CMP Forums

CMP Forums (http://forums.thecmp.org/index.php)
-   CMP Rules (http://forums.thecmp.org/forumdisplay.php?f=72)
-   -   modern military M1a (http://forums.thecmp.org/showthread.php?t=241830)

mac1911 02-23-2019 11:35 AM

modern military M1a
 
are these recoil pads legal ?
https://www.fulton-armory.com/buttpl...ndition-1.aspx

Headspace 03-11-2019 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mac1911 (Post 1806819)

Hey Mac,
I'm not exactly sure what to tell you on the butt plate. My argument would be that the M14/M1A is not a 9 pound rifle. Yes, the program for the M14 was called (light rifle program) but, in my opinion & reading that kind of lost its way over the years of development.

My standard Springfield Inc. M1A GI parts & Winny barrel from 1991 with a thin early type GI walnut stock is 9.6 pounds no mag, no sling. Over the fall winter of 2018 I had a JRA/Bula receiver put together with an all GI parts kit, standard Criterion barrel and GI fiberglass stock and that comes in at 9.1 pounds.

Let me say I was rather displeased with the change to the weight in the MM B class as I had specked out both my rifles to be under 10 pounds not 9 an was looking forward to using my new JRA M14 this season and adhering to the rules in the spirit of the games. That seems to be all out the window now because I refuse to make any further modification to a rifle that I have already spent well over $1500 procuring parts and labor to assemble.

I will "run what a brung" as they say to Butner and Vermont. If they choose to put me in MM unlimited for 1.oz or put me out of competition for over weight then so be it.

As you say "fun stuff" It ought to be very interesting at the inspection tables this year !

David H.

mac1911 03-11-2019 06:21 PM

Yup same thing, dropped the coin on the dupage kit and built a rifle for a slim chance of getting to VT games....now Im to fat. i think I will make weight with out any big money spent. This butt plate is very light but its a cheap pos and a bit slick?
I got my AR down to weight but that gun was old and high round count so it was not a big deal. Plus I did not like the brake on it.

mac1911 04-15-2019 05:33 PM

My Mia makes weight now....took some small parts swapping and used my lightest stock

Headspace 04-18-2019 09:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mac1911 (Post 1825221)
My Mia makes weight now....took some small parts swapping and used my lightest stock

Same here.Took the butt plate apart and removed the outer hinged buttplate,roll pin,spring and ball bearing and to my suprise took 3oz off the GI fiberglass stock. So we're down under fighting weight now at 8lbs 14oz

Mountain 04-20-2019 03:09 PM

I have a restored USGI M14 stock with some nice figure and a sharp cartouche. Would it be legal to cut out the center of the buttstock, a little like this but otherwise standard contour:

https://media.mwstatic.com/product-i...965/965956.jpg

Would the hole make it illegal? Push to unlimited?

jsudduth 04-20-2019 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mountain (Post 1826895)
I have a restored USGI M14 stock with some nice figure and a sharp cartouche. Would it be legal to cut out the center of the buttstock, a little like this but otherwise standard contour:


Would the hole make it illegal? Push to unlimited?

The unlimited class is usually the catch all for anything that falls outside the “as issued” confines. However, I’ve never seen anything that heavily modified. I would run that by the CMP competition folks for a ruling since it is such a drastic mod.

Jim

mac1911 04-20-2019 10:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jsudduth (Post 1826916)
The unlimited class is usually the catch all for anything that falls outside the “as issued” confines. However, I’ve never seen anything that heavily modified. I would run that by the CMP competition folks for a ruling since it is such a drastic mod.

Jim

Modern Military Class A and Class B are not "As Issued" rifles


rule 5.2.3 and 5.2.4 < going on memory so might be a bit off.


