Recommendations on handguns

[zhihau]

Looks like SAF teach us how to aim and shoot WRONG!

For shooting, there are many school of thoughts. If you’re going for precision shooting, there’s one drill; if you’re going for speed, there’s another.
It boils down all on a couple of things- muscle memory and instincts.

 

[eatshitndie]

Looks like SAF teach us how to aim and shoot WRONG!

What do you guys remember from SAF NS time? They tell us to take deep breath and hold breath and shoot? Or exhale fully hold breath and shoot?

The course manual I have says to take deep breath in, the exhale forcefully out then deep breath in then exhale naturally and it is in the last phase of exhale naturally to release the shot. They also say that many misinterpret this as having to hold your breath when shooting.

don't know who your saf instructor was but mine taught me to sexhale gently and pull trigger towards the end of the sexhale. this applies mainly to rifles if you're shooting 100 yards and above. if you shoot handguns at 25 yards, there are other considerations. in canada, you'll probably be using this target for handguns. for handguns you need to try several types before deciding on your pick as you need to take into consideration its weight, grip, recoil, trigger "softness", accuracy, length of barrel, caliber, cartridge, cost (over time of ownership). it's never as accurate as a rifle but if you can get all your rounds within the black circle at 25 yards you're ok.

 

[nayr69sg]

don't know who your saf instructor was but mine taught me to sexhale gently and pull trigger towards the end of the sexhale. this applies mainly to rifles if you're shooting 100 yards and above. if you shoot handguns at 25 yards, there are other considerations. in canada, you'll probably be using this target for handguns. for handguns you need to try several types before deciding on your pick as you need to take into consideration its weight, grip, recoil, trigger "softness", accuracy, length of barrel, caliber, cartridge, cost (over time of ownership). it's never as accurate as a rifle but if you can get all your rounds within the black circle at 25 yards you're ok.
View attachment 67903

Thanks for the tips

 

[zhihau]

don't know who your saf instructor was but mine taught me to sexhale gently and pull trigger towards the end of the sexhale.

SAF doctrine is weird- you think enemy will expose themselves like a fixed target to shoot? We can count ourselves lucky if we have 2 seconds.

If it were to train the kids to shoot straight while training muscle memory, the kids need minimally 1 mag/week each. Next is shooting under combat situation, the paintball rounds are good for simulating the balls. There lies the opportunity to assess if the kids can shoot straight at moving targets under stress.

 

[sleaguepunter]

I only fired saf type of weapons. No handgun experience. But I was taught to breathe in and breathe out 1/2-3/4, stop then take the shot for both rifle, m203,LAW and 84mm. The theory was while u are aiming, breathing will shift the muzzle up and down affecting your aim.
GPMG, 50cal HMG, 40AGL and bushmaster 25mm no need to hold breath.

 

[eatshitndie]

SAF doctrine is weird- you think enemy will expose themselves like a fixed target to shoot? We can count ourselves lucky if we have 2 seconds.

If it were to train the kids to shoot straight while training muscle memory, the kids need minimally 1 mag/week each. Next is shooting under combat situation, the paintball rounds are good for simulating the balls. There lies the opportunity to assess if the kids can shoot straight at moving targets under stress.

small arms fire, especially rifles, in today's battles is overrated. the bulk of coalition casualties in iraq were from ieds (a whopping 62% of hostile deaths in 2006) while small arms, primarily rifles, contributed only 13% in the same year. in afghanistan, small arms fire only contributed to 12% of hostile deaths while rpgs used on helicopters and aircraft bearing troops claimed 32% hostile deaths. a further 10% hostile deaths were inflicted by rpgs on troops and vehicles carrying troops on the ground. some of the early reporting of casualties in afghanistan were attributed to small arms fire (from 20% to 38%) but were later corrected to rpgs (that was because rpgs early on was lumped together with small arms until it became evident that as a stand-alone category it posed a deadly threat to helicopters, aircraft, vehicles, troops).

 

[Leongsam]

https://www.glocktalk.com/

 

[zhihau]

small arms fire, especially rifles, in today's battles is overrated.

IEDs and drones will be the way to go.

