Short Range Marksmanship

[BES]

Not sure if this belongs here or long guns, lol. But I thought some of you would like to see this, check out the thumb over bore grip ;) Attached is a tid bit on SRM from the new Army Marksmanship Leaders Guide. This is just a small portion of the soon to be published updated Marksmanship Field Manual. AMU has been doing a hell of a job revamping old material and cranking out quality shooters and instructors recently. The new Master Marksmanship Instructor Course and Small Arms Weapon Expert course (SAW-E) is kick ass. It's amazing to have support from the top down now to teach modern techniques and create quality shooters even at the lowest level. A lot of this has been driven from the bottom up at the Marksmanship Symposiums, where all marksmanship trainers and unit leaders from every corner of the Army come together and discuss current issues, equipment, and TTPs in an open forum.

7359736073627361

[Drang]

Attachment doesn't work.

[Odin Bravo One]

Unfortunately, I doubt the new materials will either. AMU has busted their was for twenty years trying to explain to the Army that their presumed data doesn't match actual and factual data. Sad, but true.

[BES]

Can you see the pics now ?

[Drang]

See them now.

I predict that this will be as successful as Quick Kill training was...

...or, for that matter, we got a new CG at Ft Ord and suddenly the emphasis in Light Infantry doctrine changed from squad and platoon level to battalion and brigade level.

[BES]

See them now.

I predict that this will be as successful as Quick Kill training was...

...or, for that matter, we got a new CG at Ft Ord and suddenly the emphasis in Light Infantry doctrine changed from squad and platoon level to battalion and brigade level.

I don't follow.

[BES]

Unfortunately, I doubt the new materials will either. AMU has busted their was for twenty years trying to explain to the Army that their presumed data doesn't match actual and factual data. Sad, but true.

I don't think I understand what you're saying, could you elaborate ?

[johncorey]

Bonne Chance. AWG has been playing this game for a hot minute now. Always the same results. "Oh wow, this stuff is phenomenal, I can't wait to instruct the Co/Bn/Bde" Goes back to parent unit. "Oh gee, this looks too high speed for our soldiers. Tone it down and slow it down. They'll never get it. It's too complex for them." Or, of course, some freak at Range Control/Ops has a conniption thinking about iterations of hundreds of soldiers doing something other than qualifying or some beat to death "ready ups". AMU is a great asset, but this will wither and die like all the other initiatives. A training pamphlet and some modified courses won't change the culture.

[JHC]

Not sure if this belongs here or long guns, lol. But I thought some of you would like to see this, check out the thumb over bore grip ;) Attached is a tid bit on SRM from the new Army Marksmanship Leaders Guide. This is just a small portion of the soon to be published updated Marksmanship Field Manual. AMU has been doing a hell of a job revamping old material and cranking out quality shooters and instructors recently. The new Master Marksmanship Instructor Course and Small Arms Weapon Expert course (SAW-E) is kick ass. It's amazing to have support from the top down now to teach modern techniques and create quality shooters even at the lowest level. A lot of this has been driven from the bottom up at the Marksmanship Symposiums, where all marksmanship trainers and unit leaders from every corner of the Army come together and discuss current issues, equipment, and TTPs in an open forum.

7359736073627361

I don't know if it was related or not but my younger son's INF platoon has been shooting a LOT over the last year. All small arms, including the pistol. Like spending the day at it vs only qualifying and moving off the line.

[imp1295]

I will say that, outside of smaller SOF units, there does seem to be at least more openness to extended and actual marksmanship training as opposed to just qualifying to fill out the tables in DTMS.

But, I can't make wide ranging proclamations. Only what I was able to do in my battalion. Having a constant company level deployment rotation of 9 months helps also. As, that organization will likely not shoot their ammo allocation during the FY and it allows you to plus up the unit in pre-mission training (PMT). The hard part is when everyone is at home station. But, group hardly ever shoots their entire allocation so asking for more is possible. And, at Hood, most of the armor units didn't focus on small arms training so getting a plus up was easier as well.

just one data point.

[Mike C]

My experience is 5 years old at this point so take it with a grain of salt. I see what SeanM was saying in the sense that AMU has busted their asses gathering data and trying to mix things up, there has been resistance. Though, in my experience in the big Army side was that things are/were changing. At least from my perspective.

For example, when AWG started the CAT-C course there was some initial backlash. The, "this shit is too high speed", and "we're going to get someone killed" bullshit was from a lot of old timers and it was a their concern, maybe it was Army wide I can't say. But in my opinion it was flat out laziness on some peoples parts. Despite all that I did see some people implementing it right off regardless of the shit they took, (mainly when I was in a light unit). I saw the same with the squad designated marksman stuff but eventually shit changed most of the way around if not completely and people started realizing the usefulness of this stuff. Hell, I saw this at a CAV unit around '06 no less brought in by a bunch of, "hard core light guys" and a few from Battalion, (mainly our CSM).

Another data point was when I was a senior drill '09-10, (no idea what year it was actually implimented thought all the kinks seemed to be worked out at the time) there was an advanced portion of markmanship during BCT that we ran our kids through, that program had a lot of what AMU had been preaching and incorporations from AWG's CAT-C program. Personally, and based on my experience I think that there has been a big shift in mindset on the Infantry side in terms of learning/changing TTP's and willingness to implement them.

[Kevin B.]

Having had a front row seat for the many attempts to reform the Army's marksmanship program over the past ten years, I was originally quite optimistic about the current effort. Unfortunately, it appears that the current effort is going to suffer the same fate as previous efforts. At this point, I think the best that can be hoped for is some slight improvements and more likely than not we will see change rather than improvement.

I would also note that while the AMU is a tremendous resource and has been invaluable to the current effort, that has not always been the case and, at times, they have been an obstructionist. Not an indictment of the AMU; more a commentary on some of the personalities involved at various points and hardly unique to the AMU.

Substantive improvements to marksmanship will likely continue to occur at the individual unit level where leaders make it a priority and put forth the effort.

[Kevin B.]

Double Tap.

[Failure2Stop]

Having had a front row seat for the many attempts to reform the Army's marksmanship program over the past ten years, I was originally quite optimistic about the current effort. Unfortunately, it appears that the current effort is going to suffer the same fate as previous efforts. At this point, I think the best that can be hoped for is some slight improvements and more likely than not we will see change rather than improvement.

I would also note that while the AMU is a tremendous resource and has been invaluable to the current effort, that has not always been the case and, at times, they have been an obstructionist. Not an indictment of the AMU; more a commentary on some of the personalities involved at various points and hardly unique to the AMU.

Substantive improvements to marksmanship will likely continue to occur at the individual unit level where leaders make it a priority and put forth the effort.

True, but at least now they have an official source for reference.

[Mike C]

Having had a front row seat for the many attempts to reform the Army's marksmanship program over the past ten years, I was originally quite optimistic about the current effort. Unfortunately, it appears that the current effort is going to suffer the same fate as previous efforts. At this point, I think the best that can be hoped for is some slight improvements and more likely than not we will see change rather than improvement.

I would also note that while the AMU is a tremendous resource and has been invaluable to the current effort, that has not always been the case and, at times, they have been an obstructionist. Not an indictment of the AMU; more a commentary on some of the personalities involved at various points and hardly unique to the AMU.

Substantive improvements to marksmanship will likely continue to occur at the individual unit level where leaders make it a priority and put forth the effort.

All good points and I can definitely agree with you on your last point. It will certainly take, individual unit level leaders making it a priority and putting forth the effort to make changes happen. I will count myself fortunate to have had the experience I did because it is starting to sound more like it was not the norm.

Kevin B. were you regularly stationed out of Benning, or were you floating around there doing other stuff? I only ask because I am curious about what angle you were looking through the lens. I imagine the seat from the over there through the course of 10 years would be interesting to say the least. Thanks.

[Kevin B.]

Kevin B. were you regularly stationed out of Benning, or were you floating around there doing other stuff? I only ask because I am curious about what angle you were looking through the lens. I imagine the seat from the over there through the course of 10 years would be interesting to say the least. Thanks.

