Texas State Rifle Association teaches (gasp) the Army???????

Status
Not open for further replies.

hillbilly

Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2003
Messages
3,165
Location
Iowa
Whoa............I guess the state of Army marksmanship training really is pretty sad.

I'm sure the TSRA is full of very good, knowledgable shooters.....but isn't this sort of like NASCAR sending drivers to AAA for training?

http://www.tsrapac.org/Vol_36_3.pdf


Sroll to pages 10 and 11 of the PDF version of the magazine.

Look for this quote, in particular:

"This is more shooting than I have ever done in my whole Army career" said one First Cavalry trooper.

Egads..........


hillbilly
 
Well...they weren't Infantry. Even the average Infantry soldier isn't a good shot compared to a HP rifle shooter/competitor. They aren't taught about ballistics or weather because with a battleight zero and E type targets at 300m max, it isn't that important. (In the opinion of the brass, not mine)

I'm glad to see the Army and Marines adopt a Designated Marksman program. I used to complain that the Army ought to dust off the M14s and give one to each rifleman in an infantry squad and have them train with the BN snipers once a quarter. They aren't there yet, but moving in the right direction. Cetainly a better direction than pimped M4s with every accessory known to man strapped on it, making it even more difficult to hit with for minimally trained soldiers (or anyone...balances like a brick.) That said, American Infantry is the best in the world and that is all that matters. [Provided we keep it that way and keep improving];)
 
You may find this hard to believe, but since it has been almost forty years since the Army issued the M-14, people with expertise on the weapon system are sort of hard to come by.

I'm sure the TSRA is full of very good, knowledgable shooters.....but isn't this sort of like NASCAR sending drivers to AAA for training?

I appreciate the compliment but I would hardly equate a man wearing a President's 100 pin to AAA.
 
M14 Qualified Riflemen

You are right... the last M14s were phased out in 69-70 IIRC.

As most well know, the 14 is a great rifle and the run of the mill standard issue rifles would make 600m shots on a man size target with a rifleman who could manage to qualify as a Sharpshooter... that is to say in the middle of the pack. Expert marksmen hit the 600m targets very regularly.

Though most of us are a bit on the "over the hill side" there are a lot of guys around who can teach young troopies how to use the old M14 as it was designed to be used.

I expect a lot of us would help if asked.

FWIW

V/r

Chuck
 
All the points being made about the skill of TSRA shooters and M14s being releatively old rifles are taken.

But does anyone else find it a bit disconcerting that the US Army has to go outside the Army to find marksmanship training?


And, based on the article, just about any THR member could have taught most of the the class to those grunts.

How to get into proper shooting positions, how to use a sling, how to get a sight picture, how to breathe, squeeze, and follow through aren't exactly arcane secrets that can be discovered only after years of study in super secret rifle ninja academies.......

Sounds like most of the class these grunts got was a "basic marksmanship" class.

Isn't basic marksmanship kinda, sorta, supposed to be part of the Army's basic reason for existence? It used to be for a long time.

In this regard, the whiz-bang, modernized Army of One is light years behind the ancient, tradition-bound, hopelessly out-of-date Marine Corps.

In the Marine Corps, every single Marine is still a rifleman first.

In fact, a few months ago, I posted a link to an article in which the Army announced it was going back to a marksmanship training program modeled on the Marine Corps program.

It seems all the stories of Army grunts getting ambushed and shot up in Iraq, and of poorly-maintained rifles jamming, have finally caused the Army to remember that fighting with a rifle is still the basic function of a soldier, no matter how high-tech or specialized the soldier's other jobs might become.

hillbilly
 
I have no idea how things got to the point where the Green Machine had to outsource its BRM training since I was in.

The only thing I can think of is maybe since the sniper program is so focussed on the m-24 they can't teach the m-14 effectively, and maybe sniper school is so busy they can't afford to give up a few insructers, and maybe there are so many troops deployed that there arent any sniper teams to do the training locally, I have no idea.

I am glad though that they sucked it up and found people with the knowledge needed to provide the instruction.

My educated guess is that the troops in this program we the best shooters in thier units and this course is more of a "how to transfer m-16 shooting techniques to the m-14" rather than a bottom-up BRM program. Just my guess though since I know that the Army requires instruction and licensing for each piece of equipment a soldier uses regardless of how similar it is to the one you allready know how to use.
 
Here is the Article from the Army Times I posted several months back.

