doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com U.S. clay games - Why be different than the world?

Trap bores me to death with its modest target angles and constant bitching by competitors about targets, background, wind, locusts and sunspots. However a gazillion people participate. People like to break targets so that they can believe that they are great shots. It's an ego thing.

Skeet is a more of a social game, but it also could gradually move back to low gun position and just maybe to delayed targets. International speed targets will limit participation to the select few and that won't be good for Skeet or shooting in general so probably isn't a good idea. FITASC has addressed the low gun position with a simple piece of tape. Could be used in Skeet as well.

There is no excuse for pre-mounted Sporting Clays. It's point of difference when first introduced was that it simulated bird hunting. If you don't want to use low gun then play your own game and you can call it Skeet/Trap in the fields, since very few of the targets are in the woods anymore anyway.

Flame away!

No, Mike, you've got it backwards. Whether or not one prefers premounting has nothing to do with what the game of Sporting now is. It is what it is. If you don't want to shoot premount then you play YOUR own game and call it pretend bird hunting. Besides, as tw pointed out earlier, nothing is stopping anyone from shooting sporting low gun. If that's your game, go for it! Just don't expect serious competitors to mimic you.

The GA. State Championships was shot last weekend ENTIRELY in the woods. Besides, who said that bird hunting is an "in the woods" sport? How about doves, ducks and geese? Open sky shooting for the most part. All bird hunting isn't for grouse and woodcock.

Things evolve, usually to survive. Sporting has done this. You really think the casual bird-hunting sporting clays shooter, who might decide to shoot a round once every month or two, is the one that will keep the sporting courses profitable? Not a chance. Competitive shooters are serious enough to spend money at it. That is what has caused the sport to grow.

SRH

When I flew aerobatic competition, there was an Unlimited class at the top of the, then 4, classes. It was the international competition level class. All sanctioned events had to offer all classes. But, often, there were no unlimited entries. The point is; that there was a progression to an international class. Few made progressed all the way to that class, but it was the brass ring promoted by its constant presence.

I've not shot registered trap since 1985. Why? For most of the reasons cited above.

I'm not going to pay state association and ATA taxes to shoot trap at my club. Trophies mean nothing to me, I shoot against the targets not other shooters.

One club I shoot at has quite a few casual wobble trap shooters. Wobble is more popular there than ATA style trap.

Still, I don't knock the game or anyone who wishes to play it. ATA is responsible for recruiting more shooters to the shotgun sports than any organization. People have to start somewhere. Many start there and then make their own decisions how to advance, or grow, or whatever.

You can have a hell of lot of fun on a trap field. Wobble, backup shooting, or shoot off the picnic table from 32 yards sometime for a buck a bird.

Without ATA and NSSA we don't have the rest of it. It's our foundation.

Stan,
I seem to have riled up a Pre-Mounting advocate.

Never said that the game should be limited to "casual bird-hunting sporting clays shooters". I'd simply much prefer a game that requires that all of the shooting mechanics had to be mastered, including the gun mount.
Yes. the choice of Pre-Mounting or not, "has nothing to do with what the game of sporting now is". That's the issue. It has simplified the game and made it such that people can now break more targets with less skill.

A year or so after I started with shotguns I joined the ATA. Shot registered for a couple years, won a number of singles and handicap events in my class B/24. Decided that it was not worth the $ to play a not interesting game. Shot sporting for a year and just couldn't get fired up about it. Switched to bunker, met a couple people from Pacific R&GC and they invited me to shoot the wobble there, and then a while later introduced me to pigeons and that worked out OK. Pretty happy putzing around with that and look to get into helice as soon as the minor physical inconveniences allow.
I know I'll never win a world's championship but that doesn't seem to entail any feelings of inadequacy on my part. How about you - got many world champ trophies on the shelf there?

Dr.WtS

Sporting clays as played in the USA is properly known a English Sporting. That�s because the Brits invented it; we adopted it. Contrary to urban legend, the Americans did not try to �dummy down� the game by doing away with the low gun hold. In fact, the earliest converts were determined to keep it distinct from American trap and skeet with the low gun hold and a 0-3 second delay. Personally, I find the free mount much less distasteful than the trend to expect�.and receive�instantaneous pulls in sporting clays. But that�s another topic. No doubt, a lot of people were attracted to it as a better simulation of hunting, but as soon as someone picked up a pencil and paper, that analogy died.

As first played here 20-25 years ago, the gun was to be held with the entire butt visible beneath the armpit until the target appeared. It was unenforceable from the get-go. First, unless you�re shooting topless, it�s simply not possible to always tell if it�s properly placed. Far more important is that then, as now, sporting clays referees are virtually nonexistent. Qualified scorekeepers are uncommon enough, much less people with the knowledge, interest and skills to enforce rules. I frequently witnessed top echelon shooters start with the gun somewhere in the vicinity of the armpit then creep up before the target appeared. I can�t recall any of them ever being called on it. Furthermore, I�m sure there was no penalty spelled out in the rules anyway.

So, because it was impractical to judge and the Americans wanted to score higher, we adopted the free mount, right? Wrong. In fact, just the opposite. The NSCA recognized the difficulty and set out to make the low gun hold even MORE rigorous. I forget the year, but in the early-mid 90�s the rules committee adopted the FITASC line for sporting clays. The new rule was explained in the magazine one summer, but never made it into the rule book. Why? Because the Brits were coming to the USA to shoot the World English Sporting Championship and they used a free mount. It�s THEIR game. THEY invented it, and THEY said it is played with a free mount. San Antonio agreed.

About the only rule the USA has forced upon the Brits and the rest of the world is the use of safety glasses. I imagine there are some �hunting simulation� purists who think that�s dummied down the game, too.

I agree with this. I think the arguments about what sells and therefore drives participation are critical, but I also agree that it would be more fun for me if there were some sort of formalized "low-gun" class or whatnot to ENCOURAGE mastery of one more element of shooting. I have no problem with needing to appeal to people and with making it fun for people to pick up the sport...but I don't like the fact that those who would choose to incorporate the full meal deal in their shooting (I.e. adding the mount) are penalized and therefore discouraged. I enjoy sporting because it is as close to mastery of total shotgun shooting as I can get...as opposed to skeet and trap, which are great fun but to me are really more about learning the game than learning to shoot. I thoroughly believe in "if you build it they will come", the corollary being "if you don't build it, they won't come". If you have a class for it, people will try it and they can compete or test themselves (which I think is healthy even in an informal, fun way) against others who wish to add this component of shooting to their repertoire...but if there is no venue for it, then it encourages those who might otherwise aim highER to seek the lowest common denominator, i.e. do what everyone else is doing and mount the gun before calling for the bird. End of the day my gun mount is to me an integral part of shotgunning, and I wish it were a bigger part of the games I played with my shotgunning--it's not a question of easier or harder, just a question of missing it. (and I second Mike's delayed-pull lament)

Ugggh! That's a disgusting visual. All us fat, old men with no shirts, shooting, body parts bouncing around...

So, Wonko... ATA brought you into the game. Likewise here.

I got out of it what I wanted, which was some reasonable level of proficiency and moved on. As you point out, it's not worth persuing to a high level for most. I've won some small club shoots since, and once in a while score 100 or perhaps run a straight at 23 or 24 yards. Doubles is a great way to make empties and the best event in trap. I'm a club shooter, but the ATA intro has lead to an enjoyable hobby.

I shoot skeet, five stand and sporting with reasonable success. Like you, I would love to try Helice and might end up simply buying a double machine and some targets.

Much as I'd like to, I can't dedicate my life to this. Those who can, much like the olympic candidates, will be the ones to come out on top. This is the appeal of the classification and handicaping systems, it makes for a playable game at different levels. That equals shoot attendance, which equals facilities for us to use for other disciplines.

I would argue that premounted sporting takes any less skill than unmounted, or FITASC rules. The course designer is in control of the final scores. The target setter knows the rules of competition and sets the course accordingly. The goal is a happy medium where the top dogs can show their supreme skill and the newbies don't throw their clubs in the lake. It's not that easy to achieve.