One Thing that Really Sticks in My Craw - "Best Shooters"

I note that you presented failing work, and you respond with more failing work.

 

Ollie: Asking how many he breaks, or broke is irrelevant, it is the scores that were broken, what we really need to know is how many shooters broke each score from 200 down to180 for a true picture. These are the numbers we need to see.

Gary Bryant Dr.longshot

 

Memorization: Is Bullsh*t you cannot memorize targets shot in last weeks shoot to win this weeks shoot.

The only way to shoot a good score is correctly pointing and leading the target if needed.

That is skill, wider angles and faster targets, and targets going further, takes more skill.

Don't believe me, you should have asked a former ATA shooter who trained the B-17 gunners in basic training, to shoot down enemy aircraft.

A shooter needs to learn his TARGET LEAD
That is where concentration comes in.

You can lead a target a bit too much and still break it, but you cannot lead it not enough, and still break it.

Contrary to NW there is a shot string, the tighter the choke the longer the shot string is,
minutely though in inches.

I have seen high speed pictures taken from perpendicular to the shot, how long it really is.

If you keep breaking 25s you will end up w/100s.

I have had a lot of 100s and quite a few 200s
won my share of singles, but I cannot get enthused shooting singles.

That is why I prefer Handicap, it takes precision pointing.

Gary Bryant Dr.longshot

 

The main drawing card ATA had during it's highest growth years was in fact a tougher set target. straights from posts 1 and 5 with a little more distance. For reasons already pointed out by others, a miss didn't mean you were left out of a win, place or show possibility as it is today.

We'll never make winners out of losers regardless of how easy we throw clays! It's been tried by adding a lot more classes and categories yet our growth rate still sux big time. Easier for the masses was nothing more than an ego excuse to change to the easier set targets.

Day in and day out during a target year, mother nature will be the equalizer on slightly more difficult angles and faster targets! Enough so that a miss isn't so discouraging it causes a shooter to give up after a mis-point and losing one target.

Egos have influenced our target rules for way too many years and our growth rate shows that decline if researched through our shooting history. Sure, many things have an influence on our growth today but nothing like the change to an easier format did/does!

I don't look for much serious growth in our sport until we do what's best for our sport rather than the egos of individuals running our show.

HAP

 

HistoryBuff
I believe the angles were changed because the 2 hole target had become the norm. (Read that as cheating was rampant)
The ATA being mainly a keeper of records was unable to enforce the 3 hole rule. (All bark and no bite)
I think they just gave the membership what they wanted.

I don't think it had anything to do with attracting or retaining shooters.

Just my thoughts.
As always I do enjoy reading your posts.

 

Wishbone,

There were many calls to enforce the straightaway from Post 1 & 5 angle setting (or #3-hole target) but not a written complaint surfaced from any shooters, gun clubs, or even ATA officials who were also calling for enforcement of the rules.

I recently received a communication from a Past President who said the #2-hole language was entered into the rules to stop clubs from using the #1-hole.

Many shooters like myself who was unaware of target setting just shot whatever came out of the house. I had no idea that what I was shooting was illegal targets set in the #2-hole in the early 1990's. The amendment to the rules that introduced for the first time, language regarding the #2-hole was considered by many to be the legitimizing of its use. Most chose to overlook the rule calling for a minimum left and right angles to be set as straightaways from posts 1& 5. It's the same thing as the Failure to Fire rule. Many shooters believe they have two (2) FtoF's for any reason, completely overlooking the main rule that if the target appears promptly after your call and you voluntarily don't shoot at it . . . . . its a lost target. The first thing a shooter will do when questioned is say they flinched or their gun didn't go off just to avoid a lost bird.

I'm convinced had the shooters been advised of the history of target angles, the issue of narrowing targets further would never had come up and if it did, it would have been voted down. And the Delegates voted it down twice before it was finally passed at the 1996 annual meeting. I still believe that some Delegates thought the #2-hole target was a legal target and never looked into the history.

