Is the Weapons Qualification requirement too low?

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 16 Jan 2014 08:31:59 -0500

Requiring a soldier to hit 23/40 targets on pop up targets, Or 26/40 targets on an Alt-C range seems a little too low. You are a soldier in an Army and you are only required to hit 57.5% of your targets or 65% of your targets? This seems like an incredibly low standard. Would it be too much to ask for soldiers to be able to hit 4 out of every 5 targets. 80%. So a minimum score would be 32/40 on a range. I get that some people are horrible with weapons and never shot anything til they went to basic but that is what remedial training is for. Granted most soldiers in the Army probably wont ever see a gun fight in there careers, but if I were to get into one, i would be a lot more confident knowing the guy next to me is probably hitting what he is aiming at with 80% of the time.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 16 at 2014 10:06 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 16 Jan 2014 10:06:52 -0500

<font color="#000000" size="3" face="Times New Roman">

</font><p style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;" class="MsoNormal"><font color="#000000" size="3" face="Calibri">I have to agree with you. I think they are too low, but then
again as an Infantryman I do not let my Soldiers off the range until they have
shot at least 36. There are only a hand full of Soldiers out of the Company
that cannot to save their lives but that is why we are NCOs. We must teach them
or break their bad habits.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">  </span>Expert or
nothing!</font></p><font color="#000000" size="3" face="Times New Roman">

</font>

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 16 at 2014 1:00 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 16 Jan 2014 13:00:38 -0500

Shooting is like everything else in the military, it is a skill.  I do not think our weapons qualification accurately grades ones ability to shoot.  One might be able to hit 40 out of 40 targets while in a foxhole shooting at a target but can they do it when they are fatigued, dehydrated and hungry? Our qualification ranges are not realistic and do not represent what one will see in combat conditions.  I think it is a baseline used as a standard for the Army as a whole.  I would go as far as to say that in combat Soldiers dont hit 40% of their targets because the conditions are totally different.

Response by SSG (ret) William Martin made Jan 16 at 2014 1:07 PM

SSG (ret) William Martin — Thu, 16 Jan 2014 13:07:34 -0500

Lets take it up a notch and hit actual moving targets that travers left and right and up and down. 

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 16 at 2014 9:04 PM

1LT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 16 Jan 2014 21:04:45 -0500

Honestly, BRM in its current state is a bare minimum proficiency exercise/certification and the 23/40 standard for pop-ups is fitting. Real targets move, shoot back, and aren't the only thing actually popping up in your sectors of fire. Thus, BRM should just address the bare minimum basics for proficiency so you are --if not an asset-- at least not a liability.
The Army had a pretty good BRM survey going on AKO a few months ago which asked whether BRM should also train the maintain and troubleshoot part of "shoot" as listed in the Warrior Tasks and Battle Drills. I think that'd be good, because a lot of us could use some practice on how to change magazines without being able to see, while wearing gloves, sweating profusely, and getting yelled at.

The real problem is this: Money.
The Army spends a lot of money on ammunition, range time is scarce, and we're going into a drawdown. I do not see Uncle Sam giving us a huge chunk of change to buy some 5.56 to put downrange until the majority of the Army can actually engage an enemy with any kind of proficiency. The last time I went to a real range was over two years ago, I have fired less than a thousand rounds from an M16 in my life, and I honestly don't think I should be anywhere close to a firefight even though Uncle Sam thinks I'm one sharp shooter.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 16 at 2014 10:22 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 16 Jan 2014 22:22:03 -0500

<div>I think Marksmanship is very important and it should be trained much more than it is but I would not recommend changing the standards.</div><div><br></div><div>Unless you are willing to kick out a Soldier in any MOS who excels at everything else in his military career but can only hit 25 out of 40 targets at the range, you should not change the standard.</div><div><br></div><div>I think all units should train marksmanship much more than they do currently so Soldiers can improve and sustain but again, I wouldn't change the standard for everyone.</div>

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 17 at 2014 5:48 AM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 17 Jan 2014 05:48:49 -0500

