ABT Targets - Distance or speed?

[jwpzx9r]

Hi I'm back from Blightey unfortunately for you lot!

I have never shot ABT the old way only ever from a straight line so I don't know what it was like before for some reason down here they never shot it the way it was before as far as I am aware. Anyway I have been reading the thread and, for what it is worth, because of this I cannot understand what the fuss is about... it has changed get used to it! If scores do take a dip then surely it will be he who has adapted to the changes best who will fair best. You surely cannot just throw your hands in the air and admit defeat you have to try and master the targets that are causing you the most trouble. On a personal level I actually find UT more challenging than ABT and to a certain extent OT mainly because I have shot UT much more than OT but scores are not too much different. I have to say that I am not at the sharp end of the scores but I knuckle down as best I can to improve my scores at all the trap formats! I will just keep at it because that is what makes trap so frustrating and enjoyable to shoot... I have never shot DTL so I cannot give my take on the step up to the faster targets of the other trap formats. I was going to say it the same for all shooters but my view of ABT is skewed. I don't think it is all will get different targets so it is already an unfair format!

 

[ips]

Welcome back hope you had a good trip John.

For the record i have said we need to get on with it and won't be beaten. Also there is more to new format than straight line as that's been in for 20 years so not many of us remember the true old abt. Imo its the speed that has effected us, the angles used to be more but you could cope with it as the speed was less.

 

[jwpzx9r]

Great Ian thanks weather was fine for the best part which was nice and its Baltic down here just now... but will be better for shooting on Saturday

Ok Ian I understand now! I don't know about the speed thing. I cannot really detect much speed difference between them all to be honest. I was talking to the trap setter at Mirande the other week and mentioned the speed differences between UT and OT he told me that there was very little to choose between the target speeds for the two formats but they don't shoot ABT there so I cannot say what he has to say about that. But as you have said we all just have to get on with it and try our best.

 

[Paul120]

I'm( as usual) confused. Have the rules changed again this year? I ask as I thought they were last changed about 2 years ago. Think the first time I shot it under the "new" rules was at a selection shoot at Brookbank in April 2012.

 

[PhilR]

Old distance 75m plus or minus 5m so the scope to go from 70 to 80m.

New distance 75m plus or minus 1m so the scope to go from 74 to 76m.

The only target that is distance measured is a 2m high target at 10m from trench.

The new rule means that truer 75m targets should be set rather than the any old how that's near enough of the past.

The target I've identified above is the only one which will travel at OT speed and distance, every other target will exit at OT speed but won't attain the OT distance.

Angles have reduced by a minimum of 10 degrees and a maximum of 15 degrees.

Perhaps the mathematician who worked out the angles from pegs 1 and 5 with the current rules could do the same for 45 degrees.

I'll bring a bottle of smelling salts to Southern Counties to calm down the old codgers who struggle with the new reduced angles and distances. .

 

[PhilR]

I'm( as usual) confused. Have the rules changed again this year? I ask as I thought they were last changed about 2 years ago. Think the first time I shot it under the "new" rules was at a selection shoot at Brookbank in April 2012.

There's been no change since then.

 

[PhilR]

Great Ian thanks weather was fine for the best part which was nice and its Baltic down here just now... but will be better for shooting on Saturday

Ok Ian I understand now! I don't know about the speed thing. I cannot really detect much speed difference between them all to be honest. I was talking to the trap setter at Mirande the other week and mentioned the speed differences between UT and OT he told me that there was very little to choose between the target speeds for the two formats but they don't shoot ABT there so I cannot say what he has to say about that. But as you have said we all just have to get on with it and try our best.

That's the French for you. In each of the ten UT schemes there's only one 75m target, the other four vary between 60, 65 or 70m.

However, it's not unknown for dual use trenches to have traps 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 just turned from an OT scheme to create something approximating UT. So you get UT but not as FITASC know it.

 

[Paul120]

Just a thought. Are we comparing like with like. At Selections and grounds such as SC. Bev. Nutty.& NCSC the targes are most likly to be set to the regs. Others can vary widely I shot a comp at a ground where the squad of 3 that I was on all shot 95+ /100. If you shot all your abt there and then went to Bev thinking you are quite good. You'd def have a face on you when leaving.

 

[ips]

Phil

i am confused now as you seem to imply that the new scheme is easier than old but if that is the case then why are the averages so much lower than 2 years ago ?

 

[PhilR]

Just a thought. Are we comparing like with like. At Selections and grounds such as SC. Bev. Nutty.& NCSC the targes are most likly to be set to the regs. Others can vary widely I shot a comp at a ground where the squad of 3 that I was on all shot 95+ /100. If you shot all your abt there and then went to Bev thinking you are quite good. You'd def have a face on you when leaving.

Erm, you might like to think they're set to the regs. How do you think they're set at Nutty? Martin goes down the trench and guesstimates how high a target is over the bank to determine distance. When I used to set the four ranges up for OT GB selection shoots it used to take me the best part of the day to do so. The traps in layouts A & B used to be twisted to the right once the height had been put on to get the distance set, and C & D twisted to the left. I have a laser range finder to do the distance, Martin has a bit of old rope. The only ground where the targets were pretty much spot on for setting was Southern Counties.
As regards to your squad of three, minus you that leaves two shooters who shot 95+ perhaps they do that regularly, best way to find out is check the scores on the CPSA website. What was the name of the ground?

