If you're not familiar with the man, he's got quite a history. Retired Marine, service in WWII, masters degree in philosophy if I remember right, has had a HUGE influence on the development of modern defensive handgun theory. He started a school years ago that has trained everyone from ordinary people to SWAT and military special ops types in advanced use of handgun, rifle, shotgun and sub-gun. Also the official creator of the 'scout rifle' concept. The man has a lot of experience and is worth reading and paying attention to.
That does NOT mean that everything he says should be accepted flatly as the Truth. I'll state myself that he has far more experience in many areas than I do. However, there are some things on which I disagree, strongly in some cases. Here's three.
Aiming.
He has said that unless you're in contact range(muzzle almost touching the target) you should never point-shoot; you should always bring the piece up to eye level and use the sights. Strongly disagree here, for several reasons. First, with practice point-shooting or hip-shooting, call it what you will, can be both fast and quite accurate. Second, at close range it keeps the weapon closer to you and further from the target. And third, it teaches that you can shoot accurately without using the sights, and in dim light or other bad conditions that can be a very good thing. A man named Bill Jordan once wrote a book called 'No Second-Place Winner' on the subject of gunfighting. He was himself a veteran of WWII in the Pacific and many years in the Border Patrol. Check it out, it's worth reading for many reasons, and it lays out his reasons for hip-shooting at close ranges. I'm prejudiced on this point because this is the way my father was trained to shoot, and the way he taught me when I began learning handguns. And it works. Note: on pages 94-95 he illustrates his shooting positions; except at the closest range, I always used two hands, and tend to hold it out further than he illustrates. It's something you have to experiment with a bit.
Shooting sticks. This can be either a single stick or a pair that can be used as a walking stick, and is used as a rifle rest when shooting at game. Cooper basically says that if you properly train to shoot offhand, they're a Bad Thing and unnecessary. Other side of that is a: I've read of many comments from experience hunters and fine shots as to how handy they can be, and b: I was always told that if there is any way to do it, you ALWAYS use a rest when shooting at game. You may not like sticks yourself, but apparently they work very well for a lot of people.
Scout rifle. This is basically a very simple concept: a rifle of minimum weight and length, chambered for a serious cartridge- he prefers .308- with a three-point sling and a forward-mounted scope. It's a nice idea, and can work quite well. My problem here is that anything other than the Steyr Scout Rifle with the built-in bipod and spare magazine holder and fold-down backup sights just doesn't cut it according to Cooper. Now, the Steyr is without questions a finely-made firearm, but the damn thing costs about $2500. Savage used to make a Scout that came with a forward-mount for a scope, a ghost-ring rear sight and a synthetic stock, and I think it came with three sling studs, for about $600 new- I've seen them for $350-450 used- and it's a fine rifle. Ruger is making one that they call a Scout, has the sights and scope mount and sling studs, and if you have to pay actual MSR price, it's about $800 I believe. Both of these are quality firearms capable of fine accuracy, at a hell of a lot less money. I think I can put up with no integral bipod and spare magazine in the stcck for, oh, $1500-2000 difference.
Cooper is a very interesting man, and his writings, either in his books or his columns(found here) are definately worth reading. I do not mean to take anything away from him, I simply point out that there is room for disagreement on some things.
What started me on this was I read his current column in Guns and Ammo magazine, and he went off on shooting sticks. Again. So I thought I'd speak my piece on this.
Personal note. I had an old Mauser rifle I'd fixed up that shot wonderfully, and after reading about the scout rifle idea, I thought that would be nice to try. So I went to an Evil Loophole Gun Show and found an old Turkish Mauser that with some argument I bought for $65. Kind of beat-up on the outside, but mechanically sound and the bore looked good. So I did the following:
Cut the barrel to 20".
Cut the stock down to match and refinished, and put on a recoil pad.
Put on a post front sight and a Williams receiver sight(the less-expensive model without click adjustments).
There's a hole in the front of the trigger guard for I know not what reason, so I ground that area thin enough for a quick-release sling swivel to hook on there, and put standard swivel studs front & rear.
Made sure all the trigger bearing surfaces were polished and gave a nice, clean break.
Into the original rear sight base I stuck a B-Square scope mount for a long eye-relief scope.
When all this was done, I had a pretty good rifle. It was a little heavier and longer than the Ideal, but quite handy none the less. It had the three-point sling. The rear sight didn't fold down out of the way, but it worked nicely. So for less than $200 in cash and some careful work I had a short, light rifle in 8mm Mauser that would take care of any game I could conceivably run into. And after careful cleaning, the barrel justified my trust; at 100 yards it'll shoot 1 to 1.25" groups if I do my part. A scope did run the price up over $200 but still less than $300. I can't guarantee someone else would get equally good results from the project(no guarantee, mileage may vary as Kim puts it), but if you like to work on things it might be worth a try.
No comments:
Post a Comment