View Full Version : Shot Distances In A Typical Carbine Class
I was wondering what kind of shot distances one could expect in a typical carbine class?
Years ago, I took a 3-gun class with Kyle Lamb (Viking Tactics) and we worked on close range rifle stuff, then spent an entire afternoon working on shots at 10" flash targets from 100-300yds.
The reason I ask is that looking through the AAR's and pics from a lot of the classes (Magpul, Vickers, Rogers etc) it seems as though the targets are pretty close, more of a CQB focus vs close and long range engagements. Everyone seems to have Aimpoint dots on their carbines vs low power variables. Perhaps the close range material makes for better pictures and videos?
Anyway, I was just curious, this may be too general a question, I'm sure a lot of the classes have varying content. Thanks for any info.
David
I've noticed a trend to shorter distances since I first began taking carbine classes in the late 80's. Back then, it was fairly rare to take any shots closer than 25yds with a carbine since many instructors considered CQB work to be better suited for handguns/shotguns/SMG's. Now, many of the classes have targets set up from almost contact distance out to 300yds or more (with a majority of the shots being taken well under 100yds), which is much more realistic, IMO.
But as you say, this varies pretty widely between schools/instructors. It's always best to contact the instructor and discuss the course of fire prior to signing up for a class.
Jay Cunningham
06-15-09, 22:15
My carbine training has placed the emphasis inside 25 yards, although a decent bit of shooting is done from 50 yards. Larry Vickers likes to do "walkback drills" which can go back to about 175 yards or so, but these are not drills per se.
Eric Cartman
06-15-09, 22:28
The 2 classes I've taken were with Blackwater and MDTS. At Blackwater we went from 7 yds out to 25 yds mostly, with some shots taken on top of their tower out to 300 yds. At MDTS we did mostly 7yds, 15 yds and 25 yds, with some 3yd shots aswell. One thing I took away from both classes was holdover. Firing from a static line at 25 and 50yds at a firing range is a whole lot different than moving and shooting from 25 yds up to 3 yds. That's why it's a good thing to take some formal training.
Most of the training will be 100 yards and in for the simple fact that its difficult for many itinerant instructors to get a range that's longer than that.
Also, most instructors teach either the 50/200 yd zero or 100 yd zero.
If you have a class of 24 people that has to tape targets then you'll spend a lot of time walking back and forth across the range at longer distances.
At 50 yds and in you can still have realistic threat engagement distances while focusing on weapon manipulation skills or shooting on the move type drills.
I've shot as far as 400 yds in a regular carbine course and as far out as 100 yds on pistol.
First I'll say that I've taken classes that didn't go much past 25 yards, and I've taken classes that go out to 200. Interestingly each of these (Randy Cain in the 200 yard case, Louis Awerbuck in the 25 yard case) were the two best training experiences I've ever had.
That out of the way. I see two sides to this.
The first is that, outside of military and rare LE instances, firearm use for the majority of us is going to be limited to close range. From a legal standpoint alone you're going to be hard pressed to explain to a jury why you needed to shoot someone at 200 yards in your suburban neighborhood.
The other (perhaps more cynical) side is that getting hits with a carbine inside of 25 yards is stupid easy. Limit the amount of pasting you ask the students to do, or shoot a lot of steel, or have a pretty loose accuracy requirement and it becomes even easier. Factor in a need to paste targets (although if you're not pasting anyway...) and a desire from a lot of students to up the round count or they don't feel like they got their money's worth, and the trend goes towards shooting at close range. The class becomes more about manipulations and making the students feel good than anything else..
Ironically I shot more rounds in Randy's carbine than I did in Louis', despite the fact that Louis' was the close range one.
I personally see a lot of value in shooting at distance. One is that it improves your focus on the fundamentals of sight picture and trigger control, as well as position ("stance" doesn't really apply in prone). The other is that it becomes a fantastic confidence builder and at the same time shows students that the weak link in the chain is them, not the gear. In Randy's class we shot a 6" steel plate at 200 yards on TD3 (after getting the 200 yard zero and working on the fundamentals). I wound up running my 11.5" "pencil" barrel 1:7 Colt 6933 with XM193 using an 4 MOA Aimpoint that day, a combination that the internet had led me to believe was totally incapable of maintaining 3 MOA and getting those hits. Out of 10 shots my first two missed because of that insecurity, and after Randy told me to focus on the basics, I went 8 for 8 after that. Achieving that level of confidence in both the equipment and myself has really helped my carbine shooting over the years since. "I can do this" is a valuable lesson, and IMHO it really hits home when shooting at distance.
Thanks for the feedback guys.
One of the reasons I asked this question is that we put on a big carbine match down here in Birmingham 3-4 times per year. We usually have 75+ people shoot the regular matches and over 160 shot the big "championship" match we just had last month.
I've noticed that lots of the guys who compete who've taken carbine training courses tend to do very well on the close range stages, but struggle with the scenarios that involve shooting at steel targets (flash targets) at 100-300yd distances.
I've recently looked more closely at the AAR's from carbine courses and think I might understand why that's the case. I realize now that many of the carbine classes are generally more focused on typical LE and defense type scenarios where shorter distance engagements are more common or the "rule" or "norm".
Personally I love the close fast action scenarios with the carbine, but there's something really satisfying about drilling a 300yd flash target with that same rifle.
Thanks again for the input.
John_Wayne777
06-16-09, 10:42
I think a lot of it is going to be limited by the facility. At US Training Center, for example, where an instructor has access to a large number of different ranges configured in different ways we did a fair bit of shooting beyond 25 yards, including time on the KDR out to 500 meters.
That's not as easy of an option on some other ranges.