Both

[BES]

Bonne Chance. AWG has been playing this game for a hot minute now. Always the same results. "Oh wow, this stuff is phenomenal, I can't wait to instruct the Co/Bn/Bde" Goes back to parent unit. "Oh gee, this looks too high speed for our soldiers. Tone it down and slow it down. They'll never get it. It's too complex for them." Or, of course, some freak at Range Control/Ops has a conniption thinking about iterations of hundreds of soldiers doing something other than qualifying or some beat to death "ready ups". AMU is a great asset, but this will wither and die like all the other initiatives. A training pamphlet and some modified courses won't change the culture.

I don't think I did a good job at communicating in my intial post. My point behind posting this was really not to get into Army semantics as we could do that else where, but more for the discussion of the actual techniques and gun-handling displayed in the pics.

That being said, I don't know about all that. I've seen things implemented that AWG has put out relatively rapidly, for examplee their alternate method of zeroing IR lasers for rapid engagement on moving targets. But we are talking about the Army and the culture and attitude towards these type of things can be vastly different from one unit to another. The range control issue is an animal in itself but at the end of the day if leaders want good training they'll make it happen and find ways around things. On multiple occasions we've had them build us over 30 VTAC barricades and submit range concepts for some really non-standard stuff all for the sake of good training and marksmanship development. We get the green light to do it but that's because unit leadership supports it like Kevin B. said.

7387
7388

[Drang]

...at the end of the day if leaders want good training they'll make it happen and find ways around things. .... We get the green light to do it but that's because unit leadership supports it like Kevin B. said.
The conclusion I came to in my career is that the chain of command will support stuff if they get rated on it. While I would like to think that events of the last 15 years or so have shown the career-minded field grade and flag officers that this stuff is important, I doubt that that has changed.

[Redhat]

I don't think I did a good job at communicating in my intial post. My point behind posting this was really not to get into Army semantics as we could do that else where, but more for the discussion of the actual techniques and gun-handling displayed in the pics.

That being said, I don't know about all that. I've seen things implemented that AWG has put out relatively rapidly, for examplee their alternate method of zeroing IR lasers for rapid engagement on moving targets. But we are talking about the Army and the culture and attitude towards these type of things can be vastly different from one unit to another. The range control issue is an animal in itself but at the end of the day if leaders want good training they'll make it happen and find ways around things. On multiple occasions we've had them build us over 30 VTAC barricades and submit range concepts for some really non-standard stuff all for the sake of good training and marksmanship development. We get the green light to do it but that's because unit leadership supports it like Kevin B. said.

7387
7388

Okay...what do you think? I do wonder why the example photos have guys not geared up?

[BES]

No sense in making guys shoot in all their kit if they don't know the fundemantals of what they're doing. Once fundamentals are learned and muscle memory for what right feels like, kit is put on. (That's our logic, others may not agree )

* It was also South Georgia in the the middle of July....

[Redhat]

No sense in making guys shoot in all their kit if they don't know the fundemantals of what they're doing. Once fundamentals are learned and muscle memory for what right feels like, kit is put on. (That's our logic, others may not agree )

* It was also South Georgia in the the middle of July....

I didn't catch it but are you involved in this update to the program? And yes I would disagree with that approach.

[Mike C]

Thanks Kevin B., interesting to hear thoughts from the other side of the house like you and SeanM. I hope to hear more from others, I am always curious about other's perspective and experiences.

[BES]

I didn't catch it but are you involved in this update to the program? And yes I would disagree with that approach.

I'm in charge of implementing it in GA. Didn't design it. As an additional detail to my normal assignment I'm a team leader and instructor for the GA ARNG marksmanship team. Our job is to train units on small arms weapon systems, run small arms firing clinics, host sniper and combat matches, and compete in marksmanship competitions throughout the country or internationally. We work very closely with the Marksmanship Training Center in AR. Like big Army's AMU... A lot of people don't know we exist lol.

The material I originally posted was developed in conjunction by the Army Marksmanship Unit, Manuever center of Excelence at Ft. Benning, and cadre from the Master Marksmamship Trainer course. It was designed specifically for the students of the MMTC course, as it will be in the soon to come updated manuals that currently have antiquated and out of date techniques.

