Posted: 10/14/2010 3:42:51 AM EDT
|
Study: Marksmanship program majorly flawed
Marine Corps Times October 13, 2010 By Dan Lamothe The Marine Corps Marksmanship Program is a disorganized ―hodgepodge‖ plagued by inadequate oversight, decrepit ranges and insufficient live-fire training, according to a controversial study that includes months of interviews with Marines across the fleet. The study, ―Battlefield Standards for Marksmanship and the Training Implications,‖ calls for an overhaul of the annual requalification process, extensive equipment upgrades and a new agency to oversee it all. It was overseen by the Operations Analysis Division of Marine Corps Combat Development Command and commissioned by Weapons Training Battalion, both out of Marine Corps Base Quantico, Va. Marine Corps Times obtained a copy of the Nov. 10, 2009, final report through the Freedom of Information Act. Link to Story Weapons Training Battalion officials disputed many of the study‘s key findings, saying in a statement that the report ―misses the mark for several reasons.‖ The study does not explain the difference between current and previous requirements for ranges and units, makes comparisons to the Army‘s requirements and ―infers that some Marines should be proficient marksmen while others merely need to be familiar‖ with a rifle, battalion officials said in a statement.
They are talking about taking the rifle score out of promotion and a bunch of other BS. The second quote makes me wonder who the F was in charge of this study. |
|
Quoted: Marksmanship, regardless of MOS, is an intergral part of being a Marine. Removing it from promotion requirements would be detrimental to the Corps. No doubt. Spending three days "snapping in" and otherwise wasting your time (and not the Corps ammo) is silly as hell. Shooting known distance ranges like a Service Match competition doesn't do the best job preparing Marines for combat operations either. They need to get over the WWII style marksmanship training and move to a more dynamic, modern approach. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Marksmanship, regardless of MOS, is an intergral part of being a Marine. Removing it from promotion requirements would be detrimental to the Corps. No doubt. Spending three days "snapping in" and otherwise wasting your time (and not the Corps ammo) is silly as hell. Shooting known distance ranges like a Service Match competition doesn't do the best job preparing Marines for combat operations either. They need to get over the WWII style marksmanship training and move to a more dynamic, modern approach. so says the Air force 
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Marksmanship, regardless of MOS, is an intergral part of being a Marine. Removing it from promotion requirements would be detrimental to the Corps. No doubt. Spending three days "snapping in" and otherwise wasting your time (and not the Corps ammo) is silly as hell. Shooting known distance ranges like a Service Match competition doesn't do the best job preparing Marines for combat operations either. They need to get over the WWII style marksmanship training and move to a more dynamic, modern approach. I would agree that maybe the Corps needs to take a more modern approach to marksmanship training, but I also feel that learning the fundementals and science of marksmanship as we currently do is something that sets us apart from others. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Marksmanship, regardless of MOS, is an intergral part of being a Marine. Removing it from promotion requirements would be detrimental to the Corps. No doubt. Spending three days "snapping in" and otherwise wasting your time (and not the Corps ammo) is silly as hell. Shooting known distance ranges like a Service Match competition doesn't do the best job preparing Marines for combat operations either. They need to get over the WWII style marksmanship training and move to a more dynamic, modern approach. so says the Air force No, so says many Marines I know, including my BIL. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Marksmanship, regardless of MOS, is an intergral part of being a Marine. Removing it from promotion requirements would be detrimental to the Corps. No doubt. Spending three days "snapping in" and otherwise wasting your time (and not the Corps ammo) is silly as hell. Shooting known distance ranges like a Service Match competition doesn't do the best job preparing Marines for combat operations either. They need to get over the WWII style marksmanship training and move to a more dynamic, modern approach. I disagree. I think that we should stick to KD and then improve the standardization of unit level combat marksmanship training for folks that will be on the ground. As an airwinger I should not have money spent on me to go to door kicking MOUT training. But I should be able to pick up a rifle if the situation requires and engage enemy targets within my eyesight effectively. Thats what the fix is for this. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Marksmanship, regardless of MOS, is an intergral part of being a Marine. Removing it from promotion requirements would be detrimental to the Corps. No doubt. Spending three days "snapping in" and otherwise wasting your time (and not the Corps ammo) is silly as hell. Shooting known distance ranges like a Service Match competition doesn't do the best job preparing Marines for combat operations either. They need to get over the WWII style marksmanship training and move to a more dynamic, modern approach. I disagree. I think that we should stick to KD and then improve the standardization of unit level combat marksmanship training for folks that will be on the ground. As an airwinger I should not have money spent on me to go to door kicking MOUT training. But I should be able to pick up a rifle if the situation requires and engage enemy targets within my eyesight effectively. Thats what the fix is for this. Have you ever shot an Army style range with 300M pop up targets? I have, and sadly for the four Marines in our joint service detachment, the three of us AF guys out shot them on it. That's all I'm talking about, a more dynamic range, pop up targets, mag changes, shooting behind cover, etc. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Marksmanship, regardless of MOS, is an intergral part of being a Marine. Removing it from promotion requirements would be detrimental to the Corps. No doubt. Spending three days "snapping in" and otherwise wasting your time (and not the Corps ammo) is silly as hell. Shooting known distance ranges like a Service Match competition doesn't do the best job preparing Marines for combat operations either. They need to get over the WWII style marksmanship training and move to a more dynamic, modern approach. Snapping in is far more important to the development of proper marksmanship skills than actually firing live rounds. You need both, but the scales should be weighed toward snapping in, or "dry fire." One of the reasons we get marksmanship right is because we still teach people how to get hits while shooting from various distances and THEN teach them the high speed/low drag shooting. Marines need to be able to make accurate hits out to 500m or beyond, that is one of the things that separates us as Marines. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Marksmanship, regardless of MOS, is an intergral part of being a Marine. Removing it from promotion requirements would be detrimental to the Corps. No doubt. Spending three days "snapping in" and otherwise wasting your time (and not the Corps ammo) is silly as hell. Shooting known distance ranges like a Service Match competition doesn't do the best job preparing Marines for combat operations either. They need to get over the WWII style marksmanship training and move to a more dynamic, modern approach. so says the Air force No, so says many Marines I know, including my BIL. but yet after the 2003 invasion, the army decided that how we were training our Marines was the way to go. this vs the other branches who get minimal rifle training in bootcamp. the foundations we set with how we are taught to handle a rifle is essential to being the best marksmen |
|
Quoted:
Study: Marksmanship program majorly flawed
Marine Corps Times October 13, 2010 By Dan Lamothe The Marine Corps Marksmanship Program is a disorganized ―hodgepodge‖ plagued by inadequate oversight, decrepit ranges and insufficient live-fire training, according to a controversial study that includes months of interviews with Marines across the fleet. The study, ―Battlefield Standards for Marksmanship and the Training Implications,‖ calls for an overhaul of the annual requalification process, extensive equipment upgrades and a new agency to oversee it all. It was overseen by the Operations Analysis Division of Marine Corps Combat Development Command and commissioned by Weapons Training Battalion, both out of Marine Corps Base Quantico, Va. Marine Corps Times obtained a copy of the Nov. 10, 2009, final report through the Freedom of Information Act. Link to Story Weapons Training Battalion officials disputed many of the study‘s key findings, saying in a statement that the report ―misses the mark for several reasons.‖ The study does not explain the difference between current and previous requirements for ranges and units, makes comparisons to the Army‘s requirements and ―infers that some Marines should be proficient marksmen while others merely need to be familiar‖ with a rifle, battalion officials said in a statement.
They are talking about taking the rifle score out of promotion and a bunch of other BS. The second quote makes me wonder who the F was in charge of this study. So... More like the Air Force?  I wonder if this has to anything to due with all the budget changes we're all seeing/feeling.
