![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. ..
|
#23
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
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. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
|
#27
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
Quote:
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 |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Missilegeek, I agree that the rules were not competently written and that does not apply only to the pistol rules. Rick
|
#29
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
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. |
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|