Military rifle qualification trend

[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/milita...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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

Originally Posted by Shovelhead

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]

Originally Posted by XLR8R

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.

Originally Posted by XLR8R

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.