SHOULD HAVE THE ATA SHELL SPECIFICATIONS BEEN CHANGED?

Gary, what major handicap event did you win with those slow shells and at what yardage?

 

I've never won any major event with any kind of shells and never said I had.

-Gary

 

CCfan, Indiana shooter, Devon Harris, won a hundred grand shooting Federal 2-3/4 dr. eq. 1-1/8 of number 8s. It wasn't a chip & chunk score either, he smoked a lot of targets with his precise pointing!

HAP

 

But Hap, just think of the score he would have broken at the 28. Very likely an 88 or less as that's where the shot hits an invisible wall as some posters actually believe!

 

No poster said any such thing. Try being a little more intellectually honest so that your words have some credibility.

-Gary

 

Gary, I'm glad you brought that up. The absurdity of continuing this argument over what happens to target breaking ability past the 27 continues ad nauseum. I haven't seen one oz. of proof-only speculation-that there is significant pattern degradation beyond the 27. And to think those poor bunker boys are limited to a payload of less than 7/8oz. and seem to break some pretty far targets!

 

Think about how silly that statement is. Obviously patterns degrade continuously with every inch of additional travel. All Neil was trying to explain to you with respect to "significant degradation" is that, at some distance, the role played by accurate pointing starts yielding more sharply to the role played by luck and that this physics reality leads intelligent folks to ponder the sportsmanship of that.

-Gary

 

So GW22, at what yardage does this occur? So if we already have some of that at the 27 then maybe the 27 is too far and we need make the max. 25 again. Making those hundreds even easier with fewer unscathed targets might be possible at some shorter yardage. That cliff is looking steeper all the time!!

 

While not of great importance to me, this mild-mannered disagreement has increased my interest enough to ask :

When a shot from the 27 yard mark only only produces a small puff of dust off the target, where is all of the shot charge?

Is the shot always just on the backside, just below, just above or just ahead of the target?

Or, on occasion has the target actually been somewhere within the pattern, but only hit it with a pellet or more, only causing dust?

Has anyone captured a video or a series of photos of a target surrounded by shot which has not been broken? That would not only be an amazing picture(s) but should answer my questions, thus allowing me to learn more about the sport.

Thanks,

Kenny Ray

 

Nice thought Ken. We have a local club where the sun comes in at a weird angle late in the day. The place only shoots Singles but under certain conditions it's very possible to see numerous targets obviously struck by pellets without breaking. Of course, shooters then complain about target quality. Those of us who picked up unbroken targets after a shoot to save the club a few $$ always remarked how many targets have several holes and streaks but never broke. That's in Singles only. I call it part of the game.

I do recall a time many years ago in MD where the late great All-American Frank Little pulled out of a tournament that threw Federal targets that day. Frank's take was if he hit 'em and they didn't break he was outta there. That's the only time I ever saw Frank walk away from any shoot regardless of conditions!

 

Of course I have, Kenny. I have all kinds of such videos. Here are two examples.

The videos were part of a project of Ron Baker, Roman Pompe, and NMW. We were trying to see what the success rate of "reading the breaks" for information about where the pellets which missed the target were. I'll get back to that near the end, but first sit back and enjoy the answer to your queston, taken from point of view of singles but the long-yardage results were similar but it's just very, very hard to get much usable video from handicap.

There is a shot speed which is too slow, even at 16 yards, to ensure a break. These are AA featherlite® shells intended for training and ultra-low recoil.

Just watch the video for the information you are after - pellet hits with no break - and don't worry about the rest, for now. Hit the "expand" button on the lower right to get the full effect.

http://www.mn-trap.org/tech_corner/n_winston/no_dome_breaks.html

The next video is a little different, being shot with standard-speed shells and just seriously mis-pointed to judge the effect on the break of various degrees of accuracy. But there is an ineffective pellet contact on the first target of the clip to look at and see that the shot was way, way under. Again, enlarge them with the expand box.

http://www.mn-trap.org/target_challenge_2012/target_breaks_final/target_break_movies/TBF_rising_POA breaks.mp4

So there you go, Kenny.

And the answer to your question "Is the shot always just on the backside, just below, just above or just ahead of the target? " is, without question, "No." You can get dust from pellet-contact anywhere.

But what were these videos really about? We surely weren't just trying to answer a KR question we expected a few years in the future. No, what they show is that all these theories of target-break reading for information about where the main body of the charge was are totally, completely invalid. It does not just work "some of the time;" it never, ever works. Not a lick. The people who do it for themselves are only deluding themselves and I think that's just their own problem; people who do it as coaches are just screwing people up.

Here's the Featherlite® video. Note that in all the shots the pellets are well over the bird, in most cases way, way, over. Note that

1. Many of the breaks are very good, in spite of the target being virtually missed.

2. In no case, not one, were the "pieces driven down" as the TBR (Target-break-reading) fantasy contends.

TBR on this video had a zero success rate.

Now the other. The shots start low, called on the right of the frame "-4" and the center of the pattern moves up, stepwise, through "zero," dead on, up to plus 4, way, way, over.

The thing to notice in his video is that the breaks with the shot under are no different from the breaks with the shot over. Again, TBR is this video is 100% ineffective.

http://www.mn-trap.org/target_challenge_2012/target_breaks_final/target_break_movies/TBF_rising_POA breaks.mp4

So what determines how targets break? Here's the whole story, the final answer to that question, with overwhelming proof.

http://www.mn-trap.org/target_challenge_2012/target_breaks_final/TBR_final.htm

There's tons more in case you or others want to chase down some other target-break-reading question. Go to Ron Baker's website, North Start Clay target and look to the tech corner, mouse down to Neil Winston and enjoy the show!

http://www.mn-trap.org/

Yours in Sport,

Neil

 

I've always felt the top rank shooters can read their last look at a target (barrel/bead/bird relationship) when the gun fires more so than how a target breaks. Neil's slow motion videos show pieces or chunks may come from any part of a pattern and where a pellet strikes the clay in it's rotation determines the direction that piece will veer off.

When a 12 ga. full choke pattern with premium ammo is used and fails to break a perfectly centered/pointed clay still remains speculation in my opinion. I would wager a nickel it isn't the 27 yard line with premo ammo!

HAP

 

Thank you for taking the time to answer my questions Neil. Very impressive educational videos. I learned a lot.

KR

 

Thanks. Kenny. I would have liked to show you more "hits without a break" but at singles they are very rare, just occurring when a single pellet hits the bird alone in a radically mispointed shot. But in almost all cases, the bird breaks with just a single-pellet-hit at singles and often it looks like a pretty "solid" break. That's because it's the bird (its linear and rotational momentum) that's doing the damage to itself, not the pellet, whose job is just to compromise the mechanical integrity of the target enough to allow it to fly apart on its own. The mechanism (of single-pellet hits) is as described in Andrew Jones' book. A pellet hits and knocks a small piece out of the other side of the target and that is almost always enough to let the target do what it wants to, disintegrate into bits. When several pellets hit in a very, very short period of time the bird shatters and that's where the "smoked target" comes from.

Ron and I were as surprised the way these videos came out as anyone. Our assumption had been that TBR works some of the time and our experiment was designed to put numbers (and therefore permit realistic judgement) on the "rate" of matching break-appearance with where the center of the pattern was. (We thought the success rate would have to be pretty high to make TBR useful. After all, being right half the time would be no help at all.) We started, by chance alone, with the shot centered well to the left of the birds for a box of shells or two and I, at least, was floored! Sure enough, when the shot was centered to the left, the birds did break as TBR contends, small pieces to the left, big pieces to the right! Of course, we didn't stop there (though I'll bet many would have) and when we began to put the center of the pattern to the right a couple of days later the whole house of cards came crashing down. The targets still sent the small pieces to the left, big ones to the right, even when the shot was on the "wrong" side. And the "above," "below," and "non-spinning" videos just told the same story over and over again, each refining our understanding of what was going on.

We put a "TBR cyber-challenge" on TS.com with twenty filmed breaks to evaluate and, later, video from a second camera (from behind the shooter) showing where the shot actually had been so we could all, together, score the calls, determine how accurately people had "read the breaks." It turned out that no one could do better than chance and most did worse. In two of the 20 test birds not one single player got it right! They were just guessing; there was no other way to interpret the results. None of the almost 40 players could do it at all and that's with the targets far "closer" than they would ever be on the field and slowed down by a factor of 20x to boot!

Some people - and more all the time, we think- have come to believe what they have seen with their own eyes. Ron and Roman and I call that progress and it's made all the work, time, and money involved well worth it.

The illusion of TBR is compelling. Even now when my sight-picture tells me that I had been behind or over my eyes seek out "substantiating evidence" and I lock on that piece "driven" in the appropriate direction to agree with what I already thought. I have to remind myself that I am just doing what humans are built to do - seek confirming evidence - and in this case, it's just all make-believe.

Yours in Sport,

Neil

Here's a link to the results of the "cyber-challenge."

http://www.mn-trap.org/target_challenge_2012/TBRCC_winner_and_conclusion.html

 

Kenny, a second part of your question was whether, "on occasion has the target actually been somewhere within the pattern, but only hit it with a pellet or more, only causing dust?" While I have no video on this from long yardage, I do have patterning data which will answer that.

This is the output from Anderw Jones' program Shotgun Insight. Look at the lower right corner of this data sheet and direct your attention to the box labeled "Probability of a Hit" and "a hit" means a single pellet impacting the bird. The central 10 inch diameter circle for this particular shot produced a probability of a single-pellet hit of 99%, which is typical-or-better for good barrels matched with very, very good ammunition, as these Federal Papers were.

That means that even in that small 10 circle in the center of the pattern, about a bird in a hundred will not be hit by a pellet and, obviously, more will be hit by only one. It's also clear from the picture of the pattern that there are hot and cool areas and they appear randomly in the pattern, with the center 20-inch circle hotter (about twice as hot, actually, than the 20 t0 30 inch periphery.)

