2
2
0
One of my biggest gripes I had as a Platoon Leader was having Soldiers that could not qualify with their assigned weapons, mainly the M4 and M9. Now I can understand that a lot of people join the Army and have never fired a firearm, and the first time they picked up a weapon was in basic. But after sitting on a range, for what seemed like forever, for a Soldier to just zero their weapon it seems like they didn't learn much of anything from basic about the fundamentals of marksmanship. Now I'm big on firearms, I own a few pistols and rifles and am at the range all the time so I expect Soldiers to be able to shoot as well. Do I have to high of expectations for Soldiers, or are they just not getting enough training?
Posted in these groups: 
Weapons
Weapons
Posted 12 y ago
Responses: 10
4
4
0
I have noticed that we don't put the same emphasis on marksmanship
as we do on many other tasks in the Army.
Ranges are more of a "check the block" rather than a training
and developmental opportunity. I would
like to see marksmanship treated like PT with remedial training and then
sustainment training to improve and maintain skill run by master gunners and
distinguished marksmen. If we don't put emphasis on
training we won't improve the soldiers who need it.
(4)
(0)
4
4
0
Unfortunately not every unit is a fortunate as mine, seems as if we do a range every other week, but still we have Soldiers who fail to even zero their weapon let alone qualify. Some of the ways I and my fellow NCOs have adopted to combat this issues is actual PMI classes. That is to say bringing back the old shadow boxes, bore sighting, advanced optics classes and basic fundamentals like washer drills and partnered silhouette drills. We have also instructed coaches in ways to identify mistakes while the soldier is firing and make corrections before more rounds go downrange. This has had great success resulting in a 97% qualify rate during our last 2 ranges. There are still those Soldiers who cant hit the broad side of a barn and mostly it has to do with the old " this is the way I've always done it" mentality, but you can't help all of them.
(4)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
Sadly no. I have seen units not care all year about weapons for certain units till a 2 months before a deployment and then they get to go zero and qualify once. . To many other things going on such as down vehicles. So soldiers a/b/c don't get to go to the range. Or cause they are PLL clerks so they don't need to go to the range as much. Yet ten they are picked to man guard towers, run clips.
(0)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
I agree beeing in a line troop often the focus is on boots on the ground Soldiers instead of those that sit in the headshead or supply shop, as far as additional taskings I feel your pain seems like every day the list gets longer. I just attempt to ensure those Soldiers are identified early and give them additional training as required, on a positive note one of our support shops has one of the 3 40\40's in the troop.
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
There is no such thing as enough weapons training. Too many unit are only concerned with what they "have" to do rather than what they should be training to do. Weapons training should be a once a year qualification and live fire exercises quarterly.
(3)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
SSG R, You are correct that units do not put enough time into weapons training. Shooting is a VERY perishable skill. It makes little sense for an institution that's very mission is ARMED combat to only do what is reuqired. It would be like a swim team only getting in the pool twice a year. Obviously specialized units train more often because they see the importance of the "trigger time". As long as unit leaders dont make it a priority it never will be and the end result are tactically less effective Soldiers. I personally shoot 2-3 times a week, but that is because I never want to be caught short in a gunfight. There is no prize for second place in a shootout.
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
Most units do not put enough emphasis on it. As a leader, you going to have input on what goes on that training schedule, so jump on it.
Don't get sucked into thinking the "Big Army" way is the only way to conduct weapons training. Develop a "gunfighter" mentality, not just shooting for the qual. Be able to shoot in multiple positions, clear malfunctions, conduct "tactical / combat" reloads, understanding that "all bullets fail" and….I could go on.
Pick up SGM (Ret.) Kyle Lambs book, "Green Eyes, Black Rifles" and read it. Then have your NCO's read it if they have not already.
Then start honing the soldiers under you in the basics, then move on to making them into shooters!
(3)
(0)
2
2
0
Honestly, it depends on what you do in the Army because one size does not fit all. If you are combat arms, then yes I would expect that soldier to be an expert with that weapon, because employing that weapon is your sole reason for being. Combat support? Yes, I expect proficiency as that weapon is more likely than not going to be used in a combat zone to protect yourself. But how about some CSS folks (like me). If I have to use my assigned weapon in combat, then something really, Really, REALLY bad has happened. I need to be familiar with it, be able to maintain it and generally hit my target when I pull the trigger, but I don't NEED to be as expert with it as an infantryman. Again, my job in the Army is not to be a trigger puller. So why waste the time and ammo training me and those like me to do something we are not going to be doing except for in those one in a million doo-doo hits the fan situations.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
NO ... trigger time should be a weekly event or at least monthly. That should involve pop ups and CQB.
(2)
(0)
All personnel should at least qual with their assigned weapon. Otherwise they should not be assigned the weapon.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
I know that this thread is already a month old, but I would like to add my opinion to the mix.
