Major Thomas P. Ehrhart's Increasing Small Arms Lethality in Afghanistan: Taking Back the Infantry Half-Kilometer got me thinking about what the BEST rifle qualification is.

MAJ Ehrhart wrote:


The 1949 Army Rifle qualification course took into account all the lessons of WW2 (link)

MAJ Ehrhart makes good case for 500 yard marksmanship that I completely agree with.  Standing, Squatting, Kneeling, and Prone are all important positions to know.  That sounds like a good start, but I don't think that it covers ALL the bases.

First of all, fighting is fighting, and being able to do combatives and defend your rifle is important.  I'd suggest that a complete qualification should include rifle strikes and how to defend weapon grabs.  

CSAT Rifle Standards are solid and an important part of how I train.  They should be a part of any qualification.

Special Ops Shooting Tests CTEs are more extensive, but add a lot to the round count and don't include distance work.

The Appleseed AQT is fantastic but doesn't include 500 yard shooting and has perhaps too much focus on sitting rather than squatting or kneeling.

It seems to me that shooting from VTAC barricades, turning movements, physical stressors, and PRA= Perception, Recognition, Acquisition drills, and extended distance snap shooting should all be part of standard evaluations.

What other things should be tested in a complete rifle qualification?  Is there a better rifle qualification out there?

There are no best, qualifications are just the tickets as the minimums to start actual collective training as a unit.

I want to see a guy hit a Nato helmet at 600 yards with green tip ammo from a M 4


would like to see the military's penetration test.

I had typed a long winded critique of the USMC quals. It occurred to me at the end, that the qual isn’t the issue, it’s the lack of training before and after.

Every qualification course relies on the same common element. TRAINING.

Sadly, my beloved Corps believes that the qual is the training.

We can debate distances, par times, target size, hit boxes, etc, until our guns have rusted to nothing. No debate of how to assess the skills of a shooter will ever replace the need to actually train the shooter.

Go train.

Quals can become way too complicated sometimes, especially when someone wants “qual” to equal “training”.  

And sometimes they are too damned easy when budgets get involved and nobody wants to pay for training time or remedial training when people fail.


Best = realistic testing of skills needed for the anticipated need of the user.  If any part of it does not make sense when compared to the training methodology, it needs to be rethought.  

Example- Old qual - Forcing a malfunction with a rifle while the shooter is at close range and has no cover, when training doctrine says this should be a pistol transition.  Solution- move the malfunction back to 25 yds or further, add a barrier/cover to force it to be used.

ie- not doing a skill only test, but making it also fit the tactical situation.  Now everyone is happy.  (Maybe!)



My needs for a urban/semi rural patrol rifle were a lot different than the US Mil needed in AFG dealing with guys a lot further away.