Army Rifle Qualification Changes

In the main picture the guy is qualifying with an ACOG. I picture scores going up

Also, wtf is the time limit? The only time limit we had was seconds the targets were up, and it was a timed event by how many seconds each target stayed up. I don’t understand 96 minutes and I ran dozens and dozens of Army rifle quals

I still think the army needs to phase out one shot per target. Not realistic even though they reference lessons learned in combat
 
Ha! USAF rifle qual was easy. A 1X target. 50 yards I think. Been 35 years since I last did it.
Just had to hit the target. A minimum number of times. No timing limits as I recall.
I earned a marksmen ribbon. But that may have been due to the gut next to me shooting at my target too. [emoji38]

Sent from my SM-T810 using Tapatalk
 
My problem with the whole qualifications course is that it’s only once a year! We’ve been at war now consistently for almost 17 years and we still train like we at peacetime levels! Once a year is not enough training!
 
Hammer21b said:
My problem with the whole qualifications course is that it’s only once a year! We’ve been at war now consistently for almost 17 years and we still train like we at peacetime levels! Once a year is not enough training!
Click to expand...


Right but even with nearly two decades of war, how many actually fire their weapon in combat? Most of the military is a support mechanism for the guys actually pulling triggers and will never see close combat.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SPM
Hammer21b said:
My problem with the whole qualifications course is that it’s only once a year! We’ve been at war now consistently for almost 17 years and we still train like we at peacetime levels! Once a year is not enough training!
Click to expand...
THIS is why individuals or units often take classes outside their scope of employment(US military). Also why officers when they can find ammo and time to get some trigger time for their guys. It is a real eye opener when they shoot a course and my 15 year old niece smokes them on it. Then we breakdown what they did good and what needs improvement.

EVERYONE is a trigger puller in the military. Bad guys target truck convoys, remf and so on. Urban warfare and the bad guys getting smarter and better equipment means we have to expect the unexpected.

Also you'd be shocked to see o-6 and above who shoot perfect scores until they have to do it for real on our time and range. Sadly they have been pencil qualified all these years. If there are ten guys in a fight, 4-5 are killing bad guys, 2-3 directing traffic ( radio, casualty mgt etc.) and 1-2 thinking I didn't sign up for this.

We can do better but we keep forgetting learned lessons.
 
Last edited:
I guess the days of having your battle buddy behind you on the bench saying "Looks like you hit it to me" and marking it down are about over, eh?

Used to come in handy around promotion packet submission time ;)
 
Last edited:
Way back in the old days of 1962 n USAF basic we all learned very quickly that a #2 Ticonderoga pencil makes a fine .30 cal hole. Of course, we were supposed to qualify with beat all to hell and not sighted in WWII M1s. There was no chance in hell of honestly qualifying. As I recall we had maybe one hour total range time for the entire 60 man flight, including the qualification round.
 
NCLivingBrit said:
Right but even with nearly two decades of war, how many actually fire their weapon in combat? Most of the military is a support mechanism for the guys actually pulling triggers and will never see close combat.
Click to expand...
Never say never. Any convoy can be hit, any FOB can be attacked, any village can be over run. There is no rear area over there. Yeah, some places are safer than others, but you never know!
 
Hammer21b said:
Never say never. Any convoy can be hit, any FOB can be attacked, any village can be over run. There is no rear area over there. Yeah, some places are safer than others, but you never know!
Click to expand...

Just don’t go full Jessica Lynch and get POW’d without ever firing your rifle
 
As a disclaimer, I have never been in the military...but something I have never understood, about law enforcement and military is how reluctantly some of them seem to want to train. In the private sector, I am constantly looking to learn more about my field, learn new coding language, new testing protocols, and new and innovative ways to add value thereby adding to my salary. The military, specifically, at its core is about the destruction of personnel and property. I just cant, for the life of me, understand the "Oh, I am just a mechanic/cook/doctor/driver" mentality. You are a soldier/marine and you happen to be assigned to driving a truck or cooking. Just cant get the mentality of someone who would join an organization, accept that they may be sent into areas of the world that killing them is the pinnacle of achievement for many in the local population, and then take only a passing interest in self defense.
 
