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 07:53 PM

Yea, I don't expect a response.

missilegeek 01-13-2019 09:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeremy2171 (Post 1792570)
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...


Because the "rules team" isn't accountable to the customer and lacks actual experience/historical knowledge.

rickgman 01-13-2019 09:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by missilegeek (Post 1792600)
Because the "rules team" isn't accountable to the customer and lacks actual experience/historical knowledge.

You bring up a couple of very good points.

mac1911 01-13-2019 10:10 PM

What a PITA. My RRA A2 with A1 length stock is 7.6lbs on my scale.
When MM first came about and the "military contour" barrel rule was "in" I could not find a "military contour" barrel in stock except some old collectable 1/12 twist pencil barrels for dumb money.

And I built a Rock Ola with USGI parts kit to maybe go to VT with this year....but nope it wont make weight either.
Should be real simple M16 pattern rifle.
Sights basic A1/A2 sights with a max sight radius ?
Matters not if detach or not to me.
No free float tubes
4.5# trigger
Under 8lbs

Seems like theres not many M1a making weight . Maybe they are trying to push them out of MM?

Honeslty theres not much modern in MM . After all its based on grand dads service rifles.

Mountain 01-14-2019 11:01 AM

Extremely disappointed with CMP's revolving door policy with rules changes. Absolutely horrible decision making.

I had already converted my Modern Military AR to a lightweight scope to help compensate for aging eyes. Coming from a ban state, I'll have to drill out or just cut off the welded thread protector to reinstall a front sight. I probably won't bother, because I know it won't make weight despite the configuration being otherwise fully compliant with the rules. I have a 20" USGI specification barrel in it and old school triangular handguards that I think are lighter than the modern round ones, but it's still going to be over 7.5 lbs unless I get a pencil barrel, chop the existing barrel, and/or go to one of those expensive lightweight upper receivers.

Guess I could just shoot my M1A? Oh, nevermind- that also is over the 'new' weight limit. I know several folks shooting walnut stocked M1A's in CMP matches and as far as I recall, none will be 9.0 lbs or less.

Probably I will just forget the Monkeyshines Military class and grab my service rifle to shoot the Unlimited class. However, I am tempted to build a technically compliant Modern Mil abomination via cutting down an old White Oak service rifle barrel I have. I'll free float it and use ultra-light parts to compensate for the barrel weight. I think an obnoxious paint scheme would be in order as well.

Talyn1 01-14-2019 11:47 AM

I ordered a Windham A2 front end (20" govt. profile) this morning and should have it by the end of the week. I'll weigh it when I get it to add to the 4.1 lbs. weight of everything behind it right now. It should end up less than 8 lbs.

Will weigh it again once assembled.

Maybe I could fit some small helium-filled balloons/condoms inside the grip and buttstock compartment to lighten it up :)

Mountain 01-14-2019 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Talyn1 (Post 1792752)
I ordered a Windham A2 front end (20" govt. profile) this morning and should have it by the end of the week. I'll weigh it when I get it to add to the 4.1 lbs. weight of everything behind it right now. It should end up less than 8 lbs.

Will weigh it again once assembled.

Maybe I could fit some small helium-filled balloons/condoms inside the grip and buttstock compartment to lighten it up :)

Don't forget that hydrogen is lighter than helium. ;)

FF1915 01-14-2019 02:31 PM

Removed the stripper clip guide and the ole flipper from my M1A. Ordered a gi front sight from Windy City. Spent most of the morning on the phone with RR and Criterion. Ended up spending around $600 on upper parts and still have some to go. Need to have the front sight installed on the barrel I ordered as there were no provisions for it. Should come in just under weight if I toss the flash hider.

Talyn1 01-14-2019 04:52 PM

It's ironic that CMP develops a Modern Military Rifle Class that's supposed to represent a standard issue military rifle (i.e. M16)..."similar to that of the original military or military-type rifle (5.2.2) but specifies an arbitrary weight that the..."original military or military-type rifle" did not and cannot achieve without the owner using non-standard parts and/or stripping the rifle of the original parts that the "original military or military-type rifle" was produced with.

