Advanced Marksmanship Marksmanship Matters

[kraigWY]

http://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/marksmanship-matters/

Good article, but like in everything else, History Repeats Itself. The problems we have in Afghan is the same problems we had in the Civil War that got the NRA started. The same problems addressed by Teddy Roosevelt when he started the Division Marksmanship Program (now known as the Civilian Marksmanship Program). Gen Ike saw the same problem which led him to start the Army Marksmanship Unit when he became president.

The sad part, in future wars there will be others addressing the same problem.

What's the answer? Maj. Gen. Merritt Edson has the best answer in my opinion, and the only answer we as individuals have any control in, after all do the generals really listen to us parents and grandparents when it comes to training our sons and daughters.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If parents wanted their son to have the best chance to survive combat, see that he learns to shoot a rifle as a boy.</div></div>

There are programs out there, we as parents and grandparents of future soldiers just need to take advantage of them. The Civilian Marksmanship Program is the best in my opinion, as they fund junior programs, providing rifles, ammunition, equipment and training AT NO COST TO THE TAXPAYER and little if any cost to the people being trained.

It was the CMP the army went to to assist the AMU in training Squad Designated Marksmen. CMP trains Master Instructors who are scattered about the country putting on Clinics and Matches available at very little cost to the individual. The CMP is mandated by congress to provide these instructors and training.

I believe the fault lies with us when our kids can't qualify or fire anything less then expert in military qualifications.

We've all seen it, threads going on forever about what gun/ammo works and what don't. In reality we have no control what our kids use, or what training they get when they enter the military. We can control what training they get before they enlist.

 

[Graham]

Re: Marksmanship Matters

It's not a new problem because since 1748 staff officers in western armies have been forced to tie their careers to the way the system functions and not to the way they, as individuals, think it should function.

Rank has a way of insulating itself from reality by prohibiting fraternization, talking mainly to itself and in a dialect that forces what happens through a narrow filter of investigation and analysis. Every deficiency becomes a matter for only minor definitional or technical adjustment.

In this way technological improvements, without real leadership, move large organizations backward. The leaders can't admit that this is happening because they don't share the necessary vocabulary with which to describe the basic problem that they themselves have created.

 

[tullius]

Re: Marksmanship Matters

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Graham</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It's not a new problem because since 1748 staff officers in western armies have been forced to tie their careers to the way the system functions and not to the way they, as individuals, think it should function.

Rank has a way of insulating itself from reality by prohibiting fraternization, talking mainly to itself and in a dialect that forces what happens through a narrow filter of investigation and analysis. Every deficiency becomes a matter for only minor definitional or technical adjustment.

In this way technological improvements, without real leadership, move large organizations backward. The leaders can't admit that this is happening because they don't share the necessary vocabulary with which to describe the basic problem that they themselves have created. </div></div>

I disagree. It's not a problem created by rank. The best marksmanship programs we have today were created by leaders. It's a problem created by the general public's unfamiliarity with marksmanship. This unfamiliarity has for a long time now filtered into the military, and will continue to do so.

 

[Sterling Shooter]

Re: Marksmanship Matters

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: kraigWY</div><div class="ubbcode-body">http://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/marksmanship-matters/

Good article, but like in everything else, History Repeats Itself. The problems we have in Afghan is the same problems we had in the Civil War that got the NRA started. The same problems addressed by Teddy Roosevelt when he started the Division Marksmanship Program (now known as the Civilian Marksmanship Program). Gen Ike saw the same problem which led him to start the Army Marksmanship Unit when he became president.

The sad part, in future wars there will be others addressing the same problem.

What's the answer? Maj. Gen. Merritt Edson has the best answer in my opinion, and the only answer we as individuals have any control in, after all do the generals really listen to us parents and grandparents when it comes to training our sons and daughters.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If parents wanted their son to have the best chance to survive combat, see that he learns to shoot a rifle as a boy.</div></div>

There are programs out there, we as parents and grandparents of future soldiers just need to take advantage of them. The Civilian Marksmanship Program is the best in my opinion, as they fund junior programs, providing rifles, ammunition, equipment and training AT NO COST TO THE TAXPAYER and little if any cost to the people being trained.

It was the CMP the army went to to assist the AMU in training Squad Designated Marksmen. CMP trains Master Instructors who are scattered about the country putting on Clinics and Matches available at very little cost to the individual. The CMP is mandated by congress to provide these instructors and training.

I believe the fault lies with us when our kids can't qualify or fire anything less then expert in military qualifications.

