Marksmanship matters.....

[Jimro]

KraigWY,

I think if you and a few other concerned citizens started calling congress to demand why we aren't training US Army Infantrymen to the same distance standard that regular Marines shoot, it might make a difference.

But you've got me thinking about prairie dog shooting as a marksmanship exercise...

Jimro

 

[kraigwy]

[

KraigWY,

I think if you and a few other concerned citizens started calling congress to demand why we aren't training US Army Infantrymen to the same distance standard that regular Marines shoot, it might make a difference.

Been there, done that, I fought the system and lost.

Years ago, 1991 or 92, I was the Chairman for the MAC VI (Marksmanship Advisory Committee, Region 6 being Wyoming, Alaska, Idaho, North & South Dakota, and Montana). Or job was to advise the National Guard Bureau on Marksmanship Matters.

At the MAC Conference in Georgia the Army presented us (the NG) with a new program, action style combat shooting. Prior to that we fielded teams in both Composite, (NRA High Power Style) and Combat, ( a bit different but still used KD ranges). The army said the combat style would best resemble combat.

Their selling point was that the All Guard team went to Europe and competed in the NATO marksmanship matches using the new action style combat. They had good reports. I asked how our All Guard Team did, they won everything.

OK So if they won "everything" being trained on KD ranges, maybe its NATO who should change, not us. I was able to convince the other MAC Chairmen on my points and we decided not to change. The Army, using their Funding Weapon, over road us.

Thats when I decided to put in my papers and retire. If someone was to check, prior to that period, the National Guard won the majority of the Service Matches, including Perry, beating the AMU and Marines. They are no longer competitive. The AMU stuck to the composite shooting and win a huge majority of the matches.

I'm not saying we shouldn't keep up pressure on congress, but into days budget constraints the military is not going to pour more funds into Rifle Marksmanship. We can't change that. All we can do is prepare our kids before they join. The tools are already out there, the funding is out there (again CMP receives not Tax Dollars). We as parents and grandparents need to take the bull by the horn and teach our kids, or get them to people who can teach them.

 

[Jimro]

You know we've been fighting this problem since the 50's when the Russians cleaned our clock at the Olympics...

The good thing is that at least the KD ranges are still there to use. Just have to find the time and ammo to use them.

Jimro

 

[Rob3]

I agree with you kraigwy, when I was stationed at Ft Carson lots of ranges turned into prarie dog shoots.

Every patrol I have ever been on we carried almost one heavy weapon per man; 240s, 249s, mortars, grenade launchers, and Gustof guns. Sometimes it was a scramble to see who could get to the big ones first when an ambush kicked off ( I have witnessed near fist fights over the Gustof). I am a firm believer that overwhelming firepower and violence of action (maneuver) wins battles, not marksmanship. But that is my experience and others-including yourself- have different and valid experiences to the contrary.

In short, I say the Army is doing it right.

 

[Jimro]

Rob3,

It is tough to maneuver wearing all the crap we have to wear in the mountains of Afghanistan. Hence the need to be able to shoot. But still, some TTP's for using 60mm's in direct lay mode and using 240s on every patrol have helped keep pressure on the Taliban.

Jimro

 

[5RWill]

The saddest part about this entire discussion is the fact that alot of people going into the military have never held or fired a weapon. I'm lucky being from a rural area, having had my father teach me to shoot starting at 6 years old and all.

I also agree that there is no such thing as a hopeless shooter, with proper training, motivation, and the correct "mentor" watching over a person it can be accomplished in no time. But when training 100s even 1000s of people at a time, seeing a individual getting special attention is probably rare. "One shot, one kill" is a pretty hard standard to achieve in reality, but striving to achieve it will still help to better one's marksmanship or precision so to speak.

 

[Rob3]

It's not easy to maneuver in kit, I agree 100% Jimro. The Army is revamping the whole PT program to try to improve soldier strength and endurance, but the burden a soldier carries has never been greater.

I didn't mean it to sound like marksmanship is not important. I am an avid shooter and believe whole- heartedly that a man should know how to shoot. I just think than in today's environment it is not as important as some make it out to be. If we were still fighting in big open fields like WWI or the Civil War it would be the top proiority, but ever since we have gotten away from lining up troops in formations across from each other and ordering "front ranks kneel, ready, aim, fire" it has become less important than tactical maneuver. Training time and budgets are not going to increase any time soon. The mission of the infantry is to "close with and destroy the enemy" not hide, snipe and run. Immediate action drills cost nothing to train, realistic live fire training is prohibitively expensive. Is it right? No. Is going to change any time soon? We can only pray.

