Culver's Comments on the CMP Grading System

OK, Ok, everyone get their fur down, and I’ll try to explain what went into the thinking behind the CMP grading of rifles. I speak from a certain amount of experience, as I was one of the individuals in on the original planning. Honestly folks, it wasn’t a plot to break anyone or to destroy the program. Although the program as it now exists isn’t "exactly" what we initially came up with, it is in fact close. In order to get a handle on our (perhaps warped?) thinking, I’ll take it from the top:

1. When I arrived at the CMP, a proposal had been made to perhaps look into grading the M1s before sale. While I initially was a bit ambivalent on the subject, the longer I dealt with complaints about the condition of some of the "Service Grade" guns that enraged customers were calling in about, the more it sounded like a workable idea. Please understand, I’m a guy who works or has worked both sides of the street – that is, I’m an old time service rifle shooter who is also a service rifle collector. I also understand that the DCM/CMP, during its days of Governmental attachment, sold Service Rifles at cost to U.S. Citizens to encourage rifle practice among the populace to prepare them for service in the event of a war or national emergency – In my opinion, a most noble undertaking! Under a bit of considered analysis, it DID appear necessary to prevent the "average" CMP customer from receiving a true "Dawg" for his hard earned dollars. Don’t forget this was first conceived when the rule was still one rifle per lifetime, vice one per year.
   
   
2. We had also received a number of complaints about the IDEA of a grading system, since at least some of the individuals liked the idea of "the luck of the draw". This, it seems, added a bit of spice and mystery to the equation. While I could understand all this, and indeed if you got a nice rifle, all went well. HOWEVER… if you got a "Dawg", the idea suddenly didn’t seem so hot. You should have seen some of the rifles that were sent back to the CMP for analysis, repair and possible replacement. If I had gotten one of THOSE, I would have been an EXTREMELY unhappy camper – and there was no recourse, NOR ANOTHER YEAR! I will grant you that most customers received decent rifles, but what if YOU were one of the unfortunate few? It’s easy to say "what’s wrong with the current system?" as long as you don’t wind up on the receiving end of a "low end product".
   
   
3. At any rate we formed a sort of ad-hoc committee to study the idea of grading the M1s. The committee was composed of shooters, collector/shooters, an armorer and a couple of "lay persons", but all stalwart supporters of the program. We were faced with a dilemma, however as we were essentially dealing with several groups of customers, and had to find something to please everyone (always an impossible task of course). I must hasten to add, that none of the group were particularly affluent, and didn’t have a lot of extra money to throw around – we tried to look at the system as an average customer. As we saw it we were dealing with (roughly) four different groups:

1. The individual who wants (or wanted) simply what was advertised, that is, a Service Grade M1, but doesn’t want one that has been run over by a locomotive. They simply want an M1 as it probably would have been issued from the arms room in the day and time of the M1s tenure as our primary rifle. They did not want a Dawg! Most understandable in my opinion!
   
   
2. The individual who wants a really nice shooter, but doesn’t want to invest in a new barrel or new stock, and has very little interest in collecting M1s, simply shooting them in local matches, etc. Correct parts were not of any great interest as long as the rifle was sound, had an excellent barrel, had decent wood and the finish was excellent or better. Here we had in mind something like the Springfield Armory "rebuilds". These rifles might even have birch stocks, but the metal would have been refinished (or would be in excellent condition). These rifles would have a new or near new barrel, and all parts replaced if needed. This would give the average CMP shooter something to shoot that they didn’t have to send off to a gunsmith to have rebuilt. We had envisioned calling this one "The Arsenal Rebuild Grade" and it would have been priced about $500 - $550. Not too bad, considering that it would not have been necessary to replace stock or barrel, the additional would have been well below the price of replacing the issue parts.
   
   
3. The individual who wanted to build a first rate match rifle, and therefore would not have been interested in the original barrel or stock (and would probably have wound up pulling the barrel and throwing away the stock anyway). Here we saw a way of making the "Dawgs" marketable at a greatly reduced price. Finish would have been so-so or non-existent, the wood could have dings and no vestiges of cartouche(s) and the barrel would (or could) have been well worn. They would have been properly headspaced and safe to shoot, but certainly no world-beater. We were thinking of calling this one the "Hobby Grade" and would have been for the "I want to build a match rifle" customer. The estimated cost would have been somewhere between $200 - $250.
   
