Originally Posted by Arc Angel:
Why make things any harder than they already are? Once I sight-in a rifle I will remember what it can and can't do at any particular distance. I don't like using a rifle (or a carbine) at what I consider to be handgun distance; and it never fails to annoy me whenever someone sets up on the 25 yard line with his AR16 and begins blasting away. (Like last weekend!)
I have to wonder: Where is the guy's pride? Two methods I use to put my own shots, 'in there' are (1) to look for objects of known size along my line-of-sight and mentally compare them to the known ballistics of whatever cartridge I'm using; and, at distance, (2) I'll try to recover quickly enough to see my bullet strike so that I'll be better able to line up a next shot if need be. Of course, the easiest way to work with a rifle at any distance is to simply, 'buddy up' and use a spotter. (Besides, the more long range rifle shooting you do the better you become at it.)
Originally Posted by Arc Angel:
Wow! You certainly seem to know it all. I'm impressed. (Not!) Not one of the long distance rifle ranges I shoot at allows 25 yard rifle sight-in. Which tell this Range Safety Officer a lot about what you really know about rifle shooting. (Not enough!) Next time you respond to something I post, do both of us a favor and try not to be so pedantic. I'm sure we both know that you're not half as sophisticated as you pretend to be; but congratulations on the AR15 part of your reply. (That's the part you got right!)
Another thing: Who told you that a 50 yard zero is preferred on a, 'fighting rifle'? (It took some kind 'a moxie to post that on anybody's gun board! MPBR estimation is how we usually do it.)
I know that there are
long-distance rifle ranges that do not allow for 25-yard sight-in, but that wasn't the point of discussion. Do you have people shooting AR-15s at 25-yard targets or not? If not, why did you bring it up in your first post? If you do, then why dismiss it in your second post?
The 50-yard zero question has already been addressed: BZ0 vs. IBZ0. See
Maximum Point Blank Range and the Battle sight Zero and
BATTLE SIGHT ZERO (BZO): WHO HAS IT RIGHT?.
:wacko: No, no, no! In your exuberance to prove yourself correct in another one of these stupid IGF arguments, you’ve got it all bassackwards. (Again!)
Do you drink before you write this stuff, or what? How about a reading comprehension problem? Is it difficult for you to be coherent; or, perhaps, even rational? You really puzzle me. Maybe you simply enjoy getting into arguments on internet gun forums? (There ARE people like that - Yes!) You and your buddy, the firefighter, do this all of the time. In fact this sort of confrontational, rather than helpful, behavior is what I’ve come to expect from the both of you.
Look, I’m an instructor; and people have always told me that I’m very good at the job. I’m quite different from you; and I use a different approach. Me? I’d much rather help someone to shoot, or handle a gun better than to argue. Unfortunately, however, it’s not a perfect world, and internet gun forums have a way of too often become like rumpus rooms for people who (When you come right down to it.) are socially maladjusted and/or in love with, both, themselves and violence. (I’ve learned that this is the price you have to be willing to pay for being on somebody else’s internet gun forum.)
Consequently I’m going to try to make this my final reply to the both of you; and I will be as brief as possible. Here we go: First, you seem to be much too anxious to find fault with something I've said. In your quest to prove me wrong you focus on minutia, and (worse) actually twist what I say and put words in my mouth. What you say I’ve said, and what I actually said are TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.
Were you brighter (or, perhaps, more fair-minded) you wouldn’t attempt to connect my separate comments, and parse together separate and distinct remarks that were never intended to be directly associated. In this case what you are trying to make me say is NOT what I actually said. It’s just that with you an argument seems to matter more than the truth.
Now, try to follow what I’m saying: (Ready?) There is no direct association between my two separately quoted remarks. My first remark refers to a visit to one gun range, on one particular day, and alludes to the behavior of someone whom I encountered there; and, the second remark refers to my own shooting, at other times, under different circumstances, at other gun ranges. (Got it?)
