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).
))
