It should be noted as stated above that this is not taught as the end all be all techinique for prone fire.

I was taught to use it when heart rate, breathing, time, or body position do not allow for a steady firing platform in unsupported/ sling supported fire. Also Shooting slow aimed fire (field zero with no sandbags).

The single engagement is also preferred as "pivoting" on the magazine can be a pain in rocks and such. Mulitples in fairly close proximity are OK though.

Gene,

Great points on weak side hand positioning,. I'm not sure that there is a right asnwer to that one. Some guys hold the magazine, some hold the forearm or pull into their shoulder with the "G-grip" if they have one. I have a front grip and I grab it and pull rearward myself(thumb forward, no choking the chicken). If I'm zeroing and don't need to worry about recoil management, I will place my hand to the rear of the SOPMOD stock and pull it into my shoulder ala long-gunning.

Its hard to beat a sling supported position with a good adjustable 2 point like a V-tac or Vickers though.

In school we color coded paint marker lines on our V-tacs for standing, Kneeling, and prone adjustment points. This significantly cut down on adjustment times when shooting 300, 200, 100 meter drills.

Great eval.

Two other Redi-mag issues that I will bring up.

1. HK and alluminmum mags are two different lengths so if you are running different kinds of magazines in your kit, your base is all jacked up and the gun tilts to one side if you try low prone.

2. HK magazines have a solid recess for the magazine catch, it is NOT a hole. I have heard stories that the recess is not deep enough and that HK magazines will fall out of the redi-mag sometimes. I have not experienced this myself, but since there are upgraded followers and springs available now, I have pretty much started going away from HK magazines to cut weight and headache.

BL:

The position I mentioned as liking reminded me of my rapid fire M-24 prone with a sling. Solid, unmoving, able to take recoil and retain a good sight picture. In a nutshell, just like my loop sling M-14 prone but without a sling! Very confident position.

I generally train guys for multiple engagements and saw no issues with transitioning between targets that were about 25 yards apart laterally at 100 yards. After that, even if one was in a sling, one would have to shift his body left or right. Same with a bipod. I found this position to be far more stable and to give a more consistent shot group than sand bagging or using a bipod.

Slings are another matter. I have seen too many guys have problems with magazine changes for me to believe that the tac slings of today should be emphasized. They are a convenient way of carrying a carbine with some sort of muzzle awareness and are very fast to bring to bear while standing. However they have a bad habit of interfering with a magazine change. I have seen way too many solid soldiers have to spend an extra second or two moving a magazine around that sling to get to the magazine well for me to be confident in them. I have an idea that I will screw around with once I have some time.

I think the redi mags work as advertised so have confidence in them. However, I could care less if the redi mag loaded magazine is longer or shorter than the one in the magazine well. If I were on concrete that is flat then perhaps I would care. We simply have no ranges that use concrete pads and on most of our ranges a guy can't level his rifle with a bipod due to uneven ground so the issue is neutral. Also, you can put on a pretty serious cant to a rifle and still hold an upper torso to 300. 10 or 15 degrees of cant won't keep a bullet from smoking someone to 300 if the shot is broken center.

Good discussion and solid points from all sides. Very professional IMHO.

Gene

Gene, I agree with you on slings, I am not very fond of them I don't think any of the rifles I had in the puddle had one. Just one more thing to get in the way and carry. Slings are great to carry a rifle a long distance slung over the shoulder. We never did that. I have put tactical slings on my ARs, but they just complicate the matter. IMHO, lot of this stuff is like fishing lures, they catch the fisherman not the fish. This all maybe a age thing.

I have slings on my hunting rifles, because of the walking/riding the quad and so far none of those 4 legged critters never shot at me yet.

I have some bipods, only one that I bought. I never used them. I find them too limiting, something else to carry. While somethings may look cool, carrying cool is another issue.

Only think I like the Bipod on is my 1919 Browning. That sucker is heavy.

edited to add; I played with a friends redi-mag... I don't think I am coordinated enough for one. You push the release and two Mags fall. We had guys who walked point that used duct tape to tape a mag to another. Mags were inverted to each other. So when you dropped the empty mag, you had your hand on it, rotate then reinsert. Some did this when they walked point. I don't know or remember if it was for a real purpose or just to FEEL better.

Gene Econ,

Thank you for taking the time to shoot this and giving back an honest answer I appericate it.

Gene,

Did you shoot a group from a normal precision position as a default group?

