History of ATA angle and yardage changes.

For the benefit of those new to the game what was the causation/motive behind these changes?
Just when did all this take place?
Where did the idea come from?
Which group supported the change?
What was the objective of making a change?
I suspect the power structure was shooters of long standing (no pun intended) and much experience wanting to do something different?
I would hope answers come forth without name calling and insults.. if one sticks to the topic that should be easy to do.

Larry

 

Larry the angles were established years and years ago before 1925, the shells were Black Powder loaded to 3 drams of black powder related at 1200fps, this carried on to Smoke-less powder at 1200fps, the angles were set to straight-a-wys from posts #1 and Post #5
they could be a little wider by 20 degrees and still be legal.

The faster shells cut down the target angle leads, wanted by some long yardage shooters, they found hell this is easier, so a guy by Mr,N,W. instituteded this into the rules w/o approval of the shooter majority vote. He stated for the betterment of trapshooting and Points for all American status. This took the High State Average shooter out. You had to shoot at least 3 State Shoots to be considered for All American Status, This required time away from family, extensive expenses in travel, overnight stays, and your average shooter with average income out of the running. It became a money thing, higher than average income, an ELITE GROUP to put it mildly.

The narrow 34 degree angle, 48 yard targets were easier to break, + 1250fps shells to break them with, not all used the faster shells.

This is a brief reality summary of what happened in the last 20-25 years.

Mr.N.W.did not institute the 3 state provision.

Gary Bryant Dr.longshot

 

With all that isn't everybody subject to the same rules. I figure if everyone has to shoot the same darn thing it's no skin off my butt.

 

Larry, my friend,... let me save you a LOT of time going forward.

Neil Winston is to blame for everything bad about trapshooting. It is truly that simple. For example, if you sit on a wooden chair at your local club and get a splinter in your butt, it is Neil's fault. He causes all kinds of bad stuff like that. The most annoying thing about Neil is that when he engages in debate he very politely makes his case using facts , which he generally backs-up in writing, including sources. Plus he admits when his argument is shown to be even the slightest bit incorrect. Then he corrects it. All this tends to completely infuriate dishonest people who prefer muddying the water and making emotional arguments rather than disputing facts, as well as those tortured souls who happen to hate Neil's guts for personal reasons to such an extent it borders on mental illness (Mind you -- I'm not talking about any foe of Neil in particular, just making a general statement in case you encounter one of these lovable kooks).

Anyway, here's Neil's picture in case you haven't met him:

-Gary
[GALLERY=media, 22][/GALLERY]

 

GW22

LOL

I like the picture do you have a graph to accompany it?

 

Gary, longshot, certainly you can't blame Neil Winston for Winchesters introducing the (Handicap) shells in the early 70s??? You know, the black beauties that killed outa one end and crippled on the other? Once Winchester did that, all the other majors climbed on the wagon with their versions! There were lots of people responsible for ATA adopting that rule!

HAP

 

Thanks

 

Can anyone produce concrete data that 3 drams of black powder no matter how granulated produced an exact 1200 fps each and every time? How about different batches or different brands of powder? Isn't it possible that shells loaded with a 3 dram load of black powder also had a variance of +/- 90fps? Maybe the variance was more like +/- 150?

How much scientific testing and record keep was done prior to smokeless? Smokeless was created before SAAMI which was created in 1926. ATA was around about 25 years before. Why was 3 dram loads chosen? By who? Was it an arbritary number by ATA? By SAAMI? General acceptance by gun makers or shooters?

This link to Wikipedia

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shotgun_shell

says the dram equivalence was outdated when it was first used to define smokeless powder loadings. Click on the link and scroll down to 3 dram equivalence. Did you know the accepted dram loading for targets was once upon a time 2 drams? Maybe we should go back to that loading?

 

AZCOTRAP

When you read about Annie Oakley one of her biggest problems when traveling was to find powder that preformed consistently.
When traveling abroad she would try to bring her own powder, sometimes having to smuggle it into the country.

She did this because of quality and consistency issues.