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Marksmanship, regardless of MOS, is an intergral part of being a Marine. Removing it from promotion requirements would be detrimental to the Corps. No doubt. Spending three days "snapping in" and otherwise wasting your time (and not the Corps ammo) is silly as hell. Shooting known distance ranges like a Service Match competition doesn't do the best job preparing Marines for combat operations either. They need to get over the WWII style marksmanship training and move to a more dynamic, modern approach. I would agree that maybe the Corps needs to take a more modern approach to marksmanship training, but I also feel that learning the fundementals and science of marksmanship as we currently do is something that sets us apart from others. The problem is the Marines still think it's the 1950's. Marksmanship is important. Knowing how to run the gun in a fight is MORE important. Oh yeah... and switching to an adjustable pull length stock..... the use of those long-assed fixed stocks with body armor and an optic with an eye-relief range is ridiculous. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Marksmanship, regardless of MOS, is an intergral part of being a Marine. Removing it from promotion requirements would be detrimental to the Corps. No doubt. Spending three days "snapping in" and otherwise wasting your time (and not the Corps ammo) is silly as hell. Shooting known distance ranges like a Service Match competition doesn't do the best job preparing Marines for combat operations either. They need to get over the WWII style marksmanship training and move to a more dynamic, modern approach. I would agree that maybe the Corps needs to take a more modern approach to marksmanship training, but I also feel that learning the fundementals and science of marksmanship as we currently do is something that sets us apart from others. The problem is the Marines still think it's the 1950's. Marksmanship is important. Knowing how to run the gun in a fight is MORE important. Oh yeah... and switching to an adjustable pull length stock..... the use of those long-assed fixed stocks with body armor and an optic with an eye-relief range is ridiculous. you have no clue what you are talking about |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Marksmanship, regardless of MOS, is an intergral part of being a Marine. Removing it from promotion requirements would be detrimental to the Corps. No doubt. Spending three days "snapping in" and otherwise wasting your time (and not the Corps ammo) is silly as hell. Shooting known distance ranges like a Service Match competition doesn't do the best job preparing Marines for combat operations either. They need to get over the WWII style marksmanship training and move to a more dynamic, modern approach. Incorrect, my wing-wiping friend. The KD course is designed to teach the basics of marksmanship, and give the Marine a lasting confidence in their ability to hit what they aim at. As long as we still keep putting sights on the rifles we issue them, they will still need to know how to use them. Seems to work pretty well so far. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Marksmanship, regardless of MOS, is an intergral part of being a Marine. Removing it from promotion requirements would be detrimental to the Corps. No doubt. Spending three days "snapping in" and otherwise wasting your time (and not the Corps ammo) is silly as hell. Shooting known distance ranges like a Service Match competition doesn't do the best job preparing Marines for combat operations either. They need to get over the WWII style marksmanship training and move to a more dynamic, modern approach. Incorrect, my wing-wiping friend. The KD course is designed to teach the basics of marksmanship, and give the Marine a lasting confidence in their ability to hit what they aim at. As long as we still keep putting sights on the rifles we issue them, they will still need to know how to use them. Seems to work pretty well so far. yeah most outsiders seem to forget that. they want to rush and jump in to high speed low drag shit without knowing any of the basics, you dont know the basics you might as well be teaching advanced shoot and move to a monkey |
|
Quoted: I'm not here to defend my own branches pathetic marksmanship training, or the Army's lack of time spent on marksmanship fundamentals. I will say though that each branch could learn some things from the others. No doubt the Marines do instill a fine foundation, but let's be realistic. Laying prone, using your sling for support, with basically no time pressure, no mag changes, and shooting at known distance targets is pretty poor preparation for the dynamics of a combat environment. The Army's pop up ranges are much better preparation for that sort of dynamic. Our own 25M simulated 300M targets suck, but we do shoot 5 different positions, and we require 2 mag changes per position, with 90 seconds of time to add some pressure. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Marksmanship, regardless of MOS, is an intergral part of being a Marine. Removing it from promotion requirements would be detrimental to the Corps. No doubt. Spending three days "snapping in" and otherwise wasting your time (and not the Corps ammo) is silly as hell. Shooting known distance ranges like a Service Match competition doesn't do the best job preparing Marines for combat operations either. They need to get over the WWII style marksmanship training and move to a more dynamic, modern approach. so says the Air force No, so says many Marines I know, including my BIL. but yet after the 2003 invasion, the army decided that how we were training our Marines was the way to go. this vs the other branches who get minimal rifle training in bootcamp. the foundations we set with how we are taught to handle a rifle is essential to being the best marksmen On a related but different subject, I think the AF's M9 training is superior to any other services. We train for "failure drills" aka Mozambique drills 100%, and we carry the M9 correctly, round in the chamber, decocked, safety off. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Marksmanship, regardless of MOS, is an intergral part of being a Marine. Removing it from promotion requirements would be detrimental to the Corps. No doubt. Spending three days "snapping in" and otherwise wasting your time (and not the Corps ammo) is silly as hell. Shooting known distance ranges like a Service Match competition doesn't do the best job preparing Marines for combat operations either. They need to get over the WWII style marksmanship training and move to a more dynamic, modern approach. I disagree. I think that we should stick to KD and then improve the standardization of unit level combat marksmanship training for folks that will be on the ground. As an airwinger I should not have money spent on me to go to door kicking MOUT training. But I should be able to pick up a rifle if the situation requires and engage enemy targets within my eyesight effectively. Thats what the fix is for this. Have you ever shot an Army style range with 300M pop up targets? I have, and sadly for the four Marines in our joint service detachment, the three of us AF guys out shot them on it. That's all I'm talking about, a more dynamic range, pop up targets, mag changes, shooting behind cover, etc. Actually I have shot on the Army pop up ranges. I would agree that this sort of training may need to be added in some fashion to what we currently do, but I still think that the training we Marines undergo is essential to learning the how and why behind marksmanship (that I feel is essential to any warfighter) as opposed to what I experienced on the Army range, which was a ten minute class on rifle handling and range rules followed by being put in a foxhole and told to shoot at targets for the next ten minutes. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm not here to defend my own branches pathetic marksmanship training, or the Army's lack of time spent on marksmanship fundamentals. I will say though that each branch could learn some things from the others. No doubt the Marines do instill a fine foundation, but let's be realistic. Laying prone, using your sling for support, with basically no time pressure, no mag changes, and shooting at known distance targets is pretty poor preparation for the dynamics of a combat environment. The Army's pop up ranges are much better preparation for that sort of dynamic. Our own 25M simulated 300M targets suck, but we do shoot 5 different positions, and we require 2 mag changes per position, with 90 seconds of time to add some pressure.
