CMP and New U.S. Jacket Distributor Resolve Illegal Shooting Jacket Issue

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • ADMIN
    Administrator
    • Aug 2010
    • 1605

    CMP and New U.S. Jacket Distributor Resolve Illegal Shooting Jacket Issue

    CMP and New U.S. Jacket Distributor Resolve Illegal Shooting Jacket Issue - There has been a great deal of discussion in the past year about competitors wearing shooting jackets that, in the opinion of the CMP Rules Committee, have provided an inordinate amount of support, particularly advantageous for use in the rifle standing position. While the CMP is sympathetic to the need for vendors to compete for the equipment dollar, it is incumbent upon the organization to monitor and regulate the use of equipment that preserves the integrity of the sport. Read the complete article at http://thecmp.org/cmp-and-new-u-s-ja...-jacket-issue/.
  • Mike308
    • Oct 2009
    • 993

    #2
    What about the $200.00 estimate to get into compliance? Why doesn't CMP come up with this cost? If not the actual dollars how about credit to be used to pay for the match fees?

    Comment

    • rickgman
      • Oct 2009
      • 1347

      #3
      Originally posted by Mike308 View Post
      Why doesn't CMP come up with this cost?
      That's really funny !!!!!

      Comment

      • Mike308
        • Oct 2009
        • 993

        #4
        Only funny to you. $800.00 custom jacket legal for 3 years now I have to modify for some unexplained reason. Kinda sucks big time.
        Last edited by Mike308; 11-05-2017, 07:39 PM.

        Comment

        • rickgman
          • Oct 2009
          • 1347

          #5
          Originally posted by Mike308 View Post
          Only funny to you. $800.00 custom jacket legal for 3 years now I have to modify for some unexplained reason. Kinda sucks big time.
          Mike, I'm really sorry that you paid a lot of money for a shooting jacket and now have to pay even more to make it acceptable for use in future CMP competition. However, it is pretty amusing that you expect that the CMP should reimburse you for the required modifications. I just don't see that ever happening. Unfortunately we all incur some risk that equipment we purchase for any type of competition might be deemed unacceptable at some time in the future. Of course, we all hope that this won't happen to us. I have theorized that it is more likely to occur the closer to the "outside of the envelope" that we go. Again, I'm sorry you have to shell out more money.

          Comment

          • Mike308
            • Oct 2009
            • 993

            #6
            Main reason it gauls me is that the rule appears to be pure opinion not backed up by any real data. My offhand hand has not changed. The biggest change I've found and nearly everyone I've asked is the comfort of the fit. My jacket fits.

            Comment

            • NMC_EXP
              • Jul 2010
              • 332

              #7
              Originally posted by Mike308 View Post
              = I have to modify for some unexplained reason.
              Would it be OK if I shoot offhand while leaning against a real fence post?
              “After all is said and done, successful rifle shooting on the range is nothing more than first finding a rifle and lot of ammunition which will do precisely the same thing shot after shot, and then developing the same skill in the rifleman.” ~ Capt. E. C. Crossman (Book of the Springfield)

              Comment

              • rickgman
                • Oct 2009
                • 1347

                #8
                Originally posted by Mike308 View Post
                Main reason it gauls me is that the rule appears to be pure opinion not backed up by any real data. My offhand hand has not changed. The biggest change I've found and nearly everyone I've asked is the comfort of the fit. My jacket fits.
                Mike, Everyone likes to see that decisions are data driven but that's not always possible or even necessary. Meaningful data is not always possible to acquire - at least not in an efficient manner. Also, sometimes there are obvious indicators that something is significantly different than other items of the same type. If the CMP found that the material of a specific jacket was much stiffer than other jackets, it would be reasonable to assume that it provides more support than the rest of the jackets on the market. I'm not suggesting that this was the criteria they based their decision on but it is a likely scenario.

                Comment

                • ilionkid
                  • Apr 2012
                  • 338

                  #9
                  Scuttlebutt was the USAMU showed up with them one season and then the problems started.

