Yes, of course. Forgive me. How silly of me.
RS*: During the prototype stages, there were indeed left and right-hand eject models. it was rejected for cost reasons, the MoD stating that left shoulder shooters could be trained perfectly adequately to shoot right shoulder, thereby totally ignoring the firing round right cover issue…
32B: no need to be facetious, and yes it can be difficult (indeed impossible for people with extremely strong right eye dominance), but it can be done – every single left-hander currently in the army has had to do it, for instance, and whilst they will never be really good shots from their right shoulder, they will be perfectly competent. A lot of it can be psychological – it is not immediately easy, therefore it’s too hard, don’t want to do it. It certainly requires an awful lot more concentration shooting weak shoulder, especially as you don’t have the level of muscle memory. We used to train right-handed but left eye dominant target shooters to shoot left shoulder, as well, without worries. it is also a useful training technique for moderately experienced shooters to make them shoot left shoulder occasionally to force them to think about the four marksmanship principles which have become second nature yet sloppy in their right shoulder shooting.
I will hopefully shortly start designing stages for practical rifle competitions over here, and I will be putting forced left shoulder shots with relatively high frequency into the design ( compared to now, when they occur almost never) ; the two or three shooters with AUGs can just suck it up or develop a technique to deal with it.
I always wondered how one spells facetious, all that I need to discover now, is its meaning.
I sometimes come over rather odd, when being lectured on sucking eggs.
If it isn’t immediately easy, then it requires much time and practise. Most units are unable to devote such time, and most soldiers will always revert to what is natural to them in all circumstances.
It’d be interesting to see a proper analysis of the relative costs in training and benefits in action of saving a few bucks. This is reminiscent of the many idiotic ideas routinely imposed on the world of reality by accountants. The cheap M16 round which killed a lot of Americans using it in Vietnam being one.
I think it’s better and cheaper in training to build on natural skills, especially in an age when most people don’t have the familiarity with firearms that even my immediate post-war generation did, than to try to overcome a lifetime of habit for the sake of conforming to a weapon that’s been built to a price.
Still, everyone had to do it in WWII so far as bolt action weapons went. And probably not very efficiently when reaching over the top of the breech to work the bolt.
It would make more sense to try to develop a weapon which could be used equally well by either hand, to reduce training time and ensure equal efficiency by people with either hand dominant.
If we start with a bottom eject which suits both hands, then the only problem is where to place the magazine so that it doesn’t affect either hand or sighting by either eye.
This means that the magazine has to be under or beside the breech area. Under the breech means that the slide has to have a longer travel to eject behind the mag or to eject forward of the mag with a higher risk of jams in an awkward forward eject with a live round following it, unless someone can work out a double action on one gas charge.
On the other hand, it shouldn’t be hard to design a side fat mag with offset rounds that give a 10 to 15 round capacity without interfering with the shooter’s crooked arm on one side and the other arm below the forestock, regardless of which side the mag is on.
A side mag has one great advantage over the larger bottom mag: it allows the user to get right down on the ground. Some Australian troops in Vietnam were fond of the L2 30 round mag on the standard infantry L1 SLR, but it lost its attraction over the standard shorter mag when hugging the ground became omportant because the weapon could be fired with aimed shots only by raising the firer’s head higher than those with the standard mag.
Offset magazines present a balance issue.
Really, the conventional layout is best, although if you really want a bull pup for some unfathomable reason, the FN F2000 ejects forward out of a tube so is at least ambidextrous. Downward ejection with a bottom mounted magazine is a no-go for mechanical reasons.
At least the left-handed World War II soldier armed with a bolt action could fire his weapon at all from the left shoulder…
I thought of that, but it shouldn’t be impossible to build in a counterweight.
From an engineering and cost viewpoint this isn’t a desirable solution, but Mitsubishi did it with their big 4 cylinder car motors with ‘balance shafts’ that they made into a selling point, and no doubt similar things have been done elsewhere. However, it’s a solution to a problem that shouldn’t exist because the item is being made to do more than it should rather than properly designing something else to do it in the first place.
Really, the conventional layout is best, although if you really want a bull pup for some unfathomable reason, the FN F2000 ejects forward out of a tube so is at least ambidextrous. Downward ejection with a bottom mounted magazine is a no-go for mechanical reasons.
Agreed.
I’m beginning to think that I’ve run myself up a gum tree here, through visualising rather than doing ambidextrous firing.
Normal firing position for right hander is left hand on forestock with left forearm below barrel plane and right hand on stock / pistol grip trigger area, with forearm horizontal with or dropping away from plane of barrel.
Reverse it for left hander and right hand is on forestock with right forearm below barrel plane.
As long as ejected rounds and gases are forward of user’s face, it doesn’t matter which side they eject.
Or do I need to get out on a range to show where I’ve got this wrong in my mind?
I thought of that, but it shouldn’t be impossible to build in a counterweight.
On reflection, I’m wrong.
