huntershooter

Also, the BMF Activator https://www.galatiinternational.com/bmf-trigger-activator-1022-22-rifle-rapid-fire-crank.html

Amazing. While bad enough to hear these sorts of things from run-of-the-mill owners, I'm astonished at the scarily unknowledgeable folks assuming they have the business acumen worth risking the capital to own a store. To think that the majority of these problems would be solved if only most gun owners became involved in organized shooting. I'm convinced that the gun owner's worst enemy is himself.

Brian, I'm sure the folks in the Port Clinton area might disagree that the shooting environment sucks in Ohio. They seem to attract quite a few folks every summer. Guess it depends on your discipline(s) of choice!

The article finally made it online. http://www.tactical-life.com/online/combat-handguns/half-second-quick-draw/

http://www.americanrifleman.org/Video.aspx?vid=1881 Yeah, this is sad. The guy screws up the difference between the Marine 36 yard vs. the Army 25 meter zero procedure and states the setting incorrectly. M16A4 is 6/3+2 (NOT -2) and the short barrel M4 should be 300 meters (6/3) The AMU Service Rifle team has a MUCH better video: http://www.usaac.army.mil/amu/ProTips/May09/protips.html

Sometimes my editors slip and let me publish an article about shooting Combat Handguns, March 2010, p. 74 Feedback appreciated. Thanks!

Best advice! Unless you are preparing for formal Benchrest competition (an event sanctioned by IBS, NBRSA, etc.) than there is NEVER a need for a benchrest. In David Tubb's book about XTC shooting ("Highpower Rifle") he recommends zeroing and load development from sling prone, and use a sandbag if you're a novice. That's for precision shooting at 600 and 1000 yards. Tell me why a 3 Gun/Multigun (not to mention a hunter!) needs a bench?

No! This is a myth that circulates because the US Army has failed to train effective machine gun gunnery for decades. It's like saying shots fired during a Bill Drill are doomed to climb up into the upper 'A' box " 'cause the muzzle climbs in recoil." A good gunner should be able to produce circular cones of fire even during longer bursts, and aims center base to better distribute the beaten zone across the target area. Shooting controlled bursts allows the gunner to search/traverse while the other gun he is paired with engages. The Marines still have a MG MOS (0331, 0332) but the best "Emma Gees" I've met are Commonwealth troops. Look up the history of The Battle at Somme to see why the Brits take their MG's seriously. And to the topic, an "instructor" that won't demonstrate with live fire is a poser. Walk your talk or shut your mouth!

Here is video proof of why members of our armed forces are too often such poor marksmen. This type of "instructor" is both belittling *and* ignorant (see video at 3:48). How could any student learn like this? I'm sure this Marine questions the value of training folks who could well change sides and shoot Americans, is plain tired of dealing with Iraqis and would rather be just about anywhere else. However, at what point is personal frustration an excuse for unprofessional conduct (not to mention being stupid enough to video tape it and post it for the world to see)?

>> Pretty much up to the Match Directors, I think ? My understanding of the rules is that it *is* legal under USPSA rules to hold a rifle-pistol only event. Are there any big matches where this is the case? >> Shotgun is more fun than rifle though It isn't an issue of what is more "fun." I shoot with the USAR combat team and am toying with the idea of persuading our OIC to include USPSA events into the mix. It would be an easier sell if there were big rifle-pistol only events for Tactical (A4 with ACOG) and Production (M9). We don't normally shoot shotguns. Thanks, John

It seems with USPSA that you either shoot just pistol, or you have to shoot three guns. Are there any big matches doing just rifle and pistol, no shotgun? Thanks, John

For those of you with cable/dish who get the Versus/Outdoor Life Network... Anyone see the "Front Sight Challenge"? Care to comment? Yes, overall, I did like it (that's why I posted it in this thread here ;-) Thanks, John

>> Excuse me if this is hijacking the thread but I think you're saying that most of the "fixed site" classes are for defensive type shooting. I think most of them are. Probably because most red-blooded, John Wayne-watchin', handgun-ownin' folks want to go to fightin' school 'cause they done already learned how to shoot and don't bother with that fancy pants competition stuff that'll just getcha killed. So they go to "fightin' school", and end up learning the fundamentals of practical shooting that any half-decent competition shooter practices and knows. One thing I liked about Front Sight was their attention to fundamentals and even offering "just shooting" courses to focus on them. >> Are you all saying that there are no "fixed site" schools for USPSA/IPSC type shooting? I don't know if they're "fixed" but most of the top-flight competition folks offer classes.

>> I stumbled across this site the other day and watched one of their promotional video clips. I saw a notice that this school is hosting a televised shooting show and that details will be in TV Guide in Jan 2007. Might be worth checking out, if only to see some realistic, pro-gun shooting action on TV!

