Graubünden Jäger: Swiss Hunter-Shooters

1 Comment

This video is a fine example of how much more serious and skilled hunters in Europe are compared to Americans.

Let’s just pause to consider this: In Switzerland, animal rights activists are mad at hunters because their marksmanship tests aren’t rigorous enough and they want them to do more practice on the range! Marion Theus, president of the Swiss Wildlife Conservation Association, says the already-mandatory hunter marksmanship tests are too easy to pass, should be more frequent, and should use ammunition reminiscent of the recoil/muzzle energy actually used in hunting. Georg Brosi, Hunt Inspector for the canton of Graubünden, agrees. Let’s also consider that Swiss hunter-shooters consider it common to practice on electronic targets. How many hunter sight-ins in the States have you seen using something similar?

I’d like to share their opinion about current U.S. military range qualifications with current leadership!

Coaching Tips

Leave a comment

Dr. Jordan Feigenbaum is a strength coach. Here are his basic guidelines for working with trainees.

TL;DR: Good coaching is the opposite of how drill sergeants “teach” recruits.

Basic Coaching Review Principles

1. Remember you are coaching a human being, not a machine.

This is a person who has previous experiences, successes, fears, struggles, and ideas.  You probably do not know all of these, so take a moment to ask a few questions, to look at the demeanor of the lifter, to see how they are talking about themselves and their lifts. You can in fact do this online and with a video.

This practice tells you a lot about how you can proceed.  I can yell forcefully (or write very direct cues without always noting all of the positives as well) at some people and that’s effective.  For others, they would shrink and immediately become less confident or their overall anxiety about mistakes or problems can increase.  For some, they are assured with some affirmation of a positive before they can really hear a correction or problem.

A lifter might have some long-held habits and ideas about a lift and I won’t get very far if I immediately contradict those unless we have a chance to communicate about this first. For example-a guy who has been benching for YEARS usually thinks he’s an awesome bencher.  He and the bros have been maxing out forever.  I can usually find things to improve, but if I make him immediately feel like I think he’s “not a good bencher” or if change something that he has been doing for years without explanation as to why the change might be helpful, chances are he’s not going to hear or accept what I have to say.

Someone else might have long-standing knee trouble and hold quite dearly some ideas/narratives or fears about a squat.  I want to know a bit about this before I yell cues about going deeper or cueing the knees at all.

2. Be patient, step back, and be quieter than you might want to be.

Coaching is not about filling someone’s brain with feedback, words, and corrections.  It’s not even about praising them as much as possible. It’s about providing fitting feedback at the fitting time and in a fitting manner.  You’re not a better coach because you have something to say right away or can fill the time with words.  Remember this is not about the coach and all you can write or say to fill the rest times, it’s about the lifter and what you can do to help them.

3. Aim to take in the whole picture: their entire movement, confidence, control, speed, balance, and all that.

Do not fall back on those “handy cues” that are easy to hyperfocus on and miss the more important things.  You’re a better coach when you can step back, see the overall movement, consider THIS lifter, and offer coaching cues to improve the most impactful problems first.  Think about things like this lifter’s confidence with this lift, with this weight.  Look at overall balance, control of the bar, range of motion, and bar speed.  These are the places to start, not necessarily their fingers, an exact toe angle, and even their head position.

4. Be careful with your words.

You might not share a coaching language yet, and you certainly can’t assume that you’re going to have one way to coach everyone. Simply offering short cues without any shared understanding is ineffective and incredibly frustrating to a lifter.  Imagine trying to execute a lift and someone is now using phrases that mean very little to you, yet they expect you to do something with that information WHILE you are moving.  Ack!  Also, this is why short cues posted to videos on Facebook generally drive me crazy.  No one needs a series of one-liners, they need a cue AND an explanation on what that means, unless you know that lifter and share this language already.

How to move the Overton Window

Leave a comment

“I would have gotten the results I wanted if ‘those people’ had just done what I wanted” doesn’t mean that those people messed up — it means that you messed up.

The only way to achieve excellence is to hold yourself to uncompromising standards, with no excuses.

Figure out what you need to do to actually deliver results. Then do it.

https://opensourcedefense.substack.com/p/osd-65-diving-headfirst-through-the

Instruction is not Training

Leave a comment

“Education is not the piling on of learning, information, data, facts, skills, or abilities – that’s training or instruction – but is rather making visible what is hidden as a seed.”

Thomas More

Too many in the firearms community define “training” as attending a class to receive instruction. While taking a class is a good idea, this tends to be self serving for people selling instruction classes (“you need training and that’s what I sell!”). Worse, receiving more instruction, even if you call it training, does not help.

If you’ve taken a good class, you already know about 70-80% of what every other good class offers. Once they’ve received good instruction (although, many gun owners, military, and law enforcement personnel have not…) shooters are better served working on skill on their own. If they can’t/won’t do that, taking another class or watching/reading another bit of instruction provides no help.

