Back from Ukraine/Czech

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

I have a few otherwise sensible buddies who claim one gun - and only one gun - need be carried, regardless of the situation. The perfect carry gun can be suited to the situation, not the perfect gun for a given situation suited to them. They wouldn't think about carrying a different gun. They'll make their gun fit.

As you've pointed out... M-9 isn't the best to conceal on a semi-formal summer day. Folks wouldn't think of using a sledgehammer to hang a picture yet they'll carry a M-9 and two extra mags to pick up milk from the corner store.

I wish I had a dollar for every time someone showed up to an Appleseed with a scope cranked way up there and then had problems all day long. Scopes don't actually help people shoot better. Typically, it's quite the opposite since most folks don't know how to use a scope correctly in the first place. The only good reason to use a scope is if you can't see your front sight clearly.

People tell me all the time, "yeah, but then I can't see the target either." (Another dollar needed) "You're not supposed to be focusing on the target!"

I really don't like using a scope and the only reason I have one is for observation purposes. It's kind of straining on the eyes to watch a target at distance for a long period of time. I prefer to glass through my Steiners but if I'm set up already I'll use my scope. I'm quite comfortable in prone for long periods of time. Matter of fact, I sleep in prone.

The "tacticool" school is killing marksmanship. Folks have no idea how to use their sights - or scopes - properly and everyone is under the impression they need a super high powered scope or, my personal favorite, a chevron! with mildots and bullet drop compensator and wind drift ticks "do you even know how to use that #######?" That video was spot-on. "You're not a Navy SEAL or an operator."

I love watching those dudes get smoked by a 10-year-old. And a girl at that! "You just got smoked by a little girl in pigtails shooting a pink Cricket... and you're using a $2400 rifle, $1200 optic, and match-grade ammo. Boy, I'd feel really dumb if I were you. Now pay attention! Not to me, numbnuts, her!"

What did it say in that video, "yes, it's too bad that weapon hasn't been able to prove itself in combat for the last f'king century."

What I like is when the guys show up telling me what works in paintball or airsoft. "Uh, dude, do you know the difference between cover and concealment?"

I try to explain to my buddies who are all XD 18+ round fanatics "beware of the man with the revolver... for he knows how to use it."

Any man confident enough to carry six shots is going to make them count. Same thing with the 1911. You don't need 3X as many rounds when you know what you're doing.

I'm of the opinion that we'll see private security in the near future, especially in the larger cities. Militia-style local groups will exist too but all the "talent" will already be getting paid.

The U.S. is funny in that we'll sit and watch all the way up to the very last minute. You've seen the videos during the riots of the guys getting punched while sitting in their car at an intersection but they refuse to drive because the light is red. We're too scared to take action. Not scared something will happen but scared of the repercussions. Someone might sue us.

That's why private security agencies are going to be around first. The rich people will figure out a way to make it legal for themselves and we'll be escorting them around in big Suburbans and armed to the teeth, legally. John Q. Public won't take action until it's too late.

"I don't have to make it home... I just have to make it to the trunk of my car."

My favorite scope reticle and one you have to look hard for now, is the "post and crosshair" I have no need for range finders. If I need a range finder I need to get closer. I always sighted all my rifles to shoot 3" above point of aim at 100 yds and that allowed me to ignore the rnage out to 150 to 300 yds depending on the rifle and cartridge. That was plenty range enough. I hunted west Texas for years where we were allowed to kill 5 deer every year, and it was no trouble to "tag out" and I never killed a deer at more than 200 yds. The longest shot I ever took was with a .35 Whelen, probably right at 200 yds. Most were under 100 yds. And this was "way out in west Texas" where you are "supposed to have" long shots. BS. Hogs were usually killed in ranges measured in feet, sometimes inches.

There is a basic difference in the concept of firearms for CC and those for law enforcement. Law enforcement people get CALLED TO dangerous situations facing hevaily armed people, or at least they can. Us plain ol Joes are just defending ourselves. We don't have to have more firepower than the criminal, only more than the next potential victim. The revolver I most often carry has only 5 shots and I do not feel as if I need more.

