Philosophy on tactics of the economical battle rifle use

[emcon5]

Originally Posted by Willie Lowman

Pics or it didn't happen.

I believe him. After all what he posted isn't all that difficult:

Originally Posted by savage1r

I was able to nail a steel target (3'x4' bison) at 480 yards consistently with my Mosin and my father's Dragunov (not the real drag, but the romanian PSL-54C).

So you hit a target that was roughly 7.5 X 10 MOA.

Originally Posted by savage1r

was able to score 3 hits in a row at 1000 yards with out-of-the-tin 147gr bulgarian light ball. I believe the target was 3' diameter circular gong.

This is certainly harder, but if it was a 3' circle it is still ~3.5 MOA. Once he got the elevation worked out, doping the wind isn't bad if the winds are steady, particularly if you have a spotter.

[savage1r]

emcon5, I was referring to a theoretical situation where the semi auto AR's/AK have the advantage out to (I've been corrected on this) 500-600 yards depending. Beyond that distance is where a battle rifle has the advantage "theoretically". I hear ya "pics or nothin" , I ingested the footage just a while ago and will be putting something out tomorrow.

[bottom rung]

I believe the subject of this thread was a little bit unclear and with each continuing post I find myself a little bit more confused as to its original intent.

If you are attempting to say that more can be done with less, you are correct. If you are attempting to say that in some cases a $300 gun can out perform a $1000 gun, you are correct. If you are attempting to say that good results depend on the man more so than the equipment, you are correct.

Professional riflemen of civilian agencies and military forces do frequent and belong to this forum. There is a chance that behind a screen name lies a lot of experience and knowledge. So please, let's be respectful. Let's not degrade the forum because someone states something that you view as seemingly untrue. Perhaps what was said was untrue, in that case it probably doesn't warrant a response. "Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like him." Proverbs 26:4

Historically, riflemen have always sought to use every advantage to make an accurate shot. Riflemen would use anything possible in the field to steady their shot. It is just good sense. The bench is nothing more than the evolution of the tree branch or log of two hundred years ago.

It is critical to learn how to shoot from all positions. If you cannot shoot accurately from a variety of positions then, no, you are not a rifleman. I am a man, but I cannot shoot from a variety of positions accurately. I am a recreational shooter. I do not belong to any civillian police agency or military force. I am a professional in another trade, where a professional rifleman would need my guidance and instruction. The reverse is true. Why so many people get swept up with the "I am rifleman" syndrome is puzzling. We are a Nation that is in a state of relative peace. We do not need every man to be a rifleman. We still need dentists, doctors, mailmen, mechanics, grocers, farmers, and so on. Each job requires training and practice. We can't all be riflemen and many of us never will be.

Chances are most guys shooting off of benches trying to get one hole groups are not playing out tactical scenarios in their head as they shoot. Most of these guys are doing it because it is a hobby and that is what they enjoy doing. Most guys who have spent a lot of money on equipment have ended up with good equipment. NcStar scopes can be used successfully at long distance as you have stated. However, Leupold, Burris, Ziess, Nikon, etc have proven track records and far better reports than less expensive brands such as NcStar. The man with the Remington 700P with the 24" stainless 5R barrel, Timney trigger, Badger Ordnance scope mount and rings anchoring a Leupold Mark 4 scope will out shoot anybody with a Mosin Nagant anyday, and everyday, provided he is just North of absolute novice. U.S. Special Forces are trained in the use of many different weapons, including weapons that cost less than $150, yet they still go into combat carrying guns that cost closer to $3000. Why? Because good equipment is not cheap and good equipment is good equipment.

As a civilian, I don't like to spend a lot of money. So, if you haven't spent a lot and you can hit your target, good for you. Keep it up. I love rifles, but I hesitate to spend $1000 on one. That is a solid week's pay for me. I have bills to pay, gas tanks to fill, and a savings account to manage wisely. My hobby doesn't require or justify high dollar equipment, but I enjoy seeing it on the range. I enjoy seeing it in the hands of professionals. If I am ever depending on the police to save my life, I hope they show up with Les Baer ARs and Ed Brown M40s topped with Leupold glass.