 

[Semaj2357]

IEDs and drones will be the way to go.

agree absolutely, the way warfare is conducted nowsadays would be the ability to take out the enemy with the above and without eyeballing him.
small arms would be more suitable in a defensive and civilian context and high-powered rifles to snipe and zee-siao the enemy

 

[eatshitndie]

IEDs and drones will be the way to go.

surprisingly ieds were secondary to use of rpgs among the taliban in afghanistan in causing coalition casualties. for (western) coalition forces, helicopter gunships, airstrikes, and drones are the main killers. special forces will only commit when there are valuable targets that cannot be taken out remotely by standoff weapons. in these cases, small arms are still required. for terrorists and rebel forces in syria, ieds, rpgs, and suicide vests were the most effective combo. any serious army of today should consider the triple threat of ieds, rpgs, and suicide vests - cheap, easily transported and smuggled, can be mass stockpiled, hand and body carried, lethal, can be improvised and assembled in the field. all the high tech weaponry pale in comparison to how cost- and battle-effective these low tech gadgets can be brought to bear by an unprofessional and ragtag army.

 

[nayr69sg]

small arms fire, especially rifles, in today's battles is overrated. the bulk of coalition casualties in iraq were from ieds (a whopping 62% of hostile deaths in 2006) while small arms, primarily rifles, contributed only 13% in the same year. in afghanistan, small arms fire only contributed to 12% of hostile deaths while rpgs used on helicopters and aircraft bearing troops claimed 32% hostile deaths. a further 10% hostile deaths were inflicted by rpgs on troops and vehicles carrying troops on the ground. some of the early reporting of casualties in afghanistan were attributed to small arms fire (from 20% to 38%) but were later corrected to rpgs (that was because rpgs early on was lumped together with small arms until it became evident that as a stand-alone category it posed a deadly threat to helicopters, aircraft, vehicles, troops).

Wah! I think this is the first I ever saw you post any statistics or percentages that didn't have 69%!

 

[nayr69sg]

https://www.glocktalk.com/

View attachment 67916

Thanks Sam!

 

[nayr69sg]

IEDs and drones will be the way to go.

Uhmm I am not going to war.

 

[eatshitndie]

Wah! I think this is the first I ever saw you post any statistics or percentages that didn't have 69%!

when death is involved there's no 69%. but when sinkies are happy and keep voting their beloved party it's always 69%.

 

[Papsmearer]

small arms fire, especially rifles, in today's battles is overrated. the bulk of coalition casualties in iraq were from ieds (a whopping 62% of hostile deaths in 2006) while small arms, primarily rifles, contributed only 13% in the same year. in afghanistan, small arms fire only contributed to 12% of hostile deaths while rpgs used on helicopters and aircraft bearing troops claimed 32% hostile deaths. a further 10% hostile deaths were inflicted by rpgs on troops and vehicles carrying troops on the ground. some of the early reporting of casualties in afghanistan were attributed to small arms fire (from 20% to 38%) but were later corrected to rpgs (that was because rpgs early on was lumped together with small arms until it became evident that as a stand-alone category it posed a deadly threat to helicopters, aircraft, vehicles, troops).

More fucked logic from you, eatshit? When you are a smaller, less equipped fighting force with no air force, and armour, of course u have to use guerilla tactics like IEDs. That is why the coalition casualties are mostly caused by this. U really expect the Taliban/ISIS etc to engage US and Coalition forces in a straight up firefight with small arms? They are not that crazy to engage the US like this. On the other hand, you should aak what is the percentage of Taliban/ISIS casualties caused by small arms fire. I would say that would be a lot higher, probably over 50%. In urban fighting, the US will not use IEDs or booby trap explosive devices, nor will they normally use artillery or air power for fear of collateral civilian damage. So, they have to go door to door with small arms, hence casualties they inflict on the enemy would likely be small arms. Even in non urban fighting when the US employs arty and airpower, they still use infantry and small arms to engage their enemy. Only an idiot thinks small arms is overrated.

 

[Papsmearer]

SAF doctrine is weird- you think enemy will expose themselves like a fixed target to shoot? We can count ourselves lucky if we have 2 seconds.

If it were to train the kids to shoot straight while training muscle memory, the kids need minimally 1 mag/week each. Next is shooting under combat situation, the paintball rounds are good for simulating the balls. There lies the opportunity to assess if the kids can shoot straight at moving targets under stress.

