More down range photographer

[Fenway]

[video=youtube_share;PY8S4Woh4pQ]http://youtu.be/PY8S4Woh4pQ[/video]

 

[esrice]

Just saw this blowing up on ENDO.

Downrange Photographers Live To Die / Derp Another Day

I gotta say, as someone who's been there and participated in the depicted drill, I think the debate is over amplified. I used to come out against the practice, and while I still wouldn't personally take photos from where Jay does, I don't think it's a big deal. I think people get this idea that it some kind of hyped-up ninja drill where we're shooting apples off of people's heads. But really it's just a matter of happenstance as Jay walks the line and snaps pictures.

 

[bingley]

Seems like tripod + remote can do the job without any risk of personal injury. I'm sure there is a rig out there that allows you to remotely position the camera.

Anyway, I hope the pictures/videos he got are worth the risk. I haven't seen any range pictures whose artistic merit has moved me enough that I'd want to walk downrange to get a shot. Combat photographs can be deeply moving, but the small handful of range pictures I've seen lack the same emotional intensity.

But maybe I just haven't seen enough. Anyway with links to artistic downrange photography?

 

[Dead Duck]

I gotta say, as someone who's been on the wrong side of a hot barrel, I think this is NEVER a place for an innocent human being to intentionally stand.

I'm sure that during this hypocritical drill, they do get some great action shots but what are they really teaching their students and potential students.


T.R. Motto -
"Do as I say, Not as I do."

 

[esrice]

T.R. Motto -
"Do as I say, Not as I do."

They say "don't point guns at people", and we don't. They don't either. I don't see anything hypocritical about it.

When you were on the other end of a hot barrel, were you in the military? Did you always shoot while maintaining a safe 180 degrees from downrange?

 

[Dead Duck]

They say "don't point guns at people", and we don't. They don't either. I don't see anything hypocritical about it.

When you were on the other end of a hot barrel, were you in the military? Did you always shoot while maintaining a safe 180 degrees from downrange?

I can say that our side had military background - the other side....... we didn't ask.
Definitely kept a safe pattern downrange from friendlies.

What's that rule - NEVER POINT A GUN AT ANYONE YOU ARE NOT WILLING TO DESTROY!

Common Sense - Just ask my kids.

 

[esrice]

What's that rule - NEVER POINT A GUN AT ANYONE YOU ARE NOT WILLING TO DESTROY!

I agree 100%. I've never seen a gun pointed at a downrange photographer.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Until he slips on a shotgun hull.

No, thanks. I understand and agree with assumption of risk but the costs outweight the benefits in this environment.

 

[netsecurity]

Wow that video takes the cake for stupidity. I thought it was just one guy shooting while posed for a photo op. That photog stood and moved around in between a whole line of active, rapid fire shooters. He's just asking to be made porous.

 

[esrice]

Wow that video takes the cake for stupidity. I thought it was just one guy shooting while posed for a photo op. That photog stood and moved around in between a whole line of active, rapid fire shooters. He's just asking to be made porous.

How so?

I actually agree with Kirk's assessment and I've said before that while I didn't mind being the shooter for the exercise, I wouldn't personally have been the photographer.

But aside from a gross accident how is the photographer in any immediate danger? The shooters are in a straight line, all shooting straight ahead, at close distance, to a know target, at a given command. I'm not suggesting that he's in the safest spot on the range, but I think the argument of him "just asking to be made porous" is a bit of an overstatement.

 

[Dead Duck]

I agree 100%. I've never seen a gun pointed at a downrange photographer.

I know that you know better then this. Your just pokin to see who bites. Enhancing INGO post counts - I get that. I'll play.




Keyword is Downrange.

If you can see the "black" of the muzzle of any barrel, you ARE indeed being "Pointed At".

 

[bingley]

But aside from a gross accident how is the photographer in any immediate danger? The shooters are in a straight line, all shooting straight ahead, at close distance, to a know target, at a given command.

You know, sometimes you squeeze ten rounds off at a target three feet in front of you, and you only find nine rounds on the paper. I generally blame it on a wormhole suddenly appearing in the vicinity of my awesomeness, but what if it's not a wormhole?

This is about how much risk you want to take. There is a chance that the photog could catch a stray, just as there is a chance that your Glock might blow up in your hands or, worse, scare your dog to death by its ugliness. I'd ask whether the risk is necessary, and whether the results are worth the risk. Again, a tripod and a remote could do the job. You can even mount it on some sort of moving mechanism. If you just have to be there in person to catch le moment decisif, you'd better grab a great picture. And I just haven't see any interesting range photography. For Pete's sake, it's just a bunch of guns going off.

