Military rifle qualification trend

[Adaminak]

With the transition from the M-16A2 rifle to the M-4 carbine, I've noticed a disturbing trend that I can't explain, and I'm wondering if anyone can weigh-in with an opinion.

The old AFQC (Air Force Qualification Course) was 12 rounds for zero, 40 practice rounds and 40 rounds for qualification. The target frame is physically at 25m, but each target is sized to represent human sized enter mass at distances from 75m to 300m (see pic).

Qualification was 4 relays of 10 rounds (1 per target) from the prone supported, prone unsupported, kneeling and over barricade. Passing score for Cat-A personnel (those that carry guns every day for their duty) was 25, expert was 35.

The new course of fire (TRQC for Tactical Rifle Qualification Course) greatly expands upon the basics of AFQC and has seven different stages. There is still a portion that has individual timed fire at the same target and location, fired through the iron sights (no Aimpoint) just like the AFQC except now there's no prone supported, the number of rounds fired is 30, and a minimum passing score is 18, (26 for expert). Everything else about this stage of fire is the same as AFQC.

Ever since we made the change from AFQC to TRQC, and the corresponding change from the M-16A2 to the M-4, the overall unqualified (UQ) rating is roughly 35% per firing class (down from an initial high of 66%), whereas with the M-16A2 it was always around 5%. This has been bounced around the Combat Arms community for a few years now, and still no resolution. Same fundamentals, same sight picture, same target, same distance...Anybody have any thoughts? :confused:

[Shovelhead]

Sadly, most Enlisted troops I work with (AF Base) never touch a firearm unless it's time to qualify. :(


I think we should go back to semi-auto firearms.
Aiming has become a lost art in this era of 30 round magazines.

A true Rifleman doesn't employ spray-and-pray accuracy. ;)

[Adaminak]

What's even worse is that most of the AF troops don't even have to qualify until they get tasked to deploy. A medical technician for example can go five or six years without ever qualifying. The only folks who qualify semi-annually are the Cat-A personnel: Security Forces, EOD, Tactical Air Control Party, Combat Controller, Para Rescue and Office of Special Investigations. Everybody else is qualify on demand within 90 days prior to a deployment.

[ofcmarc]

The only folks who qualify semi-annually are the Cat-A personnel: Security Forces, EOD, Tactical Air Control Party, Combat Controller, Para Rescue and Office of Special Investigations. Everybody else is qualify on demand within 90 days prior to a deployment.

There is your answer. You don't practice, You don't Qual. I have the same problem at work and our program hasn't changed in years. Only difference is you no longer HAVE to qualify to keep your job....Stupid.

[cmac]

i agree that the problem is that the airforce isnt required to qualify unless they are deploying. (except for those cat-a personel) had this discussion with some of our wether guys the other day. i qualify the same with my m-4 as i did with the m-16, never below a 38/40. it takes 36 for us to qualify expert and 26 to pass. we use pop up silhouette (sp?) targets that range from 25 to 300 meters. i think if they had more practice they would do better. cant really blame it on the gun, well not very often anyways. another thought though with the iron peep sights is that with the m-4 the distance from rear sight to front sight post is shorter than the m-16. without practice people wont be very good at keeping the same sight picture so the differences in sight picture would affect the m-4 more so than the m-16. well atleast the last part makes sense in my head.:eek:

[Redleg]

Sights being 6 inches closer together is gonna be less forgiving on people that don't practice.

[Adaminak]

There is your answer. You don't practice, You don't Qual. I have the same problem at work and our program hasn't changed in years. Only difference is you no longer HAVE to qualify to keep your job....Stupid.

It's strictly the Cat-A personnel I'm talking about, predominantly the Security Forces folks. We fire primary duty weapon (rifle for all enlisted) twice a year for qualification and twice a year for proficiency. Secondary duty weapon is annually for qualification and proficiency. Essentially we're on the range six times a year. Proficiency firing is full-size targets at varying distances and different firing positions...basically whatever the range instructor can come up with for that particular day, and it's usually about 200rnds per session. The Cat-A personnel have to qualify in order to keep their job. We don't kick 'em out if they don't qualify, but the process generally takes 4 consecutive failures and an administrative action recommended by the commander to cross-train the member into a Cat-B or Cat-C position (think mechanics, cooks, billeting personnel, med techs, etc).

