Go Back   CMP Forums > CMP General > Talladega Marksmanship Park
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 09-04-2015, 09:53 PM
missilegeek missilegeek is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: AL
Posts: 1,917
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cjon600 View Post
. Give them a break, they have us in our best interest.
The upcoming rule "package" indicate otherwise, IMHO.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 09-05-2015, 07:59 AM
cjon600 cjon600 is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Georgia
Posts: 74
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by missilegeek View Post
The upcoming rule "package" indicate otherwise, IMHO.
how do you figure?
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 09-05-2015, 08:14 AM
missilegeek missilegeek is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: AL
Posts: 1,917
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cjon600 View Post
how do you figure?
Let's just say that fundamentally altering the nature of Service Rifle without even having the courtesy to officially publish the proposed changes for comment before the vote does not indicate they really care what competitors think. We aren't "stakeholders", apparently. At least NRA Competitions is theoretically answerable to competitors at the competitor's meeting every year. Of course, we are members of the NRA. CMP just has customers.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 09-05-2015, 12:47 PM
CMPMikeD CMPMikeD is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 214
Default

I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that the CMP likely would not have spent over $20 million on a range if they didn't have competitors' interests in mind....
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 09-05-2015, 08:18 PM
Blued-Steel Blued-Steel is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 62
Default

I ran a match today where 2 people who were there for the June matches and the recent 800 agg matches at the end of August. The are both good master shooters who normally shoot clean matches (read no alibi) and both told me that when I go to take extra ammo.

Their confidence in the targets was to expect a failure at some point which requires extra rounds. These guys are not shooting misses or microphones.

Part of the explanation makes for a really good question: maybe run the targets in practice mode and make the "verifiers" back into "scorekeepers"? That seemed to work in this case.

That way individual targets can operate and plot the shot accurately instead of the whole thing going down because it has to receive data from all targets in match mode? Seems like a good option for a match since the "verifier" is there anyway. Plus eliminates the malfunctioning targets from causing problems? Or add a mess of server power to speed up the system.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 09-05-2015, 08:25 PM
Skeet6 Skeet6 is offline
GSM Master Instructor
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Pocono Mountains
Posts: 1,563
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CMPMikeD View Post
I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that the CMP likely would not have spent over $20 million on a range if they didn't have competitors' interests in mind....
Mike, the above reference is to the proposed optical sight ruling.
Mike B
__________________
CMP GSM Master Instructor
NRA Range Safety Officer
Still searching for WRA 1614856.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 09-05-2015, 08:33 PM
CMPMikeD CMPMikeD is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 214
Default

No it is not, all I see from missilegeek is bashing of CMP decisions, which is ridiculous.

The CMP staff are constantly trying to please customers and competitors and trust me when I say 100% satisfaction is 100% failure for us. It sucks, but it is inevitable when you are in this kind of business.

The military is now making optics a standard issue, so the CMP must follow suit. I have no doubt people were upset when the M16 platform was allowed as a service rifle, and people will be upset with optics being allowed. And just like 40 years ago, everyone will adjust.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 09-05-2015, 10:35 PM
missilegeek missilegeek is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: AL
Posts: 1,917
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CMPMikeD View Post
No it is not, all I see from missilegeek is bashing of CMP decisions, which is ridiculous.
I deleted my original reply to this.

I didn't begin bashing CMP decisions until they became ridiculous and yes, I am referring to the proposed optics rules and the rest of it.

Quote:
The military is now making optics a standard issue, so the CMP must follow suit.
I have it on good authority that, at least, the Army team is NOT pushing this.

That and the new rules aren't going to limit one to the issue optics, are they? Not that we know. It's not like these rule changes are published before the vote, are they? It's not like the rules committee is at all transparent, is it? The 2014 rulebook was supposed to be for 2014-2015. Then 2015 happened and Glocks are "service pistols". Now, it's going to be scopes with silly weight limits.

Last edited by missilegeek; 09-05-2015 at 10:59 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 09-06-2015, 06:57 AM
CMPMikeD CMPMikeD is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 214
Default

Glocks as service pistol - brings more people into the sport

.22 EIC - brings more people into the sport

A gigantic multi-purpose range - brings more people into the sport

Optics on service rifle - brings more people into the sport
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 09-06-2015, 10:02 AM
missilegeek missilegeek is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: AL
Posts: 1,917
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CMPMikeD View Post
Glocks as service pistol - brings more people into the sport

.22 EIC - brings more people into the sport

A gigantic multi-purpose range - brings more people into the sport

Optics on service rifle - brings more people into the sport
What attracted me, originally, to service rifle (and pistol) was the limited equipment list. I don't believe I'm alone in that. It was easy for a match director to check on the line and we all had the same equipment, so it was a marksmanship test, not an equipment test. This optics change will start an equipment race and nearly double the perceived cost of entry for the rifle while removing some of what attracted the existing participants. I don't believe it'll increase anything at all. NRA has had optics categories for years. What is causing the general decline in participation in Highpower is not the sighting system.

So, I'm more than a little annoyed that a sport I've invested a significant amount of time and money in over the years is being altered into something else. Might as well shoot Match Rifle at that point.

That and the quasi-secretive "rules committee". As one of the greats in this sport has said (paraphrasing): "When you change a rule, you cost people money and cause aggravation." There are other shooting sports, with fewer yearly rule changes. Usually published officially BEFORE the fact and not just leaked on the Internet.

I like the range, by the way. I do hope the target reliability issues get resolved.

Last edited by missilegeek; 09-06-2015 at 10:09 AM.
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 03:19 PM.