Bull pups have a certain advantage (shorter but still with a long accurate barrel) and certain disadvantages. The U.K had lots of problems with the SA80 which is why it went through a couple re-designs. Also lots of debate about the basic design of a bull pup. To change magazines requires the shooter to come off target and unshoulder his weapon. Clearing jams is more difficult. The rifle can only be shot one way (right shouldered) because the action is behind the trigger unit - right at face level. To fire left shouldered required tilting the rifle horizontally, so that the cartridges eject towards the ground (not into the shooter’s face). In other words, the ergonomics aren’t better - arguably worse. So it’s not automatic that the small size with long barrel is enough of an advantage. Also - as shown on the video in the first post and competitive shooting, a trend is to hold a rifle with a C clamp grip and an extended support arm, which allows fast target acquisition because it’s a natural pointing motion with the support arm. Bull pups require a more compact, elbows in shooting stance. So it’s not something that will change wholesale without a ton of debate.
How to survive a gunfight in a car | Tactical Shooting Techniques - video
- Thread starter mandrill
- Start date
Certainly Daniel Defense is not a large arms manufacturer. They are not in the league of Browning Colt, S&W, Ruger or Winchester. Anyone with a CNC machine can get into the manufacture of arms today. The legality of sales and distribution is another matter.Ceiling Cat - not sure why you think Daniel Defense is a small clone company.
Huh? My point was that they were a military supplier to two Govts (a SOCOM supplier in the U.S.) before they even got into the game of building complete rifles. You included a picture of the SA80 where Daniels was a key supplier in upgrading it to a modern rail system as a sub-contractor to H&K (who were tasked with fixing the many problems with the SA80). Also they make dozens of rifles which chamber NATO rounds, so where did you get the notion that they only chamber .308’s? You can criticise the video for all sorts of reasons, but IF it’s a Daniels weapon there’s really nothing to criticise on that front. They are certainly in the league of larger arms dealers when it comes to design and build quality.Certainly Daniel Defense is not a large arms manufacturer. They are not in the league of Browning Colt, S&W, Ruger or Winchester. Anyone with a CNC machine can get into the manufacture of arms today. The legality of sales and distribution is another matter.
When I went through that kind of training (I had the opportunity and did it just for the hell of it), my elbows were down because I was told to cradle/squeeze the rifle: by resting the magazine against your left forearm and putting inward pressure on the pistol grip with your right hand. This cradle type of hold made me very stable and made my shots a lot more accurate. I've tried the C clamp hold and it doesn't work for me. Settlers over in Israel learn these kinds of tactics, and volunteer defense squads in kibbutz regularly practice this stuff (I stayed away from politics).The thing I notice in this video (and seems to be a trend in online combative shooting videos) is the support arm grip. The trend in the past 5 or 6 years is what's called the exaggerated C-clamp grip for the support arm. In the past, the big thing was a front pistol grip attached to the rails on the front of any assault rifle and keeping your elbows tighter to your body to pull the rifle into your shoulder. But with competitive shooters, the exaggerated C-clamp grip started to show up because it made target acquisition faster and more natural (your support arm naturally points to the target), helped reduce muzzle rise and recoil and made fast shooting from various stances (prone, standing, around obstacles) easier. And because top competitive shooters were adopting this grip it got copied and is now being adopted in training people for situations where the targets shoot back. There are valid reasons for a C-clamp grip but every year it seems the technique gets exaggerated. Eg: If you look at how high his elbows are in some positions - they are too high - you have to wonder how his vision (to spot danger to his left or right) would be obstructed by his arm - not to mention how he's presenting a bigger target to whomever is shooting at him as well as how much more effort it takes to hold this grip, vs a more relaxed grip.
The techniques for engaging from inside the car were very similar. There was even a technique for taking your seat belt off.
He's not advocating that you remain in the car. But this doctrine has you returning with suppressive fire asap to get their heads down so that you can then move away from inside the car. So shooting through the windshield and/or the gap between the frame and the door is entirely appropriate. Tilting the rifle sideways while shooting over the hood makes sense in order to reduce exposure and to reduce the chance of hitting your own car, as the barrel is a couple of inches below the sight.
