Go Back   CMP Forums > CMP Competitions > CMP Rules
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61  
Old 08-02-2015, 05:55 PM
Turner Saddlery, Inc. Turner Saddlery, Inc. is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Clay, Alabama
Posts: 165
Default

We are not talking about baseball or NASCAR. All I am doing is posting some additional info on the subject at hand that many of the younger shooters may not be aware of. As many have observed over the years, the program has grown into more of a sport than improving one's skill with martial arms in combat. I am a purest at heart, still fancy the days of single actions, lever guns, horses and wagons. I have many of the aforementioned weapons; however, neither would be my first go to weapon in a firefight, although, I do still carry a single action wheel gun in .45 Colt when the weather suits me and I would use what ever I had handy should danger threaten.

I guess the point I'm trying to get across is, anytime the Armed Forces makes any change or improvement which enhances the capability of the issue service rifle, of which the whole idea of Service Rifle Competition is or used to be centered on, there is always grumbling within the sport. The whole idea was to improve the capabilities of the current issue service rifle and hone the marksmanship skills of the individual rifleman so he can return to the ranks and better improve rifle or musketry skills within his unit. So therefore if the respective services mandated bipods for all service rifles, I'm sure that would come into play as well.

If the program is to stick with what is or was current at hand from the programs inception, everyone would be left competing with Krags when the M1903 Springfield was adopted and none the better for it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Craftsman View Post
So if in the future most troops are issued, and use bipods, would that be next to be legal in service rifle matches?
They still don't allow metal/composte bats in pro baseball, though many would wish they wood
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 08-02-2015, 06:03 PM
Craftsman Craftsman is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: South Florida
Posts: 6,982
Default

I wasn't directing my off the cuff comment at you, and removed it as I saw it was not in the spirit of this thread. My apologies if I offended anyone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turner Saddlery, Inc. View Post
We are not talking about baseball or NASCAR. All I am doing is posting some additional info on the subject at hand that many of the younger shooters may not be aware of. As many have observed over the years, the program has grown into more of a sport than improving one's skill with martial arms in combat. I am a purest at heart, still fancy the days of single actions, lever guns, horses and wagons. I have many of the aforementioned weapons; however, neither would be my first go to weapon in a firefight, although, I do still carry a single action wheel gun in .45 Colt when the weather suits me and I would use what ever I had handy should danger threaten.

I guess the point I'm trying to get across is, anytime the Armed Forces makes any change or improvement which enhances the capability of the issue service rifle, of which the whole idea of Service Rifle Competition is or used to be centered on, there is always grumbling within the sport. The whole idea was to improve the capabilities of the current issue service rifle and hone the marksmanship skills of the individual rifleman so he can return to the ranks and better improve rifle or musketry skills within his unit. So therefore if the respective services mandated bipods for all service rifles, I'm sure that would come into play as well.

If the program is to stick with what is or was current at hand from the programs inception, everyone would be left competing with Krags when the M1903 Springfield was adopted and none the better for it.
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 08-02-2015, 06:16 PM
Turner Saddlery, Inc. Turner Saddlery, Inc. is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Clay, Alabama
Posts: 165
Default

Craftsman:

No offense taken and didn't know you had deleted your post as I was working on getting the grill started while writing. I will delete if you would like.

I swear, Dick Culver has been channeling me since I saw the thread early this morning, and I toyed with the idea most of the day of whether or not to make a post and provide links to his writings on the subject, but he just wouldn't leave me alone.

RT
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 08-05-2015, 08:50 PM
Phoenix7 Phoenix7 is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Gillette, WY
Posts: 34
Default

I was wondering when this was going to happen. Hopefully this means the NRA will get on board without making it a separate category as most matches have done recently, otherwise there is the potential to have 2 different service rifles/configurations.

The real competitive advantage to be had here is for people whose eyes are fading, and for shots on the long line. I can foresee being able to pick up a point or two at 600 yards by being able to hold over rather than click on the sight if the wind changes while in position.

I'm assuming the new rule will probably require leaving the scope on at all stages. If so, I'm not sure an A4 upper is entirely the way to go. I've used an A2 with a scope mount for 3gun/action shooting before, and it was beneficial to only switch to the optic past 250 yds (I zeroed it at 300). I was faster with irons at 200 yds. Of course, someone may write this out of the rules...
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 08-06-2015, 01:47 AM
bamban bamban is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 76
Default

Optics for M1As! I'll take that, 1000 yards becomes a little easier to muster a good sight picture. This 63 year old guy might even do little better.

Those no fun guys in the rules committee will most likely conveniently forget about the 30 caliber service rifles and not accord them the same change. They would not even allow a real 10 round mags...
__________________
USAF 1972-1978
DRB 1234
P100
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 08-06-2015, 01:52 AM
Roadkingtrax Roadkingtrax is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: AZ
Posts: 8,431
Default

Nez, I'm afraid they will forget them altogether and remove their eligibility to solve the optics question.
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 08-19-2015, 03:48 PM
tjtorborg tjtorborg is offline
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Blaine, Minnesota
Posts: 1,778
Default

I emailed Mark Johnson about all of the rumors floating around and here is his response (posted with his permission):

Tom,

New rules package so far…. These are the changes thus far that are being discussed.

Service Rifle:
1) The only alibis that will be permitted are range alibis (no fault of the shooter).

2) Optics will be allowed on rifles that weigh 11.5 lbs., total with optic installed. Optics will only be allowed on the AR platform. The optic maximum magnification will be 4.5 power. There will not be a separate category for optical sighted ARs.

3) No weight limit on iron sighted, non-optical sighted ARs, i.e. you can shoot the current configured service rifle just as it is with no weight restrictions.

4) Only .223/5.56 NATO will be allowed for ARs, .308/7.62 NATO for M14 platforms, .308/7.62 NATO or .30/06 for M1 Garands.

5) M-4 type stocks will be allowed on the AR platforms.

If the rules pass the up-coming CMP Rules Committee meeting the new rules package will be implemented in the 2016 CMP Rules for Service Rifle and Service Pistol. Just a note a service rifle with no lead front or back weighs 10.9 pounds with carry handle installed. Remove the carry handle and install a 1-4.5 power scope and rings you get 11.25 lbs. With that said we set the weight limit with optics at 11.5 lbs. If you want to shoot with a scope you will not be able to lead the rifle. If you want to shoot with iron sights go as heavy as you like.

Best Regards,

Mark Johnson
Chief Operating Officer
Civilian Marksmanship Program
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 08-19-2015, 04:02 PM
Roadkingtrax Roadkingtrax is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: AZ
Posts: 8,431
Default

Is that a good scope avg weight?
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 08-19-2015, 04:12 PM
tjtorborg tjtorborg is offline
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Blaine, Minnesota
Posts: 1,778
Default

I assumed it was for some form of ACOG. Here is a link to amazon for the specs on one: http://www.amazon.com/Acog-Scope-Rif.../dp/B0010PR0QG

So that one weighs 0.62 pounds.
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 08-19-2015, 04:56 PM
missilegeek missilegeek is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: AL
Posts: 1,914
Default

Well, that kills my interest in continuing shooting CMP matches.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:23 AM.