   
4. The individual who was primarily a rifle collector. Here we saw a chance to crank in the "luck of the draw" again for those who enjoy taking a chance. These rifles would be "gen-u-wine" collectibles. Essentially hard to find variations, although not necessarily new rifles, the parts would be correct, the cartouches in tact, and would be appropriate for the rifle and serial number range. Here a rifle aficionado could wait with baited breath to see what the "rifle fairy" had brought them! We intended to keep the price well below the going market price of such a piece, but reflecting the necessary selection process and expertise to select and insure the correctness of the piece. The original suggested price was to be between $625 - $650.
   
   
4. The system, as it survived, is actually very little changed from our original idea(s), and I understand that the CMP will eventually be selling barreled actions as opposed to the Hobby Grade/Wallhangers designed to be built into match rifles. The true "Dawgs" will probably be built into drill rifles by welding the actions and otherwise rendering them inoperable. This gets rid of the "awful" wood and other inoperable parts, while allowing the rifles to still look like an M1. Since a number of the rifles held by the Army are required to be furnished to veteran’s organizations (and other Army supported organizations) that need "drill rifles". The barreled action idea does both. It gives the "rifle builder" what they need, and gets rid of the very worst (otherwise un-saleable) rifles while providing a service for those who need a do-it-yourself kit! At this time, I don’t have any idea what the barreled actions are going to cost, but I can only imagine that they will be reasonable.
   
   
5. The gentleman in charge of the rifle grading at the Anniston facility is a rather marvelous individual who is both a shooter and a collector. He is a Distinguished Rifle Shot, and has a really nice collection of M1s, although he is certainly not a wealthy man. He is one of the greatest promoters of the DCM/CMP program, and I would certainly trust him to pick a rifle for me. As long as he is in place, I think you can rest assured that you will get what you pay for.
   
   
6. Although the final price for the "Collector’s Grade" is a bit higher than we originally recommended, it is still WELL below the market value for such a piece. Don’t forget, the CMP is not supposed to be in competition with the civilian market. As long as the prices are within the affordable price range of the average CMP customer, and well below the collector’s market price, I would say that things are pretty well on track. If you feel that the prices are too high or too low, you can always make your complaints known to the Board through the CMP web site.

I don’t honestly think the Grading Scheme is designed to make the CMP more affluent! First of all, there aren’t that many "collectibles" available in the database, and they will not last forever. What the system DOES do is to avoid the poor individual who has had to endure background checks and seemingly endless waiting for their treasure, receiving a "boat anchor" instead of a decent M1 rifle.

Look at it from this standpoint. In the past year we (as customers) have gone from a system that allowed the average customer one rifle PER LIFETIME to being able to buy one rifle per year, and with the new grading system, you may now buy not only one rifle per year, but TWO rifles per year, AND be assured of getting what you asked for.

The lads and lasses who love the mystery of "the luck of the draw", can still wonder if they are going to receive a priceless treasure when they open their CMP package. The system doesn’t truly cater to the collector, as he or she is still playing "luck of the draw" with no assurance that they will be sucking the cream off the top. Some will be great, and some will be so-so, but still guaranteed to be collectable, and well worth the price of admission.

To summarize, the CMP customer now has (as the system is set up):

• The ability to buy one service (or select) grade rifle per year.

• The ability to buy one collectible rifle per year.

• The guarantee that they will not receive a "Dawg" in the process.

• The "luck of the draw" folks can exercise their "Las Vegas" urges in the purchase of a collectors grade rifle (who knows, a gas trap or two might fall through the cracks – just kidding!).

• My only heartburn with the current grading system is the mention the possibility of "light pitting" on the Service Grade Guns… This "light pitting" was never mentioned during my days, and I think I would be a bit upset if I received a $400 rifle with "light pitting". If I have any disagreement with the current grading system, that would have to be it. Again, just make your comments known to those in charge.

While I might disagree with some of the direction(s) the CMP occasionally takes, this one, I feel, is to the benefit of both the shooter and the collector. I honestly don’t think it was devised to rape the CMP customer. You may well disagree and, of course, you can always make your comments known to the CMP.

Hope this helps to clear up the thinking behind the Rifle Grading System.

Best regards,