Insight of a Bull's-Eye

[Double Maduro]

Swamp Fox
This message is hidden because Swamp Fox is on your ignore list.

Gotta love the "Twit Filter"

My brain feels so much better, now that I'm not tempted to read anymore of his drivel.

DM

 

[Chuck R.]

I will not support folks rights to the Second Amendment that openly advocate this unsafe practice of dry firing .

Bwaaaaaaahaaaaa!

I've got to admit, that's probably one of the funniest things I've read in a while.

Chuck

 

[White Horseradish]

Well, whaddayaknow. Mr. Swamp Fox is still here.

I thought I'd go through his article and ask some questions that cropped up. I'm sorry, but I had some time and I just couldn't help myself.

A lot has happened since the good old days of crack-shots like Annie Oakley, or the expert marksmanship of William F. Cody, a.k.a. "Buffalo Bill" Much of what was once civilian marksmanship has been replaced under the catch-all modern-day military term called "Sniping". Sharp shooting, or sniping, first became famous as a philosophical weapon during the Civil War when champion marksman Hiram C. Berdan of New York was authorized to raise a regiment of sharpshooters for the Union Army. To qualify, a recruit had to place 10 shots in a 10-inch circle at 200 yards. Regardless of what term or method that's used to identify someone's skill level, at the core of these techniques are 5 basic fundamentals that need to be applied; with no shortcuts for each and every bull's-eye.

Marksmanship is but one component of sniping. Sure, some people use the term as a catchall, but why would you want to follow the ignorant?

The concept of sharpshooting is not a Civil War invention. Accurately aimed rifle fire has been a military tool since as far back as Louis XIV and his musketeers. Granted, the weapons didn't become accurate enough for true sharpshooting until the Revolutionary War, but that is still earlier than you say.

Probably, no one adapted these five fundamentals any better and was more famous as a sharpshooter than William F. Cody, a.k.a. "Buffalo Bill". Legend has it, much of it according to Cody; that he killed 6,570 buffalo in the 18 months he worked for the Kansas Pacific railroad;

A buffalo is not a small target. You do not mention the ranges of his shots. Hardly an indication of superb accuracy. On top of that, you say these numbers are not proven. Couldn't you find some hard evidence?

hunting to feed the construction crews with little or no waste. All edible parts of the buffalo were reported to have been consumed.

How is this at all relevant to marksmanship?

Back in those days good marksmanship was measured by how many buffalo were taken in a day with a one shot one kill.

You do realize this is completely useless as a measure of accuracy in this day and age?

Better yet, Cody reported going quail hunting all-day with friends like Annie Oakley and bringing home six quails having only shot six times. That's probably a stretch,

He also coud have reported tapdancing with her naked on the roof of the local sheriff's office. Without corroboration, this is nothing but a tale. Bill Cody was a performer and a businessman, self-promotion is what kept him fed. Annie was part of his show and therefore needed promoting as well.

but those who practice this type of sportsmanship would never consider dry- firing their firearms to gain an edge over marksmanship because they did not need too.

How do you know? Are there any eyewitness reports? Were you there? For all you know, Bill and Annie spent all their free time dry-firing in their bedrooms. Why should we take your word for it?

Incidentally, a person claiming to be a writer would do well to know the difference between "to" and "too".

It would be hard for one to imagine a sharpshooter like Buffalo Bill or crack- shot Annie Oakley needing to do any practicing to improve their shooting techniques.

Only for someone with a severe deficiency of imagination. Any type of activity requires practice to become proficient. Driving, swimming, running, playing chess. Professionals in all of these disciplines practice, that is a well-known and verifiable fact. Yet, you would have us believe that marksmanship is somehow exempt. Why? Do you have something to back it up besides your opinion?

According to legend, Oakley herself started shooting at the age of 8 and by the time she was 12 had a business supplying restaurants with wild game meat.

One would also do well to know the difference between fact and legend.

One can only imagine how much her marksmanship improved with age.

So all you need to be a good marksman is to be old?

Sportsmen /sportswomen of those times starting out taking pride in one's ability in knowing the proper distance to lead a running rabbit, deer, flying pheasant, grouse or how to hold a tight group in their shooting pattern under all kinds of conditions.

