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

would 3/4 oz loads save trap??

Discussion in 'Uncategorized Threads' started by FN in MT, Nov 6, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. FN in MT

    FN in MT TS Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2007
    Messages:
    297
    Not that TRAP is dying but an interesting question that was posed at the Club on Sunday.

    With the high cost of shot many SKEET shooters are going to 3/4 oz loads in both the 12 and 20 gauge. Saves quite a bit on shot versus even one ounce loads. And many of us practicing only with the .410's as 1/2 oz of shot is a lot easier on the dwindling shot supply.

    One of the "dual" shooters who is active in both trap and skeet mentioned he shot some of the 3/4 oz loads at 16 yds instead of his normal one oz loads by mistake. He wondered how 3/4 oz loads would affect TRAP.
    #1 Ammo makers would have to produce readily available 3/4 oz laods, which would be a tough one.

    THE interesting idea posed; Would the 3/4 oz payload spice up the game as it would make hits more difficult out at the longer yardages? Would there be a lot fewer hundred straights and fewer shootoffs?? Or would the truly great shooters prevail as usual?

    One of the skeeter's even came up with making a seperate 20 gauge class for both 16 yd and handicap instead of the 3/4 oz 12 gauge mess. I wonder how a 20 ga specific class would go over? Limit it to 3/4 or 7/8 oz loads ONLY.

    Some interesting thoughts.

    FN in MT
     
  2. BP348

    BP348 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    398
    Location:
    Texas
    I recently purchased a 7/8 bar for my MEC Jr. Works great from the 16.
     
  3. FN in MT

    FN in MT TS Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2007
    Messages:
    297
    Rico-12,

    At one of the skeet/trap ranges I frequent they occasionally DO shoot 16 yd trap but with 28 and 410 skeet guns. A LOT of fun. IF your on them a 1/2 oz load will break them, but not TOO far out there.

    FN in MT
     
  4. JBrooks

    JBrooks TS Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2006
    Messages:
    3,707
    I want all my competitors to use 3/4 ounce loads. It would be good for everyone, particularly me.
     
  5. Dickgshot

    Dickgshot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    3,674
    Here are the problems: You would need to get the skeet, trap, and sporting clays organizations to co-ordinate a 3/4 ounce limit because the shell manufacturers would need a sufficiently large market to justify producing 3/4 ounce target shells.
    Next you've got all the cottage industries related to controlling recoil - which includes products like Precision Fit, Stock Lock, G-Squared, RAD, Dead Mule, Bear Trap, C&H Mercury, , etc. and the pads like Kick-EEZ, TrapDude,Decelerator, Terminator.,Pachmayer,Limbsaver,XCoil etc.
    that's taking money out of someone's pocket, and they're going to squeal.
    3/4 ounce is plenty of shot to break a clay target at any distance. I'm with you on this, but I don't know if it will ever happen.
     
  6. lumper

    lumper TS Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2007
    Messages:
    3,586
    No ... it is a dream to think that a certain sized load will save trap shooting.

    Look at many of the game loads and sport loads currently on the market. Do they charge any less for a 1oz load instead of a 1-1/8oz load? No they do not but they make more on the 1oz than the 1-1/8oz load.

    You also could not change the rule to say that unless the organization would know that the load they mandate is available and available in enough quantity to sufficiently supply the shooters.

    Yeah ... its easy to reload it but there are far far far more shooters out there shooting factory shells than reloads and if it aint readily available from the manufactures then that itself would kill the sport.

    To answer your question though ... yes it might help and yes it might hurt so it is a yes and no answer.
     
  7. phirel

    phirel TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    9,556
    A month ago there was a long thread supporting a rule change that would ban shells with more than one ounce of shot. Last week there was a thread suggesting that 7/8 oz of shot be the maximum allowed. Now, with this thread we have gone down to 3/4 ounce of shot. Is this evolution of thought?

    Pat Ireland
     
  8. Michael Jobe

    Michael Jobe TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    592
    3/4 oz loads will break birds at the 16 yard line. I don't think we need to go that light though. I do think we need to go to 7/8 oz loads for 16s and doubles, and 1 oz loads for handicap. Too bad the ATA won't show some leadership on this issue. We'll get stuff like "you can already shoot lighter loads if you like" or "targets can slip through 1 oz patterns at the 27 yard line" but that ignores that fact that many won't go to lighter loads when the other guy can still shoot heavier loads. They'll stick with heavy loads and just shoot less. As for 1 oz loads not being enough at the 27.... so what if a bird gets past them every once and a while? Birds are going to get by the short yardage guys too simply due to their lesser talent and them also having less shot in the air.

    7/8 oz loads give 4000 more shells per ton of shot vs. 1 oz loads, and 8,000 more shells vs. 1 1/8 oz loads. The ATA want's to save us money? (at least I think that's what Neil said a couple weeks ago) Lowering the max amount of shot we can put in the air is about all the ATA can really do to save us $$$$.