We've all seen it, threads going on forever about what gun/ammo works and what don't. In reality we have no control what our kids use, or what training they get when they enter the military. We can control what training they get before they enlist.

</div></div>

Everyone,

Please think, really think about what Kraig said. It's not just that he said all that can be said about it, or that his statement surmised it so well, he's talking about folks who, over our country's history, instead of complaining about it, have volunteered to get out there and support marksmanship in some way in their community or other. No organized training for juniors in your area?, well then, get out there and start something.

 

[Tripwire]

Re: Marksmanship Matters

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: kraigWY</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
The sad part, in future wars there will be others addressing the same problem.

What's the answer? Maj. Gen. Merritt Edson has the best answer in my opinion, and the only answer we as individuals have any control in, after all do the generals really listen to us parents and grandparents when it comes to training our sons and daughters.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If parents wanted their son to have the best chance to survive combat, see that he learns to shoot a rifle as a boy.</div></div>


</div></div>

Funny you bring that up....snapped this just yesterday.

Spur of the moment trigger time....he's only 10.

 

[Graham]

Re: Marksmanship Matters

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: tullius</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It's not a problem created by rank. The best marksmanship programs we have today were created by leaders. </div></div> You just contradicted yourself.

I never said that rank created the problem. But I should have added that soldiers should evaluate soldiers.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: tullius</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It's a problem created by the general public's unfamiliarity with marksmanship. This unfamiliarity has for a long time now filtered into the military, and will continue to do so. </div></div>The public can't create the problem when the training assumes that the recruit has no prior marksmanship experience.

 

[Redmanss]

Re: Marksmanship Matters

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Graham</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: tullius</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It's a problem created by the general public's unfamiliarity with marksmanship. This unfamiliarity has for a long time now filtered into the military, and will continue to do so. </div></div>The public can't create the problem when the training assumes that the recruit has no prior marksmanship experience. </div></div> Agree with you there Graham. Basic marksmanship training in the Marine Corps is geared for everyone from the 17y/o from downtown NYC and has never seen a real rifle to the experienced shooter who won Jr. NRA competitions.

It would be nice if America was one great big Spartan style warrior culture where passing rifle and pistol marksmanship was a graduation requirement for high school, but that will never be the case. I do agree that the shooting sports should always be encouraged, especially to the younger ages, but I don't believe that is the major problem. The author identifies that one here:
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The DM fills the ballistic/tactical gap from 300 to 600 meters, where snipers take over. However, the potential trouble is in numbers: three DMs in a platoon might not offset 10 or 20 mujaheddin with belt-fed weapons and mortars on the high ground. It would be much better if more ordinary riflemen knew how to hit at 500 meters. </div></div>Snipers and Designated Marksmen don't win wars, riflemen do and they need the training to accomplish that starting with a solid foundation in basic marksmanship and advancing to the more technical skills. Some people just have a hard time coming to grips with the fact that the current training program is insufficient, and no amount of "tacticool" gear will solve the problem of crappy trigger control and the inability to properly adjust sights or holds for a non-typical shot.

Training capacities is another issue that needs to be addressed. The military is constantly having problems with expanding or even keeping their live fire ranges. EPA and similar regulations, even where they can gain exemptions, are always creating greater restrictions. Is there any sizable base out there that doesn't have some endangered species of something worthless that you have to shut down training for? Sure would be a shame if some base didn't get presented yet another environmental award for saving the rare purple flowers and woodpeckers with a different stripe on their head than the rest. I'm sorry but I think they're going extinct for a reason, and who are we to interfere with that.

Civilian encroachment on the bases' edges isn't helping either; just look at Parris Island and how you can't shoot 7.62 there anymore (at least when I left there in '98 you still couldn't). Military units aren't going to private training agencies just for the expert instructors, they're going for the ability to shoot in situations they can't get on a base because of restrictions.

The military's restrictions on personal firearms ownership doesn't help either. Hell, you can't even have a knife longer than 3" in the barracks, never-mind a firearm. I don't know about some guys but I wasn't about to register with PMO and check my personal firearms into the armory. That's why storage units are so popular outside bases.

My summation on marksmanship issues in the military is this: Train the basic skills to everyone (bullseye KD), train the advanced skills to anyone who leaves the wire (shoot-move, angles, improvised positions, movers, multiple hits and targets, etc), and constantly adapt the training to the theater(s) you're either in or anticipate going to next. Establish the facilities to do this training instead of spending tens of millions building college style dorms to give each and every soldier their own room. Bottom line though is train, give the units what they need to accomplish that training, and hold commanders at each and every level accountable to the successful accomplishment of that training.