If you're escorting a valuable asset, you will be carrying firepower. A rifle is a lot more accurate and effective than just resorting to handguns. So it pays to practice egress with your 'long' rifle in this circumstance. 9mm pistol bullets will not likely go through a car door or a side panel of a car or van, and that may be important in case of assailants in their own car. But a bullet from a rifle will, even 5.56/.223 rounds.
When you're in this situation in real life, the pucker factor makes your IQ drop by 50%. You then revert to your training and instincts, hence practicing this stuff. You don't think.... you shoot!
Based on my experience shooting IPSC and the tactical stuff I learned from those who've actually done it in real life, I'd say the guy in the video knows what he's doing.
It feels odd for me too. But there are lots of advocates for it - definitely a trend. I say - whatever works most effectively. And that’s only discovered via practice. Practice is key and most people don’t practice enough. Off topic - that’s one of my biggest issues with the gun lobby in the US. Too much emphasis on the rights of ownership, and not nearly enough focus on the responsibilities of training in the safe (and effective) use of a weapon. From my experience, I’ve formed an opinion that the majority of gun owners in the US don’t know how to safely and effectively handle a weapon. Even many hunters only pull their guns out at the beginning of the season and only use a handful of shells (if that) to practice. Many non-hunters, particularly in a city purchase a weapon and hope to use it for personal protection without even firing it on a range.I've tried the C clamp hold and it doesn't work for me. Settlers over in Israel learn these kinds of tactics, and volunteer defense squads in kibbutz regularly practice this stuff (I stayed away from politics).
Then that would change the whole scenario... being alone vs having a family to get to safety.sure you would......but that just makes it more cramped for the wife and kids and the dog, and the groceries
In fact this whole scenario is BS ... your watching a wannabe who probably had some basic military training and was awake for half of it, reminds me of that movie Ronin .. you could tell who knew their shit and who didn't.
VBB
Indeed. Watching a good John Wayne movie or a Gunsmoke episode is considered good enough training, plus you've all played with toy guns during your childhood (OMG!). They also get a false sense of security while carrying a handgun in the car, for example, or in the house. They think it's a force field of some sort. At least, concealed carry rules in many States have mandatory training, including rules of engagement.It feels odd for me too. But there are lots of advocates for it - definitely a trend. I say - whatever works most effectively. And that’s only discovered via practice. Practice is key and most people don’t practice enough. Off topic - that’s one of my biggest issues with the gun lobby in the US. Too much emphasis on the rights of ownership, and not nearly enough focus on the responsibilities of training in the safe (and effective) use of a weapon. From my experience, I’ve formed an opinion that the majority of gun owners in the US don’t know how to safely and effectively handle a weapon. Even many hunters only pull their guns out at the beginning of the season and only use a handful of shells (if that) to practice. Many non-hunters, particularly in a city purchase a weapon and hope to use it for personal protection without even firing it on a range.
Any attempt at licensing, and the training that goes along with it, is seen as the first step to gun confiscation.... in many cases, they have a point. Some prominent politicians only want to ban the most 'dangerous' guns.... until they're all gone. That's easy once they know who has them and where. So I include the gun grabbers as the reason why there is little training. In liberal circles, joining the NRA is seen as a political move, whereas the NRA's major mandate is actually to promote safety training.
They don't teach that in basic military training. In fact, a lot of military have trouble qualifying just hitting the target with a service rifle. You would undertake this kind of training if you were to become a bodyguard or security agent.Then that would change the whole scenario... being alone vs having a family to get to safety.
In fact this whole scenario is BS ... your watching a wannabe who probably had some basic military training and was awake for half of it, reminds me of that movie Ronin .. you could tell who knew their shit and who didn't.
VBB
Come to think of it, people who show up at a shooting club to join up and claim to know everything because they've been in the military need special consideration, as they often have 'forgotten' some important safety rules and have some bad habits to get rid of.
