the legal requirement of angle set forth by the current rule.

Let's see, if a trap cannot be set to throw random target angles to be a minimum max at less than 17 degrees or a target angle max more than 27 degrees as seen at 15 to 25 yards, isn't NORMAL legitimacy of any target to be equal to or less than 27.

I think your getting NORMAL mixed in with DESIRABLE, and that is not that case, a NORMAL or legal target can be any target within the Legitimate area. Center plus 27 degrees.

added:

What is clear, is that NORMAL is not less than 17, it does not mean 17, just not less than 17 and the max is 27 as defined by the legitimate area.


Shoot well.

John

 

AWWWWWWWWW My feelings are sooooooooooo hurt.............lmao...

 

BAT: I believe a straight away from Post 1 and post 5 equals 44 degrees, the pictorial above shows straight-a-ways from post #1 and #5, Neil stands on 34 degrees angle settings, and has stated many times this is the way he sets targets. If they are requirements, why are they not set at requirements, and why such a great increase of 100 strts, and 520 approx. Grand Slams? that increase did not happen until NW put 34 degree angles and most Pat Traps do not throw 17 degree angles using the #2 hole angle bar settings. I would jump up down with JOY if they threw a 44 degree angle( all clubs). Especially the GRAND AMERICAN.

 

TWO DOGS: You don't even say when you started shooting so how can we have any idea of what you are saying or talking about. For the record again I started in 1968.

 

John, once again I am reminded that you are imperviious to instruction. You write nonsense like "If under the current rule NORMAL is still within 27 degrees of centerline, no matter what some may say" (which is not even an English sentence, by the way) which anyone can see is just wrong, and then defend it with more, worse nonsense. I just don't have time for you.

Goodbye again,

Neil

 

Absolutely no class

 

Neil,

Ah, yes, English lessons, redirection and deception. You are the master. Are you saying a target less than 27 degrees and greater than 17, is not normal?

You said, "22 degrees to the right, that 22 degrees becomes the "normal" one and the targets which must be shot at move out to 22+10 and so are 32 degrees right and left, totalling 64 degrees."

Are you sure you want to stick to that, knowing the edge of the legitimate area is set at 27 degrees, are you sure? Are you certain a 32 degree angle would become legitimate with the wording and depiction of the rule today, are you sure?

C'mon Neil let's have a reality check.

Always fun.

Enjoy your day.

John

 

What I know, John, is that the legal spread of targets set at 17 degrees is 17 +17 + 10 +10 = 54 degrees. And when "the normal distribution of targets is is 22 degrees right and left," the legal spread becomes 22 +22+ 10 +10 = 64 degrees, since the ten degrees is added to the "normal."

Remember, that diagram is labeled

"Legal Target Area for Single and Doubles Shooting"

not

"The only Legal Target Area for Single and Doubles Shooting"

and so represents, as the controlling text makes clear, the minimum requirement. That's what "not less than" means.

It is in there to show clubs what the text is talking about. And of course, it's the only one needed, since no club that wants to stay in business would throw anything else.

Neil

 

Oh, now your just having fun.

It also does not say, "Legal Target Area for Single (17 degree only) and Doubles Shooting", it is meant as "The Legal Target Area"

It is pretty clear at the bottom of diagram II, as it is diagram II which is referenced in the written rule.

Diagram II
Legal Target Area for Single and Doubles Shooting

What does it describe as the legal target area, "BDEFGHB: AREA OF LEGITIMATE TARGET." It is pretty clear outside of 27 degrees is illegal or can be considered illegal, which is 17+10. Since the PAT Trap is the trap of choice (as described by the PAT Trap manual - "PAT-TRAP, Inc. *Choice of the ATA*") by the ATA and is normally set to the 17 degree angle (desirable distribution), I think it is also pretty clear the intent as written, is as depicted.

The depicted desirable distribution of angles, within the written rule of not less than 17, with the outside limit of +10. When NORMAL is written within the rule, it is describing distribution, "within the normal distribution of angles" and parameters, "declared illegal unless it is significantly outside normal parameters". As depicted by diagram II distribution (desirable area) and parameters (angles required) are shown.

As in the previous rules, the desirable distribution was between angles created by straightaways from post 1 and 5 with legitimate area +25.

Enjoy your day.

Shoot well.

John

 

Wishbone..longwind has never had class,..here's a man living in the past that will just not admit there is a future.
I do wish him well in any challange shoot because the money will go to charity.

 

Dr Longshot ,

From your responses I'm realizing you don't understand this topic that you so strongly shout about.

Yeah, straightaways from 1and 5 are about 44 degrees, but the diagram you are referring to shows 17+ 17 = 34 in one area and 27+ 27 = 54 in the other. Both are legal in ATA. It does not show straightaways from 1 and 5 at all, other than they fall within the legitimate target area depicted.

 

Longshot...I started shooting when I didn't have to sit in the traphouse and load targets on a 1524.
When I helped set targets they were a straight from 1 and a straight from 5 .In still air, they landed at the 50 yd. stake set at 9.5 ft..

 

The fist diagram was so small you could not read the see the angles

 

TWO DOGS: what year would that be? Be more definitive!!

 

TWO DOGS: I think you are missing a few cogs, just want to be argumentative, so I will ignore your posts

 

Not a single person addressed the Threads question, or made amendments to my list of whom it helped.

 

Sorry Gary..1983

 

Maybe everyone agrees?

 

Assuming it was for an ATA event, why was your target set at 9.5ft in 1983, just curious? You seem very specific, not 6-12, 8-12 or the latest, 8-10.

Shoot well.

John

 

John..We set the height at 9.5' because at the time that's what the ATA recommended.I beleive the rule at that time was 8-12'

 

Thanks, though it was 9ft recommended at the time, that is why I asked.


added: Below is the written rule from the era, 1980's, as well as the associated Diagram II.

"Targets, whether single or double, shall be between 8 (2.4m) and 12 feet (3.7m) high, when ten yards from the trap. THE RECOMMENDED HEIGHT IS NINE FEET. The height at a point ten yards (9m) from the trap is to be understood to mean height above an imaginary horizontal straight line drawn through the firing point and the trap. (See Diagram II.)"

 

Gary,

Here is an answer for you. Kay Ohye must have known you would ask the question.

"The two-hole target has also given a definite advantage to the long-yardage shooter – more so than any advancement in ammunition and guns. Many top shooters “read” the trap, and the elimination of the deep-angle target has further increased these shooter’s competiveness."

"The purpose of the handicap event is to equalize potential and to insure equal competiveness on any given day. The return of the 50-yard, three-hole target would further enhance this equalization...

Shoot well.

John

 

This is a more Definative Readable Legal Target area than the small one in an earlier post

 

So what does that Kay guy know? He's not even a resident expert! Does he even shoot Trap? Must be one of them skeeters!

 

dawg...sometimes you kill me........lol