View Single Post
  #22  
Old 04-23-2019, 05:40 AM
mac1911 mac1911 is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,944
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jsudduth View Post
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.
Reply With Quote