Getting a hard leg (not 22)

First topic message reminder :

I am not suggesting that they (CMP) set a minimum score to get a hard leg. What I would like to suggest is that they figure out a score that would get a person an 8 (or 6H) point leg even if there were only the 6 shooters at the match to make it an official point winning match.
  We now have a minimum score of 250 that a shooter has to make to get any points. Why not carry it another step further. We all know how hard it is at a local match to get enough shooters on the line for a 6 pointer. Getting 16 non-distinguished shooters to a hardball match (whatever we call it now) is almost impossible.
  Why not have a minimum score that would/could bump any match up to a hard point match. It would not even have to be 8 points but you could earn a score like 6H. Meaning it was worth 6 points but counts as a hard leg.
  I am not suggesting that the "hard" score should be easy. I think it should be a number however that is obtainable with practice and dedication. I don't know how this new softball ammo and weapons are going to work when figuring this hypothetical minimum score and that initial number might have to be adjusted. I think initially a score somewhere between 270 (Expert) and 285 (Master) should earn a person hard leg points. If we didn't have new ammo regulations I would have suggested a score of 275. With the new regs maybe they should be looking at a score of 280+.
 Again, I am not suggesting these are minimum scores to earn a hard leg. This would give shooters a chance to leg out without having to spend the big bucks traveling and a reason to keep shooting at their local matches. The local matches are what keep this sport alive.

Len

I tried out a powder puff load (3.8 gr BE behind a 185 gr WC) yesterday at a 2700 in Portland. The shooter beside me said " your gun is not making any noise when you shoot it ". It was, but he was shooting a lot hotter load. I shot the same ammo in the Reeves match after the 2700. It failed to cycle 3 times in the 1911 but worked pretty neat in the wheel gun.   The 1911 worked perfectly in practice. It had less recoil then my hardball load but not really a lot less.

Len

I'll let the location of the match with the 217 stay in the closet with the other skeletons :p)
I think 230 and 185 jacketed ammo will feel the same because of the copper jacket. I've loaded 3.4 gr of BE with 230 gr Zero bullet and have gotten excellent results at 25 yds. Very little recoil and perfect function. I tried 3.8 gr of BE at 50 and was very pleased. I did it to see what I could get away with. I went distinguished in 1991, so my interest was in see what a shooter could do with powder puff loads once they allowed it. I would assume that I could get similar results with 185's. I expect to see .45 scores beating 9mm scores at EIC matches. I can load lighter with .45 and get great accuracy and less recoil than the9mm. Now if I can only get some glasses to see the front sight :p
Jon

Wow, I'm at 4.6 titegroup with a 185. Maybe I should go a little lower.

4.6 of titegroup is a little spicy...try 3.8-4.0gr.

Will do Rob, I was shocked that it still operated my 20lb recoil spring.

With irons I run a 19lb mainspring and a 19lb recoil spring for that load.

Sounds like your pistol doesn't lockup very well if you can use a 19# recoil spring with 3.8 gr of BE. That's a very heavy spring for a wadcutter load. Spring is doing the work of the upper barrel lugs/slide lugs. Most pistols I build run around 13# recoil spring for that load.
Jon

I have to run a 13 lb recoil spring if I'm using a 24# mainspring.  I don't like how the trigger feels with the heavier mainspring so I run the 19# mainspring--I have to run the stiffer recoil spring then.

I don't see why the sport has to change! It was designed to be SERVICE PISTOL, the pistol issued by the military to it's soldiers. Looking back at why the DCM was created it's easy to see why the service pistol and ammo was used. Anti gunners and anti gun politicians managed to gut the DCM so it was changed to the CMP.I personally feel they are not making changes to help the sport but to get more people shooting so thaey can get the money! While talking to a CMP rep. at Perry she let the cat out of the bag! One of the reasons they are making gun changes is to get more sponsorship money from the gun manufactures. As she put it "why would a gun company provide sponsorship if their gun can't be used in the match"
 As to the difficulty shooting shooting ball ammo, quite a few of us legged out and became Distinguished using unknown ammo issued at the match. Back then the leg cut-off was about 270. Not to change the topic but has there been any changes to the Presidents 100?? Same type match the same day a Perry except it is 40 rounds, has 2 slow fires.

CMP has to be financially self supporting, without containers full of repatriated Garands and Springfields to sell they must increase participation in order to stay viable.

Jon Eulette wrote:I think the 250 minimum is easier to obtain now that service pistol match is really a powder puff wad match. I'm in favor and quite pleased that there is a minimum score now. Last year I saw a 10 point leg go for a 217. Absolutely pathetic.
Jon

Since you were there, I suppose there were no awful conditions to drive even world-class shooter's scores down that far?

Ages ago I saw a rifle Leg Match fired in 25-35 mph winds. Standing scores were awful. Both sustained-fire stages, people locked in with tight sling and Firm Grip still saw their front sights buffeted across the entire black. Even at 600, no one shot close to their "usual" scores.

And this was before the wind-whipped mousegun ascended to dominate that game.

A letter from the MD to DCM ensured that the top 10% got their points despite what on paper looked like poor scores. Sort of the opposite of "a rising tide lifts all ships".

There you have my reason to hesitate over a minimum score for Leg Points.

