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

Honestly I’ve ran it and gone thru this so many times it makes my eyes bleed. Here’s my take as an nco;
1.) its never running right, there’s always glitches
2.) civilians in charge of facility makes it a nightmare to even wanna deal with it
3.) honestly I think it’s a complete waste of time and money. I’ve gotten more training value with taking my boys out to a field with engineer tape or running thru the barracks or whatever I could come up with

Theyre good for practice. but they are a short for the soldier & the unit if that is used to qualify for standard. its ok for nbc if you have qualified for day & night qual. those are actually physically needed to shoot. the nbc not really.

It's just not the same.

Of all the ways to save a lousy buck, as it is qualifying once a year is a joke. 03 need to shoot every month.

EST training does not work. I myself would like to see any statistical data showing that EST training improved qualification scores with both the M4/M9 or any other weapon system. The fact of the matter is this, you are fire a weapon without using live ammunition in a controlled environment that impedes on necessary skills you need to use in an uncontrolled environment. The ARMY should be mandating training in field environment for the reality factor to improve skill sets for firing and maneuver with live ammunition. The EST training builds up a false sense of situational awareness and limits sensory perceptions for our Warriors who need to develop these senses in a field environment. True warriors learn there craft by conducting training closely related to a true combat situation, video stimulation and controlled environments does not do this. Someone is making to much money of a flawed system that is impeding our Warriors ability to fire weapon systems effectively for combat operations.

As a retired SFC as myself who's spent many days on a range, I agree that nothing beats actual "trigger" time, but working on a AIT installation, AIT soldiers & Law Enforcement personnel are the only one's authorized weapons, AIT permanent party soldiers are not, so for them to maintain current weapons qualifications and be competitive with the rest of their MOS Peers, unit commanders have authorized the use of an EST generated record score sheet. Now on the flip side of that record, those same soldiers, according to DA PAM 350-38, are exempt from weapon's qualification if they are assigned to a unit with that situation.

The EST for most unit training is a gimmicky tool introduced as cost savings and should not be taken seriously. Some one came up with an idea to bring marksmanship training and simulation to the 21st century, a contractor "developed" the lowest capable system, and the Army wastes millions. Nothing can replace using real rounds for training or building solid fundamentals. The MP scenarios may have some value, but I'm not a MP so I can't say.

It would be great if we engaged the enemy in call of duty. In reality those glorified light guns don't do shit. Get your guys real training.

Until we can conduct a war via Call of Duty using robots, then hell no!

In basic my M16 kicked on every 3rd round. I learned to adjust to it and expect that. My first duty station my M16 kicked on every 5th round, again I learned it and was ready for it each time. That brings up the question of how do you truly learn your weapon if you are not firing live ammo?

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 ...