Sniper takes out ISIS executioner from a mile away

A sharpshooter killed a top ISIS executioner and three other jihadists with a single bullet from nearly a mile away — just seconds before the fiend was set to burn 12 hostages alive with a flamethrower, according to a new report.
The British Special Air Service marksman turned one of the most hated terrorists in Syria into a fireball by using a Barett .50-caliber rifle to strike a fuel tank affixed to the jihadi’s back, the UK’s Daily Star reported Sunday.
The pack exploded, killing the sadistic terrorist and three of his flunkies, who were supposed to film the execution, last month, the paper said.
The ISIS butcher — who reportedly delighted in burning hostages alive — had been on a US “kill list” for several months, sources told the paper, which did not identify the sniper or the executioner.
He and his band of wicked men had been traveling around ISIS-held compounds in Syria slaughtering civilians labeled as spies.
Their prisoners were tied to stakes or thrown in cages before being torched by the executioner, according to the report.
ISIS started using flamethrowers after the torture method was popularized in North Korea.
The ISIS killer was so feared that his victims would beg to be shot rather than be set on fire.
Just before the sniper rescue operation outside of Raqqa, Syria, “the SAS team moved into an overwatch position above a village where they were told the execution was going to take place,” a source told the Star.
“Up to 12 civilians were going to be murdered — eight men and four women.
“The executioner gave some sort of rambling speech . . . then when he finished, the SAS sniper opened fire,” the source said.
The captives were then rescued by British and US special forces.
The rescue comes just months after another SAS sniper killed two ISIS car bombers as they drove toward Libya. The sniper’s bullet went through the driver’s skull and into the passenger’s neck, taking both out.

Obama helps BLM Steal Land

Land made for you and me

The controversies that go with creating new national monuments

From the print edition | United States

Sep 8th 2016, 15:47

More

IN GENERAL, any law that presidents mostly use in their second terms has unusual power to cause rows. Take the American Antiquities Act of 1906, giving presidents the right to protect landmarks and landscapes by declaring them national monuments—in the process bypassing Congress, which must approve new national parks and formal “wilderness” reserves. Safely past his last election, Barack Obama has been using the act with a will in recent weeks, creating a new national monument in the woods of Maine and more than quadrupling the size of a marine monument north-west of Hawaii, itself declared by George W. Bush during his second term. In all, Mr Obama has created more than two dozen national monuments, protecting more square miles of land and sea than any predecessor.

If these actions delight some, they alarm others—notably folk who run cattle, mine, log or otherwise exploit nature’s bounty in picturesque bits of America. One such place is the Owyhee basin of eastern Oregon, a remote landscape of wild rivers and vertiginous cliffs, and high desert edged with red and pink rocks. Before Mr Obama steps down, environmentalists, outdoor-leisure companies (including Keen, an Oregon-based shoe-maker) and some Democratic politicians want him to create an Owyhee Canyonlands National Monument covering as much as 2.5m acres.

Lots of monument-backers say that their main concern is possible oil and mineral extraction on what are today federally owned rangelands overseen by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), not grazing cattle. But ranchers are deeply wary. Bob Skinner, whose family reached the Owyhee basin in 1863, is so alarmed that, one morning earlier this summer, he took Lexington up in his own light aircraft on an endearingly transparent mission: to badmouth a landscape that, deep down, he clearly loves. That’s lava from an eruption 600 years ago, Mr Skinner shouts over the Cessna’s engine, pointing to an otherworldly expanse of crusted black rock. Terrible, razor-sharp lava, he scowls: “Will cripple a dog in ten minutes.” A deep canyon is “pretty”, he concedes. But as he putters 100 feet above flat, sagebrush-scented steppes that lie beyond it, he demands: “Once you’ve seen one mile of it, what’s more of it?” He is echoed by Larry Wilson, an elected commissioner for the surrounding region, Malheur County, also along for the ride. Temperatures can exceed 100 degrees down there, says Mr Wilson: “This isn’t the kind of stuff that draws tourists.” Should any hikers try their luck, Mr Wilson adds doomily, the county has a tiny search-and-rescue budget. As the steppes roll on below, the men point out dirt roads that they fear might be barred to motor vehicles in a national monument, or creek-crossings that might be closed, forcing ranchers on 60-mile detours. Perhaps most of all, ranchers fear that a monument will open the door to endless lawsuits by environmental groups.

The West has long seen arguments over land. Mr Skinner’s grandfather, as a boy, was posted to watch for free-roaming sheep that could strip pastures bare, until a 1934 act regulated grazing. The 1970s and 1980s saw “sagebrush rebels” chafing against the federal government, which owns half of all land west of the Rockies. The Skinner Ranch lies a short drive (by Oregon standards) from the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, a remote spot occupied by armed anti-government militants early this year to protest against the jailing of two local ranchers for setting fires that spread to government property, and to challenge the feds’ legal right to own land at all—an occupation which ended with a protester’s death in a stand-off with FBI agents. Some Republicans, including Congressman Rob Bishop and Senator Mike Lee of Utah and Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, want federal lands transferred wholesale to the states. There are eco-absolutists, too, who call ranchers crony capitalists, exploiting too-cheap BLM grazing permits: some would ban cattle outright from public lands.

Still, on the ground, compromise does not sound impossible. Mr Skinner sympathises with his ranching neighbours jailed for arson; but he has no truck with anti-government radicals, and thinks that the BLM has every right to exist. Nor does he think local control a panacea. Though rural Oregon is conservative, political power resides where most people live, in such left-leaning cities as Portland. If Democrat-run Oregon took over land management from the feds, Mr Skinner thinks ranchers’ problems would be “multiplied tenfold”. He also suggests that, if federal officials called for a smaller reserve, perhaps covering 48,000 acres, many locals would be willing to talk.

A young neighbour, Elias Eiguren, says militants hurt the ranchers’ peaceful, law-abiding cause. Most came from out of state, he sighs: “Those people look like us, but aren’t us.” The local congressman, Greg Walden, walks a fine line. He has joined fellow-Republicans in seeking to bar new national-monument designations, but has not endorsed sweeping transfers of federal land to the states. Mr Walden says the right way to protect precious places is with legislation passed by Congress, to ensure individual rights are protected from bullying, far-off majorities. Alas, a polarised Congress has passed hardly any public-lands bills in recent years.

The rural-urban canyon

Malheur County (population, 30,000) held a referendum in March, with 90% of votes cast opposing a national monument. Mr Wilson thinks his county’s wishes should weigh “very heavily”. Local voices must be “respected”, agrees Neil Kornze, director of the BLM. But public lands are owned by all Americans: 60m visit them to hike, camp or river-raft there each year. Decades ago, Mr Kornze notes, his bureau’s badge showed five working men: a surveyor, a miner, a cowboy, a logger and an oilman. Now, reflecting public priorities, it shows a pretty mountain and a river. Managing that change will require national, state and local leaders to find common ground: a seemingly monumental task.

Long Distance Shooting | Pushing 1255 Yards

Looking for long distance shooting tips?
Want to hone your skills for a future long distance shooting competition?
Read on…

Long Distance Shooting | Pushing 1255 Yards

Our friends at Gun Carrier have a weekly show called Everything Guns, hosted by competitive shooter Amy Jane. In the latest episode, Amy takes a trip to the desert to put her shooting skills to the test as her friend Kevin helps her shoot at 1255 yards with an average hunting rifle.
As Amy Jane herself could tell you, even an experienced shooter has room to improve. In this case, Amy tries to beat her personal best in distance shooting with the help of distance shooter Kevin, and the Applied Ballistics cell phone app.

Distance shooting requires precision that can only come from calculating elements such as wind speed, barometric pressure, etc. The Applied Ballistics app helps you calculate these factors quickly and accurately, and apply them to your shooting for optimal precision, distance and accuracy.

The app allows you to specify your gun, ammunition, target distance, barometic pressure, wind speed, sea level and more.

 Once all of your information has been entered, the app will give you a a trajectory table that will help you shoot with accuracy.

 

After using the app to calculate her ballistics, Amy tries her hand at shooting a target at 1255 yards.

In this video, you will also learn how to use a chronograph to measure feet per second, which is a key component in long distance shooting.

After a few frustrating setbacks, Amy finally hits her target — she’s successfully shot a hunting rifle 1255 yards!

Check out the full video below:

Like what  you see? Watch more episodes of Everything Guns with Amy Jane here, and be sure to check out Gun Carrier for more gun tips and news!

5 Steps for Better Rifle Marksmanship

A rifle should be considered an essential tool whether you are bugging out or bugging in.  Your rifle can be used not only for defense but also for food procurement.   You should consider your rifle to be a tool with a simple “point-and-click” interface.  Although firing a weapon is a relatively easy task, hitting the target isn’t always so easy.  After 20 years of military service training hundreds of young men and women to engage and shoot their targets, I began to recognize a short list of common mistakes that prevented soldiers from qualifying as Expert Marksmen.

Marksmanship Tips: Don’t Be Too Proud

It is essential to remember your main reason for taking marksmanship training which is to improve. Via army.mil

The first mistake is pride. It may not seem evident at first, but pride often is the biggest barrier for me to overcome as a trainer on the firing line.  I noticed over time that soldiers who had never fired a weapon were the easiest to train.  Young men and women from urban areas seemed to adapt quickly to instruction with women being the easiest of all to train.  Why?  The answer is quite simple: soldiers who had never fired before have little, if any preconceived notions about marksmanship.  They are “clean slates” and their skills can be built over time.  Young men and women who grew up with firearms were the most difficult to instruct because they brought with them bad habits they had developed over time.  These bad habits are hard to displace and even harder when the student is a young man because their pride often gets in the way of learning new skills.  I have seen many young men fail to even qualify on the range and when I ask them what they think went wrong they almost always say, “I don’t know, I usually shoot better than this.”  The truth is they always fire poorly but pride prevents them from learning new skills.  The best marksmen in the world will tell you that they never stop learning something new and are always seeking to improve.

Marksmanship Tips: Sight Picture

To maintain a good sight picture, train your body on proper cheek-to-stock weld. Via tommyclarke.com

The second mistake I often see involves sight picture. Basically, sight picture is the term used to describe the alignment of the front and rear sights.  Most trainees tend to change sight picture frequently.  This occurs because they place the weapon against their cheek in an ever changing way.  Where your cheek rests on the weapon when sighting in is called the cheek-to-stock weld.  Ensuring that the cheek is always in the same place is key to maintaining a good sight picture.  With the M-16/M-4 series of rifles I usually instruct the firer pull the rifle firmly into the pocket of the shoulder and to place the tip of the nose against the edge of the charging handle to ensure a consistent sight picture.  On weapons larger than 5.56mm, I usually have the trainee find the spot that is most comfortable for them on the stock and then we mark the place where the cheek bone rests on the stock with a piece of duck tape.  When the soldier places his or her cheek bone on the tape, he or she can be assured that they have the same sight picture every time.  This one simple step often results in a soldier that qualifies on the range.

Marksmanship Tips: Watch Your Breathing

Controlling your breath is critical in achieving accurate and consistent shots. Via globalsecurity.org

It seems simple because we have done it every day since we were born, but breathing is almost always a cause of missed shots. When we breathe in our chest expands, causing the rifle barrel to rise.  This causes the bullet to strike higher than we intended.  Conversely, when we exhale the barrel dips, often putting the round in the dirt.  The tell-tale sign this is occurring is often noticed down range when you collect your target.  If your shots are striking the target in an up-down pattern, then breathing is the culprit.  The simplest way to resolve this is by controlling your breathing.  There is a natural pause between when we exhale and before we take our next breath.  Practice breathing in and out until you notice this pause. Before they take a shot, I instruct the trainees to breathe in, breathe out, and then fire during this natural pause.  This often eliminates the up-down pattern observed down range on the target.  If you wait too long during that pause to fire, however, your muscles will begin to shake and your sight picture will not be consistent.  If this occurs just relax, take a deep breath, exhale and fire.

Marksmanship Tips: Trigger Squeeze

The fourth issue I often observe is trigger squeeze. Most people pull a trigger using the first joint of the index finger.  This is the most frequent bad habit brought to the range by people who have fired weapons before.  This habit is easy to spot and correct on the firing line, but is even more evident when you examine the target. A side-to-side pattern of bullet strikes on the target is the tell-tale sign of trigger squeeze issues.  This pattern occurs because the weapon is being pulled sideways off target by the pad of the finger tip.  You can practice this by holding a pencil vertically in your non-firing hand and pulling back toward you with the index finger of your firing hand.  You will notice that when you pull the pencil back using the joint of your index finger, the pencil is pulled sideways and backward instead of backward.  For a right handed firer, this means you are pulling the barrel off target and to the right. When pulling the trigger, you should use the pad on the tip of your index finger and pull straight back.  Practice this with your pencil and it should come straight back at you.