 

[kraigWY]

Re: Marksmanship Matters

We are getting off track. We all have opinions of what the military should do or do different. The problem is we don't get a vote. We have no control. With todays budget problems there will be no major change.

Instead of hashing over what we can't control, I believe we should concentrate on what we can control, and that is training our kids and grandkids before we send them to the military. The assets are out there, we just need to concentrate on making use of those assets.

We can support those assets with our time or funding. Mostly time, How many here are 4H Leaders in Shooting Sports, Boyscout instructors, CSM Master Instructors. If you don't have the time, there are other ways of stupport. Get your clubs CMP Certified, allowing them to get funding and instuction from the CMP. Help your club put on HP Clinics, Vintage Rifle, and Sporting Rifle-Rimfire Sporter Clinics.

We can't reach all kids, but the ones we can can help their fellow soldiers. I can't imagine what a member of a state's Whistler Boy team can to to a rifle squad.

Hashing over what the army should or shouldn't do accomplishes nothing.

The future of our Military, and our shooting sports lies with our juniors.

 

[Jaeger308]

Re: Marksmanship Matters

Great article to get folks thinking. Today, individuals are exposed by far, too mostly negative views on firearms and marksmanship suffers. The average age of a hunter or competitive shooter is over 35 years old and more likely over 40.

Even with annual programs run by the NRA, CMP, Appleseed, NSSF, NSCA and more, seldom is a positive story given in today’s media. I personally have gotten involved with several of these programs as an instructor, coach or just support staff. Not only for support of my son, but for all interested. The media has not helped; also at times I have seen a lack of support from the shooting industry itself especially at junior events. Complacency has taken hold of many also, instead of actually going and sending rounds down range they would rather stay on the sofa and play it in a video game.

Having attended the Eastern Junior High Power Clinic and Championship, it has been and will continue to be a perfect example of how a junior program should be run. The staff along with the CMP and USMC rifle team have the juniors moving with purpose, learning marksmanship, burning powder, helping each other, making friends for a whole week. Take note of this event if you have any juniors. Sponsors at this event also help with prizes and food. Do you ever see anything in the media? No! If there was ever to be a ND with injuries, the CNN truck with satellite dishes would be there in hours.

Same hold true at the Nationals at Camp Perry, last year’s junior EIC match had over 150 juniors moving with high power rifles, hundreds of rounds of ammunition, burning powder, working the pits, scoring each other, a very proud moment for me to witness and think this next generation still may have enough great individuals to carry on. Do not give up quite yet!

 

[fdkay]

Re: Marksmanship Matters

When you look at a program like the Army's designated marksman program, just what is that they are doing?

They are training a few select Soldiers to nearly the same level of profiency as your standard marine.

Yes, it is a shame that more kids are not exposed to the LEGAL use of firearms and their safe and responsible use.

The Army's trainfire program does have it's merits, but teach them marksmanship first.
Add another week to bootcamp for nothing but marksmanship training (in addition to the time they already get, not instead of). Yes, it will cost more money up front, but in the long run it is both the ethical thing to do and you will have a better warrior for it.

 

[George63]

Re: Marksmanship Matters

Appleseed will give instruction in rifle marksmanship to over 20,000 this year about 1/3 of them 21 or under. I volunteered at 17 events last year a total of about 700 hrs. There will be over 1000 events this year all over the country, close enough for anyone. If you want to piss and moan about the situation the interweb is a great place to do it, but ask yourself DO I FEEL ANY BETTER NOW ? If you want to actually do something to help the situation and give back to the shooting community there is no better venue that currently exists than what Appleseed does. Volunteering to pass on your skills and knowledge will make you feel better, my most satisfying students have been girls under 10

 

[kraigWY]

Re: Marksmanship Matters

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">When you look at a program like the Army's designated marksman program, just what is that they are doing?

They are training a few select Soldiers to nearly the same level of profiency as your standard marine.</div></div>

That has to be a joke, or is it ego.

 

[breezernate]

Re: Marksmanship Matters

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: kraigWY</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">When you look at a program like the Army's designated marksman program, just what is that they are doing?

They are training a few select Soldiers to nearly the same level of profiency as your standard marine.</div></div>

That has to be a joke, or is it ego.

</div></div>

From what I have seen, there is some merit to that statement.

