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

Some fun reading. Phil Kiner Blog

Discussion in 'Shooting Related Threads' started by Paladin, Nov 30, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Paladin

    Paladin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    4,398
    A 1 oz max load would solve most of the perceived problems with not only handicap, but singles and doubles as well. It would penalize long yardage shooters more than short yardage, which seems to be the latest kerfuffle. Costs would be reduced. Recoil would be reduced. What possible negatives are there?


    With all due respect to Phil and 29 yds, I can't think of a quicker way to drive some clubs out of ATA competition. Some clubs simply can not accommodate it.
     
  2. Little Dog

    Little Dog TS Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2007
    Messages:
    531
    If the limit were reduced to 1 oz. I'd keep shooting 1 1/4
     
  3. Little Dog

    Little Dog TS Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2007
    Messages:
    531
    Read MY lips: 1 1/4th and Done.
     
  4. phirel

    phirel TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    9,556
    Sportshot- The 1200 ft/sec possible rule change does have a lot of support from the Directors. It could easily be implemented next August.

    As far as solving the other problem, I am not sure what the problem really is. Pick at random in the Back of Trap and Field 15 shoots from each zone and see the yardage of the handicap winners. Remember, a rule change should benefit typical shooters at typical shoots. These would be shoots with around 25 entries.

    I have difficulty with the logic that the best way to help a 22 yard shooter is to hurt longer yardage shooters. This is similar to helping an average football player by making better players wear heavier shoes.

    Pat Ireland
     
  5. grnberetcj

    grnberetcj Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    5,680
    I'd rather see the 60/60 rule implemented....

    As in 60 mph and 60 yds.......

    That ought to eliminate the weenies...

    Curt
     
  6. prorider

    prorider TS Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2008
    Messages:
    45
    Pat,just like I said awhile back look at last years major shoots and see how many caps were won by long yardage shooters. I would venture to say at least 95%!!This is killing the game!!!!
     
  7. prorider

    prorider TS Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2008
    Messages:
    45
    These changes have a bunch of support but the guys at the top dont seem to realize it! But as I have said before,keep up the good work it really seems to be working good!
     
  8. shoottilithurts

    shoottilithurts Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    148
    1oz loads would be good for the sport and for all shooters...it could be implemented at the start of the next trap year to allow the 1 1/8 oz loads to be used up this year...1200fps would be fine too...milt luther
     
  9. alfermann66

    alfermann66 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    852
    You lads seem to be ignoring or are unaware of the ballistics studies on 1 oz. loads by Neil Winston. In his tests it was determined one could be dead on a target from 27 yds with 1 oz. of 7 1/2's and still miss it because of holes in the pattern.

    Any comments Neil?

    Buz
     
  10. Paladin

    Paladin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    4,398
    The choke smiths would easily solve that with a tighter and smaller diameter pattern, and that would still handicap the long yardage shooters over short yardage, if that is the goal here.
     
  11. Dr.Longshot

    Dr.Longshot Banned Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    5,722
    1200 Fps max speed and mandatory yardage reductions absolutely no exceptions.

    You want to shoot with big dogs, then shoot like the big dogs, top scores keeps you there.



    Gary Bryant
    Dr.longshot
     
  12. jhoward

    jhoward Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2008
    Messages:
    827
    The 1200 fps rule wouldn't be terribly hard to enforce. No need for chronys at every shoot either. Starting next year, all major ATA shoots require new shells purchased at the shoot. Restrict the shells that are sold there to 1200 fps. If people want to shoot 1450 fps loads all year long from the 27, let them, when they get to a major shoot and have to shoot 1200 factory loads, they will miss, a lot. Before long they'll realize that if they have to shoot 1200 at the major shoots, they'd better shoot 1200 all the time, or thier timing will be off.

    The current rules for challenging a shooter's shells will allow for enforcement of anyone trying to slip in faster shells.
     
  13. BIGDON

    BIGDON Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    6,625
    Location:
    Michigan
    Sportshot if you don't like the ATA in it's present form why don't you take your DA down the road. You continue to make dumb suggestions. Increase the speed and solve the problem, no expense to anyone. Why don't you try mastering the sport under the current rules before you try changing it to your benefit. You and 1oz are and have become a boring pain.

    Don
     
  14. grnberetcj

    grnberetcj Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    5,680
    60 and 60....

    Curt
     
  15. BIGDON

    BIGDON Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    6,625
    Location:
    Michigan
    Very simply put "those that have mastered the sport under the current rules will continue to master the sport under any new rules"

    What are you going to want changed after you get your butt beat regularly with 1oz. Are you going to join the whiners about shooters not taking reductions??

    What not taking reductions has to do with anything, other than it's an individual choice, amazes me. Where anyone else stands has to do with my competitiveness is pure BS. If a shooter has earned his way to the 27 and wants to stay there, spends HIS money then his scores are his business not yours.

    Shoot the Sport, Enjoy the Sport and the leave the Sport alone.

    Don
     
  16. Phil Kiner

    Phil Kiner Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    1,211
    I am glad that I have generated some discussion.


