Go Back   CMP Forums > CMP Sales > CMP Bolt Action Rifles
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 04-09-2020, 10:59 PM
ZvenoMan ZvenoMan is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: AL
Posts: 3,876
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LS6man View Post
Nice post..eyes rolling
Well, I am not acting, but if it works for you, great.

Complaining that the rules should be (insert whatever) is juvenile.

Here's the thing, and it's been discussed before.

The rules started from something. They evolve over time, as the sport grows, and in this case, as info is learned from research.
A simple web search would have clarified it? How? Was there a web when the rules were written? Did anyone question it? Was there a reason to research this specific minute detail? If you did a web search you would know I'm not an actor.
I know many things, but I didn't know what stocks were used on a 1941 sniper, and didn't know there was a controversy until now. Perhaps those on the rules committee don't read every thread on the CMP forum and thus don't know this either?

Seriously, there is a procedure to change rules, and it's not asking Mr. Johnson via an email or at a match, it's not telling people they are lazy, or greedy.
What if no one brought this up to the rules committee, are they lazy still for taking no action on something they didn't know about?
A yearly scan of the forum? For what? What search term(s) do you suggest, or just don't be lazy and read all the posts? (bonus points if you can tell how many posts were made in 2019).

Every CMP rulebook includes information on how to make a request of the rules committee.
Someone has to request the change. Rules are not changed by the rules committee reading the forum, facebook or the bathroom wall at TMP.
Has anyone followed that process, and included a well written, polite letter, including documentation to support the request to allow a C-stocks on a 1941 sniper, and then had it denied? I haven't heard that mentioned here.

If YOU want the rule changed, petition the rules committee. Otherwise you accept the rules as they are.

Harsh, perhaps. But seriously, it's not a conspiracy. If no one makes the formal request the rules on't change.

Happy Competing all
JH
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 04-10-2020, 04:54 AM
LS6man LS6man is offline
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 281
Default

So there you go...

Apparently all someone needs to do is make the formal request AND the rule WILL BE CHANGED...based on the above post
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 04-10-2020, 07:01 AM
ceresco ceresco is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 7,720
Default

I don't think it is unreasonable to expect the rules committee to have knowledge of the subject derived from sources outside of politely worded requests. Nor do I think it unreasonable that they might read the CMP Rules forum. In fact, it might be reasonable for them to participate in their own forum. I know that members of the CMP staff have pointed out errors and they did not any action either. We have seen Mark make rules that differed from the rulebook on occasion and tell posters that he will forward requests. I would think anyone charged with the responsibility for writing rules would personally want to go a good job. Good Shooting. ...
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 04-10-2020, 10:29 AM
ZvenoMan ZvenoMan is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: AL
Posts: 3,876
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LS6man View Post
So there you go...

Apparently all someone needs to do is make the formal request AND the rule WILL BE CHANGED...based on the above post
There I go!
I did not say a rule will be changed.
I pointed out the process to initiate a rule change.
That the request is granted is obviously (?) based on the information submitted and the committee itself.

The key is that if you donít like a rule stop complaining and participate in growing the sport.
I have met people who prefer to complain about perceived injustices over taking prescribed action to resolve whatever problem exists.

Respectfully
Jh
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 04-10-2020, 11:27 AM
Griff557 Griff557 is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Grand Rapids MN
Posts: 396
Default

Seems like I’ve tore the scab off and old wound-sorry about that. Coming at this from a newbie and knowing the whole story it seems odd that the type of stock is that big of deal when I would guess most rifles on the line are repos anyway??? I was just thinking more people might get involved without the C stock rule....I haven’t had much luck finding a suitable donor rifle with a C stock. I was hoping to build a rifle that kinda has the been there look rather than a shiny new one
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 04-10-2020, 11:39 AM
LS6man LS6man is offline
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 281
Default

We can agree to disagree...

No one is complaining and ultimately if someone wants to formally submit a request for a rule change...they should.

My point is simply this...Apparently these matches started in 2012...well after the internet became common for finding information.... There is photographic evidence, evidence from published authors, information on the CMP website and information on other websites showing what is correct...and ALL of this information was publicly known before 2012.

As the CMP has taken the time to create these matches you would expect they want to get the information correct. A simple check of the internet would have given them the correct information. The other issue to me is this isn't a court of law where the burden of proof is on the plaintiff..