I disagree about the NRA. At one time, it may have stressed education as its mandate. But it's become a major political force on the back of protecting the 2nd Amendment rights against any and all threats - real and imagined. It makes money and sells memberships by loudly protesting anything that resembles so called "control". But training in no way violates these rights and the NRA could be part of the solution by advocating mandatory education and training. But they won't do this. The reality (and I've lived in the States and have worked (currently and in the past) for various U.S. companies) is that there is no way in our lifetime or our children's lifetime that the 2nd Amendment will go away. Even the most Liberal of Democrats will acknowledge this. It's complete fear mongering to say that the Govt wants to take away guns. That will never happen. Also - from my experience (again, limited to personal) - the U.S. gun owners I know agree that a lot of gun owners in the U.S. have no business operating a weapon. Yes, the 2nd Amendment guarantees the right of gun ownership to protect against the tyranny of the State - but ironically - a lot of these gun owners would end up shooting themselves or their friends/family/neighbours simply because they own a gun, but are totally clueless about using it effectively or safely.Indeed. Watching a good John Wayne movie or a Gunsmoke episode is considered good enough training, plus you've all played with toy guns during your childhood (OMG!). They also get a false sense of security while carrying a handgun in the car, for example, or in the house. They think it's a force field of some sort. At least, concealed carry rules in many States have mandatory training, including rules of engagement.
Any attempt at licensing, and the training that goes along with it, is seen as the first step to gun confiscation.... in many cases, they have a point. Some prominent politicians only want to ban the most 'dangerous' guns.... until they're all gone. That's easy once they know who has them and where. So I include the gun grabbers as the reason why there is little training. In liberal circles, joining the NRA is seen as a political move, whereas the NRA's major mandate is actually to promote safety training.
Clinton said many times she doesn't want to take away the 2nd amendment. But her and like minded politicians (Diane Feinstein) will be quick to make the exception that 'dangerous' guns like so-called assault rifles should be banned, even though in reality, most of the homicides committed by guns in the US are done with handguns. They say that they 'only' want to ban the most dangerous guns, but as every gun is potentially lethal, the process would never stop until there were no more. Next, they'll want to ban high powered sniper rifles, the ones with the big scopes that look really nasty.I disagree about the NRA. At one time, it may have stressed education as its mandate. But it's become a major political force on the back of protecting the 2nd Amendment rights against any and all threats - real and imagined. It makes money and sells memberships by loudly protesting anything that resembles so called "control". But training in no way violates these rights and the NRA could be part of the solution by advocating mandatory education and training. But they won't do this. The reality (and I've lived in the States and have worked (currently and in the past) for various U.S. companies) is that there is no way in our lifetime or our children's lifetime that the 2nd Amendment will go away. Even the most Liberal of Democrats will acknowledge this. It's complete fear mongering to say that the Govt wants to take away guns. That will never happen. Also - from my experience (again, limited to personal) - the U.S. gun owners I know agree that a lot of gun owners in the U.S. have no business operating a weapon. Yes, the 2nd Amendment guarantees the right of gun ownership to protect against the tyranny of the State - but ironically - a lot of these gun owners would end up shooting themselves or their friends/family/neighbours simply because they own a gun, but are totally clueless about using it effectively or safely.
All I'm getting at is that it's the rhetoric that's preventing better control and training, and the politicians that call for gun bans cause an opposite reaction where the NRA has picked up the mandate and argue for less regulation as a counterpoint. If they simply said that the present regulation was sufficient and should not change, then the regulators would take the middle ground and 'compromise' with more restrictions, but less radical than originally proposed.
California now has gun laws more restrictive than Canada's. Appearance is a major factor, including features that make a rifle more modern and easier to shoot, like pistol grips and plastics that make it lighter. There was one recent initiative where one group wanted to ban muzzle loaders because they shot .50 caliber bullets and they feared the consequences if they were equipped with bumpstocks and the carnage that would entail. When it was pointed out that it took about one minute to reload one, that the whole premise didn't make any sense, then they revert to the 'principle'.
The NRA has indeed reverted to politics. That's because there has to be some pushback against some politicians who find guns easy and expedient targets to raise their profile. But the NRA still is a training organization promoting gun safety, and most shooting organizations base their training on NRA material.
Just because past gun laws have had problems doesn't mean future laws will as well. Surely we can do better.Clinton said many times she doesn't want to take away the 2nd amendment. But her and like minded politicians (Diane Feinstein) will be quick to make the exception that 'dangerous' guns like so-called assault rifles should be banned, even though in reality, most of the homicides committed by guns in the US are done with handguns. They say that they 'only' want to ban the most dangerous guns, but as every gun is potentially lethal, the process would never stop until there were no more. Next, they'll want to ban high powered sniper rifles, the ones with the big scopes that look really nasty.