I am not sure what that means. Do you mean they "started out", in other words, picked up a rifle/shotgun for the first time, knowing these things? By what magic did they acquire such knowledge? Or do you mean to say they started taking pride in their abilites just then? That would be demonstrably false.

Once again, English grammar was invented to assist in communicating your thoughts to other people with clarity. A writer should be proficient with it, just as a marksman should be proficient with a rifle.

This they believed is what marksmanship was all about.

It really does not matter what anyone believed then or believes now. Marksmanship by definition is really about one thing - consistently hitting your target. Definition of marksmanship

In most cases during those early days, a hunter having something to rest their shotgun or rifle on would be considered by some folks a lucky shot.

Are you telling me nobody ever used any kind of a rest in the early days (whatever those are)? How do you know? Where did you get this information?

These days it's called Sniping and measured by how many notches or confirmed kills one has to his or her credit.

Let's go back to the dictionary for the current definition of the word. Sniping has to do with concealment. There is not a word in the definition about resting your weapon on anything. What are you talking about?

To become a good marksman, safety always has to be at the forefront in one's thinking.

I would agree. Doing unsafe things with guns is likely to prevent one from living long enough to become a marksman.

I started shooting at a very early age, nine or so. If we wanted to participate in hunting, the proper safe handling of firearms needed to be proven to our peers and elders in advance, and this also meant becoming good at marksmanship.

This has not changed. Look here for proof.

One of the golden rules back then was to treat and consider all firearms as if it's loaded with live ammunition; this way there were no excuses for accidents.

This would be Jeff Cooper's Rule #1, widely known and still very much in use by responsible gun owners everywhere. Once again, nothing has changed.

Always keeping the gun pointed at the ground or in the air, but never at a person.

That would be Jeff Cooper's Rule #2, AKA NRA Safety Rule #1. Incidentally, your way of putting it is not a very safe one. Should you unintentionally fire your gun while pointed in the air, the bullet may come down someplace unexpected and cause damage. The concept of gravity was known in the days you speak of, no?

A shooter was also responsible for where a bullet might stop; that meant even a bullet's backdrop needed to be considered before taking a shot.

Unless we are talking film or stage, I believe you mean "backstop". "Backdrop" is something else entirely.

This would be Jeff Cooper's Rule #4 and one of the unnumbered NRA rules.

This also meant there was never a need to dry-fire a weapon; even releasing the firing pin before putting a rifle away was done by squeezing the trigger back at the same time locking the bolt down.

How do you figure? There is no logical link from one to the other.

We also were led to believe that dry-firing could damage the gun's firing pin.

This is true for some firearms, like the CZ-52 pistol. Completely untrue for a host of others.

This could very well have been a myth created by some gun manufactures to minimize the squeezing of a firearm's trigger which in return would help to minimize unnecessary accidents. Especially considering most folks put a lot of value in their guns and would teach their youngsters not to damage them at all costs.

"Unnecessary accidents"? As opposed to necessary accidents?

You are mixing your arguments here. If you want to talk safety, preserving the firearms is irrelevant.

There is a school of thought that claims dry-firing is a necessary part of becoming good at marksmanship and they back this up with military and FBI Sniper experts. One in particular was the late Gunnery. Sergeant Carlos Hathcock, who was a Marine sniper, was considered by some to be the founding father of modern sniping. He was alleged to have had 93 confirmed human kills. His biography, "Marine Sniper," written by Charles Henderson, was published in 1985.

So far so good.

He once said that Vietnam was "just right" for him. Although he also told a fellow Marine that he never looked at his work "as a shooting match where the man with the most kills wins the gold medal".

How are Sgt. Hathcock's personal feelings on the country of Vietnam relevant to firearm safety?

My older brother actually served side-by-side with Hathcock, in Vietnam with the First Battalion - First Marines in 1966.and has some interesting observations and opinions of those days.

Opinions are like ???????s. Everyone has one. As far as observations, unless he has observed Sgt. Hathcock do something unsafe with a rifle, they are not relevant here.