 I have friends and family asking me to put together workout routines for them. It usually goes something like this:

“Hey Chris, I’d like to have a good workout routine and was hoping you could design a two-a-day, six-day-a-week hardcore program.”

Are you working out at all now?

“No, I’ve been pretty busy.”

OK, I’ll make you a deal. If you can workout 30-minutes a day, 3-days a week for one month, I’ll design you a custom program. To this day I have not designed a single workout program for any of those people.


Gun Fighting is a Skill That Requires More Training, Not More Information
https://www.itstactical.com/intellicom/mindset/gun-fighting-is-a-skill-that-requires-more-training-not-more-information/

Competition vs. Tactical Shooting

Leave a comment

If you Google competition vs tactical shooting, the top result lists 5 differences between the two.  Let’s just say that there’s a reason I’m not linking to it.  I’m hoping no one ever reads that kind of crap.

Listen, I’m not here to rag on another brother in blue, but it’s patently clear from reading the article that he doesn’t have a clue, and probably has never participated in a shooting competition.  The article does do a great job of summing up the nonsense that some “tactical trainers” claim are the downfalls of competition.

COMPETITION VS TACTICAL SHOOTING: ASKING THE WRONG QUESTIONS
https://sofrep.com/gear/competition-vs-tactical-shooting-asking-the-wrong-questions/

Matt Little (Greybeard Actual) on Performance-Based Shooting

Leave a comment

Matt Little (Greybeard Actual) is a former member of 20th Special Forces Group, retired Chicago Police Department SWAT leader, and high-level competition shooter.

OSD: Read this now!

Leave a comment

Great series of essays worth your immediate attention.

https://opensourcedefense.org/blog/

Competition Shooting in Special Operations

Leave a comment

SGM (ret.) Patrick McNamara (1st SFG, SFOD-D) interviewed by LCDR (ret.) John “Jocko” Willink (SEAL Team 3) about shooting experience within special operations forces. While serving as his Unit’s Marksmanship NCO, SGM McNamara developed his own marksmanship club with NRA, CMP, and USPSA affiliations, running monthly IPSC matches and semi-annual military marksmanship championships to encourage marksmanship fundamentals and competitiveness throughout the Army. This is common throughout military special operations. All Army is an annual Service Conditions match held by the Army Marksmanship Unit at Fort Benning, similar to Service Conditions matches held throughout all NATO and Commonwealth militaries.

https://armyreservemarksman.info/tung-nguyen-memorial-match/


3D SFG(A) Soldiers report that “Most members of SOF (Special Operations Forces) use competitive shooting as a training tool. Our gear looks like that used in 3-Gun because that sort of practical competition is how we set up equipment.”

Common Core Math

Leave a comment

Many people have strong opinions about what is commonly known as Common Core Math. As with most things, the general, popular opinion of laypersons is usually wrong.

This has a number of parallels to small arms instruction. Personnel with minimal experience (which describes most military and law enforcement) assume their limited exposure is The Way and anything that deviates from that must be wrong because they’ve never bothered to consider it.

It’s also similar to anti-gun arguments. Non-shooters with little-to-no formal firearm education that know little-to-nothing about guns and unwilling to study the matter beyond looking at memes are only too happy to spew their opinions about it and demand their way into public policy. Similarly, non-mathematicians with little-to-no formal math education that know little-to-nothing about what the common core approach is intended to teach and unwilling to study the matter beyond looking at memes are only too happy to spew their opinions about it and demand their way into public policy.

As a non-mathematician, my initial, layperson, knee-jerk reaction was similar to the common, negative response: “What is this? That’s not how I learned it!” Then, I took the path less traveled. Within minutes, I was able to Google up writings and videos from the mathematicians that created it (including the video by Dr. Jo Boaler below) and quickly reversed my opinion. Part of the approach is learning how to learn. I quickly found similarities with this teaching approach to what is needed to understand theories in computer science. A few examples:

https://www.ece.ucsb.edu/~parhami/pubs_folder/parh02-arith-encycl-infosys.pdf

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/lambda-calculus/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda_calculus

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relational_algebra

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_O_notation

For a given program’s computation, a programmer may not need math knowledge beyond simple arithmetic, however, that doesn’t teach the theory behind how a computer works. Understanding the how and why behind the scenes requires a level of knowledge beyond working a simple algorithm.

Doing math “like they used to teach it” is mechanically working a single, basic algorithm without true understanding. Some people can successfully intuit a number sense without being deliberately taught it but many do not. Showing how to solve the same problem in different ways, demonstrating “backwards and forwards, inside and out” requires a full command of the knowledge. It’s not about which way is faster (use a calculator, or a spreadsheet program, or MATLAB if you just want to compute the answer fast), it’s about developing a deeper understanding.