The reason I mentioned easier targets attracting shooters is because it was the reason used through our history by those who supported it. This reasoning goes back about 100 years and was also used in the 1990's in support of "soft" target setting. While it sounds good, it was not right and there is no proof that it has increased interest or retained shooters.

I appreciate you kind words that you enjoy my posts. I enjoy writing and trying to help those interested in learning our historical past.

Kindest regards to you Wishbone.

 

Gary:

What if 16 yard singles were shot with 1/2 ounce loads from a .410 or 28 gauge?

Add in a wider target, and you have a pretty interesting game. Would you find a wide 16 with a 1/2 load to be worth your time?

 

All this tremendous knowledge from the mouth of a non-shooter who found boxes of 12 GA shells too expensive for today's WIDE angle targets. Now he suggests we all convert to small gauges. I suppose those weeny shells are cheaper in his mind. He obviously doesn't spend much time in the ammo store either!

 

You're welcome.

I just learned this site has an "ignore" feature, though I wish it were presented graphically as a bulls-eye on your face.

I'm going to use this very needed and welcome feature.

*POOF* Goes Oleo.

Now nobody quote his posts, so I can remain Oleo Dog free.

 

Prior to the vote accepting nothing less than a 34 degree angle, I thought it was added prior for settings to be used on inclement days where winds interfered with the old setting, 44 degree? I heard there was a club in the mid west using the one hole setting, a mere 13 degree angle? That wasn't the only club doing that in that area either.

The first 34 degree angles I'm aware of took place in 1982, in CA. How did I know that? Since my beginning of ATA shooting, I've watched for true straights from all posts. That began when most all clubs adhered to the 44 degree settings and straights from 1 and 5. From that point on till the rule was voted on and changed, officially, for the 97 target year, some clubs adhered to the rule and some didn't.

As if the 34 degree angles were too tough, I know of one club that threw straights from posts 2 and 4!! That is just slightly more angle than the old one hole angles at 13 degrees! That club didn't always throw the same illegal angles either, just enough to make a difference drawing shooters away from clubs adhering to the rule.

Unless the rules are enforced with diligence from the top down, why even have rules? The lack of enforcement has led us to what we're shooting today, an easier angle and adopting a cheating practice is just wrong regardless of how it's painted! A change I feel was detrimental to our sports growth as it drastically changed the perception others once had of our sport and it was our sports drawing card for continued growth. An EGO change only.

HAP

 

It was HAP, the Executive Committee added the #2-hole language in the rules at their August 1989 meeting and it was a unanimous vote. I found no discussion of this rule change by the E. C. to Delegates during the annual BOD meeting. If Delegates were informed at their respective Zone meetings, their votes to approve or disapproval should have been noted in the minutes. So, did the E.C. make a rule change without approval from the BOD? It was done many times in the past and much to my dismay, it is still done today. All rule changes (except for cases of imminent danger) should take a year of discussion before being voted on in my view.

Also, Vic Reinders held the position that there was never a need for the #2-hole setting because even in inclimate weather and high winds, the #3-hole still threw a legal target under the rules and he did not find that the #2-hole 17 degree setting would throw regulation targets even on windy days. This, even though Winchester-Western suggested using the #2-hole for windy conditions.

Here's what Mr. Reinders said about it back in 1984:

Vic’s Views
Handicapping and Classification​

Little (Frank) in his The 27-Yard Line in the October issue, pointed out several ways in which shooters can, and do, cheat on their handicaps and classification. Such people should be rigorously handicapped and classified by the committee, not by a computer or even by a lazy committee.

Little also pointed out another common failing of clubs. Probably I should state it more strongly – crooked or “boot-licking” clubs, which throw illegal targets. Some even throw short targets, instead of the 48 to 52 yard targets called for by the rules. The most common violation, however, is to use the #2 hole setting of the most common used trap. That #2-hole setting only gives a maximum angle of 17 ½ degrees instead of the 22 degrees specified by the rules. The #3-hole gives 22 ½ degrees, and that hole was undoubtedly drilled by the company where it is in order to meet the rules, which call for angles not less than straight-aways from positions 1 and 5. That would be 22 degrees right and left. The company allowed an extra half degree to be safe. Please, do not bore me with the argument that new (or old, depending on who is talking) traps throw wider angles than normal.

