Interesting changes proposed to the CMP Pistol Program

First topic message reminder :

A wider variety of pistols classified as service pistols + more EIC matches per year.

http://www.thecmp.org/competitions/Forms/ProposedCMPPistolProgramChanges.pdf

Comment period ends July 7th.

Having a list of approved guns can work;  USPSA does that for its Production division.  The number of modifications are severely limited and there is a listed weight of the gun on the approved list.  If yours varies from that by too much (thus excessive modification) then the gun is disqualified.
Ref the ammo issue:  Also in USPSA is the use of a power factor for your ammo.  CMP could make sure ammo (and recoil) are close to "issue" by requiring a certain factor, thus not allowing "light" loads.  Shooters would just have to have their ammo chronographed before use in the match.
I think much of the proposal is good, but a few modifications seem in order

Although I believe the list of approved "service type" handguns is a bit generous, I'm overall in favor of the proposed changes.

ESPECIALLY the increased number of eligible leg matches per year.

Wonder what "internal" modifications could be done to a SIG P226 or a (gasp!) Glock anything to improve accuracy...

But too bad the barrel length rule STILL leaves out the alternate or whatever issue US SERVICE PISTOL, SIG P228. It think that is a shame and should be fixed...perhaps with a "carve-out" exception???

Similarly, I think that 230-gr RN should be kept for the tradition and because it's hard AND the relative ease that .45 ACP loads can be developed for accuracy. Another "carve-out" for that caliber alone, but allow plated AND lead bullets under the "any safe ammunition" rationale.

Since I am hearing so many good reports of tightening 9mm groups using heavier bullets (135-147-gr), that caliber and the many pistols chambering it probably benefits the most from the any safe ammo rule.

On the other hand, I'm not sure that the list of revolvers really fits. IMO, we are too many decades away from the days of the WWI alternate service issue of almost anything that shoots which could be produced in large numbers. The Air Force hanging on to 4-inch revolvers for their internal security forces for so long doesn't make that part of the gun list part of "service pistols" to me, in this day and age. The Vietnam-era experiments with the QSPR revolver for Tunnel Rats doesn't make .44 Mag a "service caliber" to me. As proposed, the revolver list and calibers could dilute the "service" portion of the tradition too much for me. I'm sure that very few shooters would show up with those, but, really???

The proposal, however, describes the CMP's mission as safe use of firearms and development marksmanship...was it really spun off from the Dept. of Army WITHOUT the emphasis on service weapons proficiency???? THAT would explain the revolvers part of the proposal.

Grumpy old man wrote:But too bad the barrel length rule STILL leaves out the alternate or whatever issue US SERVICE PISTOL, SIG P228. It think that is a shame and should be fixed...perhaps with a "carve-out" exception???

I'm not following you on this. Can you clarify what in the rule proposal would exclude SIG p228?

Rob Kovach wrote:I'm not following you on this. Can you clarify what in the rule proposal would exclude SIG p228?

The rules state "have a minimum barrel length of 4.0 inches", whereas the P228's (also known as M11) barrel is 3.9". Why a pistol designated as M11 and in actual service with the US military is not considered a "service pistol" is, hmm, amusing.

Sounds like another good suggestion to be added to the list of pistols.  I never would have guessed the barrel to be only 3.9" on one of those.

Looks like I'll have to try my best to complete the badge this year.  I'd prefer to earn it prior to this mess taking effect.

Steve B wrote:Looks like I'll have to try my best to complete the badge this year.  I'd prefer to earn it prior to this mess taking effect.

 
This all needs to be reviewed and approved by a group I believe.  I honestly don't believe we will see much change at all....but that's me.  I think a good idea to get more shooters involved would be SAFS at the CMP games. As well as a special postal match held after an official EIC match that is only open to shooters with no points.  And the top 10% get 4 points, and a pin for participants.

I agree that the issue isn't equipment but rather lack of participation.  We should focus on getting people to try the sport as it is rather than changing the sport to accommodate the people,  JMO.

