Not alot has changed in 80yrs......

[Lowlight]

Re: Not alot has changed in 80yrs......

Must be a serendipity thing because I was just gonna check my copy of that same book along with this book to see if there were similar errors, which often get repeated over and over because people are on script.

Shouldn't someone say "jinx" or at least is there an internet equi'valent ?

 

[Sterling Shooter]

Re: Not alot has changed in 80yrs......

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Graham</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I would suggest that not much has changed between SDM instruction and this:

</div></div>

You can suggest but do you really know? Of course not. You've never seen the course curriculum, you've not participated in the course, and you have not taught the course. So, what I know is you don't know.

 

[Lowlight]

Re: Not alot has changed in 80yrs......

What I know is the Army continues to get it wrong, point in case...

International Rifle Marksmanship Guide, 1980 Edition

Page 67 Effects of the Weather...

<span style="font-weight: bold">F. Humidity and Rain</span>
To understand the effects of humidity, the shooter must realize that the higher the humidity, <span style="font-weight: bold">the denser the air</span>.... The heavier air presents more resistance to the flight of the bullet.

Again, wrong in all the military manuals, <span style="font-style: italic">(there is actually one that has it right)</span> so seeing a pattern here, and nothing from you to change our mind to the contrary, it's pretty reasonable to believe given your statements, lack of understanding on a lot of things you try to pretend you have a command of, that if they handed you a script that was clearly written wrong, you are unable or unwilling to correct it. Because, you teach what they give you. There are other errors to be found, rules of thumb that no longer work or apply that continue to be taught that don't take into account changes from 40 years ago to today.

This is just one clear case, easily proven, easily corrected yet nobody bothers to correct it because of institutional training scars left by people who are stuck in 1978.

 

[TiroFijo]

Re: Not alot has changed in 80yrs......

Military manuals... when I started shooting I read them looking for wisdom (no long range coaches around here), but I found wrong info on humidity, up/down shooting, temperature effects on POI, crude wind corrections, etc.

I see in some manuals those errors are corrected, but I no longer look at them as a trustworthy source. I'm sure there are many super knowledgeable military shooters out there, but it seems they don't always write or edit the manuals. Or write the specs for new optics...

 

[Graham]

Re: Not alot has changed in 80yrs......

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sterling Shooter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You can suggest but do you really know? Of course not. You've never seen the course curriculum, you've not participated in the course, and you have not taught the course. So, what I know is you don't know.</div></div>Sterling, for obvious reasons, one doesn't have to teach a course to know what is taught in a course.

As for the rest of it, you don't know what you don't know. But I see that you do know how to push a bad position.

 

[notquiteright]

Re: Not alot has changed in 80yrs......

Because the manuals cited are soooo outdated, I cant recall using a manual that was 5 years out of date when I was active, has the military published anything new in the last 30 years or so?

I've got alot of old manuals that are interesting, but I dont think the army uses TM 5-232 Elements of Surveying dated June 1971 or TC 7-9 Infantry Live-Fire Training sept 1993.

Wonder what the current manuals have in them? I shot with a Arkansas Guardsman who had two tours behind him and a bum hip from an IED. He had gone through the Little Rock Marksman Course, cant recall the intials, he got the humidity question correct. I dont know if the printed material had been corrected or if his Instructor was capable of thinking, but the Guardsman tracking.

 

[Lowlight]

Re: Not alot has changed in 80yrs......

General consensus was the NG school is a better school... I am sure some will disagree, but I have heard this stated more times than I can count. Main reason was instructors attempting to put their personal touch on information, not always correct, but more along the lines of it, "worked for me" so you must learn it.

I will give another "recent' example of teaching it wrong in the military, a certain Special Operations Sniper School was teaching its students that the "ocular adjustment" was for the adjustment of "eye relief" ... this is recent, no bullshit instruction. Loosen the locking ring, turn the eye piece and adjust your eye relief.

Believe me when I say, there is a very valid reason why they seek outside instruction.

 

[Graham]

Re: Not alot has changed in 80yrs......

