New Zealand army - no weapons no ammo.

[TwoSeven]

So they are playing lazer strike for a living now.



The New Zealand Army is going hi-tech to train Kiwi troops for the field, as it unveils multimillion-dollar plans to build three weapons-training simulators to foster soldiers' weapon handling and shooting skills.

The army is looking for a company to build three indoor simulators, one each at its bases in Waiouru, Linton near Palmerston North and Burnham near Christchurch.

Captain Gordon Morris says the simulators are part of a wider strategy to introduce more simulation into army training.

The simulator in Waiouru will be 24 "lanes", while Linton and Burnham will be 12 lanes each. A lane operates in the same way as a conventional shooting gallery, with a soldier shooting at targets generated from a computer and appearing on a screen.

The simulator combines a gun, a projector and screen, and a computer console which allows a software programme to track the soldiers' accuracy. The army says it will need the guns to be sophisticated replicas of its actual combat weapons, complete with noise and recoil.


Yep, if a virtual terrorist every appears down the end of a bowling lane. Kiwi troops will be trained to sort them out :)

Why dont they just download a copy of the americas army game, its cheaper.
:)

[sAsLEX]

I was invited to a LAN at Linton to test the army in their skills at BF2.

They currently have a big LAN setup there for war games on comps as well as some advanced Lazer Strike vest and stuff for in the field play

[Sutage]

paintball man
fuck lasers

[Waylander]

Maybe some guy named Griff (dressed in some orange coloured kind of armour) forgot to bring the extra ammo and some medical officer named Dufrain (aka Doc, dressed in purple coloured armour that looks similar to Griff's) didin't bring any weapons becouse he is a pacifist.

Sorry stupid joke but some will get it.

[Sutage]

why dress like an army guy, they gonna be looking for those guys
*peter in clown outfit*
haha family guy is funny as

[Hitcher]

I was invited to a LAN at Linton to test the army in their skills at BF2.

They currently have a big LAN setup there for war games on comps as well as some advanced Lazer Strike vest and stuff for in the field play
Is that for their TEWTs?

[parsley]

paintball man
fuck lasers
When I used to play paintball we once tried freezing paintballs and firing them at a wall. Made one hell of a hole...

[myvice]

Oh no! We’re being invaded!
Quick! Down to the beaches... We can use strong language to frighten them off!
And bring a toy laser gun, in case it gets out of hand!

[Timber020]

The American game is cheaper as its simpler, you just shoot EVERYONE.

[sAsLEX]

Is that for their TEWTs?

going to go with.... huh??

prob should know the acronym but all thinked out at the mo

[Sparky Bills]

When I used to play paintball we once tried freezing paintballs and firing them at a wall. Made one hell of a hole...


The last person that did that at our feild, got his ass kicked.

[Dafe]

The last time I was shooting on a military range, there was very little time for one on one instruction. By the time 30 of you fire away your grouping rounds and adjust your sights to suit, You've expended a whole day.
Also, counting the rounds and relaying back the info is a very slow process.
Then take into account the need for handling live ammunition and all the safety aspects to be applied when live bullets are being fired. This usually begins with newletter announcements in base bullitins etc.
Learning to fire a weapon accurately on a shooting range is essential for a soldier, especially where his or her life may well depend on their accuracy for using that weapon. There is nothing more valuable than good old one on one tuition, this setup will provide for that.
It is essential for a soldier to learn how to lower and slow their breathing because the simple movement of your lungs inhaling, will cause a bullet to clean miss a target 300 yards away. With good technique and tuition, you would learn to hit that target every time. Be it firing from the Prone, Kneeling, Sitting or Standing positions.
Sounds to me like a good investment for the NZDF.

But don't be fooled, The NZDF will never do away with Live Firing Exercises.
The laser setup will provide for highly beneficial tuition trainings and weapon drills.

[John]

So they are playing lazer strike for a living now.



Yep, if a virtual terrorist every appears down the end of a bowling lane. Kiwi troops will be trained to sort them out :)

Why dont they just download a copy of the americas army game, its cheaper.
:)
Well at least they wont be using intel proccessors because we all know how shit they are, along with windows.
Never knew colonial duty involved posting crap?

[N4CR]

Hmm, yeah I heard they used 64 bit bootable army trainers on athlon 64 platforms... must be pwning intel so hard huh :devil2: I love presshot and nutburst architecture.

Lazer strike... what a waste of time. Take them deer hunting or something.

[Pixie]

Oh no! We’re being invaded!
Quick! Down to the beaches... We can use strong language to frighten them off!
And bring a toy laser gun, in case it gets out of hand!
And don't forget the cousellors,incase we see something nasty :devil2:

[Pixie]

The last time I was shooting on a military range, there was very little time for one on one instruction. By the time 30 of you fire away your grouping rounds and adjust your sights to suit, You've expended a whole day.
Also, counting the rounds and relaying back the info is a very slow process.
Then take into account the need for handling live ammunition and all the safety aspects to be applied when live bullets are being fired. This usually begins with newletter announcements in base bullitins etc.
Learning to fire a weapon accurately on a shooting range is essential for a soldier, especially where his or her life may well depend on their accuracy for using that weapon. There is nothing more valuable than good old one on one tuition, this setup will provide for that.
It is essential for a soldier to learn how to lower and slow their breathing because the simple movement of your lungs inhaling, will cause a bullet to clean miss a target 300 yards away. With good technique and tuition, you would learn to hit that target every time. Be it firing from the Prone, Kneeling, Sitting or Standing positions.
Sounds to me like a good investment for the NZDF.

But don't be fooled, The NZDF will never do away with Live Firing Exercises.
The laser setup will provide for highly beneficial tuition trainings and weapon drills.
I have a mate who trains competition shooters.He maintains that a lot of the control can be taught without the need to fire the weapon.He has trained shooters to sight a target,close their eyes,and after 10 seconds with their eyes still closed,fire and score a bull.This being a standing shot.
Not only does breathing affect the shot but so does the pulsing pressure of the blood in the blood vessels.
That is why Beta blockers are a banned drug in shooting comps.The top world class shooters sometimes learn eastern techniques for controlling their heart beat.

[mstriumph]

... sandwiches, sunbloc, buckets & spades ----- we'll make a day of it ..... :oi-grr:
And don't forget the cousellors,incase we see something nasty :devil2:

[Wolf]

So they are playing lazer strike for a living now.



Yep, if a virtual terrorist every appears down the end of a bowling lane. Kiwi troops will be trained to sort them out :)

Why dont they just download a copy of the americas army game, its cheaper.
:)
Probably the cowards at the top of the "Chain of Command" have finally realised the risks involved in giving live weapons to people they treat like shit...

Bear in mind the Army is run by people who will never have to see battle - has been for a number of years - if we get involved in a war, the top brass stays home and sends the poor saps at the bottom out to die.

So you see, it doesn't matter what weapons they have or training they have - just as long as the Hofficers and' Gennelmun are safe and sound licking the arses of the gutless politicians who ordered the troops out in the first place.

Ultimately, at very top of the "Chain of Command" you have a politician of some description, be it a Prime Minister or President, who gets to posture and pose and rattle sabres saying "We is gonna kick your ass" (Umerkan politician with bad English and an inbred grin on his face) when in fact they are in no danger of being shot at, ever, and it is some body else who is going to do the actual "ass-kicking" and die in the process.

These politicians and the upper echelons of the armed forces sit back and talk of "acceptable losses" - which is easy to do when there's no chance of one of those losses being yourself and the acceptable losses are just numbers on paper, not even names, let alone faces.

I could never join the military - I have way too much self respect to be ordered about by those that haven't got the balls to do what they're ordering you to do. And any order ultimately comes from the top of the chain of command.

[Hitcher]

going to go with.... huh??

prob should know the acronym but all thinked out at the mo
Troop Exercises Without Troops...

[ghost]

Troop Exercises Without Troops...


Tactical Exercise Without Troops, about as effective as NEWD (Night Exercise without Darkness)(a whole new post)

[Wolf]

Tactical Exercise Without Troops, about as effective as NEWD (Night Exercise without Darkness)(a whole new post)
Thank you for highlighting the other reason I'd never join the military. Ever noticed that the Army is supposed to follow a modified version of the NZ Firearms Code and yet their Rifle Drill breaks two of the most important safety rules - "Treat every firearm as if loaded" and "Always point your firearm in a safe direction". Instead they slam the stocks into the ground and wave the rifles all over the place. There're no way I'd let most soldiers touch any of my weapons as they are trained to be careless.

[sAsLEX]

Thank you for highlighting the other reason I'd never join the military. Ever noticed that the Army is supposed to follow a modified version of the NZ Firearms Code and yet their Rifle Drill breaks two of the most important safety rules - "Treat every firearm as if loaded" and "Always point your firearm in a safe direction". Instead they slam the stocks into the ground and wave the rifles all over the place. There're no way I'd let most soldiers touch any of my weapons as they are trained to be careless.

on the range you did anything like that you would be out of there so fast with the range warden chasing you it wouldnt be funny. With live rounds in the breach defence personell are trained to treat them with the utmost respect and that they will go off at anytime so treat them as loaded, laser rule or something it is.

so you in the army you seem to know an awful lot about what they do?

[crazylittleshit]

I didn't realise bullets cost so much?????????

[Hoon]

Cool!! More new toys for the Army. Go Aunty Helen!!

My opinion might be slightly skewed but I'm all for spending money on defence. This day an age you need a modern Army, not just for home defence but also international assistance. If we are to deploy alongside Aussie\UK\USA, we need to be up with the play.

I've used the same computerized range they have at Holdsworthy base in Aus. Its basically a movie screen with 12 lanes, each with a Steyr modified with sensors and an air pressure line to simulate firing/recoil. You can do individual shoots (i.e. normal firing range stuff) or a scenario where the whole screen displays what you would see as you patrol along (i.e. Time Crisis style).

Other than shooting, the benefits I saw were improvements in cost (ammo isn't cheap), manpower (don't need various safety staff everywhere as you do with live rounds) and time (able to reset/rewind/replay easily). Ohh and also you don't have to walk anywhere :)

Also its good training for the commander who has to control his fire teams. The simulator allows access to far more scenarios than you could get chasing an enemy party across Waiouru and the replay/stats facility allows some good analysis afterwards.

However it is still no substitute for other training methods (i.e. live range fire, live Battle Handling Exs, blank fire, IWESS laser strike harnesses etc) merely just compliments them.

[Wolf]

on the range you did anything like that you would be out of there so fast with the range warden chasing you it wouldnt be funny. With live rounds in the breach defence personell are trained to treat them with the utmost respect and that they will go off at anytime so treat them as loaded, laser rule or something it is.

so you in the army you seem to know an awful lot about what they do?
Friends and family in the Army. Dad used to tell of how they would loosen the retaining bolts and screws on their SMLEs so that when they were doing their rifle drill, each time they slapped the stock of the rifle the bits rattled, creating a really loud CRACK. They used to tighten them back up again before shooting with them.

Thing is, there should not be two standards of behaviour for on and off the range. The law says treat all firearms as if loaded and keep them pointed in a same direction at all times - not "when you are at the shooting area" or "only when you're really sure its loaded" - weapons safety is for all the time and the stupid pomp and ceremony of "Rifle Drill" breaches that and, in my mind, leaves the average soldier inadequately drilled in firearms safety.

By promoting unsafe behaviour, they are setting the stage for disaster. Enough people who have been well drilled in firearms safety have made "that one mistake", without giving firearms to people encouraged to "play" with them.

[k14]

Friends and family in the Army. Dad used to tell of how they would loosen the retaining bolts and screws on their SMLEs so that when they were doing their rifle drill, each time they slapped the stock of the rifle the bits rattled, creating a really loud CRACK. They used to tighten them back up again before shooting with them.

Thing is, there should not be two standards of behaviour for on and off the range. The law says treat all firearms as if loaded and keep them pointed in a same direction at all times - not "when you are at the shooting area" or "only when you're really sure its loaded" - weapons safety is for all the time and the stupid pomp and ceremony of "Rifle Drill" breaches that and, in my mind, leaves the average soldier inadequately drilled in firearms safety.

By promoting unsafe behaviour, they are setting the stage for disaster. Enough people who have been well drilled in firearms safety have made "that one mistake", without giving firearms to people encouraged to "play" with them.
So when they go to war are you saying they should also follow the firearm code, don't point a weapon at a person?? Yeah thats a really good call. :rofl:

People like you really tick me off, would never go into a war situation for the freedom of others but don't think twice about the freedom we have these days. :weird:

[idb]

Privatisation is the answer!
I heard a headline (but not the article) on the radio last night that the Fijian gummint are rumoured to be looking at recruiting some Israeli mercenaries.
What a great idea!
Support private enterprise I say.

Have a contract with a mercenary army for "Just In Time Delivery" so that they will guarantee delivery of a defence solution within 12 hours should we experience an unauthorised extra-national encounter with malice within the sovereign borders of the New Zealand territorial...errr...borders.

Call for tenders and go through all the glossy brochures or, alternatively, let Google be our guide to security in a big, scary world. I'll bet a mercenary army could have a pretty whiz-bang website full of cool explosions and stuff.

We wouldn't have to worry about keeping up to date with training or weapons or maintaining expensive bases and NZ's whole defence could be managed by an MBA graduate with experience in contract management.
One less NZer lost to the brain drain.

[Lias]

On a semi related topic..

Anyone else in favour of bringing back compulsory national service? For the uninformed thats requiring every man and woman to serve a a period of time in the armed forces, generally 1-2 years during the 18-26 age range.

PS: Wolf is a hippy and would abolished the armfed forces and have us all singing Kumbaya when Indonesia invades :whistle:

[Wolf]

So when they go to war are you saying they should also follow the firearm code, don't point a weapon at a person?? Yeah thats a really good call. :rofl:

People like you really tick me off, would never go into a war situation for the freedom of others but don't think twice about the freedom we have these days. :weird:
Thank you. That is a lot more eloquent than the "Just shut up" that accompanied the bad rep you sent me. I gather you disagree with me so that qualifies you to make unfounded, incorrect assumptions about me.

If you get someone to read my post to you slowly, you would see that I said the Army is bound by a modified version of the arms code. That modified version, by the way, says something to the effect of "do not point a firearm at someone else unless you intend on shooting them." You will also note, if someone reads very slowly, that I was annoyed with their careless use of firearms in a parade-ground "Rifle Drill" situation.

Nowhere in my post did I say I would "never go into a war situation" - that was your own pathetic assumption and you then tried to claim I ticked you off.

I expressed an opinion on firearms safety, you made an inaccurate assumption and chose to get ticked off, you then chose to bad rep me and tell me to "shut up".

