You can often hear or read how an experienced person tells how it is easier to learn how to shoot a firearm.
You can often hear or read how an experienced person tells how it is easier to learn how to shoot a firearm. And he brings, as usual, the coolest (his own) experience in shooting or in training.
In mathematics, no matter how anyone wants, the rules of multiplication, division, subtraction and addition will still be the same for any teacher, but in shooting (especially with pistols), each “master” has everything in his own way. Either this is "Intuitive", then "Offhand", then "Practical", then just sports "shooting at silhouettes" … The most interesting thing is that all these "masters" have their coolest shooting, with any name, has one more explanation "that the same sports, but with additions”and has nothing to do with real practice.
For pre-army or initial army training (for ordinary cannon fodder or recruits), the main thing is really to interest the cadets in the very process of training (shooting), so that they would still learn something in two, three trips to the shooting. And it turns out as usual. As soon as the cadets learn that even the basics must be studied for a long time and persistently, they immediately begin to phony in any science.
After the same, as these newcomers understand why and why it is necessary to keep a monotonous slot of the sight with a front sight and hold their breath, in theory, it would be necessary to develop training in shooting further. To teach the student how to shoot at angles to the horizon, how to correct for climatic conditions, how to work with exceeding tables. They teach how to shoot snipers. But! Who will teach what?
All of us have learned something at some point. And if they really wanted to, then they found out the level of knowledge of their teacher, or rather his frank moronicity with simple questions not according to the program. So I want to ask such "know-it-all teachers" in shooting questions not according to the program. For example:
- And what amendment should be taken from this weapon (pistol, revolver, submachine gun …) at a distance of one and a half, two times more than the maximum sighting?
- What is the excess of the bullet's trajectory at various sighting distances, for this particular weapon (pistol, revolver, machine gun …)? And not for an average similar weapon (pistol, revolver, machine gun …) all over the planet Earth, or at least how can these excess be calculated by practical shooting?
And you will immediately see that there are special tables for the average statistical weapon across the planet, and these tables can be seen in all theoretical shooting manuals. But for specifically, your weapon, it turns out that no one wrote tables and no one knows how they look for your weapon, but they do not exclude that the data of your weapon may differ strongly from the average tabular.
For reference, even professional thermometers should be supplied to consumers with a passport and an error table at different temperatures. At the meteorological stations, the newly obtained thermometers are tested again and the errors are calculated, but this does not apply to military weapons. It turns out that military weapons are akin to a club. What other testing and, in general, what is it and what is it for? By the way, if your shooting coach is a pure athlete, then he will not even understand your tips and tricks with questions.
And if suddenly tomorrow there is a war? And it is with this weapon that you suddenly have to fight? Or is it enough for cannon fodder to learn to shoot only in that direction in order to create a sufficient density of fire per unit length (or area) of enemy positions?
Remember, warriors who know how to shoot from their weapons not on squares, but on specific targets, usually serve in other units and are not trained by amateur athletes. Even if your coach is a former ten-time sport shooting champion, he can only teach other amateur athletes like him. And since all the shooting galleries are already overflowing with former and well-deserved amateurs, new "amateur" specialists appear in shooting from bouncing, jumping, in a coup and with an open fly or walking from one target to another for a while.
The weapon in the hands of a professional warrior is a tool. And you need to know your instrument without restrictions. For example, when archery, in essence a weapon of the Stone Age, there are shooting exercises at distances from 18 meters to 60 and even up to 90 meters. From the combat Makarov they shoot only up to 25 meters and not a step further. What if the enemy is farther or closer, then you need to ask him to move away or, on the contrary, come closer, for the right shot?
In addition, during the mandatory practice shooting, there is usually so much rigor and disciplinary show that discourage beginners from any further shooting classes. Read the rules on the Internet, it is clearly written there that the approach and departure to or from the weapon is given more attention than the shooting itself. As a result, officers who are mature enough, with many years of experience, do not know the capabilities of their service weapons at all, relying more on their fists and their favorite methods of fighting without weapons, learned to automatism. And this applies not so much to officers of some kind of construction and engineering and other services where they practically do not touch weapons at all during the entire service, but specifically to officers of combat units where employees are required to know their small arms by duty. Good physical fitness and knowledge of hand-to-hand combat techniques are certainly welcome, but there is no trick against a crowbar. In this case, it means that against a bullet from a firearm, all types of bare-handed fighting are simply useless. Do not confuse cinematic delights and reality. You can only defend yourself against firearms with your bare hands if your opponent himself is against the use of weapons or an outspoken, inhibited goof. Moving your finger on the trigger is much easier and faster than performing a demonstration technique to wean a loaded weapon from your opponent.
If someone is interested in more detailed research on this topic, then you can find on the Internet historical facts with massive experiments on this topic, for example, how some boxing uprisings were suppressed with the help of guns. It turned out that a bullet may be a fool, but a bare fist is even worse.
Modern firearms cannot be opposed with a naked fist or a naked fist armed with a bayonet. Any weapon can be opposed only by an equivalent or more advanced weapon.
Many simply do not understand me. And perhaps they want to ask, what is the author actually trying to achieve? And so it is clear that a pistol or a rifle is better than a fist. And how else do you need to know your firearms? The modern soldier knows how to make incomplete assembly and disassembly of his machine gun. He will be able to hit the target at the range and clean his weapon when necessary. He knows how to attach phosphor lights to weapons for night shooting and even knows what a PBS is for. What else does a soldier need to know?
The soldiers are not taught to take into account the height of the trajectory of the bullet and, therefore, to confidently hit the targets of lower height, as well as to shoot at different angles to the horizon. So it turns out that an excellent mark in shooting is more needed for the self-complacency of the shooter himself and for the "tick" of the commander, but not for real training in practical shooting.
In a real battle, the warrior will learn to shoot anew, or, more precisely, he will start aimlessly burning cartridges, shooting mostly in long bursts and "in that direction." And the higher the marks of a soldier in training at the training ground, the more helpless he will feel in a real battle. When a targeted weapon suddenly starts shooting past, it is always unpleasant, especially when you really, really hope for this weapon.
Knowledge of the basic rules for determining the amendments introduced for shooting at one or another angle to the horizon will return the weapon to its previous accuracy. And at the same time self-confidence will appear and ammunition will be saved. Well, since the training of warriors today and around the world is mainly sports, then knowledge of the rules of real shooting gives the shooter an extra chance to survive in a shootout with any ass from sports and from any country.
In order not to be unfounded, let’s play a possible situation of confrontation between well-trained special forces with "Kalash" (blue) and those who know their weapons with Makarov pistols (green).
Blue sat on the top of a 150-meter TV tower, it just so happened. The Greens overlaid the TV tower from the bottom, at the very foot.
One of the green ones hid behind a high stone and from the stop, slowly took off all the blue ones from above. The blue ones were shooting back, but there was no sense in their shooting. Why?
Answer: The Blues were disciplined fighters and, shooting from Kalash from a distance of 150 meters, they took aim 2 (200 meters), so they constantly raised the hiding green shooter with Makarov with hits over his head. And the green one knew that at angles close to 90 degrees, bullets from any weapon fly almost in a straight line, so he calmly aimed the blue ones at a constant sight from his Makarov, knowing that he was in relative safety and the blue bullets would probably pass high above his head, a small target. But the blue ones themselves were completely open and it was relatively easy to get into any of them.
If some ignoramus objects to me and says that a bullet from Makarov will not reach such a distance, then let him remember Stechkin's pistol, which just shoots the same cartridges and is designed for firing at a sectorial sight up to 200 m.
And in general, it is not a pistol (or a machine gun) that shoots, a shooter shoots. And in particular, the main strength of the warrior in the head, pumped up muscles and a good breath only complement this strength of the head.
And from what sight were the blue ones supposed to shoot?
Answer: From scratch, but there is no such sight on the Kalash. Shooting from a scope 1 (one hundred meters) would also give an excess in hits of more than 30 centimeters. So the blue were doomed to defeat, due to the imperfection of their weapons and their obstinacy. Superfluous proof that you need to know your opponent's weapons, and even more so practical shooting from your own weapons.
But this is only a theory that neither blue nor green knows in today's reality. Therefore, most likely the greens, not relying on their pistols, will call for reinforcements if possible and they themselves will most likely suffer losses, letting the blue descendants go and let go.