 

Reading the posts on yardage, angles, and shells on several different sites is interesting.
The ATA is a nationwide organization with thousands of members (?). One complaint about the current situation is just a few caused the change to take place. If there is a desire to make a change now then I would guess the movement would have to start and be handled by the organization or else it would be just another "a few made the change" situation. The original change on angles was to make it easier for the new shooters. That being the case, why not put the angles back to whatever for anyone shooting over 24 yards? Traps are easy to change and the cost is zero. Shells?? Unless the club furnishes ammunition that will never change, folks will continue to shoot what they want. Rather than beat up on each other through the computer I would think if a change is really the will of the shooters there is a proper and correct way to come up with it and impliment it.
Of course, if ATA changes then PITA will have different rules and local clubs will all be different and instead of the uniformity there is now we will just have ??????? Larry

 

I agree with that statement Hap

 

None of tis info is from a reliable certified source NHEA National Hunter Education Assoc.
and Beth Naught

 

Larry,

GW22 did a good job of explaining what is going on here. It all started well before Dr. Longshot's target NW ever became involved. In one of the other threads JHunts quoted one of the perennial All Americans as criticizing the 2-hole targets back in 1981. Since NW wasn't even on the ATA scene at that time, maybe you can get an idea of the reliability of a certain poster around here.

Fact is just about every club was throwing 2 hole targets for well over a decade before the 95/96 actions.

 

Larry, for your information, Gary Bryant's (longshot) text above,

"The faster shells cut down the target angle leads, wanted by some long yardage shooters, they found hell this is easier, so a guy by Mr,N,W. instituteded this into the rules w/o approval of the shooter majority vote."

Is an outright lie. All of it. Every word.

Neil Winston

 

During my brief involvement with trap shooting I have observed that one thing we all have in common is personal opinions.
This discussion about one hole, two hole, three hole and X yards seems to me rather pointless, reminds me a bit of when my Grandfather would tell me the "two holer needs cleaned"... I read a lot of Neils posts and articles I find on the internet. Information on ballistics, guns, so on and so forth are extremely well written and useful to a newbie like myself. GW22 provided me with a lot of history as have others and it all builds a foundation for following threads like this and others that are similar. I have read a lot of Gary's thoughts also and it is obvious he is dedicated to what he believes is the way trap shooting should go.
I find it distressing when anyone starts to get the personal attacks and "flame jobs" just to fill space on a computer screen or to create a scapegoat.
The continual jabber on this site or other sites about changes in anything relating to the sport is to me a bit of a waste of time. As I understand it each state has an ATA organization with a board and representatives and the like. If I want a change I believe I need to start there, state my case to them with documentation and facts and get the state organization to take it to the next level....
Am I wrong? I would think an excellent site like this and a couple others would be a wonderful place to spend time sharing shooting experiences, loading info, how to shoot better, making new contacts and asking for information.
Damn, it just occurred to me, other than just a few rather pointless discussions leading to no worthy conclusion that is what the sites are full of. I guess I have what I want and can benefit from already.
Larry

 

SNIVEL,SNIVEL, SNIVEL. SHUT UP AND SHOOT. WOODY

 

Just for the sake of accuracy.

 

GW, for the sake of accuracy.

How many posts did Neil try to erase last week? Was that for the sake of accuracy?

Also, Neil did play a big part in the 3 hole to 2 hole change didn't he? Is that what is bothering you?

 

What is the real issue here? What is the intent? What is the objective.
My opinion is that it probably does not matter who gets nailed to the cross. All the blood letting in the world is not going to change what is.
If the objective is to change something then there is a process and protocall to follow to present that goal to those that can make it happen or at least get it on the table where the majority can make the call..... Larry

 

Larry,
I was responding to GW's post. GW was discussing the accuracy of another persons posts. That person was deleting posts. That person has also supplied information that may or may not be accurate. When you see some of the information in the posts on this board you may want to know if the author made an attempt to erase the post and why. jmho

With Jhunts and History Buff and others on board we are getting much in the history and changes done to our sport.

 

Oh it was the 1290 fps rule

 

How do you ignore guests, how does a guest get on this site, that is a first to me, you pack up and go home then come back as a guest
Dr.longshot

 

Faster shells do cut down the lead on angle targets.
Dr.longshot

 

3" - 4" if you do the math from what I've heard.

 

Rosey, I also believe that same thing. Regardless of shot speeds, it's far easier to shoot behind a target than in front of it!! AND, I've found you must lead the targets with the fastest out there!!

