Proper Firearm Handling
Check out the link on ar15.com. Their shooting styles are… unconventional to say the least. What do you think they would do with that big S+W on your Christmas list, Skipper?
Maybe if they used Homeboy Nyte Sytes they would hit something…
Having looked at the entire photo spread linked to this article, I cannot fathom how Detroit’s Chamber of Commerce ever approved its publication on the internet. No wonder they’re having PR problems.
Posted by Old School
12/06/2005 at 06:12 PM
Follow the link for some swell photos. I’m not a ‘gun guy’ but is he not firing what we used to call a Grease Gun? I believe the original shot .45 slugs and had a flared muzzle—like the old blunderbuss??? The photo looks like it has two oval barrels..
Sexy and unusual firing stances. In Liberia I might support gun control—for these guys.
Posted by Oink
12/06/2005 at 08:10 PM
You sure that’s not a Crip, is it Skipper?
Ah, so that’s where our black gangstas got their firing techniques from. It’s a ‘sraight-up-booyah’ African thang, y’all! And the answer to the question of “Do these creeps actually hit anything” is “Yes. Their burquha-covered wives & kids.”
Perfect example of the “point and spray” method of shooting—lots of lead and noise, but little is accomplished.
That asshat’s shooting stance is more from Hollywood than Ft. Benning—it totally screws the ballastics of the round. Thankfully, it makes it easier for us to pop a cap into his center of mass.Posted by MAJ Mike
12/07/2005 at 08:10 AM
Good example of American Gangsta Culture spreading thruout the world. I wish the Vietcong had adopted this sexy Hollywood firing stance.
Posted by Oink
12/07/2005 at 08:24 AM
I read the whole thread at the link. There are more pics and some priceless comments. Give yourselves a treat.
>>The photo looks like it has two oval barrels..
Oink, the photo above (and most of the photos at the link) are of AK-47’s (or variants). The second “barrel” is a gas cylinder/piston mechanism. For those interested in trivia, it is the most popular rifle on the planet.
http://www.sovietarmy.com/small_arms/ak-47.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AK-47tuff: thanx. Some of the photos in the link are of a ‘grease gun’.
OCM: In combat many men do not shoot at all.
Aiming before firing is preferred. That’s why 1. automatic weapons suck (in most instances) 2. “Friendly” fire is common, especially with green troops. That’s why the war reporting refers to “seasoned battle-tested troops”.Posted by Oink
12/07/2005 at 09:38 AM
OCM, I think that SA .44Mag Ruger is one of the “Blackhawk” family, I have it in 45 long colt (and its .22 cal little brother. The DA version is the Redhawk, and Super Redhawk. Aall great handling, straight shooting, made in NH firearms. Snubbies are OK for close in workm but NFG for much more than a few yeards. Tough to hit the inside of a barn with the door closed, with a snubbie…
There was a program on History Channel a few months back about this Liberian street-fighting, and how the State Department’s Security temas dealt with it. One particularly gruesome scene showed a recently severed head on a spike, and then another showed what appeared to be “rope barriers” stretched across the road, only it wasn’t rope, it was the intestines of a freshly killed opponent. All in living (or very dead in this instance) and very gory color
Another street-urchin was running around clutching a freshly-removed heart cut from the chest of another “enemy” victim.
Those gangsta asshats in the street did have enough sense not to even think about messing with the USA, in particular the US consulate’s USMC Security forces, who were, and are more, than fully capable of eliminating this “native threat” in a rapid and very efficient manner.
S.L.A. Marshall conducted a study for the Department of War right after WWII. It’s been published in book form under the title “Men Against Fire”. One of his conclusions was that only a tiny minority of soldiers actually fire their weapons in combat—something like less than 5% (I could be wrong because it’s been at least 20 years since I’ve read it).
Much of post-Vietnam basic military training has been to get the individual soldier to have confidence in his weapon and to engage targets with it.
Those clowns in the picture spread fancy themselves as warriors. They should remember that warriors tend to be pop-up targets for soldiers. As for the rest of us—remember to aim at the center of mass and to continue to fire until the target drops or its time for a magazine change (whichever comes first).
