Articles
Its not the Equipment
Louis Awerbuck
Accuracy and the capability that is inherently built into a specific weapon is relative to the shooter's ability.
In turn the subject under discussion refers either to range or marksmanship, or the one-in-10,OOO Carlos Hathcock who could lay in his sniper licks from 500 yards, that's one thing. If, on the other hand, we're talking about "generic" gunfighting, the picture changes. A good man needs good equipment. If your name does, indeed, happen to be Mr. Hathcock, then you need a rifle and snooper-scope combination that will allow you to place a minute-of-angle assassination shot because you have the mechanical and psychological ability to make a minute-of-angle shot under battle conditions. On the other hand, if you're like the rest of us lesser mortals and are capable of shooting "only" a five- or six-inch group, at best (again, under battle conditions), at 100 yards, what's the point of spending your hard-earned thousands on a rifle that, in your hands, will not produce any better end result than a $150 SKS? Part of it is fashion, part is ego, and part is not understanding the basics of gunfighting.
Being one of the fashionable in-crowd may do wonders for your social life, but it won't elevate your fighting efficiency to that of your great-grandpappy, and he didn't miss when it counted, even though he didn't have a 1992-model wonder gun. The reason he didn't miss is because he knew how to hit. For the overwhelming majority of mano-a-mano fights, "trick" equipment will improve a seasoned professional's performance by only 5 to 10 percent. While this may very well make the difference between success and failure for the one-in-a-million operator who can shoot up to his equipment, it won't make one whit of a difference for anybody else.
The ego problem rears its ugly head with all of us. The saying goes, "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull." If all you're trying to do is impress you buddies with your brilliance in a safe environment, that's fine. However, if you're discussing equipment and a Remington 11-87 backed up by a Para-Ordnance/Colt hybrid. Either will deliver big bullets into a tighter group than most people can shoot.
There are techniques for deadly-force situations, the techniques and equipment must have a valid basis. Techniques that haven't been documented and equipment that is nothing but an expensive range toy aren't something to stake your life on in a knockdown, drag-' em-out fight.
Much has been written about the so-called inaccuracy of rifles, such as those in the Kalashnikov family, because they "only shoot into three or four inches at 100 yards." So when's the last time you or your tutor shot into three or four inches when the target was returning fire? Work out how little your enemy has to move for you to miss by a foot; throw in some poor light conditions, some fear, and all the other ingredients of a fight; and then see if tiny incremental minutes of angle of the rifle's inherent accuracy mean anything.
If you're lying in wait and have the rare luxury of dictating the time and circumstances of the delivery of the shot, then-and only then-is the time for a Hathcock and pinpoint equipment. Any other time an AK will out perform the operator.
The crux of the matter is the difference between target shooting Bambi at your leisure and knocking off a lion in full charge. Unfortunately, some of the people who can shoot into one hole on a target range today were either in Canada or at a university 30 years ago when they had the chance to demonstrate their theories and prowess.
So, yes, sniper equipment is essential for military or police sniper personnel, but true sniping entails much more than the currently used loose definition of the word.
Decided to have your carry handgun accurized? What for, so it will shoot into one inch at 5O yards? It isn't going to happen in a fight! In fact, you'll be lucky to get the Gospel staccato two rounds into an assailant's torso at five yards for real, let alone within several inches of each other. Tried a for-real head shot at 10 feet lately? No, the problem is training how to fight with the firearm as a medium, not going into a fight with a fancy weapon, gullibility, and little else.
Heresy? Check documented accounts, not unverifiable war stories. If automatic handgun pairs to the body are good, they are good only in the rare Utopian scenario when they are available to the shooter. Most of the time you will have to fire once, twice, maybe half a dozen times at what is available. The problem will not be solved by pursuing a mindless training program that merely consists of regimented cardboard/steel bashing with uaccurized" weapons.
Fighting is an art and a science. Shooting nonmoving, square, one- dimensional pieces of paper and steel is a marksmanship aid. No more, no less. If you shoot a one minute-of-angle rifle into two inches at 100 yards, you don't warrant the equipment.
A hundred years ago everybody was a private-battle-hardened and capable, even with ragtag equipment. Today we have droves of two-day sergeants turning out platoons of well-equipped but ill-prepared and gullible combatants. There are none so blind as those who will not see. Even when they're looking through a $1,000 snooper scope.
Accuracy and the capability that is inherently built into a specific weapon is relative to the shooter's ability.
In turn the subject under discussion refers either to range or marksmanship, or the one-in-10,OOO Carlos Hathcock who could lay in his sniper licks from 500 yards, that's one thing. If, on the other hand, we're talking about "generic" gunfighting, the picture changes. A good man needs good equipment. If your name does, indeed, happen to be Mr. Hathcock, then you need a rifle and snooper-scope combination that will allow you to place a minute-of-angle assassination shot because you have the mechanical and psychological ability to make a minute-of-angle shot under battle conditions. On the other hand, if you're like the rest of us lesser mortals and are capable of shooting "only" a five- or six-inch group, at best (again, under battle conditions), at 100 yards, what's the point of spending your hard-earned thousands on a rifle that, in your hands, will not produce any better end result than a $150 SKS? Part of it is fashion, part is ego, and part is not understanding the basics of gunfighting.
Being one of the fashionable in-crowd may do wonders for your social life, but it won't elevate your fighting efficiency to that of your great-grandpappy, and he didn't miss when it counted, even though he didn't have a 1992-model wonder gun. The reason he didn't miss is because he knew how to hit. For the overwhelming majority of mano-a-mano fights, "trick" equipment will improve a seasoned professional's performance by only 5 to 10 percent. While this may very well make the difference between success and failure for the one-in-a-million operator who can shoot up to his equipment, it won't make one whit of a difference for anybody else.
The ego problem rears its ugly head with all of us. The saying goes, "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull." If all you're trying to do is impress you buddies with your brilliance in a safe environment, that's fine. However, if you're discussing equipment and a Remington 11-87 backed up by a Para-Ordnance/Colt hybrid. Either will deliver big bullets into a tighter group than most people can shoot.
There are techniques for deadly-force situations, the techniques and equipment must have a valid basis. Techniques that haven't been documented and equipment that is nothing but an expensive range toy aren't something to stake your life on in a knockdown, drag-' em-out fight.
Much has been written about the so-called inaccuracy of rifles, such as those in the Kalashnikov family, because they "only shoot into three or four inches at 100 yards." So when's the last time you or your tutor shot into three or four inches when the target was returning fire? Work out how little your enemy has to move for you to miss by a foot; throw in some poor light conditions, some fear, and all the other ingredients of a fight; and then see if tiny incremental minutes of angle of the rifle's inherent accuracy mean anything.
If you're lying in wait and have the rare luxury of dictating the time and circumstances of the delivery of the shot, then-and only then-is the time for a Hathcock and pinpoint equipment. Any other time an AK will out perform the operator.
The crux of the matter is the difference between target shooting Bambi at your leisure and knocking off a lion in full charge. Unfortunately, some of the people who can shoot into one hole on a target range today were either in Canada or at a university 30 years ago when they had the chance to demonstrate their theories and prowess.
So, yes, sniper equipment is essential for military or police sniper personnel, but true sniping entails much more than the currently used loose definition of the word.
Decided to have your carry handgun accurized? What for, so it will shoot into one inch at 5O yards? It isn't going to happen in a fight! In fact, you'll be lucky to get the Gospel staccato two rounds into an assailant's torso at five yards for real, let alone within several inches of each other. Tried a for-real head shot at 10 feet lately? No, the problem is training how to fight with the firearm as a medium, not going into a fight with a fancy weapon, gullibility, and little else.
Heresy? Check documented accounts, not unverifiable war stories. If automatic handgun pairs to the body are good, they are good only in the rare Utopian scenario when they are available to the shooter. Most of the time you will have to fire once, twice, maybe half a dozen times at what is available. The problem will not be solved by pursuing a mindless training program that merely consists of regimented cardboard/steel bashing with uaccurized" weapons.
Fighting is an art and a science. Shooting nonmoving, square, one- dimensional pieces of paper and steel is a marksmanship aid. No more, no less. If you shoot a one minute-of-angle rifle into two inches at 100 yards, you don't warrant the equipment.
A hundred years ago everybody was a private-battle-hardened and capable, even with ragtag equipment. Today we have droves of two-day sergeants turning out platoons of well-equipped but ill-prepared and gullible combatants. There are none so blind as those who will not see. Even when they're looking through a $1,000 snooper scope.
