Extreme distance shooting range....

[Gunny2862]

Scoutfish,

IMHO, when I discuss about Snipers, their targets are either range devices for practice or humans, they are as much or more hunters and intelligence gatherers than marksmen (although they are usually defined by the latter aspect) they may or may not engage at long-distance, although that is a mark of their profession(both for self-protection and the intimidation effect on the survivors of the first round not having any good idea where the shot came from).

 

Marksmen, especially National Match Shooters, may even exceed Snipers in the art of shooting and hitting in a very precisely defined area on a target. But they aren't concerned with infiltrating without detection, detection in place, target acquisition, intelligence gathering, countermeasures, and having an avenue of escape.

 

Both are concerned with all the effects that occur on long-range shots which include factors as small as the drift of the bullet due to the rotation of the specific rifling on the specific bullet and load of the round. At ranges exceeding 800 yards, one can even detect and compensate for differences due to the rotation of the earth depending on the direction one is firing.

 

As far as the difference between sniping and hunting I'd say that you may have most of the right of it, although there a lots of folks who won't hunt because they won't drop the hammer on an animal once they actually are "in the moment". In the same way there are hunters who can't make the leap to the new prey in the sniping world.

 

IMHO, not everyone can become a Sniper, not everyone can be a National Match shooter, but almost everyone can achieve a reasonable level of Marksmanship and with a little bit of thought can become a safe, reasonable practitioner of hunting, assuming they can learn to stalk. Part of being a good hunter is knowing that shots exceeding 300 yards is generally overkill(actually possibly under-kill) on most game unless you're literally shooting ridge to ridge or you're doing some varminting (prairie dogs in Kansas at 300-500 can be a lot of fun and save a few horses ankles) and but a little more stalking might be appropriate, depending on the game and terrain and weapons system.

 

I think le Voyageur has a great idea but needs to be concerned first with range safety(I'm sure he is) and the fundamentals of marksmanship at short ranges(I'd probably start at 1,000 inches - about 27 yards 2 inches and some wiggle - I'm not sure of the ballistics of his chosen rifles but the U.S. Military uses this range as it ballistically is the same point of impact as the aim point for 200 yards with the M-16/M-4, difference being that the impact is on the rise rather than on the fall of the bullet) with progressively smaller targets - think AFQT - the Air Force basic Qualification test. It's short range, easy to administer, targets are reasonably cheap, small range foot print required, and errors are easily traceable to shooter error (lending to correction) rather than environmental factor misreads.

Once their skills are honed that they can shoot 5 called shots under a dime there(at least that's the goal with the .223), then it's time to consider extending their range, as they should already be close to being able to call their shots. A skill that is more quickly built by writing down where they think their shot landed in a little book "range book" with a depiction of their current target and a grid system that preferably is calibrate-able to the changes the shooter can make on their rifle with whatever adjustments are available for the sights (other than the initial sighting in, these shouldn't need to be changed again until the 300 and longer range shots come in to play) before looking to see where it impacted and then noting the difference between their call and the actual impact - at 1000 inches normally visioned shooters should be able to detect the impact of each new shot without a spotter or scope.

 

[Scoutfish]

Gunny,

 

I'm glad you could see where I was going as far as the ideal behind it and not the way the thread started to make it sound like a negative thing.

 

The tone of the responces started to sound like I suggested teaching boys how to take another man down.

 

That was not the point or idea in my suggestion.

 

I just wanted everybody to realize that sniper is not another way of saying shooting people or murder.

[Engineer61]

It's just me ... but marksmanship is not a necessary skill for most kids these days.

 

I was taught to handle firearms when I was 10 or so. I didn't need the knowledge then...I wasn't putting food on the table. My father and brothers hunted small game for fun...I didn't see the point of taking life for fun. I shot clays for fun. Haven't fired a weapon in 25 years probably.

 

Not sure if kids will discern the difference between hunting game for fun and adventure vs. hunting humans or non-game animals. You might recruit a ton of NRA members from it though.

 

[perdidochas]

"Not sure if kids will discern the difference between hunting game for fun and adventure vs. hunting humans or non-game animals. You might recruit a ton of NRA members from it though."

 

Well, considering that human beings have done it for thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of years, I think it's fairly easy for kids to discern the difference. There is no relationship between hunting animals and hunting humans. Hunting animals does not cause people to become serial killers.

[Gunny2862]

Engineer 61 says,"It's just me ... but marksmanship is not a necessary skill for most kids these days."

(Open Rant)

Okay, really?

Um, when was the last time any of us tied a sheepshank for real life use and for it's intended purpose?

When was the last time any of us weren't camping and had to start a fire without a match? For that matter whens the last time we started a fire without a match that wasn't a demonstration?

When was the last time you had to apply the fundamentals of lifesaving unless you are a working Guard?

