Early in my U.S. Army career, I was Military Police. Why, yes, I do know how to spell “wimp”… and many words more than those with an Infantry or other combat arms MOS. Old, lame jokes aside, here’s a review of the actual shooting skills of Army Infantry and Marine personnel:

While in that MP unit, I set up a competition course of fire following our routine qualification, talked the commander into allowing it, and coaxed my fellow MPs to have a go.

TL;DR: Even the best-trained and highest-skill shooters in a unit with personnel having both military and civilian law enforcement firearms training would still be ranked at the absolute bottom tier at a local club match of hobby shooters and still not competitive there. This has nothing to do with “match grade” equipment.

Here are the details. First, a discussion of the U.S. Army Military Police Firearms Qualification Course, such as it was.

MP Qualification Course

Target: Military E-type, (this is bigger than typical action competition targets and does not use internal score rings.)

35 meters, 10 shots, prone with a sandbag, 105 seconds (1 minute, 45 seconds)
25 meters, 5 shots, left barricade
25 meters, 5 shots, right barricade
25 meters, 10 shots, standing
15 meters, strong hand only
15 meters, low barricade
7 meters, 5 shots, 12 seconds

Scoring is one point for a hit ANYWHERE in the silhouette, and zero points for a complete miss. Scoring rings are not used. 50 rounds total, 35 hits anywhere on the silhouette is a pass.

• Expert, 48 to 50 hits.

• Sharpshooter, 45 to 47 hits.

• Marksman, 35 to 44 hits.

• Unqualified, 34 or fewer hits.

Competition Course

The competition-type course I used was a modified Vice Presidente following this qualification. Note: Provisions were taken to nullify any advantage that competition equipment offers.

The more familiar El Presidente was created by Jeff Cooper as a skill standards course while training a presidential guard for a Central American republic in the 1960s. As the course became more known and standardized but not yet officially named, several of Cooper’s associates in Australia named it for his consulting work in Central America, and the name stuck.

El Presidente review: Shooter starts facing up range (back to the targets). On the command to fire, pivot 180 degrees, engage three targets with two shots each, reload, and engage again, for a total of 12 shots and four rounds per target. The Vice (pronounced VEE-say) Presidente begins facing the targets for ranges that disallow a pivot.

Low-skill shooters decry this and similar courses as being “unrealistic”, typically because they dislike the truth their low scores reveal. Yet, these same people never critique military or law enforcement qualification courses similarly, likely because they enjoy being called an “expert” due to the low standards these beginner courses allow novice shooters to get away with.

El Presidente is merely a simple but relevant pistol shooting and handling test. Said Cooper, “El Presidente is a ‘nerve exercise’ and not a tactical simulation. It is certainly not all-inclusive but if time presses and you want to know if someone can handle a pistol, have them shoot this one for you.”

Vice Presidente, MP style

I wanted to do this for MP Soliders but had to talk the commander, Cpt. Linus Van Pelt, into understanding that the blue security blanket I was providing was sufficient.

We used standard-issue M9 pistols with M882 ball fired on three E-9 targets side-by-side (not one or three meters apart as is usual) set at seven meters instead of the normal ten yards/meters. Start position was facing the targets with gun in hand at low ready to nullify any advantage that competition equipment offers and due to the “danger” of drawing from the holster on the clock; because, according to this commander, it would be “too dangerous” to have MPs allegedly trained for combat to draw from a holster during a range exercise… Magazines were in issue pouches with the flap open to nullify any advantage that competition equipment offers. Scoring was Points Per Second (Hit Factor in USPSA-speak) with points as marked on the target (5, 4, 3) and -10 per miss, then divided by the elapsed time I recorded on my PACT shot timer.

Note: Provisions were taken to nullify any advantage that competition equipment offers.

Of the MPs tested, about half had a civilian law enforcement background in addition to their military training. These were the best shooters in the unit in that they consistently shot the highest qualification scores (consistently “expert”), had the most firearm training, and were considered the unit’s “gun guys.” I did not include my score as I was the only person with competition shooting experience.

Results

The fastest shooter in the group had a time of 9.59 with four misses. Nobody else broke under 10 seconds. Half of the shooters had at least one complete miss and none had all five-ring hits.

Fastest time: 9.59 seconds, 4 complete misses (Hit Factor: 0)
Best score: Hit Factor: 4.06 (49 points, 12.06 seconds)
Average score: Hit Factor 2.86 (I threw out all the scores that factored to zero or less due to penalties, so the true average score was lower.)

Note, they all started facing the targets with gun in hand. The targets were at 7 meters instead of the usual 10, set to nearly touching, and were larger than USPSA targets, having larger score zones and more points for edge hits (5, 4, 3 points instead of 5, 3, 1 points in USPSA competition for Minor scoring). All of this made everything easier so these scores were higher than they would have been at a real match.

I had them start gun in hand at low ready and facing downrange to avoid any potential problems with muzzle control during a turn and draw on the clock and also because the unit commander was concerned about the “danger” of drawing from the holster. I also had them load exactly six rounds in the first mag to force a slide lock reload because that is the same as their military and police qualifications and to make sure the pistol was empty before they went for the second magazine.

Note: Provisions were taken to nullify any advantage that competition equipment offers.

Also note, these were the MPs who wanted to try and were considered to be the best shooters in that unit. Half of this group had received twice as much training as their peers due to their additional civilian law enforcement background and qualification requirements in addition to their military training and experience.

Competition Shooting Comparison

For comparison to competition shooters, consider data on USPSA Classifier 99-11 (El Presidente) in Production, the division a Beretta 92/M9 would compete:

40%: 4.10 HF (minimum cut-off for C class)
60%: 6.16 HF (minimum cut-off for B class)
100%: 10.26 HF

C class is the lowest earned Classification; everyone lower than a 4.10 Hit Factor is classified in D class, the lowest skill class. The average score of the best USPSA Production shooters is a Hit Factor of 10.26; a 2.86 average score is 27.8% of that. The average score of this group of MPs, on a course making things easier and after discarding the zero scores from excessive penalties, was 69% of the score needed to make the top end of the lowest skill class.

Even making the course easier than usual, awarding more points, and using a slightly larger target, these troops (the best non-competition shooters in that unit) would need to increase their average score by a third to break into the bottom end of C class. Not even the best score shot by that unit’s best shooter on this purposely easier course was good enough to get out of D class.

Think about that: the best-trained and highest-skill shooter in a unit having both military and civilian law enforcement firearms training would still be ranked in the absolute bottom tier in a local club match among hobby shooters. This group of MPs would not even be competitive against local hobby shooters in the lowest possible skill Classification when matched with comparable equipment - Production, not raceguns.

For comparison, my personal best on USPSA Classifier 99-11 (El Presidente) fired cold and to standard at a match for record shooting USPSA Limited (pictured below) is 10.83HF (60 points, 5.54 seconds). Back when I was shooting USPSA seriously, I managed to make Master but was never good enough to make Grand Master.

It’s a good thing none of these MPs and policemen participated in competition shooting because we wouldn’t want them to develop any “bad habits”…..

Click to watch the Combat Readiness video series

Combat and Range Results

The Connection Between Combat and Range Results

It has been suggested that there is no connection between results on the range and in the real world.

Skill is skill and it can be measured. A firearm is inanimate and has no idea what it is being pointed at or the conditions its user is currently facing. A person who can consistently, quickly, and accurately engage combatants in a fight or an animal in the field will yield similar results on the range given reasonably similar targets and a course of fire that somewhat resembles the shooting elements of the real-world situation. A person who can’t reliably hit targets on the range won’t magically obtain that ability to do so elsewhere.

The New York Police Department established a mandate for recordkeeping on officer-involved shootings, first published in Department Order SOP 9 in 1969. Over the years, the NYPD refined the process with investigations conducted in accordance with two guiding documents: Patrol Guide Procedure and The Firearms Discharges Investigation Manual; The NYPD Guide to the Preparation of a Shooting Incident Report.

In The Correlation Between Range Scores and Gunfight Efficacy, the NYPD’s 1981 edition of SOP 9 found:

“An attempt was made to relate an officer’s ability to strike a target in a combat situation to his range qualification scores ended with no clear connection. After making over 200 such comparisons, no firm conclusion was reached.” [-emphasis added]

Two hundred comparisons were made between range qualification scores and the officer’s result in a fight, and a connection between them was not established. Search for this online as “The Correlation Between Range Scores and Gunfight Efficacy” and “Hit Potential In Gun Fights”.

I am not surprised this study found no correlation.

No, I am not contradicting myself. The problem here is not that range results have no use; the problem is with typical range courses used for qualification.

The absolute beginner novice courses comprising most military and law enforcement qualifications are so low-level as a measure of marksmanship skill that they’re often worthless. Even 100% scores, never mind mere “expert” scores, on such courses can be meaningless.

Law enforcement, military, and other public sector qualifications are intended to be passed at the initial entry level by raw recruits with no prior experience (academy, basic, etc.) and often taught by “instructors” whose own skill may be questionable. These courses are purposely easy, making use of oversized targets and very generous time limits intended to be passed, or even maxed, at low skill levels.

Using police or military qualifications to measure shooting skill is like using a first-grade arithmetic quiz to measure mathematics knowledge. Even scoring 100% doesn’t mean much. Worst of all, most public sector organizations never require skill beyond this low, introductory level. The same, easy qual that passes new recruits will continue to pass personnel with decades of "experience.”

If you were ever military or police, consider the qualification you first took in basic or at the academy. If the standard never changed over your career, you were merely retaking that same first-grade arithmetic quiz.

For a sense of scale, I wrote a book called Beyond Expert several years ago that detailed how good competition shooters were routinely three to six times better than the skill needed to shoot “perfect” scores (not just “expert”) on military qualifications. Not champion shooters, just enthusiastic match participants; champion shooters are even better still.

A Practical Example

While at Camp Bullis a group of us were practicing for an upcoming NATO-designed shooting competition. One of the courses we shot was a typical Service Conditions pistol course, Anti-Body Armor (Match PI2250). The course number varies depending on the host country, but the course is the same, consisting of eight fairly quick strings of fire on scored Figure 11 silhouettes, pictured above.

The course of fire consists of two stages fired at four Figure 11 targets 15 yards away. Start position is pistol at low ready with elbows touching sides.

Stage 1

String 1: Engage target 1 with two shots to the body (main score rings) and one shot to the face (white outline, helmet brim and chin strap). Four seconds.

Strings 2-4: Repeat on targets 2-4.

Scoring: Two body shots per score rings; the 4, 6, and 8-inch score rings are 5, 4, and 3 points. Shots anywhere on the silhouette score 2 points. Misses score zero. The first face shot scores 5 points, any additional scores 2 points. A target with no face shot scores zero for the entire target (all three shots are zero) .

Stage 2

String 1: Engage targets 1, 2, 3, and 4 with one shot each, reengage target 1 with two shots. Seven seconds.

String 2: Repeat String 1. Six seconds.

String 3: Engage targets 2, 3, and 4 with two shots each. Five seconds.

String 4: Repeat String 3. Four seconds.

Scoring: Six shots per target; 5, 4, 3, 2, or 0.

Note, Service Conditions matches require standard-issue military equipment; that is an unmodified, as-issue M9, M11, or M17 for U.S. personnel.

Military personnel on shooting teams from every NATO and Commonwealth country have shot this course for several decades. Despite having literal Olympic-level competitors attempt it, this course has never been cleaned in competition. Out of a possible 180 points, the best shooters usually win with anything over 170. My personal best on this is 172, shot twice cold at two different matches for record, plus a few times in practice. I’ve never shot higher than that, but I personally know a shooter who has.

For comparison, the Practical Event in NRA Action Pistol (Bianchi Cup) at 15 yards: one shot on each of two targets within four seconds, two shots on each within 5 seconds, and three shots on each within six seconds. The X-ring is four inches (same size as the Figure 11’s 5-ring) and the A ring (10 points out 10 possible) is eight inches, the same size as the Figure 11’s 3-ring. Also, the Falling Plate Event at 15 yards is six 8-inch plates in seven seconds. These start from the holster and hands at shoulder level instead of at low ready, however, the score rings are bigger and Service Conditions competitors are required to use unmodified, as-issue rack-grade guns. Both offer a good challenge.

Amongst our group scores ranged from highs in the low 170s for the skilled, experienced competitors to lows in the 60s-70s for the newer, less-skilled shooters. That is over a 100-point difference in scores on a 180-point course, indicating a large range of skills in attendance.

Upon completion, our team captain had the group finish the day with an official U.S. Army pistol qualification (Alternate Pistol Qualification Course) to satisfy our annual qualification requirements because the Army stupidly doesn’t count competition courses as a valid qualification.

Everyone in attendance shot 100% on the qualification course. Not a mere “expert” qualification, which allows for some misses, but 100%. According to the range qualification results, everyone in our group was a “perfect” shooter beyond an “expert” rating, and all equally good.

Yet, as our previous scores on the more stringent competition course of fire indicated, there was a large range of skill, with the top scores being about three times higher. As is typical, Army range qualifications are so poorly designed and easy to pass that they are not capable of measuring skill beyond a novice level. Even a perfect score can be shot by relatively low-skilled shooters, and everyone scoring less is even worse. Most range qualifications for police and military suffer this fault, so the SOP 9 results are no surprise.

Range results can be a reliable indicator of real-world skill, but only if the course of fire used is stringent enough and relevant to real-world needs. Range results can be a reliable measure of skill provided you aren’t foolish enough to count elementary, entry-level range qualification results as an indicator.

The NYPD isn’t the only agency compiling such data. In a report compiled by the Metro-Dade Police Department (Statistical Abstract of Shooting Incidents, 1988-1994) there was a correlation found between higher range scores and improved hit rates. It’s also worth pointing out that all departments, including the NYPD, have changed things since 1981.

Range results can never be a perfect predictor of success elsewhere, even if more stringent and relevant range exercises are used, because there are too many variables at play. However, good shooting skill as seen on the range helps, especially when people realize the low standards required by most qualification courses are a useless way to measure.

Despite the tiny unit size, SATT housed nearly every President Hundred recipient currently serving in the Army Reserve and the bulk of the Army Reserve shooting team. In addition to competitive events, SATT provided marksmanship assistance on request throughout the force.

However, other than MPs going to Kosovo, requests were ad-hoc on a by-unit basis. Several times SATT leadership was forced to justify the existence of a high level marksmanship team within the Army. The USAR has a force of nearly 200,000 Soldiers, all of them required to train with small arms, but budgeting for 30 true expert marksman-instructors with that equipment was questioned. Despite innumerable wins over the decades on the National and International level against some of the best military and civilian shooters on Earth, some non-shooters holding high positions considered shutting the unit down. During a reorganization effort, SATT leadership used the magic ‘R’ word and became the Small Arms Readiness Group.