HAP

 

Speed kills, but not always by reducing lead. Your brain gets accustom to the required lead and faster pellets carry more energy.

We chrono'd some new shells over 14 years ago, and the winner was a Federal handicap at 1313 fps. Spring 2001. The WinAA were pushing 1285 if I remember right.

 

Lots of info posted here, Lots of history, some guesses, some personal experiences .
Within the activity known as trapshooting is there a desire, inclination, movement or effort to change some, part or all of what is now known to be ATA regulated shooting?
Personally I have heard comments made by folks about their yardage reductions, I have heard comments about poorly set targets and I listened to conversations relating to biodegradable targets vs the "real" targets. I have heard few (if any) discussions relating to most of what is in this thread.
Please understand I do not get around much and only have a few ATA birds on file, my greatest exposure to registered shooting is in Eastern Oregon and mostly from the 3 registered ATA State shoots I have attended.
I do know though that to impliment change there is a process and protocall to go through to make something happen or to stop something already happening. Other than our e-mails is there anything happening to do something different? Larry

 

As I understand it in order to make any changes to ATA Rules the majority of Delegates must be on side that means that to get changes the shooters must elect the Delegates to put the changes through or lobby the majority of present Delegates to the point of view required. If this were to happen hopefully the implemented Rule would not be overturned at the next or future meetings and peace would remain.

 

I think you have it right. Start with one or two delegates can you imagine how long it would take to elect or lobby a majority?
It would take more time and money then most would be able to commit.
Longer then all our key board Rambo's have been already filling up cyber space.

And there will be push back by those in favor of 2 hole targets.

We may not all agree on how we got here, but here we are and here we will stay.

 

Wishbone that is a defeatist attitude, I have a more integrated attitude, an attitude that changes can take place. We need faith in our fellow shooters, I believe the silent majority carry that with their billfolds.
Dr.longshot

 

The reference to "silent majority" troubles me.
I rather suspect that may be why the current president of the United States is the person it is.
8 years of silence on one side, 8 years of lies on the other... Larry

 

The "SILENT MAJORITY" appears to be the problem, they remain silent express almost no opinion of if they have one do not act on it in any way. This "silent majority" always silent but suggested the majority. this apparently is why the one's with the voiced opinions seem to have the majority when the votes are tallied.

 

I honestly believe the silent majority are the folks who have happily shot 2 hole targets for for the last 20 years or more.
We love to to complain about the weather, the food, the target setting but no one mentions 2 hole verses 3 hole.

 

The silent majority I believe are doing it with their pocket book, holding back on what and when they shoot, it is showing in the decline

 

The silent majority is simply a wad of individuals that say nothing and happen to be in a group that is over 50 percent. In that silent majority the opinions will go right, go left, or simply do not have a thought. The silent sector is what has given us our current POTUS and congress.
As far as pocket book doing the voting it is probably more the economy of the nation than the decision of the individual as to where the money is spent. In the real world the economy sucks, personal incomes are down and expenses are up. There is spending on what is needed and luxury items come last. Trap is a luxury.... Larry

 

I have stated this before. The 2 hole targets were not as prevalent as some on here would have you all to believe. They use this as an excuse to justify the changing of the rule. I had machines shipped to my company from all over the place on the north American continent. The only machines that I could honestly say were only throwing 1 and 2 hole targets came from the upper mid west. Ask any old trap repairman how many machines he knew of that were only throwing 2hole birds and he will surprise you.
I hear of the 2 hole targets that were thrown at the grand, but I do not hear any of the people that were in charge at the time stating that they knew and approved of the practice.
If you do not believe that the bad decisions have hurt shoot attendance, ask Neil Crausby if his experience at the ATA had an affect on his shooting.

 

I find it hard to believe it was widespread in the 50's and 60's too but now it is clear it happened at the Grand in at least the very early 60's. I don't believe Vandalia was the only place in the country doing that, or that some rogue target setting committee was in action. That just does not make sense. Kenny has pointed out that it happened at the Grand in later years also, and was actually discussed and IIRC voted on to keep them in 2 hole.

