Is there a correlation between 2A and military marksmanship?

[EIB0879]

I think it does translate but I can only speak to my experience. In Army BCT , most of us who qualified Expert grew up shooting. I had shot an M-16 before but it was still an adjustment. Heck the day before qualification the Drill Sgt s were ragging on me and telling me I wasn't going to qualify because I was shooting so poorly in practice. The next day I got edged out for top score in the company by one target. My Drill Sgt told me later that he was pretty sure without padding I was the high score.

Fast forward a few years and I'm in Infantry Officer Basic Course after graduating from OCS.I make friends with another 2LT from NYC. While we were preparing for qualification he isn't shooting real well. He hasn't shot since ROTC camp a couple of years of before. I was shooting pretty well so I spent some time coaching him. The next day we qualified Expert with the same score. We went on to earn our EIB s together with 13 of us (including us) out of 180 passing it with no deficiencies the first time.

My point is, with the right instruction, people can be taught pretty quickly to shoot effectively.

 

[mboylan]

Most people I see at the range have bad habits and are poor shots. It would be easier to train someone from scratch than to break all of those bad habits.

 

[alsaqr]

Most people I see at the range have bad habits and are poor shots. It would be easier to train someone from scratch than to break all of those bad habits.

Affirmative on that.

Many Army troops develop bad habits in training. i often shoot on the private weapons range of a large Army post. Many soldiers bring their AR-15 rifles, place an Army zeroing target at 25 yards and proceed to shoot 100-200 rounds in 30-60 minutes; then they're gone.

For years i was the senior firing range advisor to the Saudi National Guard. We thought the Saudis were terrible marksmen. Many had vision problems: Wearing glasses is considered unmanly.

Then along came the 82nd Airborne division: They made our Saudis look like resolute marksmen.

 

[Nom de Forum]

Then along came the 82nd Airborne division: They made our Saudis look like resolute marksmen.

Wow! Things must have really changed since I was in the 82nd.

 

[Jenrick]

I think we can all agree that training has improved since WW2, and that the rifles themselves are easier to shoot then what we had then.

Also in WW2 there was a huge crunch to get men to the front, you needed a certain basic level of skill to function and after that it was off the front. There was a push to get troops to that basic level, and that was it. When you only have so much range time, you do what you can and the vast majority of it is spent on people who aren't performing to standard. If you entered this training with some kind of shooting background, you probably took less time to get standard or started above the standard.

Now days with training methods being improved and rifles that are easier to learn to shoot I'd say it matters much less if it all. In law enforcement, we certainly spend a LOT of time fixing bad habits recruits show up with. I'd rather have a shooter with no experience then one with bad habits.

-Jenrick

 

[Jeff White]

Having trained both soldiers and law enforcement I will say that I would rather have students with no previous experience then ones who had a lot to unlearn. It can be very hard for someone who has a lot of experience doing something the wrong way to unlearn the wrong way and then relearn the right way.

People with previous experience who know the fundamentals coast right through the basics and can be helpful as peer trainers. Unfortunately I saw a lot of people who's previous experience was not correct.

The only kind of pre-induction training that would really be of help in a total mobilization would be formal rifle training through the school system where the students were taught the fundamentals of rifle marksmanship and trained to a standard. I think we all know that there is zero chance of that happening in this country.

 

[Bobson]

They told us in Basic that those of us who had never handled a gun before would shoot the best. They were mostly right. I grew up shooting, and qualified, but not with an impressive score.

I heard the same thing again in a law enforcement academy years later, but proved them wrong by being #1 in the class.

 

[General Geoff]

The only kind of pre-induction training that would really be of help in a total mobilization would be formal rifle training through the school system where the students were taught the fundamentals of rifle marksmanship and trained to a standard. I think we all know that there is zero chance of that happening in this country.

As a requirement, yeah zero chance. As an elective? A lofty but achievable goal I think.

 

[Bigdog57]

I agree about 'bad habits'. And the attention and desire of the shooter to learn counts for a lot. I have helped many people to improve their shooting skills, though I am not a qualified arms instructor, just a guy who is a bit better than average through practice and applying proper technique. I am not a competition shooter. But I like small groups and a decent level of precision.
The best 'students' I have had are women who truly want to learn but have never handled a gun. They follow instruction, they concentrate and listen, and they quickly improve.
The worst are the young men who are caught up in the TV/Movie fantasies, and who play the first-person video shooter games. They want to hold the handgun sideways, like some hollyweird hero, or they think the gun should operate like in their favorite game. These guys are very hard to train. And the gals beat them every time.
One thing I really hate to see is the idiot who hands his newbie girlfriend a Mosin rifle and then watches her get knocked on her rump. He has just made a new antigun person. :banghead:
One problem we saw in the Navy, when qualifying for the shipboard security force (we were too small to carry Marines) was the guns we used at the range were worn and sloppy. Hard to make a good score with an M1911A1 that rattled. One of our officers brought his own personal M1911A1, and he shot very good groups. He let us check out his pistol, and it was a very different animal than our worn relics! Good equipment helps.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

I've wondered if there's a correlation between recruits who grew up learning to shoot and better performance as as riflemen in the military?

