New CMP Rules Posted

[Ham_Chu]

Just announced by Gary Anderson..... link below

The one highlight:

Optics permitted for AR-15 service rifles, and they WILL shoot in same class as iron sights.

[WARFAB]

Optical Sights For Service Rifles. For several years, the CMP has recognized that optical sights are the wave of the future for Service Rifle shooting. Military recruits today do all of their training with optical sighted rifles. Service Rifle rules have traditionally tried to keep abreast of military rifle and training developments so opening Service Rifle shooting to optical sights became an inevitable change. The 2016 rules will, for the first time, permit M16/AR15-type rifles to have optical sights with a maximum magnification of 4.5X. Legal scopes can be fixed power or variable, but the maximum power of variable scopes may not exceed 4.5X. Scopes will have to be manufactured with a maximum 4.5X magnification and have an objective lens no larger than 34 mm. There will not be a separate class for scope-sighted rifles. Instead, competitors will have a choice of using either a scope-sighted rifle that weighs no more than 11.5 pounds or a metallic sighted rifle that will continue to have no weight limit.

More Options For M16/AR15-Type Rifles. Since accurized Service Rifles first came into popular use in the 1950s and 1960s, those rifles, whether M1s, M14s or M16s and their commercial equivalents, have been rigidly defined. Legal M16-type service rifles had to retain the external profile of an M16A2 or M16A4 rifle and could only have modifications that were explicitly permitted in the rules. All this will change in 2016. The 2016 service rifle rules will state that M16/AR15-type Rifles must be “an M16 U. S. Service Rifle or a similar AR15 type commercial rifle that is derived from the M16 service rifle design” and there will be far fewer specific restrictions. 2016 restrictions will simply require M16/AR15-type rifles that:

• Are chambered for the 5.56 x 45 mm (.223) NATO cartridge.
• Are designed or modified for semi-automatic fire only.
• Have either a gas-impingement system or a piston-operated gas system.
• Have a barrel that is no longer than 20 inches, with or without a flash suppressor (16” barrels are permitted).
• Use one upper receiver and barrel for the entire match.
• Have a trigger pull of at least 4.5 pounds.
• Use standard service magazines or commercial equivalents that do not contain added weights.
• Have a fixed or collapsible butt-stock that may vary in length and even be adjusted between firing stages. Butt-plates or cheek-pieces may not, however, be adjustable.
• Have a standard A1 or A2 pistol grip.

This will open the way for competitors to use a wider variety of M16/AR-16-type rifles. The imposition of a weight limit for scope-sighted rifles reflects a long-simmering concern over how heavy Service Rifles became when there was no weight limit. 15, 18 or even 20-pound rifles are far removed from the original service rifle weights. Opening Service Rifle shooting to optical-sighted rifles offered an opportunity to at least establish a reasonable weight limit for these rifles before they come into widespread use in Service Rifle competitions.

So they're saying they want to better reflect what the military is using, but they're opening it up to any scope/reticle that is 4.5x? I was under the impression the military trains the majority of the troops with just a couple different brands/types of optics.

It will be interesting to see how many optics competitors there are at Camp Perry in 2016. I'm sure the military teams will be quick to figure out if they are an advantage or not. If the AMU shows up with optics on their rifles I'm guessing optics will be a lot more common in the 2017 matches.

I'm a bit more interested in how they're opening up the rules for rifle configuration. Some quad rails were already allowed according to the rules, but I'm not sure there was really any advantage to them over standard hand guards. If they're really opening up the rules then a quad rail might be a more interesting option because you could put any number of accessory attachments on it to function as a hand stop.

[Ham_Chu]

The quad rails have the advantage over the STANDARD hand guards, but not the free float tubes doctored to look like handguards. Personally I always had a problem with that...if its a service rifle, it should be a service rifle. As-Issued. Not just cosmetically painted to look like one.

It should WEIGH what a service rifle weighs....M16 was chosen specifically for its light weight. As-issued.

If the M16 is it, then that is it, with the goofy-assed barrel profile, cut for the grenade launcher, and the non-free-floated handguards. As-issued.

I can already hear the whining: But my sling bends the cheesy barrel.....the handguards are moving my POI during rapid... This only weights 13 lbs, its too light.....Yup. Deal. Everyone equal. As-issued.

Sorry, just my feelings.

[thughes]

Quitcheryurbitshun and go trick out a plastic rifle. If you can't beat 'em.....cheat. I'll stick with wood and iron thanks.

[WARFAB]

I can already hear the whining: But my sling bends the cheesy barrel.....the handguards are moving my POI during rapid... This only weights 13 lbs, its too light.....Yup. Deal. Everyone equal. As-issued.

Pretty sure the M1A would still be the rifle of choice if AR/M16 rifles were required to be bone stock.

Since when does a military issue M16 weigh 13 pounds?

[Ham_Chu]

When Cheesed*cks add 6lbs of lead to them. My M16A1 weighed that much b/c I had an OLD PVS-4 mounted on the carrying handle.

