[ivanhoe]

"it would reduce the cost of targets for shooters and clubs, cause fewer 100's, be cheaper than adding 3 feet of concrete to quiet the calls for leveling the playing field and the call for limiting shells to 7/8 and 1 OZ loads."

Respectfully not one word of this quote has anything to do with target presentation.

Bob Lawless

 

[ivanhoe]

You do as you damn well please if however you are entitled to give your opinion which is off subject. So am I don't start an argument over a comment which was my opinion.

OH that right I forgot I am not supposed to give my opinion everyone else can just not me. Right Rick?

Bob Lawless

 

[ivanhoe]

"Admit, you have been upset with me ever since, I come up with the subject of "gun speed" which you never heard of and it embarressed you when I proved it."

What ever this is about is a mystery to me. In the first place if it happened I have no recollection of the discussion you are referring to. I the second place if it did happen it wouldn't be the first time and you wouldn't be the first prove something. As far as embarrassing me I don't think so.

"Yet, how often have you gone off subject and ranted at people who did dot their i's or cross their t's to your standards??"

Well why would I rant at people that did it to my standards as you call it????

So you just live in your fantasy world. It is still just a matter of opinion mine. BTW Rick I made that comment so you and other like you can see that I am not the only one that hi-jacks threads. I am just the one that gets blamed for it every time it happens. So how does it feel when it happens to you.

I also don't understand why most people in this thread attacked the man that asked the original question. It sounded to me like he was seeking help and in the next six posts he wasn't given advice he was ridiculed and laught at. So much for everyone being perfect wouldn't you say????

Bob Lawless

 

[ivanhoe]

"the man was asking for advice on how to cheat the game with a higher more face target."

All I said was he could have been given the benefit of the doubt. His intention just might have been honest but of course no one in this thread seemed to care that the question just might have been sincere. As he might have thought that there was a legal way to show more target face.

Of course treating him as a criminal is going to educate him he won't be insulted or anything. Ya right

Bob Lawless

 

[ivanhoe]

Hap

"Why do we tolerate these cheating practices and look the other way instead of following our own rule book? I can't find a good enough excuse to defend cheating our rule book or game! News to those not knowing the rule possibly or how this practice is really bending that set of rules?"

Do you really think so. Well I have a suggestion for you if you want an answer to that first question you asked. You need look no further than the,

"Whatever happened to Earl Scripture?"

Thread read again and look at the number of those posting that were defending him. I don't care if hundreds did the same and got away with it or not. There in lies your answer.

Cowboy he could have been told that there was no legal way which you didn't seem interested in doing. Judging by your answer!!!!!

Rick

"I am just getting a little sick and tired of what Bob Lawless approves or disapproves of being relevant to any postings on this site. It is an open discussion forum, but he does not understand that."

Rick you are correct it is an open forum yet seemingly not for Bob Lawless I never said that you couldn't post that information. I simply stated that it was off topic. Which again is fine when rick says so but not when Bob says so.

"I thought I had a legitmate comment to this thread and had no intentions of hijacking it."

I felt the same about my comment so what is the problem. Maybe you are upset because my opinions differ from your so what I say becomes a problem. Funny it only a problem for you.

Bob Lawless

 

[ivanhoe]

It should be the business of the club to instruct their pullers/scorers that if a reset is requested that management is called and the targets are measured before they are moved.

That is the way it is done at the two clubs that I work the ATA shoots for. If the target hit the tee bar no reset if it is high they are lowered, if low they are raised.

Bob Lawless

 

[ivanhoe]

870 just to clear a point you said you weren't really clear about the 12 foot change. Here is the before and after rules, The following is the 2002 rulebook

"N. FLIGHTS AND ANGLES

Singles targets shall be thrown not less than 48 yards (44m) nor
more ffran 52 yards (a7m), and doubles targets shall be thrown not
less than 44 yards (40m) nor more than 52 yards (47m). Distance
measurements are on level ground in still air. Targets, whether single or doubles, shall be between 8 feet (2.4m) and 12 feet (3.7m) high, when ten yards from Point B. THE RECOMMENDED HETGHT lS NINE FEET. The height at a point ten yards (9m) from Point B

This next one is from the 2003 Rulebook

"E. FLIGHTS AND ANGLES

Singles targets shall be thrown not less than 49 yards nor more than
b1 yards. Distance measurements are on level ground in still air.
Targets shall be between 8 feet (2.4m) and 10 feet (3.07m) high, when 10 yards from Point B. Point B is defined as the intersection of a line measured 2 feet 6 inches (.76m) from the outside vertical surface of the traphouse the farthest away from the shooting point and the centerline of the trap (see Diagram "1" on page 62) f rom which the trap field layout radius is determined. The recommended height is 9 feet. The height at a point 10 yards (9m) from Point B

No criticism just a clarification of this point.

A couple of small points of my own I have frequently shot a club that has field 1 with flat ground until the fifty yard stake. Then the ground rises rather sharply 9 foot targets look extremely low on this field. The second field has the opposite topography the gradually breaks down hill to the fifty yard stake. Nine foot targets on this field appear quite high especially after shooting the first field. That is one reason that I personally don't feel resets should be done with out a re-measure. JMO

Also just curious but could the fact that a lot of the bigger shoots set higher targets account for the low classes shoot more scores that become controversial??? Something to think about.

Bob Lawless

 

[ivanhoe]

Setterman higher targets mean more face, more face give the perception of a bigger target. That question can only be answered by the shooters. In most case each shooter has their own preference so I guess you could say it depends on who is saying the target need resetting.

Higher targets in Doubles stay in the air longer which would give the shoot an advantage.

Bob Lawless

 

[ivanhoe]

If you are taking the speed from the 16yd line you must use a high speed radar gun. From behind the house you use a low speed radar gun.

"simply raising the doubles won't make them stay in the air longer......the only way to make 'em stay in the air longer is to crank up the spring."

John if you throw doubles set legally and then raise them will they still go the legal distance or must you put more spring on them so they will?? If you do they will still be high and in the air longer.

Bob Lawless

 

[ivanhoe]

Exactly yet the morons that request a reset because the targets are to low never seem to think about that or they aren't capable of thinking of it.

But the longer it take to go up the more time they have to get to the second target to break it. One reason why they don't like flatter targets. The other is most can't tell legal from illegal.

Bob Lawless