How long is the Pat Trap throwing arm?

How long is the present Pat Trap throwing arm? How much longer arm can a Pat Trap Accept?
In other words what is the absolute longest arm that will fit a Pat Trap?

Dr.longshot

 

Gary,

A call to Pat-Trap would give you a lot of information.
603 428-3396

Ron Burdick

 

Roger can a Pat Trap be modified to accept a longer arm, or must they be rebuilt, you would think they knew the parameters when they built them, would they be responsible for a recall? Like the Auto industry?

Dr.longshot

 

Dr.
If you installed a longer arm on any machine it will move the field to the left. You would either have reposition the machine in the house, it could also not have the clearance needed . It was suggested to Stewart before the machine was introduced that he lengthen the arm and install a solenoid release. He rejected the idea. It would be a problem to do so now. Roger

 

Roger I think his action is enough for a recall to repair the problem as he knew what was happening. The trap as is cannot conform to ATA target specifications.

Dr.longshot

 

Dr.
That will never happen. What needs happen is for someone or company to come out with a machine that will conform to all the target throwing criteria. We have had enough of the one that only put one or two in the air.

Then we need to elect people that listen to the majority of the shooters not just the ones that have been lobbied into an idea that they have not given much thought to. We need delegates that will tell the upper management, this is not what my shooters want. That is who I represent.

And I repeat (that will never happen)

The shooters of today do not look at the game as we did when we started to shoot. Back then we worked to improve, today they lower the bar so everyone will feel good.and then complain about the people that have achieved champion status in the game. I'm afraid we are now feeling the benefits of the 60's. The flower children have changed America . At one time we felt that work and diligence could make us rise to the top, now it seems that the people feel that it is governments job to make and keep them happy. For many the American dream has eluded them as to how to achieve it. Roger C.

 

I've read this thread, along with the other thread about doubles distance and taking Neil to task for forcing that change on the ATA. This thread seems to have spawned from that one, although in fairness to the OP he didn't really provide any context for his question. So assuming they are related, and putting 2 and 2 together, it sounds like the OP is indicating that the PAT Trap will not throw a legal ATA target, and in order to do so it would need a longer throwing arm. And further there is some expectation that PAT Trap should issue some sort of recall or issue an upgrade/repair to their existing machines so that it will throw an ATA legal target.

If that is the case, what is the basis for having that expectation? Was there ever/is there now some certification provided by PAT Trap that their machines will throw a legal ATA target? I realize that the ATA and many other associations/clubs have purchased a large number of PAT Traps. But I wasn't aware that there was any certification that the machine would throw a legal ATA target or any warranty in the event that it did not.

Please clarify what I might be missing here, and why there would be a call for a "recall" to "fix" the PAT traps?

Scott

 

Scott,

You are confusing throwing a legal target with throwing a poor target. The longer arm will stabilize the target better. add more spin helps also. when you place two targets on a short arm the left hand bird does not get enough arm time. Then if the arm is not kept properly clean the target will slide a little and walla no spin and now you have poor targets.

If you read the rules and accepted flight and distance criteria from years past and then compare it to what is now the approved rules. You will see the difference to our sport. I have continually ask Neil what good has come from the changes made to our sport. I have never received an answer. Read and comprehend my post above. I did not mention recall. I said it would take a major overhaul of the design and that will never happen.

I manufactured clay target machines for 20+ years. I'm fairly sure I can judge the quality of targets thrown by any machine on the market today. Poor maintenance can ruin an excellent machine, It can devastate a poor one.

My personal opinion is the demise of our sport started with the easier targets. That has not work out to good for ATA atendance. Many of our shooters are now into Sporting Clays. They have a much more difficult target than trap. I believe that is what the majority of shooters want. A poorly presented easy target is what we are getting.