    ~Michael
     
  9. zzt

    zzt Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    3,457
    Location:
    SE PA
    I think we should ban shot altogether. It's messy, dirty, clogs up the environment, and has all sorts of other undesirable features.

    Lets use lasers instead. Pick up a more powerful version of a in-chamber dry-fire/bore sight laser system, dial in the choke constriction you want, and have at it. An automated reflectometer scans the target for reflected laser light and calls dead or lost. No scorers needed. No arguments. Hell lets just make everyone shoot IM and there are no adjustments.

    Just think how many fewer posts there will be here. No arguments about scorers, powder selection, choke restrictions, favorite wads, primers, loads, choronographing, distance vs. radar.

    Hell, take it one step farther and use holographic, heads-up display that clip on over your shooting glasses. See the imaginary bird, shoot the imaginary bird. Computer scores hits and misses.

    Virtually no expense. No traps, no birds, no pullers, no loaders, no shotshells, no noise (except for a small bang just for old times sake), no pollution. hey, for a small added fee you can select your own backdrop. Like shooting with a desert sand and blue sky background, $5. Prefer NY targets, $2.

    Geez, the more i think about this the more attractive it becomes. The ATA could become an Internet only club, with members connected via TCP/IP. Shoot in a virtual shoot, but still in the privacy of your own home. No travel expenses. You could still pre-squad and shoot with your buddies (virtually, of course, via video conferencing). And think of the fairness issue. Everyone gets a good background, with the sun behind them, and a dark blue sky and horizon. Everyone shoots the same electronic load. Wow! The permutations are endless.

    Yeh! That's it. I say no to 3/4oz shot loads. I say zero shot. Lets leap into the 21st Century and go all electronic.
     
  10. Michael Jobe

    Michael Jobe TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    592
    Lumper, all the ATA would have to do is say "Effective for the 2011 target year, the max load for singles is 7/8 oz of shot at 1350 fps". That would give reloaders time to use up their current supplies, and ammo companies time to change their product line. Fed, Rem, and Win all make International loads right now. I don't see how it would be a big effort for them to drop 1 1/8 oz target loads, and switch entirely to 1200 and 1350 fps 7/8 oz 12 ga. trap and skeet loads (and 1 oz handicap loads). May not save shooters $$$ on factory shells, but will certainly get the reloader more shells for his dollar.

    ~Michael
     
  11. FN in MT

    FN in MT TS Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2007
    Messages:
    297
    One of the comments at the Club by one of the guys who shoots a lot of trap; "I wonder if a 3/4 or 7/8 oz load would limit the endless shootoffs"??

    Personally IF ammo prices catch up with current lead prices....I can't see how a lighter load, IF they make the price of the lighter load cheaper....couldn't help the sport. May be the only way to keep ammo at $5 or $6 a box.

    I don't have a horse in this race...... I shoot very little trap mostly skeet and SC's. But I thought it was an interesting idea.

    fn in mt
     
  12. webley

    webley TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    92
    FN,

    Is this 75% of the 1oz argument?

    You used the word “difficult” when describing the effect of using 3/4 oz of shot at longer distances. I would suggest the term “luck dependant” would have been more suitable. When a pattern has degraded beyond where even a perfectly centred shot cannot reasonably guarantee a hit/break then luck becomes a factor. My view is that ‘difficult’ has a place in competition whilst ‘luck’ should not.

    The same applies to any shot charge 1-1/4 oz or 1/2 oz – the distance where luck starts to play a part for even a perfectly positioned shot just reduces as the shot charge gets lighter. Ditto the permissible ‘aiming’ error.

    There’s nothing wrong with lighter charges per se if a good shooter can be reasonably expected to be able to hit the target before it’s reached the ‘lucky’ zone - but it would be wrong to adopt a shot charge weight which was so light as to cause even the fastest & most accurate shooter to rely on luck to some degree (as they all may possibly have to shooting from the 27 yard line with 3/4 oz for example).

    As ever – one of the best shooters will still win - but he/she would be the ‘luckiest of the best’ – rather than the ‘best of the best’. Not as satisfying a win I think! Slower & less accurate shooters will suffer disproportionately more than better shooters.

    For sure 3/4 oz as will break lot’s (but not all) of targets at the distances even the slowest trap shooters fire at – but how much luck do you want to introduce? It's better that a score is a result of skill (or lack of it) - not luck. The slow 16 yard shooter at least has the option (in theory) to learn how to shoot faster & largely negate the effect of fewer pellets but the 27 yard handicap shooter may just be too distant no matter how fast they fire to avoid the influence of chance.