There was discussion at the directorate level (center for all Combat Arms trainers) and the sight plane reduction was brought up. The overall consensus was it shouldn't have been that drastic a change. The CATM folks even tried an experiment at Lackland with an A-2 upper on an M-4 lower. Aside from numerous jams, the shooters still had a higher than normal UQ rate.

[WOLFCSM]

What about the conditions of the qualification course have changed, beside the weapon? Is there some instruction of Sight Picture, Cheek weld, Breathing, Trigger control given before the attempt to qualify? The Army called that Preliminary Marksmanship Training (PMI). Stressed the fundimentals of shooting each time someone went out to shoot.

Are the targets visible? Your last post sounded like the range was set up at the whim of the range OIC. Qualification ranges were pretty much set for the Army. Had targets from 25 to 460 meters. All pop-up targets. Used Known Distance (KD) ranges to learn the aim point (Kentucky windage) for various ranges.

Lastly, do you know the balistic qualities of the ammunition being fired. Not understanding the balistics of the round could cause some of the problem.


Hal

[Redleg]

If there are jamming issues, you might research useing a longer or adjustable gas tube to slow the bolt cycling a bit for the carbine?

[Adaminak]

The qualification portion is the same every time, and it's basically the same course of fire as we've been using for 20 years. Prior to hitting the range there is classroom instruction on fundamentals, the course of fire, weapons malfunction drills, etc. These used to be skipped by most CATM personnel when they taught SF classes because we didn't have the same problems as the rest of the base populace. It still is glossed over a little bit, and we don't talk as much about sight alignment as with a general base populace course, but there is still instruction about the fundamentals. When a person UQs, they get one chance on the spot to reshoot the portion they failed. If they don't qualify, they come back and sit in a remedial class, which is basically a base populace class, and has 4 hours of classroom instruction before the range time. Folks are still failing with the M-4.

The jams were only with the experiment conducted at Lackland to see if sight plane made a difference. The A2 upper receiver on the M4 lower didn't mate properly with the magazine feed ramps, and there were a bunch of stupid jams. It was strictly an experiment problem, as my M-4 has been excellent with regards to malfunctions.

[WOLFCSM]

This page has the balistic charateristics of the rounds you should be using. There is a small difference between the M16 and the M4 using the same rounds.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/3-22-9/c02.htm#2_11

Hal

[Adaminak]

We're still qualifying with remnant M193 ammo in most places. Trajectory shouldn't play any factor as the targets are only at 25m, and you re-zero the weapon before any qualification occurs. Even with a Colorado cross-wind, we're still talking less than .5" drift at that distance.

[WOLFCSM]

Ok, guess everything but the gun and the shooter are eliminated.

Using the same weapon, is one person able to qualify and another not? Are there specific weapons that are a problem?

Might think about using two different weapons. Zeroing each and shoot for qualification with one then the other and see if there are differences.

Army Material Comand has a small arms repair facility there on Balad that might be able to help, if the weapon could be identified as the problem.

Also thought about the zero. What standard do you use to call a weapon zeroed? Speaking about the size of the shot group. At 25m the shot group should be able to be covered be a dime.

Failing any problems with the weapon, we are back to the fundimentals of shooting.

Hal

[Adaminak]

Ok, guess everything but the gun and the shooter are eliminated.

Using the same weapon, is one person able to qualify and another not? Are there specific weapons that are a problem?

People only qualify with the weapon they carry however, I've pulled weapons from folks on the range who were all over the target and cloverleafed 3 rounds into the zero target to ensure it wasn't a weapon problem. Sometimes we'll have bent sight posts or loose barrels, but those are quickly identified and repaired.

Might think about using two different weapons. Zeroing each and shoot for qualification with one then the other and see if there are differences.

Army Material Command has a small arms repair facility there on Balad that might be able to help, if the weapon could be identified as the problem.

Fortunately all the USAF folks that come over here are required to qualify prior to departure, so all we do here is proficiency fire. The qualification problem is from non-deployed locations.