Well, we can just forget about 90% those Merit badges too since most kids will never use 90% of what they'll learn being exposed to those either? You know what demographically(and I hope this is a bad made up number because it is a made up number) but 1/2 the kids will never vote except maybe that number would rise for a general election and even then about 1/2 of the ones who do vote still won't have put in the time to understand what the effects will be if the issue passes OR fails. So let's quit wasting our time with those Community in the .... MB's too.

 

Nope what we show them has no impact on their daily lives, let's fold up shop and go home...

(Close Rant)

 

Engineer 61. It's not about the skill itself. IT's a character program. It's about learning about themselves and others, facing and overcoming adversity. Challenging opportunities which with today's increasingly sedentary and INDOOR lifestyle are easily created OUTDOORS, meaning outdoor activities and we are WAYY more indoors than we were when Baden-Powell thought these boys are to sedentary we need to get them outdoors.

Stalking is easily applicable to more things than killing things - Not many nature photographers would be very successful if they didn't understand some fundamentals of stalking - no matter how big a lens they can carry.

 

Learning to fire a weapon "properly" requires self-control, being able to concentrate AND relax, coordinating multiple physical acts and being aware of your surroundings at the same time. It's not easy if you are doing it right, whether you are punching paper or are putting food on the table, participating in sport hunting, or are downrange in a foreign land protecting the rest of us. It is a very tough challenge in self-control to be able to consistently and reliably hit your mark at and beyond 500 yards, In additions to the body control necessary one has to consider if one is actually seeing the target or aiming at a mirage effect, wind effects, elevation, far enough out even humidity and other factors most people would never consider coming into play - and in that world the lazy, and unthinking cannot get it done, as all of these things have to be considered. At 1,000 yards one has to try to not only read the current wind but anticipate it as the wind can change enough to affect the path and impact of the round in flight after any corrective action is possible.

Marksmanship is a great area in which to develop character. And it's only part of a good hunting program, where even more character building opportunities come into play...

 

[Engineer61]

With all due respect Gunny. I call horse-hockey.

 

As a comment to your rant ... what does *any* of your rant have to do with the topic of destroying a living entity for fun?

 

If you want to teach "stalking", hand them all a camera and have at it.

 

My wife was a competitive shooter when she was young...had to learn everything you mentioned and never killed a living thing doing it ... to teach what you supposedly want to teach...use a bullseye on a range.

 

Otherwise you just want to teach the adrenaline rush of destroying something that God, not you, put on the Earth.

[Gunny2862]

And I answer your horse-hockey.

 

At what point did I ever advocate for destroying a living entity for fun?

 

Consistently, and thru out, I have been advocating for the Character building brought on thru learning the skills of Marksmanship.

 

Oh, I bet you are taking my varminting(eliminating a nuisance or pest, e.g. a varmint) on Prairie dogs out of context - it's about preserving the ground the horses walk on so they don't break their legs or having done so don't fall and injure their riders - besides, who eats Prairie dogs?(This message has been edited by Gunny2862)additional thought (This message has been edited by Gunny2862) Clarification, This one is for improper spelling.(This message has been edited by Gunny2862)

[perdidochas]

Engineer61,

 

I hope that you are a vegan, otherwise you are a big hypocrite. Hunting puts people directly in the food chain as an active participant, rather than as somebody who pays others to kill for them. Hunting is part of human nature. Our closest relatives (the chimpanzees) hunt game as well. Having lived in the South my whole life, I know a lot of hunters (used to hunt myself). I have seen no evidence that it is a negative thing to kill animals for fun (if the creatures are eaten as well). In fact, I would bet that most hunters are much more aware of and appreciative of God's living things than the average person.

[Gunny2862]

And I absolutely concur with the idea that everything I have been advocating for is in concurrence with this statement by you, "My wife was a competitive shooter when she was young...had to learn everything you mentioned and never killed a living thing doing it ... to teach what you supposedly want to teach...use a bullseye on a range."

 

 

[Engineer61]

Peri...

 

I'm not a Vegan, and I know far more about food production than most people...

 

I simply choose to differentiate killing for food than killing for sport/adventure.

 

Supposedly, that is what differentiates humans from the rest of the species.

 

My original statement still holds true...if you want to teach those "skills" you can do it with a bullseye.

 

If you gents want to train boys to kill ... have at it. Mine will not be out there.(This message has been edited by Engineer61)

[perdidochas]

Eng,

 

We tend to like things for evolutionary reasons. Hunting is one of those things. In the past, we needed it to survive (yes, we don't absolutely need it now). For that reason, we find it fun. I have no doubt that most aboriginals that need to hunt to survive have fun doing it. I know that cats love to hunt, even the most well fed house cat who doesn't need to hunt. If you don't want to hunt, and don't want to hunt, please feel free not to do it, and to raise your kids that way. However, don't disparage those that do enjoy it. They are not serial killers in waiting. They aren't sadists. They are just staying in touch with a part of their evolutionary history, and enjoying what nature wants us to enjoy.