All I'm getting at is that it's the rhetoric that's preventing better control and training, and the politicians that call for gun bans cause an opposite reaction where the NRA has picked up the mandate and argue for less regulation as a counterpoint. If they simply said that the present regulation was sufficient and should not change, then the regulators would take the middle ground and 'compromise' with more restrictions, but less radical than originally proposed.
California now has gun laws more restrictive than Canada's. Appearance is a major factor, including features that make a rifle more modern and easier to shoot, like pistol grips and plastics that make it lighter. There was one recent initiative where one group wanted to ban muzzle loaders because they shot .50 caliber bullets and they feared the consequences if they were equipped with bumpstocks and the carnage that would entail. When it was pointed out that it took about one minute to reload one, that the whole premise didn't make any sense, then they revert to the 'principle'.
The NRA has indeed reverted to politics. That's because there has to be some pushback against some politicians who find guns easy and expedient targets to raise their profile. But the NRA still is a training organization promoting gun safety, and most shooting organizations base their training on NRA material.
Politics is so divisive that there will never be any bans. Not in our lifetimes, despite the NRA supported fear mongering. So the US is in a “Mexican standoff” (LOL) when it comes to gun laws. What needs to happen, in my opinion, is some middle ground. Eg: democrats should drop the banning certain weapons talk and try to make progress where they can. And the NRA (and members) should drop the automatic rejection of any proposals. So drop the trying to control crime by banning weapons, and work to make legitimate ownership safer. Eg: yes, the NRA has a lot of training material and try to stress safety. But that is no longer their main priority, at least at the political level. Why is that? Have you ever met any responsible gun owner who doesn’t believe in safety? Have you ever met anybody from any military who doesn’t (first and foremost) follow safety when handling a weapon? Yet there are millions of gun owners in the US who have no clue about safe gun handling or even safe storage. And go further: Have you ever met anybody who thinks it’s a good idea for a mentally unbalanced person to be able to easily and quickly purchase a weapon? That’s why I cannot understand why the NRA isn’t an advocate for mandatory education and mandatory background checks. Neither would violate the second amendment in any way.Clinton said many times she doesn't want to take away the 2nd amendment. But her and like minded politicians (Diane Feinstein) will be quick to make the exception that 'dangerous' guns like so-called assault rifles should be banned, even though in reality, most of the homicides committed by guns in the US are done with handguns. They say that they 'only' want to ban the most dangerous guns, but as every gun is potentially lethal, the process would never stop until there were no more. Next, they'll want to ban high powered sniper rifles, the ones with the big scopes that look really nasty.
All I'm getting at is that it's the rhetoric that's preventing better control and training, and the politicians that call for gun bans cause an opposite reaction where the NRA has picked up the mandate and argue for less regulation as a counterpoint. If they simply said that the present regulation was sufficient and should not change, then the regulators would take the middle ground and 'compromise' with more restrictions, but less radical than originally proposed.
California now has gun laws more restrictive than Canada's. Appearance is a major factor, including features that make a rifle more modern and easier to shoot, like pistol grips and plastics that make it lighter. There was one recent initiative where one group wanted to ban muzzle loaders because they shot .50 caliber bullets and they feared the consequences if they were equipped with bumpstocks and the carnage that would entail. When it was pointed out that it took about one minute to reload one, that the whole premise didn't make any sense, then they revert to the 'principle'.
The NRA has indeed reverted to politics. That's because there has to be some pushback against some politicians who find guns easy and expedient targets to raise their profile. But the NRA still is a training organization promoting gun safety, and most shooting organizations base their training on NRA material.
Politics is politics, and common sense is irrelevant. Yes, there was a gun ban, the so-called 'assault-rifle' ban that the Democrats want to reinstitute and it's based stricly on appearance, which is what the California ban is based on: no pistol grips, no adjustable butt stock, no flash hider or muzzle brake because it looks like a silencer and the thingy at the back that goes UP!Politics is so divisive that there will never be any bans. Not in our lifetimes, despite the NRA supported fear mongering. So the US is in a “Mexican standoff” (LOL) when it comes to gun laws. What needs to happen, in my opinion, is some middle ground. Eg: democrats should drop the banning certain weapons talk and try to make progress where they can. And the NRA (and members) should drop the automatic rejection of any proposals. So drop the trying to control crime by banning weapons, and work to make legitimate ownership safer. Eg: yes, the NRA has a lot of training material and try to stress safety. But that is no longer their main priority, at least at the political level. Why is that? Have you ever met any responsible gun owner who doesn’t believe in safety? Have you ever met anybody from any military who doesn’t (first and foremost) follow safety when handling a weapon? Yet there are millions of gun owners in the US who have no clue about safe gun handling or even safe storage. And go further: Have you ever met anybody who thinks it’s a good idea for a mentally unbalanced person to be able to easily and quickly purchase a weapon? That’s why I cannot understand why the NRA isn’t an advocate for mandatory education and mandatory background checks. Neither would violate the second amendment in any way.
