Trapshooting Improvements- Savior or Decline

When I started shooting in the middle 1950's trapshooting was still in the dark ages in comparison to what we now have.
Back then at most clubs the targets were released by the lever located at the back of the trap field. Not many shooters reloaded in those days and the ones who did often used home made wads and reloaded primers(using only a new cap in the center, rather than a whole new battery cup). The wads were often cut out of solid cardboard and the filler wads were cut out of fiberboard and then the edges were rolled in melted wax. Antimony was not added to the shot to make it harder back then. Normally weekday practice sessions were not available to most shooters in our area. Adjustable stocks, ribs, triggers, and choke tubes were not in use then, but we did have Herb Orre to put a Super Choke in our model 12's.
Since then we have gone through the Clyne Pull traps, the Western1524 traps and on to the Pat traps and the Superstar traps. The plastic component has been added to the ammunition (both wads and casings).We now have hard shot. Also we shoot guns that have everything adjustable available (stocks, ribs, triggers, and choke tubes). Also we have many shooters who are offering shooting classes and instructional video's.
The targets are much less challenging than they were back 70 years ago. Even in the early days of the 1524 Western traps the doubles were thrown a full 50 yards the same as the single targets. Now the angles are not as wide and usually the targets are a little shorter, with the doubles being a lot shorter. Going from hand set and hand pulled targets to the auto traps and the voice calls have also taken many of the variable's out of our sport.
What i'am trying to ask is have all of these changes actually improved the sport of trapshooting or are they actually contributing to the demise of our sport. Our sport has gone from very few perfect scores to almost a sport of perfection.
These are some things that I have been thinking about, and I am wondering what do you think.

Dave Berlet

 

Yes, the sport has changed, but everything must change to evolve. I started a little later than you, but in a "Normal year" it makes me feel good to see over 20 squads of kids shooting at the state shoot on a Saturday morning, even knowing its going to be late morning for me to shoot!

 

The late great Roger Smith once said in an article that the 70's-80's were the "Golden Age of Trap Shooting".

I think he knew what he was talking about.

 

An example of Dave's TRAP that was released (and cocked) behind the shooters.

Lever Pushed to cock and change angle, pulled to release target.

Thanks Dave for the history ~~~

 

There's nothing wrong with standardizing target presentations through rules. Does it really make sense to throw a 60 yd target at one club and a 48 yd. target at another. Those of us who still remember setting those old Western traps should recall a 48 yd. target in the AM and closer to 50 yds. later in the day. Please don't tell me these newer targets weren't made harder for automatic trap handling because they seldom smoke like those older ones. Some of us can still remember a few hot shots that never excelled when interrupters became mandatory. I suppose the only way to make this game fair again is to mandate only Model 12's, 1100's or 870's in competition while outlawing voice releases. Let's just accept the fact us oldsters are simply dinosaurs and the game we once played has left us. In a few more years we can leave our K-80's, Perazzi's, Guerini's, Ljutics and othere to our heirs who'll use them to support their tomatoes in a garden.

 

It would be hard to imagine any Sport that has benefited from being 'dumbed-down' ..... Especially to the level of ATA Trapshooting ..... Where unlimited Mulligans and a incoherent book of rules becomes near impossible to beat .....

Would you clip feathers, expand the 'ring' size, shoot closer, more shots, add Mulligans, and so on to live bird shooting ??????? Those 'improvements' would be sure to have the same effect as Trapshooting has seen .....

Money and pride go with a difficult accomplishment ..... Trinkets, ribbons, and non-serious participation go with 'easy' .....

 

So true. I remember guys "back in the day" that would only shoot with certain people. They were REALLY good at timing the trap. Nearly every bird was a straight throw. Ahhhh, the good old days....

 

Can I Get An AMEN ?! ?!

 

I have been shooting trap since the old days since the 60's as a sub-junior then and still shoot a lot today. I will say that if we went back to the targets that was thrown back then ATA would be out of business in a hurry. No-one shoots for money anymore like it was back then as there is none anymore. We shoot for the love of the sport and to break as many targets as we can. Make them harder to break and people will quit shooting and do something else.

 

Based on the data below, the majority of the shooters are already having a hard time with the current target 'easy' settings. I am in agreement with those who think that going back to the previous settings would drive shooters away from the ATA.

 

I'm curious why you emphasized the word 'easy'. The way I read it it looks like you don't agree that they are. Was that because you think the targets are just as tough as they were before the change?

 

If you knew where they were going when you called "pull" it made little difference how wide you made the angles. I can agree softening up the distance doubles are thrown made it easier for some.

