We don’t need to spend more military resources, time or money, but make better use of what is already being spent. Most public sector training is so deficient that improvements can be made just by cleaning up current procedures.
In the military context, we have Drill Sergeant Nitwit, himself a novice level shooter, “teaching” raw recruits marksmanship. DS Nitwit is limited to regurgitating nonsense passed on to him by some other novice level shooter. We’re lucky if he’s even bothered to look up what the actual standards are.
Because qualification standards are set low enough that a complete new shooter instructed by a novice can pass them, and because DS Nitwit is completely unaware of what good shooting looks like, he believes he is “good.” If he has deployed overseas, he’s incorrigible.
He’ll probably never bother with any higher level shooting experience, such as organized competition. If he does, there are plenty of vocal tactical instructors online and elsewhere to console him into believing his loss was due to a flaw in the competition, or that there is a mystical difference in shooting on a range compared to shooting the exact same firearm in combat. This is easier than admitting the truth that low scores are due to low skill.
A competent marksmen can surpass military and police “expert” standards by 300%, possibly more. Many handgun standards can by surpassed by 600% or more. I even wrote a book about this outlining the particulars. But you’d have to attend events to interact with people capable of this.
Consider the cost of maintaining a RETS (Remote Engagement Target System) “pop up” range at 40 rounds per attempt and no feedback of where shots are going. Compare this with the cost of simple shooting exercises on a 25 meter range, shooting three round groups and getting feedback of every shot. Better yet, compare the cost of dry practice.
The Department of Defense spends plenty of time and money on shooting. What we lack is will.
Motivated teenagers involved in organized competition and willing to dry practice at home are better marksmen than most school-trained snipers, to say nothing of the general military population. Uncle Sam greatly outspends them but kids actively involved in competition have a greater desire to improve and actually do it.
Until this sort of problem is addressed, no amount of money spent on public sector marksmanship training will ever yield significant improvement.
Firearm User Network 
Anonymous
Sep 26, 2014 @ 23:58:55
Remember the young lady rifle shooter mentioned in my rifle book, who outscored an Army sniper at an Appleseed? A very dedicated practitioner she is, along with her little brother and her High Master rifle/B-class pistol Dad.
LikeLike
John M. Buol Jr.
Sep 28, 2014 @ 14:34:09
A visit with any good Junior program will reveal other, similarly-talented young people. Good stuff!
LikeLike
E.D.M.
Sep 28, 2014 @ 18:25:03
Problems like this leave me wondering how we got to this point. My guess is that a bean counter somewhere put out a cost/benefit slide show or spread sheet showing that paying for widget x for troops to add to their rifles will save money in the long term on training costs without “losing” capability.
The second question is how to fix it. A lot of instructors, and their leadership more specifically, are not “gun people” and simply don’t see the benefit.
LikeLike
John M. Buol Jr.
Sep 29, 2014 @ 07:54:13
All true. Good points.
The non-gun people problem is big. When novices run the show, poor results should be expected. Problem is, most gun owners, including most military and police personnel, are firearm novices.
A person can have 20 years of service and be a hunter/gun owner but remain a novice because skill and understanding never went beyond initial, basic, introductory levels. Without a program organizing and measuring results beyond basic training, very few people will advance on their own.
All initial instruction/training programs wisely assume the recruit/student has never performed the task for the same reason elementary school children first learning arithmetic should not be given college-level calculus tests. However, there would be a problem if elementary school children graduate high school a decade later and have only retaken the same elementary school arithmetic test annually. This decade of “experience” is meaningless as the student never advanced.
All military (Marine, Army, and otherwise), law enforcement, concealed carry civilians, tactical training classes, and hunters share this flaw. The same qualification course and standard that passes a new recruit will still pass senior leadership ten or twenty years later.
Advancing beyond novice may not be required for the general population but when these “experienced” novices then attempt to manage programs intended to teach others you’re stuck with the mess we have now. A person stuck on repeating second grade for the past ten years shouldn’t be teaching anybody but that is exactly what happens.
LikeLike
E.D.M.
Sep 29, 2014 @ 08:38:49
It sounds like you are suggesting that the requirements be gradually increased over the course of one’s military career. I like the idea, in principle. But it also leaves me wondering what happens to all those who don’t serve in combat roles, and may never fire their weapons in anger.
What do you think of some kind of graduated, and voluntary, system like Marine Martial Arts? Everyone starts with a basic level of training. But the service allows, and encourages, individuals to pursue those skill sets and improve their capabilities. Pursuing those goals results in visible recognition among peers, and further encourages others to take the same route.
I could see such a system being implemented quite easily, and I think the response would be positive.
LikeLike
John M. Buol Jr.
Sep 29, 2014 @ 09:11:21
>> It sounds like you are suggesting that the requirements be gradually increased over the course of one’s military career.
At least for those running ranges, offering small arms instruction, and/or making decisions on small arms training. The problems isn’t having novices in the force, it’s when those novices are making training decisions because of their rank. The “experience” that is assumed to be there, isn’t.
A soldier receives first aid instruction and testing during basic and takes refresher instruction and testing as directed thereafter. That is sufficient for non-medics. However, unless that soldier does something to prove he has increased his knowledge and capability of battlefield medicine beyond first aid or introductory CLS (Combat Life Saver) that soldier should not be involved in training others in that field.
>> But it also leaves me wondering what happens to all those who don’t serve in combat roles, and may never fire their weapons in anger.
The combat vet may still be a novice marksman. Combat experience is useful but doesn’t automatically imbue one with the ability to teach and raise skills of others.
>> What do you think of some kind of graduated, and voluntary, system like Marine Martial Arts? Everyone starts with a basic level of training. But the service allows, and encourages, individuals to pursue those skill sets and improve their capabilities. Pursuing those goals results in visible recognition among peers, and further encourages others to take the same route. I could see such a system being implemented quite easily, and I think the response would be positive.
This is the basis of the Distinguished program that has been in place since the 1880s, as well as all military small arms competitive programs such as those described in Army Regulation 350–66 (Small Arms Competitive Marksmanship Program.)
The problem is too few soldiers read the damn regs and “instructors” aren’t required to pursue such programs. There is a prevailing myth that any Drill Sergeant or NCO with the Field Manual can teach marksmanship. The DS or NCO may well be a novice. It’s like placing personnel marginally capable of basic first aid in charge of teaching field surgery because of their rank.
LikeLike