Study on the 223 vs. can you shoot debate? - Page 2

SamD · July 4, 2006, 08:53 PM

The official definition of "small arms" has nothing to do with portability and it's anything under 20mm for army types.

Military marksmanship training is a joke and has been for quite a while.
They are dead set against good shooters, that takes time, money and range availability. It also means that soem will be better than others and that is not currently acceptable.

Sam

5whiskey · July 4, 2006, 09:13 PM

same principle... under 20mm or .50 bmg and under??? I can't think of anything in between at the moment.

62% of my battalion qualified expert (and no, that's not doctored and we don't do hook-ups) at the rifle range last time we went. I personally think we're rolling pretty deep. Now does the National Gaurd get enough? I'm sure they probably don't. I'm sure I'm going to touched with something like "well anything under 100% is unacceptable". We could completely disregard all theory of tactics, fire and manuever, radio call procedures, how to load a defense and do a fire plan sketch, geometry of fire concerns, how to clear rooms, how to clear buildings, how to call for fire, marking SOPs, patrolling, mounted patrolling, IA drills, first aid, combined arms, and all of the hundred other things we MUST know. We could skip all of this and focus on nothing but pulling the trigger for 6 months and we still wouldn't get 100% expert. Yes we incorporate the basics of marksmanship in all of this, but we can't get rifle range quality feedback while doing so.

Anyhoo, back to the point of the thread. Yes, .223 is effective for what it was designed for. Again I would like to see something better, but I know it's not happening tomorrow.

U.S.SFC_RET · July 4, 2006, 09:18 PM

The challenge that the Army faces is to take the Generation X generation and make fighting, shooting soldiers out of them. Take a kid from an urban environment who's never handled a weapon and it takes a tremendous amount of time and effort to unlearn and teach this kid not only how to shoot right but to get his mind right in the process. Sometimes it can take years. Sometimes never. he might be able to "qualify" but you have to qualify his mind as well. He has to get comfortable and confident with that weapon in times of stress and duress. It is hard to teach that at a range. That takes experience. WWI and WWII soldiers were known to come into the service from all over the map in this country and Marksmanship was highly valued back then. It isn't nearly so now. You still have servicemen coming in who value Marksmanship but not to the extent on the percentage scale.

5whiskey · July 4, 2006, 09:31 PM

Quote:

Take a kid from an urban environment who's never handled a weapon and it takes a tremendous amount of time and effort to unlearn and teach this kid not only how to shoot right but to get his mind right in the process. Sometimes it can take years. Sometimes never. he might be able to "qualify" but you have to qualify his mind as well. He has to get comfortable and confident with that weapon in times of stress and duress.

An excellent point.

Quote:

It is hard to teach that at a range. That takes experience

It's not hard to teach the above values you mentioned at a range, it's IMPOSSIBLE. As you have said only experiance will do it.

An excellent point all the way around. In the glory days of WWII there was a far greater percentage of people raised with what I guess you would call "blue collar values". Like how to fish, how to start a fire, how to shoot, how to tend a garden (or a farm), how to swing a hammer, ect. Mainly because people of the time weren't afforded the creature comforts of today, and they certainly didn't call a repairman to mend the fence for them (just an example) because they couldn't afford it. They had to do it themselves. We've lost alot of this as a nation since then.

pickpocket · July 5, 2006, 12:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by U.S.SFC_RET

The challenge that the Army faces is to take the Generation X generation and make fighting, shooting soldiers out of them.

Splash, over -

Sorry, brother - but I gotta chime in on this one. You make some excellent points, but you're dead wrong on this one.
The challenge that the Army faces has nothing to do with Gen X. I'm a Gen X-er and the kids I went to war with were just as hard as the guys from each and every war we've fought as a country.
The Army's "challenge" (hell, Marine Corps and Navy too...we just don't talk about the Air Force here) is to give the finger to Mothers Against America and to quit trying to be the "Newer, Kinder, Gentler Army".
The "challenge" is to take these kids and make them soldiers and Marines all with one hand tied behind your back and your feet tied together.
I saw it in the Marine Corps too - although not to the same extent. They're getting soft, my man...it's more about careers and political correctness than it is about winning wars.

Ok - sorry...

Rounds complete, over.

Demon5Romeo · July 5, 2006, 01:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pickpocket
They're getting soft, my man...it's more about careers and political correctness than it is about winning wars.