If I were a child, I would bad rep you in return but I'll leave that to you because reasonned discourse and debate is patently beyond your capacity - and I base that assumption on your actions.

[Hitcher]

I heard a headline (but not the article) on the radio last night that the Fijian gummint are rumoured to be looking at recruiting some Israeli mercenaries.
What a great idea!
Support private enterprise I say.
Fiji is probably one of the most militarised countries around. Three full infantry battalions -- two usually overseas on UN peacekeeping duties and one at home for training/reserve. The revenue generated from this -- all in US$ -- is a major contributor to the Fijian economy. Officers all trained at Duntroon, here and Sandhurst. Hard as nails with good kit and loads of recent combat experience. I wonder what possible use they could make of Israeli "mercenaries"...

[idb]

Fiji is probably one of the most militarised countries around. Three full infantry battalions -- two usually overseas on UN peacekeeping duties and one at home for training/reserve. The revenue generated from this -- all in US$ -- is a major contributor to the Fijian economy. Officers all trained at Duntroon, here and Sandhurst. Hard as nails with good kit and loads of recent combat experience. I wonder what possible use they could make of Israeli "mercenaries"...
Could it be that the government feels the need to be protected from their own army?

[sAsLEX]

Fiji is probably one of the most militarised countries around. Three full infantry battalions -- two usually overseas on UN peacekeeping duties and one at home for training/reserve. The revenue generated from this -- all in US$ -- is a major contributor to the Fijian economy. Officers all trained at Duntroon, here and Sandhurst. Hard as nails with good kit and loads of recent combat experience. I wonder what possible use they could make of Israeli "mercenaries"...

came through training with a fijian dude, they can climb flagpoles real good as well....

[Ixion]

On a semi related topic..

Anyone else in favour of bringing back compulsory national service? For the uninformed thats requiring every man and woman to serve a a period of time in the armed forces, generally 1-2 years during the 18-26 age range.

PS: Wolf is a hippy and would abolished the armfed forces and have us all singing Kumbaya when Indonesia invades :whistle:

/me is a Communist, and would abolish the armed forces so as to make the revolution easier. Indonesia might have some problems invading NZ, on account of all that water. Amphibious operations call for VERY good troops and a VERY good navy. Brits are probably the only ones who could manage it.

[idb]

This must have been what I heard.


Fiji's military leaders have dismissed a suggestion by a former soldier that he could set up a mercenary force to combat the army if it tries to take over the government.

Our reporter, Sean Dorney, says the Fiji Sun newspaper quotes the ex-soldier as saying he could assemble, what he calls, his "protection squad" in less than a week..

The newspaper report quotes a man, who claims to be an Israeli trained Fijian security officer, as saying it is time somebody stood up to the threats being made by Fiji's military commander, Commodore Frank Bainimarama.

The newspaper says he claims he briefed Fiji's Prime Minister, Laisenia Qarase, three weeks ago on his proposed protection force, and that last Wednesday he had talks with the home affairs minister.

Commodore Bainimarama, who is in New Caledonia, is quoted by the Fiji Live website as describing the man as "a loser" who was kicked out of the army some time ago.

Fiji Live also quotes the Police Commissioner, Andrew Hughes, as expressing surprise at the story, and saying that as one of the country's key security officers, he knows nothing about somebody offering to provide a protection force for the prime minister.

The military has threatened to remove the government if the proposed Reconciliation, Tolerance and Unity Bill is passed.

There are concerns the bill could see the perpetrators of the 2000 coup freed.

The military accuses the government of trying to neutralise the courts, the public prosecutor, the police and military.

[sAsLEX]

this is what I parade with not to familiar with the gun drills these are bloody dangerous and could poke out an eye!

will ask around about the current drill paractices and return

[Ixion]

this is what I parade with not to familiar with the gun drills these are bloody dangerous and could poke out an eye!

will ask around about the current drill paractices and return

Uh, that's a Royal Naval senior officer's dress (ie ceremonial) sword. they don't do parade drill.

[Wolf]

On a semi related topic..

Anyone else in favour of bringing back compulsory national service? For the uninformed thats requiring every man and woman to serve a a period of time in the armed forces, generally 1-2 years during the 18-26 age range.

PS: Wolf is a hippy and would abolished the armfed forces and have us all singing Kumbaya when Indonesia invades :whistle:
And LiasTZ is all for CMT provided they put him at the top of the armed forces so it's everyone else being shot at, not him :devil2:

If Indonesia even manages to find it's own arse with an atlas it'll be headline news, but in the extremely unlikely event that they worked out how to get enough of them here to mount an invasion, I'd be what is commonly called "Resistance".

I am no pacifist - I just prefer my own judgment over that of some stupid politico or General.

[idb]

[QUOTE=Wolf]If Indonesia even manages to find it's own arse with an atlas it'll be headline news, but in the extremely unlikely event that they worked out how to get enough of them here to mount an invasion, I'd be what is commonly called "Resistance".
QUOTE]
"Listen carefully...I shall say zis only once..."

[Wolf]

"Listen carefully...I shall say zis only once..."
"Why?"

"Because zis drainpipe is loooooooooossssse" *crash*

I would be more in favour of our armed forces if we went the way of the Swiss - Armed Neutrality. No aiding and abetting the Yanks, Aussies, Poms or anyone else for that matter. Anyone who attacks us gets obliterated, end of story.

It has served the Swiss well for a large number of years - even the Americans had to learn the hard way that "yes, this applies to you too."

[Lias]

And LiasTZ is all for CMT provided they put him at the top of the armed forces so it's everyone else being shot at, not him :devil2:

If Indonesia even manages to find it's own arse with an atlas it'll be headline news, but in the extremely unlikely event that they worked out how to get enough of them here to mount an invasion, I'd be what is commonly called "Resistance".

I am no pacifist - I just prefer my own judgment over that of some stupid politico or General.
CMT is too my mind an inherently defensive thing. Almost all the countries that have current CMT programs are smaller countiries, where a regular army simply isnt large enough to be able to defend the country, or that have a history of being invaded. Israel, Singapore, Denmark, Finland, Cyprus, Greece, South Korea, Norway, Poland, Switzerland, Taiwan to name a few.. With the exception of Israel I dont think any of these countries has been involved in a shooting war for half a century, they are for the most part democratic, well run 1st world countries. CMT is simply a sensible precaution practised by the majority of the 1st world countries that cannot afford huge standing military forces like the superpowers.

CMT troops wouldnt be out invading other countries, or "dying for the politicians" and to say they would be is just emotive nonsense. The only time they'd ever be involved in a shooting war would be in defense of the country, any overseas duties (be it peacekeeping or helping the yanks bomb the middle east back to the stonage) would be the realm of "Regular" army units.

You say that in the unlikely event were invaded you'd join the resistance.. Seriously consider this thou.. Whats going to be more effective, a civiilian resistance with almost no military training, or a resistance comprising of civilains with military training?

[idb]

"Why?"

"Because zis drainpipe is loooooooooossssse" *crash*

I would be more in favour of our armed forces if we went the way of the Swiss - Armed Neutrality. No aiding and abetting the Yanks, Aussies, Poms or anyone else for that matter. Anyone who attacks us gets obliterated, end of story.

It has served the Swiss well for a large number of years - even the Americans had to learn the hard way that "yes, this applies to you too."
Wouldn't that be the most expensive option you could choose?

It seems to be me, as a bar-room expert, that alliances, and a country's commitment to them are made and discarded as situations dictate, and are often driven by the self-interest of a country beyond military and defence considerations.

The loose Western alliance that we are in gives us the ability to pick and choose our commitment according to our own self-interest to some extent.

Australia's seemingly blind support of the USA in Iraq secured them an agricultural agreement that guaranteed easier access to American producers to the Aussie market - that was good deal.

Sure there are the risks of upsetting 'friends' but in international relations tiffs are soon forgotten when self-interest is involved.

[TwoSeven]

Well, NZ is simply too big to be defended by about 500 people (about the sum total of effective combat capable troops there are here). So I think people need to get real and give up on the idea of 'defending' anything.

However, 'protecting' things is a totally different story. NZ have a vested interest in its 12mile and 200mile limits and protectorate nations that need looking after. This requires some maritime capability in both surface and air patrol, insure, medium and ocean going.

Thats pretty much what the navy does, hence no-one bitches about it. They are getting new frigates/patrol craft and electronics.

The airforce is a joke and I dont really know why it exists - personally, it does nothing that cant be done by a navy airforce. Merging it would reduce the logistics costs which are the biggest military cost we have.

The army is currently a bigger joke than the airforce - but in the case of the army, it doesnt need to be. Ok, we dont have or need a 'fighting' force. What we do need is heavy industries, electronics industries, engineering, IT, Management and all that stuff. If the army focused more on the services side by performing both civvy services and military services it could literally self fund itself. Quite a few countries do this and make a mint (I think fiji was mentioned by someone else).

Again, the army should be put under the navy and become a 'marine' force and use a central form of logistics.

Currently defense spending is in the areas of modernisation with regards to peace keeping and maritime effort. I think they also need to focus on developing business skills and capability.

[Wolf]

You say that in the unlikely event were invaded you'd join the resistance.. Seriously consider this thou.. Whats going to be more effective, a civiilian resistance with almost no military training, or a resistance comprising of civilains with military training?
Properly trained people, of course. We would also need to have the same training as the Swiss have to make it work - they all know what is expected of them so that they can function autonomously until they can contact their commanders and the structure of their armed forces is such that they can respond to a threat quickly.

But that's all they do - respond to threats. They don't have a law that says if you've served in the Armed Forces within the last 12 years you can be called in to fight if "your country" (read: "Bill English sucking up to the US") decides to get involved in someone else's war. The Swiss people are expected to fight only if someone attacks them - and it's been years now since anyone was that stupid.

We have had CMT here in the past, we have also had conscription. We also had the US come here and root our sheilas during WWII because our boys were off saving the poms' arses in Crete (which Tin Tits Thatcher "thanked" us for by supporting French Trade Sanctions against us after we arrested those froggy terrorists) when the Japs were making inroads into the Pacific.

The question now is: What use are conventional models of military, including the Swiss Militia, in the face of "enemies" who hide amongst us and pop out only to blow themselves and a few other people up?

There is not a military system in the world that can successfully battle the "new" way of waging war. Sure they can run about with high tech gadgets and look for the purpetrator's assistants afterwards, but it's generally too late to do anything about the bus load of dead and hideously maimed victims.

The only way is to turn the place into such a police state that people will be moving to oppressive regimes for the relative freedom.

[750Y]

no guns? no ammo? how they sposed to kill people now? (...runs for cover)

[sAsLEX]

Uh, that's a Royal Naval senior officer's dress (ie ceremonial) sword. they don't do parade drill.

well its bloody similar to the ones I have paraded with, which are the same as the senior officers ones, and we copy most shit off the RN.

I mean wtf would I know, its not like its part of my job to carry one of these around while driving a squad around a parade ground.

[Hoon]

Well, NZ is simply too big to be defended by about 500 people (about the sum total of effective combat capable troops there are here). So I think people need to get real and give up on the idea of 'defending' anything.

There aren't many peaceful countries in the world that have a big enough army to defend themselves all on their own. That's why we have alliances so that others will come in our time of need. However to be an effective member of any alliance you need to have something to bring to the table hence the NZ Army Modernisation plan (http://www.army.mil.nz/?CHANNEL=PUBLICATIONS&PAGE=Army+Continuous+Modernisation+Plan).

As for scraping the Air Combat wing I might be biased but I'm kind of glad. Theres no point having a poorly equipped Air Force and Army so it makes sense to concentrate on one at the others expense. Now our Army has LAVs, LOVs, new helos, new high tech radios and Javelins and are now one of the best equipped Light/Mechanized Infantry in the world. As a result we are able to boost Australias Infantry strength by 25% and in return they can protect our skies.

[sAsLEX]

Now our Army has LAVs, LOVs, new helos, new high tech radios and Javelins and are now one of the best equipped Light/Mechanized Infantry in the world. As a result we are able to boost Australias Infantry strength by 25% and in return they can protect our skies.

umm from what I have heard the LOVs aint doing to shit hot at the mo, and the LAVs aint going to be much help where the old M113 or whatever the tracked one is called could get to places.

[TwoSeven]

The MOWAG lavs are actually pretty good for what they do. Just about every country uses them now. Its a standard light combat troop carrier - the alternative would have been a humvee which are currently undergoing issues :)

As for the javelins are being brought by all armies (raytheon is on a winner there).

I dont know whats meant by 'best equiped'. Just because you get some new toys doesnt mean all the other crap suddenly improves. :)

[sAsLEX]

the alternative would have been a humvee which are currently undergoing issues :)

As for the javelins are being brought by all armies (raytheon is on a winner there).

I dont know whats meant by 'best equiped'. Just because you get some new toys doesnt mean all the other crap suddenly improves. :)


oh and whos you source? I know mine is better than yours, alot better in fact but hey you know more than me :motu: , not really a place to discuss this.

opps thought you were talking about the LOVs, which the humve would of been an alternative to

[Hitcher]

As for scraping the Air Combat wing I might be biased but I'm kind of glad. Theres no point having a poorly equipped Air Force and Army so it makes sense to concentrate on one at the others expense. Now our Army has LAVs, LOVs, new helos, new high tech radios and Javelins and are now one of the best equipped Light/Mechanized Infantry in the world. As a result we are able to boost Australias Infantry strength by 25% and in return they can protect our skies.
When they scrapped the air combat wing, they should have scrapped the whole Air Farce. Warbirds has more teeth than the Royal New Zealand Aero Club -- how embarrassing is that? A couple of Orions and Hercs, 757s, and old helos, all of which are clapped out and obsolete in their current configurations does not a fighting force make. Every time they "deploy" overseas they have to get rescued. Tragic, but not as tragic as those pale blue uniforms.

OK the Army now has LAVs. Portaloos would be more use. They can't be easily deployed overseas and can't take much more than small-arms fire. Upgrading the M113 fleet would have made more sense. And I understand there are insufficient crew members for the available LAVs -- one-stripe corporals as vehicle commanders?

And even with the Javelins, the Army wouldn't last more than a couple of minutes against a moderate air attack.

New Zealand has a proud military history and we have a responsibility to defend ourselves and our region. I think it is sad that our armed forces have been eroded to a state where they're neither use nor ornament. They deserve better.

[SPman]

New Zealand has a proud military history and we have a responsibility to defend ourselves and our region. I think it is sad that our armed forces have been eroded to a state where they're neither use nor ornament. They deserve better.

this is 2005, isn't it?
Not 1938? ? ?

