Standards
Standards
Posted on Jan 16, 2014
Is the Weapons Qualification requirement too low?
21.1K
83
37
9
9
0
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.
Weapons
Standards
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 25
14
14
0
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>
(14)
(0)
9
9
0
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.
(9)
(0)
CSM Mike Maynard
Good point SFC Jackson,
So, if we have Soldiers who qualify and only hit 23 in the most pristine of conditions, how do we really think they'll do when stressed?
We definitely might want to increase the qualification standard in non-stress firing or change to some type of stress-firing to get an accurate assessment of our marksmanship.
(4)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
If we want soldiers to shoot better, they need better coaches. Soldiers want to shoot better and I haven't met any that doesn't like to shoot and this is a stark contrast to PT. So all that is missing is the knowledge. <div><br></div><div>The Army's idea of coaching is total crap. We take a battle buddy (who probably shoots like crap) and have them lay beside of them and tell them what they are doing wrong. That sounds grand right! Blind leading the blind. </div><div><br></div><div>The USMC selects expert qualified E3 or above, sends them to a 3 day class, and assigns them to a permanent 6 month range detail. It is their sole responsibility to coach and teach Marines to shoot. They become Expert Instructors because of experience, ability, and repetition. </div><div><br></div><div>Just like the Corps, this only works on large installations like Campell or Camp Pendleton but it is a tried and true way to keep that Pizza Box Marksman badge off of our Soldiers chest.</div>
(6)
(0)
CSM Mike Maynard
Annnnnd roger. The coach shouldn't be the battle buddy, but should be a competent NCO in their chain that is taking an interest in training/coaching their Soldier.
(2)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
Another factor to consider is the amount of time spent on the range. When in a Forscom unit you will shoot and shoot. While assigned to FT. Bragg we went to the range every month so qualifying was never an issue. But in our current unit we only see the range every 6 months. We never get to put enough rounds on target to get fully competent or confident with the weapon system. Even as an experienced shooter preparing for a competition will put over 1000 rounds in a target before setting foot on the lane.
(2)
(0)
7
7
0
<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>
(7)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google