Submariner
06-16-09, 10:49
Pretty good insights in your post. Never forget, training is a business: the buyer has goals and the seller has goals. Let me focus on the following:
... The other (perhaps more cynical) side is that getting hits with a carbine inside of 25 yards is stupid easy... The class becomes more about manipulations and making the students feel good than anything else.
...
I personally see a lot of value in shooting at distance. One is that it improves your focus on the fundamentals of sight picture and trigger control, as well as position ("stance" doesn't really apply in prone). The other is that it becomes a fantastic confidence builder and at the same time shows students that the weak link in the chain is them, not the gear...
Depending on the instructor, you might replace "making the students feel good than anything else" with "mindset:" keeping one's head in the fight (it's about fighting, not shooting, per se); and maintaining situational awareness, e.g. really looking for someone else to fight; keeping a loaded and working weapon in your hand; and knowing where you are physically with respect to the line, not too far forward or too far behind, especially when shooting on the move. These, along with the ability to manipulate the weapons, are as much confidence builders as shooting at 200m. And doing them right tends to make the student "feel ggod" about having accomplished something.
That said, we have carved out a place here on the farm where we can safely shoot 200m, just to focus on the basics you mention. We can also tell when a barrel begins to fade, something that won't show up at 50 yards.
Side note: In our Boone County, IN carbine class with Louis, we shot out to 100 yards (maximum safe range at the facility.) No problem shooting an 8-inch plate during the day with small A2 aperture and bright sun light. It was a no go at night. Neither he nor I thought about going to the larger aperture (although while it would have passed more light, the elevation would have been off without a same plane aperture.) Lesson learned.
Shoot an Aimpoint at night.;)
We went past 25 only twice with Louis. Once on TD1 to 50 to zero and once on TD3 to 50 and then 100 to briefly check zeros.
Submariner
06-16-09, 11:49
Originally Posted by rob_s View Post
... The other (perhaps more cynical) side is that getting hits with a carbine inside of 25 yards is stupid easy...
At what point in your training did you decide this, before or after you took Louis' class?
I don't think of it in relation to Louis' class. I just think of it in terms of what we see month after month at our matches and drills. We have quite a few guys that can smoke a COF at CQB distances and then waste an entire magazine trying to hit an 8" steel plate at an unknown (but greater than 100 yards) distance.
Now I'm not saying that all of these guys run these CQB stages at breakneck speed, or that they're "fighters" with a good "warrior mindset", but they keep all the hits inside the 8" circle at close range, something they appear unable to do at 100+ yards.
Failure2Stop
06-16-09, 12:29
I look at it with a few different perspective angles. The consistent feature is traininto get acceptable hits as fast as you can. The way that is achieved is a bit different, and different aspects are better trained by employing different distances of engagement, or mixing them.
100 yards and in, it is all about the fight. While fundamental skills are always applicable, their clinical implementation is eclipsed by the need for speed in all actions. Manipulations become just as important as marksmanship, and a good indicator of mindset. The sub-100 is a good way to seat the necessary mindset. It is the prime distance for a nasty gunfight, and there are skills that apply to the distance and application that do not really transfer to other distances or circumstances. I consider the sub-100 fight to be the most essential to learn as it is applicable to pretty much everyone, and failure at those distances generally mean that you wind up being bagged and tagged.
From 100 out to 300 is the rifleman's area of domination. The shooter must be in tune with marksmanship supportive positions, and a good course will cover not only the traditional prone, sitting, kneeling, and standing, but will teach or improve unconventional and hasty positions, cover, exploiting/overcoming a covered target, support, moving target engagement, and rapidly assuming those positions as well as applicability of them. The longer distances will necessitate a finer grasp of fundamental marksmanship since the targets will generally be (suprise) smaller than close-range targets. The intermediate distance will not require advanced atmospeheric compensation, but the effects should be learned, appreciated and overcome. I consider mastery of the 100 to 300 to be a requirement of a profesional fighter. By mastery I mean that 80 percent of shots fired will land in the important part of the upper torso.
300 to 600 is the area for people that like to play games with their guns or are advanced marksman. There is a big difference between the two regardless of the similar distances. The ability to lay a rifle on a sandbag, sit on a chair, fire one round a minute, and get a 10 shot group sub-MOA group at 600 on a marked range is nowhere near as difficult as running 100 meters, throwing yourself into position, making a wind-call on the fly, and driving two shots into the upper torso at 600 on a range with no indicators of distance. The latter is the skill I want to teach to people, and generally is the skill people with the "right" mindset want as well. While it does not require sub-MOA performance in slow-fire, that is the skill that leads to the rapid application of effective fire. It requires good knowledge of and experience in position (esp the prone), observation and identification skill, the ability to read wind and light, the ability to adjust for wind and light, and the ability to make a fairly accurate range estimation, all very quickly (intuitively is the goal). It takes a lot of time to achieve this level of skill, and is a level of skill that most won't ever know they are lacking. Competance from 300 to 600 is an indication of true passion for the art. Competance meaning that the shooter can hit 70% of single shots taken without any spotting rounds, flags, range indicators, etc.
Those that can do them all have mastered the art.
There is also the often neglected skill of mixing types. The ability to eliminate several close-range threats while on the move and from unconventional positions and then effectively hit a partially obscured threat at 346 meters is not easy to do. The mix of threat profile, distance, and necessary immediacy of action is a really good way to find out how good you really are.
Those that focus on the sub-100 fight tend to gravitate toward little guns with 1X optics, because they work great in that application.
Those that focus on the 100 to 300 fight are most likely seen with 3X-4X optics to achieve the necessary balance of precision and speed.