Thus, the answer to that second question is "Yes;" even in center of a good long-yardage pattern a target may be hit by only one pellet and where it is hit (and where the rest to the pattern was) is pure chance and unrelated to anything else about the location of the center of the pattern or the pellets which miss the target entirely.



Thank you for the question.

Yours in Sport,

Neil

 

Very interesting

Thanks

 

Very interesting indeed, deceptively so. Eh Neil.

Shoot well.

John

 

How many "edge on" targets do you reckon our top shots take a poke at? Numbers can have far different meanings depending on what you want to get across? For a target to be edge on in ATA trap, wouldn't one have to wait till the clay leveled off at an exact place in the peak of it's arc? How many of our top shots wait that long to smoke their clay?

HAP

 

Edge on targets are angles-angles are closer to the shooter. Effects should be less!

 

Who cares what shells are used as long as they are safe and randomly tested. Doesnt matter as long as there is a level playing field. Last year at the grand I was squadded with a guy using handloads for hdcp. He shot poorly so I didnt care but he said he was using handloads after i asked about a blooper.

 

I couldn't imagine useing re pops on an event that could really matter but I know that people do it all the time ... I do not shoot reloads, so If I get a bad shell its not my fault ... I would spend the extra few dollars and buy premium shells for championship events ... Its just one less thing I would have to think about ... wpt ... (yac) ...

 

The above post is just another example of, "rules, what rules. We don't need to follow any stinking rules"


2014 Grand Program: AMMUNITION New shells are mandatory for all handicap events and handicap shoot-offs.

 

I may have missed the following posts and correction/change to a post by Neil, and needs to be addressed, I think.

First, Neil posts:

Then Neil apologized, kind of:

I don't believe I lead anyone as to where it was or was not, it just is, and all are able to look for themselves. I said specifically, "From SAAMI". What is disingenuous is one who has lead, either by self understanding or from direction of others to persuade a 3dram load is anything by design within the limit of specification 1200+- 90fps. It is not. 3dr Eq is 1200fps. As stated, by SAAMI.

Next Neil posted this, I either did not catch this at the time or he added it. Not sure which, it could have been there all along, but needs addressing.

Let's put that into a little context. First as it is now apparent, Neil has not read the entirety of SAAMI in regards to understanding terms, or understanding operation of. That is unfortunate as testing and information from him has been a staple of understanding for many moons. Which has led (many years ago) to the rewriting of a rule, to read what it was, but with the understanding, that it was not, and never was. A true dereliction of duty, by whom? Seems no one will never know. Be certain though, Neil is the front line soldier to defend it, as depicted by the countless of attacks that against people who were correct in their assessment, 1250fps is not 3 dram EQ and never has been.

For Neil, to make the comment above with a straight face is to belie the fact (as Neil uses page 8) there is page 2, 3 and 4. These pages describe the variability of the actual components used and variability within different processes of manufacturing, handing and the equipment used in subsequent testing. Then describes the statistical method so as to provide statistical certainty (relative) to produce a product that meet the specification limits so issued.

First "velocity feet per second Mean instrumental velocity at 3 feet". Just has a definition of velocity average as calculated by a instrument designed for such purpose. In this case it is equipment specifically used in conjunction of SAAMI standards. Pages 36, 37, 38 and 39.

Now we have discussed the +90fps aspect of all shells before. An interesting note, Neil's first depiction of the understanding was to say something close to and may not be exact "A whole truckload could be +90fps", at least it has lessened to just a "box.". The idea this can happen, I suppose as nothing in manufacturing controls (from what I understand), is statistically proven 100%, close (as the tail ends of the bell curve mathematically never reaches 100%), but with the controls in place, i.e. sampling lot runs at a minimum of twice and usually three times, the odds of such an occurrence in reality is about the same as some of the best shooters shooting (while trying) a 0/100 then running the next 9900 targets. Possible, you would have to say yes, probable, I do not think so. Then just as absurd is the conclusion, that a box of shells with all the variability in play, would all be +90, just absurd.

To also understand, within the manufacturing of a product, that could have extreme consequences, to a end user, the protocols are followed. Can you imagine, a 1 1/8oz load that is developed with a NMV 1200fps and a pressure of 10000psi. If the payload (light) was the issue, no problem, if the powder was the issue (excessive), possible big problem.

Second, "mean velocity", interesting Neil did not provide the context of what "mean velocity" we are looking at. In our specific case, in which there is disagreement, it is 1200fps (3dr eq), and as specifically noted on page 2, "Nominal Mean Velocity" which in a statistical sense, a manufacturing sense, velocity average the user of SAAMI guidelines wants to see the most, in this case 1200fps, nominally. Then as described, variables come into play that challenge the manufacturer. SAAMI then gives guidelines to follow how to use a system that defines reject limits so as to control the consistency of the product.

Then in the next post, Neil writes,

Warning, warning from what? Leadership of a governing body that doesn't follow its own rules (in this case shells, as well as angles), turning a blind eye to or warning from an organization who when pressed on turning the blind eye, just changes the rules. Changing the rules, not within the historical spirit of Handicapping the best down to an average level, but in assisting the best to maintain an edge in the game of Handicap. No, the warning goes to a guy with no structural power at all within the ATA, at a keyboard on a public forum. Yes, give warning, of that guy, me, I guess.

This discussion has always been on why the rule changed, from what it was to (with false understanding) what it is now. A little twist has been brought into the discussion recently. Originally the reason was given as the dram eq was obsolete and FPS was the new norm, hence the change was required (to you would assume the same eq and fps). Now though the new rule really only comports to a 1200fps load as a statistical max, using SAAMI as a guide, with the inclusion of, " no individual shotshell shall exceed these limits". To now, something along the lines of, well the shells were faster anyway, see all my tests.

As the current Nitro SC loads depict, "exceeds ATA velocity limits", could this not have been requested to be done at any point along the line. To shells with a design velocity of greater than 1200fps/3dram. It is clear now, I think, to most 3 dram eq. is a MV of 1200fps. A 3 dram load would be a load having a NMV of 1200 fps +-90fps as measured by instrument, not a load of 1250fps NMV.

Neil states, "Shot speeds limits are defined as speeds. Period.", yes they are Neil, why, again, they needed not be, did they. Again, they have always pertained to a shell speed as defined. 3dr = 1200. Nothing new, just the interpretation is different. If the standards are the same, a 1235/1250fps load has a higher percentage of both actually or at a minimum statistically, to exceed the never to exceed limit of 1290, and a 1290fps load most assuredly will. As will a bunker load of 1325fps or a 1oz load of 1290fps or greater would also assuredly exceed the associated limits as the reject limits of such loads probably exceed the never exceed velocity as stated in the ATA rule. Are you more likely to get a box of shells that are 1290fps or more with a 1200fps load or a 1250fps load? Of course using the example, a 1250fps load could have a box of 1340fps, and that is not what the rule allows. The rule allows, "never exceed", and since you cannot test a shell that has already been shot it should be based on a design limit of not to exceed to a degree of 99% or higher. Which load is that, why yes, the 1200fps NMV load.

Neil states, "So the speed of fast shells available to us has not changed since at least 1990.

A retest in 2001, this one with a pair of consumer chronographs but carried out with similar care and accuracy, shows the same speeds but with different labels."

Specifically, "care and accuracy", you can look at the results and reasonably conclude they are all junk. It doesn't mean the results or averages of the results he obtained are not true, it is that they are not accurate. The means look more like extreme spreads, then you look at the specific sample of a test he did do. Maybe he will post all the raw data he has obtained to allow some peer, review.



Let's look at the "care and accuracy" provided by this specific test. Well, it is apparent the pressure data is not right, it exceeds limits as well as probable limits. So pressure data discarded as irrelevant.

Now we will look at data input with care and accuracy, what is the length of the shell (2.25")? Then, the system set up gain is not set per Oehler instruction, the measurement given is not fps at 3ft, but fps at 4ft, why? Then there is a velocity correction of -20, where did that come from? I doubt a reference load has ever been shot through this set up, at least as it stood the day of the test. Oh, I suppose he could of used off the shelf shells with a FPS marking, but why, Neil thinks it could be a box of shell 90fps faster than listed, not much of a reference, is it.

This test does not comport to SAAMI testing in just about every way. I will say if this load is as depicted a "handicap" in todays understanding and you take away the -20 velocity correction, you get 1244, 1259, 1273, 1247, 1260fps. Interestingly accurate for a modern WW SH load.

Was there 2 warm up shots, or is the first 2 used as the warm up shots, which by direction should not be used for any result verification or record.

Does Neil have a propensity to change the velocity correction? I don't know. One more thing, a statement by Neil, I cannot remember which post, where he says in point, or similar to in effect "to warm the room", I will assume the room (workshop) used for testing is not normally heated. Are the shells in the same room? So as in the test it shows 68 degrees F. What was the temperature of the shells? Were they temperature stabilized prior to testing? What was the equipment temperature? Here is the temperature on March 19, 2013 in Minneapolis from the weather underground, http://classic.wunderground.com/his...tml?req_city=NA&req_state=NA&req_statename=NA
Temperature:
Mean Temperature -9 °C
Max Temperature -5 °C
Min Temperature -14 °C

Next I will take a stab at the next "care and accuracy" showing of Neil's work. He posts the following example:



It posts number of pellets as 425, of what, it sure isn't as depicted 1 oz of 7.5's. The lightest 7.5's at 6% antimony would be 402 pellets for 1 1/8oz, not 1 oz. Could it be this was 1oz of 8's as they are listed a 6% antimony the count of 421.

I am not trying to disprove this particular shot and it's probability of a hit, I am just pointing out "care and accuracy" is not shown and I would argue it is much more variable than Neil seems to imply, and to suggest we (ATA) members already accept the fact that targets are missed because of pattern effectiveness now.

