CMP Forums

CMP Forums (http://forums.thecmp.org/index.php)
-   CMP Rules (http://forums.thecmp.org/forumdisplay.php?f=72)
-   -   2019 modern military (http://forums.thecmp.org/showthread.php?t=239559)

Talyn1 01-13-2019 02:21 PM

If CMPs intent was to develop a MMR Class (A) that appears to be oriented to standard-issue US military rifles to encourage more-participation, then developed weight specs that are below, or at the edge of what commercial-equivalents actually weigh and knowing that there are variations in weight in standard configurations, then they cut things a bit too close. Then CMP used open-ended language saying that..."the external configuration of the rifle must be "similar" to that of the original or military-type rifle".

Because the Service Rifle rules specifically requires the retention of certain components to retain the semblance of a service rifle (mil-spec CH, A1-A2 grip, etc.), why didn't CMP do the same for Standard/Class A and specifically list the specs for govt. issue barrel contours, etc. to meet a general weight target?

The CMP allows for a float tube on a Class A rifle when that inherently adds weight, and float tubes are not a standard US mil feature on an A2 rifle or carbine. IMO, shooters may have to use non-standard components (pencil barrels) in order to meet a razors-edge weight spec for Class A. CMP should have thought that Class A weight should be within +/- 6-8 oz. (1/2 lb.) of the 7.5 lb. spec., especially when standard classic A2, 20" govt-profile barrel, commercial equivalents are within a few oz. of the 7.5 lb. weight.

And for other Class B rifles the previous post indicates that the standard SAI M1A weight is already above the CMP weight threshold.

Also, in Rule 5.2.3(c), Rifles must be equipped with "issue-type" metallic front and rear sight"... What exactly is the issue-type sights if they are front & rear BUIS? With a rifle with a FSB are the older MATECH rear BUIS the only legal issue-type rear sight?

It seems to me that a lot of supposed Class A ARs will be bumped into the unlimited MMR category where more-refined Service Rifles are also "good-to-go".

My .02

FF1915 01-13-2019 02:27 PM

Thank you for saying what I was incapable of due to frustration.

la Fiere 01-13-2019 03:12 PM

More Food for Thought
 
As an experiment I swapped some parts around. This is the same configuration as the rifle pictured in Post #13 except with a 16" barrel and mid-length gas system.


Still not legal - weighs 7.9#.



http://pic20.picturetrail.com/VOL130.../414113041.jpg

Talyn1 01-13-2019 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by la Fiere (Post 1792458)
As an experiment I swapped some parts around. This is the same configuration as the rifle pictured in Post #13 except with a 16" barrel and mid-length gas system.


Still not legal - weighs 7.9#.



http://pic20.picturetrail.com/VOL130.../414113041.jpg

Yea, I don't know what CMP is thinking if a rifle in that configuration can't meet the weight threshold.

I don't see any fancy/extra bells & whistles that would give you a competitive advantage in that configuration with the pistol grip.
IMO that rifle is consistent with the 5.2.2 & 5.2.3 specs.

But considering you're in Kalifornia I'm not sure your rifle meets your states restrictive specs. Hope the Governors' black helicopters don't sweep down on you.

la Fiere 01-13-2019 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Talyn1 (Post 1792462)
Yea, I don't know what CMP is thinking if a rifle in that configuration can't meet the weight threshold.

I don't see any fancy/extra bells & whistles that would give you a competitive advantage in that configuration with the pistol grip.
IMO that rifle is consistent with the 5.2.2 & 5.2.3 specs.

But considering you're in Kalifornia I'm not sure your rifle meets your states restrictive specs. Hope the Governors' black helicopters don't sweep down on you.


The magazine cannot be removable without breaking open the action. A special mag release with that functionality is required. No effect on weight to speak of, however.



Basic issue still remains - rifle is seemingly exactly what the MM rules envision, but won't make weight.

Talyn1 01-13-2019 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by la Fiere (Post 1792466)
The magazine cannot be removable without breaking open the action. A special mag release with that functionality is required. No effect on weight to speak of, however.



Basic issue still remains - rifle is seemingly exactly what the MM rules envision, but won't make weight.

Yea I knew about the break open requirement. I thought pistol grips were a total no-no.

Maybe CMP had a AR built with titanium parts to make weight. :(

rickgman 01-13-2019 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Talyn1 (Post 1792469)

Maybe CMP had a AR built with titanium parts to make weight. :(

Or maybe the rule makers didn't know what they were doing. I'd bet on that explanation.

Talyn1 01-13-2019 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rickgman (Post 1792497)
Or maybe the rule makers didn't know what they were doing. I'd bet on that explanation.


I agree.

Right now I have a A2 fixed carry-handle build (w/BCG, fixed stock, spring, buffer, etc. & complete lower guts) w/o the front end (20" govt-profile barrel, FH, A2 handguards, FSB, rifle-length gas tube, and assorted barrel attachment parts) at 4.1 lbs. (Edit - remeasured 3X on digital scale after taking out an empty 20 rd. Lancer mag)

So I have 3.4 lbs. left for the front end to make a completely standard plain-Jane AR15A2 within the 7.5 lb. threshold.

If I can't do that then CMP doesn't know what a completely standard plain-Jane AR15A2 even weighs.

In contrast my Service rifle (flat-top upper, UBR Gen 1 stock + 1/2 lb. of weight, Hi-Lux XTC 1-3x34 scope w/WOA 10 MOA rail & NF low 20mm rings, RRA NM barrel FSB front end) that meets the new 2019 SR Spec Rules weighs in at 12.2 lbs. w/o sling & 20 rd. empty mag.

I would up the MMR Class A weight to 8 lbs. That should fix things for that Class.

Hello CMP Rules Team. Any one home?

Talyn1 01-13-2019 07:24 PM

I was just looking at Spikes Tactical 20" retro.

They list this info.

(Rifle’s include hard case and manual)

Weight: 9lb


The way I ready it that the hard case adds to the listed weight. I would expect the rifle is a lb. less in weight.

Jeremy2171 01-13-2019 07:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Talyn1 (Post 1792504)
I agree.

Right now I have a A2 fixed carry-handle build (w/BCG, fixed stock, spring, buffer, etc. & complete lower guts) w/o the front end (20" govt-profile barrel, FH, A2 handguards, FSB, rifle-length gas tube, and assorted barrel attachment parts) at 4.1 lbs. (Edit - remeasured 3X on digital scale after taking out an empty 20 rd. Lancer mag)

So I have 3.4 lbs. left for the front end to make a completely standard plain-Jane AR15A2 within the 7.5 lb. threshold.

If I can't do that then CMP doesn't know what a completely standard plain-Jane AR15A2 even weighs.

In contrast my Service rifle (flat-top upper, UBR Gen 1 stock + 1/2 lb. of weight, Hi-Lux XTC 1-3x34 scope w/WOA 10 MOA rail & NF low 20mm rings, RRA NM barrel FSB front end) that meets the new 2019 SR Spec Rules weighs in at 12.2 lbs. w/o sling & 20 rd. empty mag.

I would up the MMR Class A weight to 8 lbs. That should fix things for that Class.

Hello CMP Rules Team. Any one home?

Good luck getting a response...

Rules team still can't explain why WW2/KW era vintage semis are stuck competing in the MM class...nothing like shooting a 1950 rifle against a 2017 rifle...


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:31 AM.