CMP Service Rifle Rules - Scopes

[Slamfire]

When the "Army" dropped support for the National Matches it was a dictated move by Congress through the creation of the CMP Corporation and the redefining of support relationships. That was in 1996. Part of the peace dividend and Congress was cutting funding for the Army, so to keep the CMP going, and out of the Army budget, the CMP Corporation was chartered.

You really don't know your history. Prior to 1968 the Army ran the National Matches at Camp Perry and was a positive force for marksmanship. Go look at the Oct 1967 American Rifleman for the excuses the Army used to drop the National Matches. The conversion of the DCM to the CMP was actually of importance to Civilians, as we got access to Garands, but basically at the end, the DCM was doing as little as possible. Under the DCM era I got my once in a lifetime Garand. That was about all they were doing at the end.

Neither the AMU nor the USMC rifle team provide any supplies nor run the matches where I shoot. We don't get loaner rifles nor do we get ammunition from the Army. Clubs could get that out of the DCM, prior to the 1980's. I would like you to tell me just how much financial, and logistical support these organizations provide to the National Rifle Association, the CMP, and to civilian shooters and civilian clubs. . I would be interested in that number.

What I see, is that these organizations are irrelevant outside of Camp Lejeune and Fort Benning but, but they are still at the top dictating how we shoot, what we shoot, and making rule changes to fit their ideologies. Fine, let them fill out the paperwork, order the targets, build the frames, run the matches, send out the results, and do the logistics running the matches at our ranges . They won't. Just how many gun clubs have access to military ranges? It is about time that our spineless NRA and CMP leadership realized, that the civilian shooter base likes the game as it is, and it is the civilian base that is running these matches at the local level, not the AMU or USMC rifle team.

 

[Jimro]

Slamfire,

That was rude, but I think that was your intent. I also think your anger is misplaced for the following reasons.

1, the Army National Guard is a part of the Army. Yes it gets State dollars too. Support for the National Matches by Guardsmen and Reservists will count against Annual Training dollars for the Army and will not be reimbursed by the CMP. The Army will provide other logistical support which can be claimed for reimbursement by the Army to be paid by the CMP.

2, The USAMU still conducts the small arms firing school as part of the national matches. People can earn their first EIC points from that event, civilian and service member alike. The conduct of SAFS is dictated as a support requirement to the National Matches, and is not chargeable to the CMP for reimbursement.

3, the 1967 decision to pull support was DOD wide, not just an "Army/USMC" thing. Just like the National Guard is part of the Army, the Army as a whole is part of the DOD, and led by the Secretary of Defense. That's a free lesson in how your Government organizes on your behalf, one of the many free services I offer. If you think that only the President or SECDEF has the power to pull DOD support for the National Matches, you would be correct. With an increasingly unpopular war in Vietnam, the messy public assassinations during the civil rights movement, I think you could make a clear case that the SECDEF pulling support for the national matches was a political move made by a politician at the time. Once again, if you don't like the SECDEF, call your congresscritter.

4, as of the 1998 revision to the NDAA, the last I bothered to check, the Secretary of the Army is responsible for the conduct of the National Matches with the CMP as a partner agency. The CMP's job is to facilitate marksmanship competition, the Sec Army's job is to make sure the national matches are held, fulfilling his legal obligation. The CMP role is also spelled out in law.

5, lastly, I have yet to find serious evidence beyond "someone said" that the proposed rules change is being driven by either the Army or the USMC. The USAMU service rifle team has been very dominant with irons, so I don't see any reason for them to be lobbying for ACOG inclusion. It is true that the Army and USMC are using ACOGs on M4 and M16A4s as part of the standard infantry rifle, but that has nothing to do with the competition teams for either service when competing under CMP or NRA rules.

If you are still complaining that the Army has too much influence over how you shoot, by all means write your congresscritter.

Right now, when the Army wants to hold a competition, it doesn't have to get a mother may I from the CMP. All it has to do is figure out what it wants to do and then do it. Look up the 2015 All Army course of fire document to see how the Army did it last time if you like.

Jimro

 

[Slamfire]

Slamfire,

That was rude, but I think that was your intent. I also think your anger is misplaced for the following reasons.