 

I started shooting in or about 1975, I was a lot younger, my eyesight was much better, my energy level was much higher, I was physically a lot stronger, reactions much keener and faster, desire considerably higher, the only thing that was not better back then was my financial situation being as I was also raising a family ... The shooters I shot with all made plans to attend certain shoots because they were "Money shoots" and we had a chance to recoup some of if not all of our expenses if we shot even reasonably well, ( the Grand was a shoot most of us didn't miss even though it was out dated and antiquated ) Those were well before the days of expected perfection and many associated Pro's giving lessons, clinics, at a price to help out the not so or as gifted shooters ... The ATA seemed to be an Association of people who all gathered for the competition as well as the social aspects of being with people who are of the same likes ... I seldom made money shooting the Grand but usually paid my expenses or got close to but always had a good time, which made it worth it ... The shooter shot 2 hole targets, men started at the 22 yard line, kids and ladies were closer ... Many peoples opinion is Trap shooting has not evolved and gotten better except for those that were and still are the better shooters, teachers who get paid to show others how to beat or compete with them ... The ATA has not gotten better except for the select few elected officials who get paid to shoot as well as expenses to represent the Membership, yet they are seldom seen or heard from at those shoots and have no idea what the meaning of Transparency is ... The Good Ol' Boys Club is alive and well and they are never going to let that get changed ... WPT ... (YAC) ...

 

Flyer, I used the word 'easy' because many on this website use this word when referring to the current spec's for setting ATA targets. They believe the targets are too easy. But the data I posted, clearly shows that many are not able to shoot decent scores with the 'easy' target settings. What percent of the many who are not able to shoot decent scores based on their class and yardage assignments do you think would quit shooting ATA targets, if the target settings would be made more difficult that the current 'easy' settings?

 

Dang youngster, I started in '63 so I've been around this game way too many years. Starved myself by saving my high school lunch money, trapped hundreds of muskrats, picked up cardboard, cork, and H wads for reloading just so I could afford that .75/round of trap. I also felt like king sh-- when dad bought me a brand new Model 12 trap for $238 in 1965 after laboring with a JC Higgins pump in the beginning of my career. I've also been shooting a local Winter league without missing a single shoot since 1964 and kept a complete set of records from our program, That said, scoring hasn't changed much over all those years and the scores need to win are virtually the same. The best shooters were always at the top and there was little variation until those WWII and Korean war vets got old and left us. Even though 500 shooters still participate only around 20 are competitive enough to win one of the coveted top 10 positions while the rest have fun or drink a few beers. Some things never change!

 

The problem now is as you stated, there was a time no one would of thought or considered making the targets easier ... There were many changes over the years, I recall if you shot the Grand, you shot all new ammo, there were no questions asked as it was stated and accepted in and as part of the program ... If you simplify something and people get used to it you are dead on right about losing shooters if they try to change it back .... Maybe, just maybe it never should of been made easier in the first place to keep it at a higher level of competition and no one would of known any better ... The ATA modified the new shells rule to a degree (except the GAH ) and you can bet if they ever try to change that back to all new shells for all events you will be able to hold the grand on 10 traps ... None of those changes made it better, they only justified the changes and took the game to a lower level for those who were involved as well as the new shooters getting involved who have not really had to fight to get better because it was part of the game also ... Change is not always better but can usually be justified with very little effort even if it does not have to be ... WPT ... (YAC) ...

 

Well, since the shooters you are talking about apparently don't care about shooting good scores, they keep going anyway, and only want to have fun with their friends or want to, as one poster said, "compete against myself" I don't think the number of shooters would drop that much.

Thank you for your response but I didn't see the answer to my question. Do YOU think the targets are as tough as they used to be?

 

I think you need to take the age of a person into consideration when they talk about the golden age of trapshooting.
I'm sure Roger Smith does consider the 70's and 80's golden by how he was shooting at that time. For me it was the 80's and 90's. Somewhere in the future Dagen Voigtman will think last year was the golden age.

 

I think all you people that think everything is A OK with today's EASY Targets need to put your masks on and go back to your basements.

 

It is AMAZING how these threads always devolve .....

Throw the damn targets any way you wish, and it WILL not change the MANY other things gone wrong .....

The rule-less book, preferred banks to the chosen few, Mulligans, broken handicap and class system, and, and, and, ad nauseam .....

Who gives a damn if some snowflakes quit if they don't get their way ..... 'They' have been coming and going for years because Trapshooting wasn't for them ..... Quit, because you damn sure have not 'improved' anything .....

If you throw pink targets upside down, and have the 'grand' on the dark side of the moon, it won't fix the occupy the 27 snowflakes, period .....

 

Brad, get serious! No one ever got rich breaking 200 straight Singles-not now-not then. As long as top shooters stand on the 27 after accumulating thousands of unanswered yards the handicap system will never work and the money disappeared as a result. Do ya really think anyone is foolish enough to donate their weekly grocery money to under handicapped professional shooters except for a few stupids? FYI, the casinos still rake in the bettors so the money is still out there but it left Trapshooting. Voice activated systems, more visible targets, adjustable everything guns and improved ammo did more to dumb down the game than a bit wider targets.

 

Mr. Roger Smith started registering targets in 1967. He passed away in 2018. He was around the sport for a pretty long time and saw all the changes.

I doubt very seriously that Mr. Smith was thinking of only himself when he made those remarks.

 

If easy targets were the answer the ATA wouldn't have lost 70 % of their membership from 1980 till today and in 1980 the ATA didn't have the SCTP kids to inflate the numbers. I have won over a grand for a 200 straight many times. I have won over a grand for a 100 straight many times. Never though in either did I split it with 79 other 200's or 100's.

