NOT “POTHUNTERS.”

New Zealand Times, Volume XXX, Issue 6451, 24 February 1908, Page 3

NOT “POTHUNTERS.”

A VIGOROUS PROTEST. (To tho Editor "N.Z. Times/’) Sir, —In your issue of even date there appears som© criticism by Captain Richardson, Director of Artillery, ou the defects of tho present system of infantry rifle shooting. Such criticism from an artillery officer of such standing as Captain Richardson calls for comment. Ho says ;—"lt is usually found in ©very infantry corps that there are perhaps a down shots who practically do all the shooting, the remainder of the corps doing little at all. Tho dozen cracks are usually not defenders, but 'pothunters/ ** VV© riflemen have had the term "pol> hunters” hurled at us before, and know that the person who usee the term "pothunters” is as a rule a person whoso opinion is worth very little indeed.

As an ex-volunteer and a rifleman, I strongly resent the epithet. It is an insult to riflemen generally, and a rebuff to those military gentlemen who have given years of study and encouragement to tho art of rifle shooting. If Captain Richardson had taken the trouble to find, out at what personal cost riflemen have earned the distinction of "crack,” h© would perhaps have jmusod before slandering them with such a terra. I contend that, tho mainstay of any corps or company is their shooting men. Encourage them in every way! These few cracks that Captain Richardson says are to b© found in every corps are th© men tho country are in need of at th© present time, and the men from whoso ranks are provided the the many excellent shots that are to be found in the rifle clubs at present throughout the Dominion. Tii© man who can master hifv rifle and. become a crack shot is the bests man to defend and rely on in time necessity. ™ Captain Richardson also says :—"What should be don© is to examine every man in an infantry corps separately, as is done in the artillery branch.” Examine in what? Theory of rifle shooting? Well, theory is all right in its way, but once the rifleman can shoot straight, all that is required is a keen eye and a good nerve. To compare artillery practice with rifle shooting is absurd, and calls fo- no comment.

Further on we read:—"White targets and black bull’s-eyes and known ranges ar* as much good to the infantry recruit as a feeding-bottle would * be.” Very good! What is wanted is encourage meat for the recruit. If a recruit cannot hit the present stationary target at known range, he gets disheartened and gives up shooting in disgust. How then is he to find encouragement in firing at targets (not described by Captain Richardson) at unknown range©? I contend that to ask a recruit to shoot under such circumstances would very won tell its tale in, the ranks of our shooters. My own opinion is,that to train up a body of good marksmen it is highly essential that a crack shot should be attached to every volunto-err corps, to teach tho lads bow to shoot, and if he knows his business (but cannot defend) his work will, I am sure, be in th© bast interest of our defence. That some variation in the conditions under which wc ©hoot would he beneficial will not b© questioned, and any citizen who interests himself in rifle shooting must observe that the gentlemen who govern the Defence Forces Rifle .Association meetings at Trentham arc quite alive to that fact, and th© public can- rely on those gentlemen, who, as we rifleman know, thoroughly understand their business, to do thed.r best in thu interest of infantry rifle shooting. I ant, etc., JOHN BURNS. Wellington, February 21.