I will agree, I think, with Neil, as of right now the 27yd line is sufficient, and my request would be to just replace the current shell rule with a specific 1200fps NMV for any payload. Phil Kiner would suggest using the faster shell basically reduces the field 2 yards. I tend to agree, though maybe not the full 2 yards. By changing just this rule initially, which only brings the rule to what it was, it should have little to no effect on pattern effectiveness, just a slight decrease in energy. Using what has been passed down for, I do not know how long, and generally excepted, 1lb of energy from a pellet is needed to break a target. Well, 8's at 1200fps is still above 1lb at 40yds, so the shooter can decide, pattern density, or energy. Kind of makes you wonder, when the 3dram rule was put into place the writers knew what they were talking about, unlike what we had or have currently.

Also, my point is to get the maximum amount of contestants using the same shell, a component of the game. Personally, I would also change to 1oz and reduce the whole field of contestants 2 yards, 20 being the minimum, initially. Though apparently changing 1 thing when it comes to a potential decrease in average capability of a proficient 27yd contestant is not allowed.

As my first post in the thread states, "Not that it matters."

Shoot well

John

 

Neil Winston, you only want the SAAMI rules to read what you want them to read. That's a fact all on here have seen, the Dram equivalents by SAAMI is our guideline, 1200fps=3 dram equiv, 1250fps= 3 1/4Dram equiv. That's the facts, Shell Mfgrs control there shell speeds very much closer than the +or- 90fps, that's the facts.
That is my stand and you cannot change that, you need better educated by attending a SAAMI seminar.

You have a knack to interject information not applying to the subject that is proving you wrong, as you usually do.
Gary Bryant Dr.longshot

 

I don't believe Sir Neil is prepared to respond to these allegations!

 

I think this whole issue of 1290fps vs 1200fps velocity measured at 3 feet is a waste of gray matter. It borders on nonsense.


The real issue is what is the difference in velocity and energy where the target is.

A shooter at the 20 yard line, if he can break his target at 20 yards from the house, will have almost the same velocity and energy performance with a 1145 fps shell as a 27 yard shooter using a 1200 fps shell, providing they both break the target at the same distance from the front of the trap house.

Using 7- 1/2 shot 2-3/4 dram load with 1145 feet velocity at 3 feet from the muzzle, the velocity at 40 yards is going to be 655 fps with 1.19 ft lbs of energy.

Using a 7-1/2 shot 3 dram load with 1200 feet velocity at 3 feet from the muzzle, the velocity at 50 yards is going to be 610 fps and 1.02 ft lbs of energy.

Using a 7-1/2 shot load with 1295 fps velocity (no 1290 fps listing on reference chart) is going to have 630 fps velocity and 1.10 ft lbs of energy at 50 yards. That is less velocity and ft lbs of energy than the 2-3/4 dram load at 40 yards.

As far as performance, I see almost no advantage a 27 yard shooter with a 1290 fps shell would have over a 20 yard shooter with a 1145 fps shell, providing they both point the gun correctly and break the target at the same distance from the house. The real difference comes in gun pointing accuracy.

With the black Winchester AA handicap shells we were using in the 1970's, it was a shell approaching 1255 fps marked 3 drams long before ATA changed the rule book to conform to SAMMI wording.

http://shotgunsportsmagazine.com/downloads/shotgun_statistics.pdf

 

The black shells kicked me too much, I liked the fed papers better, or better yet the win supper target. I don't know why but they kicked less and seemed faster to me. I've always thought that plastic hulls kicked worse than paper, no graphs or proof just experience. Brad

 

A finely tuned 27 yrd shooter knows the difference in the newer "cap" loads.......If you can handle the increase in recoil,
there is an advantage.... 40 more feet per second might not mean much in terms of math on paper, but in real life
from the 27, it could well mean an extra target on a slight misspoint or slow pull, and one target is all the top shooters need.
It helps to be be built like a Sherman tank too or just be young and bulletproof!

 

The big shells are just fun to shoot. They get out there quick and hit them hard.

 

I would think a "finely tuned 27 yard shooter" would make it and stay on the 27 no matter what shell he or she chose and they would stick with it. We have seen where the GAH was won with 2-3/4 dram loads from the 27. My point is 3dram loads are not needed on the short yardage. This bogus argument of what is "wrong with ATA" by pointing to shells with less than a 5% increase in velocity is nonsense. Velocity cannot make up for poor shotgun handling.

 

AZCOTRAP: SAAMI specs are still the same 3 dram=1200fps, 1250fps=3 1/4 dram.
It was Mr. N.W. that got the + or - of 90fps involved in allowing 3 dram to be 1290fps.
It never was a 3 dram load and never will be a SAAMI 3 dram load with the 1290fps #s
There is definitely an advantage at any yardage with the 1250fps, if you can handle the recoil, I agree w/Brad on the Winchester Paper Super Target Shells.
Dr.longshot

 

No, you are wrong. The SAAMI spec is 1200fps plus or minus 90 feet per second. That is the authorized description. What you want is a non SAAMI spec, 1200fps flat, no plus, no minus. That is impossible.

There has always been a varilance in all shells, including those with black powder. It is a natural thing. What ATA did in the original rule was ignore something that was taking place anyway. With the word change, they acknowledged something that already was happening. The shell manufactuers did not create 1255 fps shells and call them 3 dram loads because of Neil Winston, they provided those shells 4o years ago.

The only way you can keep shells from exceeding 1200 fps out of the game is limit all shells to factory 1145fps where there will still be a variance approaching 1200 fps because they are described by SAAMI as 1145 plus or minus 90fps meaning they can be 1055 to 1235 pfs and still be a 2-3/4 dram load. Someone posted the link to SAAMI describing these loads. Take a look at it.

 

If you never admit you were wrong,

Does that mean you were never wrong???

LOL

 

Wow, great question .... I can ask my Ex, she knows everything, just ask her ... wpt ...(yac) ...

 

wpt, does she live in Indiana now?

 

Could be anyplace, just so long as she don't come near me ... lol ... WPT ... (YAC) ...

 

Just checking, the discription sounds real familiar!

 

AzcoTrap is right........poor shooting habits will not be improved by a faster shell, not in the least, probably even make it worse.
What I meant is that a top 27 yr shooter, if recoil is not an issue, say like one of the BIG physical guys, shoots a faster
shell and can take the additional push without issue, then he knows there is a slight advantage for him, however slight it is.
It might be something like shooting a little behind just one hard right target, but getting a piece where with a slower shell he might
have missed or just got dust.......it's all in the percentages...........one extra target is ALOT in todays game.

 

Gary Bryant wrote "It was Mr. N.W. that got the + or - of 90fps involved in allowing 3 dram to be 1290fps." and that is not true. It's been explained to Gary countless times and he continues to spread his misimformation because he does not care what the truth is. Never, ever, believe a word he writes.

As I wrote just last week, the change to SAAMI specs occurred in about 1990. I was a delegate and voted for it. It disappeared from my interest for 15 years or so. Or forever. After all, this is not going anywhere. By the time I got in the EC the present rule was in place for several years., written by someone else. My only involvement in the present rule is to to explain it to people who apparently refuse to read plain English.

I would never in a million years have written the current rule.

But it's the rule and works fine and I suggest people just shoot whatever shells it permits and they favor and to worry more about their own shooting than the legal shells used by someone else.

Neil

 

Never believe anything Neil Winston writes, The SAAMI rules are written above, you need to ignore what he writes. Just read the SAAMI specs, they spell out what shells are ratede at, it has been explained to Mr. Know it all Neil Winston, HE JUST CANNOT UNDERSTAND PLAIN ENGLISH, the + or _ are not specs just guidelines for shell mfgrs. Plain English 3dram is 1200fps 3-1/4 dram is 1250fps. As stated by SAAMI, MAYBE IT NEEDS PUT IN LATIN, OR FRENCH, OR RUSSIAN OR SIGN LANGUAGE. HE NEEDS HELP GUYS.
Dr.longshot

 

Your statement, Gary, "It was Mr. N.W. that got the + or - of 90fps involved in allowing 3 dram to be 1290fps." cannot be true and anyone can see that. I was just a delegate from Minnesota until about 2004. I was not on the rules committee; I was not on any committee. Someone else wrote the present rules which predate my ascent to any office where I could do anything like this. I didn't. I couldn't have. It's impossible. Anyone should be able to understand that.

Gary, this is all history anyway. The rules say what they say, though I had no hand in them except to get rid of some dumb English/Metric conversions which were mistakes I would not have made if I had written the rule.

How did I do all this Gary? By what power? When? What exactly did I do?

Neil

 

Not that it matters.

3dram is 1200+-90, not 1200 max. You have not read thoroughly. Though the components of such shell be equal to the developed load. It is not a load that has a development velocity of 1250fps.

I have said, "

Let's just assume for a second, Neil and You are correct a box or a truckload of 1200fps NMV shells could be 1290fps. Though statistically 99.97% (virtual certainty not 1 shell would) of the time would not, it cannot be discounted as false. Though, it would have been produced with the same components as depicted of the developed and sample tested, 1200fps load, there would also be a box or truckload of 1110fps shells as well as 1290fps shells. Otherwise it would not be a 1200NMV load, it would be a load of 1290fps with no variability, impossible.

Ok, using that assumption (as improbable as it may be) that a 1200fps load can have all shells produced to a 1290fps as subsequent testing proves. Do they exceed the ATA rule, NO.

Now, using the same logic and standard, as you would have to, a 1250fps NMV load could have all shells that through subsequent testing have a FPS of 1340fps, an obvious violation, is it not.

It is obvious, it is a secret who developed the understanding. It is a secret of why Neil was selected as the ultimate shell tester. It is a secret where the funding came from for all the shells tested and equipment used. Why wasn't SAAMI procedures followed while testing? Answers that apparently will never be known. If Neil funded all this on his own, it was an amazing expense of money and time by someone with a false understanding of what SAAMI says. Truly amazing, as it must have been thousands of dollars and countless 100's of hours of time.

Hopefully this brings some understanding, I doubt it.


Empirical Rule
The empirical rule is only valid for bell-shaped (normal) distributions. The following statements are true.

