Should DCM or Whoever Allow the M11 for Competition?

I remember looking this up in the rules almost a year ago or so. However it's said, "primary" vs. substitute or whatever rationale seemed like a flimsy excuse to a guy who cut his teeth when the M1 Garand was still found on the rifle firing lines and the AR system was barely beginning to prove itself.

So I'm remembering a nice gun show visit with some buddies maybe a year before the M9 trials were done, and our joint conclusion was that the Beretta's grip was too fat for us and we liked the SIG P226 much better despite its DA trigger and the hammer fall that both reminded us of a cap gun despite the DA being smooth.

I'd love to try the P228 in this game but still have some interest in gathering Leg points when (maybe if) I get good enough...

So what do others in the Bullseye world think about this?

I'd love for service rifles and service pistols to actually be our service rifles and pistols.However, there doesn't seem to be much receptivity for new ideas.

I asked on the National Match forums about the M4 rifle being approved. It seems that the military teams are the ones that ask for a new gun to be approved. That seems odd for the "civilian" marksmanship program.

CMP is who would decide if the M11 would be eligible for service pistol matches.  I don't know who you would contact to ask if that could be an option.  I shot some pretty tight 25 yard groups with one...

Oops, yup, CMP.

"DCM" sorta reveals my age, doesn't it???

And yes, I'm with anyone who wants the civilian versions of the M4 rifle being Leg-legal too. Like the M11, there's almost certainly no "competitive advantage", but I believe that both games would benefit from letting more people run it with what they already have.

But I'm still in favor of keeping them iron sights-only. But there *could* be a new game for optics-equipped Service Rifles, as well as allowing them in Rattle Battle (NTIT is the initials for the real name, IIRC?).

With guys going through Parris Island with Aimpoints, I could see them being used for rifle legs. I don't think guys with M4s and Aimpoints would do well, but I think they would be good additions.

I emailed the CMP awhile ago regarding the new "M45", when deciding to sell a Kimber for a Clark hadrball. Never got a response.  One would think they should allow it, thus opening up the door to the casual 1911 owner who only has one 1911 with a beavertail and extended grip safeties (as most of them come this way now).

I would be interested in hearing CMPs ruling on the M45 question also.  Let me know if you ever hear back...

Does anyone on the forum have a contact at CMP that this question should be directed to?