Gunnerlove
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Vancouver Island
The three Canadian teams took 1st, 2nd and 3rd in the movers match at USAFSAM 2014.
It takes quality practice to get a feel for it.
What power scope to use for SR
- Thread starter artom.h
- Start date
The three Canadian teams took 1st, 2nd and 3rd in the movers match at USAFSAM 2014.
It takes quality practice to get a feel for it.
Gunnerlove
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Vancouver Island
I will be the first to point out that dialing for wind is a flat square rangeism. Along with open gate and a 6 o'clock holds on a figure 12.
All the above were created by people trying to push gear to get the most points. Much can be traced back to the simple but lacking reticle design of the C79. These improvisations have only worked due to the slow pace and structure of the matches.
The Australians have their own issues with doctrine defining a competition instead of performance changing doctrine. When I was there in 2010 most Diggers had scopes with no aiming point, just a circle reticle that just fit a fig 12 at 200m "donut of death". The ones with ACOGS were cleaning house because they had better gear, and the Internationals who were allowed to rest mags dominated the competition.
All the above were created by people trying to push gear to get the most points. Much can be traced back to the simple but lacking reticle design of the C79. These improvisations have only worked due to the slow pace and structure of the matches.
The Australians have their own issues with doctrine defining a competition instead of performance changing doctrine. When I was there in 2010 most Diggers had scopes with no aiming point, just a circle reticle that just fit a fig 12 at 200m "donut of death". The ones with ACOGS were cleaning house because they had better gear, and the Internationals who were allowed to rest mags dominated the competition.
Square ranges encourage many bad practices in every shooting discipline. Shooters learn techniques that only work on them. Techniques that rely on even known distances, wind flags, shot markers, etc... things that you will never see when you leave the square range. They were only meant to be a vehicle for training large numbers of new shooters. They were meant to be a stepping stone. But, if you never leave them, those bad techniques become standard practice. There is no reason to abandon them.
Repetitive courses of fire also encourage bad practices. No different than teaching math. If the test will always have exactly the same problem with the same numerical values it, why learn how to solve that type of problem generically when you only need to memorize the answer to that specific instance of the problem?
And yeah; nothings holds back marksmanship advances like rules that place artificially limits on gear and shooting positions.
Repetitive courses of fire also encourage bad practices. No different than teaching math. If the test will always have exactly the same problem with the same numerical values it, why learn how to solve that type of problem generically when you only need to memorize the answer to that specific instance of the problem?
And yeah; nothings holds back marksmanship advances like rules that place artificially limits on gear and shooting positions.
IMHO, CAFSAC should disallow open gate and wind dialing. An infantry soldier will never get the chance to have perfect zero in an ideal range setting before going on mission. It is part of the soldier skills to deal with it and think on the feet.
While some folks don't have a choice with respect to equipment, "open" class could be whatever rifle, sighting system and ammunition the shooter wishes to use. If it works, great. If not, the shooter's performance suffers. Too bad, so sad.
Most available ranges are going to be known distance; not too many field firing areas.
But match organizers could design the course of fire so that field expedient positions and techniques must be used. Even simple things like don't cut the grass on and in front of the mounds would make a difference. As long as bullets impact safely.
Firing in relays also imposes limits, but individuals firing IPSC/IDPA style really slows things down, especially when the targets are at rifle distances.
Yes, doing things line not cutting the grass or having openings in barricades that force you to shoot on a certain side or in modified prone are great ways to get people to use certain positions a certain way and see the value.
IPSC/IDPA style is only slow if you're using paper targets. PRS style matches fire 200-300 rounds over 2 days and have +100 competitors (SnipersHide cup will have 200 competitors each shooting 300 rounds this year) shooting out past 1200 yards. They use steel targets and have spotters scoring. The spotters/scorers look through a spotting scope and keeping track of hits using one of these:
Several stages run simultaneously, and each stage is only a minute or two. There are similar matches called "carbine matches" with AR-15s out to 500-600 yards (with lots of CQB type stuff mixed in), that run the same way. All of the good stuff: odd distances, multiple distances in the same string, etc... The shooters in those matches can use whatever optics they want, yet the vast majority use 1-4x or 1-6x. Their rifles have lighter profile barrels, usually in the 18" range.
A well designed match will drive the shooters towards "proper equipment". Using equipment that isn't well suited to the application the match is trying to mimic is a disadvantage. This is the ideal situation IMO.
IPSC/IDPA style is only slow if you're using paper targets. PRS style matches fire 200-300 rounds over 2 days and have +100 competitors (SnipersHide cup will have 200 competitors each shooting 300 rounds this year) shooting out past 1200 yards. They use steel targets and have spotters scoring. The spotters/scorers look through a spotting scope and keeping track of hits using one of these:
Several stages run simultaneously, and each stage is only a minute or two. There are similar matches called "carbine matches" with AR-15s out to 500-600 yards (with lots of CQB type stuff mixed in), that run the same way. All of the good stuff: odd distances, multiple distances in the same string, etc... The shooters in those matches can use whatever optics they want, yet the vast majority use 1-4x or 1-6x. Their rifles have lighter profile barrels, usually in the 18" range.