The mass mobilizations beginning in 2003 proved what knowledgeable shooter-instructors could accomplish. As the conflicts in the Middle East heightened it became clear that skill with small arms was paramount and that the current system largely failed to deliver.

The prevailing theory was that any “experienced” NCO should be capable of conducting small arms training, especially if the NCO is, or was, a Drill Sergeant or held a combat arms MOS (Military Occupational Specialty). Many still believe that a “Drill Sergeant/Infantry NCO and the FM (Field Manual)” is the only requirement for quality marksmanship instruction. Documented experience proves the folly of this notion. This includes formal papers and studies published at Fort Benning See Lack of Institutional Training for Leaders on How to Instruct Marksmanship for one example.

Before competitive shooters that initially comprised the majority of the instructor positions in SARG in the early 2000s became involved, first time qualification rates hovered around 40% when held to the written standard. Note this closely mirrors Army Research Institute studies indicating many Army Reserve units have a first time “Go” qualification rate of less than 40% when held to published standards and scored by a knowledgeable, impartial, third party. Many are even worse. After the competitive shooters running SARG began directing training, the qual rates on those same courses rose to 90%+. A calculated savings in ammunition of around $50,000 per brigade was common.

Many of these examples occurred on active duty posts manned by active duty personnel prior to SARG instructor arrival. These units had training records claiming 80-90% qualification rates but were unable to achieve it without SARG assistance.

Army leadership began to feel the effects of their crumbling small arms programs. Weakened by a series of short-sighted cut backs, formal, organized shooting events were nearly eliminated. Known Distance ranges were dilapidated after civilian and military marksmen were forced off during down sizings and a Chicken Little response to September 11, 2001.

The lack of knowledge extended to even the basic qualifications, a fact known to experienced marksmen and formally exposed by an Army Research Institute study finding that only one third of soldiers were capable of qualifying on the first attempt when held to standard. Advanced instruction, such as Designated Marksmen, was highly valued but few in the Army could operate a KD range, much less provide the training.

SATT (now SARG) filled this much-needed gap of knowledge. Because of their vast background, these instructors rescued a number of mobilization platforms when small arms expertise was needed. As word of the success spread leadership directed the SARG to expand from around 40 instructors to 300.

The problem is, expand with whom? A majority of the small arms and marksmanship experts serving in the USAR already staffed the instructor slots. It is questioned whether 300 true small arms experts currently exist anywhere within the USAR. If they already were there then the obvious lack of domain knowledge would not be so widespread.

If SARG expands too rapidly the unit is forced to take in non-experts and we’ve created a problem. New people can be trained, of course, but this takes time. How much training will be offered to new people filling the slots?

The question boils down to this: Do you want a Parrot or a Professor?

Parrots

Some factions within the Army and personnel new to the SARG or other instructor elements feel that an instructor doesn’t need to be a shooter or have a formal marksmanship background. The theory is that a person providing Preliminary Marksmanship Instruction doesn’t need to understand and demonstrate marksmanship at levels typically found in formal competition or similar venues. Instead, a soldier with no shooting background can be taught to recite a presentation prepared by someone else. As long as the original presentation and the recital were correct, then training would occur.

In effect, they argue that an instructor cadre is adequately served with Parrots. African Greys are noted for the ability to closely mimic human speech, Budgies are good talkers and Parakeets have had some the longest vocabularies. With guidance, a parrot can learn to repeat words and phrases, even if he doesn’t understand what those words mean.

If we are forced to follow this line of reasoning, our Small Arms Instructor Academy can provide an even better and cheaper solution: Mass-produced DVD-based instruction.

We have experienced instructors and nearly all the equipment needed to affect this. The current Task Force SARG course writer has some experience with videography. For production, we can shoot on location at the Camp Bullis ranges. A known, experienced instructor provides instruction recorded on video. We have usable digital camcorders already, and a more professional result can be had with a decent HD camcorder and basic tripod for less than $1,000. Among the instructors, we have several NLE (Non-Linear Editing) suites for post production, and we can dedicate a desktop workstation with a DVD burner to render discs.

At the individual mobilization platforms, the DVD instruction can be played on large screen television/DVD player combos. Retail stores sell large screen TV and DVD combos for less than 1-2 weeks pay for the lowest junior enlisted pay grade, never mind NCO ranks. The DVDs can be duplicated and printed for less than one dollar per copy.

The cost savings are enormous if we replace non-shooters with DVD/TVs. These devices can work 24 hours a day, never need breaks, S-1 attention, or take leave, and are paid for in less than two weeks. As a bonus, the recital (PMI) is always the same and is of a known quality.

True, a DVD player and disc can’t address issues or answer questions, but neither can a Parrot. After all, we (allegedly) don’t need “instructors” with a proven marksmanship background; a mere PMI recital from a non-shooter is (supposedly) sufficient, and a DVD can recite better than a human.

Professor

pro·fes·sor /[pruh-fes-er]/ –noun

4. an instructor in some art or skilled sport: a professor of shooting.

A professor is someone with a high level of knowledge and skill who provides instruction to others. Rather than regurgitating a script, a professor can expound upon his area of expertise while addressing specific individual and unit needs. With marksmanship, being an expert includes demonstrated ability. It is one thing to repeat concepts, and it is quite another to understand them. This understanding requires personal ability.

This is not opinion but a requirement printed in the previous Field Manuals and current Training Circulars. For example, quoting from old FM 3-22.9ch4, Page 1-6, Section 1-6. BASIC PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION: “Knowledgeable instructors or cadre are the key to marksmanship performance. All commanders must be aware of maintaining expertise in marksmanship instruction/training.”

“Instructor-Trainer Selection: Institutional and unit instructor-trainers are selected and assigned from the most highly qualified soldiers. These soldiers must have an impressive background in rifle marksmanship; be proficient in applying these fundamentals; know the importance of marksmanship training; and have a competent and professional attitude. The commander must ensure that selected instructor-trainers can effectively train other soldiers. Local instructor-trainer training courses and marksmanship certification programs must be established to ensure that instructor-trainer skills are developed.”

The current Training Circulars give the same advice.

The initial successes the SATT/SARG enjoyed was due to the fact that the bulk of the instructor body could be accurately defined as Shooting Professors. They didn’t merely recite PMI, they trained marksmanship. Many of them are National Champions and hold Classifications of Master/High Master in various National-level shooting disciplines.

While the bulk of the Professors have a competitive shooting background, competition shooting is not necessarily a requirement. There can be many paths of enlightenment and other formal shooting programs should be considered, however, competitive shooting tends to bring out the best shooter-instructors. There is a strong precedent for this and it is dictated by Army Regulation.

Army Regulation 350-66

Page 2, Section 2–1. Small arms marksmanship

“Participation in military and civilian-sponsored small arms marksmanship competitions offers soldiers the opportunity to refine their marksmanship skills, compete against other military and civilian marksmen, and earn superior marksmanship awards in addition to the Army basic marksmanship awards available through annual qualification standards.”

“Army personnel should be provided opportunities to prepare for and participate in small arms marksmanship competition. These preparations, which include those for international competitions, are classified as training.”

“Match programs should emphasize and encourage the following:

1. A variety of shooting styles, distances, and timing of firing with as many weapons and weapon systems as possible.

2. Training of experienced competitive marksmen.
3. Development of shooter/instructors.”

Competition builds superior skills and is directed by regulation. A superior marksman will tend to be a superior trainer. The phrase Subject Matter Expert implies a higher expertise within the subject matter. The FM requires this higher skill set and regulation provides tools to implement.

This seems so obvious that it is difficult to fathom why any sensible person would dare question the logic. Imagine a college university science department in need of physics professors. Would the faculty be satisfied in recruiting people off the street, handing them a script and shuffling the “instructor” in front a class?

The problem stems from not knowing what constitutes good shooting to begin with. This ignorance starts with the American populace. Ball sports are common but shooting sports are not. Even among gun owners marksmanship skill beyond the novice level is rare. From this pool of citizens, we recruit personnel for the military.

This raw recruit is indoctrinated and taught a host of new subjects, including an introduction to small arms. The problem is that small arms instruction in the Army is like a set of filters. As every knowledgeable marksman knows, the Army rarely conducts training with small arms, that is, shooting with the intention of elevating personal skill set beyond prescribed standards. Instead, nearly every range exercise is either a qualification to validate that soldiers meet some minimal standard, a quick preliminary step prior to shooting that qual, or (worst of all) “familiarzation fire” which is a nice way of saying unscored, semi-organized plinking. Soldiers step to the line, prepare, and attempt to shoot a course of fire. If the score is high enough (if anyone even bothers to measure) no additional training or attention is deemed necessary or offered.

This isn’t a condemnation; rather, it is an observance of reality. Given the massive numbers of soldiers, all of whom must qualify, instructors can only afford to assist those who really need the help. It is a sort of triage situation. Allow everyone an attempt to standard, filter out those who can’t meet minimum standard and treat them.

Unfortunately, personnel selected for this instruction are commonly not marksmanship experts, e.g., drill sergeants. They were recruited from the same pool of citizens and managed to squeeze through the minimum filter to retain their job position. The problems of this lack of ability and knowledge has been formally acknowledged by the Army.

I have references to multiple studies, reports, and articles spanning several decades explaining this.

Qualification attempts to only filter out the worst performers, ensuring that everyone is “qualified” (at least that’s what the training records claim.) “Qualified” can entail a whole range of skill levels. The goal is get everyone qualified and the standards are adjusted so that everyone can.

This is why any qualified instructor, a true shooting Professor, must be involved with some sort of formalized program beyond qualification. Competition, for example, attempts to filter out the best performers. Nobody in such an event cares what an adequate performance is because the goal of competition is to find what the best possible performance can be. The stress of qualification is to be good enough. The stress of competition is to be the best possible.

As we continue to recruit into the expanding SARG we must be mindful what skill sets and experience allowed the good successes we’ve enjoyed to date. We must also realize that most new personnel will NOT join us possessing that same high level skill and experience. If the SARG is to remain effective it is critical that the new guard be brought up to speed in order to be up to task.

UPDATE

I wrote this when I was the Course Writer at the Small Arms Instructor Academy in 2008 as a warning if SARG expanded too rapidly without vetting personnel filling the newly-created instructor slots.

The problem proved to be even worse than I imagined. Less than a year after I circulated this, the Instructor Academy was shut down as USARC decided to cut funding. They needed the instructors but didn’t want to pay to create them. After opening the instructor slots as MOS and Branch Immaterial, a glut of people with no experience or interest in marksmanship infested the ranks. Due to a series of poorly conceived and badly timed reorganization efforts, a number of personnel with no previous, formal, high-level marksmanship experience were placed in command of SARG. The unit was rendered largely ineffective within two years and existed only in name thereafter.

The competitive shooters comprising the SARG instructor body when it used to be effective were largely forced out. Ignorant leaders with more rank than brains found it easier to mismanage a program they didn’t fully understand when knowledgeable personnel weren’t there. By 2010, SARG was rendered largely ineffective and existed in name only. It is completely gone now.

However, the original shooter-instructors that made the SARG effective continue to instruct via the Army Reserve Mobile Training Team as a component of the shooting teams, as directed by Army Regulation 140-1.

Some gun owners say they’d like to be better shooters but are concerned about the cost and availability of ammunition.

It is pretty sad. I don’t mean the cost and availability of ammunition for “regular” gun owners; I mean the whining by low-skill novices who foolishly believe lack of ammo is their biggest obstacle.

Most gun owners could greatly improve their marksmanship skills more than they realize by shooting no more ammunition than they’re already using. Far more valuable to learning how to shoot better is the knowledge and practice of consistent shooting technique, the steps to a good shot process, how to call and evaluate each shot, and how to overcome common issues that plague lower-skill shooters.

For example, you could take a group of beginners, teach them the techniques of marksmanship for a few sessions with them only firing a few dozen shots each time, supplemented by much dry fire practice during and between each live session, and make them better shooters than probably 90% of long-time hunters, military, and police personnel with decades of “experience.” One shot properly executed and evaluated is far more valuable to learning than 100 sloppily executed, especially when skills are refined with many repetitions via dry practice between live fire sessions. Of course, this is “boring” and takes much more discipline than most gun owners are willing to use.

The best tell that sponsorship would be wasted on someone is to evaluate their current marksmanship accomplishments.

A serious, disciplined shooter will have already climbed at least partway up an “achievement ladder” on their own. Business, family, and financial commitments can certainly prevent one from being competitive at the national or state levels, but everyone can progress in something.

Anyone with sufficient disposable income to own a firearm and accessories, along with enough ammo to indulge in occasional plinking or hunting, can just as easily channel some of that into shooting local matches. Local clubs affiliated with a national organization host Classification systems that reveal how one stacks up nationally. I know shooters who rarely fired live ammunition outside matches but leveled up several rungs of a Classification ladder using only diligent dry practice in between matches. It’s possible to earn enough Excellence In Competition points to go Distinguished in fewer than half a dozen matches, and EIC matches are hosted at civilian and military ranges across the country.

Offering sponsorship support to someone who hasn’t bothered to work up an organization’s Classification ladder or earn EIC points at local matches would be wasted because they’re unwilling to accomplish even low-level wins within every gun owner’s grasp.

Insufficient ammo or lack of “match grade” equipment may be a valid reason why a shooter has “only” managed to get to the bottom end of Master class in their respective discipline, or why they “only” finish in the top 10-20 percent at local club matches. It is NOT a valid reason why a shooter isn’t good enough to be competitive among local hobby shooters classified in the bottom bracket.

Actual tests of military and police personnel demonstrate that even those with “expert” qualifications are often incapable of shooting well enough to keep up with local hobby shooters in the bottom classification tier, even though military/police qualifications are performed while on paid duty at taxpayer expense.

Not even sponsored shooters have the ammunition that’s sometimes cited. Doing the math will reveal the ridiculousness of these claims.

Let’s pretend team shooters Samantha Sponsored and Mike Military have unlimited ammunition and no other responsibilities other than shooting, averaging five days a week, 52 weeks a year on the range. That’s 260 range sessions a year. At 300,000 to 400,000 rounds per year, that’s 1,150 to 1,530 rounds for every session. No competent marksman will shoot that much every session, five sessions a week, for an entire year and claim it’s necessary to show progress in skill. Some fools could waste that much ammo in a day (especially if someone else paid for it), but no skilled shooter will do it daily for a year and claim it’s necessary for progress.

This assumes a person can manage range time 260 days a year, which is a false assertion. Not even top shooters in the Army Marksmanship Unit spend every duty day on the range, and sponsored pro shooters enjoying a full ride (there are very few of them) have other responsibilities for sponsoring companies besides their training, practice, and match prep.