ARMYDISTRIFLE.png


Multiyear qualification program. No pencils.
 
B00ger said:
As a disclaimer, I have never been in the military...but something I have never understood, about law enforcement and military is how reluctantly some of them seem to want to train. In the private sector, I am constantly looking to learn more about my field, learn new coding language, new testing protocols, and new and innovative ways to add value thereby adding to my salary. The military, specifically, at its core is about the destruction of personnel and property. I just cant, for the life of me, understand the "Oh, I am just a mechanic/cook/doctor/driver" mentality. You are a soldier/marine and you happen to be assigned to driving a truck or cooking. Just cant get the mentality of someone who would join an organization, accept that they may be sent into areas of the world that killing them is the pinnacle of achievement for many in the local population, and then take only a passing interest in self defense.
Click to expand...

There's a subtle but weird phenomenon within a segment of the services that somehow makes it feel to some like it's a kind of involuntary thing that must be tolerated until they are released from service.

It's like some of them feel like they were drafted against their will, to be forced into service even though they volunteered for it. The worst of the slugs quickly learn that they can get away with expelling the least amount of effort and still their unit meets the mission, due mostly to motivated folks putting forth and extra effort to pick up the slack.

There's also a significant portion of people within the ranks who join based on a betting game. While they understand that they may end up in a shooting match one day, they are betting, based on their choice of MOS, that they will most likely not be placed in harm's way.

They are in it for the benefits and college funds, simply put, and they hope to never have to put out much of an effort or be deployed.

Sad to say, but there is a portion of people within the ranks with these attitudes.
 
rotorhead said:
There's a subtle but weird phenomenon within a segment of the services that somehow makes it feel to some like it's a kind of involuntary thing that must be tolerated until they are released from service.

It's like some of them feel like they were drafted against their will, to be forced into service even though they volunteered for it. The worst of the slugs quickly learn that they can get away with expelling the least amount of effort and still their unit meets the mission, due mostly to motivated folks putting forth and extra effort to pick up the slack.
Click to expand...

This is rampant in public service, not just the military.
Seems anywhere the path to unemployed is not a simple statement away a majority of employees are incompetent and rapidly inclined to do as little as possible while espousing servitude. It's truly curious when said employee spent a decade repeatedly failing in the private sector, lands a secure job, demonstrates near total inability to perform and within weeks is a steaming pile in attitude as well.
 
B00ger said:
As a disclaimer, I have never been in the military...but something I have never understood, about law enforcement and military is how reluctantly some of them seem to want to train. In the private sector, I am constantly looking to learn more about my field, learn new coding language, new testing protocols, and new and innovative ways to add value thereby adding to my salary. The military, specifically, at its core is about the destruction of personnel and property. I just cant, for the life of me, understand the "Oh, I am just a mechanic/cook/doctor/driver" mentality. You are a soldier/marine and you happen to be assigned to driving a truck or cooking. Just cant get the mentality of someone who would join an organization, accept that they may be sent into areas of the world that killing them is the pinnacle of achievement for many in the local population, and then take only a passing interest in self defense.
Click to expand...

When people asked me why I joined combat arms/infantry instead of learning a skill, I said I AM learning a skill. Why would I join to do something I can do as a civilian? I want to do something that can’t be done anywhere else
 
rotorhead said:
There's a subtle but weird phenomenon within a segment of the services that somehow makes it feel to some like it's a kind of involuntary thing that must be tolerated until they are released from service.

It's like some of them feel like they were drafted against their will, to be forced into service even though they volunteered for it. The worst of the slugs quickly learn that they can get away with expelling the least amount of effort and still their unit meets the mission, due mostly to motivated folks putting forth and extra effort to pick up the slack.

There's also a significant portion of people within the ranks who join based on a betting game. While they understand that they may end up in a shooting match one day, they are betting, based on their choice of MOS, that they will most likely not be placed in harm's way.