Consider these explanations of the rationale of this education approach by some of the mathematicians that created it. This will take longer and require more deep thinking than blindly sharing and/or liking idiotic memes on social media. Perhaps that’s the cause of the real problem.

You’re wrong about Common Core math: Sorry, parents, but it makes more sense than you think

8 Common Core Math Standards, Explained



From Michael Goldenberg The mistake here is pretending that there is any such animal as “Common Core Math.” There is not. There is a set of content standards; there is a set of standards of practice for both students and teachers (which is very similar to the Process Standards from NCTM going back more than a decade).  And then there are a bunch of curricular packages (mostly textbook series for various grade bands, but also some online material, most notably (and horridly) ENGAGE-NY, which has been forced on all public schools in NY State and Louisiana). Those materials are not “the Common Core” but merely various implementations that CLAIM to be aligned to the standards. Period. So anyone who uses the term “Common Core Math” other than to refer to the standards is in error. And that goes for Dr. Boaler, much as I respect her and her work. It’s just silly and misleading and dangerous to pretend that there is some monolithic entity that is isomorphic to COMMON CORE MATH. There isn’t. And likely won’t be. 

Those who know the history of math education in the US know about “The” New Math, c. late 1950s into the early 1970s. But again, no such animal ever existed. There were a bunch of separate projects funded by the federal government to design new approaches to math. Some produced textbooks, but few of those got published and distributed past the pilot schools/district with which each individual project worked. One series, however, did get widely published and used: the Dolciani series. Some people, including people who generally hate what NCTM was pushing in the ’90s and henceforth and also hate “Common Core Math” to the extent that it is similar to those ’90s reform math texts, really LOVE Dolciani. Others despise it. I have mixed feeling about the series. It is VERY formalistic, much more like college math books than anything that appeared in the US prior to the ’60s for K-12.

As someone who now knows a lot of math, they’re okay. But as a kid, I probably would have found them dry and off-putting. And my dad, who had to try to help my younger brothers with homework out of those books, was at a loss, despite having studied math through calculus in school. It was too far from his own experience.  What we see now is people who are reacting against Common Core math books similarly to how my father reacted in the ’60s to Dolciani, but he didn’t blame everything on Obama. He didn’t blame it on Eisenhower or JFK, either. He just knew that he was out of his depth.  

Note, I’m NOT claiming that all the materials being hawked by publishers as “Common Core Math” are any good. Maybe NONE of them are. But that’s not really the issue. Most of what people are screaming about and finding a host of conspiracies behind (see all the crazy videos and many of the nastier comments against Common Core) is just ideas about teaching math better that have been around for decades.

The math isn’t new, and neither, really, is most of the pedagogy. Most of it makes perfect sense if done intelligently, but of course is confusing if it’s presented badly (seriously, folks: what ISN’T confusing in math if presented badly?) or if you’ve never seen it before and are so angry that you won’t even stop to think about how it might be sensible either because you’re embarrassed to say to your child that you simply don’t get it.

Bottom line: calm the fudge down, folks. When the smoke clears and the Common Core is gone, most professionals in math education will still want your kids to learn how to approach math more deeply and thoughtfully than you were presented with. That’s the nature of people who actually care about more than a small elite learning math. I’m one of them. Jo Boaler is one of them. There are thousands of us out there. We’re (mostly) pretty smart folks who spend our lives studying math, kids, learning, and teaching.

You may certainly disagree with anything or everything we think and say, but that doesn’t make it communism or corporate capitalism, either. You can fight it, but you’re not really helping your kids when you do so blindly and with great prejudice, when you swallow every horror story your read and hear, when you react out of fear and ignorance (and tell yourself it’s really out of deep knowledge of mathematics and its teaching, when few Americans really know mathematics deeply or are at all familiar with research on teaching and learning the subject at various levels), and kick and scream that you know more about all this than any college professor or K-12 teacher (you might be right to some extent about any given teacher, of course).

I wait patiently for parents who take the time to actually think rather than just react emotionally. Those who do the former often find that there’s a good deal to like out there, no matter what label is put on it, and the anti-Communist lunatics who post videos here are for the most part out of their minds. But of course, if you need to believe that progressive math (before or after the Common Core label got placed on it) is really about “dumbing down” kids, be my guest. Your loss, and, sadly, your kids’ loss. 

From Rufus Driscoll
It looks weird because you’re seeing it from the other side of the wall. I used to think it looked stupid and over the top until I became a Maths tutor.

When teaching a child maths before they truly understand what numbers are and how they relate to each other, telling them to simply put numbers on top of each other and follow the steps to make a new number gives them very little understanding. Some kids will see the relations without all the added breakdowns but you’d be surprised at how many will simply chug along doing the usual steps and never really get the process of what they’re doing.

