Nightcrawler
Member
I've done a little looking. Looks like to get the ATI stock to fit I'd have to do some dickering. I don't have a dremel, but I have a friend who has one. I hope it doesn't require much; that buttstock looks lefty UNfriendly.
Romak 3 outshot my M1A
- Thread starter telewinz
- Start date
- Status
B27
Member
I do believe those ATI stocks are completely ambidextrous.
Nightcrawler
Member
The ATI stock is (I had one on my first AK). I was talking about the original Romak-3 stock.
Yeah, I'll have to get one of these along with my VEPR .308, eventually, methinks. I do wish they'd import the VEPR in .35 Remington that they make.
I really super friggin' ultra mega wish that MOLOT would make a VEPR 20" in 7.62x54mmR, and that somebody would import it, and that I could buy it for $600 or so...
Yeah, I'll have to get one of these along with my VEPR .308, eventually, methinks. I do wish they'd import the VEPR in .35 Remington that they make.
I really super friggin' ultra mega wish that MOLOT would make a VEPR 20" in 7.62x54mmR, and that somebody would import it, and that I could buy it for $600 or so...
Steve Smith
Moderator Emeritus
Telewinz, if you knew a little more about Camp Perry and Highpower competition you might not have made any of those comments. Please do us a favor and KNOW about what you speak of before you pontificate about it.
I agree with Coronach's regression to the mean, fire 100 5 shot groups from each, and record. Then you'll know which is realy the more accurate of the two.
I agree with Coronach's regression to the mean, fire 100 5 shot groups from each, and record. Then you'll know which is realy the more accurate of the two.
Telewinz probably didn't know.
Could it just possibly be that the original poster of this thread may actually have a dog of an M1A? It does indeed happen, and I've seen dogs of M16's and AR-15's. (My last FN-made M16A2 was a total mutt during my latest deployment, but I didn't carry it for the purpose of High Power matches, either)
Telewinz didn't state Service Rifle in his "outside competition" paragraph. Neither did he mention Match Rifle. But he knew that the foreign service autoloaders weren't allowed to compete directly against the U.S. service rifles, hence his statement, which means he paid attention somewhere, versus just having diarrhea of the mouth.
Once upon a time, in my High Power days, I bought a Hythe rear sight and set up a match FAL, using a .308 Winchester Model 70 SS heavy barrel on an Imbel receiver. I knew that it wouldn't be allowed in Service Rifle, nor did I care. The idea was that it shot well enough to make the M1A and AR-15 folks sit up and take notice. When offered money, I sold that FAL and went back to a M14NM for my Service Rifle High Power gun. The FrankenFAL was a fun gun, build solely for the purpose of injecting some fun into an otherwise humorless sport.
Hey, folks, if a Romanian Dragunov/AK variant shoots demonstrably better than a given specimen of an M1A, or AR-15, then by all means, let the man have his day in the sun, instead of raining on his parade by telling him to go run a bazillion rounds through both guns for numbers, then reporting back.
Could it just possibly be that the original poster of this thread may actually have a dog of an M1A? It does indeed happen, and I've seen dogs of M16's and AR-15's. (My last FN-made M16A2 was a total mutt during my latest deployment, but I didn't carry it for the purpose of High Power matches, either)
Telewinz didn't state Service Rifle in his "outside competition" paragraph. Neither did he mention Match Rifle. But he knew that the foreign service autoloaders weren't allowed to compete directly against the U.S. service rifles, hence his statement, which means he paid attention somewhere, versus just having diarrhea of the mouth.
Once upon a time, in my High Power days, I bought a Hythe rear sight and set up a match FAL, using a .308 Winchester Model 70 SS heavy barrel on an Imbel receiver. I knew that it wouldn't be allowed in Service Rifle, nor did I care. The idea was that it shot well enough to make the M1A and AR-15 folks sit up and take notice. When offered money, I sold that FAL and went back to a M14NM for my Service Rifle High Power gun. The FrankenFAL was a fun gun, build solely for the purpose of injecting some fun into an otherwise humorless sport.
Hey, folks, if a Romanian Dragunov/AK variant shoots demonstrably better than a given specimen of an M1A, or AR-15, then by all means, let the man have his day in the sun, instead of raining on his parade by telling him to go run a bazillion rounds through both guns for numbers, then reporting back.
Last edited:
Steve Smith
Moderator Emeritus
Didn't see that 444 had posted, actually.
Regarding this comment,
I actually agree to a large part. A match ready M14 will not stay that way for long on the battlefield, and a battlefield rifle won't stand up to the match standard. His second comment is the one that got me. As we all know, the FAL was in competition with the M14 for a US Service Rifle, and the M!4 won under somwhat questionable circumstances. Camp Perry has nothing to do with the selection process. Telewinz is ALSO right in that if the FAL did win that status, the AR might not have ever existed. I wasn't trying to beat him up as much as say that some of us have an intimate knowledge about that sport and it doesn't work the way he thinks it does. I try (but fail at times) to keep my trap shut about other disciplenes unless I know something is true.