The FBI also maintains a sniper school primarily for law enforcement. One of its Snipers, Lon Horiuchi gained much attention for his actions during the Siege at Ruby Ridge. It was Horiuchi who shot Randy Weaver's wife Vicki as she stood in the doorway, holding their 10-month-old baby.

Once again, this is totally irrelevant to discussion of safety. Lon Horiuchi acted quite intentionally. Also, to my knowledge, Lon Horiuchi has never made any public statements on dry-firing and there is no information about him ever engaging in this activity.

Nevertheless, I've never considered myself any kind of sniping expert, thank God to my knowledge never took a human life during my tour in Vietnam. However, I've always taken some pride in the fact that during my Army basic training I qualified as an expert and finished second out of 350 other guys at the rifle range. This, other than the occasional turkey shoot, is the only competitive shooting I've ever participated in.

Let' see. You say "here's a man considered an expert", then you say "I am not an expert". Why do you think that would give your opinion any weight?

Although the Army had an excellent training program back then, I felt my skills in marksmanship were developed long before ever being drafted into the military.

Did the Army share your feelings?

The problem with military and others Sniper training (dry- firing) is designed for killing human's with offense tactics and handling of weapons in a controlled environment.

This sentence should be taken out and shot. It doesn't even sound like English.

It does sound like you believe that dry-firing is strictly a sniper training tool and is designed for killing humans only. How is pulling the trigger on an unloaded firearm while it is pointed at a target related to killing?

I can't help but feel these tactics, while necessary for the military, are not a good choice for training young civilian marksmen. A lot of youngsters never have any kind of supervision or training to speak of and once they become of legal age can purchase firearms under their Second Amendment rights.

Whoa, Nelly. If they are not receiving training, how would they learn of these "tactics"? And what is a tactic in your understanding?

With little or no training in safety it's a scary potential for disaster exits.

A scary potential exited stage left. Now that it's gone, we can all breathe easier.

I remember all too well hunting during the '60s before hunter's safety courses became law; lots of guys were walking around the mountains in Western Maryland with their safety off not knowing any better from a lack of proper training. When confronted over their poor safety techniques their usual response was a challenge to fight over a bruised ego.

Guys have safeties? Do the women know this?

Seriously, though. Could you pick a subject and stick to it? Is it safety in general, hunter education, dry-firing, marksmanship, or just nostalgia?

For one to train themselves to become a good marksman, 5 important elements listed below will need to be applied. In my opinion, good marksmanship is about consistently performing these five elements, often enough to make them automatic.


Controlled Breathing

Sight Alignment

Trigger Pull

Shooting In Groups of 3

Do Not Anticipate Recoil.

Ok. I could see how 1,2,3 and 5 would help you be a good marksman . What does shooting groups of 3 have to do with hitting your target? Why 3 and not 2 or 4?

With practice a good marksmen using open sites should be able to, at 100 yards, place three consecutive shots that can be covered with a quarter.

Practice? But just a few short paragraphs ago you said a marksman need not practice and that Bill Cody never did. Did you forget what you wrote?

There are two different methods to tell the shooter if they are flinching or pulling the rifle at the point of its going off. First, if the group of 3 is not consistent regardless of its overall outside diameter. Second, have someone other than the shooter randomly load the weapon; the loader should occasionally not place a round in the chamber. The observer will then immediately be able to see if the shooter is flinching and thus disturbing their sight alignment.

Wait. STOP THE PRESSES. You want him to do WHAT? Pull the trigger without a round in the chamber? But, but that would be DRY-FIRING! It would turn the shooter into a killer and end civilization as we know it. You said so, just a few sentences ago. Do you read your own articles?

There are two very important things about the use of a three-shot group when shooting for accuracy. First, some rifles become overheated after the third round and will not hold a tight group.

And many others do not. So what?

A good example of this would be the Savage model 110 -300 magnum. The barrel on this rifle becomes very hot and the fourth round will not stay within a tight group or pattern. That does not mean to say there's anything wrong with the Savage rifles, only this is the nature of this particular caliber. Second, mountain rifles are normally designed with a light stock and therefore have a tremendous amount of recoil. One-way to help reduce recoil is by installing a muzzle break. In some rifles like a 280 this can reduce recoil comparable to that of the 243.

