Marksmanship matters.....

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

I am eminently capable of teaching basic rifle marksmanship, along with mortar gunnery and tank gunnery. I made my living doing that for several years. There are a lot of old retired farts out here that haven't forgotten how to emplace a mortar or lay a gun. And my sons are better shots than I am. We've already begun teaching the grandkids.

Jimro said:
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.
Click to expand...

I am in awe of our current crop of warriors, knowing what I know about the loads you carry and the burdens you bear. I once thought I was tough, and did things that I remember fondly through the dim memory of time. But, you guys are magnificent, and I salute you.
 
While I can't do mortar or cannon education for my kids, they are learning shoot and both have gotten their 1st prize ribbons for .22 shooting at summer camp. :)

With that said, I don't see why the military cannot do a better job of teaching marksmanship. They can teach everything else, right? So why can't they teach those unfamiliar with guns to be fine shooters?
 
I grew up shooting rifles and shotguns and did pretty good in small bore sporter rifle competition. I enlisted in the Corps at 17 (with my parents permission) and found that they were teaching the same fundamentals I grew up learning. They did an awesome job of teaching a LOT of recruits who had never fired a weapon before BASIC marksmanship. But that is all that there really is time for in that setting. Those of us who went on to infantry jobs ended up doing a lot more shooting. The fact is, and I am speaking for one branch though I am sure some of the Soldiers here will speak the same, or close to it: Servicemen and women not in the infantry typically only shoot once a year for their annual qualification. Could this be improved upon? Yes, will it? Probably not. I am OK with the system, because it means more training ammo for me and my co-workers throughout the year.

Now to the elusive point: The infantrymen in all branches are getting some pretty solid marksmanship training these days, and not just "basic" either, the units are actively seeking more and better instruction prior to deployments.
 
We seem to be forgetting the old American tradition of not having standing armies, without arguing whether or not it is a good idea. The point I am making here is that it never used to be a given that someone would go into the armed forces. That, along with the draft, is a more modern idea.

Now, I'd like to see how someone could teach cannon gunnery at home, although I am foolishly assuming you don't actually have a howitizer at home.

More to the point, however, there is the theory (only a theory, understand) that it is easier to teach someone to shoot the army way, or Marine Corps way, if they don't already know how or think they do.
 
BlueTrain said:
Now, I'd like to see how someone could teach cannon gunnery at home, although I am foolishly assuming you don't actually have a howitizer at home.
Click to expand...

Your point is well taken, although it's perfectly legal to own such devices in many locations. While the limitations of space and the law might make firing a cannon problematic, it's easy to teach the basics of crew-served weapons with even a black-powder cannon. It's also a hell of a lot of fun.

And, in a Katrina-like scenario, it would have given the local militias another tool at their disposal.
 
Well I have been shooting rifles since as far as I can remember...but I have to say this..shooting on your own growing up with no proper training can develop bad habbits that are really hard to break...I have taught several people how to shoot rifles and pistols...and I know for a fact that 14 and 15 year old girls are so much easier to teach than guys are...they listen have no ego and do what u tell them to...and 9 times out of ten they can shoot better than the guys can....I am a guy myself..and I had bad habits that I had to break....my worst was bad follow through...took forever to break...but little girls that have barely held a gun before are so easy to teach....imho that is
 
I read this article and it's very true! The military-maybe with the excpetion of the Marines-doesn't teach true marksmanship anymore.
This is a major downfall for the average infantry in Afghanistan because insurgents attack from long distances and usually with a lot of bad guys. There are a few stories of Americans getting overrun because they either ran out of ammo, or couldn't hit anything because of the lack of marksmanship.

I wouldn't go that far. A lot of deer are harvest every year...
Click to expand...
Deer Hunting and Marksmanship are two different animals.
I don't know wat today's statistics show, but a few years ago, the average shot for a deer is 30-75 yards with a rifle; any rifle is capable of making a solid hit at that distance.

Sitting in a deer stand with a perfect shot 75 yards away is NOT Marksmanship.
There are definitely hunters out there who CAN shoot, but they are far and few.
The Army used to qualify their infantry based off the AQT (Army Qualification Test) with silhouettes out to 400 yards. This is a timed course of fire with limited ammo; transitions from standing to seated or prone; and magazine reloads.
This is the same AQT that Appleseed qualifies its shooters with.
 
Families are quite capable of teaching the art of marksmanship! It just depends on the family. Before I ever reached the military, my family taught me how to be proficient with a firearm. This has been handed down for generations.
 
Originally Posted by BlueTrain
Now, I'd like to see how someone could teach cannon gunnery at home, although I am foolishly assuming you don't actually have a howitizer at home.
Click to expand...

We need to go back and re-read the article. The problem is the "Rules of Engagement" on todays battle field. To reduce collateral damage were limited in the use of artillery and air support and have to rely more on the individual rifleman.

Regardless of all the rants we voice on the Internet, the military isn't going to change. If you want you kids and grandkids to increase their chances of survival then get them the instruction before they enlist, be it CMP, NRA, 4H Shooting sports, Appleseed, etc etc.

You can bet every one of my sons and grandsons knew how to shoot before they enlisted. I have a grandson who is in the middle of his college career on a ROTC Scholarship, you can bet before he goes to the Infantry Officers Basic Course he'll know how to shoot, how to conduct a high power rifle clinic and how to teach his soldiers how to shoot.

I agree we aren't gonna reach all kids, but if we give just one the ability to use his rifle to save his life, we've accomplished something.

Instead of complaining about the military marksmanship training, direct those efforts by getting involved. Get your club sanctioned by the CMP which will give you access to the training and support, same with the NRA, same with 4-H shooting sports, Appleseed. Doing something, no matter how small it's a hell of a lot better the setting around saying IT CANT BE DONE.

It's simple stuff, an example when your club has a Gun Show, call the Recruiter (NG or Active) and have them show up with a Weaponier, kids love it, its a great training aid, and cost nothing.

Its your kids and grandkids (and our future) we are talking about.
 
I think that highschools should have rifle shooting teams. I will take it a step further and say that it should even be a mandatory elective for male students.
 
I think that highschools should have rifle shooting teams. I will take it a step further and say that it should even be a mandatory elective for male students.
Click to expand...

What is up with the sexist mandate? You do realize that women are in the military as well and carry guns, right?
 
In other words, we should have conscription? Or do you mean that everyone should be on the football team--I mean the guys, anyway.
 
Going a little off topic now, but I think both the military and our country in general would benefit greatly from having a minimum set of physical fitness standards required for high school graduation.

(now to keep this on topic)

Not that it would ever happen in this country, but an introductory exposure to shooting at some point through the school system would do us a world of good as well. Will never happen, but one can always hope.
 
I've been lurking this forum for a short while but I saw this thread and felt a need to post. So this is my first post!

As a currently deployed U.S. Army soldier I feel that the Army supplies us with more then adequate training and equipment/ammunition. Like others have time is the limiting factor in this equation. I would be confident in saying that we are the best trained and equipped soldiers in the world.

What was the first thing the Drill Sergeant said to my platoon in Basic Training? "Forget everything you think you know about firing a rifle." They will teach you everything you need to know from the ground up. I grew up around firearms shooting ground squirrels and I came out of basic training a better shooter. For those soldiers that were slow to pick up marksmanship the Drill Sergeants worked with them individually until they were up to par. Basic Marksmanship and PT were the two things that could make or break you at Basic Training and the Army made those priority.

I think training every soldier to hit targets out to 600 meters is unrealistic. That is area effect range for an M4 as, I believe, it should be.

As I said I think the Army is doing the best it can to prepare us for the types of combat we are likely to see. By the time they were able to change training requirements across the entire Army we might be out of Afghanistan and be somewhere else kicking in doors like here in Iraq. How useful is 600 meter engagements then?
 
What is up with the sexist mandate? You do realize that women are in the military as well and carry guns, right?
Click to expand...

Yes I do realize that women are in the military and that women carry guns,(getting ready to get flamed) but I do not believe that women should serve on the front lines in combat....:eek:

Also I think it would be a lot tougher to mandate girls in school to take up marksmanship.

In other words, we should have conscription?
Click to expand...

Conscription in the US which is kind of like the draft would be enacted in a minute if it ever came to it that we needed it (SHTF) scenario. And last time I saw a selective service commercial on TV it stated that all 18 year old males must register not females, so go wine to them for being sexist..........lol:)

Per Selective Service Website
If you are a man ages 18 through 25 and living in the U.S., then you must register with Selective Service. It’s the law. According to law, a man must register with Selective Service within 30 days of his 18th birthday.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top