Shootrite Katana

[smince]

How many places can you see at 500 yds in modern America? How well can you identify targets at that distance?

Most people, if they ever have to use a rifle in a defensive/offensive role, it will be at 100 yds or less in all probability.

 

[crossrhodes]

It's a skill...nothing wrong with that.

I seeing nothing wrong with the USMC teaching Marines how to use iron sights out to 500 yards. It's a skill that many have pushed to the side because they think it old and out dated and will never be used again in modern warfare. The skills taught and learned for long range iron sight engagement out weighs the small logistical foot print left in teaching that skill.
It's only my opinion. But knowing how to manipulate iron sight or knowing how to use a lensatic compass it always a good back up if the Log train didn't catch up, or the Co Gunny's HMMWV is out of commission and your resupply of batteries for your GPS or replacement scope is out the window.
Never say Never.

 

[HorseSoldier]

I seeing nothing wrong with the USMC teaching Marines how to use iron sights out to 500 yards. It's a skill that many have pushed to the side because they think it old and out dated and will never be used again in modern warfare. The skills taught and learned for long range iron sight engagement out weighs the small logistical foot print left in teaching that skill.

Hours of range time are a finite resource. Available ammunition is a finite resource. Range time spent learning to shoot irons out to 500 represents resources not spent learning combat marksmanship skills, learning to shoot an ACOG past 300, etc. "Small logistical footprint" is a relative concept, and it's a pretty costly footprint for guys killed because they did not get the best training possible to prepare them for real battlefields.

But it's not about real combat -- the basic USMC qual course is a relic of how combat was imagined to be generations ago. It lingers in that community not because of its relevance to making Marines better killers, it's a mythology used to indoctrinate Marines which is why so many Marines and USMC vets suffer aneurysms whenever anyone takes a run at that particular sacred cow. The USMC qual course is a rite of passage and a unifying experience for that subculture . . . but it's sufficiently inadequate that the USMC has had to develop additional combat focused training that partly builds on and partly disregards the iron sights qual course.

 

[crossrhodes]

Wow. Interesting.

I guess I'll just stick to my old school ways since I'm not in the game any longer. Any one else want to chime in about our antiquated system on teaching Marine Corps Marksmanship. Please be sure to include the whole package when you educate us. I never knew the Marine Corps program had sunk down that far. Please humor us old jarheads and show us the way.

 

[DBryant]

crossrhodes, as a not-as-old jarhead, I'd be glad to chime in. When I went to the Parris Island range in early '04 we shot the known distance range that Marines have shot for ages now. I think the observation that it isn't combat focused is indeed correct. As you've pointed out, it's not meant to be. I think it, my Drill Instructors, and Primary Marksmanship Instructor, did an excellent job of teaching me the basics of shooting a rifle and I have three expert qual scores to back that up (I missed shooting one of my quals because I was deployed).

In addition to that we fired an unknown distance range. This was a series of targets that would pop up at various ranges and then drop when hit.

Before deployment, my unit fired the short range course and received training in military operations in urban terrain and convoy operations. This entailed rapid shots at short range (25 yards and under), double taps, failure to stop drills (two shots center torso, one shot head), Shooting while moving, moving in, out, and around buildings, clearing houses, shooting from the top and back of 7-tons and HMMWV's and rapidly dismounting said vehicles to engage targets. That's just on the rifle handling side.

Keep in mind, my MOS (job) was communications, computers to be exact. You don't get much more non-combat than that! I imagine that the grunts get more training. Also, my buddies who are still in tell me that the short range course is now part of the annual qual.

If the KD range had been the only firearms training that I had received, then yes, it would have been inadequate. However, taken as a part of the whole training package, it laid an excellent foundation for later training to build upon and gave me a better understanding of my rifle, as well as the capabilities of the weapon and myself.

Criticizing the KD range for not being combat-focused is like calling driver's ed worthless because it doesn't teach you how to drive a race car.

Oh, and your comment about Marines knowing their sight settings was spot-on. My M-16A2 that I took to Iraq was serial no. 6035710 and the sights were 2 below flush on the front, 8/3 small gap on the rear elevation, and two to the left of center on the rear windage. Give me that rifle and I could put it on those sight setting blindfolded.

 

[crossrhodes]

HorseSoldier

Well' your right!!!... we are a subculture and damn proud of it. Our Marksmanship program has not failed us yet. As Dbryant stated it's part of the whole package. I will not argue about the ACOG or it's use (my opinion)it's the best combat optic out there for the infantry. Technology is a good thing but you have to keep some of the basics. I hope you never run out of batteries. I was using the GPS (when it was the size of a large notebook) I had it crap out because of cloud cover or it's inability to track in triple canopy. I didn't give it a second thought to use my rough terrain pace count or to do a resection or intersection to verify locations. But, you may find it antiquated we still teach basic land nav like we do marksmanship.
I would like to think I know a little what I'm talking about. Twenty years as a grunt....no DI or recruiting duty ether. 0311.0331.0341 and 0369

It does sound like you have a problem with Marines, I never had a problem with the Army and often worked well with them in small unit ops.

Thanks Dbryant for your service. Semper Fi

 

[merlinfire]

It sounds like.......


Marketing? Like the Mossberg Turkey Thug?

 

[crossrhodes]

Just like the Katana. smells like..........LMAO

 

[HorseSoldier]

It does sound like you have a problem with Marines, I never had a problem with the Army and often worked well with them in small unit ops.

Zero problem at all with Marines, either in units I've worked with or prior service guys who are now on the Army side of the house. Not being overly impressed by the basic USMC qual course and recognizing that it has serious limitations has nothing to do with my attitude towards folks who actually wear the uniform and do the job.

 

[crossrhodes]

OK

Well, I think we can agree to disagree on this subject or we will just be whipping a dead horse (no pun intended).

Stay safe.

Semper Fi

 

[BENBRU]

Horsesoldier obviously doesn't know the current Marine qual course. Both table 1 the "antiquated" KD range and Table 2 a basic combat marksmanship range are required yearly... along with tables 3 and 4 for a unit to be combat ready. Check your info next time before you decide that our qual. course(s) has/have serious limitations.

I find also find it funny that whenever my unit has been given the chance to shoot the army qual course it is often considered a joke... In fact its considered a waste of time by a lot of commanders.

As much as I'd love to say I have no problem with the Army I can't. For the record Marines going into the Army is equivalent to neutering a dog.

Semper Fi

 

[HorseSoldier]

Plenty of currently serving Marines are secure enough in their Jarhead identity to question whether the USMC is doing things right/best when it comes to prepping Marines for combat and weapons training. Googling "Challenges Improve Our Marksmanship Standards" by (USMC) Maj. Zachary Martin, for instance, is illustrative of heavy thought given internal to the Corps for how to do things better. It's a response to another article whose author basically questioned whether Marines can really be Marines without shooting Table 1 -- in other words, the two articles basically touch on the recurring tension internal to the USMC between killers and target shooters.

As much as I'd love to say I have no problem with the Army I can't. For the record Marines going into the Army is equivalent to neutering a dog.

No worries. In terms of academic training, I get that Marines have the touchiest and most brittle of identities of all the armed services because the justification for their existence is the weakest of all the armed services. (Well justified organizations rarely require a Congressional lobby to pass laws requiring their existence, for instance.) So as a culture/community, Marines groupthink themselves into some modestly delusional states from time to time insisting they're necessary and not just a cool tradition we've opted, as a nation, to keep sinking tax payer money into whether or not it's the most efficient bang for our buck.

It's all just a matter of perspective.

 

[taliv]

this thread seems to have permanently diverged from the original topic...