CMP 2020 Pistol Match rules

First topic message reminder :

https://thecmp.org/wp-content/uploads/2020PistolRules_Draft.pdf

Here are the preliminary rules.

Pistol rules start at 4.1.6 and what you are going to shoot start at
5.2.

Looks to me exactly like a NRA 2700

Wobbley wrote:The question I have is why is the sentence even in the rule?  The ammunition is already defined in the sentence prior.  All it does is add confusion.

In a few places the rules seem to try to define what is and what isn't allowed.
In some cases it seems they should really just stick to one or the other.

Do play the role of Devil's advocate: Would lead-plated lead bullets meet the definition of allowable "metal-plated bullets"?

^^^And this is why rule making is so difficult. There's always someone out there reading them and trying to find an advantageous loophole. Then the rules get re-written and added to with seemingly repetitive, but differently phrased rules. All to close loopholes and obscure omissions.

Hey try this!

Copy the NRA Rulebook and every time NRA is used replace with CMP!

Back to the Model 10. I am still wrapping my head around its inclusion. With no specific regulations that would mean that jacketed or platted ammo is required. Making all the DR rounds on the shelf worthless. Kinda. But all my 110gr XTP rounds would be allowed. It is going to interesting to see how the final rules shake out. I want my 1917 to be legal too.

Len

Do they still shoot the "Service Pistol" match in Arizona? What rules govern the match? Thanks

Yep, Len, we do. Service pistol 900, CMP rules. Come shoot with us in February.

Asa Yam wrote:
...So, how can .5 lbs be added to the trigger pull of a factory gun?

Figured it out.  Started new thread under "Equipment Discussion" to explain.

LenVBack to the Model 10. I am still wrapping my head around its inclusion. With no specific regulations that would mean that jacketed or platted ammo is required. Making all the DR rounds on the shelf worthless. Kinda. But all my 110gr XTP rounds would be allowed. It is going to interesting to see how the final rules shake out. I want my 1917 to be legal too.

Len

For us older guys, one of the biggest challenges with your 1917 and the Model 10 will be the sight picture. 

It would be fun to have a pre-war revolver match. Stock sights only. No King conversions.

I think l thought I might have understood what they think they thought they said they meant

On July 9th there is a "CMP Revolver Match" at Camp Perry during the CMP Nationals. I can't find anything about this "new" match, course of fire or revolver eligibility rules. Looks like a fun match...anyone heard anything about this? 
Bob

Bob, it's a brand new match, the details are still being worked out by the CMP, as is the CMP 2020 pistol rulebook.

Thanks Dan.
Bob

Asa Yam wrote:Rule 4.1.4 ("Other Approved Service Pistols") has been modified to include new firearms.  Added to the list are:

• SIG P320 X5 Legion ...
  

Received a reply from CMP today re: X5 Legion and trigger pull weights.  Due to the amount of gunsmithing required to bring a ~3 lb. trigger to 4 lbs., the X5 Legion will NOT be an "Other Approved Service Pistol" in 2020.

BUMMER!!!!

I emailed a feeble plea that the s&w 15 with it's adjustable sights be included with or instead of the 10.  I *think* a K-frame can have a 4 lb single stage as long as all the usual tricks to lower the double action pull have not been done (anyone chime in on that yea or nay).  No response yet.

Merick wrote:I emailed a feeble plea that the s&w 15 with it's adjustable sights be included with or instead of the 10.  I *think* a K-frame can have a 4 lb single stage as long as all the usual tricks to lower the double action pull have not been done (anyone chime in on that yea or nay).  No response yet.

Very difficult for a single action to be made 4#.

Asa Yam wrote:Received a reply from CMP today re: X5 Legion and trigger pull weights.  Due to the amount of gunsmithing required to bring a ~3 lb. trigger to 4 lbs., the X5 Legion will NOT be an "Other Approved Service Pistol" in 2020.

BUMMER!!!!

Well, seems to me that's ridiculous reasoning. An unreasonable amount of gunsmithing is up to the gunsmith and competitor to determine. The responsibility of the people running the competition is to make sure the work done meets the letter of the rules.
But how often do you see trigger weight testing at local or state competition? To me THAT is the issue.

james r chapman wrote:

Merick wrote:I emailed a feeble plea that the s&w 15 with it's adjustable sights be included with or instead of the 10.  I *think* a K-frame can have a 4 lb single stage as long as all the usual tricks to lower the double action pull have not been done (anyone chime in on that yea or nay).  No response yet.

Very difficult for a single action to be made 4#.

Received a response:

"With regard to how Revolver triggers would be checked, the draft rules now state that if a M10 Revolver is used in an EIC Match, that its single stage trigger pull must be at least 2.5 lbs."

