Based on SLG's comment in the 1-4 and 1-6 optics thread (below) I know several of us are interested in exploring the topic. Seems few instructors offer medium to long range carbine courses, I wonder how much of this is driven by range limitations and the challenges of running classes. I have nothing intelligent to add but the comment struck a chord so I thought I'd get the ball rolling...
Originally Posted by SLG
I'd like some actual definitions first to set the stage. What does treating the carbine like a large pistol mean? Why is is good or bad? What is the background context?
I suspect that it would be easier to run a safe, effective long-range course with shooters working from the prone or sandbags than it would to have the same number of guys running box drills, vehicle drills, or transitions.
I think there are probably two main reasons why so few people offer longer-range carbine courses. The first reason, as you pointed out, is range limitations, but there are a lot of nuances to that.
- There aren't a lot of ranges where you can shoot past about 200 yards. Most of them are owned by clubs, and club leaders run the risk of seriously pissing off the members if they close down the entire range for a weekend for a class or a match.
- Those ranges tend to be set up for classic disciplines like NRA High Power Rifle, Palma, F-class, etc., so they often have restrictive rules about how you can use the range and the types of targets you can use. They've had morons do moron stuff that damaged the range and made it unusable, or leave the range covered with empty steel-cased 7.62x39 hulls and shot-up zombie/bin Laden/Hitler targets. As a result, it can be nearly impossible to do anything interesting on a range like that or use realistic targets in realistic settings unless you're .mil unit or a .gov agency.
- The guys who run ranges like this tend to be old. Their idea of realistic training entails what they learned getting ready to ship out for the Korean War. They're terrified by anything that involves moving around with a loaded weapon, especially if there's not a senior NCO on a bullhorn taking you through the range commands step by step. I took a Pat McNamara carbine/pistol class at a range like this in Oregon where the RSOs are all pushing 70. The entire class was SWAT cops and SF guys, so Mac ran a hot range, but the RSOs would just about fill their colostomy bags every time Mac had us gather in a circle because it was so far out of their comfort zone.
- Those ranges have been around for decades and they've fended off all kinds of political assaults. If a round gets out of the range fan, then they're looking at years of wrangling in court and thousands of dollars in legal fees, court costs, etc., which could still result in them losing their range and their club.
The second reason is that most people who show up for open-enrollment classes probably can't hit much past 100, which is why the instructors who do teach longer-range carbine work have classes specifically for that. Keeps the knuckleheads out.
Okie John
Good idea for a thread, I was intrigued by that observation by SLG also. I didn't initially think of the distances but on rifle marksmanship fundamentals but wasn't sure.
“Remember, being healthy is basically just dying as slowly as possible,” Ricky Gervais
I have an idea of what he is talking about but I'm not sure I'm 100%. I will say that some of the most beneficial training I ever got for strictly marksmanship was a range with pop up/moving targets (green ivans) that were at unknown distances. I would pay money to be able to go back to that range and train but alas, I am now a cake eating civilian.
I replied thinking of keeping the work to CQB distances.
Okie John
Historically, two different approaches typified by the Clint Smith vs Gunsite approach.
Clint Smith believed the carbine was most often used at distances of the length or width of a car, or width of a room. Consequently, his training focused primarily on these distances, in classes such as his "Urban Combat" (think that was the name).
Jeff Cooper liked rifles, and consequently organized the carbine classes as rifle classes, out to 400 yards, but shot with a carbine.
Likes pretty much everything in every caliber.
I think part of it is the fact that most gun ranges are 100 yards max. I read a quip one time that said " every time I see a golf course I think it would have made a great gun range" or something to that effect. A big reason is self defense shootings for police officers and citizens are predominately at close range. You would not believe how hard it was in the nineties to get rifles approved for police patrol. " They shoot through schools" was what the nay says said. It took a lot of ballistic tests to disprove that. not to mention training police officers with no military training to fight with an AR. I start with telling them it's just a big pistol. You know, safety on, lock the slide back (bolt) reload the magazine. Remember that when we start walking, running or just stand around with a rifle it's something they have never done. When we started with rifles they only had 15 rounds in the mag because the chief didn't want too many shots fired. It's one of the reasons we issue 1911's. It's only nine shots. Sorry I am drifting but my last rant is about training to time ( you have eight hours, no overtime) you not only have to decide what to do but what to leave out. I call it the blivet. 10 pounds of shit in a 5 pound bag. So that is why I can't teach longe range and mid range rifle at work. We do shoot at 100 yards. I have long wished I could start a designated marksman program at work. Issue guys that can shoot a Remington 700 LTR .308 with a Leupold 3-9x to keep in the car. It's funny how in an urban environment how many long shots there could be. Mall parking lot?
Money, trainers teach what people are willing to pay money to learn.
If a trainer can generate enough interest in a long range shooting class and see some sort of profit in it, he'll hold the class. It's surprisingly hard to find 20 people that are willing actually to pay to participate in those types of classes.
The sad fact is that far too many people who attend training classes aren't there for the right reasons. They're often training groupies who want to brag about the trainers they have certificates from, or as a means to show their genitals are bigger than the rest because they've, "got the t-shirt". The people who attend training on their own dime and who actually want to learn a new skill or refine what they already have are actually in the minority. Training has, in a way, become it's own fashion statement within our culture. Consequently, far too many students really have no interest in pushing themselves or their limits. Therefore, you see classes taught at point blank range, both with pistol and rifle. The farther the range, the more evident your personal weaknesses become and most don't want to pay for a personal, public suckfest. Keep the ranges short and students leave happy with their t-shirt and they keep paying for more.
We may lose and we may win, but we will never be here again.......
Reply With Quote