Army Shooters

Not sure how many Non Distinguished Army shooters are on here, but this should warm their hearts.  The new AR 350-66 takes effect next month.   The highlights are as follows:

1. We get 5 EIC matches PLUS the Nationals instead of 4 including the Nationals.

2. Although we are still limited to 14 civilian points at state, local and regional EIC matches, you can shoot all 5 of your yearly matches at them until you get your 14 points.  The 2 civilian matches a year rule has died a well deserved death.  Keep in mind that the EIC match earlier in the week of the NTI is considered a civilian match as far as the Army is concerned, so if you have 14 civilian points already, you can't earn points in it, only in the NTI.

3. We can use issued optics in the combat rifle EIC matches.

There is more, but these are the important ones. 

Let the smiling commence.

I am already U.S. Army Double Distinguished so it doesn't effect me, but I thought I would share as the old version made it especially difficult to go distinguished for Pistol shooters and blind rifle shooters.

5 EIC matches plus nationals... lucky

14 points permitted outside of service instead of 10... double lucky!

I'm all about getting folks points for winning matches. And I don't much understand limiting to 4 per year... it's like we're discouraging participation instead of encouraging it

adminbot1911 wrote:I'm all about getting folks points for winning matches. And I don't much understand limiting to 4 per year... it's like we're discouraging participation instead of encouraging it

Seems to me that discouraging/limiting military participation helps encourage civilian participation. No?

Slartybartfast wrote:

adminbot1911 wrote:I'm all about getting folks points for winning matches. And I don't much understand limiting to 4 per year... it's like we're discouraging participation instead of encouraging it

Seems to me that discouraging/limiting military participation helps encourage civilian participation. No?

I was speaking from the military perspective; limiting the number of matches military competitors can achieve points in limits the number of matches military competitors will enter.  My point: Service regulations actively discourage service participation in civilian competition.

Interesting theoretical question, though.  Does military participation encourage or discourage civilian participation?  If I told you that at least two of the service pistol teams weren't going to NRA national championships in Atterbury next year, would it make you more or less likely to go?

adminbot1911 wrote:

Slartybartfast wrote:

adminbot1911 wrote:I'm all about getting folks points for winning matches. And I don't much understand limiting to 4 per year... it's like we're discouraging participation instead of encouraging it

Seems to me that discouraging/limiting military participation helps encourage civilian participation. No?

Interesting theoretical question, though.  Does military participation encourage or discourage civilian participation?  If I told you that at least two of the service pistol teams weren't going to NRA national championships in Atterbury next year, would it make you more or less likely to go?

From a civilian perspective, if I'm competing for points or prestige I would probably avoid competitions loaded with military members if possible.

My experience is VERY limited and I'm just going to events to compete against myself and have fun. But if I ever got serious and ended up perpetually frustrated against competition that can out practice me thanks to their career I think that I'd probably have to scale back to "just for fun" or search out events that didn't pit me against professionals.

The rationale for letting military members compete in civilian (CMP) matches is that not all military shooters can attend military matches. Participation in these is very often at the shooters expense (“no cost orders”). So even if they can get the time, often it’s prohibitively costly. It used to be that military shooters could substitute a civilian match after the military match was over and done, but that wasn’t always followed. The rationale for limiting the number of civilian matches for military shooters was the civilians didn’t want the military teams showing up and getting all the leg points leaving none for the civilians.

But these limits were in the days of the M1 and M14, M72 and M118 ammo issued, etc. Now a civilian likely has better or just as competitive guns, ammo and equipment. The only disadvantage the civilian has today is that he doesn’t shoot as much and his support staff is nonexistent .

Wobbley wrote:...

But these limits were in the days of the M1 and M14, M72 and M118 ammo issued, etc.  Now a civilian likely has better or just as competitive guns, ammo and equipment.  The only disadvantage the civilian has today is that he doesn’t shoot as much and his support staff is nonexistent .  

The only disadvantage today? It's the same disadvantage civvies always have had, unless I was supposed to also be issued a support staff with my ammo... 

Slartybartfast wrote:

adminbot1911 wrote:

Slartybartfast wrote:

adminbot1911 wrote:I'm all about getting folks points for winning matches. And I don't much understand limiting to 4 per year... it's like we're discouraging participation instead of encouraging it

Seems to me that discouraging/limiting military participation helps encourage civilian participation. No?

Interesting theoretical question, though.  Does military participation encourage or discourage civilian participation?  If I told you that at least two of the service pistol teams weren't going to NRA national championships in Atterbury next year, would it make you more or less likely to go?

From a civilian perspective, if I'm competing for points or prestige I would probably avoid competitions loaded with military members if possible.

My experience is VERY limited and I'm just going to events to compete against myself and have fun. But if I ever got serious and ended up perpetually frustrated against competition that can out practice me thanks to their career I think that I'd probably have to scale back to "just for fun" or search out events that didn't pit me against professionals.

I think we have different ideas of military competition based off our varying experiences with the different striations of military competition. The civilian competitors that shoot at All Navy and/or Fleet matches on the east and west coasts readily admit they attend due to the large numbers of service members providing leg fodder. They still have to clear score, they still have to make top 10%, but maybe it's with a 465 instead of a 483.

My own experience as someone who has gone from crushing my service's qualification courses (345/350 rifle and 396/400 pistol) to getting similarly crushed (initially) in civilian competition is that civilian competition is in general MUCH more stiff, with the very notable exceptions being the absolute top tier of service shooters.

Wobbley wrote:The rationale for letting military members compete in civilian (CMP) matches is that not all military shooters can attend military matches.  Participation in these is very often at the shooters expense (“no cost orders”).  So even if they can get the time, often it’s prohibitively costly.  It used to be that military shooters could substitute a civilian match after the military match was over and done, but that wasn’t always followed.   The rationale for limiting the number of civilian matches for military shooters was the civilians didn’t want the military teams showing up and getting all the leg points leaving none for the civilians.  

I can empathize with that. It is the "Civilian" marksmanship program, after all.

Just as someone whose level of skill has been elevated by highly skilled civilian competition, I like to see bridges built between civilian and military competitors instead of barriers.

Seems that the Military could be encouraged to compete with civilians and vice-versa while still recognising and awarding each separately.