When Will the M4 Become a CMP-Legal Service Rifle?

Since the M4 carbine has been the de facto US service rilfe for the past few years, isn't it logical that CMP should make it (and its commercial near-equivalents) legal for service rifle matches?

I realize that the short sight radius and short barrel would make it very difficult to shoot well past 300 yards, so it wouldn't have any competitive advantage over the M16A2-type rifles, but... shouldn't shooters have the option to use it? It seems a little silly that the M14/M1A that has been out of front line duty for about 40 years is still legal while the rifle that's actually being used in the field by the US military today isn't.

What would you think about the CMP creating a "niche" match for the M4, similar to the Garand match?

And would it be too much of a break with tradition to allow M4 shooters to use optical or electronic sights?

The M4 is a carbine, not a rifle so it will never be a service rifle (unless they decide to change the designation).

As a junior team coach I say no more niche matches. It's hard enough to get help as it is.

Optics are a slippery slope the CMP shouldn't embrace. There is no set standard in the military so it would be pretty much wide open.

If the M4 can be shot on the current course of fire then I am 100% fine with it. My fear is that the CMP/NRA would have to alter the course to allow the M4 to be competitive and that would ruin it.

I thought that the M4 could be added to the M1 carbine match to create an "M1/M4 Match" but I'm afraid that the M4 would shoot circles around the old M1.

as a new competitor i don't get everything, however...

why not just let m4's run against 20" guns? i really don't see the problem, here, and it would be helpful for me personally because then my kids could compete. as it is now, the a1 stock and 20" h-bar is not possible for them to handle... had m4's been legal for competition i would've been shooting this stuff for a long time now. but i didn't want a purpose-built gun when i couldn't afford it, you know? so, 6-position stock it was, and i sat on the sidelines for years...

I think they should, as it would broaden the appeal of the sport.

I think Mk12 SPRs should be allowed, as well, but I'm weird like that.

Think about this for a minute.

The M4 is already legal for NRA matches in the match rifle class.
So, you CAN enter an NRA match and shoot your M-4gery.
Nobody will beef your Magpul trigger guard, or your Phantom muzzle device.

However, for SERVICE RIFLE, there simply has to be a finite standard of what qualifies.
Almost no two M-4geries are alike, and almost NOBODY has a real M4.
Frankly, I wouldn't care if they changed the rule to allow real M4 rifles to compete against my match-grade service rifle.
If some guy with a 14.7" barrel and short sight radius and A2 sights really wants to take me on XTC, I say "bring it!"

With no two M4-geries alike, and no "real" M4 entrants, where does that leave the match director?

The reality is, SERVICE RIFLE has evolved into a niche class, whether we like it or not.
At best, the interest in shooting true service rifle is stagnant –– at best.
There was a time when men were men, and a service rifle was an M1 or an M14.
Nobody was hanging weird stuff on those guns. They just put a good sling on them, showed up at the match, and shot.

Nowadays, you hardly see any service-rifle legal guns at gun shows, and you never see them at gun stores.
If you want SERVICE RIFLE, you have to special-order.
Everybody else wants the gun that is on the cover of the latest version of the Call of Duty video game.
...which sure as hell aint no "service rifle."

Bingo!

I agree with the concern that there would be pressure to modify the course of fire to make the M4 competitive. I just don't see how someone could shoot winning scores at 600 yards with the short barrel and short sight radius of the M4. Even allowing red dot sights for the M4 wouldn't be enough, I think, and would open a big can of worms.

As for defining what is or isn't a match-legal M4, I don't think it's all that difficult. For the most part, it would just be modifying the rules for the M16A2/M16A4:
- Commercial equivalent allowed: same
- Pistol grip: same
- Trigger: same
- Fixed or detachable carrying handle: same
- Flash hider/compensator or bare muzzle: same (unless a permanently attached one is needed to bring the barrel to 16")

Barrel length? Sixteen inches with a bare muzzle, or sixteen plus the length of the compensator, or sixteen with the length of the compensator.

Would you need to have the barrel cut for mounting the M203? Maybe.

Would a forward pistol grip be allowed? If the Army allows it, why not?

The buttstock? Whatever Uncle Sam specifies, same as the M16A2.

By the way... is the Marine Corps training recruits with the M4? If so, are they still qualifying on the KD course?

There is already a class for the M4 CARBINE. It's called 3-gun.

Why would someone want to shoot XTC with a M4 anyway? My worries are the same as expressed above, that the COF would change to accomodate those who choose to handicap themselves with a M4.

