100% correct view on weapons training

[PAMedic=F|A=]

Posted by a man in the link below:

JoeGarcia Dec 29, 2014
As an "Army guy" with a little bit of time on the payroll. Let me share this: before this latest drama about the Army and a new handgun, it was the Army and a new sidearm (note - not just handgun). The Army's operational requirement for a new sidearm included a significant increase in "lethality" and a significant increase in "accuracy."



The difference in terminal ballistics between, 9, 40, and 45 is really insignificant and definitely not a "significant" leap ahead in terms of lethality or accuracy.



TRAINING is the real issue. The typical pistol qualification for Soldiers is bi annual and consists of approximately 47 rounds, a hit is a hit anywhere on the 20" x 40" silhouette, there are no points for the center ring vs. an edge hit. The most common course of fire for Army qualification occurs at 25 Meters, all firing is done from that line. Only the positions change (standing, crouching, kneeling, prone). To qualify a Soldier has to make approximately 25 hits on the target.



To say that any Soldier is an "expert" after such "training" would be laughable if it weren't true, sadly it is true. They send people's children to war after "qualifiying" on such a course of fire. No matter what pistol cartridge the Army fields, there will be no improvment on the battlefield because the Soldiers simply aren't trained to even a basic level of skill with the pistol.



The Army has no regimented system in place to create masterful firearms trainers. It's whoever is occupying the leadership position that gets tapped to be the "trainer" that day. Literally, a guy or gal who just read a book about the weapon and the course of fire that day could very well be the lead trainer.



The Army, much like nearly all law enforcement, is shit for skill-at-arms training.



What should civilians and law enforcement take from the latest Army drama concerning a new sidearm?



Every 2 years or so, Officers rotate in and out of various positions all around the Army. It wasn't two years ago, that the last Officer in PEO Soldier weapons, was spouting off about the next Army sidearm may be a departure from the pistol. A little over 2 years later, new Officer at the helm, suddenly a new pistol search is all the rage. The fact is Soldiers shoot very poorly, as do most law enforcement officers. No change in handgun or handgun caliber is going to be a panacea to correct what amounts to a poor training program or poor execution of a good training program.



Institutions are quick to cut training budgets or spend training dollars on the social issue of the moment - sexual harrassment, suicide prevention, gender awareness, etc etc To be good with any weapon - no matter the caliber - requires a proper training program, a purpose built competent trainer, Soldiers or Officers ready to train, and the disciplined execution of a training program. It matters fk all what caliber the Soldiers or LEO's are using. So long as they can place accurate and incapacitating fire on an intended target within 2 seconds of identifying the threat (that time factor increases as the distance to the target increases from 50 yards on out)



All the arguments about caliber are a fools errand if training isn't seriously corrected first.



Bad guys will win gun fights against Soldiers and Law Enforcement from time to time, who wins a fight has nothing to do with justice or morality. Whoever is more prepared wins. Life has nothing to do with fair. Wearing a badge or U.S. Army on your chest is not a victory insurance policy. People are out there training while we watch videos about whatever ABC bullshit training that takes place in institutions all over this country.



There are many comments in response to this article. I don't see very many posters that actually read the article. Just people clinging to dogma. I support this change to the 9mm from the .45 because by and large most Officers are not going to train with the weapons to improve skill. Most don't have a proper training program, and most that do have a training program don't follow all aspects of it and or adhere to the frequency recommendations.



A significant increase in felt recoil (40 vs.9mm or 45 vs. 9mm) is not doing any favors for a shooter who already doesn't train properly. We don't rise to the occasion, we sink to our lowest level of skill. someone who has a hard time managing recoil during training will have more problems during a fight.



I've trained both Soldiers and Police, both groups for the most part are lacking a serious understanding of marksmanship fundamentals, properly trained purpose built firearms trainers, a regimented training program designed to sustain and improve skill, and for the most part possess tremendous ignorance of ballistics.