3 MOA is not what I'd call a happy group......

TS

TS:

No, I shot a few rounds unsupported prone to see a zero shift. There was one but not enough to make a difference unless you were shooting the NMC.

About 3 MOA is pretty much what you get from an issued M-4, using an issued M-68 sight, and the issued M-855 Green Tip so I didn't see a need for sand bagging. I had more confidence in this particular position than with bags anyway. What was uncommon was pretty well rounded shot groups. The ammo we were using is PMJ which is a company I am not familiar with but after seeing it shot by a group of riflemen and shooting some at 300 yards myself, I believe it is more consistently accurate than the Lake City 855. I am talking about issued ball here so accuracy is relative.

I will say this much about it, the position I referred to as giving me the best and most consistent hold was pretty impressive in terms of recoil control and sustaining the positon in rapid fire. Also I could really dominate that poor quality trigger found in most M-4s.

I intend on doing more work with this position at the end of this month. I will bag it for you but I got to tell you that the position I assumed using the magazine was far more solid than a sand bagged position. More akin to a good loop sling in the prone.

Gene

Gene,

Thanks again for taking that out and "kicking the tires". Your honest impartial evaluation carries much more weight than mine since I am a new guest on the boards.

I would merely like to see people give it a try that have not been exposed to it before. If one QP can read this, learn it, and use it in support of the US policies and objectives then it was well worth your time.

Thanks.

Chuck

Hollis:

Isn't an old age thing. We didn't have to wear the body armor that is worn today. It is plain hard to carry a rifle like we did while wearing the body armor that is issued today. The mag pouches are on the body armor or are carried in racks around the body armor. All this adds bulk and further reduces movement. The tac slings of today at least keep the carbine close at hand and cause less fatigue than having to carry the rifle without a sling. Also, there is so much stuff on an M-4 these days that it is heavier than our M-16A1s by several pounds.

I remember the magazines taped together deal. I could see it with the 20 round mags to a degree but of course the bottom magazine exposes the bullets to all sorts of crap. The 30 round mags -- no way.

Many things have changed over the years. Taping magazines is one of them. I can't recall seeing this technique for many years. It went by the wayside much like us training on automatic fire with the A-1's. No great loss IMHO.

Gene

Difting away from the topic a moment. One of the things I did to my flak jacket, was to remove all but one ceramic plates (we called flaps). Having padded shoulders was a big plus with the weight we carried.

I don't think a guy would tape his mags together and use a prone position, it was walking usage. Idea was that in a ambush you could change mags much faster as you assault your ambushers.

As for add ons, one of the old murphy's laws of combat, "Armies with the simpliest uniforms win". I know the box is not like the puddle, techniques is really different. I was a Bush Marine. Never did urban combat. Need for lights were never there. Also unlike those who stayed in combat bases and were afraid of the darkness, in the bush the darkness was our friend. My wife today claims I am half bat.

I can see why Charlie liked the darkness.

One of my thoughts is dependency. The more one had on their rifle the more dependent one gets to having it. The AR's I have today, even my M1A1 is basic. I have a Halo Sight and a scope for the AR's even had a scope for the M1A1.. just did not like it. I don't like that stuff on my pistols either. I think it is because I am very comfortable moving in darkness.

I think what is important is to know your gear, and have confidence in it. The more you have, the more to go wrong.

Funny thing is I was in Armor (Ontos) before going over seas, I have developed a Infantry mind set, I would not like to be in armor in combat.

"Select your tools wisely and use them wisely", is my thoughts. having excellent training in knowing ones equipment can not be over stated. Having competant instructors can not be overstated.

I am very impressed at SF Training. I would have like to have 1/10 th that training before I shiped out. I think most Marines would have too. Most Bush Marines learned the hard way.

The simple fact is that the Federal government has a large surplus of property that is regularly offered to other agencies for use.

One of the items is M-16 rifles, M-16s and M-16A1s, in my experience, which can be obtained for little or nothing by various LE agencies at the Federal, state, and local level. The military has very few semi-only AR-15s, so almost all of the rifles are full-auto capable.

Most LE organizations, being "frugal", will take the weapons, as delivered, and issue them to personnel as they see fit. Some will pull the auto sear or other auto components to limit the weapons to semi fire only. Others may choose to issue the weapons to supervisors or special units. A few will obtain training of various efficacy from the NRA or elsewhere (like the local tac team) for the officers who carry them. Most will probably just put them in their arms rooms and if policymakers are so inclined, issue them, "as is" to officers who wish to carry them in their vehicles. Many of those agencies have had everything from Thompsons to MP5 submachineguns in their armories the past.