I realize I am starting to ramble and pull this off course so I will probably bow out of this conversation now.

 

[603Country]

Rob3,

Certainly the objective of closing with and destroying the enemy can't be argued with, but your combining that point with your saying that the value of rifle marksmanship is overstated sounds very wrong to me. Tactical maneuver may let you close with the enemy, but after that, if you can't shoot worth a darn, and if you don't have options from above that can be called in on the enemy, there appears to be few remaining worthwhile options on destroying the enemy. I guess we'll just have to call the Marines.

 

[SIGSHR]

Pershing insisted the AEF spend as much time on the rifle ranges as possible and Patton said that if we could get average soldier to shoot his rifle more accurately we could end the war a lot sooner. But I KNOW the Army does at best an adequate job of teaching marksmanship and my experience during the Vietnam conflict (Army 1967-1971) was that for most troops, especially those who did not serve in Vietnam-or were there in a support role-the rifle course in Basic represented 99% of their rifle marksmanship training. One longtime friend I met on AD-he did not serve in Vietnam- told me he qualified on the M-14 in BCT in 1967 and a year later-when he was in language school in California, oddly enough, and those were the ONLY times he fired on an Army rifle range. When the engineer battalion we served in in Germany transitioned to the M-16 in 1970 he was CQ the day they went to the range-he told me the first time he fired an M-16 was in the Reserves in 1972. Rifle and pistol teams had disappeared by the time I enlisted in 1967-and not revived, and the impression I got was that small arms proficieny was not seen as important and the firearms enthusiast was seen as a "nut". I carried an M1911A1 several times on AD and received NO training on it. I taught myself to field strip and reassemble it using my copy of Small Arms of the World.
And familes are no more capable of teaching their sons to shoot than they are capable of teaching mortar or tank gunnery.

 

[Jimro]

And familes are no more capable of teaching their sons to shoot than they are capable of teaching mortar or tank gunnery.

I wouldn't go that far. A lot of deer are harvest every year...

Jimro

 

[Rob3]

603Country, you are right that I have contradicted myself. I should not have said marksmanship is overrated but that long range marksmanship is over-rated. I was referring to spending a lot of time training soldiers to shoot over 400-600 meters. Yes, the Marines do put more focus on marksmanship but still the Army is doing the vast majority of the fighting in Afghanistan. I stand by my statement that the Army is doing it right.

 

[kraigwy]

And familes are no more capable of teaching their sons to shoot than they are capable of teaching mortar or tank gunnery.

Some are, some aren't. But if you read my posts you will see I'm not saying they have to teach their kids, great if they can, but I mentioned there are assets that will teach their kids to shoot, CMP, NRA, Appleseed, 4H Shooting Sports, Boy scouts, WMCA, etc etc.

As far as hunting youth hunting, 1,727,000 kids between 6-15 have hunting licenses.

http://www.familiesafield.org/pdf/FamiliesAfield_Report.pdf

That link doesn't break them down enough to say how many 16 + age kids are in the adult group.

Before you or anyone else responds with the statement that there is a big difference between target shooting and combat, remember the fact, that before the start of the MC Sniper school in the late 70s and the Army's in the late 80s, We got our snipers & sniper instructors from target shooters.

If one develops good marksmanship fundamentals through mussel memory, those skills will show up sub-consciously in combat.

 

[SIGSHR]

Carlos Hathcock was a champion rifle shooter long before his sniping exploits in Vietnam, the difference between being a target shooter and a sniper is one of psychology, not marksmanship.
I note the article said commanders should make opportunities for recreational shooting available in their commands. I can recall reading an article in Infantry Magzine back in 1979-1980 entitled "Managing around Marksmanship" in which the author stated that too many units went on FTXs
and left the small arms locked up back on base, while troops guarded millions of dollars of equipment with nothing more lethal than a broomstick. We need a military culture where the crack shot and firearms enthusiast is celebrated and
held up as example to be followed, not derided as a "nut" or a "kook".

 

[timelinex]

And familes are no more capable of teaching their sons to shoot than they are capable of teaching mortar or tank gunnery

I'm gonna have to agree with that. Sure if you live in a rural area then it's easy to shoot and hunt. But most people live in cities, and it gets exponentially harder. I have just got into shooting now, and thats after moving to arizona, where I can drive an hour and be able to shoot outdoors. When I lived on the east coast in a major city, I didn't know not ONE person that hunted, or for that matter had a rifle, and considering I grew up there I knew alot of people. Sure, I knew a couple people or their fathers that owned guns, but that was for "protection" not marksmanship. I think many of you live in rural areas, or close to it, and have lost sight of the fact that most Americans live in cities where guns are the enemy.