I support the change to 9mm because it is a step towards a higher hit probability. Hits count. That figure of 70 to 80 percent of law enforcement shots being misses isn't just FBI agents - it's the number from all law enforcement shootings across the 50 states and 4 territories. On a good day, 7 of 10 shots are misses.



I think that gap can be somewhat overcome by the use of red dot optics (in conjunction with the iron sights) properly installed and zeroed on the pistol by a skilled technician. The Army's combat units have had tremendous success with the Aimpoint CCO mounted on the M4 rifle in combat. A dot optic frees the shooter from having to line the iron sights up. He must still line the dot with the target, but not the iron sight to the rear sight to the target. That extra step is milliseconds in a gunfight that will last only seconds.



Dot sights can go horribly wrong if left up to Bubba to zero them. The sight is zeroed to the weapon for a given distance. The sight is not zeroed to the shooter. Any shooter can pick up a weapon with a properly zeroed dot sight and expect a precise first round hit, provided proper stance, grip, trigger control and follow through are applied. These fundamentals are only applied in a fight if constantly and frequently practiced in training and the shooter is in good physical condition free from exertion or pain. Pain competes with perfromance on the human CNS, and pain has priority.

http://loadoutroom.com/12077/fbi-goi...comes-science/

[mosseater]

I think a lot of the assertions in the above post are well documented from my reading. Not just accuracy, but the need to fire back while under attack appears to be something that was not a given, either. Additionally, (and I'm NOT calling out all you vets. This is NOT a blanket statement) I've witnessed some truly cavalier gun handing safety from former military persons. Not necessarily unsafe, but borderline. Muzzle discipline, checking for clear, range protocol, etc. I think either they were never really "gun people" to begin with, or the importance of safety was never driven home, or perhaps the necessity of having a firearm in close proximity throughout one's carreer breeds complacency. Not really sure, just an observation. Not saying the majority of civies I've experienced were much better, just that I tend to expect people who's life included firearms to that degree to be more disciplined.

I was once given a good dressing down by a Vietnam vet who was quite pissed off that I stopped firing while he went beyond the firing line to fill his water pot. True, he wasn't directly in my line of fire, but he was about 45 degrees to it and 20 yards beyond, so I just instinctively stopped til he got back. He actually made a big scene and yelled at me! I understand the realities of a war zone make a lot of this commonplace, but not being used to that, it freaks me out sometimes.

Interested to hear some of you vet's take on what I've said. Again, not trying to flame anybody. I honor your service and regret not making that choice for myself. Just curious about whether it something y'all noticed too, or am I full of shit.

As far as the article and the move to 9mm, I guess what he's saying is they can afford to miss more often because they have more rounds to miss with. Truthfully, if I know my life depend on hits, and I have only 8 to start with rather than 15, I'm betting I'll be more motivated toward accuracy with the 8 rounds over the 15, especially if it's ball ammo and I have information that tells me the hits with the 9mm will be less effective. Since this is a military issue and I have no real world experience with it's efficacy, all I have to go on are the anecdotal evidence of others, so I'll defer to those who've seen how the 9mm works in combat. Some of the stories I've read are dismal at best. I'm all on board with where you make the hole being key, so if the article is on the money, that's a sad accounting of military training.

[Rosco the Iroc]

Oh no, I think the guy is right. He thinks the Army training is bad...LOL rent a cops can shoot better then most people who carry as a duty in the nav.
I've seen people miss in the pistol qual course on the 1st stage. I have to dbl check but I do know the target is so close I thought it would get power burns.

When that guy forced his way on the ship last year I was surprised that were able to stop him so soon.

[M&P Chris]

That's pretty much spot on.