Scott, about the certification, the delegate from each state has the duty of making sure all machines meet the target presentation that was in place when the machines were introduced. The Ohio delegate would not certify the Pat's that were installed in a Finley club. Some one at a higher level overrode his decision and certified them to throw registered targets. Many things have happened that smelled. Roger

 

Gary, can you specifically state how a PAT trap cannot conform to current ATA target specifications? Roger's aurgument is totally different as it relates to target quality, not legality. My understanding is that many people think the flights and angles rules were changed to accomodate the PAT inability to conform to the rules at the time the ATA purchased them for Sparta. That topic was discussed at length in a prior thread. I don't recall any specifics being given at that time that supported the claim that PATs couldn't throw an ATA legal target.

Roger, If I understand this correctly you're stating the arm length both stabilizes the target and adds more spin. I understand the spin part. How does the stablization part work and how does a longer arm add more stabilization than a shorter one? Please don't take this as an argumentative question. I really don't know the answer and would like to.

Jhunts posted some test results, don't know how accurate they are, of the target spin differences between PAT and WW traps. His results showed that a PAT trap will throw the left hand target with less spin than a WW trap will (PAT 1917 rpm, WW 2086 rpm). But with right hand targets the results were different (PAT1655 rpm, WW 1591 rpm). My question is how much spin do we need on a target to make it "good target"? Do we need more spin on left hand targets than right hand targets? If so, why?

 

I replied to your thread,

I personally would have thought the Pat Trap designer would have measured a ww-1524 Trap arm, and utilized it in their trap design as that would be a common sense approach.
DLS

 

I just called Pat Trap 6/2/2015 @11:11am and talked to the trap technician, I asked him how long the trap arm is, the only proper way for the dimension is, The rubber contact distance that target contacts the arm is 14 1/2"inches, so a proper comparasion is how long is the WW-1524 rubber contact distance, he also stated the compound of the rubber strip is important, it's grip on the target is very important.

He also stated a longer arm cannot be installed, the carasouel would have to be modified, and the support posts would have to be re-designed. a major job requirement.

Gary Bryant Dr.longshot

 

Gary,

I'm interested to hear what Roger has to say about arm length and how it stabilizes a target. If the stabalization is all in the spin then it doesn't appear that PAT traps are inferior (that assumes Jhunts test results are accurate). With the exception of the left hand target on doubles the PAT trap provide more target spin than WW.

With regard to recalls, making a comparison between an automotive safety issue and a PAT Trap target quality issue is not realistic.

 

Good job on that call, Dr. Longshot! Interesting and well balanced information which addresses questions some of us had, and well and clearly presented too.

N1H1

 

One would assume that if any association (ATA) was going to make a major purchase the dealer, retailer, Wholesaler, manufactor would or should be able to or be called upon to prove their product can do what the purchaser requires by existing standards ... The Standards are set forth by the ATA, Pat Trap, GMV or anyone else should have to conform to the given standards or be eliminated ... Simple Logic and common sense ... WPT ... (YAC) ...

 

The way it seems to work around here is someone makes a statement, then another poster makes some incorrect assumptions based on the initial post and takes it a step farther, then more posters start quoting the second level post as if it was fact, and before long all is lost. Remember how it went with the statements that Pat Traps could not throw a straight-away from 1 and 5?

 

Bat,
I am just a reader and not much of a poster. I have never seen where someone said on this forum that the PATS could not throw straightaways from 1 and 5. I have read however that the wider the angles 0n the PATS the fewer angles you will get from the PATS.

I have also read where the PATS are not nearly as good at throwing angles.

Like you implied. Someone makes a statement that is incorrect. Or maybe you would like to post where someone said PATS "cannot throw angles from 1 and 5."

You sound like you do not like the forum.

 

That might have been me. I however did correct that assessment. The PAT Trap can go 30 degrees left and right of center.

"jhunts said: ↑
I am not sure where this comes from, the PAT Trap seemingly does throw relatively a good target, it just does not nor will ever throw a target equivalent to a straight away from post 1 and 5. Hence the rule change."

