ALL prior service were trained to use full auto m16's with high cap magazines


PDA






Tirod
January 17, 2013, 12:01 AM
How many millions? Every soldier, sailor, airman, and Marine is trained to use the M16 or a variant, and issued high capacity magazines. Millions. I tried to estimate how many, it ran over 20 million if you included the M14's.

One source - the number of veterans: http://www.infoplease.com/spot/veteranscensus1.html

We currently train over 800,000 a year in basic alone.

And nobody is talking about it.

Why? We need to make more of it - millions trained at OUR expense to Government standards to fire a fully automatic weapon and/or with large magazines, and trained on more than one in many cases.

Let's see, M9, M16 and A1 and A2, M60, M249, M2, M17, not countintg the Dragon, TOW, M72 LAW, STINGER, and REDEYE. Grenades and the Claymore, too.

Just one list I am acquainted with, doesn't include single stacks and personal weapons. And like a lot of others, I may not be in service any more, but I haven't suddenly become less capable and a danger to society. (At least I haven't started my kit car project. :D )

Add the millions of police, deputies, and all the training they get using firearms. I hear the local PD practicing with M16's - full auto - on Sundays after I get off work. On loan from Uncle Sam.

We're getting completely left out of the conversation, and it's really beginning to annoy me. Who said we can't handle a semi auto AR with a 20 round mag? Kid's rabbit rifle compared to the some of the other stuff.

Ooohhh, wait a minute, I get it, it's all a grandstand show, folks. Balance and common sense aren't part of this act. We're not talking statesman, it's Illinois politics, and that's the dirtiest politics in the USA. Good old Chicago.

If you enjoyed reading about "ALL prior service were trained to use full auto m16's with high cap magazines" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Grassman
January 17, 2013, 12:04 AM
Think you're correct sir.

gbran
January 17, 2013, 12:12 AM
I trained with M-14's first, then M-16's.

OptimusPrime
January 17, 2013, 12:14 AM
Your point is what i usually use as my closing argument to the "only cops and military" nonsense.
"Ok, only people trained in the military; that's me and him and him and about 30 million other citizens."

C96
January 17, 2013, 12:18 AM
Not quite all. I was trained on the M1 Garand and the M1 carbine.

Trent
January 17, 2013, 12:36 AM
You're correct, and have every right to be angry.

But don't discount us good old boys who didn't serve, even the ones trapped in downstate Illinois (e.g. occupied territory).

Some of us know how to shoot very well. :)

OptimusPrime
January 17, 2013, 12:45 AM
You're correct, and have every right to be angry.

But don't discount us good old boys who didn't serve, even the ones trapped in downstate Illinois (e.g. occupied territory).

Some of us know how to shoot very well. :)
Very true, and my comments certainly aren't meant to discount anyone else's civilian experiences. My point is only that even if they restrict ownership to those few special people who've received all that wonderfully perfect government training (sarcasm face?) we still have 30 million of us. Point=ridiculousness.

Gunnerboy
January 17, 2013, 01:23 AM
Theres an easy anwser to our issues.... we all need to get deputized then we can possess any weapon out there and all the "hi cap" mags we desire.

USAF_Vet
January 17, 2013, 01:26 AM
I was trained with the M-16 and standard capacity magazines, thank you very much.

Standard capacity for the armed forces is 30 rounds.

I consider a Beta mag to be high capacity, and we never used those. If we wanted that many rounds, get a belt fed.

rcmodel
January 17, 2013, 01:30 AM
I bought a brown paper grocery sack half full of GI issue 30 round M-16 mags for $15 bucks 5 years ago at a garage sale.
About $.75 cents a mag!

They still had Ft. Bragg red clay dust in them!

The garage sale guy was a just retired Army officer who had just moved to town.


It could be a new cottage industry for returning GI's I betcha!

Wonder what they are going to do about that??

rc

ID-shooting
January 17, 2013, 01:31 AM
Weeeeelllll. The stamp on the mag says "LEO/militray use only" right? Most of are in the military...the militia. Albeit unorganized.

mikechandler
January 17, 2013, 01:45 AM
Yep, me too, 1970's, USAR, M16A1, though we had 20 round magazines. I was a signal corps communications chief, but even I had to qualify with my rifle - I think it was true in most branches of service regardless of MOS.

They are grossly underestimating just how many veterans there are with an AR. But of course they would have no idea... because not many veterans are democrats, and I doubt many veterans believe gun control is a good idea either.

1911 guy
January 17, 2013, 02:47 AM
You guys better knock this off. It just isn't polite to go around interjecting common sense into the circus that has been ginned up for our entertainment.

The problem with debating this way is one of familiarity. Let's say you were prior service (me too, USN) and having this debate with a friend or relative. You are familiar to them, so not included in this mythical class of "military and police only". I went through this with my own granddad a few days ago. The "highly trained" argument came up. Expert rifle and Pistol medals came out of the dresser drawer. No effect, because the "military and police have real life experience". He seems to not remember all the letters sent home from crappy places around the planet. It's because I'm familiar and therefore not part of a mythology they like to believe in.

wideym
January 17, 2013, 05:31 AM
I get angry with the pundits who keep repeating the "only the military and law enforcement are trained" line. I had 17 years of military training, a little over 14 of it in the Infantry. Yet as soon as I'm out, I'm not trusted to own an AR-15.

What about when I was 20 year old specialist who was in charge of hundreds of M-16s, grenade launchers, belt fed MGs, and the like. I must say that today I am much more mature, but now I'm not to be trusted with a semi auto rifle?

Shadow 7D
January 17, 2013, 05:39 AM
Miltary /LEO mags were COMMONLY sold to everyone right after 94, they had their stocks built up, and simply opened the gates wide on the warehoused inventory.

Plan2Live
January 17, 2013, 06:52 AM
I'm a volunteer RSO at a local shooting range near an Air Force Base. Many of our rifle shooters own ARs and come practice with them regularly because in a worse case scenario where they have to drop their tools and grab their rifles they want to be proficient with them and the Air Force only has them fire them once per year and with a limited amount of ammunition. That's one of my closing arguments and one of the obvious arguments I wish our "Point Person", if we had one, would make.

Hacker15E
January 17, 2013, 07:28 AM
Let's remember that less than 10% of the entire population of the US has even been in the military.

Not as common as one would think.

w9trb
January 17, 2013, 08:31 AM
I was in the USAF Security Police trained with full auto M16, riot shotgun and pistol. I really resent the current government ignoring the reality of my training and treating me like an errant child. There needs to be truth and sanity in the discussion of firearms and the government needs to deal with reality. I have never been a threat to them or anyone else. I have seen the stockpiles of weapons they have. With their weapons they can threaten the entire world and yet they want me disarmed of my semi-autos? The next time we vote, people had better do some serious reflection because it is clearer than ever that elections have consequences.

ApacheCoTodd
January 17, 2013, 12:31 PM
That's a kick-ass response to the tired old "... only in hands of properly trained..." rhetorical argument about qualifications relative to ownership.

I wish I'd though of it.

tulsamal
January 17, 2013, 12:48 PM
There is another area in the gun debate where I tend to bring up veterans. When the anti's start saying teachers and staff "wouldn't know how or when to use a weapon." Or "wouldn't want to be 'forced' to learn." Totally discounting the fact that MANY of today's teachers are vets. I know, I have been both.

And it gets even better when you think about it. My time in service was 85-93. I was lucky enough that I was never sent into combat. When I entered the Army in 85, my first unit still had some NCO's and officers who had served in Vietnam. But by 93, it seemed like somebody with actual combat stripes on their dress uniform was rare. That has all changed now. We not only have lots of vets, we've got lots and lots of combat experienced vets. Some of them with 3-4 or even more tours of duty in combat zones. These combat vets are a precious resource in lots of ways. They certainly could become teachers or coaches or vice principals... and carry a gun every day. If something bad happened, if a 16 year old showed up with a gun... you really expect me to believe that these vets would somehow "panic" and not be able to handle the situation? I don't believe it!

Gregg

d-dogg
January 17, 2013, 01:10 PM
Well, yes and no.

US Air Force retiree here. Came in a few years post Vietnam.

I did indeed qualify with an M16 (with .22 LR adapters) in basic training. I think the adapters held something like 10 rounds (long time ago, can't recall for sure). Anyway, we fired 55 rounds. After cleaning and reassembling the weapon, our instructor had us point the unloaded weapons upward, move the selector to auto, and pull the trigger. "Now you can tell everyone you fired an M16 on full automatic", he said.