>> I have not attended anything there Well, gee, don't let that stop you from voicing your opinion >> The other issue I have is Front sight has a connection to The Church of Scientology Having actually attended several courses at Front Sight the only "connection" I've witnessed are posts on the Internet. If this school is supposedly a front for Scientology then management is doing a horrible job because the only thing I've seen them do is teach shooting and related topics. If you want improve pure shooting skill, then take a class with a top-level competitive shooter. Having already earned my 'M'-cards in USPSA and IDPA, when I was shopping for a shooting school I was more interested in the defensive/combat aspects, learning things we don't practice at matches. I'm sure I would have been happy going to Thunder Ranch, Gunsite or any of the others but ended up going to Front Sight and feel I made a good choice.

>> Even though I know the two classes are not apples and apples, if I had paid full price for the FS training I would not have been happy. It was worth a little more than free, however it is not worth full price when compared to classes I have taken from Gunsite, HK, Trident Concepts and others. I've shot with Gunsite graduates and taken courses from both Front Sight and Trident Concepts and feel the exact opposite! I audited a Trident Concepts Combative Carbine 1 course for my unit taught by Gonzales and likely would have asked for a refund if I had paid to attend. The Gunsite grad attended one of our local USPSA matches and performed, uh, less than stellar. OTOH, my experiences at Front Sight for rifle courses have been good. I'm not knocking any of these schools. I've taught classes where nothing went right and I felt I came off like a tongue-tied jackass and had students who had to be coddled before they _finally_ got it. Stuff happens. >> .. Credentials .. Are you aware of the skill evaluations Front Sight uses? Note that students need to shoot a "Graduate", and sometimes a "Distinguished Graduate" score in order to attend more an advanced course. FS holds Skill Builder courses to further train and retest students before advancing. Candidates at the Instructor Development course are expected to perform at the DG level on demand. As far as "real deal" experience it depends on which instructor. A number of the FS instructors I've talked with certainly do. OTOH guys like Enos, Leatham and Burkett don't have combat experience so I guess that means we have nothing to learn from them, right? Fast X, John

I'm looking for a copy of an old army marksmanship manual, FM 23-71. Anyone know where I can get a copy, or download it? Thanks!

>> I think your zero distance depends on the match you're going to. ... One year we went to 400 if you were good enough. (one shot - one 10" plate- start close and work your way out. PS - i got the furthest and it was something like 330yds if I remember correctly). Is this like a Walk-Back shoot? What distance did you start at? How many times did you have to engage and/or hit that 10" plate per yard line? How many yards did you step back if successful? Thanks!

>> Not to be negetive but i have taken one of the chuck taylor courses and would not reccomend it. OK, can you tell us why? I only know the man from his books, but I thought 'Combat Handgunnery, 4th Edition' was quite good. Assuming he can shoot at the high end 'master' levels he claims to, he certainly is very good by anybody's standards. Even better, he is one of the few regular gun writers who even bothers to offer *any* kind of shooting standard. Fast X, John Buol HunterShooter.com

OK, I'm *very* familiar with that "Magic Bullets" piece at the USARC Small Arms Readiness Group website because I wrote it! This is my unit, and I'm the webmaster. As I said, I've used the quote before but I want more details as to its origins. When and where did Roosevelt say/write it? What specifically was he referring too? Etc.?? Fast X, John Buol www.HunterShooter.com

I've heard of (and used) a quote attributed to Theodore Roosevelt about "America's Third Line of Defense." I've searched the web and usenet with no luck. Can anyone provide a definitive source of this quote and its exact wording? When and where did he say or write it? How does it relate to the President's Hundred (which I'm pretty sure was instituted with T. Roosevelt as well) And specifically was he referring to, all trained civilian marksmen or the NRA specifically (back when they were a little more serious about promoting shooting ;-) Fast X, John Buol http://www.huntershooter.com

>> I actually did a comparison about 10 years ago ... shooting at 10 yards to 385 meters (the silohuette turkeys). I discovered that the scout was slightly (ever so slightly) quicker inside of 50-60 yards but the 3.5-10X stomped on the scout at longer distances particularly when the target was either small or indistinct. Don't suppose you'd have the results available to publish here?

>> I think Cooper's theories on general purpose rifles are interesting and thought provoking. I am not, however, sold on the scout concept ... But let's face it, scout scopes suck. A low to medium powered variable is by far a superior general purpose sight. The low-power forward-mounted "scout scope" is the only controversial part of the concept. The rest is pretty solid, almost elementary. Some of the pieces (namely the Ching Sling) are so elegant its frustrating that they don't catch on. While I like the scout scopes, I'm not totally sold on the concept. I think they offer some advantages, but a 2-7X variable can be just as fast. Anyone do a side by side comparison shooting scout scopes next to conventional scopes?