Trapshooters Forum banner

Time to Review Target Angles?

11618 Views 130 Replies 64 Participants Last post by  Trap Cat
114 -100 straights in yesterday’s first leg of the NRA Singles. 95 or so 100’s in today’s segment. 24-200’s in the entire program. 16-100’s in today’s doubles. Is it time to increase angles on the targets and make them a little more difficult? Not go back to “3 hole”, but perhaps a little wider and add a little speed? Or are we satisfied with that many perfect scores? I’ll grab my popcorn.
1 - 20 of 131 Posts

· Registered
Joined
·
2,394 Posts
"3-hole" target angle should never have been changed. If you believe the change to narrower angles has improved the sport, please explain the rationale. The 'ole saw about "too difficult to enforce the 3-hole rule" doesn't cut it. If it did, and 2-hole target setting improved the game, why not change to, say, 30 degree angle to improve the game even more?
 

· Registered
Joined
·
36,877 Posts
Making targets more difficult for AAA shooters will not make them easier for any classes lower than AAA. Going past 50 yards, returning the angles back to straightaways on 1 and 5 or raising the target height I do not see as unreasonable, but great shotgun pointers are still going to turn in better scores than not so great shotgun pointers.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
5,689 Posts
Same old nonsense.

1. The best shooters in the country show up for the Grand. Only 3% of all shooters have ever broken a 200 straight. All harder targets would do is screw up the 97%.

2. No one ever wins the HAA or HOA shooting 200 straight singles, but they certainly lose if they don't.

3. AA and AAA are not going to miss the hard angles because of a 5 degree increase.

In the history of this discussion, I don't recall many AAA shooters thinking 3 hole targets would "fix" anything but run off a lot of D shooters and make a lot of C shooters D shooters and a lot of B shooters C shooters.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
5,326 Posts
Interesting thread, given that the very first time 125 targets has been offered for women at the Olympics, 125 straight were broken by the eventual winner.

Now, I know theses are "2 shot" targets rather than singles, but if the ladies are breaking 120+/125 targets at random heights, up to 45 degrees and 76 metres in distance, using 24 g (7/8), is adding a few degrees either side of ATA targets going to make much difference?

I know that in single barrel events down here, on what you guys call 3 hole targets (22.5 degrees either side of centre) 24/25 or 49/50 won't win, and that's with 1 oz loads. Ask me how I know.

At our Nationals, results were

2019-you needed 100 straight to win

2018-same

2017-147 after shootoff

2016-142 after shootoff.

This is with 1 oz loads.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
7 Posts
114 -100 straights in yesterday’s first leg of the NRA Singles. 95 or so 100’s in today’s segment. 24-200’s in the entire program. 16-100’s in today’s doubles. Is it time to increase angles on the targets and make them a little more difficult? Not go back to “3 hole”, but perhaps a little wider and add a little speed? Or are we satisfied with that many perfect scores? I’ll grab my popcorn.
Weren’t doubles postponed?
 
1 - 20 of 131 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top