Acronym Definition

jperodeau · Post by **jperodeau** » Fri Jul 31, 2009 9:16 am

I’m confused on FTF – is it “Failure to Feed” or “Failure to Fire”?

greener · Post by **greener** » Fri Jul 31, 2009 9:18 am

Yes.

I've seen it used both ways.

bearandoldman · Post by **bearandoldman** » Fri Jul 31, 2009 9:36 am

greener wrote:Yes.

I've seen it used both ways.

Yes, it all depends on how you look at it.

KAZ · Post by **KAZ** » Fri Jul 31, 2009 9:54 am

I'm told from a reliable source that it is shorthand for Failure To Fire, which would then cause one to look for the cause, ie feeding,ammo,dirt,part,etc

bearandoldman · Post by **bearandoldman** » Fri Jul 31, 2009 10:02 am

KAZ wrote:I'm told from a reliable source that it is shorthand for Failure To Fire, which would then cause one to look for the cause, ie feeding,ammo,dirt,part,etc

Actually, that makes sense, and that is always what I took it to mean. All these aacronyms are fine, but us old guys would rather hav it put in real words that we cn understand. Us old guys ddo not do text messages as we could not understand a damn thing.
I can shoot iron or peep sights. I just need a target large enough to not totally hide behind the front sight. Never cold do the 6 o' clock hold.

Post by **Bullseye** » Fri Jul 31, 2009 1:11 pm

It can be both meanings. It depends on the context of the message and how the acronym is used.

The same can be said for FTE. It can be either "failure to eject" or "failure to extract."

R,
Bullseye

bearandoldman · Post by **bearandoldman** » Fri Jul 31, 2009 2:48 pm

Bullseye wrote:It can be both meanings. It depends on the context of the message and how the acronym is used.

The same can be said for FTE. It can be either "failure to eject" or "failure to extract."

R,
Bullseye

That is why real words work even better yet, just say what you mean, us old phartes understand that better.

bigfatdave · Post by **bigfatdave** » Fri Jul 31, 2009 5:53 pm

bearandoldman wrote:That is why real words work even better yet, just say what you mean, us old phartes understand that better.

It doesn't require advanced years to be annoyed by vague acronym use (VAU).
If someone is posting about a problem with a model I am familiar with, I'll generally take a swing at diagnosis, in an attempt to pay back the community for expert advice I have received (Bullseye giving the vast majority of it). I'll even pull out a similar model if I have one, to try and picture the issue described. Generally I can at least rule out a possibility or two, in a few cases I've been able to report that the gun is functioning as designed (single-action only guns won't drop the hammer/striker again if you pull the trigger again, you know), and frequently I can at least advise further troubleshooting
But if the complaint is:
"my gun will FTF twice every clip, what a piece of junk!"
... I really can't help. I've almost gotten to the point that I won't bother with VAU for thread titles. Whenever I consider asking for a sticky or something giving new forum members some basic guidelines, some moron will post something so ignorant and vague that I'm inspired to just let Darwin sort 'em out.

Post by **Bullseye** » Fri Jul 31, 2009 6:25 pm

I'm with you there Dave, sometimes I pass up the vague ones too. Once I see more of a detailed gripe, then I can offer some useful advice for solving it.

R,
Bullseye

greener · Post by **greener** » Mon Aug 03, 2009 11:25 pm

"my gun will FTF twice every clip, what a piece of junk!"

My first thought is I need to get one of those clip models. all mine have detachable magazines.

It is interesting to watch the attempts at getting clear enough descriptions that you understand the symptoms. Bullseye is among the best I've seen at very clear responses, usually with annotated pictures, and seemingly perfectly clear responses are not understood. Bullseye, did you learn to do that because you had to explain things to officers?

Post by **Bullseye** » Tue Aug 04, 2009 8:34 am

Greener wrote:Bullseye, did you learn to do that because you had to explain things to officers?

I took a few lessons from Napoleon - if a private or corporal can understand the directions than it should be simple enough for everyone else. Besides, I could always dumb it down if I had to explain it to a senior officer.

Among other things I did a few tours as an instructional specialist. I learned long ago that most people learn on multiple levels; auditory and visual/spatial. Supplementing my descriptions with pictures is the clearest way to get a point across with minimal confusion. I found this a highly effective tactic when people are already confused or frustrated. A clear description is the easiest and most direct way to get from one point to another. Give them a clear mental picture at the start and they'll do whatever you want. I adapt to a situation because success is always my ultimate goal.

R,
Bullseye

greener · Post by **greener** » Tue Aug 04, 2009 9:05 am

Besides, I could always dumb it down if I had to explain it to a senior officer.

I hope your efforts above and beyond the call of duty were appreciated.

A fellow battalion commander said that his staff's job was to make him look good. I told my staff that I was going to adopt the same policy. I believe the response was along the lines of "The difficult we do immediately, the impossible takes a little longer but miracles are above our pay grade." It was followed by some muttering about "field grade syndrome."

jperodeau · Post by **jperodeau** » Wed Aug 05, 2009 9:08 am

I think it was MacArthur who said,

"Never give an order that can be understood. Only give orders that cannot be misunderstood."