The URL works only for computers with military access. I got it off another bulletin board and the authenticity of the article was confirmed by some other posters to the thread.

My original thread is titled "Army Learns which end is dangerous."



Chief Of Staff To Soldiers: You're A Rifleman First
The Army Times | Oct 20, 03 | Sean D. Naylor

Posted on 10/15/2003 4:35 AM PDT by SLB

The Army’s new chief of staff is tearing a page from the Marine Corps playbook and insisting that every soldier consider himself “a rifleman first.â€

“Everybody in the United States Army’s gotta be a soldier first,†Gen. Peter Schoomaker told reporters during an Oct. 7 roundtable meeting with reporters in Washington.

The specialization of jobs in the Army pulled the service away from the notion that every soldier must be grounded in basic combat skills, he said. But Iraq has demonstrated that no matter what a soldier’s military occupational specialty is, he must be able to conduct basic combat tasks in order to defend himself and his unit.

“We’ve dismounted artillerymen in Iraq, and we’ve got them performing ground functions — infantry functions, MP functions,†Schoomaker said. “Everybody’s got to be able to do that … Everybody’s a rifleman first.â€

That phrase echoes a Marine motto that has been around since at least World War I — “Every Marine a rifleman.â€

Schoomaker’s emphasis on individual combat skills is part of a larger program to infuse the entire Army with a “warrior ethos.†Senior Army leaders are convinced that the focus on technical skills, particularly in the noncombat arms branches, has resulted in a neglect of basic combat skills.

“In our well-intentioned direction of trying to develop very technically competent soldiers in branches of the service, perhaps we lost some of the edge associated with being a soldier,†Lt. Gen. William Wallace, commander of the Combined Arms Center at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., told reporters Oct. 6.

Service leaders are looking to change the Army’s training and education systems, which have “reinforced the culture where you’re a technician first and a soldier second,†Gen. Kevin Byrnes, head of Army Training and Doctrine Command, told an audience at the Association of the United States Army’s annual meeting in Washington on Oct. 7.

“We’re removing those impediments,†in order to reverse that mindset, he added.

“To be a warrior,†Wallace said, “you’ve got to be able to use your individual weapon. You’ve got to be able to operate in small, lethal teams if called upon to do so. You’ve got to have that mental and physical capability to deal with the enemy regardless of whether you’re a frontline soldier or you’re someone fixing helicopters for a living, because you are a soldier first and a mechanic second.â€

Back to basic soldier skills

Leaders are pushing forward with combat-skills training that will be mandatory for all officers and enlisted troops:

*Every soldier will be required to qualify on his or her individual weapon twice a year, Byrnes said. The current Army standard requires soldiers to qualify only once a year, although some commanders have their troops qualify more frequently.

*New recruits will qualify on their individual weapons in basic training and then again in advanced individual training, Byrnes added. Until now, qualification in basic training only was the standard.

*Every soldier, regardless of MOS and unit, will conduct at least one live-fire combat drill a year. For higher headquarters rear-echelon units, it might include reacting to an ambush, Byrnes said.

Top gear, real-world training

The Army embarked on the “warrior ethos†program shortly before Schoomaker became chief Aug. 1, but he has folded it into a larger effort aimed at ensuring “the soldier†takes priority over any other program in the Army. “Humans are more important than hardware,†he said in his Oct. 7 keynote speech at the AUSA meeting.

“The Soldier†is the name given to what Schoomaker said is the most important of the 15 “focus areas†within the Army that he has targeted for immediate action. Putting the soldier first also means making sure no soldier deploys to a combat zone with anything less than the best gear available.

Schoomaker is determined to do away with the practice that sees later-deploying units into a combat theater fielded with gear that’s different — and usually less modern — than what’s issued to the Army’s “first-to-fight†combat units.

Another “focus area†aimed in part at getting all personnel to think of themselves as warriors deals with the Army’s combat training center program.

The service’s so-called “dirt†combat training centers include the National Training Center, Fort Irwin, Calif., the Joint Readiness Training Center, Fort Polk, La., and the Combat Maneuver Training Center, Hohenfels, Germany. The CTC program also includes the Battle Command Training Program, which puts division and corps headquarters through rigorous simulation exercises called “Warfighters.â€

The CTC program has received much of the credit for the Army’s successful performances in the Iraq wars of 1991 and 2003 and Afghanistan in 2002. But it originally was designed to train units how to fight the Soviet-style armies. Now, Schoomaker and other senior leaders say, the CTCs must change faster than usual to prepare soldiers for the operations they likely are to face in the near future.

“These combat training centers are the main cultural drivers in the Army,†Schoomaker told the AUSA audience. “How we train there dictates how people think when they get on the real battlefield,†he later told reporters.

Schoomaker noted that at the NTC in particular, the Opposing Force was designed to replicate a regimented, easy-to-predict Soviet-style threat. “Today, we are fighting a different kind of enemy, and we’ve got to be prepared to fight and win in different kind of terrain, under different conditions than we have in the past,†he said.

Units now arrive at the training centers under relatively benign conditions and are given time to prepare for their “battles†against the opposing force before moving into the maneuver “box†where the real force-on-force fighting occurs.

“We now have to look at perhaps having to fight our way into the training centers and fight our way out,†Schoomaker told the reporters.

Schoomaker and other senior Army leaders also are keen to increase the participation of the other services at the combat training centers. “They must be more joint,†the chief said.

Mix-’n’-match units

The new chief also wants an Army that is more “modular,†meaning one composed of units that can be mixed and matched without tearing apart other units, as occurs now. He explained the concept using an analogy.

“If you only got paid in $100 bills, and you want to go buy a can of snuff down at the Quik-Stop, and it costs you $3.75 … what do you get back? A big old pocketful of change.

“Then you go to the supermarket and now you’re going to buy your groceries.†But the groceries cost more than the change you have in your pocket. “So what do you do? You spend another $100 bill. And what do you get back? More change.

“And you do this until you spend all your hundreds, and then you’ve got a bunch of change. And now you try to aggregate this change into something that’s meaningful, and it doesn’t work. And that’s quite frankly a little bit of the condition that we’re in.â€

The point Schoomaker was making is that every time the Army deploys a brigade combat team of armor or infantry, it must augment it with pieces of other units — MPs, aviation and artillery, for instance. Eventually, the service finds it has deployed all of its brigades, but still has lots of pieces of units left over, sitting all but useless at home station.

Schoomaker thinks the Army can get more out of its current force by redesigning it. Most divisions have three ground maneuver brigades. But Schoomaker wants to create five maneuver brigades within each division, without increasing the number of soldiers in the division. The first two divisions to return from Iraq, 3rd Infantry Division (Mechanized) and the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault), will be the guinea pigs in this experiment, with their division commanders leading the redesign.

“I asked them, ‘Could you make yourself into five maneuver brigades, out of the three that you’ve got, and could you make each of those five at least as capable as each of the original three?’†Schoomaker told reporters.

“ ‘And if we gave you the right technologies, could you become one-and-a-half times more capable?’â€

The chief said that the Army is not prejudging the issues. “These are just questions,†he said. But, “I believe in my heart that each of those five brigades can be as effective as the current one,†if equipped with the right technologies.

Staying together in the fight

Schoomaker also said he was trying to change the Army’s policy relating to battalion and brigade-level changes of command in combat theaters. Until now, the Army has insisted on enforcing the two-year command tours, with no accommodation made for the fact that a unit might be in combat. Thus, a battalion commander might leave his unit halfway through its one-year tour in Iraq because his two-year command is up and the Army wants him to attend the War College in Carlisle, Pa.

This policy has infuriated many in the Army, especially the outgoing commanders, who feel it forces them to abandon theirtroops just when their soldiers need them most.

Schoomaker is sympathetic to those who feel the policy should be changed, and has told the units preparing to deploy to Iraq and Afghanistan that he does not want midtour changes of command. Staying with a unit until it redeploys is “a fundamental role of leadership,†he told reporters.

Staff writer Matthew Cox contributed to this report.
 
A few of comments.

First, in my opinion, the Army marksmanship program is broke and it has been for a long time. It pains me to say it, but its true. Infantry and special operations units realize that standard qualification does not adequately prepare personnel for combat and compensate. Most other units execute their annual qualification (now semi annual) and call it good. They focus on other areas (i.e. cooks focus on cooking) and a trip to the range once or twice a year is a big deal.

Second, the Marine Corps provides an excellent model for how to emphasize marksmanship. If you look at the USMC qualification, its not really much better than the Army's. In my experience, Marine infantrymen and Army infantrymen shoot as well as one another.