[slim 1,525]

Most folks can't tell range to target anyway. I do like you do, I set up a zero that gives me optimum elevation and just shoot. For longer distances I'll aim high or dial up the sights. I love shooting my AR out to distance. So freakin easy!

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Most folks can't tell range to target anyway. I do like you do, I set up a zero that gives me optimum elevation and just shoot. For longer distances I'll aim high or dial up the sights. I love shooting my AR out to distance. So freakin easy!

For living things which I planned to kill I always figured I owed them the respect to be pretty sure of my shot. If I was not, I didn't shoot. There would be another deer or hog or turkey along soon enough.

For fun we used to blaze away at rocks on the sides of mesas at impossibly long distances. While the Ar was easier to hit with at long range, the big guns like the .45-70 or .45-110 made a bigger "splash" and it was easier to see where you hit (or missed) This was done where there was no one around for miles, so there were no safety issues. We did this with handguns also and it was great fun. My M1 was one of my favorites for this.

[visaveteran 1]

I think one of the best and basically unsung rifles was the Army's M-14. I guess you can still get one from Springfield Armory. I shot "Expert" with it in basic training, and if my memory is correct, we had to hit pop-up targets out to 400 yards. The gun, besides being deadly accurate and reliable, had a good, balanced feel to it...and if I had to "fix bayonets," give me an M-14 over the M-16 any day.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

I think one of the best and basically unsung rifles was the Army's M-14. I guess you can still get one from Springfield Armory. I shot "Expert" with it in basic training, and if my memory is correct, we had to hit pop-up targets out to 400 yards. The gun, besides being deadly accurate and reliable, had a good, balanced feel to it...and if I had to "fix bayonets," give me an M-14 over the M-16 any day.

I have a Springfield M1A National Match and it is a no foolin' accurate rifle. The AR has finally been made to be as accurate and has gradually taken the M14/M1A off the competition line, more's the pity. I love the M1A and think it is the ultimate rifle. I think the AR takes over because now you can get a better AR out of the box or with off the shelf modifications for a lot less money. I also have an AR Service Rifle and an AR Match Rifle. I paid less for both of them than what I have in the M1A. Not a bad trait for a competition rifle, but it does not make the AR the better battle rifle. When I started shooting Service Rifle competition, there were still a few 1903s and 03A3s in use and the line was mostly M1s and a few M14/M1As. Our school actually issued the rifle team M1s and M1As (can you imagine a public school giving the kids assault rifles now???!!!!!) Until the early 90s the AR was a joke for competition. Now they are by far the dominant rifle.

I still like the walnut and steel masterpiece that is the M14/M1A and for that matter, the M1 Garand. In fact, for competition, the M1 may still be the better rifle once you get it shooting right.

Hitting a paper target at measured distances is one thing, hitting and killing targets that shoot back is quite another thing. If I were forced to be in that situation and the target could kill ME, I would choose the M14 and never look back.

[slim 1,525]

I'd prefer a rifleman's rifle (M-1, M-14) on the battlefield of Afghanistan or anywhere else where long, accurate shots could be made. For closer distances (Vietnam on through Grenada, etc.) I'd rather have the M-16.

[visaveteran 1]

I'd prefer a rifleman's rifle (M-1, M-14) on the battlefield of Afghanistan or anywhere else where long, accurate shots could be made. For closer distances (Vietnam on through Grenada, etc.) I'd rather have the M-16.

Well...I basically agree but let's not forget that Vietnam was a sniper war on both sides. The legendary Marine, Carlos Hathcock, was the best American sniper in Vietnam...and that's an understatement. They don't make men like him much anymore. Here's some impressive data on him.

During the Vietnam War Hathcock had 93 confirmed kills of North Vietnamese Army and Viet-Cong personnel. (During the Vietnam War, kills had to be confirmed by an acting third party, who had to be an officer, besides the sniper's spotter; snipers often did not have an acting third party present, making confirmation difficult, especially if the target was behind enemy lines, as was usually the case.) He is ranked fourth, behind U.S. Marine Corps snipers Eric R. England and Chuck Mawhinney and United States Army sniper Adelbert Waldron, on the list of most confirmed kills for an American sniper.