I'm always amazed that people tell me about money shooting. And Flyer you are 100% right about Rodger Smith. No business other than undertaker can be profitable or sustainable with the age demographic of the ATA.

Hell if you want to break them all before you die let's just set the trap in the center hole, but remember knowing where they are going you still have to hit them. I don't think anyone with an 85 average could break a 100 set in the center hole because they'd still be shooting lefts from 1 and 2 and rights from 4 and 5, and you still have the whole world above and below a straightaway.

I don't think it really means anything how you set the ATA targets anymore. The ATA is on life support, and a ventilator ain't going to help them. Look around at the next trap shoot you go to (if they ever have another one), the ATA is old, fat, and slow. No way it comes back from Covid. The virus will finish what the ATA rule makers started. I thank God my business doesn't depend on Trap Shooting.

Have any of you been on Gun Broker to price primers lately? Everything that any ammo company is going to be doing for the foreseeable future is going to be metallic pistol and rifle ammo. The problem with so many ATA delegates is they don't have a clue about what it takes to make a trap shoot. How in the hell if you come from a state that only has 50 shooters can you tell someone who has run a state shoot the size of Ohio how to do it.

When I was the tournament director for the OSTA and the Cardinal shoots I was always getting advice on how to do my job. I would listen and then do what I thought was right and what I did was very simple. If it pissed me off when I was shooting I wouldn't let it be done at a shoot I was directing. RULES were RULES, no exceptions.

 

Brad, I know one thing. None of those 100'or 200's ever paid squat anywhere on the East coast. Did ya ever get rich in PA, MD, NJ, or FL for any perfect Singles score? No, you didn't or you must have been mistaken those payouts for a few live bird scores. You sure are aware only a very few clubs ever continued throwing 3-hole targets in the 70's so you must have been getting those huge payouts on 2-holers. Heck, your club in Thurmont MD was considered one of the easiest clubs for perfect scores but I recall in the 90's how you, Leo and our then ATA President got beat up real bad in the handicap that day. I wish someone else would refresh my memory and tell all of us how many thousand dollar payouts they had in Singles anywhere. I'm listening!

 

I learned very early on there was no money in singles with very few exceptions which is the primary reason I quit shooting them except to just play when shooting with friends ... The first time it cost me more for shells than I won in the event was enough for me ... I get bored and half fall asleep when shooting singles, beside miss one or maybe two and you are out of it any way ... WPT ... (YAC) ...

 

I started shooting ATA targets in 1962 when I was 17. I shot the Grand American in 1965. No, I don't think the targets are as tough as they used to be, but I don't think making them tougher would be a positive action for the ATA at this time.

I agree with the Dawgs comments in post 21 above.

Brad, I don't everything is OK with today's Easy targets, but I think there are critical changes that need to happen before going back to Harder targets. I believe that changing to Harder targets before the critical changes are made within the ATA, would result in more shooters quitting ATA shooting.

I also agree with those who say there are several critical changes that need to be implemented if the ATA is going to survive. Stat Man can probably give us the odds on whether these changes being implemented.

Now that we know that delegates constitute the Board of Directors of the ATA and as such have the responsibility of overseeing the operation of the Association, it seems to me that ATA members should start holding their delegates accountable. This might be a good first step in the right direction.

 

Ollie the handicap system is supposed to be a directional system. Meaning that if it is mandatory in going one direction it is not going to work well if it is not mandatory in the other direction(meaning mandatory reductions) I'll admit I never got rich shooting singles, but I won quite a few $400.00 to 700.00 payments back in the 60's and7o's in singles that definitely helped keep me in the game. Back then often times at a State Shoot there might be only a couple of 200's sometimes there might be a lone straight, or even 198 or 199 being high score. Now the sport having somewhat easier targets and so many technical advancements the scores run higher and payouts are usually smaller and also the number of entries are quite often smaller. Just my opinion.

Dave Berlet

 

I first shot Pa in 1983 if I remember right. Pa never had any money at any level that I can remember, Maryland on the other hand had much better shoots, trophies, and money. I think the most cash I ever won in Pa was for winning a Budweiser Handicap event and even though I won a lot of events over the years in Pa I never won over 2500 dollars for any of them. The best in Maryland was the 1993 State Handicap, I won just under 7 grand for a lone 99. Maryland gave great Trophies, grand father clocks, prints, oak tables, collector type Trophies thanks to Lucky Nightingale.

I did win a couple MX 3's in back to back years at the July 4th Pa shoot in the 80's though so if you count them I may have won 3 or 4 grand at one of those events, can't remember.

My largest payout for singles was the 1978 Clay Target at Vandalia. I won about 1500 in cash and an 8 place 5 piece setting of silver flatware that I sold for a little over 2 grand so that was an 3500 200 straight. My best 100 straight 16's was at Mexico Mo. where for a 100 I won 450 in cash, 10 full cases (20 boxes a case) of Win AAs, a 1100 Remington trap gun and a 10 Dollar Gold Piece.