The answer is YES, but the service is a bit surprising. In WWII, it was realized that the best shooting airmen were hunters before the military, particularly shotgunners. As a result, training for fighter pilots and gunners involved stationary shotgun training and then shotgun training from the backs of trucks before getting into the air.

 

[EIB0879]

I was lucky that in the Boy Scouts I had an instructor for the Rifle and Shotgun merit badge that was a Army SFC that had just returned from Vietnam. I was already a good shot but he helped me get better.

 

[ku4hx]

My generation of military shooters and civilian marksmen were, in my experience, more of the "aimed fire" species. I've met young shooters recently that seemed to believe effective firepower was more a "shotgun approach" or what I've heard called "spray and pray".

Is that prevalent generally now days? I got no idea. But I do know that when I was growing up and hunting small game, few shots were taken and few were misses. That sort of contrasts a bit with the Bubba I came across a few years back heading out of the woods from his deer stand because he'd run out of ammunition and needed to get a deer "real bad".

Is any of this related to the constitution's second amendment? Again, no idea. But I'd hazard a guess that being able to buy guns and ammunition tends to allow for enhanced shooting proficiency. Kind of like oil exploration contributing to your driving skills. Not a direct correlation, but having oil and gasoline available tends to allow you to learn to drive better and safer.

 

[Curator]

The founding of the National Rifle Association was based on a conversation among several Yankee Generals over the cause of their troops taking so many more casualties that the Rebels in many battles. It was concluded that growing up in the South hunting and shooting made the difference: "Those Southern boys could shoot!"

The NRA was formed in 1871 to sponsor firearms training and shooting competition throughout the U.S. to be better prepared for future wars. Shooting as a sport became quite popular even in Northern cities. Many of us remember when nearly every public High School had a Varsity rifle shooting team. This was common until the early 70s anti-war politics took over.

My experience in Viet Nam in the mid 60s with the 1st Infantry Div. indicated that many "country boys" could shoot but most "city kids" could only spray and pray. Two guys who served with me that could shoot well were both on their High School rifle team. High capacity magazines were the answer to poor marksmanship. Luck for us the VC couldn't shoot accurately either!

 

[Nom de Forum]

They told us in Basic that those of us who had never handled a gun before would shoot the best.

I heard a couple of the Drill Sergeants for my Army Basic Training Company at Fort Lostinthewoods say the same thing. Only two recruits qualified as Expert. Both had extensive shooting experience. I think what that did was provide a sense of proper timing in engaging the 40 pop-up targets at different ranges and time exposures. The course of fire was 40 shots from a foxhole, 20 with sandbag support and 20 without. There were four 6 second exposures of targets at 300 meters. Expert qualification required 36 hits. Inexperience shooters could not consistently shot fast and accurate on the close targets and slow and accurate on the far targets. On the first day of Company BRM that we shot at the range I made the mistake of telling a DS that I had a double on my practice target because there was no way I missed such a big piece of paper at 25 meters. I was dogged about that for the rest of that day and the next. Then I went to the hospital for a few days due to upper respiratory problems and 101 temperature and missed the rest of BRM. I believe the incident a few days before BRM when a recruit failed to remove his mask in the teargas chamber causing my group to remain in it far longer than usual had something to do with the trip to the hospital. My 1SGT intervened to prevent me from being recycled because he had seen my shooting on the first two days of shooting in BRM. I was allowed to rejoin the Company for qualification day. I was very proud when the DS who had dogged me about claiming a double walked up wearing a never seen smile and congratulated me for qualifying Expert. I really think prior good experience shooting in civilian life makes a difference.

I again noticed the lack of a sense of proper timing in training average soldiers to qualify when lack of a 300 meter pop-up range was unavailable. An Alternate Qualification 25 meter Target was used. It had scaled down silhouettes representing 25 to 300 meter targets. The course of fire was 40 shots, 20 supported in 2 minutes, then 20 shots unsupported. Expert qualification required 38 hits instead of the 36 on a 300 pop-up range. What I discovered is I could often train soldiers to be accurate enough to hit all the targets but not fast enough to hit 38 within the time limits. It was not uncommon to see soldiers fail to get all their shots off while making nothing but hits with over 30 shots.

 

[Jenrick]

I'd recommend reading Ltc(Ret) Grossman's first book "On Killing". He delves into how exactly the military changed their training during and after vietnam in an attempt to improve the effectiveness of the individual soldier and their weapon. One of the big things was a movement AWAY from a strict marksmanship standard. Prior to WW1 the US Army had very high marksmanship standards that included shooting at long range (600yd+) targets, as well as movers at distance etc. Pretty much every other major army had similar standards. Herbert McBride talks about the Canadian Army in a "Rifleman went to War", and the British "Old Contemptibles" were famous for their riflery.

Then WW1 hit. High marksmanship was useful until trench warfare occurred, and it was impossible to train to that standard in the timeframe allotted for training new troops. After WW1, the Army slid back towards it's marksmanship roots, but not to the prewar extant. Again WW2 required troops to be turned out quickly so any attempt to reach a high standard of marksmanship was doomed.

Research of combat during WW2 showed that the biggest issue was getting soldiers to fire their weapons at the enemy. Now some of this data is based on SLA Marshalls work, which is hotly debated on the validity of his methods and findings. I'll let the reader determine if they think his conclusions are correct, but the fact of the matter is that the Army believed him at the time. Post WW2 the biggest problem Army training faced, based on the above research, was how to get soldiers to actually shoot at the enemy. Conditioning a response to a threat target rather than bullseyes, and training the soldier to engage even with a bad shot was key to this process. It was far better to at least have rounds going downrange at the enemy (even if they were highly unlikely to hit), then to have a soldier simply hold their fire. Firing would at least provide the possibility of suppressing the enemy.

Vietnam saw this new training work, at least in the Army's eyes. Research showed that everyone was shooting at the enemy. How effectively they were doing that was another story, but the Army had solved the problem of getting soldiers to engage. The Army really hasn't changed how they train in the overall sense from this point. Basic Rifle Marksmanship still focuses on shooting silhouette targets at unknown distances (50m-300m), with a hit anywhere on the silhouette being all it takes to score. The emphasis is on being able to spot the target quickly, and engage it quickly. The standard of 23 of 40 targets to qualify reflects the Army's stance on strict marksmanship ability.

Combat operations in urban environments liked Iraq has simply bolstered the argument that "marksmanship" in the traditional context isn't important compared to other tactical skills and manipulations. However our other theater in Afghanistan has seen the opposite. Overall I don't see the Army changing its opinion anytime soon, as the reality of on-call CAS, drones, etc. really do render the individuals rifle secondary.

With all that said I don't think someone with a pre-existing shooting background is necessarily a bad thing in military service. I however think it has a very minimal effect on the overall effectiveness of a soldier in today's modern army.

-Jenrick

 

[hseII]

I heard a couple of the Drill Sergeants for my Army Basic Training Company at Fort Lostinthewoods say the same thing. Only two recruits qualified as Expert. Both had extensive shooting experience. I think what that did was provide a sense of proper timing in engaging the 40 pop-up targets at different ranges and time exposures. The course of fire was 40 shots from a foxhole, 20 with sandbag support and 20 without. There were four 6 second exposures of targets at 300 meters. Expert qualification required 36 hits. Inexperience shooters could not consistently shot fast and accurate on the close targets and slow and accurate on the far targets. On the first day of Company BRM that we shot at the range I made the mistake of telling a DS that I had a double on my practice target because there was no way I missed such a big piece of paper at 25 meters. I was dogged about that for the rest of that day and the next. Then I went to the hospital for a few days due to upper respiratory problems and 101 temperature and missed the rest of BRM. I believe the incident a few days before BRM when a recruit failed to remove his mask in the teargas chamber causing my group to remain in it far longer than usual had something to do with the trip to the hospital. My 1SGT intervened to prevent me from being recycled because he had seen my shooting on the first two days of shooting in BRM. I was allowed to rejoin the Company for qualification day. I was very proud when the DS who had dogged me about claiming a double walked up wearing a never seen smile and congratulated me for qualifying Expert. I really think prior good experience shooting in civilian life makes a difference.



I again noticed the lack of a sense of proper timing in training average soldiers to qualify when lack of a 300 meter pop-up range was unavailable. An Alternate Qualification 25 meter Target was used. It had scaled down silhouettes representing 25 to 300 meter targets. The course of fire was 40 shots, 20 supported in 2 minutes, then 20 shots unsupported. Expert qualification required 38 hits instead of the 36 on a 300 pop-up range. What I discovered is I could often train soldiers to be accurate enough to hit all the targets but not fast enough to hit 38 within the time limits. It was not uncommon to see soldiers fail to get all their shots off while making nothing but hits with over 30 shots.

Thank You

 

[Nom de Forum]

I have a copy of "On Killing". I am in the camp that believes SLA Marshall's documentation is questionable, but his comments about soldiers not firing are not necessarily wrong since I recall reading sources in other wars reporting the same thing. I believe the simplicity of self-loading rifles is a factor in increasing the number of soldiers firing along with new training methods. A self-loading rifle makes rifle out of the foxhole, head in the foxhole shooting a whole lot easier.

 

[barnbwt]

Don't we burn like 200,000 rounds per kill in combat, or something? How could marksmanship possibly even figure into the equation with the sheer volumes of lead we let fly as part of our modern tactical regime?

That said, I'm sure the bulk of fighting effectiveness is performed by a small minority of our fighters (as has been the case throughout history), so for them the effects of marksmanship may be more pronounced. It'd be hard to determine with all the other chaff/flak going on from everyone else, though, whether intentional suppressing fire or 'aimed' fire that simply misses.

That also said, it's not like herdsman with worn out PK's and PSL's are unable to hit their targets when they try to, either. I'm firmly in the camp of thinking that the main factor limiting how far away modern guns can be effective is the human eyeball, even under ideal circumstances. Which is why we basically realized that controllable full auto fire was the ultimate solution back in...1918? Too bad the human body isn't capable of managing the task, at least not for cartridges powerful enough to do the job. Which is why there is so much reliance on things that don't require the human physique (armored vehicles, artillery, aircraft, intelligence, etc.)

TCB

 

[Jeff White]

We burn a lot of small arms round per kill because of the nature of combat. You don't often actually see the enemy and when you do it is often just a fleeting glimpse before he is down behind concealment or cover. Fires are massed and directed at the area the enemy is believed to be in.

 

[Nom de Forum]

We burn a lot of small arms round per kill because of the nature of combat. You don't often actually see the enemy and when you do it is often just a fleeting glimpse before he is down behind concealment or cover. Fires are massed and directed at the area the enemy is believed to be in.

Modern logistical capability beginning in WWII made it very easy for the U.S. to use the tactic of Reconnaissance by Fire. RbF burns up ammunition in huge quantities for very few kills. That somewhat skews the numbers when analyzing kills due to marksmanship versus total ammunition expenditure per kill.

 

[herrwalther]

Honestly it is nearly impossible to make correlations of how well someone will do in the military with a weapon based off their previous experience before joining. A fellow I joined with was a certified gunsmith and had built over a dozen ARs out of parts. He was a bit older than your standard basic training recruit and knew the AR inside and out. He still only shot 30/40 on the marksmanship test. While not bad it certainly isn't great. I never touched a rifle or even a handgun before joining the military. If I shot 36/40 I was having a really bad day. 39/40 was my frustratingly repeatable score and I never hit 40/40. Not to mention I was sent to a designated marksman school before deploying to make my shooting better for more designated hits.

In addition the "country bumpkin" mindset holds little water as well. I switched units and moved farther south. Folks who liked to talk about a BB gun placed in their hand at birth yada yada. I thought I would have been middle of the pack when it came to rifle marksmanship with this new unit. On a borrowed rifle, shooting with an ACOG (first time doing that) I shot 36 and got a medal (AAM) for highest score.

What I found most is difference in MOS. Soldiers in combat arms take their marksmanship much more seriously than non combat ones, which I was very thankful and happy for during my time. In my initial unit the rank of Marksman was not allowed. Scoring between 23 and 29 got you a handful of retries. After that, you would find yourself in the COs office with transfer paperwork to a mechanic or some other unit.

 

[barnbwt]

"We burn a lot of small arms round per kill because of the nature of combat. You don't often actually see the enemy and when you do it is often just a fleeting glimpse before he is down behind concealment or cover. Fires are massed and directed at the area the enemy is believed to be in."

Precisely why I somewhat question how effective actual marksmanship actually is. Obviously someone has to be aiming in order to hit something, but it seems like that is a rare/uncommon opportunity, and that most hits must be statistical outcomes from the massed-fire you mentioned. I would think that heavy machinegun fire might be the only real exception, since it is quite accurate and often used at ranges that present the opportunity for real sighting. But even then it's not like it's being used to the degree of precision that we think of when describing 'marksmanship,' and is equal parts aimed and area fire.