• Approximately 68% of the data values fall within one standard deviation of the mean.
• Approximately 95% of the data values fall within two standard deviations of the mean.
• Approximately 99.7% of the data values fall within three standard deviations of the mean.

Again, as having, "no individual shotshell shall exceed" only comports to a 1200fps NMV load, statistically. Without actual testing, statistically is what we should base, "no individual shotshell shall exceed", on. Which would be the same as the old rule, 3dram, as 3 dram = 1200fps +- 90fps.

Not that it matters.

Shoot well.

John

 

I recall having a discussion with my Father 40 years ago about 3 dram and 2 3/4 dram shells and the + or minus of each ... 3 Dram (1200) plus 5% would end up being 1260 FPS where as 2 3/4 dram would (1145+57) end up being 1202 fps ... 2 3/4 dram -5% would be 1088 FPS and 3 dram - 5% would end up being 1140 FPS ... My father was a dedicated perfectionist so things like this mattered to him much more than it did to me then or now for that matter ... I know it was 40 years ago because I had just started shooting and I joined the ATA as a Lifer that same year ... I seem to recall there being an article in Trap and Field or a magazine with a complete explanation of the difference of the speed and effect it could have on the shot (Assumed) besides the over all difference it would make breaking a target ... I have always been a reasonably quick shooter so it would not have much effect on me based on my Fathers calculations (?) if there were any or if it was a guess based on an assumtion ... I honestly do not recall when the changes were accepted and adopted to the rules of the ATA but would like to know if anyone knows for sure ... WPT ... (YAC) ...



Here is a recipe I got from a friend and its great, try it ...

PINEAPPLE CREAM CHEESE COBBLER heart emoticon

Ingredients:
1 stick (1/2 cup) butter
1 egg, lightly beaten
1 cup milk
1 cup of all Purpose flour
1 cup sugar
2 Teaspoons baking powder
1/2 teaspoon salt
2 cans (20 oz cans) Pineapple chunks (drained)
8 oz cream cheese, cut into small pieces.

Directions:
Preheat oven 350 degrees.
melt butter and pour into 9 x 13 inch glass baking dish.
in a small bowl mix together the egg,milk,flour,sugar,baking powder, and salt. Pour directly over the butter in the baking dish, but do not stir.
Add the Pineapple chunks,arranging in a single layer as much as possible. Drop cream cheese pieces over pineapple chunks. Place in preheated oven and bake for 45 minutes or until top is golden brown and edges are bubbling. ( crust rises up and around the fruit, but fruit will still pop a little out of top)
~Enjoy!!~

 

Squatty's chart makes it pretty clear.

I can't believe there is still an argument.

 

There isn't. You just have to understand. A 1200fps load, has its own bell curve, of which 1250 is part of.

1250fps load also has its own bell curve in which 1300 is part of, and not in the 1200fps load bell curve.

They are 2 different animals. 2 different statistical envelopes.

Shoot well.

John

 

Holy Cow !!! ..... "1 cup sugar" ...... your trying to kill half of the Trapshooters out there

 

Sour cream and butter I ca hear my arteries hardening.

 

It depends on the mathematics of the bell curves. You have no idea what is the (mathematical) variability of the shells in this case (of shells) or that case. I at least have an idea (and a ton of data to support it) but can't get to it right now.

To correct what you wrote: "A 1200fps load, has its own bell curve, of which data from a 1250 fps shells may (or may not) be a part". Really, John, I thought your earlier faith in the ability of factories to come up with - components and loadings or some such doubletalk - that will result in the shells in the box matching what's written on the outside was touching but, of course, utter nonsense.

Above you wondered where the money to do all this came from. You haven't been around very long so you have not read the dozens and dozens of tests I have put on TS.com over many years. In every case, when I had help, I disclosed it. I'll bet there are plenty of shooters who know me well enough to tell you I can afford both the financial and time investment and am entirely willing to spend the time and money needed to find things out.

Your postings are recently, in general, more knowledgeable and realistic. Does this mean you actually have chronographed a shotgun shell and learned by it? When you assert that I don't understand what SAAMI says you need to post an example. Remember, my data presentation of results of experiments is generally visual and so none of what you write applies at all.

What is your personal experience with the two inductive chronographs I've used over the years, Oehler Model 71 and System 45?. You could start by telling us what each looks like.

Neil

 

Well, I found one example. These are 3/8 Federal Champions made in 1989 and tested in 1990. 100 shots, one of army tests I ran that year through my Model 71 inductive chronograph.

Note, John, that barrel #2 has no choke. If it had been choked, would the recorded speed have been faster or slower? Why?



Neil

 

I don't have a problem with the current speed rule at all since I believe shooter error causes more misses than speed or a lack of it for competition grade ammo.

Since we're speaking to nothing more than what a 3 dr. eq. shell speed limits being plus or minus 90 FPS, does that apply only to shells listed at 3 dr.? The known factor of more or less velocity may come from all shot shells, are we to assume a 3-1/4 dr. eq. 1-1/8 load listed at 1250 may also have those same speed parameters of plus or minus 90 FPS?

If true, how can we shoot those loads and be within the legal speed limits of 1290 FPS as a max for that load?

I wish we'd do away with speed limits altogether! Causes too much confusion as we've seen here!

HAP

 

Only here, HAP. In the real world there's no problem at all.

A shooter has but to decide what he wants and buy shells that fit the rules for that shot-mass and speed. This is all just talk, talk, talk spouted by people who like to pretend there's a problem. There isn't.

To change a working rule to address a problem which does not exist is silly. This is the internet. It's mostly nonsense posted by people who have no idea what they are talking about. The proper response to this whole thread is to not listen.

Neil

 

A little dumpster diving at the Southern Grand a few years ago yielded plenty of brand new shell boxes marked Sporting 1,300 FPS. Looks like some shooters already made up their own rules!

 

Of course the velocity read would be higher. Chronographs tend to read a leading pellet not mass!

 

.

Leading pellet?

Measured 3 feet from the muzzle, how much difference would it make?

.

.

 

Ollie, since the Model 71 is an inductive chrono, there is no leading pellet effect.

 

If the barrel was over 21 inches, one could assume that a choke would only slow it down.

 

Neil,

I knew I should have put that caveat, but of all people to question that.

you are correct Neil, I do not know, do you? do you not remember 1 year ago, I said that it is possible that REM/FED/WIN have alternate procedures and instead of listed +-90 fps they have a different curve, say +-40fps.

Here is what I said,

Do you remember the above? I guess not.

Again Neil, according to your work, full choke is faster, now I do not disagree with your work as it pertains to relative natures. If you look at your data, lights are slower the heavies which are slower the HDCP's on average. You were able to see on average velocity changes with .2/.3 grains of powder. It is the velocities you were getting without follow up. Your work shows faster velocities on average. Are you sure? What was your reading with reference ammo? Did you ever use reference ammo? Why did you not set your first screen/coil at 18 inches and your next 3ft from that?

Heck, I thought you were going to relate the current rule, to a rule from 1957, "3. Any load heavier than three drams (equivalent) of powder or one and one-eighth ounces of shot...". Then conclude that the load portion of the current rule, "Any load with a velocity greater than 1290 FPS (Feet Per Second)" meant using, "no individual shotshell shall exceed", as the velocity limit of a 1290fps load, which would be 1380, correct.

Since we do not have any official means of testing, and shell are variable, the only way of knowing, at least statistically, of not exceeding 1290fps would be to use a 1200fps load, or data for a 1200fps load. Yes, as I have said, at least a year ago, there maybe stricter tolerances set for the shell manufactures use to comply (see above). If they use the same statistical data sheet from SAAMI for the HDCP shells, they do not.

If you look at the shells you tested for Ollie, what distance did you test? What does SAAMI say? To not know is one thing, but to know and not follow it anyway, to goes to your accurate style of testing, not so much. As for your work in general, yes, as I have said. Your specifics of what is, is what I have a issue with. Could you produce, all of your raw data, for peer review? Lot numbers and such, try to find out what the factories sampling was for that Lot.

All of your work need not have been done, maybe some of your patterning work, but the shell work, nope. Unless you were on behalf of the ATA testing to ensure the product control of the companies. Of which, unless you follow SAMMI guidelines your detail information is junk.

How do you know it is working, the rule is meaningless. The only challengeable portion is the weight.


Hap,

I do not have a problem with the faster shells either, after testing last year with 1200 and faster shells, faster is better, from the 27. The kid had around a 90 average with 1200fps shells, now using the faster shells full time has a 94+ average.

If it has anything to do with fixing the Handicap game though, the first thing to do before adding cement would be to limit the shell to 1200fps NMV.

Shoot well.

John

 

Are you saying it's the shell's fault when you shoot behind the target?

 

It's not the shells fault, it was using the 1250fps shells on the 30 yard line, which we shot first, then going to the slower 1200fps I shot 2nd. on the 25, I thought it was agreed on to use 3 dram 1200fps, on the 2nd 25 targets. There is an absolute advantage using 1250fps shells. I hope this clears up why I stated I shot behind w/slower shells, after using the prior faster shells. Your brain computer knows and adjusts your leads.
Dr.longshot

 

Jhunts,

I think it is pretty clear that manufacturers were producing shells much faster than 1200fps, even faster than your 1200 fps NMV if you like, many decades ago. They still labeled these as 3 DE. Should we have changed the rule - who knows. It meant just about nothing since I doubt manufacturers were truly trying to develop loads with a targeted velocity of 1200fps. They pushed the limit and the term 3DE left more than a bit of wiggle room.

Did changing ATA rule to 1290 max speed limit make things better. I doubt it. The whole speed rule is probably an exercise in futility anyway. But at least the 1290fps works from a rule standpoint since it is a hard and fast number (testing it still has issues, but it is a determinable base at least). DE doesn't work as well for a rule, since all you can really do with it is rely on the manufacturers labeling or even less exact ... a reloading recipe. If it's over 1290fps, there is not much argument available that it is legal. If the rule is 3DE, except for over 1290fps, I don't see any speed testing as meaningful. Say a tested shell is 1250fps - is that 3DE under the factory's tolerances, or an outlier? Does Remington's tolerance match Federal's? DE does not work well from a rule standpoint.

