Page 7 of 24

Re: Dress impressions

Posted: Mon Sep 22, 2014 9:03 pm
by DaveB
froggy wrote: Actually my club has an existing ban on more than 1 item of camo. Members have to choose either a jacket or a pair of camo trousers but not both worn at the same time.
My service rifle club has the same policy - one item of camo clothing only, unless you are actually serving and choose to shoot in uniform, of course.

A lot of shooters in NZ dress in camo - Mossy Oak or one of the other commercial hunting patterns seem to be most favoured, with the now-obsolete DPM in second place. It's practical, warm, comfortable and it's what they would wear when hunting and as far as some are concerned, shooting on ranges is only done as practice for hunting (this is especially true of the clay bird shooters). I have a couple of camo jackets from companies like "Hunters Element" which I wear when clay bird shooting on wet days - what's wrong with that? In the army we used to say "train as you mean to fight." Why wouldn't you practice for hunting, dressed in the clothing in which you intend to hunt?

Re: Dress impressions

Posted: Mon Sep 22, 2014 9:11 pm
by Strangely Brown
Steve E wrote:
Trident wrote:From the 2014 NRA Bible:

"SECTION 57 – DRESS, EQUIPMENT AND POSITIONS
201 Dress for civilian target shooting should be appropriate to the Discipline
and weather prevailing or expected. Military uniform should only be worn by
military personnel on duty (Para 202). A competitor whose dress, equipment
or position is thought inappropriate or likely to bring the Association into
disrepute may be challenged by the RO or other member of staff, and may be
required to withdraw."
Answers all the questions and should be enforced.
No it doesn't!
Do your homework; I refer you to the 2014 Bisley Bible on the rules for CSR. And yes I do wear one!

Page 98 Para 400:
"Modern medium-weight and heavyweight purpose-designed canvas,
leather or synthetic shooting jackets are prohibited. Similarly, the wearing
of excessive layers of clothing, with the purpose of restricting upper body
movement (thereby providing support), is also prohibited. The wearing of the
UK military issue sniper smock is allowed.
Sling keepers are allowed.

Re: Dress impressions

Posted: Mon Sep 22, 2014 9:31 pm
by Matt
Dougan wrote:
Individual wrote:Whilst we are on the subject...


May I just say on behalf of TR shooters... :55:

I bumped into Maggot wearing my TR jacket on Century a few weeks back...he was quite rude...but I'd of been disappointed had he not been razz



Why was Maggot wearing your TR jacket........ It must have been quite a snug fit tongueout :run:

zzzzom

Re: Dress impressions

Posted: Mon Sep 22, 2014 10:14 pm
by Blu
Dougan,
but also think that shooting tactical looking rifles dressed in full camo can be misconstrued by others, and isn't a great image for the public.
Dougan over there in the UK, shooting any tactical looking rifles can and is going to be misconstrued. Doesn't matter if the dress is full camo or full tweeds.

Re: Dress impressions

Posted: Mon Sep 22, 2014 11:17 pm
by hitchphil
Strangely Brown wrote:
Steve E wrote:
Trident wrote:From the 2014 NRA Bible:

"SECTION 57 – DRESS, EQUIPMENT AND POSITIONS
201 Dress for civilian target shooting should be appropriate to the Discipline
and weather prevailing or expected. Military uniform should only be worn by
military personnel on duty (Para 202). A competitor whose dress, equipment
or position is thought inappropriate or likely to bring the Association into
disrepute may be challenged by the RO or other member of staff, and may be
required to withdraw."
Answers all the questions and should be enforced.
No it doesn't!
Do your homework; I refer you to the 2014 Bisley Bible on the rules for CSR. And yes I do wear one!

Page 98 Para 400:
"Modern medium-weight and heavyweight purpose-designed canvas,
leather or synthetic shooting jackets are prohibited. Similarly, the wearing
of excessive layers of clothing, with the purpose of restricting upper body
movement (thereby providing support), is also prohibited. The wearing of the
UK military issue sniper smock is allowed.
Sling keepers are allowed.
The 2 sections do seem at odds? but the CSR section does not mention its ok to wear UK MOD boots, dpm trousers, green net scarf's, Vietnam jungle hats & yes i have actually seen it on Butt 19/300yds dpm face paint! I believe it addresses (pun?) the issue from a purely functional need with respect to the discipline of CSR shooting, & not the image presented as one parent described to me as 'portly weekend snipers' because they were in head to toe camo.