Just as everything else in life, you need to apply the proper tool for the job.

Except most of them use 18-20" barrels.

Reasons why someone would want to shoot XTC with an M4:

1) Because you already own an M4-gery and you want to try a CMP match but you don't want to spend $900+ for a new match rifle.

2) Because you're in the military and you want to show the brass that CMP matches are relevant to current military operations and worth the money they spend on shooting teams.

3) Because you're a 4' 10" junior or woman and the other choices are too big or heavy for you.

4) Because fifteen years from now, the US military will have a new service rifle and the CMP will be selling surplus M4 carbines for $400. (OK, so I really doubt the second part of this, but the CMP is going to run out of Garands someday.)

And if you want to talk about the "proper tool for the job" –– would an iron-sighted rifle in .223 really be your first choice for shooting small, distant targets? I think most folks would prefer something in a larger caliber with a scope, but then you wouldn't be shooting a "service rifle".

Apples and oranges.

The M4 is a carbine and not a rifle. The Army and Marines defined the difference, not the CMP.

The Army already HAS a post, installation, and division Excellence-in-Competition match designed for rack-grade M4s and M16s –– it is fired at 100 (standing), 200 (sitting or kneeling), 300 prone rapid, and 400 prone slow, wearing web gear and a helmet.

There are other Excellence-in-Competition match formats (worth the full 6-8-10 leg points) for the National Guard and Army championships and for SOF units, all using rack-grade guns, combat gear, and in certain cases optics.

Petition the CMP if it means that much to you –– they are flexible if it makes sense. This year is the first year "Stubby" fixed stocks are allowed for M16A2/A4 clones for juniors and short folk.

ETA: Quote fail.. but you get the point.

I've posted this before and have tried for several years to get CMP to sanction the M4. The Army classifies the M4 along with the M16 series as capable during Army Matches. I know because I competed with my issued M4 in 2005 at Benning (same M4A1 I used for 3 deployments). The M4 is capable in a skilled shooters hands. Just add a bit more elevation and still need to read the winds correctly. There is no need to change the course of fire, just asking for the chance to compete along side the M16/AR15.

CD

Previous dicussion. Sent another email to Gary Anderson.

http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=9&f=14&t=228093

From an official Army press release:
"The M4 Carbine is the Army's primary individual combat rifle for Infantry, Ranger, and Special Operations forces."
http://www.army.mil/-newsreleases/2007/03/29/2471-army-position––m4-carbine-is-soldiers-battlefield-weapon-of-choice/

So, it appears that the position of the United States military is that the M4 is both a carbine and a rifle. And not only is it a rifle, but it's the "primary individual combat rifle", which is why it would make sense IMHO for it to be legal for CMP service rifle matches.

So petition the CMP –– if there are enough requests it makes sense.

Thanks for the link to the other thread, Combat_Diver. It's good to know that I'm not the only one thinking about this.

I don't really have a personal stake in whether or not the CMP allows the M4. I already have a nice NM 20" AR for matches and don't own or plan to own any sort of M4gery.

Looking over the two threads, I see a lot of debate over semantics (What's a "service rifle") and the meaning of CMP competition (Is it just a sport, or does it serve some sort of higher purpose?). I understand that most CMP shooters are happy with the status quo and think these sorts of discussions are foolish, but the future of the program depends on having a clear sense of identity.

Every summer I visit the CMP store at Camp Perry and every year the stock of Garands gets smaller. Some day the CMP will need a new source of funding and it's going to have to make a sales pitch to whomever will be paying the bills. What will that be?

If a guy wants to shoot an iron sighted M4 I say have at it,,, I dont think he will win many matches but if its all he has then by all
means come shoot.

Combat diver and I had some posts on the CMP forum about this very subject. If the m4 is in exactly the same configuration as the ones that leave colt destined for the armed services (like the one I got right out of the colt box new last deployment) I say let it be used as aservice rifle- one of the problems with this is a slippery slope-
do you allow free float handguards? they don't come on an m4 but they allow them on 20" guns?
optics are the standard inm combat now? allow them? only red dots or acogs too?
could get very dicey.

I shoot a M4 at work. It is not a sevice rifle it is a carbine. The Standard US service rifle is the M16. When it comes to Service "Rifle" matches the correct weapon is the M16. Just because some/alot of us carry the M4 doesnt make it not true. Alot of guys carried and M1 Carbine or a Thompson or a Grease Gun. They werent allowed in Service "Rifle" matches either. Although at times there were certain "matches for other weapons.