The Army is providing the lion's share of the manpower for current operations. They are manpower intensive. Where we had previosly trained to conduct operations on a linear battlefield, we are now finding that we have manpower requirements that exceed our capability and the battlefield is no longer linear. As a result, other personnel are now performing tasks they were not trained to perform. You have chemical reconnaissance platoons conducting raids on a regular basis. This goes beyond anyones concept of "every man a rifleman."

We have sent medics to work in hospital ER's in big cities to tap into civilian expertise and gain experience. It paid big dividends. I see the same principle at work here. The fact is every Soldier/Marine/Sailor/Airman is not a weapons expert just like every police officer is not. There are a few, but they are busy executing missions or preparing to go.

I applaud unit commander's for outsourcing their training. It is smart, and more importantly the have the integrity to recognize that there is something they do not do well and developed a solution to rectify the situation, even if it was somewhat humbling. They are honoring the moral obligation they have to ensure their soldiers are prepared and deserve your respect.
 
Even Special Operations units go to civilian organizations for marksmanship instruction. It is not uncommon for SF and other SOF units to attend Mid south or blackwater. To think that the military cannot learn anything from civilians is extremely arrogant and just plain wrong.
 
I don't think I am being arrogant here.

I am not saying that "stupid" civilians can't and shouldn't teach the Army anthing.

And many of the "civilians" at Blackwater, etc, are former military, especially special forces types.

For example, the "civilian" who taught me precision rifle shooting was the sixth highest scoring Marine sniper from the Vietnam War when he was a younger man.


What I am saying is this:

It does not make sense to me that the Army, whose primary reason for existence is combat, has gotten so far off its intended mission that it has to seek outside help to figure out how to perform one of its basic functions key to combat.

It'd be like Toyota seeking help from hobbyist car guys in order to learn how to build an engine.

Are the hobbyist car guys knowledagble? Yes.

Are the hobbyist car guys experts? Yes.

Are the hobbyist car guys really good at what they do? Yes.

However, Toyota is in the business of professionally building cars.
Buidling cars is the primary reason that Toyota exists.

So you'd figure that maybe Toyota should already know a thing or two about building engines. Maybe Toyota shouldn't have to go seek help from guys who build engines strictly as a recreational hobby.

Maybe Toyota should already have some of the world's best engine builders on its payroll?

What I am saying is if the Army was actually tending to its job--being a primary combat force-- in the way it should, maybe the Army should already have scads and scads of guys just as knowledgable about medium range rifle marksmanship as can be found in the TSRA, or NRA Highpower shooting, or shooting ranges across the USA.

I am very glad that the Army is doing what it has to do and seeking out the expertise the soldiers have to have.

But I hope in future wars, the Army won't have to seek outside help on rifle marksmanship.

I hope in the future the Army has its own medium range rifle marksmanship program turning out the trained, experienced shooters it obviously needs so badly.

hillbilly
 
Hillbilly,

What you are failing to realize is that these troops are not learning BRM (basic rifle marksmanship) on the m-16 from these civilains. They are learnign a specialized role with a specialized wepon that DRADOC has no current training guidlines for.

To use your analogy,

If Toyota wanted to build a few specialized custom street burners they would probably call in some well known "hobbiest" to help with the design and the build, ala Carol Shelby.

make sence now?
 
Hillbilly,

Look again at who was being trained. To work with your analogy, it would be more like an accountant at Toyota getting help from a neighbor who is a car enthusiast. Hopefully this puts things in perspective.
 
To quote from the TSRA article about the "specialized" training the TSRA gave to the soldiers on M-14s.


"Most [of the soldiers] had never shot from position. None of them knew how to use a sling. Few of them had any concept of how a firearm works or basic principles of marksmanship."


Uh yeah, specialized training on specialized weapons system......

So when they are issued M16s, they don't shoot from positions and don't use the slings that go on the rifles?

They get issued M16s without any knowledge of how a firearm works or basic principals of marksmanship?

What the Hell do they do in basic training or infantry school these days?

If you actually read the article I posted from the TSRA you'll see just how sad the situation was.

These people who had never shot from position, who did not know how to use a sling, who did not know how a firearm works were freakin' SOLDIERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


More quotes from later in the article:


"They [the instructors} taught sight alignment and trigger control. They stressed breathing and natural point of aim. They taught the use of a sling and how to shoot from position."


These are all high level things soldier DON'T learn with the current M16 marksmanship training? Really?

More quotes from the article:


"'This is more shooting that I have ever done in my whole Army career,'"
said one Cavalry trooper.

"I went through a SNIPER COURSE and they didn't teach half this stuff," one of the Cpls said.