Image is everything & prejudice everywhere. The sport / interest does not need a paramilitary camo image, is got enough BS to deal with.

Re: Dress impressions

Posted: Mon Sep 22, 2014 11:44 pm
by Blu
Image is everything & prejudice everywhere. The sport / interest does not need a paramilitary camo image, is got enough BS to deal with.
While I'll concede that there are the odd Walters around I don't believe the sport has a paramilitary camo image. Check out the latest photos on this forum of the last organised shoot, there are a fair few people wearing camo pants or camo tops but they hardly look like SAS/sniper wanabees. They wear them for the comfort and rugginess of the stuff. It's got sod all to do with looking Mitty.

I'd say the biggest bullshit the sport has to deal with is guys who think target shooting or their discipline is the bee all and end all of shooting or it's that they think because they don't like something it shouldn't be allowed. Now that is bullshit.

Re: Dress impressions

Posted: Mon Sep 22, 2014 11:49 pm
by kennyc
The 2 sections do seem at odds? but the CSR section does not mention its ok to wear UK MOD boots, dpm trousers, green net scarf's, Vietnam jungle hats & yes i have actually seen it on Butt 19/300yds dpm face paint! I believe it addresses (pun?) the issue from a purely functional need with respect to the discipline of CSR shooting, & not the image presented as one parent described to me as 'portly weekend snipers' because they were in head to toe camo.

Image is everything & prejudice everywhere. The sport / interest does not need a paramilitary camo image, is got enough BS to deal with.


so what would you suggest? all black? too ninja! all tan? desert ninja, all blue? looks black when wet! tweed? you'll upset the Chelsea set, denim? soaks up water too quickly, and looks like a bunch of Dick Emery skinheads (actually that one might have wings...) I agree face paint and scrim maybe a bit excessive, but surplus boots are a boon for someone looking for warm comfortable footwear to go mud plugging in, without paying the earth for civi equivalents, same for DPM cheap and suitable for the job,boonie hats? keeps the sun off the back of your neck and doesn't give you concussion when the scope hits it on recoil like the peak of a baseball hat can(I'm guessing that reversed baseball caps are too SWAT to be allowed?)
the problem with worrying about the publics perception is that the sort of people who are liable to complain are the sort of people who are liable to complain! they complain just as vigorously about airsoft,paintball,tattoo's,piercings and strange hairdo's! they will just find something to complain about.
Badges and medals, insignia other than National flags and club emblems should rightly be banned (assuming the individual isn't entitled to them) but trying to ban a vaguely defined "style" of dress is simply silly.

Re: Dress impressions

Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2014 7:42 am
by karen
Strangely Brown wrote: A competitor whose dress, equipment or position is thought inappropriate or likely to bring the Association into disrepute may be challenged by the RO or other member of staff, and may be required to withdraw."
You do realise this covers far more than camo gear don't you? I remember when young girlies were banned from wearing tight shorts as they could be a bit too revealing but I guess you guys will say ttiuwp

Baggy shorts on men can be very revealing - you would not believe the amount of "meat and two veg" I have seen whilst walking along the firing point. Its not pretty guys :o

I have no problem with someone wearing the odd bit of camo (in fact I had a very nice pair of camo trousers when they were fashionable in the early 80s) but I think we all know the difference between someone wearing a camo item because the weather or other conditions require it and some complete saddo Walt covered head to toe!

Love

karen

Re: Dress impressions

Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2014 7:46 am
by Maggot
christel wrote:Haven't read the article, I do not read the rag, since Karen stopped doing it and Blaze took over I gave up taken an interest.

What on earth was Steve Houghton thinking when he wrote this.

United as shooters we do not stand, it seems. What does it matter what we wear, as long as we are having fun.
Probably the same as me C and yes it matters, big style but don't take this personally mate, you know me better dkflag

Before I start let me explain that I am (along with many) an exe serviceman. Regardless of what anyone says about that, I am fiercely proud and protective of my (rather ineffectual) part therein, but these days I am more proud than ever of what the folks still doing the day job are achieving, putting up with and are suffering as well.....and they keep volunteering regardless of what the politicians ask of them :roll:

I guess I don't speak for all of my kind, but so be it, we are all entitled to an opinion and this is my own...there are many like it but this one is mine :55:

The services (and more pertinently the front line club) is an exclusive club and those that did not serve should never be allowed to emulate for any other reasons than re-enactment (and even parts of that I find bizarre).

So that is my stance, take it or leave it. Arrogant arse? Possibly, but an arrogant arse with respect and common decency on his side.

