AAR Presscheck Consulting Designated Marksman Rifle - 2019-10-04/05 - Searsboro, IA
I apologize ahead of time for any vagueness, omissions, or mistakes in the AAR, as my notes are a bit incomplete, due to the fast tempo of the class and the large amount of discussion that arouse organically, along with poor weather.
The Presscheck Consulting Designated Marksman Rifle course is designed to equip patrol and tactical officers with the skills to apply accurate rifle fire in critical situations at varying distances and from various positions.
This 20 hour course stresses the importance of applying offset and holds at various distances and angles to ensure proper point of impact. Various techniques of supporting the rifle to mitigate recoil and stabilize the reticle for proper shot placement.
This is my second formal purely rifle-oriented course, with prior long gun courses being a two day rifle course with Warrior Industries, a CSAT rifle/pistol course and a block of long gun instruction of with Dark Angel Medical. I have also had extensive coursework in handguns, along with some coursework in edged weapons, combatives, and tactical medical, along with some OPFOR roleplaying against some local LE SWAT. Almost all the courses I have attended have been taught by nationally reputable instructors.
I used a KAC SR-25 E2 CC M-LOK 16" upper with a SureFire SFMB-762-SR25 and a Radian Weapons Raptor-SD in NP3, paired with an LMT MARS-H lower that I had assembled myself, which had KAC Take Down & Pivot Pins with V7 detents and springs, a V7 Titanium Buffer Retainer with spring, Magpul UBR GEN2, Heavy Buffer XH Carbine Buffer with an Armalite EA1095, Geissele SD-C, BCM Mod 1 Grip, and Radian Weapons Talon. Accessories on the gun were SureFire M600-DF body with ModLite PLH and SureFire SR09, mounted with an Arisaka Defense Inline Scout Mount M-LOK, a Nightforce ATACR 1-8x24 F1 and Trijicon RMR RM06 Type 1 FDE mounted with a Spuhr SP-4024 and Spuhr A-0010 both zeroed for 100 yards with Speer Gold Dot 150 gr., Magpul Ladder Rail Panels on all unused 1913, Magpul MBUS Pro Offset sight set, Magpul M-LOK QD Sling Mount with a Sheriff of Baghdad QD Bitch sling, and a SureFire SOCOM762-RC with a Warsport Suppressor Sock. Lube used was ALG Go-Juice, magazines used were Magpul PMAG 25 M118 LR/SR GEN M3 Window in sand that were dyed roughly FDE, with Magpuls mounted sideways. Round count at the beginning of the class was 693 rounds.
I ran the course toward comfort; on TD1, I wore an Otte Alpine Jacket when temperature dictated, with an Outdoor Research Astroman Short Sleeve Shirt, Arc'teryx LEAF Assault Pants LT with Crye Precision AirFlex Field knee pad inserts, and Salomon XA Pro 3D Ultra 2 GTX. On TD2, due to weather, I wore an Outdoor Research Astroman Polo, Otte Alpine Pants, Arc'teyrx LEAF Alpha Jacket Gen1, Arc'teryx LEAF Alpha Bib Gen1, Outdoor Research Expedition Crocodiles, and an Outdoor Research Fieldcraft Jacket and Outdoor Research Convoy Sensor gloves when temperature dictated.
For load carriage, on TD1 I used a Ronin Tactics Task Force with (going counterclockwise, from the 1200) Eleven 10 RIGID with a C-A-T Gen7 and case cover, an Esstac Midlength KYWI single, two First-Spear MultiMag with the 7.62 speed reload inserts, a Blue Force Gear Medium Dump Pouch, a CountyComm A&P Key Ring with a Omega Pacific D Screw-Lok holding a pair of Outdoor Research MGS Lightweight, Dark Angel Medical D.A.R.K. Slim with trauma shears, and SOFTT-W gen 3, a Safariland UBL Mid-ride with some padding and a Safariland MLS 18, with a modded SureFire Masterfire attaching via a Safariland MLS 15. On TD2, I did not use any load carriage at all, and just hand carried what as needed.
PPE used were Oakley M-Frames 3.0, SureFire EP7s, and Safariland Liberator HPs with Hardcore Tactics NekoMimi headset covers. Miscellanous gear used was the Caldwell DeadShot Boxed Combo Front and Rear Bag and Caldwell TackDriver Bag, both filled with sand. The notes were taken on Rite in the Rain № 946T with either a Fisher AG7 or else Fisher TLP.
Chuck Pressburg was the primary instructor. There were roughly 16 students in the class, with a fair number of LE, a few military, and the rest being civilian training enthusiasts. Student rifles were all AR-15s of some flavor besides my own AR-10, some with LPVOs, but also many 3-15× or the like. Many ran bipods, and one shooter with a tripod. Suppressors were seen on multiple rifles.
Class started at 0755 on TD1. Weather started fairly chilly at about 45 °F, with minimal cloud cover and wind, and reaching the mid-60s °F as the day progressed.
Class started out with Chuck giving an extremely brief bio on himself, where he stated he spent 26 years in the US Army, and how he had started teaching only in 2017. He spoke about how he felt compelled to teach in order to fill the gaps that he felt existed in the current training landscape, and was absolutely against trying to teach a typical Carbine 1 or Handgun 2 type course. For example, Chuck spoke about how Mike Pannone had a class dedicated specifically to AR malfunctions and how to clear them, and how that was a wonderful niche that Pannone had filled; on the flip side were the folks like Jeff Gonzales or the late Pat Rogers, which had very well regimented and polished classes, but the classes tended to be very wide in breadth but also very shallow due to that breadth.
Chuck then talked a little about his expectations for the class; he compared it to how it might be considered something like a No-Fail Rifle class, where one learned what one's rifle and ammo combination actually did on the line, rather than trying to simply use applied ballistics to try and guess everything without any confirmation. Chuck noted that any of the applied ballistics theory or computers needed to account for a huge number of variables, whether it be weather, geography, bullet used, cartridge variations from lot to lot, etc., and that ultimately they were all probabilistic.
The host then went over the medical plan. There was a single EMT-B in the class, who was designated the primary caretaker in case there were issues, with Chuck being the designated helper. Primary and a secondary emergency services contacters were designated, due to the poor cell reception in the range bay itself. The host also reminded the students that there would need to be brass policing at the end of the class.