Hope that answers your question.

[johncorey]

I don't think I did a good job at communicating in my intial post. My point behind posting this was really not to get into Army semantics as we could do that else where, but more for the discussion of the actual techniques and gun-handling displayed in the pics.

The gun-handling in the pics posted is fairly pedestrian for a fairly ideal situation. Unless the Army is going to buy enough RIS IIs to install on every M4, why even waste the time training/taking pictures with it? I'm all for such a move, but last I heard those stars won't be aligning anytime soon. Also, standard issue is a PEQ, so go ahead and mount that, and most units went wild with SFs, so go ahead and mount those as well. Now the slick rail is no longer slick and usually there is no longer any room for the thumb to come over the top. Thumb over top is rather a minimal factor when it comes to reducing recoil, as in like zero. The placement of the support hand as well as angle of it much more so than a single digit. Soldiers can shoulder a carbine one handed and still get solid hits while maintaining a steady base for follow-on rounds. Stance+grip are the moneymakers when shooting upright, and even more so with a pistol. From the incredibly limited insight provided via pics, it would appear that it could be seen as a mandatory effort, instead of a set of best practices, tailored to and adapted by the individual shooter.

[Redhat]

I'm in charge of implementing it in GA. Didn't design it. As an additional detail to my normal assignment I'm a team leader and instructor for the GA ARNG marksmanship team. Our job is to train units on small arms weapon systems, run small arms firing clinics, host sniper and combat matches, and compete in marksmanship competitions throughout the country or internationally. We work very closely with the Marksmanship Training Center in AR. Like big Army's AMU... A lot of people don't know we exist lol.

The material I originally posted was developed in conjunction by the Army Marksmanship Unit, Manuever center of Excelence at Ft. Benning, and cadre from the Master Marksmamship Trainer course. It was designed specifically for the students of the MMTC course, as it will be in the soon to come updated manuals that currently have antiquated and out of date techniques.

Hope that answers your question.

I always like to see things moving forward. IME, when these opportunities arise, you have to push for all you can get. When I was still in, they (Benning) were finishing up the current (now obsolete) version of the FM so it's been a few years.

I'm familiar with the guys in AR though.

[BES]

The gun-handling in the pics posted is fairly pedestrian for a fairly ideal situation. Unless the Army is going to buy enough RIS IIs to install on every M4, why even waste the time training/taking pictures with it? I'm all for such a move, but last I heard those stars won't be aligning anytime soon. Also, standard issue is a PEQ, so go ahead and mount that, and most units went wild with SFs, so go ahead and mount those as well. Now the slick rail is no longer slick and usually there is no longer any room for the thumb to come over the top. Thumb over top is rather a minimal factor when it comes to reducing recoil, as in like zero. The placement of the support hand as well as angle of it much more so than a single digit. Soldiers can shoulder a carbine one handed and still get solid hits while maintaining a steady base for follow-on rounds. Stance+grip are the moneymakers when shooting upright, and even more so with a pistol. From the incredibly limited insight provided via pics, it would appear that it could be seen as a mandatory effort, instead of a set of best practices, tailored to and adapted by the individual shooter.

Great comments about the pics not replicating the end user, I agree completely. This is one of the major qualms I have with this stuff. From what I've seen, those who are not "gun guys" don't know enough about this stuff to extrapolate what they need from the material and leave what they don't. I'm talking just general army down to the support units. They tend to take it quite literally., believing this is what right looks like. I mean that is the purpose of having a manual and technical guides right? So I would agree with you about having the material reflect how the rifle is actually going to be setup. One of the senior NCOs who I have a lot of respect for saw this stuff and was like, " nope " , not sending that out. After some explaining he made the same point you are making and a light bulb went off. Up until that point I hadn't even thought about how literally a simple picture will be taken by the lowest private .

[johncorey]

Yeah, unintended consequences and all. Although the description adds "or runs parallel to the rail" for thumb placement, none of the pics illustrate that. So the first mention is thumb over bore and the pics display that as well...probably going to be viewed as the intended design. The "Costa/Haley/Whoever Effect" will most likely play a part here for the intended audience, since those videos are everywhere. Great shooters, great Americans, but as you pointed out, the average dude in the ranks isn't going to have the experience and perspective to take what works and disregard what doesn't.

[Odin Bravo One]

True, but at least now they have an official source for reference.

Usually the last to disagree with J.L., but what zero is the Army using? AMU's efforts there were an official source and it didn't change shit. In the middle of the wars, let alone now that they are over. The same dogmatic mindset and approach is even worse with the downsizing with field and flag O's wanting nothing more than the next pay grade. Don't get advanced in today's military if someone gets their feelings hurt or stubs a toe during training.

Risk aversion has taken over as the new form of risk assessment.

[JHC]

No sense in making guys shoot in all their kit if they don't know the fundemantals of what they're doing. Once fundamentals are learned and muscle memory for what right feels like, kit is put on. (That's our logic, others may not agree )

* It was also South Georgia in the the middle of July....

IIRC that is also the logic of multiple former Mil; currently very prominent trainers.

[Drang]

I do wonder why the example photos have guys not geared up?
Little known fact: There is, in fact, no Army regulation requiring soldiers to "gear up" before setting foot on a range.

[Mike C]

Usually the last to disagree with J.L., but what zero is the Army using? AMU's efforts there were an official source and it didn't change shit. In the middle of the wars, let alone now that they are over. The same dogmatic mindset and approach is even worse with the downsizing with field and flag O's wanting nothing more than the next pay grade. Don't get advanced in today's military if someone gets their feelings hurt or stubs a toe during training.

Risk aversion has taken over as the new form of risk assessment.

SeanM you're talking the 200 or 250 yard zero correct? Circa 2005/6?

[Odin Bravo One]

255m zero for the M4 specifically was the one I was referring to, but that document is the one I am referring to, yes.

[Mike C]

Thanks, I remember that was the time frame that I first heard of it/was taught about it. I think they were calling it a 250y zero at that point. It was being taught at the Army's phase II of the Infantry basic non-commissioned officer course around '05 in Benning when I went through as a fairly new SSG. No idea if it was being taught anywhere else though. Units were still doing other crap as you stated but it was trying to be pushed.

It wasn't until '09 that I really started seeing it become the standard. I imagine in some circles, maybe the one you or some others here traveled in it was the standard ten years prior. When I think about getting info 5-10 years late it just pisses me off and brings more legitimacy and understanding of what you were originally saying.

[BES]

Usually the last to disagree with J.L., but what zero is the Army using? AMU's efforts there were an official source and it didn't change shit. In the middle of the wars, let alone now that they are over. The same dogmatic mindset and approach is even worse with the downsizing with field and flag O's wanting nothing more than the next pay grade. Don't get advanced in today's military if someone gets their feelings hurt or stubs a toe during training.

Risk aversion has taken over as the new form of risk assessment.

I have two answers as far as the zero goes. The Army standard is the 25m/300 zero. That is what we have to teach. But we do show them other zeros and the differences just so they are aware there is better stuff out there... and could change in house. Cough cough.

[BES]

IIRC that is also the logic of multiple former Mil; currently very prominent trainers.

So I've seen. I can't say that I've ever come up with something myself as far as shooting goes and instructing. I'm relatively young but I'm old enough to know you can't buy experience or read it out of a book, and people far smarter than me have figured these things out before I was even born. With common sense applied (emphasis on that) I watch, learn and listen from the best and replicate to get the results. ....this is also one of the main reasons I'm on PF.

[Redhat]

Little known fact: There is, in fact, no Army regulation requiring soldiers to "gear up" before setting foot on a range.

IME it changes things enough that how they learned to shoot without it will have to be re-learned when it goes on. I suppose if you have the time available to go through it both ways, it would be ok.

[BES]

IME it changes things enough that how they learned to shoot without it will have to be re-learned when it goes on. I suppose if you have the time available to go through it both ways, it would be ok.

What are you talking about specifically, shouldering a rifle with kit on? Reloads ? I agree that it changes things (mainly makes things awkward ) but not to the point of re-learning an entirely new method with no kit and with kit on.

[JHC]

What are you talking about specifically, shouldering a rifle with kit on? Reloads ? I agree that it changes things (mainly makes things awkward ) but not to the point of re-learning an entirely new method with no kit and with kit on.

The one and only time I tried shooting a pistol upon donning a set of someone's plates I was like that alligator in the current tv commercial struggling to get to modern ISO. LOL

But I've seen it from Pat Mac and others too. Train both etc.

[Odin Bravo One]

I have two answers as far as the zero goes. The Army standard is the 25m/300 zero. That is what we have to teach. But we do show them other zeros and the differences just so they are aware there is better stuff out there... and could change in house. Cough cough.

Precisely my point. HAS to be taught that way, even though the Subject Matter Experts of the US ARMY conducted a thorough and comprehensive study which produced data clearly demonstrating that was a less efficient and effective zero for the battlefield.

[Redhat]

What are you talking about specifically, shouldering a rifle with kit on? Reloads ? I agree that it changes things (mainly makes things awkward ) but not to the point of re-learning an entirely new method with no kit and with kit on.

Stock placement, stock weld, eye relief, support hand position, shooting arm, positions you can use effectively to shoot around cover or that vtac type barricade in the pic...etc.

- Will the troops be performing support / weak side shooting?

- What distances does the training cover?

- What are the accuracy / time requirements going to be?

- Working with a sling or not?

[BES]

Precisely my point. HAS to be taught that way, even though the Subject Matter Experts of the US ARMY conducted a thorough and comprehensive study which produced data clearly demonstrating that was a less efficient and effective zero for the battlefield.

What do you you guys use in your current unit ?

[Al T.]

Old guy tagged...

[Odin Bravo One]

It varies shooter to shooter, gun to gun. Since AMU didn't publish any results for our peculiar modifications, we usually go off of the senior enlisted leader's policy, which varies depending on the person.

My AR pattern rifle is in a Recce configuration so it has a 100 yard zero due to the scope and integral BDC requiring that zero in order to be used properly. CQC carbines & sub-guns (if you have one) get a 50 yard zero. For most issues outside of a close quarters environment, we change caliber, or weapon platform, then use a zero that is optimal for that particular rifle or MG. if we had M4A1 carbines, my rifles would use the 255m zero.

[Erick Gelhaus]

Okay...what do you think? I do wonder why the example photos have guys not geared up?

One reason is to teach the technique, position, etc first and then, once there has been mastery, start adding back the equipment.

[JDB]

It varies shooter to shooter, gun to gun. Since AMU didn't publish any results for our peculiar modifications, we usually go off of the senior enlisted leader's policy, which varies depending on the person.

My AR pattern rifle is in a Recce configuration so it has a 100 yard zero due to the scope and integral BDC requiring that zero in order to be used properly. CQC carbines & sub-guns (if you have one) get a 50 yard zero. For most issues outside of a close quarters environment, we change caliber, or weapon platform, then use a zero that is optimal for that particular rifle or MG. if we had M4A1 carbines, my rifles would use the 255m zero.


Excuse my ignorance, but can you explain and outline the reasoning behind the 255m zero? And how you go about it? (I assume the initial POA/POI is about 40-ish meter?). I've deal with 25/300, 50-ish/200ish, and 100m zeros, but the 255m is new to me.

Thanks

[Mike C]

The 255 meter zero reduces vertical dispersion from 25 meters to zeroed distance at 255 meters to less than 3" when using crap like M855. This gives you about a 6" hold at 300. This reduces your hold overs from typical engagement distances. Advantages are pretty self explanatory.

Can't tell you what I was told/taught for other ammunition types but with M193 it will be pretty close. You could use a ballistic calculator to essentially figure the most efficient zero for your rifle and specific ammo based on your engagement ranges/shooting ranges as well. If your a civilian like I am now I would zero based on my needs.

[Mike C]

I have two answers as far as the zero goes. The Army standard is the 25m/300 zero. That is what we have to teach. But we do show them other zeros and the differences just so they are aware there is better stuff out there... and could change in house. Cough cough.

BES,

I'm just curious who is telling you that you have to teach that 25/300 garbage. Also, will the new marksmanship manuals change the standard for zero, and will you then be able to teach it?

[JDB]

The 255 meter zero reduces vertical dispersion from 25 meters to zeroed distance at 255 meters to less than 3" when using crap like M855. This gives you about a 6" hold at 300. This reduces your hold overs from typical engagement distances. Advantages are pretty self explanatory.

Can't tell you what I was told/taught for other ammunition types but with M193 it will be pretty close. You could use a ballistic calculator to essentially figure the most efficient zero for your rifle and specific ammo based on your engagement ranges/shooting ranges as well. If your a civilian like I am now I would zero based on my needs.


How do you go about it, assuming you can't make it back to 255m to confirm? Curious what the POA/POI is at 25m and 100m with an M4/cowitnessed aimpoint.

For what its worth, I've had no problem in my little corner of the world with selling a 100m or 50/200 zero for red dots on M4s (National Guard). But that's probably just a function of local unit leadership and bending the right ears.

Thanks

[Odin Bravo One]

PM with your .mil email and I'll send you the original publication (assuming I can find it on my .mil blackberry).

Remember, there is only one zero. There may be two intersect points, but the distance you shoot at is your zero distance. If you want 200 yards, you don't confirm at 200. You zero at 200. In this case, shooting at 50 yards is simply ballistic masturbation.

[Mike C]

How do you go about it, assuming you can't make it back to 255m to confirm? Curious what the POA/POI is at 25m and 100m with an M4/cowitnessed aimpoint.

For what its worth, I've had no problem in my little corner of the world with selling a 100m or 50/200 zero for red dots on M4s (National Guard). But that's probably just a function of local unit leadership and bending the right ears.

Thanks

Sean M said it best and you'd be getting it from a better source. Highly advise you PM Sean M. If you can get the publication you're better off.

[Kevin B.]

BES,

I'm just curious who is telling you that you have to teach that 25/300 garbage. Also, will the new marksmanship manuals change the standard for zero, and will you then be able to teach it?

Not BES.

I checked my copy of the signature version of the new manual. The 300m zero remains the Army standard. I saw no reference to zeroing at any other distance, but I skimmed thru it quickly.

[Mike C]

@ Kevin B. or anyone else who might have insight. Is it reasonable to assume the 300m zero remains the standard due to current production and issued iron sights having elevation turrets designed to work in conjunction with currently issued ammo? Or do you believe there to be another cause?

Frankly I see no issue with running a 255m zero and learning hold overs or turret adjustments based on the difference in zero. Maybe it's the whole premise of keeping things simple for the lowest common denominator?

[Kevin B.]

@ Kevin B. or anyone else who might have insight. Is it reasonable to assume the 300m zero remains the standard due to current production and issued iron sights having elevation turrets designed to work in conjunction with currently issued ammo? Or do you believe there to be another cause?

I think that is primarily it. During an effort a few years back, getting certain people to consider anything other than the 300m zero was nearly impossible due to concerns about compatibility with the M16A2 rear sight assembly. It is really a BS argument (which was pointed out) and some people got their feelings hurt which, in retrospect, probably did not help advance the cause.

ETA: I was just told that the 200m zero is being taught as part of the Master Marksmanship Trainer Course (MMTC). I do not know for sure, but based on the source I believe that to be accurate.

[uscavalryman]

As the author I will let you guys know that those pictures are not in the new manual. Many of the points are but those are AMU specific images.

As for the zero, the zero target has changed and based off many units input including the 75th Ranger Regiment we retained the 25/300 meter zero. We are going to provide the materials to properly attain different zeros and leave that to Units to decide on which one they run. We retained this zero because the data we have for M855A1 with a confirmed 300mZ supports it. Also, with the multiple optics available to the force as well as future projects it makes sense.

I am trying to respond to many of the high points of this thread as possible, but if you have further questions let me know.


SFC Ash Hess
DOTD, MCoE

[uscavalryman]

Next, we are working on building the Integrated Weapons Training Strategy that will require things like dry fire, a proper PMI, and better use of ammunition and simulations.
Once we get that nearly finished we are going to produce a Trainer manual that will be focused on the Team and Squad Leaders and lays out how to train the things laid out in the TC 3-22.9 and the things in the IWTS.
This book will be produced in conjunction with MMTC, 75th Ranger Regiment, AMU, the 10th Mountain Divisions Light Fighters School, and reps from every Division.

[Drang]

Is the intent to push this down to all personnel? Or is it combat arms specific? It may seem like a silly question but your mention of the 10th ID (l) makes me think about how, during the Celtic Cross exercises to validate the Light Infantry Division concept back in the 80s, they kept running into the fact that many REMFs just don't care about this stuff,* and when OPFOR raided a Support Battalion's perimeter too many troops were rolling over and going back to sleep.
(Not universal: As an MI Geek I spent an awful lot of time pretty far forward. But as leader of a Manpack Radio Direction Finding Team, I was constantly refuting suggestions that we should have pistols instead of rifles, for the reduced weight and bulk. OTOH, the brass wanted to give us an M60 or M249. My share of the load was 120 pounds. No thank you.)



*I'm sure some here remember Hackworth's stuff about "Specialist Flake".)

[Al T.]

Thank you for the reply. :)

[ranger]

[QUOTE=Drang;439300]Is the intent to push this down to all personnel? Or is it combat arms specific? It may seem like a silly question but your mention of the 10th ID (l) makes me think about how, during the Celtic Cross exercises to validate the Light Infantry Division concept back in the 80s, they kept running into the fact that many REMFs just don't care about this stuff,* and when OPFOR raided a Support Battalion's perimeter too many troops were rolling over and going back to sleep.
(Not universal: As an MI Geek I spent an awful lot of time pretty far forward. But as leader of a Manpack Radio Direction Finding Team, I was constantly refuting suggestions that we should have pistols instead of rifles, for the reduced weight and bulk. OTOH, the brass wanted to give us an M60 or M249. My share of the load was 120 pounds. No thank you.)

The real question is did you have your bayonet and burlap strips on your helmet (from a 7th ID (L) Manchu alumni - "Spirit of the Bayonet").

[Drang]

The real question is did you have your bayonet and burlap strips on your helmet (from a 7th ID (L) Manchu alumni - "Spirit of the Bayonet").
Well, duh. (NOTE: We were never issued M9 bayonets.)

[uscavalryman]

This will go to all levels and the Guard and Reserve.
Unlike the Rifle books of yesteryear, this book has nothing about qualification, how to build or run the range, or 20 pages on how to run a KD range. it is focus on shooting. There is a coaching section to go along with zeroing but that is the only thing that is related to training. It will be printed cargo pocket sized and not full book size so Soldier can carry it.
The "trainer" book will be full sized and is focused on Squad Leaders. The intent is to have a reference that will have the how to do PMI, run a simulator, teach the shot process, sights, etc. Basically putting a course in a book that is useable. The finer points will be here.
The next book will have all the training requirements and range stuff that will be a desk version for the leaders planning the range. I don't intend on that one every hitting paper.

What this does is focus the book on the use instead of a Soldier sifting through 200 pages of stuff to find out how to hold his rifle for SRM and allow the leader to find how to do the range without sorting through 3 variations of the prone position.

I attached(I think) a couple of photos that show what is in both the Rifle and the Pistol TC

7599
7600

[ranger]

Little known fact: There is, in fact, no Army regulation requiring soldiers to "gear up" before setting foot on a range.

There may not be a "gear up" requirement in the Marksmanship and "Shooting" manuals but there are post training regulations that require "gearing up". Ft Stewart, GA required "Victory Standard" when crossing the training area/range post boundary during the 24th ID era and then when the division became 3ID it was "Marne Standard". For the OP - it is "Volunteer Standard". Saw similar at FT Bragg, FT Hood, FT Bliss and even FT Ord (RIP).

[johncorey]

Fresh off the press. I will have to make some time to dig through this. Looking forward to it.


http://soldiersystems.net/2016/05/13/us-army-publishes-updated-tc-3-22-9-rifle-and-carbine/