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Marksmanship, regardless of MOS, is an intergral part of being a Marine. Removing it from promotion requirements would be detrimental to the Corps. No doubt. Spending three days "snapping in" and otherwise wasting your time (and not the Corps ammo) is silly as hell. Shooting known distance ranges like a Service Match competition doesn't do the best job preparing Marines for combat operations either. They need to get over the WWII style marksmanship training and move to a more dynamic, modern approach. so says the Air force No, so says many Marines I know, including my BIL. but yet after the 2003 invasion, the army decided that how we were training our Marines was the way to go. this vs the other branches who get minimal rifle training in bootcamp. the foundations we set with how we are taught to handle a rifle is essential to being the best marksmen On a related but different subject, I think the AF's M9 training is superior to any other services. We train for "failure drills" aka Mozambique drills 100%, and we carry the M9 correctly, round in the chamber, decocked, safety off. and i agree with you to a point. and from What i know since i was an airwinger, the 0300 field which are the trigger pullers do get a lot of that follow on training. but the author of that article to say that how we teach our fundamentals is outdated is flawed, our basic marksmanship course is about taking a kid who either was taught how to shoot by his uncle in the woods of west virginia knetucky style, or some kid from the streets of New York who never even handled a rifle let alone an M-16 and not only making them comfortable to shoot it but to comfortably shoot it accurately at known distances.it is a confidence builder that when you know you can kill a man at 500 yards then you now have the foundation to teach him the more dynamic arts of using a rifle in combat |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Marksmanship, regardless of MOS, is an intergral part of being a Marine. Removing it from promotion requirements would be detrimental to the Corps. No doubt. Spending three days "snapping in" and otherwise wasting your time (and not the Corps ammo) is silly as hell. Shooting known distance ranges like a Service Match competition doesn't do the best job preparing Marines for combat operations either. They need to get over the WWII style marksmanship training and move to a more dynamic, modern approach. I disagree. I think that we should stick to KD and then improve the standardization of unit level combat marksmanship training for folks that will be on the ground. As an airwinger I should not have money spent on me to go to door kicking MOUT training. But I should be able to pick up a rifle if the situation requires and engage enemy targets within my eyesight effectively. Thats what the fix is for this. Have you ever shot an Army style range with 300M pop up targets? I have, and sadly for the four Marines in our joint service detachment, the three of us AF guys out shot them on it. That's all I'm talking about, a more dynamic range, pop up targets, mag changes, shooting behind cover, etc. Almost all shooting ranges on Camp Pendleton have pop up and moving targets. It is not like Marines do not get that training. The KD range is just meant to get back to the basics on marksmanship. That being said, Marines HATE having to requal and luckily I got out of doing it for 4 years. I would rather be on a dynamic range actually in my shooting kit and working with my team |
|
Quoted:
you might as well be teaching advanced shoot and move to a monkey well we are talking marines 
for what it's worth in years past many people came in with some knowledge of marksmenship. that simply is not the case anymore. Many recruits may have never shot a rifle at all or past 150 meters if they have. I wish the army had spent more time on marksmanship. JMHO but the ability to shoot and the ability to perform your job <unless shooting is your job> should really have no bearing on a promotion. I'd rather have CO that is an actual leader but on scores marksman than someone that edged out the promotion becuase they shot an expert. I know it's only a small portion of the score but just like PT scores, it has no real bearing on ones ability to perfom a duty. It should be a pass/fail qualification in that regard. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Marksmanship, regardless of MOS, is an intergral part of being a Marine. Removing it from promotion requirements would be detrimental to the Corps. No doubt. Spending three days "snapping in" and otherwise wasting your time (and not the Corps ammo) is silly as hell. Shooting known distance ranges like a Service Match competition doesn't do the best job preparing Marines for combat operations either. They need to get over the WWII style marksmanship training and move to a more dynamic, modern approach. I disagree. I think that we should stick to KD and then improve the standardization of unit level combat marksmanship training for folks that will be on the ground. As an airwinger I should not have money spent on me to go to door kicking MOUT training. But I should be able to pick up a rifle if the situation requires and engage enemy targets within my eyesight effectively. Thats what the fix is for this. Have you ever shot an Army style range with 300M pop up