Besides the weight issue, then CMP allows for..."a float tube or free-floated handguard" (5.2.3) which the standard-issue M16 never was built with.

Talyn1 01-14-2019 04:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mountain (Post 1792792)
Don't forget that hydrogen is lighter than helium. ;)

Yea but I'd hate to catch fire on the firing line. :cry:

FF1915 01-14-2019 04:57 PM

The stripper guide and butt plate flap with pin,ball, and spring removed 4.5 oz from my M1A.

Mountain 01-14-2019 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FF1915 (Post 1792858)
The stripper guide and butt plate flap with pin,ball, and spring remover 4.5 oz from my M1A.

Nice! I'd need a little more- maybe remove the entire butt plate and cover with a DIY aluminum plate, then remove the flash hider and any extra weight from a front sight. My stock is a beautifully restored USGI by LRB, so I won't be modifying any wood.

Ridiculous that we have to do this.

Talyn1 01-14-2019 05:57 PM

CMP must have used Wikipeda to establish the Class A weight threshold, but didn't quite understand standard deviations.

According to Wikipedia's M16 page the following weights are listed.

The original M-16 weight: 6.37 lb. (2.89 kg) (unloaded), 7.5 lb (3.40 kg) (loaded)

Note: according to the M16 weights listed above a loaded 30 rd. mag weighs 1.13 lbs.

The M16A1 weighed 7.9 pounds (3.6 kg) with a loaded 30-round magazine. (w/o mag = 6.77 lbs.)

The M16A2 weighs 8.8 lb. (4.0 kg) loaded with a 30-round magazine, because of the adoption of a thicker barrel profile. (w/o mag = 7.67 lbs.) Windham Weaponry lists their A2 Classic at 7.7 lbs. Other manufacturers of seemingly identically configured A2, or detachable carry handle fixed sight, rifles list varied weights.

So using the empty mag weight for an issue A2 even it would not meet the Class A weight threshold. So does how does CMP fit these semi-auto commercial equivalents of these rifles into Class A when they duplicate the configurations of the A2 issue rifles?

Should Class A only apply to M16/A1 configured ARs? That means a need for more M16/M16A1 retro parts, but kicks the A2 (adopted as issue in 1982) out of the Class.

Page ii of the 2019 CMP Games Rifle and Pistol Competition Rules says the..."The CMP Board of Directors and its Rules Committee has the sole authority to establish and amend these Rules." They can be reached.

Rule Interpretations. To obtain a clarification or interpretation of any CMP Rule, contact CMP Competitions, 419-635-2141, ext. 714 or 722 or competitions@thecmp.org, to request a CMP ruling or interpretation. The CMP staff has the authority to interpret unclear rules, but may not modify rules. The CPRPFS Board of Directors and its Rules Committee have the sole authority to modify CMP Competition Rules.

I suggest folks contact CMP requesting an amendment to 5.2.3 to change the weight to 8 lbs. This simple fix should cover the commercially available, 20" govt-profile barrel, fixed sight A2 and the heavier detachable-handle A4-type (issued as M16A2E4/M16A4) rifles as well as shorter-barreled as-issued carbine equivalents.

Also, considering a HBAR profile barrel weighs ~1 lb. more than a govt. profile barrel that would put a HBAR AR15 over a 8 lb. threshold. While the US military tested HBAR M16's these heavy barrel profiles were never standardized, so if CMP doesn't want HBAR AR rifles included in Class A then specifically state that, much like the specific exclusions in the Service rifle Rules.

Herzo 01-15-2019 12:43 PM

Reiteration of Rules posted this morning, Emphasis on "issue type sights", 7.5# weight, and allowing floating front ends for the AR's in MM.