The Grand Money mostly came from added money to the winner (look it up in the 1978 program and the fact that their were only 7 (I think) 200's. The Mexico 100 was 2 of us but I was the only one to play the money and I won the shoot off for the 10 dollar gold coin. I think this was 1977 or 78.

You could buy a cheap car for 2000 bucks then and a truck for under 10 grand. Compare that to today and tell me there was never any money in singles. Like Dave singles could pay for your whole week of shooting entrees back before the ATA's rush to political correctness. After all that what easy birds are about, feelings not ability or competition. Registered Practice.

Neil Winston is almost singularly responsible for the push for easy targets that destroyed money shooting and the ATA. Although he is long gone his legacy lives on.

 

I never delved into singles like some of the Top Guns because at the shoots I attended there was not enough return on the investment for me or some of those I shot with to bother ... We played the money in handicap events and it paid off over time, here again we had a limited amount of money to play with so singles/doubles were pretty much eliminated for one reason or another and we put forth more effort on handicap ... Being game shooters we all more or less got to really enjoy the handicap programs and Calcutta's in the area we shot in ... Today if I shoot singles or doubles its only for yucks ... WPT ... (YAC) ...

 

Dave, we've got a bunch of professional practice shooters at the 27 who probably wouldn't play a dime in options even if they stood on the 19. If they wanted to shoot for cash they likely stop refusing reductions but they won't. Maybe making the 30 yd. line the new max would change their thinking and take away any pride of standing with the big dogs while shooting like puppies. You're certainly right about making $400 to maybe $700 for a perfect singles in those days even though most options cost around $5 or $10. Let's not forget that options were traditionally played by at least 50% of the participants in those days. Contrast that today where $20 options at least are the rule and maybe 15% of the shooters play 'em. I think they call it the law of diminishing returns.

 

YOU SOLD THE SILVERWARE?

I was going to take mine out of the wood case and wrappers to use for a nice dinner when we hit the 30 DAY mark. Glad I didn't.

Maybe I'll have to use it in about a month when we reach the 6 YEAR point. A nice dinner and a toast to the graphmaster?

Or is that grabasster? I always forget.

 

Ollie something that I don't believe that you have taken into consideration is that if they would go to 30 yards for hdcp it would be o k for a while, but as time would pass you would have the same thinking that you have now. Meaning (I got to the maximum yardage and that gives me the right to stay there the rest of my life) screwing up the system just like it is now. For the system to work as _intended_ if you have it mandatory to move back it needs to be mandatory to move forward if you don't get the punches to stay. I'm sure that you will agree with my thinking on this subject. LOL

Dave Berlet

 

Dave, first tell me just how many of those "occupy 27" shooters with mid 80 averages at best would ever smell the 30!

 

The SAME WAY they 'made the 27' ...... a you suck score with enough people for a 'punch' .....

 

I believe the ATA needs to put metrics in place to measure to the performance of the current handicap system at the bigger shoots, (state shoots, satellite grands and the Grand American),on a regular basis before making any changes to the current system. All ATA members should have access to these metrics.

 

Please explain to all of us how likely it is for a shooter with low to mid 80's handicap average earning enough yardage to make the 30! You seem to be missing the point, that is, those many shooters who refuse reductions with crappy averages from the 27 are supposedly screwing up the system. "You suck scores" will never get yardage at any real ATA shoot and the small clubs will seldom see shooters past the 27. Maybe, that's not the real problem.

 

Ollie you are as wrong about this as Kiner was with the 2 yards off that the ata did twice. I don't understand what you're thinking is. Why or how would the 30 yard line stop the decline of the ATA? That's the question.

 

I fail to see where a shooter, any shooter stands for handicap is making the system any more decayed/flawed than if everyone had to start at the 27 yard line and move back from there (exception being Kids and ladies starting at the 25 yd line ), I mean we are talking Handicap here if I am not mistaken ... I turned down a reduction, I was not shooting at the time or since so I don't have anything to base taking the reduction on versus turning it down ... The Handicap system being flawed in a very minor part of what the problems are looming in and around the ATA ... If there are going to be changes it should start at the top and work its way down but incorporate the package as a whole not just any one part of it that people blame all of the problems on ( complete house cleaning ) ... Maybe they need an advisory committee to initiate the changes made up of "New Blood" so the updates can be instituted taking and utilizing all of the new and progressive programing available today ..? If they are going to make it right, make the entire thing right and go from there ... Change is good at times, sometimes change is not all that good ... You never know, you know ..? WPT ... (YAC) ...

 

Ollie it would not be the same name, but people with the same mind set and you would have a new group of '' occupy 30" shooters.

Dave Berlet

 

Brad, why or how would wider and faster targets stop the decline of the ATA? That's the question.

Instead of guessing, why not poll those who no longer shoot ATA targets why they stopped shooting ATA and then tally up the results?

 

No ..... You are "missing the point" ...... If you make a '30 yard line', with NO OTHER CHANGES, the 'occupy' shooters will move back with scores of 60's and 70's, or lower, at their local clubs with enough shooters, then occupy the "30", while ALL the OTHER problems remain unsolved .....

