DEFENCE NOTES.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 900, 20 August 1910, Page 15

DEFENCE NOTES.

[Edited By Eciiei.ox.] THE BULL'S-EYE CONTROVERSY. SNIPERS EKOI'EN l'lBE. In this week's instalment of tho biill'soye controversy, "llobiu Hood" and his friend "Martini" make a determined attack on "Mnunlichor-Carcano" and his friends. Supporters of tho MannlicherCarcano school will be given the privilege of replying in the following week's notes, and this will end the controversy. Following upon that tho arguments led will be summed up, and "Echelon" will deliver his personal judgment upon the. merits of the case. Enter "Martini" "As a practical rifle 6hot, who has worked out theories with tho rifle on both the 'bull's-eye' target and the 'service, target," writes "Martini," "I should liko to add my support to 'Bobin Hood.' In the adverse criticisms- by both 'Mann-licher-Carcano,' and 'Olfonca Before Defence,' thore is in my opinion, far too much theory and too little ordinary fact. Taking 'Mannlicher-Careano' first, I notice that in reply to 'Robin Hood's' assertion 'that with the rifles as issued it would be impossible to hit a man at close range,' he says: 'The sights of all British rifles are very carefully tested before issue to the service.' This is merely a book answer, and far from being a cor.rection; it is simply an evasion of the point. 'Mannlicher' dees not say that he does not know of a rifle issued in the condition mentioned by 'Robin Hood.' However, with, tho assistance o£ a few •absolute facts (not theory) I will endeavour to assist 'Robin Hood' in enlightening him. The other day I went to Pol-hill..-Gully range to help a friend to try a new rifle. In perfect weather he, a first-class shot, could not hit a Gft. by 6ft. target, at 600 yards. I tried also and failed. Wo finally lowered the elevation so that the shot must fall short, and show us by the dust, where it landed. We picked it up at. that, and found that this new rifle, so far from being correctly sighted, carried no less than six feet to the left. I give this specific instance as showing the difference i between theory and fact. Personally, in ! using I suppose a dozen M.L.E. rifles up to the present time, I have had only one that was really righted true. They all varied, one was three feet out at 500 yards, and so on. So far, I have spoken only, of deflection, but what of. elevation? I have never seen or heard of a M.L.E. rifle- which was correctly sighted for elevation. Take our supposed point-blank range, 200 yards. Almost without, exception h> hit a sixinch circular 'bull' at this range it Is necessary to put the sight up to anything from 300 to 400 yards. This is not theory, biit a fact which can bo verified by anyone who cares' to take a riflo to tho range. A Tilt at his Opponents. "For the purpose of his own argument, some of 'Mannliclier-Carcano's' points aro out ot date. He has to go back to the old leaden bullet and the American Civil War to give us the fact that it took only 5000 bullets to kill a man. In those days it ,vas close work on close formation, and a man nuturally had a large target to aim at. With the great,advance made in rifles, the formation used to-day i 6, of course, entirely different. It is so much of the open order, that naturally a man .has only one small object to aim at. ;The.most modern figures he gives us—in Morocco, whore two y«ars back some 85,01)0 rounds were fired without hitting a man—show the necessity of a man thoroughly understanding his rifle. I. can quite' believe these- figures, as I understand they have no 'Bisley meetings' out that way; 'Robin Hood,' to my- mind, has not written of rifle sliootiag merely a 9 a sport, but as to the best means o{ ■training a man in the uso of the rifle. Therefore, the implied condescension of ■'Mannlioher-Carcino , in answering him nt all is absurd. Ifuny good brains ia 'England to-day Mike tho same view as ■'Robiu Hood.' "Coming to.'offence before defence,' this critic is evidently quite out of his depth ■in discussing rifles and ' their l practical use. His knowledge and experience of rifles, and rillc-shooting, can be gauged by his sneers at the use of vernier?, and wind-gauges. Contrast his sneers at veiniers," etc., with the following facts. Before the rifle list issued to British troops was adopted, u boutd of experts lyus set up to devise' tho best typo of riflo possible. The' result of their careful work is seen to-dnj-, in Jhat the rifle last issued, has the vernier and the wind-guage actually embodied in tho rear sight. Again, in his comfortable, presumption, he calmly' asserts that the; riHe club man must fail in battle, because he has had no war training, discipline, or drill. . No doubt someone has told him so. I suppose half the rifle club men of Now Zealand havo been drilled and disciplined, being ex-volun-teers. The Main Issue. "Tho talk of collective fire is surely beside tho point. What we are concerned with, and what wo want to determine, is the best means of training an.individual to secure the best possible results from the uso of the rifle. AVe have to make the individual a first-class shot, and, that accomplished, it is for the officer commanding to say when occasion arises, whether the firo to bo delivered is to be' individual or collective. In educating men in the uso of the rifle, the sporting or competitive side of tho question, cannot: be too highly valued.Ho far we have no record that tho world has ever seen a whole regiment composed of first-class shots. Such a thing is unknown, and to-day in the, British 'Army it would bo safe to say that not ten per cent, of tho men are expert shots. Early accounts of archery show that the archers had their stationary targets or marks to shoot at, and also measured distances to shoot from, such as eight score, or ten score' yards, etc. So with rifle shooting we want to pit man against man in friendly rivalry. In order that men would take to it us a sport, w& must ensure tint in tho conditions tho element of skill will outweigh that of chance. All practical shooting men know from experience that in. firing at 'bull's.cyo' targets at measured distances, tho element of skill prevails. They also know that in firing under service conditions, the element of luck is a much greater factor than in firing at the 'bull's-eye' target, llus accounts for the fact that the bulls-eyo' shooting is so popular, and service shooting correspondingly unpopular. The 'Bull's-eye' Man in War. "The question then arises, is 'bull's-ove' shooting of any military value? I contend that it is, and to a very considerable ex tent. Some critics say that in the Tiull s-eye' shooting there is no moral efleet to be contended with, and therefore that its value is largely to be discounted, ihis equally applies to practice under service conditions. As the battle-field is the only place which produces the moral effect this aspect must be eliminated tromtho comparison. It is obvious that ■???° pt ,.} n war you-.cannot produce anything like war conditionswhere the moral clfect is such a tremendous factor Correction of aim is the essence of ride shooting. Tho,'bull's-eye' target affords ample scope ior practice in this, while service conditions do not. It is onlv by constantly firing over the measured distance at the "bull" that a man, through the repeated correction of his shots becomes, ami remains, an expert with his rifle. At a given distance it does not matter much in what shape his target appears, head and shoulder, round; square, or any other shape, such a man will put many shots close in. Shooting over the measured, range helps him to jud"e "At the last tforlh Island championship meeting hold at Wanganui, on the Putiki range, a match at unknown distances was fired by teams of twenty men, representing the different districts.' Theso teams were composed of tho best bull'seye target shots available. The targets were small wooden ones, placed on the hills, to represent a line of men. At that time the extreme fixed-target ran"o at which w« fired was TOO yards. The KJiTlco-turget ' distance was soon found to bs 1501) yards. Firing was, collective, directed by the officer commanding, and .volley after volley of shots fell about the targets, as shown by (he splashes in the sand. I Write with personal knowJedgi' of this, having been one of the Wellington team. Many splendid records are made- under service conditions