Those that focus on the 300 to 600 tend to use higher magnification 9X+, such as those commonly employed by Snipers/DMs. They can do a lot of things other than just make a target appear larger, and are felt by those that are trying to excel at that employment range.
Those that are competant at all distances seem to use low-powered variables more frequeantly than anything else, but also use 1X optics with magnifiers or 4X optics with 1X "Back-ups" to good effect. The low-powered options allow good performance at intermediate distances with varying degrees of "acceptable" performance at close and long range.
Getting ranges that support long-range or even intermediate range with any usable density are pretty rare outside the mil, and being able to work multiple distances with any degree of "suprise" is very expensive. The time taken to repair and setup long-distance ranges cuts into class time. Any finally, those that really need long and intermediate distance engagement practice and training have the ranges available for free.
From 100 out to 300 is the rifleman's area of domination.
I agree. And even when a class is geared towards the close range stuff. It's always good to bring it back to 100 and revisit the marksmanship skills... (while separating the men from the boys. :cool:)
Yes, the low power variable scopes definitely dominate the competitive carbine and 3-gun matches. Generally at these matches, there is a mixture of short and long range stages and 3x or 4x is needed to assure hits on targets out beyond 200yds.
I've found that shots at targets "out there" (300 - 500yds) don't necessarily require more magnification, but rather better quality glass. More magnification is generally not usable in the relatively unstable positions you find yourself in under match conditions. Anything beyond 4x or 5x becomes too wobbly and compromises the field of view when engaging a multiple target array.
Hopefully people don't forget that their carbines are capable of hitting targets several hundred yards away with good ammo and proper technique. The combo of fast and furious and long shots is what keeps it fun!
From 100 out to 300 is the rifleman's area of domination.
It's so refreshing to have someone else say this in what seems to have become a world of sub-100-yd "riflemen".
Submariner
06-16-09, 20:50
Those that focus on the sub-100 fight tend to gravitate toward little guns with 1X optics, because they work great in that application.
Those that focus on the 100 to 300 fight are most likely seen with 3X-4X optics to achieve the necessary balance of precision and speed.
Those that focus on the 300 to 600 tend to use higher magnification 9X+, such as those commonly employed by Snipers/DMs. They can do a lot of things other than just make a target appear larger, and are felt by those that are trying to excel at that employment range.
Those that are competant at all distances seem to use low-powered variables more frequeantly than anything else, but also use 1X optics with magnifiers or 4X optics with 1X "Back-ups" to good effect. The low-powered options allow good performance at intermediate distances with varying degrees of "acceptable" performance at close and long range.
Along this line of thought in an LF thread, Which Optic for an Afghan Tour, rgrgordo opines:
Here's a few things to consider:
* The TA 31F in any combination only gives you a fixed magnification which restricts the shooter from accurate, rapid, snap, both eyes open shooting at CQB ranges out to 100 meters
* Mounting a Dr Optic, Trijicon, or any other small RDS on top of your ACOG forces the shooter to violate the consistency required to minimize the inherent parallax that is found in those RDS's
* Mounting an RDS on top of an ACOG also raises the RDS sight line up to 4.5" above the bore line which causes severe bullet flight and bore line conflict
* Any type of small RDS--with the exception of the T-1--has over 80% inherent parallax in the eye box (viewing field) which is severely increased when a good/consistent cheek to stock weld cannot be repetitively replicated by the shooter
In addition, I have yet to see any engagement where I have been recently; the Korengal, the Waygul, Chowkay, Helmand or any where in N2KL, or P2KL; where a shooter has effectively engaged at 400-600 meters. I have repeatedly seen shooters completely mis-judge distances in those places because they don't know how to use their ACOG stadia's and reconcile a proper range estimate. I have seen shooters misjudge by being up to 300 meters off. Here's an example of a conversation I had on Restrepo this past fall
* Me--"dude; what are you shooting at"
* Shooter--"that guy at 550 meters"
* Me--"how far did you say he was"
* Shooter--"550???"
* Me--"dude...that cat daddy is maybe 200-225 meters from us right now. You're shooting right over his head. That's why he keeps flinching; because your shots are snapping way above him. Drop to your 200 stadia and shoot that f*cker"
* Shooter--"Oh O.K."
* Note--Shooter shoots
* Shooter--"Holy shit your right...f*ckers dead!!!"
For my money, unless you pay the bill for a S&B SD, A Trijicon 1-4x24, a Leupold 1.5-4 (Vari X III) or my favorite, a NF NXS 1-4, you can't go wrong with a T-1 on an LT 606 and an Aimpoint T-1 on an LT 649 Pivot Mount. I've been using that set-up now got two solid years and it works. It gives you the variability you need to hit at distances in that environment--up to 400-500 meters--while giving you the ability to accurately, effectively, quickly conduct CQB engagements. The only other option I see for that environment is what has been added to the SOPMOD Block II kit--The ELCAN Specter DR aka, the ECOS SU230. Just my two cents...
I look at it with a few different perspective angles.
^^That is a great post.
I think there's a lot to be said for Rob's "cynic" theory as well. I remember talking with a guy setting up for a USPSA match and he expressly said that they set up targets close so even newbies can get decent hits reasonably fast, so they stay engaged in the experience, have fun and want to do it again. The cynic in me thinks that the training world may (perhaps subconciously) embrace the same idea for the same reasons. Especially with the outbreak of so many "training" schools in the last 8 years.
BushmasterFanBoy
06-17-09, 09:24
^^That is a great post.
I think there's a lot to be said for Rob's "cynic" theory as well. I remember talking with a guy setting up for a USPSA match and he expressly said that they set up targets close so even newbies can get decent hits reasonably fast, so they stay engaged in the experience, have fun and want to do it again. The cynic in me thinks that the training world may (perhaps subconciously) embrace the same idea for the same reasons. Especially with the outbreak of so many "training" schools in the last 8 years.