As each round is ejected, the side weight changes and requires a slight adjustment in the third axis for the firer, which isn’t a problem for the conventional top or bottom load weapon.
Personally I’ve never really had a problem with the L85/SA80 (other than the ridiculously poor build quality/reliability of the A1), but then I joined up too late to ever use the SLR outside of fun shoots.
Not being able to fire from the left hand side of cover is a major problem, but the safety catch/change lever positionings and the reaching over to cock never really bothered me - again maybe because they’ve been the only rifle drills that I’ve known rather than the older generation remembering the comparative simplicity of the SLR.
Actually it’s purely down to trg & a decent coach, even very strongly dominan-eyed rfn can be taught to shoot reasonably well from their weak shoulder. Not as good as their strong side no doubt, but well enough to get rds on tgt while remaining in cover.
Off the top of my head I can think of at least two Bns of line Inf that would fire their APWT for qualifying, then everyone would take the same course of fire with the opposite shoulder.
It is a very useful skill that has been relegated to the dim & distant past by some persistent and perverse MoD fetish for wpns that can only be fired ‘naturally’ by 70-75% of sldrs.
That may be so. But it would require some inspired confidence to move under fire with the chap supporting you shooting from his weaker shoulder, if, indeed, he was able to.
Can’t shoot from both shoulders?
Don’t like exposing yourself to fire when you can’t aim your weapon properly from the wrong shoulder?
Blokes in your section not willing to advance when you’re backing them up from your weak shoulder?
Sick of being called a uni-dextrous wuss?
We have the solution to your problem!
The Corner Shot Gun!
But you were the one that sort this out! 
I could be silly and ask - if it was so easy to train a soldier to shoot from the opposite shoulder, why bother to spend money researching and developing this weapon? However, companies will carry out research on new weapons in the hope of finding a market, in much the same way as professional soldiers will seek to find a solution to a problem by experimenting, exploring and developing technique.
However, I am determined to be less of an arse-hole and become more of a listener, eat my poridge, and behave myself.
Therfore, as I’m being-have, I would suggest a compromise - my reasoning is that it is a waste of time attempting to train a soldier to shoot from the opposite shoulder. I base this opinion on my personal experience of attempting the same with my shooting and other soldiers’ shooting. However, the consenus of opinion, here, is that I am wrong. My opinion is based on experience with the S.L.R., it may be the SA80 has a different ergonomic fit that lends itself to shooting it from the other shoulder. I can’t argue against this, as I have absolutely no experience of it. However, as far as the S.L.R. is concerned - I stick to my guns - Nullius in Verba!
Not in my experience, F&M has never been something I or my blokes made deep philosophical decisions over. Yes one tries to see the next few pcs of cover, but other than that it’s a drill.
The SLR, (and other conventionally configured rifles,) is also the basis of my experience. I don’t know if you were Inf, but if so perhaps you didn’t have the good fortune to be exposed to a number of skilled Musketry Instrs and coaches.
Personally I’ve not experienced any great problem with trg european troops to switch shoulders.
Reference the SA80/L85, if one were to fire it from the left shoulder the reciprocating bolt handle will nicely remove several teeth with the first shot, and should there be a second and sunsequent shots, they will remove the rest fom the left side of the firer’s mouth and throw in a fractured jaw for good measure. 
In short, from the enemy’s perspective British sldrs will always appear to the left of any cover they shelter behind…
Watch & shoot, watch & shoot…
Cuts,
what can I say? If anything, this thread demonstrates the professionalism of the modern British soldier, his doggedness, and his refusal to give ground.
I never attended the Small Arms Instructors Course at Hythe, so much of what you and others profess is new to me.
“Watch and shoot!..Watch and shoot!” is that a command you coaches learned there, and is it used in the same context as ‘Look out!..Look out!’?
Indeed, British soldiers have been appearing to the left of cover (from the enemy’s perspective) for a long time, and, no doubt, they will probably continue to do so for a very long time. This will continue, probably, for as long as British soldiers are present on a battlefield. However, no British soldier, worth his salt, that I ever new, would be foolish enough to expose himself in the manner that you suggest. Any that might have, would soon learn the lesson.
The battlefield is four-dimensional arena and most British soldiers that I have known have been well equipped by training and experience to operate effectively in that arena, even if they do pop-up to the left of cover.
I have experimented with shooting from the opposite shoulder. It didn’t work for me, and it didn’t work for those around me. When in a fire-fight it’s about keeping it simple. Yes, we carry out repetetive drills, we are disciplined and we know how to react to most given situations. How do we do this? By acknowledging that when the adrenalin is coursing through our system we act and react instinctively to the way we have been trained and how we have adapted that training to suit our personal and group needs - swapping shoulders does not come natural, and no matter what moderate results may be achieved on a firing range, in the nano-speed of a ‘contact’ one is not going to choose to do that, even if one is ambidextrus.
So, to sum up … I remain sceptical.
Nullius in Verba
aye
32B.
