modern military M1a

[mac1911]

Originally Posted by rickgman

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]

Originally Posted by jsudduth

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]

Originally Posted by mac1911

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]

Originally Posted by Mountain

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]

Originally Posted by missilegeek

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]

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]

Originally Posted by ceresco

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]

Originally Posted by Mountain

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]

Originally Posted by rickgman

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.

[ceresco]

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. ....