Consistently getting one or two live sessions a week (say, 60-70 a year) with 100-200 rounds each would take 6,000 to 14,000 rounds each year in practice. Two firm weekly sessions at 200 rounds each is just under 21,000 rounds. Add in ammo for 1-2 matches a month, and we might be at 25,000-30,000 rounds a year. Add in copious dry practice, and these figures are close to what sponsored national-level champion competitors might be doing, even for high-volume action shooting; precision disciplines will have lower ammo counts.

With some rare exceptions, not even fully sponsored champion shooters in high-round-count competitive disciplines will be shooting this much on an ongoing basis, and most will be far less. Many shooters at Master class levels or higher never averaged more than a few thousand rounds a year.

One example is Ben Stoeger, a multiple USPSA Nationals champion in Production class. He has stated that he earned his Grand Master classification by shooting just over 5,000 rounds of centerfire ammunition total. While he is certainly an outlier, it demonstrates how much more important dry practice and proper training organization are compared to round count.

How one shooter earned Grandmaster in about 5,000 rounds:

Nothing makes me feel more like a clown than hearing how little the top guys shoot. I'll see Master and Grand Master competitors at USPSA matches talk about shooting 5,000-7,000 rounds a year. Shows how much more precision I need in my training!

A person who understands and applies good training habits, coupled with organized dry practice/training can build a considerable amount of skill with 1,000-2,000 rounds a year. Two live sessions a month of 100 rounds each is 2,400 rounds a year.

Most gun owners would enjoy an enormous jump in skill with 600 rounds a year and daily dry practice. One well-organized and disciplined live fire session of 50 rounds each month coupled with daily dry sessions will yield thousands of repetitions per month with just enough live shooting to confirm the dry practice is working. This can be supplemented with air guns at home and/or an inexpensive training gun chambered in 22 Long Rifle to increase the round count at a low cost.

“Regularly scheduled” and “organized” are where most people fail. You don’t need 4,000 rounds a year (or 40,000, or 400,000…) to gain substantial improvement, especially at first. However, you must train skills in a regular, ongoing, organized fashion. Most gun owners, hunters, tactical operators, soldiers, marines, and cops will never do this. And their shooting skills will remain at novice levels because of it. Blaming ammunition availability is a convenient excuse for a failure to put in the work.

The cornerstone of U.S. federal gun law is the Gun Control Act (1968) - 18 U.S.C. 922(g) - prohibiting convicted felons, fugitives from justice, those who have been formally committed to a mental institution, and others from possessing guns. The penalty for violating this statute is punishable by up to 10 years imprisonment.

A person buying a firearm from a dealer holding a Federal Firearms License fills out ATF Form 4473 (Firearm Transaction Record), a seven-page form that records the buyer’s information and asks if they fall into one of the prohibited categories. Any single prohibited category makes the purchase illegal and the responses are checked against federal records to determine if the applicant was truthful.

The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (1993) requires gun dealers to consult the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) for ALL firearm purchases and transactions (not just handguns, despite the name) to confirm if a buyer filling out Form 4473 falls into any of the prohibited categories before transferring a firearm. This system is a Universal Background Check, applies to all transactions made by firearm dealers, and has been in continuous use since 1993.

Providing false information on Form 4473 is two different crimes. First, it is unlawful for a person to “make any false or fictitious oral or written statement” to an FFL dealer “with respect to any fact material to the lawfulness of the sale.” Doing so is punishable by up to 10 years in prison. Second, it is also a crime to “knowingly make any false statement or representation with respect to the information required by this chapter to be kept in the records of [an FFL].” Violators face up to 5 years imprisonment for that.

Here’s a sample of questions on Form 4473 (Firearm Transaction Record) that is then verified by the FFL dealer in the NICS check:

21. Answer the following questions by checking or marking either the “yes” or “no” box to the right of the questions:

a. Are you the actual transferee/buyer of all of the firearm(s) listed on this form and any continuation sheet(s) (ATF Form 5300.9A)? Warning: You are not the actual transferee/buyer if you are acquiring any of the firearm(s) on behalf of another person. If you are not the actual transferee/buyer, the licensee cannot transfer any of the firearm(s) to you. Exception: If you are only picking up a repaired firearm(s) for another person, you are not required to answer 21.a. and may proceed to question 21.b.

b. Do you intend to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm listed on this form and any continuation sheet(s) in furtherance of any felony or other offense punishable by imprisonment for a term of more than one year, a Federal crime of terrorism, or a drug trafficking offense?

c. Are you under indictment or information in any court for a felony, or any other crime for which the judge could imprison you for more than one year, or are you a current member of the military who has been charged with violation(s) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and whose charge(s) have been referred to a general court-martial?

d. Have you ever been convicted in any court, including a military court, of a felony, or any other crime for which the judge could have imprisoned you for more than one year, even if you received a shorter sentence including probation?

e. Are you a fugitive from justice?

g. Have you ever been adjudicated as a mental defective OR have you ever been committed to a mental institution?

h. Have you ever been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions?

i. Are you subject to a court order, including a Military Protection Order issued by a military judge or magistrate, restraining you from harassing, stalking, or threatening your child or an intimate partner or child of such partner?

j. Have you ever been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, or are you or have you ever been a member of the military and been convicted of a crime that included, as an element, the use of force against a person as identified in the instructions?

FFLs are required by law to keep all completed forms on file permanently and they are subject to inspection at any time.

However, reviewing prosecution data of those caught putting false information on Form 4473 indicates these statutes are largely ignored. In September 2016, the Department of Justice Office of Inspector General published Audit of the Handling of Firearms Purchase Denials Through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. This audit reported the FBI processed more than 51 million NICS transactions from 2008 to 2014, denying 556,496 of those transactions. According to the 2020-2021 NICS Operational Report, in 2020, there were nearly 93,000 denials of individuals who met the federal definition of a convicted felon. Despite this, the ATF formally referred only 509 of these NICS denial cases to the United States Attorney's Offices for possible prosecution. The USAOs accepted for consideration the prosecution 254 people - less than 32 per year.

That is less than a 1-in-2,000 chance of being prosecuted as the result of a NICS denial, even with documentation (the signed 4473) of a known perpetrator (the name and identification information of the applicant) in federal custody. The paper also noted, “the odds of being charged for lying on this form are virtually nonexistent.”

Note, many individuals denied by NICS should not be prosecuted as NICS data can be imprecise. Each year, thousands of individuals have their NICS denial overturned on appeal. In 2020 alone, nearly 7,000 people flagged on a NICS successfully had it appealed due to bad data in NICS. However, this is not the majority of those 556,496 NICS denials.

This longstanding indifference toward enforcing existing gun laws goes straight to the top. Following the 2012 shooting at a school in Newtown, Connecticut, then-President Barack Obama tasked then-Vice President Joe Biden with leading his legislative effort. When asked about this during a White House meeting, Biden responded, “[R]regarding the lack of prosecutions on lying on Form 4473s, we simply don’t have the time or manpower to prosecute everybody who lies on a form, that checks a wrong box, that answers a question inaccurately.”

All this being the case, how well could any new legislation be enforced?

Universal Background Checks are clamored for regularly. The truth is, any Universal Background Check would be little more than an extension of our existing National Instant Criminal Background Check System. Given that less than 0.05% (1 in 2,000) of people caught by the existing NICS are investigated or prosecuted, the only thing an extended background check system will do is catch even more people who will ultimately be let go because we simply don’t have the time or manpower to prosecute the ones we’re already catching as it is.

Consider the value of gun control measures compared to actual firearm homicide rates. Giffords offers their Gun Law Scorecard. Every year, Giffords Law Center grades each state on its gun laws giving a rating to each state based on its gun control measures. In the chart below, states with the highest to lowest rating from the Giffords Law Center (most to least gun control measures) are grouped from left to right as shown by the gray downward slope. The bar chart shows each state’s firearm homicide rate. Washington D.C. has the highest rating from Giffords and the highest firearm homicide rate in the United States, while Utah and Wyoming have negligible firearm homicide rates with almost no firearm restrictions (a “bad” Giffords rating.)

Dishonest organizations and people can cherry-pick states as “proof” that gun control schemes decrease or increase homicide rates but the truth is there is no causal or corollary relationship to this at all. There are states with strict gun control measures in place with both high and low firearm homicide rates, and there are states with limited or no gun control measures in place with both high and low firearm homicide rates.

Thanks to J. C. Tate, CDR USN (Ret., Distinguished Rifleman), for his write-up on artificial intelligence. Download a copy:

Ai Manual Tate

677KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Traditional Online Search Tips

Use more than one search engine. Google.com is the most popular and obvious but far from the only one. Others worth using are DuckDuckGo.com (which emphasizes user privacy), Luxxle.com (which emphasizes being unbiased), FreeSpoke.com (also emphasizes unbiased/uncensored results), SwissCows.com (user anonymity), Bing.com, Yahoo.com, AOL.com, Ask.com, Excite.com, and Lycos.com. While all search engines index publicly available websites, the approach each company takes in indexing and presenting search queries differs, which can lead to different results during a given search. If your first search comes up dry, try using different search engines.

Vary your search terms. Consider a search for specific parts. A good way to begin is by typing in the manufacturer name, model number, and any other part names or any particulars you know. For example, a search for Remington 700 parts for sale should get you a number of listings of parts sellers. You can then refine that by modifying keywords, such as replacing parts for more specific part names and variations. Look up the manufacturer’s schematic and/or owner’s manual to know the exact name the maker used to call their part.

Understand common search engine syntax. Surrounding a phrase in quotation marks prioritizes results having that exact word or phrase. Adding a “+” in front of a word indicates that it must be in the search result.

For example, a search for “Remington 700” specifies that exact phrase rather than just Remington 700 with Remington and 700 somewhere in the result but not necessarily together as an exact phrase.

“Remington 700” +parts is more specific still, with results having an exact match to the exact phrase “Remington 700” that also includes the word parts somewhere in the result. This is different from “Remington 700 parts” requiring that exact phrase together. Dropping the quotation marks indicates a search for results that have these words or numbers anywhere in the result and not necessarily together, which may or may not be what you want.

Exclude results by adding a “-” to a word or phrase. For example, Remington is also a brand name of electric razors and shavers. So, a search of Remington -shave would exclude any results having Remington that also have the word shave in it.

Searches can specify an OR operator. Separating search words with OR (it must be capitalized) or a pipe (typed as “|”) includes results that have any of the keywords. Consider the part that moves a shotshell from the level of the tube magazine up to be chambered. They can be referred to as lifters, carriers, or elevators depending on the make and manufacturer. Your search phrase could be shotgun lifter OR carrier OR elevator, which could also be typed as shotgun lifter | carrier | elevator.

In a similar vein, but to be more particular, searches can include an AND (capitalized) to require a search that includes all the words in the search, but not necessarily together.

As with mathematical order of operations, parentheses can order search term groupings. The above example of shotgun parts may be better written as “shotgun (lifter OR carrier OR elevator)” or as “shotgun (lifter | carrier | elevator)”. This search specifies that the result must contain an exact match for shotgun lifter or shotgun carrier or shotgun elevator. This is different than “shotgun lifter OR carrier OR elevator” which would result in an exact match for shotgun lifter or carrier or elevator. The last two may include any type of carrier (aircraft?) or elevator (building?).

Searches can also be confined to a specific site. Replacing https: or http: with site: as the protocol limits the search results to a specific website. If you’re only interested in results from GunBlabForum.com, try typing site:GunBlabForum.com Remington into the address bar of your browser to find pages, posts, or comments with the word Remington limited to that specific site.

Searches confined to main subjects. To search only for a topic that is the main subject of a page or result, use intitle. To search for news or web articles focused on Remington, try intitle:Remington. This will limit results to where Remington appeared in the title of the article or page and not just anywhere in the document. To limit this to a specific filetype, use filetype. A search of intitle:Remington filetype:pdf will only include results that are links to PDF files that have Remington in the title.

Ask smart questions. Don’t be afraid to ask for help in an online forum, but be smart about it. Before posting a question, search on your own and then include what you searched for, how you went about it, what the results were, and what you’re looking for but haven’t found. Before asking on a particular site or forum, do a site-specific search on that forum ( site:ForumName.com ) to double-check if your question or something similar hasn’t already been asked and answered. Include the fact that you did this to show that you were thorough in searching on your own before asking for help. This is part of learning how to ask questions the smart way.

Using Artificial Intelligence

It’s been said that cloud computing is just using someone else’s computer. Similarly, artificial intelligence is a way to automate synthesizing information that either uses someone else’s information already publicly available via search, or available information that’s been fed in. Training a Large Language Model (LLM) means using the provided data in a base model.

Ever since Hypertext Transfer Protocol supplanted Gopher protocol and other predecessors to become dominant in the 1990s, online search engines have used software to automatically gather (crawl or spider) large amounts of linked data online and present it when searched based on an estimated level of importance derived from that search engine’s particular algorithm; PageRank, SALSA, and HITS are prominent examples.

Traditional search simply presents available data as a response to a query, with an attempt to rank order it based on the algorithm used. The user has to read and interpret those results. AI adds to this by taking that found data and synthesizing it into a written narrative. This is both the good and bad news.

Think of AI as a very enthusiastic, fast, but dim-witted research assistant. AI can very quickly gather information, distill it, and present a response, but it doesn’t really understand, and the quality and accuracy of that presented response can vary based on a large host of factors.

I compared AI to a military friend as being similar to Public Affairs personnel or other media. They can visit your unit during your mission, gather info and quotes, take pictures and record video, and then create a news article or edited video about you efficiently. However, if Public Affairs doesn’t really understand you, your unit, or your mission, and if they remain unguided, their finished result will be filtered through their limited understanding and the directed narrative set by their boss/leadership. Their finished result may or may not be good, and someone reading/viewing it who also lacks knowledge and experience won’t know the difference. Here’s how that pans out with military marksmanship training:

AI can be very useful, but it can also automate Gell-Mann Amnesia. You can guide AI (and Public Affairs/media for that matter) by ensuring they have context and guidance from someone who does understand. John Tate’s excellent AI write-up (download link above) suggests Seven Prompt Disciplines.

The Seven Prompt Disciplines for AI

The following seven practices were developed and validated through extensive real-world use, including legal research, historical analysis, medical queries, and technical troubleshooting. Each has a documented effect on output reliability.

Discipline 1: Require Authority Mapping, Not Content Generation. Instead of asking ‘What is the law on X?’ ask ‘Here are the specific propositions. Find authorities and citations for each.’ This shifts the model’s role from author to auditor. It forces retrieval-and-verification behavior rather than narrative synthesis.

Rule: Prompts that demand sources collapse the solution space and suppress invention.