If you read the rules for "class B" it has to make weight, trigger pull and Iron sights....SO one could argue that a thumb hole , pistol grip, chasis system stock on a M1a that makes weight is good to go.



oh wait though theres the " intent and spirit" thing they will toss around sometimes.To try and make the rules do something ? Will they toss a AK 47 platform based design to unlimitted because it has its "from the factory" thumb hole stock" or maybe one with the "AR 15 style stock kit"



Have fun with these new rules, I made 2 rifles to comply---well I think I did IF I happen to make it to VT games this year.

rickgman 04-21-2019 06:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mountain (Post 1826895)
I have a restored USGI M14 stock with some nice figure and a sharp cartouche. Would it be legal to cut out the center of the buttstock, a little like this but otherwise standard contour:

https://media.mwstatic.com/product-i...965/965956.jpg

Would the hole make it illegal? Push to unlimited?

This is a joke - right?

jsudduth 04-21-2019 06:35 AM

All modern military rifles have to meet 5.2.2 which in part states:

“The exterior configuration of the rifle must be similar to that of the original military or military-type rifle...”

Then the rules go on to define exceptions to the standard modern military rifle for the unlimited class.

“...or a Class B Modern Military Rifle that does not fully comply with Rule 5.2.4 (weight limit and/or sights). The following rules apply to Unlimited Modern Military Rifles:”

Then the rules go on to describe the sights and weight definitions.

So my interpretation is that the mod the poster was describing would significantly alter the exterior configuration such that getting a clear answer from the competitions folks at the CMP would be the way to go. Far better than showing up at a big match and being told you have to shoot out of competition.

ceresco 04-21-2019 08:00 AM

Fast track to the Unlimited Class. Cut out part of the stock to "make weight" and then put yourself back in with an obvious mod?? Good Shooting. ...

mac1911 04-21-2019 03:06 PM

Define similar
Define Iron sights? a2 , A1 , back up iron sights? Folding sight

Exterior dimensions used to be clearly defined...
Cutting a hole in a stock that meets “exterior” dimensions should not be a DQ
Heck
Then the fun begins on which “issued” stock from what time frame.

jsudduth 04-21-2019 04:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mac1911 (Post 1827182)
Define similar

sim·i·lar
/ˈsim(ə)lər/
adjective
1.
resembling without being identical.

Quote:

Define Iron sights? a2 , A1 , back up iron sights? Folding sight
Not relevant to a discussion regarding the M1A/M14.

Quote:

Exterior dimensions used to be clearly defined...
It still is as regards the M1A/M14.

Quote:

Cutting a hole in a stock that meets “exterior” dimensions should not be a DQ
We’ll have to agree to disagree.

Quote:

Heck
Then the fun begins on which “issued” stock from what time frame.
That is also covered in the rules. If you can present sufficient evidence to the competition committee they will review and possibly make an allowance for you.

Mountain 04-21-2019 07:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rickgman (Post 1827037)
This is a joke - right?

No- not that radical of a design- just a cut out in the center of a standard M14 butt stock. I can't quite make 9.0 lbs by removing the stock butt plates and stripper clip guide, so more measures must be taken. Shortening the barrel is another option, but that's going to get expensive and I might need to pin and weld the flash hider to stay out of NFA territory. Maybe just hollow out a lot of the butt stock so it has a more conventional look?

rickgman 04-21-2019 08:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mountain (Post 1827237)
No- not that radical of a design- just a cut out in the center of a standard M14 butt stock. I can't quite make 9.0 lbs by removing the stock butt plates and stripper clip guide, so more measures must be taken. Shortening the barrel is another option, but that's going to get expensive and I might need to pin and weld the flash hider to stay out of NFA territory. Maybe just hollow out a lot of the butt stock so it has a more conventional look?

A standard M1A can make the weight. Certainly with the polymer stock and maybe with the walnut stock depending on the density of the wood.

There is no way that anyone can consider a stock modified in the manner you described to be representative of a military rifle.

I think this sort of thinking is an unintended cosequence of a foolish equipment rule. The CMP needs to re-evaluate the changes that they have made.

jsudduth 04-21-2019 08:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mountain (Post 1827237)
No- not that radical of a design- just a cut out in the center of a standard M14 butt stock. I can't quite make 9.0 lbs by removing the stock butt plates and stripper clip guide, so more measures must be taken. Shortening the barrel is another option, but that's going to get expensive and I might need to pin and weld the flash hider to stay out of NFA territory. Maybe just hollow out a lot of the butt stock so it has a more conventional look?

