Service Rifle Optic Sight

[Maury Krupp]

At NRA Matches only...

As of 1 Jan 2011 an M1, M14, M16, or M110 with "...no restriction as to sights" is now considered a Service Rifle under NRA Rule 3.1(f). The same as an iron-sighted M1, M14, M16 or M110.

https://www.nrahq.org/compete/rules/rul_hpr_11.pdf

Will there be a "What the captain means is..." message from NRA? Probably.

In the meantime, will firing lines be flooded with rifles mounting red dots, ACOGs, etc? Probably not.

If you can't do everything else necessary to break a 10 will an optical sight put you in the winner's circle? Definitely not.

But it isn't likely the rule change will be completely undone either, so if that's what you want to do it's OK under the rules now.

Maury

[Griff Murphey]

Hunh! I can see the "sissification faction" gearing up now....

[Danny]

Ok,
Well, I can see that my time with a service rifle is going to have limited days. Looks like Highpower might start to draw more of the Sniper/Tactical Whack Jobs. F-Class already gets a lot of that and I don't like it, nor do I like F-Class (which is the undoing of highpower, which is a guy shooting his rifle).

Danny

[Griff Murphey]

Well, most of the GIs in combat seem to be using optics today... so this is.... a reflection of... reality???

Don't get me wrong. I love iron sights as much as anyone.

[Danny]

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. In my opinion, once you stick optical sights and other formerly non-allowed sights on a Service Rifle, you have a match rifle, and I'm sticking with that, no matter what the NRA thinks they are going to tell me. I don't have a match rifle, but I can see that it's time to switch. I'm going to see if I can shoot in the National Matches with my smallbore rifle this year, instead of the Long Range Phase, because I do have a pretty good smallbore rifle.

Danny

[Griff Murphey]

The last state match I fired in during my active days in Hi Power was Texas in '86, and I won the civilian service rifle with a 7.62 heavy barrel M-1. I shot in the last one the Army allowed at Fort Wolters in 2006, I think, where I fired as an unclassified shooter. Incidentally I guess I don't remember my scores too well because it was a very non-memorable performance on my part partly because of deteriorated skills from my former master level, but also because I had a loose-as-a-goose front sight.

All that said, the firing line was much different from my '65-'86 memories. I got some good natured kidding for dragging out the old M-1. There may have been one other .30 rifle on the line; there were AR's of every description from space guns to issue looking ones. It seems the sport evolves. If you go back and look at the history of the NRA and how it was formed by the military shooters at Sea Girt and the other "big" ranges in the 1870's, and you see how equipment has changed over the years, you can get a better appreciation of the evolution of this sport. Obviously service rifle equipment has changed over the years. I do take your point about "combat" firing - but there IS military influence on high power and I thank God I live in a country where civilians can own a service rifle and fire on the line with their troops. I promise you I appreciate your comments about the illiterates who present at all types of matches but I will also say that many of them can learn and become good competitors. I presently play at 3-gun; at my age I'm not very competitive in it, but it's fun shooting with LE and you do meet many vets and other "free spirits." It's all good. The far-off rattle of musketry.... the smell of burning powder....

[Maury Krupp]

There are a some suits at NRA Competitions who know less about Highpower than I do about quantum physics. Yet they are in a position and seem intent on turning it into something for the "high-speed tacticool mall ninja" crowd. This change is simply part of that.

Another part is the new match scheduled on Rodriguez the first day of Long Range. It's advertised as being for optical sighted AR-platforms with electronically scored targets from 7 to 500 yards. That's right 7 yards. No word yet on whether participants will have the option of tossing in a grenade instead of shooting.

A large part of the military's shift to optical sights is driven by the need for quick target acquisition, identification, and engagement. The need for those attributes in Highpower is nil. I already know where the targets are, which one is mine, and I've got plenty of time to fire my shots.

Highpower is (or at least was) a discipline that requires the shooter to master multiple aspects of his rifle (including the sights), his shot execution, and the constantly changing conditions. The need to rapidly assume a good position and fire a rapidfire string from standing was one of those aspects; proper sight alignment was another.

I'm not necessarily opposed to optical sights on either Service or Match Rifles.

I will accept that there are some shooters with vision issues which can only be solved by optics. One way to include these shooters would be to issue a medical waiver as is done for any other physical disability.

Another simpler way would be to create a new sub-division for optical sights only within the existing Service and Match Rifle divisions. I'm told that was NRA's intent but since they apparently flunked Mrs McLaren's 6th Grade Rules of English Composition and Construction the current written rule now places optically sighted SRs (Rule 3.1(f)) in the same division on equal footing with iron sights (Rule 3.1(a)-(e)).

Meanwhile optically sighted Match Rifles (Rule 3.3.2) are in a separate division eligible to compete only against each other. Go figure that one out.

I'm not concerned with the "sissification" of my discipline but I am starting to worry whether the rulemakers at NRA know or care about its core values.

Maury

[NMC_EXP]

"...for optical sighted AR-platforms with electronically scored targets from 7 to 500 yards. That's right 7 yards. No word yet on whether participants will have the option of tossing in a grenade instead of shooting."

No grenades.....it will be a bayonet charge at 7 yds.

Regards

Jim

[NMC_EXP]

Well, most of the GIs in combat seem to be using optics today... so this is.... a reflection of... reality???

Don't get me wrong. I love iron sights as much as anyone.

For decades the function of a US rifleman has been to locate the enemy, fix him in place then get on the radio and call in artillery or airstrikes to actually do the killing.

For the most part, the rifle has assumed the role of a self defense weapon in US doctrine.

I suspect the NRA has looked at the Highpower participation trend and has decided to open up the gear requirements to reflect the current fads and thereby draw participants.

Highpower needs more participation. Just put them in a different class.

I've never been comfortable with the current definition of a service rifle. Reminds me of a NASCAR "stock" car - it looks like the real thing on the outside but the similarity is only skin deep.

To me, a bright spot is the amount of interest in the Model 1903, Garand, M1A and other vintage rifle matches. Seems many folks have had enough of the equipment arms race.

Regards

Jim

[Griff Murphey]

FWIW I like that as well and have competed in many CMP shoots; two state and several local within the past few years. Agree that a level playing field RE equipment is very welcome. It sounds to me that NRA is trying to bring in "practical rifle" to an already full program - I would agree that is not a good idea if that is the intent.

[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.