I'm a bit less cynical than some of you guys. I tend to think that its an acknowledgment of reality. Many of these folks going to classes are novices that have just been introduced to ARs, and with the advent of better information thanks to the internet, they are going to be using them for HD purposes.
The distances encountered in these classes are representing that. They are tailored to personal-defense distances, with emphasis on the 50 yard and in fight.
The real mettle of a class is found in the instructors, IMHO. A set regimen of firing off X rounds in Y seconds at Z distance won't be doing much good without an instructor that pushes students to do better, try different techniques, go faster etc.
I'm a big fan of the saying "We live in a 200 meter world". Have been for a long time...
I've watched a lot of gamers who make the close up stuff look easy, and I've seen a lot of folks MISS at 15 yrds. But this site is populated by enthusiasts which is not a realistic cross section of the typical shooter..
The truth is MOST people suck at shooting and are not very good at it...and manipulation is even worse. Most folks are best served in that 50-100 yd window.
The rest... they find a way to increase there skill and range accordingly.
Being well rounded in several disciplines such as High power service rifle will also add to that skill set, but like one poster said, teaching 24 guys on a 400 yd range is going to be a long and slow process and will not teaching fighting, just shooting...It's up to the individual to decide what they want to do..
Submariner
06-18-09, 10:20
Originally Posted by rob_s View Post
... The other (perhaps more cynical) side is that getting hits with a carbine inside of 25 yards is stupid easy...
I've watched a lot of gamers who make the close up stuff look easy, and I've seen a lot of folks MISS at 15 yrds. But this site is populated by enthusiasts which is not a realistic cross section of the typical shooter..
The truth is MOST people suck at shooting and are not very good at it...and manipulation is even worse. Most folks are best served in that 50-100 yd window.
I am having difficulty reconciling these two assertions. Can someone help me?
I don't know why you're having trouble. There are lots of things in the world that are stupid easy yet people **** them up every day. It *should* be stupid easy to look both ways, step off the curb, and cross the street, yet some idiot gets hit by a bus all the time.
Getting a hit on an 8" cirlce at <15 yards with a carbine is EXTREMELY forgiving. that doesn't mean that people won't **** it up.
John_Wayne777
06-18-09, 11:11
It depends on the accuracy standards you are held to. Larry Vickers, for instance, makes you shoot a 6" circle with carbine, handgun, whatever. Doing that at speed and on the move is not exactly an easy task. Then he puts you into walkback drills where you're shooting at a steel plate from 50, 75, 100, 125, 150, and on up to 200 yards if people are still hitting the target.
If people are easily putting all their shots inside the 6" circle, he'll add pressure with a timer or by making them do target recognition or any other evil trick he can come up with just to screw with you, all while holding to the same accuracy standard. You'll find that most who have taken his carbine courses recommend them highly and rate them as very challenging.
How the training is conducted makes all the difference in the world, or to put it another way, all 50 yard and in training is not created equal. One could see that LAV does a lot of training inside 25 yards with a carbine and assume that because he's the real deal that they can focus on 25 yard instruction too...but if they use the wrong accuracy standard and the wrong drills they won't produce the same results that he does. It's all in how you define "getting the hits".
I can tell you from personal experience that sub-standard accuracy in LAV's courses would be considered acceptable or even outstanding accuracy in some other courses out there. The benefit to the student varies depending on what the instructor lets them get away with. Maximum training benefit is seen when you don't let people get away with anything.
Some instructors do not demand much of their students. The course may produce a lot of smoke and noise, but it doesn't produce an appreciable increase in skill, only in "confidence" or "warrior spirit" or some similarly intangible (and silly) trait. People feel good when they leave, but ultimately they've gotten very little benefit. I've spoken in the past about the difference between teachers and hookers and the problem that we often see in the training world when people lose sight of that distinction.
As with so many other things in the training world, one aspect of a training program (round count, distance, etc) does not tell you much about the course. You have to consider the whole package.
I am having difficulty reconciling these two assertions. Can someone help me?
Yeah. I'm more likely to pull a shot inside of 20 yards. Why? Because I'm pushing myself beyond the balance of speed and accuracy. And the closer the threat, even in training, the higher the sense of urgency to put rounds on the target FAST.
I can tell you from personal experience that sub-standard accuracy in LAV's courses would be considered acceptable or even outstanding accuracy in some other courses out there.
BINGO!
LAV's accuracy requirements are what you would typically find in an intermediate to advanced carbine school somewhere else.
At one BASIC carbine class Vickers was doing in Ohio, a student (who had attended other carbine schools) advised me that the first HOUR of Vickers basic carbine was in fact basic. After that, it went to a much higher level.
I have been "High Shooter" at other carbine instructors classes, but would not even be middle of the pack at a Vickers advanced carbine class (with the groups I shot at the other school).
C4
Every Randy Cain class I've ever been to (and that's a couple) he's asked for "fist sized groups". Randy has his own targets that have such an area right in the center chest.
JohnWayne777
Some instructors do not demand much of their students. The course may produce a lot of smoke and noise, but it doesn't produce an appreciable increase in skill, only in "confidence" or "warrior spirit" or some similarly intangible (and silly) trait.
Warrior Spirit has won more battles both big and small in all arena's to include the Civilian sector then shooting nickel size groups on a square range that does not shoot back..
I don't believe it should be dismissed as a silly trait....
I think that the point he was making is that often lax standards get excused as under the guise of statements like "this is a fighting class, not a shooting class". While that statement may be true and applicable in some cases, it's over-used and abused and used as an excuse in others.
RogerinTPA
06-18-09, 19:52
I've noticed a trend to shorter distances since I first began taking carbine classes in the late 80's. Back then, it was fairly rare to take any shots closer than 25yds with a carbine since many instructors considered CQB work to be better suited for handguns/shotguns/SMG's. Now, many of the classes have targets set up from almost contact distance out to 300yds or more (with a majority of the shots being taken well under 100yds), which is much more realistic, IMO.
But as you say, this varies pretty widely between schools/instructors. It's always best to contact the instructor and discuss the course of fire prior to signing up for a class.
You also have to remember, back in the 80's, subguns/pistols/shotguns were the preferred method for CQB. As time passed, the M-4 became the weapon of choice because of logistics, common weapon for SOF Units, least over penetrating & most lethal caliber. Also, it's the most likely scenario for civilians (Home defense).
It is always best to be able to employ any weapon from contact, to it's max effective range. The close in CQB target engagement, as well as shoot on the move, at those close distances, is what I like about most of the courses. I use my weekend range time to practice my long range shooting, as well as the skills I've learned in a carbine course. I also practice pistol work from close in, out to 50 yards. Back in the day, we as a rifle team, shot match grade M1A's out to 1000 meters, using just iron sights for practice and competition. It all depends on what you are trying to accomplish for your particular training and how much you want to invest (time, money, resources) to become just proficient or an absolute master.
John_Wayne777
06-18-09, 20:00
JohnWayne777
Warrior Spirit has won more battles both big and small in all arena's to include the Civilian sector then shooting nickel size groups on a square range that does not shoot back..
I don't believe it should be dismissed as a silly trait....
It isn't a silly trait.
I would encourage you to take another look at my post and notice the quotation marks around "warrior spirit". This is a deliberate attempt to differentiate between someone dumping a bunch of rounds on a paper target with pretty poor accuracy at relatively close range who gets slapped on the back and told that they are hard-core and the genuine article. Often poor skills (and unfortunately poor instruction) are wrapped in terms like "fighting" or "combat" to shield it from reasonable standards. This is what I intended to point to with my post.
I would point out, however, that real warriors do concern themselves greatly with excellence in execution. ;)
You also have to remember, back in the 80's, subguns/pistols/shotguns were the preferred method for CQB.
Which is exactly what I stated in the paragraph you quoted! ;)
Submariner
06-18-09, 20:25
I think that the point he was making is that often lax standards get excused as under the guise of statements like "this is a fighting class, not a shooting class". While that statement may be true and applicable in some cases, it's over-used and abused and used as an excuse in others.
This is a pretty specific quote. Would you care to name names here?
Who are the "teachers" and who are the "whores"?
Otherwise, your statement is not particularly helpful.
BINGO!
LAV's accuracy requirements are what you would typically find in an intermediate to advanced carbine school somewhere else.
At one BASIC carbine class Vickers was doing in Ohio, a student (who had attended other carbine schools) advised me that the first HOUR of Vickers basic carbine was in fact basic. After that, it went to a much higher level.
I have been "High Shooter" at other carbine instructors classes, but would not even be middle of the pack at a Vickers advanced carbine class (with the groups I shot at the other school).
C4
Isn't that an apples to oranges comparison?
You could probably say the same if you went to an "advanced" class from someone else and then showed up at a LAV Basic class.
Almost all the classes I've been to have a curve to them, meaning you only have to shoot better than your classmates in order to be "high shooter"
This is a pretty specific quote. Would you care to name names here?
Who are the "teachers" and who are the "whores"?
Otherwise, your statement is not particularly helpful.
and your post(s) is constructive how?
No, I would prefer not to name names as I don't really see the point. Some of them you've probably never even heard of as they may be local or regional to areas you're not likely to find yourself in.
I'm also not sure why "teachers" and "whores" are in quotes as I don't think either of those words appeared in my post.
Kyle Defoor
06-18-09, 21:42
..because someone asked, my humble opinion;
A good top to bottom class should include CQB distance (contact to say 15) all the way out to max combat distance (200). This way, a shooter can experience barrel/sight relation, and the proper zero attributes.
Less time can be spent at the max distance because usually the position used (prone, kneeling, sitting) is stationary, and success is based solely on 2 major fundamnetals- sights and trigger. Whereas CQB stuff out to 50 or 100 is more physical in nature, from the body position (sometime standing) to the fact enemy can cover ground quickly (need to make your shots count), and can not be that good but still hit you.
The reason I believe 200 to be the max for combat/fighting is based soley on personal experience, and that of my former co-workers.
Of course the M4/AR-15 will shoot past that, as shown on any NRA leg match or President's 100, but, in combat/fighting, no one is usually standing up on a flat, distant marked, open field or laying in a perfect prone/kneeling poss.
Also, a rifleman/assaulter/infantryman most likely will not have powered optics, so the chance of seeing enemy in cover/concealment past 200 naked eye is slim. Add this to the fact that in some instances, if you miss, which is likely because of no optics/body position, you might be giving away your position and inviting a fight that you will be at a disadvantage at (incoming mortors, belt fed, RPG, etc.)
Things to ponder - average firefight distance in Vietnam-50 yds, average firefight distance in OEF-100, OIF- 100, average U.S. police sniper shot - 74 yds.
dookie1481
06-19-09, 22:07
..because someone asked, my humble opinion;
A good top to bottom class should include CQB distance (contact to say 15) all the way out to max combat distance (200). This way, a shooter can experience barrel/sight relation, and the proper zero attributes.
Less time can be spent at the max distance because usually the position used (prone, kneeling, sitting) is stationary, and success is based solely on 2 major fundamnetals- sights and trigger. Whereas CQB stuff out to 50 or 100 is more physical in nature, from the body position (sometime standing) to the fact enemy can cover ground quickly (need to make your shots count), and can not be that good but still hit you.