How much weight do you have to shed?

Are you weighing anything else with the rifle like magazine or sling?

rickgman 04-21-2019 09:25 PM

Gentlemen, I do not think that a prudent person would consider a large hole bored in a stock to be representative of the external configuration of a military stock. It is quite possible to make an M1A meet the rules without engaging in this sort of ill advised modification.

Mountain 04-22-2019 08:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rickgman (Post 1827268)
Gentlemen, I do not think that a prudent person would consider a large hole bored in a stock to be representative of the external configuration of a military stock. It is quite possible to make an M1A meet the rules without engaging in this sort of ill advised modification.

Quite possible? How, exactly, without spending hundreds of dollars on a re-barrel or barrel modification? I see quite the variations of stocks on AR's for MM class competition- why not the M1A / M14?

The M14 in question (that is how the heel is marked, not M1A) is a Bula and over 9.0 lbs. If I recall correctly, CMP may make some allowance for over 9.0 based on the published weight of a standard commercially available rifle. Some makers publish weight to the nearest tenth, which helps, but last I checked Bula simply listed 9 lbs. I'm sure it's not 9.0 lbs. Besides that, mine is self built on a Bula receiver.

Talking about ill advised- I think CMP's 9.0 lb weight limit is ill advised, as is the 7.5 lb limit for AR's. I will have a couple more ounces to lose after removing the clip guide and replacing the butt plate with a more simple one. Guess I could hollow out the butt stock as much as feasible.

rickgman 04-22-2019 08:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mountain (Post 1827323)
Quite possible? How, exactly, without spending hundreds of dollars on a re-barrel or barrel modification? I see quite the variations of stocks on AR's for MM class competition- why not the M1A / M14?

The M14 in question (that is how the heel is marked, not M1A) is a Bula and over 9.0 lbs. If I recall correctly, CMP may make some allowance for over 9.0 based on the published weight of a standard commercially available rifle. Some makers publish weight to the nearest tenth, which helps, but last I checked Bula simply listed 9 lbs. I'm sure it's not 9.0 lbs. Besides that, mine is self built on a Bula receiver.

Talking about ill advised- I think CMP's 9.0 lb weight limit is ill advised, as is the 7.5 lb limit for AR's. I will have a couple more ounces to lose after removing the clip guide and replacing the butt plate with a more simple one. Guess I could hollow out the butt stock as much as feasible.

Firstly, we both agree on the fact that these latest rules were ill advised. A little research prior to the release of the rules would have done wonders.

If one uses the "spec" weights for various rifles, they can be misleading. One really needs to do actual measurements. I am quite certain that some manufacturers round off the weight numbers. I am also quite certain that SAI included the weight of a magazine in their specs. The rules state that the weight is determined without a magazine and without a sling. If one needs to trim off a few ounces there are some very easy ways to do that and stay well within the rules. Send me a PM and we can discuss further if you wish.

Mountain 04-22-2019 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rickgman (Post 1827331)
Firstly, we both agree on the fact that these latest rules were ill advised. A little research prior to the release of the rules would have done wonders.

If one uses the "spec" weights for various rifles, they can be misleading. One really needs to do actual measurements. I am quite certain that some manufacturers round off the weight numbers. I am also quite certain that SAI included the weight of a magazine in their specs. The rules state that the weight is determined without a magazine and without a sling. If one needs to trim off a few ounces there are some very easy ways to do that and stay well within the rules. Send me a PM and we can discuss further if you wish.

Thanks, your comments much appreciated.

mac1911 04-23-2019 05:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rickgman (Post 1827245)
A standard M1A can make the weight. Certainly with the polymer stock and maybe with the walnut stock depending on the density of the wood.

There is no way that anyone can consider a stock modified in the manner you described to be representative of a military rifle.

I think this sort of thinking is an unintended cosequence of a foolish equipment rule. The CMP needs to re-evaluate the changes that they have made.

"CAN" but many will not . Heck they even give SAI factory rifles a rule exception and give them a few oz leway....

mac1911 04-23-2019 05:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jsudduth (Post 1827202)
sim·i·lar
/ˈsim(ə)lər/
adjective
1.
resembling without being identical.


