PT7 wrote:Yup, most people who watched this would have noticed that mis-count. The ROs who could have been evaluators must have had the day off. But still this fellow qualified the 1894 lever action w/greater than an 80% aggregate score under the State of Ohio requirements, even if that shot had not counted. I'd say he came through with flying colors as he ran the course. One final comment. He also said that he never practiced for this test, and had not done any of these shooting components before. Usually when LEOs qualify, there is a lot of practice done before hand. It was fun to watch him do this. If it were me with my Henry .357 Carbine, I would have gladly welcomed his end results.
This is true. And, please do not miss understand me. I think he did a fine job with the lever action. To me, he demonstrate that a 100+ years design is still a viable option. The miss count I took as a close call or author's discretion. Either way, he passed. To avoid any doubt, I may would not have called it. But, it was his video.
The thing that caught my attention the most was the time took to acquire target, fire and hit a vital area. That's the most that can be done with any firearm. I think this supports the point that was being made in the other thread you posted (less time for aiming may be a good thing). It also supports how a firearm may actually be used (which lends to your off hand shooting approach as well). But as someone pointed out, it may be a different story when someone is shooting back. Yet, it still shows that a lever action should not to be discounted. If required, it is capable of getting the job done.