I agree with him in part but on some very specific points he did not mention.

Firstly, there are regs regarding the wearing of military uniform etc at the NSC. We know that, its all in the Bisley bible.

Secondly, I have no issues with folk using this kit as long as it is used for practicality AND NOT with any waltish intent. The swear filter on here stops me from expounding on what I mean there but you will get my drift.

Recently we had 3 people stroll onto the firing point in full (rather scruffy) mulitcam. Up to the minute issue kit, one of which was wearing tac flashes and badges of rank.

I commented to a mate of mine that they did well to get the Chinook into the car park at Century that quietly and with so little damage. He is exe Scots Guards and rolled his eyes.

I asked the Sargent (actually I thought you could only grow a full set at a pioneer staffy but there you go) who he served with....the sheepish reply was "I didn't" and the thing disappeared for the day.

Now I may have intimidated the chap, I may have ruined his day, but the point is that he and many like him are not entitled. They did not serve, they did not do a years hard labour while others failed to earn the privilege, they have never seen their mates vaporise in front of them, been frozen, hungry, delirious with lack of sleep, sick with fear, lost limbs, be stuck with PTSD for the future or wind up living rough because they cannot cope.

He is one of quite a few that take this liberty, and personally, I find it really offensive. What next? Remembrance day with a medal and a Maroon beret? Its been done wtfwtf

Its all about sacrifice and entitlement you see...and these people are not F*cking well entitled tesnews

Now, there is a big difference between those that seek to look like and imitate, and those that are just using the kit because it is practical.

There are loads of garments that do the job that are not current British issue, and even then do not need to be worn with unit insignia or rank.....god knows most of us wont wear the stuff anyway, that should give you a clue.

I hear the argument..."The badges were on it when I bought it"...cobblers....take it off unless you are entitled.

You could argue that its no different to wearing your fave teams football shirt.....Did you do P company? nope?

So, to my mind

Ideally avoid wearing current issue kit if possible (often the alternative is better anyway)

If you do, don't go for the full monty....unless you wear it well and are not as wide as you are tall you will look effing silly anyway.

Please don't wear unit insignia/rank on any combination unless you were/are entitled. Its a pathetic lie and rather disrespectful to them that were.

One way or another the walts get found out anyway, its a small world. ;)

PS....you wont be getting an apology for this one :squirrel:

Re: Dress impressions

Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2014 7:51 am
by Maggot
kennyc wrote:The 2 sections do seem at odds? but the CSR section does not mention its ok to wear UK MOD boots, dpm trousers, green net scarf's, Vietnam jungle hats & yes i have actually seen it on Butt 19/300yds dpm face paint! I believe it addresses (pun?) the issue from a purely functional need with respect to the discipline of CSR shooting, & not the image presented as one parent described to me as 'portly weekend snipers' because they were in head to toe camo.

Image is everything & prejudice everywhere. The sport / interest does not need a paramilitary camo image, is got enough BS to deal with.


so what would you suggest? all black? too ninja! all tan? desert ninja, all blue? looks black when wet! tweed? you'll upset the Chelsea set, denim? soaks up water too quickly, and looks like a bunch of Dick Emery skinheads (actually that one might have wings...) I agree face paint and scrim maybe a bit excessive, but surplus boots are a boon for someone looking for warm comfortable footwear to go mud plugging in, without paying the earth for civi equivalents, same for DPM cheap and suitable for the job,boonie hats? keeps the sun off the back of your neck and doesn't give you concussion when the scope hits it on recoil like the peak of a baseball hat can(I'm guessing that reversed baseball caps are too SWAT to be allowed?)
the problem with worrying about the publics perception is that the sort of people who are liable to complain are the sort of people who are liable to complain! they complain just as vigorously about airsoft,paintball,tattoo's,piercings and strange hairdo's! they will just find something to complain about.
Badges and medals, insignia other than National flags and club emblems should rightly be banned (assuming the individual isn't entitled to them) but trying to ban a vaguely defined "style" of dress is simply silly.
Don't disagree Ken. Its about what you "Seek" to portray or otherwise mate.

I don't think the public care anyway, but you know my opinion on "NE" mate.

If appropriate I will be using a pouch etc for CSR (or whatever works) but only if it is what I see the old sweats doing because practical experience counts for a lot.

And I will continue to reverse my baseball cap "with" attached morale patch.....I look a twonk without it so no harm there mate.

You shorts may have to go though :run: