Rhodesian Ready?

Discussion in 'Southern Africa' started by Kaye, Nov 24, 2009.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Hello,

    A colleague recently mentioned some of the skills and drills used in Rhodesia and how they were, or ought to be applicable today.
    Some things created more questions then answers -as they usually do when you encounter a new subject.

    One of thos things is the 'Rhodesian ready'. Can anyone tell me what it is, how it looks and what it is for?

    From what I know I figure it is something like a Low ready, but different. More info would be greatly appreciated.
     
  2. In combat parlance, Rhodesian ready is a stance for use with long arms (i.e. rifles and shotguns).

    The stock of the weapon is tucked into the right (for right-handed) armpit with the left hand gripping the forestock and the right hand resting on the midstock, usually with the fingertips resting on the outside of the trigger guard. The muzzle is pointed down toward the ground.

    Advantages:
    Allows for an unobstructed view in all directions.
    Less fatiguing for long periods of time than high ready or low ready because pressure need not be applied to press the butt of the weapon against the shoulder.
    Allows transition to quick fire or standing fire position faster than the transition to the same positions from patrol ready stance.
    Disadvantages:
    Is slightly slower than high ready or low ready when making a transition to a firing position.
    Compared with patrol ready stance, is a more antagonistic stance.
    With a shotgun, it's not as safe as high stances when moving as a team as accidental discharge may endanger other team members.
    Not surprising, anecdotal etymology indicates that the term originates from the patrol stance used by British patrols in Rhodesia (what is now Zimbabwe).

    I found the above quote on everything2.com.

    Google is a wonderful thing
     
  3. I found the same quote, but since I found it unsatisfying -lacking a picture, for example, I thought I'd ask it here.
    I don't usually believe Wikipedia, let alone Everything2. The latter is more fun, though!