    Here in the UK 1oz has been used for DTL trap (like 3 hole 16 yard ATA singles but a bit faster) for several years & it’s caused no lingering complaints especially as there are still enough pellets to ensure that an well centred & quick shot will always break the target – having said that - from what I can gather most shooters here take the shot a little sooner than many ATA shooters plus we only shoot from 16 yards (sadly handicap by distance competitions are hardly ever held). If in the UK the shot charge was reduced to something like 5/8 oz (just for an extreme example) then we'd see slow & less accurate shooters missing noticeably more – the slower but accurate shooters (former winners with 1 oz perhaps) would miss a few more targets whilst the very fastest shooters would still just about be quick enough to make the best of so few pellets & win. An extreme scenario – but it illustrates the way things would go – I don’t think the situation would prove popular – nor keep the sport alive.

    Shot charge has to be related to the competitive task that it’s expected to perform & be set to allow at least a perfectly centred & reasonably timed shot to achieve a successful result – without luck entering into it.

    Regards

    Russell
     
  13. lumper

    lumper TS Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2007
    Messages:
    3,586
    Micheal ... you are correct, most manufactures currently make a 24gm international load but they currently charge more that shell than current shells people are already using.

    Do you or anyone honestly think that they would all of sudden lower there prices on a product they already sell for more? Yeah right ... and we are all going to win the a trillion dollar lottery.

    Like I said ... those shooters who reload are a small amount, probably around 20% in all of the shotgun sports so it will save them money but what about the other 80% of the sport? They are still going to see a now very limited selection of offerings and each manufacture is going to know they have the shooter over the barrel if they desire to shoot and are going to charge what they desire to charge so ... just how is this going to save the shotgun sports?
     
  14. Dickgshot

    Dickgshot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    3,674
    Michael/Slick 13: You have introduced some rare intelligent thought into this discussion. A few things I disagree with. There is no reason to go to one ounce, but 7/8 or 24 gr. might be more practical - corresponding with the current international limitation.

    FITASC, s aporting clay discipline is currently restricted to one ounce. Sixty and Seventy yard shots are the norm, which is considerably longer than even a slow 27 years shooter.

    I think that the Sporting Clay and Skeet shooters would be on board. the shotgun sports are at a critical point. We're talking about 50 bird events to save money. Shooting is down in trap, skeet, and sporting clays especially at the small shoots. The price of gas is, of course, a big reason. But if the price of shells doubles from two years ago - which seems very possible- there are going to have to be some very major changes.

    I hope this concept gains some momentum. The Rio shells that were $ 30 a flat two year ago are over $ 51, and will probably hit $ 58 after January 1st.

    How much of a wake up call do we need?
     
  15. birdogs

    birdogs TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    2,775
    I am in physical therapy for my shoulder which was operated on about 2 months ago. Two weeks ago I loaded 3/4 Oz. in front of 18.7 grains of Green Dot with a Winchester Gray wad. Seemed to work OK and very soft recoil.
     
  16. Michael Jobe

    Michael Jobe TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    592
    I agree the shotgun sports are at a critical point, and we need to start thinking about changes that our games may need to survive the next 10 to 20 years as costs continue to rise and the a large number of shooters start to quit due to old age or die off.

    Quite frankly, I don't understand the fuss people put up when the idea of going to 7/8 oz loads. They break targets, they cost less to reload, they beat you up less. If the rules state that everyone has to use them, no one has an advantage or disadvantage. And maybe, just maybe buy giving reloaders an additional 100 shells out of a bag of shot, people would be encourage people to shoot more? Or at the very least continue to shoot at their current rate rather than cutting back?

    Lumper, I think more than 20% of trap, skeet and sporting shooters reload. I'd put the number at 80%. They may not currently be reloading due to promo shells being available at reasonable prices, but of the hundreds of shooters in my area, I don't know one that doesn't reload or have a reloader tucked away.

    ~Michael
     
  17. birdogs

    birdogs TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    2,775
    One (1) Oz. will give you 400 shells from a 25 Lb. bag of shot. 3/4 Oz. raises this to 533 shells. That's significant with $50.00/bag shot and $3.00 a gallon gas.
     
  18. lumper

    lumper TS Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2007
    Messages:
    3,586
    Micheal ... think what you want but if there were and are that many reloaders out there than why are there so many factory shells being sold and why should we worry about getting the manufactures to begin producing the quantities your proposing.'

    Screw that little measly 20% of factory load shooters cause you know you will have a dedicated 80% left saving money reloading lighter and cheaper shells.

    I would love to see a lighter shell mandated but it will never happen ... I guess though that it is nice to have something to dream about.

    Dear Santa Neil,
    I would like to have a lighter load mandated for shooting trap. I have been a somewhat good boy this year so please mandate a lighter load. Thank you and say hi to the easter bunny for me.
     
  19. hmb

    hmb Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    9,417
    The ATA will never change, long live the ATA. HMB
     
  20. sxs28ga

    sxs28ga TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    65
    hate to say this but steel shot is now even or cheaper than lead -if lead keeps going up - steel shot will save trap - i personally hate the stuff for waterfowl - but targets might be a differnt story - Neil have you done any steel shot testing? J Mroczka
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.