Rifles

Marksmanship Matters (Page 2)

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have turned into “rifle fights,” tactical situations for which many of America’s troops have been ill-prepared.


The problem is only aggravated by a shortage of facilities or ammunition. In 2005 at Fort Sill, Okla., a deploying helicopter company was unable to qualify with most arms. Said former Warrant Officer Dave Long, “We didn’t have enough pistol ammunition, so we ran around with our Berettas, going ‘bang-bang.’ Although we’re an aviation unit, we had to train for convoy escort but there was no training ammo for the .50 calibers or Mark 19 grenade launchers. So we did like Sgt. Rock, going ‘budda-budda.’ It was laughable and pointless.”


Since the armed forces seldom do an adequate job of teaching people to fight with rifles, the civilian sector becomes more important. After all, that’s why NRA was founded in 1871, and after World War II the association received thanks for its training contributions from President Truman, Gen. Eisenhower and members of the Joint Chiefs. Today, elite forces such as airborne, rangers, SEALs and Marine recon make good use of civilian training schools and instructors, and we need to recall that most advancements in firearm training (and often in design) come from the private sector.


Military personnel sometimes attend club events just so they can shoot military-type arms. In 2005 an Arizona police instructor provided three days of pro-bono small-arms training to a Marine helicopter pilot bound for combat. The aviator had not fired a hand-held small arm in two years.


Seth Nadel is an NRA Patron member, retired federal agent and competitive shooter. He recalled, “At one of our club’s machine gun events, two Army guys showed up to shoot a privately owned M60. Seems they could not get enough time to shoot on duty. They got more trigger time in that one day than they had in the previous few years.”


Despite the problems, the Army does take note, albeit slowly. In 2008 a pilot program began at Fort Benning, Ga., to improve basic knowledge and skills. One colonel said, “Twenty-three hits out of 40 isn’t too good. People train for the test but we need to train them to shoot.”


Instead of issuing one round for each possible target, trainers want to issue more rounds than targets. Some pop-up targets are programmed to fall only after two or three hits, like people. Troops should be taught to stay on the sights until the threat is defeated: “Shoot until the world looks flat.” Other aspects of the program include firing from unusual positions, behind cover, and changing magazines as needed rather than when the range officer says to. Additionally, planned malfunctions occur by placing dummy rounds in each magazine.


Whatever it’s called, the current war with radical Islam will not end anytime soon. From the beginning, the war on terror has been a rifle fight writ large, and that fact is not about to change.


Currently the main combat arena is Afghanistan, with two constants: it’s high and it’s steep. The median elevation in central Afghanistan is 6,000 feet, and anyone who’s been there knows that it’s uphill in every direction. But few training facilities permit troops to shoot long range at severe angles.


Derrick Martin, an Iraq veteran, noted that in combat there’s no such thing as a perfect rifle-range position. “You’re loaded down with a helmet, vest and web gear; you’re hot and tired and scared. You’re not going to make very many perfect squeezes. So you need to know what looks and feels good and what doesn’t. We can teach you that, but we need to do it a lot more than once or twice a year.”


The Designated Marksman (DM) program is generally judged a success, assigning a specially trained rifleman to each infantry squad (for more on the U.S. Army Marksmanship Unit’s DM training, go to www.americanrifleman.org/usamu). The DM carries a modified M16/M4 with optical sight or perhaps an M14. (“We have 20-year-old soldiers shooting 50-year-old rifles.”) The DM fills the ballistic/tactical gap from 300 to 600 meters, where snipers take over. However, the potential trouble is in numbers: three DMs in a platoon might not offset 10 or 20 mujaheddin with belt-fed weapons and mortars on the high ground. It would be much better if more ordinary riflemen knew how to hit at 500 meters.


Obviously it’s high time to prepare the troops for the next rifle fight. But what’s the solution? First, acknowledge that very few people enlist to shoot. Far more are attracted by career prospects and benefits—the Army website says almost nothing about war fighting. (The pull-down menu emphasizes jobs and benefits, while “Being a Soldier” cites musicians and health care providers.)


Secondly, recognize that raising tens of thousands of soldiers to an NRA standard of civilian marksmanship is impossible. Even assuming the institutional willingness—a huge assumption—the Big Army lacks the resources.


Therefore, thirdly: let the shooters shoot. Allow unit commanders to devote extra range time to soldiers with the desire to become as proficient as possible. In combat, they can take the time to hold, aim and squeeze while their friends lay down area fire or at least make noise. The two concepts are not necessarily contradictory.


To summarize: The overall standard of Army marksmanship can be raised by quality, not quantity. The army recruits about 80,000 people a year, so let a few hundred with the interest and ability do most of the shooting. In some remote, desolate battlefield, a few good riflemen can mean the difference between life and death.


<< PREV   1   2  

Share |

Comments

ADD YOUR COMMENT

Enter your comments below, they will appear within 24 hours


Your Name


Your Email


Your Comment

40 Responses to Marksmanship Matters (Page 2)

Jeff wrote:
June 09, 2013

I think that while marksmanship is the cornerstone of all rifle use regardless of caliber or distance, let's give our guys a better rifle and cartridge. I'd personally like to see the U.S. Military adopt the H&K 416, but chambered for the 6.8 Remington SPC. It's a rifle similar to the AR-15, but it's a lot more reliable and rugged, and the 6.8 Rem hits harder and has better range than the 5.56x45.

Rifleman wrote:
May 28, 2012

This is an EXCELLENT article about 2 things: 1) How important Rifle Marksmanship is in combat. 2) How the US Army is totally not interested in teaching Rifle Marksmanship. Having been through US Army BRM (Basic Rifle Marksmanship) in Basic Training in 1983, I'm calling this article "a Bullseye". After Basic, my first unit was invited to Paris Island,SC, to shoot with the Marines on 2 occasions. There instruction was an epiphany to me. Although I was a US Army Infantryman, The US Marine Corps taught me to shoot a Rifle. What does that say about the Army?... I also recommend an "Appleseed" shoot. You'll learn to use the loop sling and military rear apature iron sights. Enjoy the article. Feel free to forward to anyone who owns a rifle.

gordon wrote:
November 06, 2011

I dont agree totally with the quote, everyone should have to learn to shoot a rifle as a boy, it does help a bit,, but when I went into infantry OSUT they actually prefered if the person has limited knowledge of marksmanship, or the military in general, so they can train the recruit the army way, or marine way. once you are trained to standards then the proper training should happen when stationed. not that its a bad thing to learn when young but not totally necessary if the military follows up with additional training.

enlow wrote:
October 29, 2011

i agree with this line "If parents wanted their son to have the best chance to survive combat, see that he learns to shoot a rifle as a boy." when i went to boot camp i noticed us "country boys" were much more comfortable and handled rifles with ease while the "city boys" didnt have the first idea on how to handle a simple rifle and they were scared to hld it at times, some guys even starting shaking.

AlexMcB wrote:
August 19, 2011

to all those who think the simulators that the military uses are done on laptop computers with a mouse and keyboard need to listen up. The military uses a modified rifle/carbine against a image projected back drop. the modified rifle requires you to go through the motions of loading and chambering and even simulates recoil. vehical combat simulators are even more indepth.

Caesarjd wrote:
July 22, 2011

Concur - Learned more about marksmanship fundamentals in my first Appleseed event (1 Weekend), than I have in 15 years of service in the Army and two combat tours in Iraq. I keep trying to get my Soldiers to go, but short of ordering them what can you do, and they just don't know what they don't know. http://www.appleseedinfo.org/

Dragoon Commander wrote:
June 17, 2011

Hey Soldier, get a weekend pass and driver directly to your nearest Appleseed Shoot. I will save your life and your platoons one day. The American Rifleman was born in 1775, and its still 'one Soldier vs one Bad Guy' that makes the difference. BooRAH!