When these weapons are misused, they are likely to be collected back up and locked away again till someone in the bureaucracy changes and wants to try and issue them again.

Simply a matter of taking free gear from the Feds.

TR

So in close combat quarters ( within 7 feet) you advocate sight picture? Have you ever fired instinctively from that distance, which does not require sight picture? The same result, only quicker.


I'm confused....you have no plans to use automatic fire, yet you practice for the occassion you might use it. Seems to me that you are not very committed to your premise that the "need is practically non-existent." Even in that statement you seem to be leaving some wiggle room.

Hmmmmmmmmm.

[/QUOTE]

Since you do not believe that LEO should have automatic weapons to deal with badguys with automatic weapons.........what exactly would be effective and appropriate arms to combat that? You state that there is quite a few departments that need to acquire these, but you didn't share with us what "arms" these would be.:munchin

I think that we still all pretty much learn the hard way. Semps...

Great post by the way. I think alot of this comes down to the fact that you can have the best gear, weapon and training but if you don't have the mind to do what needs to be done when it needs to be done then its all worthless.
A determined and mentally prepared individual with a pointed stick will beat a man with the latest gear and the greatest weapon who doen't have the "hardware" to use it proporly". IMHO that mindset is only reinforced by training, not aquired through it.

CoLawman:

Yes, I have fired from 7 feet both with and without sights and, while shooting without sights is slightly quicker, I have found that the results are NOT the same. ...yes, all rounds fired struck center mass, but not all struck critical mass areas. We must remember that the destruction of only a few certain anatomical structures will come close to assuring our success in rapidly defeating motivated threats.

As for my stand on automatic weapons in Law Enforcement, I certainly don't feel that they should be forbidden. However, my philosophy remains the same as stated previously...very little can be accomplished with auto-fire that can't be better accomplished with well-aimed, effeciently-applied doses of single fire.

You said:
My answer:
At a minimum, a shoulder fired weapon, outfitted with the appropriate optics, that will allow us to accurately engage targets out to at least 100 meters and dependably fire an appropriate projectile that is capable of defeating both soft armor and, if possible, hard plates. There are quite a few options out there, the choice is yours. I've seen too many departments, even today, that equip their officers with only one pistol and one shotgun.

And finally, I did not state that LEO's should not have auto-weapons. I stated that I don't buy the argument that we should have them just because bad guys have them. This is because of the misconception by some that simply returning auto fire at bad guys puts us on equal footing with them. We must remember that when we, as Law Enforcement, press triggers, it is because someone needs to be dead right now. Our goal should not be simply shooting at them, or even just shooting them, it should be placing rounds in those certain anatomical structures that will end their reign of violence IMMEDIATELY.

We, as Law Enforcement, must ensure that we don't put rounds into anyone who is not a threat and who does not need to die. There is no room for collateral loss of life. Now, shit does happen and there is no way that we can always guarantee this even when we place rounds with surgical precision, but it should never happen because of carelessness or negligence on our part. Situational awareness and target discrimination are a huge part of what we do.

I completely agree that leo's have no need for full-auto fire. in most cases discussed the initial officers on scene would not have had rifles with them, but would definitely been involved in the situation....IE.. the north hollywood shootout. As an officer in a major city I do not want anyone, incuding SWAT, using full-auto when I may be down range. I say this because leo's do not get enough training on the handguns they carry everyday (accuracy statistics from officer involved shootings back this point up.) and I can almost guarantee that they will not get enough training in full-auto fire before they are put on the street with it.

[QUOTE]A LA LEO once told me a Patrol officer was more a roving secretary than anything else. [QUOTE]

Please ask this officer who is the first on scene when whatever "specialty unit" he is assigned to is called out. I bet its patrol.....

I appologize for not posting the quotes properly... I will learn how to do it in the future.

I have a question.
Out of all of the criminals that you LEO's on the site deal with on a daily basis how many of them actually have fully automatic weapons? My brother in-law is a Detriot cop and alot of the thugs out there pack AK's but in 8 years he' only had one that wasn't your standard semi-auto picked up at the local gun shop.
This is just an honest question, not an attempt to poke a hornets nest. I am not a cop yet so I don't know.