targets? I have, and sadly for the four Marines in our joint service detachment, the three of us AF guys out shot them on it. That's all I'm talking about, a more dynamic range, pop up targets, mag changes, shooting behind cover, etc. Actually I have shot on the Army pop up ranges. I would agree that this sort of training may need to be added in some fashion to what we currently do, but I still think that the training we Marines undergo is essential to learning the how and why behind marksmanship (that I feel is essential to any warfighter) as opposed to what I experienced on the Army range, which was a ten minute class on rifle handling and range rules followed by being put in a foxhole and told to shoot at targets for the next ten minutes. There is a difference between "training" and what is essentially an annual recertification. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm not here to defend my own branches pathetic marksmanship training, or the Army's lack of time spent on marksmanship fundamentals. I will say though that each branch could learn some things from the others. No doubt the Marines do instill a fine foundation, but let's be realistic. Laying prone, using your sling for support, with basically no time pressure, no mag changes, and shooting at known distance targets is pretty poor preparation for the dynamics of a combat environment. The Army's pop up ranges are much better preparation for that sort of dynamic. Our own 25M simulated 300M targets suck, but we do shoot 5 different positions, and we require 2 mag changes per position, with 90 seconds of time to add some pressure.
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Marksmanship, regardless of MOS, is an intergral part of being a Marine. Removing it from promotion requirements would be detrimental to the Corps. No doubt. Spending three days "snapping in" and otherwise wasting your time (and not the Corps ammo) is silly as hell. Shooting known distance ranges like a Service Match competition doesn't do the best job preparing Marines for combat operations either. They need to get over the WWII style marksmanship training and move to a more dynamic, modern approach. so says the Air force No, so says many Marines I know, including my BIL. but yet after the 2003 invasion, the army decided that how we were training our Marines was the way to go. this vs the other branches who get minimal rifle training in bootcamp. the foundations we set with how we are taught to handle a rifle is essential to being the best marksmen On a related but different subject, I think the AF's M9 training is superior to any other services. We train for "failure drills" aka Mozambique drills 100%, and we carry the M9 correctly, round in the chamber, decocked, safety off. The KD course is the bedrock that builds good riflemen. The combat marksmenship is the responsibility of the unit level folks. Your statment in red does not hold water there are mag changes in the KD course of fire. Also during the rapid fire we are given like 70 seconds IIRC to place 10 well aimed shots with a mag change. Don't speak on subjects you obviously have little knowledge in. As for your M9 training I woyuld likely agree that your pistol training is superior but that is due to the fact that the A/F uses the M9 as a primary arm where as the USMC largely discounts its value other then a device to get yourself a rifle. |
|
Quoted:
Marksmanship, regardless of MOS, is an intergral part of being a Marine. Removing it from promotion requirements would be detrimental to the Corps. There are different types of marksmanship, though. Known-distance range marksmanship is fine and dandy, but isn't always the greatest preparation for what is required in combat conditions. From what I understand the USMC has made some strides in incorporating more "dynamic" (for lack of a better term) weapons training along with the KD stuff. ...but the notion that only some people need to be good with a rifle is bogus. Like a wise man once said: Turn every golf course on a base into a range. For an organization with a mission to kill people I don't think they can possibly over-emphasize weapons/combat skills. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Marksmanship, regardless of MOS, is an intergral part of being a Marine. Removing it from promotion requirements would be detrimental to the Corps. No doubt. Spending three days "snapping in" and otherwise wasting your time (and not the Corps ammo) is silly as hell. Shooting known distance ranges like a Service Match competition doesn't do the best job preparing Marines for combat operations either. They need to get over the WWII style marksmanship training and move to a more dynamic, modern approach. I disagree. I think that we should stick to KD and then improve the standardization of unit level combat marksmanship training for folks that will be on the ground. As an airwinger I should not have money spent on me to go to door kicking MOUT training. But I should be able to pick up a rifle if the situation requires and engage enemy targets within my eyesight effectively. Thats what the fix is for this. Have you ever shot an Army style range with 300M pop up targets? I have, and sadly for the four Marines in our joint service detachment, the three of us AF guys out shot them on it. That's all I'm talking about, a more dynamic range, pop up targets, mag changes, shooting