Every Marine a Rifleman
But it might just be that this does not mean what it once did.
Link to story.
Summary:
The USMC's marksmanship program is flawed, according to a study (paid for by the USMC).
Some of my thoughts:
Cheating
Among other issues, it seemed to me that the study found there might have been cheating on annual qualifications. This cheating might have been facilitated by the Marines doing "pit duty" (pulling and scoring targets). There was a recommendation to use electronic scoring instead. This would be an improvement, I think.
Course of fire
Also recommended for upgrade is the USMC's ranges. The study suggests a more contemporary and realistic environment would be more productive for Marines who are likely to be engaged in rifle combat. I agree.
The old course of fire (which is much like NRA High Power, Camp Perry, and similar) is all but irrelevant for current combat conditions. The only applicable part is the marksmanship portion - hitting what you aim at. It should, therefore, be retained, but only as a part of a more well-rounded combat shooting program.
The US Army uses a more combat-oriented course. But the marksmanship portion is lacking. Perhaps meshing the two might yield a well-rounded program?
Link to story.
Summary:
The USMC's marksmanship program is flawed, according to a study (paid for by the USMC).
Some of my thoughts:
Cheating
Among other issues, it seemed to me that the study found there might have been cheating on annual qualifications. This cheating might have been facilitated by the Marines doing "pit duty" (pulling and scoring targets). There was a recommendation to use electronic scoring instead. This would be an improvement, I think.
Course of fire
Also recommended for upgrade is the USMC's ranges. The study suggests a more contemporary and realistic environment would be more productive for Marines who are likely to be engaged in rifle combat. I agree.
The old course of fire (which is much like NRA High Power, Camp Perry, and similar) is all but irrelevant for current combat conditions. The only applicable part is the marksmanship portion - hitting what you aim at. It should, therefore, be retained, but only as a part of a more well-rounded combat shooting program.
The US Army uses a more combat-oriented course. But the marksmanship portion is lacking. Perhaps meshing the two might yield a well-rounded program?
Comments
Post a Comment
Your comment will be displayed after approval.
Approval depends on what you say and how you say it.