Nate

 

[kraigWY]

Re: Marksmanship Matters

Contrary to what you read on these sights, as a whole, there isn't a much difference between Soldiers and Marines with it comes to marksmanship.

I traveled all over the country when I was shooting for the guard. Use to make yearly trips to 29 Palms and twice yearly trips to Hawaii shooting on Marine Ranges.

I'll leave out the died in the wool competitiive shooters and talk about the part time shooters from the local amry or marine bases. You get a lot of these, I use to take extra rifles and ammo to support them because normaly these guys don't get unit support.

Except for the uniform you can't tell the difference. Regardless of the differece in training when it comes to shooting one branch is no better then the other.

Some branches just talk about it more.

 

[fdkay]

Re: Marksmanship Matters

Review the training syllabus and qualification requirements for graduation from basic training of both services and then tell me that the marksmanship requirements are equal.

This is not meant as a slam on our fine Soldiers, and no I'm not a Marine, but retired Navy.

This is a slam on the training provided to those fine men and women.

Here is the statement from ND SDM training offered.
Note that it speaks of engaging targets to 550 meters. Marines are trained in basic to engage targets to 500.

http://www.arguard.org/mtu/SDMC.htm

 

[Lowlight]

Re: Marksmanship Matters

Kraig,

You have no clue if you don't think there is a difference in marksmanship between the services... now retained is something else, but the course of instruction is vastly different.

The USMC by far eclipses the Army in basic marksmanship...

Two weeks is dedicated to marksmanship, that is 2 weeks straight, including a week solid of dry firing.

Grass Week:
• The basics of safety and marksmanship
• Comfort and precision with the rifle
• Firing without ammunition while sitting, kneeling, standing
and lying in the prone position

Firing Week:
• Live fire from all positions
• Firing at ranges of 200, 300 and 500 yards
• Building accuracy, beginning with 50 rounds of slow fire,
one shot at a time; and rapid fire, 10 shots in a row

It's not 1978 any more and saying the only difference in quality is the uniform smacks of envy. Sure you can take a guy from Motor T who qual'd marksman and 6 years later say he is as good as any soldier, but pull one from each directly out of boot camp and there is a marked difference. It's easy to see simply by reading the qualification standards.

 

[Sterling Shooter]

Re: Marksmanship Matters

All,

Since the SDM program has been mentioned in this thread, I'd like to note my personal observation, having assisted the AMU in their delivery of it on numerous occasions, that this curriculum is nothing short of miraculous, helping folks, who know almost nothing about good shooting, understand most everything important to good shooting, in about four hours of classroom instruction and a week on the range. I'm honored to have had the opportunity to assist in such an awesome endeavor.

 

[fdkay]

Re: Marksmanship Matters

And I commend you for taking the time to help instruct our soldiers, thank you.

But in your response, you highlight my assertion that Army BASIC marksmanship training leaves much to be desired.

 

[kraigWY]

Re: Marksmanship Matters

I didn't go to marine basic. I went to Armu Basic in 1966 using an M-14. So I can't speak for the way it is now.

What I'm referring to is the soliders & marines after they're assigned to a unit showing up at local rifle matches, (and not seasoned HP shooters) the ones who want to give it a try or maybe get started. There is where you'll see there is no differance.

The only recient basic trainee I've talked to was my son who went through a couple years ago but he don't count. He was shooting high power matches before he joined.

Basic asside, its gonna be hard to convince me the average marine is any better then the average soldier. You have those that excel in both branches.

But, back to the topic, if we cane about our kids and grandkids, we'd inusre they know how to shoot before they enlist, be it Army, Marines or any other branck.

 

[fdkay]

Re: Marksmanship Matters

But this IS what we are talking about, the warfighters and thier training.
That was what the article was referencing.

We were not talking about those who take up recreational match shooting off duty.

 

[Jaeger308]

Re: Marksmanship Matters

Oh boy here we go

If you want to compare Army and Marine marksmanship the first place would be exactly what Frank posted: “It's easy to see simply by reading the qualification standards.”

If you want to dive in more, compare the AMU and Marine Corps teams. If you get to the AMU and post scores at matches you can stay there for years. A Marine is time limited for 3 years; even the best shooters then must go back to the fleet to enhance the mission of the Marine Corps. Now do not get me wrong the black hats are shooters, damn good ones, but how does staying on a team for 12-15 years help the Army mission? You will hear research and development that is an excuse to spend money.