All that can be avoided by not using those particular rifles and/or calibers. Marksmanship is not rifle or caliber dependent.

Bring the front site to a very fine point in the rear V, at the same time taking all the other four elements simultaneously into consideration; shooting in groups of 3 is making one's bull's-eye, regardless if they're hitting the target center. Moreover, it's one thing to practice one's skills not being under pressure, and a completely different thing when adrenalin is applied. Comparable to that of seeing a nice Buck or being in a combat situation. However, practicing shooting in groups of 3 to make a bull's-eye, allows one to focus on the task at hand (consistency). The principal behind this is under pressure your reflexes and previous practicing, along with training skills, will take over.

Seeing a buck (I assume you are talking about a deer and not a pocket knife) is comparable to combat? You don't say. But what happened to combat training being useless to civilians? If hunting is similar to combat, would they not require similar training?

Shooting is no different than any other sport: consistency, coordination, practice and focus are key elements in fine-tuning a skill level, to bring them ( five mentioned earlier) together successfully at one point (accuracy) in a bull's-eye. Leaving just one element out of shooting would create a handicap and not give the shooter a true picture of their skills. Without this it would be impossible for the observer (trainer) or shooter to understand which one of five needs improvement.

What? Training again? But what about Bill and Annie?

One very good example would be archery, consistency in one's technique in their draw; stand and stop the drawing of the bow before releasing at the same point (cheek) every time. Just imagine a shooter practicing dry-firing with a compound bow to perfect his release. So, unquestionably, the claim by some folks that dry-firing is necessary to become good or great at marksmanship just does not hold water. One could very easily make a claim that they are leaving out one very important element in the training process of their mind to deal with recoil.

While archery does require training just as rifle marksmanship, that's where the similarity ends. They are different disiplines and training tools appropriate for one are not necessarily appropriate for the other. Just because golfers perfect their swings is no reason to grab your rifle by the barrel and whack a ball with it. There is nothing unquestionable about your conclusion.

As far as recoil, did you not say it was important not to anticipate it? I know you did. It's right there, the #5 thing needed for good marksmanship. So if one learns with the recoil absent, would one not be better prepared to ignore it?

One could easily draw the conclusion that there is no danger in the practice of dry-firing and therefore philosophically take the position this it is not a safety issue.

You know, I can't help but agree here.

However, there is no evidence that those who practice good marksmanship prior to the modern-day term called sniping ever needed to dry-fire their firearms to make a bulls-eye.

Do you have some evidence they did not? And once again, marksmanship is but a component of sniping, so this is just nonsense.

Furthermore, even folks like Fr. Frog's Shooting Pages or Mr. Jim Owens himself that advocate this practice points out there is indeed a safety issue at stake .

Ok. Not only do you have trouble writing English, you also have trouble reading it. Fr. Frog's page says, and I quote "Dry firing, or the actuation of a firearm without the use of ammunition for the purpose familiarization or practice is a very important part of training."

What's even more disturbing some folks like Mr. Ed Skinner advocate this practice, but then add a disclaimer that says and I quote " I must, therefore, disclaim all warranties and responsibilities for the Trash Can Snap Cap for any purpose whatsoever."

There goes that reading comprehension again. What does a man not providing a warranty for an item have to do with dry firing? Or any of this?

 

[White Horseradish]

<some links snipped in the interest of brevity>l

If one take the time to read what's been written about GY. SGT. CARLOS N. HATHCOCK II and his personal quotes , that just stop short of him saying he enjoyed killing other human beings .

Suppose that's true. Are you proposing that dry-firing made him that way? Sure. And little green men come dancing out of my posterior on Wednesday nights.

You'll also notice that during 65 serving with the first battalion first U.S. Marines he had problems some of his peers .

And what does this have to do with any of the half-dozen topics you managed to raise in your rambling rant?