Chuck then spoke some more about the class. Given that he was still so new to the teaching game, he was very clear that this class would have an evolving POI. He also stressed that this was not a sniping course, where we would do field fire on an unknown distance range or trying to stretch our rifles out to 800 yards; he talked about how he felt that the name of the course was something a misnomer, as "designated marksman" had connotations in the civilian training community that this class was not designed to meet. Rather than trying to get us to be able to read wind and make range estimations and get a first round hit at 738 yards, the goal of this class was to give the students the tools to train to be able to make a good shot on a suspect that is 83 yards away that is only exposing half of their face from behind a vehicle, while the student themselves had just deployed their own rifle from the patrol vehicle. The primary target audience that Chuck was tailoring the course for was the mid-range LE engagement, where precision was paramount, but the distances may not be all that far.
Chuck noted that a rifle with magnification did nothing to make someone shoot better, it would only help the shooter see better. A magnified optic give increased situational awareness over something like a red dot sight, and thus gives more information to the shooter, allowing better decision making. Chuck spoke about how performance on demand was all that truly mattered in these scenarios, including the speed one could get into a stable enough position, accounting for cant, etc.
A recurring theme that Chuck brought up at this point was the concept that "nobody cares about your gun problems". What he meant by this was that it is almost always true, particularly in an LE context, that the leadership is strictly outcomes focused, and does not care about the process you took to get to the outcome for the most part, e.g., the leadership does not care about what zero you chose or what you were aiming at, but only cares about what you hit, whether it be the suspect or an innocent. Thus, what Chuck was trying to impart on us was the gift of self-awareness. Chuck argued that knowing when not to take the shot is one of the most important things that a shooter could learn.
Chuck then went over the four rules of firearms safety. For the first rule, assume that all guns are loaded, Chuck did state that this would be broken in this class, as we would often run the rifles cold, due to the need to go up and down the line to inspect the targets; for most normal classes, such as a handgun or carbine, where the maximum distance would be 25 yards for most of the class, this would hold true, but for a 100 yard line, we would simply clear the rifles, leave them at the line, and then walk forward of them.
For the second rule, finger off the trigger and guns on safe, Chuck noted how many of the DM rifles would have light aftermarket triggers; thus there would be no need to trigger prep. Rule three was the laser beam rule, which is to say, do not flag anyone. In reality, people put their finger on the trigger before being ready to shoot, and they flag each other; however, so long as the two don't happen at the same time, there is no way for someone to be hurt. Thus, one can always break one rule and be okay. This was brought up simply to illustrate the reality that the four rules allowed for some leeway in realworld situations, and not to say that it was okay to break a rule constantly.
The last rule was the one concerning the backstop, and the one that Chuck argued was by far the most relevant one in the real world. Chuck noted that while many folks were familiar with the 12" minimum penetration in calibrated ballistics gel as specified by the FBI terminal ballistics protocol, there is also the issue of overpenetration, which is defined as being over 21" of penetration. Such penetration would exit the best backstop in most fights, the upper thoracic area of the target. This means not only choosing the appropriate ammunition (e.g., not using M118LR for CQB with 16" SR-25s, due to penetrating 28" to 31"), but also being cognizant of what is behind the target, as even appropriate FBI tested ammo still need a proper backstop to prevent liability. If one is not cognizant of the backstop around the target, the only other alternative is to simply never miss and always hit the target to prevent backstop issues. Chuck then related an anecdote that had been presented at the Southern California Hostage Rescue Symposium: during a barricaded suspect call, the suspect cranked off a .380 ACP indoors. The bullet penetrated the exterior wall of the building that the suspect was in, flew across the street, penetrated the exterior wall of the building that the sniper was in, and then buried itself in the floor next to the sniper. This handily illustrated how most modern construction residences in the USA simply cannot be counted on to be a reliable backstop.
As previously stated, for safety during the class, we would clear the gun, lock the bolt back, and then place the gun in a position where the open ejection port would be easily observed. This was simply because we had to be constantly moving up and down the line for over 100 yards; in a standard carbine course that would be between 7 to 25 yards, Chuck argued that keeping the carbine hot was far more practical, as it would save time, as one should be competent enough to be safe with a loaded rifle if one was to be in a carbine class in the first place. If someone couldn't handle that level of gunhandling, then they probably shouldn't be given a long gun in the first place, as if they couldn't be safe on a flat range with no real stress, then they definitely would not be safe in a high stress situation in the real world.
Chuck then started to speak a bit more in-depth about what he had planned for the class; he noted that due to this being a totally new POI, he would be discounting future classes for any of the students present in the current class, as a way to make up for the lack of polish for the class. he then asked the students what the difference between carbine, designated marksman, semi-auto sniper, and sniper were; essentially, when would one want to grab an SDM-R, SPR, or SAM-R versus other guns. One of the students posed the idea of rural LE using such rifles to gain more distance during engagements, or to use it against barricaded suspects at longer ranges. The question was then, why not use snipers for such scenarios? The problem with snipers was simply that they are a far rarer resource, as they have to focus on not only marksmanship, but also fieldcraft and the finer points of reconnaissance (Chuck spoke about being graded on field sketches when he was learning to be a sniper, an art that has since been supplanted due to the proliferation of digital cameras); the heavy investment in time and money to train snipers means that they will necessarily be much rarer.
Essentially, a designated marksman gives local assets more options, as they are far easier to train up, and are thus far more numerous and therefore more likely to be on scene already or at least to get there sooner. However, LE is deeply regional, so there are sometimes definite differences in what might be the line between a designated marksman and a sniper, e.g., the Texas policy that dictates that anything greater than 5× magnification would be considered a sniper optic, and thus necessitate the requisite training.
Chuck then noted how the lines between carbine, DMRs, and snipers were starting to become much fuzzier. The jump between the CSASS and a Mk12 really wasn't that great, nor was the jump from a 16" AR-15 carbine with an ATACR 1-8× to a Mk12 that big, either. The SPR suddenly wasn't so special in today's world, compared to when it had first come on scene in the early 2000s. The mid-range semi-precision role could be taken on by many different combinations today.
In speaking on 7.62×51mm vs. 5.56×45mm, the main consideration was increased terminal ballistics and less susceptibility to environmental factors, but at the expense of weight, and possibly platform reliability. The Mk11 was known to be far more temperamental and less tolerant of poor firing positions compared to the Mk12. Chuck spoke about how in operational environments, the Mk11 have been known to short stroke when it wasn't in a stable firing position, as the lack of a shooter behind the stock (e.g., during blind fire or when short stocking) would rob the necessary momentum needed to properly cycle the gun. Using an AR-15 also gave more ammo interchangeability in a team environment, while its superior handling characteristics over an AR-10 type gives you better performance when you're forced to go do CQB with what you had brought.
