Bulletless Rifle Practice Improves Aim (Apr, 1940)
Filed under: Impractical, War — @ 10:43 am
Source: Popular Science ( More articles from this issue )
Issue: Apr, 1940
| Buy on Ebay
Source: Popular Science ( More articles from this issue )
Issue: Apr, 1940
| Buy on Ebay
Bulletless Rifle Practice Improves Aim
No bullets or powder are needed for an odd type of rifle practice demonstrated by British soldiers in the photograph above. A sergeant, seen at the right, holds a tiny target in front of one eye, and looks through a peep hole in the center to check the soldier’s aim by seeing that his gun sights line up with the bull’s-eye.
This would never work in the US where soldiers are taught never to point weapons at superiors unless they intend to blow their heads off.
Comment by Stannous — February 22, 2007 @ 7:03 am
Considering how many accidental/negligent discharges we see with firearms that were absolutely, positively, 100%, “yes-of-course-I’m-bloody-sure” unloaded, I think this could come under the heading of “Worst Idea Ever”.
Regards & all
Thomas L. Nielsen
Denmark
Comment by Thomas L. Nielsen — September 12, 2007 @ 3:28 am
Acctually a similar concept is being used by troops today to set the sights…
Comment by Rikard Nilsson — December 14, 2007 @ 1:29 pm
When I was going through basic training, we used something similar. We would put our rifles in a vice on the floor, and aiming down the sights, we would have our buddy on the other end of the room move a protractor-like device on a piece of paper until it lined up with our sights. They would mark it, we’d get up, stretch, and repeat several times. We did it not to practice aiming properly, but to make sure we’re aiming consistently.
Comment by Nic — January 14, 2008 @ 10:11 am
That’s one brave Sgt.! I hope that’s a dummy rifle.
Why not have the action open for safety (looks closed from the photo).
If this is the preferred way to practice aiming, wouldn’t it make good sense to have the bolt pulled out? If I was the one holding up the target, I’d make that the first requirement!
Comment by Ted — May 22, 2009 @ 11:47 am