BULL'S=EYE SHOOTING.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 901, 22 August 1910, Page 8

BULL'S=EYE SHOOTING.

AN INTERESTING CONTROVERSY. "ROBIN HOOD" V. OTHERS. [Note.—The following letter by "Robin Hood," in reply to "Manidicher-Carcano," and others on the subject of Bull's-eye versus Service target practice, was ..crowded out of Saturday's Defence Notes.! "My opponent, 'Mamilicher-Careano," accuses me of forgetting the subject ,of my first.letter," writes "Robin Jlood." I have not done so, although I admit that I allowed myself to be drawn more than I intended. I did not object to the use of service targets in the Gordon Highlander match, as much as to the conditions controlling the fire. I mado no •claim that thi/ buHVeyn target »»!» suited for collective or battle training. X maintain that it still holds the -premier position in that it teaches the rifleman to fire an effective shot, so that whether firing individually or collectively lie will do greater damage. What useful purpose is served by • using ball for collective training? Blank will do as well. Mistakes in shooting cannot be corrected in collective firing, so that .such shooting, has little odueativo value. "Bobs" and 'ho Bull's-eye. .. "I quite agree with. 'llannlicher' that rifle shooting is a sacred duty incumbent on overy citizen to learn, but why discourage the' citizen in becoming expert in the use of his weapon, if he' docs treat it as a sport? It is unfair of 'Mannlichcr' to accuse those controlling rifle shooting of having no higher aim than those of sport. Has Lord Roberts no highor aim when he urges the British nation to take to the butts? I don't despise, tho Lord Roberts' .type of officer —on the contrary, I admire him. No'man was in a better position. to discover tho weak spot in the ■ British Army, during, the Boer War, and his actions sinco show that ho find overwhelming midcnco.that it was the shooting. In effect he says that a nation of shots can .easily be, converted into an . efficient army. I understand that Lord Roberts is not in harmony with the present army methods, and that his efforts to iinakc the British citizen a • good' shot does not meet with the approval of the War Office. 'Mannlichcr's' efforts-'to disprove my statement that it .takes 'a million bullets to kill a man' are becoming,almost ludicrous when he takes an isolated instance .like the Battle of Jlagorsfontein, where the Highland Brigade 'was packed in quarter-column' as densely as possible, with the left guide holding ■a rope to keep the formation' (I quote from Conaii Doyle's .'Grent Boer War'). Surely the slaughter of one for. every 800 rounds under such ; circumstances dose not reflect credit on the shooting of tho Boers, especially as one bullet might account for several men. In any case, my : statement referred to the British shooting. With reference to the testing: of rifle sights, will 'Mannlichcr' please say what he means when ho saysthey 'are very carefully tested before issue to the service'? If they arc tested it is not by actual, shooting, and they are certainly, not corrected,, as any practical shot knows. '.■,;'■' "He DorTt 'Cut Much Ice,'" "My second! opponent, 'Offence Before Defence,' writes a'very readable article, but his arguments 'don't cut.much ice.' He talks a great deal about the effect the 'screaming of shell,' 'the shriek of the shrapnel,' and ,the 'pit-pat' of the bullets would have on the rifleman,' but can he give me any method of training whereby 'the'rifleman ■may'be inured to the effect these conditions, have on the nerves? It 1 is a well-known fact'that rifle shooting produces' steadiness of nerve. I know, personally, that it transformed .me from an excitable being to one whose coolness is generally admitted amongst riflemen. Am I not likely to be a better soldier now than. I was in my'excitable stage? Can 'Offence' tell me of any. form of rifle training which will give better results ,as regards the steadying of the nerves? When he gets the bull's-eye that will .'hit back'-ho might, but not till then. "His remarks re verniers and gauges are unfortunate- for him. Is ho not aware that the vernier and wind-gauge is incorporated in the sight of the new short rifle, and this after riflemen had used them, against'tho wishes of the military authorities, ;for'. over twenty years? Goodness knows how. long, the War Office will be before it adopts the aperturesight, which is being proved by. riflemen every day to bo quicker in manipulation and sighting, and clearer by far than the old sight.. But why learn rifle shooting; at all? 'Offence' says thero's' 'nothing in battle to aim at; nothing to see; nothing but a rat-tat-tat. The soldier is required to aim at a noise. How can you score a bull's-eye at a noise?' What a ridiculous question! I begin to see now where that million goes to kill the man. Concerning the "Sniper." "Much of 'Offence's' argument-is beside the point, and proves nothing, but he goes on to say that! rely on individual iiiarksmauship to win battles. I have never'said so. I' quite understand war, conditions, although 'Offence' saysT don't, and I know that collective fire is necessary, at times, but all'firing in a cam-, paign is not collective. I did say that a well-trained individual shot is a better man when it comes to collective. Then' he talks of 'sniping' as 'murder.' Fancy talking of murder in battle! The reason ■ why' ' sniping', is hated by. the enemy is that it is efficacious. -...'. "It's not fighting according. to regulations. The 'sniper' in uniform, if captured, is treated as a prisoner of war by' civilised nations, and we all know, that if. in plain clothes "he is hung; Therefore the authorities should see that the rifle, club men are provided with a uniform before they' proceed to stipg tho 'enemy into madness by successful 'sniping.'. Did it never strike 'Offence' how ■demoralising the. loss of officers by successful 'sniping' at the beginning ' of. tho Boer War must havo been to the British Army ? So bad did it become that officers had to discard their swords and marks of rank, and pick up rifles, so. that they would appear to the Boer eye as common soldiers. Yet there's 'nothing to shoot at but noise'!. . - . . ' "Then 'Offence' takes me to task for sneering at the 'Imperial Army man.' No' sneer was intended. There is no greater admirer than I of the "Army man who takes his work seriously, is practical, and uses his wits; but how many of them are in the Army for the social position it gives them, and who, have not the slightest idea, of making .war a life's study,? 'Is not this a continual.cause for complaint? Was not Lord Kitchener applauded for the way he brought this class to its bearings? As for military officers preferring poor shots well drilled to good idiots'indifferently drilled, well, opinions differ. Lord, Roberts doesn't-, think so .when he urges the nation, above all things military, to learn to shoot. Fireside Theorists. "As a' fireside theorist,: I'm in good company when it is realised that the Boer, generals, whose of their forces was the admiration of the world, : wcre mostly men of no previous military training. I would also point out that the military writer he refers to as supporting his argument for the abolition uf the bull's-eye is Marcus Woodward, a journalist who writes for magazines on any topic that suits his fancy. In conclusion, I cannot say that my opponents have deduced one sound argument in favour of the abolition of the bull's-eye. I still maintain that such practice accustoms tho eye to judging distances; it steadies the nerve, and this makes the rifleman a more reliable man in battle; it enables him to understand the vagaries of the service rifle, so that he can correct for himself what, the Army contractors should have 'corrected for him, and thus enables him to hit the other fellow—the object of battle, as I understand it."