                  Mike

                  Comment

                  • NMC_EXP
                    • Jul 2010
                    • 332

                    #10
                    If it looks like a crutch, acts like a crutch and is marketed as being a crutch.....

                    There will always be a small percentage of people trying to improve their performance by bending or flat out breaking the rules. If they get away with it, the rest of the herd will follow.

                    If the rule makers, match directors and range officers do not shut this sort of thing down, the sport will be degraded slowly but surely.

                    As I see it, the governing organizations should have banned the Creedmoor hardback based simply on the way it was marketed ("like leaning against a fence post"). This even if the hardback was 100% marketing BS and provided zero additional support in offhand. It was the camels nose under the tent.

                    I remember when people engaged in this sport primarily for the fun of it.
                    “After all is said and done, successful rifle shooting on the range is nothing more than first finding a rifle and lot of ammunition which will do precisely the same thing shot after shot, and then developing the same skill in the rifleman.” ~ Capt. E. C. Crossman (Book of the Springfield)

                    Comment

                    • missilegeek
                      • Nov 2009
                      • 2000

                      #11
                      Originally posted by ilionkid View Post
                      Scuttlebutt was the USAMU showed up with them one season and then the problems started.

                      Mike
                      Scuttlebutt elsewhere is that Gary Anderson saw someone wearing one and pitched a fit.

                      It's possible it was an AMU shooter wearing it, but a member of CMP's own team used one last year.
                      Service Rifle: 1884-2015 RIP.
                      Service Pistol: 1903-2014

                      Comment

                      • Jakeroub
                        • Dec 2016
                        • 2199

                        #12
                        Originally posted by Mike308 View Post
                        What about the $200.00 estimate to get into compliance? Why doesn't CMP come up with this cost? If not the actual dollars how about credit to be used to pay for the match fees?
                        Shouldn't the manufacturer cover the cost? If they marketed and it and sold it as being legal, I'd think they should be on the hook. It is their job to make sure it's legal (IF marketed as being so), not the buyer's.

                        I have to assume that if some people have questioned the legality, the manufacturer must have known during the design process that the jacket near the edge of legal/not legal.

                        If there was any question of the legality they should have reached out to the CMP with samples of the jacket before offering them for sale- that's very basic due diligence. Sounds like negligence on the part of the manufacturer.
                        Last edited by Jakeroub; 11-15-2017, 10:45 AM.

                        Comment

                        • Carriec
                          • Dec 2013
                          • 329

                          #13
                          Ban the use of all aids to shooting and the field would be "closer" to level. Always checkbook competitors in any activity and always some looking to gain that edge. Approaching these things as a fun activity/hobby instead of a cut throat occupation goes a long way to easing the angst felt by some. Life's too short to get all amped up about these things. Hardback? That some kind of field jacket?

                          Comment

                          • missilegeek
                            • Nov 2009
                            • 2000

                            #14
                            Originally posted by Jakeroub View Post
                            If there was any question of the legality they should have reached out to the CMP with samples of the jacket before offering them for sale- that's very basic due diligence. Sounds like negligence on the part of the manufacturer.
                            Without some sort of standard (beyond "I just don't like them"), how would that even work? Continue to submit prototypes until the CMP says it's ok?

                            If it fits the letter of the now very poorly written rulebook, it should be legal. Frankly, they've made enough of a mess of the rules that to turn around and focus on a flexible back panel in some custom fit coats is ridiculous when the "like leaning against a fence post" coats are fine.

                            The manufacturer wasn't negligent. Their product met the rules at the time.
                            Last edited by missilegeek; 11-15-2017, 11:47 PM.
                            Service Rifle: 1884-2015 RIP.
                            Service Pistol: 1903-2014

                            Comment

                            • Mike308
                              • Oct 2009
                              • 993

                              #15
                              There are many parts in a service rifle that if one shooter can afford to instal and another can not afford then that shooter has an unfair advantage. All allowed by CMP rules- as long as outside appearance isn't altered. If you are a poor shooter no piece of equipment is going to make you a high master unless you had faulty equipment. CMP didn't o, couldn't or wouldn't prove their case. Rather goes against our form of government

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X