Camouflage Patterns on Guns: to Hide or to Flaunt? New on AllOutdoor

5 Responses to Camouflage Patterns on Guns: to Hide or to Flaunt? New on AllOutdoor

1. Ray says:

   March 24, 2016 at 6:47 am

   Humans cannot actually see objects or patterns smaller than 1 MOA for the most part. It is also MUCH easer for humans to see light colors. Human used camo patterns tend to follow military fashion trends more than anything else.(the terrain specific Mideast patterns that dominate the militia set) The whole “hunting” camo industry is driven by how it make the hunter look to other hunters. The proof of that is in the current trend toward “hot pink” “girl” camo and garish logo’s on everything. Deer seldom “see” humans with their eyes anyway. They “see” the world through smell and sound. They did an experiment about 35 years ago at camp Le June. They put a guy dressed in a grey shark skin suit, a white shirt and purple tie armed with a bright silver hand gun on top of a tree stump about six feet off the ground. Then they marched a platoon of Marines passed the position. The command then asked the Marines if they had seen anything out of place on the march. Only two men had seen anything. They reported seeing a grey and purple sleeping bag drying in the sun. Camo is overrated.
2. LarryArnold says:

   March 24, 2016 at 10:48 pm

   Camo is overrated.
   I think rather that “camo” is misunderstood.

   Camouflage is presenting yourself so you blend into the surroundings. In the woods “camo” (the leaf-green/loam-green pattern and similar) helps break up the outline of what you’re hiding, be it tank or soldier, so the human eye doesn’t identify the outline.
   You’re correct about deer. Being prey, not predator, they tend to identify movement instead of shape, and they’re color-blind. Therefore for deer camo doesn’t work any better than a blaze-orange vest.

   Camo also sucks at concealing you from humans if you aren’t hiding in the woods. At a coat-and-tie party, either camo or blaze orange stick out like a sore thumb. Wear your grey flannel suit.

   They put a guy dressed in a grey shark skin suit, a white shirt and purple tie armed with a bright silver hand gun on top of a tree stump about six feet off the ground.
   IOW the man was just above eye level, and I’m guessing off to the side.

   Then they marched a platoon of Marines past the position.
   If they were really “marching” (Hup-two-three-foah) then it was eyes-front maintain-formation keep-in-step time. I would guess the two that spotted anything might have better peripheral vision.
   If the Marines were advancing tactically during a field exercise, or even if they were on a route-step fifty-mile hike, the results would be very different.
3. Ray says:

   March 25, 2016 at 5:38 am

   Actually Larry experiments by NATACK labs , the Army , the Marine Corp , The Navy and the Air force conducted over a 40 year program demonstrated that at “effective” ranges (above 100 yards) any earth/background tone clothing was as effective as any military camo pattern. That was not in keeping with what the service chief’s wanted to hear. So we got M81 “woodland” and later “digital” and the utterly useless ACU. My point is that like every military uniform in history. EVERY service branch on earth wants to make its solders distinctive. “Hiding” them is a consideration that offtimes doesn’t make second, or even third place. As I said camo; Like FLIR, the 5.56/5.45 and hundreds of other “things” military, is most often grossly over rated by civilians, and sometimes the military that develops it . I would cite as an example the US military’s constant changing of the uniforms to reflect FASHON trends and public perception over actual effectiveness. The US Navy is the standout for silly “fashon trend” uniforms, having saddled its people with the utterly ridiculous blue ” digital” sea service uniform. Humans want to think that everything “new” and popular is better and everything “old” is “outdated” useless. Even though that’s not true at all. As I said “camo” ,like most everything military, is over rated.
   • Jim R says:

     March 29, 2016 at 7:24 am

     Your remarks about the services wanting to be distinctive echo something I read about the horrid ACU: it wasn’t adopted because it was best, but rather because it was distinctive. Can’t have the Army dressed like Marines even if their camo has tested quite well!
4. John Hardin says:

   March 27, 2016 at 11:47 pm

   “Camouflage Patterns on Guns: to Hide or to Flaunt?” More likely, to lose your damned gun in the woods.

Comments are closed.