I then tested and wrote this,

"Bat,
Thank you for you continued questioning of my statement. When you wrote "misleading", well, that is not what I want to do for anything, if I can help it. Unless it is telling the kids, "I have no money", though at times this is also true. This is what I found out.
The PAT Trap can throw adequate target angles. I went out to a field where I am at. Luckily the field manager was in a good mood and allowed me to do whatever I wanted.
My testing showed that the stroke of the piston or rod is about 10" bottom to bottom using MAN mode. The stroke of the piston with switches set at maximum width was about 9 3/4 inches, slightly less then bottom to bottom. Using bottom to bottom the field I achieved by eyeball was slightly over 60 degrees or about 30 either side of center. When the switches were placed in the most spread position it looked about 56 degrees or 28 degrees either side of center.
Of course the above was done with a tape measure and eyeballing to the highest degree that can be or thereabout.
So, yes the statement I made about the PAT Trap could not do 3 hole angles was in error and misleading. For that I apologize."


Shoot well.

John

 

I've always said there's not so much wrong with the PAT traps that a little more speed wouldn't correct, especially on 39 mph doubles in the wind. We should fix that fiasco asap with an amendment in the rules. Not fixed for the top shooters but the "B" , "C" and "D" class doubles shooters. Probably amount to doubles actually growing in numbers too!

HAP

 

Gary,

My kid stated the PAT Trap arm is 17 3/4" from the pivot point, he also stated, about 12 1/2" from the center of the target to the end of the arm. It is about 2" shorter than PAT Trap measurement, but maybe that is from the furthest point of the target to the end of the arm instead of the center of the target or contact point at the arm.

The spin rates noted may or may not reflect the entirety of each machine. The reason it appears the WW had a faster Left target was more arm length travel. In the doubles slot the let target was about 14.5" from the end where as the PAT maintained 12.5" The singles position of the WW was very similar to the PAT at about 12.5". The WW machine in the doubles configuration seems like it should also have a faster right target as it also has a longer length. One thing that was noted was at the moment of arm movement on the particular WW Traps I looked at. The right target would separate from the left target, which led to an effective arm length near equal to the PAT. The PAT has the long finger keeping the target in place, it appears, longer.

Shoot well.

John

 

Mosser,

Ok with what I said now? I like the site fine, just not some of the misleading posts that appear so often, and i am not referring to jhunts when i say that. Look at the top of this thread for statements that I'm really referring to.

How many posts have we seen implying pats cannot throw "legal" targets? I'd say quite a few. Note that Roger does not really say that, but the OP keeps running with it.

 

Bat....this is from your friend NW.

As I was scanning this thread I ran across a (properly attributed and accurate ) quote from a piece I wrote about Pat Traps and WW and GMV's a couple of years ago.

""1. The motion of the trap slows as it gets far-right or far-left so it spends more time there, increasing the chances that it will be there when the command to throw a target arrives and
2. The motion of the trap is fastest as toward the middle so it spends less time there, decreasing the chances that it will be there when the command to throw a target arrives.
The combined effect of 1. and 2. is that Pat Traps throw fewer angles and more straightaways than do either WW or GMV traps."

I must say I didn't even understand that, plucked from its context. As I read the source I wonder if it was the reason a couple of posters thought I didn't like Pat Traps. I think it is a good article and will be of interest to some of the technically-inclined participants here. As is noted above, it's from Nov 16, 2013. Here's the whole thing so readers here can learn a bit about some brand differences and the trigonometry which underlies those differences.

"Tim, you not only pass, you get the gold star with oak leaf cluster.

For those who don't watch tennis, a sine wave looks like this:



In your mind, label the horizontal axis "time" and the vertical axis "position." Then the slope of the snaky line will be "velocity" but think of it as "speed," how fast the trap is moving, side to side. This sine wave illustrates the travel of a Winchester-Western or a GMV or any other trap who's oscillation is controlled by a rotating disc.

