Anybody still use old school techniques?

[taliv]

nearly every match still has a milling stage or a "battlefield UKD" type stage . so while i doubt anybody spends a great deal of time on it, most everybody who attends matches still knows how to do it.

earlier this year, the lone star challenge was shot without any electronics. no kestrel. no PDAs. no LRFs. no phones. (granted, ranges were mostly given so lack of LRF wasn't that critical) Due to the high wind conditions, I actually didn't think the lack of electronics changed the scores all that much, so i posted this poll on another forum link to thread here and was not surprised at the results.

it was fun to do an 'old school' match. but seriously, if your hit percentage goes DOWN with more precise wind and distance estimation, you're doing something wrong.

i would like to know how you range steel plates at distance with a fingernail.

 

[Lowlight]

And by the 2nd shooter everyone knows the range, if not sooner. Most of the places where guys have been shooting are all known to a majority of the competitors because the same people shoot the same matches over and over. I think it was the 1st Bushnell Brawl there was a bit of drama because there was a LRF stage where you used a Bushnell LRF that was placed there for the shooters. Half never needed to pick it up. Rewind to ASC back in the day, no LRFs there at all. The cliques formed and ranging was done by committee or sometimes not at all because past competitors had the ranges in their datebook from the year before.

I also highly doubt at single dope chart used was created long hand. You can print the charts off JBM or use software. At the K&M match I shot, I had Andrew McCourt send my ammo to FLA and then send me 20 rounds. I zeroed the gun inside the indoor range in CO with the 20 running them a Chronograph then created a chart with JBM which I laminated and used. Came in 12th out of 72.

Range E with a reticle was never designed to be used past 800 yards, in fact if you try with most targets of 2 MOA or less you find .1 off is a miss. That is why you have maps and reference points in the military. You plot out ranges and zones ahead of time. Milling people is done flash method, head to crotch, if that. It's called flash milling for a reason. Very few 36" targets in these matches.

Lastly, the wind is, most have an idea before they get out of he car. There is a value to wind, a prescription. X MPH = X hold. So guys know it ahead of time or again will dope by committee. That is why they probably said no electronics, because of the cheating where guys text their buddies the ranges, etc. you know the Teams working together.

Wind cheater rounds also make it easier, without being there I would bet the average competitor was between 8 and 6 mils to 1000 yards, most favor 15Mph and less. In fact guys shooting the Cup used as little as 5.2 mils to 1k. We had 40MPH winds the first day, 15 the second and 10 the 3rd George still hit 100 targets out of 150. Most targets were 10", all UKD out to 1200. He used a $10k LRF, there were at least 10 sets of $10k present this year. I want to see the guy who mils a 10" plate at 1200 yards, we had several targets past 1k. No target exceeded 12" in size I know of ? Maybe one or two were 16" square certainly no more.

 

[kraigWY]

i would like to know how you range steel plates at distance with a fingernail.

I don't know about fingernails, but fingers were used long ago. Hatcher discusses the use of fingers relating to mils in his book "Machine Guns-1916". I used them in machine gun schools in the 70-80s. We didn't have Laser Range finders.

We also used the front sight/scope radicals but that requires a known size target (such as the E-Silhouette or an enemy soldier). Also maps were used quite a bit for unknown target sizes.

I've played with the Terrapin, that's a whole new ball game. From the little bit of experience I have with one, I found they range a lot farther then they advertise, unlike most of the moderate priced range finders. I don't know how they would work after being under water for a while.....matters not to me, I wont be in that position any more.

 

[Lowlight]

Kraig

The Terrapin is the cheapest of the Vectronix LRFs and is only $1,900, but it is rated to 1 meter of water for 60 minutes. They have military versions of their stuff that are far more expensive, the military models start at $10k and go to $20k

Here is the most common set up we saw


If you look at the unit George G was using, those are the Military models, they are binoculars with a laser good to 10,000m


Several squads had them and they are rated to use around the world, ice, rain, water, etc.

 

[kraigWY]

The Terripan may be rated for 1 meter of water for 60 minutes, but I'm not. Too old for that crap any more.

Like I said in the short time I tried the Terripan I found it was able to range much farther then they advertise, and A LOT farther then I can shoot. It's on the top of my list of gadgets to buy.