Posted by MAJ Mike
12/07/2005 at 03:05 PM
Mike: I suppose this is also true of Marines? It didn’t seem to be true in VNam— many times I thought we fired too much and too easily. We landed in 1965 as a batallion—the first night we fired at bogeys and spooks for hours. It’s the only time I’ve ever seen an M-60 machine gun on free traverse* firing tracers. Pretty impressive.
* meaning the gun could fire in any direction, rather than a restricted area
Posted by Oink
12/07/2005 at 04:06 PM
Spray and pray isn’t much good if you are going against one or two guys who know how to aim. I learned to shoot using a single shot .22 and the idea of wasting rounds does not come easy. When I was a pig man (M-60 gunner) I was able to make it shoot single rounds, and could hit targets at 500 Meters with ease. Knew one guy who could John Wayne two M-60s and do it acurately. Fellas like that are few and far between.
I believe SLA Marshall was right about the percentage of troops who actually fire their weapons AT the enemy during combat. They do make good ammo carts, and bullet stoppers though.
OCM, The statistics I’ve seen on shots fire to kills all say that we fire 10,000 plus rounds per kill. It was much lower during WW1, but has climbed steadily since teh advent of automatic weapons.The M-60, cal.50 “Ma Duece”, etc were designed for full automatic fire. However, “spray and pray” was rarely recommended even for these systems. Good gunners would sweep the designated kill zone in a methodical manner to ensure that every square inch has a visit from Mr. Bullet.
Again, soldiers turn warriors into pop-up targets.
Posted by MAJ Mike
12/08/2005 at 08:19 AM
I agree that spraying fire is worthless for purposes other than making alot of noise. However, streaming fire is something altogether different. The .45 caliber Ingram MAC-10’s stability at full-auto shocked me. I was expecting to have little or no muzzle control, but actually it was alot like holding a fire hose — once I got the first few bullets on the target (a cardboard box), I held on tight and the remaining 47 rounds followed suit right after, seemingly nose-to-end. Sure, it was only 50 yards out, but most of those rounds hit that box, vaporizing it as you can imagine. What a fine, fine day on the range that was....
However, I’ve always wanted to know if that MAC’s owner was telling me the truth: He claimed that the only branch of the military or government that actually issues the Ingram MAC-10 to its agents is the US Presidential Secret Service. Supposedly the “Bravo” element of their 4-man fireteams is armed with it. Anyone know if this is true or not? I’ve always wondered....
Gentlemen! Gentlemen! Please!
There has only been one recorded instance in history of “spraying fire” actually being effective and it worked like a charm.
http://www.1stcavmedic.com/glossary-files/ac-47-puff.htm
’Puff’ was after my time in VNam. (We were winning when I left!) It’s true that you can shoot the forest down and kill a few enemy. The question remains, is there a better way?
I suspect Puff is symptomatic of our history of substituting technology for strategy in VNam, altho it may have worked fine.
Posted by Oink
12/08/2005 at 11:21 AM
OINK: Puff’s value was not as a “shooter”. It’s real value was in Psy-Ops. The VC were frightened to death of it and VC running in panic are easy targets, according to a few friends of mine who were there.
OCM: The bodyguards for General Krulak carried shotguns—the only ones I personally saw.
Cap’n: That’s good. Even better is them frightened to death of us. My beef is with strategy, not tactics. Someone should have asked “How can we with this war, and how will this particular weapon help accomplish that?”.
Posted by Oink
12/08/2005 at 02:41 PM
Shotguns were issued to American troops during WWI as “trench sweepers”. They were so effective that the Imperial German Government lodged a complaint with the Geneva Convention folks claiming that American 12-gauge pump shotguns were barbaric vilations of international law.
I knew a Medic who carried a sawed-off shotgun in Vietnam and they’re in use in Iraq today. Troops in Iraq frequently use them to blow locks off of doors.
Scariest sound an intruder may hear in a dark house is the action of a pump shotgun being activated.
Sorry for the History lesson, but its unavoidable with me.
Posted by MAJ Mike
12/08/2005 at 05:35 PM
Ah, Skipper. I should’ve known that an Air Force guy like yourself would whip out the minigun! The new & improved Dillon version is the best. But of course, I know you’re really dreaming of the mighty Avenger!
