My understanding from the rule book this load is legal due to not being over 1290, but the 3 1/4 drams does that make it illegal. Thanks everybody
3 1/4 dram 1 1/8 1255 FPS legal
kolar412
21 - 28 of 28 Posts
Joined
·
7,378 Posts
It’s been nearly 100 years since smokeless powder has been commonly used in shotguns. I say it’s time to drop the dram equivalent on all shotgun shells. It confuses many shooters and has absolutely no value today. Printing the weight of the shot and velocity is the only thing that matters.
The ATA wording pertaining to velocity is also very poorly worded. With ammo varying +/- 90 FPS it’s dumb to say no shell can exceed the limit of 1290 FPS with 1 1/8oz. of shot. Many factory shells have an average of 1235 or 1250 and the reality of the entire box being over the limit is entirely possible.
The ATA wording pertaining to velocity is also very poorly worded. With ammo varying +/- 90 FPS it’s dumb to say no shell can exceed the limit of 1290 FPS with 1 1/8oz. of shot. Many factory shells have an average of 1235 or 1250 and the reality of the entire box being over the limit is entirely possible.
Joined
·
14,750 Posts
Here's what I wrote to the rules Committee:
I am an ATA life member. My State of residence is Kansas.
My rules change proposal is to eliminate the ATA rule which imposes a tiered muzzle velocity limitation on shotshell cartridges used in ATA competitions.
Specifically, the most current rule book found online at the ATA website states, under Article XIII “Standards for Traphouses, Targets, Target Setting, Guns and Ammunition” Section G, “Guns and Ammunition” Paragraph 3:
A contestant cannot use:
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.
This rule is essentially a “paper tiger” and cannot be enforced in the event of a challenge, and here’s why.
1. There is no stated rule or guideline in the ATA rule book on how shoot management is supposed to test muzzle velocity, should a competitor be suspected or accused of violating the rule.
2. Even if there was, it would be onerous on all the small clubs that throw ATA targets to have the appropriate equipment on hand to perform such a verification.
3. Testing via some outside organization that performs such testing is useless because the results wouldn’t be available until weeks after the competition.
4. In light of the above, I doubt many challenges are lodged, because even if there were, there is no way to conclusively establish whether the allegations are true or false.
5. Nearly all other sport shooting organizations (e.g. NSCA Sporting Clays, DTL, FITASC, Universal Trench Trap, NSSA Skeet, ISSF International Trap and Skeet, etc.) set a limit on shot weight and shot size, but not muzzle velocity, and it does not seem to have harmed or hampered these other disciplines.
6. Finally, and perhaps foremost, what is the point of the muzzle velocity limit? What does it really gain us?
The rule, as stated, is unenforceable, and therefore superfluous.
At present, the only thing shoot management can go by is the label on the factory shotshell box, if it even states the muzzle velocity at all. (Some still only reference drams equivalent, which brings up another entire mess because there is no absolute standard for what muzzle velocity drams equivalent corresponds to.) And even if the box does state the muzzle velocity, the standard used by US cartridge manufacturers published by the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturer’s Institute (ANSI/SAAMI Z299.2 – 2015) allows a tolerance above or below the advertised velocity on the box. So those Winchester AA gray handicap shells that say 1250 FPS on the box, any one actual cartridge, or even the entire box of cartridges may be as fast as 1340 FPS and still be within SAAMI standards, but may therefore be technically illegal for use in ATA competition as currently published within the rules.
And if the cartridges are made in a foreign country, who knows what standard they follow for muzzle velocity?
Also, many shooters reload, so there is no way for shoot management to conclusively say what the muzzle velocity of their cartridges might be. If challenged, all shoot management could do is weigh the shot and the powder. And then, even if the competitor tells shoot management what powder, primer, and wad they are using, they can only go to the powder manufacturer’s load tables to establish the muzzle velocity, and even that is dubious because the published reloading data from the powder manufacturers is not exact.