You CAN NOT/WILL NOT "fix" a bunch of problems with one ill thought out solution ..... Do something like making a score of 96 or above mandatory to move back past something like the 25 ..... That may stop some of the 'occupy shooters', while others would simply use the magic pencil to have those scores to stand with the 'big dogs' .....

 

The last time the ATA did a survey of their members was about the grand moving to Sparta. They didn't listen to the members then so what makes YOU think they would today? I don't have to prove my point because your point has been used while the 70% decline in ATA membership has occurred. I'd think that would be a good enough survey for you.

Nothing, not one brilliant idea the ATA has came up with in 20 years has helped them.

I've spent my life hunting and guiding hunters and one thing I know for sure The farther away from the road you travel into the wilderness the more lost you become, the smart thing to do is to go back to the highway that you traveled successfully in the first place. Stupid people aren't capable of admitting they are lost so they wonder around until they die.

The ATA has killed off so many trap clubs in the last 20 years it is sickening. The only organization that has done more to destroy it's roots is stock car racing. Once gone, Gone forever.

 

Nope, I'm not missing the point. Please name a few clubs near Timbuctoo IA that draw enough "occupy shooters" that will ever need a 30 yd. line or ever see a 30 yd. shooter. Where I come from there's always someone willing to take that half yard for an 82 from the 21 yd. line and that might only happen in January with a 40 mph breeze. Please tell all of us where we can go and get that yardage needed to make the 30 for scores below 70. You are dealing in fantasies-not reality.

 

Brad, Kiner was not wrong. Actually, those multiple reductions stimulated demand for more Handicap entries. More entries means more money for the clubs holding shoots. The bad part is it was way too easy to gain that yardage back to where you stunk all over again. Actually, short yardage shooters started to win Handicap events again but the "big dogs" as usual complained others were feeding off their trough so that won't happen again. I'm sure Brad you won't argue that the 25 yd. line is simply long Singles for a most competent shooters. Yes, I did take a 3 yd. reduction that year from the 27 to the 24. Unfortunately, I only lasted 200 targets at the 24 and took most of it back at the Southern Grand squadded with our old buddy John Muir.

 

So, I suppose the ultimate solution is the 30 yd, line coupled with one time mandatory reductions based on your current Handicap average with no yardage added below a 96/100. There ya go!

 

What were the brilliant ideas the ATA came up with between 1960 and 2000 that cause membership to peak before the decline started ?

 

How is this for "reality" ?????

IF ol'Jo-Jo takes office ..... "yardage" will the last thing on people's mind .....

Does everyone remember ..... when the materials to manufacture 'clay targets' fell victim to ol'Jo-Jo and his boss ol'Bo-Bo ????? How about the added 'fuel delivery fees' to get them delivered to the Clubs ?????

When the 'war on oil and coal' start again, Trapshooting from any 'yardage' will not be cheap .....

And, no doubt lead shot, plastic wads, and everything else will see a 'new green war' .....

 

I don't exactly know what year they did it, but in my opinion one of the things that they did to start the decline of the ATA shooting and the Grand was when they discontinued the mandatory Ford Purses in the handicap and the doubles at the Grand. By the way what ever happened to all the money that was held back for repeat winners of the Ford Purses. Anyone who repeated as a Ford Purse winner was to receive either $1000.00 or $1500.00 for being a repeat winner. I would be interested to know where those funds went.

In our area some of the clubs have 50 target Meat Shoots that normally have 80 or more entries and sometimes as many as 100 or more entries. The programs consist of 25 16yd and 25 20yd targets. There are very few 50's sometimes a 48 or 49 will be high, but they aren't quite the same targets as the 2hole 48yd lollipops. Usually there would be close to 2 squads of 27yarders entered maybe even a few (occupy27) yd shooters. What I'm trying to get a cross here is that stronger and wider targets will definitely hold down the scores and you don't need 30yds at this point in time to have more competition. You don't need to put some clubs out of business or force them to spend lots of money to add concrete, Everyone has a right to their own opinion, but if anyone disagrees with this I believe they are full of (condensed owl milk). Just my opinion.

Dave Berlet

 

Dave, first we need to understand "stronger and wider". Are you suggesting the current rule for a 49-51 yd target should be replaced by a 52-55 yd. one or even longer? FYI, the 52 yd target was in the rule book for decades. Without the benefit of a radar gun many clubs with variable terrain threw whatever looked good and who knows how legal they may have been or what was the actual distance. Now, wider targets will certainly bring down most shooters averages but most shooters are simply "average" while great shooters are affected little. Maybe I spent way too much time around the late great Frank Little and watched his performance on some really ugly targets. One of his finest shootoffs was at Elysburg many years ago when they continually increased both the distance and width of the targets in order to shorten the shootoff. I'll let you guess who was the last man standing. That said, average Joe is sufficiently handicapped by the targets we currently throw. If we believe we need to make the game harder then maybe we should ban expensive guns with adjustable everything, go back to bubble gum chewing female hand pullers, black and white targets and paper wadded shotshells. I may be old but I'm not living in the past-am I?

