Service Rifle Optic Sight

[George in NH]

Bayonet??
What's a bayonet??
LOL!
George in NH

[PhillipM]

Ok, fair enough, that's true, but... we've been down this road before with people that post on some sites with Highpower shooters with comments such as "What do you mean, I have to load one round at a time in my semi-auto?" and other such comments, and then they are simply astonished to find that Highpower (at least modern Highpower) has nothing to do with combat.
Danny

I've read the courses of fire all the way back to 1903 and can tell you, it never was about combat training, it was about how to shoot the rifle.

[Maury Krupp]

I've read the courses of fire all the way back to 1903 and can tell you, it never was about combat training, it was about how to shoot the rifle.

Sometimes a few simple words cut to the heart of an issue.

Like the ones quoted above.

Well said

Maury

[Danny]

Sometimes a few simple words cut to the heart of an issue.

Like the ones quoted above.

Well said

Maury

Yes,
I rather liked that comment.
I also recognize that we haven't given something to a segment of the shooting population that does like "Service Rifles". I'd like to keep our part of it (Highpower) in an undiluted form and let them have what they want. I don't think that John C. Garand matches was that answer to that. It's still largely, or even completely Highpower. Highpower competitors will largely rule the winnings in that event. I think that most of those people were looking for something a bit less "competition" and "Highpower" in flavor. John C. Garand matches are what I call (largely) "Highpower Lite". I think that those who designed the John C. Garand matches felt that what most people really wanted was something Highpower oriented, without the "equipment race" as some have put it, but maybe they missed the mark on that one, having had blinders on too long. There seems to be a large percentage of people determined to turn John C. Garand matches into what I call "GI Action Shooting". Why don't we just give that to them?

Danny

[CMP Shooter]

Yes,
I think that most of those people were looking for something a bit less "competition" and "Highpower" in flavor. John C. Garand matches are what I call (largely) "Highpower Lite". I think that those who designed the John C. Garand matches felt that what most people really wanted was something Highpower oriented, without the "equipment race" as some have put it, but maybe they missed the mark on that one, having had blinders on too long. There seems to be a large percentage of people determined to turn John C. Garand matches into what I call "GI Action Shooting". Why don't we just give that to them?
Danny

Just speaking for myself, but I don't view the CMP Garand/Springfield/Vintage matches as "Highpower Lite". It is what it is; a chance to shoot unaltered vintage rifles in a match setting. The fact that the course of fire is similar to high power is irrelevant to me.
As far as the service rifle/optic topic is concerned, we've been allowing "Any Rifle" per rule 3.2 at our club for at least the past 3 years. Out of the approx. 450 rifles entered in that period of time, exactly one shooter fired a "Any Rifle", and he wasn't competitive. If someone wants to place an optical sight on top of the carry handle of an otherwise legal service rifle, well, I just don't see a rush in that direction. I do appreciate the philosophical distaste of messing with a successful formula however. Makes one suspect that members of the NRA rules committee are being compromised by advertisers in The American Rifleman.

[Andouille]

Well now, I've observed the whole who-raw whine-fest about sissyfication with equal amounts of amusement and irritation. Once up on a time, you took an issue rifle to the line and fired issue ammunition. Then came the M1903 in National Match version. At first, it was very similar to the "regular" M1903 rifle, but then came better barrels and "C" stocks, which did not get put on "regular" rifles for many years. On my desk is a picture of the 1931 Kansas high power rifle team, with all their equipment. Their equipment consisted of NM rifles, 10-pocket cartridge belts, little straight thru telescopes on really short tripods and most of their shooting jackets had home-made elbow patches rudely stitched into place. The road from "real" service rifle had already become somewhat forked, but you could still see it from there.

Then post-Korea, came the NM Garand and M-14 with their heavy barrels, heavy stocks, glass bedding and trick sights, further blurring the view. Then came the A2 version of the AR, which quickly became a VERY heavy barreled VERY trick sighted float tubed fast-twist poodle shooter firing bullets way heavier than issue with two-stage triggers which were NEVER issue either. These gizmos are now commonly leaded up past 15 pounds and you need a garden cart to haul all your crap (store-bought cordura jacket, big spotting scope, scope stand, stool, cooler, etc) from the parking lot down to the 200-yard line for roll call, cursing your luck every step of the way that you got squadded on Viale instead of Rodriquez.