And even if there were a method of testing in the rule book, and a competitor’s shell was found to exceed the limitation, one can only say conclusively THAT shell was illegal. But what about all the other shells in his box?
I truly believe that the vast majority of ATA shooters are shooting legal cartridges within the current rule framework.
I am not lobbying for this because I want to shoot faster shells. I have no interest in punishing myself.
I do not believe that shooting cartridges with higher muzzle velocity offers any palpable competitive advantage over shooting slower cartridges.
I just believe that it is meaningless to have a rule in the rulebook that serves no real purpose, and is unenforceable.
ATA is the one and only clay target shooting organization I am aware of with a muzzle velocity limitation. Lack of a muzzle velocity limit has not had any tragic effect on any of the other clay target shooting disciplines, and I don’t believe it would significantly change anything for ATA.
If this change is made, I really don’t think most shooters will go out and buy, or reload, a bunch of shells with 1500 FPS muzzle velocity. But so what if they do?
I have debated this subject with former ATA President Neil Winston on several occasions, and we respectfully differ in our opinion.
In my opinion, the rule book must either have a precisely stated procedure for shoot management to follow in the event of a cartridge velocity challenge, or eliminate the muzzle velocity limitation in its entirety.
My recommendation to the rules committee is to leave the 1-1/8 ounce shot weight limit (including the existing 3% weight tolerance) and the number 7-1/2 pellet size limit (including the SAAMI allowable tolerance of +0.005") in place and eliminate the muzzle velocity limits altogether.
Note, there is currently no procedure in the ATA rule book on how shoot management is supposed to test the shot weight and pellet size limitations in the event of a challenge, and I would gladly offer my services to write such a procedure should the rules committee believe this is beneficial (I REALLY think the rule book needs such a procedure!)
For your consideration,
Timothy J. Bruggeman
ATA Life Member 03-15266
Joined
·
7,378 Posts
Let’s hope the ATA is actually smart enough to listen. I think if they regulated only the amount of shot and the size it would work. I can’t see where speed would matter enough to make a substantial difference. If some moron thinks 1500 FPS is better then by all means let them punish themselves and have fun. Nice letter Tim, and I’d be interested to see a response if you get one.
Joined
·
1,827 Posts
So I am new to the trap shooting game, 4 years now so you long time shooters could maybe tell me when was the last time that you were at a club that actually had a certified chronograph operational to test the velocity of someones shells should there be a challenge, I posed this question to one of our older shooters that has just past the 500,000 registered target maker and he said he had never seen it, my take is that if someone wants to load 3 1/4 or 3 1/2 dram 1 1/8 oz and kick the poop out of himself through 300 a day then have at it buddy, by day 2 he would probably be flinching so bad he couldn't hit the back of the trap house, not to mention black and blue
Joined
·
14,750 Posts
Joined
·
11,477 Posts
There isn't one and will never be one.
Look it up on the internet and view not only the expense but the setup for a real Chrono.
Joined
·
9,941 Posts
There's no such thing as a "certified chronograph." The closest would be an Oehler System 84 ($12,000 plus support equipment of similar cost or more) which had been zeroed in using SAAMI reference ammunition. It would take a year a so to put the machine together and house it, another year to learn to use it.
Trapshooters have simply no idea how different a SAAMI approved chronograph is from the one they get off the internet.
You can get very close with a consumer chronograph if you use an open choke and follow this.
Chronographing Shotguns
If you don't you will have no idea about your shot speed.
You can also look at the shellbox or reloading manual and do just fine.
Neil
Trapshooters have simply no idea how different a SAAMI approved chronograph is from the one they get off the internet.
You can get very close with a consumer chronograph if you use an open choke and follow this.
Chronographing Shotguns
If you don't you will have no idea about your shot speed.
You can also look at the shellbox or reloading manual and do just fine.
Neil
21 - 28 of 28 Posts
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