[idb]

this is 2005, isn't it?
Not 1938? ? ?
That's right, the Yellow Peril.
They are now pouring into the country as terrorists and no-one seems to care.
Hang on, that's tourists, hang on, maybe that's what Winston really meant in his letter to the Muslim community - "Turn over your tourists".
Hmmmmm, it all becomes clear.
It was just a big English-as-a-second-language misunderstanding.

[TwoSeven]

oh and whos you source? I know mine is better than yours, alot better in fact but hey you know more than me :motu: , not really a place to discuss this.

opps thought you were talking about the LOVs, which the humve would of been an alternative to

What ? - you are saying a light operation vehicle (ie. truck) is equiv. to a humvee (car) - sorry dude, the humvee (M998) is now a LAV (light armoured vehicle) - its been redesignated (M1114) and up-armoured. The unarmored version is being withdrawn and replaced with the MOWAG LAV (stryker). Other designations for specialist roles will continue.

I would have agreed with the statement if you were refering to the original M998 :)


And I will only agree that NZ has a well equiped army when they announced their Fist/Idz/Land Warrier system :)

[Dafe]

I have a mate who trains competition shooters.He maintains that a lot of the control can be taught without the need to fire the weapon.He has trained shooters to sight a target,close their eyes,and after 10 seconds with their eyes still closed,fire and score a bull.This being a standing shot.
Not only does breathing affect the shot but so does the pulsing pressure of the blood in the blood vessels.
That is why Beta blockers are a banned drug in shooting comps.The top world class shooters sometimes learn eastern techniques for controlling their heart beat.
Thats fine, But you totally missed my point!
I don't care about competition shooters - or Olympic shooters!
I'm concerned about bringing the skill level of the average armed forces soldier up to speed. A typical non-commissioned ranked serviceman is not getting the same attention as a competition shooter are they? No, infact they're probably getting about five percent the amount of attention. With a system like the proposed put in place, you would hope that figure should rise from five percent to maybe thirty percent.

[Pixie]

Thats fine, But you totally missed my point!
I don't care about competition shooters - or Olympic shooters!
I'm concerned about bringing the skill level of the average armed forces soldier up to speed. A typical non-commissioned ranked serviceman is not getting the same attention as a competition shooter are they? No, infact they're probably getting about five percent the amount of attention. With a system like the proposed put in place, you would hope that figure should rise from five percent to maybe thirty percent.
I'm sceptical about the validity of simulated training.There is a big difference between having live ammunition fired at you as you try to hit a target than experiencing a watered down simulated version.Many of the deficencies the US uncovered recently have been due to going for the hi-tech route and forsaking the traditional.

[Dafe]

TwoSeven, I can't say that I agree much at all with your comments.
First of all.... You say NZ has about 500 combat ready troops. Well, The Airforce alone has 500 Toets qualified and ready personnel. I imagine the navy would have a few less and the army, even more.
The Airforce is not infact a joke. The airforce is a very heavily involved transportation service, providing essential NZ maritime surveillence, search & rescue, relief aid and tri-service air movements.
The New Zealand Defence Force is purposefully structured at present. It has been moulded around the Labour Partys plans to provide a service to assist our neighbouring allies should the need arise. Primarily a Political agenda.
Unfortunately, The Australian Govt strongly disagree with our structure because we are now hiding behind Australians rather than pulling our own weight right alongside as in previous ANZAC tradition. Hence the rapid decline in the relationships between Australia and NZ, and also US and NZ.
However, we are gaining popularity with Asian countries such as China as we are now aligning more and more stronger with the third world countries.
For Political reasons, It would be very unwise to merge any of the tri service forces as it would appear that we had created a police force as such, (eg Coastguard Service) as opposed to providing a Combat force ready to support our allie countries.

[Wolf]

I'm sceptical about the validity of simulated training.There is a big difference between having live ammunition fired at you as you try to hit a target than experiencing a watered down simulated version.Many of the deficencies the US uncovered recently have been due to going for the hi-tech route and forsaking the traditional.
Apparently the early SAS training was light cotton fatigues, fencing mask, air pistol and go out into the Malasian bush in two teams. As the fatigues didn't do a lot to protect from the lead pellet, they learned to keep out of sight pretty sharply.

[Dafe]

There aren't many peaceful countries in the world that have a big enough army to defend themselves all on their own. That's why we have alliances so that others will come in our time of need. However to be an effective member of any alliance you need to have something to bring to the table hence the NZ Army Modernisation plan (http://www.army.mil.nz/?CHANNEL=PUBLICATIONS&PAGE=Army+Continuous+Modernisation+Plan).

As for scraping the Air Combat wing I might be biased but I'm kind of glad. Theres no point having a poorly equipped Air Force and Army so it makes sense to concentrate on one at the others expense. Now our Army has LAVs, LOVs, new helos, new high tech radios and Javelins and are now one of the best equipped Light/Mechanized Infantry in the world. As a result we are able to boost Australias Infantry strength by 25% and in return they can protect our skies.
Only problem is, Air Power is where the battle is fought and won when an invasion is on the cards. No LAV's gonna be of any use to you where invasions are concerned.
If China landed on your shores - You're toast!
Keeping China from your shores, You're still a free nation.

[Hitcher]

this is 2005, isn't it?
Not 1938? ? ?
There's certainly no pulling the wool over your eyes. I hope you didn't have to run a Google search to find out...

[sAsLEX]

What ? - you are saying a light operation vehicle (ie. truck) is equiv. to a humvee (car) - sorry dude, the humvee (M998) is now a LAV (light armoured vehicle) - its been redesignated (M1114) and up-armoured. The unarmored version is being withdrawn and replaced with the MOWAG LAV (stryker). Other designations for specialist roles will continue.

I would have agreed with the statement if you were refering to the original M998 :)


And I will only agree that NZ has a well equiped army when they announced their Fist/Idz/Land Warrier system :)

well they are replacing the land rover whatr would you refer to them as?!?!?!


To acquire a range of light operational vehicles (LOV) to meet the New Zealand Army’s motorisation requirements. These include:
*

Military vehicles (MV). The MV fleet will consist of 321 vehicles in six variants to fulfil a new mobility requirement to operate in concert with, and to support the light armoured vehicle. The MV fleet will consist of:

*

13 special operations variants,
*

122 command and control variants,
*

95 general service variants,
*

68 crew served weapon carrier variants,
*

15 shelter carrier variants, and
*

8 ambulance variants.

*

Of these, 23 command and control, and 37 crew served weapon variants will have armour protection.

The existing Landrover fleet will be progressively withdrawn from service as the MV enters service.

so as I was saying they are an equiv to humvees, which were an option instead of these, but we didnt get them as this would require closer relations to the states and we know some people dont want that.

Hence we got the Pinzgauer military vehicles.

Now you can talk all you like but where did you get your info?!

[TwoSeven]

TwoSeven, I can't say that I agree much at all with your comments.
First of all.... You say NZ has about 500 combat ready troops. Well, The Airforce alone has 500 Toets qualified and ready personnel. I imagine the navy would have a few less and the army, even more.


And exactly how many of them have been trained as infantry and can be deployed in the field



The Airforce is not infact a joke. The airforce is a very heavily involved transportation service, providing essential NZ maritime surveillence, search & rescue, relief aid and tri-service air movements.

And I believe that this is called logistics. Until they put the MX-20 on the P3 orion I dont think they even have night vision at the moment.

An air force is precisely that - a force in the air. Not a military version of civvy services which is what it currently is. Thats why I said it would be better off as a Navy unit, because thats where it has close fitment.



The New Zealand Defence Force is purposefully structured at present. It has been moulded around the Labour Partys plans to provide a service to assist our neighbouring allies should the need arise.

SAS excluded - exactly how can it help. Digging latrines, building walls and lugging everyone elses luggage ?

If there was a specialist army engineers core (or as I see it Navy marines engineers core), then yes, it would be effective. But at the moment they are trying to use common infantry which are no better than armed police.



Primarily a Political agenda.
Unfortunately, The Australian Govt strongly disagree with our structure because we are now hiding behind Australians rather than pulling our own weight right alongside as in previous ANZAC tradition. Hence the rapid decline in the relationships between Australia and NZ, and also US and NZ.
However, we are gaining popularity with Asian countries such as China as we are now aligning more and more stronger with the third world countries.
For Political reasons, It would be very unwise to merge any of the tri service forces as it would appear that we had created a police force as such, (eg Coastguard Service) as opposed to providing a Combat force ready to support our allie countries.

I agree. I think what the poms have done is a good idea and reorganised on the battlegroup. NZ could field at least two or maybe even 3 marine based battlegroups with full equipment - it has the capability and experience to do it, but the current structure is not effective.

I feel that some higher uppers in the armed forces basically are old and outmoded and are just trying to keep their jobs til pension day. I also think there is inter-service politics which really has to go. I know NZ is making a start on it with the recent purchase of the Joint Command and Control System. But i'd like to see that put into action with a single logistics channel over a united Navy, Navy air force and Navy marine force - thats fully co-ordinated and cohesive.


New Zealands LDP (long range development plan) states that it will have a fully motorised infantry (its to be two battalions). The airforce will be getting the new NH90 helo's.

Info Here (http://www.defence.govt.nz/public_docs/nzdf-caprev/4-disc-landforce.shtml)

[Ixion]

well its bloody similar to the ones I have paraded with, which are the same as the senior officers ones, and we copy most shit off the RN.

I mean wtf would I know, its not like its part of my job to carry one of these around while driving a squad around a parade ground.

Sorry, for some reason I thought you were Army. should have checked your profile.

Yeah, RNZN cutlery will be pretty similar (originally the same as ) RN. ardly surprising, really.

[TwoSeven]

OK the Army now has LAVs. Portaloos would be more use. They can't be easily deployed overseas and can't take much more than small-arms fire. Upgrading the M113 fleet would have made more sense. And I understand there are insufficient crew members for the available LAVs -- one-stripe corporals as vehicle commanders?


I'm swings and roundabouts about whether I like the LAVs or not.


As mobile transport they are pretty good. So getting troops up to a combat situation, with logistics, equipment, comms, medical. Thats ok.

Whether tracked or wheeled was the way to go i'm not sure. I think at the end of the day you have to go wheeled. Things like the LS-Warrior I think are more combat focused which is not a role NZ wants. So fair enough on that.

The lav III they use here I think is the APC equiv (and is end of lifecycle - being replaced with a new design). They are amphibious and can be carried in a C-130 - but not in short takeoffs. They are certainly not designated as combat vehicles. I'd put them in the transport area.

[anhrefn]

The American game is cheaper as its simpler, you just shoot EVERYONE.

Hmmmm sounds like the American military more than a game?!?
"Hey Bill did yah see those tanks I got today?"
"Yeah Bob, didnt those strippy flags with the stars on them make real good bullseyes?"

[Wonko]

Wolf,at a guess your dad would have been in the army in the 50's - 60's(going by your dob). Some things have changed in the army since then, some haven't. There are no longer any bit's in the rifle to lossen off for a better sound, and if anyone caught you slamming the stock into the ground you'd be running around yelling "I love my rifle" for ten mins(if your lucky). Yanks still do all that spinning and tossing bullshit. I don't see why they do it, it's never looked like it could help to kill the enemy to me. One of the major difference between civie and army is that the army have a greater control over when and where you get both blank and live rounds. You are issued with x number of rounds just prior to moving onto the rane, and are taken through exercises to use up all of those rounds. You are then checked by the range staff to make sure you have no rounds on you when you leave the range. It is a millitary offence to have live ammunition in your possesion when you are not meant to have it. The higher up the chain you are, the bigger the punishment. Also every year you have to be tested again to make sure that you are safe to use the weapons.

[scumdog]

Hmmm, not thinking 'cos of too much Famous Grouse ( except how to inflict m'self on Dangerous) but our training involves 9mm loads with 'lipstick' plastic projectiles.

Shit do they hurt - BUT you sure learn what NOT to do!!

[scumdog]

Wolf,at a guess your dad would have been in the army in the 50's - 60's(going by your dob). Some things have changed in the army since then, some haven't. There are no longer any bit's in the rifle to lossen off for a better sound, and if anyone caught you slamming the stock into the ground you'd be running around yelling "I love my rifle" for ten mins(if your lucky). Yanks still do all that spinning and tossing bullshit. I don't see why they do it, it's never looked like it could help to kill the enemy to me. One of the major difference between civie and army is that the army have a greater control over when and where you get both blank and live rounds. You are issued with x number of rounds just prior to moving onto the rane, and are taken through exercises to use up all of those rounds. You are then checked by the range staff to make sure you have no rounds on you when you leave the range. It is a millitary offence to have live ammunition in your possesion when you are not meant to have it. The higher up the chain you are, the bigger the punishment. Also every year you have to be tested again to make sure that you are safe to use the weapons.

My old man said they use to leave the mag in their MK3 303 a bit 'proud' so that when they did a 'present-arms' they would make a hell of a crash when they slapped the mag and pushed it home.

[rfc85]

some interesting veiws on the defence forces of NZ,some amuse,some don't but we all have a right to say that we think as its a "free"country and has been kept that way by the actions of the Army Navy and Air Force in various wars-and they did a pretty good job by all accounts.
i was in the army in the 70s-80s and we did have pretty old and buggered gear,we paraded with smg's these were WWII shit. any upgrade of the services to provide a better level of training and equipment is OK in my book.
i reckon if we were invaded on a friday night NZ was stuffed as most of the SNCOs Corpies and baggies were pretty well pissed in the various mess's and bars.
you have my vote to bring back CMT might just assist the wayward youth of today to gain some repect and confidence in themselves, it sure as shit helped me and a lot of other i knew to make a go of it in life.

[Sniper]

Christ, what next???? How the hell can you train and be expected to perform in the feild when you are pretending to blow the other guy away.

1st rule of combat: If the enemy is in range, so are you!!!!

Too many people will fold when they realise that in the real life, others are trying to kill you too!!!

[Sniper]

TwoSeven, I can't say that I agree much at all with your comments.
First of all.... You say NZ has about 500 combat ready troops. Well, The Airforce alone has 500 Toets qualified and ready personnel. I imagine the navy would have a few less and the army, even more.
The Airforce is not infact a joke. The airforce is a very heavily involved transportation service, providing essential NZ maritime surveillence, search & rescue, relief aid and tri-service air movements.
The New Zealand Defence Force is purposefully structured at present. It has been moulded around the Labour Partys plans to provide a service to assist our neighbouring allies should the need arise. Primarily a Political agenda.
Unfortunately, The Australian Govt strongly disagree with our structure because we are now hiding behind Australians rather than pulling our own weight right alongside as in previous ANZAC tradition. Hence the rapid decline in the relationships between Australia and NZ, and also US and NZ.
However, we are gaining popularity with Asian countries such as China as we are now aligning more and more stronger with the third world countries.
For Political reasons, It would be very unwise to merge any of the tri service forces as it would appear that we had created a police force as such, (eg Coastguard Service) as opposed to providing a Combat force ready to support our allie countries.

Are you trying to say that out of the 37000 New Zealand soldiers, the 7000+ infantary, only 500 of them are ready to fight??? So you are inplying the 500 SAS soldiers are the only men we have ready to fight?? I strongly disagree with you there Dafe.

Also if you can tell me what Toets stands for I might forget that you used it in the wrong way in a sentance that means bugger all. The bloody Labour Govt is trying to weed out the army, we are used for peace keeping Ops and then get pulled out when its too dangerous? WTF???? Thats why we are trained for this in the first place.

Bloody laser guns. I could do more harm throwing it

[Wolf]

Wolf,at a guess your dad would have been in the army in the 50's - 60's(going by your dob). Some things have changed in the army since then, some haven't. There are no longer any bit's in the rifle to lossen off for a better sound, and if anyone caught you slamming the stock into the ground you'd be running around yelling "I love my rifle" for ten mins(if your lucky). Yanks still do all that spinning and tossing bullshit. I don't see why they do it, it's never looked like it could help to kill the enemy to me.
I do know that the Brits still do the whole rifle drill thing - modified because they're doing it with Steyr-AUGs so they can't actually ground the rifle's butt (look kinda silly all these soldier's holding on to the very tip of the barrel and leaving over to the side to get the buttplate to touch the ground.) and I know of a Cadet Unit here in NZ that practises Rifle Drill with wooden dummy SMLEs.

If the NZ Army has removed it, well and good - it's pointless, does not help in learning how to kill the enemy, and teaches sloppy weapon handling - we'll leave that to the yanks to better explain their fantastic capacity for "own goals".

I was brought up around firearms all my life and had "safe handling" drilled into me since before I was allowed to even touch a firearm - there was always at least a .22 and a "sporterised" SMLE in the house at any given time. Dad and my uncles brought home their share of deer and goat in their time. They also went crayfishing, so between venison and crayfish, I dined better as a kid than I can afford to now! :oi-grr:

When I got my firearms licence I was young enough to require mum's permission - the firearms officer at the police station was very nice to me after getting off the phone with my mum so I suspect she gave him the "if he doesn't enter the house with the rifle in one hand and the bolt in the other and ammo in his pocket, I'll punch him back out the door" speech.

As to when dad was in the Army, in addition to performing rifle drills with SMLEs, their SMG training was with Stens, I believe...

[TwoSeven]

Are you trying to say that out of the 37000 New Zealand soldiers, the 7000+ infantary, only 500 of them are ready to fight??? So you are inplying the 500 SAS soldiers are the only men we have ready to fight?? I strongly disagree with you there Dafe.


That was actually my commnet. NZ has/is to have two battalions at 600 troops per battalion. When you include those overseas on other duties, those buggering around and the like, you end up with roughly half the force actually capable of doing anything.

Even then I suspect it would take a month or two to go to a state of readyness to be able to ship them anywhere (based on previous events).

[Sniper]

That was actually my commnet. NZ has/is to have two battalions at 600 troops per battalion. When you include those overseas on other duties, those buggering around and the like, you end up with roughly half the force actually capable of doing anything.

Even then I suspect it would take a month or two to go to a state of readyness to be able to ship them anywhere (based on previous events).

I see where you are coming from

[TwoSeven]

Drilling with equipment is a way to get familiarity with it. Think of it like riding a motorcycle lots before entering your first race. In the old days the weapons were fookn heavy, so rifle drill was created so that troops became fit enough to use them.

Marching up and down singing songs might sound like a pretty useless activity but its a pretty good technique for teaching people to work together as a team. There is a lot of psychological stuff that happens when you do this to people and without it, you'd never get efficient team work.

In the military, individuals dont live long. But its a mistake to think that individualism removes creativity. In the british army, promotion is based on exactly the same skills you use in business. You need to show personal skills, leadership skills (effectiveness and efficiency) as well as technical ability. In the US army (from my observance), personal skills are dumbed down because their army is way more larger and its not possible to teach everyone to a high degree with attention to detail. The US army also as a core force that would be trained to the same level as in the UK.

I spent a lot of time when I am working teaching people how to be team players (in the software industry) and I would say most people are not. Its even harder when working with people under the 25 year old bracket because they simply havn't developed the mental capability yet (you have to use different techniques). Its pretty hard to teach someone situational, lateral and tertiary consequences when they barely have the social skills to wipe their own butts :)

In israel, all soldiers carry their weapon when off duty - so its not a universal convention that ammo isnt carried. They have two clips of live ammo taped to the side of their weapon (its not loaded, but can be) - the mags are usually 1 round short (US weapons).

[SARGE]

On a semi related topic..

Anyone else in favour of bringing back compulsory national service? For the uninformed thats requiring every man and woman to serve a a period of time in the armed forces, generally 1-2 years during the 18-26 age range.

PS: Wolf is a hippy and would abolished the armfed forces and have us all singing Kumbaya when Indonesia invades :whistle:


hell.. i'd be there .. even though im a 40-something US Marine Vet.. i'd still sign up.. just send me someplace i can work off the stress with some rounds fired in anger..

[jrandom]

the mags are usually 1 round short (US weapons).

yeah, historically the POS cheesemetal the merrikan manfs. use in the stock '16 mags cant handle the spring load from a full 30 rounds without fatiguing over time.

dunno if thats STILL a problem but its pretty stupid engineering isnt it...

[Sniper]

yeah, historically the POS cheesemetal the merrikan manfs. use in the stock '16 mags cant handle the spring load from a full 30 rounds without fatiguing over time.

dunno if thats STILL a problem but its pretty stupid engineering isnt it...

Bullshit! If you are worried about spring fatigue, 1 measly round would make fuck all difference from having a full batch or a 29. You never leave rounds in magazine and thats all. I loaded my Styer, G36 and MP5 full everytime around.

Bloody bullsht that having 1 more round in a mag will cause extra fatigue!

[jrandom]

You never leave rounds in magazine and thats all. I loaded my Styer, G36 and MP5 full everytime around.

course you did. they had quality mags.


Bloody bullsht that having 1 more round in a mag will cause extra fatigue!

in some M16 mags, it did. its entirely possible to make a spring that can only take so much compression without going outside its fatigue range and losing tensile strength.

Im not talking about a general principle here, everyone leaves mags full, normally, their SUPPOSED to be designed to handle that.

Im talking specifically about some mags for the american 16s that were made with springs just not quite up to the task. someone determined that they would stay within their infinite fatigue cycle capacity if they were only ever loaded with 29 rounds or less, hence the load-full-minus-one doctrine.

Im pertty sure its not an urban myth, but feel free to refute if you have evidence to the contrary.

in any case it makes sense that such a thing could happen when sloppy engineering collides with an overemphasis on materials cost reduction.

$900 toilet seats anyone?

[edit: perhaps I can restate to clarify. springs will compress and expand an infinite number of times (barring corrosion and other material changes) if the metal their made of is kept outside of its tensile failure zone. if a magazine is built with a spring that is specced well beyond the load it will be pushed with then you can leave it loaded for decades and still have it feed perfectly.]

[Jamezo]

bah, I'm with Ixion on this one. in modern times war has only ever been fought for one reason and one reason only, for the advantage of the capitalists.


http://lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm

[Sniper]

Ok, I see what you mean Ms Fish. Im used to dicks who say something and stick by it even if they meant something else.

O n the respect that some M16 mags were a bit dodgy on tensilary strength but hey, you only found out on the range

[jrandom]

hey, you only found out on the range

lucky the popups werent shooting back, then.

[Sniper]

M16's were just as useful to throw at the enemy than kill them.

[jrandom]

never shot a 16, I hear their nice when they work.

liked the AR10 tho, 7.62 has enough oomf to get past most of the crap in the chamber from the gas blowback system and cycle properly even when its not pristine.

stupid m16s, what kind of country gives their troops a weapon that needs to be cleaned daily with cotton buds and a dentist's pick.

hopefully the steyrs are better.

modern rot. pah. bring back the smelly mk 4. if it was good enough for charlie upham...

[Sniper]

never shot a 16, I hear their nice when they work.

liked the AR10 tho, 7.62 has enough oomf to get past most of the crap in the chamber from the gas blowback system and cycle properly even when its not pristine.

stupid m16s, what kind of country gives their troops a weapon that needs to be cleaned daily with cotton buds and a dentist's pick.

hopefully the steyrs are better.

modern rot. pah. bring back the smelly mk 4. if it was good enough for charlie upham...

Not a fan of the bloody M16 either. It feels very plasticy. The reason the fall apart and things is because they are cleaned too often. The only time you need to clean them is when they consume mud or water

[jrandom]

Not a fan of the bloody M16 either. It feels very plasticy.

whereas the steyr feels, what, solid and metallic??

[marty]

Maybe some guy named Griff (dressed in some orange coloured kind of armour) forgot to bring the extra ammo and some medical officer named Dufrain (aka Doc, dressed in purple coloured armour that looks similar to Griff's) didin't bring any weapons becouse he is a pacifist.

Sorry stupid joke but some will get it.

i know a griff just like that. spooky.

[Sniper]

whereas the steyr feels, what, solid and metallic??

Shaky, plasticy and toy like. Who in gods good name puts magazine BEHIND the fucken trigger group?

[jrandom]

Who in gods good name puts magazine BEHIND the fucken trigger group?

bullpups look wack but it means that the barrel starts further back. longer barrel for less overall weapon length. steyr's no longer than the M4 yet as accurate as the 16.

pity about the awkward mag changing but at least you can hit things with it once its loaded.

americans expending 250,000 rounds per enemy killed? its because theyre all using M4s now, and the pesky hostiles wont come up to within 20m to be shot...

[Sniper]

If I had my choice I would still use the SLR

[jrandom]

If I had my choice I would still use the SLR

well I cant lay claim to owning some poncy ass 50 cal like you but I do have an old L1A1 in the gargre and yes when the fuzzy wuzzies come over the hill thats what Ill be sitting behind the sandbags on my porch with.

long live the FAL.

[Sniper]

well I cant lay claim to owning some poncy ass 50 cal like you but I do have an old L1A1 in the gargre and yes when the fuzzy wuzzies come over the hill thats what Ill be sitting behind the sandbags on my porch with.

long live the FAL.

Yes, long live the FAL indeed. Although when the little asian bastards invade I reckon it will be too late

[jrandom]

you can always take one with you.

or 20, if you dont miss with the L1A1.

not 19.

it would be 19 if FAL mags had shite springs like with those 16s, but they dont.

see? every round counts, and proper springs means one more dead gook apiece.

I sleep better knowing that.

[Sniper]

So would I but the FAL was also built very well so you could use the butt to beat them to death.

[jrandom]

hum, mine has a rubbery pad on the butt. not really made for clubbing in trenches. I dont know if that was added by a previous civvy owner tho.

[Ixion]

bah, I'm with Ixion on this one. in modern times war has only ever been fought for one reason and one reason only, for the advantage of the capitalists.


http://lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm

Oh good, a fellow traveller. Welcome, comrade, to the enlightened and peace loving People's Proletarian Bolshevik Liberation and Peace movement. (PPBLP for short - Move over Mr Hitcher and the BOGARSENZ theres a new acroynm organisation on the block. Motto and principle political statement - "Free bikes for all - or at any rate, someone else pays for it" )

Armies should all be abolished, and all guns completely banned. After the Revolution of course (facilitated as it will be by the fact that there will be no way to resist) , we will introduce national conscription , together with compulsary ideological reeducation, as a preliminary to liberating the rest of the Pacific from the clutches of the evil bourgeois capitalist running dogs of the Imperial warlords.

(Uh, just to refresh my mind, like, what was it I originally said? I know it was wise , kindly, profound and politically correct - because I am always all of those things - but it would be handy to know)

[Jamezo]

oh, I can't remember. something about Communism and fried bananas.

see sig

vvv

[Storm]

[QUOTE=Fish
one more dead gook apiece.
[/QUOTE]

Move with the times lass, it one more dead raghead. If you're going to make racial/cultural slurs, please try to be as up to date as possible. We cant have folks thinking us backwards and uncivilised now can we?

[Sniper]

Move with the times lass, it one more dead raghead. If you're going to make racial/cultural slurs, please try to be as up to date as possible. We cant have folks thinking us backwards and uncivilised now can we?

The gooks still are causing a fuss although you are right and the camel jockeys are worse these days.

[TwoSeven]

bah, I'm with Ixion on this one. in modern times war has only ever been fought for one reason and one reason only, for the advantage of the capitalists.


This is actually true. Even the most ardent comunists become capatilst during a war.

If you examine most countries military doctrines you'll find a phrase that says something like 'the objectives of war is to seize and hold ground for strategic or political purposes'.

What that means, is that once the E have given up trying to get the ground back from you, oil is suddenly discovered [This is a joke].

It really means is that if you select which piece of ground carefully, you can control a bigger area than what you fought for. ie. If you sieze the top of a hill and put a cannon on it, then you can fire further and accurately than the person at the bottom. Eventually they must pull back out of range of their guns to avoid getting hit.

Another example, is if you control all the farms, then you also control the cities because you have all the food.

The technical term for this controlling of extra areas without having to fight for them is called 'sphere of influence'.

Up until the end of the cold war, 'sphere of influence' was also applied to countries as well. The USSR influenced political control in its allies based in eastern europe, afrika and cuba - this really annoyed the allies, who only held western europe and the mid. east. Therefore, the USSR actually had a big influence on most of the world. There sphere was bigger than ours.

Since the cold war, doctrines have changed. There is no reason to militarily hold a piece of ground for a long period of time. So no need to invade countries and annex them.

Instead you sieze, hold and release. This is being done in iraq. What happens is the government collapses, you get a power vacume, a new leader is eventually elected with the support of the people, and bang, you now have a major sphere of influence in a new region. Note how once iraq changed it sphere, other surrounding countries (jordan, syria, egypt, lebanon) changed sphere as well.

Sieze and release works better than sieze and hold, because it generally gives long term access to assets via trade agreements. Take one nutter out of iraq and we now have access to almost the whole mid. east as a trading partner.

[Sniper]

Oh god, the civilians veiw is coming into play

[Wolf]

well I cant lay claim to owning some poncy ass 50 cal like you but I do have an old L1A1 in the gargre and yes when the fuzzy wuzzies come over the hill thats what Ill be sitting behind the sandbags on my porch with.
L1A1s are fun, vastly superior to the "Snap-Happy Lincoln Toy" (M16) but I'd go with a .243 - good flat trajectory with a lot more wallop than those silly Merkin .223 rounds and ammo is lighter than the .308 (meaning you can carry more rounds). Now all I need is a .243 semi-auto with a detachable box mag and someone who can manufacture a 30-round mag...

Despite LiasTZ's assertion that I am a "Hippy", and my lack of respect for the military "Chain of Command", I'm no pacifist - when it comes to protecting my home and family I would kill without hesitation. The main argument I have with the Armed Forces is that their idea of where I might best be deployed is likely to conflict with mine - I'm nobody's "Acceptable Loss", if you catch my drift. (OK, LiasTZ might deem me an Acceptable Loss).

[scumdog]

L1A1s are fun, vastly superior to the "Snap-Happy Lincoln Toy" (M16) but I'd go with a .243 - good flat trajectory with a lot more wallop than those silly Merkin .223 rounds and ammo is lighter than the .308 (meaning you can carry more rounds). Now all I need is a .243 semi-auto with a detachable box mag and someone who can manufacture a 30-round mag...


Aw c'mon, my 308 cartridges are almost identical in size to your 243 - the only saving is the 60 odd grains different in projectile weight.

243? hmm, o.k. but theres bugger all that it can do that my 308 won't.
BTW ever tried to get a 180 grain bullet in 243? (let alone 220 grain!!)

Having said that a 243 will handle most situations barring busting through abuch of manuka and scrub reliably.

And having just had a play with the new Bushmaster (a sawn-off M16 look-a-like) I'd say it would run rings around the L1A1 for fast ACCURATE follow-up shots and ease of carry in a vehicle or any other confined spaces.
No use having rapid fire if you can't keep on aim, nobody ever died from a near miss.

[scumdog]

never shot a 16, I hear their nice when they work.
stupid m16s, what kind of country gives their troops a weapon that needs to be cleaned daily with cotton buds and a dentist's pick.
.

You need to read the whole sorry sag of gun design, specification for powder type and dodgy manufacturers giving backhanders to get the ammo supply contracts.

It was a type of powder not specifically specified by the Colt designers that caused excess fouling and consequential jamming, NOT faulty firearm design.

Here endeth the 2 cent scumdog rant and history lesson. :yeah:

[Timber020]

The way things are going, The antarctic is going to be the last big oil spot on the earth to be controlled and exploited. I wonder whose going to get it? I think we will be shooting at americans before camel jocks or any Asian nations. And they all wear kevlar. With trauma plates they can stop pretty good sized rounds. Start teflon coating your bullets.

And eugene stoner did have to take some responsibility for the lack of a clearing system being included in the mattel-16's design. Alot of troops were found dead with cleaning rods down their rifle barrels trying to clear the breach. But primarily the Ammo was bad and to corrosive and left behind to many deposits.

[scumdog]

bullpups look wack but it means that the barrel starts further back. longer barrel for less overall weapon length. steyr's no longer than the M4 yet as accurate as the 16.
..

A bit rough to use if you're left-handed eh?

And talking about reliability, the old AK47 action is about as reliable as the dawn, a stock more in the style of the M16 would have been the icing on the cake.

[Timber020]

Kalashnikov is reliable because its so loose. Dont get me wrong, I have alot of respect for them but they give like the frames on old bikes. They are so sloppy that they can have the contents of a whole sandpit in them before its starts to interfere with moving parts. Probably the most influential gun of last century, but forget ever hitting anything your aiming at!

[scumdog]

Kalashnikov is reliable because its so loose. Dont get me wrong, I have alot of respect for them but they give like the frames on old bikes. They are so sloppy that they can have the contents of a whole sandpit in them before its starts to interfere with moving parts. Probably the most influential gun of last century, but forget ever hitting anything your aiming at!

Mehh, mine shoots o.k. given my 50+ year old eyes and a short sighting radius, an apareture (sp) sight set-up would make a big difference, btw my SKS is damn accurate. (different action though).

[Wolf]

btw my SKS is damn accurate. (different action though).
Have never had the opportunity to fire my SKS - I have a genuine Russian one (rather than the Norinco copy) that I've made a few mods to. First thing to go was that fucking bayonet lug (so it wouldn't get snagged in the bush - and I've not had a chance to take it out into the bush) next mod was getting the mag cut down to 5-shots (when the MSSA laws came in).

I've got to organise a shoot with it at some stage.

[scumdog]

A quick'n'dirty way to fix the bayonet lug problem is to just wrap it in black duct tape! :msn-wink:

[Waylander]

I want one of these. (http://www.hkdefense.us/pages/military-le/special%20applications/psg1.html)

[TwoSeven]

The way things are going, The antarctic is going to be the last big oil spot on the earth to be controlled and exploited. I wonder whose going to get it?

See my post on sphere of control.

The US have a base on the pole already - and their own supply lines.

[scumdog]

I want one of these. (http://www.hkdefense.us/pages/military-le/special%20applications/psg1.html)

Mehh, it's just another fancy 308, could you actually use the sucker? (look at it's weight, you would need somebody just to help you tote it around!!!!!!).

[Waylander]

Mehh, it's just another fancy 308, could you actually use the sucker? (look at it's weight, you would need somebody just to help you tote it around!!!!!!).
Dime spread at 800 yards. (yea not really far but I was only getting started) Never had a problem with the wieght of the one a mate loaned me in the states.

[scumdog]

Dime spread at 800 yards. (yea not really far but I was only getting started) Never had a problem with the wieght of the one a mate loaned me in the states.

Five shots onto a dollar note at 800 yards would be fuckin' exceptional, onto a dime? hmm, you're REALLY stretching my credibility here sunshine!

[Waylander]

Are you kidding me? That's not even a Kilometer. Most guys I've seen can do dimes at 1700 yards.

[scumdog]

Are you kidding me? That's not even a Kilometer. Most guys I've seen can do dimes at 1700 yards.

Uh-uh, a dime (we're talking about less than an inch here) at 1,700 yards isn't even on the record books, not even at a 1,000 yards.

It takes a GOOD bench-rest rifle to do it at 500 yards on a perfect day.

I'm prepared to stand corrected if there's proof to the contrary.

BTW Any hunting type rifle that will shoot a dime size group consistantly at ONE hundred yards is pretty uncommon.

[Sniper]

I have been lucky to have a go with a PSG1. Not my ideal rifle by a longshot (pun intended) basically its just designed to look good. Scumdog, I have managed to hit a 10c coin at 800yards on a good day. Ok that was with my 82 so it may have been shock waves but it was fun.

And I wouldn't correct you when you say that it takes a good bench-rest rifle to do it at 500yards on a perfect day. I would say you are being over generous as I would have said 400yards.

[Charlie]

New Zealand army - no weapons no ammo. So they are playing lazer strike for a living now.
So now they match the RNZAF with no strike force! Good on ya NZ!
(Am ex-Air Force and still bitter about that!)

[Sniper]

So now they match the RNZAF with no strike force! Good on ya NZ!
(Am ex-Air Force and still bitter about that!)

I don't blame ya. Im bitter too.

[Lou Girardin]

Probably the most influential gun of last century, but forget ever hitting anything your aiming at!

There's an awful lot of dead people who would disagree.

[Wolf]

A quick'n'dirty way to fix the bayonet lug problem is to just wrap it in black duct tape! :msn-wink:
Would have had to cut it off later, as it turned out.

"Classic" style stock already, bayonet lug removed - the only thing that made it a MSSA when the new regs came out was the 10-shot mag. Vern Wilson cut the mag down to five shots - two below the 7-shot limit - and BINGO: "sporting semi-auto". I also bought a synthetic hole-through "target" stock for it and fitted it.

Being ex-military it's actually safer than some sporting semis I've seen - you can quickly remove the bolt (without the need for tools) and render it inoperable.

Somehow I doubt it would be much use if LiasTZ's predictions come true - having to manually cram five rounds into the mag every, well, every five shots - I'd be better off with my .22 Brno bolt-action - at least I have a 10-shot mag for that...

[Sniper]

There's an awful lot of dead people who would disagree.

True, but most of them were standing in lines or using the thing. Although, the SAS used it in Afganistan,(When they ran out of ammo) so it can't be that bad.

[Wolf]

True, but most of them were standing in lines or using the thing. Although, the SAS used it in Afganistan,(When they ran out of ammo) so it can't be that bad.
Have heard it told - I don't know if the person was shitting me or not - that there were a fair few during the Vietnam War that ditched the Mattel-16 in favour of an AK-47 immediately after killing their first VC. Apparently more reliable, "deadlier", and they could scavenge ammo from dead VC.

As I'd rather have an AK-47 than a Snap-Happy Lincoln Toy, I was inclined to believe the story.

[Sniper]

Have heard it told - I don't know if the person was shitting me or not - that there were a fair few during the Vietnam War that ditched the Mattel-16 in favour of an AK-47 immediately after killing their first VC. Apparently more reliable, "deadlier", and they could scavenge ammo from dead VC.
.

You are right. The main reason being that the ammo was more plentiful if you got into shit. I would say any weapon in the hand of a trained soldier is deadly. Besides, they were pretty accurate to 150m and then they became a bit (Unreliable)

[scumdog]

Would have had to cut it off later, as it turned out.
Somehow I doubt it would be much use if LiasTZ's predictions come true - having to manually cram five rounds into the mag every, well, every five shots - I'd be better off with my .22 Brno bolt-action - at least I have a 10-shot mag for that...

Do what I did; get ten round stripper clips (in your case cut them into 5 shot clips!), no more fumbling and loose rounds. :woohoo:

[Hoon]

Dime spread at 800 yards. (yea not really far but I was only getting started) Never had a problem with the wieght of the one a mate loaned me in the states.

You mean carrying it from the car to the range mound or chasing deer across the countryside?

Dime spread groups at 800 yards is utter bullshit even for a fullbore match rifle with match grade ammo on a bench with no wind. The '10' ring on an 800 yard target is 116mm wide!

[Lou Girardin]

Have heard it told - I don't know if the person was shitting me or not - that there were a fair few during the Vietnam War that ditched the Mattel-16 in favour of an AK-47 immediately after killing their first VC. Apparently more reliable, "deadlier", and they could scavenge ammo from dead VC.

As I'd rather have an AK-47 than a Snap-Happy Lincoln Toy, I was inclined to believe the story.

True, but some questioned the wisdom of using a weapon that sounded like the enemies. Especiailly with the Merkins prediliction for "reconnaissence by fire".

[Sniper]

Thats why there so so many blue on blue fights. Why else do you think the Americans lost the Vietnam war?

[jrandom]

Why else do you think the Americans lost the Vietnam war?

and heres me thinking its because they were too pussy to nuke the buggers.

[Waylander]

You mean carrying it from the car to the range mound or chasing deer across the countryside?

Dime spread groups at 800 yards is utter bullshit even for a fullbore match rifle with match grade ammo on a bench with no wind. The '10' ring on an 800 yard target is 116mm wide!
Hunting deer.

[Wolf]

Do what I did; get ten round stripper clips (in your case cut them into 5 shot clips!), no more fumbling and loose rounds. :woohoo:
I've got some ten-round stripper clips, wasn't sure if I'd wreck them by cutting them down - figured I would just load 5 at a time into the clips (not that you need many rounds on hand when doing a spot of hunting.)

[Lou Girardin]

and heres me thinking its because they were too pussy to nuke the buggers.

They did the next best thing, unloaded more conventional explosive on Hanoi than they used in WW2 and defoliated 20% of South Vietnams ranges.

[Sniper]

They did the next best thing, unloaded more conventional explosive on Hanoi than they used in WW2 and defoliated 20% of South Vietnams ranges.

Its the american way though. Empty as much and as many munitions into an area and you will kill something eventually.

[Wolf]

I would say any weapon in the hand of a trained soldier is deadly.
Weapons are deadly in the hands of American soldiers, too - usually deadly against each other and allies, tho'...

[Sniper]

Thats true, deadly by nature, not skill, :lol:

[Lou Girardin]

Its the american way though. Empty as much and as many munitions into an area and you will kill something eventually.

Currently it's running at 250,000 rounds of 5.56, 7.62 and .50 cal per dead insurgent in Iraq. And a lot of those 'insurgents' will be innocent civvies.
The Merkins are having to buy ammo from the Israelis because their industry's can't cope.

[Lou Girardin]

Weapons are deadly in the hands of American soldiers, too - usually deadly against each other and allies, tho'...

There's the old WW2 saying,
When the Brits bomb, the Germans duck.
When the Germans bomb, the Brits duck.
When the Yanks bomb everyone ducks.

[TwoSeven]

I have a problem with anyone who claims they can hit a coin with a rifle of any kind at more than 150 meters. Even if they used a scope and tri-pod, it would still be pretty good going. A dime spread at an olympics at that range would certainly be worthy of a medal to my mind.

As an experiment, put a coin on the ground by a power pole and walk back 3 poles distance - thats roughly 150 meters. When I tried, I could just see a fleck of silver where I knew I left it. Certainly would be able to hit it without using a scope and tripod.

When I walked back 800 yards (getting closer to a klick) which is a heck of a lot of lamp posts, the person that was walking past what I now thought was about the right power pole, was only about 6" high. It would certainly require the use of a scope and tripod.

Most sniper rifles have a max range of about 800 to 900 meters, with the heavy caliber ones having a max range of about 1100m and I am told the technique is to rapid fire in order to 'hopefully' hit the target.

Once you use a scope and tripod it really doesnt matter what kind of rifle it is, so long as the rounds velocity is higher than 900m/s (it will have a flat trajectory over 1km) meaning you'll hit the target so long as there is little wind and your scope is calibrated correctly.

[Sniper]

I have a problem with anyone who claims they can hit a coin with a rifle of any kind at more than 150 meters. Even if they used a scope and tri-pod, it would still be pretty good going. A dime spread at an olympics at that range would certainly be worthy of a medal to my mind.

As an experiment, put a coin on the ground by a power pole and walk back 3 poles distance - thats roughly 150 meters. When I tried, I could just see a fleck of silver where I knew I left it. Certainly would be able to hit it without using a scope and tripod. I have also never heard of the term "rapid fire". Since when is a sniper meant to fire x amount of rounds to hopefully get his target? May as well just be infantry then. As a sniper the motto is "One shot, one kill". I prefer, "If you run, you will only die tired"

When I walked back 800 yards (getting closer to a klick) which is a heck of a lot of lamp posts, the person that was walking past what I now thought was about the right power pole, was only about 6" high. It would certainly require the use of a scope and tripod.

Most sniper rifles have a max range of about 800 to 900 meters, with the heavy caliber ones having a max range of about 1100m and I am told the technique is to rapid fire in order to 'hopefully' hit the target.

Once you use a scope and tripod it really doesnt matter what kind of rifle it is, so long as the rounds velocity is higher than 900m/s (it will have a flat trajectory over 1km) meaning you'll hit the target so long as there is little wind and your scope is calibrated correctly.

Twoseven, you are right and wrong in both respects. It takes a hell of a lot of skill and patience to be a sniper. It is VERY possible to hit a coin at 150m with no scope. It just takes practise. It is very possible to hit a moving target at 500m with the right load and practice and also without a tripod but using a standing shot.

As for your comment saying most sniper rifles have a max range of 800 to 900 meters you are wrong. The range of the rifle depends entirely on the load you are carrying. A standard hunting round will only travel that distance but with a custom loaded .308, I know someone who could take the tip of your ear off at 1 click. I also know that I was trained with my own 82 to take out an engine block in a vehicle at 1500m and I have heard of a confirmed kill at 1800m.

It comes down to skill and there is a hell of alot more to worry about than scope sighting and wind. What about heat currents, objects, bullet drop off or the targets movement?

Now remember, what I said all involves a hell of alot of practice and a bucket load of bullets fired.

[Wolf]

Full bore competition with a .308 target rifle over 1 km, the target is around 8' x 4' or 2400 x 1200mm - according to a colleague that competes in said events. Not sure on the sizes of the rings. I suppose I could google it, but meh!

What I hate is when someone has already demonstrated how accurate his rifle is by consistently hitting a small target over a decent range and then feel the "need" to show off by obliterating (there can be no other term when a 7mm Magnum round hits such a "target") a King Fisher (not the smallest of birds) at around half that range. I saw no fucking point in it, when I witnessed it. And the bugger had the gall to be fucked off when I fired my rifle as he was about to blow away said King Fisher's mate. (Second King Fisher fucked off like it was rocket-propelled - mind you, first time I fired the Mosin-Nagant rifle, I felt like running away from the noise as well, it made Ken's L1A1 sound quiet.)

[scumdog]

You mean carrying it from the car to the range mound or chasing deer across the countryside?

Dime spread groups at 800 yards is utter bullshit even for a fullbore match rifle with match grade ammo on a bench with no wind. The '10' ring on an 800 yard target is 116mm wide!
What I was trying to say in a more tactful way. :mellow:

And hitting something small ONCE at long range doesn't count, doing it consistantly does.

BTW My best group ever was 3/4" at 100 yards, it took some doing.
A dime is smaller than that and I'd hate to think how the hell you are meant to see a dime at 800 yards!!

A really excellent group is 1/2" at a hundred yards, not very often done, and somebody expects me to believe that their shooting at 800 yards is equal to that????
(That equals a little more than 1/20th" group at 100 yards to do that - and you still have all that extra down range wind etc to contend with when shooting at 800 yards.)

[Sniper]

I Dislike it too. Civvies who no it when never been there.

[Sniper]

A really excellent group is 1/2" at a hundred yards, not very often done, and somebody expects me to believe that their shooting at 800 yards is equal to that????


I did that once and I had a blindfold on, and I was ricocheting bullets off a friends helmet.

PT.

[Lou Girardin]

The Oklahoma bomber (McVeigh) was reputed to have taken an Iraqis head off at 2 km's with one round from a Bradleys 30mm.

[scumdog]

The Oklahoma bomber (McVeigh) was reputed to have taken an Iraqis head off at 2 km's with one round from a Bradleys 30mm.

I take it this is in the same context as Snipers last post!!

[Sniper]

Either that or it was a FUCKEN lucky shot. No skill.

[Waylander]

You guys are too serious about this. Best I ever managed with a rifle was a grouping about as big as the palm of my hand at 50 yards. All the previous was a piss take on you guys.

Did go hunting with a PSG-1 once though and didn't have a problem with the wieght. And definatly didn't have a problem with it for shooting. Got a 10 point buck after waiting around for 5 hours, still have the antlers around somewhere. Meat tasted wonderfull, not tough like usuall cause the buck was just bending down for a drink and didn't even hear the shot to tense it's muscles up.

[scumdog]

You guys are too serious about this. Best I ever managed with a rifle was a grouping about as big as the palm of my hand at 50 yards. All the previous was a piss take on you guys.

Did go hunting with a PSG-1 once though and didn't have a problem with the wieght. And definatly didn't have a problem with it for shooting. Got a 10 point buck after waiting around for 5 hours, still have the antlers around somewhere. Meat tasted wonderfull, not tough like usuall cause the buck was just bending down for a drink and didn't even hear the shot to tense it's muscles up.

Is this another piss-take? 'Didn't hear the shot to tense it's muscles up' - wtf, the only time the muscles get tough is when there has been time for the old adrenaline to flow - as when shooting at a deer that has sussed you out and is running for it - or if you screw up and only wound it and have to shoot it twice..
Standing deer unaware you are thirty yards away, BANG, dead deer, = tender meat.

[Waylander]

Is this another piss-take? 'Didn't hear the shot to tense it's muscles up' - wtf, the only time the muscles get tough is when there has been time for the old adrenaline to flow - as when shooting at a deer that has sussed you out and is running for it - or if you screw up and only wound it and have to shoot it twice..
Standing deer unaware you are thirty yards away, BANG, dead deer, = tender meat.
Everytime I've had a dear tense just before I shot (due to some movement I made or some other thing that spooked it) the meat was really tough. Who knows maybe the farm raised deer y'all have here are different. Takes all the fun out of hunting either way.

[TwoSeven]

I still dont hold with the knats bollox being shot off at long range stuff. I can understand if you've been on a scope and tripod and fired off 20 rounds getting it calibrated in order to shoot a range target is different from being able to hit something while active. Even for the latter it is technically possible to hit the target, but you'd have to fire off half a dozen rounds in order to calibrate the scope first.

There is a basic rule, you cant hit what you cant see, and I defy anyone to see a cars radiator grill at 1500 meters, let alone hit it, unless you are using a scope and a very high powered military grade rifle - which btw. is cheating. I'd also like to see the person who can see detail past 300m. There is a reason while most snipers operate with a spotter. Its because they are shooting at stuff they cant see (the spotters role is to correct the shot)

Perhaps some photos of the shot being made are in order to back things up. :)

Most military types I suspect from oberservance calibrate their rifles for a set distance and leave it like that (set it long and shoot close I was once told).

[Wolf]

Every time I've been out we've seen "sign" but no deer. Closest I came was extremely fresh scrambling marks up the bank of the river - it had obviously scented us before we got to it because the wind was at our backs.

I can't track worth a damn so we did what we usually do - blunder around for a while until we're sure we've scared off every deer within three miles, find a likely bank, empty the box of ammo into our pockets, put the ammo box against the bank, retreat as far as the terrain will allow and shoot the crap out of the ammo box using up the ammo in our pockets - thereby scaring off all the deer within 15 miles...

Closest contact with any game larger than rabbits, hares and possums was walking around the corner and encountering 4 goats at about ten metres. They looked at us, surprised; we looked at them, surprised... and they ran.

The bloke in the lead had a 7mm Mag bolt action with safety on and nothing in the chamber. I was following carrying a (borrowed) Norinco AK-47 clone so naturally I had nothing in the chamber and the safety was on.

After the goats had vanished, the guy was saying "damn, I wish I'd had a round chambered, I could have bagged one. Couldn't chamber a round in time." This was the same dick who blew up a King Fisher, proving that you can have a really accurate, flat trajectory rifle and still get nowhere if you're not prepared.

He had to admit that maybe the guy with the semi-auto should have been up front, or at least the bloke in the front should have been ready to fire...

Incidentally, the AK-47 is a great little bush carbine - light, easy to carry, would love to have had one.

[Sniper]

Two seven. Thats why I said, it takes practise and when you are good enough, you are good enough. Besides, I don't understand. I am talking about snipers and you are saying shooting without a scope. I have no intention of shooting without a scope and FYI, I never needed a spotter.

[Hoon]

There is a basic rule, you cant hit what you cant see, and I defy anyone to see a cars radiator grill at 1500 meters, let alone hit it,

Well actually thats not quite true. With target shooting using open sights there is no way you can see the bullseye so what you are doing is centering the ENTIRE target (which just looks like a dot) in the centre of your sights. If your aim is good, the round will hit the centre of whatever is in the centre of your sights, ideally the bullseye. The trick isn't making sure the crosshairs are right where you want the bullet to go, its making sure the target is correctly centered in your sights.

Likewise a vehicle, you wouldn't be visualizing the grill, you'd centre the entire vehicle, maybe adjust a click or two down (and sideways depending on its orientation) or just aim off.

Dispelling another myth, scopes don't make you any better shooter (unless you are on a bench). You are only as accurate as your hold and aim allows - too much magnification can often make things worse by shaking all over the place creating hesitation (ala zoomed in handycam).

[Lou Girardin]

I take it this is in the same context as Snipers last post!!

Could well be, it was Merkin media after all.

[Lou Girardin]

There is a basic rule, you cant hit what you cant see, and I defy anyone to see a cars radiator grill at 1500 meters, let alone hit it

This is why you can't use traffic laser at these ranges.

[Sniper]

Well actually thats not quite true. With target shooting using open sights there is no way you can see the bullseye so what you are doing is centering the ENTIRE target (which just looks like a dot) in the centre of your sights. If your aim is good, the round will hit the centre of whatever is in the centre of your sights, ideally the bullseye. The trick isn't making sure the crosshairs are right where you want the bullet to go, its making sure the target is correctly centered in your sights.

Likewise a vehicle, you wouldn't be visualizing the grill, you'd centre the entire vehicle, maybe adjust a click or two down (and sideways depending on its orientation) or just aim off.

Dispelling another myth, scopes don't make you any better shooter (unless you are on a bench). You are only as accurate as your hold and aim allows - too much magnification can often make things worse by shaking all over the place creating hesitation (ala zoomed in handycam).

Thank you Hoon.

[Wolf]

Dispelling another myth, scopes don't make you any better shooter (unless you are on a bench). You are only as accurate as your hold and aim allows - too much magnification can often make things worse by shaking all over the place creating hesitation (ala zoomed in handycam).
Fucking tell me about it! First time I aimed a rifle with a scope on it I watched the crosshairs bouncing all over the scenery and thought "Shit, do my hands shake that much?" The scope certainly showed up every little movement.

[TwoSeven]

Two seven. Thats why I said, it takes practise and when you are good enough, you are good enough. Besides, I don't understand. I am talking about snipers and you are saying shooting without a scope. I have no intention of shooting without a scope and FYI, I never needed a spotter.

A barbie doll could shoot with a scope given enough 'practice'. Which is why I dont think much of it :) And I would suggest that if you've never worked with or needed a spotter, then you've probably never done any BVR (beyond visual range) shooting. Which questions the snipering stuff, since at best its no more than practicing target shooting with fancy clothes on. Long range shooting requries a spotter because its unlikely the shooter will have seen where the shot went (due to recoil and low magnification of the scope). The spotter calls the location, and will call windage and drop - depending on how the team works. BTW I think the record for a kill shot with an L96 rifle in the UK is about 850 off metres with a 17m drop. (I had to look that last bit up). Which is another reason I disbelive the long range shooting claims.

Centering the entire target and taking a shot hoping to hit the center is called taking a 'pot shot', again, it requires no skill - its basic 'grunt' training. More than likely, all you've done is pre-ranged and centered the scope. In fact for a target that far away, most military organisations espouse the use of an LMG or more rapid firing weapon to ensure hit capability, rather than rely on short range rifle work. The alternative is to use two or more soldiers equiped with LLRs to give suppressive fire. The reason thats done is because you cant put a scope/binocs on an LMG and the alternative is to bring up an APC which would present itself as a large stationary target or cause the threat to hide. The use of an LMG for this role is why the brit army carries two L86s per section (one per fire team).


The art of rifle shooting as I see it is to be able to get close enough to see and hit the intended target without the use of aids. I used to chase bunnies with a bow as a yoof and believe me its hard getting close (like within 30 feet), especially since the sods can outrun the arrow (you need to move to a crossbow or composite box to hit bunnies if full flight). The only time I ever went goat hunting, we got close heaps of times (way easier than bunny bashing), but due to extreme lazyness, no-one was prepared to carry the goats after we shot them, so in the end we left them all alone. Dont really see much point in it anyhow unless its done for a crust.

[Hoon]

Centering the entire target and taking a shot hoping to hit the center is called taking a 'pot shot', again, it requires no skill - its basic 'grunt' training.

Umm wrong again...this is the same (and only) method used by competition and Olympic shooters to win gold medals. You don't "hope" to hit the centre, you "know" you will because you did last time and the time before that, etc. This confidence comes from years of practice eliminating and adjusting for all the unknown variables until you can successfully duplicate all the conditions that result in a hit. Hell if it was easy everyone would be doing it!! Just because you don't understand the principle does not mean it can't be done.

[rfc85]

i blew away a tree with a 76mm once -and the tree was a long long way away-sure beats a rifle, scope or no scope

[Wolf]

Umm wrong again...this is the same (and only) method used by competition and Olympic shooters to win gold medals. You don't "hope" to hit the centre, you "know" you will because you did last time and the time before that, etc. This confidence comes from years of practice eliminating and adjusting for all the unknown variables until you can successfully duplicate all the conditions that result in a hit. Hell if it was easy everyone would be doing it!! Just because you don't understand the principle does not mean it can't be done.
Quite right. The attached files show the three commonly used sight pictures - Centre of Mass, Six O'Clock and Sub-six.

Which is used depends on the preference of the shooter. Whichever the shooter uses, the weapon sights are calibrated (if possible) at the appropriate range and the shooter employs a time-honoured technique known in the trade as "practising one's arse off".

[ManDownUnder]

the shooter employs a time-honoured technique known in the trade as "practising one's arse off".

Sounds technical... how does it work?

[Wolf]

Sounds technical... how does it work?
I read a great essay in some American "Shooting" magazine, can't remember which one, where the author's mate, a relative noob, bought a pistol and was going to get it "Accurized" at great expense. The author, an experienced shooter knew that the pistol was quite accurate and the only thing wrong was that his mate couldn't hit the broad side of a barn and needed a lot of practice. Instead of saying so in such blunt terms, however, he asked his mate what model pistol it was and then said (expert mode on) "Ahh, I see the problem. The actions of those weapons are always stiff when brand new. You need to loosen it up. Go out and buy about 500 rounds of ammo, go down to the range and shoot some targets. You'll notice that as the action frees up the pistol will gradually get more accurate." So his mate did as suggested and reported that, Yep, the pistol was more accurate now. :lol: :lol:

And well "it" should be after the shooter has fired 500 rounds into a target.