Kevin wrote:
June 08, 2011

As an active duty Army officer that recently completed two company commands I can clearly state that facilities and ammunition are available to units who are scheduled to deploy. If the chain of command emphasizes marksmanship, the training can be conducted. Shooting once a week or more is entirely possible, and shooting all week long is 100% do-able if focused blocks of time are set aside at places like the Yakima Training Center or other similiar facilities. The Army has become MUCH better about our marksmanship training as a result of our experiences over the last 10 years. HOWEVER, most of that training is conducted at ranges under 300m, and we lack widespread training expertise to address proper marksmanship over 300m. This may have been influenced by combat in Iraq, which most often occurred in urban settings at shorter ranges. My troopers absolutely shot their 1,200 rounds a year, but longer range known-distance type marksmanship was lacking. Keep in mind that rifle marksmanship is not the only focus; crew served weapons, M203, hand grenades, AT-4, and even Javelin (if you're lucky enough to get ammo) must also be addressed.

ntrudr_800 wrote:
June 03, 2011

If what it all comes down to is the Soldier being able to properly use his rifle and hit what he is aiming for--then YES the Soldier needs as much training with their rifles as possible! Hell, we all need to practice a lot with our rifles. And not just during daytime & perfect weather! Playing a simulator/game is one thing. Sure, there are some skills that can be learned while using a simulator. Such as one's reaction speed. BUT moving a mouse with precision and moving one's body with precision are two different worlds. Action may LOOK easy, but when one actually attempts it he may find his body does not react as his mind had planned. This is why we practice.

RRR wrote:
May 26, 2011

Nothing takes the place of lots of well-coached, carefully supervised marksmanship training for trained Army units of almost any type. Nothing. I retired from the Army over a decade ago, so maybe my observations are not valid today. But I was almost appalled 20-30 years back at the inattention, indifference, and sometimes outright ignorance I encountered among my peers with regard to their marksmanship leadership duties. But their shortcomings paid off for our unit, since we shot their ammo as well as ours--and became 101st Airborne company marksmanship champs in the process. There needs to be emphasis in the officer basic and advanced courses about instructing in these essential skills. Those are the folks who make the decisions. And when Obama cuts the DoD budget, ammo should NOT be reduced. The arms may be different, but it would seem that the underlying marksmanship skills required overseas remain as important as they were to my grandfather when he fired his "Eddystone," as he always referred to the M1917. Maybe the 1,000-yard shooting he did with his Eddystone is unnecessary, but it is time to clean up the 600-yard target butts and pass the ammunition.

Bob wrote:
May 24, 2011

Served 21 years, was a Drill Seargant and held Squad Sniper positon with an old M24. We teach the masses coming in and units are expected to pick up the slack. BUT they don't because many expect the soldier to be ready when their feet hit the tarmack. I was raised shooting with the Boy Scouts and Jr. NRA. You will not find any stats on those with back grounds in shooting versus those without because the questions are not asked. So yes the article is Correct and change is needed both in the Military and Guard. Plus protect your right to keep and bare Arms.

Huff wrote:
May 23, 2011

I, too, find the Appleseed Project to be incredibly useful (www.appleseedinfo.org). If the article made an impression it was in the decline of civilian marksmanship amongst youth and its apparent correlative effect to the urbanization of the nation has been a factor in the marksmanship performance of the young people we send into the service. Regrettably, many NRA rifle instructors are not very active and do not hone their teaching skills. AS Project instructors are VERY active and there are shoots within driving distance every weekend. I believe they possess the potential to make the United States a nation of Riflemen once again.

ntrudr800 wrote:
April 28, 2011

I like .308 too. But I'd have no problem using .223 in normal ranges (up to 300 yds). It makes sense if you can carry more ammo which is lighter. Now 500 yds is out there! I was thinking a bolt action would do better than an auto. Enter the Sniper and the Designated Marksman! I can bet the M16/4 work fine in the 200 yd range. Less recoil. This is an educated guess. The M16 makes sense for those who don't aim down sight (ADS) under stress. Proper training makes the most sense. It depends on the location. Out in the wide-open desert a .308. In close-quarters cities a .223

