OT

Help Support :

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Les53

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2012
Messages
6,430
Location
Dorset
OK we all know that the Italians are very heavily into OT, what did they shoot before OT was invented? Also OT is very costly to install, could the Olympic mob not have come up with a cheaper alternative I wonder? If there was a cheaper alternative, maybe more grounds could have it and more people could shoot it. Surely there must be a way of using a single computer controlled trap which could throw the same targets for everyone? I love OT but I do feel that countries, grounds and shooters may possibly be handicaped by the cost of 15 traps and everything that goes with it. OT is viewed by some as an elitist discipline, which is not much good if we are going to get new people into it and very few grounds actually offer it in the first place! Any views? (tin hat now on)

 
Some very good points Les. Especially in the current economic climate
 Cheers Rog. I think that the Olympic mob did at one time consider a version of ABT as the Olympic dicipline, but not sure what happened about it, but I would bet that Fred (40up) will know. If something is too costly, too difficult or not available to most, then that in itself is not really fair!

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I suspect a lot of what you say is right, Les. We shot a couple of full days of OT last month at Lonato and T.A.V. Cieli Aperti, and at our first day at Lonato, there was an OT championship shoot on, with somewhere in the order of 700+ shooters. If memory serves, each of the 12 layouts has an OT bank as a given, with other layouts having a mixture of OT, Skeet or DTL - even the Compak layout had an OT bank.

But when you're regularly attracting those kinds of numbers of a weekend, the costs of kitting-out multiple OT layouts take care of themselves (we all know that the Italians treat the discipline as pretty much a religion and think nothing of going for a swift 200+ after work with their mates - so, as a ground, you're not just making off the competition shoots, you're also picking up tidy coin on squads practising throughout the week). And, as many here will know, Italy is dotted with dozens of such grounds, all top class. The upside is that, if you've got the numbers of shooters, and the competition to attract those same shooters between the various grounds, then entrance fees, clays, line costs etc.are nowhere near as expensive as they are here in the UK.

 
I suspect a lot of what you say is right, Les. We shot a couple of full days of OT last month at Lonato and T.A.V. Cieli Aperti, and at our first day at Lonato, there was an OT championship shoot on, with somewhere in the order of 700+ shooters. If memory serves, each of the 12 layouts has an OT bank as a given, with other layouts having a mixture of OT, Skeet or DTL - even the Compak layout had an OT bank.

But when you're regularly attracting those kinds of numbers of a weekend, the costs of kitting-out multiple OT layouts take care of themselves (we all know that the Italians treat the discipline as pretty much a religion and think nothing of going for a swift 200+ after work with their mates - so, as a ground, you're not just making off the competition shoots, you're also picking up tidy coin on squads practising throughout the week). And, as many here will know, Italy is dotted with dozens of such grounds, all top class. The upside is that, if you've got the numbers of shooters, and the competition to attract those same shooters between the various grounds, then entrance fees, clays, line costs etc.are nowhere near as expensive as they are here in the UK.
So it looks like a chicken and egg situation then! If we had loads of OT grounds, would more people shoot it? Or if we had more OT shooters, would clubs build more layouts? It's a hard one that! So what do we need first I wonder, grounds or shooters?

 
Answer nope......because anyone who puts money into a shooting ground in the UK will have nothing but grief from 50% of those who go there. 

People over here are prone to 'prissiness'....we have lots of gobsh*tes......very little amount of 'thank you's'....plenty of people who know 'how to do it better'......and the rest 'do not care providing they can ping at something before going off to Sunday lunch with their families'......and as for cartridges......don't mention them.......as for quality of big competitions...don't mention them.......50% are happy and like the big comps and how they are run...and the other 50% hate them and always have something bad to say..............50 % of the 50% know duck all about shooting....and the 50% who do feel like giving up because of the 50% who know duck all.........

Have i covered everything........??just saying..!

We really do not deserve a sport sometimes....................

 
Les

re the abt computerized trap that will simulate ot. I seem to recall that there is such a thing but never seen one or heard of anyone who has shot one but i am sure one was developed ?

 
Les, I'm really interested to know about then Italians and OT. Are they unique in Europe with their love of OT and plethora of great facilities? Do the French and Germans have the same facilities and passion for shooting.
Do they the passion for shooting and domestic disciplines ?