Rifles: The Marines never switched to the M-4 the way the Army did, they kept the A2’s and up, not for accuracy but for the higher velocities and higher energy down range. In hind sight that was a great thing to keep.

Sniper school: When the Army school was getting off the ground at Ft. Benning the Marine Corps opened slots for them at Quantico to get their legs under them to get started. Hey we did not invent it all either; the British helped us at first, but we did have these guys named Hathcock and Land with a few ideas of their own, ever hear of him

we are all on the same team in the end!

Maybe instead of inner-service team matches, we should randomly take 30 active duty individuals with random MOS’s from each branch and burn some powder? My money is on the Marine Corps.

Bottom line of the original topic is, marksmanship is not only a military thing, every citizen should be a basic rifleman, Everyone of us should go out support this idea, and at the local shooting clubs you may be a member or visit…..GET THEM OFF THE DAMN SHOOTING BENCH, BURN THEM and teach HOW TO DRIVE A RIFLE THE RIGHT WAY!

Just my opinion your mileage may vary

 

[George63]

Re: Marksmanship Matters

army and marines far exceed my experience in the navy, something was screwed up at the range so we did not even get the familiarization during boot camp, when I got to my unit and went to qualify I was handed an m16 which I had never touched and told the course of fire, I qualified each time so was never given any instruction, that was only for those who failed

 

[blakheaven]

Re: Marksmanship Matters

Ok before this turns into a branch penis measuring contest lets remember some things: one we are all same team and two: we are all human and every branch has its heroes and its F*&% ups.

I understand the USMC is the standard of marksmanship and beginning before WWI was fundamental to the training of marksmanship a tradition that still lives on today. The USMC is special in that promotion rides off two major scores: PT and shooting. Now that being said

There are great shooters in all branches but from what I have seen in OK military shooting comps is that we are all human. No one branch runs away with the "top place" prize. Actually the team I am on wins most of the time(AF) (we have some ringers).

Lol say if LL was Navy instead of USMC, I bet Frank would still beat me any day of the week no matter what branch he was in.

 

[Sterling Shooter]

Re: Marksmanship Matters

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: fdkay</div><div class="ubbcode-body">But this IS what we are talking about, the warfighters and thier training.
That was what the article was referencing.

We were not talking about those who take up recreational match shooting off duty.</div></div>

We may want to include recreational shooting in this discussion. Here's why: competitions reward shooters who practice. And, after all, who wants to practice if there's no reward for the effort. It's this need for reward that has brought about competitions like The National Trophy Championship, authorized by federal law back in 1884, which is all about encouraging Service Member proficiency with the Service Rifle. So, I think we really are talking about those who take up recreational match shooting off duty.

 

[pyrotechnic]

Re: Marksmanship Matters

Gents,
In basic or boot camp our military trains for the lowest common denominator, as they should. I cannot speak for any other branches, but I did benefit greatly from the basic marksmanship taught in Marine Corps boot camp, despite being an avid shooter beforehand. That being said, the amount of training/ammunition allotted for the continuing advancement of a Marine's skill with the service rifle, or any other weapon system for that matter, is appalling. Unfortunately, this is not something that we can directly remedy as civilians.

As a society we seem to place little value, or even disdain, for the shooting sports. This can be remedied by us (I hope). By promoting the shooting sports, especially for juniors, we won't be able to raise that lowest common denominator which will always be there. But Soldiers/Sailors/Marines that have an avid interest in shooting will continue that interest once they have enlisted and will hopefully pursue the advancement of said skills throughout their careers.

If the individual service member has little interest in shooting they will not maximize what they get out of their training. That, combined with a "check in the box" approach to training gets us nowhere. Marksmanship needs to be emphasized both at an individual level and from the top down.

Just my two cents worth as I'm sure I'm preaching to the choir here,

Maarten

 

[Chris F]

Re: Marksmanship Matters

There's been some interesting reading out there on this subject of late;
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA512331&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf
http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/journal/docs-temp/532-wall.pdf
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA512331&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf

I'm a highpower competitor, and I've seen the discussions about the relevancy of highpower now come full circle. It wasn't too long ago when folks were saying that the KD course out to 500 yards was no longer relevant to the current theater at the time. CQB and an urban battlefield was the norm they said. Afghanistan has brought back the relevance.

As an interested observer in a town with significant presences of both Marines and Soldiers, I get to see a bit of the capabilities of the average soldier and marine. I also have an idea of what opportunities are available for a soldier or marine that has a desire or need for additional marksmanship training.