I like your train of thought; the only issue I have that would need to be fixed is how often some people get to the range. I am a support MOS I am lucky if I get to the range twice a year. Most of the time it is 300+Soldiers out there with just enough ammo to zero and qualify everyone once. Get on, hit the targets, qualify and get off. So to raise the standard would eliminate massive amounts of support Soldiers. Not because they cant shoot because they do not receive the time to master that skill. I am a training NCO and more that 70% of my company shoot 30 or less. Raise the minimum no one in Korea gets communications. That's the bottom line.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 17 at 2014 9:38 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 17 Jan 2014 09:38:17 -0500

Concealed carry on Post comes with earning it! You have to be assigned to a permanent Home Unit and continue to train in weapons and weapon Management. In other words after Basic and AIT, and in apposition where you have had hours of training with a loaded and unloaded weapon. You have qualified and have broken down weapons in all their components, including hand guns, rifles, machineguns, and other weapons. To get a permit to carry would depend on you completing at least another 40 hours in a class on your own time with a qualified instructor using all types of handguns and learning the laws and rules for concealed carry, This is not just for your Post but what ever State you may go to in travel or reposting!

Response by SFC Michael Hasbun made Jan 19 at 2014 1:02 AM

SFC Michael Hasbun — Sun, 19 Jan 2014 01:02:58 -0500

The only change I would make is that I'd like the Army to prioritize marksmanship the way it does Physical Fitness, with remedial programs, bars to reenlistment, flags and all...

No more prioritizing our ability to run from the enemy over our ability to kill them..

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 19 at 2014 3:18 AM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 19 Jan 2014 03:18:52 -0500

23/40 and 26/40 is an Army standard, just like 60 in each event on the APFT is an Army standard. In order to change an Army standard, it is not an overnight thing. You can always suggest corrections to regulations and standards. Also, provide a justification in your recommendation.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 21 at 2014 1:43 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 21 Jan 2014 01:43:46 -0500

The focus should not be on the qual!!!!! <div><br></div><div>The focus should be on the training leading up to it and the follow on training after the qual.</div><div><br></div><div>Before qual, should be PMI & BRM. Because frankly most people are not natural marksmen. Most mil and LE suck, due to plain old complacency. Along with PMI & BRM soldiers need to be able to fix malfunctions. "SPORTS" is not a bad technique, it is slow though. But a soldier should be able to have a Type 1 or Type II malfunction and fix it without calling his NCO over. They should be able to reload their weapons efficiently, both from "bolt lock" (Combat reload) and with a round in the chamber (a Tactical reload, as in putting in  fresh mag prior to entering a new building to clear it). Use of "verbiage" ie calling out "Cold" when changing a mag or clearing a malfunction to let their buddy know their weapon id down. And so on.</div><div><br></div><div>After a soldier has qualified, then move to more advanced shooting techniques. Shooting in different positions, stress shoots, moving targets, shooting at angles, long distance, CQB, if they use a pistol practice transitions from long gun to handgun, etc.</div><div><br></div><div>The current qualification is adequate for 80% of the Army. Because they are not even doing the proper train-up to get most their troops to Sharpshooter, much less Expert. OTOH if you want your soldiers to be real, no-S$%^ Professional Gunfighters…..it takes time, money and effort. </div><div><br></div><div>Sadly we seem more focused on combating sexual harassment, suicide prevention, PTSD and other distractors than fighting wars.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div>

Response by SPC Gary Basom made Jan 21 at 2014 9:41 PM

SPC Gary Basom — Tue, 21 Jan 2014 21:41:10 -0500

I believe you should be able to hit moving as well as stationary targets. It has always been easier to hit one that is not moving than one that is avoiding being hit. It is my belief that a soldier should know his/her weapon and ammunition, the difference in 55 grain and 62 grain ball ammunition is very different. The barrel twist rates are a factor as well,they went from 1 turn in 7 inches to 1 turn in 8 or 9 inches, this has an impact on how it kills or wounds an enemy combatant. A center of mass hit is still a preferred

hit. Next, a target that shoots back is no easy one either, you dodge his fire and still have to reacquire him to shoot back. Soldiers have to be trained, that's all I can say.