Talyn1 01-15-2019 12:57 PM

Yes, we know.

I'd like a straight answer from CMP why the commercial AR15A2-type rifles (SA equivalent of the M16A2 that has been an issue rifle since 1982) has been excluded from Class A due to the 7.5 lb. weight limit.

Mountain 01-15-2019 02:30 PM

There are at least two easy solutions for this problem.

1) make a barrel out of brake tubing.
2) build a rifle with a skeletonized upper and lower set. Will only set you back another $500 - $600 dollars, right?

FF1915 01-15-2019 02:34 PM

I bought a criterion hybrid and an Odin O2 hanguard. Dropping the flash hider and just running a thread protector. Should make weight on an old A2 I had. Keep in mind these barrels and a new front sight need to be drilled and pined. That will add to the cost.

GarandThumb21 01-16-2019 09:20 PM

According to the Army’s Field Manual on Rifle Marksmanship, a M16A2 rifle, without magazine or sling, weighs 7.78 lbs. This information is not hard to locate. CMP should’ve known that their rule change would disqualify virtually any commercial variant of the M16 family of rifles, other than an M16A1.

Talyn1 01-16-2019 09:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GarandThumb21 (Post 1793683)
According to the Army’s Field Manual on Rifle Marksmanship, a M16A2 rifle, without magazine or sling, weighs 7.78 lbs. This information is not hard to locate. CMP should’ve known that their rule change would disqualify virtually any commercial variant of the M16 family of rifles, other than an M16A1.

Yep. Anyone shooting at any CMP sanctioned event should bring this point up if they see any CMP officials allowing folks wanting to shoot the A2 in Class A matches.

But according to CMP..."The original Modern Military Rifle rules featured a 7.5 lbs. weight limit, restricted rifles to metallic sights and prohibited accurizing modifications that were common on M16-type match rifles. The new events proved to be popular, but every year there were more competitors who wanted to use rifles that were heavier or had accurizing features like float tubes.

For 2019, after much debate and inputs from many, the CMP decided to return the first Modern Military Rifle Class to its original rules as a Standard Modern Military Rifle and to establish a separate Unlimited Modern Military Rifle Class. The Standard Modern Military Rifle will go back to its original 7.5 lbs. weight limit for AR-type rifles and 9.0 lbs. for M1As. Standard Modern Military Rifles will be restricted to metallic sights only. Rifles that weigh more than 7.5 lbs. or 9.0 lbs. or that have optical sights will now be in the Unlimited Modern Military Rifle Class. Restrictions against float tubes or metallic sights with finer adjustments were removed for both classes. "


So CMP kicks the basic A2 into the unlimited class while contradicting themselves by criticizing float tubes then saying they're OK on a basic AR that never had them as an original feature.

All CMP needed to do was to say only ARs that replicate the original issue configuration are allowed in Class A.

I'm still building up my A2 for the fun of it, and in case CMP comes to its senses for Class A.

Gewehr43 01-16-2019 10:37 PM

Has anyone actually weighed a AR15A2? Instead of quoting books?

GarandThumb21 01-16-2019 10:52 PM

I have the Windham A4 upper with carry handle and 20” govt profile barrel. Paired with my lower, it looks and feels like a M16A2...including weight (about 7.8 lbs.) IMO, a weight limit on these rifles should take into account the weight of the military rifle (M16, M14 etc), and should consider the weights of commercially available rifles that otherwise meet the requirements of the rule. Setting the weight limit below the military rifle weight doesn’t make sense.

Talyn1 01-16-2019 11:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gewehr43 (Post 1793716)
Has anyone actually weighed a AR15A2? Instead of quoting books?

I'll have mine (a Windham A2 barrel assembly is on the way) ready the end of next week, and will weigh it on a digital scale.

Otherwise Windham Weaponry lists a weight of 7.7 lbs. for their A2 Classic.

FF1915 01-16-2019 11:05 PM

I’ll weigh my new upper when the barrel comes in.