Nice to know about the 1 meter/60 minutes. Might come in handy for hunting from my canoe. I've been known to fall in a time or two.

 

[bogeybrown]

I feel awkward weighing in here in the midst of some of you gentlemen and your level of knowledge, so forgive me if I'm out of my lane. I just think the true issue is getting lost. "Marksmanship" has not changed, whether it be in the last few decades or centuries. Once man understood that what the shooter did behind the rifle mattered, the fundamentals have been the fundamentals. Technology has changed the tools available to the shooter, but there still isn't a machine or computer pressing the trigger.

My father, who grew up in the 30s and 40s hunting his family's dinner taught me the shooting fundamentals. When I entered the Marine Corps, there wasn't ONE THING my father had taught me that was contradicted in our Marksmanship training. The fundamentals in the late 70s and 80s shooting with my dad were the same I learned the early 90s. And I'm sure were the same that LowLight learned in the early 80s, which were the same being taught as far back as any Marine can remember. When I later became a Primary Marksmanship Instructor I taught those same fundamentals because they WORK, and the lowest common denominator for us was always the Marine and his rifle. Technology,optics, LRFs, etc in no way change that.

To discount or criticize today's technological advancements and their impact on LR shooting makes no sense to me. The information available to today's shooter is amazing and it makes for much higher first-round hit probabilities. To be able to QUANTIFY wind on a field range and know that the average is "5mph at x degrees" instead of a "4-6mph at about 9 o'clock" when it's really closer to 7 o'clock is HUGE. To have the benefit of a firing solution that is corrected for atmospherics wasn't even understood years ago, at least not on the shooter level. This information makes what I do behind the rifle MORE important, because I KNOW that my dope is right for the conditions I'm shooting in, THAT variable is no longer a factor, it comes down to ME as the guy behind the rifle to apply the fundamentals and send the round where my dope and my wind call tell me it needs to go.

Real world scenario: I live in the extreme deep south and work overseas. I get CONUS about 3 weeks a year. Last year I had a custom rifle built which arrived on a
Tuesday. I put a rough zero on it at 100ft elevation and DA of probably not even 500. I then took that rifle, which I had never shot beyond 100yds, to a LR/ELR course on Friday in the Texas Hill Country where DA was over 3000. I checked zero on Saturday morning, and with the aid of my Horus/Kestrel and PLRF15c was engaging and HITTING targets out past 1200yds THAT day. The most correction I needed was one shot for wind because as I'm sure LowLight and a bunch of ya'll that shoot in Texas can attest, there isn't alot of movement on some of those tough little trees in the Hill Country so wind indicators were basically non-existent.

There is NO WAY in HELL that I would have been able to do that without technology. My 18" .308 is far enough out of the "norm" that the "Old School" tables would have been too far off and would not have been adjusted for DA, and as LL pointed out, .1mil off at distance is a miss. I could have stayed on that range for a week and fired at least 5 times as many rounds building dope and still not have been that successful, because over that week the atmospherics would have changed enough (which without the Kestrel I wouldn't have known) that the dope would have been wrong from day to day out at distance.

I can still SWAG a 6 digit grid with prominent terrain and a topo map, but I can tell you from experience that when someone on my patrol is calling for fire, I WANT that guy to have a 10 digit GPS-provided grid, and I damn sure want the guys pulling the lanyards or dropping the rounds down a mortar tube to know the atmospherics.

Technology or "new school" methods don't ruin or break down fundamentals. You can give a guy with no skill all the data in the world and he's still a guy with no skill (a sad portion of today's military unfortunatley proves this regularly), but to say that because someone uses the best information available in the form of ACCURATE range and atmospherics it in some way detracts from their "skill" as a marksman just doesn't make sense to me.

Much respect

 

[308boltgun]

bb, I agree with some of what you said, however the point that Sterling makes, I think, is that too many people use technology as crutches and then BLAME the technology when they don't do well. Many people use the technology and don't bother to learn the fundamentals and then don't understand why they cant get a good group when the spent thousands of dollars on tech.

I am old school (made distinguished in '91 with an AR when M14s where still king). But I am trying to learn all this new stuff (I am a computer designer after all).

However, getting on target at 1000 yards does NOT require all of the new technology.

