7.62x51: Two Marines’ Perspectives

[Reloadron]

"Maybe nobody in the modern Marine Corps knows of the sling as a shooting aid".

Well in my Marine Corps in 1969 using the M14 web sling, we were taught to use the sling. Matter of fact in kneeling and sitting at the 300 the sling was essential in rapid fire sequences and the sling was used at the 500 in prone slow fire. Matter of fact the only place the sling was not really used was 200 yard off hand.

Can't speak for today and the training with the M16 but the sling was essential in my days.

Ron

[SPEMack618]

There were a few times where I'd have liked one or two additional 7.62 platforms at the Platoon level, but by and large, the M-4A1 does just fine.

[davidsog]

Used a sling in SOTIC.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

You were in SOTIC david? I believe that’s the first time you’ve mentioned that in 135 posts.

[davidsog]

I think you are too busy admiring your own posts to read anyone else’s, lol.

The fact I attended SOTIC is only mentioned because the question of whether the military currently teaches proper use of a sling came up.

The answer is yes. Unfortunately it is not being taught on any wide scale basis. It gave me a newfound appreciation for sling supported firing.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

david, Is SOTIC the first place you encountered instruction on using a sling for stability in the military?

Like reloadron, I can’t speak for today; but the Marines were still teaching sling use circa 1992. (Not a Marine; but received my first military instruction on firearms from a GySgt.)

[davidsog]

That is the only place I encountered sling training in the Army. I cannot speak for the Marines but I do know they revamped their qualification and shooting training after data was collected on battlefield lethality. The Marines went from KD ranges and Bullseye targets towards stimulus response ranges like everyone else.

IIRC, the units that trained stimulus response simply were much more lethal on the battlefield. They could not put as nice a holes in paper as the Marines but they were better at shooting people shaped targets. Dave Grossman could tell you more...shoot him an email.

I know we wore heart rate monitors and pulse ox monitors in the house as part of such studies with some interesting results.

[kraigwy]

I'm gonna chime in about military rifle training. I keep hearing the Marine KD Training is better then the field fire, 25-300 meter qualification.

First I'm a high power shooter, or was for well over 40 years. Its great for precision rifle shooting, but combat isnt precision rifle shooting.

If the Field Fire 300 meter range is properly maintained, the targets are sort of half hidden. The Target exposure is timed, you have to hunt for the target, engage is in a few seconds and then wait for the next target exposer you have to find and ingage. You dont have time to adjust your sights so you have a battle site zero that allows you to aim at the center of each target, hit it, any where from 25 to 300 meters.

Say want you want, that is better training for combat then the KD range.

The best option is to teach fundamental on the KD range, then move to the field fire range.

Thats the way I conducted my rifle training as a Company Commander, and Later as the OIC of the AK marksmanshisp training, ( where I set the training policey for the Alaska National Guard.).

Thats also the way the AMU trains, and it must work since no one can beat the Army in the Interservice or National matches. Even the International Sniper Competitions.

Not trying to start a branch war, just pointing out how it is in real life. Personally I'd rather go to the field, find a target, range it, do the math to allow first round hits, then move onto another unknown distant target. Might take a couple minutes between shots. Its fun on the range but wont work in most conventional combat or even the field fire range in training.