at our annual Trentham rifle meetings by men who have been solely trained on the buil's-eye. target. Service shooting is often conducive to a.huge waste of ammunition. A man filing, say, ten shots does not know until atter whether ho has hit or missed the lot. That is not good practice. The man probably learns nothing, and gets no chance whatever to correct his aim. A Final Fusillade. "When we uro told that our nation only allows seven shots per man per annum, and still another only twenty shots, at the bull's-eye target, any practical shooting man knows that under such conditions neither of those nations will produce many expert shots. It is not as ir all rifles carried thesame for deflection or elevation. It is a proved fact that although in theory two apparently similar riiles in every respect should take the same sighting, they do not. Even.if it were possible to get all rifles sighted exactly the same, you cannot producb men of the one pattern to uso them. It is very' important to remember this, because a ritlc sighted accurately for one man is useless for another. An instance of this: A man at 500 yards' was making 'bulls'; the rifle was then handed to a comrade, who with the original sighting could only get magpies. The sighting was altered, and the second man then got 'bulls.' ' Both we're first-class shots. jSow, the difference in the sighting of these two men would mean the hitting and missing of a iairsizedf object. .Seeing, then, how absolutely impossible it is to get rilles exactly similar, lor shooting purposes, or to get men to shoot with the same sighting, it becomes imperative for every man" to understand the triciss of his own rifle. "The real want in councclion with rifle shooting is judging distance. This could be easily practised, without wasting a lot of ammunition over it. A great thing for us in-New Zealand to remember is that no man does anything at his'best under compulsion, and if we compel men to shoot under service comliliuus only Uwj will do as little as the regulations' stipulate for, and have no keenness jn : doing it. This would be fatal to the idea of securing regiments of expert shots. Under the bull's-eyu target system, 'which it is proved makes men good shots under service conditions, and which is rapidly becoming one nf our national sports, wo can reasonably hope to produce regiments of expert; shuls. hi the furogoiug I have quoted fads which have como under my notice, in tin- hope that others will do likewise, and that from facts mid not theory wo may ilerivo sumo benefit from this controversy." [Extreme pressure r.n our space has made it necessary to hold over Robin Hood's letter. It will appear on Monday space sermicting.]