"By the end of the week, most of the troops had qualified. A few failed and even those few said that they had learned more about shooting that they had ever imagined."

This was a two-week basic marksmanship class. Qualfication meant getting "14 out of 20 hits with iron sights ans scope from the 100 yard line back to the 500 on the army "E" silhouette."

The Army E silhouette is 23 inches tall by 35 inches wide.

This doesn't exactly sound like high level marksmanship training to me.

Maybe I'm just arrogant or a stupid civilian.

But I would figure that a SOLDIER who had completed basic training should know how to use a rifle sling, know how to shoot from different positions, and know the basic concepts of how a firearm actually works.

hillbilly
 
hillbilly

I don't see what the issue is.

We know that the military is not one to teach proper marksmanship. Remember the history of the NRA. It was started after the Civil War by Union officers who felt that the marksmanship skills of the Union soldier was seriously lacking.

Military, if you come right down to it, is good at one thing, and that is teaching how to follow orders.
 
Hillbilly,

This is obviously one of those things that you have had to have expieinced to be able to understand.

The average trrop recieves basic rifle training. no sling usage other than a way to carry the rifle and only 4 positions, prone supported (sand bags) prone unsupported (offhand) and then standing fox hole of the same two.

This article was obviously written as a PR piece and not entirely factual. The other thing this article does not mention is if they are active or reserve troops.
 
Hillbilly,
Combat is not much like the High Power Championships at Camp Perry. There is little need to teach positional shooting to soldiers. Army and Marine rifle qualification programs are designed to produce marginal shooters in a short period of time. That's it, no more, no less. Is there room for improvement? Of course. Have people in the Army been screaming for changes in the program...you bet!

Have commanders who want to improve their soldiers skills gone to the civilian community in the past...yes...will they continue to do so? Yes.

I read the article and it looks like once again soldiers were trained to compete at Camp Perry and not how to fight. Didn't see many pictures of the trainees shooting with their battle rattle on...they were shooting from positions that are great on the range, but most likely will require them to be too exposed to enemy fire to use in the field.

It's great that they got some additional trigger time, but I'm not impressed with the POI.

Jeff
 
"So when they are issued M16s, they don't shoot from positions and don't use the slings that go on the rifles?"

I went through basic in 1981, so this probably means little or nothing about the training of today. But I don't remember learning to shoot from positions. We did all our firing out of a foxhole. From zeroing to qualification. And we of course didn't have a shooting sling like the 1907 sling. We had black nylon carry straps. About the only training we had with them was sling arms.
The use of the shooting sling is something that very few people know today in or out of the military. Other than people who participate in NRA High Power rifle shooting I doubt that many people even know what a shooting sling is.
 
Who'd a thunk it?

You really do learn stuff every day.

I never dreamed that no one in the Army remembered how to use that mysterious piece of equipment known as a "rifle" any more.

I never dreamed that the fact no one in the Army remembers how to use a rifle any more is not particularly a big deal, either.

As for "rifle sling," in the photo of the Army grunts on the line with the TSRA, they are not using specialized "target slings" that wrap around the bicep or just above the bicep.

They are just using the standard slings that people carry the rifle around with.

Just regular carrying slings, like what typically comes standard with that 30-30 you can get at a Wal-Mart.

They have been taught how to thread their arms through, around, and back through those standard carrying slings.

I have surely gotten an education on this thread.

And now I know why all the men who taught me how to use rifles have all been Marines.

hillbilly
 
They have been taught how to thread their arms through, around, and back through those standard carrying slings.

I knew how to do that when I was in the Infantry...in all my exercises and live-fires with engagement distances about 100m or less, it was never necessary. Furthermore, wrapping your arm around a "carrying strap" is a marginal improvement at best. Should the new "designated marksmen" with M14s have a propper sling (shooting) and know how to use it? You bet.

It seems all the stories of Army grunts getting ambushed and shot up in Iraq, and of poorly-maintained rifles jamming,
Umm, "grunts" means infantry. The instances you refer to above didn't happen to infantry units, but to rear echelon (Jessy Lynch's transportation outfit) types. Yes, those units should maintain their weapons and know how to use them too. Problem is in peacetime they blow it off and when they get to combat it's too late. Your article addresses these issues with the rear echelon units. Oh, and the Marine support units aren't high speed and "A rifleman first" no matter what the propaganda says. They do get more marksmanship training/emphasis in the beginning (which is good) but when they get to their real jobs...it's the same problem as the Army.