behind cover, etc. Actually I have shot on the Army pop up ranges. I would agree that this sort of training may need to be added in some fashion to what we currently do, but I still think that the training we Marines undergo is essential to learning the how and why behind marksmanship (that I feel is essential to any warfighter) as opposed to what I experienced on the Army range, which was a ten minute class on rifle handling and range rules followed by being put in a foxhole and told to shoot at targets for the next ten minutes. There is a difference between "training" and what is essentially an annual recertification. This is the point I think that needs to be understood. Every Marine (unless he is artful in the ways of stratiegic leave taking) goes the range every year and proves that he still has the basic skills needed to shoot stuff from zero to 500 yards. The guys who use the rifle as part of their everyday kit get additional combat arms training. The real focus should not be on fucking with the KD stuff it shoudl be on fixing the unit level combat marksmanship training. IE pay good trainers money to come run guys through rifle courses, send training cadre to the good schools and have them spread the knowledge. |
|
Quoted:
Sounds like a buncha non-shooters got their frilly little pink panties in a twist cause that UNQ in the cutting score is keepin em from promotions. No, what has happened is that the powers that be want to take every aspect of what sets the United States apart from the rest of the world and destroy it. That includes the fact that most of our enemies see our armed forces as an "army of snipers" to quote an Iraqi soldier from the first gulf war. The fuck nuts that wrote that study needs to be put against a wall and shot. What that person or persons is advocating is reducing the effectiveness of our troops which will result in a much higher chance of them being harmed or killed. Translation: Treason. The basics of marksmanship are critically important. To do away with the current program is insane. Augmenting it however is a very viable alternative. Dynamic Combat Training on small arms is a great way to round out the shooters skills. But, you can't run before you walk and crawl. I'm for cutting costs in Government but not when it comes to our nations defense. FUCK OBAMA |
|
Quoted:
As far as promotion purposes, I'd make qualification either a pass or fail deal.
Some people get ideal conditions, others get a torrential downpour and tropical storm winds. Hardly fair. I take great pride in the fact that I shot expert on K-Bay's range. That fucking place had every wind direction at once. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Marksmanship, regardless of MOS, is an intergral part of being a Marine. Removing it from promotion requirements would be detrimental to the Corps. No doubt. Spending three days "snapping in" and otherwise wasting your time (and not the Corps ammo) is silly as hell. Shooting known distance ranges like a Service Match competition doesn't do the best job preparing Marines for combat operations either. They need to get over the WWII style marksmanship training and move to a more dynamic, modern approach. I disagree. I think that we should stick to KD and then improve the standardization of unit level combat marksmanship training for folks that will be on the ground. As an airwinger I should not have money spent on me to go to door kicking MOUT training. But I should be able to pick up a rifle if the situation requires and engage enemy targets within my eyesight effectively. Thats what the fix is for this. Have you ever shot an Army style range with 300M pop up targets? I have, and sadly for the four Marines in our joint service detachment, the three of us AF guys out shot them on it. That's all I'm talking about, a more dynamic range, pop up targets, mag changes, shooting behind cover, etc. Actually I have shot on the Army pop up ranges. I would agree that this sort of training may need to be added in some fashion to what we currently do, but I still think that the training we Marines undergo is essential to learning the how and why behind marksmanship (that I feel is essential to any warfighter) as opposed to what I experienced on the Army range, which was a ten minute class on rifle handling and range rules followed by being put in a foxhole and told to shoot at targets for the next ten minutes. There is a difference between "training" and what is essentially an annual recertification. This is the point I think that needs to be understood. Every Marine (unless he is artful in the ways of stratiegic leave taking) goes the range every year and proves that he still has the basic skills needed to shoot stuff from zero to 500 yards. The guys who use the rifle as part of their everyday kit get additional combat arms training. The real focus should not be on fucking with the KD stuff it shoudl be on fixing the unit level combat marksmanship training. IE pay good trainers money to come run guys through rifle courses, send training cadre to the good schools and have them spread the knowledge. My brother didn't touch a rifle for three years. He's a -53E pilot. I think the bi-annual "sustainment" recommendation is a good thing. The rest, me not being a Marine, is not my business to comment on. |
|
Quoted:
As far as promotion purposes, I'd make qualification either a pass or fail deal.
