I mixed up your two fire rates (.2 and .12) still you said you can keep up 5rps for many minutes (10 for a short time) not 3...."My lazy firing rate has splits (time between shots) of approximately 0.2 seconds. I can do that for a long time (many minutes before I slow done). That is a rate of 300 rounds per minute. My fast splits are approximately 0.12 seconds. I can't do that for very long (probably one magazine). That is a rate of 600 rounds per minute." And that's only really 300rpm if you have a 300 round mag.

....wait...why am I wasting my time on this? It's clear you're not comparing Apple's to Apple's.
You didn't come close to convincing me that manual 120 shots per minute at 400 yards all well aimed is believable...even belt fed. Keep in mind he actually averaged hitting one moving person in the dark at 400 yards per second for 10 minutes. Your generous competition numbers have you double tapping at 45 targets per min (without a hit rate given, or range).

First you claimed .2 second split is 300 rpm, now you say it's 90rpm. I'm so over this. Have fun at the range.
Again, the target was the crowd. He got more lead on that target on auto. No aim needed.
I've been shooting (non competitively) for 40 years btw, after rifle marksmanship courses for 3 years starting at 7...but thanks for the suggestion.

"You said almost 3 times that speed, continuously for over 10 minutes....and not with a lightweight speed shorting pistol."

You are not making any sense. I see what I wrote but it is unclear what you are referring to. You are welcome to quote the part you are referring to.

As I wrote above, you can choose the length of time you are aiming your firearm for. I even gave a comparative set of aiming scenarios.

I love how you take the top end of my approximation as your "laughable" scenario and don't mention the rest of the range (i.e. 50 rounds per minute with mag changes). Could you shoot at one round per second aimed? I think with a little training you could.

Doing 0.2 second splits (i.e. you shoot twice at each target) and taking about a second on every target, using 30 round mags, you can do 90 round per minute without much trouble. Going a little slower, say 0.3 second splits, and taking 1.5 seconds per target you can do about 60 round per minute. I could go on. The point is, these are aimed shots with a higher chance to hit the target, and with just as much chance to accidentally hit another target on a miss. This has the result of more hits on target.

"you get more hits on target in full auto".

No, you don't. On target means a hit near the point you intended on a target. He was getting random hits - as is evidenced by the low fatality rate versus high injury rate. The only way you would be correct was if you argued that he intended non-fatal injuries as much as he intended fatalities (and you're welcome to make that argument - it has some merits depending on what this lunatic was trying to achieve).

"If it's as common as you say, that should be easy to provide with a comparison video instead of a suggestion to buy and read a certain book. The videos I found are all short range small target, not at all the same as what we're debating. Show me a comparison of a field layered deep with 10000 balloons getting shot at from distance, that would be informative, short course accuracy target shooting isn't."

The book is good because it shows military statistics with full-auto versus other fire modes. Books are often better than videos. It also outlines military teaching methodology, include marksmanship and how it evolved over time. Full auto is still used in military engagements but you'll find it is used very sparsely (here is a good thread of military and ex-mil talking about it's uses: https://www.quora.com/Why-do-militaries-use-assault-rifles-when-the-full-auto-feature-is-rarely-ever-used )

Short range targets are easier to hit. Are you trying to prove my point? Long range targets are harder to hit. Your rate of randomly hitting targets does not get better at longer ranges. But aiming does increase your chance of hitting a target at any range.

If you really wanted to do a comparison at that range then the targets would be a lot larger than balloons.

You're arguing against established marksmanship knowledge that is readily available over the internet or in firearms courses.

I think you owe it to yourself to prove yourself right or wrong by doing some rifle marksmanship courses. Approach it as a sport and you'll have a lot fun doing it!!!

I can't chat much longer - thanks for the good discussion!

Tags for this video have been changed from 'new year, guns, shooting' to 'new year, guns, shooting, rifle, target, gongs, xylophone, marksmanship' - edited by calvados

Wow, I see so many viewing fails here.

1) Yes, some of these people are gun novices. But these people got more training in gun-handling and marksmanship than is required by most states in the U.S. and they STILL failed to stop the shooter.

2) The whole point of the video is that it takes hundreds of hours of training under stress (like in this scenario) in order for people to overcome their natural instincts and avoid a) freezing up or b) accidentally shooting themselves or another innocent in the confusion.

3) How many gun carriers (barring ex-military or police) have had the kind of training mentioned in Point #2? Of those that have, how many continue to put in the training hours necessary to not lose the skill?

It's all great spouting hypotheticals about how a CCW would have saved the day at Sandy Hook, but this video shows that's a patently false statement. What might have resulted in less casualties would have been a CCW in the hands of a highly disciplined individual with combat firearms training experience. How many gun carrying Americans do you know who fit that description?

And even if such a person HAD been in the school on that day, with the shooter wearing a bullet-proof vest and utilizing a semi-automatic rifle, there's no guarantee the outcome would have been any different.

More guns in the hands of undertrained Americans is not the answer. Modifying the social system so that identifying and dealing with mentally unstable individuals before they go on shooting rampages is a priority, though, would be a step in the right direction.

>> ^SpaceOddity:

>> ^Yogi:
You know, the reason these people feel that they are invincible is that no one has bothered to murder any of them yet. People say that's not the way to deal with them, but I can guarantee if they worried about their safety they wouldn't protest as much at all. The heads of that church are just barely keeping those people enthrall, if you make their adventures personally too costly, they will no longer protest and we will be free of them. Take one of these guys into an alley, and blow their brains out of the back of their head, and you will see a dramatic change in behavior.

Yogi, I am a Marine Corps Iraq veteran who happened to instruct other Marines in marksmanship.
I am also a native of Kansas who thinks the WBC (along with our education board, but that's another matter...) is an embarrassment to all Kansans.
My girlfriend is from Topeka and lived not far from their compound.
I won't deny the temptation to use my skills and the intelligence she could provide to conduct a midnight raid and rid the world of these hatemongers.
But when I think through the moral implications of this, taking another's life for their extreme utilization of the freedom of speech which I hold dear just doesn't sit right.
It's easy to be cynical and support the murder of strangers from your armchair.
It's not so simple when you are in the position to do it.


As the son and grandson of Marines I understand where you are coming from. Here's what I'm suggesting though, we are American citizens responsible for a lot of blood on our hands. Right now Israel is bombing the living shit out of Gaza killing civilians as well as children. They are only able to do this with our funding and selling them arms. I'm just saying if we're responsible for all these horrific deaths around the world, why not just a few more here at home? What I'm saying is we don't have the morality to say that it's not right because we do it so often, lets use it as a strength. We know where they are, lets get rid of them...it's only fair.

>> ^Yogi:

You know, the reason these people feel that they are invincible is that no one has bothered to murder any of them yet. People say that's not the way to deal with them, but I can guarantee if they worried about their safety they wouldn't protest as much at all. The heads of that church are just barely keeping those people enthrall, if you make their adventures personally too costly, they will no longer protest and we will be free of them. Take one of these guys into an alley, and blow their brains out of the back of their head, and you will see a dramatic change in behavior.


Yogi, I am a Marine Corps Iraq veteran who happened to instruct other Marines in marksmanship.
I am also a native of Kansas who thinks the WBC (along with our education board, but that's another matter...) is an embarrassment to all Kansans.
My girlfriend is from Topeka and lived not far from their compound.
I won't deny the temptation to use my skills and the intelligence she could provide to conduct a midnight raid and rid the world of these hatemongers.

But when I think through the moral implications of this, taking another's life for their extreme utilization of the freedom of speech which I hold dear just doesn't sit right.

It's easy to be cynical and support the murder of strangers from your armchair.
It's not so simple when you are in the position to do it.

>> ^Mauru:

>> ^mentality:
This looks ridiculous. When he "dodges" all he's doing is shifting his shoulders back while his head stays as stationary as a dead log. I guess it works if you're fighting someone dumb enough to consistently aim one foot to either side of the real target...

now imagine you were aiming for the head- giving his arms all the time to move... there is a reason why in pretty much in all sword and knife fighting schools (japanese and elsewhere) you are taught to aim for the body.
Also, a katana is usually used in semi-vertical slices since it wasn't specifically suited for stabbing (it'd get stuck).
Ofc this is a movie yadda yadda, but in a "real" fight the aim was to cut the shoulder/arms so you wouldnt hurt yourself charging in and could be ready for the next victim/attacker (that overhead stance is for fighting stuff on horses btw- forgot the name).


I never said that you should aim for the head specifically, but when you're making vertical slices, the head and the center of mass are inline.

The reason why swordmanship and marksmanship principles teach you to aim for the body is because it's the largest and easiest area to hit, and the center of mass is the hardest for the target to move in an attempt to dodge.

It makes no sense to aim for the shoulder, as it requires you to "charge in" just as much as if you were going for the center, but is much easier to miss. If you really wanted to disable someone, the wrists and forearms are a much better and less risky target, while the head, body, or throat are much higher reward targets. This is why hitting those areas will score you points in kendo, while the shoulder will not.

Basically, this fight makes no sense and looks retarded.

Having just played this through, I have to say that while most of his stuff is a tad overboard or exaggerated a bit for the sake of comedy, this one is spot on. Dead center robin hood style ace marksmanship. For me at least. Naturally there are as many opinions as there are games, and I unfortunately just like more story. Less time making an island nobody in their right mind would actually explore all of and more time on making the entire island/game feel like a huge copy paste job.

Another demonstration of the Imperial Stormtrooper Marksmanship Academy.

I'd like to argue your post, NR.

During all combat marksmanship training, you are instructed to fire with a "double tap" followed by a finisher - a combo Marines so affectionately call "Two in the heart, one in the mind." If you were to draw an upside-down triangle with the base corners at each eye and the peak landing over the upper lip, you would have your instant-kill target for the head. Place a round within that area and the target drops like a sack of potatoes.

>> ^Fade:
What would have made this totally awesome is if a taliban sniper had popped the skulls of all these jarheads. But hey nobody ever stands up to a bully.


Taliban sniper? Do such things exist?

No, really. The Taliban are really, really bad at marksmanship. They rely on firing many, many bullets in roughly the general direction in the hope that a lucky bullet will take someone out.

To say that the Ak is not accurate in the test shown is misleading. AKs have been know to take people out from a distance. Its all bout marksmanship, as well as properly zeroing your weapon. Ive shot both, and yes the AK is a beast, but thats what it was designed for. You can pour sand into the weapon, charge it a few times, and knock the sand out and it will fire without a problem. Try the same with an M-16 and you'll be cleaning your weapon for at least an hour before it will fire again.

x·pert [ ék spùrt ]


noun (plural ex·perts)
Definition:

1. somebody skilled or knowledgeable: somebody with a great deal of knowledge about, or skill, training, or experience in, a particular field or activity
a medical expert

2. U.S. highest rank of marksmanship: in shooting, the highest grade of marksmanship

3. U.S. highest-ranked shooter: in shooting, somebody who has achieved the grade of expert



adjective
Definition:

1. skillful or knowledgeable: having a great deal of knowledge about, or skill, training, or experience in, a particular field or activity
an expert pizza maker

2. done by somebody with specialist knowledge: given or done by somebody who is skilled, trained, or experienced in the relevant subject area
expert advice

[14th century. Via French < Latin expert-, past participle of experiri "try out"]
ex·pert·ly adverb
ex·pert·ness noun
Are you an expert?

Define expert and so that I may better answer you.

jabberwacky: Define non existence.