A couple weeks ago someone told me how in the rural area they went to school in it was common for people to have rifles in their trucks, parked on school property. That totally rocked my world. In the city, many people avoided mentioning the word gun while in school, just to not cause any attention.

 

[603Country]

Rob3, being an old Jarhead, I just couldn't help but have a little fun, even while being pretty sure that what you said wasn't exactly what you meant to say. And I agree fully with your clarification.

And to get back on topic, now that I live out in the rural Texas countryside, I see a big difference in the percentage of people young and old that shoot versus what I saw in the big city (Houston). Most of the young guys out here shoot. Everybody has guns. In Houston, where I worked in corporate America, there was a much lower percentage of folks that had guns or any interest in learning about guns. I'm happily back with the kind of people I grew up with. As an example, when my mother turned 75 I asked her what she'd like for her birthday. She said..."Son, I think I'd like a new handgun in a larger caliber". And that's what I bought for her birthday, after she promised that the new revolver wasn't for shooting my Dad.

 

[Eagle0711]

Had the privelage of taking two new shooters out in the woods to introduce them to shooting. Used points from AR article to emphasize the benefits of markmanship, and the importance of marksmanship.

The furure is looking brighter.

Please encourage folks when the opportunity presents itself. These guys were elated when they saw what they could do. Great Day !

 

[Rob3]

603Country, sounds like you have a great mother. I grew up right outside of Houston so I know what you mean. Hope you don't think I meant any disrespect, I have the great admiration for Marines.

 

[zukiphile]

The saddest part about this entire discussion is the fact that alot of people going into the military have never held or fired a weapon. I'm lucky being from a rural area, having had my father teach me to shoot starting at 6 years old and all.

This illustrates the salient cultural point, as does this:

Sure if you live in a rural area then it's easy to shoot and hunt. But most people live in cities, and it gets exponentially harder. I have just got into shooting now, and thats after moving to arizona, where I can drive an hour and be able to shoot outdoors. When I lived on the east coast in a major city, I didn't know not ONE person that hunted, or for that matter had a rifle, and considering I grew up there I knew alot of people. Sure, I knew a couple people or their fathers that owned guns, but that was for "protection" not marksmanship. I think many of you live in rural areas, or close to it, and have lost sight of the fact that most Americans live in cities where guns are the enemy.

I've lived in the sticks and very much enjoyed the general tolerance of shooting. Contrast that with the last place I lived that prohibited the firing of airguns. Try wrapping your head around a place that would make a criminal of a boy with a BB gun. In lots of cities and suburbs, the places most people live, shooting enjoys the social status of child molestation.

I never shot as a lad, and I have to say that it took a couple of years of regular practice for me to plateau, so I am sympathetic to the point that juvenile experience (not even training, just experience) could give a boy a leg up later in life. Yet as long as the dominant culture is more tolerant of prime time tv commercials for erectile dysfuntion, vaginal itching and irratable bowel meds than discussion of anything related to shooting, wishing that parents would engage their children in marksmanship training seems to come from a different time and place.

 

[BlueTrain]

I get the impression that you have to start preparing your son (or daughter) for the service when they are five years old. I hope we aren't that militaristic yet. Cossacks do that.

I lived for a time in the country in West Virginia. True, boys and girls there do learn to shoot earlier and they go hunting (usually somewhere else where there is still game) but by no means did they produce more enlistees than other places. Believe it or not, people from New York still enter the armed forces, just like people from the suburbs of D.C. No prarie dogs around here.

You may also be surprised that there is no way to learn how to shoot machine guns, tank guns, rocket launchers, and guided missiles as a civilian, and if you watch the news, you may have noticed that such things are actually used in real wars. This is not to say that marksmanship is meaningless but neither is everyone equally gifted when it comes to shooting--shooting anything. If the army did things right, the soldier would end up doing things for which he had a knack. Regardless of the training he gets, it is a good thing when he does. For the designated marksman program, it certainly makes sense that the best shot (since not everyone is above average) get the best equipment.

There was actually a time when good shots received a form of pro pay, way back in the 1930s. But budget constraints usually meant that only the very best shots got something extra. It would be nice if such a thing could be instituted again but I agree, the military-industrial complex means that we buy jet planes and ships before we even think about infantry weapons. But what do I know?

 

[zukiphile]

I get the impression that you have to start preparing your son (or daughter) for the service when they are five years old. I hope we aren't that militaristic yet. Cossacks do that.

Without comment on "militarism" generally, a sense of social structure and personal discipline may generally assist a child well beyond the merits if marksmanship. The ability to take direction toward a described goal is less common than I thought it was before I became an employer.