Some people get ideal conditions, others get a torrential downpour and tropical storm winds. Hardly fair. I may agree, to an extent. But what about the jarhead who is shooting damn near perfect scores vs LCPL Schmuckatelli who is barely passing? We can also look back at previous scores as well, and not just the downpour day or a day where a dog and pont was going on at the range. |
|
Quoted:
Marksmanship, regardless of MOS, is an intergral part of being a Marine. Removing it from promotion requirements would be detrimental to the Corps. This. Someone has an axe to grind. They've been trying to get rid of the Corps for a long time now. This look like just another maneuver in that direction. |
|
Quoted:
As far as promotion purposes, I'd make qualification either a pass or fail deal.
Some people get ideal conditions, others get a torrential downpour and tropical storm winds. Hardly fair. Should we do the same with the PFT? Some folks get beautiful Spring or Fall days on pool table flat courses, while others get 95 F and 95% humidity with hills... |
|
Quoted:
As far as promotion purposes, I'd make qualification either a pass or fail deal.
Some people get ideal conditions, others get a torrential downpour and tropical storm winds. Hardly fair. Sorry Gunny, neither is life. I still think that rifle scores should be used to calculate cutting scores. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Marksmanship, regardless of MOS, is an intergral part of being a Marine. Removing it from promotion requirements would be detrimental to the Corps. No doubt. Spending three days "snapping in" and otherwise wasting your time (and not the Corps ammo) is silly as hell. Shooting known distance ranges like a Service Match competition doesn't do the best job preparing Marines for combat operations either. They need to get over the WWII style marksmanship training and move to a more dynamic, modern approach. I disagree. I think that we should stick to KD and then improve the standardization of unit level combat marksmanship training for folks that will be on the ground. As an airwinger I should not have money spent on me to go to door kicking MOUT training. But I should be able to pick up a rifle if the situation requires and engage enemy targets within my eyesight effectively. Thats what the fix is for this. Have you ever shot an Army style range with 300M pop up targets? I have, and sadly for the four Marines in our joint service detachment, the three of us AF guys out shot them on it. That's all I'm talking about, a more dynamic range, pop up targets, mag changes, shooting behind cover, etc. Actually I have shot on the Army pop up ranges. I would agree that this sort of training may need to be added in some fashion to what we currently do, but I still think that the training we Marines undergo is essential to learning the how and why behind marksmanship (that I feel is essential to any warfighter) as opposed to what I experienced on the Army range, which was a ten minute class on rifle handling and range rules followed by being put in a foxhole and told to shoot at targets for the next ten minutes. There is a difference between "training" and what is essentially an annual recertification. This is the point I think that needs to be understood. Every Marine (unless he is artful in the ways of stratiegic leave taking) goes the range every year and proves that he still has the basic skills needed to shoot stuff from zero to 500 yards. The guys who use the rifle as part of their everyday kit get additional combat arms training. The real focus should not be on fucking with the KD stuff it shoudl be on fixing the unit level combat marksmanship training. IE pay good trainers money to come run guys through rifle courses, send training cadre to the good schools and have them spread the knowledge. Couldn't have said it better myself! And I always loved getting back to the range every year. Heck, when I was short I was TDY to the range at Cherry Point; t'was like I'd died and gone to USMC heaven! LOL Cpl, USMC '77-'81 MOS 7234 (airwing) |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Marksmanship, regardless of MOS, is an intergral part of being a Marine. Removing it from promotion requirements would be detrimental to the Corps. No doubt. Spending three days "snapping in" and otherwise wasting your time (and not the Corps ammo) is silly as hell. Shooting known distance ranges like a Service Match competition doesn't do the best job preparing Marines for combat operations either. They need to get over the WWII style marksmanship training and move to a more dynamic, modern approach. I disagree. I think that we should stick to KD and then improve the standardization of unit level combat marksmanship training for folks that will be on the ground. As an airwinger I should not have money spent on me to go to door kicking MOUT training. But I should be able to pick up a rifle if the situation requires and engage enemy targets within my eyesight effectively. Thats what the fix is for this. Have you ever shot an Army style range with 300M pop up targets? I have, and sadly for the four Marines in our joint service detachment, the three of us AF guys out