The reason I believe 200 to be the max for combat/fighting is based soley on personal experience, and that of my former co-workers.
Of course the M4/AR-15 will shoot past that, as shown on any NRA leg match or President's 100, but, in combat/fighting, no one is usually standing up on a flat, distant marked, open field or laying in a perfect prone/kneeling poss.
Also, a rifleman/assaulter/infantryman most likely will not have powered optics, so the chance of seeing enemy in cover/concealment past 200 naked eye is slim. Add this to the fact that in some instances, if you miss, which is likely because of no optics/body position, you might be giving away your position and inviting a fight that you will be at a disadvantage at (incoming mortors, belt fed, RPG, etc.)
Things to ponder - average firefight distance in Vietnam-50 yds, average firefight distance in OEF-100, OIF- 100, average U.S. police sniper shot - 74 yds.
Great info, thanks very much.
Jay
I'm not in full agreement that shooting at less than 25 yards is "stupid easy."
I could go with that if all we're talking about is something akin to all shots in the lower A zone of an IPSC metric target.
I can't if we're talking about a shot through the bridge of the nose at 3 yards if the intent is to hit the brain stem.
Sure, most people here understand the boreline/sightline issue and can accommodate it when shooting at close range when necessary. Most beginning students have no idea, even if they read these forums. This is one reason why the first shot we fire in my classes (after zeroing) is a head shot at 3 yards or so. Even those who know why I'm having them do it are surprised at the actual results. Then it takes a while for them to get a feel for when they need to worry about holdovers as well as how much for a given distance and target.
When we revisit that skill a while later, sometimes we see that they've not yet embraced the concept.
I also see it frequently at 3-gun matches. One of my favorite things to do when designing a course of fire is to put a target at close to contact distance with a no-shoot directly in front of it with the top of the no-shoot at the neck of the shoot target. We'll always see quite a few hits in the no-shoot's head (often 2 holes touching), with an incredulous shooter who can't believe he "missed" and doesn't understand why.
One of the more common comments I've received when the students get to offer feedback is that they had never considered using a rifle at closer distances. If they hadn't even thought about it, it's unlikely they've explored details like boreline/sightline offset, etc.
The fact that the actual marksmanship challenge is less due to the close range isn't really a bad thing. It allows us to push the student in other ways and other external sources of stress. No matter how good a shot is, you can always do it after/while moving a little faster or in a different direction or after fixing an induced malfunction.
Obviously there is great utility in learning to hit at longer ranges with acceptable accuracy as quickly as possible. However, the students I've taught need less help at 50-75 yards than they do at close ranges. I've been a student in classes a lot more than I've been the guy bumping his gums in front, and I've witnessed a greater need to develop the close range skills, both as demonstrated and as expressed intent.
I also think that hands-on instruction is more "necessary" for close range shooting, gun handling, movement, and tactics, than longer range. The closer you are, the less time you have to solve a problem and the less forgiving any situation will be of mistakes. Of course, that's pure speculation on my part as I've never been in combat or a "gunfight" (getting shot "at" doesn't equal a "gunfight, I think). I'm just a student who sometimes transfers what I have learned to others.
As always, I could be completely wrong.
while holdover can be an issue, and we do exactly what you're doing with the non-threat all the time, but you're adding in layers to the issue. Of course holdover becomes an issue, but even when it is an issue it's a 2.5" issue. When we see a shooter completely miss, repeatedly, an 8" steel plate at 100 yards, that's a 4" issue (yes, I realize we can make the argument differently if we talk in terms of MOA).'
Also, those two shots that appear to be "touching", let's say .25" center-to-center, at 3 yards can turn into 8" at 100. Speaking strictly in terms of marksmanship, and ignoring time for the moment, in order to be capable of a 2" group at 100 the shooter needs to be capable of putting two shots through (what appears to be, at least) a single hole.
The point of my post was that if you stay at close range it's relatively easy to get people making acceptable hits, even with the holdover issue, at close range very quickly. I know this because I do it all the time at our drills night. Since we get a revolving group of people that come through I start every drills night the same way with a two-shot drill. "everyone put your dot on the piece of tape and give me a single shot. bang. See where that hole is? That's your holdover at 5 yards. Now, using that information give me a single hole right through the piece of tape. bang. Did you get the hit? If not do you know why not? Do you understand what you did wrong? Do you know how to fix it?" typically at least 75% of the shooters on the line get the hit, or at least close enough to work for our purposes. Take the same group of people, take away their rifles and hand them a handgun, and we could spend all night long trying to hit that single piece of tape even without the complication of holdover. Give them back their carbines and have them shoot at an 8" steel at 100 yards and they could empty a magazine at it and never hit it.
A few months ago we actually worked "brain shots". I printed up some skulls that Doc Roberts had posted on another forum to show the optical/nasal cavity with a line around it and we shot at those for awhile, and then we moved to a generic human head target with no lines. We worked form 3 yards to 10+, and added in using cover and engaging multiple targets, and by the end of the night everyone was getting their hits in the right spot.
Basically, based on my experience both as a shooter and as a quasi-instructor, I find it much easier to teach a guy that is a good distance marksman how to deal with holdover and a few basic manipulations that he can work on at home than it is to teach a guy that can race through things at close range how to get good hits at distance.
We may speak different languages, but "relatively easy" and "stupid easy" don't mean the same thing to me. I agree that close range marksmanship is relatively easy compared to longer range marksmanship. That's pretty much not an issue.