Yes I was rude, sorry for being so. But it gets my dander up to read of the Active Duty Military forcing an Army agenda on either the NRA or the CMP.

I don't have the numbers, but I would like to know, just how much money does either and both the Regular Army and the USMC contribute to civilian marksmanship. I am curious to know, for the National Matches, just how much money the NRA and the CMP spends for that event, and how much the Regular Army and the USMC rifle team contribute. A simply accounting of the money contribution would quickly show, in my opinion, that the NRA or the CMP are contributing 99% if not 100% of the funds necessary to run and manage the National Matches at Camp Perry. If either Organization stops their financial support, the National Matches would end because the services ended any significant financial support back in FY1968.

However, Camp Perry is not Mecca, not everyone is obligated to go there, attendance is in fact, dwindling, and if the National Matches at Camp Perry go away, there are lots and lots of local and regional matches held at Civilian Gun clubs to pick up the slack.

Neither of the services, nor the NRA and CMP provide financial support for Civilian gun clubs: we pay for our grass to be cut, we pay our rent, club members create our target frames, order our own targets, run our matches. Local match directors send the results out to participants, and fork over entry money to the NRA for the matches to be listed in Shooting USA. The NRA will post classification cards to shooters, so the card and the listing in an online Shooting Magazine is all the value the NRA adds to the process.

Therefore I am rather resentful that the Active Duty Services seem to get the 90% vote in determining the rules of the game. It has only been recently that the AR10 was declared to the "a service rifle", and regardless of the fatuous reasons by DeMille, it is my opinion the AR10 was declared a service rifle so the Service Rifle teams could continue to win at Long Range. Having shot with them, at 1000 yards, they were not doing so well with the 223. The round is out of gas at 600 yards, and they were struggling to beat Civilians shooting Garands and M1a's. The Army was not going to drag out M14's and shoot them again, one reason because they would have to train new guys to operate two different rifles, other reasons are that the logistics and repair are so different. However, the AR10 is so functionally similar in operation and repair, that rifle, which never had ever been an American service rifle, is now a "service rifle". A couple of Google searches will easily find all the new records set by Army shooters with the AR10 rifles. The NRA and the CMP just bend over backwards to ensure that the service rifle teams are kept happy.

I did get into the National Match forum and found, why yes, this whole optical service rifle category is something pushed by the active duty military. Like little children, they want, they want, they want. They want, but what are they contributing to civilian marksmanship? In my opinion, not enough to offset the unwanted and disruptive influence they have on the sport.

Well, who needs them really?

 

[cryogenic419]

Before any of you start -CENSORED--CENSORED--CENSORED--CENSORED--CENSORED--CENSORED--CENSORED- and moaning about how they are going to allow optics, keep this in mind. People have been shooting amazing scores with irons for a long time and that isn't about to change. It still boils down to basic fundamentals, solid positions, making the right wind calls, etc. Its not like you are going to hand a 4x scope to a bad shooter and hes magically going to win. Will it allow shooters who's eyes aren't what they used to be get back into the sport? Possibly

Will scores go up? Possibly. By a drastic amount? Possibly. We won't know until the rule is implemented and we see how everybody does at Nationals to get a better idea.

The push for optics is coming from the military teams. Why you might ask?
Talking to the military shooters during Nationals they don't even start out on irons in basic training anymore, its all optics. Am I happy the military teams have that much clout when it comes to the rulemaking process, not really but at this point in time what can be done about it other than voice your concerns to the CMP.

It is going to most likely happen whether we like it or not, much in the same way they allowed AR15's in as service rifles much to the chagrin of some Garand and M14/M1A shooters. At first it will be some controversy, and eventually will become the norm.

The part I don't like is that lets say optics are the gamechanger everything thinks they are going to be. That just adds another cost to an already expensive sport to get into. An expensive sport that has dwindling numbers to begin with. Sure you could shoot with irons but in order to even have a chance of winning you need optics. Anybody that is in this sport already knows anything NM is pricey.

 

[kraigwy]

Lets do a little clarifying.

In 1904 the NBPRP was created it was deemed the Army would conduct the National Matches and include the Small Arms Firing School.

The Division of Civilian Marksmanship was created so to do this for the Army. The DCM was Army and had to fight year to year for their cut of the Budget.