The North Vietnamese Army put a bounty of $30,000 on Hathcock's life for killing so many of their men. Rewards put on U.S. snipers by the N.V.A. typically ranged from $8 to $2,000. Hathcock held the record for highest bounty and killed every Vietnamese marksman who sought it. The Viet Cong and N.V.A. called Hathcock Lông Trắng, translated as "White Feather," because of the white feather he kept in a band on his bush hat. After a platoon of trained Vietnamese snipers were sent to hunt down "White Feather," many Marines in the same area donned white feathers to deceive the enemy. These Marines were aware of the impact Hathcock's death would have and took it upon themselves to make themselves targets in order to confuse the counter snipers.

One of Hathcock's most famous accomplishments was shooting an enemy sniper through the enemy's own scope, hitting him in the eye and killing him. Hathcock and John Roland Burke, his spotter, were stalking the enemy sniper in the jungle near Hill 55, the firebase from which Hathcock was operating. The sniper had already killed several Marines and was believed to have been sent specifically to kill Hathcock. When Hathcock saw a flash of light (light reflecting off the enemy sniper's scope) in the bushes, he fired at it, shooting through the scope and killing the sniper. Surveying the situation, Hathcock concluded that the only feasible way he could have put the bullet straight down the enemy's scope and through his eye would have been if both snipers were zeroing in on each other at the same time and Hathcock fired first, which gave him only a few seconds to act. Given the flight time of rounds at long ranges, both snipers could easily have killed one another. The enemy rifle was recovered and the incident is documented by a photograph.

Hathcock only once removed the white feather from his bush hat while deployed in Vietnam. During a volunteer mission days before the end of his first deployment, he crawled over 1,500 yards of field to shoot an NVA commanding general. He wasn't informed of the details of the mission until he accepted it. This effort took four days and three nights, without sleep, of constant inch-by-inch crawling. Hathcock said he was almost stepped on as he lay camouflaged with grass and vegetation in a meadow shortly after sunset. At one point he was nearly bitten by a bamboo viper but had the presence of mind to avoid moving and giving up his position. As the general exited his vehicle Carlos fired a single shot that struck the general in the chest, killing him. He had to crawl back instead of run when soldiers started searching, and later regretted taking the mission, as in the aftermath of the assassination the NVA doubled their attacks in the area, apparently in retaliation for their general being killed and leading to an increase in American casualties.

Hathcock generally used the standard sniper rifle: the Winchester Model 70 .30-06 caliber rifle with the standard 8-power Unertl scope. On some occasions, however, he used a different weapon: the .50-caliber M2 Browning Machine Gun, on which he mounted the Unertl scope, using a bracket of his own design. This weapon had a Traversing and Elevating (T& E) mount that enabled precise aiming: it was accurate to 2500 yards when fired one round at a time. At one point, he took careful aim at a courier carrying a load of AK-47's and ammunition on a bicycle. He had second thoughts when he saw a 12-year-old boy in his sights, but after considering the intended use of those weapons, he decided to disable the bicycle, hitting the bike frame. The boy tumbled over the handlebars, grabbed a gun, and immediately began firing back, so Hathcock returned fire, killing him.

Hathcock's career as a sniper came to a sudden end outside Khe Sanh in 1969, when an amtrack he was riding on struck an anti-tank mine. Hathcock pulled seven Marines off the flame-engulfed vehicle before jumping to safety. He was told he would be recommended for the Medal of Honor, but he stated that he had only done what anyone there would have done if they were awake, so he rejected any commendation for his bravery. Nearly 30 years later, he was awarded the Silver Star, due to the statute of limitations being 20 years. The medal had to be approved by Congress, which downgraded it to the third most prestigious award in U.S. military.

They would have loved him at Stalingrad.