[emcon5]

emcon5, I was referring to a theoretical situation where the semi auto AR's/AK have the advantage out to (I've been corrected on this) 500-600 yards depending. Beyond that distance is where a battle rifle has the advantage "theoretically".

The advantages of the modern "Sturmgewehr" over the so-called battle rifle isn't about range, it is about how much ammo the average soldier can carry and how controllable the rifle is. The intermediate cartridges (.223/5.56x45, 7.62x39, 7.92x33mmK) weigh less and are generally smaller than the full sized rifle rounds they replaced (7.62x51mm, 7.62x54mmR, 7.92x57mm). They recoil less, allowing a lighter rifle that jumps less.

Yes, the bigger cartridges are better at longer range, but engagements at that range rarely happened, and even if they did, targets at that range were beyond the abilities of the average rifleman and his equipment. The 2000 meter sights on the Mosin Nagant were not for shooting at individual enemies, they were for shooting at enemy formations. The days of armies forming up battle lines on each side of a field to stand around and shoot at each other are long gone.

None of this matters to civilians.

[bamaranger]

I'm for any shooting that burns powder. I think that's a loose Elmer Keith quote from back when he was still writing for Guns & Ammo.

I kind of lost the direction of this thread myself.

[darkgael]

+1 about that High Power Rifle competition.
The "tactical" idea....huh? At the range? Farthest thing from my mind.
Shooting at 100 yards? That's how long the range is.
Shooting from field expedient positions. That's what I do. But I've no problem about bench-only shooters, they are having fun and learning about their firearm, maybe refining their loads. Good for them.
Pete

[savage1r]

Ok guys, I couldn't sleep so I threw this together to get it out there. I jumped the gun (so to speak) in originally saying I got 3 shots in a row, after looking back at the video it was 2, a miss and 1, but 3 our of 4 ain't bad (I do believe I made a previous shot the spotter couldn't confirm it though he did spot a hit later on-first part of the last clip he calls 2 hits). The bear you see in the last clip is at 880 yards or 1/2 mile, the gong is at 1000 yards. Sorry for the blurry video but I have an OLD digital 8 with 560x zoom and I'm around 530 so it's not very clear. You can hear the spotter calling out the hits.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bl3JRI75SsI

[wogpotter]

I think you're doing 2 things incorrectly in your asessment of other rifle shooters.
Firstly I know a lot of shooters who'd like to shoot well out beyond 100yds, but the facility doesn't exist where they are, or within reasonable travel distance. Because of this they keep in trim on the local 100yd range so they don't absolutely suck when they get to a longer range as time permits. If you only see them at the local 100yd range then that's how you think they shoot because you're only seeing part of the overall picture.

Secondly you're applying the first mis-conception & then adding the lowest common denominator, those shooters who only pop off a quick 5 rounds at 100 yds & call it good, to the initial error to make it look even worse.

On the equipment side I shoot whenever I can with guys who can hit the 18" 600yd gong with iron sights regularly. They don't even need a scope at all, much less a spotter with a mildot master & pocket calculator to figure out the drop at extended range. Personally I use a bolt action surplus rifle with iron sights & a main battle rifle with a low power ranging scope with ranging reticule & BDC, I can hit the 100,200,300,400,500,& 600 gongs regularly, as can most of those I shoot with. All without the need for long, drawn out calculations, just practice.

I'm fortunate in having access to the land & long targets, but that's a happy coincidence, not a planned schedule. Not everyone is that lucky.

Try this to really air-check your skillset.
2 shooters, 2 spotters. Each spotter calls for the other shooter (just to keep everyone honest )

Roll a dice to see the starting range, then flip a coin to pick the first shooter.

Shooter engages the target at the distance matching the dice roll. When he gets a spotted "HIT" he calls the next range. The other shooter repeats.

I'll betcha the MBR shooter gets there first.

[hogdogs]

savage, I am glad you admitted in the OP that you do not have extensive firearms knowledge...

Before you go off on a tangent wondering why all folks are not setting up for 500 yard shots you should realize that many know they will never get a shot at that range. Others do not have a worry about needing to bring their Enhanced Battle Rifle to bear against an armed human at any distance.

And your lack of gun knowledge is also brilliantly glowing as you mention calibers...
It is a .30-06 not a 30.06... I think you meant .308 not 30.08...
Just Sayin'...
Brent

[hogdogs]

was able to nail a steel target (3'x4' bison) at 480 yards consistently with my Mosin and my father's Dragunov

Heck... Even I could likely hit a 3 feet by 4 feet target at that distance...

Hey! You asked for the criticism
Brent

[savage1r]

Wogpotter, that's probably the coolest idea I've heard for a good competition shooting setup. Hogdogs, yup, keep the criticism coming, I'm a hard core n00b and these last few weeks were my first time shooting beyond 200 and it just got me wondering why more people don't do so. As far as hitting the nail on the head from both sides, I think Bottom Rung captured the essence of the argument beautifully.

[emcon5]

Originally Posted by savage1r

The bear you see in the last clip is at 880 yards or 1/2 mile, the gong is at 1000 yards.

How big is the bear target? If it is anywhere close to life sized, that 1000 yard gong is a bigger than 3". It appears to be the same height as the bear target despite being 120 yards farther away.

Originally Posted by Wogpotter

Try this to really air-check your skillset.

You really want to check your skill set, go prairie dog hunting: Small targets at unknown ranges from ~50 yards to as far as the terrain allows.

By the way, the only ranges within a hours drive are generally limited to 100 yards. Two of them have 200 yard ranges, but they are primarily used for competition, and are not normally open to the public. If I want to shoot farther, I am looking at a 2-3 hour drive.

[savage1r]

I believe the bear is 3'x5', maybe 4'x5' (I think it's the same size as the buffalo target I shot before). I think the guy who was my spotter said the gong was 3 feet across, but I might be mistaken. Here's the link to the range I went to.
http://www.inas.us/svrpc.html
I hear ya about the prarie dogging, I appreciate that but I'm not into killing unless my life is in danger and last time I checked, I haven't seen any armed ground squirrels. . . yet!

[L_Killkenny]

I'm a hard core n00b and these last few weeks were my first time shooting beyond 200 and it just got me wondering why more people don't do so.

It shows. Why didn't you just bring up long range shooting and questions about it. Instead you had question other shooters motives of shooting at 100 yards and use words like battle rifles and tactics. Us civilians don't use or own battle rifles or use tactics. At least not outside the realm of SD/HD (self/home defense). What you have is a cheap Mil-surp rifle that may or may not be a lot of fun. There are lot's of competitions and games for long range shooting. But to come on here and question other shooters styles/games and use mall ninja talk won't get you much GOOD info from the knowledgeable folks.

LK

[savage1r]

I don't believe I was out to insult anyone, I prefaced everything by saying that shooting the 100 yard dot is hard and I understand that people like to do that and there's nothing wrong with it. I also stated that, for me, that didn't seem very entertaining. I wanted to provoke some discussion on what people thought the tactical advantage of long range shooting (lets say 400 yards and above) over a standard AR/AK. I'm not out bashing anyone's way of life or preference of shooting, I merely wanted to make an opinion, find out what other people's opinion was on that subject and ask for critique. I'm well aware that civilians don't use tactics (and I still don't see what people's hang up is about calling a military issued rifle a battle rifle is. A Mauser is a battle rifle, a Enfield is a battle rifle, on up to what is being issued today. Can someone please explain how my terminology is wrong there?), but I wanted people's ideas on the theory behind the tactics of long range shooting.

[mapsjanhere]

We know he's not the mall ninja, he didn't ask about the best way to mount his Barrett 50 on a golf cart. So I wait till he needs help with mounting rails to that Mosin Nagant to see where this is going.