I’ve measured the angles of dozens of targets from both old and new traps. I know. Set the traps in the #3 hole and be done with it. Remember that a target has to be more than 25 degrees outside of this to be illegal. That would mean a 47 degree angle. You can’t get a 47 degree right-angle target out of most traphouses – it would hit the side of the house. The #5 hole incidentally only throws 37 ½ degree angles. We drilled a #6 hole in some of our traps to get angles more suitable for International-style shooting.
TRAP & FIELD, February 1984, page 22-23

Enjoy Our History

 

It seems like Trapshooting existed for decades as a sport for the gentleman class and the wing shooters. After WWII, the factory workers flooded into Trap, and concurrent with that influx, the rules became softer and the sport became weaker.

 

Evidently so Kenny. It certainly didn't take a few Delegates very long to pick up that decision and run it through with their vote to give it legitimacy! I feel those most responsible for this change weren't looking for the best interest of our sport, soothing their own egos to shoot better scores is the real culprit.

Partly true guy. Those elected knew hardly any of our sports history and acted accordingly to their own egos to break better scores with better averages. The shooters joining during that time frame just wanted to shoot competitive targets knowing they at least stood a chance even after a miss so they hammered on. Our sport also retained more of those shooters during that time frame too? I wonder why? That perception was changed when we officially adopted the easier format. If that change was so great, why not an even easier target today? It has been suggested many times but it would surely be a death sentence to our great sport if adopted! The game of skeet practically ruined their game with easy targets, should we follow their example? Seems as though some are wanting to.

HAP

 

Oleo, I won't see your reply, so I'm really enjoying this.

Above, you called 4/8 shells "teeny weeny," but over on the other site, you are, just today, just talking up what your son can do with 7/8 shells. As i see you don't know, 7/8 ounce loads are what is used in the Olympics.

Your son, it seems, is up for more of a challenge than you. I'll bet your son could put up some impressive 16 yard scores with a 28 ga. and a 1/2 ounce load.

A 1 1/8 ounce load is 492.1875 grains. A 45-70 cast bullet is 405 grains. We have guys shooting 100, 200, 300 rounds of more lead than one of the biggest bullets, ever made. Over the years, Newton's Third law does a real number on shoulders.

A 1/2 ounce load is 218 grains. Getting 218 grains up to 1200 fps requires the shooter's shoulder to soak up a lot less recoil than getting 492 grains up to 1145 fps.

As for your silly argument about shell cost, you obviously didn't attend college and learn about economies of scale. When a 28 ga. 1/2 ounce load becomes "the thing," production increases and prices plummet. All we need are shooters who aren't afraid to risk their averages by shooting anything less than a punt gun.

 

And you're the guy who says "he can't afford to shoot 12 GA shells" but recommends we all shoot .410's. Maybe I should post some more of your nonsense quotes from the other site. For a non-shooter you sure have some silly answers!

 

I just saw 28 ga shells selling for $14.00+ per box at Walmart, 410 shells over $10.00 , per box

Gary Bryant Dr.longshot

 

Yeah, they're not cheap. I saw a nice BPS in 28 ga. If I could find a MEC in 28 and a good source for cheap wads, I would consider it.

I just saw an article that says Claybusters is making a 3/4 wad for 12 ga. I might order a bag. I wonder what MEC bushing I'll need to drop 3/4 of #8.

 

No fear, this boy quit shooting over two years ago when the price of 12GA shells got too expensive. Now we need ditch all our dedicated trap guns and buy 28 ga guns to compete in his new fantasy. Whew!

 

So when Oleollidawg and smoking357 get together for the 4th of July who brings the brats and who brings the beers?

 

The thing is, I talk about Trap, and Oleo talks about me.

That's why that chicken**** is on "ignore."