Bad trigger squeeze.

Good trigger squeeze.

Marksmanship Tips: Anticipating the Shot

Anticipating the shot is not as easy to observe as breathing and trigger squeeze. This tendency only becomes evident after the other bad habits have been eliminated and is characterized by a random pattern of bullet strikes on the target.  What generally happens in this instance is that the trainee anticipates the noise and recoil of the rifle just as he or she pulls the trigger.  When this happens they may close their eyes and cringe, losing their sight picture along with muscle control.   I will often instruct them to pull the tension out of the trigger before fully pulling the trigger back so that the rifle surprises them when it goes off.
By better understanding and applying the concepts of consistent sight picture, breathing and trigger squeeze, and techniques for eliminating pre-shot anticipation, anyone can become a good marksman.  By eliminating pride from the equation and recognizing that even the best marksmen strive for improvement, anyone can become an excellent marksman!

the basics of shooting

ATF Regulations That Could Wreak Havoc On Ammo Supply Delayed

Sep 1, 2016

7 733

The ATF is backing down from new regulations that had the potential to bottleneck ammunition production. These regulations would have reclassified nitrocellulose, a key component of smokeless powder, as an explosive. It seems like trying to quietly sneak regulations that will effect ammunition past the public is becoming a regular occurrence over at Obama’s ATF.
The NRA has more:

Earlier this summer, ATF released an Explosives Industry Newsletter that changed the agency’s treatment of nitrocellulose, the primary component in smokeless powders used in modern ammunition. This change had the potential to seriously disrupt ammunition supply in the United States because it changed a long-standing ATF policy that exempted properly “wetted” nitrocellulose from treatment as an explosive under federal law.
NRA and industry raised these concerns to ATF and any change in ATF’s treatment of nitrocellulose is now officially delayed. In an addendum to the earlier newsletter, ATF announced that it “will conduct further industry outreach concerning wetted Nitrocellulose. In the interim, previously authorized industry practices concerning wetted Nitrocellulose will not be affected.

This seems to have gone down in a similar fashion to the green tip ammo ban. The ATF floats new regulations, then the NRA raises hell and shuts them down. It also could be the case that the folks over at the ATF don’t know what they are doing and don’t realize the ramifications of their actions. Given the anti-gun history over at the ATF, it’s doubtful that these are unintentional consequences of well intended regulation.
Just because the ATF choose to delay these nitrocellulose regulations and the green tip ammo ban, doesn’t mean they won’t try to implement them in the future. You can check out the proposed regulations (or reinterpretations of existing law) here. Stay vigilant!

GOP Senators Protest State Dept. Attempt at Backdoor Gun Control

 Tom Cotton (AP)

 

• Twee

The senators, Tom Cotton and Chuck Grassley among them, are upset that the State Department's Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC) is trying to impose new fees and regulations on gun or ammunition related businesses in a back-handed manner that tries to bypass or at least limit the Second Amendment guarantee of the right to bear arms.
One such example is new guidelines from the DDTC that would make some gunsmiths register as firearms "manufacturers" on the grounds that they do work such as changing the sights on a pistol. This means that they would have to pay a fee of $2,250.
The National Rifle Association notes that this hefty fee tries to stymie legal behavior and also threatens to put small commercial gunsmiths out of business.

Latest News Update

The senators are especially upset because the DDTC is issuing these directives under the auspices of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), even though the Obama administration promised a reform that would remove firearms and ammunition from DDTC's purview and transfer it to the more business-friendly jurisdiction of the Commerce Department, Breitbart reported.
The purpose of the reform was to strengthen controls on the most sophisticated defense technologies, while reducing unnecessary regulations on less sensitive items, such as firearms and ammunition.

The letter from the senators demands a specific date by which the reform enabling the transfer of businesses dealing in firearms and ammunition to the Commerce Department would be completed and said that "the last thing [the affected small businesses] need is an edict from the federal government imposing crippling fees and requirements which are wholly unnecessary and nonsensical."