Re: LE scope poll at Op Tac International in VA
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LoneWolfUSMC</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: SPDSNYPR</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Frankly, I rather see LE get their poop in a group regarding appropriate ammo before everyone goes to mil/mil scopes. The SMK needs to be dumped. For the cost of outfitting even a small sniper team (say 4-5 scopes) with a nice shiny new scope each, you can buy a crapload of TAP ammo or equivelent.</div></div>
Sticking with Gold Metal Match (the current standard) has nothing to do with money. FGMM isn't cheap. The use of the 168SMK has more to do with it being the "standard" which others are judged by. We are looking at switching to TAP due to the better terminal ballistics, and in the case of the 168gr AMAX, negligible accuracy loss even at long range.
Then of course we come back to the old problem of the shooters not knowing there is anything better out there. Administrators aren't shooting enthusiasts. They have enough trouble figuring out what type of copier paper to purchase. If the shooters don't stand up and tell them they don't have the right equipment or ammo then we aren't going to move forward.
Now how do your introduce the shooters to the equipment out there? That is a training problem. I have been to a couple courses where the 700/Leupold/FGMM is taught and if that's not what you brought, then you better already know what you are doing. You don't want your training to be a sales pitch for equipment, but you do want to introduce shooters to items that will make their life easier and their shot impact their target.
Yes, MOST LE Sniper shots will be close range. However if all you do is close range, known distance then you are going to be screwed when that guy takes over a school bus in the middle of the stadium parking lot.
The longest shot for November's training was 380 yards (as far as out home range will allow). The shortest for January training was 25 yards. Don't get sucked into the hype. If you can imagine it, train for it. If it never happens then count yourself lucky. </div></div>
I agreed with all of this except the money issue. The ammo costs the same, but switching is expensive. All of a sudden you have a few thousand rounds of ammo you can't use, you have no spares stocked, and you have to retrain for the new ammo.
I also understand that long shots happen and should be trained for, and frankly, the mil/mil setup really is better. But then instead of your current setups, you have to buy much more expensive scopes than the leupolds you currently have to cover what is statistically a very small percentage of shots. Then you have to train the shooters to unlearn their old RE skills, comeups, etc. I can put a bullet on target out to the longest range I can shoot pretty easily (500 for our PD range). So can all the guy I know with our current mil/moa setup.
So why spend all the money for a switch? What does it gain us? We are successful at training our guys to put the bullet on target, and it has worked for decades. No, it's not ideal. But for the little teams like we have, the money is rarely there (way more money is spent on entry team stuff toys). If I were to go to the cheif and explain to him that we needed say $10,000 to buy all new scopes to do exactly what we do now, and he asks why . . . . . . . what the hell would I say? This is just better?
It really isn't broke. Yes, the mil/mil system is better. But what we have isn't bad. We really can do our job with the equipment we currently have. And we won't fix it till it's broke. Something has to break. Until it does, things won't change.
