What are your thoughts on units using the EST to qualify on weapons?

NO

Sounds good, and then we should all fight wars on COD (Call of Duty) clan matches.

No one should be allow to qualify their assigned weapon on any computerized system. Familiarization & retrain only, TRAIN AS YOU FIGHT!

No, just no. It is a decent training tool for situations that cant be fully simulated in the field but is highly unrealistic when compared to an actual rifle. That thing goes "chunk" and barely has any kick back. To fix a "jam/malfunction" the computer just needs you to pull the mag and put it back in. It also doesn't require the soldier to maintain it. It is my opinion that the lack of responsibility would cause soldiers to neglect their actual rifles. Plus their wouldn't be any "range prep" and would reduce the hip-pocket training soldiers receive while waiting to fire. To me, that's just a natural part of the military experience.

I am for having one qualification per year via EST and one via a live range. The controlled conditions of the EST environment allow for a true assessment of fundamentals without weather or other environmental factors entering into the equation. Keep in mind that my perspective is as a Reservist and my experience in my 33 years has been that we just don't get enough fundamentals training on the Reserve side of the house; I have not seen a dime-and-washer drill done in years and all of those cute little cheaters, rulers, etc. that aid in dry-fire training are non-existent to most AR units. We also have less overall time to accomplish our training mission in the calendar year. There is also the cost... live-fire training is very expensive.

Whether you're shooting the EST in an air-conditioned classroom or "Qualifying" with your assigned weapon on a paper target's scaled silhouettes at a short-berm range, you're still not getting the full training quality you need, because all of the targets of any size are at the same focal distance from your eyes. You cannot accurately aim at a 300m or a 175m target if they're represented on a panel at only 25m, or less. We must train EVERY muscle used in battle, including our eyes for refocusing quickly when range-to-target changes.

So, most of these reponses are along the lines of it being a poor substitute for the real thing - and it is. But I don't see any mention of what I think should be obvious - you qualify on YOUR weapon. That's why you group and zero first. If you are qualifying on a simulation gun, on a simulated range, what makes you think your weapon is going to be ready to make hits when you need it? How far off is the ACOG or Aimpoint from zero and how are you going to judge how to shoot with it without, you know, using it? The simulated is great for reaction drills and things you can't really do with live fire, but should never be a substitute for live fire qualification.

I think as a way to safely familiarize new troops to a weapon, it is a great idea. Seeing how in the future it may be fewer and fewer recruits will have ever been afford the opportunity to have any hands on experience with any firearm. But, as stated in other comments, nothing prepares you for real life situations like live fire..

The Engagement Skills Trainer (EST) 2000 is a unit/institution, indoor, multipurpose, multi-lane, small arms, crew-served, and individual anti-tank simulator that saves currently required ammunition resources, operation and personnel tempo, as well as travel time and costs to and from ranges. It simulates weapon training events that lead to live-fire individual or crew weapon qualification and training events currently not resourced under Standards in Training Commission (STRAC).
Squad leaders are able to control and evaluate individual, fire team, and squad performance. The EST 2000 simulates the following weapons: M16A2 rifle, M4 carbine, M9 pistol, MK19 grenade machine gun, M249 squad automatic weapon, M240 machine gun, M136 (AT4), M1200 shotgun, M2 machine gun and M203 grenade launcher.
*This is a training tool and nothing more. To many times commanders use this to safe time, money, and resources. But in the end it is simply not the same. it is designed as a training tool to allow individuals and squads to develop the methods and concepts of small unit tactics before being placed on a live fire range. Use it has it is intended or don't use it at all.

Yeah! And use Call of Duty for MOUT training, battle drill one, battle drill six ...

The EST-2000 was designed to be a weapons trainer, not a qualifier. There was a time in 2004 that they tried to increase throughput of Soldier by making it an authorized qualification system, but that was all RUM-INT. As someone who helped developed the training budget for training support systems the last three years, let me help put out some facts. The EST-2000 has been shown to increase the proficiency of Soldiers ability to fire their weapon both individually and as a team/squad level. While simulations are not prescriptive (mandatory), some installations and Brigade and above units make it mandatory to use EST before going to the range. It has shown an proven increase in first time go's, and as you point out, helps save money by not wasting rounds for requalifications. You are right that nothing beats live training, but in this age of fiscal responsibility rooted in Sequestration (remember that?) and Congressional oversight , you would not believe the pain the Army has been through to prioritize monies in the right places. Training however, is one of those places identified that the CSA has emphasis to increase readiness. You understand what readiness really means, right? Not that you just passed your PT test and can fire a rifle. Lot more to it. I suggest those who have access to it to utilize it. Training equipment is one of those items where the term, if you don't use, you loose it, really is the truth.

Nope. It obviously is more cost effective but it is not as effective for the SM. We may as well use the Wii in a day room.

no go , that's not marksmanship !!

The EST, with well-cared for weapons, working softwear, and air pressure built up to correct levels is a very good tool for training. When used to greatest advantage, it does a good job of giving feedback on an individual's targeting habits, as well as, an indication of what kinds of shooting "no no's" a soldier may be doing (trigger jerk, not maintaining sight picture, and so on). I would use it over "dime/washer drills" every time.

The problem is, people try to push an entire company through 10-12 lanes during an afternoon. You just don't have the time to use the trainer effectively in this manner.

When I ran a range, I had section leaders identify soldiers who needed additional training before throwing lead down range. I also offered the chance for anyone who felt they wanted some "warm up with feedback" a chance to use the Trainer. I believe it helped the less competent or less experienced soldiers perform better. Everyone who fired an M4 during the FTX qualified.

I also find the Trainer a great way to allow junior troops an opportunity to make leadership decisions in a mentored training environment. The patrol scenarios are well suited for that. Let a young SPC or PFC be a "team leader" and direct fire and control their team during these scenarios.

One thing I started to do recently was to simulate chemical attack during these scenarios. I would pause the scene, inform them of an attack and have them take appropriate measures (simulating seeking cover) They would then finish the scenario in Mask and Gloves. They learn that there is a big disadvantage to trying to direct and control a team with a mask on.

You can qualify on the EST system, or you can qualify with your assigned weapon. They are both valuable exercises, but they are never interchangeable. Ever. If you even talk about it, some unit, some where, will try to do it before they deploy.

It's a training tool that is cheaper than the real thing. We know the more familiar recruits are with the platform, the more simulation they do the better their scores are, their is less time required on the range and all of the logistics that go with recruits spending the day on the range.
It's a tool to use. Pew! Pew! Pew!

No, just No. You cannot train for battle by using a video game.

EST is what we use to train for the eventual turkey apocalypse!!

I am ok with it either way...but I know this is or would be fiscally driven. Nothing compares to the real thing. Hence the Army Mantra "Train as you fight"...for me it's the whole ritual of it...throwing on your battle rattle, jumping on a crowded bus, waiting on a firing order, battle sight zero's, qualifying...on the range in the mud and rain..."It ain't training... if it ain't raining"....or show up at a sim center...in an A/C controlled environment, where conditions are always perfect...In the MEDCOM, qualification gone from once a year to once every three years...unless you were deploying, in a competition or prepping a packet for a promo board or specialty school...