To tell you the truth, when I go to the gun range, I prefer to shoot beside someone who knows what he/she's doing, and in Canada, it's a licensed person.
When the gun grabbers go away, you will cease seeing the constant push and pull and maybe we can get to common sense, which is mandatory training and qualification. In the meantime, in the States that have licensing, like for handguns in New York State or New Jersey, gun grabbing politicians have tried to make public official records of those who were licensed by the State, in order to discourage or 'shame' such people. If they had succeeded, they would have made these people targets of break and enters by criminals who were after their guns. So much for public safety.
There is no common sense in the gun debate, and it's a series of action and an equal opposite reaction. It morphs into a polarized debate, between total gun ban and a total free-for-all: because in the US, there is no room for true compromise, and a settlement of the issue, once and for all. The gun grabbers keep on going back for more. You see this in Canada with our own gun grabbers. After the polytechnic massacre, the government embarkedon a radical and comprehensive reshape of the gun laws in Canada, the Firearms Act of 1995. It was supposed to be the end-all... but the gun grabbers still come back for more, dancing on the graves of the victims. I am convinced that the anti-gun stance in the US has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with identity politics, and furthering one's own political ambitions.
And BTW, I have seen military people handle guns in an unsafe manner. Like unholstering a pistol during a match to show their buddies, or walking around with their finger on the trigger. The military is not so perfect as you may think.
Oh, and about gun bans.... They never say they want to ban all guns, or do away with the 2nd Amendment. They just want to ban the most 'dangerous' guns. Since all guns are potentially lethal, when you keep on banning the most 'dangerous' gun, you will eventually come down to the .22 caliber plinker. The goal is progressive disarmament, and it gives them a continuous platform to get elected; they don't have to address the real problems in society, such as social disparity, mental illness, lack of a social safety net, breakdown of society in inner cities, urban decay etc etc.Politics is so divisive that there will never be any bans. Not in our lifetimes, despite the NRA supported fear mongering. So the US is in a “Mexican standoff” (LOL) when it comes to gun laws. What needs to happen, in my opinion, is some middle ground. Eg: democrats should drop the banning certain weapons talk and try to make progress where they can. And the NRA (and members) should drop the automatic rejection of any proposals. So drop the trying to control crime by banning weapons, and work to make legitimate ownership safer. Eg: yes, the NRA has a lot of training material and try to stress safety. But that is no longer their main priority, at least at the political level. Why is that? Have you ever met any responsible gun owner who doesn’t believe in safety? Have you ever met anybody from any military who doesn’t (first and foremost) follow safety when handling a weapon? Yet there are millions of gun owners in the US who have no clue about safe gun handling or even safe storage. And go further: Have you ever met anybody who thinks it’s a good idea for a mentally unbalanced person to be able to easily and quickly purchase a weapon? That’s why I cannot understand why the NRA isn’t an advocate for mandatory education and mandatory background checks. Neither would violate the second amendment in any way.
These people will never stop, and they prey on popular ignorance of guns and gun laws. In fact a big proportion of Canadians think Canadian and US gun laws are the same, or virtually non-existent. And you get the occasional misrepresentation that AR-15's are very powerful weapons that nobody needs, when in fact that calibre is illegal to hunt large game with (moose) because it's not powerful enough to kill outright, and would result in prolonged agony for the animal for days until it finally dies.
The latest poll about most Canadians who think that guns should be banned from cities.... it is to assume that that would result in no more gun violence in Finch-Jane? As if any gang banger can walk into a gun store and come out packing heat? Or who think that there are no laws that prevent this already?
"WHAAAAT ???? WHAT DID YOU SAYYYYY ??? SHOOT A GUN IN THE CARRRR???? OK" .......KABLAMMMM!!!!Never fire a gun inside a car- it will damage your hearing.
"ahhh sonofabitch, not again...."
