[Hap MecTweaks]

It would be much better for scores if we could throw targets with ALL face showing thrown to 48 or so yards, less would be easier. As if less angle wasn't enough to make target presentations easier, we now figure out how to make the targets bigger also! Maybe round clay balls at 4-1/4 inches in diameter would increase scores also?

More target face was a favorite of target managers for helping shooters attain their grand slams. What's next on the target manipulating agenda for even better scores?

Our rule says legal height targets are between 8-10 feet high at 10 yards from the trap. Monkeyed with more face clays are usually much higher than the rule allows and shorter also? A short while back I shot some 16 foot high targets and so did everyone else and that's a shame to our rule book. A high score on fixed targets today can't be compared to the shooters scores of old! We're skewing our shooting history again and that just isn't right!

Gene Hapney

 

[Hap MecTweaks]

[email protected]

 

[Hap MecTweaks]

Dennis, I too have shot targets at two of the clubs you mentioned also. Sparta and the Cardinal. The targets at Sparta were higher than the Cardinal last August when I shot those clubs. Any targets set higher than the 10 foot limit(according to our rule book) is beyond the bounds of the rule? I don't care who says different either.

This target height matter is no different than than the cheating that took place to change the rule to an easier angle a few years back, hardly anyone tried to enforce that rule either? When we change the geometry of launch for more face, how do we keep the targets at legal heights in accordance to what the rules say? Your club probably uses or used the target pole for elevation and can't get the kind of target presentations offered at other clubs? I do speak my mind and when I feel our sport is being cheated by any method or anybody and will continue till proven wrong! That hasn't been done with a call to Pat Traps either.

Hap

 

[Hap MecTweaks]

Once upon a time, our height rule read from 8 to 12 feet high 10 yards in front of the trap. Most target setters at the time choose a 10 foot setting to allow for wind discrepancies and it worked pretty well for most clubs and shooters. Why that rule was changed to 8-10 feet I have no idea? Then, our ATA recommends to us a 9-1/2 foot target height as desirable? Maybe we shoulda left the old rule alone in the first place it seems to me?

This more target face business across the country is a rule violation plain and simple. Why would we shoot practice at the home club where rules are adhered to when it comes to height settings and attend state and Grand shoots where extremely high targets are the norm? Either adhere to the rule or change it but high targets only hurt the average ATA shooter more so than the top shooters with the higher shooting POIs. I'm not at all surprised that it's recommended we throw away the height poles and use radar guns and a protractor for target settings. How long will it be till that rule undergoes another change to improve shooting averages again, soon?

If we're not going to go by our own rule book, why have it written in there in the first place if we accept bending the rule as best for ATA shoots? Have we no shame? Personally, I feel it's a disgusting practice and we should change it or adhere to it!

Hap

 

[Hap MecTweaks]

Bob, the man was asking for advice on how to cheat the game with a higher more face target. In very short order he was told how in the first few posts. It's impossible to abide by the rule of the game and throw such targets without violating one or more aspects of the rule book as outlined by John above! Just because it's done at the Grand and other larger shoots across the country still doesn't make it right by our own written rules!! Our ATA has once again allowed the top shooters in the game to set targets more favorable to them. So much so it's almost common practice these days at the bigger shoots across the country! Cheating is cheating but it seems hardly anyone has a problem with that part of the game today?

The man asking that question WAS having some difficulty with legally set targets compared to those set at cheating clubs which includes Sparta, the Cardinal and other bigger Grand shoots around the country.

"With a Pat Trap--how can we show more 'Face" of the target during flight??As it is now the target shows little color and more of the black rim.The target appears as an "eye slit". Frustrating!!!!!!!!!"