The problem with the 1290 rule is that this isn't a perfect world. A box labeled 1250, although appearing to be legal on its face, more than likely has at least a few illegal shells in it. Technically, buyer beware shooting these, if you get someone that really wants to spend the time to get into it, you could end up with a violation. Thing is, nobody really wants to go there. The rule makes perfect sense in theory, but there are issues in practice.

Both rule have problems. 3DE isn't the answer Gary thinks it is, and 1290fps opens up issues with an absolute ceiling applied to a product the factory might not be able to meet on an individual shell basis.

 

All the assumptions, personal opinions aside, I think of Arnold Reigger and his dominance of the handicap game and how he did that. First with a lowly model 37 Winchester, then with a model 12. His fodder of choice was a 2-3/4 dr., 1-1/8 oz. load of soft chilled shot. He was a dominate handicap shooter till his health began failing him before the 27 mandate. Might a healthy Arnold have continued shooting above par scores for a lot more years but for his health, I think he would have. Especially when harder shot and better ammo became the norm beginning around 65 or so. He was a very accurate pointer of a shotgun and is credited with being the one man responsible for the two yard mandated 27.

It seems the mentality today, most are in favor of the easier set targets for the sake of everyone and certainly not for further handicapping those we perceive as somewhat mastering the caps game. One man dominates until 1955 causing an increase and those we know the last few decades shooting all those perfect scores from the 27 yard handicap means little in further difficulty added. Instead, we make the presentations easier?

Without doubt, a faster velocity shot shell today retains more energy at the target than a slower one. How much energy is needed to break good scores consistently with trap loads? Higher antimony lead pellets retain their shape at set-back much better than chilled shot and produce better pattern percentages too.

Gary, I'd wager it was pilot error on your 25 yard targets rather than a degraded pattern with the 3 dr load you used? That's how A.R. dominated the game using inferior shot, precise pointing and not pattern destroying speed with higher velocity in his time. I don't look for much of anything to change in our sport with the thinking that's ruled the last few decades. We're either baffled by brilliance or buffaloed by BS so we pick our flavor.

HAP

 

BAT,

First the rule.

3. Any load with a velocity greater than 1290 FPS (Feet Per Second) with maximum shot charge of 1 1/8 ounces, or 1325 FPS with a maximum shot charge of 1 ounce, or 1350 FPS with a maximum shot charge of 7/8 ounces or less, as measured in any individual shotshell. These velocities are maximum and no individual shotshell shall exceed these limits for the designated shot charge.

Now definition of Load per SAAMI:

LOAD
1. The combination of components used to assemble a cartridge or shotshell.

"Any load with a velocity greater than 1290fps", ok. A load with a set of components that is no greater than 1290fps, or let's call it a 1290fps load. Well that load will have it's own statistical curve, correct. So really the rule says, 1290 +-, and if you use SAAMI as the guide, it is +-90fps as I/we do not no the individual specifications of a given manufacturer, other than if they are signatories to SAAMI, it is at least that. I think we need to use SAAMI as our guide right, because we have nothing else.

Of course it (wording in current rule), is similar in wording of the 1957 rule (assuming it was similar until changed), correct, "Any load heavier than three drams (equivalent) of powder...", of course at the time and still to this day 3dr is equivalent to 1200fps, which would mean a 1200+-, not 1235 +- or 1250+- and not 1290+-.

Of course, I guess starting in 1971, at least by Winchester a Handicap Load was born. Was it just a higher % of antimony in the shot, or were they faster, the word I got from Winchester is it was similar to todays AAM127, which is 1200fps. "This would have been a 1 1/8 oz. load of 7.5’s, the current load manufactured that would most closely replicate these numbers would be the AAM127." Shoulder reports and Neil's sample testing seems to prove otherwise.

So now we come to what appears to be the ATA's, well Neil's definition of a 3dram 1200fps Load. A load that could in effect leave the factory where apparently the whole LOT or at least a truckload, now a box, could be 1290fps, in reality it is not even 1 shell (statistically) in a given LOT respectively, using the 99.73 table factor. That is what the ATA demands, not even 1 shell. That is the reason for the reject limits. Read the SAAMI guide, it is online.

Anyway, to use the same standards as Neil has in the past, a 1290fps load could have a whole LOT or at least a truckload be 1380fps, is that what this working rule says, apparently it does.

Neil's words, "The 3-dram rule which we don't cite anymore but was the basis for the present numbers in the ATA rulebook, _HAS ALWAYS_ called a 'lot' (that is a production run) of shells that averages 1290 fps correctly labeled as 3-dram, and the same goes for a 'lot' of shells averaging only 1110 fps.

Everyone thought the 'plus or minus 90 ft/sec' they'd heard about meant the shells still averaged 1200 fps, but individual shells were not out of bounds until they reached over 1290 fps. This isn't it at all. The whole box, the whole truckload can average 1290.

That's why your post, HMB, makes no sense. As you can see from this scan, that 1255 fps box of shells labeled 3 1/4 D.E., if it really is 1255 fps, could be labeled 3, 3 1/4, or 3 1/2 D.E. and still be perfectly fine from the point of view of the SAAMI voluntary guidelines.

(However, if I see someone shooting shells marked 3 1/4 D.E. I'm going to tell him what he's doing is probably shooting shells that are too fast and he's taking a big risk - especially since all we have to find is a 'single shell' which is too fast and if we tested a couple of boxes, we'd find one, and that's a guarantee. We deviate from SAAMI in that respect. All we need is one."

I am quite certain he still believes in what he has said, maybe not though as now he know a 3dr load = 1200fps load and that could not have a whole truckload that averaged 1290fps. As the use of reject limits in a prior run, mid run and final run sampling would not allow it to happen, let alone statistically 1 shell, based on a 1200fps load.

Yes, yes, WIN SH Box says 3dr, well here is the reason, "The Heavy AA's are 3 dram (AAM12), whereas the Super-Handicaps (AAHA12) would be close to 3.2 dram. A dram equivalency of 3 1/4 dram for this product would not be accurate and it is stated as 3 Dram to avoid any confusion. Because it is not 3 1/4 dram, but closer to 3.2 dram, the dram EQ is rounded down."

Shoot well,

John

 

Seems pretty clear - ATA rule is 1290fps - period. (Just talking 1.125 oz here for sake of discussion). There is no +/- 90fps involved in the ATA rule whatsoever. Any single shell over 1290 is illegal. That is the rule, and it is pretty simple. "These velocities are maximum, no individual shotshell shall exceed..."

How you can actually test it probably doesn't work so well, but the rule is clear. Just hard to test a shell that has already been fired.

 

What we accept is the 1-1/8 OZ load not to exceed the speed limit of 1290 FPS (ATA rule) I get that just fine. That 1290 FPS supposedly covers the old rule of a 3 dr. eq. plus the new handicap ammo Winchester began manufacturing around 1971. That would validate any ATA events shot under our old 3 dr rule where we used handicap loads from all ammo factories?

If SAAMI uses that + - 90 fps for a 3 dr eq load, how does the handicap loads of 1235 Rems or 1250 WSH fit into that equation? How do we leave out the + or - 90 fps portion for those loadings if we accept that a 3 dr eq may be 1290!

That's why I feel the speed limits in our rule book should be done away with in my opinion. Those speed limit rules were never enforced anyway to speak of? I recall all the club brochures for the bigger shoots telling us we could use reloads as long as shooters adhered to the 3 dr. eq. 1200 FPS rule with 1-1/8 ounces of shot as a max!

HAP

 

Hap,

ATA rule has nothing to do with SAAMI at all. 1290fps period. ATA is not saying 3DE can be 1290fps, they are simply saying 1290fps is the max for any shell, regardless of what is marked on the box. Like it or not, that is the rule.

Remember, the speed of a shell is just the speed of the shell. The +/- 90fps has nothing to do with the actual speed of a shell, just how a load can be labeled. The actual speed of a shell is all ATA rule is concerned with, not how it is labeled. The +/- 90 range only comes into play when you are trying to label a load and describe/market it as a certain DE or nominal speed. Seems many are getting confused here on the +/- 90 issue. A shell that actually tests at 1250fps is just that, 1250fps for ATA purposes. It could be called a few different DE categories, but for ATA it is simply 1250fps.

On the other hand, if you use a DE rule, you have no idea what speed any single shell actually is. You are relying on the factory to keep the speeds within the +/- 90 limit required to slap that DE label on the box, although in practice its certainly much tighter than that. If all you knew was the tested speed of a shell, you could not determine a single DE category for it.

So where are we? If I have a factory box labeled 3DE, I'm pretty safe knowing its ATA legal, since to slap that 3DE label on the box there can only be a very slight chance any single shell exceeds 1290fps. On the other hand, if I have a factory box labeled 1290fps, it is just about certain that if anyone wanted to make a stink out of it, many of my shells would actually exceed that label and be illegal.

 

Bat, I totally understand that line of thinking and accepting. What I don't understand is why the ammo makers, who by the way are members of SAAMI, felt the need to apply that +- 90 FPS variance to a 1200 FPS load only?

That's why I'd like to see the ATA speed limits abolished. BTW, I also feel that change was a sly way of validating more speed for competition ammo which at the time was mandatory at the Grand when ammo makers first brought it out, the Winchester handicap loads. Killed outa one end and crippled on the other!

HAP

 

I don't think they apply it to just the 1200 loads. It's inherent in any labeled load, although I'd guess they can keep it closer. What I think was going on is that the DE definition, and therefore a rule based on that, simply leaves a lot of wiggle room. Manufacturer's pushed it more with the shells trap shooters use simply because we were about the only ones concerned with how the shells were labeled. Had to be labeled 3DE, that's all. At the marketing meeting, the VP tells you to start a campaign touting your new handicap shell that hit harder etc. etc. etc.; get a few All Americans to use it etc. etc.; and, oh... by the way just make sure we can get by keeping the label 3DE under SAAMI, just push it as far as we can. And they did.