The more I think about this the more I believe they should leave the present match alone.

Since they want mostly to increase participation, CMP should try something new and mostly separate from the present.  That way if it fails the whole thing is not messed up. 

The 25 yard two hand SAFS course seems a good place to start.  Shoot this short course with most any pistol.  Allow the top 10% 4 points and only 4 points.  Allow this up to 12 total points.  Then they have to shoot one hand and 50 yds.  Still with most any pistol. 

This causes no great changes.  But gives a course that shooters can get points and graduate into the major league.

All this and give 50yd EIC points according to the cut-offs at Perry.

Another idea I had was to let new shooters shoot his/her first EIC for free. How many people want to try something for the first time knowing they will not do well and be using a borrowed gun most likely.

Jack H wrote:The more I think about this the more I believe they should leave the present match alone.

Exactly!

Steve B wrote:

Jack H wrote:The more I think about this the more I believe they should leave the present match alone.

Exactly!

But I do feel very strongly of opinion that higher scores should get some reward.  That is why I say give EIC leg points to the qualifying percent according to the Perry score cut-offs.  This is outside the CMP present list of proposals to consider. 

It bothers me to no end that a 251 score can leg while at a different venue and field of shooters a 289 might rate only first leather.  This would provide incentive and reward to shoot higher scores and maybe partly slow down the 255 shooter from choosing the easy venues.  Working to shoot 255 is a lot different than working to shoot 290.

Jack H wrote:

Steve B wrote:

Jack H wrote:The more I think about this the more I believe they should leave the present match alone.

Exactly!

But I do feel very strongly of opinion that higher scores should get some reward.  That is why I say give EIC leg points to the qualifying percent according to the Perry score cut-offs.  This is outside the CMP present list of proposals to consider. 

It bothers me to no end that a 251 score can leg while at a different venue and field of shooters a 289 might rate only first leather.  This would provide incentive and reward to shoot higher scores and maybe partly slow down the 255 shooter from choosing the easy venues.  Working to shoot 255 is a lot different than working to shoot 290.

While i share similar feelings about a cut off score for points.. the CMP does require you to get a Hard leg.  I know a few shooters with 30 points but no hard leg... and when it comes to the big matches they can't preform.  Before i firmly decide which way im leaning i would like to see some stats from the CMP. Showing how many shooters have points vs how many have badges.  I think out of all shooters with points still only the top few percent actually make it to a distinguished badge.

I would encourage everyone to submit your comments to competitions@thecmp.org. I think they deserve a lot of credit for how open and transparent they are making this process.

I think CMP should leave the Distinguished Service Pistol  alone ecept for cleaning up some of the picky stuff such as trigger guard shape.
CMP has done a good job adding matches @ Perry. The same could be done in conjunction at the other 5, Yes FIVE, competitions allowed for DP.
CMP could be the catylist for reviving BE. They have shown more imagination in this regard than NRA. In fact NRA refused to help CMP when CMP initiated handling their billeting etc. NRA's comment was let 'em sink and went on to discourage co-operating with CMP at the Range Operations level.
Give CMP credit for transparencey in the rules change. NRA has always told those at the match level last about any changes.
Ron

My opinion would be to leave it at actual SP (Beretta and 1911), but just eliminate the cosmetic stuff like wrong grip screw, hammer, safety.

If they are going with a long list like proposed, just open it up to all pistols, and make it easy on the match officials for trying to police weather its on the list or not. Most on the list are not used as service pistols anyways.

Just a rookie's opinion, I've legged out on rifle, but have entertained getting DP.

FWIW, I wrote to CMP Competitions and suggested that they put all of their efforts into:

• 7. EIC Pistol Match Promotion
  
• 8. More Local EIC Matches
  
• 11. CMP Pistol Clinics
  

And to scrap the rest of the changes. (Yes, I wrote quite a bit more and provided more rationale.)

I don't see any reason they would need to make any changes if they put a full push behind promotion and marketing, and more local matches and clinics.