It is absoultely possible that the original poster does have a dog of on M1A. IMHO, they are about 70% dogs (2-2.5 MOA) and some get to go to obedience training, but that's me and my opinion. Sounds like you have some hurt feelings about HP. The rules haven't changed, so you can't say the allowable rifles have changed. The one thing that DID change is the allowance of a MUCH closer-to-issue gun, the AR-15, into ServiceR ifle. It is, after all, much closer to what a troop gets than a match ready M14 or M1. All rifles do compete in an overall aggregate score. In addition, a direct comparison may be made between Match and Service Rifle scores. Nothing prevents that. SR has been the same since its beginnings, but one is certainly welcome to shoot their Red Ryder BB gun in MR and compare their scores with a SR anytime they wish. Please don't paint me with the "AR lover" brush. It is the best tool to do what I am doing, but it is not the best tool for fighting. I prefer the M14 or G3 for that, or in a perfect world a .243 FNC would be nice (oh to dream!). Shooting a match AR is like shooting an Olympic free rifle and the only difference from a troop issue gun is the float tube, better barrel, and a decent trigger. It (the AR) seems like a decent gun, and mine surprise me with their reliability, but the .223 is a weak round, for sure.
You obviously misunderstood my blind squirrel remark...I was SAYING that every once in a while even an AK based gun is good...better than the average M1A even. Several things are most likely in play. #1, M1A is "average" at best, #2 AK is the exception to the rule, and/or #3 it was a freak accident. Of course, there are a few others, such as shooter capability and such. I'm not about to begin with all the possibilities. My original post was just meant to say that every rifle is a law unto itself and its entirely possible that he has a GREAT AK.
I don't see a problem with helping the original poster to develop a long running average of each gun's performance. One day's surprise is another day's frustration. I have been there many times with "this worked last week, why not now?"
Regarding this comment,
I actually agree to a large part. A match ready M14 will not stay that way for long on the battlefield, and a battlefield rifle won't stand up to the match standard. His second comment is the one that got me. As we all know, the FAL was in competition with the M14 for a US Service Rifle, and the M!4 won under somwhat questionable circumstances. Camp Perry has nothing to do with the selection process. Telewinz is ALSO right in that if the FAL did win that status, the AR might not have ever existed. I wasn't trying to beat him up as much as say that some of us have an intimate knowledge about that sport and it doesn't work the way he thinks it does. I try (but fail at times) to keep my trap shut about other disciplenes unless I know something is true.
It is absoultely possible that the original poster does have a dog of on M1A. IMHO, they are about 70% dogs (2-2.5 MOA) and some get to go to obedience training, but that's me and my opinion. Sounds like you have some hurt feelings about HP. The rules haven't changed, so you can't say the allowable rifles have changed. The one thing that DID change is the allowance of a MUCH closer-to-issue gun, the AR-15, into ServiceR ifle. It is, after all, much closer to what a troop gets than a match ready M14 or M1. All rifles do compete in an overall aggregate score. In addition, a direct comparison may be made between Match and Service Rifle scores. Nothing prevents that. SR has been the same since its beginnings, but one is certainly welcome to shoot their Red Ryder BB gun in MR and compare their scores with a SR anytime they wish. Please don't paint me with the "AR lover" brush. It is the best tool to do what I am doing, but it is not the best tool for fighting. I prefer the M14 or G3 for that, or in a perfect world a .243 FNC would be nice (oh to dream!). Shooting a match AR is like shooting an Olympic free rifle and the only difference from a troop issue gun is the float tube, better barrel, and a decent trigger. It (the AR) seems like a decent gun, and mine surprise me with their reliability, but the .223 is a weak round, for sure.
You obviously misunderstood my blind squirrel remark...I was SAYING that every once in a while even an AK based gun is good...better than the average M1A even. Several things are most likely in play. #1, M1A is "average" at best, #2 AK is the exception to the rule, and/or #3 it was a freak accident. Of course, there are a few others, such as shooter capability and such. I'm not about to begin with all the possibilities. My original post was just meant to say that every rifle is a law unto itself and its entirely possible that he has a GREAT AK.
I don't see a problem with helping the original poster to develop a long running average of each gun's performance. One day's surprise is another day's frustration. I have been there many times with "this worked last week, why not now?"