Response by COL Charles Williams made Feb 23 at 2015 12:29 AM

COL Charles Williams — Mon, 23 Feb 2015 00:29:02 -0500

Good question. As a MP the 9MM Law Enforcement Qualification is much harder percentage wise, but the for the M4... 23 is the dealio. MPs in battle need to be good at crew served (mounted weapons). Perhaps the Army needs a qualification table by MOS? Clearly Infantry should be 40/40.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 25 at 2015 11:08 AM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 25 Feb 2015 11:08:14 -0500

I understand that we are all soldiers and need to be proficient with our marksmanship, but how can one suggest such change when no solution is brought up to help it go through. For example, you can't expect every non-combat MOS to get expert when they have little if any range time in order to keep themselves proficient. BRM is a skill many have to work for, but it doesn't help when there isn't much time for them to better themselves at the range.

Response by CW4 Private RallyPoint Member made May 14 at 2015 2:33 AM

CW4 Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 14 May 2015 02:33:47 -0400

We would have a much smaller Army if we required Soldiers to hit 80% of their targets. With the current budget cuts, many units are struggling to maintain weapons proficiency with the current standards due to lack of ammunition. Our unit went from qualifying every 6 months to once a year. In addition if you failed you were only allowed 1-2 additional attempts depending on how much ammunition was available.

The current 57.5% or 65% weapon qualification standard you reference above is comparable to our APFT standard of 60%.

You have to have a baseline for the least common denominator.

Response by CW2 Eric Scott made May 14 at 2015 2:49 AM

CW2 Eric Scott — Thu, 14 May 2015 02:49:32 -0400

In my opinion it isn't that the X/X is the problem it's the trigger time in general. I was an ammunition warrant officer, I know there is training ammunition for M4's. Instead of making everything tactical all the time make the shit fun and take people out there and make them shoot and shoot and shoot. Shoot standing up. Shoot laying down. Shoot with one eye. Shoot from the other side. Shoot with someone right next to you. Shit that happens in combat.

And not just for combat arms units, everyone. That should be the standard. After a 'week of range week' (which units have but not like this) THEN you qual them for record. I bet everyone's scores go up.

Response by MAJ Jim Steven made Jul 22 at 2015 10:25 PM

MAJ Jim Steven — Wed, 22 Jul 2015 22:25:25 -0400

I will throw this out there....if it is so important...make the range more accessible!!!
A Delta recruiter once briefed that there range was open all day, no uniform requirement, no ridding off...show up in flip flops and a wide beater and get your practice on!!

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 13 at 2016 8:07 AM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 13 Sep 2016 08:07:24 -0400

If you want to see 80% as the standard than there has to be time, training, and opportunity for soldiers to achieve those standards. As in more range time, more target practicing time, more training on the fundamental of marksmanship. So instead of a one time thing every year, I would say soldier should training and practices once a month, than goto the range once a year.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 13 at 2016 8:32 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 13 Sep 2016 08:32:22 -0400

I would say yes but, except for combat units, most units and reserves do not get the training they need to achieve those types of scores. You cannot expect someone to go to the range twice a year with no extra training or range time and knock down 35 targets on a timed range. I have never scored below 35 but I shoot alot in my spare time as a hobby. I know most reserve units are lucky if they get funded to fire twice a year. If they are really lucky they are near a base that has EST so they can send the hard cores there first before live fire.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 13 at 2016 8:53 AM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 13 Sep 2016 08:53:10 -0400

Let's relook your question - we require that a soldier hit on average, on target for every two rounds he or she fires. Basic load, 210 rounds, kill ratio 105 to 1. Now we all know that reality in the field is much lower, in fact, the lesson from Vietnam is something like 25,000-50,000 rounds fired per known enemy killed. Studies are showing our performance in Afghanistan isn't much better. However, what that analysis doesn't show is how many of those rounds were fired in suppression and how many were hits that lacked sufficient terminal velocity due to range or weapon capabilities to get a kill or how many resulted in a later DOW.