He assumed correctly from my post that others were cheating the setting rule and promptly got pizzed at me for not knowing much about anything? That's alright by me as it's his loss also, not knowing the rule and the consequences of violating it. As I stated above concerning smaller clubs adhering to the setting rule and their members venture to the big shoots only to be disappointed by targets they weren't used to shooting, more face and much higher? We can't have it both ways, it's detrimental to the game in the same fashion as was cheating the angle rule a few years back! Shameful practices skew the history of our great game and I don't like that kind of crap one iota! This shameful practice is just barely cheatin and benefits whom?

Hap

I again agree with the OldCowboy!!

 

[Hap MecTweaks]

Bob, I know the man wasn't intending to cheat when he referenced all the others doing the more target face thing, backed up by some ill gotten information from a trap manufacturer! I merely cut out the BS and called a spade a spade regardless of intent or bad information. 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?

Hap

 

[Hap MecTweaks]

Dennis, I do apologize to you if I offended you with my response to your legitimate query. Like the OldCowboy, I too would like to know the circumstances that brought about your question also.

If a trap is set according to ATAs guideline's within reasonable tolerances, it's impossible to set such targets without violating what's written in our rule book.

You mention all the ATA officers shooting these targets at the Grand and elsewhere and they certainly do. Most of our officials are standing at the max yardage, some but certainly not all, and they follow along with the wants of the best 27 yard shooters in the game! Higher thrown targets with more face may be best for the max shooters that have mastered the game but it truly hurts the average joe shooter more. I have a problem with making a rule then violate that rule because a few want that presentation. As I mentioned way up above, some of those same officials didn't have too much of a problem violating the old 44 degree plus angle setting either. We adopted the 34 degree setting we use today as a result of that violation so higher target settings today is nil in comparison? Maybe nil, yet, this is a violation of their own written words? I'm certainly glad you choose shoot ATA targets as we need every shooter we can muster!

Hap, its pretty simple and reasoning is twofold.

"First, the ATA fears some sort of a legal battle I've been told and who knows by todays standards of lawsuits."

One can be sued for practically anything today as you said but if I were to make a wager, I'd bet a judge would throw out any suit regarding a non-profit org. abiding by their own written rules and guidelines?

"Second, I fear many will leave the game whom have started using present practices. Many are barely holding an interest due to their scoring under present presentations. If we went back to the day of old and some of the presentations we've seen and where expected to shoot, can you imagine the squealing, complaining and simply whining that would occur?"

The only ones I think would yell a bit is the long yardage shooters that know it's to their advantage to shoot targets with lots more face? Didn't that begin in El Paso,TX, and lots of people went there for attaining bragging rights? If those into wanting to cheat the rules of the game leave, what have we lost? Not much in my opinion. I also know you wouldn't complain any more than usual if we followed the rule as written and everyone else did so too!!

DC, your are correct, Ricky Marshall shot well at the SG missing only three targets in the main handicaps. So too did Scotty McClelland and in the shoot-out, he beat Ricky 23 to 21 or so standing beside him. The targets were high, just like some long yardage shooters like.

Hap

 

[Hap MecTweaks]

Here's a brief synopsis of how rule violations such as this not only hurt the shooters but the organization itself in the long term.

ATA's bread and butter clubs are the two to eight trap clubs spread across the country. The greater majority of these clubs DO follow ATA's rules and suggested guidelines to the letter for their registered shoots. That includes setting targets between 8 and 10 foot elevations 10 yards in front as per the rules. The local guys, gals and kids shoot practice at the home clubs preparing for their big day, whether it's their state shoot or attending one of the many Grands spread across the country. They build confidence at the home clubs and surrounding registered events and venture out to the biggie with excited expectations. Once there, they are subjected to these higher than normal target presentations (rule violations 101) and are disappointed in their ability to shoot a decent score! That my friends is bad for business regardless of the excuses put forth by those who influence clubs with their presence! Why would shooters put in all the extra expense at home and waste their money at another venue? News, numbers are dwindling and no one can figure out what's going on? That also hurts our organization as a whole in growing our sport in my opinion. Does our ATA officials really care about actually growing our ranks within the working class of shooters? The picture they paint for me is dim in that area. Scared of lawsuits, scared of losing even more members, scared of enforcing their own written rules of the game?

One more point, be extremely careful when electing a state delegate to represent your sport at the highest level, at the Grand American. How your delegate is influenced prior to that yearly meeting determines the health of our organization and our history proves the point. It's time the shooters demand we follow our own rules or change them so that all targets registered are set accordingly, everywhere! Are there so few shooters that believe in following the rule as written that we allow any and everything a select few demand? Reminds me of the rule violations in recent years that became law as being best. I'm ashamed of the weakness portrayed by those endowed with power within our great sport of trapshooting! As members, demand the rules be followed because we have no idea what the game changers will come up with next!

Hap

 

[Hap MecTweaks]

870, I for one appreciate your thoughts and feel your one of the better posters here on TS and a long time poster also. The wiggle room of which you speak is at the target hight at 10 yards in front of the traps. Close to the rule is acceptable, even 10 foot high targets. I must ask you another question, if you know, why did we change the hight rule of 8 to 12 foot to an 8 to 10 foot rule? Wasn't the thinking behind that rule change for more consistency from club to club?

When Dennis Mastrolia asked his initial question in the first post, the answer to his question is obvious and was answered. I highly suspect if the trap in question was measured out, it was throwing a legal target also! Pat traps being much higher in the carousel require at least one of two options. Raise the roof to accommodate that extra hight or lower the pedestal on which was probably built for an old Winchester handset trap? Dennis made this statement regarding what he assumed to be the problem that brought about his question in the first place.

"I believe now that the "plate" is not properly in line with the "pad" and this may be the issue."

That certainly isn't the answer to the question posed prior. That club either raised the roof which will give flatter targets due to exiting the house higher, OR, lowered the old pedestal to make room for the Pat trap? Either way the tolerances mentioned for registering targets on that trap even if it's off somewhat!

Did you shoot targets at last years Grand American? I did and shot all the handicap events! Every target I shot there last August was high targets! I'da been tickled to shoot 10 foot targets but the ones others and myself are referring too were way above that mark! I've also shot several regional Grands with the same type of target presentations in the last few years also.

Don't you and others find it odd that none of the top shooters or ATA officials have scolded those of us mentioning these discrepancy's? I certainly don't and it's because it's tough as hell to defend a violation of our written rule unless you happen to be a Philadelphia lawyer or a great word smith. Both of which can cloud the issue with BS and or personal attacks? 870, there's a change in the air.

Hap

 

[Hap MecTweaks]

870, you are absolutely correct we should allow some variences because of differences across the country and we do. What we're talking about here is bordering on the ridiculous extremes. If you feel a 10 foot high target makes you uncomfortable, try a few at 16 to 18 feet high!! As Dennis mentioned above concerning ATA officials shooting targets at the biggest shoots would surely set things right? Wrong! I know because I've shot beside them on super high target presentations!

What I have a problem with is the fact we're playing by two seperate target presentations across the country. Smaller clubs adhering to the written rule for setting targets, then those who've mastered the game playing by their own settings for more face targets! That includes any variences we allow plus, for discrepencies all across the spectrum of organised trapshooting all over the lands! It's time our (leaders) lead by example enforcing existing rules (guidelines within reason) and grow a pair to put a halt to what will surely become another rule admendment down the road TCTA once again?

If we don't take care of our baby now, who will down the road? Portraying a sense of fairness to everyone is paramount to grow the sport or a business? It's like we're playing two entirely different games of registered trap and confusing the masses on what's the correct standard!

Maybe I'll video a few shoots just so there's no confusion on what game we're discussing here?

Hap

 

[Hap MecTweaks]

Roger, I agree that the smaller clubs and their ATA members set targets according to the rule book more so than those holding the majors. We must also remember how that more face practice "snuck" into the game? (A whole different subject)

The flatter the presentation of a clay target, the less area available for shot to strike! Each degree of upward tilt on the clay (more face) magnifies that breaking area drastically in size! That's not a presumption or a perception, it's a fact. Patterns at long range will benefit more with all the target face possible resulting in larger breaking area on that target.