Where the line crosses the horizontal midpoint, where the trap is in the center, the slope is greatest; that is, it's speed is the highest. In contrast, as the line (the trap) approaches its highest and lowest values (trap is approaching hard-left and hard-right) the slope lessens (the trap slows down) and at the extreme it stops before smoothly accelerating up to maximum speed in the other direction which speed will again occur when the trap is in the middle.

Now in your mind replace the sine wave with simple saw-teeth, moving from one high to the next low, then the next high in straight lines. This is more like the motion of a Pat trap which hardly stops at all when it is changing directions.*

If the uninterrupted travel is the same, say ten cycles a minute, then you can see the differences. The speed in the center of the Pat trap is less, but the speed is maintained almost to the point where it reverses. So the WW (or GMV) trap spends more time at (edit: or) near the extremes for two reasons:

1. The motion of the trap slows as it gets far-right or far-left so it spends more time there, increasing the chances that it will be there when the command to throw a target arrives and

2. The motion of the trap is fastest as toward the middle so it spends less time there, decreasing the chances that it will be there when the command to throw a target arrives.

The combined effect of 1. and 2. is that Pat Traps throw fewer angles and more straightaways than do either WW or GMV traps.

I cannot agree with you, Tim, that you need to know the rotational speed of the platen or the linear speed of the Pat Trap. I think the ratios of time spent at the various points will be the same - and so the relative performance in respect to angles thrown - is not dependent on the speed at all.

Past-President Crausbay was the first to alert me that the machines differed in this respect and I thank him for his insight. I also think it is another thing to add to Gary's list of reasons people score better now than they used to.

Neil

 

Huh?

What's that got to do with my point about posts implying pat's can't throw legal ATA targets? You are just reinforcing my point.

If you don't like pats, that's fine, but don't lie about them.

it is not right to make statements that pats can't throw legal targets, as the OP is implying and asking about recalls . Many here seem to read Rogers posts to be saying pats throw illegal targets, but he is actually complaining about the quality of the target, mainly in doubles under certain conditions. I don't believe he, nor Neil in the above cut and paste, said anything about not being able to throw legal targets.

I liked gmvs more myself, but I wouldn't make things up about pats to put them down.

 

Again Bat

Please copy and paste where someone said the PATS cannot throw a legal target from post 1 and 5. I see many posts where they throw low quality targets. I see posts where they will not throw many angles. I see posts implying corruption in the bidding. U see posts where the PATS have problems at low speed.

Mosser

 

The PAT traps can and does throw a legal ATA rulebook target @ 17.x degrees to each side of center. It just doesn't hang around the extremes as long as handsets or some of the other types of traps when it comes to throwing the extreme angles.

Using the current set of rules, a trap machine could move quicker from center area to extremes and back even quicker than PAT traps and still be a legal ATA target. Such a machine so timed would up the ante for even more center thrown targets tremendously and remain a legal ATA target. Amounting to a "one hole target" @ 13 degrees while remaining legal in accordance to the rule book as written for 17.x degree angles.

Our rule doesn't say how the targets should be spread out across the spectrum, only that the machine (CAN) get there and possibly throw such an angle @ 17.x degrees.

I've shot targets off a PAT trap cranked up with blazing speed and a vicious angle! So the machine is capable of throwing a wicked angle with a lot of distance. Our speed limit on it for doubles gives it a bad rap, unjustly so in my opinion. More speed means more RPMs which helps stabilize targets in breezes out to where the average shooter makes their shot. But, most here already knew all that.

HAP

 

Umm... if you simply read the post from JHunts above after your original question you will see the quote. Note that JHunts was not the only one implying that, and he did correct his post just as he stated above.

 

Bat.

There are none saying that in this thread as you said. Even with Hunt...that post was long ago and his test and numbers were somewhat rough at best. His conclusion was that they can throw a legal target. (however poorly or consistently) So we ponder again whether anyone in this thread actually said that PATs were not capable of throwing a legal target and of course that is not true.