Everybody gets up in a bunch over this. I don't really care either way. If we want to say the limit is 1200fps, we cannot say it in a speed=limit rule like we have now, since they can't guarantee 1200 fps for a load. Would have to go back to trusting factory to do their best to try for a nominal 1200fps, and keep it within a realistic +/_ variance. That's all the DE rule was really, but we have seen how the factories were not really trying to keep things as close to the ideal of 1200fps.

We could just as easily say the new rule should be the mystical 1200fps velocity, and have the factories label boxes that way with the guideline that they are really producing a product with quality control intended to achieve that mean velocity. If we go back to that route, we are simply trusting the factory again and really have no way to monitor it. But in the long run, the rule isn't really something that is enforceable except in pretty extreme cases that only a very few trip over, so does it matter?

 

Interesting Bat, thanks much for replying. I agree, and the only shell designed and sampled using SAAMI data to statistically never exceed 1290fps is the 1200fps load. If you look at the answer I have from the manufacturers, nothing was indicated as not using +-90fps as so indicated in SAAMI. Just, either marked HDCP or once upon a time MAX and now 3dr. Though in 1971 it was also listed as 3 dr. The 3dr label was not there as a concern of not exceeding 1290, it was a concern it just was not 3dr... or was not to the next level 3 1/4dr.

Bat, the rule was based on an understanding (wrongly) what SAAMI said. So to say the ATA has nothing to do with SAAMI is naïve at best. ATA was saying that a 3DE shell was or could be 1290... on average. The Dr. was trying to convince them that it was not correct. I am glad, it appears you agree.

Remember Neil said, "'lot' (that is a production run) of shells that averages 1290 fps correctly labeled as 3-dram...", if he is not the voice, or at a minimum a strong advocate of what the ATA was, is and thinks, I do not know who is.

Slight chance is not what the ATA rule demands. It demands, "no individual shotshell shall exceed", not a slight chance of 1, NOT 1 shall exceed.

Again, the only shell (the fastest NMV) that meets that mark, without knowing confidential company data is the 1200fps shell.

Quick question just to determine your thinking, can a 1 1/8oz load listed at 1290fps, printed on the box be used in competition? No dram listed just 1290fps.

Thanks much.

John

 

John, the rule is 1290fps, that's it. Saami doesn't come into play at all. The wording is clear.

To your question, yes, I could use those shells, and you could challenge them. I undoubtedly would lose because some shells would be faster than 1290. That is how the rule works, good or bad.

 

ah.. geez. I thought we were close to the same page. I guess not.

Could you tell me how one would test? If I challenged, what test would be used and what limit if they exceeded would make them illegal?

Thanks for the reply.

Just to add, the 3 dram rule was based on a average of 1200fps, it had nothing to do with never exceed. As, if you can give me a solid answer to the above it will show.

John

 

John,

I just don't see what is confusing about it. Im not saying the rule is even a good one, just that the current rule is an absolute speed limit applicable to any single shell. Any shell exceeding 1290 is illegal. The rule is clear and simple in that respect. As I said previously, testing is problematic, but that doesn't change what the rule says.

In contrast I fully agree with you that the old rule only referred to 3de, not to any absolute speed limit. In fact there was no specific speed limit at all. Practically speaking, any speed that a factory could label as 3 DE would have been legal. Each brand might have a different range of allowances (speeds) they would consider acceptable for them to label a box as 3DE.

If you use an absolute limit in a rule, that's all that matters. It's a go, no-go test. The shell either passes or fails, and if push comes to shove, it really doesn't matter how the shell is labeled. The only thing that matters is its actual speed. As you can see, it does not work well because to really enforce it, requires testing that is really beyond what will be available.

If you use DE rule instead, you have to rely on an outside base, either as defined by Saami, manufacturers, etc. The actual speed of a shell means little, since under this method you are concerned more with labeling guidelines than an absolute speed limit for an individual shell. As an example, if you changed the current absolute rule to 1245 instead of 1290, a shell tested at 1250 is illegal. But if all you knew was that shell's speed was 1250, could you say it wasn't 3 DE? I don't think so. You end up with a shell that is illegal under an absolute speed rule, but still legal under a DE "labeling" type rule.

My guess is that the current rule simply came to be because, rightly or wrongly, the SAAMI definition of DE using the +/- 90fps allowance from 1,200 was what was believed to be allowed under the then current wording anyway, even though most shooters believed 1,200 was the real limit (which obviously was wrong). It was just an attempt to put a speed in the rule instead of the vague and misunderstood DE wording. In other words they felt they were not changing a damn thing, just how it was worded. This is where the law of unintended consequences come in.

If we go back to a "label" type of rule, I'd rather see it in fps, not DE. Say 1,200 fps if you like, but you need some parameters of what actual speeds would be acceptable to be labeled 1,200 fps by a factory. Then trust factories will stick to that without trying to one-up their competition. The rule would not mean 1200 fps was a limit on an individual shell basis, just that 1200 fps was what they were trying to achieve. There is a difference.

Then you get to reloads, which is a whole "nother" headache. Try testing those when you don't have an absolute speed limit. What do we do, take it apart, and manage to identify every component and then determine if it it would qualify to fall within whatever range is found acceptable to be called "1200 fps". Raises many issues.

Overall, I don't think there is a huge problem here. Trying to write a rule to address it is more of a problem than the shells that are being used.

 

Bat,

The point I am going to try to make next, if you believe the rule is absolute, Why would a governing body of a sport allow a product that knowingly exceeds a "absolute" rule. I think you mentioned the 1290 NMV load would be legal, then gave the answer if they were tested, if it was faster than 1290 illegal, 1290 and slower legal. How can that be an ethical standard for ruling, on rules of the game? Either all shells in the box should be legal or none of them based on, not 1 will exceed.

Secondly, the "absolute" rule cannot not even be tested. Here is why? Even Neil has mentioned that the coils used in shotshell speed testing are only accurate in finding center mass to .1 inches. I think he mentioned 6fps error. So if a shell was challenged and tested, at what point would the shell be illegal. When passing 1290fps, or do you count in the possible 6fps error and go to 1296fps, or would you stay at 1291 and a real 1285fps shell could be declared illegal. How can that be possibly ethical when considering a out come to the written rule of a National Sport.

Then to go into what is the accuracy of the equipment used in testing. Don't get me wrong the equipment can be very accurate, within context, but as, even in SAAMI, the guidelines when testing the accuracy of the equipment using reference shells, if they are within the inclusion limits, no correction needed. So now, you have an addition to 6fps tolerance level of up to the inclusion limit as stated with the specific reference shell. You cannot gauge the accuracy of the equipment with 1 shell, and you cannot gauge the velocity of 1 shell to an accuracy required by the ATA rule. As shells are highly variable within +-35fps of the stated NMV a majority of the time.

That is what is was for many years, 3dr eq. 3dr eq = 1200fps. 1200fps+-90fps, but the mean of the developed load is 1200fps, center of the statistical curve for a 3dr load. To test all one needs to do is weigh the powder charge of the subject load. Say, as a reloader, one used the components for a 1200fps load that called fro 18gr of RD, that is what should be in the shell when weighed. If more Illegal. Just like to the old rule, "Any load heavier than three drams (equivalent)... ." So I agree with that. Though there are other things that could be changed. Or even, max NMV 1250, just get the rule, to a rule that is challengeable, and testable.

Now, let's say you are the voice of the ATA, would you disqualify a score based on a single shell measuring 1291fps?

It is a "absolute" rule, right.

Again, thanks. I am glad you are not trying to say it is a good rule. I would and have argued it is no rule at all, as most know, it is basically, well no, in reality, not challengeable with any definitive outcome. I have also stated before, the rule never needed to be changed, it just needed to be enforced, and since at least 1971(?), it was not.

Shoot well.

John

 

John, again 1290 is currently an absolute limit the way the rule is written. No way around it when we are discussing what the rule says or means.

Enforceable may be a very different matter, I agree. Lets just not read more into the rule than what it is. Like it or not, it is an absolute limit for any single shell. The fact that testing may be difficult or practically impossible, does not mean there is more to the rule than what it simply says. Just means the rule has issues.

For the record, I think you would run into similar, but not such extensive problems trying to test under a DE Rule. Lots of variables there too.

It is a much more difficult issue than many think.

How would we ban the 1250 fps 3DE Winchester load if we went back to the old rule? Here you have a manufacturer, that decided it was allowable to label 3de on loads I can only suppose we're designed to avg 1250 since that is how they labeled them .

 

Bat I have seen today boxes of 1250 fps AA Super Hdcps rated at 3 1/4 Dram, I have also seen the AA Super Hdcps rated at 3 dram.

I called Winchester the other day, and wrote on here what I was told about Fps they use, it is a proprietary secret, but he did say we are closer than + or - 90fps.

Neil Winston brought this all out on his own, using his I will call Inferior testing equipment, he did not have the extensive testing equipment, and certified shells they have for testing. If mfgrs are correctly using the speed, it would be the same testing accuiracy that
the federal government uses on Alcohol Proof, if it states 180 proof, that batch cannot exceed it in any way shape or form, I know I worked in Maint, at a Liquor Bottler, they did not care if it was lower, but it absolutely could not be higher. They used an SPF cert. Hydrometer.
Dr.longshot

 

Are the results of Neils tests the reason you were down to the 22 yard line before you quit shooting ATA targets?

If not why the constant barrage against Neil? Is it because he keeps proving you wrong?

 

Dr. Longshot,

If you believe a shell manufacturer doesn't produce shells that are faster then the labeled speed on the box, you haven't been paying any attention at all. Your liquor analogy is pointless in this discussion.

If factories absolutely could not go higher than their labeled speed, we would not be having this discussion. But they always have shells going faster than labeled. They can do better than +\- 90 fps, but they can't avoid having a range they have to live with.

If we don't want these 1250 fps shells, and factories have in the past produced 1250s that they labeled 3DE, how does going back to the 3DE wording help us?

