|
|
 |
Thoughts from the Gunner's Guru -- November 2006
The Guru discusses small arms, the toughness of troops, the modern technique of the pistol, and letters columns
By Col. (Ret.) Jeff Cooper
Small arms--which have been my stock in trade for a long lifetime--comprise the rifle, the pistol, the shotgun and now what may be called the bomb thrower or grenade launcher. From early on, I have been a student of the rifle and the pistol, without large emphasis on the shotgun. My father thought I should cultivate the shotgun, since by doing so I would be inclined to associate with a higher class of people. This may be true, but I became first attached to the rifle as a hunting arm. I acquired a pistol at about the same time, mainly because it is easier to find a place to practice with a pistol than with a rifle.
High school ROTC introduced me to the rifle at about the same time, and there I began the formal study of the long gun before being shown the authorized technique of the pistol. To this day I cannot separate the attraction of the pistol from that of the rifle. I have always shot recreationally because it is fun, and with more experience, the rifle and the pistol are equal in this regard.
When I was graduated from the rimfire rifle to the centerfire, I moved up a notch, but not until college did I step up to the centerfire pistol. They are both fun, but I surely cannot say which is more fun. You can do big things with the rifle. Specifically, you can hunt big game, whereas shooting the centerfire pistol for blood has only recently become feasible. And now the centerfire pistol has become so highly developed that it hardly resembles a handgun at all. Before I left full duty status, I did more work and more interesting work with the rifle than with the handgun. And I have had more influence in rifle design than in pistol. I am quite happy to carry the sidearm, which is essentially unchanged from what I knew in college days, but in the field I have developed the centerfire rifle well beyond the notions of my youth.
A soldier must be physically tough. Military operations of all sorts involve hardship. I remember quite well being pushed to the point of total exhaustion, but I was able to keep my feet and keep my eyes open without artificial assistance. But it was my business to make the enemy endure more than I did. This sort of thing can be inculcated, and well-trained troops know about it. It has been observed in various organizations of the world that if training does not result in at least one death per thousand, it is not tough enough. This may be a simplification, but it stands as the critical point. If you do not feel that training is really too hard for reasonable men to endure, you probably have not got the point.
The soldier must also be proud of being a soldier. He must be inspired by his picture in the mirror. There is a tendency to lose this notion in the Age of the Common Man. It should be fought. George Patton, among others, made a strong point of this and frequently exhorted men who looked like slobs to "stand up and look proud." Patton was one of America's most distinguished soldiers. I think his example should be heeded.
The modern technique of the pistol, for example, is really important only as it includes proper understanding of mindset. If you are thinking properly when confronted with lethal force, your shooting technique hardly matters. It is important, however, to understand proper shooting technique in order to instill confidence, because confidence is an important element of proper mind-set. Thus it is well to teach the student how to shoot in order for him to do things right when the need arises.
Over the years, I have concluded that certain body and hand positions are helpful to deliver better and quicker hits, but if a student chooses to disregard my teachings it is all right with me, as long as his results are good. Naturally it is hard to establish what techniques are used in actual combat. If there is a camera around, it is seldom pointed at the shooter, so we cannot really tell what system he was using.
We simulate stress in competition, and we have reason to believe that the stress experienced in competition is equal to, if not greater than, that experienced in reality. Few people can remember just what they did when the flag flew, so our studies are not as profound as they might be.
The best part of any periodical is the letters column. One can always be sure that the contributor is interested in his subject, otherwise he would not take the trouble to write.
|
