TargetTalk

Does anyone know how the Army's shooting skill ranking stacks up against the NRA's?
This guy I know, who also shoots air rifle, said in the Army he immediatly shot expert. The guy is a beginner in air rifle and would be lucky to shoot a 270/600. Expert in the NRA would require 480/600.

If you're talking about just regular qualifying with the M16 like what you're taught in regular BCT, it's really quite simple for it to seem like you're shooting better than you really are.
A) It's not based on a "points" scale. It's either a hit or a miss. You could just knick the target, but as long as it goes down it's counted as a good shot. You could be all over the place.
B) For regular qualifying (in my experiences in BCT) it was just prone unsupported and foxhole (your rifle is supported on sandbags in the foxhole position).
C) It's also possible to knock down more than one target with one shot. Say if you have a 50 and a 150 up at the same time, depending on how the range is, it's possible for the bullet to go through one and hit the next one, although it doesn't happen often, I've seen a few people become lucky by that.
D) You aren't strictly limited to 1 shot per target. You're allowed as many shots (within your clips) that it takes to get the target down. So if you miss 1, you can use a 2nd shot.

I believe that expert is 38/40 with the M16. I'm not sure how the 9mm or shotgun qualifying go if you have an MOS that qualifies with those. If anyone has any corrections to that or other info. to add, feel free to. I'm sure I left things out. I hope that helped clear that up.
To shoot expert, you still have to be doing something right...it's something to be proud of still.

pointingdevices wrote:Does anyone know how the Army's shooting skill ranking stacks up against the NRA's?
This guy I know, who also shoots air rifle, said in the Army he immediatly shot expert. The guy is a beginner in air rifle and would be lucky to shoot a 270/600. Expert in the NRA would require 480/600.

Army basic rifle quals are ridiculously easy compared to a similarly named qualification in NRA Highpower (the sport that comes the closest).

I don't know what NRA "Expert" classification you refer to, but NRA Highpower Expert classification requires an average of 89.00 to 93.99% over 240 shots for record. That's a 712 to a 751 for 80 shots or 445 to 469 for 50 shots. Far higher than the 480/600 you cite.

Marine Corps basic rifle qualification is far tougher than the Army's and a USMC Rifle Expert could very likely and in a short time achieve the same classification in NRA Highpower using a National Match AR15.

It was referenced to the NRA Expert in International Air Rifle but the target in that disipline is VERY VERY tiny:

ISSF Rule 6.3.2.3 10 Meter Air Rifle Target
10 Ring 0.5 mm (±0.1 mm) 5 Ring 25.5 mm (±0.1 mm)
9 Ring 5.5 mm (±0.1 mm) 4 Ring 30.5 mm (±0.1 mm)
8 Ring 10.5 mm (±0.1 mm) 3 Ring 35.5 mm (±0.1 mm)
7 Ring 15.5 mm (±0.1 mm) 2 Ring 40.5 mm (±0.1 mm)
6 Ring 20.5 mm (±0.1 mm) 1 Ring 45.5 mm (±0.1 mm)
Inner Ten: When the 10 Ring (dot) has been shot out completely as determined by the use of a 4.5 mm Air Rifle INWARD scoring gauge.
The ten ring is a white dot = 0.5 mm (±0.1 mm).

If you pricked a piece of paper with a pin and you didn't push it in all the way it'd be about 0.5mm. The NRA Marksmanship Qualification Program for International Air Rifle describes the course of fire as:

Basic Practical This rating is achieved by completing the practical exercise conducted during an NRA Basic Rifle Course.
Pro-Marksman benchrest or prone supported may be used 10 shots 45/100 4 times
Marksman standing 20 shots 110/200 4 times
Marksman 1st Class standing 40 shots 260/400 4 times
Sharpshooter standing 40 shots 280/400 6 times
OR
60 shots 420/600 4 times
Expert standing 40 shots 320/400 6 times
OR
60 shots 480/600 4 times
Distinguished Expert 40 or 60-shots, 356/400, 534/600 or better 10 times, or 344/400, 516/600 or better in 2 NRA sanctioned air rifle competitions.

But again, that bull is really tiny! It would be nice to have all of the different courses of fire for every NRA, ISSF, and Military program in thousandths of a degree arc. Don't they have that already figured out?

Hi

Unfortunately, there is a great similarity in NAMES between the NRA Marksmanship Qualification program where there is Pro-marksman, Marksman, Marksmanship 1st class, Sharpshooter, Expert, and Distinguished Expert and being an NRA-classified Shooter classified as Marksman (usually below 85%) Sharpshooter, Expert, Master, and in some disciplines, High Master. Master is usually above 95%.

Note that I'm not laughing really hard since I made the same mistake say two years ago.

Mike
Wichita KS

pointingdevices wrote:It was referenced to the NRA Expert in International Air Rifle

Got it.

pointingdevices wrote:It would be nice to have all of the different courses of fire for every NRA, ISSF, and Military program in thousandths of a degree arc. Don't they have that already figured out?

If you express everything in minutes of angle, yes, you can easily see at a glance the correlation. You would only have to convert metric dimensions to English to easily use the MOA relationship (1 MOA = 1.047" @ 100 yds.)

Still the fact remains that the US Army's modern basic rifle qualification course is ridiculously easy for any competitive multi-position rifle shooter regardless of the particular discipline (NRA HP, NRA SB, ISSF 50M, ISSF 300M). The contrary is also true. Anyone with only basic US Army rifle training will find it nearly impossible to shoot any score even close to their military classification in any formal position rifle match. Army soldiers (unlike Marines) are not even taught the use of a sling as a shooting support.

I feel that this discussion fails to take into account what the Military expects of a rifleman and what the target shooter expects. The armed forces trains a person to knock down and debilitate (permanently or temporarily) the enemy, regardless of how many rounds it take. The Target shooter is interested in one thing, X's. The quest for the ten ring and better is the all encompassing dream of every rifle shooter. The Marines idea is "every Marine is a rifleman"; hence their training and background makes every marine a potential Expert to Master target shooter with a little help and practise. The army's emphasis is rifle skills and honing to those who indeed carry out this form of mission, the rest for self-protection "just in case." As far as the other services' it's on a need to know basis after basic training. Most of our present day form of combat has narrowed to counter-insurgency operation and close combat situations. So the basic equipment is becoming much more specialised for these types of operation, and hence do not in anyway shape or form lead to the Target Shooter mentality that prevailed over the last 100 years. Needless to say certain recruits come with a variation of rifle & shooting experiences which is duly noted and those are "targeted" for further training and assignments. Ad infinitum ad nauseam-----

lol here they instill the concept of save bullets hit them on the first shot.

you wouldnt last long if you wernt careful with your bullets anyway.

It's not as funny as you think- it's quite functional. A modern Army (I use the term to include air, sea and space forces) achieves the highest levels of efficiency- and effectiveness- with a high degree of specialization.

Quite frankly the ability to employ individual marksmanship skills against individual combatants is a narrow skillset that applies to a lot fewer classes of soldier than you think.

Various special forces types- yes. Typical soldier- no.

Current doctrine does not appreciate wasting the valuable training time of various specialists with skills they will only use when the battle is lost anyway.

Note: I am not necessarily supporting this doctrine, just explaining that the vast majority of troops are not "trigger pullers" and are instead responsible for things like missile launching, artillery firing, depth charge dropping, torpedo launching, bomb dropping etc.

Oh yeah and don't forget teh vast majority of troops- who are responsible for things like package tracking, freight contracting, supply stocking, truck driving, warehouse managing, etc. etc. etc.

It's not just the "tooth to tail" ratio- it's the ratio (within the small "tooth" portion) of individual firearm employing vs. crew served weapon system operating.

Steve Swartz

............

Jose's right. The Iraq campaign has proven that we need to go back to the old mindset - that every member of the armed forces must be able to fight. I've been worried for years about asymmetric attacks against "rear" areas.

Mike, Jose:

While I inherently agree with you (I'm a shooter after all) I believe (respectfully) you might be missing hte point a little.

The reason (theory) goes like this: if you trained "Jessica" to be a better "rifle shooter," she would be a worse "supply stocker" (or whatever).

The typical response to your logic ("Jessica needs to know how to defend herself against asymmetrical warfare") is actually a good one.

As long as we win the war in 36 hours (due in large part to "Jessica's" skills as a supply troop) we can afford to lose a handful of "Jessicas" to the random accidental engaggement.

Yeah, yeah, I know- but would you really like to make the argument that it is moral to extend the war (and both civilian and uniformed casualties on both sides) in order to have a lower probability of losing any one soldier in any one random engagement?

Hey look guys- I'm not saying the argument is clearly balck or white. It is a trade-off. Just like the trade off made to carry a lighter rifle with more ammo; or to sacrifice armor on humvees in order to gain speed and maneuverability.

Steve Swartz

Jose Rossy wrote:Jessica Lynch and her buddies could neither maintain nor shoot a rifle to save their lives. Nor could they navigate either. Those are basic skills of an infantryman, and the outcome of their trip might have been different had their CoC had taken a different attitude towards such skills.

How would better rifle skills have prevented her from crashing the truck?

As I've had to point out a few times to student shooters over the years, yes, we outshoot armed police and military units; but we don't run to the firing point with fifty pounds of gear on our backs and our targets don't fire back :D

Another thought- perhaps the "rear echelon" units is a bad example, since these are all in the main being outsourced to civilians/local vendors/national guard & reserve.

So we really aren't counting on any of the Support (or even a thick percentage of the Combat Support) units having *any* martial skills at the individual level. Yes, this makes them vulnerable- but what effect will the loss of a couple of POL trucks and drivers here and there have on overall mission accomplishment? Yeah, we will settle the lawsuits after combat is over.

A better example (IMNSHO) is lets say an MLRS crew. In order to train them to be competent in small arms/combat arms, as (let's say) the typical marine squad, they would have to train pretty much full time on combat arms. So when it's time to deliver effective MLRS fire, what happens?

According to current doctrine, they would suck at their *primary* combat arms skill because you have spent so much time training them on their secondary combat arms skills. So we give them cursory training in their secondary combat arms skills, and focus on their primary combat arms skills.

Better example? Navy/Air Force pilot. Hey, their secondary combat arms skillset is to surrender, and then absorb enemy medical and logistics capability as a POW. We don't really train them to use the M9 stuck in their ruck except as a signaling device or potentially as a source of protein in game rich environment (holding up a gracery store, not hunting live game! =;^).

So anyhow

This thread has swerved alittle bit off topic other than to point out that the Army Marksmanship Unit in the US (premier trained marksmen) have a RECRUITING mission, not a COMBAT mission.

[No different for most modern western militaries either I would guess]

Steve Swartz

Steve, why do you keep focusing on the Army when the Marine Corps does thing much more effectively?

And I think you are taking this whole idea way out of context by implying that troops other than infantry be trained AS infantry. No one has suggested that and no one does that. Not even the Marines.

What the Marines do and the Army still fails to do is train ALL of its members to be effective riflemen. Marine infantry goes on to infantry training while tankers, gunners, and mechanics do not. But a USMC mechanic can definitely outshoot a USA mechanic when it counts.

That is all everyone else here is saying.

And the Marine Corps has a much more specialized mission than the "big Army" (including naval, air and space forces).

What the USMC does is exaclty appropriate for their mission- similar to USA "Special Forces" type units) and what the Big Army does is entirely appropriate for their (much broader) mission.

According to official doctrine and policy.

Now if we want to argue whether our force mix and mission assingment is inappropriate (train everybody like the USMC) that's another story. Frankly, we already have a Marine Corps that does just fine.

The point is- again- that training a non-direct-individual-combat specialist in direct-individual-combat skill s is a waste.

My *personal* opinion- I agree with you. I wuold have much rather spent more time on the range firing the M-16 and M-9 than the time I spent in the classroom learning about stock point policies, reliability centered maintenance, and logistics support.

But that would have made me a less effective Aircraft Maintenance Officer in some substantive way . . .

Steve

Jose Rossy wrote: But a USMC mechanic can definitely outshoot a USA mechanic when it counts.

A bit of a stretch dude.....obviously depends on the individuals.

Johns wrote:

Jose Rossy wrote: But ON AVERAGE a USMC mechanic can definitely outshoot a USA mechanic when it counts.

A bit of a stretch dude.....obviously depends on the individuals.

How's that? Better now?

Back on topic - The primary difference is that a target shooter is trained to shoot, while a military shooter is trained to fight.

I have known fantastic target shooters that turned out to be born victims in combat, and marvelous fighters who could only shoot "minute of man".

You are talking about two entirely different skill-sets. The best combat soldiers I know are creative "pacing tigers" who lack the patience and finicky-ness to shoot target. The best target shooters I've met are too darned slow and uncreative to be any good on the battlefield.

HI

This is an interesting post. I have two semi related comments:

1. Shot my league last night, Range is in a gang area. The "anti-gang" police were in the range buying cleaning supplies. I brought up the subject of the New York shooting, and asked one of the guys how much he shot. He shoots once or twice a week, but he runs 200 yards before he shoots..... Not jogs, runs. He's prepared.

2. One of my 4th or 5th grade shooters shoots about 10% worse than he younger sister. BUT she always wins the shoot-outs we have at the end of practice. Can't shoot except with pressure.

Just my $0.02

Mike
Wichita KS