They are in it for the benefits and college funds, simply put, and they hope to never have to put out much of an effort or be deployed.

Sad to say, but there is a portion of people within the ranks with these attitudes.
Click to expand...
I always disliked working in groups in public school and in college, precisely because of this. I hated having my grade depend on people who didn't care to put forth some honest effort. I never minded working with motivated people.
 
11B CIB said:
When people asked me why I joined combat arms/infantry instead of learning a skill, I said I AM learning a skill. Why would I join to do something I can do as a civilian? I want to do something that can’t be done anywhere else
Click to expand...
NO KIDDING!!! I've never been at the sharp end of the spear (some of my design work may have), but anyone who thinks that isn't a skill is welcome to pick up a rifle and trot into a combat zone...and see just how much they regret not having that skill. Heck, they should shoot an action-based competition, for crying out loud.

Not to belabor your point for you :D but that's one of the crassest things I've heard lately, because you literally bet your life and your compatriots' lives on that skill.
 
11B CIB said:
When people asked me why I joined combat arms/infantry instead of learning a skill, I said I AM learning a skill. Why would I join to do something I can do as a civilian? I want to do something that can’t be done anywhere else
Click to expand...

I see and appreciate both sides. I sure know a lot of former infantrymen and tankers who had to go to school to learn a trade in Civvyworld. A lot of my colleagues (SARCS, 18Ds, etc) get frustrated because they are unemployable with their skill set. It sure is nice to get some training and creds that can get a job in Civvyworld.

But the tip of the spear--infantry, armor, artillery--is why the military exists, and the world of the military revolves around them.
 
B00ger said:
As a disclaimer, I have never been in the military...but something I have never understood, about law enforcement and military is how reluctantly some of them seem to want to train. In the private sector, I am constantly looking to learn more about my field, learn new coding language, new testing protocols, and new and innovative ways to add value thereby adding to my salary. The military, specifically, at its core is about the destruction of personnel and property. I just cant, for the life of me, understand the "Oh, I am just a mechanic/cook/doctor/driver" mentality. You are a soldier/marine and you happen to be assigned to driving a truck or cooking. Just cant get the mentality of someone who would join an organization, accept that they may be sent into areas of the world that killing them is the pinnacle of achievement for many in the local population, and then take only a passing interest in self defense.
Click to expand...

The Marines are a bit better in this regard than the Army, requiring all non-combat MOSs to go to Marine Combat Training. Still, most of the people in non-combat MOSs aren't 'gun guys', so they'll do the minimum training and move on. It's not what they signed up for. It doesn't make it right, it just makes it what it is.
 
Chuckman said:
I see and appreciate both sides. I sure know a lot of former infantrymen and tankers who had to go to school to learn a trade in Civvyworld. A lot of my colleagues (SARCS, 18Ds, etc) get frustrated because they are unemployable with their skill set. It sure is nice to get some training and creds that can get a job in Civvyworld.

But the tip of the spear--infantry, armor, artillery--is why the military exists, and the world of the military revolves around them.
Click to expand...

That’s why I applied for the VA Voc Rehab program when I got out. Paid for school and was better than the Post 9/11 GI bill in some regards
 
Gets a job at a bank: "I didn't think I was going to have to deal with money"
Gets a job at a restaurant: "I didn't think I was going to have to handle food."
Gets a job at a hospital: "I didn't think I would be around sick people."
Gets a job in the military: "I didn't think I would ever have to fight!"

Makes no sense... silly peoples.
 
Chuckman said:
I see and appreciate both sides. I sure know a lot of former infantrymen and tankers who had to go to school to learn a trade in Civvyworld. A lot of my colleagues (SARCS, 18Ds, etc) get frustrated because they are unemployable with their skill set. It sure is nice to get some training and creds that can get a job in Civvyworld.
Click to expand...

11B CIB When people asked me why I joined combat arms/infantry instead of learning a skill, I said I AM learning a skill. Why would I join to do something I can do as a civilian? I want to do something that can’t be done anywhere else
Click to expand...

