Lets talk changes to handicap and shootoff rules (wobble & presentation)

BTW,

It is very difficult to entice newbies to trap when more and more clubs decide to close their clubs to the public for non ATA trap shooting. So why would anyone want to take up trap to a bunch of unfriendly gun clubs. They cannot come out to shoot without membership, memberships are full and some have 1-3 year waiting lists. Public ranges are pricy, and seldom have ATA shoots, so the "off the street" person interested in taking it up, has no avenue to start easily.

 

Because

 

You are pretty funny.
If you ever take up trap shooting we should shoot a few rounds.

 

I can drive to 30 clubs in an hour and a half and become a member at most of them all in the same day. You don't have to be a member to shoot. What state are you from?

 

I live in Arizona and Colorado

Go to the web site that lists clay target ranges, you will see very few places listed for either State. Out West it takes an hour to drive between two clubs.

 

Let me know when Green Dot comes back to the shelves.

 

And you guys are good at promoting trapshooting......funny

 

No it's not funny. There are evil influences here, mostly from those who in the last 30 years snuck across our borders from California and New York. Then there are the knee jerk reactionaries who make gun ownership out to be an evil thing because two horrid shootings in Littleton and Aurora CO and one in Tuscon AZ.

Don't think for a minute I do not truly envy people in the Midwest for numerous trap shooting facilities. You don't know how lucky you are. That is why it pains me to see anyone connected to a shooting discipline condemn a discipline he or she does not participate in. We need to all stick together and not fight each other. We have enough enemies from the outside and don't need any from within.

 

AZCOTRAP,

Why are you determining who my, "cohorts" are? Why would you use the word, "guys", when it appears you are talking at least in one instance, apparently, a woman? Was that a slight, I am thinking just an oversight.

AZCOTRAP said, "You say we are losing shooters, then you want me to prove what you are repeating.." Let me remind you, YOU SAID

Could you please just answer the statements of what you said.

First you say the ATA had been losing members for decades prior to the rule change, but the ATA wasn't. Now you say the ATA is not losing numbers but give a description of your personal experience where they are.

Please keep the conversation on what YOU SAID, "ATA trap has been losing shooters long before the targets became easier.". Maybe you could tell me when the targets became, "easier", by rule.

Using your words, "losing shooters", and now, "in fact the numbers are the same, no they are growing". Which is it, were they in fact the same, or were they growing in numbers prior to the rule changes?

AZCOTRAP said, "I based my observation of fewer shooters, because of the dwindling numbers of shooters I see at clubs in my area, the decline number of shooters at my club, plus the loss of half a dozen trap clubs in the last 4o years." Could you please state the names of the gun clubs and the dates they closed? Could you show when the "dwindling numbers of shooters" started? Assuming of course you are talking ATA shooters.

AZCOTRAP said, "At my club we would have 50-60 shooters for an ATA shoot 20 years ago. Last shoot this month we had 7 shooters." Interesting, in the previous sentence you said, "dwindling numbers... last 40 years", now you say and show by your standards, dwindling in the last 20 years. Ok, this year is 2015 and 20 years ago was 1995, is that correct?

Maybe, you can yourself start connecting dots. In my opinion it wasn't money that drove shooters away. If that was the case you would have seen an serious decline in the late 70's early 80's. Was that the case?

Thanks

Shoot well.

John

 

Sporting Clays ate our lunch while the casinos took away the gamblers. You're left with a few motor home based trinket shooters-has nothing to do with target difficulty but plenty do do with people's perception of our once fine game. The "what's in it for me" new shooters disappear within two years because they soon find out pewter plates won't pay their shooting bills. Focus on improving the Handicap event (our strong suit) and we may be able to compete for those new shooters. Without that, ATA shooting is toast!

 

Must admit, it's been interesting reading about all the changes since I just recently got back into trap shooting after laying off completely for 30 years. Must say it was one wild ride my first year. I know here in Ohio were I moved from the east coast last year there're plenty of clubs to shoot.
But it really Ill's me when I drive by the water tower in Vandalia and see nothing. My last shoot at Vandalia was in 1985 were I picked up a Doubles Trophy. Good shootin to everyone.
Rick

 

Rick
Welcome back.

 

Azco

What does your graph show? Please explain it.
Show us where it shows membership.

 

Because you are missing out on a bunch if fun

 

Lady T, I am not, I have shot it, it's fun. I'm telling you about other people's choices and that is the correlation I am trying to make to ATA REGISTERED TRAPSHOOTING!

Other posters.
I know there are more people who shoot causal get together fun club trap who shoot on a Pat trap, a wobble or a hand trap. There is Bunker. There is Sporting Clays, There is 5 stand. There maybe 500,000, maybe a million, maybe 5 million, people who shoot "trap," but there are only some 28,000 ATA members. You look at the ATA website it says there is 30,000 but it has not been updated for a while.

The topic I am talking about is ATA REGISTERED SHOOTING, where I see less and less participation every year.

The topic I am talking about is ATA REGISTERED SHOOTING, where I see less and less participation every year.

The topic I am talking about is ATA REGISTERED SHOOTING, where I see less and less participation every year.

The topic I am talking about is ATA REGISTERED SHOOTING, where I see less and less participation every year.

The topic I am talking about is ATA REGISTERED SHOOTING, where I see less and less participation every year.

 

And yes, move the Grand closer to a major population center with amenities where people will look forward to attending and meeting the target requirements!

 

Were talking 38 yds Doubles to 50 yd doubles, I do not understand your 1 yard, what do you mean?

GB DLS

 

Our club members love the wobble trap, AZCOTRAP: There is a line waiting to shoot wobble.

GB DLS

 

There is only few thousand active members I think I saw the number was 2,800 active members across the ATA, Canada, and foreign countries.

GB DLS

 

There are no 38 yard doubles.

Singles targets shall be thrown not less than 49 yards nor more than 51 yards.
In doubles shooting, targets shall be thrown not less than 44 yards nor more than 46 yards.

 

You might want to check that number.

 

I believe in in 1954 there was 70,000 active ATA trapshooters and still climbing.

Gary Bryant Dr.longshot

 

I believe our new delegate will have something to say


GB DLS

 

Well that should be pretty interesting.
Roger McNamer would be a great spokesman.
I look forward to his official comments.

 

You stated, possibly in another thread, to throw targets 50-52 yards; The current ATA flight is 49-51 yards in still air. The average between the two is 1 yard difference. (Low: 49-50; Ave:50-51; High:51-52) Also, where do they throw 38 yard doubles? Unless the targets were thrown almost vertically, they would hit the ground before most folks could possibly shoot the second target.

 

I've seen singles thrown 35 to 40 yards and called legal. Are they?

 

No they are not, at least not in a registered ATA doubles event.

 

I doubt you saw 35 to 40 yd. Singles. Did you go out into the field with a tape measure to provide those numbers or did you simply look out on the field and say-yup?

 

F.
RULES FOR THE USE OF RADAR GUNS AND CHRONOGRAPHS
TO SET TARGET SPEED
There are two types of radar guns, high-power and low-power. The practical
difference between them is that high-power guns work reliably from the
16-yard line and low-power guns don’t.
High-power guns (Decatur, Stalker, most “police radar guns” and similar)
are to be used at the 16-yard line. The trap oscillation is stopped, and the
target measured is a straightaway. The gun is pointed horizontally. The
correct speed for a singles or handicap target is a minimum of 42 MPH,maximum 43 MPH.

If the targets were set using a radar gun they may have fell short depending on wind conditions but 10 to 15 yards short is a lot.

 

Wishbone,

Thanks for bringing up the radar and chrono rules.

What is the average distance thrown by a 67fps chronographed target?

Yes, thanks, what year did the trend towards lower begin, and what changed, if anything, just prior to that, if you know?

Shoot well.

John

 

H1N1

I notice that your graph does not mention that 1995 was a shortened target year. 11 months instead of 12 right? In the interest of accuracy that should have been mentioned, if accuracy was important. So they shot less targets that year.

Also prior to your lifetime achievement of making the targets less sporting I found some more stats you did not mention.

Despite having the shortened year participants in '95 was 54,462. (3 hole year)

In '97 with the 2 hole targets membership was 53,787.

And now after receiving your lifetime achievement award as being instrumental in rescinding the 3-hole rule (making the trapshooting less sporting) our membership has reached around 28,000.

So did taking the Sport out of trapshooting give you the results you desired? Is this the outcome you wanted? You were given that lifetime achievement award by the State of MN for being instrumental in this endeavor.

Highpoints were; Jim Bradford, past ATA President, and Neil were able to get the misfire rule changed, and Neil was instrumental in getting the 3-hole target rule rescinded.

How do you feel about it now?

Are these the results you wanted.

 

Wow. Participation sure plummeted when they dumbed down the targets and made them 2 hole. Can't argue with statistics.

 

Family Guy raised some interesting figures. Here are some charts that show the results of making targets easier:





The graphs speak for themselves. Moving to 2-Hole targets looks like it was a disastrous move.

 

Family Guy, the graph reflects the shortened target year. It took a bit of estimating, but I did it as fairly as I could. Why don't you do one with singles over several years to test your "marathon" theory?

There is nothing surprising about the fact that shooting did not bounce right back the next year. Some of the people who quit probably never returned; others may have faded, rather than jumped, back in. After the 2-hole was instated in August 1996, shooting did slowly recover, but how many did we lose forever? That's what's so dangerous about the attitude "If we change to harder targets, then members will just have to get over it and shoot them." As they showed us in 1995 and 1996, members all know they can do something else with their time, money, weekends. And now their choices are even broader and we are older still, more set in our way then ever. There's no assurance that shooting would recover ever from any change people didn't like. That's why I say rule changes are also political rather than just procedural. Change people's minds and then change the rules. It doesn't work the other way.

I chose handicap participation for my illustration because that's what three-hole targets were supposed to benefit. In particular, including doubles would have been a mistake, since few, if any, threw longer doubles as were temporarily required. For example, the birds at the Grand in both years are set just as they had been for more than a decade; when I pointed that out in the 1995 Annual Meeting is was later scolded by the ED for having said it. But it was true; I checked.

Check your membership numbers. You are obviously mixing things up. How about going back and getting the right numbers so people are not misled? Or is this another one of your "marathon" and "3-hole" cockups?

To readers here: 67 fps chronograph-set targets go about 48 yards on the average.

LadyT, the median average for all singles shooters in 2013 was 90.00. For handicap, 86.50. For doubles, 81.83. Our targets do not seem to be "fish is a barrel" for most of us, how come for you?

Yours in Sport,

N1H1

 

I keep staring at the graphs and it does not appear you did that. You did not even mention it.

In the interest of accuracy as you requested I have will give some more numbers you did not want to use.

In 1995 we had 54,462 participants despite the year being shortened by a month.

In 1997 we were down to 53,787.

In 1998 we were down to 54,208.

In 2014 we were down to 28, 600 participants.

And now after receiving your lifetime achievement award as being instrumental in rescinding the 3-hole rule (making the trapshooting less sporting) our membership has reached around 28,000.

So did taking the Sport out of trapshooting give you the results you desired? Is this the outcome you wanted? You were given that lifetime achievement award by the State of MN for being instrumental in this endeavor.

Highpoints were; Jim Bradford, past ATA President, and Neil were able to get the misfire rule changed, and Neil was instrumental in getting the 3-hole target rule rescinded.

How do you feel about it now?

Are these the results you wanted.

 

FG, you must know that the numbers you are quoting are not faintly accurate. Regardless of what the early pages of the T&F average book say, you have to make your own approximate count.

In the mid-1990's, the average book had about 110 shooters on a page, but many pages, because of titles and so on, contained fewer. There were 310 or so pages in that part (B) of the book. Do the math, as any careful person interested in the truth, not bombast, would have done.

NH1

 

To continue H1N1---the math is correct.

In the interest of accuracy as you requested we can look at total targets registered. You have not included those numbers either.

In 1997 there were 81, 669, 910 targets registered.

By 2014 there were 30 million less targets registered.

And now you have the short quip:

In 2015 there isn't a need for so many pages.

After all this accuracy checking lets sum things up again.

So did taking the Sport out of trapshooting give you the results you desired? Is this the outcome you wanted? You were given that lifetime achievement award by the State of MN for being instrumental in this endeavor.

Highpoints were; Jim Bradford, past ATA President, and Neil were able to get the misfire rule changed, and Neil was instrumental in getting the 3-hole target rule rescinded.

How do you feel about it now?

Are these the results you wanted?

 

Thanks,

What is the current rule for a target, a single target to fly "not less than"?

Shoot well.

John

 

It is interesting as well it appears N1H1 is stuck on Handicap as a guide to targets thrown.

Wouldn't an angle change have an effect on singles as well.

I would also point out in 1990 when there were 5640 registered tournaments and when I imagine the member ship thought they were shooting targets as a straightaway for post 1 and 5 is nearly the same as 2000 as is depicted by N1H1 graph of only handicap targets.

Using N1H1's graph:

In 1990 5640 registered tournaments with approximately 3.26 million handicap targets
In 2000 6360 registered tournaments with approximately 3.28 million handicap targets

In 1990 this is on average 5780 handicap targets per tournament.
In 2000 this is on average 5150 handicap targets per tournament.

In 1996 a full year of mandated 3 hole targets there were 5950 registered tournaments that shot 80,360,790 targets or about 13500 targets thrown per tournament and roughly 5040 handicap targets per tournament using N1H1 graph at 3,000,000 handicap targets.
In 1997 the first year of 2 hole or 17 degree targets there were 6089 registered tournament that shot 81,669,910 targets or about 13400 targets thrown per tournament and roughly 4990 handicap targets per tournament using N1H1 graph at 3,040,000 handicap targets.

In 1996 there were 54,366 active members.
In 1997 there were 53,787 active members.

Shoot well.

John

 

If you were to read the ATA rule book which is online, settings for handicap are the same for singles. There is no difference in the settings. It was the same before 3 hole. Settings for singles is the same for handicap.

Currently targets are to be set at 17 degrees angles and between 8-10 feet in height measured 10 yards/30 feet from front of the house and must fly a minimum or 48 yards not to exceed 52 yards from the trap machine. Target speed has can be measured one of two ways, either by the height and distance setting or by a radar gun. But the radar gun is for use to determine target speed as written in the rule book, not angle, height and distance. The targets must still be set to the min-max angle, height and distance settings first and last.

Here is a link to the rule book

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

Look at pages 47 and 48 and notice at the bottom of the settings section, it says target speed may be determined using settings or measuring devices as described.

Also note there are two types of radar guns and different target speed settings depending on the type of gun used.

Using a chronograph per the rule book, again singles or handicap, speed is 67-69 FPS and the chronograph must be elevated to the same angle as the height angle of the target. How many people using a chronograph angle it to the same degree as the target ???

It big ado about nothing when it comes to target speed if the angles, height and distance settings are per the rule book.

Another thing people overlook in this never ending pointless arguement over angles in 3 hole vs 2 hole is not only was the angles reduced, but the recommended height of the target 10 yards from trap was increased from 8-1/2 feet to 9-1/2 feet. When you raise the height of the target, it presents more target face, the dome which is the thinnest part of the clay, than the rim which is the thickest part of the clay. When you lower the target you see less dome, if any, but more rim, making the target appear smaller.

If you want more difficult but legal ATA targets, set the angles to maximum allowed, height to lowest height allowed and distance to shortest. Forget about target speed. Shoot those at you next club shoot then come back and report to us if there is a difference.

 

AZCOTRAP,

Thanks.

Could you explain what you wrote in the above with respect to the current rule. Here is the current rule, I guess you did not take your own advice. Here is a little help.

"Singles targets shall be thrown not less than 49 yards nor more than 51 yards."

Now if as N1H1 states 67fps which is also approximately the minimum of 42mph as stated averages 48 yards does it meet the objective of the rule?

One thing the various rules committees and boards did not understand, IMO, is range. Just like when implementing the transitioned shell rule. The basic understanding was either misunderstood or manipulated.

What is also interesting is the appox. average of 67fps is 48 yards average, 68fps is 49 yards and 69fps is 50 yards. It looks to me the winner in a setting for target rules is 69fps and a target setting of 44mph. Those are 50 yard average settings.

Thanks, I would have missed that without you mentioning it.

"Note: target speed may be set by distance as above or by speed as determined by a radar gun or chronograph. Target must be set by measured speed or distance."

Do you think there should a difference among the ways of setting the targets that have a material difference. There is a reason why the recommended distance setting was at one time 50 yards. The 50 yard setting was to be the average and as in skeet it was a given targets fall + and minus of the setting. It was at one time 2 yards, now I guess as the PAT Trap the official trap, it must be capable of throwing targets +- 1 yard. With variable release rates and targets of variable weights within current rules. Pretty good

ADDED: Though I should state, in order for a target thrown from a machine that has a +- 1yd tolerance in distance traveled, it should be thrown at the center of the range which would be in ATA's case 50 yards on average.

I did not know this, could you show me where it was ever recommended as 8 1/2 feet? Thanks. What does this, if you know have anything to do with distance thrown.

Here is today's rule: "The recommended height is 9 or 9 1/2 feet"
Here is 1982's rule: "THE RECOMMENDED HEIGHT IS NINE FEET"
Here is 1955's rule: "The recommended height is from 9 to 10 feet"
Here is 1934's rule: "The flight of the targets - between 6 and 12 feet high at a point 10 yards from the trap"
Here is 1919's rule: Same as the 1934 rule.

Could you explain the current maximum allowed angle as a setting? Remember the current lowest recommended to me is 9ft. To allow for no target to be thrown less then 8ft.

Thanks.

Shoot well.

John

 

I have no idea where you may have read that as a suggestion but all the rule books I have makes no mention of 8-1/2 foot suggested settings. Even when we shot under the old rules, targets were to be set between 8 to 12 foot high. The recommended height was 9-1/2 foot high even then. Savy club operators set them at 10 foot high to allow for slight elevation differences in case of head or tail winds and still have legal targets without yo-yoing the height setting either up or down on whims! Why that rule was changed is beyond me as it made NO sense whatsoever while creating this yo-yo effect we see at most all clubs when there's a breeze.

HAP

 

Yes, you are correct, I mis-typed 48-52 instead of 49-51. I included the link so people would not just take my word for it and could look it up.

No, I cannot show you the 8-1/2 recommendation, but I do believe I saw it at one time, perhaps for a short lived time. But setting a target at 8-1/2, feet, or 10 feet is not illegal. These settings between 8-10 feet are allowed parameters. A club does not have to follow the 9-1/2 feet recommendation.

As I read the rule, distance, height and angles are primary and target speed is secondary. The rule is not written to say "target setting is either by speed or by distance, height and angles."
The rule does include the wording that "speed can be determined by the distance, height and angles settings OR by using a radar gun or chronograph. " That is why I think all this discussion about speed is unnecessary. Guess I will have to have N1H1 straighten me out.

Think about this, for this clubs who neither have or use radar guns or chronograph, but set the targets based on simply distance, angles and height, then what? Those targets are still legal aren't they? The rule does not say the targets have to be measured by speed as I read it.

As I read the rule, any club can set any targets they want for ease or difficulty, providing those targets travel no less than 49 and no more than 51 feet in distance, 8 feet minimum 10 feet maximum in height at 10 yards/30 feet from the trap in it's center position and the angles do not exceed or are any less than the degrees mentioned in the rule. Why is this even debatable!

 

Okay, I'll retract the reference to 8-1/2 feet recommendation, but 8-1/2 feet is a legal target.

What we have here is a discussion where some what easy targets, some want more difficult targets. All I am saying is the paramemters of target settings gives you the options to have either without adding 3 yards of concrete, reducing the size of the target or the shot shell.

 

Jhunts

as to the min/max angle setting, all I can do is refer you to the rule where it states the minimum is 17 degrees from center, using stakes and the notation the measurement applies 15 to 20 yards from the house and not where it strikes the ground. See middle to bottom of page 46 and halfway down to page 47. Notice there is a proviso that says : "However, no target is to be declared illegal unless it is significantly outside normal parameters (e.g., more than ten degrees what is outside normal).

Notice the last word is "normal," not "legal," not "required."

 

AZCOTRAP,

Yes AZCOTRAP, an individual target thrown that is 8 1/2 feet is a legal target. Is it a legal setting though? If I set it at 8 1/2 and know it varies +- 7 inches at 10 yards, don't you think I should have at least a 8 ft 7 in setting as the lowest. When you set targets don't you see when you start hitting the tbar, some still go slightly over and slightly under? A recommended setting and a real setting should not be at the limits as there is not room for the variability in any form and we know there is.

What can a club do and if they don't follow the recommendation, do they have the proof that whatever the setting is they do use do not fall outside of the maximum or minimum settings? I would think you should follow a recommendation to allow for the variability, even with a perfectly running machine and consistent batch of targets, don't you?

Not only do the targets weigh slightly different, the band reacts slightly different to continued use or breaks in use as well as the point in which the target is thrown from is slightly different from target to target. When the target drops to the tray, it is not the exact spot from target to target. That is why there is a recommended setting and it should be somewhere in the middle. Once it was 6-12ft. Then 8-12 feet. That made sense to me as one of the variables is wind and a equal head wind or tail wind does not have the same effect of the height of the target at 10 yards distant. So the 9 ft setting does make sense to me maybe even the 9.5 ft, as it had effective tolerances, 8 - 12ft. Now with a recommended setting of 9.5 ft and a 10ft maximum window, it leads to resetting unnecessarily targets during a match.

I have no idea what you are talking about here. Either speed or distance, the question to you is, shouldn't the speed setting be equal to the distance setting? If you set a field by distance where the targets fall greater than 49 yards and less than 51 yards they are legal. Now set the same field using speed, if you set them a 67fps and 67fps averages 48 yards, will all the targets fall greater than 49 yards as required by a distance setting, or if the trap really has a +-1yd range wouldn't all targets fall short of 49 yards?

ADDED: Now go with 68fps averaging 49yds, wouldn't half or so fall short of 49 yards and how about 69fps. Wouldn't all targets be greater than 49 yards and short of 51 yards, if 69fps averages 50yds and it has a tolerance of +-1yd?

Ok, it appears the minimum setting is 17 degrees and not illegal unless outside of ten degrees outside normal. What is normal? What is the depicted maximum angle target? If I set the minimum field in the morning and a crosswind comes up, do you adjust the field like you would with height? If not, why not? Wouldn't a minimum angle setting now become an illegal setting in a crosswind?

Thanks.

Shoot well.

John

 

All your questions can be summed up with one answer. The settings are made in print with minimums and maximums and anything outside either is an illegal target.

A target set at 8 feet is legal. A target set at 10 feet is legal. A target set at any height between 8 feet and 10 feet is legal. Any target set to travel 49 yards from the trap is legal. Any target target set to travel up to 51 yards legal. Any target that travels anywhere between 49 and 51 yards is legal.

The only thing I don't understand is what is 10 degrees? Ten degrees variance from 17 degree setting or 10 degrees variance from 34 degrees. Does that mean a target can be plus or minus 7 degrees to 27 degrees? I think it means 10 degrees variance of 34 degrees meaning plus or minus 5 degrees or left or right or 12 to 22 degrees. Confusing isn't it if we don't understand the history of it.

I still believe speed is irrelevant to the issue. The way the rule is written and I understand it, the speed is achieved if the distance, height and angle settings are followed. What I was saying is if a club does not use radar guns to check target speed but does uses H,D & A settings, their targets are not illegal no matter what their speed.

 

So true! Human nature being what it is; will inherently choose the minimum number when it pertains to more difficulty in most anything we do? Is it possible our doubles game may suffer less competitors because it's a known fact that dropping clays are much tougher to HIT than an elevated target? Especially for this class of shooters, I'm talking the B, C and D class shooters here. All of our top doubles shooters at one time came from these classes of shooters?

Targets may be set to straights from posts 1 and 5 and are legal ATA targets and are in fact 44 degree angles.
BTW, how does your club set the targets?

HAP

 

Source: TrapshootingUSA. July-August 2015

Article: 2 Hole or 3 Hole Targets

Author: Sean Hawley ( with guest contributors )

He writes about the current rules as I have referred to and posted the link. Then he sums up the rule about the angles with this:

"These rules (as now written) are designed to allow for no target being thrown less than the 2 hole standard, but will allow targets to be thrown legally at a 3 hole or even wider range. The question is what gun club in its right mind would throw a target wider than the minmum."

Sean Hawley

I will be pulling more from this article, but right there Hawley is saying don't blame the ATA, (blame, which has been way over done here and elsewhere) the ATA has made provisions for clubs to shoot 2 hole or 3 hole targets at the club's discretion.

 

Hap,

My club does not set them except with the stops on the Pats already set and the height marked with white paint on the height lever and the 50 yard stake. I attend very few ATA shoots there. When the club members meet for causal shooting, they sometimes lift the trap to where I would suspect the targets are 15 feet at 10 yards, which I hate, because shooting illegal targets does not help my shooting ATA legal targets elsewhere. I don't control the club's methods.

 

AZCOTRAP,

I think you are confusing "set" and "between" and/or "thrown not less than".

A "set" or setting is one that will comply with both "between" and "not thrown less than"

I will just ask one question in the interest of brevity and conclusion in this single aspect.

If 67fps averages 48yds, is it equal or compatible with "thrown not less than 49yards"?

Thanks.

Shoot well.

John

 

Kinda sorta confirms my statement above about the human nature of trap competitions when given such a choice. When a minimum is stated, that's the number that will be used at almost any and all costs. The question is; is this the absolute best for our entire game? Is so, how that working out in further growing our sport, not to even mention further handicapping those deemed to have mastered the game?

In all probability, those club members shooting those high set targets were preparing for Tucson's sorta higher than normal targets? Just a guess on my part.

HAP

 

Same article. Chuck Elton, owner of Golden West Industries, expert on Both the old 1524 and Pat traps, pointed out the old 1524 were harder to maintain angle settings once the hole was worn and became sloppy. The Pat trap is less likely to throw erratic targets.

Robert Munson HOF, "difference (between 2 hole and 3 hole settings) is all between the ears."

Harlem Campbell (anyone heard of him before?)

This is written by Hawley:

"He began shooting shooting in 1972 when the 3 hole target was the rule. He doesn't think that a 3 hole target is a big deal at all. He does point to the fact that back then the height was usually set to 8-1/2 to 9 feet (measured at 30 feet in front of where the target sat on the arm). That measurement provided quite a bit less face on the target compared to what we see today with 9-1/2 feet to 10 foot targets. Basically, you were shooting at the rim of the target, the thickest part, whereas today we are shooting at the dome of the bird, the thinnest part. He also believes that the targets were faster back then and wishes that clubs would the 50 yard stakes when possible, instead of radar guns to set the birds for speed. "

 

One more time, speed is irrevelant to target setting. Use the stake. If you can't use a stake because of a drop off in front of the trap, then use your radar gun, but the mind is not going to perceive the difference of a few FPS.

 

I admire Sean, but in reality he is wrong in this aspect, and he runs a club last I knew of.

If a club is to accept the understanding of the written rule about illegal targets of 10 degrees outside normal settings. The only way to allow 10 degrees outside normal is to have a 17 degree angle set. Remember the depicted legitimate (legal) field is only 27 degrees or 10 degrees more than 17. That is it, so the minimum is 17 and the maximum is 17 degrees, if one is to allow 10 degrees outside normal is legal.

So why would anyone make that change? He is a good shooter and I am sure did not voice any opinions of whether it should be 2 or 3 hole. Oh wait, he was a Minnesotan, and those shooters wanted 2 hole, why, what could be the reason, if it is only a thought between the ears. Interesting.

Kind of a copout don't you think.

So you are ok with one way of setting is knowingly different than another.

"One more time, speed is irrevelant to target setting", than why be so specific in a rule if is irrelevant. Speed is only irrelevant if you use stakes. Otherwise speed is relevant, don't you think they should be the same, or at least comparable.

It is always interesting when people in defense of something say things like is above, "between the ears" or something like, you can't tell anyway, your form is, "the mind is not going to perceive the difference".

Equal as possible should be the value we are searching for.

Thanks.

Shoot well.

John

 

Back to the article:

Mike Hampton, over 50 years shooting ATA, one time Shoot Director for several years at Sparta.

Written by Hawley:

"It's his belief that the better shooters will always have the advantage because they are more precise pointers of the shotgun. The advantage only goes up when the targets get harder."

In other words poor shots will not win with harder targets.

Now to be fair here is one dissenting from the same article, spoken to Hawley by HOF Mike Jordon:

"He began shooting registered targets in1967 and believes that 3 hole 55 yard targets would even the playing field, but says mandatory reductions are also needed. Jordon doesn't blame the 2 hole targets for our lower Attendence numbers, instead he points to a lack of promotion within the sport to attract and keep new shooters."

 

jhunts,

I think you have your preconceived notions and no amount of discussion is going to change that.

Again, look at the rule. Target "speed" may be measured by radar gun. It does not say target height, distance, and angles may be set with a radar gun.

This post was started with the suggestion handicap needs to be change to attract more shooters, have better payoffs and help poor shooters win more often. The blame is in part for the lessor angles setting that now exists. That is simply not true. Wider angle settings are available. Demand your club throw them if you want them.

I'm done till evening.

 

"Robert Munson HOF, "difference (between 2 hole and 3 hole settings) is all between the ears." .... you may want to ask if he changed his mind ....

You may want to find out who almost got a shoot shut down for "difference (between 2 hole and 3 hole settings)" ....

Kool Aid does funny things .... if you drink too much ....

 

jhunts,

Forgot to tell you, if this will help you understand.

I don't care, at all what the speed of any target is. I just want it to fly 50 yards from the trap, somewhere between 8-10 feet in height, 10 yards from the trap and 17 degree angle left and right of center, total 34 with a variance not to exceed 10 degrees.

Now I am done till evening.

 

User 1 just repeating what he said in the article. I provided quotes from all the contributors to be fair.

 

This is also where Sean is unfortunately right with 16 and wrong in regards to handicap. To go into why will take more time than I have currently to write.

What is the height setting in which the radar speed is set. If you throw to the stakes doesn't the speed change with elevation of the target, on average. Are you saying a 67fps target will throw to even the lowly 48yards at 8 ft to 10 ft?

I think if the people who did the testing used the recommended heights as a guide to achieve the distance found as a average. It is a simple question AZCOTRAP, I will rephrase it. Don't you think using the recommended settings of height the speed should be set to where the target averages 50 yards? What would the speed, be?

AZCOTRAP said, "This post was started with the suggestion handicap needs to be change to attract more shooters, have better payoffs and help poor shooters win more often."

That is both correct and false. If one wants to create more shooters than the rules need to promote equality of the game and second, it is not about poor shooters to win more often. It is about as many handicap shooters as possible have the equal chance to win, on any given day. That is both determined by average, shoot scores and known ability.

When a contestant can get punch after punch and nothing changes, it does not promote equality that is so crucially important in a sport in which the organization strive to do.

Even the ATA's website says as much:

Handicap
Handicap is considered the most prestigious event in trapshooting. As in other sports, handicapping strives to make the competition equal. The is accomplished by having the more skilled competitors stand further away from the trap house. Based on a shooter's past performances, a shooter is assigned a handicap distance which he/she must shoot. A competitor with a high handicap will shoot no closer than the 18 yard line, while the most skilled shooter is placed at the 27 yard line where it is extremely difficult to win an event.

Thanks.

Shoot well.

John

 

Thanks,

I will assume you would like to see the rulebook changed to try to meet that objective. I will put you down for a 69fps chrono, and a 44mph radar setting.

ADDED: Now what about angle settings, what is the maximum?
ADDED: Of course RT hand double will have to be increased to 41mph. That will help HAP a little bit.

John

 

Thanks John, I hate shooting those diving targets bout a foot above the ground!! BUT!! I did manage to break 8 of 10 of those divers from 4 and 5!! I also broke up some of the broken pieces on the ground too!!

HAP

 

Wow! Every time I scan one of jhunt's posts I find more amazing, unexpected facts! I'm sure the rest of you were taken aback too!

That, as a single example:

"In 1990 5640 registered tournaments with approximately 3.26 million handicap targets
In 2000 6360 registered tournaments with approximately 3.28 million handicap targets

In 1990 this is on average 578 handicap targets per tournament.
In 2000 this is on average 515 handicap targets per tournament.

In 1996 a full year of mandated 3 hole targets there were 5950 registered tournaments that shot 80,360,790 targets or about 13500 targets thrown per tournament and roughly 504 handicap targets per tournament using N1H1 graph at 3,000,000 handicap targets.
In 1997 the first year of 2 hole or 17 degree targets there were 6089 registered tournament that shot 81,669,910 targets or about 13400 targets thrown per tournament and roughly 499 handicap targets per tournament using N1H1 graph at 3,040,000 handicap targets.

In 1996 there were 54,366 active members.
In 1997 there were 53,787 active members."

Who - among those few of us here who actually shoot register targets - would have imagined that, to take one example, "there were 6089 registered tournament that shot 81,669,910 targets or about 13400 targets thrown per tournament and roughly 499 handicap targets per tournament."

Since many of us will have noticed that there often more than five handicap entrants at a typical ATA tournament, this is clearly a case where "average" doesn't work, since there must be two kinds of "tournaments," some with handicap targets thrown, equal or more without. The only correct way to look at this not to figure in the huge number of shoots that offered - and apparently still offer - no handicap, but rather the shoots at which people shot yardage. That's what my graph shows. The 3-hole years devastated yardage shooting, though it slowly recovered when the rules changed. Why does anyone think the same thing wouldn't happen if it were repeated? What's their evidence?

I am so looking forward to Roger's- the Ohio Delegate now "on board" - anticipated motion to require 3-hole targets! My prediction is that the vote will be a minimum ratio of 20 to 1 against it, if, indeed, he gets a second. Any wagers?

N1H1

 

Holy cow! Big news at AmericanTrapshooter. Even Neil is now admitting the ATA has abandoned all sporting integrity and should be disbanded.

Wait until the shooting press gets their hands on this.

 

Long time since the big meeting had this much to discuss.

 

Was wondering about the radar guns used. How often are they sent out for calibration.

 

Thats like asking how often a ford is sent to the dealer for service, it's up to the club who owns one. Some clubs are more responsible than others.

 

N1H1,

Your a funny guy. I keep thinking who would a have thought a 1290fps load was 3 dram eq. I keep wondering who would set 48 yard targets when the recommended is 50 yards +- 2 yards, "not thrown less than 48" not average 48. I am wondering who changed the rule from "shall be not thrown less than 48 yards" to "shall be not thrown less than 49 yards" and not change the text of speed settings. I guess we all make errors, it is what we do with them that counts.

I would like to thank you for pointing out the error. I should have proofed it a little better. I will try to fix it here, but the idea even though the number was off by a factor is the same. More handicap targets were shot per tournament in both the beginning of the decade when the rule was straightaway from 1 and 5 versus the end of the decade and in the year of mandated straight away from 1 and 5 in 1996 vs the all mighty 2 hole year of 1997.

In 1990 5640 registered tournaments with approximately 32.6 million handicap targets
In 2000 6360 registered tournaments with approximately 32.8 million handicap targets

In 1990 this is on average approx. 5780 handicap targets per tournament.
In 2000 this is on average approx. 5160 handicap targets per tournament.

In 1983 there were 35,133 active members.
In 1987 there were 36,568 active members.
In 1990 there were ?6,375 active members.
In 1996 there were ?4,366 active members.
In 1997 there were ?3,787 active members.
In 2000 there were ?4,451 active members.
In 2003 there were 34,787 active members.
In 2014 there were 28,512 active members.

In 1996 a full year of mandated 3 hole targets there were 5,950 registered tournaments that shot 80,360,790 targets or about 13,500 targets thrown per tournament and roughly 5,040 handicap targets per tournament using 30,037,275 handicap targets thrown.
In 1997 the first year of 2 hole or 17 degree targets there were 6,089 registered tournaments that shot 81,669,910 targets or about 13,400 targets thrown per tournament and roughly 4,990 handicap targets per tournament using 30,430,625 handicap targets thrown.

Again, thanks for pointing out the error.

ADDED: % of handicap targets to total targets in 1994, 37.2%
..................% of handicap targets to total targets in 1995, 37.2%
..................% of handicap targets to total targets in 1996, 37.4%
..................% of handicap targets to total targets in 1997, 37.3%
..................% of handicap targets to total targets in 1998, 37.7%
..................% of handicap targets to total targets in 1999, 38.0%
..................% of handicap targets to total targets in 2000, 38.1%
..................% of handicap targets to total targets in 2001, 37.3%
..................% of handicap targets to total targets in 2002, 37.7%
..................% of handicap targets to total targets in 2003, 37.4%
..................% of handicap targets to total targets in 2004, 36.9%
..................% of handicap targets to total targets in 2014, 34.0%
Shoot well.

John

 

OLLIE: Wake up it is happening all the time, Our present ATA President wants 38 yd Dbls targets, he tried but it was turned down, but they are being thrown.

Gary Bryant Dr.longshot

 

"38 yard doubles being thrown".......???

Again from ATA rule book:

"In doubles shooting, targets shall be thrown not less than 44 yards nor more than 46 yards. Distance measurements are on level ground in still air. Targets shall be between 8 feet and 10 feet high when 10 yards from point B.The recommended height is 9 or 9 1/2 feet.The height at a point 10 yards from Point B is to be understood to mean height above an imaginary horizontal straight line drawn through the post and Point B (See Diagram II). The trap shall be adjusted so the angle of target spread is not less than 34 degrees. "

Notice the last sentence? "....angle of target spread is not less than 34 degrees."

So they can be set for 44 degrees like singles can be set as a maximum. Demand your club set targets at the wider allowances. ATA allows you to shoot programs for targets 8-10 feet high at 10 yards, 49-51 yards from the stake and 34-44 degree angles. ATA is not telling these clubs to set the lower parameters, the clubs are doing that on their own.

 

Sorry DOC, no one is capable of looking across a field and determining how far a target has traveled.

Since I've set more that one Doubles trap I'd like someone to tell me how to set them wider. I'm all ears!

 

If that is the case Clubs setting targets with radar guns that have not been calibrated are more than likely getting it wrong.

 

Or people who have no clue on how to use one.

 

jhunts, you wrote

"In 1996 a full year of mandated 3 hole targets there were 5,950 registered tournaments that shot 80,360,790 targets or about 13,500 targets thrown per tournament and roughly 5,040 handicap targets per tournament using 30,037,275 handicap targets thrown.
In 1997 the first year of 2 hole or 17 degree targets there were 6,089 registered tournaments that shot 81,669,910 targets or about 13,400 targets thrown per tournament and roughly 4,990 handicap targets per tournament using 30,430,625 handicap targets thrown."

Family Guy, of all unlikely people, explained this somewhere above, though he did not understand my response, of course. There is an easy solution if you are dissatisfied with mine. Ask me and I'll not only tell you; I'll explain its weakness (which favors your side), but will nevertheless accept the quotient whatever it turn out to be.

But I do have one serious question, two really.

1. What is the "meaning" of the ratio between total targets and handicap targets thrown? I see what you have written, but wonder what it is I am supposed to conclude from it. How about picking a few example years and telling us what it "means" to you. You have worked hard on this; why not make your point more clear?

2. When you use the term "Tournament" what exactly do you mean? If my club throws a Sunday shoot and gets a dozen people and that's a "tournament;" the ATA throws a Grand American that that's two "tournaments;
how can anyone sum the them, divide by three, and get a number that means a thing? It's the problem of calculating the "average" income of a gentrifying neighborhood when the millionaires move in. If ten live in poverty, two in penthouses, what can "average income" mean? Even median doesn't work; try it. Some things need graphs, not numbers. One glance and everyone would understand it.

You must see the problem. While your earlier version was all wrong, as you now see, these new numbers look (I think) too high to all of us who shoot. It would now seem to require 50 handicap shooters at an average tournament and we all know better. You see, half the action reported on shoot reports (not necessarily "tournaments" I know, but that's my question) involves fewer than 20 shooters. The heart of trapshooting really is at the local clubs throwing small, basically "social" shoots. If you think these people are agitating for harder targets, you had better go back and ask them.

Remember those median shooter and their averages? Singles 90, handicap about 4 less, doubles another step down. Do you really think our "average shooter" would benefit from harder targets? Why? Please be specific?

N1H1

Good work on the "participants," by the way. See? My advice worked!

 

No---most of them left long ago. Those fellows and the newbie could have beens have left for the sporting clays range. They are participating in a more challenging game.

 

Well, hell, butterly, we wouldn't want them damn newbie and could-have-beens cluttering our sport anyway, right? How many of them even own a vest with a name sewn on it by Mary Maze or will play options against shooters far better than them? What are they, too smart for our own good? Let's drive them away faster, though it's hard to see how the guys and gals who go to sporting clays, or come from there, have lead to any problems here in Minnesota. They drift out and we miss them and they drift back and we welcome them.

Since you seem to have all the answers, butterly, (and my data is, I admit, 10 years old,) what is the average number of shooters today in a median (participant-wise) shoot report? And how do you know? Specifically. And what's your evidence?

N1H1

 

You have data?

Last crap of data I cared to read from you was the graph which supported your big argument whatever it was. You did not disclosed a month was missing from the data.

Your graphs and data meant little before and less now.

 

Read Family Guy's post earlier; there is no missing data. Yes, of course he said so recently that that's just him. He can't read. Go above that. There you will find the answer.

Heck, I even have a graph for non-readers (remember the Army induction test for non-readers? - sometimes such things are needed) and I'll post it if you can't keep track of the words above.

N1H1

 

I read your post and his post. Was very clear. There was a month of data not included. A shorter shooting year by a month. You feigned half ignorance and half I tried my best.

Your insults may be a better tact. Keep at it.

 

Did you read my reply, not his failure to understand what I said? What did I say? Try it word by word. I'll find it if I have to, but I'd rather you did the work.

What is a "better tact?" You did take "Form B," didn't you?

N1H1

 

AZCOTRAP,

By writing what you just wrote, you do not understand the written and/or depiction of a legal target field. Though I have stated here before as the minimum field is 17/34 and the maximum field is 27/54, I would recommend a setting of 44 as it is the center of the field maximums and will create a legal field for most if not nearly all shooting conditions. If 10ft is to be retained as a upper elevation limit I would recommend that the height setting be 9ft, as at 9.5ft it does not take much headwind at all to exceed the 10ft limit. I would recommend going back to the 12ft limit. So with a 44 degree set field and a 9ft height target there should be very few if any calls for reset. It is game a based shooting birds that came out of a trap after all.

Remember, "not thrown less than 49 or more than 51", has a meaning of all targets falling in between those two values. With the degrees it is "not less than 17/34 centered" and with the field depiction it is, "not more than 27/54". Again has a meaning of all targets should be thrown within those two values of degrees 34 and 54. If you set as a setting the extreme, and a setting is a average distance or angle thrown then many if not approximately half of the targets thrown fall outside the legally defined windows for a legal field. I would add that is in a no wind condition as well.

I think though I should read it a little closer, maybe N1H1 has learned something from one of our great discussions about target field setting on another thread, a while back. What thread was that?

ADDED: I looked a little closer, he did not.

N1H1,

I will get back to you in a while. How did you know the member participation rate was false as written in annual book? Was there a reason for this false information to be published? Did you know at the time these numbers that were being published were wrong?

N1H1 said, "To readers here: 67 fps chronograph-set targets go about 48 yards on the average." Does anyone here that sets targets think that is a problem when the distance setting rule is "Singles targets shall be thrown not less than 49 yards"?

Thanks

Shoot well

John

 

Okay, let's say just for discussion you are right, the 10 degree allowance applies on either side, increasing the limits you described. You have furthered my arguement with people who have the misconception that 17/34 is the limit. People believe the settings cannot be any greater than 17/34 which limits the target settings to the old reference of "2 hole" setting.

What I am have great difficulty to get across here, there is no 2 hole limit. The traps can be set to throw targets that would have been equal to "3 hole" settings or greater. If people understood this, it takes away the nonsense that the 2 hole setting is a rule set in concrete by ATA and the rule has driven away ATA Attendence.

The fact is the clubs hosting the ATA events set the targets at the lowest settings as to angles, either because they want to, or do not understand the rule. If people are really sincere about having to shoot the wide angles to make them happy, they have no need than to go any further than convincing the club that hosts the shoot to widen the settings.

My only reason for stating the 10 degrees increased the angles from 17-34 to 22-44 is because of a conservative conclusion because of the language of the rule. I really don' t care if the final figure or limit is 44 or 54 degrees, but I am saying is the final figure IS NOT 34 as so many people believe and stir up the crap over what they believe is a poor decision in the rule change.

Whether you realize it or not, you are stating what I believe as to where the settings should be, that being 44 degrees for angles. I don't think we disagree on the 50 yard mark, that seems to be the definite limit people want the target to go. As to the height, 9 feet is fine, but going to 12 presents an even bigger problem with winds and even wind was not a problem on any given day, it still presents a bigger area of the target than a lower setting would and those who complain the game is too easy would still have the same problem because of a target exposing more of the dome, much more at 12 feet than someswhere between 8-10.

So can we now stop with the nit picking and at least agree that the target settings explained in the rule book do not restrict target setting that equates to 2 hole only? Or is there something else you want to tweak and continue to skip over the main issue?

 

Game, set, match. N1H1 destroyed.

 

AZCOTRAP,

We are close, the rule today does not mention 2 hole, only "shall not be less than 17 degrees". Of course the first sentence of the rule states, "within the normal distribution of angles as thrown by the trap,". Here is where we find the word "normal". Now, as I was hoping, as N1H1 and I discussed this on another thread, he would be correct. It appears he is still trying to get the idea across, that sounds cogent, but it false. Here is why, continued below with reference to N1H1.



N1H1 said, "No, Azcotrap, the wording was carefully chosen. Not all clubs may want to use that minimum setting; let's think about a '3-hole club'. Your proposal 'more than 10 degrees outside minimum setting.' would put the average hard-right or hard-left target at those cubs right on the border of illegal. "Normal" is a better word, since it allows clubs preferring wider target-setting to establish their own, local, 'normal.'
N1H1"

N1H1, there is no local normal +10 produced. The rule is specific as noted above and as seen below, "no target is to be declared illegal unless it is significantly outside normal parameters (e.g., more than 10 degrees outside normal).

N1H1 thinks that any setting can be considered normal, that is just not true. Let's take a look.




Diagram II
Legal Target Area for Single and Doubles
Shooting
1 TO 5: FIRING POINTS 3 YARDS APART
POINT B: 16 YARDS FROM FIRING STATIONS
DEFGH: FIFTY YARDS FROM TRAP
BDEFGHB: AREA OF LEGITIMATE TARGET
BEFGB: MOST DESIRABLE AREA IS WHICH TO THROW
TARGET
3BF: IMAGINARY STRAIGHT LINE THROUGH POINT B
AND NO. 3 FIRING STATION
EF, FG: THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THESE POINTS
SHALL BE A STRAIGHT LINE 45 FEET LONG
TARGET ELEVATION: TARGET ELEVATION SHOULD BE 8-0 TO 10-0 FEET
FOR SINGLES, HANDICAP AND DOUBLES




Desirable area: Within normal area.

up to 10 degrees outside normal: legal area or expcetable area, but not within ATA desired area.

Legitimate target: one that is thrown whole after a call from the contestant from a properly set trap that is on a normal rise and set to comply within the written rules of Section XIII E. and F, and pictorialized by Diagram I and Diagram II.

This legitimate target went from a 94 degree field to a 54 degree field for 1997 until today. So in relative real terms, prior to 1997 a target thrown whole after the call of pull on a normal rise was legal as beyond the 47 degrees and maybe, even less as I hear many targets did or may break on exit hitting the house. Of course a broken target is a "no target". Today with a PAT Trap, the maximum setting for a field would be a 30 degree from center or a 60 degree field, well within the prior rule of desired +. Even at a max setting for the Pat Trap +10 degrees is within the old rule, though beyond the desired range of normal distribution of +/- 21.5 degrees of center (straightaway from 1 and 5) In the prior to 1997 year rule.

It is of my opinion to carry the tradition and sport aspect of the game, a quartering target should be part of it. The current rule using a guide the "desirable area" does not provide that, 21.5+17 is 38.5 not 45. If it is only "between the ears" then as a desired minimum should be set with respect to 23.5 degrees (of which I have seen the true intent of the 3 hole was) or a switch width of approx. 6". I mean, the difference is only "between the ears", for the benefit of the sport and honor the history of and past performance of past competitors, it only makes sense to preserve one of its objective. The "quartering" target.

I think your idea is good, but your wording is wrong. 50yds is not a limit but a setting to go+/- 1yd. If possible all would hit the 50yd stake, however +/-1yd is the tolerance, and at a 50yd setting no targets would fall less than 49 or not than 51 as I guess the ATA must have ascertained the the PAT can do. I don't see it, but there it is. 50 +/-2 is more reasonable, as skeet still has and ATA was, however 50yd should have always been the setting and is today?

Maybe you misunderstood, 9ft would always be the setting, I think you use a painted tooth, maybe that was someone else. So once set there would be virtually no reset with a bigger legal window. The setting, a no wind setting would be 9ft.

Shoot well

John

 

So why are we still hashing this around? Do the existing rules meet the requirements to allow "3 hole" settings or not?

If so the next question is would any club want to? Would the shooters want to?

 

No, as the ATA would and as appears has against any setting that is outside the desireable target area.

I will add, complaints and subsequent findings of clubs throwing outside of the desirable area could bring sanction. As it appears to have been almost done.

Have to ask the complainer, what was the complaint, and the Tucson club for the answers though. The current president may be a good person to email.

Shoot well
John

 

If the rule as written has defined parameters those are the legal parameters.

Like I said, bring it up at the Grand, sounds like some education of the masses is needed, if the parameters are with in the rule book, the parameters is legal.

What happened at Tuscon was a case of what someone considered improper and/or unknown device replacing original equipment as cane with the trap.

That is why I said a field properly staked out as provided in the rule book should help settle all complaints.

I keep hearing people want wider angles, now I am being told they do not. Perhaps nobody knows what they really want.

 

AZCOTRAP said, "If the rule as written has defined parameters those are the legal parameters."

Yes, now if you found a club or a member/committee setting an aspect of the game outside of those parameters, what would you do?

AZCOTRAP said, "Like I said, bring it up at the Grand",

Apparently members cannot speak in an official setting.

AZCOTRAP said, "What happened at Tuscon was a case of what someone considered improper and/or unknown device replacing original equipment as cane with the trap."

Where is it stated what kind of equipment be in or on a trap other than it be set and throw legal targets? You said, "what happened", sound like you were there. Do you know the complainant?

AZCOTRAP said, "I keep hearing people want wider angles, now I am being told they do not. Perhaps nobody knows what they really want."

Wider desirable area yes to include straightaway from 1 and 5. A 50yd target, I guess a 69fps or 44mph target. Who does not want was historical for the game of trap, as it is today in International Trap, a quartering target. Though the ATA target it still would be quite a bit slower.

If you start adding up the differences, faster shells, less angle and shorter field it brings the proficient 27 yard shooter to equivalent to the 24/25 yard line. Make the changes to bring the handicap game in line with its stated objective. Might be surprised at what the results would be. After all, there is no difference I guess, it is all between the ears.

Quick question, you get a contract for a job that requires a width of the product to be 50 inches +-1 inch. Will you get the contract if your equipment has a tolerance of +-2 inches. Now you get better equipment because the contract is one you really want. Now, you get the contract but if any of the product is found at the consumer level, you contract will be cancelled. Would you run your equipment to be as close to 50 +- as possible or would your allow it to run at level that allows some or any of the product to be less than 49?

I know you want a 50yd target, I am trying to get you to see you cannot set a 49yd target and be in compliance with "thrown not less then 49."

Shoot well

John

 

John,

All you want to do is argue. You are the most exasperating person I have ever come across.

I have stated my position over and over. If you don't like the rules, take up something else.

No you can't talk at the meeting, but you can talk to your delegate and ask your friends to do the same.

 

...change the rules. That seems to be the better answer.

Rules are not laws of Science. They're created things, and they can be revised.

 

Sure smoking, if you don't like the rules, change the rules. All you have to do is get a change presented and a majority of delegates to vote on it in favor to pass it. In the mean time, either live with it or don't participate.

Now what rule(s) change do you want? The reason for this drawn out discussion is the false premise by some is that settings are limited to certain parameters, but if a person were to read the rules carefully as written the premise is false. Why are you arguing about something that does not exist???

What rule change do you want, Mr Wise One, who does not shoot ATA trap and never will?

 

If I was looking to change a rule, you should have spotted it long before Post 193, if your comprehension skills at at all functioning.

 

Perhaps it is because your being a non ATA member you are referring to a rule that does not exist.

Humor me, repeat your sought after change which you would make through your State delegate.....if you were an ATA member.

 

That's why Colarado only needs one delegate Vs poosibly 5 for Pennsylvania, and Ohio, and 4 for Michigan

 

I think SPARTA needs to have the Illinois State Patrol use their radar guns to check target speeds to be sure the targets are reaching the 50 yard line, so they will be ATA distance legal at 9.5 feet @10 yards.

If not the members can shut the shoot down, per Rob Taylor actions at Tuscon Autumn Grand

 

Well, let us know how that works for you when you start up your new trap organazation to represent those three States.

 

Radar guns do not measure distance, they measure the speed of a moving object. If I could post a link describing how they work, I would. You need Lasers to measure both speed and distance. Much cheaper than any radar or Laser is wooden stakes marked out in the field. It is cheaper to replace or repair a stake than a radar gun. Unless someone drive a stake into another's heart, they will not cause cancer like radar will.

Some people set traps based on the number of winds in the spring of the trap arm. A certain number of springs equals X miles per hour. Maybe so if the springs are all new and all constant in ther performance.

Stakes are infallible.

 

More sofisticated RADAR can measure all types of things, but more than a RADAR gun can.

And one more time, the ATA rule book specifically states RADAR and chronograph "can be used to measure target speed." The book tells you to use visual indicators to measure angles, height and distance. Settings are supposed to be made in still air. Not always possible in some places.

If you are throwing targets off the side of a cliff, its a guessing game. Then you depend on the setting devices on the trap and winds on the springs.