As I mention in the article my older brother actually served side-by-side with him for two weeks in Vietnam . Two years ago before writing this article my brother spoke of that experience. He said and I quote , "HATHCOCK was an F ..en idiot , he was trigger happy and would shoot at anything that moved" unquote . The Internet dictionary 's interpretation of the term" Trigger Happy " is 1 : irresponsible in the use of firearms; especially : inclined to shoot before clearly identifying the target

Do you have some compelling reason why we should accept your brother's word? Two weeks spent with the man do not make him an expert in all things Hathcock.

That aside, you spoke of dry-firing. Now it's target identification. Can you please, for the sake of our sanity, stick to the subject? Any subject.

Now , probably like some other here, I was trained by the military to kill humans not animals and being from a Mennonite background that went against every part of my beliefs. During basic training I'll never forget what the drill sergeants would say to us if we call our weapon a gun. Trainees , "there's only two kinds of guns in this world , the 1 you go squirrel hunting with back home , and the other one is between your legs .thinking too much about either is only going to get yourself killed where we're going ". Well , I survived Vietnam and made it back home alive to tell about it. So in short , if any of you folks that's never seen a human body hit with a bullet and want to learn how to kill people , by all means join military and stay there.

So you think your being a veteran gives you the right to make wild and insulting assumptions about everyone here? What do you know what I or anyone else has been through?


In short, you offer dubious historical anecdotes and some oddball opinions while managing to insult a dead man and quite a few living ones and constantly contradicting yourself. Your thin grasp of facts puts in doubt not only your conclusions but also your purported background.

 

[Swamp Fox]

Well gentleman, I believe what's behind yours and Mr. Jeff Cooper motives for advocating this so-called technique, is nothing more than to sell products with this place being designed to slam it, because there can be no other reason why a bunch of guys want to endorse something that needs a disclaimer. I am a paid member of this organization http://www.jpfo.org/ with one exception, I will not support folks rights to the Second Amendment that openly advocate this unsafe practice of dry firing .

 

[White Horseradish]

Well gentleman, I believe what's behind yours and Mr. Jeff Cooper motives for advocating this so-called technique, is nothing more than to sell products with this place being designed to slam it, because there can be no other reason why a bunch of guys want to endorse something that needs a disclaimer. I am a paid member of this organization http://www.jpfo.org/ with one exception, I will not support folks rights to the Second Amendment that openly advocate this unsafe practice of dry firing .

I can't speak to Col. Cooper's motives as I have neither met the man nor corresponded with him.

Can you please point out where I have advocated any technique of any kind?

Can you please name one product that I am selling? I would really like to know.

Why do you insist that a disclaimer on snap caps applies to dry-firing?

Why do you yourself advocate this unsafe practice?

 

[cracked butt]

Hey Swamp Fox.
I created a thread just for you... http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=150868

I'm not a shooting expert like you, I'm just a humble student of the rifle who shoots Service Rifle and Bolt action military rifle matches on a monthly basis.

Someday, when I'm as good as you are, I'll only have to fire 9 shots a year to prove my worth instead of the thousands I shoot now.

 

[Swamp Fox]

And cracked butt , I created a discussion for you also.
http://www.sftt.us/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=4653

 

[Tierhog]

Oh my goodness! This is one of the goofiest threads I've read yet!



Please continue...

 

[itgoesboom]

And cracked butt , I created a discussion for you also.
http://www.sftt.us/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=4653

Yeah, and your post went over so well over there.

I.G.B.

 

[Swamp Fox]

Probably about the same way this one did.LOL

http://www.sftt.us/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=4473&start=0

 

[White Horseradish]

Swamp Fox, I am still waiting for your answers.

 

[S_O_Laban]

Hah! I love it when a smart guy comes on board here and gets his (you know what ) handed to him.... and all in language that's okay for my kids to read. I love this place.

 

[Double Maduro]

S_O_Laban ,

Kids, we don't care about the kids. It's Arts Gramma we're worried about.

DM

 

[S_O_Laban]

Your probably right but I do care what my kids read, which is just another reason for me to like this place. I certainly couldn't let them read the hogwash over at DU.....

 

[Swamp Fox]

Gentleman , in all fairness , the guys at SFTT were betting how long it would take before I got ban at DU . Well , it didn't take long after I started this discussion. LOL

http://www.democraticunderground.co...mesg&forum=118&topic_id=109900&mesg_id=109900

 

[White Horseradish]

Swamp Fox, you still have not answered my questions.