Jerry H., isn't it the clubs catering to the wishes of shooters rather than following a written rule on adjusting target whims? The current application of the written rule toward settings could be more aptly called the yo-yo rule? Up and down, next preference?

Hap

 

[Hap MecTweaks]

Changing rules usually have some unheard of consequences down the road under differing circumstances that were given no thought when changed. Slowing down the doubles makes for higher scores on bluebird days. When it's not such a day, we allow shooters to fiddle and screw with any settings to accommodate the whims and that somewhat satisfies the masses? If we set singles and handicap targets at 43 mph, doubles at 39 mph must be easier to get at, time wise? When we make a snowball and find it's growing downhill, it's time to grease the ball unless we accept things other than perfect target presentations all the time. Time for even more amendments?

Hap

 

[Hap MecTweaks]

John, I wasn't addressing your post and I agree dbls should be set the same as singles. We've had so many rule changes that require amendments to the original rule to cover unheard of consequences.

The old Winchester hand-sets didn't break too many targets at launch and threw good doubles targets. Pat trap arms don't give the same stabilizing RPMs that the old traps did either? Hence, more amendments needed down the road due to changes to the game/equipment and rules.

Hap

 

[Hap MecTweaks]

Mr. Ogle, thank you for your thoughts and input toward this discussion. How right you are saying it's tough to make a go of a club without any help from our own ATA on rule enforcements!!Your assessment is also spot on in regards to how target settings have changed over the years and (WHY)! Customers!!! Perfect target settings!! Higher scores being broken with amazing records being broken in what seems every year! Sure, equipment is better, the shooters dedicated to their goals and can afford the numbers have improved drastically!! Lets back up for a moment here. Are we assuming the shooters today are that much superior to the shooters were a mere 25 or so years back? Hold on a second, some of the greats were long time real competitors at that time also posting winning high scores also??? I talked with Ray Stafford concerning the 95-96 mandated 44 degree angles shot during that time. His averages during that time frame actually increased!! I asked him why and he said he paid much more attention to targets knowing he may get tougher angles and thrown longer! The greats in the game were good with tougher targets because of their ability to adapt.

How did we come to expect this so-called (perfect target syndrome) in the first place? To find the true answers we must rely on what our sports history says. Beginning in the very late 70s,early 80s, a few clubs began setting targets that were much easier to hit. (That was cheating the rules of the game) Some clubs followed suit while others didn't and that's what Mr. Ogle refers to above, re-setting targets to satisfy the customers! That, in order to survive! This brings us to the newest innovation of rule bending, setting targets with lots more face and here we are today with lots of members looking for perfection in target setting? There is no such thing as a perfect target in registered ATA competitions! There is however two entirely different presentations though. Legal and within the rules and ATAs guidelines for speeds and measurements, then there's the targets that can't come close to abiding by the current setting parameters, high with lots of face!! (This is actually cheating the settings rule again?)

In the very beginning of bending the rules, our leadership not only failed the members but our organization itself! Adopting a cheating practice as being best for the sport with less angle and speed was first, today allowing 2 entirely different target presentations to be registered targets! Where's the continuity of fairness in that practice not only to our membership but the club owners and operators themselves???? We can place blame on about anything for not growing the sport but we ourselves must shoulder the responsibility for not holding our leaderships feet to the fire when it comes to enforcing their own written rules of the game!! Allowing these practices to flourish is very confusing especially to new members and old. It hurts clubs, as mentioned by Mr.Ogle at Jim Browns club and everywhere ATA registered targets are shot!

Beginning in the early 80s, if I were hunting leaders and some of our officials flew up, I wouldn't take my B-B gun off safe! Enforce the rules you write or change them as you have done in the past, making targets even easier! Continuity across the country which it once was is all we ask and fairness to all!

Hap