[scumdog]

Quite right. The attached files show the three commonly used sight pictures - Centre of Mass, Six O'Clock and Sub-six.

Which is used depends on the preference of the shooter. Whichever the shooter uses, the weapon sights are calibrated (if possible) at the appropriate range and the shooter employs a time-honoured technique known in the trade as "practising one's arse off".

Look at the pics on this posting and imagine that little centre dot where the centre of the target is.
That is what a dime would look like at 800 yards through a 10X 'scope, this is what certain people claim to have hit at 800 yards.
Tough shot eh?

[k14]

And well "it" should be after the shooter has fired 500 rounds into a target.
haha, good effort. Wonder how much 500 rounds cost him, probably $6.99 at k-mart, lol.

[Storm]

That'll fix the problem no worries. Well done for his mate saving him money and keeping his pride intact:D

[Wolf]

haha, good effort. Wonder how much 500 rounds cost him, probably $6.99 at k-mart, lol.
Probably. Even if he bought the dearest bullets it would have cost less than the "Accurizing" - ever seen some of the shit they show in gun magazines - compensators, barrel weights etc (on "combat" firearms, FFS, not target pistols)?

[TwoSeven]

Umm wrong again...this is the same (and only) method used by competition and Olympic shooters to win gold medals. You don't "hope" to hit the centre, you "know" you will because you did last time and the time before that, etc. This confidence comes from years of practice eliminating and adjusting for all the unknown variables until you can successfully duplicate all the conditions that result in a hit. Hell if it was easy everyone would be doing it!! Just because you don't understand the principle does not mean it can't be done.

Still disagree. Your taking a pot shot.

The time honored technique for lining a scope up (be it on a rifle, or bow or anything else) is to take a 'pot shot' at your aiming point. You can either then adjust your aim in one of two ways.

1) A target shooter will adjust the virtical and horizontal position of the scope, given the same aiming point, so that the rifle eventually points at the target. They keep using their aim point and gradually bring the fired rounds onto the target by adjusting the scope.

2) A military shooter/hunter has pre calibrated their weapon for a set range (usually in the same way as the target shooter). They know the round will hit their aiming point within that range. If the round misses, they then move the aiming point until the round hits the target (this saves adjustment of the weapon) - its how I was tought to do it.

There is no 'practice' involved, and there is no special skill. Just take a pot shot and work out what to do next. The only thing that makes target shooting hard, is when you have to stand up and hold the weapon steady to get an accurate grouping.

A round in a high velocity weapon is designed so that for a period of time it is minimally affected by gravity. When this happens you get a flat trajectory for the period of time that occurs (this is how tank guns work as well). Target shooters and military shooters always work within this range (the L85 will be about 400yards and will take about .4 of a second to get there).

There is a sport where parabolic shooting is involved. This requires a good bit of math (or use of pre-calculated tables called 'drop charts'). This is where the distance the round must travel is greater than the flat trajectory range (thus you get a parabolic curve on the trajectory). When you shoot like this, you use the same scope calibration technique in 1) above, but you use pre-calculated tables to make the adjustments to the scope. Again, its not difficult and requires little practice. Worst thing you'd have problems with it factoring the effect of elevation, but even that can be pre-calculated into charts (or a good PDA program).

Sniper shooting in the military (in UK and US) uses a 2 man team (not sure about NZ). The reason is that the shooter uses a low powered scope and cannot see where the round went. That means, they cannot adjust their scope as in point 1) above. The 2nd man uses a high powered lense (long range optic and range finder) and observes the fall of the round, they then give the details to the shooter who makes the adjustment - this is who BVR shooting is done. I've not been shown the exact training procedure, but its something along those lines. If they are not doing long distance work, then its likely they'll both be shooting rather than one spotting.

Calculating windage is the only thing I can see where you would need some degree of practice, basically you need to observe several points along the trajectory (such as grass) and note how it bends, you then use the beufort scale (or something similar) to get an idea. You'd have to practice to some degree because its the only way you could take into consideration accurate effect vs calculated effect. Normally for windage, you'd average out all the readings across the trajectory and use that on a pre-calculate chart.


The only way I can see you would require a heck of a lot of practice is if you were taking shortcuts for some reason or wanted to get a feel for the weapon and its balistic characteristics so you could guestimate more accurately.

[Lou Girardin]

A round in a high velocity weapon is designed so that for a period of time it is minimally affected by gravity. When this happens you get a flat trajectory for the period of time that occurs (this is how tank guns work as well). Target shooters and military shooters always work within this range (the L85 will be about 400yards and will take about .4 of a second to get there).


It depends how you define 'flat'. If you mean a trajectory within an inch or two of the sight line - true. But no ballistic projectile is truly flat, as in a laser beam.

[jrandom]

no ballistic projectile is truly flat

sure it is, if it happens to accelerate to more than 11.2 km/s before it leaves the barrel.

[Wolf]

Still disagree. Your taking a pot shot.
A "potshot" is one taken at an easy target as by a pothunter (someone who hunts for food, not sport). It is not competition-level shooting. Or shooting at a difficult target (small target at long range or fast-moving target). From the point of view of one who has hunted and done target shooting, I can testify there is a world of difference.

When hunting, I aim the sights into the middle of a vital area, usually quickly as the game may move any moment. We're talking rabbits and possums, here - not large but certainly not at fantastic ranges. The body/head of the target at the range I am talking is clearly larger than my sight picture so I put the sights somewhere in the middle of that mass and pull the trigger, trusting that at that range the bullet is not going to deviate far from that rough mark - it is going to plow into something fairly vital - brains if I'm aiming vaguely between the eyes, heart and/or lungs if I'm aiming at the chest area.

That is a "potshot". I am not trying to hit a rabbit at 1.5km (or even 800m), I am trying to get a bullet into a roughly 10cm x 15cm oval of vital organs at a range of several metres - it does not require a lot of effort unless the bugger is running very fast at a reasonable distance and then you start getting into "leading" the target.

And that's just with iron sights which are bulky fuckers. Cross hairs are skinnier, giving you a magnified view of the target area with a couple of thin lines dancing around in it, but as long as you put a bit of lead into that area, you should stop the bugger.


The time honored technique for lining a scope up (be it on a rifle, or bow or anything else) is to take a 'pot shot' at your aiming point. You can either then adjust your aim in one of two ways.
Incorrect.

You aim at the target from a stable position, usually a bench rest for calibrating a weapon's sights, using one of the sight pictures in my above post for iron sights or centring the crosshairs for a scope. Bow sights are slightly different but the same principle applies.

You then fire and note where the bullet lands, you then adjust the sights accordingly until such time as the bullets constantly land in the target zone while the weapon is held steady and the sight picture is how you like it.

Each time, you fire considered aimed shots at a target of the appropriate type and size, at the appropriate range.

This achieved, your weapon is now "sighted in" and ready to be used for whatever purpose you have in mind for it.


1) A target shooter will adjust the virtical and horizontal position of the scope, given the same aiming point, so that the rifle eventually points at the target. They keep using their aim point and gradually bring the fired rounds onto the target by adjusting the scope.
This is done during the sighting-in period. During a match, the sights should not need to be adjusted and the competition does not allow time for adjusting sights.

When shooting, the weapon is aimed according to whatever sight picture the shooter prefers (I'm a "6 o'clock" man, myself) and fired.


There is no 'practice' involved, and there is no special skill. Just take a pot shot and work out what to do next. The only thing that makes target shooting hard, is when you have to stand up and hold the weapon steady to get an accurate grouping.

The only way I can see you would require a heck of a lot of practice is if you were taking shortcuts for some reason or wanted to get a feel for the weapon and its balistic characteristics so you could guestimate more accurately.
I would be most interested in seeing how you stack up on a target range, seeing as how you believe there is no skill involved and no need to practise. I'll pit my aiming against your guesstimates any day and we'll see who gets the higher number of points. As standing and holding the gun steady is the difficult bit, we can alleviate this by shooting prone.

In the middle of that tiny black circle at the centre of the target is the "10 Ring" - worth 10 points. Do not let the big pictures above fool you, the sight picture consist of a tiny block with a notch in it, a tiny front blade and a tiny black circle which is the target centre.

You fire ten shots at the target. As the middle is worth 10 points, basic maths gives a maximum of 100 points.

In order to compete at Olympic level you have to be able to shoot a 98 point average or better consistently throughout the competition - i.e. you can hit the nine ring twice or the 8 ring once. If you drop behind the other competitors, you will lose.

You do not achieve 98-point averages by "guesstimating" and there is a lot of difference between hitting that tiny circle 8 or 9 times out of 10 and getting a bullet into the "vital" area of a rabbit (a "potshot"). Likewise, long range sniper shooting, shooting moving targets and other difficult shots do not fall into the category of "potshots".

And there are no shortcuts. And any "shortcut" that requires "a lot of practice" is not a "shortcut anyway.

[TwoSeven]

AYou then fire and note where the bullet lands, you then adjust the sights accordingly until such time as the bullets constantly land in the target zone while the weapon is held steady and the sight picture is how you like it.


A pot shot is a term used to mean an amount of guessing is done. It comes from the term "pot luck". Nothing to do with any other meaning you have put on it as far as I know.

The initial calibration shot anyone makes - is called a pot shot because they have to guess to some degree (unless you are already set up). Once the round has landed, you can then callibrate for accuracy and remove the guess.

I've done enough shooting to be able to fire a group and calibrate a sight. It really doesnt take much skill unless you've no idea what your doing.

Olympic shooting as far as I have seen is only about shooting a tight grouping and being able to afford the equipment the buggers use :) It comes down to the ability to hold the weapon stable (you'll note that most competitions are done standing), I cant do this because of RSI (I shake too much) - have to kneel or go prone. It would be impossible for me to do the 300m rifle, i'd be waving the rifle all over the place even the target being a meter across is of no use. I'd have the people behind me diving for cover. :)

To get back on track, if someone was shooting without any aids, then I'd say they are pretty good if they are hitting stuff at 100m+ especially if its a 10 cent piece, but as soon as you start bunging on all the optional equipment, then there really is no skill in it. Which brings back the other point I made, in that I question anyone who is claiming they are capable of removing a knats bollux at 300m+ without the use of a tripod and/or sights. The 10 point is 100mm across and I think from memory they use a low power sight. Its certainly not a dime.

[scumdog]

This is why you can't use traffic laser at these ranges.

Of course you can, just hold it aimed at about where you think the grille is (like modern cars have grilles?) until you get a tone letting you know you have a steady reading. (probably by then the car will be only 400 metres away).

[Lou Girardin]

sure it is, if it happens to accelerate to more than 11.2 km/s before it leaves the barrel.
And this ballistic projectile is a...................................?

[jrandom]

And this ballistic projectile is a...................................?

er

que?

'really fast-moving one'?

not quite sure what your getting at old chap.

[Lou Girardin]

Of course you can, just hold it aimed at about where you think the grille is (like modern cars have grilles?) until you get a tone letting you know you have a steady reading. (probably by then the car will be only 400 metres away).

Meanwhile the beam is waving around like Aunt Fanny's knickers and you get a reading off the car alongside.
Close enough?

[Lou Girardin]

er

que?

'really fast-moving one'?

not quite sure what your getting at old chap.

Improve my education, tell me what ballistic projectile fired from a barrel reaches 11.2 km/sec.

[scumdog]

Meanwhile the beam is waving around like Aunt Fanny's knickers and you get a reading off the car alongside.
Close enough?

Uh, I should have clarified this, I'm talking about the South Island here (not overcrowded Jaffland) and a single vehicle on one of our nice flat straights.

[jrandom]

Improve my education, tell me what ballistic projectile fired from a barrel reaches 11.2 km/sec.

a theoretical one, old bean.

my gedankenexperiment trumps your assertion.

you owe the oracle one pint of guinness and a test ride on a Road King.

[Lou Girardin]

a theoretical one, old bean.

my gedankenexperiment trumps your assertion.

you owe the oracle one pint of guinness and a test ride on a Road King.

A ballistic flight of fancy then.
Road King test rides - 15th Oct.

[Wolf]

A pot shot is a term used to mean an amount of guessing is done. It comes from the term "pot luck". Nothing to do with any other meaning you have put on it as far as I know.
Funnily enough, the meaning I put on it coincides with the dictionary's one. Buy a dictionary.

For the record: when I shoot I do not guess, I aim. "Guessing" runs the risk of missing or, far worse, missing a vital area and wounding...


The initial calibration shot anyone makes - is called a pot shot because they have to guess to some degree (unless you are already set up). Once the round has landed, you can then callibrate for accuracy and remove the guess.
This will shock you, but firearms come from the factory fitted with bits of metal on top of them called "sights". These "sights" are set at the factory to show where a standardised bullet (set weights of projectile and powder) would land at various ranges.

While you may guess where you're pointing the rifle, those of us who can shoot use said sights when fine-tuning those same sights to suit the ammunition we prefer to use (or the sight picture we prefer).

We AIM the rifle at a target using the sights, shoot, note if the bullet landed where we thought and, if not, make the necessary adjustments - if the sights are able to be adjusted. The factory setting of the sights is generally close enough to put the bullet into the target. And the factory setting is not a "guess", either, it is based on real ballistic experience and measurements.


I've done enough shooting to be able to fire a group and calibrate a sight. It really doesnt take much skill unless you've no idea what your doing.
What size group are we talking, here, and at what range?


Olympic shooting as far as I have seen is only about shooting a tight grouping and being able to afford the equipment the buggers use :)
...snippage...
It would be impossible for me to do the 300m rifle,
...snippage...
The 10 point is 100mm across and I think from memory they use a low power sight. Its certainly not a dime.
What Olympic event are you talking about?

Mens Olympic events are: 50m rifle three positions (prone, standing, kneeling); 50m rifle prone; 10m air rifle; 50m pistol; 25m rapid fire pistol; 10m air pistol; 10m running target; Trap (shotgun); Double Trap (shotgun); and Skeet (shotgun).

The full-bore rifle is not an Olympic event.

The Olympic/UIT Small bore rifle (.22lr) 50m event has a 10.4mm (not 100mm) bullseye (10 ring) - not even twice the diameter of the bullets (5.56mm) they are shooting at it. All use iron sights - no magnification at all.

"Tight groupings" are for hunters (or cops) who generally have larger targets. If I can shoot a consistent 100mm group at 100m (and I do not recall having to shoot a rabbit or possum at that distance) it is more than adequate to put a bullet into the chest of a rabbit but it won't win me any UIT or Olympic matches. (The equivalent would be a 20.8mm target at 100m).

Having "done enough shooting to be able to fire a group and calibrate a sight" does not qualify you dismiss shooting and say "It really doesnt take much skill unless you've no idea what your [sic] doing".

When you can hit a 10.4mm target with a 5.56mm bullet consistently from 50 metres, then you might be qualified to dismiss it as "simple" but somehow I think, if you were capable of doing that, you wouldn't make such a comment.

And FYI all the "equipment the buggers use" is to make the task more comfortable for protracted periods and to damp out the human factors that can screw up their shots - such as their pulse. World class shooters also are accomplished athletes in other disciplines - running, cycling, rowing etc - so their muscle tone is as good as they can get it to avoid tremours at inopportune times.

But WTF, it's simple, right? Anyone can put sixty bullets into the 10.4mm ten ring from 50 metres in only sixty shots using metal diopter sights* - you'd have to have no idea at all to fail, it doesn't take much skill at all... Dunno why we bother having competitions, really. And all the equipment they have makes it even simpler...

*Olympic record, prone position.

[scumdog]

When you can hit a 10.4mm target with a 5.56mm bullet consistently from 50 metres, then you might be qualified to dismiss it as "simple" but somehow I think, if you were capable of doing that, you wouldn't make such a comment.

But WTF, it's simple, right? Anyone can put sixty bullets into the 10.4mm ten ring from 50 metres in only sixty shots using metal diopter sights* - you'd have to have no idea at all to fail, it doesn't take much skill at all... Dunno why we bother having competitions, really. And all the equipment they have makes it even simpler...

*Olympic record, prone position.

Too true, I can plug 5 shots from my Sako .22 into a 12mm circle at 50 metres most of the time but EVERY time is a bit different.

Seems like a whole world of difference on this site between those that HAVE and those that THINK they can.

[Timber020]

haha, good effort. Wonder how much 500 rounds cost him, probably $6.99 at k-mart, lol.

I paid $40 for 100 rnds of 38 short at walmart.

[Wolf]

Too true, I can plug 5 shots from my Sako .22 into a 12mm circle at 50 metres most of the time but EVERY time is a bit different.
Pretty good shooting, SD.

I have no idea what I could do these days - I have not set up a proper target and tried for so long (haven't even fired anything but an air pistol for ages) and I doubt I could see a 12mm circle at 50 metres these days, my right eye is so buggered. I can see well enough to hunt "small game", but it's been years since I tried shooting a target. I sold my target rifle ages back (BSA Heavy-barrel Martini action .22lr) only have the Brno bolt action .22, a couple of air rifles, the air pistols and the SKS these days.

Would like to get out somewhere and actually properly sight in the rifles and see how bad I've gotten over the last few years. All my shooting mates, like me, have settled down with their families (and a few have moved on) and have other things to do. Finding a place where you can go out and bang off a few rounds over a decent range can also be a PITA.

[SARGE]

I agree. I think what the poms have done is a good idea and reorganised on the battlegroup. NZ could field at least two or maybe even 3 marine based battlegroups with full equipment - it has the capability and experience to do it, but the current structure is not effective.


New Zealands LDP (long range development plan) states that it will have a fully motorised infantry (its to be two battalions). The airforce will be getting the new NH90 helo's.

Info Here (http://www.defence.govt.nz/public_docs/nzdf-caprev/4-disc-landforce.shtml)



the US Marine corps has been using a MAU (Marine Amphibious Unit) / MEU (Marine Expeditionary Unit) style deployment for decades. my unit was totally self contained. Aircraft and helo's, engineers, motorized and foot infantry, armor and artillery, logistics, C&C etc. we needed for nothing and we could land anywhere, anytime with VERY little notice ( i was in Grenada with 48 hours notice)

[Hoon]

Still disagree. Your taking a pot shot.

The time honored technique for lining a scope up (be it on a rifle, or bow or anything else) is to take a 'pot shot' at your aiming point. You can either then adjust your aim in one of two ways.

No offence but you speak like someone that has studied the topic but lacks any real depth, has very little application, practical knowledge or contact with those that have, yet consider yourself an expert on the subject. You seem to have a narrow view of how things should work based on this subset of info and see any attempt to educate you further as an insult to your intellect.

Bringing yourself onto the target with follow up shots is not a luxury everyone can afford. What about the lone platoon sniper with no partner? Or the sniper pair firing into long grass or scrub? How bout the Police sniper who has just arrived on his building top and only gets one chance with a cold barrel?

Shooting is a discipline and like I said takes practice until all the unknowns become knowns.

The pic on the left is a card I shot last week at 25m on a .22 prone with a sling. Ignoring the 3 sighting shots in the centre you are looking at about a 5mm spread. Shooting 12 of those cards in a row on the 50m range at the Olympics would've won gold.

On the right is 100m 5 shot groups using the Army Steyr 5.56mm (.223) in the prone - look at the holes not the grey patches. Those groups are about 5-10cm. Not my best (about 36mm) but the only pic I could find. On a good day I can land 4 out of 5 head shots (fig 12c target) at 500m.

I am by no means claiming to be an expert shot. I've had my arse handed to me enough times by a variety of people both military and civilian from Army Sniper instructors to 12 yo kids and am under no illusion to where I lie in the pecking order.

The fact is that to be able to shoot a rifle well takes practice and lots of it. To think any different is for those that never will.

[TwoSeven]

You'll find I've been very carefull to keep military shooting away from target shooting. The two in most scenarios have different requirements (usually one uses a pre-ranged/sighted high velocity weapon and shoots close up as I have already said in earlier posts, the other doesnt). You cant cite a military scenario and then go, when I shoot at targets I do blah blah blah - its bollux.

The common theme from everyones post has been that you need practice so you dont take a pot shot, yet in just about every single post made, someone mentions that they then proceed to fire a group of shots to calibrate the weapon. The very first shot fired has to be a guess - otherwise it would mean your weapon is already set up for that target - which I would then question, why you are firing the initial group to calibrate the weapon if its already set up.

The other common example then cited in order to contradict themselves, is a brief description of some mechanism to pre-calibrate the weapon so they dont have to fire the sighting round - i'm really suprised than no-one except me has even described the use of drop and windage charts (or pda s/w that does it) - yet its considered a basic skill for any hunter who is shooting long range.

The opinon I am forming is that either people are very badly trained with their equipment, or seem to be a bit confused with the difference between military, target, hunting, BVR and other styles of shooting and are hence applying the wrong techniques to the situation or are trying to use one technique to argue against the other.

When you practice with any piece of equipment be it a spoon or rifle you are doing so to condition yourself to the feel and reaction of the equipment - it has nothing to do with whether you can hit the target, how you calibrate the equipment or anything else - its just simple human conditioning a.k.a pavlovs dog. In otherwords basic psychology. When you are comfortable with a piece of equipment you will in general perform to a higher level of standard than when you dont feel comfortable with it (this is subjective to the level of concentration applied) - it does not imply as people are suggesting that this is the only way to do it. That would be a rather stupid assumption to make in any sport. To give an example, I stir my coffee with a teaspon every day - have been for the last 25 years so I am pretty good at it - but I would be wrong to assume that someone who had never done this, could not get to the same standard by only ever being given training on how to do it. This odd example, applies to anything. Which is why I question people saying the only way to shoot accurately is to practice all the time. I would say its 'one of the ways'.

Also, I never claimed to be an expert at anything - in fact I found shooting the most boring sport out except golf, gave it up ears ago (still like the technology tho). I just called bollux on those people who were claiming to be so good they could see an hit targets that everyone else on the planet finds nearly impossible.

[Sniper]

Its funny to see all the veiwpoints. Especially thos who no nothing about the subject except on what they think and read. Those who have practised with small bore and on the range with a styer (Hoon, Im fucken impressed :niceone:) and those who have had experience in using rifles but only in a hunting circumstance or competition.

I don't feel like putting anything of mine up here will prove or simplify things. It won't prove to TwoSeven that I could shoot a ciggarrette out of his mouth at 500m. It won't prove to scumdog that some civvies just don't believe.

Wolf all I can say to you mate is that with some practise, you would rock, same as anyone who has the patience and mind-set. Well done to all of you who shoot competitions and hunt. Some of the best shots I know are just civvies who hunt and everytime I see them I have the utmost respect because they are doing something I havent managed to achieve yet.

Thats my shit over.

Sniper

[Charlie]

Its funny to see all the veiwpoints. Especially thos who no nothing about the subject except on what they think and read.
Sniper, apart from noting that you are ALWAYS on the net; I'm guessing your an army lad as are a few others.
I'm behind the 8 ball so going back a few topics to the putting down of the ability of the Army and the Airforce... I'm gonna give my bleat and will try and keep it short.
Anyone who has experience the military will defend its purpose and the skills of the servicemen (or at least I do). Granted NZ's defence is a little laughable but I believe that is because so few Kiwis see the need for it forcing the government to invest nothing into it. Our servicemen and woman are up there with the best in the world... and we're shoving it to them with equipment and resources lightyears behind other countries.
To say that the Air Force is redundant and that it should merge with the Navy is crazy. Firtly I'll say that with technology and weaponary available worldwide the ability to blast anyone from anywhere is so real. Therefore I reckon the sky is where attention be given. By the time some crazy man hits the button, what can anyone on the ground do but put their heads between their legs and kiss their...
So I'm gonna sing a short praise for our boys (and gals)...
5SQN (or the marine planes) do loads of search and rescue for boats in distress. They carry out maritime patrols protecting our shores and can cover a stack load of area in a short time.
3SQN (the heli-choppers) are the un-sung heros. The assist the NZ police with drug busts & search and rescue 365 days a year. They pull bodies (dead or alive) from mountains & valleys etc etc and do it all without thanks or glory.
Our pilots, service men and logistics support do a great job with what they've got and the Army I'm sure are the same.
The day to day things the do may not seem very war-y but they do their part for the average NZer - little do they know.
The strike capabilities and lack of, is another story which I could rant for ages about but I know I will be hard pressed to change the minds of those who think differently.

Blaa Blaa :whocares: I know.

Charlie Mike out

[Wolf]

The common theme from everyones post has been that you need practice so you dont take a pot shot,
Take a look here (http://www.google.co.nz/search?hl=en&lr=&oi=defmore&q=define:potshot) and here (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=potshot&x=11&y=9) - "pot shot" has nothing to do with guessing as you assert. It is a guaranteed hit on an easy target - which still involves aiming by the way. For an example - a stationary rabbit at 25m is pretty much "dinner" already.


yet in just about every single post made, someone mentions that they then proceed to fire a group of shots to calibrate the weapon. The very first shot fired has to be a guess - otherwise it would mean your weapon is already set up for that target -
It is to a point as I said above:


This will shock you, but firearms come from the factory fitted with bits of metal on top of them called "sights". These "sights" are set at the factory to show where a standardised bullet (set weights of projectile and powder) would land at various ranges.

The factory setting is also based on a particular "sight picture" (see above).

It is not a "guess" - the weapon has been "sighted in" (even if only by being set up to predefined measurements).


which I would then question, why you are firing the initial group to calibrate the weapon if its already set up.

Because not all of us use the same ammunition and sight picture.

Example: XYZ corporation produces a .243 calibre hunting rifle with iron sights. These sights are set at the factory based on a centred sight picture and a 75-grain projectile (there are other factors such as weight of powder, shape and composition of projectile and the powder's burning speed but we will ignore these for the sake of simplicity).

I, however, prefer a "six o'clock" sight picture and I use a 90-grain projectile (but by strange coincidence all other parameters are the same as the factory's standard load)

If I fire that rifle, I will note it is shooting low and I will then adjust the sights accordingly to compensate for my choice of ammunition and my choice of sight picture. I would then go out hunting secure in the knowledge that the rifle is accurate for my shooting style.

Likewise, if I purchase a firearm second-hand I sight it in again, expecting that the previous owner would have set it up to suit his/her preferences.

[Sniper]

Sniper, apart from noting that you are ALWAYS on the net; I'm guessing your an army lad as are a few others.


Good on ya charlie. Its good to see those who stand up for themselves and their unit. Just FYI, I was an army boy and the reason I am ALWAYS on the net is because my current job is boring.

[Charlie]

Good on ya charlie. Its good to see those who stand up for themselves and their unit. Just FYI, I was an army boy and the reason I am ALWAYS on the net is because my current job is boring.
Hahah, well I was Airforce :dodge: (dont hate me).
And I have one of those jobs too. Starting to wonder how I went from styers and hoochies to a career at a desk. I musta fucked up somewhere!

[Sniper]

Hahah, well I was Airforce :dodge: (dont hate me).
And I have one of those jobs too. Starting to wonder how I went from styers and hoochies to a career at a desk. I musta fucked up somewhere!

Hehe, I have nothing against the Airforce. Hell you guys let me apsail out of a couple of choppers. The only time I didn't like the airforce was out on the Piss. You remember those nights?

[Charlie]

Hehe, I have nothing against the Airforce. Hell you guys let me apsail out of a couple of choppers. The only time I didn't like the airforce was out on the Piss. You remember those nights?
Ahhh I love choppers!
Yeah I remember those nights; cocky testosterone pumped egos... and real cheep booze! :bash:

[Wolf]

Starting to wonder how I went from styers and hoochies to a career at a desk. I musta fucked up somewhere!
The desk job is karmic punishment for evil deeds done in a previous life. Going by my job: in my previous existence I must've murdered a king or been a used car salesman...


or tax consultant...

[Sniper]

Ahhh I love choppers!
Yeah I remember those nights; cocky testosterone pumped egos... and real cheep booze! :bash:

Aaah, the cheap booze $3 for a jug or $1 shots. Pity the real world is so expensive!

[Charlie]

The desk job is karmic punishment for evil deeds done in a previous life. Going by my job: in my previous existence I must've murdered a king or been a used car salesman...


or tax consultant...
Ohhh I AM A TAX CONSULTANT

[Charlie]

Aaah, the cheap booze $3 for a jug or $1 shots. Pity the real world is so expensive!
Yeah no more $20 hangover!

[Wolf]

Ohhh I AM A TAX CONSULTANT
:killingme

Fuck, I'd hate to see your next life, then...

:killingme

[Sniper]

Yeah no more $20 hangover!

Those were the days.

You ever get fined for scrapping?

[Charlie]

Those were the days.

You ever get fined for scrapping?
Pardon? I'm a good girl! Besides I was GSI, which if you recall amalgamated with the Provos :dodge: (now do you hate me?) hehehehehe

Hense why I'm a civi (that and the fact we had no planes!).

How many fines you got? Man, the Army charges you for sneezing wrong; AF is pretty lax!