I can tell you that aside from annual quals, the marines also run the CIAP (Competition in Arms Program) annually which is preceded by intramurals where Marines shoot across a course pretty similar to an NMC. Those that are able to then shoot in the Division Matches where they receive marksmanship instruction and training from MTU marksmanship detail from Quantico. The winners of the division matches then shoot in the Marine Corps Matches. Ultimately the top of this pyramid join the MTU at WTBN. As someone had mentioned, MTU shooters are supposed to serve a tour of three years before they rotate back to the fleet to share the knowledge they gained.

Additionally, the USMC supports Post and Station Shooting Teams with Match M16's, Match Ammo, Jackets etc for Marines with marksmanship interest to pursue at the local level.

The Army's AMU has shooters at the highest level. They just broke the 4 man team record formerly held by Tubb/Houle/DeMille/Zerr (four former National Champions!) The low man on that team, Ayala shot a 496-25x!!!

The AMU has given life to many worthy projects including the SDM, but it appears that they are organizationally an island. They are exceedingly good at what they do, but their reach across the Army appears limited. Here's a case in point; A few years back, the AMU was getting the DM program off the ground, and the 25th ID expressed a want for the training. I was asked by Sinister to assist in the training. After a few weeks of standby, I was advised that the training was off because 25th didn't want to commit the funds. The AMU instructors would have been already on site (actually on their way back from Oz), and the other instructors were volunteering their time. I can't think of how it could have been made any easier or cost effective for them.

Each branch has units that shoot as good as they are willing to commit and fund them to. (Mid Tompkins shot for the Air Force at one time!). Despite efforts to kill the program, the Guard still has a team with some very good shooters. It's just that some branches have spread that commitment broader around than others.

 

[jwoolf]

Re: Marksmanship Matters

This is a good topic as, I now have two boys of 7 and 10yrs of age.

When I was a kid, I was 10yrs old in 1976 in West Baton Rouge Parish. I was very lucky. Our Parish Sheriff had a program called, The West Baton Rouge Jr. Deputies that he sponsored.

They came into the middle school and offered hunter's safety course and after all the classroom instruction, you were allowed to come to the Sherrif's range every Saturday morning to qualify for all the NRA 50ft smallbore awards. The cost to the kids was nothing. The Parish supplied the rifles, ammo, targets and, the NRA supplied the awards.

By the time I got into the program ( I got in two years early and, I was only 10yrs old when I got in because my father knew the man that ran the program for the Sheriff ), the rifle club was traveling around the state and into Texas also to attend rifle matches. We shot against the LSU rifle team, the Texas A&M rifle team ( and beat the snot out of them by the way ).

By the time I was 13yrs old, I was still in the program but, I was getting pretty good. Dad bought me an Anshutz rifle, I'd won the distinguished expert NRA award so, there were no more awards in the program for me but, we traveled to matches all the time.

The club discovered the LSSA ( Louisiana Shooter's Assn ) and, they decided to sponsor a state jr. team to go to Camp Perry for the nationals but in service rifle. ( I was lucky enough to win the spot 5 or 6 times... I don't remember ) Well, the Sheriff stepped up again and, not only did the state team members get to go the second year but he sponsored 5 or 6 other kids to go to and compete. He even sent one of the Sheriff's vans with lights and sirens. LOL

We were able to aquire NM M14 rifles from DCM ( Director of Civilian Marksmanship ) which is now the civilian version ( CMP ). We found a 600yd range in Amite, La that had full service pits and started putting on leg matches eventually. This allowed guys to shoot in them and qualify for their 165.00 M1 Garand from DCM and others to get legs for their distinguished badges.

DCM back then also used to send pallets full of 400rd cans of M118 white box match and, M72 white box match for the M14's and the M1 Garands for the jr. team to practice with at no expense to us. Eventually, we were able to get some M852 but, we ended up getting that special ball crap. To this day, I've got a garage full of M72.

We became very close friends to a few guys in the AMU and we were even able to get them to come and give a week long rifle clinic for the club and a pistol clinic for the deputies. We'd met several of the AMU guys at the small arms firing school at Perry and they told us about that program.

My father ended up a VERY active member of the Louisiana Shooters Assn. They even have a trophy in memory of old dad that circulates after the State Championship every year there.

It makes me wonder what I could/should do more to give back after all the help that I got as a kid.

It's sad but, I feel those days are long gone... the Sheriff is gone, the program is gone, Dad died, my rifle coach died... the LSSA is still going strong, however but, I live in Texas now.

Maybe I should donate some time.