Talyn1 01-16-2019 11:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GarandThumb21 (Post 1793723)
I have the Windham A4 upper with carry handle and 20” govt profile barrel. Paired with my lower, it looks and feels like a M16A2...including weight (about 7.8 lbs.) IMO, a weight limit on these rifles should take into account the weight of the military rifle (M16, M14 etc), and should consider the weights of commercially available rifles that otherwise meet the requirements of the rule. Setting the weight limit below the military rifle weight doesn’t make sense.

I agree. That's why I suggested that CMP use 8 lbs. for the Class A weight to cover any variations.

That weight would also exclude the old HBAR since the HBAR barrel weighs 1 lb. more than a 20" govt. profile barrel. Plus the HBAR was never standardized as a military configuration.

If CMP would only specify that for Class A that only the M16, M16A1 and M16A2 variant configurations would suffice as the patterns for the semi-auto commercial versions that would remove any interpretation problems. KISS = Keep it Simple S...….

ceresco 01-16-2019 11:11 PM

The new 7.5# weight rule makes it difficult to build a legal 20" rifle, but a 16" HB CAR is no problem. I have a early Colt M16A1 upper that weighs 4lb 4oz. With a standard A2 lower (2lbs 9oz), I am legal at 6 lbs 13oz. A free float handguard is not going to change much and will be needed based on my previous experience. An A2 or A4 upper with carry handle will add weight as will any barrel other than the original "pencil" barrel. The typical adjustable buttstock will shave off around 8 oz. The rules are not clear as to the legality of CAR type Carbines, A4+carry handle uppers adustable stocks, etc. I read the rules as allowing them, but there are way too many unanswered questions. I just ordered a pencil barrel knowing full well that this is probably not the end of this mess. Good Shooting. .. Addendum: possibly useful info: carbine HG with delta hardware--7 oz. WO A2 upper receiver--13 oz. A4upper+carry handle--15 oz. M16 complete front sight--5 oz. Complete CAR A2 upper--71 oz. Tube (aluminum) Free Float HG with barrel nut--8.5 oz. Complete BCG--11.5 oz (ave). Complete A2 lower--41 oz. Typical "pencil" barrels 28-29 oz. All weights can vary some......

Talyn1 01-16-2019 11:20 PM

Right now my entire A2 fixed-stock assembly, w/o everything front of the barrel nut threads weighs 4.1 lbs.

In my research folks say a standard govt. profile 20" barrel weighs 2 lbs. that leaves me 1.4 lbs. for the rest of the barrel parts, gas tube & handguards to make 7.5 lbs.

Well see how things play (weigh) out.

If I have to I can use a LW BCG and Carbine buffer w/spacer to shave off around 4 oz. while keeping it looking like a standard A2.

Pappy 01-17-2019 02:50 AM

My A2 build (with carry handle and A1 stock) comes in at 7.8 pounds. I'll be taking the scope off my (EX MM) 16" and adding a carry handle I guess. I have a clone M14 that makes weight.

Jeremy2171 01-17-2019 04:00 AM

I'm seriously thinking there my be an opiod crisis on the CMP rules committee....

la Fiere 01-17-2019 09:05 AM

I am far from an expert on AR types and designations, but I think my rifle pictured in Post #13 above, is configured more less like a semi-auto A2. It weighs over 8 lbs.

Jeremy2171 01-17-2019 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by la Fiere (Post 1793795)
I am far from an expert on AR types and designations, but I think my rifle pictured in Post #13 above, is configured more less like a semi-auto A2. It weighs over 8 lbs.

I agree.."any" general issue are configuration AR should be in class A.. A4 with rail.. etc....as long as no match items or float tubes or optics.

Think class A as original configuration iron sights only.

Class B .... whatever ...

Talyn1 01-17-2019 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeremy2171 (Post 1793846)
I agree.."any" general issue configuration AR should be in class A.. A4 with rail.. etc....as long as no match items or float tubes or optics.