Pat Mcgilton wrote:
April 26, 2011

There are several areas of this article that are disturbing and or sad but true. I work as a trainer for a company that provides simulators to many U.S. services. While I whole heartedly agree that there is no replacement for live fire simulators can fill a void caused by the lack of live fire range time and ammunition (Thank you congress) An issue with simulators aor live training is lack of trained/skilled instructors both on the fundimentals of marksmanship but the simulators themselves. The Army along has invested Millions alone on simulators and many sit idle for lack of trained personnel to use them. Other sit idle because they are broken and there are no funds to get them repaired. marksmanship requires time and effort. I peronally have seen many opportunities to train in marksmanship skills wasted because of lack of thought about how to maximize available assets on drill weekends or during a training period on active duty. Why have 5 relays of shooters sitting idle for 1/2 a day when you could have them using other training aids directly related to the primary purpose of the infantrymen putting accurate shots on target?

Daniel Gookin wrote:
April 26, 2011

Having read most of the comments, Im seeing what appears to be the biggest deficiency, our young men dont know how to shoot, the essence of a rifleman. I have my favorites but in the end if you practiced habits of a real & true "rifleman", its in your mind & your concentration to hit your target with any rifle. I'm now a hunter safety instructor in the North bay area in California & I see future hunters who really need true rifle skills. We dont need big or small guns, we need young men who can truly shoot and connect. From my end, I'll do the best I can to make a dent in out problem.

Steve Wellman wrote:
April 26, 2011

The Marksmanship training a reserve or guard unit conducts is usally inadaquate due to lack of emphasis from leadership. with todays technology, there is absolutley no reason why a soldier is not prepared to successfully engage a target 300 meters and well beyond. It is doable with the proper leadership,training and tools.

Duncan wrote:
April 25, 2011

Appleseed is free to servicemen. They teach the old-school basics of marksmanship. Highly recommended. http://www.appleseedinfo.org/

Jon Oblon wrote:
April 25, 2011

It's not that we don't have enough time or resources to practice shooting here in the Army, it's that we have to spend our time on things that don't freaking matter, powerpoint presentations on stupid stuff (I could go on forever). I thank all the NRA members out there that have helped my fellow soldiers get some trigger time prior to their deployments. YOU all are American Heros!!!

thomas wrote:
April 24, 2011

i carried an m-14 for 6 months in vietnam and hit more targets than even m-60s. i watched as g.i.s trying to clear or unjam thier m-16s in the middle of a firefight. i never had that problem. guess which rifle i would take to combat now, if i could.

George W Merrell wrote:
April 24, 2011

most of you are missing the point MARKSMANSHIP (or the lack of it) in the military today!! it wouldn't matter if every soldier had a .50 cal if they can't hit the target. part of the reason our military went from 7.62 to 5.56 is that under stress most soldiers don't aim they just spray & pray thus more ammo means survival. if you kill someone with a 5.56 they are just as dead as if you kill them with a 7.62 or a .50 cal! A good marksman will make a .22 a lethal weapon.

CW3 Cecil Powell (R) wrote:
April 24, 2011

I used to command a bunch of Alabama Guardsmen back in the 1980's. Those old boys loved to shoot, and did it very well at our annual qualification. However, they were raised around shooting, like I raised my children. You are correct in that you can't make a rifleman out of a kid who has played video games all his life. It takes years to train a person to be really competent with a weapon, not two weeks in basic and one day a year while qualifying.

James Newman wrote:
April 24, 2011

I am a 21 year Veteran of the U.S. Army (now retired). When I enlisted in 1990 the marksmanship lessons were one shot one kill, however once on the battle field we were trained to gain "fire superiority" and then that would allow the snipers and marksmen to take well aimed shots and/or allow us to move up into better positions against the enemy. I don't see a lot of that in this article and find that the Army has not been given enough credit.

Michael wrote:
April 24, 2011

I have to agree that the .308 is the better choice. Having owned a NM M1A, the range and accuracy can't be beat by a .223. I could eaisly and repeatedly make 500yrd headshots! I had rather be able to hit a target at that distance than have to wait till he's within 300yrds!

Vern Humphrey wrote:
April 24, 2011

I was highly impressed by the May, 2012 edition of The American Rifleman. What a huge jump in quality. I was especially impressed by the article, “Marksmanship Matters: Let the Shooters Shoot.” As an old Infantryman, I have long gone by the motto, “firing a hand-held weapon on full auto is like micturating through your ear – an amusing trick, but of no combat value.” As a company commander in Viet Nam, I put the word out – firing your M16 on full auto will get you an Article 15 and a $50 fine. To train troops in combat shooting suitable for a jungle environment, I would have my NCOs put out targets made from C-ration boxes. These targets would be put in the brush, deployed as an enemy squad might be. They were not visible from our firing position. The troops, unable to see the targets, were trained to visualize where the enemy was not. He’s not up in the air, so imagine a horizontal line marking the far limit of where he can’t be. The enemy is also not lying in front of your muzzle, so imagine another line marking the near limit of where he can’t be. The enemy has to be between those two horizontal lines. To a man lying as close to the ground as he can get, those two lines are usually only two or three front sight heights apart. (Try it for yourself and see.) Now imagine two vertical lines marking your left and right limit. These lines complete your “target box.” The rifleman’s responsibility is to methodically work the target box. NCOs were trained to be sure their men’s fire overlapped, and to keep the fire low. If you’re not seeing some shots hit short of the target box, your men are shooting too high. For fire control, I had officers and NCOs carry magazines loaded with tracer. A squad leader would mark his squad’s sector of fire by shooting three pairs of tracers, left, right and center. That sequence allowed even men who did not see all three pairs to judge where the sector limits were. Firing steadily at one point me

Tom Collins wrote:
April 22, 2011

Hitting what your aiming at is a lot more important than the size of the weapon. In 2004 while attending a one and done tryout for a security mission to Iraq there were over 60 applicants. About half were retired and current Police Officers the rest were recently and not retired US military. Only five passed myself and another 60 yr old retired PO and a 40 yr old governement agent and 2 recent SF soldiers. The 3 younger men went to Afghanistan and the old guys to Iraq. Marksmanship or lack of physical dexterity sunk most of the applicants, M-16 and 92 Berettas were used for the test. It was a sad display to me.

Colorado Pete wrote:
April 21, 2011

Sounds like the Army might need some outside help until it can get its time/ammo/facility priorities improved. I encourage anyone in uniform to attend an Appleseed shoot whenever possible. As a former NRA highpower rifle competitor and current Appleseed instructor I can guarantee it will be worth a weekend to gain concrete foundational skills. We teach what the Army used to teach back around WWII, and what it still teaches in the DM course. We recently had a battalion XO from an infantry division here at Ft. Carson attend an Appleseed with three of his non-coms including the battalion's top sniper, and they found it very worthwhile. He is trying to find a way for us to train some of his people, if he can fit it in his unit's busy schedule. We need to train up our kids and young adults, so America can be a nation of riflemen again, and be better prepared in case trouble comes to their generation, God forbid.

Just Call Me Joe wrote:
April 21, 2011

30.06 is better than both....

Stan Jarosz wrote:
April 21, 2011

Tillman's article is right on, with one exception: it is definitely possible to train large numbers in basic fundamentals- at one point in time, the USMC did that well. What is lacking is the institutional will to make that a priority for those most likely to actually engage in rifle fights. Competent trainers, time and ammo are the elements needed to make it happen...all available if made a priority. Tillman also failed to mention the use of civilian shooters as CMP trainer volunteers in the USAMU's D/R trng program.