Chuck has found that the 12.5" AR-15 is arguably the sweet spot for a GP carbine. In his previous career, he had to qualify at 500 meters on a LaRue target using an 10.4" HK416 and an EOTech, so the 12.5" with its higher muzzle velocity was definitely better at defeating environmental factors. He has tried several 1-8× optics, including the Swarovski Z8i and the Nightforce ATACR, and found none of them to be as good for his use as the various SFP 1-6× (e.g., Kahles K16i or Vortex Razor HD); this was because at 1×, the FFP optics simply couldn't compete with eyebox, and with most LPVOs, they are used as a heavy, expensive Aimpoint T-2 for 90% of the time. In exploring LPVOs, Chuck took a Vortex Razor HD to a Pat Rogers carbine course, which is heavily focused on 25 yards and in, and was able to take top shooter against a field of RDSes and HWSes.
Thus, Chuck isn't totally convinced on the viability of the current field of 1-8× FFP optics simply due to their performance at 1×; while one could counter that such scopes would be used more for their longer range, and their 1× wouldn't be used much, but instead with an offset RDS, the counter argument to that is the question of why even use a 1-8×, when one could then get a whole lot more glass, like 3.5-15× or the like without much weigh or bulk penalty. For example, using two fairly similar AR-15s, Chuck had placed the Swarovski Z8i on one, while another had a Leupold Mark 5HD 3.6-18× and an offset Leupold DeltaPoint Pro, and the weight difference was only about a pound, despite one rifle having double the magnification.
In terms of optics, FOV is a very important metric to look at. Magnification being equal, more FOV is always better, as it means more information.
As for focal planes, FFP can be used much more easily for range estimation and wind calls, at the cost of performance at 1×; in terms of magnification, 6× is about the top end where SFP is the clear winner, while 8× top end is where arguments can be made for FFP or SFP. Chuck noted that wind calls/movers can be a real issue where FFP optics have an advantage; an example that someone had told him about was the idea that one may have the optic backed down to mid-range magnification for great FOV while doing observation, and a target may suddenly come up for a short period of time, precluding the ability to crank the magnification up, and instead forcing you to take the shot in an intermediate magnification, and with an FFP, one can much more easily memorize what the wind call/lead would be compared to an SFP.
Chuck stressed that all scoped guns should have some sort of backup sighting system, not necessarily for the main optic going down, but simply for use in unexpected situations up close; Chuck relayed an anecdote where a sniper had an enemy suddenly scale a wall the sniper was right next to, and had to shoot the enemy at point blank range using a mini-RDS mounted to the 1200 of the primary optic.
Chuck then went over sling set up. He noted that the 2 point quick adjustable as created by Kyle Lamb was specifically so that one would be able to quickly adjust the sling tension as needed for sling supported shooting. Sling placement also mattered, as it would change the range of motion with the rifle while slung along with the amount of tension that the sling could provide. With the sling placed near the front and rear of the receiver (i.e., by the slip ring and the receiver extension), there is great range of motion. When the sling is kept up front, near the end of the handguard, one will have to loosen the sling to achieve the same range of motion, which means it'll be looser when slung, with reduced muzzle control, and sits lower in general, making it more susceptible to burning one's legs if running a can or simply bashing into it during movement. However, with the sling up front, one can get more mechanical advantage with the sling for supported shooting; thus, one solution is to simply have two QD cups, one near the slip ring while the other is pushed as far up front as possible.
On DM dedicated guns, Chuck will go as far as to run the QD cup up front on the 0600 to allow maximum sling support, as he can better use his off-hand in that position to provide tension. Chuck noted that due to his background in competitive air gun and .22 LR shooting as a kid, he was quite familiar and comfortable with sling supported shooting.
Chuck noted that when running the sling at the RE, there can be greater resistance to motion due to friction, as compared to running the sling outboard on the stock, and also that tension can be better achieved at the stock. The question becomes if one is running the sling on a carbine versus a DMR, which can dictate what sling position is best.
On bipods, Chuck noted that he had very rarely seen any short bipod be used operationally, simply due to ground clutter. Instead, he was a fan of simply using magazine supported shooting, noting that the Boonie Packer RediMag was great for this; while magazine couplers could also do a good job at this, he had found that the extra weight could cause issues, such as wearing out the magazine's mag catch, given that the aluminum was softer than the steel of the rifle's mag catch (enough that it could cause feed issues as the magazine sat too low). Mag-Pods are also excellent for this role, particularly with the imminent release of a model for the PMAG GEN M3. That being said, Chuck acknowledged that magazine supported shooting could definitely cause issues; during a class, while using .300 BLK subsonic, he ran into magazine supported shooting causing issues due to the upward pressure exerted, while the gassing of the subsonic rounds were much less, thus leading to tolerance stacking that pushed the gun out of its operational window. With quality magazines and rifles, shooting robust milspec 5.56×45mm, magazine supported shooting would never cause issues in any normal circumstance, but under edge cases, it may very well be possible (e.g., unlubed gun, worn out magazines, etc.).
On tripods, Chuck suggested the use of something like a Hog Saddle.
For barricade supports, Chuck would use anything to try and help, whether it be a light, QD sling, bipod, or actual barricade stop. He would usually mount any dedicated stop a little bit behind the end of the handguard instead of flush with the end, thus creating a lip that allowed a more consistent purchase, as the lip would add an additional reference point and prevent the shooter from accidentally resting on the barrel when the rifle moved under recoil.
For the placement of backup RDSes, Chuck stated that it is dependent on gun set-up. While a 1200 RDS would sidestep the issue of switching shoulders, or needing to clear a MAWL, it would have significant height over bore to compensate for. For clearing a MAWL, he did find that the new Arisaka Defense offset mount to do the trick, along with the new Badger Ordnance C1 scope mounts.
For any kind of gun yoga (i.e., any kind of shooting that would involve some sort of barricade or other unorthodox position) at range, eyebox and consistency of head positioning behind the glass matters. While parallax issues may be minimal close in, they are quickly manifested once longer ranges are demanded, particularly when precision is required. Chuck noted that beyond just generally having a more forgiving eyebox, SFP optics generally have reticles are that easier to see without illumination at all magnification rates, which makes them be a bit more forgiving when one doesn’t have a perfect head position behind the glass and the illumination is compromised; the scope shadowing is certainly an issue at longer ranges, but just like parallax, its effects are much less when manifested at very short ranges.