 

That said, you are exactly right about most of the skills that hunting teaches. They can be taught in other ways. However, those methods just get us that much further away from nature (and our own nature), and being a part of nature. As long as game is bountiful (and deer populations in most of North America are about as high as they have ever been historically), and we have places to safely hunt, there is no good reason to stop or ban hunting. There are a lot of bad reasons to.

[Gunny2862]

Somehow I missed this part,first nice ad hominem, second totally untrue, thirdly I officially note that I am offended - "Otherwise you just want to teach the adrenaline rush of destroying something that God, not you, put on the Earth."

 

My retort has been censored - by me.

[Scoutfish]

"what does *any* of your rant have to do with the topic of destroying a living entity for fun? "

 

What does your comment of " destroying a linving entity for fun "

 

have to do with thisd thread?

 

Nobody....and I mean nobody said anything about killing a living creature for fun .

 

At least not until you said it, that is.

 

What is the benifit and reward of anything we do? Why build a ship in a bottle? What practical use is it? Cause you feel a sense of accomplishment and learned to be patient, to work in a microcosn, and overcome a challenge.

 

Why build any model for that matter? Same as above except not quite so challenging.

 

Why play golf? What is the benefit? You can swing a stick around and walk a couple miles while taking a brweak to swing a stick in your own backyard right?

 

Because you develop a skill and hopefully get better at it and again feel some gratitude and self satisfaction.

 

So, since I brought up the sniper idea originally, I'll tell you what tomne it was said in, what manner it was meant in, and what the intended idea behind it was:

 

It's simple: anybody can point a gun at the ground and shoot the ground. But shooting a target that is 30 fot away is a bit harder. Shooting one that is 70 foot away is still even harder.

 

Now put that target 150 foot away. Now 300 foot away. not 600 foot. Then 900 foot.

 

Think you can just point the gun and shoot the target and hit it?

 

Do you just point, pull the trigger and celebrate hitting the target?

 

What about distance? How does that affect your aim. How about bullet travel? What if it's windy outside versus dead calm? What is the difference between a 2 mph breeze versus a 15 mph breeze over a long distance?

 

Now, you think you just yank the trigger back? How about how your stance is or how you hold the gun?

 

Did you know breathing ( or lack of) make a huge difference ?

 

And last time I checked....a bottle cap or golf ball WAS NOT a living entity.

 

But as for the youth who do happen to hunt( I hunt with a fishing pole) this could help with an instant kill versus having an animal run off hurt and wounded and showly dying an agonizing death.

 

 

 

 

[Scoutfish]

Now, you may have noticed that I said I hunt with a fishing pole.

 

Yep! That's because I do not hunt witrh a gun. Never have, probably won't in the future either.

 

But I like to shoot rifles. I like to shoot at targets and test my skill and ability.

 

My targets are either paper targets or cans . Old skunky beer is awesome because you can shake it up and have a great show when you hit your target!

 

I shoot at plain old bull's eyes and I shoot at the ones with the neon indicators too. I have shot animal silhouettes, bland basic human silhouettes, and the detailed evil bad guy middle American guerilla targets.

 

But I have not actually shot a human yet. Or any deer or cows, or horses, or bald eagles, puppies, kittens, or baby seals.

 

I don't plan to either.

 

I just like shooting at targets to test my skill.

 

And when you hit a bottle cap at 100 yards....well..it feels awesome! Trust me - I know!

 

[Gunny2862]

By the way just for the disclaimer - I've never killed any animal that wasn't a nuisance, Rabbits in a garden, Mice in house traps, Burrowing hazards to horses. Maybe a fish or two - you do eat fish right? Whats the difference if you kill it or someone else does, if you eat it aren't you as karmicly unclean as the actual fisherman since you drove the demand that caused him to go fishing?

 

I really don't want to hear someone's BS about how I'm some kind of psychopath who wants to teach the lust for killing and the excitement of watching them die. Especially if its some kind of hate speech driven by my having been in the military. Are you a hater, if so, move to frickin France or some other place that has had it's bacon saved by Americans and our thanks is their scorn, you might just fit right in. IF it were true that I were of those opinions, I'd deserve scorn and derision. Since it's not, I find it extremely offensive to be as much as accused of it.

 

99% of my discussion was in fact steered away from hunting and towards range work with targets.

The 1% that you are mis-characterizing but was fun was pointed towards a successful hit on a small target at a long range which coincidentally, terminated a nuisance pest with such a tremendous shock load that it's an entirely human way of neutralizing them, much more humane than the alternative of poisoning, as trapping simply isn't effective enough on a large enough portion of a den to remove the hazard they pose to the horses.

 

Expletives censored.

 

Edit humane for human.(This message has been edited by Gunny2862)And great, made the edit, shows correctly on the edit page and isn't showing when posted - last occurrence of human should read humane(This message has been edited by Gunny2862)