I think the CMP is worried that they are tending in the same direction as the NRA from a participation standpoint.  The Junior participation in XTC has really fallen off over the last 8 or so years and the Service Rifle demographic seems to favor an aging market segment. Unfortunately program growth is unsustainable without new shooters.   I think these  changes reflect pressure from a few angles but it also appears to be an attempt to attract a younger audience that might not have the interest in buying a dedicated A2 configuration to try their hand at the game.   During the post Sandy Hook buying frenzy the majority of AR15 based rifles sold would never be compliant with the current service rifle rules but many, possibly most, would be legit under the proposed rules.  

Being a traditionalist I really don't like change but I also would hate to see National Match Course shooting die because of resistance to it.  I rallied against this for the last couple of years and virtually no one bothered to voice their concerns until after the fact.   The writing was on the wall and there were public discussions about these changes back in 2012.  

That being said I have put a rifle together and although it is easier to see it's not easier to shoot.  I was concerned that something would be lost when sight alignment was taken out of the equation, it has always been a core tenet of marksmanship.  Interestingly enough I have found head position is more critical with the scope than it ever was with the irons so that aspect of the shooting process is different but certainly no easier.  It's been interesting if nothing else.

I'm not so sure about that.   I believe the verbiage is going to contain some restraints.  If it isn't found on some issued version or isn't specifically listed as an approved modification then it won't be legal.  So unless there are issued M4's or M16A4 rifles with extended bolt releases I don't believe it will be compliant.  I don't know this for fact but I think that is the intent of the rules.

Keep in mind that release is already somewhat dated even though it's only a few weeks old.  It's also just the basic outline of the rules proposal.   Some things have already been changed since that announcement, most significantly they have already done away with the 11.5lb weight restriction.

I would caution anyone building an optics rifle PRIOR to the official rules being published, we really don't know how it's all going to flesh out until it's written in stone.  I would suggest that a standard M16A4, like currently legal, will be certainly legal moving forward so adding a scope base and a 4.5X scope to that rifle will clearly fall within the rules, anything outside of that is speculative at this point.

Then stick a fork in this discipline, it's over when us dinosaurs age out.

I know, but I don't care about golf.

Mark Johnson posted something on the CMP forum to that affect.

Totally agree, the only constant in life is change.   I can't say for sure that these changes are good or are even the right direction to go but we won't know until we try.  I'm skeptical but trying to keep an open mind about these new rules.

The parallax issue isn't as bad as it might seem.  If you have good head position you won't have a problem with parallax set at 100 yards.  Some companies like Leupold, let you custom order fixed parallax settings on many of their scopes, I did with the VX-R I ordered.  I had mine set for 200 yards.  

Now that I better understand parallax the error is significantly worse at shorter ranges and becomes less and less as the distance gets further.

spring bump