Why GIs can't shoot.

AK103K said:

How much time and effort does the military actually put into teaching people to shoot, and how much do they actually get to shoot throughout the year to improve and maintain thier skills, if they have any?

Over the years, Ive shot with quite a few ex and current military, and the majority of them were at best mediocre shooters.

And to bump the scary up, the majority had no real FA training and were usually the scariest people that ever shot our guns.

I made the mistake, just once, of letting someone who claimed to be an experienced combat vet, who could not control or shoot a 9mm SMG, that my kids were easily shooting at 6. Never did that again.

Click to expand...

Ive told this story before, but its good and relevant, so here gos again-

One of my coworkers, in his late 30's is a recent transplant from the favelas of Brazil. He asked if he could accompany a few of us on our next range trip. I asked if he had any experience and he stated that he had been a member of a paramilitary reserve unit back home and they had trained with Garands. I said cool, Ill bring my M1 among other things.

We get to the range, and this gentleman was one of the first up shooters I handed him my Garand and a couple of loaded enbloc clips. He stepped to the line, expertly inserted the clip and blazed away. All eight shots on the paper, six in the black (at 25yd). He inserted the next clip and repeated the performance.

Handing me back my rifle, he had an ear-to-ear smile. "Wow, that was great," he exclaimed, "Ive always wanted to try that!"

"Oh?" I replied, "In thought you had trained with the M1 back home?"

"Oh, yes we trained many times, but never fired. We never had any live ammunition."

CapnMac said:

This is deep water.
Not every one learns at the same rate, or necessarily well in mass/group instruction. But military training time is very limited, and needs to serve large groups in that limited time.

Then, there are some things specific to military service to take into account.
Currently, for every person in an actual combat arms role, there are ten supporting that one person. And, "combat arms" is a very wide brush--that includes mortar men, artillery people, people with anti-tank missiles and the like. So, around 2/3 of the people at the point of the spear are not actually meant to engage an enemy with a rifle.
The people running the comms, ELINT, supply lines, intel, HHS, and the like really don't have much need of a rifle at all.

Then, there's the dirty little secret that artillery and mortars are far more deadly in combat than rifles, by factors of ten if not larger.

So, minute of berm can be entirely adequate for near 9 out of 10 troopies. And that's the Army. AF & Navy , it's more like 24 of 25 or 49 of 50.

Click to expand...

There is the simple fact that most of the Army has a 5-to-9 job that has to get done day-in and day-out.

Take you much maligned 91 or 15 series MOSs, the Army has a lot of vehicles that need constant attention. They can't go to the range every week, or the vehicles don't work. Or, the 91 series, how well do you think the civilian health care system would work if all the doctor's offices shut down one day a week for target practice?

lysanderxiii said:

There is the simple fact that most of the Army has a 5-to-9 job that has to get done day-in and day-out.

Take you much maligned 91 or 15 series MOSs, the Army has a lot of vehicles that need constant attention. They can't go to the range every week, or the vehicles don't work. Or, the 91 series, how well do you think the civilian health care system would work if all the doctor's offices shut down one day a week for target practice?

Click to expand...

Man, if I couldnt go shooting once in a while, I couldnt drag myself to my crappy job the rest of the time......

I wonder how many troops, and especially those in Combat Arms, would shoot more (and better) if they could do it recreationally on a regular basis. I know free time is precious and the needs of the service take precedence, but if you sign up for Infantry, you probably want to actually get to shoot stuff sometimes. Same as pilots WANT to fly and sailors (usually) like actually going to sea......

Just sayin, might help with retention in an all-volunteer force.

NIGHTLORD40K said:

Man, if I couldnt go shooting once in a while, I couldnt drag myself to my crappy job the rest of the time......

I wonder how many troops, and especially those in Combat Arms, would shoot more (and better) if they could do it recreationally on a regular basis. I know free time is precious and the needs of the service take precedence, but if you sign up for Infantry, you probably want to actually get to shoot stuff sometimes. Same as pilots WANT to fly and sailors (usually) like actually going to sea......

Just sayin, might help with retention in an all-volunteer force.

Click to expand...