Have you really seen AA SH's labeled 3 1/4 dram or are you making that up? I don't shoot em, so I'm not sure. Just sounds wrong to me.

 

I will agree that is what has been told for years, the party line, but look at the rule. "3. Any load with a velocity greater than 1290 FPS (Feet Per Second)... These velocities are maximum and no individual shotshell shall exceed these limits..."

What is the, "shall not exceed limits", it is the maximum velocity within the limits of a 1290fps load. A load of 1290fps, is 1290fps +-, using SAMMI standards (I know of no other ammunition industry standards in the U.S.), it is +-90fps.

Believe me, I here what you are saying, however that is not what the rule says. Again, the testing equipment is not good enough to entertain the rule as absolute.

I am not asking for a DE rule, but a NMV rule. Something along the lines of; No shell, considering the compliment of components, shall have a powder charge greater than required, by weight, for a NMV of 1200fps for any shot charge, in increments of 1/8oz, up to a maximum of 1 1/8oz. The standards set for by SAAMI, for target loads, shall apply.

Gary,

Neil's equipment is probably top notch. Just did not follow SAAMI guidelines, it appears. Get some reference shells to validate his set up, follow protocols and he is back in business.

Shoot well.

John

 

John,

We won't agree on your main point here. ATA rule is NOT referring to a Nominal Mean Velocity of 1290 fps or to any velocity specification based on a NMV of 1290fps. IF that was what was intended, they would have had to state that. It could not be more clear that it is referring to a maximum velocity of 1290fps. "Velocity" is not the same thing as NMV, and has nothing to do with SAAMI's velocity specifications. Velocity is not subject to any +/- 90fps variance to determine itself. That variance only comes into play when someone is trying to use velocity to label a shell, as in 3DE, or a NMV, based on the velocity. ATA is not trying to label any shells, they are using an absolute speed limit instead. No factory is going to label a box as 1200fps with the understanding that 1200fps is a maximum velocity limit for everything in that box. They are going to label a box 1200fps only meaning a NMV, never to imply that the actual velocity of the shells won't exceed that.

I guess ATA will have to add a glossary to the rulebook. Again, here is an example of the law of unintended consequences. I doubt any delegate voting on that rule ever imagined that someone would believe they were not setting an absolute limit. I understand what you are saying, just don't believe the use of the term"load" in the ATA rule carries the ramifications you give it.

 

Bat I think your last post captures it.

Well said

 

Bat,

Your kidding, right. I know your kidding, you just have to be.

Neil, a delegate who voted for the rule stated this, "

and

You see, the thought in writing and voting for the rule is that a 3dr load could have a mean of 1290. This however is false, but it is what the rule was based on.

Bat said, "IF that was what was intended, they would have had to state that", they did, read the rule. I just explained it the best I can. That 1290 is not a max mean of 3dr, it is a statistical limit in which sampling and load development is based on. Based on a particular load, or mean of a load.

Again, your kidding right, everything shotshell in the U.S. is based on SAAMI. Even shell velocity testing has standards, what standards are used, well, should be used? SAAMI, the shells we used are based on ratings/velocities given by SAAMI standards. At least shotshell manufacturers.

Again, you kidding right. Correct, boxes are not labeled in max speed. The speed is the NMV established in load development.

Of course they are, and a box of 1290fps shells have that as a mean, meaning + - of 1290. Why would you think any different? So as you said, a 1290fps shell of 1 1/8 is allowed, that at the risk of being challenged and failing the challenge. That is very odd, Mr./Miss referee, are these shells legal, yes of course they are, then they get challenged exceed 1290 and you are disqualified, come on. As you state for 1200 as well. 3dr Heavies are 1200fps, not a max, a mean of the load. Hull, primer, powder, wad, shot combination, that was created during development, and is continually tested and sampled to ensure it meet at least SAAMI specs. Which is statistically sampled to not exceed 1290, for the 1200fps NMV load.

Of course you wouldn't, and that's ok.

Ah, heck. If it is something that is written poorly and unenforceable leave it alone. I guess it works.

I doubt I can say much more. Thanks for the discussion.

Shoot well, see ya on the range.

John

 

John, as I stated, we won't agree.

If you think I'm kidding when I stated "Velocity is not the same thing as NMV, and has nothing to do with SAAMI's velocity specifications. Velocity is not subject to any +/- 90fps variance to determine itself.", there is no hope to have a discussion on the matter. The velocity of a shell is exactly that. The velocity is tested, it is not determined by using a "velocity specification", and it is not the NMV printed on the box. A shell that travels at 1200fps, travels at 1200fps, period; it does not magically have a velocity of 1290fps just because that is within the velocity specification for a NMV 1200fps loading.

A factory shell is loaded to fall within the SAAMI velocity specifications for a load of the intended DE or NMV, whichever, or both, are labeled on the box for that loading. A box of shells may be loaded to a NMV of 1200 fps, and properly designated as such, even though the actual velocity of every shell in that box varies, and not a single one of them has a velocity equal to the labeled 1200 fps. Clearly, velocity and the designated NMV are not the same thing. The ATA rule involves the actual velocity of a shell, it has nothing to do with SAAMI (other than potentially the physical testing parameters) or NMV.

You said "Of course they are, and a box of 1290fps shells have that as a mean, meaning + - of 1290. Why would you think any different?" ... Well, I wouldn't. As I said before - if a box was labeled with a NMV of 1290 fps, many of the individual shells would undoubtedly have a velocity much faster than that, and they would be illegal. More than likely, none of the shells would have a velocity of 1290.

 

No, as specifically, 3dr eq load = 1200fps NMV +-90fps. A 1250fps load labeled 3dr is not 3dr eq. load though so labeled.

================================================

John,
Dram EQ is stated in increments of 1/4 and not as a percentage, it is an archaic measuring system. The Heavy AA's are 3 dram (AAM12), whereas the Super-Handicaps (AAHA12) would be close to 3.2 dram. A dram equivalency of 3 1/4 dram for this product would not be accurate and it is stated as 3 Dram to avoid any confusion. Because it is not 3 1/4 dram, but closer to 3.2 dram, the dram EQ is rounded down..., ...pattern the best through my gun for whatever reason(AAHA127). Page 50, section 3 of the most current ATA rule book does not even use dram as a unit of measure any longer. They limit loads based solely on velocity and payload now, in the past, prior to the revisal of the current rules, Drams was what they used. For American Trap, the max allowable speed currently for a 1 1/8 ounce load would be 1290 FPS (that is 3 ¼ Dram) Winchester does not make a load that is that fast with an 1 1/8 oz. payload for Trap, we do make a (AASC12) at 1300 FPS for Sporting Clays. The Super Handicaps are 1250 FPS and well below the max ATA threshold. NSCA Sporting Clays has no velocity restrictions so long as you don’t exceed a 1 1/8 oz. payload. I would imagine that at some point in the future Dram Eq. would be dropped entirely as FPS and Oz. is easier to understand with today’s modern loads.
Best Regards,

==============================================

You see how the word "load" is used when referring to velocity of, "They limit loads based solely on velocity and payload now..."

But it is ok to say the load is legal to use, that is befuddling.

I missed this earlier,

There is not such thing as absolute when referring to a shotgun shell and shotshell sampling, it is averages, this is why the rule is no good and often mistaken in context. 1 1/8 oz is +3% , -%5 for a target load, Wads are different weights, Lots of powder are slightly different, each drop of powder is slightly different, that I would assume why the rule refers to a LOAD velocity of 1290fps. Then to add the testing equipment and the velocity shown from a test, are not absolute. There are errors in the test itself. Conditions of the test, both external and internal to the equipment used.

Again, the first sentence of the rule (Any load with a velocity greater than 1290 FPS) refers to a load, if you look at SAAMI below the DE and velocity ratings on page 8, you will find, "ALL loads fired in full choke..." Load refers to a combination of components the has a developed NMV +-. I remember a thread on a different forum, where it was stated, the rules committee combs the wording over and over to ensure it is correct. I think "load" did have a specific meaning, as it was what was thought of at the time (by ATA leadership), a 3dr load could be a load that averaged 1290fps +-. So to get to your statement, if it was changed to 1245 it would be 1245+-, or if it was changed to 1200 it would be 1200 +- as 3dr eq load, was, 1200+-.

My answer is still the same to the OP's original question, no the rule should not have been changed, and need not have been changed. The rule as was, just needed to be enforced. Now the rule is unenforceable, to the degree Bat seems to think it is, or meant to be. Though not worded as such.

Bat, the only thing absolute is your perception of the rule, not as written, but what someone has told you what it was. Maybe you were there, maybe you voted on it as well. Maybe you were the writer. I hope not.

Like I said earlier in the thread, it would have been easy just to pick up the phone and follow up on the data that the ATA has come across manufactured loads that were lacking in quality control. Well maybe not quality control, but specifically not to the rule specifications at the time. Now with specific velocities used, if the ATA really wanted to impose a never exceed 1290fps (within context of SAAMI) for all manufacturers, it would be the 1200 fps NMV load. Which when tested would have a similar outcome as Neil has above, except the top of the curve would be very near 1200fps instead of as depicted 1240ish (1235) I suppose. post #149.

Oh well. See ya on the range.

Shoot well.

John

 

We won't agree John, so lets move on. (Edit: although I do pretty much agree with parts of your near last paragraph above, with the exception of references to Neils results which I have not gone back above to look at.) I fully believe they had in mind a 1200fps NMV "load "(to use your meaning) when they set the 1290fps limit simply because 1290fps is the upper limit of the velocity specifications for a 3DE 1200fps NMV load. Then the unintended consequences start popping up.

Under the old rule, if as you say a 1250NMV could not have been 3DE, what would we do with the Winchesters that were labeled both 1250 and 3DE? If those are mutually exclusive terms, I' m surprised such a major player ignored the rules. That's what we face when we rely on the manufacturers. Is it a big deal, I'm not sure.