Chuck then spoke about ballistics and zeros. He noted how the 200 yard/meter zero had the flattest trajectory out to 300 out of all the common zeros, and argued that the 100 meter zero was very much a product of trying to game certain evaluations, as they were set at 100 meters. Chuck argued that having a flatter zero made range estimation less of an issue, which was important due to the fact that range estimation is a fairly difficult art, even if shooting holds themselves were not.
Chuck drew an exaggerated diagram of how ballistics worked, showing how the barrel canted up while the optic was parallel to the ground, and how line of sight was straight out while the trajectory of the round arced up then down. He stated that the further the zero was for, the higher the peak of the trajectory would be; this peak is called maximum ordinate, or max ord (e.g., a 300 meter zero has a larger max ord than a 200 yard zero). Chuck noted that the 100 yard/meter zero differed from most zeros in that its max ord was the POA/POI; most other zeros would cross the line of sight twice, and thus have both hold overs and hold unders (e.g., a 200 meter zero would first cross the LOS at around 50 meters, depending on the gun and ammo, continue above the LOS for a while, before dropping down and crossing it again at 200 meters).
Chuck stated unequivocally that one must confirm at the distance one wishes to zero for; zeroing at 50 will get one in the ballpark at 200, but will never be dead on, it will always need adjustment; even with a perfect rifle, perfect ammo, and perfect shooter, 50 does not ballistically match at 200, so with human inconsistencies masked at closer ranges, the zero at 200 will definitely be off. The same relationship exists for 25/300 (which has a max ord at around 175). Chuck noted how from 0 to 300, a 200 zero will have a spread of roughly 7 inches, which is more than enough to hold on a human torso and get hits through the entire range.
Chuck then went on to talk about how with scopes, the ability to dial offsets zero choice to a certain extent, as one can now adjust the POA/POI on demand, and return to zero easily, or to simply use the different reticle markings to adjust as needed. The choice in zero now becomes somewhat of an academic choice, as one can simply recalculate the meaning behind different reticles markings, and make decisions on holding or dialing.
Chuck does argue that zeroing your scope to the same as your RDS or HWS has the advantage of having similar holds, thus reducing the cognitive load a bit, and allowing you to utilize roughly the same holds for different optics.
We then moved out of the pure classroom section, and onto the range; we were on the 500 yard range, and set our gear up at the 100 yard line.
Once we were set up on the 100 yard line, we then went to the targets and started setting up. Chuck spoke passionately about why his targets were set up differently from many instructors. For example, instead of the standard paper and staple combination, Chuck had provided us with tagboard B-8s and spray glue, as this combination was far less susceptible to environmental factors (rain and wind) and also tended to have cleaner holes, making scoring easier; for him, paper was acceptable indoors, but only tagboard would be accepted outdoors. Chuck went over his method of spraying on the glue, noting that one should be 12" to 18" from the surface, that pressure needed to be applied smoothly when pasting on the target (going from the middle on out, to reduce wrinkles, which in turn reduces ambiguity on scoring), and one needed to be cognizant of wind direction, and try to body block if possible to reduce overspray. He then went on to fold the sides of the target that poked over the edge of the backers, in order to reduce amount of wind that could get behind the target and cause it to separate from the backer. Chuck argued that the additional monetary cost of using tagboard and glue over paper and staples was worthwhile usually, as this meant less downtime due to targets tearing off in the wind, more consistent scoring, etc. Chuck then provided every single student with a bag containing a stack of tagboard B-8 center repairs, a Sharpie, black tape, brown tape, and white tape (or pasties for any of those), along with a fresh can of spray glue (Chuck personally prefers 3M Super 77, but unfortunately, the store ran out of those and many of us ended up with Loctite 100, which was somewhat inferior); this would minimize downtime, along with giving us no excuses on if there were target issues, as we would have no one to blame but ourselves if our targets were damaged by the wind (e.g., being blown off, tearing, not aligned straight up and down, etc.). We were told that we would be putting up center repairs after almost every string of fire.
Chuck argued that this use of better materials was part of a culture of excellence, to demand perfection from the students, and to remove any possible excuse and/or impediment for poor performance. This goes even as far as how to account for shots on the target; instead of circling, drawing a line through, or drawing an X on a hole that wasn't being taped, Chuck prefers to put the Sharpie's tip inside the hole, to mark the entire inner circumference of the hole with black ink; this means that another shot that lands right next to that marked hole could be accounted for, even if it was a double, thus eliminating doubt and reinforcing accountability. When taping, one should strive to use the least amount of tape possible, not to conserve tape due to financial considerations, but to minimize obstructing the marking son the target and to minimize the possibility to interference from a new shot. Chuck even went over how he liked to glue on the B-8 center repairs; he notes that there are alignment lines on both the B-8 and the center repairs, and how those can be used to help align the target; it was of paramount importance to try and line up the circles on the center repair with the main target, once again to enforce ease of scoring and thus accountability. Using the alignment lines, one can spray on a square of adhesive, then glue on the target, making sure to use even pressure (once again to reduce wrinkling) and to get all the corners glued down (again to minimize how wind might affect how the target looks or gets scored).
This attention to detail on how the targets were set up, and how we would reface the targets after almost every string, was new to me in a class, and I absolutely loved it. This stressing of shot accountability was something I personally deeply believe in, because it allowed zero room for excuses or ambiguity; as Chuck had said, a repair center, even in tagboard at 0.07 USD, is far cheaper than any single round we might fire. I have been to classes where targets were left up way too long, thus it became purely manipulation practice, which can be done without wasting ammunition.
We then started our first shots of the day at 100 yards to zero/reconfirm, a 10 shot group.
I was about 3 mils low and 6 mils to the left, which was not unexpected, as my rifle was zeroed at 100 yards with my self-defense ammo, Gold Dot 150 gr. in very different conditions (much hotter ambient temperatures), while I was shooting the class with Magtech First Defense Sniper 308D 168 gr., which averages 1 to 1.5 MOA at 100. I shot with a front rest, but no rear rest or sling tension.