Discipline 2: Pre-Commit the Factual Claims. Provide the claims yourself; ask the model to find support. When the model must guess what claims might apply, hallucination risk surges. When you supply the claims and ask for validation, the model operates under evidentiary constraints.

Rule: ‘Here is the claim — find support’ is safer than ‘What is the law on X?’

Discipline 3: Atomize Your Questions. “Atomic” here means a single, indivisible unit. Numbered, discrete questions prevent doctrinal bleed-through and compound hallucinations. Each proposition is independently testable. Cross-contamination between related but distinct rules is a major hallucination vector.

Rule: Atomized questions prevent compound hallucinations.

Discipline 4: Signal Your Level of Expertise. When a user signals subject-matter expertise, the model shifts from persuasion mode to precision mode. Use domain-specific vocabulary. Reference the expected standard (attorney-grade analysis, appellate brief standard). Ask for contested versus settled distinctions to be explicitly flagged.

Rule: When the user signals expertise, the model shifts from persuasion to precision.

Discipline 5: Use Neutral Framing. Adversarial prompts (’prove this is legal,’ ‘defend this position’) bias the model toward motivated reasoning and suppress acknowledgment of contrary authority. Neutral framing (’find authorities for these propositions’) produces more balanced and reliable output.

Rule: Neutral framing reduces motivated hallucinations.

Discipline 6: Allow Partial and Negative Answers. Binary framings (’is this legal or illegal?’) increase hallucination pressure because the model feels compelled to resolve ambiguity. Framings that explicitly permit ‘this is contested’ or ‘no reliable authority found’ dramatically reduce fabrication.

Rule: Prompts that allow partial validation reduce fabrication.

Discipline 7: Anchor Time and Jurisdiction. Unanchored questions invite reliance on outdated doctrine or confusion between jurisdictions. Always specify: the legal system, the temporal frame, and the applicable standard of authority.

Rule: Temporal and jurisdictional anchoring suppresses spurious sources.

John C. Tate served in the U.S. Navy for 30 years, retiring at the rank of Commander, and followed that with 18 years of service as a Police Officer and Firefighter. He is a life-long competitive shooter and Distinguished Rifleman.

Ballistics and Terminology: Limiting Factor

Athlon Untaimed published a story about rifle cartridges in which the 6.5 Creedmoor was praised. That prompted me to ask a question about terminology; the answer might interest you.

I asked Claude AI:

For successful shooting, equipment is only part of the equation. There are several characteristics mandatory master of which are necessary to be competitive. Lacking any one cannot be overcome. What is a term that describes such a combination or such characteristic?

The answer from Claude AI:

The term you’re looking for is “Limiting Factor” — borrowed from biology/science, where it describes the one variable that caps overall performance regardless of how good everything else is.

In your shooting context, the related concept is sometimes called a “Chain of Fundamentals” — meaning your score is only as good as your weakest link . A master-level trigger press means nothing if your position is unstable. Perfect position means nothing if your natural point of aim is off.

In systems/engineering it’s called:

• Bottleneck — the constraint that limits the whole system

• Critical dependency — all elements must be present

The most elegant expression of what you’re describing may actually be Liebig’s Law of the Minimum*** — originally from agriculture, stating that growth is limited by the scarcest necessary resource, not the abundance of others. It perfectly captures what you mean — having an abundance of some fundamentals cannot compensate for a deficiency in any single mandatory one.

Applied to your 6.5 Creedmoor point — the cartridge discussion was focusing on one characteristic (BC) while ignoring that competitive success requires optimizing a whole system of interdependent factors, none of which can be neglected.

My resulting Comment

Consider the difference between the concepts of essential and limiting factor (as described above). Essential, from essence, says you must have it, and maybe it’s the most important factor. But it says nothing else about quantification. The term limiting factor “one variable that caps overall performance regardless of how good everything else is.”

Another application of both terms. In military fitness testing, points are earned for each activity, but doing poorly in one could offset the whole test, as each event has a required minimum. I’d call those limiting factors. A failure in just one event results in overall failure, even if all other events are maxed. I’d declare that all are essential.

*** More about Liebig

Liebig’s Law of the Minimum is well documented and easy to research. Here are your starting points.

Origin: Developed by Justus von Liebig, German chemist, around 1840. Originally applied to plant nutrition — crop yield is limited by the scarcest nutrient, not the most abundant. Published in his work “Organic Chemistry in its Applications to Agriculture and Physiology” (1840)

Where to Study It:

• Wikipedia — search “Liebig’s Law of the Minimum” — surprisingly thorough article with diagrams and applications beyond agriculture

• Google Scholar (scholar.google.com) — search “Liebig’s Law” for academic papers showing how it has been applied across many disciplines

• Britannica.com — clean, authoritative summary

Liebig’s Law has been applied far beyond agriculture — into economics, ecology, systems engineering, and performance science — precisely because the concept of “weakest link limiting the whole system” is universally applicable.

The classic illustration is a barrel with staves of different heights — water only fills to the level of the shortest stave, regardless of how tall the others are. That image may help it stick in memory.

More about AI from J.C. Tate

Ai Manual Tate

677KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Sgt. Colin Gallagher (ret.) is a Legal Consultant and Law Enforcement Trainer based in Wichita, Kansas. He is currently the Director of Law Enforcement and Military Operations for Laser Ammo USA, Inc., a manufacturer of laser-based firearms training products and solutions.

BLUF:

• Organized shooting, such as formal competition programs, is valuable, and its benefits greatly outweigh any possible flaws, real or imagined.

• There is no evidence that participation in competitive shooting has created problems, despite claims to the contrary, as explained here:

• Only a small fraction of shooters ever reach a point of diminished return in skill development, even among active, card-carrying shooting competitors, as explained here:

Beyond The Qualification Line

by Colin Gallagher

For decades, law enforcement firearms training has largely followed a predictable and standardized model. Officers qualify annually or semi-annually on static ranges, firing prescribed rounds at fixed distances under controlled conditions.

While these qualifications serve an administrative purpose, they always fall short of preparing officers for the realities of armed encounters. Modern policing demands more than baseline proficiency, it requires adaptability, speed, accuracy, and decision-making under pressure. To meet this demand, agencies must begin to expand their training models by integrating both traditional tactical instruction and non-traditional methods such as competitive shooting.

At its core, effective firearms training must recognize a fundamental truth: people learn differently. Some officers excel through repetition and structured drills, while others develop skills more effectively through dynamic, scenario-based environments. A one-size-fits-all approach to firearms training limits potential and leaves critical performance gaps unaddressed. By incorporating a broader spectrum of training methodologies, including competitive shooting, agencies can better equip officers with the skills necessary to perform under real-world conditions.

The modern armed encounter is rarely static, predictable, or forgiving. Officers may be required to engage threats in low light, from unconventional positions, and almost always while moving, or under extreme physiological stress. These situations demand more than marksmanship; they require the ability to process information, make rapid decisions, and execute precise actions under pressure. Traditional range training, although required, often lacks the complexity and urgency of these real-world scenarios. This is where practical and competitive shooting disciplines can play a critical role.

Competitive shooting introduces elements that are difficult to replicate in standard law enforcement training environments. Timers, movement, target transitions, and problem-solving under pressure all contribute to developing a higher level of performance. Officers participating in competitive environments are forced to think and act quickly, balancing speed with accuracy in a way that closely mirrors the demands of real-world encounters. The result is not just faster shooters, but more efficient and confident ones.

Despite these benefits, competitive shooting remains a controversial topic within some law enforcement circles. Critics often argue that it creates bad habits, prioritizes speed over safety, and does not reflect the realities of duty use. These concerns are not without merit, but they are often based on misunderstandings or incomplete application of the discipline.

One of the most common criticisms is that competition shooting creates “training scars,” such as exaggerated movements, unrealistic reloads, or a focus on speed at the expense of tactical awareness. However, this critique fails to distinguish between improper application and structured integration. When competitive shooting is approached as a supplement, not a replacement for tactical training, it becomes a powerful tool rather than a liability. The responsibility lies with instructors and agencies to contextualize these skills appropriately, ensuring officers understand when and how to apply them in a law enforcement setting.

Another frequent argument is that competition shooting is not realistic for duty use. While it is true that no competitive environment can fully replicate the complexity of a lethal force encounter, the same can be said of traditional range training. The value of competition lies not in its realism, but in the performance skills it develops. Drawing efficiently, acquiring sights quickly, transitioning between targets, and managing recoil under time constraints are all transferable skills. These are not “competition-only” abilities—they are fundamental components of effective shooting.

Perhaps the most emotionally charged criticism is the idea that competition shooting “gamifies” lethal force. This concern reflects a deeper issue within the profession: the need to clearly separate mindset from mechanics. Competitive shooting is about maximizing performance under stress and pressure. When properly framed, it reinforces discipline, control, and accountability.

The reality is that performance under stress is a perishable skill. Officers who only engage in firearms training during periodic qualifications are simply not going to maintain peak proficiency. Competitive shooting offers a structured and accessible way to bridge that gap. It provides regular opportunities for officers to test their skills, identify weaknesses, and improve in a measurable way. The immediate feedback provided by timers and scoring systems creates a level of accountability that is often missing from traditional training environments.

From a physiological standpoint, competition also introduces a level of stress that, while not identical to a critical incident, is still very valuable. The pressure of performing in front of peers, being timed, and evaluated creates measurable increases in heart rate and cognitive load. Learning to manage these stress responses in a controlled environment can help officers develop composure and focus when it matters most.

For patrol officers, the benefits are straightforward: improved confidence, faster reaction times, and greater accuracy under pressure. For firearms instructors and range staff, competition provides a wealth of drills, techniques, and performance metrics that can be adapted for agency use. For command staff, it represents a cost-effective way to enhance training outcomes without significantly increasing resource demands.

Agencies should consider how they can incorporate or encourage competitive elements into their training programs. This begins with a clear understanding that competition is a tool not a doctrine. It should complement sound tactical training rooted in policy, law, and real-world application.

A practical approach to integration starts with incorporating competition-based drills into existing training. Timed courses of fire, movement-based exercises, and target transition drills can all be introduced without overhauling current programs. These additions challenge officers to perform at a higher level while maintaining the tactical context required for duty use.

Policy considerations are also important. Agencies should establish clear guidelines that reinforce safety, accountability, and adherence to use-of-force standards. Officers must understand that while certain techniques may be effective in a competitive setting, they must always default to tactics that align with their training and departmental policies.

Encouraging participation in local and regional matches is a valuable measure. Many competitive shooting events are open to law enforcement and provide a supportive environment for skill development. These events allow officers to engage in additional training on their own time while representing their agencies in a positive and professional manner. Exposure to a broader shooting community can also foster innovation and the exchange of ideas, benefiting both individual officers and their departments.

Importantly, leadership plays a critical role in shaping attitudes toward this type of training. When supervisors and command staff recognize and support the value of diverse training methods, it creates a culture that prioritizes continuous improvement.

The goal is not to turn police officers into competitive shooters, it is to make them more capable, confident, and effective in their roles by exposing them to additional challenges in a variety of settings and environment. When combined with sound tactical training, scenario-based exercises, and strong policy foundations, it becomes part of a comprehensive approach to firearms proficiency.

Ultimately, the profession must ask itself a critical question: Is current training preparing officers for the realities they may face? If the answer is anything less than a confident “yes,” then adaptation is necessary. The evolving nature of threats, public expectations, technology and accountability demands a higher standard of performance. Standing still is not an option.

Firearms training should not be limited to meeting minimum standards; it should strive for excellence. By embracing a balanced approach that includes practical, tactical, and competitive elements, law enforcement agencies can better prepare their officers for the complexities of modern policing. The result is not only improved performance on the range, but increased survivability, better decision-making, and greater confidence in the field.

Practical Takeaways

• Expand firearms training beyond static qualification courses

• Integrate timed, movement-based, and decision-making drills

• Use competition principles to enhance speed and accuracy under pressure

• Establish clear policy guidance to align training with duty use

• Encourage officers to participate in reputable local and regional matches

• Foster a culture of continuous improvement and performance accountability

In the end, the debate over competition shooting is not about choosing between tradition and innovation, it is about recognizing that both have value. When applied correctly, competitive shooting does not detract from law enforcement training; it strengthens it. And in a profession where performance can mean the difference between life and death, that is a distinction worth embracing.

Original article link:
https://calibrepress.com/2026/04/beyond-the-qualification-line-why-law-enforcement-should-embrace-practical-tactical-and-competitive-shooting/

Link: Marksmanship training for American Civilians

Here’s how Latvia has implemented a similar idea

Sindija Brakovska is 18 years old and currently studies at the Riga Technical School of Tourism and Creative Industry, a vocational school centered on hospitality, tourism, and fashion. However, today’s class has a different focus.

The room could be almost anywhere in Europe — if not for the rifles on the desks. They are clunky, black and weigh over 6 pounds. Made by the American manufacturer Crosman, model SBR, the air rifles resemble the military-issue U.S. M4.

“I’m a little nervous,” Brakovska says before she picks up a weapon for the first time. What does she make of her national defense class? “I think it makes sense.”

In many European countries, rifles in a classroom would be a scandal. In my home country, Germany, for example, the influential Education and Science Workers’ Union firmly opposes any form of military outreach in schools, viewing even visits by so-called “youth officers” with skepticism, as they are seen as a subtle form of recruitment.

In Latvia, by contrast, there is no such resistance, and weapons training has become part of the lesson plan, even for budding hairstylists and dance teachers.

The country sits on the eastern shore of the Baltic Sea, with Russia to the east and Belarus to the southeast. Together with its neighbors Estonia and Lithuania, Latvia spent decades inside the Soviet Union. This is NATO’s northeastern frontier, and allied troops are stationed across the region; it now hosts a Canada-led multinational brigade, and American forces operate in the country as part of the alliance’s deterrence posture.

All three European countries have military conscription. In Latvia the service is compulsory for young men, but not across the board: if too few volunteers come forward, the remaining recruits are chosen by lottery. Currently, around 400 young men are drafted this way each year, while roughly 1,300 volunteer.

In addition, both Latvia and Estonia have introduced a compulsory “National Defense Education” for students in secondary school. The syllabus includes military history, marching and drilling, land navigation, first aid, crisis response and weapons handling. Students who want more can spend part of the summer in camp, in uniform.

Of the three counties, Latvia goes the farthest in mandating military training to high school students. In Estonia, the mandatory classroom course is 35 hours. In Latvia, it runs 112 hours over two years.

“The purpose is not to train soldiers, but to develop more responsible citizens,” Col. Valts Āboliņš tells me during a break in one of the school’s classrooms. The 53-year-old officer oversees the national program. “We want to remove the phobias many young people and their parents have when they encounter anything military.”

Nearby, students in their second year of the course are allowed to shoot loaded BB guns. For that, they simply lie down on the grass beside the school’s main entrance. An instructor marks the firing zone with red-and-white tape. The paper targets lean against a wall; sheets of Styrofoam serve as backstops. In the background, Riga’s Soviet-era apartment blocks rise into the sky.

The shooting range has an air of improvisation, but the rules are enforced with notable strictness. Weapons always lie in the same place, and every movement is preceded by a command. No one fires without an order.

There was debate in Latvia about the program, Āboliņš says. But it was “surprisingly calm.” The crucial thing, he argues, was that the government introduced it gradually. The first courses began in 2018 in 13 schools, all on a voluntary basis. More schools joined each year. By the time the course became mandatory on September 1, 2024, most were already taking part. Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine did the rest.

How does a country in defense mode deal with young people who do not want to touch a weapon? “We don’t force anyone,” Skanis says. If someone is a convinced pacifist or says that his religion forbids it, the instructors ask for a presentation in the classroom instead. At least in peacetime.

“If war comes to Latvia, everyone needs to be ready,” Skanis says. “Some say they’ll fly away, but there won’t be any planes leaving anymore.”

That said, pacifism is much less prevalent in Latvia than elsewhere in the EU. Across the bloc, willingness to fight for one’s country tends to be low in Western Europe and markedly higher in the states that live in Russia’s shadow.

Full article:
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2026/03/28/latvia-russia-war-guns-students-00848017

Lt. Col. Jeff Cooper coined the phrase “Preoccupation with Inconsequential Increments” (PII) to describe the human tendency to obsess over tiny, measurable differences in equipment or performance that have no meaningful impact on real-world results. He defined an “inconsequential increment” as a difference that has no significant relationship to the purpose of the exercise.

“Years ago we coined the appellation, ‘Preoccupation with Inconsequential Increments,’ or PII. This peculiarity lies in attributing importance to measurable deviations so small as to be meaningless. You see it in the people who shoot test groups in rifles, awarding a prize to a group which is only thousandths of an inch smaller than those unrewarded. One sees it in speed records awarded in one-thousandths of one mile-per-hour. One sees it in basketball scores which, nearing the century mark, are separated by less than three points. In all such cases Score A is ‘better’ than Score B, but who cares?

“An increment may be termed inconsequential when it has no significant relationship to the purpose of the exercise. Of course, if the purpose of the exercise is in itself inconsequential, some may not think this to be foolish. A very distinguished general at Quantico once caused the sign to be placed over the exit door of every office asking, in brilliant scarlet and gold, ‘What are you trying to do?’ There was a man who knew more about human nature than most.”

While Cooper was certainly correct, this ignores a much bigger problem: What about Ignorance of Nonexistent Increments?

Some people in the tactical community obsess over the “problem” of other shooters, particularly those in the competition realm, being overly obsessed with performance. You’ve heard the excuses:

“There aren’t score zones or stopwatches in real life.”

“Don’t play timer games or circus tricks.”

“Hoping more people wake up from the distraction that timer drills and qual courses often become.”

Andy Stanford recently released his new book, Gunfighter U, Mastering the American Martial Art, where he opines:

“To get a Grandmaster card or win a major match requires many esoteric skills that have nothing to do with gunfighting.”

Mr. Stanford summed up his advice for new martial-minded gun owners starting out on how to avoid PII:

“Shoot at least twelve matches total, not more than one a week, no fewer than one a month. If you wish, shoot until you reach a B Classification in USPSA, or Expert in IDPA. Then throttle back to one or two matches a year at most. At this point, spend your spare time learning tactical medicine or applied combatives. Or conversing with your significant other. Or playing with your kids.”

Many in the tactical community express concerns about preoccupation with range results, warning against Preoccupation with Inconsequential Increments as if it were some existential threat.

A preoccupation with PII is itself a preoccupation with inconsequential increments. Far worse than PII is Ignorance of Nonexistant Increments.

I’m not worried about top competition shooters; there aren’t enough of them to worry about, which should be a concern for different reasons. I’m much more concerned with the many MILLIONS of military, law enforcement, and individual gun owners that never reach useful levels of skill. They’re not nearly as good with firearms as they should be, and are usually unaware of it: they have Ignorance of Nonexistant Increments concerning their lack of skill.

The U.S. military has about 2.1 million uniformed personnel in all branches, active and reserve. Add to this about 750,000 sworn law enforcement; that’s about 2,850,000 armed uniformed personnel in the public sector. Over 60 million Americans state they own a firearm for protection, something that about 70% of Americans state is at least one reason why they own at least one gun.

Various competitive action or practical shooting disciplines are relevant here and draw the most attention. The most popular of these competition shooting formats with national-level organizations tops out with a few ten thousand members. USPSA lists about 37,000 members, IDPA 25,000, PCSL 4,500; any other groups are smaller. If we add these together, ignore the overlap among people who are members of more than one group, include participants who aren’t card-carrying members, and then generously round up, we might have about 100,000 total.

Tactical PII

Even if every competitor was also military or sworn law enforcement (they’re obviously not), that means 96.5% are NOT participating in any capacity or at any level. Taking the better assessment that 60 million Americans owning a defensive firearm also includes military and police, that’s a 0.165% particiation rate - 99.835% of military, police, and civilian gun owners that already have a firearm suitable to participate in these events, don’t.

This already indicates that 624 out of 625 gun owners have never participated in a match.

Of those that have, most of the actual participants are far from a “Preoccupation with Inconsequential Increments.” According to data published by the International Defensive Pistol Association, their most popular Stock Service Pistol division has less than 12% of their membership Classified as Expert, and only 4% earned Master.

Contrast this to formal testing of civilian and military law enforcement showing most of them are incapable of being competitive in the LOWEST skill bracket. Article and videos with citations:

Link to article with citations:

In USPSA, about 65% of current classified shooters are D or C class, and about 25% are B class.

Using Stanford’s stratification, at least two-thirds of current participants would be well served to push for an INCREASE in scores; less than a quarter (15-25%) are at a skill level he recommends as beneficial but not excessive.

That means only 5-10% of current participants have pushed into a level Stanford considers higher than useful, allegedly due to their Preoccupation with Inconsequential Increments. That’s 5-10% of 0.165%.

Ten percent of 100,000 participants is 10,000; about 0.016% of the 60 million total, or less than 1 in 6,000.

For every 6,000 people with defensive firearms, one of them MIGHT be pursuing shooting skills beyond a reasonable level. The other 5,999 would be well served to shoot matches and work to improve their scores.

People who are expressing concern over that one person in 6,000 clearly have a Preoccupation with Inconsequential Increments.

In October 1904, New York Times reported that, with the approval of Congress, the National Board for the Promotion of Rifle Practice began distributing surplus Krag carbines to schools and rifle clubs across the United States. It also distributed millions of dollars for the construction and operation of rifle ranges and similar facilities.

The board, authorized by Congress, had the mission of devising “ways and means ... by which the interests of the general public in rifle practice might be stimulated.”

At the turn of the century, there was a great fear among some Americans that with the “closure of the frontier” and the accelerating industrialization and urbanization of the United States, the country was losing some of the essence that made it American. Part of this was a perceived decline in marksmanship and familiarity with weapons, as Americans moved from the country to the city.

As the United States did not have a significant permanent standing army until the Korean War (except for temporary increases during the world wars), it was believed that civilian marksmanship skills were critical to deploying an effective volunteer military if war broke out.

As the October 1904 New York Times story linked above points out:

“The Krag carbines soon will be discarded by the cavalry arm of the regular establishment, and the National Board will seek to obtain possession of them for distribution to the military schools ... It is also proposed that one carbine for each twenty-five scholars should be issued to public schools possessing indoor ranges and carrying on rifle practice. When the new Springfield rifle is issued to the regular establishment about 100,000 Krags will be available for distribution.”

The story quotes Assistant Secretary of War Robert Shaw Oliver: “Our permanent military establishment or regular army must be small ... and in the event of a war with one or more of the first-class powers of the world we must depend largely upon the militia and the volunteers for our fighting force. With the modern long-range small arm it is all-important that the soldier should know how to shoot, and to hit what he shoots at.”

Further, Theodore Roosevelt stated in 1904: “As a nation we must depend upon our volunteer soldiers in time of trial. . . . Of course, a soldier who cannot shoot is a soldier who counts for very little in battle, and all credit is due to those who keep up the standard of marksmanship.”

Later, the Chairman of War Manpower Commission during World War 2 stated: “Our men must be trained to make the best use of the superior weapons with which they are armed,” and said that the National Rifle Association’s program “means more straight shooting and makes for victory.”

This was supported by numerous U.S. Presidents who also participated:

The National Board, which included members of the National Rifle Association, developed into the Civilian Marksmanship Program (again administered in conjunction with the NRA). That program distributed thousands of weapons, tons of ammunition, and extensive lessons across the country. Between 1959 and 1964 alone, the Army sold 539,267 surplus rifles and other firearms to members of the NRA and other civilians at large discounts.

John F. Kennedy also supported this, saying, “Through competitive matches and sports in coordination with the [NBPRP], the [National Rifle] Association fills an important role in our national defense effort, and fosters in an active and meaningful fashion the spirit of the Minutemen.”

In 1966, Harlon Carter, president of the National Rifle Association, declared to the Times that “in Vietnam, a soldier with prior marksmanship training as a civilian stands a better chance of survival in combat, is a more efficient marksman and has more confidence in his ability to use his rifle effectively in action.”

But in the late 1960s, with concerns about urban riots among the young rising, there was fear in Congress that weapons and ammunition from the Civilian Marksmanship Program were making their way onto the black market and arming rioters. There was also fear among some Democrats, such as Rep. Henry Gonzalez, D-Texas, that the Civilian Marksmanship Program was deliberately arming right-wing militias. Gonzalez’s target was the Minutemen, a right-wing militia organized and trained to defend against a communist takeover of the United States.

The Arthur D. Little Report of 1979 analyzed data from over 12,880 Army trainees at four Army Training Centers, and found that trainees who had previous experience with firearms in civilian life are generally better marksmen, are more likely to use their weapon effectively in combat, and are less likely to be wounded or killed in combat. [...] While only 15.4% of trainees overall achieved “Expert” marksmanship scores (the highest possible category), 68.6% of trainees who were members of a DCM-affiliated civilian shooting club achieved an “Expert” score. The report therefore concluded that, “[t]he marksmanship instruction, supervised practice, safety training, and competitions . . . sponsored and supported by clubs, the NRA, and the DCM are of particular value to the military.”

Despite this, the Civilian Marksmanship Program fell out of favor and took on diminished importance through the late 1970s and 1980s, particularly in light of America’s strong antimilitarist attitudes following the Vietnam War. In the 1990s, there was a movement to divest the program from the government, and in 1996 Congress passed a law creating the nonprofit Corporation for the Promotion of Rifle Practice and Firearms Safety Inc.

The Civilian Marksmanship Program continues to operate today under that nonprofit, operating competitions and surplus sales (they’re frequently sold out) to this day.

Current Supreme Court Interpretation

From District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008):

Starting with a summary:

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

The longer version:

a. “Well-Regulated Militia.” In United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, 179 (1939), we explained that “the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.” That definition comports with founding-era sources. See, e.g., Webster (“The militia of a country are the able bodied men organized into com­panies, regiments and brigades . . . and required by law to attend military exercises on certain days only, but at other times left to pursue their usual occupations”); The Feder­alist No. 46, pp. 329, 334 (B. Wright ed. 1961) (J. Madison) (“near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands”); Letter to Destutt de Tracy (Jan. 26, 1811), in The Portable Thomas Jefferson 520, 524 (M. Peterson ed. 1975) (“[T]he militia of the State, that is to say, of every man in it able to bear arms”).

Petitioners take a seemingly narrower view of the mili­tia, stating that “[m]ilitias are the state- and congression­ally-regulated military forces described in the Militia Clauses (art. I, §8, cls. 15–16).” Brief for Petitioners 12. Although we agree with petitioners’ interpretive assump­tion that “militia” means the same thing in Article I and the Second Amendment, we believe that petitioners iden­tify the wrong thing, namely, the organized militia. Unlike armies and navies, which Congress is given the power to create (“to raise . . . Armies”; “to provide . . . a Navy,” Art. I, §8, cls. 12–13), the militia is assumed by Article I already to be in existence. Congress is given the power to “provide for calling forth the militia,” §8, cl. 15; and the power not to create, but to “organiz[e]” it—and not to organize “a” militia, which is what one would expect if the militia were to be a federal creation, but to organize “the” militia, connoting a body already in existence, ibid., cl. 16. This is fully consistent with the ordinary definition of the militia as all able-bodied men. From that pool, Congress has plenary power to organize the units that will make up an effective fighting force. That is what Con­gress did in the first militia Act, which specified that “each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the re­spective states, resident therein, who is or shall be of the age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia.” Act of May 8, 1792, 1 Stat. 271. To be sure, Congress need not conscript every able-bodied man into the militia, because nothing in Article I suggests that in exercising its power to organize, discipline, and arm the militia, Congress must focus upon the entire body. Although the militia consists of all able bodied men, the federally organized militia may consist of a subset of them.

Finally, the adjective “well-regulated” implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training. See Johnson 1619 (“Regulate”: “To adjust by rule or method”); Rawle 121–122; cf. Va. Declaration of Rights §13 (1776), in 7 Thorpe 3812, 3814 (referring to “a wellregulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms”).

For more details on current Federal law and formal declarations by Congress:

More citations:
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/07-290_amicus_retiredmilitary.pdf

Before we do that, if one simply learns to shoot better, they might become a “Mega Corporate Sponsored Shooter.” Some tips:

Shooters that don’t win are simply outclassed. A superior shooter won, and a sponsorship had nothing to do with it.

Rob Leatham won his first IPSC Nationals in 1983 (this was before USPSA existed), after which he was the IPSC World Champion three times. Then and only then did he receive a major sponsorship. Leatham’s sponsorship was basically Springfield Armory employing him as a member of R&D and marketing.

Most “pro shooter” sponsorships only involve receiving some products and offsetting some of the costs of training and competing, or it involves being employed by a company that is agreeable and flexible to participation in competitive shooting. Any such sponsorship only came after they had regularly earned success on their own. Even then, almost every “professional” shooter still has a regular job (just like you!) or is earning an income via sales or other business efforts.

Being a pro shooter isn’t a thing:

“Must be nice!” whines the complainer. “I could be a champ too if someone gave me stuff.” No, probably not. How often does said complainer win local club matches? Are they even competitive with local shooters Classified at the Master level or higher? These are wins within the grasp of every gun owner willing to dry practice diligently and regularly.

Some shooters are quick to complain about sponsored shooters winning and stealing “their” matches and prizes. Meanwhile, mass media crams basketball, baseball, and football down our throats. Where are the complaints about these guys? Consider how expensive tickets are even in the cheap seats. You have no chance of winning anything; you don't even get a chance to play. Try walking on the field and announcing to the players and referee that you want to play next. Remind them that you paid good money to be there and you deserve a chance. Then security kicks you out.

Or, you could instead attend a state-level or higher shooting match, likely for less cost, and have an honest chance to win. At least they’ll let you on the field to try.

The SO/RO/referees are not biased to sponsored shooters; they just put up higher scores. If that bothers you, finish reading this and then dry practice for at least half an hour, then exercise for at least as long. From now on, do this every day. Commit to a live fire practice schedule, ensuring dry practice of at least 50 dry repetitions for every single live round fired. Record your results in a journal and track that your measurements prove your skills and scores are steadily increasing. Repeat this sequence for the next five to ten years, and you’ll likely be able to keep up with and possibly earn a “Mega Corporate Sponsorship” yourself!

Skills can only be earned through trial, effort, and motivation. There is no secret technique, and the information is out there. The “only” thing you have to do is consistently practice it.

Robert M. Layng is a Machinist/Technician for the Engineering Division at Lafayette College in Easton, Pennsylvania. He has been in machine shops since his high school vocational school years. A 2008 graduate of the Toolmaking Technology program at Pennsylvania College of Technology in Williamsport, he specializes in prototyping and practical design. Robert has been a contributing author for American Gunsmith magazine.

Robert also hosts the new weekly podcast, “The Daily Grind” by Cutting Tool Engineering Magazine, live Monday mornings at 8 am Eastern, uploaded to major streaming platforms on Tuesday morning. He also contributes regularly to the magazine. The Daily Grind podcast can be found at CTE’s website, YouTube, Spotify, and Apple Podcasts:

https://engineering.lafayette.edu/rob-layng-to-host-new-daily-grind-podcast-for-cutting-tool-engineering
Cutting Tool Engineering Magazine:
“The Daily Grind” by Cutting Tool Engineering Magazine with Robert M. Layng
YouTube:
https://www.youtube.com/@CuttingToolEngineering/podcasts
Spotify:
CTE “The Daily Grind” with Robert M. Layng
Apple Podcast:
The Daily Grind

He enjoys hearing feedback from his audiences, and can be reached at layngr@gmail.com and https://www.linkedin.com/in/rob-layng-604031391

Speed (Re)Loading: Shotgun

Being not completely satisfied with my last two designs, I hit the drawing board again to come up with the more optimum solution for quicker reloads in a break action shotgun.

by R. M. Layng

In previous articles I wrote about my iterations of a speed loader for break action shotguns (August and December 2023). It was designed around my specific shotgun as a split clamp or clam shell design. I took much inspiration from the speed loaders used for revolvers and have gone through many reams of graph paper to come up with the design that I wrote about. This latest iteration is no different. I put a set of five completed clam shell loaders to a rigorous test at a recent round of Sporting Clays and have found the flaws in the design. The biggest one was the physical size of the loaders didn’t fit into the open action very well. There was plenty of room for the shells to line up and start into the chambers and cycling the splitter freely dropped the hulls into their chambers, but it had to be done at an inconvenient position in relation to the open receiver. I couldn’t just rest the assembly on the breech and trip the splitter like I originally intended, so I’d have to hover over the breech and shake the loader a little bit to get the hulls to wiggle into their chambers.

This latest version is a stark departure from the last generation, and there is a lot of hope that this is an improvement worth the time and material investments. This generation employs some spring-loaded plungers that protrude from the inside of the shell holder. The spring-loaded plunger system came from my father, Robert A. Layng, and is a close replication of his system for the ejector pins used in his molds to help separate finished product from the mold cavities. Some slight changes were made to his design to make the pins more resilient, but otherwise the system is unchanged. Many thanks to him for lending me the design for this new system. This subsystem employs a machined captive pin that passes through a hole in the bottom of the holder and a larger diameter head that traps the pin inside of the hole so it can’t fall out and provides a surface for the spring to press against. Then there is a spring applying pressure from behind, and both pieces are captured by a set screw which is applying a pre-load to the spring.

The way this is intended to work is that when you press shells into the holder, the spring-loaded pins will collapse up into the holder but still apply slight pressure to the brass of the shell to keep it in place. Slide one shotshell all the way to the back of the loader and then add another one in line so that you can drop the assembly into the open breech, grab the loader, and slide it off to the side or forward, depending if your blaster is over/under or side by side. I had originally tried to cut down excess parts and wanted to use two spring-loaded pegs instead of four, but I immediately realized that it would put the peg directly inline with, and potentially pressing against, the primer of the shells. This could result in dangerous unintended discharges, so that idea was scrapped for the four-peg idea that I have laid out in these pages.

Now, onto how I made them. I decided to go with a monolithic design this time and would need to incorporate both the shell clamp and shell port in one piece to remain as compact as possible while still having it do everything I required of it. This is when I reached out to my father to ask if I could use his method of the ejection pins but with a few small changes. I decided I would make the part long enough to hold two shells in place with a small amount of room for adjustment to accommodate different shotguns’ chamber spacing. I retained the slot width and undercut dimensions as the last two generations but shortened the pocket depth considerably, having only enough material past the undercut to reliably retain the shells. The idea being the spring pressure on the pegs would pinch the shell’s brass against the wall of the undercut, hence keeping the hull pointed in the right direction to assist with feeding them into the chambers.

To create the slotted undercut I first machined out the slot for the width that is slightly wider than SAAMI specifications for a 12-gauge shotshell and cut it 3/16” deep. I then switched to a woodruff key cutter and traversed the edges of the aforementioned slot to a width slightly wider than the SAAMI specifications for the shell’s rim diameter and then ran a chamfering bit around the peripherals to get rid of sharp edges and aid in adding shells to the loader. I then flipped the parts over and machined off the excess from machining the first side, drilled and reamed a hole for the captive pegs to slip through, and then drilled and tapped for the set screw to hold the spring and peg in place. Some mathematical work was involved in determining the depth of the pockets for the peg, spring, and set screw so that the peg would only protrude a certain amount and the spring could still provide enough pressure to ensure retention of the hulls in the loader when loaded up. I also chamfered the exposed edges pretty liberally to ensure sharp edges were eliminated, and to provide pleasing aesthetics.

Next were the pegs which was the most time-consuming part of this build. I essentially made my own version of captive dowel pins, minus the ribs normally on captive pins that anchor into a host material. They have the cross section of a capital letter “T”. I simply turned some 1/4” nominal diameter aluminum rod down to 0.124” so it slipped freely in the hole reamed out to 0.126”. I turned the shoulder back by 3/16” and filed a radius on the tip to facilitate the shell’s pushing the pins out of the way to charge the loader. I also put a generous chamfer on the other two edges to both remove sharp burrs and to allow the pin’s head to sit flat against the bottom of the pocket machined into the loader. After a test fit (dropping a finished pin into the finished pocket) I noticed that the pin fell right into place and the peg protruded the perfect distance into the slot to clamp onto the shotshell’s brass. I did the same thing for a total of 30 pieces so I had enough for all the loaders I finished making plus a few spares. They’re small parts that could be easily lost so a few spares will go a long way. After parting each piece off of the bar stock, I flipped them all around and faced the heads to 1/8” long.

I inherited a box of various size music wire springs from a friend who was cleaning out his garage and was able to dig through it and find enough identical springs to supply the entirety of my set of loaders. As for set screws, I had a box of 5/16-18 x 1/4” long cup point set screws in passivated stainless steel, plenty for putting four in each of the 7 loaders. So as part of the design, I drilled a 0.257” (“F” size bit) flat bottomed pocket deep enough to counterbore for the captive pins, and then tapped the holes for the 5/16-18 set screws deep enough to sink the screw just below flush in the loader. This pre-loaded the springs that pressed against the pegs, giving me the self-contained clamping effect I desired in this design.

After a test with some snap caps to see if the retention was what I wanted, I opened the action on my shotgun, triple checked that it was empty, and did a few test runs with the same snap caps to see if it really would work as designed. I lined up the two hulls to their respective chambers, dropped the assembly until it bottomed out, and then slid the loader forward off of the two snap caps, and the shells finished falling into place. I then pocketed the emptied loader and closed the action. They worked just as I intended! The only thing I think I would change now after testing them is to maybe put an indicating marker on the end opposite the opening for the shells to load and unload so it would be much easier to orient the assembly properly to be able to use it and not insert it backwards. In hindsight, if I wanted to alleviate that problem I could just have machined both ends open so it could be unidirectional.

Now it is onto the Sporting Clays course yet again to give these new versions a run under the circumstances likely faced there or in the field. I hope they are worth their weight in gold!

As always, thanks for reading. A special “thank you” goes out again to Robert A. Layng for the help with the spring-loaded peg idea. Shoot straight and never rest on your laurels. Always keep looking for ways to improve something that you think you’ve perfected. This project is proof of the validity of that concept and I hope it inspires another ‘smith in the future.

The push for “assault weapon” bans is a deliberate pivot to manufacture a “problem” by way of a scare tactic after realizing handgun bans weren’t working. Here’s the history.

jump the shark (idiomatic phrase)

: when a creative work or entity has reached a point in which it has exhausted its core intent and is introducing new ideas that are discordant with its original purpose

Click to watch:

Origins of “Assault Weapon” Bans

For many years, gun ban efforts largely fixated on handguns. The National Council to Control Handguns was created in 1974 and changed its name to Handgun Control, Inc. (HCI) in 1980. Jim and Sarah Brady became involved around this time, and the organization named its proposed and occasionally passed legislation after them. For example, the 1993 legislation that created the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) was formally called the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, even though NICS provides a Universal Background Check during the sale of all types of firearms by Federally Licensed (FFL) dealers, not just handguns.

However, by December 2000, the entire organization was rebranded as the Brady Campaign and Brady Center, dropping the original handgun-centric name and focus. As this occurred, Josh Sugarmann founded the Violence Policy Center in 1988 to ban all guns in America.

While all gun prohibition schemes are inherently flawed, the previous handgun-centric approach at least focused on the type of firearm that is used most often by criminals to commit crimes and homicides of all types - this includes mass shootings, regardless of how they might be defined. The paid ad above from the late 1970s, using data from the Federal Bureau of Investigation Uniform Crime Report, shows that rifles of all kinds were used in homicides 9% of the time back then. The FBI UCR has since reported that this dropped to less than 4%.

Being punched or kicked to death (called “personal weapons” in the FBI UCR) accounts for 2-3 times more deaths than ALL rifles; the AR-15 is just one type of rifle, so the number of them used criminally is even less. Given that the data proves that so-called “assault weapons” are less than half as likely to be used to commit a homicide than fists or feet, or knives, clubs, hammers, etc., why do they receive the most attention for proposed bans now?

Bogus claims about handguns began to erode even among the general lay public. This included fear-mongering that increased ownership and carry of handguns would lead to an increase in violence. However, this never happened. In 1986, one State had an unrestricted right to carry, eight had shall-issue laws, twenty-five had may-issue, and sixteen states had no issue provision to carry a concealed handgun legally. By 2023, twenty-seven states had an unrestricted right to carry, fifteen had shall-issue laws, eight had may-issue laws, and every State in the U.S. had some provision for carrying a concealed handgun legally. See the U.S. map of right-to-carry, 1986-2023 for details.

Florida started offering concealed carry permits in 1987. Here’s what happened to that state’s murder rate:

This mirrors the trend throughout the United States:

As this occurred, the rates of gun ownership in the U.S. have consistently increased:

Crime and homicide rates in the United States have continually gone down, even as some people foolishly and without evidence declared firearm ownership a “public health crisis” or “epidemic.”

More people own more guns, and more citizens are carrying more handguns in more places and more often, and the rate of violence in the U.S. continues to go down. The claimed “wild west shootouts” and scare tactics over increased violence never occurred. Public support for handgun bans also declined.

Maintaining a policy against the general public legally owning and carrying handguns was increasingly contrary to reality and public opinion. Because gun control has nothing to do with safety or helping anyone, these organizations pivoted toward a different scare tactic.

The “Assault Weapon” Pivot

A policy paper by the Violence Policy Center explains the rationale behind the pivot from handguns to “assault weapons.”
https://www.vpc.org/studies/awaconc.htm

From Assault Weapons and Accessories in America by VPC

• ‘It will be a new topic in what has become to the press and public an "old" debate.’

“Although handguns claim more than 20,000 lives a year, the issue of handgun restriction consistently remains a non-issue with the vast majority of legislators, the press, and public… Assault weapons—just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and ‘plastic’ firearms—are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.”

• ‘Efforts to restrict assault weapons are more likely to succeed than those to restrict handguns.’

“[M]any Americans do believe that handguns are effective weapons for home self-defense and the majority of Americans mistakenly believe that the Second Amendment of the Constitution guarantees the individual right to keep and bear arms. Yet, many who support the individual's right to own a handgun have second thoughts when the issue comes down to assault weapons. Assault weapons are often viewed the same way as machine guns and ‘plastic’ firearms—a weapon that poses such a grave risk that it's worth compromising a perceived constitutional right.”

No, this is not from a leaked internal document. VPC publicly released this in the 1990s, and it remains on their website to this day. The references to “plastic” firearms were due to the then-current scare tactic over Glock handguns being wrongly claimed to defeat metal detectors.

Malcolm Gladwell interviewed Josh Sugarmann about his policy positions. Click to watch:

Handgun bans weren’t working, and the general public was increasingly skeptical about them. Proposed bans on inexpensive handguns (“Saturday Night Specials”), which were at the forefront of American gun debates, were failing. The “plastic gun” scare - best summed up in the nonsensical dialogue by Bruce Willis in the 1990 movie Die Hard 2 (“The Glock 7, a porcelain gun made in Germany that doesn't show up on your airport X-ray machines and costs more than what you make in a month") - faded when law enforcement mass adopted them to replace duty revolvers and the even the lay public realized it was nonsense. Concealed carry provisions increased, more people owned more handguns and carried them in public more frequently, all while rates of violence declined and approval for handgun bans dropped from 60% to 20%.

So the “assault weapon” boogeyman was invented in the hopes that the general public could be swayed. Gun prohibitionists deliberately attempt to exploit the general public’s lack of understanding and stated as much in at least one public policy paper. The “new topic” about assault weapons was invented as leverage to exploit the general public’s misunderstanding about different kinds of firearms.

The sole motivation is gaining leverage to ban something - anything - regardless of whether there’s any valid reason to believe that it will help. “Anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun” demonstrates the deliberate scare tactic among the gun ban fraternity, with many politicians who really don’t understand the difference, along with the hope that enough of the general public also doesn’t understand.