[ungawa]

I think a lot of the assertions in the above post are well documented from my reading. Not just accuracy, but the need to fire back while under attack appears to be something that was not a given, either. Additionally, (and I'm NOT calling out all you vets. This is NOT a blanket statement) I've witnessed some truly cavalier gun handing safety from former military persons. Not necessarily unsafe, but borderline. Muzzle discipline, checking for clear, range protocol, etc. I think either they were never really "gun people" to begin with, or the importance of safety was never driven home, or perhaps the necessity of having a firearm in close proximity throughout one's carreer breeds complacency. Not really sure, just an observation. Not saying the majority of civies I've experienced were much better, just that I tend to expect people who's life included firearms to that degree to be more disciplined.

I was once given a good dressing down by a Vietnam vet who was quite pissed off that I stopped firing while he went beyond the firing line to fill his water pot. True, he wasn't directly in my line of fire, but he was about 45 degrees to it and 20 yards beyond, so I just instinctively stopped til he got back. He actually made a big scene and yelled at me! I understand the realities of a war zone make a lot of this commonplace, but not being used to that, it freaks me out sometimes.

Interested to hear some of you vet's take on what I've said. Again, not trying to flame anybody. I honor your service and regret not making that choice for myself. Just curious about whether it something y'all noticed too, or am I full of shit.

As far as the article and the move to 9mm, I guess what he's saying is they can afford to miss more often because they have more rounds to miss with. Truthfully, if I know my life depend on hits, and I have only 8 to start with rather than 15, I'm betting I'll be more motivated toward accuracy with the 8 rounds over the 15, especially if it's ball ammo and I have information that tells me the hits with the 9mm will be less effective. Since this is a military issue and I have no real world experience with it's efficacy, all I have to go on are the anecdotal evidence of others, so I'll defer to those who've seen how the 9mm works in combat. Some of the stories I've read are dismal at best. I'm all on board with where you make the hole being key, so if the article is on the money, that's a sad accounting of military training.

We did shoot with people in front of us, but not for line shooting at a traditional range. During live fire training (shoot and move) we would shift fire to a different set of targets when people got in front of us, but it wasn't 180° like on a static range. Muzzle discipline was 100%, including people I still know from back then, certainly better than I have seen from some of the most experienced people here. Trigger discipline was not quite 100% both in training and in action, and I know of at least one case where a possible non-combatant was shot up pretty bad unintentionally. We also had to score Expert every 30 days or get kicked out, so not sure if the gun handling skills were the same over at the motorpool.

[qmcorps]

I read this a couple years ago, so enjoy. it is a 74 page monograph from SAMS, C&GSC, Ft Lost-in-the-woods, MO. I love reading the C&GSC Masters Thesis. http://cgsc.contentdm.oclc.org/


http://www.scribd.com/doc/27765477/I...Half-Kilometer

[Brick]

Right on many, but not all points.

Bi-annual qualification? Since when? Last I knew qualification was annual not every 6 mos. Or does he mean Biennial?

25 meter? Again the last time I qualified with pistol at Ft. Dix NJ. Firing was done on a "trainfire" type range using pop-up silhouette targets at ranges varying from 10 to 30 meters. Including multiple engagements.

He is right in that military marksmanship training is weak. Esp. pistol marksmanship. I learned more as a Bullseye competitor than I ever could have through unit level training.

[ScotsGuards]

Training should be first and foremost be it military, law enforcement or civilian. Having been a training officer in the US Army I've seen some very good programs and some which left me wondering "How in the hell are these people going to survive if this is the only program these people are going to see?"

Later as the weapons training officer for the LE dept. I worked for I implemented a training and practice regimen that increased our departmental qualification scores 20%. Some of our officers were barely qualifying. Fundamentals and the simple acquisition of ammunition to practice with made a tremendous difference. Proof that a training program need not be complicated nor expensive.

Since then I've stressed constant training in both personal and professional areas. With family and friends and with students and the JROTC I mentored.

As mentioned above, fundamentals combined with practice will yield competent, if not expert, shooters.

[Bang]

When driving a two-lane, we whiz past oncoming vehicles with 5 or 6 feet making a miss and think nothing of it. I'm sure soldiers in battlefield conditions are pretty much on a similar plane.