 

Ollie, Do you mean a rule book, or a book of suggestions? Probably not as many as you, but I shot quite a few targets squadded with Frank. He was a very good shooter and I knew if I could best Frank I was going to be close to the top of the heap. Now was he actually better than the top few elite shooters now or the same group from his time. In my opinion he probably wasn't. On the other hand he was every bit as good as they were in my opinion. Frank was a good shooter and competitor and I always enjoyed shooting with him. I in no way want to take away from his ability or his accomplishments. He just, left us too soon.

Dave Berlet

 

As you know, I am not a fan of changing the current handicap system until metrics are available to determine if changes are necessary. If changes are necessary, those metrics can then be used to monitor if the changes are having the desired results.

If the handicap system is proven to be broken as bad as some say, here is one change I have been thinking about that might be a positive change without changing to wider and faster target and/or a 30 yard line. Do you think that keeping the current handicap system but adding ounces of shot based on yardage assignment would be a positive change? For example, if your yardage assignment is 25-27 yards, you must use 7/8 ounce of shot or less. If your yardage assignment is less than 25 yards and more than 22 yards, you must use 1 ounce of shot or less. If your yardage assignment is less than 22, you must use 1 1/8 ounce of shot or less.

 

Good luck trying to enforce all that .....

Can you see some 13 year old young lady score-keeper checking shells on a 20-22 yard squad LOL ..... This fat man on post ?? should shoot 1oz, that fat man on post ?? should shoot 1 1/8 oz shells, and so on ..... LOL .....

FWIW ..... shells have ALWAYS been the hardest thing to enforce .....

 

User 1, you have a point which I had considered before I posted, but there is no enforcement now to see if shells are legal, so I don't see different payloads as a major impediment. I trust shooters to obey the rules, but I know there will always be a small percent who try to cheat the system.

 

Why make it complicated. Wider and harder works ever time.. Go back to what made trap shooting great.

It looks like we are all going to get to see that easy bird mentality in the country now with Biden and the News media completing the steal over Trump. I'd be more worried about that if I was you all than how many shooters will quit if the ATA goes back to 1970's rules.

Sometimes it's hard for me to separate the old women from the old men.

Dave you make to much sense and talk from to much experience to be listened to on here. You and I are Lucky though we've got all these clubs around here, but even they shut down this month because of fear or Political Correctness, The Ohio Governor is an Ass. At least the Ohio house and Senate are fighting for us, our ATA delegates never have.

 

Brad, I don't worrying about anything but I pray about a lot of things.

 

I read an article yrs.ago from a target setter at the old grand, (THROW A TARGET THAT THE SHOOTER CAN BREAK , THAT SHOOTER WILL BE BACK, THROW TARGETS THE SHOOTER CANNOT BREAK A DECENT SCORE , HE WILL FIND ANOTHER CLUB TO SHOOT AT)

 

plaw, A harder target will seperate the men from the boys. Break a good score on tough targets and you have acomplished something. Break a high score on puff targets and you are just another fish in the barrel. What has happened to the competitive nature of man? Have we been taken over by the wimps? Roger C.

 

When I started shooting registered trap (1975) there were never questions or debates about which targets, how are they set, who set them, what color, black rim or not, then all of a sudden all that changed and the Sport as we knew it turned to shit ... Men started on the 22 yard line, Ladies and kids 18 or 20 yardline (?) , the targets to the best of my limited knowledge were set straight away from one and three ( 3 holes at 50 yards ) , no questions asked or resets unless the targets got really erratic from being what was deemed as legal ... Personally I see most of the complaints as excuses for lacking of talent, myself included on many occasions ... Trap shooting was a competition combined with a social event to some degree, it was exciting to win on occasion and not get a medal for just showing up ... I'm not sure if Trap can ever be what it once was but if it happens the game as we know it will be great again ... WPT ... (YAC) ...

It's like having a son and one day waking up and he is your daughter which also happens a lot now days ... Proof that change is not always good ...

 

In other words, if you disagree with me, then shut up?

 

It will never return to sport what it once was as long as leaders and shooters continue to believe what will save trap shooting is to make it easier for those of less ability and devotion and harder for those with greater ability and who put in the time, effort and money to become more proficient.

If we didn't already know it, our history often reported that shooting over the traps was monotonous. That was so even in the early times when 10 or 12 events of 10, 15, 20 and 25 targets were staged each day.

With good intentions, rules have changed that were not in the sport's best interests. Sometimes rule changes cause more problems because the pros & cons are not fully examined.

Today, we have every shooter believing he/she is entitled to shoot at only perfectly thrown targets. That targets are supposed to be standardized, uniform, less difficult, easier to see, etc. New shooters follow those with louder voices who say participation at clubs and membership in the ATA will be greatly reduced with the return to the old "Flights & Angles" rules. I think those reductions are minimal at best.

We've all competed at clubs with difficult backgrounds, sun in our eyes, harder targets, etc. In my view, if the prizes are highly valued, shooters will attend, even when a club where shooting is much easier, is holding a shoot the same day.