We are looking into shooting the NRA's M1A match this summer. At least we will be moving out to 300yds....

Sorry about the venting, but I still feel that what is called SERVICE RIFLE today should be called MATCH RIFLE and AS-ISSUED should be the competition. Back in the M14 days, "getting the most" from your rifle was cutting new holes halfway between the existing holes of your leather sling, not having a new chamber cut in your super-heavy barrel to accommodate bullets that fall far out of the design specifications for the original rifle.

[Meketrefe]

I am ready for camp perry!

[thughes]

I am ready for camp perry!

Good to go, as long as that optic is not greater than 4.5x.

[Ham_Chu]

I am ready for camp perry!

LOVE IT...oh, and don't forget the trigger pull.....4.5lbs or greater.

[Liberty's Teeth]

Ham_Chu,
I've put some consideration in to the rule change and I get it. The elder high master that has dropped off to sub-master will benifit as he can now see the target black and they are encouraging new shooters to jump in the game. The 4.5 X will kick arzz until...the winds of Perry kick in. We have simple to use and rapid 1/4 and 1/2 MOA sight adjustments, the 4.5 guys have a pain in the arzz adjustment or Kentuky. That's great for Minute of Man but poking holes at the 600 yard line in a 12 inch 10 ring and 6 inch X ring will be tough. My money says the P100 final 20 and the Leg points of the NTI will all be made with good old iron sights!
I've taken my optics money and invested in a new CLE upper with Bartlein 7 twist that will give me far more than the optics would!

Besides that, optics are great for clearing a room but irons are great for clearing the neighborhood!!!!!

[Ham_Chu]

My money is that w/i 3 years, Optics will have made a substantial showing in P100. And the scopes are 1/4MOA adjustable. There is plenty of time in slow fire to adjust them. Or they already have the BDC reticles that will do the elevation for them. Sorry to disagree, but time will tell.

But...if irons were the best option for accuracy out to 600, would the DMRs have scopes? Would USMC have standard issued the ACOG?
That's how they come standard now, wait until AMU places their orders for the custom reticle. Most manufactures, Leopold esp, will customize the reticle based upon your bullet drop. You gotta admit, the reticle here, already graduated to 100, 300 (top of red post, I am told) and 600m, looks kinda idiot proof. No more "Oh wait! Range Officer! Alibi! My rifle sights were set to 600!"

[Meketrefe]

why not mrad with mil mil.

[Ham_Chu]

...if you can do the math in ur head....

[Meketrefe]

...if you can do the math in ur head....

No need. A uniform consistent scope is actually easier.

Just do a simple cheat table that one can put on a 1" square sticker. Some folks put it inside the scope caps.
The advantage is by using consistent units of measure you only convert one way and have with a proportional standard scale in a uniform stadia design,
in this case mils that is the military standard. If one wants to do adjustments in a hold/bdc design is ok but then one needs to first convert to a known unit of
measure by representation and then see where the trajectory corrections will fall so it is the same thing but with more steps, guess work and more time
therfore more risk for error. So BDC/holdover can work but in the real world in practical terms are not that reliable.

Even with a first focal plane, that extra work is what the people were doing with the Pride scopes, they had a very well priced 22LR with first focal plane
and using that one to map the MOA values and then converting back to whatever the load needed for adjustment no matter what caliber.

http://www.rapidreticle.com/RRCQLR.php

The same way if one has a MOA adjustments one should stick to MOA calibrated stadia.

So for people who like to hold something like the horus H50 reticle would make the work easier..

https://www.horusvision.com/img/h50.swf

I don't think the horus are that great optically and mechanically talking and I like a leaner easier design but with
consistent easy to read units but just to show the idea. In most scopes I stick to simple mil-mil army dot for consistency reasons.

[WARFAB]

When Cheesed*cks add 6lbs of lead to them.

Try again. With lead in the stock and hand guard a NM AR can easily weight 17# or more.

Sorry about the venting, but I still feel that what is called SERVICE RIFLE today should be called MATCH RIFLE and AS-ISSUED should be the competition.

That's fine, but the game is who can score the most points within the rules. I still contend that if truly "as issued" M16/AR rifles were all that was allowed, people would just stick with M14/M1A rifles. Then the competition wouldn't be with current issue rifles unless they created classes for them.

But...if irons were the best option for accuracy out to 600, would the DMRs have scopes? Would USMC have standard issued the ACOG?

Apples to oranges comparison. Are DMR's shooting at black circular targets on a white background that are the same width as their front sight post at each distance they shoot at? Target acquisition, identification, and speed of trajectory correction aren't an issue in competition like they are on a two way range.

Time will tell. If I have time I'll mount up a scope to try it out. If I can group better with a scope I'll have to consider how to proceed. So far based on my experience testing from a bench with scope vs. prone with irons, I'm skeptical the scope will be an advantage for me. If it is an advantage, then EIC points might be up for grabs to early adopters.