I had attempted to use my Lancer L7AWM 25, but it failed to chamber a round upon releasing the bolt; this was an issue I had run into before, where the combination of a dirty gun, high spring tension from the magazine, and the steel feed lips having a higher coefficient of friction, meant that it would not chamber a round when running the bolt manually (they work fine when the gun has been freshly lubed). Lancer has talked about these problems before, saying that they utilize heavier spring tension for better performance in full auto guns, and have suggested running heavier buffers/RE springs, which I already was, and/or cutting a coil off the end of the magazine spring. I just simply went with using PMAGs for the rest of the class.
After refacing targets, during the walk back to the firing line, Chuck spoke on scope height. He noted that the 1.93" height that was so popular these days had zero ballistic purpose originally, and that the height was simply the minimum that was needed for an S&B Short Dot 1-4× to clear a PEQ-2. He noted how a higher mount, while good for keeping a heads-up position that was beneficial for stand-up shooting, could cause issues in the prone, as it was more of a chinweld and needed more muscling of the neck to get into the proper position while in the prone, which was poor ergonomics. The chinweld also could cause vertical stringing in the shot group, due to a less consistent head position vertically.
Chuck spoke that he usually uses 5 shots, but the 10 shot initial group would be good just to double check that everything on the rifle was operating correctly and that nothing was going to be shaken loose. Going forward, we would use 5 shot groups for the most part, as Chuck had found that it was about the number of shots that one could keep focus and stay on the gun without any major movement that would affect the consistency of the firing position one started in.
On the topic of suppressors, Chuck noted that they could end up being an issue in some contexts, as the mirage from the suppressors under heavy firing schedules could reduce precision, and under such a situation, the reduction in visual and acoustic signature is most likely a moot point, given the volume of fire. In such a scenario, it would be highly advisable to know and be able adjust the optic (or at least know the holds) for both suppressed and unsuppressed use; however, this is mostly likely a strictly military context, and would almost be inconceivable in an LE role.
We then shot the 5 shot group.
I was about 3 mils to the right at this point.
As we refaced targets, Chuck quickly went over the issue of spray glue cans clogging up under use, and suggested wiping the nozzle tips against the edge of the cardboard targets to try and unclog them; when clogged, the spray pattern often becomes unpredictable, along with some of the glue being wasted.
Chuck then also spoke about the use of brakes on the line, which some students had found to be distracting their shooting, due to other students to their left or right using them and breaking their concentration. One will have to prep the trigger, get a good sight picture, and wait for their braked neighbor to fire; there should be a minor lull in the cadence to allow for one to make their own shot with minimal interference.
On BDC reticles, Chuck noted that the reticles rarely actually match what they're suppose to be, whether it be due to different ammo, barrels lengths, etc. Instead, simply use the BDC hashes as just another point of reference, and build DOPE as needed. For example, Chuck noted how the BDC on the Elcan M145 was simply an average of 5.56×45mm and 7.62×51mm holds, which rendered it fairly off for both rounds if using the prescribed distances to the corresponding hash marks.
We then shot another 5 shot group.
I was 1 mil low at this point.
Chuck spoke about shooting in the prone. In classic sling supported shooting, one would angle the body at about 45° for maximum skeletal and muscular support, with the shooting side leg kicked out to minimize the amount of input from the chest while widening the base of the body. However, many of these things are specific to maximizing stability while keeping the rifle totally off the ground, and become moot once we allow for bipods or magazine supported shooting.
Once the rifle is allowed to touch the ground, one should try to get as much body behind the centerline of the gun as possible, similar to how machine guns would be employed. With legs somewhat spread, one can use one's toes to push the body forward and load the gun. The shoulder should be fully engaged to allow getting into the glass as fast as possible after recoil, as self-spotting is an important skill to have, even in a military context, as spotters are often now tasked with pulling rear security. One of the techniques that Chuck had learned, particularly for gas guns, was to flare the strong side elbow out and get the shoulder in-line with the stock as much as possible. Under 400 yards, due to time of flight, self-spotting starts becoming fairly difficult, and recoil management becomes paramount for getting back into the glass as fast as possible. This is particularly important when a target will be visible only momentarily and one has to take a SWAG; getting back under the glass quickly not only allows for possible follow-up shots, but more feedback about the initial guess and thus for a possible correction. Chuck relayed how on Top Shot (the TV show), a USAF CPE instructor was able to make a cold 1000 yard shot with a Barrett .50 BMG using a single shot in 47 seconds, taking the time to do the calculations and figure out the proper hold. The 3 gun shooter that came next simply took a spoiler shot, adjusted using the Christmas tree in the reticle, and then scored a second round hit at 1000 in 19 seconds. In the context of that scenario, the 3 gunner was able to do much better; Chuck used this anecdote to stress that the totality of the circumstances can change what the proper course of action is. In some situations, a spoiler shot may not be allowed, whether it be due to civilian considerations or not wanting to alert the target, but in others, it is perfectly acceptable, so one needs to always be cognizant of all angles in a scenario.
We then did 10 single shots at 100, starting from the standing, and then getting into the prone, using a shot timer as the go command.
The shots were between 5 and 10 seconds for all the students. Upon inspection, all of my hits were in the black, scoring a 97 total, with 3 shots in the 9.
Chuck noted that some of the students had rushed their shots and not made good hits, despite the fact that there was no par time given, nor what acceptable target; the mere use of the shot timer had gotten people to start rushing their shots. Chuck then spoke about how during practice, he would try to get an 80% hit rate within the designated target area; this meant that he was actively trying to push himself and find at what speed he would come apart. He did not want to drop any lower than 80%, as practice makes permanent, and going at light speed but only getting, say, 50% acceptable hits was ingraining bad habits, regardless of whether or not he is consciously aware of the issues. In evaluations or real life engagements, he would strive for 90%, unless it was what he termed a "no-fail" shot, such as shooting a hostage taker, then he would accept nothing less than 100%.
To Chuck, a tactical shooter will be slower than a competition shooter, due to the fact that the tactical shooter tends to have a much higher level of shot liability; a competition shooter that is forced to get all A zone hits in a match on pain of a several financial penalty would be much slower than they normally would be, even if their typical speed would only see a few Cs and no Ds, simply due to the need to confirm the sight picture. Competition shooters will often gamble on their shots, simply due to the lower stakes of their misses, as the scenario (i.e., the game) does not penalize misses significantly, while a fast run can greatly boost one's score. Chuck stressed that this was not an attack on competition, and that competition shooters often were much faster than most tactical shooters in various gun handling actions that simply come from maximizing human efficiencies, and could and should be copied by tactical shooters. The ideal armed professional should have the efficient movements of a competitor, but the shot accountability of a tactical shooter.