Also thought about the zero. What standard do you use to call a weapon zeroed? Speaking about the size of the shot group. At 25m the shot group should be able to be covered be a dime.

The zero target is the same size as the 250m target, and there's actually a center dot. I don't consider a person zeroed until all their rounds are within .25" of the center dot, for a maximum group size of .5" That's pretty much the standard for the CATM officials as well.

Failing any problems with the weapon, we are back to the fundamentals of shooting.

I think you're right with the fundamentals, but I don't know why it didn't manifest itself until the introduction of the M-4.

Hal

I personally feel we don't fire our weapons enough, and many people, especially those who don't like guns, just aren't comfortable with the weapon. What doesn't make sense to me is why a person can qualify with an M-16A2 and shoot average scores of 30-33 out of 40 (75% - 82.5%), but give them an M-4, with the same basic course of fire and they shoot scores of 8-15 out of 30 (26%-50%)

Some folks argue it's the removal of the prone supported position, but even if we assumed all 10 shots prone supported hit the target and factor that into the equation, the M-4 score changes to 18-25 out of 40, for a range of 45% to 62.5%, and still failing...

[WOLFCSM]

I have used .22cal bolts and had folks fire a lot of that ammo - to get the feal of the weapon, as well as just to put rounds down range. Had a good bit of success.

You are correct about not shooting enough. There is not anyone, except for special ops folks that shoot enough to really be comfortable with their weapon.

Do you have access to / use any of the simulators available? That can be another way to get someone behind a weapon and costs almost nothing but time.

Hal

[Adaminak]

We have simulators available, but they're not used nearly to potential simply because of time constraints. Training requirements and duty schedules preclude a lot of extra training that would be highly valuable, but isn't mandated. In my career field for instance, we're required to receive 169hrs of ancillary training annually. This doesn't include any pre-deployment training, which may be as long as 60 days, but is generally 20-30 days, or the six times we're supposed to fire weapons. Combine this with a deployment cycle that is basically home for 5 months, training for 1 month, gone for 6 months, and if it's not directed, it's not getting done.

I agree; folks need to shoot more often to become familiar with the weapon. What I still don't understand is why they can't shoot an M-4 the same way they shoot an M-16A2.

[XLR8R]

I think we should go back to semi-auto firearms.
Aiming has become a lost art in this era of 30 round magazines.

A true Rifleman doesn't employ spray-and-pray accuracy. ;)

I agree - almost everyone aims truer as if they'd just chambered their last round...

It's much easier to make quality hits on the range with single shots - although it's too much fun to hose everything in half... just not very practical, except in an actual fire & maneuver scenario. Fire suppression is a great tool if you've got it!

I'm sure the M4's shorter sight line degrades qualification averages, but I think some of the "your weapon is your life" attitude has been lost in this high-tech era of combat.

I wonder how many folks in the service think they will ever REALLY need to save a life with what they happen to be holding in their hand(s)?

Adam, I'm assuming no AF officers are required to carry the M4? Also, for Cat-A folks, are you referencing the M4 or M4A1?

[Adaminak]

I wonder how many folks in the service think they will ever REALLY need to save a life with what they happen to be holding in their hand(s)?

Very, very few. The only folks I can think of are some of the Cat-A personnel. All others look at a weapon as something they have to carry around with them, even though it has nothing to do with their actual job. Tell these people their job is to kill the enemy before he kills us, and they'll usually say they're not combatants, they just work at the clinic, or the gym, or drive a dump truck or whatever. Even the newer Security Forces troops don't truly understand how they may be called to act. Khobar Towers was something they read in a history book (if they're lucky), and didn't happen to them or anyone they know. 9/11 may have impacted some, but very, very few can make the connection to a global war on terror. What's worse is that most won't listen to the experienced people, as the new generation wants to know "Why" about everything.

Adam, I'm assuming no AF officers are required to carry the M4? Also, for Cat-A folks, are you referencing the M4 or M4A1?
The only AF officers who carry the M4 are Cat-A. It's not their primary duty weapon per-se, but they carry and qualify with it as though it was. All others carry the M16A2. Nobody in the AF has the M4A1 (officially), and honestly, I can't recall ever seeing one.