"Stupid easy," is a phrase that I interpret to mean that it's so easy you can't miss and that it requires no skill, no preparation, and no thinking. I would not say that about anything involving shooting a gun, regardless of the shot required. I've seen too many people miss at contact distance to suggest that.
What I would say is that it's simple. "Simple" and "easy" are not the same thing, and it's not just an issue of semantics. A lot things (like the mechanics of shooting a good shot) are simple, but they're not necessarily easy.
There really is no argument here. I just don't agree that shooting at close range is "stupid easy."
Semantics, but "stupid easy" in the continuum of shooting, with the easiest, and therefore "stupid easy" being hitting a target at under 25 (alright, let's call it 10) with a rifle.
I do think we may disagree on just how easy that is, but no big deal either way.
Failure2Stop
06-22-09, 16:46
Rhino you make good points, and I am going to use one sentence of yours to illustrate a point. I am not quoting you to be a dick to you, but rather to discuss something that is often stated that I tend to dissagree with:
The closer you are, the less time you have to solve a problem and the less forgiving any situation will be of mistakes.
This is generally true, but not always, and making a firm distinction of effective engagement speed based solely on proximity is, in my opinion, wrong.
If someone is shooting at people that you don't want to get shot, you need to be able to but a bullet into the dude as quickly as possible with optimal result. Simply being far away from the guy doesn't give you any more time. Every second that they guy is able to shoot the worse the situation becomes, especially if he has proximity, suprise, and concealment from whoever he may be shooting at.
Just a thought, not an admonishment.
F2S makes a great point, there is no set distance that you can be "safe", a lucky shot from the bad guy at 100 yards is just as lethal as aimed fire at 10 yards.
Bennie Cooley talks about the illusion of distance in a rifle fight, just because the person is farther away does not take away his ability to inflict lethal hits and they can be just as dangerous as someone with a pistol or shotgun at closer ranges.
No disagreement from me about what you said, sir. You make a good point. And on a fundamental level, regardless of the details, the quicker you can get sufficiently accurate hits where you need them to go, the better.
I can't speak for anyone else, but I suppose subconsciously I was also processing one of those "all else is equal" criteria in my tiny brain.
Rhino you make good points, and I am going to use one sentence of yours to illustrate a point. I am not quoting you to be a dick to you, but rather to discuss something that is often stated that I tend to dissagree with:
This is generally true, but not always, and making a firm distinction of effective engagement speed based solely on proximity is, in my opinion, wrong.
If someone is shooting at people that you don't want to get shot, you need to be able to but a bullet into the dude as quickly as possible with optimal result. Simply being far away from the guy doesn't give you any more time. Every second that they guy is able to shoot the worse the situation becomes, especially if he has proximity, suprise, and concealment from whoever he may be shooting at.
Just a thought, not an admonishment.
CarlosDJackal
06-30-09, 17:15
F2S makes a great point, there is no set distance that you can be "safe", a lucky shot from the bad guy at 100 yards is just as lethal as aimed fire at 10 yards...
Not to start a (new) argument, but should we really be planning on "lucky (or unlucky) shots"? While luck trumps mindset, tactics, skill, and good equipment every time; it's not something that any of us really has any control over or can prepare for.
You can be the best trained, most high-speed, highly-motivated, experienced, and best equipped individual on the battlefield; but if that "golden BB" hits you in a vital area, all your mindset, tactics, training, and firepower will not save you.
Generally, distance provides time and time provides the better trained the edge. I think this is what rhino was getting at (correct me if I am wrong) and this is something that has been proven to be statistically true. Primarily because most BGs are not trained to provide accurate fire at distance.
This is why I am an advocate of shooting handguns at extreme distances whenever possible. I know how much I must hold over a target with my Glock 35 at 100 and 300-yards because I have tried it.
However, I am not advocating overlooking close-in engagement. In fact, I feel that distance shooting should merely supplement training and practice at the distances at which gunfights statistically occur. JM2CW.
Failure2Stop
06-30-09, 21:01
I'm just gonna throw something out with regard to this statement-
Generally, distance provides time and time provides the better trained the edge.
I would clarify the issue by saying that distance provides a set of challenges that require time and skill to be effectively solved. The faster one can solve those problems, the faster the threat is reduced.
To put this in context- you are the first responder to an active killer at an elementary school. You cannot stop your black and white any closer than 200 meters from the school. As you move closer you hear shots and see the gunman shooting into a classroom through the window with a Mini-30. He is firing a round about every second. How many seconds are you willing to spend on preparing your first shot? Every second you waste, another shot rings out. If you miss he could easily jump through the window for cover, right in with more victims. So now what's your balance of speed and precision?
-As accurate as you need, as fast as you can.
One thing I will say- it's pretty hard to be a "bad" shot with a full-auto AK at 100 yards and under, and a guy with a little bit of experience on an AK can make people out to 200m pretty nervous about sticking their heads out of cover. Now, this might not be your standard threat profile, but then again, any shot past 15 yards is pretty statistically abnormal in the US.
One thing I will say- it's pretty hard to be a "bad" shot with a full-auto AK at 100 yards and under.
The North Hollywood Bank robbers didn't score one kill. :p
30 cal slut
07-07-09, 08:02
Digging up my LAV notes:
1). The operator of an M4, with proper equipment, ammunition, and training, should be capable of achieving headshots at 100 yards.
2). The operator of an M4 should be able to get torso shots at 200 yards.
3). "Get your !@#$#@! hits."