From a shooting standpoint, as I have said before, I don't care one way or the other. I don't think they are that much tougher. I think the biggest mistake was when they put the "no less than a 2-hole" wording into the rule. We all, well at least some of us I guess, know that the wording was not meant to reduce the minimum angles already existing (straights from 1 and 5) but instead was to address the setting of the trap under windy conditions. Problem is, I think most reading it did not understand the intention of the words, many were already throwing 2 hole targets anyway, and now just saw it as support for what they were doing. At that point, anyone that was actually following the rules, was under a lot more pressure to throw the 2 hole targets everyone else was throwing, and had a tough time looking hard-headed when shooters pointed out the rulebook - "not less than 2 hole..."

We ended up where by the time Neal and the EC mandated the 3 hole enforcement, just about everybody had been shooting 2 hole targets for a long, long time.

 

Wasn't that what Neal C. attempted to do, make it known that 34 degree angles were ONLY for hard blowing head wind settings? That when the rule standard was straights from 1 and 5 on calm days?

That's what happens when we use more words than necessary to make our rule books work as intended. My current rule book is more than twice as thick as my old 1974 rule book, current 2014 book has 92 pages and the 74 book had 35? There's a lot of room for interpretation which confuses the masses.

Just because some or even a lot were cheating, was it in fact better to validate that practice than to enforce our own set of rules? By the time Neal C. tried to enforce our rule on target settings, many had decided easier was better and I don't mean just the shooters themselves. Zone vice presidents and delegates helped this practice along instead of doing what's best for our sport by enforcing our standards. Our leadership has been overloaded with personal egos and vendettas against individuals for far too long for any of that crap to benefit our sport long term.

Bat, just one question. Why do you suppose those in charge didn't point out what the "no less than" minimum words meant at the time? I think we both know?

HAP

 

Hap,

Not being there I can't say. Personally, I don't think it was any clandestine motive. What I wrote above is what I believe happened over a period of decades. It happened, and once out it is a lot harder to stuff it back where it was. Neither you, nor I know what was the correct way to go. All we have is what some thought was better at the time. I like to think they had the best interest of ATA in mind at the time, not that they were "lacking integrity", more interested in averages, or whatever else gets tossed around here so easily. Maybe they were right, maybe not. I do understand that there is more to the issue than "integrity" and all the other adjectives that get thrown around here by a few.

 

Cove, LaGrande and Wallowa Oregon purchased a total of 6 new Pat traps in the last two years. One in Cove, one in Wallowa, and 4 in LaGrande. All came with a "two hole bar" installed and have electronic switches for stops. Wayne P , a didicated and excellent shooter from Baker City purchased an electronic unit to set angles. He has traveled to the three clubs and set them to what we believe is ATA rule and he also keeps the 4 Baker City traps set correctly. One thing obvious about our small clubs in our part of the world is that the tension and conflict generated over past, present, future, hidden, covert or underhanded changes and rules simply does not take place. Different folks, different attitudes I suppose. With what we have we all do the best we can to conform to the ATA rules and regulations, that is our standard. LaGrande has hosted numerous State and regional registered shoots and for the 3 years I have been involved with trap I have never heard one bit of the contentious talk common in some of the posts on this and other sites. I would think that those that desire something different would work within the existing framework to achieve what they (and others?) desire. The bottom line to this is that for our local clubs to change anything the rule book must be changed. I suspect that is the same with all the other clubs in the nation. Ego and spite will do nothing but create confusion and conflict, If the objective is to improve todays game of TRAP then that needs to be what drives efforts. I guess a happy camp will attract more folks than one full of spite and anger............. Larry

 

Larry, your post is good and it tells everyone how most clubs have always set targets. Some club operators did change the standard setting to attract more shooters while some adhered to the rule book standards just as your club does today. Once a wildfire gets going it's tough as he!! to stop it, that's what happened to out sports target settings beginning in earnest in the early 80s! In essence, we adopted a cheating practice as the best thing for our sport since the clay target was invented?

Would you believe that with today's settings, some clubs still fudge a lil here n there still? Why have a rule book unless it's enforced from the top down?

HAP

 

Larry,

Other than here you will hear very little about target settings from years past. Places I shoot are still straightaways from 1 & 5 and hit the 50 yard stake. What you will hear is some local complaining about the wind and that comes from the people who can't shoot in it.

 

Registered? and where would that be?

 

Smitty,

You sure are interested on where I'm from. Your post is off topic, please stick to the topic at hand.