Match conditions were ideal.  I didn't shoot match; already Distinguished. 
Jon

I see the issue as one in the same! Some want the match to change so it easier to get a leg, CMP wants to change the match to get more money as Kevin mentioned! But it's the unintended consequences that will result.  People shoot the match to get the Distinguished medal, lower the standards so more medals are issued. Now what reason is there to shoot the match? The leg has been lowered but the top shooters will compete for the match win. Those that did get the medal because the standards have been lowered will not have a chance to win anything so they stop shooting as they have! What's next lower the standards lower?? Shoot a 240 and get a hard leg? Then 220 followed by 200?? Heck register, shoot the match and get a medal, why bother shooting send the CMP the entry fee and they send you the Distinguished medal! CMP takes the money and builds a nice International Air Pistol Range like they did at Perry. Now you have a no classification very difficult match needing High end Air Pistols and equipment. What we need now at Perry is a good Free Pistol Range! Eventually CMP will cancel the EIC matches and concentrate on International!
 However I can see an exception to allow lower scores when condition require it as was done in the MD DCM match! That would be a reasonable exception.

I still think the possibility for some high end score that would allow a hard leg if we don't/can't get enough shooters to the line would be something to look at. I'm talking a higher number not a lower.

 On a tangent I think only handguns that were "issued" to US servicemen/women should be allowed. And of course I feel that should include 45 acp wheel guns. I can't imagine any advantage with a wheel gun. But hey, they are part of our history.

In service 1917-1975 4 wars (I count Vietnam) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1917_revolver

Back when Perry was required to "leg out" I don't see a need for minimum score but I know of a few large clubs that had more shot gun and rifle shooters than pistol they would get all those guys to shoot just to push the numbers up. I can remember when if you wanted to buy a Distinguished hat pin at Perry you had to prove you were Distinguished, now it you got the money they will sell you the pin! I seen quite a few guys buying them that didn't even have a ball gun. I seen one guy buy the pin and got into a conversation with him. I asked what the pin was for, he didn't know but thought it would look good on his hat because other shooter had one!
 I agree, all service pistols should be the only ones allowed!

Coulda, woulda, shoulda.

These rules are the rules for this season. Knowing they were coming, I've been training accordingly. 

I've never seen a NM gun in an active duty holster. I've never seen a NM rifle on patrol. We are talking about a game. The top 10% will be the top 10% no matter. The guys that work with irons will tend to beat those that don't.  If loads are too light, the gun won't work. It the spring is made to light, the gun will batter and shoot loose. 

Getting new shooters to the line doesn't pad the score sheet; it introduces the next group of potential shooters. Lots of shooters shoot one or two matches and quit. If that match is a leg match, so be it. At least they tried our game in its purist form. It's just gun, ammo, and irons all fired with a single hand. 

As a guy that ran college rifle matches for about 15 years, thank you to the people running matches now. I'm glad to be on the line instead of behind it.

It will be interesting to see what shows up on the line at the matches for sure.

David
The CMP games on May 3 at Camp Butner, NC, will have enough shooters to have a Gold leg. It a short drive from Georgia. 22 EIC also that day.
Neil

DeweyHales wrote:Coulda, woulda, shoulda.

[snip
I've never seen a NM rifle on patrol.
[snip]

Neither have I, but that's only because I never served.

But I'm pretty sure that Carlos Hathcock used an NM-modified M14 at least a few times. Hope that counts even if it's not on patrol.

I also thought that the DM modified M16[whateverlatermodel]s are also somewhat equal to NM rifles. Plenty of those on patrols.

Now, IF I were to go out on patrol AND could manage a sidearm, I would much rather pack an NM-tuned pistol, even if it might mark me for "special treatment" if captured. I wanna hit what I shoot at. Some of the NM modifications are for reliability, not accuracy (at least on the wood and steel arms--I've forgotten a lot of what's done for the Poodle Shooter).

217 hard leg, a 247 for high ND-sunshine no wind the were the conditions. Now it's powder puff loads, Perry cut-off creeping lower, participation in decline, CMP profits are all facts of life. All these have been discussed  here. DCM of course was able to run a more "pure" competition w/o financial pressure. Their mission was the promotion of rifle & pistol practice.
The changes we see, while they may save the "game" will, and already are, I think, degrading the value of the Pistol Badge. I would propose opening the possibility of a 2nd and enhanced medal. Higher placements in matches and higher minimum scores required. Possibly top 5% and/or 285-286. Factory 230 grain ammo required for Badge 2. Any scores meeting these mins while earning the 1st badge NOT counted towards the 2nd higher. The individual earning the 2nd might be "Double Distinguished" or another suitable term. Only w/ some sort of increased award program like or similiar to this would I be in favor of easing the "hard leg" rule. A procedure for match directors to report especially challenging match conditions should be instituted. This would not preclude aditional awards and matches. I'm not sure how to indicate a badge earned some yrs ago and earning of a 2nd not practical due to age, health, death, etc. Maybe just Old F---, as we do now.

Humans seem to be naturally inclined to resist change. In Bullseye there has already been change. 30 or so yrs ago shooters in most areas were not concerned about the # of competitors in leg matches. Hard legs? never heard of 'em. I did have the distinct advantage of living near Perry so had it, Bristol, IN, & Canton-Mckinley for DCM matches.

Ron Habegger

I think a 217 leg is a bigger "degrading" of the Distinguished badge than powder puff loads and extra pistols when I'm going to need to be shooting in the high 260s/low 270s to earn any legs under this new system.

As far as CMP "profits" are concerned, when did "profit" become a dirty word?  I doubt CMP is using that money for anything other than shooting sports, so what's the problem with them seeking more participants?
I can't even believe that somebody complained about declining participation AND and the money related to more match entrants in the same post!!
I personally would rather have a healthy CMP that has sustainable finances than a bankrupt one.

I'm glad I can compete now with my XDM 5.25.

When I shot this gun at 50 yards off sand bags after my 45 and 22 this summer, I could not keep all shots on 81/2 x 11 sheet of paper.

Before the rule change, I just watched my friends shoot after 2700s waiting to go out for food & spirits.

Now I can shoot and have them tease the hell out of me!

But if my buds mess up at the long line and I can pull out 70 or so, I know the XDM will do well at 25. Then I'll give some back to them