++ for both replies. This is why I strongly encouraged my stepson, this May, God willing, to commission as a 19A, to take a STEM degree. It may have hurt him, OML-wise vis-a-vis GPA, but I hope that it will eventually help him be both a better (quantitatively skilled) combat arms officer as well as retain viability in the civilian market.

Btw, back to the original topic, there was this follow-up (let the machines do the aiming): https://www.armytimes.com/news/your...stem-will-do-everything-but-pull-the-trigger/
 
Last edited:
Even as a 18 series I only qualified once a year. It's shooting test, did lots of other shooting working on other skill sets. Had other mandatory tests such as jumping out of airplanes every 3 months, diving once a month (later 6 dives in 6 months), language training, drivers training, etc.

CD
 
11B CIB said:
In the main picture the guy is qualifying with an ACOG. I picture scores going up

Also, wtf is the time limit? The only time limit we had was seconds the targets were up, and it was a timed event by how many seconds each target stayed up. I don’t understand 96 minutes and I ran dozens and dozens of Army rifle quals

I still think the army needs to phase out one shot per target. Not realistic even though they reference lessons learned in combat
Click to expand...


Regarding the pic...it is a shot from a joint range in Poland, not Army qual:

 
Combat Diver said:
Even as a 18 series I only qualified once a year. It's shooting test, did lots of other shooting working on other skill sets. Had other mandatory tests such as jumping out of airplanes every 3 months, diving once a month (later 6 dives in 6 months), language training, drivers training, etc.

CD
Click to expand...
CD is spot on...annual weapons qualification is a "test", it establishes baseline proficiency for the individual soldier and their assigned weapon and serves as the validation 'yard stick' for the units marksmanship training program (if it even has one); units whose mission it is "to close with and destroy the enemy" conduct significantly more weapons training after that baseline is established that serves to confirm and validate their individual, and more importantly, their collective proficiency.
 
Long_Hunter said:
CD is spot on...annual weapons qualification is a "test", it establishes baseline proficiency for the individual soldier and their assigned weapon and serves as the validation 'yard stick' for the units marksmanship training program (if it even has one); units whose mission it is "to close with and destroy the enemy" conduct significantly more weapons training after that baseline is established that serves to confirm and validate their individual, and more importantly, their collective proficiency.
Click to expand...
You got the “if they even have one “ part right! Even a lot of Combat Arms units see AWQ as a pain in the ass! They see it as something to just get through. It should be something to grow on! The Army has a LOT of Soldiers who are not very good at shooting! And some couldn’t hit a bull in the ass with a bass fiddle! When I was at Brigade level, I was tasked with teaching this female LTC to shoot her assigned weapon, an M-9. I spent half the day with her on the range, walked her through the course of fire and practiced just shooting skills. She never got it! I finally went over to my truck, got my personal M-9 and had her shoot that. She qualified but just barely. What really pissed me off was when I was tallying up the company scores, she had shot an expert! And I later heard her brag about it! I went to the CSM and was told to let it go, things were different at this level. I told him that if this unit was at a FOB that was being over run, things wouldn’t be any different, she’d be dead! I wasn’t there very long.
 
Yeah, after shooting how many thousands of rounds downrange, still gotta pay the man with the yearly qual.

It's not just shooting, either: most MOSs require annual proficiency tests even if you actually "do" the MOS every day.
 
Chuckman said:
Yeah, after shooting how many thousands of rounds downrange, still gotta pay the man with the yearly qual.

It's not just shooting, either: most MOSs require annual proficiency tests even if you actually "do" the MOS every day.
Click to expand...
Not just the military - How about here in the hospital. How many times have you had to demonstrate you knew how to use a IV pump while working in an ICU hanging drips every shift. I had to demostrate yearly that I knew how to hang blood while working in the trauma unit and having hung several hundred units, e.g. our unit record was 56 units in 45 minutes on one patient with me doing most of the swapping of bags
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom