"Beware the man with one rifle."
- Thread starter JWarren
- Start date
- Status
351 WINCHESTER
Member
When I was much younger and poorer I had a nylon 66 that I was quite familiar with and made some amazing shots look easy. My Dad told me I was going to wear the barrel out. I never did, but darn I could shoot it.
Well, it's true that U.S. citizens in general have been better average shots when pressed into service than troops in other armies, but there also exists "the myth of the American rifleman", which is a belief that crack shots from the U.S. have won wars.
Nope. Hasn't happened. Rifle shots can kill, but typically the casualty-producers have always been crew served, starting back in the 1760s...
John
(My "one rifle" would be a lightly sporterized 1917 rifle in 7mm Magnum, if I had my druthers.)
Well...
I won't enter into a debate on history with a history major...
But I will stand my ground and say that it seems you may have been reading the wrong accounts if you can deny the impact of American marksmanship in battle and in war. And I am specifically not talking about "crack shots winning the war". I'm talking about an overall superior training in marksmanship that made a MAJOR difference in our nations effectiveness in battle. This goes well beyond sheer numbers of KIA or WIA.
I won't do the leg work, but a cursory examination of the battles in the Pacific Islands alone demonstrates this very fact born out by the testimony of the Japanese on the receiving end of *rifle* fire from individual Marines. Similar testimony has been given by British, German, and others on this particular aspect of the American fighting man.
Not being educated, I'm not fully sure of the definition of "crew served" weapons, but I'd venture to understand this as artillery or machine guns. Again, my background is in plumbing but I've seen a few episodes of Victory at Sea and I seem to recall a distinct *lack* of effectiveness of such "crew served" weapons against coral and palm trunk reinforced bunkers where the enemy had to be pulled out by his hair (so to speak)...
If no less than General Patton remarked that the *individual* served M1 was the "greatest battle implement ever devised" I'll take his word for it.
Again, respectfully *not* looking to argue the point....
I won't enter into a debate on history with a history major...
But I will stand my ground and say that it seems you may have been reading the wrong accounts if you can deny the impact of American marksmanship in battle and in war. And I am specifically not talking about "crack shots winning the war". I'm talking about an overall superior training in marksmanship that made a MAJOR difference in our nations effectiveness in battle. This goes well beyond sheer numbers of KIA or WIA.
I won't do the leg work, but a cursory examination of the battles in the Pacific Islands alone demonstrates this very fact born out by the testimony of the Japanese on the receiving end of *rifle* fire from individual Marines. Similar testimony has been given by British, German, and others on this particular aspect of the American fighting man.
Not being educated, I'm not fully sure of the definition of "crew served" weapons, but I'd venture to understand this as artillery or machine guns. Again, my background is in plumbing but I've seen a few episodes of Victory at Sea and I seem to recall a distinct *lack* of effectiveness of such "crew served" weapons against coral and palm trunk reinforced bunkers where the enemy had to be pulled out by his hair (so to speak)...
If no less than General Patton remarked that the *individual* served M1 was the "greatest battle implement ever devised" I'll take his word for it.
Again, respectfully *not* looking to argue the point....
Strange as it sounds, the idea actually appeals to me.
I've owned a lot of guns over the last few years - not because I really needed most of the but just because I like guns.
But the more I've gone through, the more bad luck I've had with them. It's so bad at this point that there are only a handful of companies that I consider capable of building a working firearm.
Plus, I'm kind of a minimalist by nature.
The idea of one rifle appeals to me but just isn't practical. It's just a little too minimal.
But the idea of just two or three rifles...
Now that would be workable for me.
FWIW, don't discount those who only own one rifle. My grandfather grew up shooting only one rifle, a 99 Savage in .300 Savage.
He went away to WWII and was exposed to Springfields, M1 Garands and Carbines, Thompson Sub guns, and everything else the Army allowed him to qualify on. He was qualified as expert with many of them and I have the medal to prove it.
When he came back, in spite of his experience with "better" guns, he went back to that Savage. I never had the priviledge of hunting with my grandfather because he died about a year before I was old enough to hunt. But according to my dad, my grandfather was able to snap-shoot from either shoulder and drop running deer with head or neck shots at remarkable distances.
One story about him was that he took aim on a running deer and was tracking it to take a shot when he realized that a tree was in his way. He switched the rifle to his left hand mid-swing, squeezed the trigger, and killed the deer.
I've shot that rifle so I understand why he didn't feel an overwhelming need to replace it with something else. If I could find the same thing in .308 I think I'd probably have to have one.
BTW - Pappy didn't install a scope on that rifle until nearly 60 years after he bought it. He only caved in and allowed my dad to get his rifle scoped for him when he got to the point that he could no longer see the sights.
Not a gun nut, but the man was a hunter and one hell of a marksman.
I've owned a lot of guns over the last few years - not because I really needed most of the but just because I like guns.
But the more I've gone through, the more bad luck I've had with them. It's so bad at this point that there are only a handful of companies that I consider capable of building a working firearm.
Plus, I'm kind of a minimalist by nature.
The idea of one rifle appeals to me but just isn't practical. It's just a little too minimal.
But the idea of just two or three rifles...
Now that would be workable for me.
FWIW, don't discount those who only own one rifle. My grandfather grew up shooting only one rifle, a 99 Savage in .300 Savage.
He went away to WWII and was exposed to Springfields, M1 Garands and Carbines, Thompson Sub guns, and everything else the Army allowed him to qualify on. He was qualified as expert with many of them and I have the medal to prove it.
When he came back, in spite of his experience with "better" guns, he went back to that Savage. I never had the priviledge of hunting with my grandfather because he died about a year before I was old enough to hunt. But according to my dad, my grandfather was able to snap-shoot from either shoulder and drop running deer with head or neck shots at remarkable distances.
One story about him was that he took aim on a running deer and was tracking it to take a shot when he realized that a tree was in his way. He switched the rifle to his left hand mid-swing, squeezed the trigger, and killed the deer.
I've shot that rifle so I understand why he didn't feel an overwhelming need to replace it with something else. If I could find the same thing in .308 I think I'd probably have to have one.
BTW - Pappy didn't install a scope on that rifle until nearly 60 years after he bought it. He only caved in and allowed my dad to get his rifle scoped for him when he got to the point that he could no longer see the sights.
Not a gun nut, but the man was a hunter and one hell of a marksman.
JShirley,
I just had to share this with you as it comes from a somewhat obscure book that you may not have encountered:
CPT John Thomason, Jr. in his W.W.I USMC classic "FIX BAYONETS." "The Bosche wanted Hill 142; he came and the rifles broke him and he came again. All his artillery was in action and his machineguns scoured the place, but he could not make headway against the rifles. Guns he could understand; he knew all about bombs and auto-rifles and machine-guns and trench mortars, but aimed sustained rifle fire that comes from nowhere in particular and picks men off- it brought the war home to the individual and demoralized him". And "Already around Hautevesnes there had been a brush with advancing Germans, and the Germans were given a new experience: rifle fire that begins to kill at 800 yards; they found it very interesting!"
Take care,
Mongrel
Goon-now THAT'S what I'm talking about!
Thanks for sharing that.
Read anything you can find written by Jeff Cooper (Col. Jeff Cooper) on the concept of a one-rifle marksman....
I just had to share this with you as it comes from a somewhat obscure book that you may not have encountered:
CPT John Thomason, Jr. in his W.W.I USMC classic "FIX BAYONETS." "The Bosche wanted Hill 142; he came and the rifles broke him and he came again. All his artillery was in action and his machineguns scoured the place, but he could not make headway against the rifles. Guns he could understand; he knew all about bombs and auto-rifles and machine-guns and trench mortars, but aimed sustained rifle fire that comes from nowhere in particular and picks men off- it brought the war home to the individual and demoralized him". And "Already around Hautevesnes there had been a brush with advancing Germans, and the Germans were given a new experience: rifle fire that begins to kill at 800 yards; they found it very interesting!"
Take care,
Mongrel
Goon-now THAT'S what I'm talking about!
Thanks for sharing that.
Read anything you can find written by Jeff Cooper (Col. Jeff Cooper) on the concept of a one-rifle marksman....
cracked butt
Member
It really dosn't hurt that the US has at least since the 1903 springfield, has fielded very accurate rifles with better sights than anyone else. The european ethic was to sight the rifle in at the armory and then stake the windage adjustment into place. One might argue that this is 'good enough' for up to 200-300 yards, but beyond that, the soldier was at the mercy of a rudimentery tangent sight for elevation was pretty much screwed if there was any significant crosswind.
This was a direct result of having 'riflemen' involved in the design and procurement of weapons. The evolution of the rifle sight was not something developed on an armorer's bench it was borne out of competitive rifle shooting techniques and equipment. These ancestors of ours were the 'gun nuts' of their time.
There is some very good information available on the development of marksmanship in the military (Marines in particular) via the National Rifle Association competitive rifle community at the turn of the last century. Very interesting reading if one is inclined to read it.
This tradition of excellence in shooting gave birth to the subject at hand...
One rifle for each job
I have several rifles that I am comfortable with and I take the caliber that I feel will have the best result
I shoot a 223 ar at coyotes and coons etc
I shoot a 270 win at deer and pigs
and I shoot a 7mm RUM at Elk or long distance hogs
JMHO
I have several rifles that I am comfortable with and I take the caliber that I feel will have the best result
I shoot a 223 ar at coyotes and coons etc
I shoot a 270 win at deer and pigs
and I shoot a 7mm RUM at Elk or long distance hogs
JMHO
cracked butt
Member
That certainly is part of it. Got to wonder why the Swedish and Swiss never followed suit- both countries have always had a much higher participation in rifle shooting sports than the US. They developed nice dioptor sights for their rifles, but the only sporting target sights that ever made its way into military rifles were some of the various modifications to rear leaf sights by the swedes- and those modifications were only issued on Sniper rifles and a relatively low number of their short rifles.
Brian Williams
Moderator Emeritus
Beware the Shooter with only one rifle.
I only have a Winchester Model 70 compact classic in 7mm-08 and a Marlin 1894C in 357, Technically 2 rifles, but with either one I can do what I need to. Maybe not out there with the 357 but within 200 yards I can come close enough in a long-range SD situation.
I do need to get to the range and get some live fire practice done.
I only have a Winchester Model 70 compact classic in 7mm-08 and a Marlin 1894C in 357, Technically 2 rifles, but with either one I can do what I need to. Maybe not out there with the 357 but within 200 yards I can come close enough in a long-range SD situation.
I do need to get to the range and get some live fire practice done.
boilingleadbath
Member
There is much to be said for familiarity with a certain piece of hardware, especially for instinctive actions like pointing and trigger manipulation.
The question, then, is if one can gain a similar level of mastery over TWO rifles by practicing twice as much? (total practice hours - time per rifle is the same)
The question, then, is if one can gain a similar level of mastery over TWO rifles by practicing twice as much? (total practice hours - time per rifle is the same)
mordechaianiliewicz
Member
It's all about the practitioner. And the ammount of time you shoot any rifle. A person with one rifle who shoots it all the time is dangerous. The man who never shoots is not dangerous.
Now, that being said, I own a few rifles, and have yet to Zen with any of them, but I know I might have one or two rifles I will be able to be "one" with. The rest are for their collectable, and shooting fun.
One rifle, it limits your options, but there is another general principle. If you are "One" with one rifle. You'll know what to do with a considerable number of the others.
Now, that being said, I own a few rifles, and have yet to Zen with any of them, but I know I might have one or two rifles I will be able to be "one" with. The rest are for their collectable, and shooting fun.
One rifle, it limits your options, but there is another general principle. If you are "One" with one rifle. You'll know what to do with a considerable number of the others.