Actually, pilots and aircrew are required to fly a certain number of hours a month.

lysanderxiii said:

Actually, pilots and aircrew are required to fly a certain number of hours a month.

Click to expand...

Well, requirements and reality aint always the same......readiness rates are so low on some types that some crews havent had a flying seat in years. A couple years ago the readiness on the B1Bs were like 13% and the rest of the bombers, tankers, and ASW werent much better. As a result, both AF and Navy have had a hard time retaining flight crew who cant even maintain their quals. They often end up leaving for civilian aviation where the pay is better and they can actually get in the air.....

Mk-211 said:

I disagree about the farm boys using shotguns, farm boys didn't have ammo to waste and had to make every shot count.

Most were dirt poor and that one shot had to make do or the family went hungry. Knowing a good spot to set up for that one shot was important also.

Click to expand...

I would bet those same farm/Country boys that used Shotguns, not only knew stalking well, understood the outdoors but would bet, they all bit their teeth on a 22.cal. Hunting and outdoors is their culture and in their blood. Having a good foundation in the basics of all those skills would be a huge asset.

12Bravo20 said:

From my personal experience in the Army, the amount of rifle training depended not on on the individuals MOS (job) but also the type of unit they were assigned to after training. I was always in Combat Engineer units and we got plenty of marksmanship training throughout the year. Even the cooks, clerks, and mechanics had to go to the range at least once every quarter to practice and qualify. It really did matter on the individual unit on how much training you got.

When I went to basic training in 1989 at Ft Leonardwood as a combat engineer, we spent close to half of basic on the rifle ranges with the rest doing general soldier task training. When we got to AIT it was the same, half the time on the rifle ranges and the other half on engineer specific task training.

Click to expand...

This ^

A large number of folks probably don't understand how the military "works"

Not every MOS consists of "trigger pullers" and the combat arms branches are also made up of combat vehicle "crews" who's main training time is spent on that weapon system. Makes little sense to have tank crews that are marginal at gunnery and maneuver, but experts with an M4. Actual hands on training time is precious, due to the myriad of other tasks and training that has to be conducted.

I for one was an artillery officer for the majority of my career. Most of my time was spent in fire support roles (my work was with a radio and a digital message device) and I commanded a firing battery. My troops spent the majority of their time working on their part of the 'system', small arms were a secondary or even 3rd-ary effort. Normally we had the standard individual section certifications, platoon evals and gunnery tables to contend with, all subsets of whatever key event was forth coming, whether it be a deployment or a combat training center rotation. If we faced a counter insurgency (COIN, or "wide area security') deployment, the small arms training was ramped up, and the howitzer training and live fire was ramped down. Other than that it was annual qualification with small arms.

The main focus always was "high intensity combat/decisive action", so the training focus was on the crew served weapons. It always comes down to priorities, especially when recourses are constrained....time is a valuable resource.

Just a few years ago we had a group of retired guys that taught defensive handgun and carbine classes geared towards the students on our installation. One of the instructors still has a framed letter of appreciation from GEN(R) Patraeus on his wall. Our post is home for the Army's Intermediate Level Training course (Command and General Staff College) for Majors. The courses were very popular, while OIF and OEF were in full swing and the majority of students were heading to deploying BNs and BCTs. The instructors used M9s and basic M4 setups.

Now that the majority are headed off to non-deploying units and the classes don't get much interest.

Having a cold virus can mean watery eyes, so, actually, I can see that as a reason to display poorer marksmanship than normal. Watery eyes, plus having to wear eyeglasses, can be a nasty combination, as tears get on the inside of the lenses.

Of course, that assumes that the shooter had any marksmanship, in the first place.

I wore an Army uniform for the last three years of Vietnam; I was already a fine rifle shot when I entered the service. My shooting skills bought me favor in BCT but after that there was little caring. My gift from military service was discipline and confidence - both have helped me greatly thru life. I still enjoy shooting and I am still a good shot but that was not a military gift. I have no juicy stories to tell, the DoD kept it’s promise and paid for my college and Vietnam was simply a horrible endeavor - a total waste of good men and women. I still enjoy shooting, my service time is a surreal memory now but I still use the discipline.

I was drafted in 69 and asked for infantry and got my wish. Prior to that I had shot an old Remington bolt action 22 maybe three times. Basic training was not geared for infantry. I think we went to the range three or four times with the M-14 which I really enjoyed shooting.

A week or so before our basic training about 30 of us future infantrymen were trucked to the range where we got one day training on the M-16. Maybe shot 50 rounds after learning how to service the rifle. We were told that we would get more training in infantry AIT. As a previous posted stated we had to qualify on all the light weapons the Army had and I would be willing to bet we only went to the range four or five times to actually fire the M-16.

When I got to my combat unit in Nam I was issued an M-16 the day before I went out on my first combat assault. I cleaned it and believe me it was a worn our POS but did not get a change to fire it much less sight it in. The next day we got on the choppers (another first after practicing with wooden mock ups in AIT) and of course the LZ was hot.

Moving toward the tree line where there were enemy soldiers shooting at you armed with a rifle you had never fired and carrying an 80 pound ruck sack is something I will never forget.

Most of our engagements were at very close range so we typically used point shooting or as we called it quick kill. You know, the method that experts today say doesn't work. I guarantee you that when the little bastards jump out of the vegetation or pop up out of the ground, you simply react and proper sight picture is the last thing on your mind.

So by most accuracy standards we were poor shots. Sure I could hit pop up targets out to 500 meters but realistically a hit anywhere on the target would count and that was shooting out of a foxhole or prone. Did a fair amount of prone shooting in Nam but most of it was shooting towards a threat rather than actually having a clear target.

I am damn proud to be a grunt.

I have four grown kids and 7 grandkids. All of them have learned to shoot with me and 2 have gone on to the military with great shooting skills, one being an Army Sniper and the other qualifying well, shooting in the Air Force and recently becoming an armed, entrance station guard at an air base. Both have hunted and shot Maine deer.

The kids have enjoyed shooting small metal silhouettes or paper targets, either at the club range or at my range here. All the kids and grandkids know how to handle firearms safely. My youngest daughter recently qualified at her Massachusetts concealed handgun course as the best in the entire class (including her husband). My oldest son has shot more than the others and is a very good hunter. He's an excellent wing shot and enjoys grouse hunting and field trials with two bird dogs.

I've been an NRA Police Firearms instructor, but mostly a competitive shooter, plinker and hunter for about 65 years. Guns, gunsmithing, reloading and hunting are my major hobbies and I manage to shoot about 3 or 4 times a week...Maine weather permitting.

Spade5 said:

Most of our engagements were at very close range so we typically used point shooting or as we called it quick kill. You know, the method that experts today say doesn't work. I guarantee you that when the little bastards jump out of the vegetation or pop up out of the ground, you simply react and proper sight picture is the last thing on your mind.

Click to expand...

Jungle fighting is a lot different that fighting in an open desert for sure. I was able to go through the jungle warfare school in Panama and glad that I did.

Chuck R. said:

Not every MOS consists of "trigger pullers" and the combat arms branches are also made up of combat vehicle "crews" who's main training time is spent on that weapon system. Makes little sense to have tank crews that are marginal at gunnery and maneuver, but experts with an M4. Actual hands on training time is precious, due to the myriad of other tasks and training that has to be conducted.

Click to expand...

Each type of unit is different on what their training requirements are. Even the same type of unit in different divisions will have training tailored to their needs. The only time I did not spend a good bit of time on the rifle range was hen I was assigned the M60 machine gun. I was on the machine gun ranges instead. Even after I reclassed from a combat engineer to a machinist (working in the motor pool) I still went to the range on a regular basis in teh Engineer Battalions I was assigned to. They want to make sure everyone in the unit was proficient with their assigned weapons.

At my last duty station, The National Training Center/Fort Irwin, none of the permanently assigned units got much range time. We were always too busy training other units to go to the range ourselves, This included the 11ACR which played OPFOR.

Spade5 said:

I was drafted in 69 and asked for infantry and got my wish. Prior to that I had shot an old Remington bolt action 22 maybe three times. Basic training was not geared for infantry. I think we went to the range three or four times with the M-14 which I really enjoyed shooting.

A week or so before our basic training about 30 of us future infantrymen were trucked to the range where we got one day training on the M-16. Maybe shot 50 rounds after learning how to service the rifle. We were told that we would get more training in infantry AIT. As a previous posted stated we had to qualify on all the light weapons the Army had and I would be willing to bet we only went to the range four or five times to actually fire the M-16.

When I got to my combat unit in Nam I was issued an M-16 the day before I went out on my first combat assault. I cleaned it and believe me it was a worn our POS but did not get a change to fire it much less sight it in. The next day we got on the choppers (another first after practicing with wooden mock ups in AIT) and of course the LZ was hot.

Moving toward the tree line where there were enemy soldiers shooting at you armed with a rifle you had never fired and carrying an 80 pound ruck sack is something I will never forget.

Most of our engagements were at very close range so we typically used point shooting or as we called it quick kill. You know, the method that experts today say doesn't work. I guarantee you that when the little bastards jump out of the vegetation or pop up out of the ground, you simply react and proper sight picture is the last thing on your mind.

So by most accuracy standards we were poor shots. Sure I could hit pop up targets out to 500 meters but realistically a hit anywhere on the target would count and that was shooting out of a foxhole or prone. Did a fair amount of prone shooting in Nam but most of it was shooting towards a threat rather than actually having a clear target.

I am damn proud to be a grunt.

Click to expand...

This kind of explains the 5,000 to 1 hit ratio!

Until VN as I recall the U.S. Military hit ration was 70-1!

I read it on the internet so you know it's true! 's

I was on a shooting team for the duration of high school. Which made leaving boot camp with an Expert Medal pinned to me a cake walk.

Inevitably, in threads about the military and shooting skills, a generation gap comes up. If your only military experience was during the Cold War, perhaps you didn't get a lot of trigger time.

I first enlisted in '75, went through boot camp and was in a reserve component, during college and my first real job (deputy), prior to discharge and transitioning into another branch full time in '79. I was lucky to get selected for some serious weapons training a couple times in the late '80s and then again in the early '90s, but I typically had minimal time (sometimes only once a year on the 1911, M-14, M-16 and if I got lucky, the M-60 and M-2) on any weapons (despite being in a rating that would be fighting should we have gone to war then) until after the USS COLE (DDG 67) bombing in October 2000 (and we all know what happened in '01). All of a sudden, "force protection" became a buzzword in Big Navy and even cooks and clerks got range time, everyone was getting armed. And my community was shooting what seemed like all the time, and our ammo budget miraculously increased a gazillion times. In the first couple of years after 2000, I got more trigger time on more weapons, more training, than I'd had in the previous twenty years on active duty.

During time in Kuwait, and then Iraq, we went to the ranges all the time. Since my career spanned the tail end of the Cold War into the "War on Terrorism," I was able to go from a military where we shot guns infrequently, sometimes only for familiarization (was difficult to get time to qualify for marksmanship medals) and protected our bases with Condition 3 pistols and cruiser-ready Mossberg shotguns to a well-armed, constantly training and shooting component.

But, like 12Bravo20 says

12Bravo20 said:

Each type of unit is different on what their training requirements are

Click to expand...

So, if you got out of the military in, say, the late '70s or in the '80s, don't judge today's military on your experience. A lot has changed in the last 20 years of constant war. As a law enforcement instructor these days, I'm seeing a lot more guys (and gals) coming out of the military who can really, really shoot the M-4 well, and it's also clear that even the Army has been giving some of its troops some pretty good pistol training as well.

Hangingrock said:

The Marine Corps had a very strong view point concerning rifle qualification at MCRD Parris Island SC followed by ITR (Infantry Training Regiment) at Camp Geiger NC in my day. Between the two mid August to Early December. My MOS was other than Infantry, but every Marine is a Rifleman was the rule at that time period..

Click to expand...

I was one of those city kids on Parris Island in the early sixties. The only weapon I had ever fired was a .22 at a Coney Island arcade, maybe 5 shots. When I pulled the trigger on a 45 I had no idea what would happen and was petrified. But I was more afraid of the Rifle and Drill Instructors than I was of the coming explosion and death. Came to like it and was a pretty good shot.

Spade5 said:

I am damn proud to be a grunt.

Click to expand...

Me too.

Grunt for life!

The thing I miss most about getting out is shooting all those weapons on Uncle Sugars dime.

When Kuwait was invaded i was the senior firing range advisor to the Saudi Arabian National Guard. Some non-modernized
Saudi units had excellent marksmen. Their rifle was the Mauser model 1950, the squad automatic weapon was the improved FN Model D BAR with quick detachable barrel, and the machinegun was MG-42. All were chambered for 8x57mm.

Then along came the US Army. US infantry troops were excellent marksman with crew served weapons, individual weapons not so much. That may have changed dramatically. i sometimes shoot on the private weapons range of a major post. Many of the troops who shoot there are excellent marksman.

Scott.M said:

I was on a shooting team for the duration of high school. Which made leaving boot camp with an Expert Medal pinned to me a cake walk.

Click to expand...

We shot at our school and other schools, all through jr and sr high school too. Many of us brought our own rifles (to school) too, although the schools also provided them too. These days, we are so far from that now, that many dont believe you when you tell them that.

My buddy owns a gun store that bought out the school armory's at a couple of local high schools back in the early 2000's. Most people there never knew there were guns in the schools and never knew there was a range in the basement. Of course, those seeing the guns being removed were horrified!


It does seem that a lot of things today have been dumbed down, compared to what was expected of you in the past, and I see that here too. Suarez talks about how many seem to "strive for mediocrity" in thier shooting skills, and from what Ive seen, I think he has a point.

"Good enough", certainly isnt something to strive for, but it does seem to be how things are with a lot of things these days.

AK103K said:

We shot at our school and other schools, all through jr and sr high school too. Many of us brought our own rifles (to school) too, although the schools also provided them too. These days, we are so far from that now, that many dont believe you when you tell them that.

My buddy owns a gun store that bought out the school armory's at a couple of local high schools back in the early 2000's. Most people there never knew there were guns in the schools and never knew there was a range in the basement. Of course, those seeing the guns being removed were horrified!


It does seem that a lot of things today have been dumbed down, compared to what was expected of you in the past, and I see that here too. Suarez talks about how many seem to "strive for mediocrity" in thier shooting skills, and from what Ive seen, I think he has a point.

"Good enough", certainly isnt something to strive for, but it does seem to be how things are with a lot of things these days.

Click to expand...

Our rifles were kept in a couple of typical tall lockers in a ROTC classroom. Three of use had the combos, along with the two instructors.

I always had a gun in my vehicle in high school. Lots of us went hunting/shooting after school.

Just want to say a huge thank you to the THR vets for their service, sacrifice, and stories! God bless and keep you all.

Interesting when you compare some foreign militaries with 'Muricans. In the mid '90s, I spent some time in the Former Yugoslavia working as a contractor. Our "unit" was made up primarily of former East German military, with some former West German, Austrian, and Swiss mixed in. I was the English as a first language, German as a second guy to help communicate with English speaking NATO units. It helped I had a deep interest and working conceptual knowledge of various small arms. As our primary assignment was weapons collection, inventory, storage and demil-reassignment, we had an ample shooting range in an abandoned quarry with plenty of surplus arms and ammo to expend. Our facility also occasionally hosted small contingents of American and other NATO troops. Shooting all manner of small arms from the dawn of smokeless powder to experimental or ersatz prototypes was a common pastime. With a couple of exceptions (trained former sniper, SDM and special forces), the East Germans were pretty lousy shots, and had difficulty figuring out new weapons they were not specifically trained on. The Western troops were slightly better. You could usually hand them a Mauser or a SVT 40 and they'd have a concept of finding the safety and figuring out the loading and sights. The Swiss were very good, on par with your average gun-nut country boy. None of the above were very good at rapid target engagement with accuracy however (with the exception of the aforementioned highly trained E. Germans). That prize generally went to the Americans we dragged out to the range. There was always an element of competition among them, and they were generally eager to try out cool guns. Even the obvious city kids wanted to shoot some of the cool WWII stuff we were dragging in, and wanted to beat their buddies at shooting, especially if the buddy happened to be a country boy who thought he was hot stuff with a rifle or machine gun. This was vs. the shooting as a chore attitude of most of the European troops.