Can we improve our marksmanship? Absolutely. Is a hit ratio of 50% good enough on range day? Yes, qualification day has nothing to do with performance in the field, all it proves is that the firer has correctly zeroed his weapon and has the ability to detect and engage targets.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 13 at 2016 10:44 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 13 Sep 2016 10:44:04 -0400

I think the standards are toon low, 80% should be the minimum requirement. Joining the Marines first and learning that way of shooting, then going into the Army later on in my career, I have seen the difference in marksmanship. If there is a way of changing the marksmanship training so that all branches are on the same page, would be a very welcome idea

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 13 at 2016 12:32 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 13 Sep 2016 12:32:53 -0400

The Army has a training course to fix a deficit in one of the most fundamental skills of soldiering: shooting straight. The Marksmanship Master Trainer Course was first stood up by the U.S. Army Marksmanship Unit, the service’s elite competitive shooters. The course is already available on the Army Training Requirements and Resources System, or ATRRS. My personal opinion, what I see is train the trainer and if so it should be at leats four men per platton and remember "Murphy's Law". back in the days we used to practice live fire exercise during squad movement to contact "A & B" Teams, i.e. bounding over-watch and went to the range at least every six months. It should be a higher standard or better yet used the Marine WPQS marksmanship.

Response by SGT Matthew Schenkenfelder made Sep 13 at 2016 2:54 PM

SGT Matthew Schenkenfelder — Tue, 13 Sep 2016 14:54:54 -0400

I have to say the idea of having soldiers to shoot on a pop-up target range is absolutely outstanding. It's kind of like reactionary shooting or reflexive fire. I know it's not like the LRC or doing the cool stuff with Tiger-Swan, but to a brand-new-to-the-army person or a basically trained soldier it encourages them to expect the unexpected when they are in full battle rattle with a hot weapon, even though it is just a qual range.

Response by LTC Paul Labrador made Sep 13 at 2016 5:38 PM

LTC Paul Labrador — Tue, 13 Sep 2016 17:38:32 -0400

Well you're only required to score 60% on your APFT events to pass....so it' seems 60% is the magic number across the board to pass things.... ;o)

The problem is alluded to in your next to last sentence: Most soldiers are not combat arms and will never engage in a firefight with their primary weapon. And the Army is BIG, so we are not going to have the resources (both time and money) to be able to train everyone to be a first class marksman. So we do what we do now and the trigger pullers get the preponderance of the training time and everyone else just needs to show that you know which end of the rifle the bullet comes out of and can generally hit something in order to defend yourself. After all, who do you really need to be able to shoot well? An infantryman who is going to engage Johnny Jihad with his M4 on a daily basis or me, a trauma nurse, who if I ever have to put lead on target, something really, Really, REALLY BAD has happened (BTW I usually qual expert with M9 and sharpshooter/expert on M16 depending on whether I'm on pop ups or static silhouettes.... but you get my point)....

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 13 at 2016 7:59 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 13 Sep 2016 19:59:43 -0400

A lot of the comments are spot on in regards to training budgets and time to achieve high level of accuracy. One point I didnt see is a factor that exists in battle that you can't simulate in training. This is the psychological inhibition in putting a bullet into a real person. It is said that most people will shoot high and that 50,000 bullets were fired for every enemy soldier killed in Vietnam.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 15 at 2016 12:46 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 15 Sep 2016 12:46:59 -0400

I would agree that it is too low. I would say however to raise it without doctoral changes would hurt the Individual because, for the most part outside of combat units most of the army does not have the time to go to the range and practice more than once or twice a year and twice has been very generous to say furthermore, I have been saying for quite some time that optics and pop-ups should not be allowed for qualification purposes. Since every place does not have pop-up targets, but paper is available and since we’re all on the same scale for being promoted Everyone should use paper as the mandatory requirement with only iron sights used. It’s called BRM Basic Rifle Marksman. So make (for record qualification) everyone the same). Use the pop ups and optics for training and familiarization training.