Poor East Texan
Member
- Joined
- May 15, 2008
- Messages
- 366
If the CZ 452 Military Trainer (.22LR) shoots as good as it looks and shoulders beware of me! I will almost certainly bring it home tomorrow night.
I've never been able to shoot centerfire rifles very much or long distance so no Zen on one of those for me.
But think "poke 'em in the eye" and .22 makes more sense....
I've never been able to shoot centerfire rifles very much or long distance so no Zen on one of those for me.
But think "poke 'em in the eye" and .22 makes more sense....
Pigspitter
Member
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2007
- Messages
- 614
Beware of the man with his booger hook on the bang switch of a Mk19......he will kill you till you're dead
lesjones
Member
Getting serious about photography has given me a different perspective.
Would having a dozen different cameras make me a better photographer? No. True, having more lenses would make me more adaptable, but switching camera bodies all the time would leave me bewildered in the basics of taking pictures.
Here's what I think is true. Every person gets only 24 hours in their day. They only have so much time to practice, and financial considerations constrain how much ammo they shoot. Having too many guns and constantly trading them out limits how good you can get with each one.
There's a difference between being a user and being a collector/accumulator. It's hard to be proficient with more than a couple each of handguns and long guns. The more diverse the operating systems the harder it is to master multiple guns.
Would having a dozen different cameras make me a better photographer? No. True, having more lenses would make me more adaptable, but switching camera bodies all the time would leave me bewildered in the basics of taking pictures.
Here's what I think is true. Every person gets only 24 hours in their day. They only have so much time to practice, and financial considerations constrain how much ammo they shoot. Having too many guns and constantly trading them out limits how good you can get with each one.
There's a difference between being a user and being a collector/accumulator. It's hard to be proficient with more than a couple each of handguns and long guns. The more diverse the operating systems the harder it is to master multiple guns.
scythefwd
Member
Of all the firearms I own, the one I am most likely to become with is my garand. I have fired it easily twice as much as my .22 since I got it and it's all I want to shoot. Man I need to get into reloading
Poor East Texan
Member
- Joined
- May 15, 2008
- Messages
- 366
Until it does something to displease me (and it ain't looking likely) the CZ 452 Military Trainer is the SHIZ!
First shot at 50yds or so with a CB long and TING! I hit the pipeline sign I was shooting at. CBs being what they are I din't hit it every time, but then I could feel the power differences.
Anyhow this rifle shoulders up NICELY, goes bang and SEEMS to hit what I aim at.
Beware of me!
First shot at 50yds or so with a CB long and TING! I hit the pipeline sign I was shooting at. CBs being what they are I din't hit it every time, but then I could feel the power differences.
Anyhow this rifle shoulders up NICELY, goes bang and SEEMS to hit what I aim at.
Beware of me!
cracked butt
Member
I am already aware of slobs who shoot up signs in public areas.
Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
member
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2007
- Messages
- 13,146
Absolutely; very well said, lesjones. Thank you. And this is why I feel like I must simplify, at least to some extent. I just want to get that fair price for the ones on the chopping block and find someone who will appreciate the mods/accessories I've done to them.
Classic!
I was thinking the same thing. I've got a "Dangerous Curve" sign in front of my house that I PAID to put up on our PRIVATE road. Some other landowners use this road as a right-of-way to get to their land.
Its nice to see 7 bullet holes in a sign that I paid my own money to put up for everyone's safety. It is even better when you realize that I could have been on my property beyond the sign when it was shot.
Let me hear a shot in front of my house again....
-- John
Forgot to mention this...
A lot of people mistakenly believe that all pipelines are public property. This is blatently false.
In fact, MOST piplines are privately owned. They are either owned by the company, or they are owned by landowners whom the company has an agreement with that allows the pipeline to traverse their property.
I have a natural gas pipline that goes through our land.
Remember... assumptions about public land CAN get you arrested for trespassing. I can tell you that from past experiences with trespassers.
-- John
- Status
