Change in optics power limit for service rifle?

[Gewehr43]

Originally Posted by champ0608

Oh I know. I also know that if US Army soldiers are being issued 6x scopes the AMU will want 6x scopes on their rifles.

And frankly, why not? If we're pretending these are still service rifles, and the Army is using 6x scopes, why not?

I'm trying to explain to you that what optics the AMU uses, or will use, or wants, has NOTHING to do with what a US Army Soldier is being or will be issued. Nothing.

If the CMP were to authorize 6x scopes the AMU would do exactly what they did when scopes were first allowed....... go shopping for March/Vortex etc scopes that gave them every advantage the new rule allowed.

NOONE picked the issued scopes at the time because they were poor performers at the SR game.
And noone will pick the SIG scope for the same reason.

[champ0608]

Originally Posted by Gewehr43

I'm trying to explain to you that what optics the AMU uses, or will use, or wants, has NOTHING to do with what a US Army Soldier is being or will be issued. Nothing.

If the CMP were to authorize 6x scopes the AMU would do exactly what they did when scopes were first allowed....... go shopping for March/Vortex etc scopes that gave them every advantage the new rule allowed.

NOONE picked the issued scopes at the time because they were poor performers at the SR game.
And noone will pick the SIG scope for the same reason.

But you don't need to explain that to me. I am very, very, very well aware of that. I have been shooting service rifles for quite a long time, and went through all of the transition angst everyone else went through in 2015/2016. I know.

I know that earlier I said "They'll want their team using the new Army optic. Or at least one with similar/relevant capabilities." I should have put emphasis on the second sentence. I will now. AT LEAST ONE WITH SIMILAR/RELEVANT CAPABILITIES.

I know the AMU adopted the Nightforce scope with the SR1 reticle, and then played a role in developing the SR2 reticle. I know.

The point of the thread was "will the rules change" and I said I think they will.

It is my opinion that the USAMU will want to go shopping for new 6x scopes now that the US Army has 6x scopes. It is also my opinion that the CMP will agree and change the rules once the AMU make that decision. It is also my opinion that if the US Army has 6 scopes, maybe "CMP service rifles" should have 6x scopes as well.

The AMU must remain relevant to the regular Army. It is their mission. When the Army get some 6x scope, the AMU will also want A 6x scope of some variety.

And this is an awful lot of typing for a small-talk, chit-chat thread about scopes, rules, and opinions.

It is my OPINION that the rules will change.

[Gewehr43]

Yes, we agree.......
And my OPINION is that if the CMP were to allow 6x scopes, except for being 6x, noone would choose that SIG scope or any in Military use and instead use a civilian model.
Not the AMU, nor any one else.

The AMU could care less about what the regular Army uses in selecting what Optic they use for Service Rifle.
If/When they train or train with Regular Army units they use exactly what they are being issued.
So they will use an M4 with CCO or M150............. or the SIG scope when fielded........ and M855A1 ammo, E-silhouettes, FLC's and ACH's

and leave all the "Service Rifle stuff" behind.

[missilegeek]

Originally Posted by champ0608

It is my OPINION that the rules will change.

The rules have nothing to do with the Service. "Service Rifle" isn't anymore.

[WindLogik]

Originally Posted by champ0608

But you don't need to explain that to me. I am very, very, very well aware of that. I have been shooting service rifles for quite a long time, and went through all of the transition angst everyone else went through in 2015/2016. I know.

I know that earlier I said "They'll want their team using the new Army optic. Or at least one with similar/relevant capabilities." I should have put emphasis on the second sentence. I will now. AT LEAST ONE WITH SIMILAR/RELEVANT CAPABILITIES.

I know the AMU adopted the Nightforce scope with the SR1 reticle, and then played a role in developing the SR2 reticle. I know.

The point of the thread was "will the rules change" and I said I think they will.

It is my opinion that the USAMU will want to go shopping for new 6x scopes now that the US Army has 6x scopes. It is also my opinion that the CMP will agree and change the rules once the AMU make that decision. It is also my opinion that if the US Army has 6 scopes, maybe "CMP service rifles" should have 6x scopes as well.

The AMU must remain relevant to the regular Army. It is their mission. When the Army get some 6x scope, the AMU will also want A 6x scope of some variety.

And this is an awful lot of typing for a small-talk, chit-chat thread about scopes, rules, and opinions.

It is my OPINION that the rules will change.

And I hope that further change is fought tooth and nail. I am tired of having to dump cash money into keeping up with "Service Rifle". It used to be the affordable option, and I don't want to keep buying scopes.

I think that what we do in SR matches is very different than what the military does. I have not seen a person shoot one match with a 4 power ACOG.

[rickgman]

Originally Posted by champ0608

The AMU must remain relevant to the regular Army. It is their mission. When the Army get some 6x scope, the AMU will also want A 6x scope of some variety.

Sorry but that logic if seriously flawed. The magnification is only one characteristic of a scope. There are other important characterists besides magnificant - among them are reticle design, windage and elevation turret design and resolution and objective lens diameter to name just a few. A scope that only has the same magnification as the issue scope simply isn't the same as an issue scope so it isn't "relevant" as you suggest.

[Louisxllx]

I have shot at least a half dozen High Power matches with a 4X ACOG. But I wasn't in the Service Rifle category because I used a 14.5 inch M4 configuration. Also, these matches were the reduced distance kind at both 200 and 300 yards.

This was before carbine types were classified as Service Rifles. It is very hard to use the ACOG because the 1,2 and 3 hundred meter stadia lines are close together. Instead of holding center at 200 yards (with the 200 meter line), I ended up putting the 300 meter line at six o'clock on the bull. 300 yards wasn't too bad because there is a bit more room between the lines and prone is pretty stable.

Plus you can really only hold off for wind.

I did mostly shoot Master (NRA) scores, with the highest being around a 767 I think.

[Roadkingtrax]

6x or higher will certainly be the standard in the future.

Shoot it or not, it doesn't matter.