CORRESPONDENCE

Evening Post, Volume LXXXVI, Issue 46, 22 August 1913, Page 3

CORRESPONDENCE

MUSKETRY TO THE EDITOK. Sir,— The official statement by the Defence Minister, published in The Post, in reply to the criticism of the New Zealand musketry course by "Martini" in these <;©lunruiß, conveys wrong impressions of some very vital points. It will be remembered that "Martini" claimed that the British system of teaching men to shoot on "bull's-eye targets," as a. clear aiming mark, is quite correct, and is supported by the practical expert shots in New Zealand- New Zealand has discarded this simple target, and substituted for it the difficult figure target. The Minister w reported as saying that in Britain more "bull's-eye"' target work wag 'done in the preliminary stage than in New Zealand. This would infer that some, at least, was done in New Zealand. On the contrary, "bull's-eye" ghootinjr is absolutely deleted from the New Zealand musketry course. Again, he is reported as- saying that in the future thy New Zealand musketry course would follow more closely the course laid down for Regulars in Britain, as the New Zealand Territorials were more like the British Regulars than were the English Territorials. It is obvious to all who have any practical knowledge of what has been dome in musketry in New Zealand during the last three years, that as far as musketry is concerned . the Minister has been wrongly informed. There is no doubt that our last year's musketry course was found a failure, and also that when this year our Territorials are put through their musketry they must be treated still as recruits. Also, according to the Minister, if we are to follow more closely the British Regular, why do we not commence from his base, the "bull's-eye" target? Now, sir, I furnish herewith a few questions, to which an answer from th« Minister would be appreciated : (1) Whether it is a fact that in Britain, according to the latest musketry course issued by the War Office, and dated 12th July, 1912, "bull's-eye" targets are used for all preliminary work, for both Regulars and Territorials? (2) Whether it ia a fact that in Britain the musketry course for Territorials lays down "bull s-eye" targets only, for the first year ? (3) Whether it is a fact tliat in the New Zealand musketry course no "bull'seye" shooting of any kind is done, even for preliminary work? (4) Why the proved target for preliminary work has been discarded, and the figure target for the advanced work substituted 1 (5) If, for the purpose of musketry instruction, our Territorials oan yet be regarded as other than recruits? (6) If the musketry course for New Zealand last year has not proved a failure? (7) If the Minister do« 3 not think that the opinions and the experiences of the Territorial compajiy commanders should be taken on this matter 1 (8) How many infantry regiments in New Zealand completed the musketry course last year?— l am, etc., MARTINI. 15th August, 1913.