Perhaps we could learn form Europe if we are going develop the Olympic disciplines.

D

 
So it looks like a chicken and egg situation then! If we had loads of OT grounds, would more people shoot it? Or if we had more OT shooters, would clubs build more layouts? It's a hard one that! So what do we need first I wonder, grounds or shooters?
Can't say for sure, but I suspect not. In my, albeit limited, experience of shooting trends in the UK, there appears to be (certainly amongst some ESP shooters) an almost pathological detestation of all things trap shooting (regardless of the trap discipline). The usual complaint you hear is that "it's boring" and "lacks the variety of Sporting" - fair enough, but I've recently found that I like DTL and have dabbled in OT, UT and ABT too. Would I put as much time into them as ESP? Not at this moment in time as I'm still trying to improve my ESP game. But, as has begun to happen recently, I've begun to straighten DTL layouts, so I can see the attraction in the achievement, as I'm highly unlikely, if ever, to straight an ESP layout.

In short, I'm not convinced that a profusion of new OT grounds will attract more potential OT shooters - rather, you'd just end up with a shed-load of new OT grounds standing idle.

 
In this age of advanced microelectronics and computer technology making an ABT produce a run of targets for Olympic Trap would be a breeze, I would foresee the problem being the reliablity of the trap to be honest. A single trap would be jumping through hoops making all the trajectory changes required bound to be a worry I would say. Also does an Olympic layout not have the trap directly in front of the shooter?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Apparently the difference is that the Italians treat their top trap shots as celebrities so there is much more incentive to invest in these grounds unlike in this country where the majority of the public view any one who shoots with suspicion.

I believe the top shoots attract a lot of spectators also so there is a further source of income.

 
isnt ball trap the cheaper alternative?

I think it was once considered, but was deemed not to be fair or something!
The problem with ABT is that the targets are completely random whereas OT throws exactly the same targets for all competitors in a squad from any one of 9 schemes (i think). The random nature of ABT means that in theory one shooter could end up with 25 straight birds while his neighbour could get 25 wicked angled birds. Not fair say the Olympic commitee, everybody must get exactly the same targets to make it an even playing field. Hence the 15 trap OT layout.

I guess the three traps (per station) could be replaced with one single but variable target trap but I bet the cost of the latter would be more than the three fixed traps?

Les

re the abt computerized trap that will simulate ot. I seem to recall that there is such a thing but never seen one or heard of anyone who has shot one but i am sure one was developed ?
Canterbury traps in New Zealand http://www.canterburytrap.co.nz/pages/8/products.htm

The only real problem is that the shooters would have to rotate behind a single shooting station rather than walk to the next one. Bit like Helice.

Alternatively you could install five of these machines in front of five stations but I suspect that would ten times more expensive that 15 fixed traps!!

When I win the lottery I going to install one in my garden.

DT

 
Last edited by a moderator:
In this age of advanced microelectronics and computer technology making an ABT produce a run of targets for Olympic Trap would be a breeze, I would foresee the problem being the reliablity of the trap to be honest. A single trap would be jumping through hoops making all the trajectory changes required bound to be a worry I would say. Also does an Olympic layout not have the trap directly in front of the shooter?
Sorry but you cannot use an ABT trap for OT. OT are 15 traps fixed to throw set angle targets. ABT is random movement on a cam.

 
Sorry posted at same time. 

However if you put random cam traps into OT then it would not be OT...it would be a new discipline....but it would certainly be interesting and a lot harder....being random......bit like Helice really :smile:

 
D T

yes those wicked angled ones you refer to are the ones i allways seem to get :)

 
Sorry but you cannot use an ABT trap for OT. OT are 15 traps fixed to throw set angle targets. ABT is random movement on a cam.

But with modern technology it is possible to program a ABT trap to throw exactly the same set of targets for every shooter! The problems I have highlighted :biggrin:  . I suppose it would be possible to have one ABT trap programed at each stand again this could theoretically throw the required targets for the stand , thus making 10 of the traps redundant. With modern engineering its possible to do almost anything but those in the driving seat must embrace it. Stepper motors could position one trap to throw precisely every required angle from one trap of that there is no argument, but the layout for OT as far as I can see requires the targets to be presented directly in front of the shooter and therin lies the problem to do that you would still need a minimum of five traps.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top