I am just beginning my involvment in the carbine world and the corresponding mentality that pervades it. Before this I was primarily a service rifle marksman and a damn good one. I can generate rapid kill shots with a number of platforms in a variety of situations. I don't need a flag or bench or an optic. I never use a bench to shoot other than for load development. I just cannot understand why folks are so negative about long-range accuracy. If you are engaging targets at long-range, say 600M - 800M, than you don't necessarily need to be very quick. Especially if you have concealment. I have yet to miss a silhouette target with a cold bore shot at 800M from my M1A in two or three years. I know my ammo and I know my dope. I mean this is with freakin' irons only. No optics, just a stripped clean NM M1A.
I think folks should keep an open-mind to the need for true marksmanship because the skills I developed in become a Master level shooter, good position and body mechanics, natural point of aim, reading wind-mirage-light, ammunition development and tetsing, trigger control, range estimation, etc will translate to the tactical fight with a carbine. I would much rather engage a combatant from 200-300M from the prone position with cover and concealment. Also and I think this is the biggest factor is that I am confident in my ability to shoot extremely accurately. Psychology play an important role in rifle craftsmanship. Confidence cannot be fabricated, but comes with competence and practice.
I realize I am just a neeb and all, but stop ignoring-trashing long-range shooting skills. I am not here to trash anyone's skills and have an open mind. I really want to learn how to tactically employ a rifle system. Not really thinking that the world is going to go to shit, but for fun. I can kill two birds with one stone. Learn to use a primary rifle system at close range and have a freakin' blast doing it. A lot of us must admit we do this for pleasure only and hope we never have to use the rifle to kill someone. We meet folks with similar mind sets and values and have a great time doing it.
But I have to admit I get this reaction from this crowd. I'll say let's go back to the 300 yard line and do some position work. They're resistant to the idea. Why??? Because at 300M they can't hit anything. They don't know their dope, they can't read wind or mirage and their irons are not adjustable on the fly. They ignore the ballistics of the round to the point they can't even estimate bullet drop from 100 yard zero to 300 yards. It's 5 MOA or 15 inches. 2 up to 200 and 3 up to 300. Sorry about the rant guys....but it is somewhat offensive and at the same time naive to ignore long-range shooting skills. And for the M4 long-range is 300M. I just didn't sit there and say to myslef I am satisfied with being a good long-range marksman, but I said to myslef, crap, I am not fast and don't know how to use a rifle up close and may have to someday. I need to learn this stuff because a true rifleman is well veresed in all the arts relating to the application of firepower and hell I may need to defend my family someday.
NCPatrolAR
07-16-09, 12:13
you should spend the bulk of your training time in the distances you are most likely to employ your rifle/carbine. For the average person this is going to be 50 yards and in. Rarely will a shot at a greater distance be taken so less time can be spent working on these distances.
It might just be me; but I can't really think of a situation where I'd be taking a shot at someone from 600-800 meters away. For starters, 600-800 meter shots aren't available in my area, I doubt I could track and engage a moving person at that distance, etc. Hell, I would have been hard-pressed to take a 800 meter shot when I was on active duty.
If you can hit people at 800 meters on your first shot with irons you have some exceptional skills IMO. I do highly doubt those results could be easily replicated when truely needed. I also question the wisdom of being in the habit on constantly adjusting sights. I'm a big fan of using non-adjustable elevation rear sights in order to keep things a bit more simple.
In short, spend the bulk of your time drilling for the distance you are probably going to fight in and less time in the less likely ranges.
Points well made. I doubt I could hit a man size target a 800M, but not at 600M. I can shoot an 8" group at 600M. I couldn't do that if engaged without concealment. I will begin to train for shorter distance, just having difficulty with the less accurate ideology. I am shooting a rifle at 50M. Kind of freaks me out. I'll just have to quit being a panzy and deal with it :D.
Hammonds Out
Justifiable homicide at extended ranges is indeed rare (outside of barricaded active shooters it seems almost unknown) but I have never seen that as a reason for someone to not know how to properly employ the prone position, nor an excuse for not knowing the trajectory of their carbine to 300m. I consider 300m to be a reasonable expectation of maximum range for a rack rifle with a dot sight and service ammunition.
NCPatrolAR
07-16-09, 13:48
Justifiable homicide at extended ranges is indeed rare (outside of barricaded active shooters it seems almost unknown) but I have never seen that as a reason for someone to not know how to properly employ the prone position, nor an excuse for not knowing the trajectory of their carbine to 300m. I consider 300m to be a reasonable expectation of maximum range for a rack rifle with a dot sight and service ammunition.
Who is using it as an excuse to not know how to shoot from prone, have a basic understanding of trajectory, etc?
A few very well trained tactical guys I shoot rifles with. They see me shooting prone and sitting with my NM M1A, NM WOA AR-15, and M1 Garands and poke fun. I get up, grab my M4 and do their drills. But when it's time to go back to 300M they always make excuses. We've got to go and the like. One time I fouled them and started at 300M. They could not even get anywhere near the target.
Where did it go....was it on paper??? I grab the rifle knowing the target is 18" and bang. 9 ring...2 o'clock. Bang 10 ring...3 o'clock. It really isn't that hard. If you can shoot at 100 yards, than you can shoot at 300 yards just as well. Got to know your rifle, ammo, and your dope.
They always made fun of my spotting scope as well. I just said I'm sorry if I like to see where my bullets land and how they group, rather than putting 100 holes in a target. Which shot was which???? The target provides the only data on what you are doing wrong. Are you pulling the trigger??? Are you heeling the rifle??? Is your NPOA establsihed well???? All these things make a difference no matter what style of shooting you do and they all translate. Body mechanics become reflexes once you dry-fire enough and can relax.
Who is using it as an excuse to not know how to shoot from prone, have a basic understanding of trajectory, etc?
It's not common here but I've seen, on the internet and in classes, people argue that they didn't need to know how to shoot past 30' because anything farther was automatically murder.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.