 

[netsecurity]

How so?

I actually agree with Kirk's assessment and I've said before that while I didn't mind being the shooter for the exercise, I wouldn't personally have been the photographer.

But aside from a gross accident how is the photographer in any immediate danger? The shooters are in a straight line, all shooting straight ahead, at close distance, to a know target, at a given command. I'm not suggesting that he's in the safest spot on the range, but I think the argument of him "just asking to be made porous" is a bit of an overstatement.

Asides from the obvious:

A) Because he is moving around and can trip or take one step too far, B) Because he has a camera in his face taking away situational awareness, C) Because he is focused on one shooter while another is behind him.

It is just insane. Standing in front of one shooter is risky, but zig zagging between shooters is not excusable. It is a situation without rigid control of any sort.

 

[esrice]

I know that you know better then this. Your just pokin to see who bites. Enhancing INGO post counts - I get that. I'll play.

Not my intention at all. I've been down there myself and shot the drill while a cameraman was in front and to my right.

Keyword is Downrange.

If you can see the "black" of the muzzle of any barrel, you ARE indeed being "Pointed At".

Let me pose this question-- where at your grocery store is "downrange"? Is there a "downrange" at the mall? The gas station?

Pointing your muzzle at something is pretty black and white-- you either are or you aren't. Either you'll be hit by a projectile or you won't. Otherwise the rule would state "don't point your muzzle in the general vicinity of anything you're not willing to destroy".

I'm not suggesting that we start shooting apples off of heads, but at some point we need to be honest about the realities of defending ourselves with firearms and one of those realities is that we will likely have to shoot around "friendlies".

We can certainly debate the amount of risk that each one of us is willing to take in training, but you can't really debate the fact that people aren't pointing guns at people in the above exercises.

This is about how much risk you want to take.

And this is really what the debate boils down to. We each have a different threshold when it comes to risk, and that's typically what's being debated.

And I just haven't see any interesting range photography. For Pete's sake, it's just a bunch of guns going off.

Jay, the one who started doing this at Tactical Response, explained to me that he just wanted a different angle on the pictures he was taking. But I also think it's a unique opportunity to experience the awareness that goes into Rule #4.

It is a situation without rigid control of any sort.

I've done it and I disagree. There are many controls in place. I do agree that it is more risky that standing behind the shooter.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Doesn't seem any more dangerous than those that rock climb without safety gear, some things are just dangerous and may get you killed

 

[Double T]

I see this no different than team tactics where a person shoots over anothers shoulder. Muzzle awareness is a top priority for all involved.

 

[Steve MI]

I see this no different than team tactics where a person shoots over anothers shoulder. Muzzle awareness is a top priority for all involved.

who shoots over there teammates shoulders? in team tactics..and why and in what context? the last 5 live fire shoot houses and UTM classes i have taught i have yet to see one team LE/MIL do this and some are some very top teir guys and teams

 

[HeadlessRoland]

Play stupid games!
Win stupid prizes!

It's all fun and photography until something horrible happens and the poor sucker on the firing line is calling up a defense attorney and an ambulance (or coroner) because he grazed someone (or worse).

The law of averages will bring down even the best of marksmen.

That said, if someone wants to flounce around downrange - even outside the area "covered" by the respective muzzle(s) of his compatriots - he's welcome to do it.
But I hope he doesn't expect anyone to receive his Darwin award for him at the ceremony ex-post-facto.

 

[Double T]

who shoots over there teammates shoulders? in team tactics..and why and in what context? the last 5 live fire shoot houses and UTM classes i have taught i have yet to see one team LE/MIL do this and some are some very top teir guys and teams

Any time you see a team shooting video. The guy standing shoots over the guy reloading at cover

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Esrice, so if you think this is ok and is good training, why not have shooters face each other, each in front of a cardboard target, then take one big step left and shoot at the cardboard? That way not only would you get used to friendlies around, you'd get used to incoming fire in your vicinity? You could do one big line, and each shooter except for the end ones would get to experience bullets flying past them on either side and be just as safe as the camera man above. The end ones would have to do with bullets on only one side, but you could rotate so everyone gets a turn.

Incorporating "real world" risks into training sometimes results in "real world" fatalities that are needless. 70th Engineers lost two guys at NTC the second year I was in because of live guns and people down range, someone let their .50 bolt slam shut and fired a single bullet, which struck the .50 on top of another M113, removing the TC's hand and blowing shrapnel into the driver's head, killing him. The military is willing to take those risks because the reward is lives saved in combat. What's the reward here? Marketing photos? Is that really worth the risk, especially when a remote camera could accomplish the same thing?