Now an NRA match. Run that bitch all day long. M4s The Match Rifle Category is for you.

Carbine Match, at CMP sure if they tweak it. Military EICs absolutely. Sevice Rifle matches..No.


Only accurate rifles are interesting.....but I love my M4.

Stream of thought off.


Erik

Very logical and very well stated.

The analogy with the M1 carbine, Thompson and grease gun is faulty because those weapons were always used as supplements to the main service rifle of the time, the M1 Garand. They were used for special purposes and not intended to be the primary infantry arm.

In contrast, the M4 is the primary infantry arm and the Army is using it to replace the M16A2/A4.

I am not trying to be obtuse but, I disagree that it is the primary arm. It might be getting there but not yet. I have carried an M4 for 10 years but I would be willing to bet there are more M16A2/A4 in the inventory than M4A1/A2. In your 1st post you call it the de facto service rifle. Bottomline is, it isnt. Its a carbine. A very good one which I would and have trusted my life to. It is not a service rifle.

I also disagree that the weapons above are different than the M4. They were specialty weapons and the M4 is classified as one as well which was why it was given to Airborne/Ranger/Special Forces Units first before being filtered to the rest of the Army. It was/is a supplemental weapon. Although being fielded on a larger scale.

Bottomline is the Army classifies it as a carbine and doesnt teach to shoot it at 600 yards there is a reason.




ETA: Spelin

I really think it should be shot in NRA matches to introduce new shooters. In little to no time they will want the sight radius of the M16/AR15. Then they will want its other benifits.


If they dont than they can continue to enjoy the M4 style in the match rifle category.

I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed. At the same time, there's no point.

With current rules, an AR15A2 set up for service rifle would shoot circles around a similarly made M4. You can't weigh down an M4 like you can an AR15. So they will be much lighter (a bad thing in my book). Also, the sight radius is a lot shorter, so the 20'' rifles have an advantage in that. You wouldn't see anyone switching unless they were so good at shooting service rifle that they were bored and wanted a bigger challenge.

The M68 and ACOG are pretty much 'the standard' for *issue* optics on STD-A rifles.

The M4 should be allowed at present, it *is* a STD-A service rifle in the Army.

If we get to a point where the M68 is the standard-issue sight system (vs irons) on the M4, then it should be allowed in competition on the M4 only (eg, if you choose to shoot an M14, you should have to use it in the config it was issued in).

Army teaches 300m for all M16A2,M16A4, M4 and M4A1. I taught my detachments to shoot to 600m with all our issued rifles/carbines. I would still be on the range with the Mk16/Mk17 SCAR at 600 if I was still active.

CD

I'm with combat diver on this one- at the very least cmp should allow service members to use m4 in matches IF IT IS AN ISSUE WEAPON FOR THEM. competing with the gun you take to war just makes sense.
I disagree with ERIK- the current army standard is to issue all deploying troops going to combat zones the M4 as much as possible. So if 90+ % of troops are carrying the M4 into combat it is the standard not a supplement

also to another poster- too bad the cmp isn't surplusing out m16 stuff- don't know if it will ever happen- Complete rifles no way (once a machine gun always a machine gun) but I'd liek to know where all the A1 parts went when they did the a1 to a2 rebuilds- many units even active duty have a2's that started as a1's. parts kits and stocks and other parts would be nice to get into cheap- wonder if all the a1 parts went to captain crunch?

If people want to handicap themselves with a shorty in an XTC match, go for it; I'm sure their fellow competitors won't mind. But, don't change the COF to accomodate them. JMO.

Exactly.

Go ahead and disagree with me all you want, my point still stands. Prove me wrong... (Go to the TM and tell me what the nomenclature of the M4 and M16 is) Ask how many M16s are being deployed. I definately am not speaking from ignorance. I have been around the block many times. So again disagree but you are wrong.

Fact: BTW and as an aside when service members compete in Military EICs we compete with our issued weapons...That is why we can not recieve a US Army Distinguished Riflemans Badge by solely competing in CMP XTC matches. We have to recieve military leg points. Ask me how I know. So in a nutshell in the correct match we do compete with our issue weapon. It is on a course of fire that is suitable to the M4 as well as the M16.

XTC is a good set of skills. If you want to compete in it with an M4 go to an NRA match and try it. Come post the results to me. I will await with bated breath. I would bet you most wont. They will just continue to complain that CMP wont allow it.

The "It's a carbine, not a rifle" argument is missing the bigger point (and not just the point that a carbine is defined as a type of rifle, or the point that several countries have adopted rifles with "carbine" in their names as service rifles).

Why isn't the M16A1 legal for CMP matches? It is a rifle, isn't it? And it was the United States service rifle for over a decade, wasn't it? In fact, the non-legal M16A1 was the service rifle longer than the legal M14 (1971-1986 versus 1959-1970).

Seriously! I hate to tell you but that is the point. Carbine ≠ Service Rifle. Words mean things in the military (ask anyone who has been to a jumpmaster course or done a Change of Command inventory for the incoming commander) and apparently to CMP as well. So again why not shoot the NRA match? Everyone dances around that option even though there are as many or more NRA matches.. You want to shot an EIC you play by the CMPs rules with the proper equipment. THere has to be rules.

As for A1s again their rules thier game but, how many A1s do you see in the inventory? I ask because most have been converted to A2s or A4s due to to the rear sight setup. Its not elevation adjustable, and has crude adjustment for windage. How many MOA is a quarter turn worth on the front sight? Thats what you would have to adjust everytime you went line to line. (PS I didnt know till just recently) Then you have a 1-12 twist barrel at 600 yards. The Lower is pretty much the lower and the conversion is done by swapping the upper. The A1s in the NFA registry owned by civilians are not being used in the long range game and I am sure CMP realizes that. That might be why that rule is that way but, its conjecture on my part.

So are the reoccuring points not valid. A simple yes or no answer will suffice.

I am all about bringing new people into the sport. Even if it is on an M4 but here is a proper time and place for that. 200 yard club matches. NRA sponsered matches. The CMP matches are not proper to bring a new person shooting an M4 style rifle into. It doesnt meet the rules and will discourage the shooter.



Erik

ETA: shot to shoot

If the M4 was capable of shooting decent scores with iron sights at 600 I'd have no problems with it being used. If you build an M4 with a free floated Krieger barrel, Geissele trigger and a WOP pinned rear sight and you shoot 24gr of R-15 with a Sierra 80 you are going to have an accurate rifle with a sucky sighting system and stock.

The DCM was smart enough to realize the A1 was incapable of getting the job done with the ammunition available at the time. They didn't want NooBs running out and buying guns that were not up to the task and then using the entire target and every scoring ring at the 600 yard stage. You know what is one of the most miserable things in HP? At the end of a long hot day, pulling for an off-cadence shooter that uses the entire target and all 22 minutes. I'd rather hit myself in the head with a coconut because it feels better. I feel the same about rack grade M1s. Please stay home or ask me to borrow my rifle. I'd be happy to loan it out.

B

Just my observations here at the local range, the number of M4geries are common on the line. I think the new course of fire is a 3 gun, run and gun type like you see in all the new MAGPUL vids.
Most of the popular shooting crowd would not have the focus to shoot at something beyond 100 yards. As long as there is a "ping" from the steel they are satisfied.
So I think we ought to have the M4gery onboard; it may increase the popularity of HP shooting

I think part of the problem is the term "service rifle" It somehow implies a military match. The reality is that today none of the branches of the military use the National Match Course as part of their training. Calling it service rifle simply helps to delineate it from the more unlimited nature of Match Rifles. Service Rifle(as it relates to NMC) is nothing more than a sport that limits the rifle to a certain spec so that all competitors are shooting roughly the same thing. That is what makes this sport great is that in today's service rifle match everyone, civilian or military team shooter is really shooting a weapon that is nearly identical to each other. Sure there are different barrel makers, and chambers, but for the most part they are all very, very close to one another. Even our loads are all extremely close to one another's in terms of performance. So close that the only thing that separates the winners from the losers are the shooters themselves, and that is why it is imperative to NOT make too many changes to either the course of fire, or the specifications of what constitutes a legal Service Rifle for competitive shooting.

Seriously, shooters need to put aside the notion that this sport has anything to do with current military doctrine. Sure the fundamentals of marksmanship are universal truths, but in today's world this is a SPORT make no mistake about it.

If the m4 crowd wants to shoot those rifles they should set up a discipline that better suits the platform and reflects the mission of the carbine and I would guess that would be more a shoot n scoot type of affair.

In the end I really don't mind M4's being shot in service rifle matches, but the minute I hear anyone bitch about how the course of fire needs to be changed to allow them to be competitive is the day I will push to have them DQ'd from NMC shooting.

You would hate me (until John Holliger finishes my upper).