These are good proposed rule changes.  I can't shoot EIC because of all the extra equipment/ammo needs. 

I believe my Springfield XD(M) comp 9MM and stock fiber optic front sights with a powder river trigger will prove to be excellent at 25 and reasonably competitive at 50.
In the right hands, Glock 34&35 will also be competitve shooters.  The accuracy on these polymers rivals factory stock 1911s like Springfield and Kimber.

Do a trigger job and you are good to go.

Maybe I'll even try XDM in regular 2700 this summer to get ready for an EIC match if this goes thru.

++1 on more advertising for our wonderful sport and getting more folks involved.  This will help to counter act all the negative stuff thrown about by anti-folks.

Additional promotion and marketing efforts would be most helpful. Make more of the public and the gravel pit shooters aware of the prestige of holding the badge and the just plain fun of the competition.
AND everyone should have a ball gun anyhow. Good for defense, hang a .22 conversion for rf competitions or plinking on it and it is one great gun to own.

Ron Habegger

Along with my .02 cents above this makes a nickels worth....maybe

Colt711 wrote:Additional promotion and marketing efforts would be most helpful. Make more of the public and the gravel pit shooters aware of the prestige of holding the badge and the just plain fun of the competition.
AND everyone should have a ball gun anyhow. Good for defense, hang a .22 conversion for rf competitions or plinking on it and it is one great gun to own.

Ron Habegger

Along with my .02 cents above this makes a nickels worth....maybe

Most of this has to come from the grass roots.  US in other words.

The service pistol should be SERVICE- not special ops, special forces, etc. The problem as I see it is reasonable availability of matches. The closest one for me (that only happens once per year) is 160 miles. A long ways for 30 shots! Also the restriction on 4 matches per year is discouraging.

I miss the days of full power BALL issued on the line.

Dave C.

Har-r-r haaar

I didn't read it that way, I believe the number of points awarded and is still based on the number of shooters.  It said a minimum score must be 250.  If 20 people show up for an EIC match and no one shoots 250 or higher no points are awarded.  If 7 people show up and they all shoot 250 or better only the high score will get the 6 points.  If only one person shows up and shoots a 270 there are no EIC points awarded

I concur with your read.

The .22 Distinguished Pistol is totally great.

I can shoot wad loads off of my Les Baer Hardball?

bmac wrote:A wider variety of pistols classified as service pistols + more EIC matches per year.

http://www.thecmp.org/competitions/Forms/ProposedCMPPistolProgramChanges.pdf

Comment period ends July 7th.

The participation in EIC matches are in nearly direct correlation with 2700 participation. Tough to have a big turn out at a leg match when there are few people there for the match itself. At the Nebraska State match I shot last month there were maybe 15 shooters for the 2700 and about the same for the leg match. Several guys came just for the leg and several match shooters didn't shoot the leg. I always take extra ammo and offer to let someone shoot my Ball gun while I'm shooting the distinguished revolver and vice versa.
I am so glad I legged out last year. Shot it all with hard ball loads and all .45 (except the first . It took me nearly 25 years, My first leg came at USMC Pacific Division matches in 1989. My last at Camp Perry last year. It means the world to me. There was lots of breaks in between but I never stopped wanting it. Lots of Iron sights, Lots of hardball rounds. There should be no short cuts. All they do is devalue the accomplishment. Things change, this is true. Add new categories, I think the .22 rimfire is a good deal. Remove the limit on how many matches you can shoot in a year. I never understood that one in the first place. If someone wants it bad enough why should they be limited in the number of matches they shoot in a year? Loosen the regs on the gun, the hammer configuration, the grip safety, railed dust cover, none of that makes any difference in the function, comfort or accuracy of the gun. It will still take a hard holder to get it done. All those other guns they are considering? Not service pistols and should not be allowed. Again if they want to start another classification of distinguished shooter, fine, but it's not the service pistol.
Anyway, until we get more shooters involved in conventional outdoor pistol we will not see a major increase in leg matches participation.