Trapshooting was never about total perfection. It was shooting for the top score of the day or over all average of the shoot. Straights in any of the disciplines were a rarity because of the difficulty of the sport. All sports used to be that way, but sadly, new rules have creeped into existence, allowing higher scores for every competitor and when those who work the hardest, seeking the highest level of performance, continue to be those in the winning circle, they are chastised for being so good. There are calls for additional handicaps to be placed on the champions. Let's put them out of the competition or at least cut down on how many great shooters win. That's not the purpose of handicapping.

I've never claimed to be a wise person. So, in an effort to learn from shooters with higher education, I pose the following question if you support the setting of targets with less difficulty, or who believe that perfect or near perfect scores are good for our sport and to those who think its best to standardize target setting at every shooting grounds.

Question:

If target presentation is supposed to be uniform with respect to angles, speed, height and distance, why have the rules since the inception of inanimate targets and to this day, allow so much variance for each of those elements?

And why didn't the rules ever speak of target speed until sometime after a century of shooting (about 2007)?

The rules in 1899 were as follows:

Angles - targets were to be set to provide left-quarter and right-quarter flights.
(that's 45° left and 45° right)

Height - not more than 12 feet nor less than 6 feet measured at 10 yards from in front of the trap.

Distance - traps were set not less than 40 yards nor more than 60 yards.

Nothing in the rules for target setting offers the intent to attain a perfect target. The rules for inanimate targets were derived from live bird shooting where perfect targets were not often seen.

Convince me our written rules, covering a period of over 130 years, are wrong.

HB

 

AMEN HB, as usual you the Man ... WPT ... (YAC) ...

 

Most of the folks on this site don't remember Adolph Nelson or have never heard of him. He was the owner of the Nelson Piston Company and at one time he received a royalty from nearly every automobile produced in this country. Also he was the person who perfected the synchronization of firing the guns between the blades of our prop driven fighter planes. He also made the 1100 Remington that he shot into almost a recoilless gun.

Adolph registered 412,000 16yd targets over his lifetime with all but about 50,000 of them after he retired and they were all shot during regular scheduled ATA shoots. Back in those days there were several clubs in the midwest that held marathons. Some clubs in Michigan, some in Ohio, and some in Indiana. If there was a 500 birder in Michigan one day, and the next day a !,000 birder At Jenkins Brothers club(southern Indiana) and the next day another 500 birder at Fisher Brothers club Findlay(northern Ohio) he would attend them all. In a conversation with Adolph he said that the year before he had shot over 50,000 and he and his wife had put over 50,000 miles on their car to do it. His total was an ATA record for many years until. The rules were changed from to needing 5 entries to be registered to 3 and shooters were permitted to shoot as many 25 bird rounds as they had ammo for and register as many as they liked. In my opinion relaxing these rules didn't help our sport. I believe Adolph should at least have an asterick by his total.

Something else is why in the average book in 1975 and through at least 2000 his total is listed as 412,000 and sometime around 2010 his total mysteriously became 403,175 and that is what it currently is listed at? Maybe History Buff can answer this?

Dave Berlet

 

In the 70's and beyond we shot targets that were seldom set by the rulebook. Here in PA varying terrain prevented accurate distance setting in many places. Thank you radar guns! Most of us shot 870's, Model 12's, BT-99's, 1100's, Browning Lightnings and a few Ithaca 4E's, Ljutics and Perazzis. Adjustable impacts and adjustable stocks were unknown. Ammo was getting better but not as good as we have now. Magnum shot-unheard of too. We were also at the mercy of hand pulling and trap setting. If we believe the game was better then and would only get better if we went back to the way it was we're living in fantasy land. It'll be real simple to ban specialized shotguns, return to black and white targets (none of this orange stuff) and throw away those speakers. See how easy it is to make the game tougher!

 

Dear Mr. Berlet,

You raise an interesting point that I was not aware of (there's much I don't know) and I would agree that Mr. Nelson should receive credit for every target he registered.

In addition to researching our history, I also make every attempt to correct mistakes. I'm not a revisionist mind you, I just have a deep appreciation for our history to be accurate.

I reviewed my library and found your claim that Mr. Adolph Lincoln Nelson, of Detroit, MI had his total 16-yard target attainment reduced from 412,000 to 403,175. At the age of 83, this gentleman registered 10,300 targets (1971) and when added to his total of 401,700, after carding 18,700 in 1970, his total added up to 412,000.

Mr. Nelson passed December 31, 1971; his completed career was reported in the February 1972 Trap & Field and his 412,000 total was noted in the article.

"At the time of his death, he had fired at exactly412,000 registered 16-yard targets. He was the second man in ATA history to pass the 200,000 mark and the only one to go into the record books at 300,000.
"His 400,000th 16 yard target was fired at the Grand American in 1970, his 300,000th one was posted June 8, 1965 at the Vincennes (Ind.) GC and his 200,000th one was fired at July 18, 1961 at Vincennes."