A well designed match will drive the shooters towards "proper equipment". Using equipment that isn't well suited to the application the match is trying to mimic is a disadvantage. This is the ideal situation IMO.
Gunnerlove
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Vancouver Island
I would correct you in that trade be damned marksmanship is a basic across the board soldier skill, but other than that I doubt there can be any real argument against demanding closed gate.
The gate refers to the latch which locks the elevation drum after elevation has been zeroed on an Elcan C79. When unlocked, the elevation changes with each click; locked, the predetermined range elevations are used.
If a right is run with the gate open, the shooter can count clicks to set precise elevations adjustments for the various ranges. Closed, the shooter is limited to the preset elevations for 200/300/400m, etc, which may be less than exact.
It has been a common practice for competitor to use open gate for the more precise adjustments possible. The sight was not intended to be used in this manner in actual service.
Similarly, you will see service personnel with a washer secured to their wrist with paracord. This permits windage adjustments to be made during competition as conditions change, rather than having a basic wind zero and aiming off as required.
If a right is run with the gate open, the shooter can count clicks to set precise elevations adjustments for the various ranges. Closed, the shooter is limited to the preset elevations for 200/300/400m, etc, which may be less than exact.
It has been a common practice for competitor to use open gate for the more precise adjustments possible. The sight was not intended to be used in this manner in actual service.
Similarly, you will see service personnel with a washer secured to their wrist with paracord. This permits windage adjustments to be made during competition as conditions change, rather than having a basic wind zero and aiming off as required.
You shouldn't need to put limits on equipment or techniques if the match is an accurate representation of what it is trying to mimic. If it is, people will use the proper equipment and proper techniques, plus they will develop new techniques that will move marksmanship forward. However, if they are doing things that only work on a square range and not in the real application, it doesn't make them better marksman. It makes them slaves to a square range techniques.
I don't think that adjusting a scope in and of itself is a square range only technique. If someone knows what they're doing, it can make them more effective. Why limit advanced shooters because the technique may confuse the mediocre ones? Makes no sense. Techniques that only work on a square range are techniques that rely on knowing the target size or having a grid or rings of known size, techniques that rely on having nice even distances, techniques that involve doing math in your head that you can't do quickly under stress without a high chance of error, techniques that rely on your target being at a specific distance and moving at a specific speed. These are techniques that may create great square range marksman, but poor real world marksman. You can have those just as easily only using the reticle as you can making adjustments.
The only way to validate or invalidate a technique is to try it in a senario that accurately mimics the real application.
I don't think that adjusting a scope in and of itself is a square range only technique. If someone knows what they're doing, it can make them more effective. Why limit advanced shooters because the technique may confuse the mediocre ones? Makes no sense. Techniques that only work on a square range are techniques that rely on knowing the target size or having a grid or rings of known size, techniques that rely on having nice even distances, techniques that involve doing math in your head that you can't do quickly under stress without a high chance of error, techniques that rely on your target being at a specific distance and moving at a specific speed. These are techniques that may create great square range marksman, but poor real world marksman. You can have those just as easily only using the reticle as you can making adjustments.
The only way to validate or invalidate a technique is to try it in a senario that accurately mimics the real application.
Match shooting make people better shooters no matter what sighting system they are using. If they choose to use it in combat or not has no bearing on its effectiveness. Basic marksmanship skills under pressure is what is being learned and that for most people is more than enough to make them more effective in ANY situation they are in. Combat or not.
Basic... this is the key work to that. When you give them cheats that only work on a square range, yes its great for helping them develop their basic marksmanship skills. And yes, that's a necessary first step. And yes, developing those skills will make them more effective. But, basic marksmanship is all it is. Being able to adapt a skill to different situations and not just one instance of it is also a part of marksmanship. Being able to apply it to situations that don't have all of the square range spoon feeding is also a part of markmanship development. If someone never practices advanced markmanship skills, they'll never hone them. They may be a master of basic marksmanship, but they'll still get womped when competing against shooters that have honed the advanced skills in matches that aren't held on a square range.
Last edited:
Thanks. We learn something new every day, don't we?
Interesting idea. My Vortex has a ridge on the back of the turret cap for this purpose, but a washer seems pretty "fire 'n forget" to me. Hard to screw up.
Given I have... zero marksmanship skills, I'm grateful to have the BDC reticle in the optic; it's probably enough to get me started, and I won't have to worry too much about dialing while I'm still trying to remember if I'm supposed to stand or kneel, not drop magazines on the ground, and keep up with the fit people.
Shooting open gate is no different than using any other non bdc scope. You think DMs hold off for wind and distance? Perhaps in some situations yes. Buy there will be others where a precisely placed shot will the only option. Why not teach everyone both methods and let them choose which one to employ for the circumstances.
Gunnerlove
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Vancouver Island
As is the chance of shooting with a dial type BDC set to the wrong setting.
You know what would really throw most of the field for a loop? A BUIS match. Or one involving taping over the lense on the C79, and just using the battle sight on top. 100m and in, like the BCRA soldiers match. There's a skill most CAFguys aren't taught.