As a national guardsman, I only go the range once a year. It is absolutely a check of the box. The only time anyone cares about it from about E-7 up is about a month (or 1 drill weekend) before the range. I know that if I didn't buy my own AR15, I would likely struggle with rifle qual every year just like almost everyone in my unit.
I bought my rifle for a number of reasons, but one of those reasons was practicing with a similar rifle to the M16 so that I can perform better at the range. It is a skill that I think needs to be treated like PT, as a couple people have already said.
I do PT at home, but that doesn't cost me anything. I shoot my rifle at home, but that costs quite a bit especially right after the Sandy Hook shooting.
I think that as a soldier, there is some training that I need to do on my own. That includes PT, and in my opinion, weapons qual. At the end of the day, if/when I'm deployed I would rather have spent the money for the personal practice/training and never use it, than be in a position where I can't hit the broad side of a barn because the Army only gave me 40-58 rounds a year to practice with.
In short, even though I don't like having to fund my own training, I think at some point those of us who know that it is important will do just that. Granted, I have my firearm for many more reasons than just practice for the military, but everytime I pull that trigger is another opportunity to train.
Just my $0.02
As a national guardsman, I only go the range once a year. It is absolutely a check of the box. The only time anyone cares about it from about E-7 up is about a month (or 1 drill weekend) before the range. I know that if I didn't buy my own AR15, I would likely struggle with rifle qual every year just like almost everyone in my unit.
I bought my rifle for a number of reasons, but one of those reasons was practicing with a similar rifle to the M16 so that I can perform better at the range. It is a skill that I think needs to be treated like PT, as a couple people have already said.
I do PT at home, but that doesn't cost me anything. I shoot my rifle at home, but that costs quite a bit especially right after the Sandy Hook shooting.
I think that as a soldier, there is some training that I need to do on my own. That includes PT, and in my opinion, weapons qual. At the end of the day, if/when I'm deployed I would rather have spent the money for the personal practice/training and never use it, than be in a position where I can't hit the broad side of a barn because the Army only gave me 40-58 rounds a year to practice with.
In short, even though I don't like having to fund my own training, I think at some point those of us who know that it is important will do just that. Granted, I have my firearm for many more reasons than just practice for the military, but everytime I pull that trigger is another opportunity to train.
Just my $0.02
(1)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
SPC(P) Needham, you are 100% right. From what I understand, the original purpose of the National Guard was strictly for National Defense. Ya'll have been put into international roles for the past decade. Honestly, ya'll should not have to come out of pocket for those types of things.... Ammo (within reason) gym memberships, etc, should be (if not reimbursable) tax deductible.
(0)
(0)
SSG(P) (Join to see)
I would vote for that! Tax deductable ammunition!
Yes, you are correct SSG Johnston, the National Guard is mainly for National Defense in a natural disaster relief, and state defense for the same thing. If there ever was a time when the State of North Dakota (whom I am with) were to get an armed entity that was in opposition to the state, the National Guard should be the first line of defense, if the Governor decides that he needs support from the Federal Government, he can request that the Active Duty military help with the defense of the State. That is my understanding.
However, since we are also under the Federal Government, they can use us in an Active Duty role if need be. The fact of the matter is, some National Guard units have specialties that the Active Duty no longer has. For example, Active Duty ADA doesn't have any Short Range Air Defense Battalions anymore (or at least that is what I have been told, I haven't vetted that information) so instead of spending ridiculous amounts of money to buy all of the equipment necessary for such a mission, they use us instead.
Yes, you are correct SSG Johnston, the National Guard is mainly for National Defense in a natural disaster relief, and state defense for the same thing. If there ever was a time when the State of North Dakota (whom I am with) were to get an armed entity that was in opposition to the state, the National Guard should be the first line of defense, if the Governor decides that he needs support from the Federal Government, he can request that the Active Duty military help with the defense of the State. That is my understanding.
However, since we are also under the Federal Government, they can use us in an Active Duty role if need be. The fact of the matter is, some National Guard units have specialties that the Active Duty no longer has. For example, Active Duty ADA doesn't have any Short Range Air Defense Battalions anymore (or at least that is what I have been told, I haven't vetted that information) so instead of spending ridiculous amounts of money to buy all of the equipment necessary for such a mission, they use us instead.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
Sir, I think that your expectations for Soldiers are spot on (Shoot, Move and Communicate) and I also think that, depending on the unit and the command emphasis and budget, some are not getting enough marksmanship training. SSG Whisler is spot on with regard to his comments about additional BRM training that is available. Now, you and your NCOs may have to knock some rust off when it comes to teaching some of the techniques outlined in FM 3-22.9 (specifically CH 4), but they do work.
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
Depending on MOS and unit funding, a Soldier will be lucky to get 1 trip to the range every 6 months with a 15 min instruction block 2-3 days before. This does not allow for the "reflexive" memory and barely weapons "familiarization" to be established. There is a reason that less than 60% is a pass for Army marksmanship.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google