Not relevant to a discussion regarding the M1A/M14.


It still is as regards the M1A/M14.


We’ll have to agree to disagree.


That is also covered in the rules. If you can present sufficient evidence to the competition committee they will review and possibly make an allowance for you.

Again I dont see where it says the "modern military" rifles have to adhere to "as issued" standards.
Even in 5.2.2 it tosses in "commercial" offerings.

I dont think cmp did a good job of seeing what the commercial market offers in both current availabilty and what the similar commercial variations are out there. Especially when it come to weight.

Its all fun , even in the rules it says stocks can be shorter BUT no adjustable combs- it does not specify what/which rifles-
5.2.2 is not well written.
Again "as issued" cant play well with out defining "what is" The M14s issued today ....DMR, M39 sage.

What if I toss Iron sights on a M110 clone am i banished to UMM because I fall out of 223/556.
Its similar to AR 15 other than being slightly larger?

Similar is a problem. Heck if its running with a M1a action thats similar correct?
The rules people will be busy im sure.

Also i will be getting CMP responses to my particulars IF I can get to VT this year. So far I have made effort to stay with in the rules. ALthough i will argue them as the rifles i took Time and money to adhere to over the past few years are (modified now,) no longer "good".

I think the new rules did a good job of pushing away more shooters.

Mountain 04-23-2019 07:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mac1911 (Post 1827592)

I think the new rules did a good job of pushing away more shooters.

Sadly, I think you will be correct. 1- Pushing away or at least sucking some enjoyment from existing shooters who have been compliant for a few years but now are spending significant time and money to re-tool. 2 - Pushing away potential new shooters over rules that are challenging if not difficult to meet via existing commercial offerings.

Unless you buy a SAI M1A version that falls within the special allowance over 9.0 lbs or you buy some sort of lightweight carbine AR15, there are few clearly compliant options at the allowable 20" barrel length. How many companies are offering a complete AR15 rifle built with a pencil barrel? To get below 7.5 lbs, most standard barrel weight AR rifles are going to need an 18" barrel. OK fine- but what about everyone who has been shooting the standard weight 20" barrels for years?

What I really want to know was who exactly was pushing for the new rules changes, and how many of them were involved? I suspect a very small, minority number of loudmouth whiners can be 'thanked' by us for all the extra hoops and expense we must face.

missilegeek 04-23-2019 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mountain (Post 1827615)
What I really want to know was who exactly was pushing for the new rules changes, and how many of them were involved? I suspect a very small, minority number of loudmouth whiners can be 'thanked' by us for all the extra hoops and expense we must face.


Based on past experience, I doubt anyone outside the rules committee requested this stuff. These rules have been in flux since the start.

rickgman 04-23-2019 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by missilegeek (Post 1827657)
Based on past experience, I doubt anyone outside the rules committee requested this stuff. These rules have been in flux since the start.

I'm not a betting man but I'd place money on your suspicion. The stated "rationale" for the most recent change is pretty lame.

ceresco 04-23-2019 12:37 PM

My feeling is that the rules commitee simply does not put much effort into their job. Mistakes in the rule books persist for years, changes seem to be made on whims or requests from favored individuals and without sufficient feedback from the appropriate sources-- obvious in recent decisions. It appears that some selected areas get attention some years while most areas (including those with problems) are ignored. It is CMP's game and I no longer get too excited about how they manage it. Good Shooting. ..

Mountain 04-23-2019 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ceresco (Post 1827693)
My feeling is that the rules commitee simply does not put much effort into their job. Mistakes in the rule books persist for years, changes seem to be made on whims or requests from favored individuals and without sufficient feedback from the appropriate sources-- obvious in recent decisions. It appears that some selected areas get attention some years while most areas (including those with problems) are ignored. It is CMP's game and I no longer get too excited about how they manage it. Good Shooting. ..