In 1989 I was going to shoot my friends 300 win mag at Camp Perry, he got sick and couldn't make it. Got to Perry, bought a used rifle from commercial row, sighted it at the 50 yard sight in range with the M1 thermometer target (graduated for distance), got some advise from other shooters for how the 280 rem I had bought differed from an M1 and put the 1st round on the paper.

In the late 90's I took my dad to NRA Whittington center in NM. He had an M1A that he wanted to try at 1000 yards. He had a 100 yard zero on it. I knew the standard come ups for 308 and started cranking. Adjusted for the altitude difference and put the 1st shot in the 8 ring and the 2nd shot in the X ring.

Dont get me wrong, I embrace this new technology, I already have 3 ballistics programs on my phone. I am trying to find a mount so that I can mount the phone on the side of the rifle.

 

[bogeybrown]

Yes sir, I agree wholeheartedly. Technology should not be a substitute for a firm grasp of fundamentals.

I guess my point (perhaps poorly made) was that the new tech serves to limit or quantify variables. The core of solid marksmanship to me has always been CONSISTENCY and controlling variables: body alignment,NPA,sight picture, trigger/follow through, sling position, etc. I can't expect my rounds to do the same thing reliably if I am not doing the same things reliably. The impact of my round is the result of what I'm doing behind the gun and the forces at work on that bullet from the chamber to the target, whether that be the load itself, temperature, wind, altitude, spin drift, whatever.

I see the new equipment, and the science that has driven them, as a HUGE advance in what we as shooters know and understand about the forces acting on our rounds. It allows me to compile MUCH more accurate dope, and through experience it allows me to gain a much better understanding of those variables at work on the bullet in flight.

On the military-style "golf course" ranges with range flags and KD targets etc. I don't know how much advantage I would gain, because I haven't shot those courses in a quite a while. On "field" style ranges with multiple target lanes and engagement distances from a few hundred meters out to a mile I have seen an enormous leap in the information I have to work with as a shooter. Using a LRF to get the ACTUAL distance to a target is indespensible. No matter how well I know the Mil Relation formula, misjudging by a fraction of a mil at distance is going to give me the wrong range, which is going to result in a miss. KNOWING the ACTUAL speed of the wind allows me to make a better wind call, especially in the absence of many indicators on the range itself. This in turn allows me to formulate a better wind call and acquire better dope.

The rifles today are capable of accuracy that no one would have anticipated 20yrs ago, or even more recently when "sub MOA" was the benchmark for a precision rifle. That level of accuracy is now possible because of computer-aided machining techniques. Machinists still know how to run a lathe, but even master machinists are going to struggle to repeatedly mill interconnecting components to within a few ten-thousandths or smaller. To me it doesn't mean the machinists have lost the art of what they do, they simply have the tools available to them now to do it much better than they could before.

I have the UTMOST respect for those of you in this discussion involved in the service-rifle arena. I have always loved shooting a service rifle and the purity of the open sights and positional shooting. When I eventually return home for good it's my hope to get involved in it and would appreciate the chance to seek your advice on that topic as well.

 

[kraigWY]

Again my concern is getting too dependent on electronic gadgets. Saw "Bullet Point" again last night on the History Channel. It was a show about Korea and the Chosen Reservoir Retreat.

Minis 25 and colder, blowing snow and the Marines had to move 70 miles while surrounded and out numbered. But run the M1's dry and it didn't care how cold it is. I spent enough time (22 years) in Alaska (most of our training was in the winter, the native units didn't drill in the summer) and I know what 40 below or so does to batteries.

I also know from personal experience what jungle conditions are like, what its like to spend the whole patrol in rice paddy silk. I know that bi-pods really such in the jungle. When running to a position I've had wait-a-minute vines grab the non-extended bipods of my '60 and toss me down the hill ass over tea kettle.

Now I don't care personally, I'm in the position I only shoot for fun and its fun playing with these gadgets so I have them, I use them and I'll get more, but that's me, an old has been.

But we don't know the conditions of the next war, we are already in Africa, N. Korea is rattling sabers and you never know what that idiot will do. I think we need to teach map and compass. I think we need to learn iron sights, and how to range using iron sights. I think we need to estimate wind without wind meters or even spotting scopes.