This also follows the pivot away from gun control (with organization names like National Council to Control Handguns and Handgun Control, Inc.) toward “gun sense” and “gun safety” - prohibition efforts sound less draconian if billed as “safety” and “common sense” rather than as “control.”

Hanlon's razor is an adage that states: Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. Proposed bans on “assault weapons” are a product of both.

Robert M. Layng is a Machinist/Technician for the Engineering Division at Lafayette College in Easton, Pennsylvania. He has been in machine shops since his high school vocational school years. A 2008 graduate of the Toolmaking Technology program at Pennsylvania College of Technology in Williamsport, he specializes in prototyping and practical design. Robert has been a contributing author for American Gunsmith magazine.

Robert also hosts the new weekly podcast, “The Daily Grind” by Cutting Tool Engineering Magazine, live Monday mornings at 8 am Eastern, uploaded to major streaming platforms on Tuesday morning. He also contributes regularly to the magazine. The Daily Grind podcast can be found at CTE’s website, YouTube, Spotify, and Apple Podcasts:

https://engineering.lafayette.edu/rob-layng-to-host-new-daily-grind-podcast-for-cutting-tool-engineering
Cutting Tool Engineering Magazine:
“The Daily Grind” by Cutting Tool Engineering Magazine with Robert M. Layng
YouTube:
https://www.youtube.com/@CuttingToolEngineering/podcasts
Spotify:
CTE “The Daily Grind” with Robert M. Layng
Apple Podcast:
The Daily Grind

He enjoys hearing feedback from his audiences, and can be reached at layngr@gmail.com and https://www.linkedin.com/in/rob-layng-604031391

“Forward Assist-ance Needed”

by R. M. Layng

An AR-platform chambered in the straight-wall thumper 450 Bushmaster with feeding issues came across my bench. Here I lay out my troubleshooting methods and the fix, which turned out to be the simplest thing.

Recently, a friend of the family approached me about looking at a rifle he recently acquired for a hunt out West. He mentioned it is having a persistent feeding problem wherein the bolt will not finish its travel into battery when chambering a round, at all! When seating an empty magazine and tripping the bolt release, the bolt carrier group went fully into battery every single time. Only when feeding a round into the chamber did it bind up repeatedly. The forward assist was needed to drive the bolt the last little bit to lock-up. Even when test firing before beginning my work, the rifle essentially was a single shot. It would reliably eject the spent brass but would choke on the next fresh round and stop short of returning to battery.

Back at my work bench, I began to take the rifle apart, spreading the parts into subsystems like the bolt carrier group, lower receiver, etc. I decided I would look at the upper assembly first, checking for cleanliness, chamber conditions, or any other cause of a failure to feed. I first inspected the feed ramp, being such a large bore and single-stack magazine, this rifle only has one large feed ramp. I checked for any burrs or raised edges for the bullet to catch on but found none. The ramp was finely polished, too. A nice touch. With a suitable back light, a visual inspection of the chamber showed a clean ream, free of any skips or ridges. I also compared this finding to my snap caps and some recently fired brass casings, both of which showed no scoring or scraping.

Since the brass casings were so cleanly ejected, I wasn’t concerned about the alignment of the gas tube to the gas port in the barrel and gas block. The bolt assembly showed some uneven wear on the top surface of the staked gas key, but nowhere else. This led me to believe that the carrier is canted in the raceways as it moves, potentially causing feeding issues. Upon thorough inspection and cleaning of the raceways I found no other uneven wear, so I put the theory of a canted bolt carrier group to bed.

I was then suspect of the recoil spring and buffer in this particular rifle, so that was where I focused my attention next. The incorrect weight of recoil buffer can, and will, mess with a rifle’s diet. Upon inspection I found that part to be of the proper weight for this rifle’s chambering, so I moved onto the next potential problem.

Out of sheer curiosity I grabbed a snap cap and attempted to click the rim in under the extractor to test its movement and to test the strength and function of the ejector plunger. It is here that I found the cause of the problem! For some reason, the case rim had a bear of a time fitting in under that extractor. Once I was able to get the rim clicked in, I found that the ejector plunger was strong and working just as designed. With this information, I focused on the root of the issue at hand. Now to get to that extractor.

To access the extractor, standard take down of the bolt carrier group is as follows: Once removed from the upper assembly, locate and remove the firing pin retention pin (it resembles a flattened cotter pin). Remove the firing pin from the bolt carrier group by tilting the assembly rearward until it falls into your hand. Next, ensure the bolt is in its rearward or “locked” position. This will allow access to the cam lock pin, now rotate it 90 degrees to clear the staked gas key and lift it out of the assembly. Remove the bolt from the front of the assembly. At this point you’ll have access to the extractor pivot pin. This pin can be easily drifted out using a small punch, being sure to capture the extractor as you do so. After the pin is free, lift out the extractor (which should include the return spring). This is where I finally found the cause of the feeding issue! Whomever assembled this rifle either installed an unnecessary O-ring (as is found in the old way of assembling an AR’s bolt) or left in one from the factory. Either way, it was binding up the operation of the extractor and not letting it move far enough in its stroke to click up over the case rim! I am aware of the older doctrine of having an O-ring around that stalk and spring to cushion the movement and prolong the life of the assembly, but with modern updates and stronger parts, this is seen as no longer needed. After removing the offending O-ring and placing it in a baggie for safe keeping, I checked the spring compression strength and status of the stalk. Once I was satisfied that this assembly was in good working order, I decided to test my findings by reassembling the rifle and testing the feeding with some snap caps. Assembly is in the reverse order of what I laid out before.

Once the bolt carrier group was assembled and inserted back into the upper receiver, I inserted a magazine loaded with snap caps and racked the charging handle. Much to my satisfaction, the bolt assembly slammed home without the need for the forward assist to finish the job! Running the charging handle repeatedly until the hold-open tripped on an empty magazine, I was delighted to see flawless feeding. At the range, I locked the bolt to the rear and inserted a fresh magazine full of shells and tripped the bolt release. The gratifying “kah-chunk” of the rifle no longer choking on a fresh round, and completing its travel into battery, was only amplified by the fact that the rifle now reliably fed through magazine after magazine of ammo until I was out of shells! After a thorough cleaning, the rifle was returned to its happy owner.

I hope that this article can help another gunsmith, or “mechanic” as AR enthusiasts sometimes refer to themselves, who may run into this or a similar issue with “America’s Favorite Rifle”. Your project’s chambering may differ, but the issues that may arise can all be solved the same or a similar manner. Thanks for reading!

Also, please support our new channel at BitChute by viewing and subscribing for free: https://www.bitchute.com/video/N7yZqnxK6duO

The U.S. Army enacted a Distinguished Marksman program in 1884, a shooting program that has since been opened up to all branches of the military and all civilian shooters. In the 140-year history of the program, with several hundred million marksmen and tens of millions of military personnel eligible to try, by the end of 2025, fewer than 1,300 people have earned a Distinguished rating more than once.

Captain Horace Wayman Bivins was the first person to earn both Distinguished Rifleman and Distinguished Pistol Shot in 1894. A Corporal at the time. Cpt. Bivins was also the first marksman to win three Army marksmanship gold medals in one year.

These shooting events are open to everyone. This video explains how to get on a shooting team and become a sponsored shooter:

Cpt. Bivins had a military career that was so varied and full of adventure that early newspapers wrote his life’s account ‘‘reads like fiction from the imagination of a pulp magazine writer.” He was assigned to Troop E of the 10th Cavalry, which took a prominent part in the campaigns against Geronimo, Apache Kid, and other Indian chieftains of the southwest. While serving in Cuba during the Spanish-American War, Bivins was awarded a Silver Star for actions during the famous battle of San Juan Hill. A sergeant by then, Bivins was assigned to a Hotchkiss gun battery. With all other members of his unit killed or wounded, he single-handedly fired 72 shells from a Hotchkiss gun, which recoiled six to eight feet after each shot. His performance was all the more remarkable because early in the battle, he had been knocked out briefly by a slug that passed through an iron-plated hub of a gun carriage and hit him in the temple. President Teddy Roosevelt recalled the action, “I don’t think it an exaggeration to say that but for the timely aid of the 10th Cavalry, the Rough Riders would have been annihilated.”

Cpt. Horace Wayman Bivins, the first Double Distinguished marksman in United States history in 1894, was an African American. It would take more than five decades after this for Jack Roosevelt “Jackie” Robinson to receive the same acceptance in baseball, as detailed in the movie 42. Lieutenant Colonel Earl Woods, father of pro golfer Tiger Woods, served two tours in Vietnam as an officer in the Infantry and Special Forces. While in college, Woods was not allowed to play golf because of his skin color. In fact, the Professional Golfer’s Association of America (PGA) enforced a “Caucasians only” clause in their official published rules until the 1960s. Marksmanship competition is objective and doesn’t have these restrictions. Buffalo Soldiers competed and medalled in these events decades before being allowed to freely participate in baseball and golf.

Shooting competition has a long history of providing opportunities for everyone, as explained in this video:

Army marksmanship programs trace their lineage to when General Philip Sheridan officially created the Distinguished Marksman class, as announced in official General Orders back in 1884 and formalized in 1887.

The original concept has been run continuously ever since. Marksmen participate in Excellence In Competition events, and the top ten percent of eligible, non-distinguished competitors are awarded “Leg” points. Like the leg of a journey, points are accumulated over the shooter’s lifetime for specific awards. The first leg is the EIC Bronze medal. After 20 lifetime points are accumulated, the Silver EIC medal is awarded. Once 30 or more points are earned, the shooter reaches Distinguished status. EIC events are held for rifle and pistol shooting, and there are Distinguished Rifleman and Distinguished Pistol Shot badges.

These awards are more prominent than normal qualification badges and are eligible for wear on dress uniforms. Like combatives, instead of Level 1-4 to recognize accomplishment, Bronze, Silver, and Gold badges are awarded. Army marksmanship programs are published in Army Regulation 350-66 and 140-1, with the awards and their wear detailed in 670-1. The other services have similar regulations.

Distinguished marksmen come from all walks of life, even outside the military. The CMP maintains all master records dating back to 1884 in its Competition Tracker.

Read more about Cpt. Bivins at the CMP: https://ct.thecmp.org/app/v1/index.php?do=contactDistinguishedView&distinguished_id=1370

Cpt. Bivens National Cemetery listing: https://www.dyingtotelltheirstories.com/home/2020/3/5/qtznpg8giquyff1bwnaldudl2lgl95?fbclid=IwAR0vcbtW10iNiFboWYpO9wFxWmQnYhixjaQDmM2%E2%80%A6

Billings Library history: https://billingslibrary.org/DocumentCenter/View/4172/BivinsHorace

Soldiers have chance to distinguish themselves:
https://www.army.mil/article/31928/soldiers_have_chance_to_distinguish_themselves

National Archives: Buffalo Soldiers

#BlackHistoryMonth

Robert M. Layng is a Machinist/Technician for the Engineering Division at Lafayette College in Easton, Pennsylvania. He has been in machine shops since his high school vocational school years. A 2008 graduate of the Toolmaking Technology program at Pennsylvania College of Technology in Williamsport, he specializes in prototyping and practical design. Robert has been a contributing author for American Gunsmith magazine.

Robert also hosts the new weekly podcast, “The Daily Grind” by Cutting Tool Engineering Magazine, live Monday mornings at 8 am Eastern, uploaded to major streaming platforms on Tuesday morning. He also contributes regularly to the magazine. The Daily Grind podcast can be found at CTE's website, YouTube, Spotify, and Apple Podcasts:

https://engineering.lafayette.edu/rob-layng-to-host-new-daily-grind-podcast-for-cutting-tool-engineering
Cutting Tool Engineering Magazine:
“The Daily Grind” by Cutting Tool Engineering Magazine with Robert M. Layng
YouTube:
https://www.youtube.com/@CuttingToolEngineering/podcasts
Spotify:
CTE “The Daily Grind” with Robert M. Layng
Apple Podcast:
The Daily Grind

He enjoys hearing feedback from his audiences, and can be reached at layngr@gmail.com and https://www.linkedin.com/in/rob-layng-604031391

Bushingless 1911 Takedown Tool

Here’s an overview of how I built a “21st Century fix” for disassembling smaller 1911 handguns and those with bull barrels and no bushings for cleaning or maintenance.

by R. M. Layng

An interesting project came across my bench a short time back involving the smaller size of 1911 family of pistols, specifically those with bull barrels and no conventional bushings in the front that need to be rotated out of the way for the recoil spring to be removed.

To those of us that either have or have worked on one of these smaller size pistols we know the difficulty that can arise when needing to field strip one of these little monsters. You need to retract the slide a ways, insert a cross pin into that tiny hole in the recoil guide rod, gently let the slide forward and then off the frame to be able to remove the recoil assembly, and then the barrel. I used to resort to a tiny 1/32” hex wrench that was ground off to just the perfect length to facilitate the disassembly. Fishing that out of the slide when taken apart, and then fishing it back in through the reverse recoil spring plug was a pain - albeit a small one, pun intended.

After much thought and speaking with the pistol’s owner (longtime family neighbor Robert W. Clark), along with a few other machinist friends, a preliminary design was cooked up. The thought process revolved around finding a part of the recoil assembly that would not affect cycling should it be slightly modified. It was decided that I would drill and tap a hole at the end of the recoil guide rod for an 8-32 thread. The guide rods on both of the pistols I measured were 5/16”, plus or minus a few thousandths. Using this as a basis for the tool, I decided to drill the interior of the new takedown tool to 21/64”, allowing for any inconsistency in the threading of the guide rod, the stud in the tool itself, etc. I had 3/8” stainless steel drill rod on hand, left over from another job. This size of material fit perfectly into the pocket holding the reverse plug and still pressed against the plug, all while still allowing the slide to travel over it to allow disassembly. Jackpot!

Next was finding the length I needed. For this Commander size model, I measured from the end of the guide rod to the furthest end of the hole for a length I would need to successfully depress upon the reverse spring plug and effect the removal of the recoil assembly, in this case 3/8”. I made the pocket 1/2” deep to make sure I would depress the reverse plug far enough. Adding to that a 1/4” wall for the threaded stud to anchor to, giving me 8 screw threads to hold onto and allow me the “meat” to drill through the side for a roll pin to keep the screw from backing out in use. Next, I drilled just shy of the depth as measured with a standard drill, and then ground the cutting edge of another drill bit to cut a flat-bottomed hole, and finished drilling the hole to depth. I then ran a tap drill for an 8-32 thread through the part and threaded that hole for the stud. Just to make sure the stud stays in place, an extra added measure was to stake the stud in my new adapter with the cross-drilled hole and roll pin that I mentioned before. As a side note, I have noticed different manufacturers and models all have different locations of the pin hole on the length of the recoil guide rod so I made appropriate takedown adapters for each of these different models. Should you decide to do something like this, I would suggest using the formula I laid out and just change the depth of your pocket and overall length to account for what you’ve measured for your exact pistol.