The last round of MM equipment rules changes opened up the ability to use optics plus some related changes to accommodate them. On a good day, optics were no benefit to me. On a bad day (tired and/or jet lagged from work), optics helped my slow prone score by a point or two on average but were little benefit in rapids and offhand. At least this rules change didn't DQ anyone if they wished to maintain their existing configuration.

The latest rules change is a completely different situation, as we have just about beat to death over our frustrations. I'm just curious who are they listening to when deciding to change? Nobody I know called for these changes, and I know or am acquainted with several top shooters with the program- Perry winners and/or top 5, winners of Games events, record holders, etc.

rickgman 04-23-2019 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mountain (Post 1827716)
I'm just curious who are they listening to when deciding to change? Nobody I know called for these changes, and I know or am acquainted with several top shooters with the program- Perry winners and/or top 5, winners of Games events, record holders, etc.

I think that Missllegeek's idea is probably the most logical. The Rules Committee probably initiated this change. Like you, I do not know anyone who was dissatisfied with the previous rules. They were a bit vague but most everyone was reasonably satisfied. That certainly isn't the case any longer.

The stated rationale was that somehow the initial intent of the match was lost. Supposedly, they wanted to get back to a match where folks were able to bring out to the range their old SP1's or standard M1A's which were sitting in closets or safes and compete with them. I don't see how the previous rules created any issues which prohibited folks from doing just that. They also allowed folks to shoot rifles that were near to the current standard service rifle (the M4A1 carbine).

What really confused me was the fact that they now allow free floating barrels. The old SP1's did not have free floating barrels - nor does the M4A1 carbine for that matter. That obviously came out of left field.

Just another case of a poorly thought out proposal made official.

Mountain 05-01-2019 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rickgman (Post 1827741)
I think that Missllegeek's idea is probably the most logical. The Rules Committee probably initiated this change. Like you, I do not know anyone who was dissatisfied with the previous rules. They were a bit vague but most everyone was reasonably satisfied. That certainly isn't the case any longer.

The stated rationale was that somehow the initial intent of the match was lost. Supposedly, they wanted to get back to a match where folks were able to bring out to the range their old SP1's or standard M1A's which were sitting in closets or safes and compete with them. I don't see how the previous rules created any issues which prohibited folks from doing just that. They also allowed folks to shoot rifles that were near to the current standard service rifle (the M4A1 carbine).

What really confused me was the fact that they now allow free floating barrels. The old SP1's did not have free floating barrels - nor does the M4A1 carbine for that matter. That obviously came out of left field.

Just another case of a poorly thought out proposal made official.

IMHO, one of the bigger challenges of shooting a MM AR was controlling sling tension so that your POI was consistent. Allowing free float is really confusing for me as well. Trying to be more inclusive? End result is that I now have rifle that probably will help me to get higher slow prone & definitely higher rapid prone scores even after removing the optic.

Found the lightest free float fore end for reasonable money and put a few other parts on a diet. Ugly, makes weight, and probably an even bigger equipment advantage than the non-free float version with an optic.

:confused:

ceresco 05-01-2019 02:58 PM

Look at the Eastern Games Modern Military (including unlimited) scores in competition tracker. There is essentially no difference in the top ten in either category. If CMP wanted to restore the 7.5lb, pencil barrel, M16 accuracy level; they should have left out the free float handguard. It would also be helpful to know, specifically, what rifle was used.... Good Shooting. ....

fartblossom1953 05-03-2019 05:58 PM

I'm still wanting to keep shooting my m1a. I just weighed it and it's 9 lbs 1 oz with all gi parts and the fiberglass GI stock unmodified. I'm not going to REMOVE the issued GI components (except for Smith early receiver) just to make weight. That is not AS issued to the military. The civilian models don't even have the disconnect mechanism so it's pretty obvious the original weight was a few oz over 9 lbs.

mac1911 05-04-2019 06:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fartblossom1953 (Post 1830607)
I'm still wanting to keep shooting my m1a. I just weighed it and it's 9 lbs 1 oz with all gi parts and the fiberglass GI stock unmodified. I'm not going to REMOVE the issued GI components (except for Smith early receiver) just to make weight. That is not AS issued to the military. The civilian models don't even have the disconnect mechanism so it's pretty obvious the original weight was a few oz over 9 lbs.