The issue with this is that once you forget just one of the steps involved in getting from a to b, you will be completely unable to solve the problem. If someone is taught to understand how numbers form and work together, it doesn’t matter if they forget the one way they were taught to solve a particular problem; they will be able to reach the correct solution even if it does take longer than using the perfected method.

From Violet Crawley
The gag is, all the countries who score at the top of the PISA actually do teach their kids the “number sense” way. It works.

The problem is that American teachers are woefully underqualified, so they confuse the kids because they themselves aren’t good at math.

The Accuracy and Reliability of the Sako Finnlight

Leave a comment

by Jay Chambers

The Sako Finnlight is a surprisingly light, high-performance rifle for hunters who make long treks into the wilderness for their game. It’s perfectly trimmed and ideal for young people or those of smaller stature, too.

Sako is well-known and respected for their classic Model 85. The Finnlight is a pared-down version featuring a synthetic stock, fluted barrel, and stainless steel construction. It’s lightweight and extremely durable.

Operation

Integrated rails atop the receiver allow for scope mounting and the polished bolt body means you get smooth operation when lining up a shot. The bolt handle is 2.5 inches with a teardrop-shaped knob that’s easy to grip and features a finish and action to match the barrel.

When the action is cocked, you know it by a red dot indicator on the base of the bolt shroud. It’s an elegant and easy-to-use rifle that doesn’t compromise performance.

Reliability

The proprietary Controlled Round design gives the cartridge rim direct engagement as it’s taken from the top of the magazine. It’s fed at a precise angle allowing for more control, which improves reliability over other rifle designs.

You can’t underestimate the role that comfort plays in reliability, either. Because of its lightweight but durable design, handling is superb. When it comes to an accurate shot, you can count on its ease of use.

Design

Despite its synthetic construction, this rifle has sporty lines and an accented cheekpiece. It doesn’t look cheap like some synthetic stocks do. The black finish makes it look sleek while keeping it practical.

It’s molded from two plastic pieces, so the butt feels hollow, but the sidewalls are thick, so you won’t experience twisting of the free-floating barrel.

The pistol grip features rubber grip panels with small rings that deviate from the usual checkered pattern, making it look like a modern, premium rifle rather than something we’ve seen time and again. They still enable a good grip even with wet or muddy hands.

The large recoil pad cushions the blow of the .270 cartridge.

Barrel

The primary attraction of the Finnlight is its practicality. The 22-inch barrel is perfect for a variety of uses. It’s not too big, and it’s not too small. Goldilocks would be in love.

It’s easy to control, for extreme accuracy. It’s threaded, too, so you can fit a moderator without it getting too cumbersome.

This sporty, gently tapering design is .637 inches at the muzzle and fluted for most of its length. It has a distinctive look not shared with its competitors. This helps to save weight for greater versatility and control over your accuracy.

Scope mounts feature the Opti-Lok system finished to match the rest of the rifle.

When recoil occurs, bases work to grip the action tighter to secure the system from hitting hard.

Trigger

Most Sako rifles feature a standard single-stage trigger with a 3-pound weight. It’s adjustable from 2 to 4 pounds with an allen key at the back of the magazine well.

The trigger blade is slim with grooves to improve grip. The magazine well and the trigger guard are made from two pieces of aluminum and fitted together to match the rest of the rifle.

With a horizontally sliding safety lever, you can easily move it forward to firing or backward to safe. The safety setting locks both the bolt and the trigger.

Enacting a small plunger in front of the safety lever allows for removing the cartridge while keeping the trigger locked.

The magazine release mechanism is called the “Total Control Latch.” It’s designed to prevent an accidental release, which is incredibly useful on a hunting rifle.

Performance

The .270 cartridge is capable of a lot of velocity, and is highly accurate at 100 yards or less. It’s perfect for deer and other big game hunting. However, it’s versatile enough for lightweight shooting, too.

This high-performance rifle warms up after as little as 10 rounds, so it’s ready to go at a moment’s notice and you won’t have any problems with shifting due to heat.

Thread your Finnlight for a moderator and accommodated .22-250 cartridges and transition easily from big game to an exceptional fox rifle.

Overall

The practicality of its design and performance makes it unmatched in terms of accuracy and reliability. It’s not often you find a manufacturer able to marry an attractive design with durability and a lightweight frame while still achieving these goals.

The Sako Finnlight is a perfect combination of everything you need in a hunting rifle. Men, women, young people, beginners, and experienced shooters will all find something appealing about it.

It has excellent out-of-the-box accuracy with a rugged, no-nonsense style. It’s versatility is also an excellent feature. It handles well with soft recoil. It’s the perfect light rifle with a heavy caliber.

Older Entries Newer Entries

%d bloggers like this: