Posted on Sep 17, 2020
Anyone have experience running Weapons Qualification (M16/M4) with the new standards?
6.22K
4
10
1
1
0
I know the new standards do not take place until October. I am wondering if anyone has gone through a practice run. I was at an attempt to qualify with my new unit. Due to smoke and fire issues at JBLM, we never got past zero. But, after looking through the stack of zero targets, I already see that there is a lot of work to be done. I am concerned because Reserve units already have such an abundance of training time available during the year (Sarcasm) and COVID-19 based virtual battle assemblies have already stretched useful AWT opportunities way past the limit. If anyone has had a chance to do this new qualification, I am looking for some lessons learned. I read through the new dot-40 once (and will do at least another couple times) and plan on making it a NCODP class soon. One thing that disappointed me was a lack of examples of shooting issues. The older training pubs had examples of zero targets with shot groups that illustrated poor trigger squeeze, poor breathing, poor sight picture retention...etc. I wish the new pub had those examples on the new zero targets. I can still use the old examples because the problems are still the same, regardless of the background printed on the target. (Hell, I may take a blank A8 zero target and make my own examples as training aids)
One thing I already hate it the once size fits all targets. Front sight adjustments (iron sights) are 1.75 (M4) and 1.25 (M16) per grid ( each grid is 1 MOA). I guess people will have to bring calculators with them when they move their shot groups; or maybe we can get optics (I wish).
OK enough ranting. I am not saying things are all bad. I like the fact that Soldiers have to demonstrate and be graded on some basic proficiency with their weapons before putting hot metal through targets. Not sure how I feel about only having one shot at qualifying every 45 days (if you get a chance to try and shoot again before day 44, the best you can get is marksman, under the new standard). There is supposed to be a system in place to validate the range before use, but I have been on some poorly maintained ranges in my career.
Any feedback on the new qualification standards will be appreciated.
One thing I already hate it the once size fits all targets. Front sight adjustments (iron sights) are 1.75 (M4) and 1.25 (M16) per grid ( each grid is 1 MOA). I guess people will have to bring calculators with them when they move their shot groups; or maybe we can get optics (I wish).
OK enough ranting. I am not saying things are all bad. I like the fact that Soldiers have to demonstrate and be graded on some basic proficiency with their weapons before putting hot metal through targets. Not sure how I feel about only having one shot at qualifying every 45 days (if you get a chance to try and shoot again before day 44, the best you can get is marksman, under the new standard). There is supposed to be a system in place to validate the range before use, but I have been on some poorly maintained ranges in my career.
Any feedback on the new qualification standards will be appreciated.
Posted 4 y ago
Responses: 3
1
1
0
We always shifted the POA down to compensate for actual flight of a bullet. We'd get those dot stickers you use to mark a garage sale or whatever (red, green, yellow) and place it in the bottom of the center of the target, effectively shifting the POA down to where the round would strike the target at 25m when zeroed at 300.
Qualifications improved because the round was hitting center mass, rather than high.
Qualifications improved because the round was hitting center mass, rather than high.
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
It's actually a bunch of nothing to worry about.
Appendix E, and table E-50:
***Units that have access to an approved simulations system complete stage 2, stage 3, and stage 4 in that system. Only units without access to an approved simulator system receive the training ammunition to conduct all stages as live-fire scenarios during qualification.***
Appendix E, and table E-50:
***Units that have access to an approved simulations system complete stage 2, stage 3, and stage 4 in that system. Only units without access to an approved simulator system receive the training ammunition to conduct all stages as live-fire scenarios during qualification.***
(0)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
I did not see that during my first run through the material. That can help. There are still some challenges to work through. Most reserve centers have limited capacity simulator systems ( 4 lanes). COVID-19 considerations will add some constraint to that training.
I don't know (and need to research) if (my local) simulator software has been upgraded to reflect the new tables, and if not, how to get that upgrade.
I don't know (and need to research) if (my local) simulator software has been upgraded to reflect the new tables, and if not, how to get that upgrade.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
We had a few units run through it here... Right now the average is about 10-15% qualification rates, depending on the unit type.
The MP's and Infantry hovered around 15%, the straight CSS units were closer to 10%... It's a rough transition.
After October there's going to be a LOT of Commanders sweating bullets over their marksmanship metrics.
The MP's and Infantry hovered around 15%, the straight CSS units were closer to 10%... It's a rough transition.
After October there's going to be a LOT of Commanders sweating bullets over their marksmanship metrics.
(0)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
SFC Michael Hasbun - Exactly............ I love shooting. I utilize AR350-66 to go to gun matches as my RST whenever possible.
I should be the first to be excited about the "standards" my only questions is, "when exactly". There is so much we simply blow off because the USAR is held to the standard of active duty with only 10% of the time and resources that it's simply not doable so we don't.
So what is literally going to happen is live fire will be used for table 1, and NOW an entire additional Battle Assembly (because I'm skeptical both can be done at the same time even if the facilities are close to each other, who is running it that's not tied up on the live fire and how are they getting back and forth?) will have to be used to run the simulators where soldiers can crank through iterations quickly without the drawn out process of a live range. So whatever was happening during that additional BA prior to this will now simply not get done.
At the end of the day qual cards need to get put into DTMS. That's what it all really boils down to. DTMS gets updated without breaking any regulations and higher commands are content.
I should be the first to be excited about the "standards" my only questions is, "when exactly". There is so much we simply blow off because the USAR is held to the standard of active duty with only 10% of the time and resources that it's simply not doable so we don't.
So what is literally going to happen is live fire will be used for table 1, and NOW an entire additional Battle Assembly (because I'm skeptical both can be done at the same time even if the facilities are close to each other, who is running it that's not tied up on the live fire and how are they getting back and forth?) will have to be used to run the simulators where soldiers can crank through iterations quickly without the drawn out process of a live range. So whatever was happening during that additional BA prior to this will now simply not get done.
At the end of the day qual cards need to get put into DTMS. That's what it all really boils down to. DTMS gets updated without breaking any regulations and higher commands are content.
(0)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
SFC Michael Hasbun - It will be interesting to see how (reserve/NG) commanders adjust their annual training schedules to balance the new requirement with other METL training
(0)
(0)
SFC Michael Hasbun
1SG (Join to see) - Given the amount of "training gates" prior to table VI, to do it properly will take easily 6-8 battle assemblies...
The Army is going to HAVE to readjust the sheer volume of mandatory AR 350-1 shenanigans in a given year if they honestly expect people to accomplish everything. Or units can continue to lie on metrics the way we've been doing for decades.
That last bit wasn't hyperbole on my part, there have been a lot of studies addressing the topic. Lying to Ourselves: Dishonesty in the Army Profession is an excellent example of the many studies of the sheer volume of mandatory training in the Army and how it's led to an unofficial culture of lying on readiness metrics.
https://ssi.armywarcollege.edu/lying-to-ourselves-dishonesty-in-the-army-profession/
The Army is going to HAVE to readjust the sheer volume of mandatory AR 350-1 shenanigans in a given year if they honestly expect people to accomplish everything. Or units can continue to lie on metrics the way we've been doing for decades.
That last bit wasn't hyperbole on my part, there have been a lot of studies addressing the topic. Lying to Ourselves: Dishonesty in the Army Profession is an excellent example of the many studies of the sheer volume of mandatory training in the Army and how it's led to an unofficial culture of lying on readiness metrics.
https://ssi.armywarcollege.edu/lying-to-ourselves-dishonesty-in-the-army-profession/
(1)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
SFC Michael Hasbun - Interesting article. We are already cutting way back on SHARP/EO and Resiliency Training to the point where there is greatly diminished returns on the training. Add to that the issues discussed in the article and a start to become concerned about where the transition from strategic reserve to operational reserve has taken us and where it will go in the future.
I don't know what kind of essays I will have to write when I get into MLC, but this might be a good topic
I don't know what kind of essays I will have to write when I get into MLC, but this might be a good topic
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google