From what I've read, modern doctrine is more that small arms are not for making hits, but for fixing the enemy in place so more advantageous assets can neutralize them with as little exposure for anyone as possible. It's certainly effective, but it's not marksmanship. I think that's the steady evolution that's occurred since rifled muskets made "aimed fire" possible in the first place; that massed fire to hold an opponent for out-maneuvering has always been the primary goal of infantry small arms. We just didn't have the technology to pursue this idea nor the tactics to realize it until WWII showed what the antithesis of a battle rifle --the submachinegun-- was capable of. Suddenly one man with a Shpagin could hold a German patrol many times his number in place for nearly a minute while his comrades circled around, repositioning himself just as easily as they the whole time. Only problem was the gunner's range was useless outside urban environs, and modest cover mooted his tool almost entirely. Which is why slightly more powerful intermediate cartridges that could bridge the gap for best advantage became favored, along with steady technological advances allowing for powerful rifles nearly as compact as submachineguns. Nowhere since the advent of smokeless powder allowed firearms flim-flammers to convince generals the guns could be effective to 1000yards, has the desire/need for increased accuracy outweighed literally any other design or tactics goal.

How's this for an alternate theory; having a firearms background makes an infantry more likely to actually use his rifle when he should, and in a way that supports the strategy being acted. I could see that as forming a tangible link between firearms familiarity and combat effectiveness, since you've essentially made your "one man" fight like "one-point-two men" or something like that. Better training always gives a higher potential for overall discipline, right?

TCB

 

[Nom de Forum]

On a borrowed rifle, shooting with an ACOG (first time doing that) I shot 36 and got a medal (AAM) for highest score.

Nothing personal, but your story further increases my disgust at the arbitrary and down right fickleness involved in the awarding of Army Achievement Medals. The only AAM I ever received that had anything to do with Rifle Qualification was awarded because I personally trained many of the soldiers in the battalion using dry firing and a Weaponeer, then as NCOIC conducted a range week were qualification scores of Sharpshooter and Expert dramatically improved. I was just doing my job just like all the cooks I saw in various assignments get AAMs for doing their job on FTXs. I don't know if it is still a problem today, but "medal inflation" was an institutional problem in the Army when I served.

What I found most is difference in MOS. Soldiers in combat arms take their marksmanship much more seriously than non combat ones, which I was very thankful and happy for during my time. In my initial unit the rank of Marksman was not allowed. Scoring between 23 and 29 got you a handful of retries. After that, you would find yourself in the COs office with transfer paperwork to a mechanic or some other unit.

When I was in the 82nd ABN anyone in Combat Arms being a Marksman was not an option. You went back to the range until you got right or would soon find yourself out.

I always found Spec4s and Sergeants of all MOSs to be the most serious about marksmanship. The one shot difference between being a Sharpshooter and Expert was IIRC the difference between 30 promotion points and 50 promotion points. On a 1000 point possible promotion scale it was important to not miss that one shot.

 

[jamesjames]

So far, a minority of respondents do think there's a correlation between previous gun experience and better marksmanship or combat effectiveness in the armed forces. Unfortunately, that seems to pretty much undercut the founding father's major justification for 2A, which was that in order to have a ready fighting force to defend the country, the people should own arms and by implication be practiced with them so that fielding an army would take less time and training (“A well-regulated militia”, with “well-regulated” keeping the 18th century concept of something mechanical in proper working order or calibrated correctly). It also meant that the federal government could field a force that supplied their own arms, requiring less armament to be supplied by the government.

I have tried in vain to find studies conducted either by the military or the NRA to explore or confirm the hypothesis of prior firearm experience accruing to a more effective fighting force. Many have commented that it’s easier to train newbies to shoot well than to train recruits with prior experience. Many have commented that military strategy is less concerned with the combat effectiveness of the individual combatant than larger deployment of force. Many have indicated that individual training of “marksman” or “expert” is not absolutely necessary except for Marines or Special Forces.

If you know of any studies, please point me in that direction. I am not a troll, but this may be a vulnerability in the RKBA concept.

 

[herrwalther]

Nothing personal, but your story further increases my disgust at the arbitrary and down right fickleness involved in the awarding of Army Achievement Medals.

None taken. But trust I didn't want a medal for a high qualification score. I watched far too many medals get handed out for just doing ones job. And even worse if they were valor medals for non valor tasks. I was privy to watch a certain E7 receive a Bronze star for deleting a few rows out of a spreadsheet when it went from Brigade to Battalion headquarters. And a Silver star I was nominated for was busted down to an Army Commendation medal for end of tour. Sore points about medals are one of the many reasons I got out.