Chuck then told us that he gave us the times for our shots in order to see how we would react under perceived pressure. He was trying to get us to see what we would do when we are not given direction; this was part of the gift of self-awareness he was trying to impart upon us.
Chuck talked about the need to work around one's medical problems when needed when shooting; for example, we had a shooter using a tripod due to neck and back issues preventing sustained use of the prone.
Going back to human efficiencies, Chuck spoke about "doing nothing fast", which is to say, do the things that don't matter to the decision cycle and pulling of the trigger quickly, such as getting into position, mounting the gun, etc. The key is to be able to do all of those things quickly to maximize the amount of time we have to get a good sight picture and trigger press; any time spent on anything outside of those will often chew up the time allowed to actually engage the target. For drills that have a par time, but are scored based on accuracy, the par time is there to enforce efficiency, not to force the shooter to go as fast as possible.
Chuck then went over how to get into prone quickly. The most efficient way is generally to simply reverse the actions of getting out of prone: starting with the muzzle up for control, drop down with the off-hand bracing the ground, kick out the legs, then settle in, moving the hips as needed while in the prone to change the natural point of aim. However, this set of motions can be difficult to carry out for older folks, due to the athleticism and flexibility needed to pull it off. However, do not let age keep you from trying to find the most efficient way to get into position.
We then repeated 10 single shots at 100, starting from the standing, then getting into the prone, using a shot timer as the go command.
In terms of target scoring, the point of using a B-8 was to allow for easy comparison between one's peers and one's self; having a unique target can hinder the ease of performance comparison. For the purposes of this class, all line breaks gets the shooter into the higher scoring ring.
I got a 98-4X; my natural POI was a bit off, as I found myself looking at the wrong target several times during the initial look through the glass, and would have to muscle my way to the right target.
Chuck stated that going to prone is considered a major movement, and that a designated marksman usually would have to be much more dynamic than a sniper, as there is so much more movement involved as a designated marksman.
At this point, 1230, we broke for lunch.
Lunch was eaten on site, whatever you had brought.
During lunch, Chuck talked about some of his thoughts on the importance of terminal ballistics. In LE, suspects will generally give up; unlike in a military context, often the suspect will make a conscious decision to stop resisting, which is why many times suspects will end up in the hospital ICU after an OIS, rather than in the morgue. The fact that many times OISes end in a psychological stop rather than a physiological stop means that we often have a skewed idea of the efficacy of a shooting, as we forget that that while it may have been a successful fight for the LEO, ultimately the suspect's decisions played a very important role in the ending of that fight. The problem with that is that there will always be committed opponents out there that will not be psychologically stopped, and will have to be physiologically incapacitated rapidly in order to win the fight.
Chuck notes how in the vast majority of OISes, even successful ones, LEOs will often shoot at an excessively rapid cadence, clearly not utilizing their sights, instead thinking that simply pulling the trigger will somehow create a force field to protect them. Paradoxically, people will try to get on the trigger as fast as possible when the suspect is close, forgoing accuracy to go for volume, when the argument can be made that close in is exactly when accuracy matters most, because one will have the least amount of time to stop an assailant. The idea of simply throwing out rounds as fast as possible is deeply dependent on a psychological stop, as one must be quite accurate to get rapid incapacitation; 6 good A-zone hits on an IPSC could give you three lung shots, a busted spleen, a blown-up liver, and a shot to the stomach, and that will often kill the target within the next couple of minutes, but in a close-in fight, a couple of minutes is more than enough for the suspect to also kill you. Chuck spoke about how Jared Reston, a fellow trainer, had refused to give up the fight, despite being shot in the jaw, weak arm, and several times in the chest (saved by the vest there), and was able to come out victorious in his fight; as Chuck put it, somewhere out there in each jurisdiction, was a criminal version of Jared. The will to fight is not something inherent to just the good guys, and can be found for any alignment.
The only way to instantly stop a threat is a CNS hit, particularly in the cerebellum. Beyond that, depriving the CNS of oxygen is the only other way to rapidly incapacitate someone, whether it be stopping the pump (i.e., destroying the heart) or else interrupting the flow of the blood to the brain (i.e., severing the aorta in the thoracic to prevent sufficient blood flow/pressure to supply fresh blood to the brain). Still, full destruction of the circulatory system can still give the suspect a full 10 seconds of conscious resistance, which can be a very long time in a fight, though as Chuck noted, the suspect will most likely have steady degradation of motor abilities during that time (he likened it to being choked out, where one might be conscious still near the end, but able to put up minimal resistance).
As a side bar, Chuck also brought up an incident where a CA LEO (who had been in the USMC prior to that) was forced to take a shot with a Remington 700 at just 28 yards, while on 8×, with basically minimal time to set-up. The LEO had the foresight to stage his patrol rifle while en route to the call (for an armed man acting threateningly in his own yard); upon reaching the scene, and seeing multiple officers with their patrol rifles out already, he was able to think on the fly and switch to pulling out the sniper rifle, to provide a capability that the patrol rifles could not. He had not realized how close the suspect was, but upon rounding the corner and seeing the suspect, was able to immediately get into position behind a curb, getting out of the line of fire of his fellow officers, while getting behind the rifle. Almost immediately, a fellow officer opened fire on the suspect due to the actions of the suspect, and the officer was able to immediately get behind the glass, which he had deliberately set at the lowest power, and take a killing shot without getting lost in the glass. On the subject of what to set an optic at during storage, generally one should keep it at the lowest setting; if one needs to shoot immediately upon deployment, odds are that the engagement is at close range, as that is the most likely scenario where immediate engagement is warranted, and the lowest possible magnification will give the shooter the best chance to not get lost in the glass and to get a good sight picture. Conversely, if high magnification is needed for a shot, it is almost certainly something at long range and thus allows for some time to set up properly.
Chuck argued that many of the response people have to getting shot are due to them understanding that they have been shot, and internalizing some of what the media and society has impressed upon them as being the proper response to being shot, i.e., drop down and give up, even if hit in a location that wouldn't induce an immediate physiological stop. Chuck notes that when hunting, an animal like a deer has no idea about how to act when shot, so unless it's an actual physiological stop, the animal will often run off until it actually dies. Chuck spoke about watching training videos of his father's agency's trainees, where many officers would simply drop down to the ground as if incapacitated upon just hearing a blank go off in a training exercise, with zero feedback as to whether or not the shot was aimed at them or considered a hit.