Can you please name one product that I am selling? I would really like to know.

Why do you insist that a disclaimer on snap caps applies to dry-firing?

Why do you yourself advocate this unsafe practice as well as the unsafe practice of keeping guns pointed in the air?

 

[Swamp Fox]

No White Horseradish, I cannot point to a particular product you're selling.


"Why do you insist that a disclaimer on snap caps applies to dry-firing?"

because what else would be for?


Sometimes during small game season , especially hunting for birds, a hunter might carry his shotgun pointed in the air.

 

[Daniel T]

Guys, this is what this <person> thinks is a "disclaimer":

There is absolutely nothing offensive to any normal member of humanity who believes in freedom, self reliance, or The Creator, nor to any so-called minority group, anywhere on this web site. However, should you for some reason (maybe you're a bleeding heart liberal* who accidentally came across this site) be offended by the thoughts, data, and information herein contained, that's just too bad! Grow up and don't bother writing your congressional representatives, crying to your shrink, or writing me hate mail. ADJUST!
* The term "liberal" is quite misused these days. In actuality, "liberal" means standing for less restrictions and more individual freedoms. Unfortunately, as used today it stands for those who want to have the government control all aspects of its citizen's lives and thoughts, and to provide for them under the guise of "protecting" them from all harm or "hardship"--more like socialism than true liberalism. The "bleeding hearts" I talk about are those who moan and groan when anyone suggests that people show some self-responsibility for their own actions or a little self-reliance, and who also seem to fear those who do try to take control of their own lives and carry their own weight.
Nutritional Facts - This site is made from all natural ingredients and contains no preservatives, "BS," or artificial flavors. 0% Fat, 0% Cholesterol, 0% Sodium. Serving Size 1 page. Data based upon a 2000 calorie diet. Your daily needs may be higher or lower depending on where you live.

Now, I'm not sure what kind of insanity it takes to see this statement as a "disclaimer", but it isn't a variety that I'm in possession of.

 

[entropy]

They say the first thing a zealot loses is the sense of humor; apparently Swamp Fox has lost his.

 

[Justin]

I've been known to let my sense of humor go outside and play for a bit, but it usually returns before sundown.

Incidentally, Swamp Fox, I think it's fair to say that you've been thoroughly fisked.

 

[White Horseradish]

Swamp Fox,

No White Horseradish, I cannot point to a particular product you're selling.

Why do you say, then, that my motivation is to sell product? Did you just make that up? That could be considered libel.

"Why do you insist that a disclaimer on snap caps applies to dry-firing?"

because what else would be for?

Perhaps it is for snap caps? It says it is for snap caps. It does not mention dry-firing.

Sometimes during small game season , especially hunting for birds, a hunter might carry his shotgun pointed in the air.

You were talking about rifles. With a rifle that is definitely unsafe behavior.

You also advocate dry-firing in your article as a tool for checking for flinching, yet you say it is an unsafe practice. Why do you advocate an unsafe practice?

 

[Swamp Fox]

Well gentleman , about my sense of humor, the fact is, I have an excellent one, but I'm also a military veteran that swore to project freedom of speech and to my knowledge it is not against any law nor our Constitution to be a bleeding heart liberal in this country. Furthermore, Mr. Cooper's writing's like everyone else including myself is open or subject for criticism. Now , it appears that no one wants to claim this particular document below was written by Jeff Cooper, now why is that?

"By confining the dry firing to a specific area and target we can help to eliminate negligent discharges resulting from the "one more time" syndrome in which the shooter does one more practice drill but forgets that the firearm is now live resulting in an embarrassing "bang" when one expected a "click." Leaving a designated area and removing the target help to reinforce the notion that practice

Dry Firing Practice By Fr. Frog's Shooting Pages
http://home.sprynet.com/~frfrog/safety.htm

 

[Justin]

King Arthur: But your arm's off!

The Black Knight: No it isn't.​

 

[Daniel T]

Justin, I guess the first time you posted the pic, it was a bit too subtle, eh?