You hit the nail on the head with this one.

5whiskey · July 5, 2006, 06:45 AM

Quote:

The Army's "challenge" (hell, Marine Corps and Navy too...we just don't talk about the Air Force here) is to give the finger to Mothers Against America and to quit trying to be the "Newer, Kinder, Gentler Army".
The "challenge" is to take these kids and make them soldiers and Marines all with one hand tied behind your back and your feet tied together

yup.

MK11 · July 5, 2006, 02:00 PM

Every single 20th century war (even the Civil War) has seen fewer and fewer people familiar with shooting enter military service. This idea that WWII was fought by a bunch of flinty-eyed squirrel hunters is ridiculous. It's an old, OLD problem, and it won't be getting any better.

johnsonrlp · July 5, 2006, 02:10 PM

BTW this problem of unfamiliarity with weapons would not be solved by handing out large caliber rifles. It's hard enough for some people to learn with the M16.

July 4, 2006, 08:53 PM	#26
SamD Senior Member Join Date: May 18, 2004 Location: Nueva Mexico Posts: 166	The official definition of "small arms" has nothing to do with portability and it's anything under 20mm for army types. Military marksmanship training is a joke and has been for quite a while. They are dead set against good shooters, that takes time, money and range availability. It also means that soem will be better than others and that is not currently acceptable. Sam __________________ "It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards"

July 4, 2006, 09:18 PM	#28
U.S.SFC_RET Senior Member Join Date: December 12, 2005 Location: The Old line State Posts: 282	The challenge that the Army faces is to take the Generation X generation and make fighting, shooting soldiers out of them. Take a kid from an urban environment who's never handled a weapon and it takes a tremendous amount of time and effort to unlearn and teach this kid not only how to shoot right but to get his mind right in the process. Sometimes it can take years. Sometimes never. he might be able to "qualify" but you have to qualify his mind as well. He has to get comfortable and confident with that weapon in times of stress and duress. It is hard to teach that at a range. That takes experience. WWI and WWII soldiers were known to come into the service from all over the map in this country and Marksmanship was highly valued back then. It isn't nearly so now. You still have servicemen coming in who value Marksmanship but not to the extent on the percentage scale. __________________ 1. Treat every firearm as if it were loaded. 2. Never point a firearm at anything you do not intend to shoot. 3. Keep the finger off the trigger and firearm on safe until ready to shoot. 4. Know the target and what's beyond it.

July 5, 2006, 02:10 PM	#34
johnsonrlp Senior Member Join Date: April 27, 2005 Location: Ft Hood area, originally CA Posts: 268	BTW this problem of unfamiliarity with weapons would not be solved by handing out large caliber rifles. It's hard enough for some people to learn with the M16. __________________ I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson

July 4, 2006, 09:13 PM	#27
5whiskey Senior Member Join Date: October 23, 2005 Location: US Posts: 3,652	same principle... under 20mm or .50 bmg and under??? I can't think of anything in between at the moment. 62% of my battalion qualified expert (and no, that's not doctored and we don't do hook-ups) at the rifle range last time we went. I personally think we're rolling pretty deep. Now does the National Gaurd get enough? I'm sure they probably don't. I'm sure I'm going to touched with something like "well anything under 100% is unacceptable". We could completely disregard all theory of tactics, fire and manuever, radio call procedures, how to load a defense and do a fire plan sketch, geometry of fire concerns, how to clear rooms, how to clear buildings, how to call for fire, marking SOPs, patrolling, mounted patrolling, IA drills, first aid, combined arms, and all of the hundred other things we MUST know. We could skip all of this and focus on nothing but pulling the trigger for 6 months and we still wouldn't get 100% expert. Yes we incorporate the basics of marksmanship in all of this, but we can't get rifle range quality feedback while doing so. Anyhoo, back to the point of the thread. Yes, .223 is effective for what it was designed for. Again I would like to see something better, but I know it's not happening tomorrow.

July 5, 2006, 02:00 PM	#33
MK11 Senior Member Join Date: April 26, 2001 Posts: 577	Every single 20th century war (even the Civil War) has seen fewer and fewer people familiar with shooting enter military service. This idea that WWII was fought by a bunch of flinty-eyed squirrel hunters is ridiculous. It's an old, OLD problem, and it won't be getting any better.