Think class A as original configuration iron sights only.

Class B .... whatever ...

I agree. Class A should be your basic mil-equivalent AR at 8 lbs. or less.

CMP said they sought out feedback on this Rules change. I don't recall any CMP post on this board asking for feedback.

FF1915 01-17-2019 02:16 PM

They asked for feedback at the travel games I attended last year. They said changes were coming and asked for input.

Talyn1 01-17-2019 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FF1915 (Post 1793912)
They asked for feedback at the travel games I attended last year. They said changes were coming and asked for input.

OK, why wasn't a similar request for feedback not posted here? This board has a wider audience than only those that attend the travel games. That's the benefit of this board.

On that point CMP holds no travel games in all regions of the country. There have been no travel games in the N. Rockies Region, or NW quarter of the US. But there are many 600-1000 yd. ranges where they can be held, and matches are held by state orgs.

The 2019 schedule has one in VT, one in OK, and the rest are in the SE USA. Last year, except for the AZ location the same pattern existed.

If the travel games are to be limited, then CMP should use this board to solicit feedback from folks living elsewhere.

My .02

FF1915 01-17-2019 02:38 PM

I can only speak to what I know. I can’t presume to know their intent. I did email my thoughts. My biggest gripe was to make scopes and irons separate. I did ask why a hooded peep wasn’t allowed but a scope was. That one still baffles me.

Mountain 01-17-2019 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Talyn1 (Post 1793915)
OK, why wasn't a similar request for feedback not posted here? This board has a wider audience than only those that attend the travel games. That's the benefit of this board.

On that point CMP holds no travel games in all regions of the country. There have been no travel games in the N. Rockies Region. But there are ranges where they can be held.

The 2019 schedule has one in VT, one in OK, and the rest are in the SE USA. Last year, except for the AZ location the same pattern existed.

If the travel games are to be limited, then CMP should use this board to solicit feedback from folks living elsewhere.

My .02

I have attended the Games in VT since they started not long ago. This past September I shot four GSMM's, re-took SAFS to try for those intro leg points, and also shot High Power. I stayed on base and attended awards ceremonies (:SS::SS::BS:). Not once did I see nor hear of any request for MM vs. UMM feedback.

:mad:

Talyn1 01-17-2019 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mountain (Post 1793920)
I have attended the Games in VT since they started not long ago. This past September I shot four GSMM's, re-took SAFS to try for those intro leg points, and also shot High Power. I stayed on base and attended awards ceremonies (:SS::SS::BS:). Not once did I see nor hear of any request for MM vs. UMM feedback.

:mad:

Congrats on your results!

Talyn1 01-17-2019 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FF1915 (Post 1793919)
I can only speak to what I know. I can’t presume to know their intent. I did email my thoughts. My biggest gripe was to make scopes and irons separate. I did ask why a hooded peep wasn’t allowed but a scope was. That one still baffles me.

Thanks for sending/providing feedback.

FF1915 01-17-2019 03:02 PM

Congrats! And I know for a fact it was mentioned at the 600.

ceresco 01-17-2019 03:28 PM

A full narative explanation of rule changes with specific examples would be most welcome, but CMP never does that. Likewise, a publication of proposed rule changes a month or so before the rule book is finalized, but CMP never does that. We do, however, sometimes get ad hoc changes and/or interpretations after the rules are out. Good Shooting. ...

Talyn1 01-17-2019 03:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ceresco (Post 1793943)
A full narative explanation of rule chages with specific examples would be most welcome, but CMP never does that. Likewise, a publication of proposed rule changes a month or so before the rule book is finalized, but CMP never does that. We do, however, sometimes get ad hoc changes and/or interpretations after the rules are out. Good Shooting. ...

Let's hope that CMP realizes they made an error in excluding the A2 (in its "classic" configuration) from Class A.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:00 PM.