Chuck stressed that once your marksmanship fails you, you have nothing left, as there is nothing left on the continuum of force once lethal force has been utilized. He stressed again that the closer to the suspect one is, the more precise one will need to be, and that going fast is simply banking on a psychological stop.
We resumed class at 1320, with the goal of learning to read our wobble and to call the shots. Using the 4 spotting scopes that students had brought, ran through groups of 4, shooting 5 shots each at 100, starting at the prone, each shot on Chuck's command, and trying to call out our hits after each shot (e.g., 0400 in the 10 ring). Chuck stated that being able to call one's own shots is a huge capability, as it means that one has self-awareness of one's shooting mechanics, and can also help drive decisions, such as knowing that a make-up shot is needed or if it was a solid hit on target.
Most of my calls were right in line with the actual impacts. I attribute that to the fact that I have pretty good trigger control when under slow fire conditions, and generally have a good awareness of which way the gun is swaying during the shot process. I also was using sling tension and my off-hand to help maximize the tension.
Chuck postulates that the difficulty in calling one's shots is that people simply don't remember the split second the shot occurs, almost like a mental variant of a flinch, as there is an explosion happening right in one's face, and the mind tries to blank it out, like a traumatic incident. With practice, one can slowly minimize the amount of time lost before and after the shot, and perhaps eventually not lose any perceived time at all.
We then attempted 10 shot groups as fast as we could keep them in the black at 100, starting in the prone. For this drill, we would need to reset the sight picture as quickly as possible, which meant that recoil control would be paramount to get back behind the glass as fast as possible. Chuck cautioned us against accepting a wobble zone as wide as the target itself, as there are many other factors involved besides the swaying of the rifle, such as intrinsic accuracy of the gun/ammo combination, environmental factors (e.g., wind), shooter induced movement, etc.
Chuck also spoke about how getting to that last 10% of shooting is all up to one's own self-awareness, as at that level of performance, it is essentially impossible to externally observe with the human eye what the issues are keeping the shooter from peak performance.
I was the last shooter to finish my string of 10 shots, as there was a decent amount of sway that I was fighting, since it was purely stabilized on sling tension and a magazine support. However, I was able to keep all of my shots in the black.
Chuck then talked about how many of us were going far too slow, as we had all of our shots in the black; given that this was practice for trying to push ourselves to improve, we should be throwing one or two shots outside of the target as we attempted to get ourselves to the ragged edge.
We then repeated the drill.
I was once again the slowest, but only by a very small margin this time. I did not use sling tension this time in my attempt to get shots off as fast as possible. The sway was definitely more pronounced, and I did not have proper natural POA, as I was consistently two targets to the right when resetting the rifle. I ended up with 3 shots outside the black, though within the 7 or 8 ring.
Yet again, we had many shooters get all hits, which proved that they were too concerned with accuracy, and not enough with speed. Chuck stressed how this was not a good thing, because it meant that such shooters had difficulty changing gears to suit the scenario at hand. Still one has to be able to read the wobble; if the reticle stayed mostly in the black, those should be pretty good odds, and one should just send it if speed is an important component. One must be able to read the relationship between the optic and the target. A shooter that is fast in and out of position, knows their reticle and DOPE, and could read their wobble, is going to be a force to be reckoned with.
We then moved on the subject of cant. As this was not a sniper class, Chuck was not concerned about the type of cant that bubble levelers on 1913 or scope mounts would be used to zero out; as real as those concerns were, for our purposes, they would generally be of minimal consequence. Instead, we would be focusing on positional cant, such as those seen on VTAC barricades. While cant at very close range is of minimal concern, its impact grows dramatically as range is increased.
Chuck spoke about the different stages of a bullet: internal ballistics (from the primer igniting to the bullet leaving the crown), external ballistics (the crown to the first object that the bullet strikes besides air), and terminal ballistics (the first object that the bullet strikes on forward; not necessarily the intended target, a windshield could start terminal ballistics).
Chuck had us turn the rifle 90° inward from the strong side (i.e., scope to the centerline, magazine pointed to your strong side), and fire 5 shots from the prone at 100. While super awkward for the vast majority of the shooters, Chuck reiterated that "no one cares about your gun problems", or in this case, what your POA is. Thus, we needed to build data on our own specific POA/POI for canted rifles; the huge number in differences in rifles means that everyone's DOPE will be fairly different, due to different bullets, muzzle velocity, height over bore, etc.
My shots, when POA was on the X of the B-8, was all in the 4 ring at 0730, in a fairly tight cluster. I had laid my handguard on the bag, and adjusted my head behind the rifle, laying prone, without any real mass behind the stock, allowing the rifle to recoil freely.
Chuck's quick and dirty hold for cant was to hold in the direction of where the magazine was pointed, and to hold high, at least for anything 90° and under. Chuck drew out a diagram of the ballistics to illustrate why the bullets impacted where they did given a POA; essentially, it is a product of height over bore (introducing the need to hold toward the magazine) and the zeroed max ord being removed (introducing the need to hold high); after 90° is pushed passed, the bullets will slowly start moving back toward the center until 180°, though the need to hold high will still be there. Realistically, Chuck says that it is good enough to learn the holds at 90° and 45° for the left and right side; at 45°, using the same POA as 90° and 0°, the 45° will be roughly directly between the 90° and the 0°.
Chuck noted that the cant issue may be less of a concern for many LEOs, due to the issue of priority of life (which is to say civilian > LEO > suspect). If one is trying to shoot canted, that generally means that one is trying to maximize cover; if there are civilian lives at risk, priority of life would dictate that a LEO should be trying to save as many civilians as possible, and that means ending the fight as soon as possible, which in turn means that one may need to simply take the risk of exposing one's self for a more accurate shot, rather than try to fuddle around with trying to figure out the holds for a canted shot while civilian lives are lost.
Chuck stressed that he was not here to teach us how to shoot canted, that there were other classes for that, but that he was trying to illustrate the effects of shooting canted.
We then turned our rifles 90° from the weak side (i.e., 270° from the strong side, so that the magazine was pointed to the weak side), and repeated it on the same target. Chuck noted that one must have enough room between the ejection port and the deck to fit an entire empty brass casing, to prevent the ejected brass from jamming up the gun. In these positions, Chuck also noted that they will show the problems with trying to use a muzzle brake in a combat scenario outside of being a suppressor mount, as it can throw up dust, dirt, or vegetation, obscuring your target and/or giving away your position; someone in the class had ended up blowing off a zipper on a bag during the run.