Stop quibbling! It’s neither honest, nor fair of you to attempt to put your words, and the erroneous conclusions you’ve reached (or woven) into my mouth. I didn’t do anything like that to you! Let me spell things out for ya, sport: I don't go onto anybody’s internet gun forum in order to argue; and if I don’t have something genuinely useful to say then I’m old enough and wise enough to know better than to post, ‘crap talk’ that adds nothing useful to the discussion.
You are, I think deliberately, misleading the people who read this thread. (1) I’m not talking about using a short barreled carbine inside an urban combat environment; but, quite apparently, you are! (2) Beyond what the author of your referenced article reluctantly admits: I DO HAVE THE MEANS TO ESTABLISH AND WORK EFFECTIVELY WITH MORE GENUINELY USEFUL MPBR’s.
Neither have I contradicted anything I previously said. YOU HAVE ASSUMED a relationship between separate remarks that was neither implied, nor intended. (Probably because you’re anxious to win another one of your internet gun forum arguments!)
Even the author of the flimsy article you reference realizes that a, ‘50 yard’ zero isn’t anywhere near as useful as a legitimate MPBR zero; but, still, you insist upon flaunting it. I’ll grant that lowering a carbine’s zero by one or two inches might be an advantage in CQB urban combat; but in my world of considerably more sophisticated and demanding marksmanship, 50 yard zeros mean nothing - Nothing!
In today’s world of combat pistolcraft and urban carbine warfare it’s not necessary to adjust either pistol or carbine sights for shooting at probable ranges of 50 to 80 yards. What for? Surely even you must realize that any such adjustment would be useless to an average marksman, anyway - Right! In so many words the author of your quoted articles even says as much before he drones on about how things could be better if more shooters were able to sight-in on 300 + yard ranges. (You do realize this; don’t you?) Know what? The author is correct! It’s you who are wrong.
That’s it. I’m not going to argue with you any further. You could have learned a lot from me, pal. I’ve trained any number of outstanding rifle marksmen, including one exceptional, decorated Army sniper whose FBI father has repeatedly attributed his son’s battlefield success (at least in part) to the riflery training I gave the boy when he was in his late teens. (Furthermore, from what his father has told me, so did this young man’s B-4 instructors at Fort Benning, GA where he, afterwards, went on to train. His dad said that all the sniper school range instructors wanted to know where his son had learned to shoot like that! They were amazed at what I had taught the boy about long range rifle marksmanship! True story! No internet gun forum BS.)
To expand upon what I’ve already said: I’ve been shooting all different sorts of guns, now, for more than 50 years. I’ve also spent my entire life as an outstanding marksman; and, you may believe me, I’ve received the praise and numerous accolades to prove it, too. You could have learned a lot from me, pal; but, now, that’s never going to happen. (Won’t be my loss!) :no:
NOTE: Firefighterchen, I spent a little time looking around the internet. Here’s a number of underlying reasons why, even with the improvements in modern primer chemicals, it remains a good idea to clean a dirty gun barrel once; and, then, clean it again two or three days later - A practice a lot of the expert marksmen I used to regularly shoot with followed for many years; and I suspect there are quite a few of us left who still do. (Although, as I’ve previously said: I truly don’t care how any of you clean your guns.)
Debunking the Myths Behind Causes of Rust on Firearms
Link Removed
What! Another Gun Cleaner, Don't We Have Enough? - Blue Wonder(tm) Gun Care Products
Whether the primers were potassium chloride, or lead styphnate didn’t matter. The only barrels we didn’t clean twice, like this, were the ones that contained deposits of molybdenum disulfide. These barrels did tend to be more accurate; however, raw moly is both more wearing, and hygroscopic. Consequently, moly-coated barrels invariably tended to wear out faster. That’s it, kids! I’m done with this nonsense, now. If I decide to stay on the board it’s onto the Ignore List for the both of you.
