Hi Kenny, Can you publish the size and weight specs for our clay targets? I think they were changed over ten years ago giving the manufactures a much larger tolerance on size and weight. Roger C.
Why certainly. I didn't see your question here and offered my comments on the discussion about Euro Targets. But for simplicity, I'll provide the information here. ATA rules required a specific weight tolerance from at least 1982 until it was removed from the rule book in 1991. The weight requirement for targets was returned to the rules printed in the April 8, 2000 rule book and has remained to this day. The reason given for the elimination of the weight requirement was : (Aug. 15, 1991 BOD Minutes) "targets currently used (1991) are no longer made of the same materials as when the original Rule was written. E.P.A. and other requirements have resulted in new and different components and procedures for the manufacture of targets and variation in weight depending on components is required in order to insure proper performance of the target." Now, if the above statement is factual, and target weights varied (due to the use of new materials) to the extent that they did not comply with the 3.5 ounce specification, it leads me to wonder why the weight requirement was returned to the rule book 9 years later using virtually identical to those required in the years before it was removed from the rules. Current requirements are targets weighing between 95 and 105 grams. Old rules called for targets weighing 3.5 ounces equal to 99.23 grams. Using the 5% variation allowance, these targets were in compliance if their weight was 94.2685 grams to 104.1915 grams. As I said the old and new weight requirements were virtually identical. It appears there was really no need to amend the original rule by excluding the weight specification. Unless all the target manufactures once again found new material components whereby permitting them to return to making targets complying with the old specifications. I thank those who have contacted me privately with additional information and views regarding this subject. HB
H.B. It could be the weight limit was reissued because of lack of quality control by the manufacturers, and not because of the component changes in the targets. Does that 5% variation pertain to the Dia. and Hgt. also? Roger C.
I have no knowledge of the reason. I assume component changes could affect weight but not necessarily. However I've read of other tests conducted for quality control purposes. (Rim thickness and eccentricity (roundness) are some of the inspections. I would guess that the biggest complaint would be breakage prior to or during use. Roger, the way the rule was written is somewhat ambiguous. In the 1982 rule below, it appears that the 5% tolerance relates only to the target weight since it states "from this figure" following the discussion on target weight and not from these figures. The requirement was the same in the Jan. 1,1992 rules in the 1991 Average Book. During those 9 years (1991-1999) the ATA decided to delete the weight requirement, the 5% variation language remained in the rules insuring the regulation now was relative only to the diameter and height of targets. In the April 8, 2000 ATA rule book, the language regarding the 5% variance remained for the target diameter and height. The weight requirement was restored but amended to provide minimum and maximum target weights in grams (95 and 105). Additionally, in measuring the weight of all the targets within a lot, there could only be a total difference of 5 grams. It was pointed out to me that the ATA Executive Committee discussed this matter in April 2001. A vice-president presented and reported on an unsolicited study of White Flyer and Remington targets. Professional Services Industries, Inc. (PSI), of Omaha, Nebraska conducted the examination of 2 different lots of White Flyer "AA" targets and 2 different lots of Remington "Blue Rock-Orange Dome" targets. What I noticed was that both Companies, operated very close to the allowable weight limits. White Flyer targets averaged 96.1 and 96.4 grams in their 2 lots (near low limit), while Remington targets were heavier, averaging near the upper limit at 104.4 grams. I should note the E. C. minutes did state: "The report and documents accompanying it indicate some personal target preference and bias." HB
I remember someone saying the Remington's were heavier than allowed, maybe that is why the weight was dropped. A clip from the works of Neil Winston 1999. Though I did notice you mentioned 104gm for the Remington.
The problem we had with the weight, was that the target weight was not consistent . We had light and heavy targets in the same case. This was giving us problems setting doubles. The diameters were also not consistent. Roger C.
