386 
FOREST AND STREAM 
ARCADIAN to EUROPE 
TWIN SCREW, 9,000 Tons Reg. 14,120 Disp. rOr W U K WAY 
Suites de Luxe with Private B&ths. Swimming l S u mm e»- Cruiise s 
t^Pool, Gymnasium. Orchestr* And Other Features. 
>1 
WONDERFUL RATES 
Single Bed Rooms $^5 
May 2 
^BERMUDA 
^^ISS®at 3 i 
. ^LONDON 
SOUTHAMPTON 
CHERBOURG^SSKH 
) PARIS 
&& AZORES 
"THE BALMY SOUTHERN ROUTE” A 
The RovaI M^vil Stef'm Packet Companyll 
SANDEKSON & SON, General Agents, 22 State 1 
St., New York. Thomas Cook & Son., 245 and 2,081 Broad- 
way and 264 and 553 5th Are: Raymond & Whitcomb 225 5th \ 
t_ a- _-rfD a xt\ 7 Ctrl? t urcTTrn ri’TOTTr'rr * r* wnTn’r' 
Avenue, New York, OR ANY STEAMSHIP TICKET AGENTS. 
FOR BIG GAME 
THE 
Sauer Mauser 
DOES THE WORK 
Made in Calibers 8 and 9 mm. Also 30 U. S. Government, 1906 
WRITE FOR DESCRIPTIVE MATTER 
THE MOST POPULAR FOREIGN RIFLE IN THE U. S. 
Schoverling Daly & Gales 
302-304 BROADWAY, Cor. Duane St., 
NEW YORK CITY 
New York, Feb. 18, 1914. 
Editor Forest and Stream: 
I was pleased to read Mr. J. N. O’Connor’s 
article on “Handicapping Trapshooters” which 
appeared in your issue of February 14th, for it 
substantiates the fact that it is high time we had 
a governing board to supervise the handicapping 
of this sport, or, if you please, a set of rules to 
govern and control handicaps. Mr. O’Connor is 
only one of the many who is “still in the woods” 
regarding this handicap system and they all will 
be “in the woods” until some handicap system is 
embodied in trap shooting rules that will be ac¬ 
cepted, as official ruling for handicapping just 
as the Interstate Association rules are now gen¬ 
erally accepted as final when a question arises. 
I therefore hope that before long they (the In¬ 
terstate Association) will find it convenient to 
adopt some ruling on the question. 
Mr. O’Connor, referring to my suggestion pub¬ 
lished in your issue of January 31, 1914, asks, 
"Why the limit at ninety per cent?” In answer 
thereto I would say that I had no idea of setting 
a limit when making my suggestions, but sim¬ 
ply took ninety per cent, as an example, and 1 
practically say so in the letter above referred to. 
For his information and for others interested ,i 
might be well to repeat the paragraph, “Then let 
‘The powers that be’ say, the sixty per cent, man 
should have thirty targets added to his score 
against a ninety per cent, man, and the eighty 
per cent, man, ten added to his score, and so up 
and down the line.” Therefore, if we have "A 
Perfecto” or a one hundred per cent, man who 
would be handicapped say to ninety-seven per 
cent., our sixty per cent, man would have thirty- 
seven targets added. 
Personally, I have never had to handicap 
against these “Perfectos” on a one hundred per 
cent, basis, but I have handicapped shooters when 
we had in our midst men who had broken one 
hundred straight and had these “Perfectos” in 
a tie with a number of men who never expect to 
break even eighty per cent., when this string was' 
shot, showing conclusively that this matter of 
handicapping works well. 
If I had to do the handicapping again against 
a “Perfecto” without the help of rules and rec¬ 
ords, I would first take into consideration 
rounds, traps and weather conditions. Then 1 
would set “the high mark.” For example, either 
allot our “Perfecto” ninety-seven, ninety-six or 
ninety-five, etc., as conditions would warrant, 
and give added birds to the other contestants, 
according to my knowledge of their ability to 
equalize them as near as possible to “high mark.” 
If I had in that entry list a man whose record 
showed that he had shot “three times” in the past 
year at the traps and averaged twenty-five per 
cent., I should add seventy-two targets to his 
score if my “high mark” was ninety-seven, and 
if this man broke more than twenty-five and 
stood alone with one hundred straight (for he 
could not score more than one hundred) he is 
entitled to his win. 
Now as to Mr. O’Connor’s question regarding 
our “forty per cent, friend,” I would say that t 
makes no difference who wins, only one man can 
win, and our “forty per cent, friend” who turns 
up only once in a while, who may absent himself 
by force of habit or lack of finance, is just as 
much entitled to fair play and a chance to win 
as the more fortunate “eighty per cent, or ninety 
per cent, friends, who by force of practice and 
the corresponding expense have attained to those 
marks.” Should we find that “our forty per cent, 
friend was a ringer” we would all be thankfu * 1 , 
for he “done wrong his ring” and we would know 
him plenty all over the universe and his entry 
could be rejected. Especially is this true if rec¬ 
ords were kept and referred to as suggested in 
my letter of January 31, 1914. 
Handicapping is the most thankless job of 
club life, and “the willing worker,” this unfortu¬ 
nate to whom may fall this lot, should be re¬ 
lieved of the hazardous responsibility for creat¬ 
ing unfavorable comment not to say animosity by 
an organization who have power to formulate 
a set of rules that govern handicaps. 
I do not want to appear presumptuous bv wr' i - 
ing on this subject, nor do I want to create the 
idea that I know it all, but I do hope that I can 
help stir up sufficient interest which will event¬ 
ually give trapshooters rules on handicapping. 
CARL VON LENGERKE. 