For whatever reason, Chuck finds that often moving the gun to the weak side canted does not produce a mirrored shot placement compared to the strong side; he doesn't have any real ideas as to why that is, outside of the fact that the weak side might have different shooting mechanics due to even further lack of familiarity by the shooter.
I was one of the few shooters that, for whatever reason, had mirrored groups. Again, I rested my handguard on my bag, but this time, I utilized the Brokeback position, getting on my knees, assuming a bit of a fetal position, and craning my neck down.
The purpose of shooting canted to was to segue into the use of offset sights. Chuck noted how in an erector or screw in an optic or sight is pushing or pulling something within the optic to change the zero; generally, when tightening, the sight will push the sight in (either pushing the zero up or to the right, depending on which adjustment is being used) or pull it out (either pushing the zero down or to the left). Backup sights are fairly easy to zero as long as they are level to the barrel; this means that if using an offset sight, the cant must be consistent.
A 1200 mounted back-up sight has the advantage of being fairly easy to zero, and can be used ambidextrously; the down side is that it has significant height over bore generally, and due to the lack of a solid cheekweld, it can be hard to find the dot on the mini-RDSes. Standard off-set sights have a more traditional HOB that makes them easier to use when on the strong side, though they are very difficult to use on the weak side. The most difficult option to zero are the ones that are mounted to the optic or scope rings, and keep the optic level to the ground, but kick it out to the left or right of the barrel, to clear the erectors, as their adjustments end up being diagonal when they are centered above the barrel.
About a third of the class did not have any usable back-up sighting system, so they were to shoot from the prone at 100 at their lowest magnification to see what kind of shift, if any, they would experience; Chuck noted that it's almost certainly the case that any shift is due to differences in visual perception rather than any issues with the tracking of the optic. Chuck also noted that for those that were running standard irons, without having QD mounts, were only fooling themselves into thinking their BUIS had any real use, as almost nobody carries around the requisite tools to detach their non-QD mounts.
Chuck also noted how sun position can affect the POA of irons; when the black has worn off of the edges of the sights, or if they are simply smooth and shiny, the eye can perceive the sun glancing off the sights as being empty space, thus perceiving the sights to be of different dimensions than they actually are, and thus throw the POA off. For example, the sun may mask the top of the front sight post, and thus the shooter will perceive the front sight to be shorter than it actually is, and thus throw the shot high.
For those of us with back-up sighting systems, we shot 5 rounds at 100 from the prone. This was done a total of three times to confirm our zero, refacing the target after each string.
I had only visually cowitnessed my RMR at the 1200, by using a visible laser and cowitnessing it to the ATACR at 100, then cowitnessing the RMR to the visible laser; I had used a licence plate for its high reflective properties to do this at my home range during the day. This turned out to work beautifully, as I was able to get an excellent group in the 10 ring at the 1200. I tried to adjust the RMR 1 click lower, but that threw my group way too low on the second string. I put the RMR back up one click on the third string, and was able to score a 50-4X.
Chuck noted that for those that use offset optics, they could simply use the RDS instead of trying to use the canted primary optic for canted shots.
We then went over target transitions. Traditionally, this was done by pairing up shooters that were right next to each other on the line and having them shoot each other's targets. However, this is usually such a small transition that it becomes difficult to see whether the shooter is transitioning with their eyes still looking through the optic, or if they are actually transitioning with their eyes first then bringing the rifle on target. It also does not have an accuracy accountability, as one cannot distinguish between one's own hits and one's partner's hits.
Due to the limited space and time, Chuck had us put a second B-8 under the first B-8; we would pair up with our neighbor on the line, but we would each have our own B-8s on each target. While this would not be a great test of transitioning, due to the short transition, it would still hold us to accountable for our own shots. Chuck also noted that depending on how good our original position was, we could either muscle the shot in, or actually move to shift our natural POA. Chuck argued that transitions in this context could easily be viewed as shooting at a mover, with the target moving between each shot, rather than viewing it as two static targets being engaged; something like a Texas star could also be argued as such.
For the next drill, starting at the prone at 100, we were to engage the two targets with 10 rounds total, going back and forth after each shot.
I was relatively slow, as usual, but was able to keep all my shots in the black. My poor natural POA upon getting into the prone meant that I was overswinging when transitioning to the right target.
Once again, Chuck witnessed many shooters going too slow. He stressed the need to push one's self to 80% in training to see what we could do and get away with. He stated that we need to find our own coping mechanisms to minimize sway, overshooting the target, etc.; if there is a specific technique that he wants to teach, he will force it.
We repeated the drill again after refacing targets.
I was much faster this time, being more accepting of my wobble, and was able to keep 8 in the black out of 10.
On this second run, there was a student that had 50-5X on one target, but had 37-1X on the other, with 1X, 1 in the 10, 1 in the 9, and 1 in the 8, with lateral stringing all on the side facing the target with 50-5X. Chuck said that this was due to the fact that one target was in the shooter's natural POA, while the other was being muscled over; however, the shooter was relaxing before their shot was finished on the target they had muscled over to, thus inducing the lateral stringing on the side that their natural POA was at (the last shot was probably thrown completely off target). Thus, when muscling to a target, one must hold and follow it through.
We then tried that same drill once more, except this time one-handed, with a 90° cant from the strong side (magazine facing the strong side). This was to help illustrate the use of the reticle for holds. Chuck noted how many people, himself included, found it far easier to use an EOTech reticle for shooting movers, due to the 65 MOA ring that could be used as an index point, rather than having to lead with a dot and aim into empty space.
I attempted to compensate for my drop, and under-compensated, sending most of my shots still low left, though within the confines of the B-8 center repair target this time.
Chuck then talked about how real life is always far more dynamic and chaotic than the flat range. Thus, one should take the opportunity when possible to gather DOPE at set ranges, in order to master the different holds at different ranges. This helps the shooter to figure out just exactly what they are capable of, and to find the limits of performance.
For tomorrow, we would do multi-position and do some further distances, along with wider transitions. Again, this class would not cover wind, nor range estimation. Chuck's plan for dealing with wind and/or distance was to compensate via a SWAG if needed, but to always keep on the target itself until proven otherwise, as a hedge of sorts, as this allows for a wide range of possible environmental factors and still probably hit the target. One will often have to think and make calculated risks in the field.
Class ended at this point, at 1710.
