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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 09-26-2017, 06:20 PM
ADMIN ADMIN is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 261
Default CMP and New U.S. Jacket Distributor Resolve Illegal Shooting Jacket Issue

CMP and New U.S. Jacket Distributor Resolve Illegal Shooting Jacket Issue - There has been a great deal of discussion in the past year about competitors wearing shooting jackets that, in the opinion of the CMP Rules Committee, have provided an inordinate amount of support, particularly advantageous for use in the rifle standing position. While the CMP is sympathetic to the need for vendors to compete for the equipment dollar, it is incumbent upon the organization to monitor and regulate the use of equipment that preserves the integrity of the sport. Read the complete article at http://thecmp.org/cmp-and-new-u-s-ja...-jacket-issue/.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 09-26-2017, 11:09 PM
missilegeek missilegeek is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: AL
Posts: 1,886
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ADMIN View Post
CMP and New U.S. Jacket Distributor Resolve Illegal Shooting Jacket Issue - There has been a great deal of discussion in the past year about competitors wearing shooting jackets that, in the opinion of the CMP Rules Committee, have provided an inordinate amount of support, particularly advantageous for use in the rifle standing position. While the CMP is sympathetic to the need for vendors to compete for the equipment dollar, it is incumbent upon the organization to monitor and regulate the use of equipment that preserves the integrity of the sport. Read the complete article at http://thecmp.org/cmp-and-new-u-s-ja...-jacket-issue/.
The CMP Rules Committee should stop constantly changing things and stop operating in such an opaque manner. It's especially galling considering just how poorly the rule books are written now. This is a storied sport and it is a shame to see it treated so poorly by the sanctioning bodies.
__________________
Service Rifle: 1884-2015 RIP.
Service Pistol: 1903-2014
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 09-29-2017, 09:19 AM
rickgman rickgman is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Michigan
Posts: 823
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by missilegeek View Post
The CMP Rules Committee should stop constantly changing things and stop operating in such an opaque manner. It's especially galling considering just how poorly the rule books are written now. This is a storied sport and it is a shame to see it treated so poorly by the sanctioning bodies.
I agree that the Competition Rules are currently poorly written. However, it is the responsibility of sanctioning bodies to ensure that equipment standards are maintained so that equipment is not allowed that will compromise the purpose and intent of competition. Since shooting jackets have evolved greatly over the years to the point where some do greatly advantage competitors, it is time (in my opinion) to clarify what is acceptable and what is not. I'm sure that if you asked a dozen shooters what should be allowed and what should not be allowed, you'd get 12 different responses. The sanctioning body is where the final direction should reside - even if their direction doesn't satisfy everyone.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 09-29-2017, 04:36 PM
Digital_Chaos Digital_Chaos is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Pickerington Ohio
Posts: 227
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rickgman View Post
I agree that the Competition Rules are currently poorly written. However, it is the responsibility of sanctioning bodies to ensure that equipment standards are maintained so that equipment is not allowed that will compromise the purpose and intent of competition. Since shooting jackets have evolved greatly over the years to the point where some do greatly advantage competitors, it is time (in my opinion) to clarify what is acceptable and what is not. I'm sure that if you asked a dozen shooters what should be allowed and what should not be allowed, you'd get 12 different responses. The sanctioning body is where the final direction should reside - even if their direction doesn't satisfy everyone.
This..
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 09-29-2017, 09:33 PM
Mike308 Mike308 is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Pearl River, LA
Posts: 994
Default

Where is the supporting data to back up your opinions?
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 10-12-2017, 01:22 PM
missilegeek missilegeek is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: AL
Posts: 1,886
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rickgman View Post
I agree that the Competition Rules are currently poorly written. However, it is the responsibility of sanctioning bodies to ensure that equipment standards are maintained so that equipment is not allowed that will compromise the purpose and intent of competition.
What sort of standard is "inordinate"? ISSF has actual standards and testing equipment. Where's CMP's? What does "inordinate" even mean? Why wouldn't a Creedmoor hardback also fail that test, since they advertise it as "leaning against a fence post"? Either specify a test or ban hardback coats in general.

It's the responsibility of the sanctioning body to properly manage the rules and write them in a clear, concise, manner and make them easy for match directors to comply with. That they are not doing. I don't believe they take any of this seriously, whoever this nebulous "Rules Committee" actually is.
__________________
Service Rifle: 1884-2015 RIP.
Service Pistol: 1903-2014

Last edited by missilegeek; 10-12-2017 at 01:28 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 11-19-2017, 06:58 PM
jelenko jelenko is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 7
Default

Completely agree.
Think about what 'derived from' means. I.e., it could mean anything or everything.
For example, what would keep an AR10 from being derived from an AR15? [Yes, I know the 308 version came first - that's not the point.]
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 11-19-2017, 07:31 PM
NMC_EXP NMC_EXP is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 222
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rickgman View Post
The sanctioning body is where the final direction should reside - even if their direction doesn't satisfy everyone.
Yup, that is the only way it can be.

This is supposed to be about marksmanship skills. Gear designed to counteract physical/training limitations ought to be banned.

Come to think of it, adding lead to a cal. 5.56mm AR15 until it weighs a few lbs more than a cal. 7.62mm NM M14 falls into the category of counteracting physical/training limitations, i.e. the ability to manage recoil.
__________________
“After all is said and done, successful rifle shooting on the range is nothing more than first finding a rifle and lot of ammunition which will do precisely the same thing shot after shot, and then developing the same skill in the rifleman.” ~ Capt. E. C. Crossman (Book of the Springfield)
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 11-21-2017, 07:05 AM
milprileb milprileb is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Stafford, Virginia
Posts: 2,281
Send a message via AIM to milprileb
Default

Service Rifle competition, has evolved to the point that the gear / rifles used are hardly Service Rifle.

I'd recommend getting this competition back to being Service Rifles and no shooting jackets. Or just stop regulating jackets entirely, and accept its just a match where about anything goes.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 11-21-2017, 10:34 AM
NMC_EXP NMC_EXP is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 222
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by milprileb View Post
Service Rifle competition, has evolved to the point that the gear / rifles used are hardly Service Rifle.

I'd recommend getting this competition back to being Service Rifles and no shooting jackets. Or just stop regulating jackets entirely, and accept its just a match where about anything goes.
I finally rationalized and accepted internal accuracy modifications. Reason being it is hard to improve your marksmanship skills with a rifle that cannot shoot groups.

Seems to me from a rules standpoint there ought to be a clear line between: (1) internal accuracy improvements to the rifle and (2) ancillary gear such as jackets, gloves, slings, mats.....etc.

The go/no-go decision on ancillary gear ought to be does that specific piece of gear overcome any shortcomings in the shooters skill and let him shoot higher scores? This as opposed simply providing comfort.
__________________
“After all is said and done, successful rifle shooting on the range is nothing more than first finding a rifle and lot of ammunition which will do precisely the same thing shot after shot, and then developing the same skill in the rifleman.” ~ Capt. E. C. Crossman (Book of the Springfield)
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 01:11 PM.