It is you, playing the roll as troll that made up the statement.

I can remind you of your post.

No one said that!

Unless of course you can copy and paste where someone said otherwise in the thread.

Troll on!

 

Hap,

Just to tack on to what you posted - note that the ATA rules never required a machine that because of its design would necessarily throw more angle targets, that result was simply what we became accustomed to after the machines with the revolving plates became standard. My guess (and I do not claim to be an expert on this at all) is that a Pat will actually throw a more random target simply because, from that standpoint, the 1524's were inferior due to the design based on a rotating plate and attached arm (see Neil's explanation above that Mosser pasted). Maybe that isn't what we are looking for, but it makes sense to me.

 

Mosser, what's up with you? What do you mean "No one said that!" The quote was already posted by Jhunts above in response to your initial denial, but if you insist here it is again:

"jhunts said: ↑
I am not sure where this comes from, the PAT Trap seemingly does throw relatively a good target, it just does not nor will ever throw a target equivalent to a straight away from post 1 and 5. Hence the rule change."

And again, he did take the time to correct this statement, which many here fail to do.

To recap, since you have convoluted it so much - My original post in this thread is talking about how posts get misleading after people pick up on things posted by others, and it gets worse as it goes along. I used the "straights from 1 and 5" issue as an example of that. Then you challenged that "I have never seen where someone said on this forum that the PATS could not throw straightaways from 1 and 5", and Jhunts showed you where he said exactly that. Note that I never stated that that post was originally made in this thread. The posts I am really referring to involving misleading posts in this thread are those by Dr Longshot near the top implying, at least to me, that Pats can't throw targets to ATA rules because of the arm length, and there is a need for a recall.

 

Bat err troll..

That came from another thread. Hunts post was from long ago which was corrected by the author as noted earlier.

Still waiting for you to show where someone on this thread said the PATS cannot throw a legal target. You cannot. You are a troll.

Troll on Bat.

 

Well, the post I am referring to is #5 above - "The trap as is cannot conform to ATA target specifications"

 

That post does not specifically say Pats cannot throw a legal target as you said.

Earlier you pointed at the Hunt post. Trolls often confuse themselves.

Don't run away angry. Forums need a few trolls.

Troll on Bat

 

Talk about trolls! To each his own ... my guess is that the majority of people would consider that a misleading statement, but if it isn't to you fine. It appears we are both in agreement that Pat's throw legal ATA targets.

 

Bat

We are not in agreement. There were better options for the ATA. That has been shown. The PATS throw inconsistent targets at certain speeds. It is in question whether the ATA and shooters expected as many angles as non-angles from the trap they were to purchase. In my opinion this violates the spirit of the rules where they are to be random and unpredictable.

There were better options available. Amazing how you became a very vocal person when the subject of the bogus bidding process came up.

So what info do you have? Where are the free PAT traps that were given to the ATA to close the bidding process prematurely. Who got those? Where did they go?

You doth protests too much.

 

there has been so much talk about Pat Traps not throwing very many angles. That was the purpose of the thread. What I have not heard yet was the length of the WW-1524 trap arm, the length of the rubber that meets the target, so we have a fair comparison. The actual length of the rubber, as it would compare
with a Pat Trap. This is a fair comparasion.. This is what determines the speed and spin of the target.

The longer the arm, the harder the angle is, and the faster the target goes, and the the spin.

Gary Bryant Dr.longshot

 

Bat is referring to me and my post, if a trap was built knowingly, that will not perform to ATA Target angles and speed. we the Trapshooters were cheated,

The length of the Trap Arm determines Target Spin RPMs. Was the ATA bamboozled?

We now know the trap arm cannot be lengthened w/o a major design change.

Gary Bryant Dr.longshot

 

As a trap mechanic for several clubs, I will say, in my opinion, the Pat is easy to set where it CAN throw targets at proper angles. In operation, it does NOT stay at the left/right limits for long.

My question is why could the relay not be re designed to keep the machine at left and right limits for a short period of time?

Instead of the relay more or less quickly reversing direction of the machine once it gets to the limit switch, a relay could be produced with a variable time delay to let it stay at the limit for a "minute", as well as randomly stopping elsewhere.

This would likely give our friends on the Trap line something ELSE to gripe about. "I haven't had ONE straight away this whole round!"

I have gotten a new Solid State Interrupter from Pat, I have not had time to see it in action. We are getting ready for three State Shoots, AIM, State, and SCTP. Maybe after these are done. It takes the AGC3 fuse, for anyone who has one.

Since the Pat is the machine of choice at most clubs, I will add that keeping the machines in a good state of repair, with fresh throwing arm rubber, bands, brake assy', brush, and O-rings, will help it throw the best possible targets for this machine.

With an updated doubles finger, the machine throws respectable targets. It is what it is. A good machine for the club, it will easily throw a million + targets with only routine, even sparse service.

As for spin, that is above my pay grade. If they come out with a kit to lengthen the arm, I am sure I will be the one to install them in my area.

I enjoy working on them and know them pretty well, so please leave them alone.

 

Gary,

As far as spin, the PAT and WW are similar, and what I have seen so far the PAT actually has the edge. I would have liked to say otherwise. It however is not true. IMO

Shoot well.

John

 

Shooting Coach: give me the name of the Mfgr of the new solid state relay, and the model# and I will look up the specs, I have an idea, e-mail me the info to gary1941@twc.com I would appreciate it.
Dr.longshot

 

Pat sent us the new Interruptor, use the AGC 3 fuse. I have not had a chance to try it.

The "Ice Cube" relay could be re designed to pause at the end of the machine's travel, when the contacts swap sides.

That is not my area of expertise, but could be done with a programmable chip.

 

jhunts.
If the Pat's have more spin on the targets can you explain why it takes very little breeze to affect the flight of them off of the Pat trap machine? Is it the lower launch speed that is the problem? Are the targets showing to much face and the wind has more area to affect the flight path?

One thing I can say for sure is targets thrown off of a stationary plate are not as stable in flight as those thrown from a moving arm.

 

I wonder too what the condition of the hand-set was at the time of jhunts test? A worn rubber slide and other parts connected with the arm can play havoc with clays thrown too.

Roger C., launch speed is proportional to the amount of RPMs, that would be true with any machine. PAT traps and 39 mph doubles works best on bluebird windless days. Those are hard to come by here!

HAP

 

Roger,

I cannot and honestly, I haven't noticed that. One of the WW traps I looked, which was the one of the info I did not use as it was way off the other two. On the slow side. Maybe I should have put it into the selection, it would have made the average even slower though for the WW. The surface of the are felt different from the other two. I cannot explain it now but it did, was thinking that was part of the problem. I maybe have not been a problem at all.

When I started with this WW, it was set up for doubles, I will say it was really tough field, as the right target would start down in a hurry, in any kind of wind really. When I radared the target it was 34mph, if I remember correctly. It did however go to the coffee can that was out there as a guide as to distance to throw the target. So I started measuring, the coffee can which was used as a guide was only 40 yards away. Now things make sense.

To me now the targets are better, but compared to the other clubs with PATS seem fine. As HAP insinuates though faster is better, I agree.

I have a personal trap that has a flat plate, as I started this project of seeing spin rates, I was going to try and get pics of as many as possible. I took some pics of this trap, that seemed to throw ok. Then I took the first videos. The target was wobbling in flight. Something I could not notice in real time. After being a little astonished as what I saw, I took a video of the throw. At some point the arm instead of only touching the drive ring, it touched the outer ring. I adjusted the arm to only touch the drive ring and now it is a whole different animal. I was astounded at how well it throws targets now. I always wanted to give it away because it just wasn't great. Well now it is great and I will keep it.

I can imagine, if for whatever reason the arm touches the outer ring it mess up the flight. I do not notice, and did not notice anything odd about the target flights I filmed. Though I was not looking for perfect flight and only looking to get the target to fly through where my camera was positioned. Most times I had a very short amount of time to get what I needed to get done.

I hope this helps.

HAP,

What my help and I noticed in particular was the surface of the arm of the slowest spin targets was different. Along with that, we noticed what seemed to be the softest most pliable arm rubber was the slowest spin and the least pliable was the fastest spinning machine. I never sanded or tried getting one changed.

I did notice the faster you throw the target the greater the spin rate.

Shoot well.

John

 

Two of the clubs I regulary shoot at have Pat Traps, Tonite while sitting in my wheelchair watching shooters and targets while waiting to shoot, I noticed very few targets were thrown to the left.

The interuptor was turned on, trap had the 3 hole angle bar settings, Sensors were in 3 hole settings, throwing singles 50 yards.

It the Pat Trap very seldom threw right angles, most were hard left, target angle varied once in a great while we got a hard right, most were quarter in the easy zone approx. 10 degrees from center left and right.

Shooters could not attempt to READ the trap due to varying pulls of the shooters.

We shot mostly 3 man buddies due to the large crowd, they did throw one 4 man buddy, which all really wanted, we got some lost targets for shooting out of turn.

The reason for the extra large crowd tonite was the WILD JOKER MONEY POT was at $7240.00, nobody got the Joker tonite, POT will be over $ 8,000 next Thursday.

Shooters are driving over 150 miles to the ONE TRAP club, in Athens, Ohio
From West Virginia, 90 miles away, to Marion, Ohio 150 miles away. most shooters are in 70 mile radius, we have 4 lady buddy shooters, and 6=8 teenagers
that are very, very, Good buddy shooters, 2 of them are girls.

The club does not throw soft targets either.

Your club should have a WILD JOKER pot, it is a great draw, $5.00 per ticket to get in on it, club keeps 20% of the winnings, if you are present, if you are not present at drawing club keeps 40%, so there is incentive to be there. Been 26 weeks now.

Gary Bryant Dr.longshot

 

jhunts,

In one of my other posts I said the arms are very important to throwing quality targets. The rubber must be 1/3 of its thickness above the target surface it contacts. It is also very important that the arm is perfectly parallel to the throwing plate all the way through the throwing arc.

I found that all plastic arms may last longer but they allow the target to slip before it starts to spin off of the arm. On a short arm this is a problem. Especially when setting doubles targets. It is a bigger problem with motor surge fire machines. Many of them bump the targets as they start.

One of the reasons for the good targets thrown from the old WW 1524 hand trap was the design of the throwing arm. If you look below the carrier rail you will see a small ledge on the arm. When the target moves down the arm it only contacts the carrier rail and this small ledge thus eliminating 90% of the friction on the target. When this ledge wore off the targets became erratic, but it happened so slowley that very few knew why. Throwing quality targets is more than putting them in the air.

 

Dr Longshot,

There is a game that clubs should play to help entice shooters ... I like it and could see me doing this faithfully ... WPT ... (YAC) ...

 

Thanks,

I have no reason to doubt any of that. I will have to look at the arm of the offender. All I can say right now is it was different in feel and see the results of the test assumed there was a problem.

Shoot well.

John

 

What is a WILD JOKER pot?

 

It has been a while since I posted on the BIG JOKER POT
it's been weeks now and that BIG JACKPOT is at$12,295.

Crowd is so big now for the money, we have been shooting 4 man buddies, I am still in my Wheelchair.
I just got my Stock back from Dave Berlet installing Adj.
Comb, fantastic job, I got it back with 5 spacers on each post, installed Bbl and sight picture is what I needed so I did not change a thing, I was out of the money only once this evening. 2nd measuring for new Foot on 7/23/15
GB DLS