Clint Smith on rifle scopes

[Blue72]

This really hit home for me

 

[KoolBreeze]

Yep. I like simple.

 

[idig4au]

Yep fully agree. Simple

 

[Formidilosus]

Fudd lore always has the best results… give or take.

When you see an elk “sling that bitch over there and fling it at them”. Sounds great.

 

[Gunnersdad49]

Clint talks about gunfighting, not hunting or long range precision. If shooting a fighting gun at someone shooting back, I've got no problem with "fire for effect". Hunting, I have a different opinion all together.

 

[Blue72]

Clint talks about gunfighting, not hunting or long range precision. If shooting a fighting gun at someone shooting back, I've got no problem with "fire for effect". Hunting, I have a different opinion all together.

I think it applies to hunting as well…..we all experienced a very short window of opportunity on game while hunting. Plus that video clip is from their precision rifle class not “fire for effect”. There is accuracy, then there is practical accuracy

 

[Formidilosus]

Clint talks about gunfighting, not hunting or long range precision. If shooting a fighting gun at someone shooting back, I've got no problem with "fire for effect". Hunting, I have a different opinion all together.

It’s still not the most effective way. It’s fudd lore. Sorry to Clint, but no organization that has killed humans on demand as a matter of course the last twenty years teaches to “sling that bitch over there and fling it at them”. A whole lot, maybe most of what was taught as how “gunfighting” is done by the old guard such as Clint was proven absolutely ridiculous in the longest wars in our history. The absolute most effective places teach and/or demand precision shooting at speed into small targets. The idea of conventional covering fire as an effective tactic has mostly been let go as well, the USMC has publicly written about that.

If it makes someone feel better to practice and train on large targets with sloppy shooting- whether animals or people, great. However you are going to get positively hosed by anyone that has been training to hit 6-8” targets as quickly as possible with a timer from alternate positions. There’s nothing magical or mystical about using projectile weapons, and it doesn’t matter whether it’s a piece of paper, steel, or flesh. The person that hits vital targets faster usually wins.

 

[Gunnersdad49]

It’s still not the most effective way. It’s fudd lore. Sorry to Clint, but no organization that has killed humans on demand as a matter of course the last twenty years teaches to “sling that bitch over there and fling it at them”. A whole lot, maybe most of what was taught as how “gunfighting” is done by the old guard such as Clint was proven absolutely ridiculous in the longest wars in our history. The absolute most effective places teach and/or demand precision shooting at speed into small targets. The idea of conventional covering fire as an effective tactic has mostly been let go as well, the USMC has publicly written about that.

If it makes someone feel better to practice and train on large targets with sloppy shooting- whether animals or people, great. However you are going to get positively hosed by anyone that has been training to hit 6-8” targets as quickly as possible with a timer from alternate positions. There’s nothing magical or mystical about using projectile weapons, and it doesn’t matter whether it’s a piece of paper, steel, or flesh. The person that hits vital targets faster usually wins.

I don't disagree. I viewed the video as a threat at an unknown range in a self defense type of situation should be engaged with the crosshairs, and if that doesn't work, Kentucky windage would get you on target.

That is to say a red dot would work fine on a self defense rifle, and one should get good at hits on a small target in a timely manner. The clutter of a long range precision reticle could confuse someone with target focus in a stressful situation.

I believe Clint has also said "you can't miss fast enough to win a gunfight".

 

[Blue72]

It’s still not the most effective way. It’s fudd lore. Sorry to Clint, but no organization that has killed humans on demand as a matter of course the last twenty years teaches to “sling that bitch over there and fling it at them”. A whole lot, maybe most of what was taught as how “gunfighting” is done by the old guard such as Clint was proven absolutely ridiculous in the longest wars in our history. The absolute most effective places teach and/or demand precision shooting at speed into small targets. The idea of conventional covering fire as an effective tactic has mostly been let go as well, the USMC has publicly written about that.

If it makes someone feel better to practice and train on large targets with sloppy shooting- whether animals or people, great. However you are going to get positively hosed by anyone that has been training to hit 6-8” targets as quickly as possible with a timer from alternate positions. There’s nothing magical or mystical about using projectile weapons, and it doesn’t matter whether it’s a piece of paper, steel, or flesh. The person that hits vital targets faster usually wins.

I think your might be misinformed and took his video out of context. He is referring to the current trend of overly complicated scope reticles and guys playing with their wind meters and ballistic calculators that they completely miss their window of opportunity. Once again this is a precision rifle class

Clint Smith is not the only one to speak out against this trend. Other precision rifle trainers speak out against the very same thing, such as Ryan Cleckner and he proves it over and over again that simplicity is better.

 

[WCB]

I think your might be misinformed and took his video out of context. He is referring to the current trend of overly complicated scope reticles and guys playing with their wind meters and ballistic calculators that they completely miss their window of opportunity. Once again this is a precision rifle class

Clint Smith is not the only one to speak out against this trend. Other precision rifle trainers speak out against the very same thing, such as Ryan Cleckner and he proves it over and over again that simplicity is better.

I agree with the overly complicated scopes or more importantly guys using them as a crutch and not really understanding them. Or worrying about dumb SH!T at close/normal ranges. If you have to use a wind meter 400 yards and in you shouldn't be shooting (hunting situation).

I have found myself countless times guiding or hunting with others where I have verbally or in my head said "just F@ck!ng shoot it" or "just make it happen"

In the context of what the short clip I agree (obvious fine details of the "fight" he is talking about may change things).

 

[Formidilosus]

I don't disagree. I viewed the video as a threat at an unknown range in a self defense type of situation should be engaged with the crosshairs, and if that doesn't work, Kentucky windage would get you on target.

