|
Post by Erick on Nov 18, 2014 19:05:53 GMT -5
I also beta tested this drill 8 days ago at MVT. You're a very competent and IMO faster shooter than I am (though I did have only 3 out of the ring) I used every second.
|
|
|
Post by USMC0331 on Nov 18, 2014 20:21:44 GMT -5
Erick, How did he run the drill. Was it about the same, doing reloads off gear for each position? I think it's a good drill and realistic as a cutoff drill. I'm actually thinking of using it as a replacement for the Practical Rifle Safety qualifier I made up. mrpc.info/practical-rifle-cofs/
|
|
|
Post by Erick on Nov 18, 2014 20:45:13 GMT -5
Someone other than max was running the drill with me as the Grader. He is a security contractor and was running it with what I understand to be Dept of State rules so you started out with the mag in your gun and you could have the next mag on your person that you wished.
But again this was just beta testing and may still be refined further.
|
|
|
Post by Hawkeye on Nov 19, 2014 10:24:45 GMT -5
A question, from watching usmc0331's video, that I haven't asked before but have seen elsewhere in videos; What is this odd thing with holding as far down the barrel as you can reach? That can't make a stable platform, surely? Basic physics says you stick a weight at the end of a length and the longer it is, the the easier it is to move (wobble?) and (my) experience shows holding things at arms length is harder than with a nice V-shape from the elbow. I can see how in a building, at CLOSE ranges it could be an advantage (1 - you can basically FEEL where the end of the rifle is, because your arm is there. That's going to add some spatial awareness even if you don't notice it. and 2) The whole fulcrum thing, and the longer it is the easier it is to move the rifle - But even then I have always been taught (and found it true) that if you want to move a rifle left/right then you move your SHOULDERS, and your whole upper body. I'm sure there is a reason people do this, but it seems (some) people are using it in long range shooting, and it seems counter-intuitive to me. Can some explain? It's called C grip. it is (IMHO) a fad that came up via 2 groups: Door kickers for whom the ability to hose down a room was important (and for which C grip actually works well) and 3 gun competitiors for same reason. I played around with it and it DOES work well for a narrow set of applications (specifically shorter ranges) Basic Infantry work it does not IMHO, as it fatigues your muscles and gives less fine motor control. There is no way to patrol for a couple hours in C grip in a meaningful way. For .civs trying to learn shooting I always steer them away from it and more towards the 85% solution. But that being said it DOES have a role in room clearing. For those who dont get thier ammo and training time for free on the gov't tit, I always recommend to keep training one hold only, so they get competent at a 85% solution which cna be use of the VFG or AFG or old school flat hand. (I personally prefer VFG as my 85% solution, its suboptimal at 8 yards but keeping one configuration at all times has its advantages as well) But you will find some competent shooters use it for all sorts of applications, since they are used to it from 3 gunning or SWATing. Erick pretty much nailed it.
|
|
|
Post by USMC0331 on Nov 19, 2014 11:15:31 GMT -5
Except it's not a c-grip and it's used because it works better in a lot of places than mag,flat,VDG does. Proofs in the puddin folks. There is a reason that the best shooters do things If you want to be closed minded and stick with what you know then rock on. If you want to get better, experiment and learn what works best for any given situation.
|
|
|
Post by Hawkeye on Nov 19, 2014 11:51:14 GMT -5
Odd. I know a lot of serious folks, that disagree with you. A couple in particular have killed a lot of human beings in combat.
And for the record, making such arrogant accusations of being close minded, is not wise.
|
|
|
Post by USMC0331 on Nov 19, 2014 11:59:29 GMT -5
Since it seems you are looking for a fight today based on you last two posts directed at me, I'll leave you to your house as I can see you are not going to listen to a word I'm saying.
|
|
|
Post by UnforseenWeather on Nov 19, 2014 12:02:38 GMT -5
Except it's not a c-grip and it's used because it works better in a lot of places than mag,flat,VDG does. Proofs in the puddin folks. There is a reason that the best shooters do things If you want to be closed minded and stick with what you know then rock on. If you want to get better, experiment and learn what works best for any given situation. Except it's A way, not THE way. That's not closed minded. That's trying things, figuring out what works, and separating the wheat from the chaff. Remember your audience and give it a little more thought before you say such things. That's as nice as we're going to be about it at this point - don't go insulting our membership like that. It will not be tolerated.
|
|
|
Post by Hawkeye on Nov 19, 2014 12:05:10 GMT -5
I'm not looking for a fight at all. If that was the case, I'd have done it a LONG time ago.
|
|
|
Post by panzer0170 on Nov 19, 2014 12:39:36 GMT -5
Odd. I know a lot of serious folks, that disagree with you. A couple in particular have killed a lot of human beings in combat. And for the record, making such arrogant accusations of being close minded, is not wise. Agreed, and for many a similar reason. From chatting and,mostly, LISTENING to people I know It seems good for cqb, in the standing position. I prefer a bent elbow for kneeling/sitting, and obvs for prone. My personal experience is with very short weapons, with big fore-ends. C-Grip would be a pain in the arse for me - I'd have to hold the barrel and possibly the muzzle device too. Naturally my experience is with bullpup, but the folk I listen to have used all sorts of gear, and from varied backgrounds (not ALL steely eyed dealers of death my trade, but all with year of op experience)
|
|
|
Post by Diz on Nov 19, 2014 13:18:14 GMT -5
If this was just about technique, it'd be fine. But I think guys are just arguing their position just to defend their POV.