Wes Daines wrote:
April 20, 2011

It is amazing that the WW II 50 cal. and the M-1 Garrand are better than most of the "New Stuff".

posterboy wrote:
April 20, 2011

I second the appleseed reference. If you are an active military member including National Guard or reserve you can attend an appleseed FREE as many times as you like where Marksmanship fundamentals are taught over a weekend along with equally vital American History. As an instructor for the program I am Honored to have any active Military members come. At locations that support the 1/4 mile we do actual distance. We are turning the Nation back into a Nation of Riflemen one Citizen at a time.A deep and heartfelt THANKS for all whom are serving our country ! www.appleseedusa.org

Wayne wrote:
April 20, 2011

The problem is that we have very little time for training. Between suicide prevention, EO classes and annual briefs, all the admin crap and constantly preparing for various unit inspections. Then take into account that the limited time and ammo we have tend to be used to bring the lowest common denominator up to the point of passing a simple qual so we can check that block. We have Soldiers that think they have achieved something by simply shooting an expert score at a qual. What that shows is a good grasp of the basics of MARKSMANSHIP. That is all well and good. What we need is to spend less time worrying about marksmanship and more about training our men and women how to fight with a gun. Until the brass understands that distinct difference we are doomed to remain stagnant at our current abilities. We also have to come with terms that the .mil is easily 10 years behind the curve when it comes to running a gun. If you want the best training possible it means stepping outside the military and seeking it on your own time and dime. You then bring that training back to your guys.

Dick Parker wrote:
April 20, 2011

In the Gulf war, I came up with a shooting stance for full NBC gear; firing from being the butt. My scores increased at least 30%, but do you see range officers taking advantage of this???? Nope!!!

John Cook wrote:
April 20, 2011

As a retired army soldier, I agree that marksmanship training should be changed and improved. However, the rules of engagement imposed on our troops are ridiculous. We're used to supression fire with a 7.62 NATO machine gun and a knock out with gunships/airstrikes. That's been taken away with these rules of engagement.

Akbob3 wrote:
April 20, 2011

Currently deployed in Afghanistan (Air Force). I have been in 8 years, and fired 3 days out of that time (less than 200 rounds total.) Many of our AF are engaged in live combat with no more training. That is wrong!

Clay Cooper wrote:
April 20, 2011

I've conducted shooting clinics for the Army and the first thing I say, toss the silhouettes were shooting NRA Targets today! After 5 to 6 hour of live fire instruction incorporating a full course 80 round NRA Long range 200, 300 and 600 yards. For those who attended, shooting scores excelled over those who were considered the best shooters at their Post including winning there next Commanders Trophy Match. Shooting at 600 yards with M16A2’s built up their confidence and debunking the 440 meter barrier for the longest shot capability of there weapon

Ernest wrote:
April 19, 2011

That is what Project Appleseeed has been doing for the last five years or so - teach some basic marksmanship skills and the historical importance of April 19th 1775. Civilians and Military shooters alike participate and learn.

Tom Stearns wrote:
April 19, 2011

I agree whole-heartedly. What do we do? I think we need to introduce real stress (as opposed to raising heartrate by exercising).

Carl wrote:
April 19, 2011

I was never a fan of the change from .308 to .223. I know the .308 is an heavier round and so if the rifle but if you stopped using full auto and actually aimed each shot you don't need so much ammo and the .308 is a harder hitting and a more accurate round.

Garth wrote:
April 18, 2011

Makes sense: for better marksmanship efficiency, teach your young sons -- or daughters-- to hunt and skeet shoot,etc.God Bless the Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, Royal Rangers and Missionettes for this, and more. God Bless America, G

Craig Parker wrote:
April 18, 2011

For a while in the 60s my unit ran the teaching and trainfire ranges on Ft. Carson. Everything said in this article applied then also. You have got to realize that "Beancounters" Rule the military, not "Warfighters". Until that gets changed, we will never really take back that 1/2 klick. D-82 P100-97