Most likely.... CMP made no attempt to see what the commercial offerings where coming off the line with. This is clear when CMP gives Springfield Armory Inc a clear variation to the weight rule? Why just SAI?
Like i said my rifle now makes weight.
The "similar" portion is a complete mess. Im waiting on my friend to weigh his tricked out socom. i eould love for him to show up to VT. See how they decide to classify him.

HMC 05-16-2019 09:43 AM

good source for composite stocks?
 
At the risk of "poking at the bear(s)" .... I have a stock SAI loaded M1A with the walnut stock. Pretty sure it will come in above 9.0 lbs. As I understand things I could try to shoot her as is in MM, but may or may not be able to depending on how the inspector feels about the stock SAI "exemption". I'm considering changing out the walnut stock for a composite stock and wondered what a good source might be? Appreciate the help!

rickgman 05-16-2019 09:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HMC (Post 1834524)
At the risk of "poking at the bear(s)" .... I have a stock SAI loaded M1A with the walnut stock. Pretty sure it will come in above 9.0 lbs. As I understand things I could try to shoot her as is in MM, but may or may not be able to depending on how the inspector feels about the stock SAI "exemption". I'm considering changing out the walnut stock for a composite stock and wondered what a good source might be? Appreciate the help!

HMC, Firstly, I would recommend actually weighing your rifle. There is enough variation that weight might not be an issue. If you do go to a polymer stock, a GI stock might be the best bet. They are stiffer than the SAI polymer stocks. Good luck.

ceresco 05-17-2019 05:45 AM

I purchased a M1A "scout" last year. It came with a light weight SA inc black plastic stock. The accuracy was terrible. I put it into a GI bedded stock (cut out for the infrared night sight) and the accuracy improved greatly. The plastic (fiberglass??) stock weighs 2# 3oz complete with rubber butt pad. A standard GI issue wood stock (complete) was 2# 14oz, for comparison. FWIW. Good Shooting. ....

lite-box 05-19-2019 04:24 PM

SA Inc standard with GI bbl in SA Inc heavy profile wood stock w/ leather sling 9.04 lbs, Same rifle in GI synthetic with filled selector no sling 8.01 lbs

Bula standard in GI synthetic filled selector no sling 8.04 lbs

Digital fish scale.

Mountain 08-07-2019 06:39 AM

Next topic: Sights

Last year I was bounced to Unlimited for having a NM front sight on my M1A. Does anyone know the logic that allows any size front sight post in an AR / Class A, but not for a M1A / Class B? Also, what could possibly be the logic behind allowing rear sight adjustment finer than MOA for Class A but 'standard sight configuration' for Class B?

rickgman 08-07-2019 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mountain (Post 1857123)
Next topic: Sights

Last year I was bounced to Unlimited for having a NM front sight on my M1A. Does anyone know the logic that allows any size front sight post in an AR / Class A, but not for a M1A / Class B? Also, what could possibly be the logic behind allowing rear sight adjustment finer than MOA for Class A but 'standard sight configuration' for Class B?

It is my understanding that NM front sights are now allowed on M1A's since that this the standard sight on new M1A basic rifles.

Mountain 08-07-2019 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rickgman (Post 1857342)
It is my understanding that NM front sights are now allowed on M1A's since that this the standard sight on new M1A basic rifles.

I've heard the same rumor, but can't find anything in writing. I'd want to have something definitive for back up in case they want to bounce someone again.

I heard firsthand that if someone brought an A2 AR to Perry and it was 1 oz over 7.5 lbs, it would get bounced to unlimited.

No offense, but there are lots of 'understandings' and little clarity on rules that are IMHO too open to interpretation.

ceresco 08-07-2019 05:33 PM

One M1A shooter with a new, standard (walnut) SA M1A was placed in "unlimited" due to weight. I don't think that should have happened. The shooter on his left was shooting mostly Xs with his scoped service rifle.....same class. I shot my "purpose built" 7.5 lb A2 and won the (really) old guy class with an embarrassing 278. Good Shooting. ...


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:51 AM.