Hmmmm.... teaching it wrong in the military... like cleaning .50 cal bores with BreakFree CLP. It worked for some Marines on .30 cal rifles so it must work on the .50's, right?!

 

[notquiteright]

Re: Not alot has changed in 80yrs......

I believe, yes sir I do believe. Once again the Army was in no shape to expand its marksmanship schools to meet whats now called the operational tempo and in the era of outsourcing many private schools got military students.

However I think if you had asked the question and someone gave that vague answer...

So what school and how recent?

Personally I would think at least one student would have thrown the BS flag on anyone saying eye relief is adjusted by that little ring... super troopers dont take BS quietly as I am sure you know.

I am sure you are alot more current than we are... does the Military have a manual newer than the 80's one on sniperage/marksmanship/cleansing diets?

I am of the persuation that enough technology has flowed in to make an '80s manual as hip as the Ah-ha, Bananarama, and every's favorite the Culture Club.

Temperature sensitivity of powders, new calibers, new scopes, new bullets, maybe a word or two on new tactics... the course had to have been amended in the 30 some years.

Shirley it has.

Gotta go shake my groove thing.

 

[kraigWY]

Re: Not alot has changed in 80yrs......

I think we are getting picky ref: Humidity and Military Manuals.

Playing with Brian's Ballistic Calculator: @ 1000 yards w/100 yard zero, Using a 175 gr 308 @ 2600 FPS with a GI of .500, the difference between 90% humidity and 0% humidity is .05 mils (1.77 inches or .177 MOA).

Ain't many of us that can hold that close, I sure as heck can't. A one MPH error in wind is as bad.

Is that the only "mistake in the AMU Shooting Guides? Seems to me the Army(MU) knows what they are doing when it comes to shooting. No one seems to best them since the National Guard screwed up their program in the early 90s.

My money's on the AMU/CMP programs.

 

[Lowlight]

Re: Not alot has changed in 80yrs......

There are more, but it is the easiest to find and the most telling, the fact only one manual to date has bothered to correct it and it is an advanced manual, not a basic course manual.

There are still rule of thumbs regarding adjustments from the 60s / 70s / 80s, which still say your zero will change 1 MOA with a 50fps change in MV, or 20 degree change in temperature. When the reality is, pretty much all of those have changed with the advent of better bullets, barrels, and powders.

Clearly you haven't stayed up to date, but trust me i can go page by page and much of this continues to be reprinted without correction, but so far it has proven to be a lesson in futility with your lot.

You still have people thinking the USMC uses "football" mil dots and that they are different than "army" mil dots when really that only worked when the USMC used the MST-100, and the Army was only using the M3A, all other scopes don't have the same limitation as the problem was addressed shortly after, but it was not reflected in the material.

TF stated it well, there are lot more errors, but quoting each one is a not worth with people who can't understand... Like I am sure before you ran the numbers in Litz's program you thought it mattered, and probably taught it at some point as mattering because the books put emphasis on it. The Weather effects section is only so big, I would doubt you'd leave it out, you or anyone else working off a script that says, Humidity makes the air more dense.

 

[kraigWY]

Re: Not alot has changed in 80yrs......

Yeah I think it matters, I'm old but like to keep up as I'm still in the game, mainly on the CMP GSM and LE side.

Reading this topic got me to checking some of my manuels. An example is the comment <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> a certain Special Operations Sniper School was teaching its students that the "ocular adjustment" was for the adjustment of "eye relief" ...</div></div>

I just read through Appendix I (I.2) SO Sniper Manuel and that's not quite what it says.

But back to the orginal topic. HAS IT CHANGED MUCH IN THE LAST 80 YEARS, reading Whelen, Crossman, Hatcher, I'd have to say it hasn't. Fundamentals are the same. Positions are the same. Equipment has got a bit fancy but still its the shooter and marksmanship fundamentals. That hasn't changed.

 

[Lowlight]

Re: Not alot has changed in 80yrs......

First off it is not an Army school and second, it was being put forward by the instructors on their own, not because a manual said it, but an instructor was passing this nugget along to his classes.