1. Attention: We have put together a thread with tips and a tutorial video to help with using the new software. Please take a moment to check out the thread here: Trapshooters.com Tutorial & Help Video.
    Dismiss Notice

Neil Winston Question on Target Speed

Discussion in 'Shooting Related Threads' started by Dr.Longshot, Jan 20, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Dr.Longshot

    Dr.Longshot Banned Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    5,722
    Neil maybe someone else caught this, On page 93 of the December issue of Trap and Field it says Target speeds for singles would most likely be 42mph and doubles speed would be 39mph for doubles, then down below that it says singles would be 67fps for singles and 76fps for doubles, this does not seem correct, that the doubles target will be thrown faster than singles target.

    Was this a typograghical error? I would think it would be the reverse.

    This may have been brought up but I did not read a thread on this.




    Gary Bryant
    Dr.longshot
     
  2. ivanhoe

    ivanhoe Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    7,538
    Location:
    Oxford MA
    Dr.Longshot

    "Was this a typograghical error? I would think it would be the reverse."

    If it was it was also an error in the rulebook.

    "A chronograph is to be used as close to the trap as practical and tipped
    up at approximately the same angle as the flight of the target. The correct
    speed for a singles or handicap target is 67 ft/sec. To set doubles with a
    chronograph, set a singles target to 76 ft/sec. and then switch the trap
    to throw doubles without changing the spring tension."

    Bob Lawless
     
  3. Tbonz411

    Tbonz411 TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    99
    Bob

    Your quote seems to indicate to me that the singles speed is increased to 76 fps and then the machine is changed to throw twin targets. That would be similar to instructions I've seen for mph where the speed of a single target is increased to 51 mph and then the machine is changed to throw twin targets. FWIW

    Terry
     
  4. scott calhoun

    scott calhoun Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    1,413
    Location:
    Chicago area
    I believe it's this way because using a chrono hanging off the plate of the Pat Trap (or proably any other trap) it's only possible to measure the speed of a straight-away target, whereas with a radar gun you can actually measure the targets after they are set for doubles.

    Scott
     
  5. Neil Winston

    Neil Winston Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    7,848
    You've done fine, guys. Thanks.

    Neil
     
  6. traphouse52

    traphouse52 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2006
    Messages:
    157
    42mph=61.6 fps
     
  7. Dr.Longshot

    Dr.Longshot Banned Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    5,722
    Well the rule book should be more explanatory on the verbage, we know it is not an instructional manual but it could tell you what manual to use for target settings. It does not explain in proper verbage, I can't read between the lines, I am glad others know what to do and expect.



    Gary Bryant
    Dr.longshot
     
  8. Neil Winston

    Neil Winston Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    7,848
    Gary, I appreciate your interest in this; that's exactly what I'm trying to generate with the rules written as they are. This is tough and interesting geometry and physics and the rulebook gives a
    "cookbook" rather than the explanatory approach you are asking for. I _want_ people to wonder why traphouse 52's (correct) post above seems to make no sense. There's a lot more going on here than people realize.

    I'm thinking about an article in T&F to lay it all out, but you have to admit, there's a risk. Someone is going to walk out, measure a target, and write a rebuttal. They do it here with my patterning results all the time and I defend it all but ATA rules are a bit different, in that I've no authority anymore to say ah, yes, or no.

    I've always been available by email to get as far into this as any correspondent can stand. Right now I'm working with Jim in South Africa trying to stabilize his readings.

    But explain it in the book? No, I'm sorry Gary, but I don't think that's a good idea. The book should tell you how and it does. It _should not_ say why.

    As a recent example we need go no farther than the end of Phil KIner's Blog 3 and all of Blog 4. It's about limiting shell speed to 1200 fps and Phil Kiner and Mark Zauhar persist in the why while I unswervingly concentrate on the how (and why how is all we need.)

    You can never write a "why" rule without the "how," but a "how" rule without the "why" is childsplay.

    Neil
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.