Having said that, I no way want to deprive our soldiers of anything that makes their life easier, but I don't want to handy cap them if stuff breaks or is not available.

I know, I've stated this before, but its a subject dear to my heart. Next spring my grandson graduates and I will have the pleasure of pinning his bar, the same butter bar I was pinned with when I got my commission. The Army is teaching him New School, I'm teaching him Old School, he'll be prepared and hopefully so will the soldiers under him.

 

[bogeybrown]

No arguments at all there. When I was a platoon sergeant I demanded that all my Marines conduct land nav with the map and compass, even though some had purchased their own GPS (back before it was widely issued).
I lived in the Alaskan bush for a winter and saw first-hand the mayhem THAT kind of cold played with everything, all the way down to my bic cigarette lighters that got so cold the fluid wouldn't vaporize and light.
I'm speaking in terms of a recreational shooter looking to push my personal limits on a one-way range.
It pains me to see today's soldiers unable to qualify with an optics-equipped rifle at distances you'd normally shoot a pistol.

Every time I'd see the documentary on the Army's "future warrior" program with all the sensors and crap on a rifle I'd cringe at how many things could go wrong and turn the M16/M4 into nothing more than a blunt instrument.

I think in our own ways we're all on the same page with this.

My sincerest respect to you for your service in Vietnam. As much as I was raised to respect the Vietnam Vets, my time in Afgh has mulitplied that respect many times over.

 

[308boltgun]

....
The rifles today are capable of accuracy that no one would have anticipated 20yrs ago, ...

bb,

I agree with every thing you said except this. I was doing cnc programming for a company that made bench rest actions back about 1985. The actions they made were as good or better than the best I have seen today. I havent seen anything significantly new in bolt actions since then either. Now what I have seen is the AVAILABILITY of these high quality actions. Now there are many companies making really good actions or take a good action (R700) and turning it into a really good action. Back then, there were only a couple and you typically had to wait a year to get one.

 

[Lowlight]

I was present when Trijicon tested the CCAS,

This is fully electronic and was designed to replace a lot of what they called advanced skills.

The Trijicon CCAS accurately computes a corrected aiming point based on current
environmental conditions using known ballistic equations instead of the common
G1 table averages typically used by the majority of ballistic modeling programs. The
CCAS calculates for pressure, angle, range and movement of the target, automatically
adjusting for changes in relation to the zeroing set-up to provide updated aiming
solutions. With the capability of supporting multiple weapons and multiple projectiles
per weapon it provides increased first round hit capabilities. The CCAS replaces the
necessity for advanced marksmanship skills such as range estimation, windage
adjustment and angle of fire adjustment.

Yes it does wind, and range with a single button push and the demos we did with the scientist creating this device were eye opening.

There were 5 scientist, none had any marksmanship or shooting skills to speak of. In fact one said, "the satellite I worked on launched last week so I am on this project now" We handed them an M4 with an ACOG on it and moved them back from 100 to 600 yards UKD style, just stopping and letting them shoot at a full IPSC Target (Paper) for score. Out of 20 shots they averaged 7 hits or so among the group. We added the prototype CCAS to the mix and they hit 18 out of 20... That is what technology can do...

Still the unit has the same reticle as the standard Trijicon ACOG so if the unit breaks it is not a brick, it is just a big ACOG.

It's silly to point to "what if's" or point to something that took place in 1952... we all know good and well Soldiers of any era will adapt to the situation and really fast. Electronics are not the same as in Vietnam and we have quick detach bipods that can be removed. (frankly I don't know what precision rifle bipod was being used in 1968, I dont' recall the military using any bipods until the early 1990s. I know in the USMC we never had bipods or even a method to attach one on an M40A1. I deployed to Korea, the Philippines and went on live patrols when Col Rowe was killed hunting the NPA. I know what the vines do and personally I had not issue with them grabbing the rifle more than they grabbed anything else. The Laser Range Finders in the military are pretty darn tough, they are not anything like the commercial models hunters use. Most electronics have evolved to adapt... I noted before, my brother's company has had their batteries in Antarctica the only question is how long you want them to work and how many you want to carry. But guys can take non-mil-spec camera equipment around the world to film, I think we can manage to bring a laser, pda and kestrel.