U obviously have not done NS or been in the SAF, so please shut the fuck up and don't say SAF doctrine is weird. The way SAF teaches you to shoot is as described by SLeaguepunter. The SAF also teaches you cover and concealment, camouflage, ambush, etc. Which is to say that if an enemy were to advance on you, they have to be exposed. Whether they are walking down a trail, driving in a convoy, etc. they are exposed. And enemy hiding behind something and not exposing themselves is an enemy that is not advancing on you. which in many cases, is fine with the SAF. This is where you, the soldier, employing the breathing techniques taught in shooting and using cover and concealment, can shoot and kill the enemy when they move.

 

[Papsmearer]

don't know who your saf instructor was but mine taught me to sexhale gently and pull trigger towards the end of the sexhale. this applies mainly to rifles if you're shooting 100 yards and above. if you shoot handguns at 25 yards, there are other considerations. in canada, you'll probably be using this target for handguns. for handguns you need to try several types before deciding on your pick as you need to take into consideration its weight, grip, recoil, trigger "softness", accuracy, length of barrel, caliber, cartridge, cost (over time of ownership). it's never as accurate as a rifle but if you can get all your rounds within the black circle at 25 yards you're ok.
View attachment 67903

The fucktard claims to bring his Colt Python .44 Magnum with the scope on it to the gun range in Canada. 25 yards is too close a distance for him lah. If he needs a scope at 25 yards, he might as well get a shotgun

 

[Papsmearer]

If it only mata operating swat armoured vehicle, maybe rioters got chance. But against army unit, then it mostly infantrymen advancing with armoured vehicle support fire.
Modern armoured vehicles have built in fire extinguishing system so chance fire cause explosions will take some effort. There also another 2-3 handheld extinguishers inside.
But having said that, I remembered watching on news where a Ukraine BMP1 kenna Molotov cocktail to death because it try to ram the protesters barricade alone without supporting infantry nor did it fire it main gun.

There are many ways a crowd of civilians can separate the infantry from a tank, and then disable or destroy the tank. A piece of lumber between the road wheels will throw the tracks. Molotov cocktails thrown on the tank from above may not burn the tank's interior, but for sure it will damage or destroy the tank's optics, sights, driver's periscopes, etc. U can blind a tank that way and force the commander to open his hatch to guide the tank., where it will make it more vulnerable. Protesters can dig a ditch, camo it, and lure the tank into it. These are just several of the many ways to disable a tank in an urban setting like HKG. Which is once again why I say the PRC will not roll tanks in.

 

[Papsmearer]

Looks like SAF teach us how to aim and shoot WRONG!

What do you guys remember from SAF NS time? They tell us to take deep breath and hold breath and shoot? Or exhale fully hold breath and shoot?

The course manual I have says to take deep breath in, the exhale forcefully out then deep breath in then exhale naturally and it is in the last phase of exhale naturally to release the shot. They also say that many misinterpret this as having to hold your breath when shooting.

In your case, it makes no difference, you are still a wowo shooter and u better buy a catapult.

If the SAF is teaching us the wrong way to shoot, then how do you explain the thousands of regulars and NS men who have marksmanship badges? U telling me that all those marksmanship badge holders, especially the old timers, who can consistently hit the target at 400m with iron sides was just pure luck and coincidence? And they did all this despite the SAF teaching them the wrong way to do it? Wow, you are a fucking moron.

 

[Semaj2357]

More fucked logic from you, eatshit? When you are a smaller, less equipped fighting force with no air force, and armour, of course u have to use guerilla tactics like IEDs. That is why the coalition casualties are mostly caused by this. U really expect the Taliban/ISIS etc to engage US and Coalition forces in a straight up firefight with small arms? They are not that crazy to engage the US like this. On the other hand, you should aak what is the percentage of Taliban/ISIS casualties caused by small arms fire. I would say that would be a lot higher, probably over 50%. In urban fighting, the US will not use IEDs or booby trap explosive devices, nor will they normally use artillery or air power for fear of collateral civilian damage. So, they have to go door to door with small arms, hence casualties they inflict on the enemy would likely be small arms. Even in non urban fighting when the US employs arty and airpower, they still use infantry and small arms to engage their enemy. Only an idiot thinks small arms is overrated.

this would be true when they conduct mopping-up ops, a skirmish when on patrol and engaging fibua tactics in the villages