Last edited:
WOW, I'm not sure what I said but I'll be very careful about saying it again. I'm not implying that the Romak3 is better than the M1A /M14, from what I've heard match grade M1A's WILL do 1 moa. Although from what I have read on the boards, the AK47 is about the only semi that doesn't get 1 moa, I suspect most NON-MATCH semi's get closer to 2 moa (or worse) if the truth were told. I suspect my M1A is average in performance since it's not a match rifle. NATO rates the Romak3 and Dragunov at about 2 MOA at 100 meters, to get 1.75" isn't that big a deal except the fact that I was using 55 year old service ammo.
So let me get this straight...
Foreign made STANDARD ISSUE military rifles ARE permitted to compete at Camp Perry against M14's in MATCH GRADE competition. So that means I could use my as issued AK47 or FAL against a match grade M14. Boy, my comments WERE a mile off the mark, I deserved those lumps.
There is little difference between the M16's used at Canp Perry and the M16's issued to our troops EXCEPT....floating handguards,maybe a better trigger, maybe a better barrel, and maybe better sights. I stand corrected again, sounds like there is NO difference.
So let me get this straight...
Foreign made STANDARD ISSUE military rifles ARE permitted to compete at Camp Perry against M14's in MATCH GRADE competition. So that means I could use my as issued AK47 or FAL against a match grade M14. Boy, my comments WERE a mile off the mark, I deserved those lumps.
There is little difference between the M16's used at Canp Perry and the M16's issued to our troops EXCEPT....floating handguards,maybe a better trigger, maybe a better barrel, and maybe better sights. I stand corrected again, sounds like there is NO difference.
Last edited:
Well, as has been pointed out, what you said was that Camp Perry doesn't allow outside competition, which is incorrect. If you want to shoot an FN in NRA High Power matches or for that matter this Romak, you certainly can. Instead of being classified as a service rifle, it will be classified as a match rifle. Your statement implies that the FAL is so good that it is being kept out of competiition, obviously if it were better than what is currently being used, it would be used. Probably by the majority of competitiors; but it isn't.
I also pointed out that your statement about "match grade" AR15s is also in error. There is very little to seperate the AR15 on your dealers rack and one being used at Camp Perry. And, most of the differences don't have a lot to do with the intrinsic accuracy of the rifle; they have more to do with you being able to realize the potential accuracy of the rifle. Better trigger, floated barrel (for shooting with a sling), maybe a different barrel (not because the factory barrel isn't just as accurate but so you can shoot much heavier bullets to minimize the effect of wind at the 600 yard line), and possibily sights with finer adjustments. An M16/AR15 isn't your dad's M14 or your grandfathers M1; the M16 is a very accurate rifle just as it comes from the factory and is capable of shooting in world class competition with very little fluff.
I also pointed out that your statement about "match grade" AR15s is also in error. There is very little to seperate the AR15 on your dealers rack and one being used at Camp Perry. And, most of the differences don't have a lot to do with the intrinsic accuracy of the rifle; they have more to do with you being able to realize the potential accuracy of the rifle. Better trigger, floated barrel (for shooting with a sling), maybe a different barrel (not because the factory barrel isn't just as accurate but so you can shoot much heavier bullets to minimize the effect of wind at the 600 yard line), and possibily sights with finer adjustments. An M16/AR15 isn't your dad's M14 or your grandfathers M1; the M16 is a very accurate rifle just as it comes from the factory and is capable of shooting in world class competition with very little fluff.
Sir Galahad
member
There might not be much difference between a Camp Perry AR and SOME ARs on SOME dealers' racks. But there is a world of difference between a Camp Perry AR and the average M-16 right off the rack in an average U.S. Army arms room.
Nightcrawler
Member
You mean my 20+ year old M16A1, on an original converted Colt AR-15 receiver (or perhaps a nice Hydra Matic receiver), that' probably been cleaned from the muzzle end for over a decade isn't quite up to Camp Perry Match standards?
Huh!
Steve Smith
Moderator Emeritus
Not really. There't just not enough "stuff" on an AR/M16 to make much of a difference! Take an off-the-rack M16, give it a better barrel, a float tube and a better trigger, and IT will be a fine match gun too. Unlike its wooden stocked predecessors, there's just very little to do to that platform to make it work REALLY well.
Sir Galahad
member
Granted. But a 45B (Small Arms Repairman) does not have access to those parts as repair parts. So, the off-the-rack military-issue M-16 is always going to be significantly different from a Camp Perry. It would take a civilian to get a hold of one and do the modification or a 45B doing it with orders other than those governing standard repair of weapons. The barrel makes a world of difference, as does the trigger. But those, in and of themselves, make a significant difference since the average soldier does not have access to those upgrades. That's why I mantain there is a significant difference between a Camp Perry and an issue M-16. The platform may remain the same, but, you know, the same podiums at the White House were used by both Clinton and Bush, heehee.
- Status
