They claim to be getting 20" groups with an M4 at 100m and that a new rifle will somehow reduce it to 3.7" groups at 100m...

I'm kidding about not being able to shoot of course, but like.... wut

Attached File

That was with forces applied to the barrel/handguard to illustrate the necessity of going with a FF handguard to prevent POI shifts.  Probably exaggerated to some extent to further prove the “need.”  

IMR program is on the back-burner or shitcanned altogether from everything I’ve seen, though.

Money would be better spent on Social Justice classes and better pregnancy clothes.

That is stormtrooper level shooting.

20" group in full auto would be pretty good I guess. But I don't think 4" is anything to write home about in semi. Is that standing? If prone, that's awful.

I'd be more worried that the standard for improved sniper rifle is 1.5 moa, especially when they are talking about (presumably) taking shots at up to 800m with the standard rifle.

It’s supposed to be when shooting supported/slung up and applying pressure/force to the handguard/barrel.  The barrel isn’t FF, so that pressure induces a POI shift.

3-4 MOA is common for .mil ball ammo (M855A1 is 2.5 MOA spec on paper, IIRC), so I’m not sure why you’re expecting anything better from the listed baseline spec.

Attached File

Flashback 15 or so years ago.
I'm in an Indoor Rental Range shooting my Mac 11/9 plus its suppressor.  

After a magazine or so another shooter comes in.
Some gal that is supposed to be in the Air Force.
I forget which part, security, reservist or whatever.

Both of us have targets at about the same distance.  I forget what it was: 10 to 15 yards.
She was shooting a pistol, I was

We eventually bring in our targets target in on a break.

I had better grouping on Rock & Roll than she did on Semi-Auto.

I was basically shooting groups the size of basketballs and she was hitting the paper all over the place.

Barrel was probably left over from Viet Nam and has been on the range for 50 years with a few million rounds thru it.

there’s really no need for the Air Force to even have a service rifle aside from having a YouTube channel. Leave them be

The graphic is stupid and lacks a frame of reference but if you take it as is it would appear it’s depicting the cone of fire at 100m and not shot groups

Back in the dark ages of the late 60's early 70's firearms training in basic consisted of how to field strip and clean an M16 (original during my time) and one day of actual shooting.  I forget, but I think you had to hit the target, anywhere, with 70 out of 100 rounds to "qualify".  There were guys with absolutely no rounds on target and his neighbor with well over 100.  I seem to recall the target, static at that, were at 100 yds but it could have been less.  So many of the guys had never held a firearm before much less shot one it was pathetic.

The course of fire consisted of the four typical positions, standing, kneeling, sitting and prone.  Now I'm a southpaw, I had been shooting left since I started with my Red Ryder.  But the service being the service the range master decided I should shoot right handed.  Now I had some practice shooting right handed but not much.  So I qualified easily but it wasn't pretty.

As I recall, you weren't allowed to qualify with any sort of marksmanship rating.  It was all just a big ole dog and pony show.  Supposedly before you went to SEA you were supposed to have additional training.  If it existed, I never saw any evidence of it.

I suppose the old heads running the air force were thinking back to WW II when air force ground troops were hundreds of miles from the actual fighting.  Mimd you this was after Tet so they should have known better.

I doubt things have changed all that much.  

The absolute worst days to work the range in the USAF is when the pilots need to qualify with their 9mms.  Bar none.  Even a recruit class at the academy is better than that!

I was in the Air Force Security Forces for 20 years.  I never thought the firearms training I got was worth a shit just like many other things in the Air Force.  That said. I took my own firearms training.  I wore out two AR15 barrels in that time, loosened up a 92 FS pretty good, took classes and competed for years and thats why even now in retirement I still smoke the shit out of pretty much anybody on the range who says, "Oh chair force huh?

The moral of the story, the Air Force want and needs new style of weapons due to new threats and new methodologies that lay ahead for those folks who guard Air Force bases all over the world.

Spent quite a bit of time in the AF TACP community.  During my time, our guys E-6 and below had to qualify with the M-16A2 (later M-4) every six months on the Army pop-up range at various ranges out to 300 meters and with the M-9 once a year, again on the Army pop-up range again at various ranges out to 25 meters.  E-7 and above and all officers had to qual on the M-4 once a year and the M-9 every six months.  In my Squadron, it was a point of pride that all the JTACS and ALOs qualified as expert every time (or else they bought beer on Friday) . and all of the maintenance and admin guys qualified every time.

As for the 14 years I spent in the flying community, never saw a problem on the range when pilots and aircrew went to qualify (at least when I was in PACAF and SAC).  Virtually everyone qualified (originally with the S&W Model 10 and later the S&W Model 15---didn't get to the M-9 until I went to be an ALO).  When I was pulling SAC alert back in the 70s we had to qual with the Model 15 every six months and the old M-16 (not A or later, original) annually.

I'm currently in the Air Force, been Security Forces for 10 years. Yes, we have a reputation for abysmal training and abysmal shooting that is well earned. That said: serious, no bullshit efforts are underway to make changes. It'll take time, but we're trending in the right direction. From everything I've seen, Gen Collins (Director of Security Forces) has the right priorities with regards to our training.

Okay, but it really would have sucked to be using pencils and paper when the other guy was using an AK.  But, that's just my opinion based on personal experience.

And you might just explain that to the USAF Security Police that defended the US Embassy in Saigon at the start of TET.

My stock answer to most people when they say "What does tha Air Force need guns huh dur huh durr?" is Kimpo Airbase June 1950.  The Army was supposed to help defend the base because the typical short sighted "Zipper Suited Sun Gods aka pilots who run the AF never wanted AF cops be anymore than pretty gate guards and traffic cops.  The North Koreans come south like bats out of hell, the Army gets their stool pushed in very unexpectedly and they bug the fuck out.  Which by the way was their SOP until Pusan and better troops came from outside the AO.  Well the few AP's left fought until they're overrun and then the rest of the Airmen are tortured and hung from the rafters of the hangars and tortured some more dying a very painful death.  There they hung until they decomposed, then the animals ripped them apart and some South Koreans buried the remains at great risk to their safety.  

Shortly after that the Air Force realized specialized training was needed and the Small Arms Training Unit (SAMTU) was formed which later spawned into Combat Arms Training and Maintenance which trains all Air Force members in small arms marksmanship and performs all maintenance on all personal and crew served weapons in Air Force inventory.  Now I'm not going to say this is the end all be all for weapons training and knowledge, but it's what the Air Force has and they do a damn good job with what they're given to work with.