What if Aliens land and knock out every GPS satellite while exploding an EMP over the Earth, do you think we will not adapt, and quite quickly ? Most situation, especially combat tend to be much closer than you realize where on a Minute of Man target the deviations are not so great to say, that won't work. The average range is like 400 yard and in, urban settings are even closer. Take your commercial laser unit to any city with more than 3 street lights and see how far you can actually operate, line of sight. Not much.

How do you think a good shooter used to target shooting on a square range with flags and yard lines manages to hit stuff in the field ? It's not magic, it's just adaptation. Back in the day when I guy said, "that looks like 450 yards, how close do you think he was ? Clearly close enough to learn if it didn't hit he had two choices, the shot went high or it went low. He adjusts and learns from his mistake. ( Look at Saving Private Ryan which is playing in heavy rotation, he guessed on the range to the sniper and hit him through the scope) The stories certainly get condensed and sound better in the retelling but they certainly didn't make work in a single go because of experience. There was very limited schools back then, very limited education on the subject. You said, Private Johnson you shoot good, here is a scope. Do you think Private Johnson in 1944 knew the first thing about a scope he was handed prior to the Normandy Invasion ? Of course not, he probably never saw a scope except in a Life Magazine. Old School, does not mean well educated school, but more trial and error... you never hear about the trials or the errors only the successes.

 

[Graham]

There is an argument to be made that training, as opposed to technique, is key. I have seen poor technique, trained to competence, work well. But I have never seen technology take the place of training.

The practical limit to the number of tasks that can be successfully performed in combat remains, for the most part, a mental one. The military knows this: Special forces are 'special' in the sense that they are competent at basic infantry skills and therefore possess the excess mental capacity to properly execute the fundamentals and to adapt under pressure to a constantly changing environment/situation.

For patrolling/moving one uses a PBZ or known zero with holdovers. Dope doesn't change much under 600, and I don't know too many people who don't have their dope to 600 memorized. Besides, 600 yards is a very, very long way in the real world; if the target is more than 600 yards away the military can call-in fire.

For static OPs one derives the anticipated range(s) ahead of time and use data sheets for quick reference as targets of opportunity are located, then engaged as they present themselves. HTI guys have time to do the necessary calculations and need a computer because they are in ELR territory.

BTW, Frank, first I lost 1700 posts, now I just lost another 6,500 posts.... WTF?

 

[Rapidrob]

I'm still an Old School shooter.. It is what I know, and I guess I learned it well. I still use open sights out to 1,000 yards on a good day. Longer than that I use glass.
I put tape on the side of the butt stock with my sight settings for a known range. I rely on my spotter to dope the wind and I Kentucky Windage a hold off that works very well indeed.
Like you, my first rounds are on target of so close to hitting the target you have to use your '"Minds-Eye" to calculate the hold off.
We have fun. No pressure, no attitudes, just Old Fashioned rifle marksmanship. I really enjoy it. My club has taken off like a wild fire. Almost too many members to get through a match in a day.
The club also joins another where we shoot out to 2,000 yards. It's going to be a hoot.

 

[Papa Zero Three]

Special forces are 'special' in the sense that they are competent at basic infantry skills and therefore possess the excess mental capacity to properly execute the fundamentals under pressure.

Could you please expand on this? As an 18 series qualified Special Forces soldier, I am not sure I am fully understanding what you are trying to say here. What it sounds like you are describing and or trying to describe is conditioning , in which case a properly trained Infantryman would be able to execute the fundamental basic infantry skills under pressure just as I would. If this is not what you are trying to say, please explain.

 

[Graham]

Could you please expand on this? As an 18 series qualified Special Forces soldier, I am not sure I am fully understanding what you are trying to say here. What it sounds like you are describing and or trying to describe is conditioning , in which case a properly trained Infantryman would be able to execute the fundamental basic infantry skills under pressure just as I would. If this is not what you are trying to say, please explain.

It's an amount of training issue and a quality of training issue. As you know, basic infantry does not get anywhere near the amount of training in proper fundamentals (shoot/nav/ruck/MOUT), nor the fitness conditioning that SF takes the time and money to acquire. That said, I have seen Tier 3 guys who didn't possess good basic infantry skills, like knowing how to derive their position on a map, probably because although they learned it once upon a time they now fly everywhere, have GPS, and get dropped-off where they need to be.

 

[Papa Zero Three]

It's an amount of training issue and a quality of training issue. As you know, basic infantry does not get anywhere near the amount of training in proper fundamentals (shoot/nav/ruck/MOUT), nor the fitness conditioning that SF takes the time and money to acquire. That said, I have seen Tier 3 guys who didn't possess good basic infantry skills, like knowing how to derive their position on a map, probably because although they learned it once upon a time they now fly everywhere, have GPS, and get dropped-off where they need to be.

I think I know what you are trying to convey/say but I disagree with what you have said/written above. Having started out as an 11B Infantryman, I learned all of the skills you mentioned above and practiced them on a very regular basis for years. There is even EIB testing thats regularly run that tests all Infantry soldiers on all of the tasks you listed above and more. If anything, I would say the constant training in the fundamental skills I was constantly subjected to in the Infantry was what allowed me to pass the various selections I have attended as they are heavy in being able to do land nav, rucking and other associated skills.Skills you had to already have and bring with you in order to advance.

Yes, there is a level of difference in types/quantities and or quality of the training received once in SF, which is only a small part of what sets SF apart. SF guys who came from an Infantry/combat arms MOS prior to going SF typically show up with very strong skills in land nav/ability to ruck and physical conditioning, those who came from other MOS fields typically/statistically have to work harder on those skills just to get through the door and have a higher failure rate. The point being, SF guys aren't necessarily strong in the areas you mentioned because they get that training once in SF but because they had a very solid foundation of skill sets learned else where(along with the required aptitude) before they were even able to pass selection. It's off of that solid foundation of basic skill sets that allows the other high speed skill sets to be developed. High speed is the ability to execute the basics at a high level of precision.

In staying in line with the thread topic, this IMO, is an example that supports the importance/relevance /idea of having a solid foundation in basic sniping skill sets(referred here in this thread as old school) even if they can be overcome or simplified by technology. It ultimately makes you a more effective and or rounded out shooter......IMHO of course.

 

[Graham]

There is even EIB testing thats regularly run that tests all Infantry soldiers on all of the tasks you listed above and more. If anything, I would say the constant training in the fundamental skills I was constantly subjected to in the Infantry was what allowed me to pass the various selections I have attended as they are heavy in being able to do land nav, rucking and other associated skills.Skills you had to already have and bring with you in order to advance.

What you say makes sense, but you have more faith in the military training system than I do.

SF guys aren't necessarily strong in the areas you mentioned because they get that training once in SF but because they had a very solid foundation of skill sets learned else where(along with the required aptitude) before they were even able to pass selection.

Fair enough. But now more than ever the 'learning it elsewhere' leg-up is not to be found in basic military training.

I was talking about unconscious competence in a specialized skill set, and I am not convinced that a large organization - and one which caters to the lowest common denominator - can provide even basic competence in the skills specific to marksmanship. Administrators are therefore attracted to technology as a panacea.

 

[Papa Zero Three]

What you say makes sense, but you have more faith in the military training system than I do.

Faith is defined as: a belief that is not based on proof. As a recipient of the training,seeing it in action, both in training and combat, and as well as being an instructor of it, I have witnessed all the proof I need to know it to be fact. That's not to say there are no rocks out there by any means but by and far the majority are good to hook as is the training system.

Fair enough. But now more than ever the 'learning it elsewhere' leg-up is not to be found in basic military training.

I was talking about unconscious competence in a specialized skill set, and I am not convinced that a large organization - and one which caters to the lowest common denominator - can provide even basic competence in the skills specific to marksmanship. Administrators are therefore attracted to technology as a panacea.

Again, I would have to disagree with your line of thought. We have more troops with actual combat experience both in combat arms MOS's and other soft skill MOS's. If that isn't a true test of ones basic skills I do not know what is. We also have a highly educated force than any other time in history, specifically in the enlisted ranks as it's required to operate some of the equipment we use in conjunction with the basic skills of shoot ,move, and communicate. Again, I will caveat that statement with the fact that there are always a few exceptions/dumb asses out there.

 

[Graham]

I agree that the average soldier is probably better trained than at any time in the history of our military. However, your perspective is from a privileged position within the system. What we now generally define as 'actual combat experience' is neither a crucible nor a test of competence.