The importance of owning a precision capable rifle?

[ASH556]

Well, I guess I'm all in now:

[Scoby]

Quote:
Originally Posted by ASH556
I realize it's a movie from like 10 years ago, but in Wedding Crashers, the "snipers" were using hot bridesmaid sluts as semen receptacles. We all know that a hot chick at a wedding allows you to more quickly and perhaps easily put "rounds" into a "target". However, these "snipers" had no game, didn't have dope, or even have a nice car or a vacation house.

All the new hotness seems to be fit chicks with a good BMI and WHR.

It seems to me that for a woman, it's still tough to beat a regular fat chick for just regular ****ing.

Maybe it's just me, but unless you're a movie star or a rich guy, what's the point for having a thin, attractive wife? Having fun ****ing her?

I mean, I guess some guys have fun playing real man banging hot chicks, and that has it's place, but then why spend all the money for a good-looking woman? The regular blue-collar guys do it more often with a chick with an ass that's two axe-handles wide but is a good cook. Why try to do it with a 10 and "play" man?

I can't think of a single CONUS busting a nut situation that would require a "hot" type woman.

So what gives, what am I missing? Why do I have a sense of failure when I look at my big-butt wife again?

FIFY.... sounds like classic sour grapes to me.

And then, of course, there's the whole "handguns are tactical, rifles are strategic" that some folks seem to forget. You may not want one, but it's a good thing that there are people out there who DO and are good with them. It's good for everyone.

Dude you're nuts.......and that is funny as hell.

I enjoy long range shooting with a magnified optic. 1.5x5 Leupold.
Don't do much paper punching long range unless I'm calculating dope on different ammo. Steel is where the fun's at for me.
Bench shooting or prone does get boring after a while. The challange comes in different shooting positions.
Standing offhand, kneeling, squating, etc....

The chances of me ever having to fire at a person at 400yds is very, very slim. So is the chance that I will ever have to fire at someone in my house. Not as slim....but slim nevertheless.

I can do both decently and enjoy both at the same time.

[Scoby]

Well, I guess I'm all in now:

Really, really nice man.

Hope you enjoy it.

[NWPilgrim]

I have one 16" AR set up with an Aimpoint PRO for practice and would be used for self defense at presumably close range.

I also have a 20" AR that I plan to someday use in CMP shooting which goes out to 600 yds. I have a removable carry handle for CMP shooting but a Zeiss 3-9x40 for sighting in various loads and to do reality checks at the 200, 300 and 600 yd line before I switch to irons.

I agree with Rob that you should invest time in likely scenarios, but even though revolution as the Second Amendment envisions is extremely low probability, if you do not train for it now even somewhat, then how will your descendents ever do so? I guess I subscribe to the Appleseed philosophy that we all have a civilian duty to train some of our time in becoming a rifleman that can hit at more than self defense distance in order to propagate that skill through the generations. At some point that skill may be needed and if we don't do it in our generation, then why will the next ones do so?

This isn't to say punching paper at 200, 300 or more yds is all the skill you need to be a combat rifleman. But it lays the foundation for longer range engagements. If some generation ever finds itself in a "kick the tyrants" out engagement I suspect they will not want to go toe to toe with trained soldiers within their 200 yds expertise.

I also do not believe I need to train to the level of an "operator" to defend myself in 99% of likely scenarios. What percentage of situations in real life are going to involve multiple mag changes? There is a point in self defense where you are training for the .001% situation as well.

So to me shooting practice is for multiple purposes: self defense out to 100 yds and mostly within 50 yds; basic rifleman training at longer distances, and fun which can be plinking, varmint hunting, friendly competition, and punching paper at various distances.

The thing is, the more you shoot in varied situations the better you know your rifle and ammunition, which makes you more able to adapt to different situations. I just read A Rifleman Went to War and the author was a competition long range rifleman before WWI. While that does not directly correlate to the machinegun crew, urban and trench warfare, and scouting no man's land that he was involved in, he proclaims it did prepare him better than someone with little rifle experience.

Be as realistic about the probability of some of the self defense scenarios as you are about other uses. 99% of the time in self defense with a firearm the firearm is not even fired. So any practice shooting is nominally for just 1% of self defense scenarios. Of that 1% of situations, the majority is resolved with 3 or less shots. So training to shoot more than 3 rounds is for the .3% of defense scenarios. I am not saying don't train for more than this, but keep it in perspective, too. You can spend thousands of dollars and hours to train for shoot and scoot, mag changes, team tactics, multiple targets, etc. But keep in mind that is for a tiny fraction of likely defense scenarios unless you are LEO or military.

[a0cake]

There's the obvious benefit of concurrent / crossover training between off time shooting and professional training obligations (for those that actually have such obligations).

But I know that's not what you're talking about.

Clearly, you will likely not need magnification for any home defense scenario. Obviously, the vast majority of self defense scenarios occur at contact range to a few meters and usually involve handguns. So if self/home defense is all you're concerned about, then no, you probably don't need magnification.

But is that the only environment that matters?

Rob asked how often person (1) has "needed" to ID a target at the end of the driveway. Rob, how many times have you personally "needed" a firearm, at all? How many aggressors have you shot? I'm guessing zero. But that doesn't mean you don't "need" a firearm. So this argument does not stand up to criticism in my opinion.

My point is that we don't make defensive choices solely based on past events. We make them based off of a combination of what has happened, what is likely to happen, and what can possibly happen, with the same order of precedence.

I choose to own and be highly proficient with long range platforms with high magnification optics A) because I used them for work and like the crossover training and B) because I want full spectrum capability, even on the civilian side...I choose to be able to dominate any fight, not just close range defense type home invasion scenarios. I'm by no means a tin-foil hat guy, and I hate with a passion the acronym SHTF. But momma' didn't raise no fool.

I believe that common crime related self defense shoots are not the only time I may conceivably need to affect change in the world around me with a rifle. Even in a civilian role, I choose to be able to do so on my terms, at any range, not just what the law says is a justifiable defense distance. The benefit of magnification in a real world gunfight, not some one way range where targets are standing in the open and painted white cannot be overstated, even at ranges as close as 75M. Magnification is as much about identifying short-medium range targets behind cover and concealment as it is about extending range. It's also about shooting through small loopholes / slits in the enemy's cover. I've never seen this skill adequately taught or given enough attention in any class. People just love running from cover to cover (usually not looking at anything or presenting their rifles) and blasting huge targets. That's not what most firefights look like.

It's always funny to listen to self proclaimed experts who've never heard a shot fired in anger in their entire lives talk about "tactical shooting" like they have their finger on the pulse of how an actual gunfight develops and unfolds. Maybe it's just about feeling cool while not ponying up and assuming any of the risk. But it's not funny when those self proclaimed experts (read: have nots) take on a condescending tone and attempt to make the "haves" justify their choices.

Disclaimer: I have no problem learning from an outstanding civilian shooter who has no background. I'll listen to such a person teach weapons manipulation with an open mind and learn whatever I can. But the second that person starts talking "well in a firefight" this, or "there's no tactical need" for that, I stop listening.

[QuietShootr]

There's the obvious benefit of concurrent / crossover training between off time shooting and professional training obligations (for those that actually have such obligations).

But I know that's not what you're talking about.

Clearly, you will likely not need magnification for any home defense scenario. Obviously, the vast majority of self defense scenarios occur at contact range to a few meters and usually involve handguns. So if self/home defense is all you're concerned about, then no, you probably don't need magnification.

But is that the only environment that matters?

Rob asked how often person (1) has "needed" to ID a target at the end of the driveway. Rob, how many times have you personally "needed" a firearm, at all? How many aggressors have you shot? I'm guessing zero. But that doesn't mean you don't "need" a firearm. So this argument does not stand up to criticism in my opinion.

My point is that we don't make defensive choices solely based on past events. We make them based off of a combination of what has happened, what is likely to happen, and what can possibly happen, with the same order of precedence.

I choose to own long range platforms with high magnification optics A) because I used them for work and like the crossover training and B) because I want full spectrum capability, even on the civilian side...I choose to be able to dominate any fight, not just close range defense type home invasion scenarios. I'm by no means a tin-foil hat guy, and I hate with a passion the acronym SHTF. But momma' didn't raise no fool.