Not knowing exactly how this would function, being a completely new design for me, I made three prototypes with all three identical in the pocket for the guide rod but slightly different on the outside where the 8-32 screw gets anchored. The first is the shortest, 3/4” in length but a complete cylinder in shape. The next one was slightly longer at 7/8” in length but having a counter bored hole on the opposite end of the pocket to account for a socket head cap screw. Lastly, the third model was also 7/8” in length but the end was rounded off. The thinking behind this was that I’d like to find out which design allowed the guide rod to be removed from the slide once it was taken off of the frame while still keeping the reverse plug and recoil spring compressed.

Next, I clamped on the guide rod in a collet in a lathe. This is a self-centering setup so I don’t need to spend the time dialing it true; a real quick fix to drill and tap the end of the rod. I drilled with a tap drill on the smaller end of the acceptable scale for an 8-32 thread. This was to ensure that the adapter’s stud doesn’t strip the threads of the guide rod under the recoil spring’s pressure, and this also helps retain the set screw that fills the hole when the pistol is fully assembled. Permanently modifying the end of the guide rod like this might not look great when left empty, so I plug the threaded hole with a set screw when the pistol is assembled and ready to fire, but this does not affect the cycling of the pistol while shooting.

Using this new adapter supplants the use of the cross pin in the tiny hole already in the guide rod. Lock the slide back as normal, remove the set screw, thread on the adapter, and slowly let the slide back down onto this new adapter. Don’t drop the slide by releasing the slide stop as you’ll both shear off the small threads and damage the housing of the tool itself. This compresses the recoil spring under the reverse plug, just as the cross pin would, and allows taking the pistol down in the normal way prescribed in your owner’s manual. Remove the slide lock and run the slide off the frame. Upend the slide and remove the recoil assembly and then slide the barrel out the front of the slide. You can now do your cleaning or maintenance as needed, and then reverse this order to reassemble the pistol, making sure to lock the slide back before removing the adapter. You don’t want the spring pressure to launch the adapter across the room once you’ve run out of threads. Plus, the heavy recoil spring pressure would bind the whole thing up, anyway.

Thanks for reading, and I hope this helps other ‘smiths should they find themselves looking for a modern-day solution to this same age-old problem. A special thanks and point of recognition goes out to Mr. Robert W. Clark whose original conundrum lead to this design going from merely talking about a fix to becoming a fleshed-out prototype. Your input and inspiration helped find a fix to a problem I also face in my Officer’s model. I hope this works for your pistols as well, should you decide to do something similar!

American Gunsmith Video and Article Series

Click/tap to see our entire free Video and Article series for Gunsmiths.

I’ve also created a second free library of Gunsmith videos at a firearm-friendly video hosting service. Click to view and subscribe here:

https://www.bitchute.com/funshoot

https://www.bitchute.com/playlist/uWIXyy0Lkmik/

These checklists assume the goal of your next project is to build or modify the best possible firearm efficiently. That may not be your primary motivation - and that’s perfectly fine! - but that’s the assumption here.

During my fourteen years as editor of American Gunsmith, we published well over 900 unique gunsmithing articles by a diverse range of talented gunsmiths. There was a host of motivations behind each of those projects. Sometimes, sentimental value or satisfying curiosity was the primary goal, and those are admirable reasons. Here, our focus is efficiency.

Action Plan

An action plan for those who love accessories but also need to improve on the underlying skills.

The point here is not to tell you what to like or spend your money on. Look at it like this: You’re best off if you take a breather and plan out how you want to make gains. Everyone is going to prioritize different facets of their shooting performance.

1. Consistency is everything. Are you being consistent in the entire process of sending a projectile down range?

2. Have you chronographed your loads? If you don’t have a chronograph or know that you won’t be handloading at any time in the future – invest in better, more consistent ammunition from factory

3. Is your optic properly mounted and unable to loosen up inadvertently?

4. Has your bore been cleaned properly, inspected for fouling or imperfections, and potentially lapped to even out inconsistencies or improve the anti-fouling behavior?

5. Are you understanding the forces that are in play, not only from a macro perspective (wind, heat, target movement, actual range variables), but from a perspective of “as each shot is taken”?

6. Is your ammunition matched to a proper barrel length, twist rate, and the precision measurements of the chamber? Do you have play in your components or problems with a dirty gas system (if it’s a self-loader), or improperly fitted parts? Do you have a trigger that works with you, not against you?

7. Is your bipod, sandbag, gun rest or bench properly serviced, put together, and functioning on the level?

A note: the biggest improvement is in finding a repeatable, tightly held grouping of assets and procedures that you can use the same way each time. In real world terms: find the most consistent ammunition. Use it in a way that doesn’t alter it, even if it means handloading it into the chamber. Make your setup rock-solid so that variables in the real world cannot change it (e.g., loctite your scope mounts; buy a legitimate bipod, etc.). Take the shot using the same breathing patterns, and knowing exactly what you expect, take notes when things don’t materialize properly – always have a pen and paper. Get intimately familiar with the adjustments on your scope.

Don’t be afraid to think through any changes in your point of aim versus your point of impact – take your time on it. Demand improvement – hold yourself accountable for consistency and push to understand what you are doing on the molecular level before you send a shot downrange.

In case you are getting frustrated, don’t just send more lead down range – stop and remind yourself that some shots cost you $3. Or $2, or whatever premium price point you have bought your chosen cartridge at. The realization that dollar bills are launching down range may have the effect of slowing down your thinking and helping you to reexamine core principles to assess where something is going wrong.

List of accessories that can have a major impact on accuracy:

1. Barrel, of proper length to maximize velocity at the moment of muzzle exit – not because peak velocity is most important, but because standard deviation spread is a killer of accuracy, and specifically of shot groupings. The twist rate is also of incredible importance – especially since, once you find a load, you probably aren’t going to be changing it

2. Rock solid mounting hardware that bridges the gun properly to form a monolithic mount for your optic. The mounting is more important than the optic in most cases – at least under 600 yards

3. Is the cartridge you are shooting inherently capable of the type of accuracy you desire? If you’re trying to squeeze ¼ MOA out of a .50 Beowulf, You’re going to be very disappointed (yes the bullet diameter is bigger than the group size you are hoping for – it was meant as an extreme example)

4. Buy the best cartridge option you can afford to shoot a large volume of ammunition, whether it’s 224 Valkyrie or 6.5 Creedmoor or 338 Lapua.

5. Do you understand precision shooting math and how to gather and interpret variables at the time of shooting? Maybe some input gathering tools are in order? Think rangefinder, wind identification tooling and gauges or ballistics books

6. Buy the best glass you can afford

A final word about accessories. If you are sure that you want a specific type of component or accessory, don’t settle for a lesser one, you will undoubtedly regret it. Wait until it comes back in stock and buy the one you want. A perfect example: sure, there are plenty of 18” 6.5 Creedmoor barrels available right now, but you are positive you need a 24” barrel at least to achieve the right velocity consistency and get the most out of the rounds you are loading. Wait for the 24” or 26” barrel to get back in stock, or have a bespoke barrel made.

Conclusions

Buy the things that make you better, but also invest in yourself. Learn the baseline best practices. Buy more ammunition to shoot. Dial in your consistent routines, and loads, and procedures, and practices. Ultimately, the match and balance between the barrel, and the cartridge, and your mindset, will combine for the most important variables you can reasonably be expected to contribute to the precision long-range shooting process.

Australia’s Gun Rules Explained:

As I’m sure you’ve heard, the “terrible thing that only happens in the United States” happened in Australia. Many were quick to praise their draconian gun prohibitions as “still necessary” while data from Australia’s government indicates otherwise.

Australia has indeed enjoyed a low homicide rate for decades since enacting its gun bans in 1996-1997; however, there are several problems with attributing this to these laws.

1. If Australian gun policy was the cause of their declining homicide rate, how did that decline begin almost a decade before those bans were enacted?

2. If Australian gun policy was the cause of their declining homicide rate, why did that decline also include homicides not involving firearms?

3. If Australian gun policy was the cause of their declining homicide rate, why did the United States experience a nearly identical decline during the same time period?

The reason I’m certain you’ve heard of the shooting at Bondi Beach is because of the massive international attention it received. Perceptions of guns being uniquely dangerous are a product of reporting, not reality. This phenomenon has been formally studied even as most people remain unaware.

Meanwhile, more common occurrences that are statistically deadlier don’t even register. One example, the CDC - an organization that has declared firearms as a “public health crisis” - recognizes on its website that choking to death while eating kills 12 times more people than those killed with rifles every year - AR-15 or otherwise. Also, twice as many people are killed by being punched or kicked to death.

The CDC also recognizes traveling by motor vehicle as one of the most dangerous activities most people engage in, but has yet to declare it a public health crisis.

“But we need cars” is a common retort. Do we need kids to die playing school sports? Still waiting for the CDC to declare this a public health crisis.

Guns are “bad” because too many people are ignorant about them. Rare events are amplified and perceived as having an outsized danger, while common dangers are ignored. Most military personnel are novices with firearms, and people still misperceive them as “experts” because they don’t know any better. Add in reporting bias and fearmongering, particularly when it’s tax-deductible for a small number of wealthy donors, and you’ll have pearl-clutching voters who have never held a real firearm trying to inflict their uninformed opinion as government-enforced, taxpayer-funded policy.

The push to ban “assault weapons” is a manufactured pivot:

Why gun bans can never help citizens:

The truth behind GVA “school shooting” statistics:

Gun Law Reality

The typical person in the United States will be neither aided nor harmed by a gunshot. When examining the right to keep and bear arms, either side is looking at the marginal benefits on a scale of single digits or less per 100,00 population on an annual basis.

The most clear and commonly used statistic is the intentional homicide rate compared to the firearm ownership rate. Comparing these two, there is no correlation between cross-sectional firearm ownership rate and intentional homicide rate globally or regionally.

Here is an article illustrating the issue for US states. Here’s another covering regional and global breakdowns. Here’s another covering OECD standard developed countries and global stats. Here is a before-and-after analysis regarding various gun bans. Feel free to check the numbers as they are publicly available.

Australia Gun Laws

Australia is frequently cited as an example of successful gun control, but no research has been able to show conclusively that the Australian NFA had any effect. In fact, the US saw a similar drop in homicide over the same time period without enacting significant gun controls, as more fully explained in this write-up.

Similarly, the UK saw no benefit from gun control enacted throughout the 20th century. The UK has historically had a lower homicide rate than even its European neighbors since the 14th Century. Despite the UK’s major gun control measures in 1968, 1988, and 1997, homicides generally increased from the 1960s up to the early 2000s. Also, it wasn’t a massive increase in the number of law enforcement officers in the UK that caused the homicide rates to decrease.

Note that I cite overall homicide rates, rather than firearm homicide rates. This is because I presume that you are looking for marginal benefits in the outcome. Stabbed to death, beaten to death, or shot to death is an equally bad outcome unless you ascribe some irrational extra moral weight to a shooting death. Reducing the firearm homicide rate is not an improvement if it is simply replaced by other means, which seems to be the case.

Proposed bans on “assault weapons” intended to ban certain semi-automatic rifles are even more absurd, as rifles of all kinds are the least commonly used weapon for homicide, losing out to blunt instruments, personal weapons (hands and feet), and knives. More people are killed by being punched or kicked to death than shot with any kind of rifle - “assault” or otherwise.

As for the more active value of the right to keep and bear arms, the lowest credible estimates of Defensive Gun Use that even anti-gun Everytown agrees with are in the range of 55-80k each year, which is about 16.9-24.5 per 100k; some estimate it could be as high as 4.7 million DGUs per year.

Additionally, there is the historical precedent that every genocide of the 20th century has been enacted upon a disarmed population. The Ottomans disarmed the Armenians. The Nazis disarmed the Jews. The USSR and China (nationalists and communists) disarmed everyone. Events of this scale are mercifully rare but are extraordinarily devastating. The modern US, and certainly not Europe, is not somehow specially immune from this sort of slaughter except by its people being aware of how they were perpetrated, and they always first establish arms control over citizens.

Let’s examine the moral math on this: Tyrannical governments killed about 262 million people in the 20th century. The US represents about 4.5% of the world population. 0.045 × 262,000,000 / 100 = 123,514 murders per year by tyrannical governments on average for a population the size of the US.

Considering how gun control (or lack thereof) is statistically uncorrelated with homicide rates, and that there were 11,004 murders with firearms in the US in 2016, the risk assessment ought to conclude: Yes, the risk of tyrannical government is statistically much greater than any possible risk that general firearm ownership could represent.

The historical evidence of disarmament preceding atrocity indicates that genocidal maniacs generally just don’t want to deal with an armed population, but can the US population actually resist the federal government, though? Time for more math.

The US population is about 326 million. Conservative estimates of the US gun-owning population is about 115 million. The entire US military, including civilian employees and non-combat personnel, is about 2.8 million. Less than half of that number (1.2M) is active duty. Less than half of the military is combat arms, with support personnel making up the majority. In a popular insurgency, the people themselves are the support for combat units of the insurgency, which therefore means that active insurgents are combat units, not generally support units.

You have, optimistically, 600,000 federal combat troops vs 1% (1.15 million) of exclusively the gun owning Americans actively engaged in an armed insurgency, with far larger numbers passively or actively supporting said insurgency.

The military is now outnumbered 2:1 by a population with small arms roughly comparable to their own and significant education to manufacture IEDs, hack or interfere with drones, and probably the best average marksmanship of a general population outside of maybe Switzerland. Additionally, this population includes 19.6 million veterans, including 4.5 million who have served after 9/11, who are potentially trainers, officers, or NCOs for this force.

The only major things the insurgents are lacking are armor, air power, and proper anti-material weapons. Armor and air aren’t necessary, or even desirable, for an insurgency. Anti-material weapons can be imported or captured, with armored units simply not being engaged by any given unit until materials necessary to attack those units are acquired. Close-air like attack helicopters are vulnerable to sufficient volumes of small arms fire and .50 BMG rifles. All air power is vulnerable to sabotage or raids while on the ground for maintenance.

This is before even before we address the defection rate from the military, or how police and National Guard units will respond to the military killing their friends, family, and neighbors.

Basically, a sufficiently large uprising could absolutely murder the military. Every bit of armament the population has necessarily reduces that threshold of “sufficiently large”. With the raw amount of small arms and people who know how to use them in the US, “sufficiently large” isn’t all that large in relative terms.