I took the liberty to provide all the information to verify Mr. Nelson's true attainment number, to include the actual pages in the Average Books (1970, 1971, 2005 and 2006) to Trap & Field with a request that they review it, and if correct, to please amend Mr. Nelson's total in all future Average Books. The 412,000 total was reported in the Average Books from 1971 thru 2005. In 2006 it appears the mistake was made that reduced his total by 8,825 targets.

​

Rest in peace Mr. Nelson.

HB

 

HB, I believe the Vincennes club was the Jenkins Brothers Club. Also both brothers were ATA presidents. Ralph and Rock were the first names that they went buy.

Dave Berlet

 

To explain my earlier statement I offer the following:

I've found several mistakes while reading books and articles over the years. I recently cautioned a young researcher on this and suggested they consider finding several sources rather than rely on only one report. Sometimes, even several sources follow with the same incorrect reporting as if it is factual.

I gave a couple of examples but one that comes to mind is regarding George Ligowsky, inventor of the first clay pigeon back in 1880. Mr. Ligowsky died November 7, 1891 in Berlin, Germany.

Stories of George Ligowsky had been reported for decades.

In 1969, Mr. Ligowsky was among the first 10 people selected for induction into the Trapshooting Hall of Fame. Here's his biography from the induction pamphlet that year.

​

In 1974 the book THE GRAND - A History of Trapshooting by Jimmy Robinson and Jim Nichols was being sold. I have it in my library and its a wonderful book. A section on the Hall of Fame provides the bio's on those first 10 inductees along with their photos. George Ligowsky's bio is word for word from the 1969 Inductee pamphlet. Here's Mr. Ligowsky's picture on page141.

​

Some years ago while making a more careful read of THE GRAND, I noticed a problem. I did a little more research to verify what I believed was a mistake. I sent my information to the Trapshooting Hall of Fame and requested that they consider making a correction on their webpage, which they did.

One piece of supporting documentation I sent is below.

​

You see, George Ligowsky was but 35 years old. The picture that had been used all those years was actually a picture of August Ligowsky, civil war veteran, father of George Ligowsky.

Meet young George Ligowsky.

​

Enjoy Our History1

HB

 

HB,

I just love the statement about the Ligowsky targets being "extremely hard", and "Ring like a Bell when hit, but was almost impossible to break"

As you and I have both had these targets in our hands, anyone who has, would Almost be afraid they would break in their hands.

They are really almost paper thin.


I would think the glass balls would be harder

 

Neil Winston and I had long, long, He wehad Debates to the wee hrs of the night. where I argued w/him on 1250 fps shells were 3 1/4 - 3 1/2 Dram shells and he said they were 3 Dram shells. Then he had kicked off the other site for calling him a liar, saying he attended Buddy Shoots at Stubenville, Ohio, John Winget came to my rescue telling Gary was right, Because he recorded the sale of shooters in the calcutta, and he said, Neil you never shot at Steubenville, I was reinstated on that site, Neil Winston caused the beginning of soft easy targets w/faster loads all combined, Roll Over Neil you need the exercise RIP. Then there was my TIGHT CHOKE Tubes & Patterns that I TESTED MY OWN, hell w/ his graphs, feed lies you get lies in graphs.

GB.................................................DLS

 

The dumbing down all started w/OSTA President and Neil Winston and his underhand back stabbing of ATA President from Texas with underhanded vote getting so he could be elected, along with Ks Gun Club owner who became ATA President and Re-incorporate in Illinois and take away the powers of US Life Members so they could suck the life and money out of the ATA, Dave Berlet, Brad Dysinger know what I am talking about, the Incorporated The 2012PLL purchased the New ATA OFFICES IN SPARTA, i looked up who the Incorporaters were,it's easy to find out who Incorporators are on C\orporations in the state of Incorporation.Follow the Money.

Gary Bryant .....................................Dr.longshot ATA Life member #40-10126

 

Doc, it started well before Mr. Winston. Some gun clubs were throwing soft targets at least back to the late 1950. Targets at the Grand American Handicap tournament were sometimes set soft in the 1970s - 1990s.

Unfortunately, Mr. Winston did not take time to fully understand the decision by then President Crausbay and the E.C., or chose to ignore their decision. The ATA leadership tried to clear up the all misunderstanding on the 2-hole vs 3-hold issue by amending the rules without a vote by the BOD. I'm not saying this is right but it had been done many times before during rulebook housecleaning.

Mr. Winston, rightly, called out the E.C. for amending the rules without BOD authorization. I say rightly, because I believe there should be no rush to change rules (except for safety reasons) and that Delegates should have a year to discuss the change with their respective State/Provincial associations and shooters, before voting at the following annual meeting.

A motion that the E.C. could not unilaterally amend the rules passed.
A motion by Mr. Winston to throw 2-hole targets was defeated.

So, President Crausbay and the E. C. simply returned to the original Flights & Angles rules as written in the previous rulebook.

Non-thinking Delegates saw this as the E.C. not complying with their vote.
They were wrong. The E. C. did comply, taking out all their amendments and returning to the original rules.

The following annual meeting, the Delegate from Indiana made the motion to use the 2-hole target and it passed.

That's my view of the situation.