Go Back   CMP Forums > CMP Competitions > National Matches - Camp Perry
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61  
Old 02-26-2018, 12:12 PM
rickgman rickgman is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Michigan
Posts: 912
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by missilegeek View Post
The kids see run-n-gun and quasi-sniper matches as "relevant", not standing out in the sun in a leather coat. How much change are you willing to tolerate to attract them?
MIssilegeek, That is a very good question. I see that there are two opposing forces - those that want the sport to remain "traditional" and those who want the sport to evolve to be more "like the real world". I understand that it is virtually impossible to please both camps. What I think is problematic is altering the equipment rules to the point where "anything goes". I believe that's a recipe for real dissatisfaction and eventually a loss of serious competitors. Just my two cents worth.
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 02-26-2018, 12:20 PM
missilegeek missilegeek is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: AL
Posts: 1,915
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rickgman View Post
MIssilegeek, That is a very good question. I see that there are two opposing forces - those that want the sport to remain "traditional" and those who want the sport to evolve to be more "like the real world". I understand that it is virtually impossible to please both camps. What I think is problematic is altering the equipment rules to the point where "anything goes". I believe that's a recipe for real dissatisfaction and eventually a loss of serious competitors. Just my two cents worth.
Oh, it definitely is. You're quite right about that. Especially if it appears to be a moving target. Monardgate is an example of that.
__________________
Service Rifle: 1884-2015 RIP.
Service Pistol: 1903-2014
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 02-27-2018, 07:13 AM
rickgman rickgman is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Michigan
Posts: 912
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by missilegeek View Post
Oh, it definitely is. You're quite right about that. Especially if it appears to be a moving target. Monardgate is an example of that.
Missilegeek, I feel sorry for the guys who purchased Monard shooting jackets at great cost to later find out that they needed to spend an additional $200 to modify them to be competition legal due to changing equipment rules. It's not that I disagree with the desire to manage the issue of "excessive" support offered by jackets, it's that the rules were not written properly to begin with. Personally, I believe that there needs to be a totally different approach taken relative to competition rules. This just isn't working well enough and there is a lot of resentment festering. That isn't good for the sport.
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 02-27-2018, 09:45 AM
serendipitist serendipitist is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 33
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gustro79 View Post
I would presume that a stainless barrel would be OK on a Rock River standard A4 upper? Stainless is not excluded specifically from the rules, but the rules do state that the exterior configuration must be similar to a military rifle. Anyone using stainless?

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
Stainless barrel Rock River rifles were used by the CMP itself to teach the Small Arms Firing School at the Oklahoma Games last year. Most were A2s, as far as I could see, but there was a mention that there were some A4s in the group. I just didn't happen to catch sight of one.
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 02-27-2018, 10:14 AM
canes7 canes7 is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 2,275
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gustro79 View Post
I would presume that a stainless barrel would be OK on a Rock River standard A4 upper? Stainless is not excluded specifically from the rules, but the rules do state that the exterior configuration must be similar to a military rifle. Anyone using stainless?

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
My guess would be that it would put the rifle overweight, if that's still a thing.
__________________
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dan W.
CMP GSM Master Instructor
NRA - XTC HP Expert
16 down / 14 to go!
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 02-27-2018, 10:22 AM
Gustro79 Gustro79 is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 39
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by canes7 View Post
My guess would be that it would put the rifle overweight, if that's still a thing.
Let's just say it's very close... like I might need to shave an ounce or two off

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 02-27-2018, 03:25 PM
missilegeek missilegeek is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: AL
Posts: 1,915
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rickgman View Post
Missilegeek, I feel sorry for the guys who purchased Monard shooting jackets at great cost to later find out that they needed to spend an additional $200 to modify them to be competition legal due to changing equipment rules. It's not that I disagree with the desire to manage the issue of "excessive" support offered by jackets, it's that the rules were not written properly to begin with. Personally, I believe that there needs to be a totally different approach taken relative to competition rules. This just isn't working well enough and there is a lot of resentment festering. That isn't good for the sport.
You'd think with Gary's ISSF experience, he'd get that. It's been clear over the last three years that CMP doesn't really take any of this seriously - and that's presuming they ever did. At least change was slower and easier to keep up with. Operating like this: "Gary doesn't like the Monard Ultimate? Ban it. Why? Because we said so." isn't going to improve things over time.

They should've put Emil Praslick in charge after he retired.
__________________
Service Rifle: 1884-2015 RIP.
Service Pistol: 1903-2014
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 02-27-2018, 07:06 PM
Ham_Chu Ham_Chu is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 134
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gustro79 View Post
I would presume that a stainless barrel would be OK on a Rock River standard A4 upper? Stainless is not excluded specifically from the rules, but the rules do state that the exterior configuration must be similar to a military rifle. Anyone using stainless?
If that stainless was a military profile (or standard), and not a heavy match
or bull barrel, it should be fine. I have just never seen such a barrel (not saying they do not exist!) on the RR website.

The intent was for 'military' grade, not 'match' grade rifles for this one. I believe that was what the P100 and NTI were for....

The intent and spirit of CMP Special Military Rifle Match rules is to provide modern target rifle competitions for competitors who want to shoot with affordable, readily available military or military-type rifles of U. S. or foreign manufacture...

and

Rifles must be standard production or as-issued rifles with no special accurizing or match conditioning...

Total rifle weight, with sights and without sling, may not exceed 8.5 pounds;
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 11:58 PM.