Either way, a speed rule is going to be very problematic, especially from an enforcement perspective. Hopefully, they serve to keep certain reloader s from shooting their secret boomer loads.

With a speed limit rule, you run into testing issues with equipment, procedures etc. With a DE or NMV rule you are basically stuck trusting the factory. Forget about cutting open someones reload, attempting to identify and weigh the components and compare to some chart. is the scale properly calibrated, can we really identify the powder or the primer, what company's chart should we use, what if the "load" is not identified in any charts? Trying to test reloads this way is impractical and raises even more problems than velocity testing.

Either way, they don't work well if put to the test. But they do work well in the real world where the vast majority are not trying to push the limits.

 

If Winchester, Remington, Federal, Rio, Estate Etc label their Shotgun shell boxes in Fps or 3 Dram we have to trust their integrity that the shells in the box are what they say they are. I can tell a 1250 shell is faster than a 1200, Like I said earlier at the Sporting Clay Shoot Sunday the Win 1250 super hdcps stated 3 1/4 dr eq, It seems Winchester is now more directly following their speed of shells to their Dram Eq. If I or any shooter wants to buy 1250 fps shells, we will buy them and trust the Mfgr has them in the boxes they labeled.
Those boxes are the newer Fancy Winchester Boxes that are different than any I have seen in the past. Explicitly said Winchester Super Handicap 1250 fps 3-1/4 DE I wish I picked the box up, I will make it a point to get one This Thursday, and take a picture of it and post it on here.
Dr.longshot

 

At the same shoot there was some Winchester One Ounce Loads in the new style boxes that were 1325 or 1350fps Shells, as a guy wanted 1 ounce loads for his girlfriend, I will also get one of those boxes too, and photograph and post it too.
Dr.longshot

 

Dr. Longshot,

Maybe they are changing their labeling, I haven't seen any lately. I think it would be better if they simply dropped the DE labels entirely and stick to a NMV.

 

Why is there 3 press limits listed? take the 115-121-130 they equal 11,500-12,100-13,000psi they are the same limits for the 1200fps and 1250fps shells just looks unusual, but they are the max limits. Just pointing out the obvious. My loading manual by Hodgdon I use, my loads are lower than 10,400, all of them, I know MAP-MPLM-MPSM these are the MAXIMUM, all I care about is the Shells in the boxes are safe to shoot, and are loaded to the speed that I shoot.

I think the ATA should write a rule the Shells will not be faster than 1250fps 1-1/8th oz and one ounce not faster than 1290fps.
Period that's it. Printed on Shell Boxes Used In ATA Shooting.
Dr.longshot

 

I say that only because they are not, I think I have established that. By one quoting SAAMI, "The reference black powder load chosen was a 3 dram charge of black powder, with 1 1/8 oz. of shot and a velocity of 1200 fps.", and now adding a letter from an insider. As you (and many others) will or would not believe my words.

The only reason people (most) think that, is the testing done by Neil, and I guess perceptions of recoil and the use of light type chronographs (Neil's showed a Handicap load at 1290 average in cylinder choke and 1325 with full choke). That testing, is not verifiable, as he did not follow SAAMI guidelines, it appears. It definitely fed into the hype, and translated into an action (rule change). Remember the stated 1250fps loads did not come out until after or very near to the same time as the rule change, quite interesting, isn't it.

I agree, obviously, but that is as a limit, not a NMV.

We do now, did then. I think in the next couple of weeks, there will be some interesting information regarding perceptions of the 70's. Maybe not, but it is looking promising. Remember, the manufacturers should make the product to the sports specifications, if not, consider them not useable. Somehow though they are very, very good in maintaining NMV in or near the center of the curve. I believe always have.

They can use the bombers now and get away with it. What do you feel is a boomer 3 1/4dr.. check.. 3 1/2dr... check. If you think it is a bomber load, challenge, if the components are not as described for a known load, or exceed in either payload or powder weight, disqualified. Write into the rule, factory loads only for Championship events or if after the first 50 or 75 if a competitor is straight, they are subject to shell testing, or... anything to dissuade the use of.

If you believe a rule on any velocity system would be tough, then let's end velocity in total. Then the Handicap system would be broken, unless either or both the shot size was limited to 8 and the payload limited to 1oz. That however is another thread.

I agree, so let's just put the rule back to what it was meant to be since at least 1957, I am not sure when the 3dr rule was put in place. The direct conversion from 3dr eq is 1200NMV.

I think Neil, stated earlier that the SAAMI changed it specs in 1990, I am not buying that, as my reloading manual from 1967 says, "Dram Equivelent is a rather obsolete term", so I imagine though do not know, pages 1 - 8 are basically the same excepting 12ga 3.5" data.

Why would you say that, if one were to be challenged now, the shell would have to be sent off to be tested. I think the lab, testing facility could easily determine what powder was used, wad, primer and so forth. Just require, a user of reloaded shells have components listed on the box or with ATA, if challenged and they are not as listed, disqualified. Easy for payload it is size and weight and for powder, there are only so many powders available, to the reloader. Heck, the ATA could have a list of powders one could use. Many ways to make this easy, for both the competitor and the ATA. In the process possibly allowing the 27yd box to remain the fence for many moons to come.

Remember, the early days started, at least in 1874 the game had 1 1/2oz with unlimited powder charge, reduced to 1 1/4oz 3 1/2 dram then sometime prior to or in 1957 3dr 1 1/8oz. Why would the ATA allow more, I have my ideas. I definitely was not to simplify or directly translate the 3dr rule, as it did neither.

Shoot well.

John

 

Dr. Longshot.

If it was decided that it was worthwhile to change the rule, I'd be in favor of going to one based on a NMV. Pick it - a limit of 1200NMV or 1250NMV. The downside is we are stuck living with what the factory thinks they can get away with, which could very well vary quite a bit from one company to another. I could live with that though. Another big issue is reloads, we'd for all practical purposes have no control since testing would be very difficult as I said above. Most people would probably not push the limit sthough, and those that would probably do it under the current rule anyway.

 

John,

The point raised about the 1250NMV and 3DE labeling has nothing to do with Neil, not sure why you bring that up. That is how Winchester labeled their boxes at one time - 1250fps AND 3DE both printed on the same box. That's part of my issue with using a DE rule, I think it's useless.

 

They do now.... I posted the reason from WIN.

I guess you did not read the above.

As anything about Neil, it was, I believe, Neil and his testing to prove that the shells were faster that brought about the change, now whether those shells were actually faster or not or manufactured with a 1200fsps NMV and within limits, only the shell knows. Unfortunately, they all blew their tops.

Shoot well.

John

 

Yeah, I read it and it simply supports my point about factory labeling. Fact is, the factory felt it was acceptable to label a 1250NMV load as 3DE, despite many people who claim that is not acceptable, including you. Not that it matters, but if we had a 3DE rule, and Winchester found it acceptable to label 1250NMV "loads" as 3DE, it would be hard for ATA to say they were illegal. If Winchester was doing that, how many others were doing the same, just not labeling the NMV and only the DE?

 

The reason it is acceptable, is because SAAMI said a 3 dram load is any 1-1/8 oz shell with a velocity between 1110 and 1290 fps is a 3 dram shell. If the manufactuers made shells with boxes marked 3 dram loads with an average velocity of 1110 feet per second, that is a 3 dram load, according to SAAMI. ATA Trapshooters is not the only sport the shell manufactures sell to. They sell to non ATA, sporting clay, skeet and bunker. They are under no obligation to bend to ATA demands and with our numbers shrinking they have no need to. The practical point they must follow is one of making shells in various configurations while still being able to sell shells that will not dislocate a shooters shoulder and cause a loss of sales. Therefore they will make shells towards the higher end of the scale, and out sell their competitor. Again all this discussion is really a waste of time.

 

Gentlemen Winchester's new shell boxes Have been changed to follow Basic Std of DE, the Winchester Super Handicap Boxes say 1250fps 3-1/4 DE this is the Industry Standard, always has been. NW used the SAAMI max parameters to bend the rules his way in my OPINION. Mfgrs have been awakened and have NEW LABELING MATCHING DE GUIDELINES. I think this happened by Trapshooters contacting shell Mfgrs, and asking questions, which we the trapshooters, policed our Mfgrs ourselves, and it alone has caused Labeling Changes, As I See It. If you have seen the Winchester Trapload Boxes you have to agree changes are being made.

Dram Equivalent is the Std. and always should be. In my personal opinion. We can use the speeds w/o quoting DE.
SAAMI is not the only Nationally Known Testing Service for Shotgun Shells, or Cartridges.

I am willing to accept an ATA velocity rule, Reloaders can write their loading recipe on a Label and attach it to the box top, from the recipe of their handloading guide, if shells are challenged and they are not what is written on their label, they are disqualified if they exceed their label, which would exceed the max,FPS, and max shot size of .010.
Simple rule, written in the rules changes section, A label required stating your reload components and weights attached to the top of your reloaded shell boxtops.
Dr.longshot

 

What other nationaly known testing service for shot shells and cartridges do manufactuers adhere to?????

 

When I go to the Winchester web page they Don't list a DE for there 12 gauge ammo just a speed.

Product Symbol: AAHA127

Description:

• Proven Hard Shot
• High-Strength Hull
• AA Wads
• Best-in-Class Primer and Powder
• Sporting Clays, Trap and Skeet

Suggested Use:

• Gauge: 12
• Shell Length: 2-3/4
• Velocity: 1250
• Shot Size: 7-1/2
• Dram: NA
• Oz. Shot: 1 1/8

• Rounds Per Box: 25
• Rounds Per Case: 250

 

When all who participated in this thread get tired .... ask this .... who on the thread has been DQ'ed for 'shells' ???

And why this person has such a hard time with the 'rules' regarding this issue.

 

User1, so your saying the biggest complainer of the speed rule was "DQ'd) for to much speed? That's seems appropriate! So I guess we now know who it was.

 

Say what??

I think we need a name??

 

Jo2: Committing to a number of an unknown is impossible, Impossible for anyone to give you a number.