Also no indication on model 15 inclusion, other than it was forwarded to the rules committee.

My current thoughts are any advantage of a 2.5lb trigger would be completely mitigated by having no adjustable sights.  Also the model 10 is possibly the lowest barrier to entry on cost, availability, and learning curve.  Potentially like the garand in service rifle; something usually seen as leg meat, but still present in the P100.

 

http://www.hollowpointmold.com/wondersight/

It sounds like they're making it up as they go along.

After sending in my offer of help I was sent what seems to be a polite form letter.
"Thanks but no thanks".

" Our Communications Department monitors the forum and sends any comments or concerns about the new rules unto the rules committee.  The members of the rules committee then discuss all the information they receive to update and edit the final draft.  We expect a final draft of the new rules to be released sometime after the first of the year."

Well at least you heard back from them and they seem to be working on the rules. Let’s see what comes out and and then see how we can make it better for all. Will they make mistakes..?? Yep, at least they are trying.
I don’t recall seeing an errant email address and their rulebook for the past five years.

Danehogle wrote:Well at least you heard back from them and they seem to be working on the rules. Let’s see what comes out and and then see how we can make it better for all. Will they make mistakes..?? Yep, at least they are trying.
I don’t recall seeing an errant email address and their rulebook for the past five years.

LOL! The NRA rulebook mistake is an absolute disgrace.
Yeah, they're working on them. But without responding to feedback or actively engaging with discussion.

That really is the big question. "how we can make it better for all"

Past history as recounted by match directors and others here and elsewhere points to the rules being a very secretive and closeted group that hasn't been open to outside comments.

In a comprehensive revision process, there would be formal discussion between the rules committee and their primary audience the Match Directors. The Match Directors will be the ones faced with running their matches to follow them and interpreting and enforcing the rules. If I was on the rules committee, I wouldn't consider making a rules change public until a majority of Match Directors from the previous year had given their blessing (or that the contentious issues were differences of opinion or vision). Proposals turned down would get a reason in response. Issues where even one director felt the rules were not clear would result in an FAQ document listed with reference to the rule numbers. However, if a FAQ is required it's actually an admission that the rules are inadequate.

Each year, new FAQs and clarifications issued by the rules committee would ABSOLUTELY need to be reflected in the rules and addressed with new language or detail that should eliminate the need for the FAQ or clarification. If the FAQ or clarification doesn't need new language in the rules it undoubtedly needs inclusion in supporting documents (back to the fact that to run an organisation you needs rulebooks and procedure books) with the "permanent" FAQ becoming a "how to read the rules" with quotes from the relevant rules and supporting documents. Those "permanent" FAQs then need to be kept up-to-date over the years with the rules as they are revised.

The answer they sent me essentially means I would need to document every issue I've found, email competitions, and they'll consider it. Now If I'm really motivated, I might. How many others will? And how much weight is one novice Canadian competitor going to have through emails that require passing through filters before arriving at committee for consideration? If Match Directors haven't been listened to in the past, is it a good use of anyones time to bother?

The interest in discussing the draft rules in the CMP forums (the only one they might be monitoring) seems to be hovering around NIL and how many bullseye competitors are active on those forums? And the interest in discussing CMP rules at Targettalk.org - Bullseye Pistol Talk is also NIL.

I would highly suggest that everyone who has any concern about the CMP rules join the CMP forums and move your discussion about them there. At least then there's some chance the CMP communications staff might take notice and raise issues with the CMP Directors.

In some respects, this is like how NASCAR was run under Bill LaFrance.  Essentially “this is the game, you can play or not”.  Which has some merits.  

The issue here is how to make match rules clear and unequivocal.  That’s a high hill to climb, especially the latter.

I've emailed the CMP numerous times and received "form letter" type replies about half the time. No response at other times.

Same with the NRA.

"Storming the castle" is an apt phrase regarding those two.

Wobbley wrote:The issue here is how to make match rules clear and unequivocal.  That’s a high hill to climb, especially the latter.

And that is where they fail. There's nothing wrong with saying "that's the game, like it or lump it" when the rules are clear

Mind you, for anyone with the budget and skill it would be nice to get a few pistols out that take advantage of every possible hole in the rules.

I'm picturing a Laugo Arms Alien with calibre changes for .22 and .45, 6" barrel, free pistol style grips, Matchguns level trigger.

Seems the only way to get unequivocally clear rules into the hands of competitors and match officials isn't a "storming the castle" approach, but a sappers operation to undermine the walls.

Here is the response of the COO to a person who asked a question about the rules at Talladega Park:


http://forums.thecmp.org/showthread.php?t=254391&page=2