I qualified yearly with .22LR in the M16 for the first 5 years (again, 55 rounds on semi-automatic).

Then to save money, they had us only qualify if we deployed or went overseas.

Somewhere down the road, the .22 LR adapters got to be more expensive to maintain than real .223 ammo, so I got to qualify with real ammo once.

The last 4 years of my 20 year career, I did not have to qualify.

Though I retired with both rifle and pistol marksmanship ribbons, I never carried a weapon in the line of duty (outside of qualifying) in 20 years.

easyg
January 17, 2013, 01:40 PM
Let's remember that less than 10% of the entire population of the US has even been in the military.
Is this 10% or the adult population or does this include children as well?


As for all military personnel being trained to shoot rifles....yes, and no...

There are some great shooters in the military.
There some above average shooters in the military.
And there are some average shooters in the military.
And there are some below average shooters in the military.
And, sadly, there are some folks in the military who can't shoot worth crap.

More than a few military personnel have "qualified" with the help of a 5.56 mm ink pen!


Sometimes the military needs a skilled person, like an excellent surgeon, and they will not kick them out simply because they can't shoot well.

USAF_Vet
January 17, 2013, 01:42 PM
The funny thing about the "highly trained" idea is that a majority of service members are not all that highly trained. At least 90% of the military is in a non combat related MOS.

Most cops, their training is pretty lackluster, too.

I shot the M-16 in basic training, limited ammo, no FA.
It wasn't until later when I cross trained to Security Forces that I shot the M9.

It was years after that when I deployed to Iraq in an ILO slot, that I got additional training for the M2, and M249.

Sorry, but an 18 hear old that shoots a few dozen rounds down range each year is not 'highly trained'.

I've had more training in the 4-1/2 years since I got out of the military than I did in the entire time I was on active duty.

w9trb
January 17, 2013, 05:56 PM
I went into USAF in 1970, into the Strategic Air Command, we were in a constant state of training and there was no simulation of shooting full-auto. It was all for real. At least twice a week and sometimes more we launched nuke loaded B-52's just to show the enemy satellites that we were serious. I almost feel like laughing when government officials talk about terrorism. For years that was exactly our policy, M.A.D., mutually assured destruction wasn't just an acronym, we were really doing it. And now they act like I shouldn't be allowed to have semi-auto firearms. Way too much hypocrisy going around, if you ask me.

fordfan485
January 17, 2013, 06:01 PM
When I was in using 3 round burst on the M16A2 was grounds for getting an article 15. ( non judicial punishment). That and we never put more than 20 rds in a 30 rd mag when qualifying which was only once or twice a year.

armoredman
January 17, 2013, 07:13 PM
I trained on M-14s that were factory made semi auto - we had only 3 full auto versions in the armory. You did NOT want someone trying to throw a line with the rifle on full auto...
Loved that rifle, would love to own one, someday when I win the lottery.

Rezin
January 17, 2013, 09:57 PM
M16A2 here.

hso
January 17, 2013, 10:04 PM
I think the young men and women who are in or recently separated from the military are an untapped ally in our struggle.

Trained in the use of M16/M4s and knowing the difference between ARs and M16/M4s they are less easily lied to about the weapons.

The lies they've been told about crime rates and the mythical "epidemic of gun violence" can be counter-programmed with the truth and data from the FBI.

The fact the Constitution and their sacrifice is being betrayed with lies and denial of all our rights needs to be highlighted.

soloban
January 17, 2013, 10:06 PM
USAF M16A2 - 3 Round burst but never had a chance to let rip a burst. Just semi auto at Basic. The rifle I was issued at the range was a real POS and wouldn't cycle. After we were done at the range and were told to give the bolt and bolt carrier group a half-assed scrub with CLP and nasty tooth brush I quickly figured out why...

kyletx1911
January 17, 2013, 10:09 PM
nice very nice post me m16 a1 a2 ma duce and m60 plus served as a door gunner on the huey dog and ch 47

figment
January 17, 2013, 10:16 PM
You guys better knock this off. It just isn't polite to go around interjecting common sense into the circus that has been ginned up for our entertainment.

