Sling Usage In the Military?
- Thread starter HGM22
- Start date
- Status
rcmodel
Member in memoriam
Because the military doesn't teach marksmanship anymore.
With the possible exception of the Marines.
Besides, a lot of them are using single- point slings for carrying the weapon over body armor.
And they are not compatible with 'slinging in' for a tight hold.
Or even using the shoulder pocket for recoil control.
rc
With the possible exception of the Marines.
Besides, a lot of them are using single- point slings for carrying the weapon over body armor.
And they are not compatible with 'slinging in' for a tight hold.
Or even using the shoulder pocket for recoil control.
rc
FIVETWOSEVEN
Member
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2009
- Messages
- 5,146
I don't know about you but in a firefight, I don't think that using the sling for accuracy would work so well.
Doc7
Member
Steel Horse Rider
Member
I think the term "firefight" can cover a lot of territory. If it is happening at 25 yards or less the sling is probably a hindrance, but if it is at 100 yards or more it would be a benefit, but I think the SAW is used to replace accurate fire in some occasions.
NWcityguy2
Member
Shooting techniques adapt, and with the popularity of the internet it exposes many more shooters to more advanced shooting techniques than the antiquated sling loop. It's been several years since I got out (of the army), but from the occasional video I watch, here are my thoughts.
- Single point slings are much more versatile from behind cover. To shoot weak side with a two point sling means taking the sling off.
- Using some kind of barricade for support has always been preferable to the sling loop.
- When I was in Iraq (2006-2008), almost all of the dismounted engagements happened inside city limits anyway, where supports were plentiful.
- Soldiers are always going to chase the latest trends with their deployment money.
Also, look at the competitive world, which is the best place to test equipment and shooting techniques out of combat. No one uses the sling to stabilize their gun. Any benefit gained is just not time effective.
- Single point slings are much more versatile from behind cover. To shoot weak side with a two point sling means taking the sling off.
- Using some kind of barricade for support has always been preferable to the sling loop.
- When I was in Iraq (2006-2008), almost all of the dismounted engagements happened inside city limits anyway, where supports were plentiful.
- Soldiers are always going to chase the latest trends with their deployment money.
Also, look at the competitive world, which is the best place to test equipment and shooting techniques out of combat. No one uses the sling to stabilize their gun. Any benefit gained is just not time effective.
Last edited:
USAF_Vet
Member
Slings work great for stabilizing single semi-auto fire at distances of well over 100 yards. At across the room, three round burst distances, its not going to make any difference. It's not that the military doesn't teach marksmanship, they teach marksmanship for the type of battlefield we currently encounter. The military does not need everyone to be 700 yard accurate. It'd be nice, but that's just not in the budget.
Basic rifle skills for the non combat MOS, and current use training for the rest of them.
Basic rifle skills for the non combat MOS, and current use training for the rest of them.
briansmithwins
Member
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2005
- Messages
- 4,631
A whole bunch of WWII era training films talk about using the sling for stability. I've yet to see any combat footage from any era that shows soldiers 'slinging up' while shooting.
BSW
BSW
kBob
Member
Could be institutional inertia.
It was thought that the use of the carry sling would cause the soldier to not have the rifle in his hands when it was needed. Slings in the '70s were often removed while in the field or the sling made tight and the buckle taped. This last to prevent noise as well as prevent use of the sling. It was believed that the sling when deployed for carry was also just something to get caught on any passing branch or junk.
It was found that with the M-16A1 pencil barrel that slinging up for prone, sitting and kneeling positions could cause problems. A rifle sighted in to shoot over sand bags and then slung up could cause the strike of the bullet to be to the left a foot at 100 yards, two feet at 200 yards three feet at 300 yards etc or that is to say a 12 MOA shift in POI.
If the Soldier happened to be using a then issue nylon sling things got even worse as those things streached and added another unknown to the barrel bending and blew any hope of repeatability out the window. Also the Nylon slings got so slippery over time that the buckle would sometimes give way resulting in the rifles being hurled through an arc at the ground damaging the flash suppressor, or front sight, or hand guards. SO thy got tightened and taped to discourage shoulder carry.
It was thus believed that the sling was a mere necessary evil not to be trusted other than on the exteneded road march.
By the time the M16A2 came along most NCOs and Officers down at the Company level had all trained only with nylon slung M-16A1s. A trend was then set in place as it were......NO USE OF SLINGS IN COMBAT OR SIMULATED COMBAT!
Make sense now as to why?
We used to do what we called the Gunfighter Carry though when we could get away with it. One positioned their canteen such that one could wedge the magazine and hand guard rear around it with the muzzle pointed down-ish and slightly across the body and kept the right hand on the pistol grip most of the time. Best use was when pulling gate guard as both hands were required to unlock a gate. Silly I know but GIs will find a way.
-kBob
It was thought that the use of the carry sling would cause the soldier to not have the rifle in his hands when it was needed. Slings in the '70s were often removed while in the field or the sling made tight and the buckle taped. This last to prevent noise as well as prevent use of the sling. It was believed that the sling when deployed for carry was also just something to get caught on any passing branch or junk.
It was found that with the M-16A1 pencil barrel that slinging up for prone, sitting and kneeling positions could cause problems. A rifle sighted in to shoot over sand bags and then slung up could cause the strike of the bullet to be to the left a foot at 100 yards, two feet at 200 yards three feet at 300 yards etc or that is to say a 12 MOA shift in POI.
If the Soldier happened to be using a then issue nylon sling things got even worse as those things streached and added another unknown to the barrel bending and blew any hope of repeatability out the window. Also the Nylon slings got so slippery over time that the buckle would sometimes give way resulting in the rifles being hurled through an arc at the ground damaging the flash suppressor, or front sight, or hand guards. SO thy got tightened and taped to discourage shoulder carry.
It was thus believed that the sling was a mere necessary evil not to be trusted other than on the exteneded road march.
By the time the M16A2 came along most NCOs and Officers down at the Company level had all trained only with nylon slung M-16A1s. A trend was then set in place as it were......NO USE OF SLINGS IN COMBAT OR SIMULATED COMBAT!
Make sense now as to why?
We used to do what we called the Gunfighter Carry though when we could get away with it. One positioned their canteen such that one could wedge the magazine and hand guard rear around it with the muzzle pointed down-ish and slightly across the body and kept the right hand on the pistol grip most of the time. Best use was when pulling gate guard as both hands were required to unlock a gate. Silly I know but GIs will find a way.
-kBob
Caliper_Mi
Member
A loop sling certainly does stabilize your groups, no doubt about that. Tried a quick search, but I've also yet to see combat footage of a long range (>200yd) firefight where a loop sling would be beneficial. All the WWII footage I've seen is urban stuff where a loop sling would likely be a hinderance.
Now, Jeff Cooper also talked about a Ching sling and the CW sling that has a front loop using two front swivels. It makes getting into the loop significantly faster: http://artoftherifleblog.com/using-the-ching-sling/2012/06/using-the-ching-sling.html
While at the Infantry School in 1983, the tactical concept was to take the sling off when in the field. That's been over 30 years.
Tactical marksmanship isn't square range target marksmanship, and far too many confuse the two, attempting to impose what happens on a mowed grass field at paper targets with what happens from prepared or expedient fighting positions.
The target is radically different in size, too. Only 10's count in competition at the top ranks, and it's a small target. In combat, the target is a 18x18 center of mass - but the whole human body is a hit. A hit reduces the combat effectiveness of that soldier, hit enough of them the combat team is hampered, and with an advantage over the team, the tactical situation is usually won.
The Army teaches marksmanship - by their definition as assessed by the requirements of combat. Not by the arbitrary and artificial requirements of competition among equally skilled humans.
There is also the issue of moving over rough terrain, vegetation, or in urban infrastructure with all the embellishments of nature or man. A sling gets hung on a lot of stuff, at the wrong time, makes noise, increases motion, and attracts attention. Bad. The incremental increase in steady state accuracy is a minor loss compared to the major increase in mobility when you shoot while you physically move over obstacles. Those impediments to your travel also offer rests and can assist - something a square range has been deliberately bulldozed to remove. Tactical shooters use trees, window openings, car doors, etc. as a rest, if and when they exist for the short duration the shooter is there.
Once you shoot, you have to move. Try slinging up into any square range position, get off a shot, then move to another three seconds away with the requirement to hit the ground, then assume a firing position at least a barrel roll to one side or another. Do that for 30 minutes and I'm going to suggest that the first thing taken off the rifle is the sling.
It's NOT about marksmanship or a lack of it, it's about shoot-move-communicate - and to do the first two it's better in combat without the sling. Which is why you don't see it used overseas.
What we have today is a different battle doctrine - we don't dig in on trenchlines and snipe it out for a week at a time. It's mobile combat on foot or vehicle based - another obstacle to sling use - and what our granddaddy did in WWII is as out of date as what his did in the Civil War. What we have today is a lot of marketing, too, selling the AR nation competition accessories all dressed up as if it could be done tactically. And what we have today is just one soldier in one hundred citizens, so 99 of them aren't getting training and experience in actual combat doctrine, standing with their team mates ready to go out of the wire.