shot them on it. That's all I'm talking about, a more dynamic range, pop up targets, mag changes, shooting behind cover, etc. Actually I have shot on the Army pop up ranges. I would agree that this sort of training may need to be added in some fashion to what we currently do, but I still think that the training we Marines undergo is essential to learning the how and why behind marksmanship (that I feel is essential to any warfighter) as opposed to what I experienced on the Army range, which was a ten minute class on rifle handling and range rules followed by being put in a foxhole and told to shoot at targets for the next ten minutes. There is a difference between "training" and what is essentially an annual recertification. This is the point I think that needs to be understood. Every Marine (unless he is artful in the ways of stratiegic leave taking) goes the range every year and proves that he still has the basic skills needed to shoot stuff from zero to 500 yards. The guys who use the rifle as part of their everyday kit get additional combat arms training. The real focus should not be on fucking with the KD stuff it shoudl be on fixing the unit level combat marksmanship training. IE pay good trainers money to come run guys through rifle courses, send training cadre to the good schools and have them spread the knowledge. My brother didn't touch a rifle for three years. He's a -53E pilot. I think the bi-annual "sustainment" recommendation is a good thing. The rest, me not being a Marine, is not my business to comment on. Primary mission takes precidence over training. I went 2 years with out touching a rifle but I had an almost carnal knowledge of my XM218/GAU-15/A because that what my job was(53 Crew dog) When I had a chance to get back on the range I was all over it though. That being said I never understood why people hated going to the range. Its free ammo for christ sakes. I went as often as they would let me. I think one year I went to the pistol range 3 times because they needed people to fill slots. (This was when I was at Quantico and the Security Guards were always looking for people to fill slots so they could run thier guys through) |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
As far as promotion purposes, I'd make qualification either a pass or fail deal.
Some people get ideal conditions, others get a torrential downpour and tropical storm winds. Hardly fair. I take great pride in the fact that I shot expert on K-Bay's range. That fucking place had every wind direction at once. In 1987 I shot a 238 in the rain at K-Bay. The wind swirling around in that crater is something that has to be seen to be appreciated. |
|
Quoted:
..infers that some Marines should be proficient marksmen while others merely need to be familiar with a rifle, battalion officials said in a statement.
The fuck!? 
That's some weak ass Army shit right there. dont knock the Army, they have come a long way and the wars in Iraq and a-stan have proven them over and over. the author of the article is weak-ass though |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
..infers that some Marines should be proficient marksmen while others merely need to be familiar with a rifle, battalion officials said in a statement.
The fuck!?
That's some weak ass Army shit right there. dont knock the Army, they have come a long way and the wars in Iraq and a-stan have proven them over and over. the author of the article is weak-ass though Their weapons training philosophy made the "Jessica Lynch" episode possible. I hope they take their weapons training seriously Army wide now, rather than just combat arms. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
As far as promotion purposes, I'd make qualification either a pass or fail deal.
Some people get ideal conditions, others get a torrential downpour and tropical storm winds. Hardly fair. I take great pride in the fact that I shot expert on K-Bay's range. That fucking place had every wind direction at once. In 1987 I shot a 238 in the rain at K-Bay. The wind swirling around in that crater is something that has to be seen to be appreciated. Aint that the truth, whoever decided to put the range there was an evil mother fucker. Meanwhile the freaking golf course has a nice steady wind and is well shielded from the ocean except for maybe the 13th hole. JW777 makes a great point in that regard |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
..infers that some Marines should be proficient marksmen while others merely need to be familiar with a rifle, battalion officials said in a statement.
The fuck!?
That's some weak ass Army shit right there. dont knock the Army, they have come a long way and the wars in Iraq and a-stan have proven them over and over. the author of the article is weak-ass though Their weapons training philosophy made the "Jessica Lynch" episode possible. I hope they take their weapons training seriously Army wide now, rather than just combat arms. it did, and as sad as that was it did cause them to step back and say WTF.. and start looking at how the Corps trained all their people regardless of MOS.since then I think the Army has learned a lot and came through with shining colors |