The problem with debating this way is one of familiarity. Let's say you were prior service (me too, USN) and having this debate with a friend or relative. You are familiar to them, so not included in this mythical class of "military and police only". I went through this with my own granddad a few days ago. The "highly trained" argument came up. Expert rifle and Pistol medals came out of the dresser drawer. No effect, because the "military and police have real life experience". He seems to not remember all the letters sent home from crappy places around the planet. It's because I'm familiar and therefore not part of a mythology they like to believe in.
very well said, thanks!

Walter
January 17, 2013, 11:30 PM
I was an 0311 Marine, did a couple of tours in Vietnam, learned how to handle all the basic tools of a combat rifleman, and used them.

I have read that Homeland Security has people like me on a list of "possible subversives/domestic terrorists".

These days, that wouldn't surprise me.

Walter

armoredman
January 18, 2013, 12:16 AM
Thank you for your service, Marine. :)

barnbwt
January 18, 2013, 12:42 AM
I hear the local PD practicing with M16's - full auto - on Sundays after I get off work.

What do I need a 30rnd mag for? What the hell does a local PD need M16's for!! I'm not obligated by a civil service position to justify what I spend my money on--what's their excuse?

TCB

MaterDei
January 18, 2013, 12:49 AM
What do I need a 30rnd mag for? What the hell does a local PD need M16's for!! I'm not obligated by a civil service position to justify what I spend my money on--what's their excuse?

Some civilians have more rights than others, it seems.

RetiredUSNChief
January 18, 2013, 12:58 AM
Ummmm....not all servicemembers.

I was in the Navy (submarines) from 1985 to 2005. I was not trained/qualified on the M16.

I qualified on the M14, 1911, Remington 870, Mossberg 500, and M9.

The one time I shot the M16 was after qualifying on other weapons and we had time to shoot some M16's. It was really nothing more than an informal target shooting session and I was never required to qualify with that weapon. And it was all semi-auto shooting.

Unfortunately, firearms training in the Navy is not like it is in the other branches.

I did, however, qualify for my rifle and pistol expert medals. Though I never took any kind of combat qualification course, I could shoot pistols and rifles with the best of them on the regular qualification range.

:):)

Fishslayer
January 18, 2013, 01:12 AM
I spent four of my twenty years in the Seabees. USNMCB-5. While our M-16 had the fun setting on the selector we didn't train beyond semi auto qualifying on paper bullseyes.

Coop45
January 18, 2013, 01:59 AM
I was an 0311 Marine, did a couple of tours in Vietnam, learned how to handle all the basic tools of a combat rifleman, and used them.

I have read that Homeland Security has people like me on a list of "possible subversives/domestic terrorists".

These days, that wouldn't surprise me.

Walter
Dang Walter,
You must have been 1st MarDiv. 3rd Mar Div was civilized. LOL!!

herkyguy
January 18, 2013, 10:29 AM
i carried the M9 years ago and qual'd on the M16. I'll be the first to admit i know a lot more now about firearms than I did when I was carrying as a federal law enforcement officer. we shot 100 round per year. that was it. funny that a title in front of your name somehow makes the masses OK with you having a gun in your hand.

ball3006
January 18, 2013, 12:04 PM
Before I left for my great Vietnam adventure, I had to go through M16 training where we shot alot of ammo full auto, both offhand and with a bipod. Learned how to throw grenades too. I have also been a cop, 7 years. I also have shot in many matches and am a C&R junkie. Oh yeah, my job in the air force was a missile tech and that missile carried a 1.1 meg nuke....chris3

Tirod
January 18, 2013, 12:08 PM
I appreciate your observations on what "highly qualified" means. Yes, when 90% of the force is non combat MOS, and the budget gets crunched, you don't get to shoot very much. But as long as you are in uniform, you are qualified.

Kinda like the "Heroes" ads on local TV where a veteran's pic and awards are honored. "He/she fought in the (pick somewhere) Theatre in (choose a war.) I don't say anything, but I know from experience - I "fought" in GTMO and the front gate at Ft. Benning. 22 years of Reserve duty, and never a shot fired in anger. Started Infantry, but served in an MP unit with an Ordnance MOS the last year. Got Haz pay but no combat patch.

