abnranger,
Are you serious???
Let's look at your choice (I'm guessing M1-A from the description, right?) in light of the negatives that you put forth.
"Way to specialized toy to waste money on."
The same could be said of an M1-A. Primary purpose would seem to be high-power competition. Too heavy, too much recoil for run-n-gun tactical type competition (this game is dominated by AR-15's), it's found lacking in precision/sniper type competitions (these games are dominated by bolt guns). Sure, you could hunt with it, but how many people do? Not many. Seems like a pricey, specialized piece of equipment to me.
"Too ammon (sic) pickey."
This totally depends on the gun. My race gun isn't ammo picky, yours might be. And an M1-A is not free from this potential problem.
"Can't carry on a daily basis."
Are people carrying M1-A's on a daily basis in Pitt.?
"Weighs to (sic) much."
It weighs less than an M1-A, but I don't think that was your point. A Lightweight Commander also weighs less than an M1-A. So what?
"Over priced."
Compared to a Lorcin? A Davis? Or overpriced compared to a custom-built piece of equipment that will allow you compete to the maximum potential of your skill, without being hindered by inferior equipment? I don't get your point here.
"Can't come up with any good reasons to buy or consider such a techo-geek kinda firearm."
Active IPSC open-class shooters will routinely put 10,000-50,000 (or more) rounds through their guns per year. Will your M1-A see that kind of use? Most won't. As far a bang for the buck, a race gun seems like a pretty good way to go. And if you want to compete in open class, you need the right kind of gun. Sure, you could do it with a stock 1911, but that isn't the way to win.