Oh, and again the guys taught were Cavalry, not Infantry, big difference. I wouldn't have expected any better from them, they ride around and look good, they don't run around shootin' and getting dirty. The Army AMU could more than handle this type of course as well, and I'd love to know if the soldier quoted passed sniper school, which one he went to and what he says they didn't teach...his statement was pretty vague. Other than M14 specifics, the US Army sniper operations field manual covers all those topics and more. US Army sniper school at FT Benning is 5 weeks long, I think they cover enough...and I've known lots of Army and 1 former Marine sniper. (Marine Scout-Sniper course is the best FWIW)
 
It is my opinion that hillbilly has some stange offense to the topic of this conversation. This is a fine example of why people that do not know what they are talking about should refrain having a grown-up conversation about that same subject.

If he truley wanted to learn and gain insight, fine, ask away. This is obviosly not the the case here as proven by his last thread.

You know, bashing The U.S. Army, the soldiers and the vets, especially with so many of us on this board, is not very THRish.
 
On another note...

If you read Col Grossman's On Killing he makes the point that in WWII, very few infantry men fired their weapons. Whether you agree with his work or not, the military re-designed their rifle training to make it "more real" and it appears to have worked; by Vietnam, most infantrymen fired their weapons.

Moreover, the new training allowed the military to dominate every small-arms confontation it ran into. The British (training the same way) dominated the Agentinians in the Falkland Islands, the Rangers trumped the Somalis in Mogadishu...in short, in a firefight it's much more important that every soldier fire his weapon than that he be an excellent shot.

At least, that's been the theory. I think they're, to some extent, correct. The fact that they're finding a need for better small-arms training doesn't necessarily mean that the methods being used were completely wrong, merely that they weren't as comprehensive as they needed to be.

In short, the army needs to continue training as it has, and ADD marksmanship training...not scrap what it's been doing.

My .02
 
"Outside" help often most effective.

While I understand hillbilly's point about the Army seeking outside help...indeed a NASCAR need not seek assistance from AAA...but I ask that he recall the devistation wrought upon us in the Clinton years. We lost 9...yes NINE standing divisions.....countless experienced warriors....and this Iraq fight is largely urban fight. Our civilian law dogs are the BEST to assist us with the non-bench rest...no steady hold oft times...type of fight. In those 8 years we, the Army stalled. We did. I've been over there 4 times now....we are doing well....but we need to grow at a rate that overcomes the lag required to raise our own experts. Many...many of our civilian law dogs face "Fallujah" every day.

Bottom line: hillbilly makes some valid points throughout this thread....and he appears, to me, to be humble and non-self serving....well done, Sir.

Bryant.
 
Hillbilly, I think the problem is between your imagined competetence (or what you imagine should be the competence) of the military when it comes to shooting and the reality. The reality is not as bad as this article makes it out to be, trust me I know. However, the reality also isn't as good as many civilians would imagine it is just as cops aren't all Dirty Harry and gun experts. Quite frankly, I was dissapointed a little with the reality of being a Ranger. It wasn't nearly as high speed as the material I read about the unit prior to joining. Or the Army in general for that matter, but it wasn't bad either...it was just reality, not fiction or wishfull thinking. Our front line troops are good at what they do, and the Army is making forward progress in making them better. We took over the entire country of Iraq in about 2 weeks, twice in 13 years. We do OK.

Also, this class wasn't brought about by a hectic meeting in the Pentagon of generals wondering how in the world they could teach a few Cav troopers how to shoot an M14 and scouring every presonnel jacket realizing that the Army had no experts in shooting.:rolleyes: It was probably a local decision and I bet the leaders who made it probably know, or even shoot with these Texas guys so they asked them to put the class on. Certaily cheaper and more effective than asking the Dept. of the Army to put on a course for them...they'd be waiting awhile for that one...though the Army easily has plenty of capable teachers. There was a President's 100 shooter in my infantry battalion way up in Alaska, I wouldn't be suprised if every infantry battalion had at least one guy who could teach at this level (each IN BN has a scout PLT with 3 sniper teams and a sniper squad leader.) Not to take anything away from the Texas guys, I'm sure they were superb.

Oh, you can't judge by the comments by the privates either, it would be like judging the pro-gun crowd by the Bubba who the reporters always seem to go to for comment. Maybe the guy who made the "I didn't learn half this in sniper school" was a total dolt...I'd bet money on that one.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top