In 1996 a push led by Sen. Feinstein to defund the DCM. Which was accomplished.

A charter was conducted to have Civilians run the program and the CMP was created.

The CMP would not be funded by tax dollars but would be funded by the sales of surplus arms and ammunition.

It was determine that it would be cheaper to give the surplus arms to the CMP then it would be to store or destroy the arms and ammo.

Therefore Feinstein got her way, funding was cut from the program, and those who supported the program won also by keeping the program (under civilian management). The taxpayer won as no tax dollars would be use to fund the CMP. The Army won because they were relieved of storing out dates surplus weapons.

Its my opinion that the biggest winners were the American Citizen.
If you dealt with both the DCM and CMP you would understand this.

The CMP in their charter has to same mission, to conduct the National Matches and SAFS. In this they are required to come up with the rules.

The CMP and NRA both, conduct matches at Perry. The NRA has their matches and their rules. The CMP has their matches and their rules.

The CMP deals with Service Rifle and Pistol matches. The NRA deals with match rifle but also has a service rifle category. The rules for the NRA and CMP have different rules for service rifle. (an example, the NRA allows AR10s the CMP doesn't).

The CMP also has the GSM games (vintage military rifles and pistols).

But we are talking service rifle.

The NRA makes their rules from input of the shooters, to increase and keep interest.

The CMP keeps to the spirit of the game, meaning service rifles (and pistols) that are used by the US Army. Not special units but conventional troops.

And since the Army has started issuing to conventional troops optics on M16/M4s the CMP had elected to include them in their service rifle matches.

As the Army changes systems, so will he CMP.

Its been said that the Services conduct their own EIC matches, this is true, The CMP is still the governing body of EIC matches and the services present their courses of fire to the CMP for approval.

The CMP is not cutting the army, marines or anyone else out of the program. Its the services that have gotten away from marksmanship. (Excluding the AMU and to some extent the Marines). I know for a fact the Guard Bureau has (that's what caused me to pull the pin when I did).

Since the services have gotten away from marksmanship, the CMP has had to step in. We see this in the Designated Marksman Program and the Small Arms Firing Schools where the services didn't have enough instructors and both had to be supplemented by civilians through the CMP.

This is getting way off topic, but I believe it shows the rule changes allowing optics in service rifle matches.

In the GSM games, in keeping with the spirit of the games (vintage military arms) the CMP does accept request for rule changes AS LONG AS THEY MEET WITH THE SPIRIT OF THE GAME.

One such example is the Military and Police Pistol matches. These matches are conducted using new/old pistols used by the Military and Police. But only pistols and not revolvers.

I petitioned the CMP rules committee to allow revolvers in these matches pointing out that revolvers have been used much longer then pistols by LE. I will bet (though I haven't seen anything in writing) that you will see the 2016 rules allowing revolvers in the Military & Police Pistol Match in the CMP games.

If we have problems with either the NRA or CMP rules, we can (and are incouraged) to petition the respective rules committees for a change.

 

[Jimro]

When I went through the SDM course offered by the AMU, civilian Distinguished Riflemen took their time to come and coach us.

It is my experience that the vast majority of military shooters have more to learn from civilian shooters than the other way around.

In my opinion anything that gets more Soldiers and Marines to take competition seriously is a good thing, if it gets more civilians involved that's even better.

Jimro

 

[Road_Clam]

I am "hoping" the optic proposal hits the rule books. I am extremely nearsighted, and optics are my ONLY solution to proficient shooting. Around my club the #1 deterrent from individuals embarking into HP competitions is "bad eyes". Those of you whom are blessed with strong eyes come into my domain for a day.... I have the utmost respect for iron sight shooters, and I hope that if this rule flies that the iron shooters are classed and scored separately recognizing the elevated skills needed using irons vs optics. IMO allowing optics will help fill the empty lanes at the matches which at my club has been an issue.

 

[velocette]

This 71 year old "New" NRA High Power shooter is quite pleased that I can compete in NRA high power competition. For at least 10 years, I have been unable to effectively use iron sights, no matter how sophisticated. (read high end Anschutz front & rear sights) I began High Power competition about 5 months ago when I learned that the NRA matches would allow optics.
Now, if I can ever learn to shoot offhand, I can earn a High Power master rating.