Here’s where it gets weird- he wasn’t talking about self defense, he was apparently referencing precision/distance shooting. What does precision LR shooting have to do with self defense in the context most use it?

I think your might be misinformed and took his video out of context. He is referring to the current trend of overly complicated scope reticles and guys playing with their wind meters and ballistic calculators that they completely miss their window of opportunity. Once again this is a precision rifle class.

Precision rifle class and “sling that bitch over there and fling it at them” do not go hand in hand. And while no doubt that I am misinformed about tactical and precision things, his video did not address wind meters or ballistic calculators- it was about “complicated” reticles (Horus).

Clint Smith is not the only one to speak out against this trend. Other precision rifle trainers speak out against the very same thing, such as Ryan Cleckner and he proves it over and over again that simplicity is better.

Sure, some reticles are overboard, but simplicity doesn’t mean better. It’s just simple. A rock is simple as well, and if simplicity was “better” those would still be used. But they’re not.

I am not here to talk tactical things, but I will go down this particular rabbit hole a bit.
That video may be out of context, however given Climts history and usual views, it isn’t. He produces lots of silly quips and quotes that the unskilled love to hear. He also has some things that have proven correct. But the general tone and direction is from a period when people were still trying to figure out that pistols should be shot with two hands. Clint, like a lot of his generation got on the learning train but somewhere around the end of the Cooper era/beginning of the Rob Leatham and Brian Enos era, he like most got off and decided that they knew everything and it couldn’t be improved. We are so far past tat period in the use of guns under stress and time constraints it might as well be a different thing all together.

I agree with the overly complicated scopes or more importantly guys using them as a crutch and not really understanding them. Or worrying about dumb SH!T at close/normal ranges. If you have to use a wind meter 400 yards and in you shouldn't be shooting (hunting situation).

That is correct

I have found myself countless times guiding or hunting with others where I have verbally or in my head said "just F@ck!ng shoot it" or "just make it happen"

Absolutely. However, that’s not what he said. That’s what people wanted to hear him say. What he said was “sling that bitch over there and fling it at them”. That is the antithesis of efficient killing.

 

[Blue72]

Absolutely. However, that’s not what he said. That’s what people wanted to hear him say. What he said was “sling that bitch over there and fling it at them”. That is the antithesis of efficient killing.

Ryan Cleckner says something similar, Chris Kyle did too………they are trying to make a point that you are missing the window of opportunity and your shooting skill is more important then the equipment you have

 

[Formidilosus]

Ryan Cleckner says something similar, Chris Kyle did too………they are trying to make a point that you are missing the window of opportunity and your shooting skill is more important then the equipment you have

First, I’m not arguing that some things are made more complicated than they need to be for optimum performance, they certainly are. You can literally read what I’ve written in this site to see where I stand on it. However, it doesn’t matter who said what. What you’re doing above, is assigning expertise based on a persons past vocation or supposed ability, with no knowledge that they actually posses that skill- it’s an appeal to an authority. Either what someone says is objectively true and provable, in which case it doesn’t matter who said it; or something is not objectively true and is not provable, and which again it doesn’t matter who the person is that said it or what their background is. No one with actual ability needs to use their background or job title to add credibility to what they say.

To the subject of this thread: what Clint Smith said- not what you wanted him to say, not what you read into it- what he actually said. It doesn’t matter who he is, or what he’s done- “sling that bitch over there and fling it at them” is NOT the way to success. It’s objectively NOT true, and it is provable that it is not the optimum way to do it.

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

I think we was being sarcastic with the fling it comment, not really sure. Either way I totally agree on ridiculous reticles these days. Give me a simple plex reticle and a scope that dials reliably, that's all you need for any shooting application.

 

[Blue72]

First, I’m not arguing that some things are made more complicated than they need to be for optimum performance, they certainly are. You can literally read what I’ve written in this site to see where I stand on it. However, it doesn’t matter who said what. What you’re doing above, is assigning expertise based on a persons past vocation or supposed ability, with no knowledge that they actually posses that skill- it’s an appeal to an authority. Either what someone says is objectively true and provable, in which case it doesn’t matter who said it; or something is not objectively true and is not provable, and which again it doesn’t matter who the person is that said it or what their background is. No one with actual ability needs to use their background or job title to add credibility to what they say.

To the subject of this thread: what Clint Smith said- not what you wanted him to say, not what you read into it- what he actually said. It doesn’t matter who he is, or what he’s done- “sling that bitch over there and fling it at them” is NOT the way to success. It’s objectively NOT true, and it is provable that it is not the optimum way to do it.

I think you need a nice woman in your life

 

[Formidilosus]

Give me a simple plex reticle and a scope that dials reliably, that's all you need for any shooting application.

And this, is where it goes off the rails. A duplex is all one needs for any shooting application?

 

[Formidilosus]

I think you need a nice woman in your life

So are you interested in facts, or just sound bites?

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

And this, is where it goes off the rails. A duplex is all one needs for any shooting application?

For me, yes.

 

[Blue72]

So are you interested in facts, or just sound bites?

I think you like to argue just for arguments sake. The fact that your trying to apply logic and reason to sarcasm. Has you completely missing the point.

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

I think you like to argue just for arguments sake. The point that your trying to apply logic and reason to sarcasm. Has you completely missing the point.

Yep, a giant whoosh on this one for sure. It’s okay to add in some fun while teaching shooting classes. I used to do it all the time when instructing Especially considering all the Billy Jacks that used to come through. Mainly the over serious ex military guys. Relax and you’ll shoot better I promise.