 

We chronoe'd the Silver ++AA++ shells and they were 1320+ We did it at Yankee Hill Gun Club In southern Ohio

 

Leonidas---the discussion is about angles. You wrote:

I am calling you on that. I am calling BS. So where is that club(s)? "The places you say you shoot." I know who you are. I just cant figure out why you would have to tell that story.

So again where are your 3 hole clubs?

 

Again Leonidas

Your story is BS. Your quote:

It is quite the fib isn't it? Let's hear about those places.

 

Take a look at my previous post. All those clubs plus Halfway Oregon, Hermiston, and Walla Walla Wa. have birds that hit the 50 yard marker. I find the definition of "legal target" on pages 54, 55 and 56 of my ATA rules book. It does not require identification of every range in the world to identify what is LEGAL.
It is up to me, to Leonidas and to Smithy and to anyone shooting registered events to insure that if we shoot ATA anywhere that the birds, the course and all other rules in the book are adhered to or it is not an ATA event.
Smithy, perhaps you might post some ranges where the rules are not followed. If you shoot there, and its ATA then you and the other shooters should insist legal birds be thrown.
If something else is preferred then get someone to change the rules........
Larry

 

Smithy

Your posts to me are argumentative and wrote with the sole purpose of harassment and intimidation. I wonder why the Moderators allow this to keep happening?

 

Larry
All in my area eastern OH, Central OH, and NW PA follow the rules. There are others that have been mentioned in the forum that have not done that in the past. Mr. Coveleskie is more the expert in that area.

As per Leonidas he claims his clubs are throwing 3 hole targets. BS again to that. No cred there.

The point of the thread is not reporting those breaking the rules but why we may have these rules and the history. Roger's thread "Angles Flights Machine Deals" may have another angle.

 

There were a few lines in the ATA minutes that at least makes one think this was discussed.

 

So, of what importance are registered shooting records? Would we be better without them?

 

To figure classes and handicap. Though seemingly when the handicap system stopped handicapping people further on their performance the game has gone away from what is/was suppose to happen.

I could be wrong.

Shoot well

John

 

Warren61, in my personal view, discussing a problem only is but a first step toward admonishing those that take liberty's and violate our rules. Whether that be a member or any club violating rules they agreed to abide by in order to throw or shoot registered ATA set targets?

ATA, which is all of us, has kept shooting records since our very beginning starting in 1923. Is that important? Of course it is and the more accurate the better! How can our records remain accurate when it's a known fact that some clubs and members have cheated our system? All of us must police ourselves in order to make that a stable reality. All of our investigative processes is always after the fact? Giving notification we're going to investigate this or that club/member is a total waste of time and money. They simply reset to legal standards and all is well again till next time?? Tough as all hades to catch "fudging" in real time like that.

Is our organization doing everything possible to grow our sport? I believe most think they are yet dismiss our shooting historical changes that actually worked? 1969 was the last year our leadership actually attempted to make our handicap game a little more difficult! Since, it's been a downhill roll toward more easier settings. The once held perception one didn't have to be almost perfect to win, place or show in our game of handicap was a great drawing card for our sport and both of the other two games we play. How others perceive our sport is mighty important to our long term growth and longevity. IMNSHO

HAP

 

The ATA minutes did not seem to reflect a harsh sentence for those cheating.

 

Leonidas you wrote>

So how do you then explain the Scripture suspension?

 

Perhaps part of any discussion should include a couple comments relating to membership in a state, a region or perhaps number of birds in competition. I saw a chart a couple days ago, If I were representing or speaking for 100% of the ATA members in Oregon I would only be expressing the wishes of 130 shooters..... I guess my vote in an ATA meeting would carry the same weight as any other person qualified to vote? Larry

 

Larry,
All elected Delegates have a vote for the State/Province that elected them, that being said, carrying the same weight may depend on who you know or whom you can persuade to back you.

 

I thought it interesting there was so much difference in memberships in different areas......Larry

 

Yes, as a delegate for 130 shooters you would have the same voting power as a delegate representing 2800. If you were a delegate representing 10 you would have the same voting power as a delegate representing 2800.

The ATA is not ran according to what the majority of the shooters want. It is managed by the minority.

 

Here's a discussion about shooter representation from the 1960's.

 

With this as the protocol, the choice of a delagate with a voice of authority and a command presence is the first step in getting your way with things........... Larry