 

[PhilR]

Phil

i am confused now as you seem to imply that the new scheme is easier than old but if that is the case then why are the averages so much lower than 2 years ago ?

 One possibility is the reduction in angle has meant that from peg 1 a max right has become a straight target and vice versa from peg 5.  I'd like to see the stats to prove the statement.  The CPSA work in percentage quartiles which varies year on year in each class.  It could be there's more crap shooters now which will depress the averages.  Who really knows and is it really important.  Surely the only thing that matters is raising your own game and I don't think that comparing old to new, worrying about angles and distances, and chewing over statistics is conducive to doing that.  

 

[Paul120]

Erm, you might like to think they're set to the regs. How do you think they're set at Nutty? Martin goes down the trench and guesstimate how how a target is over the bank to determine distance. When I used to set the four ranges up for OT GB selection shoots it used to take me the best part of the day to do so. The traps in layouts A & B used to be twisted to the right once the height had been put on to get the distance set, and C & D twisted to the left. I have a laser range finder to do the distance, Martin has a bit of old rope. The only ground where the targets were pretty much spot on for setting was Southern Counties.

As regards to your squad of three, minus you that leaves two shooters who shot 95+ perhaps they do that regularly, best way to find out is check the scores on the CPSA website. What was the name of the ground?

I know what you mean.. perhaps not the best example.(s)

Just making the point that some gounds are a "bit soft"

Yes you are quite correct in the other 2 shooting on the line.. Mr Shaw & Leeming.. you'll know their abilities aa much as me.. The ground is penrith.. really nice friendly place to go.. highly recommend especially if you shoot DTL. They normally do 50 bird reg abt. But most usually do an extra 50 fof practice to make up a 100. Enjoyable although prob flattering.

 

[jwpzx9r]

That's the French for you. In each of the ten UT schemes there's only one 75m target, the other four vary between 60, 65 or 70m.

However, it's not unknown for dual use trenches to have traps 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 just turned from an OT scheme to create something approximating UT. So you get UT but not as FITASC know it.

That is exactly what they do at this ground with the OT trench to create a UT format so perhaps that is what he was talking about. One of the UT set ups is regulation the other is the OT trench adapted. I for the love of it cannot detect much difference between the two set ups but to be fair I just shoot the targets I have never really thought about target speed that much... which is a worry because it must play a part in the shooting process! I will have to take note of my scores on the two different set ups and see how they compare if that can be done fairly the targets could be different ?

 

[ips]

One possibility is the reduction in angle has meant that from peg 1 a max right has become a straight target and vice versa from peg 5.  I'd like to see the stats to prove the statement.  The CPSA work in percentage quartiles which varies year on year in each class.  It could be there's more crap shooters now which will depress the averages.  Who really knows and is it really important.  Surely the only thing that matters is raising your own game and I don't think that comparing old to new, worrying about angles and distances, and chewing over statistics is conducive to doing that.

Well one thing is for sure and that is "its an interesting topic with prob no answer" and you are correct Phil its prob better to forget about it and just shoot the ruddy thing. But it just seems odd (not just to me but to many ABT shooters that I have spoken to) that a theoretically easier ABT scheme is proving to be actually harder ??

 

[Les53]

Well one thing is for sure and that is "its an interesting topic with prob no answer" and you are correct Phil its prob better to forget about it and just shoot the ruddy thing. But it just seems odd (not just to me but to many ABT shooters that I have spoken to) that a theoretically easier ABT scheme is proving to be actually harder ??

The only real way to find out would be to set up two layouts, one on the old system and one on the current system, then use a cross section of shooters of varying abilities. Let those shooters shoot it for a few weeks and check the scores afterwards. Then you would see if there was a difference or not.

 

[** Pending Removal **]

Thank God we do not have Milky on here giving an opinion on something else he knows little about :laugh:

 

[PhilR]

Milky??

 

[PhilR]

The only real way to find out would be to set up two layouts, one on the old system and one on the current system, then use a cross section of shooters of varying abilities. Let those shooters shoot it for a few weeks and check the scores afterwards. Then you would see if there was a difference or not.

If you think about it, that wouldn't really give you true data either. Don't forget ABT targets are thrown randomly so there is no equality of targets. One individual in theory could get a complete round of max right thrown targets.

I notice a couple of thread have been removed, why?

 

[Les53]

If you think about it, that wouldn't really give you true data either. Don't forget ABT targets are thrown randomly so there is no equality of targets. One individual in theory could get a complete round of max right thrown targets.

I notice a couple of thread have been removed, why?

I can see your point Phil but I don't know how else it could be done. As for the missing posts,what were they and when did they go missing?

 

[Wonko the Sane]

If you think about it, that wouldn't really give you true data either. Don't forget ABT targets are thrown randomly so there is no equality of targets. One individual in theory could get a complete round of max right thrown targets.

I notice a couple of thread have been removed, why?

I've mentioned before, in similar threads, that it would be a simple matter in the 21stCentury to generate a computer program to drive an ABT machine with target schemes just like OT.  Why some enterprising soul has not done so remains a mystery to me.  If I ever win the Lotto that is def on my bucket list.

Charlie