I believe that common crime related self defense shoots are not the only time I may conceivably need to affect change in the world around me with a rifle. Even in a civilian role, I choose to be able to do so on my terms, at any range, not just what the law says is a justifiable defense distance. The benefit of magnification in a real world gunfight, not some one way range where targets are standing in the open and painted white cannot be overstated, even at ranges as close as 75M. Magnification is as much about identifying short-medium range targets behind cover and concealment as it is about extending range. It's also about shooting through small loopholes / slits in cover. I've never seen this skill adequately taught or given enough attention in any class. People just love running from cover to cover (usually not looking at anything or presenting their rifles) and blasting huge targets. That's not what most firefights look like.

It's always funny to listen to self proclaimed experts who've never heard a shot fired in anger in their entire lives talk about "tactical shooting" like they have their finger on the pulse of how an actual gunfight develops and unfolds. Maybe it's just about feeling cool while not ponying up and assuming any of the risk. But it's not funny when those self proclaimed experts (read: have nots) take on a condescending tone and attempt to make the "haves" justify their choices.

Disclaimer: I have no problem learning from an outstanding civilian shooter who has no background. I'll listen to such a person teach weapons manipulation with an open mind and learn whatever I can. But the second that person starts talking "well in a firefight" this, or "there's no tactical need" for that, I stop listening.

[ASH556]

Excellent post, a0cake! As always I appreciate your input.

I guess this thread was mostly about me justifying to myself why I have a Nightforce on my AR. (Or need to own a precision-based rifle in general). Great point made about justifying a future need based on past experiences (or lack thereof).

I also appreciate the LEO's comment earlier in the thread about saving his daughter's life and how that could've perhaps been easier with a precision gun.

I'd love to see and would pay good money to take, basically an urban precision course. Not so much focusing on long range shooting, but perhaps closer-range low-percentage shots involving awkward positions, barrier penetration (glass, etc). Cake, you taking applications?

Quietshootr,
I pulled your quote in from your thread about finding a precision rifle that would shoot and did some very creative editing on it along the same lines as what you did to my OP, however, I determined that I'd rather not be banned. I'll admit that I got pissed at first, then re-read your colourful editing and had a good chuckle.

[Jack-O]

short answer to the OP... to aid in target identification.

the other significant advantage is that magnified optics (within reasonable/useable limits, which benchrest is far outside of) dramatically improve shooter accuracy at ranges where target ID enhancement is beneficial

thats pretty much it.

[a1fabweld]

I realize it's a movie from like 10 years ago, but in Blackhawk Down, the "snipers" were using red dots as optics. We all know that a red dot allows you to more quickly and perhaps easily put rounds into a target. However, these "snipers" had no magnification, didn't dial dope, or even have wind or elevation hold capability.

All the new hotness seems to be the variable power optics on "recce" type rifles with either BDC or Mil-based reticles.

It seems to me that for an AR, it's still tough to beat a red dot sight for the useful range of the rifle.

Maybe it's just me, but unless you're a LEO or Mil sniper, what's the point for having a magnified optic on your AR? Long distance paper punching?

I mean, I guess some guys have fun playing weekend sniper dialing dope and such, and that has it's place, but then why spend all the money for mil-grade equipment? The benchrest guys do it more accurately with super-fine-dot-reticled, 45X Leupolds. Why try to do it with a 10X or 15X Mil-based reticle and "play" sniper.

I can't think of a single CONUS personal shooting situation that would require a "sniper" type weapon.

So what gives, what am I missing? Why do I have a Nightforce on my AR again?

What if you want to poke the eyeball out of the bad guy at 300 yds? Red dot most likely isn't gonna cut it. Red dots have their place & so do magnified scopes IMO.

[NWPilgrim]

I recall a defensive shooting that happened about 20 miles from me back in the 1980s I believe that might have benefited from a scoped rifle. That was the gang attack on a SF sargent in Tacoma who had given them a hard time for messing up his neighborhood. Several of them started threatening him so a buddy went home to get a pistol. When the gang started shooting at the BBQ party from houses across the street the two SF sargents returned fire with their 1911s. Nobody was hit on either side, but the gang angers were held at ay until police arrived some time later. Might have been handy to have scoped rifle to shoot at gang shooters 50 yds or more away hiding behind window frames.

That is highly unusual circumstance, but even in some "normal" times magnified optics could be justified. And that was in a suburban area. Who knows what it would have been like if the SF guy stood up to them downtown and they followed him out to a farm house or something.

The main point is one may not want to be training for too specialized a scenario and might want to add some other ranges or situations into one's practice.