Trapshooters Forum banner

1 - 20 of 24 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,600 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Does such a thing exist?

For example, 1 1/8oz +/- 30 grains, or 1 1/8oz +/- 5%

Would like to know this for 1 1/8oz, 7/8oz, 3/4oz, and 1/2oz if such a specification exists.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,600 Posts
Discussion Starter #2
NVM, found my answer on the SAAMI website (didn't think it would be so easy).

+3% -5% for target loads.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,600 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
Neil- What is the ATAs guidelines for shot charge? Does it apply to factory ammunition only, reloaded ammunition only, or both equally? Is an overweight factory load grounds for disqualification?

The reason I ask is that in NSSA skeet, we are given 3% tolerance. So for the 410, this gives us 225.3 grains maximum allowed weight (218.75 grains being 1/2oz on the nose). However, some factory loads have been found to be over the maximum allowable amount. Some factory STS 410s are reading 233.5gr, outside of SAAMI specifications (more than double the allowable overage).

There really isn't a mechanism in place in our rule book that exempts factory ammunition from having to conform to the same shot charge weight limits as reloads, so theoretically, anyone shooting factory ammo with overweight shot charges risks a DQ if their ammo is challenged.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,941 Posts
Oh, Skeetman, you have been sneaking out at night and visiting the wild saloons over on the friendliest site again! Don't you know what goes on over there? Twenty-three posts with no one having the sense to even look at SAAMI and endless talk about how "the Board is going to have to re-visit this" and on and on. I'll tell you, those boys get a couple of drinks in them and there's no shutting them up!

The ATA rule applies to all ammo but it (the ATA) is smart enough - in apparent contrast to the NSSA - not to put things too clearly, anchor its threats too solidly in concrete. This will allow them to use their heads should a problem arise. If it really is factory ammo, nothing is going to happen.

If it is a home load, maybe something will, but maybe not. In that case, it would depend on how effective the defense was and how great the violation. For minor fiddling, I think an adjustable charge-bar with stripped locking screw would be a good place to start . . .


Neil
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,941 Posts
By the way, Skeetman, you really should read the second paragraph you posted over there. Then read it again. Maybe one more time.

Because it doesn’t say what you think it does . . .

Neil
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,941 Posts
"Factory Loads. Any shooter found to be using commercial
loads heavier than the maximum weights permissible as
listed in I-B-1 will have his/her score disqualified for that
event."

Neil
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,941 Posts
If I shoot a 1 1/8 oz commercial load which is over the +3% specification of 1-B-1 I am not using a "commercial load heavier than the maximum weights permissible in 1-B-1," since it clearly says 1 1/8 oz. on the box and the shell too, in most cases. A "heavier commercial load" would be 1 1/4 or 1 3/8 and so on.

Note that it did not put commercial shells with reloads in 1-B-2. That's where it would have been if they were talking about illegal shot weights. But they aren't. They are talking about illegal commercial loads. That's a different category and is tested by name, not weight.

Neil
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,941 Posts
Sorry, Bill. The ATA does that monitoring covertly and I'd make it ineffective if I were to disclose the mechanics of it. People would be much more careful when they put their shooting bags on the stands at the back of the fields at at Sparta, for example, and start asking why they all have antennae.

Neil
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,600 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
However, the first part of the section reads:

"Lead shot ammunition for skeet shall have a normal weight
for 12 gauge of 1-1/8 oz.; for 20 gauge: 7/8 oz.; for 28
gauge: 3/4 oz.; and for 410 gauge: 1/2 oz., but may weigh
less. Each gauge has an allowable overweight allowance
of 3%. Shot larger than 7-1/2 or smaller than 9 [2mm] may
not be used. Reloads may be used."

This section does not reference the standards for factory loads, or the standards reloads, but the standards for ALL ammunition.

Is a 12ga shell with 510 grains of shot in compliance with this section? If not, it is an illegal shell, as enumerated in this section, and illustrates my point.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,024 Posts
"tested by name, not weight." That equals no test. The factory says it is legal and they are above the law. Wonderful! HMB
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,941 Posts
Yes, Skeetman, but I think the fact that there are two sections, 1-B-2 for illegal reloads and !-B-3 for illegal commercial loads makes it clear that the criteria for determining the illegality of each are different.

In the case of 1-B-2, reloads, it's the weight of the shot in one shell.

In the case of 1-B-3 it's whether it's a commercial load which is too heavy, essentially what it is labeled.

Where there no such distinction, 1-B-3 would be superfluous and they both would have been properly covered by 1-B-2.

And come on, Ian, this is the way it has to be done. Does the NSSA really want to disqualify some star who is, in all likelihood at least pushing the limits with his factory loads? Does the NSSA want to alienate a factory and scare the pants off the others? I think shooters who plunk down their money at the club to buy a box of shells over the counter have bought some immunity. They should not have to check every damn thing or risk disqualification for not having done so. This is what I refer to as the ATA using it's head and I think that the NSSA is doing that too (in this example), just not making it as clear as they might.

Neil
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,600 Posts
Discussion Starter #18
If the intention is to exempt factory shells from the shot charge specifications (+3% allowable overage), then a single sentence inserted to that effect would solve any issues. I'm just saying that if that is the intention, it should be clearly stated.

Without that, it opens the door to interpretation, confusion, and ambiguity.

Unfortunately the situation as it stands allows factory shell shooters an advantage over reload shooters, and holds reload shooters to a standard that factory shooters aren't held to.

Either factory shells should be held to reload standards, or reloads should be held to factory shell standards. If the latter, than reload shooters should be allowed to use the same weight as the heaviest commercially produced shell weighs out at.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,941 Posts
Well, they aren't.

Personally, I think that if I reload I'm accountable for what's in the shell. If I shoot factory, I, personally, am not.

But that's just my opinion - the last part, anyway.

In fact, I'm responsible for the 3% bit in the ATA rulebbok. For a while it allowed no overage and had the metic standards down to 1/2800 of an ounce and I thought lot of clubs might have trouble determining that.

So in a 30-second motion-duscussion-vote Past President Kaiser and I deep-sixed the metrics and I got the 3% added in based on the fact that all the shells I weighed from the previous-year's grand were over 1 1/8 ounce except Fiocci which not only were spot-on but had the roundest and hardest shot too.

Neil
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,145 Posts
Simple solution, go to a Skeet BOD meeting, express your displeasure. Convince your Delegate to have this changed to your liking if you can.

No reason to argue this on a trap shooting site, when 'Most" trap shooters shoot 12 ga shells.

My 2 cents worth...

PS: what do the boys on the skeet shooting web site say ?

Do they agree or disagree ???
 
1 - 20 of 24 Posts
Top