Edited December 29, 2010 by visaveteran

[slim 1,525]

Exactly why I find it hilarious when places like Kalifornia ban "assault weapons" yet consider a Model 70 to be "safe."

[visaveteran 1]

There are some anti-gun groups and some states that want to define any bolt action rifle as a "sniper rifle" and therefore should be outlawed.

It's all in the names: Any semi-auto rifle=Assault Rifle. Any bolt action rifle=Sniper Rifle. Any small hand gun=Saturday Night Special.

[slim 1,525]

I've long thought if I ever had to stand my ground with a weapon it'd be a brown bess smoothbore musket. It's not the weapon, it's the point.

Back in '75 when King George lost the war (it was over before it started) he didn't lose it to guys with "assault weapons" he lost it to a collective body of men who wouldn't allow their army to be used as a tool of tyranny. They didn't win because of the weapons used, they won because enough of the people had enough sense to stand up for what was right and not just change the channel.

Apathy and ignorance are the real dangers to society. Not ARs and AKs.

[baron555 934]

I'd prefer a rifleman's rifle (M-1, M-14) on the battlefield of Afghanistan or anywhere else where long, accurate shots could be made. For closer distances (Vietnam on through Grenada, etc.) I'd rather have the M-16.

I'm real accurate with my M1s out to 600 easy with just iron sights. Same with my M14 or M1As with STD USGI sights; I too have aSpringfield National Match M1A that shoots very accurately out to 600 and beyond. Haven't s scoped any of those, yet. Maybe never.

I have two RRA Match AR-15s, one scoped "tactical" with a sweet IOR Vadada 1.1-4 scope and the other with a Leupold VX-II. You don't want to be in front of me with one of these in my hands. My newest rifle for "reaching out and touching" is a Remington 700 PSS .308 bedded in an HS Precision stock, Harris bipod and Leupold VX-III scope; 1000 yards is easily obtained!

I agree that the scopes only aid an already good, experienced shooter; they do not make a bad shooter any better.

[visaveteran 1]

I'm real accurate with my M1s out to 600 easy with just iron sights. Same with my M14 or M1As with STD USGI sights; I too have aSpringfield National Match M1A that shoots very accurately out to 600 and beyond. Haven't s scoped any of those, yet. Maybe never.

I have two RRA Match AR-15s, one scoped "tactical" with a sweet IOR Vadada 1.1-4 scope and the other with a Leupold VX-II. You don't want to be in front of me with one of these in my hands. My newest rifle for "reaching out and touching" is a Remington 700 PSS .308 bedded in an HS Precision stock, Harris bipod and Leupold VX-III scope; 1000 yards is easily obtained!

I agree that the scopes only aid an already good, experienced shooter; they do not make a bad shooter any better.

Baron, you've got quite an arsenal. I'm envious. You also have good taste in weaponry. Nice choices for serious shooting.

Edited December 30, 2010 by visaveteran

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

I'm real accurate with my M1s out to 600 easy with just iron sights. Same with my M14 or M1As with STD USGI sights; I too have aSpringfield National Match M1A that shoots very accurately out to 600 and beyond. Haven't s scoped any of those, yet. Maybe never.

I have two RRA Match AR-15s, one scoped "tactical" with a sweet IOR Vadada 1.1-4 scope and the other with a Leupold VX-II. You don't want to be in front of me with one of these in my hands. My newest rifle for "reaching out and touching" is a Remington 700 PSS .308 bedded in an HS Precision stock, Harris bipod and Leupold VX-III scope; 1000 yards is easily obtained!

I agree that the scopes only aid an already good, experienced shooter; they do not make a bad shooter any better.

I bought the M1A NM used and it came with a HUGE Leupold scope. It looked like a rifle mounted to a scope! I took off the scope base contraption and sold it, and the scope. You can't use a scope for match shooting anyway. But that thing was ungodly huge. I think it was 4-12x or some such with a 40mm or bigger objective lens. A complete aberration.

[slim 1,525]

The bigger the scope, the better it works, right?

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

The bigger the scope, the better it works, right?

"Scope" ????