There's a time a place for a sling, it can increase accuracy. Be careful when and where you need to use it, and choose appropriately. It's not a one size fits all answer for every situation.
Tactical marksmanship isn't square range target marksmanship, and far too many confuse the two, attempting to impose what happens on a mowed grass field at paper targets with what happens from prepared or expedient fighting positions.
The target is radically different in size, too. Only 10's count in competition at the top ranks, and it's a small target. In combat, the target is a 18x18 center of mass - but the whole human body is a hit. A hit reduces the combat effectiveness of that soldier, hit enough of them the combat team is hampered, and with an advantage over the team, the tactical situation is usually won.
The Army teaches marksmanship - by their definition as assessed by the requirements of combat. Not by the arbitrary and artificial requirements of competition among equally skilled humans.
There is also the issue of moving over rough terrain, vegetation, or in urban infrastructure with all the embellishments of nature or man. A sling gets hung on a lot of stuff, at the wrong time, makes noise, increases motion, and attracts attention. Bad. The incremental increase in steady state accuracy is a minor loss compared to the major increase in mobility when you shoot while you physically move over obstacles. Those impediments to your travel also offer rests and can assist - something a square range has been deliberately bulldozed to remove. Tactical shooters use trees, window openings, car doors, etc. as a rest, if and when they exist for the short duration the shooter is there.
Once you shoot, you have to move. Try slinging up into any square range position, get off a shot, then move to another three seconds away with the requirement to hit the ground, then assume a firing position at least a barrel roll to one side or another. Do that for 30 minutes and I'm going to suggest that the first thing taken off the rifle is the sling.
It's NOT about marksmanship or a lack of it, it's about shoot-move-communicate - and to do the first two it's better in combat without the sling. Which is why you don't see it used overseas.
What we have today is a different battle doctrine - we don't dig in on trenchlines and snipe it out for a week at a time. It's mobile combat on foot or vehicle based - another obstacle to sling use - and what our granddaddy did in WWII is as out of date as what his did in the Civil War. What we have today is a lot of marketing, too, selling the AR nation competition accessories all dressed up as if it could be done tactically. And what we have today is just one soldier in one hundred citizens, so 99 of them aren't getting training and experience in actual combat doctrine, standing with their team mates ready to go out of the wire.
There's a time a place for a sling, it can increase accuracy. Be careful when and where you need to use it, and choose appropriately. It's not a one size fits all answer for every situation.
kBob
Member
"barrel roll"
There is a perfect example of how things get stuck on and stuck to.
In the 1960's I learned the three second rush. Look, tuck, prepare to move out, pushup, move out, count three, feet, knees butt plate, left side, AND ROLL INTO A GOOD SHOOTING POSITION.
This last meant just what it meant on the range. You aligned your body to take advantage of any cover, or lacking that concealment, ended up laying on your left side so then placed the butt plate in your right shoulder while griping the pistol grip and rolled you body into a good prone firing position. Worked well.
Fast forward through the GI Bill and College and a Commission. General DePue has had his way with TRADOC (Training and Docterine Command) Now fighting positions have a camel hump out front so two guys can play castle crenilation games around a pile of dirt. But the real shock for me was the interpitation given by the actors in the new training film to the words "roll into a good fighting position"
Yep, they rolled over on the ground like kids at a play ground.
How ingenious! Each soldier is encouraged to scramble their inner ear, flatten a big spot in the vegetation, if any, either fall down away from cover or concealment and attempt to roll to it or roll away from the C or C they initially went down behind.
Remember, Movement is what is most noted by humans ESPECIALLY SIDE TO SIDE MOVEMENT. So we teach our soldiers to fall to the ground, and take an extra second or two to scramble their inner ear while doing that to the enemy's view which the human brain is hard wired to notice while marking where they went down.
But there it was on an official Training Film so it MUST be the best way to do it, never mind the millions that learned it without a circus act or that the manuals still showed "the old way."
The way things are done in the military, any military, are not necessarily the best way to do things, just the way someone somewhere in the chain thought they should be turned into "The Way It Is Done".
Sling usage falls in the same category...."because that is how it is done"
-kBob
There is a perfect example of how things get stuck on and stuck to.
In the 1960's I learned the three second rush. Look, tuck, prepare to move out, pushup, move out, count three, feet, knees butt plate, left side, AND ROLL INTO A GOOD SHOOTING POSITION.
This last meant just what it meant on the range. You aligned your body to take advantage of any cover, or lacking that concealment, ended up laying on your left side so then placed the butt plate in your right shoulder while griping the pistol grip and rolled you body into a good prone firing position. Worked well.
Fast forward through the GI Bill and College and a Commission. General DePue has had his way with TRADOC (Training and Docterine Command) Now fighting positions have a camel hump out front so two guys can play castle crenilation games around a pile of dirt. But the real shock for me was the interpitation given by the actors in the new training film to the words "roll into a good fighting position"
Yep, they rolled over on the ground like kids at a play ground.
How ingenious! Each soldier is encouraged to scramble their inner ear, flatten a big spot in the vegetation, if any, either fall down away from cover or concealment and attempt to roll to it or roll away from the C or C they initially went down behind.
Remember, Movement is what is most noted by humans ESPECIALLY SIDE TO SIDE MOVEMENT. So we teach our soldiers to fall to the ground, and take an extra second or two to scramble their inner ear while doing that to the enemy's view which the human brain is hard wired to notice while marking where they went down.
But there it was on an official Training Film so it MUST be the best way to do it, never mind the millions that learned it without a circus act or that the manuals still showed "the old way."
The way things are done in the military, any military, are not necessarily the best way to do things, just the way someone somewhere in the chain thought they should be turned into "The Way It Is Done".
Sling usage falls in the same category...."because that is how it is done"
-kBob
During WW-2 when replacements got on the line the 1st thing veterans told them was to forget all of the BS they learned in training. They then taught them proven battlefield techniques they had learned that would hopefully keep them alive.
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
The problem has a simple answer - you take the most stable shooting position you can achieve in the time available to you. You must assess the time available to you while people are either A) shooting at you, B) moving to a position to shoot at you and C) a wild guess based on how long the target will be exposed before disappearing.
It is in accurately assessing the time available to you that it gets tricky.
It is in accurately assessing the time available to you that it gets tricky.
The primary issue in using a conventional sling on a conventional M-16 or M4 as a shooting device, rather than a carry device, lies with its affect on the barrel, as noted above.
You WILL move point of impact by slinging up with that rifle design.
The sling will pull the unsupported barrel off to one side, and the degree of influence (as in bullet divergence) will vary with how much tension you have on the sling, barrel length, and travel distance.
The M-16's barrel is subject to movement in any direction based on external pressure from any direction.
That's why you'll also see a different point of impact between bipod use and free-standing use.
Different shooting positions also cause variations in POI.
Previous battle rifles, with wood stocks that supported their barrels, or at least acted as a barrier to directional pressures exerted, did not have this characteristic.
The LAST thing you want to do is sling up on an M-16 variant, if you're shooting at distance, in an un-modified (as in NON-FREE-FLOATED BARREL) rifle or carbine.
It'll pull your bullet off to the side of your target.
How much depends on the two factors stated above.
Denis
You WILL move point of impact by slinging up with that rifle design.
The sling will pull the unsupported barrel off to one side, and the degree of influence (as in bullet divergence) will vary with how much tension you have on the sling, barrel length, and travel distance.
The M-16's barrel is subject to movement in any direction based on external pressure from any direction.
That's why you'll also see a different point of impact between bipod use and free-standing use.
Different shooting positions also cause variations in POI.
Previous battle rifles, with wood stocks that supported their barrels, or at least acted as a barrier to directional pressures exerted, did not have this characteristic.
The LAST thing you want to do is sling up on an M-16 variant, if you're shooting at distance, in an un-modified (as in NON-FREE-FLOATED BARREL) rifle or carbine.
It'll pull your bullet off to the side of your target.
How much depends on the two factors stated above.
Denis
kBob
Member
So this one time at band camp.......
My unit had to qualify often and do fam fires to check zero in between. A couple of the guys would zero and shoot good qualification scores and then a few weeks later shoot everywhere but the target.
We spent part of our time as tower guards. To insure no one went to sleep the powers that be insisted that one be visible in the tower at all times and no chairs were provided. Turns out that at night the bad shots were placing the butt and flash suppressor on the window ledges of two adjoining walls and sort of leaning/sitting on their loaded rifles!
GI's! Got to love them.
Don't get me started on folks using community property magazines to open soda or beer bottles with!
-kBob
My unit had to qualify often and do fam fires to check zero in between. A couple of the guys would zero and shoot good qualification scores and then a few weeks later shoot everywhere but the target.
We spent part of our time as tower guards. To insure no one went to sleep the powers that be insisted that one be visible in the tower at all times and no chairs were provided. Turns out that at night the bad shots were placing the butt and flash suppressor on the window ledges of two adjoining walls and sort of leaning/sitting on their loaded rifles!
GI's! Got to love them.
Don't get me started on folks using community property magazines to open soda or beer bottles with!
-kBob
Don't run when you can walk, don't walk when you can stand, don't stand when you can sit, don't sit when you can lie down.
Don't see many BARs in combat footage with a bipod still attached either...
Can't remember a sling in OSUT at Benning or with the 82nd in the mid '90s other than parade... . My guess is that the 1907 sling has been used far more effectively at Perry and in war bond ads then it ever was in combat.
Even General Patton advised against the use of the 1907 sling 'except for designated marksmen'.
I have a 1907 style sling on one of my AR's .. it's heavy and kind of useless given the style of CQB optics we use. I still try to use mine when we shoot standards.. but wow if you have a malfunction that looped up stance ruins a reload.
I have a 1907 style sling on one of my AR's .. it's heavy and kind of useless given the style of CQB optics we use. I still try to use mine when we shoot standards.. but wow if you have a malfunction that looped up stance ruins a reload.
Last edited:
Mman
Member
Chesty Puller's biography noted an instance in the Pacific where Japanese soldiers either ran off the beach into the ocean to escape or were swimming away from shore because their transport boat sank before they could land and Marines on the beach got in sitting positions in the sand and slung up and shot them at very long distance one by one with their 1903 rifles as the Japanese tried to swim to their boats farther out. That is one example where slings were used. That is also probably it. There was no return fire and the mortar would be ineffective in such a circumstance. Pretty gruesome but that is what they had to do.
herrwalther
Member
- Joined
- May 1, 2013
- Messages
- 8,127
Slings have come a far way since Vietnam. And even since the initial invasion of Iraq. The modern sling can make it faster and easier to get your weapon on target or out of your hands to work faster. The problem is, no one wants to experiment with which sling works best FOR THEM. The stock nylon sling is junk. It has no place outside of training. Anyone going overseas should practice with a few different 1, 2, and 3 point slings to find what they like best.
On my patrols I used a sling, rifle never ever left my body or hands. And the sling never came off the rifle except for cleaning. But like I said, I tossed the standard sling. I used a Blackhawk SWIFT sling. To this day I still kick myself for not taking it off when I turned it into the armory, but anyway. The SWIFT is a 3 point sling and it worked great for me. I probably could have gotten away with using a 2 point sling, but at the time I didn't know the difference really. I would call the SWIFT a 2.5 sling as the third point is very low key and didn't get in my way like other 3 point slings like the VTAC 3 point sling.
The real benefit in using my sling (and for tons of others) comes for searches. Searching people, cars, doors, buildings etc you often need both hands. So a sling is pretty useful in these instances. One of the biggest downsides to slings is when doing mounted (vehicle) patrols. For as massive as our current military vehicles are, there isn't a whole lot of wiggle room inside when you jump in with body armor, helmet, and a full fighting vest on. So there usually isn't much room to leave a slung weapon across your chest in the seat.
On my patrols I used a sling, rifle never ever left my body or hands. And the sling never came off the rifle except for cleaning. But like I said, I tossed the standard sling. I used a Blackhawk SWIFT sling. To this day I still kick myself for not taking it off when I turned it into the armory, but anyway. The SWIFT is a 3 point sling and it worked great for me. I probably could have gotten away with using a 2 point sling, but at the time I didn't know the difference really. I would call the SWIFT a 2.5 sling as the third point is very low key and didn't get in my way like other 3 point slings like the VTAC 3 point sling.
The real benefit in using my sling (and for tons of others) comes for searches. Searching people, cars, doors, buildings etc you often need both hands. So a sling is pretty useful in these instances. One of the biggest downsides to slings is when doing mounted (vehicle) patrols. For as massive as our current military vehicles are, there isn't a whole lot of wiggle room inside when you jump in with body armor, helmet, and a full fighting vest on. So there usually isn't much room to leave a slung weapon across your chest in the seat.
USAF_Vet
Member
For most training I do, I like my single point sling. Easy to transition from shoulder to shoulder without taking it off. It sits a little awkwardly when firing from my non dominant side.
I'm only using it on my AR pistol at the moment. But I do like it. I've done 2 point slings on my carbine, and it ends up just snagging on everything unless I had it cinched up tight. At that point it lost any utility and I just ended up taking it off.
I'm only using it on my AR pistol at the moment. But I do like it. I've done 2 point slings on my carbine, and it ends up just snagging on everything unless I had it cinched up tight. At that point it lost any utility and I just ended up taking it off.
Averageman
Member
I still like the idea of a "Dummy Cord", even if you remove the sling.
The chances of being knocked for a loop and losing your weapon are there. Being able to retain it by at least a piece of 550 cord isn't a bad thing.
The chances of being knocked for a loop and losing your weapon are there. Being able to retain it by at least a piece of 550 cord isn't a bad thing.
- Status