...and the berm 10 feet on either side of the target... and calling for a mark for every miss... and its just a practice... and the target face is already covered with 300 pasters.

BTDT

Man, you guys are making me feel better about my shooting. :)

Matt

I dont think "service rifle" has anything to do with the training of the us military. It does however have to do with "what" that implement is.

Other than that I agree with you in alot of ways.

I don't think it does either, but I think many new shooters or outsiders hear the term "Service Rifle" and think that somehow this implies military style training. I can understand why newbies question the fact that the M4 is not a legal "Service Rifle" but they simply are not putting it within the context of this sport rather than some notion of military style training which it is not.

The CMP and the NRA use the term service rifle to describe THREE basic weapons that are legal to use in that category. If it is easier for the new guys to understand, pretend that they called it something else like "limited class" or "Semi auto non match rifle class" . And all it does it puts parameters on those three rifles to allow them to compete in matches under a strict but well defined set of rules.

Call me crazy but "service rifle" should allow ANY standard longarm that was standard issue in the US Military.
I always wanted to shoot my 1903 Springfield or 1898 Krag in that class but it wasn't allowed. Tell me again how that rifle wasn't "standard issue".
The M-4 pretty much IS the standard. It should be allowed.
The course of fire should NOT be changed.

I think you missed my point. It has NOTHING to do with what was issued today or what is "Standard". It has only to do with what is legal to shoot in this SPORT. Again you guys need to forget the military connection as it has NOTHING to do with National Match Course shooting anymore. Refer to my last post, don't think of it as "Service Rifle" Class, think of it as "Limited Rifle Class" and that class is limited to THREE rifles with very specific features that have NOTHING to do with current or past combat rifles other than their external appearance. And make no mistake about it, if it were not for the fact that the CMP (the governing body of Service Rifle shooting) sold M1 Garands, then that rifle would no longer be on the list of legal "Service Rifles"...trust me.

If you enojoy shooting old Mil-Surps, the CMP has programs for those rifles they are called "Games Matches" and they are designed to allow shooters to use older mil surp rifles that are not legal for National Match Course Service Rifle.

To stir the pot ..........but wasn't the "national match" originally set up with the idea of the participants shooting the "current issue" military rifle so they could be proficient with said rifle when called into military service? The entire idea was to provide skilled marksmen in event of war. Nowadays we've moved pretty far away from that with the space guns, etc.

I beg to disagree. The tradition of Service Rifle was to compete with the standard service rifle. Its been turned into a sport, regretably. The sprot belongs over at NRA Hi Power. The course of fire has been standard now for what 125 years? COF was used orginally fired with the 1873 Springfield I believe. As CMP still runs the National Matches which historcially uses the standard service rifle of the United States Military and still issues the Distinguished Marksmanship Badges and President One Hundard then it is still a military origanted match. Competition yes but not a sport. That's why the M4 should be able to compete along side the other rifles shooting the same COF. When I was on active duty I was able to fire the same COF with my issued M4A1 during service matches as the services allow it to. I would just like to continue shooting the same weapon I've carried and used in harms way many times in my career.

CD

First off, Combat Diver, thank you for your service to our country! I think, though that most have said here, and everywhere else this comes up, is that given the current rules, you CAN shoot your m4 style rifle, but just not in the "Service Rifle" matches, you can shoot it as a "Match rifle" any time you want, so why all the gnashing of the teeth over wanting a rule change?
Mike B

Fellas,

I don't discount the value and tradition of National Match Course shooting as it pertains to the military, but the only branch of service that still uses anything close to NMC with regard to training is the USMC if i am not mistaken. I know many do not like to view NMC shooting as a sport but at some point in the future we had better embrace that idea if we want it to continue into the future.

I am a service rifle shooter. I enjoy the level playing field with regard to the rifles and I have accomplished quite a bit in this sport shooting one. As I said earlier in this post I have no beef with allowing the M4 to shoot NMC/EIC so long is it in no way ends up altering our course of fire to allow the M4 to be competitive. Rest assured, under the current course of fire the M4 will not be competitive even a little.

So because it has a military origin, it can't be a sport? By definition, it is a sport because it is a physical activity that has a set of defined rules and a winner can be determined by those rules.

BTW, you were allowed to shoot your M4 in Army combat matches. If you went to Interservice or the National Trophy matches at Camp Perry you would not have been allowed to shoot it. All the other branches have a say in it as well.

B

Copyright © 1996 - 2013 :: AR15.Com LLC :: All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.