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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 11-15-2017, 10:48 AM
missilegeek missilegeek is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: AL
Posts: 1,886
Default

Quote:
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
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 11-15-2017, 11:37 AM
Jakeroub Jakeroub is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 140
Default

Quote:
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 at 11:45 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 11-15-2017, 01:26 PM
Carriec Carriec is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Virginia
Posts: 57
Default

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?
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 11-15-2017, 05:10 PM
missilegeek missilegeek is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: AL
Posts: 1,886
Default

Quote:
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.
__________________
Service Rifle: 1884-2015 RIP.
Service Pistol: 1903-2014

Last edited by missilegeek; 11-16-2017 at 12:47 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 11-15-2017, 08:48 PM
Mike308 Mike308 is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Pearl River, LA
Posts: 994
Default

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
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 11-16-2017, 09:33 AM
rickgman rickgman is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Michigan
Posts: 823
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike308 View Post
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
Mike,

I think that the point that some are trying to make is that if something reduces the skill level required of the shooter, that item needs to be regulated. It is a totally different thing when a shooter configures his rifle to be within the stated equipment rules. It is my firm belief that a good rifle is still limited by the ability of the shooter. If a shooter goes to the line with an inferior rifle, the rifle might be the limiting factor. Thus, one should strive to shoot a good rifle that is within the limitations noted in the equipment rules. It is something all together different when artificial support is provided to the shooter by a piece of equipment. That reduces the shooter's reliance on his personal skill and marksmanship is largely about skill. Just my two cents worth.

Rick
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 11-20-2017, 09:42 PM
Mike308 Mike308 is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Pearl River, LA
Posts: 994
Default

Rick: As far as I've seen CMP has shown no evidence of artificial support any greater ina Monard jacket than any other jacket of higher quality of construction. A free float tube, heavy barrel, and 2 stage NM trigger do give any advantage. That has been shown by many shooters over the years. But opinion on one particular jacket isn't proof of advantage. The UBR stock and a scope all legal have made move improvements in my shooting then my jacket. My jacket only added to comfort not score.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 11-20-2017, 10:24 PM
rickgman rickgman is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Michigan
Posts: 823
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike308 View Post
My jacket only added to comfort not score.
Mike, It is quite possible that you have a rock solid position and whatever additional support the Monard jacket offered simply didn't make any difference to you. It might well have made a lot of difference for someone with less skill. Just saying. Rick
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 11-21-2017, 09:57 AM
Mike308 Mike308 is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Pearl River, LA
Posts: 994
Default

Rick: you may be correct but living on SSI and shelling out $200.00 on someone's opinion sucks. As I sit here I will shoot Talladega 600 and not shoot another CMP event. Petty rules and changes with no backup data doesn't work for me.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 11-21-2017, 11:28 AM
rickgman rickgman is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Michigan
Posts: 823
Default

Mike, I understand your feelings. No one likes to spend even more money after spending a large sum in the first place. I also understand what it is like to disagree with competition rules which seem arbitrary or downright foolish. That being said, it is the nature of any sport where rules play an important part of the sport to have controversy surrounding some rules. This is one of those cases but it is not unique. I can tell you are a data driven individual. However, not all decisions require data - some are intuitively obvious. Sometimes visual inspection is enough to determine which way to go. I don't know what the CMP did to arrive at this decision but maybe it was obvious that the Monard jacket was significantly stiffer than comparable shooting jackets on the market or perhaps the material used for stiffening was far more rigid than simply layering flexible material to gain a certain amount of rigidity which is the method most commonly used in other high end shooting jackets. I just don't know. Rick
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 04:07 AM.