In GTMO, we couldn't even carry ink pens in the wire. In Benning, we carried M9's daily, had an M16 available at each post, and both were loaded. We carried more highly armed in the US in one day than the entire time in Cuba.

It does further underline the problem, tho. If it's all about military and police, but they can't qualify or practice because of budget cuts, then what qualifications do they really have? Again, smoke and mirrors.

The average AR owner who reloads is more proficient. But, yes, try to tell a family member all about it when their concept of you is mostly Christmas get togethers and what they hear from your wife. :)

Of course, the government doesn't yet restrict me as much as my job, but that's another rant. What I see in the future for the military is almost no qualification at all when they finish cutting the budget to the bone. It's happened before.

Thanks for mentioning the .22 adapters, I had to use them, too. Might be nice to bring up in the appropriate conversation.

Ehtereon11B
January 18, 2013, 03:36 PM
I USED to think everyone in the military was well trained in firearms. Then my unit ran the qual range for the brigade and some 13 and 88 series came by. Not so much anymore.

When I was in an active component we qualified on nearly every weapon we had to be every month.

runes
January 18, 2013, 04:02 PM
Navy vet 1968,69 in Nam.
We shot a .22 in boot camp and that was it for firearms training.
I owned .45s and several rifles at the age of 15, I'm sure I was more qualified than my sorry officers.

Ebbtide
January 18, 2013, 04:21 PM
I feel old to say i was trained with a 1911 and m14. Thats late 80's Navy for ya.

RetiredUSNChief
January 18, 2013, 04:42 PM
I appreciate your observations on what "highly qualified" means. Yes, when 90% of the force is non combat MOS, and the budget gets crunched, you don't get to shoot very much. But as long as you are in uniform, you are qualified.

Thank you for putting all of us active duty and retired servicemembers in a good light.

:)

However, I think what many of us (including myself) are trying to say it that this just isn't true.

One of the things we have to pony up to as gun owners, even (or especially) as active duty/retired military, is accuracy when making such forthright statements. We cannot engage in generalisms which either aren't 100% correct or which are stereotypical in nature.

Not only are these tactics used by the opposition which we dispise, they are also easy for them to poke holes in. Poke enough holes in them and they not only fall apart, they call anything else we say into question by association.

jcwit
January 18, 2013, 04:43 PM
I entered the Army in April 1965, I trained with a M14 with a standard 20 round magazine. I never even held a M 14 that was equiped to fire full auto. It was my understanding our weapons were stored across the highway from the Pentagon at Fort Myer and were either Garands or Springfield 03A3's.

USAF_Vet
January 18, 2013, 04:52 PM
They might be qualified on paper, but they are not capable.

When qualified means shooting a few dozen rounds a year in a controlled range with a liberal time limit, and as long as you hit some 60% in a very controlled environment, you are good to go.

I've seen firsthand how absurd that level of training really is when you try to apply it in real world combat. It ain't pretty.

So, in summary, qualified does not equal capable.

longknife12
January 18, 2013, 06:32 PM
M14 n M60's. Trust me, a full auto M14 AIN'T that accurate. ( too light)
Dan

Skribs
January 18, 2013, 06:49 PM
I have a coworker who was adamant that all police want to be proficient marksman, ignoring the fact that most of them train once a year or less, and that the marksman qualification isn't that difficult compared to what a lot of practiced shooters are capable of. The fact is, I don't think that we should use this argument, because it will make it easy for antis to say "only if you've had police or military training..."

On the other hand, a lot of antis would say they don't want returning soldiers to have guns. Why have a gun if you're not at war anymore? We don't want you to think this is Iraq, after all!

This isn't my personal position. I just don't think that the fact we have this many million trained by cops or military is justification for 2A. I think we have this many more million thta don't commit crimes and the founding fathers' papers are justification for 2A.

Fryerpower
January 18, 2013, 07:17 PM
I spent 10 years in the navy and never touched a working, government owned or leased firearm. But I was pretty good at precision drill for show! (Drill team.)

Jim

12Bravo20
January 18, 2013, 09:31 PM
Everyone's experiences are different as are the differences in how units/branches train. People are right in saying that not all military personnel or all police are proficient with their assigned weapons.

I spent all but the last year in the Army assigned to combat engineer units. The units I was assigned to were either forward deployed (overseas) or rapid deploy units stateside. It didn't matter if I was in a line company as an engineer or headquarters as a machinist, we went to the range on a regular basis and qualified minimum of 2 times a year. I was assigned everything from the 1911A1, M9, M3A1, M16A1/A2, M60 and Ma Deuce.

Hurryin' Hoosier
January 18, 2013, 10:14 PM
I bought a brown paper grocery sack half full of GI issue 30 round M-16 mags for $15 bucks 5 years ago at a garage sale.
About $.75 cents a mag!

They still had Ft. Bragg red clay dust in them!

The garage sale guy was a just retired Army officer who had just moved to town.


It could be a new cottage industry for returning GI's I betcha!

Wonder what they are going to do about that??

rc
And did this retired officer offer any explanation as to just how he had acquired property book items?

hueytaxi
January 19, 2013, 12:35 AM
Seeing the post on qualifying with the 5.56 ink pen, reminded me when I got to RVN with the 1st Cav, I was issued a temp .45 until I got assigned to my unit. 2 days of incountry orientation included "must qualify" with the .45. I never had ammunition until I got to the range where I was issued 12 rounds. I had to ask for a magazine. That Colt was such a mix and match of parts it would rattle in the holster. In the first 6 rounds I never hit the paper target and only saw where two rounds impacted. When the range officer had us retrieve our targets in round one, I placed 3 holes close to center, two off to the left high, stated I missed on my first shot and handed back the other 6 rounds. I had qualified on the first round. The only other weapon I qualified with was the M-14A1 even thought over the next 5 years I fired everything I could and even the M101 105, the 155 towed and the articulated mini-gun on a Kiowa. Darn mini-gun woulod almost turn the lightweight helicopter sideways momentarily.

GAF
January 19, 2013, 01:09 AM
My Air Force basic training (1974) included a few hours of classroom instruction on an AR 15. The next day I got to shoot 75 rounds and a half silhouette at 100 yards. After that I never handled a gun for the Air Force again.

Romeo 33 Delta
January 19, 2013, 02:11 AM
M-14s at Ft Knox (mine did have a selector, but I never used it in FA) and M-16s in combat in '68. I still love the M-14 and have a dead stock "military" (pre-ban) M1A and it's my pet rifle. I do have Ar15s and an AR-18 as well, but they're by alternate pets.:D

Fryerpower
January 19, 2013, 07:56 PM
People are right in saying that not all military personnel or all police are proficient with their assigned weapons.

My weapon was a nuclear reactor and I was VERY proficient at operating it! ;)

I would put myself at safe to operate and deadly to non moving targets within 30 yards with my handguns.

I need to work toward IDPA proficient.

I guess the point of this whole thread is that just because you wear or wore a uniform does not mean you are better prepared to use your weapon. It is all about realistic practice. Practice that can be achieved at the government's expense or your own.

Jim

Insp Evans
January 21, 2013, 08:09 PM
I was in Army ROTC for four years in college plus two years active duty. At college, we started out with M1s (loved those), then we went to M14s (easier on the right thumb), and finally, M16s on active duty. I qualified on all three plus would have gotten an expert badge for the M60 machine gun but it wasn't for qualification, so no official record.

I was in the Signal Corps but qualified every year. When I was in Korea, I bugged the company commander to let me go to an infantry unit and qualify on the fllamethrower, but he nixed the idea. Kind of an unusual qualification bar to add below the rifle and pistol bars!

RetiredUSNChief
January 22, 2013, 11:29 AM
My weapon was a nuclear reactor and I was VERY proficient at operating it! ;)

I would put myself at safe to operate and deadly to non moving targets within 30 yards with my handguns.

I need to work toward IDPA proficient.

I guess the point of this whole thread is that just because you wear or wore a uniform does not mean you are better prepared to use your weapon. It is all about realistic practice. Practice that can be achieved at the government's expense or your own.

Jim

You know, you could probably write your own six factor formula for the bullet lifecycle...

The number of bullets produced per shooting event

The probability that a bullet gets absorbed by the target while slowing down

The fraction of bullets that are absorbed by non-targets

...

:evil:

Fryerpower
January 22, 2013, 03:17 PM
I can still almost draw and label the whole thing. I still remember the mnemonic. It's been 12 years since I got out...

Jim

ironworkerwill
January 22, 2013, 04:35 PM
<Field Artillery THE KING of BATTLE! M16A1, grenades most types, M18(claymore), AT4(antitank rpg),Issued-M60, M203 (grenade launcher attached to M16A1),and M2( maw deuce, 50cal, .50 BMG). M.O.S. 35M (Fire Finder Radar repair) attached to field artillery.

johnc486
January 23, 2013, 01:20 AM
I can't begin to count the rounds I shot in Viet Nam 2 yrs (ON FULL AUTO), M60, 50 Cal, M14 & M16. I think (as others) we have done our fair share of training and qualifying to own said weapons. I understand the percentage (10%) going down, we Nam, Korean and WWII vets are leaving this world in vast numbers daily, young Vets carry on for us.

Zardaia
January 23, 2013, 01:31 AM
Thing is alot of the new generation gets very little training even in the mil for non combat jobs. I got a bumch of diff quals + annual re-qual on m4/m9 but that was my arming group/job. AF most folks only qual m16 (semi, don't think the basic course of fire even goes burst let alone FA) in basic then right before deployment, no recurring. Believe me i've seen base pop do some scary/dumb stuff down range with there A2's that they hardley know how to use.

Ehtereon11B
January 23, 2013, 09:37 PM
I always laugh when anyone assumes that training courses are the same throughout the military. There was an Air Force tech guy stationed with us in OEF. His duty was to keep our main line communications open, the stuff regular line infantry weren't trained on. He claimed that he went through the exact same weapons course that I did before being stationed with us. I asked him how long it was, he said 3 days. Basic Rifle Marksmenship/Advanced Rifle Marksmenship take up AT LEAST 4 weeks at BCT and AIT. I asked what weapons he used, he said just the M16A2. Our course was M9, 249, 240, M2, Mk19 and M4. I asked him if he ever shot at moving targets or from a vehicle. He said no. Long story short all he did was take a basic rifle qual of 30 rounds and 3 shooting stances. He only qualified Marksman when everyone in our Battalion has to be Sharpshooter or better, otherwise get transferred. But he considered himself an equal.

76shuvlinoff
January 23, 2013, 10:18 PM
I have been raising hell in local blogs about gun control incrementalism. Surprisingly much of the support for banning the AR from civilian hands comes from people claiming to be retired military and they really come off arrogant about it.

USAF_Vet
January 23, 2013, 11:33 PM
I always laugh when anyone assumes that training courses are the same throughout the military. There was an Air Force tech guy stationed with us in OEF. His duty was to keep our main line communications open, the stuff regular line infantry weren't trained on. He claimed that he went through the exact same weapons course that I did before being stationed with us. I asked him how long it was, he said 3 days. Basic Rifle Marksmenship/Advanced Rifle Marksmenship take up AT LEAST 4 weeks at BCT and AIT. I asked what weapons he used, he said just the M16A2. Our course was M9, 249, 240, M2, Mk19 and M4. I asked him if he ever shot at moving targets or from a vehicle. He said no. Long story short all he did was take a basic rifle qual of 30 rounds and 3 shooting stances. He only qualified Marksman when everyone in our Battalion has to be Sharpshooter or better, otherwise get transferred. But he considered himself an equal.
Some people want to be treated as an equal. I've been there. I was an AF SSgt deployed with an Army Logistics unit on my 3rd OIF tour (ILO). I was trained on M16A2, M4, M9, M2 and M249. I had more rounds downrange than a lot of the soldiers I was with, and more experience outside the wire in general. These were not your standard 11B, troopers, but they sure acted like it, and not in a good way.

Did it matter I was an NCO? Did it matter I was on my 3rd combat tour in Iraq? Did it matter I was just as qualified as the next guy? No. I wore a different uniform, that's all most of them saw. I didn't let it bother me, though.

The Tech you had assigned to you probably wasn't used to being an outsider, had substantially more training than some of his peers, he may have simply not understood the level of training the typical 11B goes through. He probably just wanted to be accepted as an equal, knowing he wasn't, and didn't know how to handle it.

Personally, I drank smuggled Jack Daniels with the Sergeant Major. I'm sure that didn't help my standing with the grunts.

If you enjoyed reading about "ALL prior service were trained to use full auto m16's with high cap magazines" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!