Given the information out there once a Director at the CMP was made aware of the issue...an internal CMP audit of the rule should have taken place. Why not visit their own site and spend 15 minutes...why not post a question asking for information? Why is it too much to ask the CMP to routinely audit their rules?

Why should it be up to the participants to go through a formal process for something as simple as this? The CMP should be proactive and not reactive.


No one is expected to know all of the information...but once "you" realize "you" have probably made an error and now what?...I think is the frustrating thing for most with this.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 04-10-2020, 12:17 PM
ZvenoMan ZvenoMan is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: AL
Posts: 3,876
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LS6man View Post
Why should it be up to the participants to go through a formal process for something as simple as this? The CMP should be proactive and not reactive.
Because that is how rules in a sport work.

Look at the NRA, SCCA, PGA, NCAA, IDPA, whatever. They all have rules, they all have specific processes for change that they publish. That is how they function.

It's clear to me that the complainers are more interested in basking in the perceived injustice rather than making the sport better.
I have no plan to compete with a 1941 myself so I really have no interest but the continued resistance to a simple process is discouraging.

Whatever. Every sport has those that sit to the side and cast stones while others enjoy the fruits of said sport.

I have no further comment, but I'm sure I will see more reasons why the rules committee should abandon their published change process and monitor all posts in all web forums (I don't recall, should they also monitor FB?) and simply change rules that way.

Respectfully;
JH
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 04-10-2020, 10:48 PM
Col. Colt Col. Colt is online now
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 376
Default

ZvenoMan, what a lot of us find objectionable is when CMP writes a rule against anything that Really WAS USGI Issued, was a known, documentable US Arsenal Overhaul Practice on issued/overhauled rifles, etc., when ANYTHING that really was (and can be shown to be without a doubt) used as cause to eliminate a competitor from competition - when his gear really is USGI - and CMP will not allow it!

Their base rule should be that anything USGI is the Default position of the rulebook, and rules to the contrary will be changed as soon as it is brought to their attention.

Examples: Following your post above, for the second time, I petitioned them to allow the M1923 Sling to be used in competition. This sling is in BOTH the M1 Garand and the M1903 Field Manual, and was an issue item, in the US Ordnance System into the 1950s. It lost popularity early on because the instructions in the manuals were Wrong - if you rigged it "by the book" it didn't work. But when rigged correctly it is basically an M1907 in web with buckles instead of hooks, that is infinitely adjustable (no holes) and, properly used, is a better sling than the M1907. (And I have used the M1907 for over 55 years.)

More examples - the M1903 Overhaul Procedures by Remington Arms immediately after WWII specified using a steel washer under the tang to increase barrel pressure at the stock tip to restore pressure and prevent throwing away otherwise good stocks. This is known and documented and would prevent the civilian owner from having to throw away an otherwise good GI stock and buy a reproduction. Same thing on the M1 Garand - overhaul allowed glassing the underside of the stock at the trigger guard to restore draw pressure and save otherwise good stocks from being scrapped. No Glass bedding was done by the arsenals inside the stock, just a repair to save a stock. But "no shims or glassing allowed" is the CMP position - in effect outlawing actual USGI Issued weapons form DCM/CMP from competition.

We should not have to Petition for real USGI to be "re-approved" on the firing line - maybe CMP needs some older heads on the rules committee that actually know something about the rifles used, or who would at least reply to requests for consideration. They really do appear not to care. CC

Last edited by Col. Colt; 04-10-2020 at 10:51 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 04-10-2020, 11:26 PM
Roadkingtrax Roadkingtrax is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Arizona
Posts: 8,625
Default

Shoot a service rifle match once in a while, and you'll get your fair share of rule changes. The sniper fun matches appear to have always been a exercise in frustration. Good Luck.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 04-11-2020, 02:05 AM
pickax pickax is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Daytona Beach Fla.
Posts: 1,074
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roadkingtrax View Post
Shoot a service rifle match once in a while, and you'll get your fair share of rule changes. The sniper fun matches appear to have always been a exercise in frustration. Good Luck.
Thanks RKT, you have always been there. Hopefully still enjoying the matches
warts and all.
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 10:57 PM.