This shit needs to stop.
There's a time and place for different grips. I happen to think that underneath support is the best all-around grip for combat.
'Nuff said.
|
|
|
Post by eddiewouldclearhot on Dec 6, 2014 7:40:07 GMT -5
For the 'FID' frame of reference, I think Diz has got the right idea, there is a necessary level of fitness for all this, sure, but is it the same level as someone planning on doing U/W or more 'offensive' operations?
the 2 mile time is just an indicator i believe, not so much a standard. My fitness ethos revolves around less distance running and more 'crossfit' (for lack of a better explanation that would be less than a sentence) as i think i applies broadly to combat. That said, physical conditioning for the physical requirement. If you think an approach focused on rucking is how you will get to your physical fitness objectives, rock ok. I disagree, but i understand the need for some sort of testing medium.
Mosby has a different outlook. He is more worried about offensive ops against a tyrannical regime. there are different shades of preppers out there, and even here on the forum. Some of us are more offensive minded, and thats ok, some are simply worried about defending their family and property. thats great too. There are 3 populations needed for all this: the G's, the auxiliary, and the underground. Each has their own method of operating and their own requirements. The underground has to be thinkers, smart people quick on their feet who can operate in ambiguous and highly dangerous scenarios... i would argue more dangerous than a fighter. But a fighter in the best shape may not be able to navigate that set of conditions..
point being, it takes all kinds. physical fitness is an important prep for all.
|
|
|
Post by panzer0170 on Dec 6, 2014 7:52:46 GMT -5
For the 'FID' frame of reference, I think Diz has got the right idea, there is a necessary level of fitness for all this, sure, but is it the same level as someone planning on doing U/W or more 'offensive' operations? the 2 mile time is just an indicator i believe, not so much a standard. My fitness ethos revolves around less distance running and more 'crossfit' (for lack of a better explanation that would be less than a sentence) as i think i applies broadly to combat. That said, physical conditioning for the physical requirement. If you think an approach focused on rucking is how you will get to your physical fitness objectives, rock ok. I disagree, but i understand the need for some sort of testing medium. Mosby has a different outlook. He is more worried about offensive ops against a tyrannical regime. there are different shades of preppers out there, and even here on the forum. Some of us are more offensive minded, and thats ok, some are simply worried about defending their family and property. thats great too. There are 3 populations needed for all this: the G's, the auxiliary, and the underground. Each has their own method of operating and their own requirements. The underground has to be thinkers, smart people quick on their feet who can operate in ambiguous and highly dangerous scenarios... i would argue more dangerous than a fighter. But a fighter in the best shape may not be able to navigate that set of conditions.. point being, it takes all kinds. physical fitness is an important prep for all. 2 mile run is a method of doing VO2 max calculations en masse. If you pass Army times it means you stand a good chance of lasting the 'golden hour' if you get shot. Given the chances of you getting doctors as good as this in a UW gear situation, there are 2 ways you can look at this; If you don't have some way of handling such high levels of trauma, you could say 'fuck it', and not worry about it. If you do, then it'd be crazy not to give yourself a stand-up chance of surviving and recovering. Chances of the latter are pretty low, though. To add, because I forgot because I'm a mong; There are OTHER, low impact ways of measuring VO2 Max. You can cycle, swim etc. It's a cardio test, basically. Can your body supply enough oxygen with a loss of blood? yes/no? Running is NOT really a requirement, but it is probably the easiest method of monitoring.
|
|
|
Post by eddiewouldclearhot on Dec 6, 2014 7:58:48 GMT -5
Not discounting physical fitness at all (for the exact reasons you stated)... just saying I have a different approach that is not centered around rucking. I have demonstrated to my self that aerobic activity with low weights will give me better fitness with less damage to my joints and is readily applicable to the broadest range of scenarios. just me, you've got to figure out what works for you.
my other point is that different jobs require different levels of fitness. someone who runs off a helicopter and kicks in someones door int he middle of the night needs a differnent level of fitness than someone defending their family and property.
mosby is training for a specific set of requirements based on the scenario he foresees.
|
|
|
Post by panzer0170 on Dec 6, 2014 8:05:13 GMT -5
I totally agree on low impact stuff. I've done myself plenty of damage doing high impact stuff because that's what the Army thinks is a good idea. I ruck, but for ME I ruck because I enjoy it. I compare it to the difference between running and running in water. That extra resistance makes walking feel TOO easy, sometimes. I don't push myself like I used to, but I suppose I consider it part of my training programme.
|
|