Yuku free message boards

There is and has been for a long time a difference of opinion as to how to train marksmanship that will result in practical and effective small arms combat. The average musketeer, pistoleer or rifleman was generally interested in a whole lot of things besides marksmanship in a deep kimchee situation.

The U.S. Army paid scant attention to marksmanship until after the American Civil War when the "target" didn't stand up and trade volleys. In the American West target acquisition and marksmanship with accurate cartridge loading firearms became a subject of interest and "systems" of marksmanship training, shooting badges and proficiency pay were used to encourage marksmanship.

Between the conflicts the funds for marksmanship training were scarce and with the large enlistment of troops during war conditions the training has required acceleration to achieve a minimum of useful ability with firearms. During WWII the Army found that many trainees were intimidated by the .30 caliber rifles recoil and muzzle blast so that they could not concentrate on marksmanship. Basic marksmanship training with .22 caliber rifles was initiated.

In the 1960s the Army and Marine Corps diverged in their philosophy of marksmanship. The Marines continued to train marksmanship in the traditional manner with slings, positions fired on known distance target ranges and known distance targets. During my visits to Camp Pendleton I notice that the Marines still provide training and annual qualification to all Marines on known distance ranges and courses of fire. For those of you that may not be familiar with "known distance" ranges the National Match Course is fired on known distance ranges and targets, with the traditional "bulls eye" targets.

The Army took a different approach to marksmanship and developed pop-up silhouette targets that require target acquisition, and engagement at various ranges from 25 to 300 yards. The targets are generally in the shape of a human, are olive green and if working properly fall back when hit. Preliminary marksmanship training follows the traditional instruction in sight picture, sight alignment, trigger control and breathing. What follows is a radical departure from the traditional known distance training in that there is no emphasis on the use of the sling, positions or slow fire. The emphasis is on a practical combat course of fire that involves the engagement of pop-up targets with the soldier either in an unsupported hasty or assault, or supported fixed (defensive) situations. In all these situations targets appear at unspecified ranges and intervals within a lane. I am not familiar with the current instruction but at one time this included two night engagements.

Much like the military the police in the United States adopted marksmanship training that was intended to improve efficiency in the use of firearms. After WWI a known distance course of fire known as the Practical Pistol Course that was pretty good for the time was adopted. The PPC is still fired in competition with pistols that would never be carried on duty so has no relevance to the training of police officers in engaging "targets" in the field. Many police agencies now provide practical marksmanship training on silhouette targets at ranges from 3 to 50 feet. Emphasis is made on engaging targets at unknown ranges, that are sometimes moving or partially concealed and using controlled fire discipline that is frequently referred to as "failure drill" that is the target is engaged with two rounds to the torso and one round to the head, the effect is then assessed before additional rounds are fired. A practical course of fire known as "Hogan's Ally" is often used to provide simulated field conditions in that the officer must advance into a lane and discriminate between threatening and non-threatening silhouettes that appear at unexpected places and times.

I mention the current training of urban police because that seems to be the situation of the Army and Marines engaged in Iraq. That is the involvement with the "enemy" in urban areas is nearly identical to that of the police. Outside of the urban areas such as Afghanistan the engagements are more in the aspect of military operations.

In the same way the National Match Course was the practical way to train troops but is now irrelevant and impractical for the training of combat troops in an urban environment, with buildings and civilians in immediate proximity. You all may have your concept of how to engage an enemy using a sling for support, but the reality is that is not practical for either training or the tactical situation the vast majority of the combat troops are involved in. I do not object to training on the use of the sling but think it is more important to spend training time on more practical marksmanship techniques.

IMO the training of the use of the sling, positions on known distance ranges and targets, is irrelevant, and may even be counter-productive to the desired reactions to situations the military and police are confronted with. It would probably be better to train marksmanship and target engagement in the exigencies of the various field situations first.

The one point sling, or whatever they are called, was apparently developed by urban police departments and is now frequently used by Army troops. This sling is apparently intended to make the weapon readily available in that it simply requires the soldier to elevate the barrel. At the same time it is a convention to safety and non-aggressive appearance which may be more important to urban police than it should be to the military. It is an obvious concession to the situation that is similar to urban police tactical problems. In the same manner I would not want to be trying to use an ordinary rifle sling I would also object to this one point sling in a shooting situation. I want my rifle or pistol in hand and in the most ready position possible, which is not pointed at the ground or at the sky.

I'm not sure which came first, silly handling of firearms in tactical training situations or television and movies that visually depict police in particular with their pistols pointed in the air and the "trigger" finger along the side of the weapon instead on the trigger, in what I take to be some exaggerated demonstration of safety. If the situation calls for my firearm to be in hand I'm going to keep it pointed in a direction where an assailant may appear and my finger on the trigger for quick engagement as required. If armed with a rifle or carbine I'm not going to be wrapped in a sling of any kind.

There may be a time and place for the training on and use of a sling to provide support in marksmanship but it appears the sling has gone full circle and is merely a convenient way to carry the weapon when not required for immediate use.