Go Back   CMP Forums > CMP Competitions > EIC Pistol
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 07-22-2016, 11:49 PM
Louisxllx Louisxllx is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 119
Default

So, I looked at the number of competitors at the first M1A match in 2007 and the last in 2015. Over 500 to less than 300. Does that look like a boost in attendance?

It might have actually had an influence as to how many actually participated from year to year. Hard to say. Maybe only 200 would have participated in 2015 had there not been an M1A match with Lewis class awards. Traditional High Power and Service Rifle shooters are down in numbers.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 07-23-2016, 06:32 AM
ceresco ceresco is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 6,574
Default

Not sure I completely understand the LC award system, but it seems to establish random groups, then pay the top shooters in each group. Purpose here to allow everyone a better chance of winning something. The simple system of awarding prizes to top shooters just makes the shooters who fill in the "lower" ranks pay for all the prizes that they have no chance of winning. There is a place for that in professional and large amateur competitions, but it is inherently unfair to ask new shooters to transfer their match fees to established competitors in recreational matches--JMO. Good Shooting. ..
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 07-26-2016, 11:33 AM
missilegeek missilegeek is online now
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: AL
Posts: 1,820
Default

I'm waiting to find out what service anywhere in the world issues an XD as a "service pistol", but I guess that ship has sailed for both rifle and pistol as far as any connection to the history and traditions of a program that long predates the private company that operates it now.

Pursuing revenue is understandable, but changing the rules to increase revenue is unethical.
__________________
Service Rifle: 1884-2015 RIP.
Service Pistol: 1903-2014
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 07-26-2016, 12:04 PM
rickgman rickgman is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Michigan
Posts: 660
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by missilegeek View Post

Pursuing revenue is understandable, but changing the rules to increase revenue is unethical.
What about if the rule change was to increase participation? Would that be OK? Or are only issues related to money unethical? Personally, I don't find money to be as much of a hot button issue as some. Rick

Last edited by rickgman; 07-26-2016 at 12:10 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 07-26-2016, 01:07 PM
missilegeek missilegeek is online now
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: AL
Posts: 1,820
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rickgman View Post
What about if the rule change was to increase participation? Would that be OK? Or are only issues related to money unethical? Personally, I don't find money to be as much of a hot button issue as some. Rick
If they had just wanted to increase participation, they could've started with incremental changes (as they had in the past) and possibly promoted the sport.

Changing the rules when someone writes a check, as Glock did and as it appears from the outside, is not an above-board way to run this program. Management changed and that's when this started.
__________________
Service Rifle: 1884-2015 RIP.
Service Pistol: 1903-2014

Last edited by missilegeek; 07-26-2016 at 01:41 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 07-26-2016, 02:32 PM
rickgman rickgman is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Michigan
Posts: 660
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by missilegeek View Post
If they had just wanted to increase participation, they could've started with incremental changes (as they had in the past) and possibly promoted the sport.

Changing the rules when someone writes a check, as Glock did and as it appears from the outside, is not an above-board way to run this program. Management changed and that's when this started.
Missilegeek, I don't agree with many of the changes but I do believe that there was an impression that many were hesitant to participate due to "restrictive" equipment rules. The CMP, in essence, redefined what a service pistol was. As you are aware, historically it meant a pistol used in US military service and so specified in the competition rules. Now it means any pistol that could be used in basically world wide military service or in law enforcement service. I could go on about changes that I think would have been more effective in increasing participation but that's not where I would like to go. If Glock or SAI or any other company wants to help expand small arms competition, I'm basically all for it. Many of the pistols that are now allowed really aren't competitive so in time all things will work out as it should. Rick
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 07-26-2016, 02:56 PM
missilegeek missilegeek is online now
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: AL
Posts: 1,820
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rickgman View Post
Missilegeek, I don't agree with many of the changes but I do believe that there was an impression that many were hesitant to participate due to "restrictive" equipment rules. The CMP, in essence, redefined what a service pistol was.
I believe many didn't participate because they didn't know about it. The rules were simple. Now they're "derived from" and only determined by direct emails to CMP. They didn't even competently write them.

Quote:
As you are aware, historically it meant a pistol used in US military service and so specified in the competition rules. Now it means any pistol that could be used in basically world wide military service or in law enforcement service. I could go on about changes that I think would have been more effective in increasing participation but that's not where I would like to go. If Glock or SAI or any other company wants to help expand small arms competition, I'm basically all for it. Many of the pistols that are now allowed really aren't competitive so in time all things will work out as it should. Rick
Some of us shot this sport because of the history and tradition. That's now been redefined away. I shoot NRA Bullseye, but I no longer have any interest in CMP's version of the program. YMMV and all that. I liked the restrictive equipment lists.

Incidentally, if it was "any pistol that could be used in basically world wide military service or in law enforcement service", it would be "any pistol", not the now approved list. Makes it difficult for match directors.
__________________
Service Rifle: 1884-2015 RIP.
Service Pistol: 1903-2014
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 07-26-2016, 04:16 PM
rickgman rickgman is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Michigan
Posts: 660
Default

Missilegeek, I agree that the rules were not competently written and that does not apply only to the pistol rules. Rick
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 07-26-2016, 04:23 PM
missilegeek missilegeek is online now
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: AL
Posts: 1,820
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rickgman View Post
Missilegeek, I agree that the rules were not competently written and that does not apply only to the pistol rules. Rick
No, it doesn't.

I've gone from respecting and preferring the CMP approach to these sports over NRA to the reverse very quickly.

The biggest change to rifle in recent years prior to 2016 was the change in rapid fire. NRA went to "stay in position", but CMP adopted a compromise approach that preserved the COF and still addressed safety. That was a balanced, measured, approach to the rules. This is clearly not.

I'm looking forward to Fullbore at Perry for the future after I get my last few points locally. That sounds like the fun this used to be.
__________________
Service Rifle: 1884-2015 RIP.
Service Pistol: 1903-2014

Last edited by missilegeek; 07-26-2016 at 04:28 PM.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:24 PM.