Anyway it appears to me that, we haven't really had a "real" service rifle at any of the "big" matches since about 1920, give or take a year or so. And for some time now, we are allowed a hooded rear sight with a lense, and the new adjustable what's-it thingy has been approved for NRA/CMP competition.

So anyway I had to tell all of y'all all of that so I could tell you this. What I was wondering was, all you so called "serious" shooters, those of you bashing the rules committees and especially the new guy who was hired to make things a bit more relevant, who by the way has more than just a little experience on the two-way range, I just really have to wonder how may of y'all are using a lense in YOUR rear sight at the same time you're whining about the new rapid fire start from position rules. Because I really don't see much difference between the two. Like any other sport, high power has its own rules. We may not like the rules, but there they are, and we all have to live with them. If you don't like the rules, perhaps you should campaign for a place on the rules committee and set things right, or move on to something else like bowling, or maybe match rifle.

Once upon a time, experience and practical improvements gained at the "big" matches trickled down to the troops and interested civilian shooters. We haven't had much of that, other than the DMR program, for quite a long time, and the DMR program is more more tactical than most of us are used to nowadays. Maybe it's time we changed some of that, and got back to shooting something like a "real" service rifle and shoot it like the troops actually shoot these days, than what we're doing now. Personally, I hope the new match, which by the way is a test match by invitation only, catches on and shakes things up and brings a whole bunch of new folks into the game. How that could be a bad thing, is beyond my feeble imagination but I guess some of you will be along promptly to tell me how to get my mind right.

[Jim in Salt Lake]

Change is uncomfortable, change is inevitable. I just want to play the game. I'm 57 and that front sight is getting pretty hard to see. My son shot his first high power season last summer and I shot with him, we had a blast and went to Camp Perry for the first time. If the rules change, I'll do my best to adapt and compete to the best of my ability, as long as I can do so effectively.

There were several matches I shot where I was guessing where the bull was at 600. I tried 6 o'clock hold, center mass, using the corner of the target frame, you name it, if the light wasn't right, I was guessing. After the season was over, I was convinced my only option was match rifle and I was preparing to spend the $5K for a new rifle and other associated gear and reloading supplies. Got a tip on the new SR Microsight and ordered one. Last weekend, I tried it out at 600 and it worked well enough I came home and canceled a match rifle order. The one lens rule is keeping me in service rifle, without it, I would have left and happily gone to a match rifle to keep shooting.

It doesn't bother me that "service rifle" really isn't what is actually used in the military. These matches were started to increase the level of marksmanship in our country with the benefit to the military when their need arises in time of war. I don't care what you're shooting, it comes down to sight alignment, natural point of aim, position, trigger control, etc., you know the drill. If you develop the skill with one rifle, it's going to transfer to another.

We shot with an 18 year Marine at Perry one day. He explained how they put their team together, you make it by shooting your way up through matches at different levels. Your time on the national team is limited (a year I think, don't remember exactly) and then you're rotated back to the fleet with the expectation you will bring what you've learned and your experience to your fellow Marines. Again, my opinion is that skills learned with a "service rifle" will make you a better marksman with an issue rifle.

I've been shooting highpower since '87 and started with an M1, then an M1A until work travel stopped me for 10 years. When I started back up, I bought an AR15 and was real happy with how much less it cost than that M1A, to buy and to shoot. Change, change, change....some good, some not so (I miss standing to sitting/prone in the NRA matches) but you adapt and roll with the punches. Because when you get right down to it, the game is just too much fun and the people are the best.

[Maury Krupp]

As PhillipM pointed out so concisely above, it's not, and never has been, about “combat” or “two-way ranges.”

It's not, and never has been, about what's “current” or “relevant.”

It's not about what today's Army does or doesn't do.

And it's certainly not about twisting the discipline of highpower rifle competition into something else until it's no longer what attracted current shooters in the first place. Especially not in some mis-guided attempt to "increase participation."

It is (or is supposed to be) about learning to shoot the rifle.

It's about learning the hows and whys of sight alignment, sight picture, trigger squeeze, NPA, BRASS, and a dozen or more other things necessary to drill the X-ring from 200 to 1000 yards.

It's about a course of fire and scoring system that is focused on the ability to drill that X-ring and not on speed or movement or reaction time or any other non-X-ring related abilities.

That's why the USMC still uses KD shooting, from standard positions, with iron sights, a sling, and a coat as its primary instruction in marksmanship. Because the ability to precisely and deliberately place shots in the center of a target is the core upon which all other applications of marksmanship depend.

The use of heavy barrels, float tubes, half or quarter minute sights, and the rest are all unimportant. If the rules changed to require rifles without any modifications but still required me to align the sights, assume a good position, and do the other things that form the core of this discipline I'd do that. Oh wait, that's pretty much what an "As Issued" match does.

I have no quarrel with any of the “Action” shooting disciplines. I’ve shot them in the past and enjoyed them at the time. I'm free to return to them if I again feel a desire to shoot at pop-up targets from 7 yards or move between firing points, or adopt ad-hoc firing positions, or do any of the other things that form the core of those disciplines. But if or when that happens I won't be insisting that the current participants start shooting from 600yd with a post front sight, sling, and hardback coat.

When the people who are bent on “improving” or “increasing participation” in highpower rifle competition can show me their Distinguished Rifleman’s badge or President’s 100 brassard I may start to take them and their ideas seriously.

Until then leave my discipline alone.

Maury

[Danny]

Thanks Maury,
You did a lot of talking for me there, too, and you didn't even know it!

Danny

As PhillipM pointed out so concisely above, it's not, and never has been, about “combat” or “two-way ranges.”

It's not, and never has been, about what's “current” or “relevant.”

It's not about what today's Army does or doesn't do.

And it's certainly not about twisting the discipline of highpower rifle competition into something else until it's no longer what attracted current shooters in the first place. Especially not in some mis-guided attempt to "increase participation."

It is (or is supposed to be) about learning to shoot the rifle.

It's about learning the hows and whys of sight alignment, sight picture, trigger squeeze, NPA, BRASS, and a dozen or more other things necessary to drill the X-ring from 200 to 1000 yards.

It's about a course of fire and scoring system that is focused on the ability to drill that X-ring and not on speed or movement or reaction time or any other non-X-ring related abilities.

That's why the USMC still uses KD shooting, from standard positions, with iron sights, a sling, and a coat as its primary instruction in marksmanship. Because the ability to precisely and deliberately place shots in the center of a target is the core upon which all other applications of marksmanship depend.

The use of heavy barrels, float tubes, half or quarter minute sights, and the rest are all unimportant. If the rules changed to require rifles without any modifications but still required me to align the sights, assume a good position, and do the other things that form the core of this discipline I'd do that. Oh wait, that's pretty much what an "As Issued" match does.

I have no quarrel with any of the “Action” shooting disciplines. I’ve shot them in the past and enjoyed them at the time. I'm free to return to them if I again feel a desire to shoot at pop-up targets from 7 yards or move between firing points, or adopt ad-hoc firing positions, or do any of the other things that form the core of those disciplines. But if or when that happens I won't be insisting that the current participants start shooting from 600yd with a post front sight, sling, and hardback coat.

When the people who are bent on “improving” or “increasing participation” in highpower rifle competition can show me their Distinguished Rifleman’s badge or President’s 100 brassard I may start to take them and their ideas seriously.

Until then leave my discipline alone.

Maury

[Kirk]

My Service Rifle match AR is near to needing a new barrel. I guess when I have it rebarreled, I'll add front gas block/front sight base with a bayonet lug, a breaching suppressor & a handguard with rails. Can you use real bayonets for the CQB component or, since it's electronically scored & you really are at close quarters on the line, a rubber one? Can night vision sights or MeproLights be used for the midnight match or will they allow lights?

Seriously, technology and times change. How many rules now are optimized for the .45-70 Springfields? The 5/5 & 2/8 rules for mandatory reloads in rapid fire stages go back to 1903 & 1937. I am glad to see electronic scoring introduced. I hope it will 1. be accurate & 2. speed up matches. Since virtually 100% of all match shooters in Jan 2011 are set up under the old rules, there is a lot of inertia to overcome. It will take years before all this electronic stuff to become commonplace. I just hope they will soon allow my 82W laserifle on the line. The one time I used it in a match, I was disqualified because the target burned too fast for the the pit crew to score.