[Huntergirl]

Actually, your originall thread was vague and misleading from the later points you made, except for the comments about other shooters. You can express your ideas and shooting goals without critiquing why other shooters at the range don't do this or that. But then, you ARE a noob. carry on....

[savage1r]

To those who I offended by poorly wording my ideas I do apologise. I'm definitely not perfect, just tryin to have fun and get some debate going.
I do have to say though that I am slightly disappointed however because (I'm sure I'm partly to blame because how I worded my statement) there really hasn't been much discussion on the topic I was trying to get people to talk about and it's mostly been arguing over semantics and jibes.

[L_Killkenny]

Different things for differnet folks. What's to debate anyway? There is no debate. Long range games (that's what they are, games) can be a lot of fun and most, if not all, shooters will play given the chance. It doesn't have to be high power either. Handguns, rimfires, cowboy silloette, etc etc are all available. Not to mention the countless other oprotunities of informal long range shooting like long crows, varmints, soda cans, clay pidgeons, rocks in fields, etc etc.

LK

[Huntergirl]

Also, there are TONS of long range info available. Just use the "Search" function on this forum.

[mapsjanhere]

The reason why some people make light of you is that your argument doesn't reflect reality. In a true battle, you will engage a long distance target a) with a crew fired weapon or b) by a true sniper. a) is not practical or legal for most of us, and b) does not mean you hit the gong at 1000 yard 3 out of 4 after unlimited sighters, it means you hit it first shot, only shot. If you can take your $150 MN combo to the range, lay down at the line, observe the weather for 15 min, then take one shot and get a 1000 yard gong, you're one hell of a shooter in a tactically relevant situation. Actually, if you can take an F-class rifle and do it I still say you're one hell of a shooter.
Everything else is, as LK said, range games.

[LateNightFlight]

Why didn't you just bring up long range shooting and questions about it. Instead you had question other shooters motives of shooting at 100 yards and use words like battle rifles and tactics.

Yep, that’s why the thread became contentious.

If I put that frame of reference aside - your personal why and whatfor - it's easy to give you two thumbs up. You set out to accomplish something and you did it. You illustrated that you don't need to sink mega bucks into a rig to participate in long range shooting. That point is where you need to hang your hat.

I'd venture a guess that your scope will start to lose zero or give up the ghost outright, where scopes of better quality would hold up. But the take away here is that this is an unknown until it happens. In the meantime, you're out shooting long range while some are still figuring out strategies to afford and accumulate the equipment they think they need to get started.

Kudos also for the video. It makes the exercise more fun and I hope you'll do more. Your experiences provide numerous possibilities for spin off topics with a variety of interesting challenges. What can anybody do with their Mosin? Long range with mil-surp? Survival testing economy optics. Thousand yard rigs for under $500? Your frame of considerations might not have been embraced, but nothing ventured – nothing gained. The point is, you put together a rig and took it where you wanted to go.

That’s what keeps shooting fun for me - the freedom to keep redefining my own purpose and see where it takes me. The last thing I worry about is how someone else defines a “rifleman,” or prescribes an expectation or standard. Whatever their expectations are, that’s their problem.

Congrats on your thousand yard rig. Be safe and have fun.

[savage1r]

Bingo, thanks, have a good one!

[davlandrum]

IIRC - danger close mortar is only 600M, so I only have to engage targets inside that...if I was in a true battle.

[wogpotter]

I believe the bear is 3'x5', maybe 4'x5'

*splutter* is that FEET!!!
Hey, just messin' with you.
It's good that you are trying something other than 100yds from a bench, but you have a ways to go yet before you start pickin' on other shooters.



Notice the lack of any kind of scope, the standing, supported position, & the other targets scattered pretty much randomly all over the hill. This is where we do the drill I mentioned BTW. It's humbling, believe me. Misses of 2~3 feet aren't uncomon till you get the range & wind doped out.