    Now let’s let me speak for myself—sportshot I am not scared of the one ounce loads and I am not quite sure why you think I am. What I have said and always say when the one ounce load comes up is that if we go to one ounce the lead time to do so SHOULD be quite a ways in the future so as not to adversely affect the game. There is a ton of 1 1/8 loads in the system—from the manufactures, to the distributors, to the gun clubs, to private individuals. Some are new and many are reloads. If you went immediately to 1oz you would hurt all these shooters, some rich, some poor. I use the shooters I know at Cheyenne as an example of what I think the situation is across the country. It is not that I am worried about just my personal friends in Cheyenne it is that I am worried about rendering useless a lot of ammo across the country. This would adversely affect a lot of shooters across all ends of the economic spectrum from east to west and north to south. If you want to go to one oz that is fine but you should have at least a lead time so people can use their stocks up and you get the 1 1/8 loads out of the system.


    Now for the rest of my assessment. If you mandated the 1200 fps rule it is not that hard to regulate. All you are regulating is the ammo makers (and that is all that really matters) if they go to 1200 fps then you are directly affecting the “pros”. They are damn near all shooting new ammo and almost all of them are shooting “handicap loads”. If that many of the really good shooters are doing something (shooting the handicap loads) then you need to get assume there is a reason. The reason that the faster loads have shortened the 27 has nothing to do with how far you lead the bird, although the shot getting to the target quicker probably has some benefit. The big edge is the energy that the shot imparts to the target when it reaches the target. I have no way to prove other than I can tell you when I went to handicap loads my average jumped about 1 full target. I suspect if you could/would survey the top 100 handicap shooters in this country you would find a similar result. If you go to one oz and don’t limit the speed then you have not gained as much as you might think or had wished.


    Now regarding the added yardage. If you look at what I have previously suggested it was add the 28 yard line, I suggested the 29 when I made the presentation to the EC on the recommendation of Steve Carmichael who thought the 29 would have a better chance than the 28. What did not show in the minutes were my comments that if you did make this change then the only places REQUIRED to have a 28 yard line were the clubs that hosted satellite grand’s and state shoots and other majors. Everyone else could stay at the 27 and you could look at data from big shoots and see if one yard did make any difference. Everyone says that one yard will not matter and my comment is why not test it. You could do this for 1 year and not have an adverse impact on anyone. If going to the 28 is too cumbersome at the state shoots and other majors then try it at the satellites and the Grand itself. All you have to do at the Grand is make the long yardage shooters squad on the traps that already have the equivalent of the 28 poured. As for the rest, they don’t have to pour anything they just need to mark the 28 and pack some dirt if it is not level.


    Remember the main problem real or perceived is the 27 yard shooters dominance at the large shoots. This is what my rec’s have been designed to address.


    One last comment, I have several times advocated mandatory reductions which will never happen and I am not making that rec now. What I would like to see is some kind of big red RR stamped on the forehead of every shooter that has refused a reduction (hence the RR kind of like the large red A in the scarlet letter) so that when they bitch about not being able to compete with the “pros” you could tell they had refused their reduction(s). ;)))
     
  17. BIGDON

    BIGDON Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    6,625
    Location:
    Michigan
    Gosh I thought bitching was a part of this sport. Enough of it goes on. If shooters aren't bitching take their pulse because they are probably dead.

    Some shooters bitch about the "pros". The "pros" bitch about the shooters bitching about the "pros". All you have to do is look at this site and you will find all kinds of bitching going on. Some are never happy no matter what.

    Try being grateful for once that you are able to shoot the sport, enjoy the sport and enjoy life (it's way to short).

    Don
     
  18. OldGoat

    OldGoat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2008
    Messages:
    1,570
    Location:
    Overland Park KS
    Sportshot - hang in there! Going to 1 oz. load has a lot of merit, but the "don't change a thing" shooters will protest long and loud. Re: the longer yardage, the same thing applies. A simple change which would not cost anything and increase the challenge of the game would be to go back to when "men were men" days by just going to a "gun down" rule - rather than the current "gun up" (benchrest) start of the shooting position. Talk about HOWLS of protest!! Anyway, the debate is more interesting than a lopsided football game. Best Regards, Ed
     
  19. scott calhoun

    scott calhoun Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    1,413
    Location:
    Chicago area
    Phil -

    Regarding the guys who refuse reduction bitching about not winning . . . do you have any empirical evidence of that. I personally don't know of anyone who refuses reduction that also complains about not winning.

    I made the 27 at the end of the 2007 TY, and my scores were not good enough to avoid reduction notices. I didn't take a couple of reductions, mostly because I wanted to stay there long enough to see if I could develop some proficiency at that yardage (or to see if I just sucked too bad to stay there). I took a Leo clinic and shot a lot of targets and by the end of the 2008 TY my scores had improved and I managed to get my first "honorary" punch late in the 2008 TY.

    I would not like to see mandatory reductions, because some of us enjoy the challenge of trying to take our game to the next level. I'm paying for the targets, and if I want to shoot from a point where I'm not competitive - be that the 27 yard line or the 23 yard line - that should be my choice. I do agree, if you refuse a reduction then you should have no right to complain about not being competitive. I don't think the guys refusing reductions are the ones complaining - I hear it more from guys who want a reduction but haven't shot enough targets to get a review.

    Scott
     
  20. shot410ga

    shot410ga Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    7,791
    OK, we go to required reductions, 1 oz loads, 1200fps shells, and move the back fence to 29 yards. The day that hell freezes over.............LOL
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.