I dunno, I post a link to a 7.62, ambidextrous bullpup (it even uses FAL mags) and not a sausage. I expected at the very least to have Stoaty pop up and say “Ugh, a bullpup - therefore crap”, but nothing.:roll:
In case anyone is interested heres a PDF brochure:http://www.kel-tec-cnc.com/images/downloads/RFB_Flyer_SHOT_2007_web.pdf
and a video:http://www.kel-tec-cnc.com/videos/rfbteaser.wmv
Apart from the apparently prodigious kick it looks like an interesting rifle particularly if it were available in a proper intermediate calibre.
There’s a world of difference between unaimed fire in the (hopefully) general direction of the enemy, as in the memorable film of the American soldier holding his unsighted weapon above a wall at Hue and pointlessly blowing a magazine who knows where, and well aimed fire to support movement.
So far as musketry, as distinct from courage, is concerned, well aimed fire to support movement requires no more than basic but well-practised field craft and basic but well-practised marksmanship.
So far as weak shoulder / eye shooting is concerned, my very limited experience is that I’ve played occasionally with alternate eye and shoulder shooting with low to medium (.22 to .243 ?.270 - can’t remember) civilian rifles and it worked about as well as crossing my feet from clutch to accelerator, with about the same risk to life around me!
I accept the posts by obviously experienced military members, with recent and current military experience, who say weak shoulder shooting can be taught. Good army instructors in any nation are expert at achieving the impossible with the unteachable. What wasn’t possible in an earlier age of instruction is possible in a later one.
Be that as it may, I suspect that unless it’s practised almost daily to the point that it becomes almost reflex on either shoulder, weak shoulder shooting is not going to be much use in action, because under pressure most people revert to their natural practice or dominant shoulder / eye. No natural right hand puncher switches to a southpaw in a desperate street brawl when all his strength, and history of use, is in his right hand.
I think it’s better to build on strengths rather than invest a lot of time making weaknesses less weak. It wouldn’t cost much more to issue left and right handed weapons. The extra cost of the weapon would probably be recovered in reduced training time. The field value would be in 100% of troops being 100% efficient in using their longarms, instead of a lot struggling with wrong-handed weapons.
In the end, what does it matter if the firer comes out of left cover? The enemy is probably doing the same, unless it has an ethnic genetic disposition to a huge proportion of left handers. In which case they’ll come out of right cover, as anticipated by their enemy.
If there are left and right handed weapons, just allocate them proportionately to each section so they can fire accordingly. It‘d be more effective than trying to make everyone conform to right handed weapons.
I’ve never used military optical sights so I don’t know what they’re like. I never liked the SLR sights, probably because I learned to shoot from about age seven on standard ramp V rear / blade front sights, with an ancient .22 single shot where every shot had to count, although it took a long time before they did. I could get a target aligned a lot quicker with them than I could trying to align the SLR sights, and (embarrassing though it is to admit it among the august company on this site) it showed on my average military target shoots versus consistently shooting sitting and running rabbits and sundry other small and large stationary and moving animals (foxes, pigs, goats (32Bravo - not Welsh goats!) kangaroos, emus) over normal V sights during the same period, along with the very occasional bird on the wing with shotguns. I have to say that I was embarrassed that my military marksmanship, although it was adequate, could never equate to my civilian field shooting. I would have been a much better military shooter if I had had the option of V sights.
The point is that as Australian soldiers in the field in Vietnam in the same period that I was being trained and marked could use M 16’s and sundry other non-issue weapons upon which they were not trained, let alone qualified, why couldn’t I use an SLR with V sights that would have made me more dangerous to the enemy? And built on my natural strengths? Because they weren’t issued!
It all goes back to the standardisation demand, or debate, which includes left and right handed weapons. Which goes back to (a) dollars and (b) every soldier being exactly the same as every other one.
But if it’s such a good idea that every soldier is exactly the same as every other one, why is it that units like the SAS allow their soldiers to pick, and modify, their personal weapons? If choice makes elite soldiers better, why does the denial of choice make all the other soldiers better? If denial of choice is such a great idea for 99% of the army, surely it’s just as good an idea for the other 1%?
Speaking of instinct: In Aden, a friend of mine found himself, suddenly, confonted by a member of the opposition, some two or three yards in front of him. They were both surprised and reacted with reflex action. It was a surprise to them both. This enemy was armed with a L.E. .303 and had been British Army trained. Both had one up the spout. The enemy raised his rifle to the shoulder to take an aimed shot - he being well trained. The friend of mine shot from the hip and finished him.
I’m pretty sure I could bash a head in with my ol’ M-16A1/A2 plastic stock…
Aaah, a man of finesse - we prefer to budgeon!
I suppose it boils down to one’s confidence in one’s weapon?
I prefer to begin by double-tapping, keeping an eye on the tracer until it is indicated that I’m on target. Then I adjust the regulator to produce standard bursts, continuing until the final assault when I switch to rapid fire. That done, I move my firing position and engage the next target. 