Do you believe that if you can't shoot, you're useless to the military?

2015-03-18T20:33:09-04:00

So we all know that there are many many aspects to making a military function like a well oiled machine. We have our grunts, we have our admin, and we have everything in between going all the way from the bottom of the totem pole on up.

But let's not forget that we ARE a military, created for one purpose and that is to protect and defend our nation from all enemies, both foreign and domestic. This is usually done with fire power and almost anyone, regardless of MOS, can be deployed to fight along side the grunts. I know many that have done just that. The large majority, however, will never ever see a deployment, much less actual combat.

So my question(s) more specifically is(are) this: Does shooting ability really matter for those in a non-combat related MOS? Do you or others you know treat it as another check in the box in order to pick up rank? Does it matter if your unit is non-deployable? If you can not shoot (especially in a non combat MOS), what use can you really be to the military? Should you still be allowed to serve and just do your 'day job' or should you be forced out?

Response by SGT Edward Thomas made Mar 18 at 2015 8:42 PM

2015-03-18T20:42:03-04:00

I believe that with the changes in the way wars are now fought, that everyone in the Army should at least be able to qualify as a Marksman. That is the standard or was when I was in. Today there are no real declared front lines or rear areas. Everyone must be able to defend where they are. At any point can't the rear area become a main combat area and vice versa.

Response by CPT Zachary Brooks made Mar 18 at 2015 8:54 PM

2015-03-18T20:54:08-04:00

Here you go, this is your thing.

I have multiple approaches to this, but I feel that your ability to defend your personal position and those around you is of the utmost importance. If you are someone who goes out on operations and kicks in doors you should have exceptional marksman skills.

(And before Capt Porter makes fun of my thoughts on communication or my branch, I qualify expert)

Response by MAJ Ron Peery made Mar 18 at 2015 9:34 PM

2015-03-18T21:34:46-04:00

I have always liked the Marine doctrine....everyone is a rifleman first. In our line of work, you have to be prepared for the worst. When I was in Germany I was disappointed in my unit's belief that we did not have to train for actual combat. Or as one of my bosses said, "The general doesn't care if we can shoot. All he cares about is whether he can call his wife back in New Jersey from the field." Great. I get it. We were a Signal unit. And supposedly, in wartime, we would get infantry troops to provide security for our comm sites. I thought this was a dangerous attitude. And I was always concerned about the survivability of our comms...hell, about myself, working in that environment. Fortunately, there were plenty of troops who were shooters and took their position as warriors seriously. So yeah, if you can't shoot, or just don't want to, you should probably look for another line of work. Doesn't mean you aren't a dynamite logistician or whatever, but you will probably find yourself in a hot zone at some time in a long career, and if you can't fight along with everyone else, you will be a liability.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Mar 18 at 2015 9:46 PM

2015-03-18T21:46:08-04:00

Every military member should be proficient at their "weapon system."

For Marines that's the M16 and all it's variants plus whatever else we pick up.

The Army has roughly the same philosophy, however, if you were to take a random Soldier and put him on the Marine Rifle range, would he pass? (when I was in, they didn't shoot at 500) For us, that means they can't shoot.

For the Air Force, their weapon system is not necessarily small arms. It is often multi-million dollar pieces of equipment. They are not Ground Forces, and expecting them to be able to engage in Ground Combat is as unreasonable as expecting a random Marine to be able to do what they do.

The Navy is much like the Air Force. They are not Ground Forces.

However, anyone that is going to be in a Ground Combat Area, needs to be at least Familiar, if not Proficient with the common small arms weapons we use. Enough that they are not a liability to those around them.

Not being able to shoot doesn't make you useless, it just means you will be used for suppression fire. Not being safe with the weapons we carry, makes you useless, and a liability.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 18 at 2015 10:16 PM

2015-03-18T22:16:05-04:00

Sgt Joshua Anderson Here's my take: As a member of the military, you are expected to go to war at any time, no matter what branch of service you are in. When you go to war, you never know what you will face, or if you will wind up in an unplanned or unexpected situation, one where you have to defend your life or the lives of others. Granted, if you're not a gun-bunny or door-kicker, it's not as likely that you'll wind up in a situation where you have to go on the offensive, however, a combat tour in Afghanistan, Iraq, or somewhere else, should make any "non-combat" personnel realize the danger is still present - whether it's a mortar round, or a S/VBIED being used to try to breach the gate, there is a definite chance you'll need to be able to shoot.

Since the military MUST be able to at a minimum defend others, and also since the military's job is to go on the offensive whenever possible and WIN the war, every single service man and woman MUST be proficient in the use of their EDC or Every Day Carry weapon.

As a retired SOF Soldier - I personally believe that all military personnel should be carrying both a pistol (as backup) and a rifle (for the most part - there are exceptions to the rifle thing based on job and duty location - but yeah).

Response by SPC Joshua H. made Mar 19 at 2015 1:15 AM

2015-03-19T01:15:23-04:00

As a Marine I find it odd that you are even asking that, as all Marines are Riflemen first.

You sign up for the military, and even though you may have a REFM job, there is a chance the "front" lines may move to your front door. If you choose not to hone your ability to at least get marksman (not hard at ALL) then maybe you picked the wrong career path. If you are truly trying, and having a hard time qualifying, maybe you just need to talk to some one that can teach you in a method that you can understand.

Response by Capt Richard I P. made Mar 19 at 2015 10:05 AM

2015-03-19T10:05:52-04:00

Our purpose as an organization is to kill. Maybe you're not totally useless if you can't shoot (maybe), but you sure as hell cant be a part of the Main Effort.

https://www.rallypoint.com/answers/what-is-the-most-important-military-skill

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 19 at 2015 11:41 AM

2015-03-19T11:41:35-04:00

As it was bred into me from day 1 in the Marine Corps, EVERYONE is a rifleman! I still believe this to be true. I am now in the Army, on a brigade staff. That doesn't mean I will never fire my weapon. Look at what happened in Vietnam, they figured out to hit the headquarters, take out command and control. This can very well happen any where, drive a truck full of explosives into a compound, breach the wall, send in the sappers to destroy the headquarters. It is every military member's responsibility to be able to employ their personal weapon system, engage and destroy the enemy, otherwise, you are worthless. regardless of what your job is. In my book, your first duty (job) is to destroy our enemies, if you can't do that, you should not be in the military.

Response by Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 19 at 2015 12:16 PM

2015-03-19T12:16:44-04:00

As an Air Force officer, I don't think an inability to shoot a rifle makes you useless to the military. How much rifle fire will a cyber ops specialist exchange with the enemy? Aircrew? We kill plenty of bad guys, but I've only shot the M9 a handful of times in my career. Does an aircraft mechanic need the same level of marksmanship and maneuver-under-fire expertise as an infantry soldier?

I submit that there are plenty of people who are useful to the military, even if they don't pick up a rifle very often. How do you think we get soldiers to and from the battlefield? Those pilots don't learn to shoot rifles. Scrambling enemy C2 systems gives more strategic impact than engaging an enemy soldier on the battlefield. The ability to pin-point an enemy location using a drone or satellite is similarly more strategically important than a single platoon engaging an enemy platoon.

tl;dr - there are plenty of specialties that provide real, actual military benefit, not just administrative support, that don't require folks to shoot a rifle.

Response by SSG Gerhard S. made Mar 19 at 2015 1:15 PM

2015-03-19T13:15:35-04:00

I believe if you're in the military and can't shoot, that makes one unable to defend even oneself, let alone ones comrades or ones country. That means someone else has to protect YOU, and now THEY are unable to defend their country as well.

So my answer is YES.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 19 at 2015 1:22 PM

2015-03-19T13:22:46-04:00

We are a team, just because the pieces are different doesn't make us worse off. Diversity is the strength of making the team stronger than the individual pieces.

For example,
I'd much rather have a radioman than knew how to set up a commo system than shoot, over a radioman that could shoot and not use a radio.

Considering prior to deployment they let me fire a total of 49 rounds. And that was Combat Support.

So clearly resolutely no you are not useless. Limited yes, useless no.

Response by MAJ Jim Steven made Mar 19 at 2015 1:40 PM

2015-03-19T13:40:03-04:00

I believe that as a military member, you should be able to handle some types of business...such as not lose your cool in an emergency, be in decent shape, not be scared of a gun/knife, maintain composure if your convoy comes under attack.

however, at the same time, if I was in a court martial, do I really care if my attorney can do a lot of pushups?? Your wife is having a baby, does the OB/GYN really need to fire 40 for 40??

Response by Capt Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 19 at 2015 1:57 PM

2015-03-19T13:57:52-04:00

I would love to be forced to go shoot. Interestingly enough, it's the military that hasn't prioritized it for me, at least not in my line of work. I qualified on the AR-15 at BMT, but it wasn't required for our graduation. At OTS, I missed the M9 qual day because of a cornea abrasion. It was never made to retake the training, despite my interest in doing so.

As a traditional Reservist, I have never been back to the range since those two days. Any shooting I've done since then has been on my own personal time.

Response by Sgt Cody Dumont made Mar 19 at 2015 2:17 PM

2015-03-19T14:17:48-04:00

Every Marine is a rifleman. I can't speak for the other services, but all Marines have to be able to shoot.

Response by PFC Chris Hemingway made Mar 19 at 2015 4:44 PM

2015-03-19T16:44:11-04:00

Honestly in this day and age there really isn't a noncombatant mos I was a small arms repairman and I saw combat

Response by Cpl Jeff N. made Mar 19 at 2015 6:24 PM

2015-03-19T18:24:39-04:00

If you cannot shoot you are worthless in the Marine Corps. Very likely a number of units in the Army as well but I will not speak for them. As you now, every Marine is a rifleman first. There are some jobs in the Army and Navy (medical for example) and Air Force where shooting is not a high priority as they are not considered likely combatants. It would behoove anyone in a combat theatre to know how to shoot. You never know where the enemy might pop up.

Response by SGT Steven Shumaker made Mar 20 at 2015 3:33 AM

2015-03-20T03:33:45-04:00

People can usually be taught to shoot, I think the more important thing to pay attention to is not who can shoot or not, but who WILL shoot. Probably plenty of individuals who can punch holes in paper would freeze up if the paper started moving and shooting back.

Response by SGT John Wesley made Mar 20 at 2015 5:23 AM

2015-03-20T05:23:59-04:00

I'd have to say your a soldier first. You may be good at your job, but if you can't fire your assigned weapon, you are not a soldier. As my Sergeant said, if your unit is attacked, what are Ya gonna do? Throw your computer at em'?

Response by Capt Keenan Lee made Mar 22 at 2015 3:55 AM

2015-03-22T03:55:37-04:00

The unknown is always there. Every military person should be able to defend themselves and others in times of need. If a base is under attack and an SP falls and the person next to them can't pick up a weapon to fire back then that person is useless. Unless they can perform martial arts on an intruder in due time, they have just rendered themselves a liability to the situation. Learn to do the basics. Shoot, fight, survive. When I was an enlisted medic, I was one of the best marksmen in my unit. I figured if the time came to use one I'd better be good at it or die. Every military person should at least practice and try to hit a man-sized target.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 22 at 2015 4:30 PM

2015-03-22T16:30:21-04:00

I don't think anyone is totally useless, but it is part of the job to be proficient with arms. That is why qualification is done every 6 months. Atleast it was when I was in. But those that don't do well with shooting need to get the remedial training to improve until they can effectively meet the standard.

Response by LCpl Mark Lefler made Mar 22 at 2015 4:32 PM

2015-03-22T16:32:21-04:00

USMC view is every marine is a rifleman so if one can't shoot then they are not doing everything expected of them, also just because someone is not in a non combat MOS does not mean there may not be a situation where they need to be able to shoot, especially with us maybe going back to Iraq.

Response by MSgt Allan Vrboncic made Mar 23 at 2015 10:28 AM

2015-03-23T10:28:35-04:00

No.

Response by PO2 Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 25 at 2015 1:41 PM

2015-03-25T13:41:36-04:00

Well, the Navy never even bothered to teach me how. We had lasers in boot camp with minimal focus on it. Firefighting and seamanship were much more important in their eyes. I had never fired a live weapon until my 3rd year of enlistment, and even then it was only because the Marine react team on our ship needed to spend some extra ammo for the 240. That being said, the military sure as hell valued me as a technician and didn't want me to leave when my enlistment was up. If the need for me to ever shoot something came up in any conceivable scenario in my enlistment, I'm sure the Marines would have been well past fixing their bayonets.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 27 at 2015 11:50 PM

2015-03-27T23:50:31-04:00

Every Marine is a rifleman.

With that said, I believe its important for every service member who can be put in harms way to know how to handle a weapon and defend them self's. I dont care if there Scout Snipers or if they need a scope on a shotgun to hit the target. whats important is there ability to fight back.

I have a greater issue with service members who are in uniform but are deemed "unfit" to carry a weapon. If we cant trust them with a rifle then what are they really doing here in uniform.

Response by Maj Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 6 at 2015 11:03 PM

2015-04-06T23:03:00-04:00

Some professions perform a significant portion of their job back home and never use a gun. With deployment tempos slowing down, shooting and marksmanship will become less important while learning to take care of our men and women back home as they transition out of theater and possibly into civilian life will be increasingly important. There is no reason to force out an excellent social worker, nutritionist or nurse if they're not good with firearms. I think this could be especially true ifntheybhave experience working effectively with the line (those who do the shooting).

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 10 at 2015 7:51 PM

2015-04-10T19:51:33-04:00

There are certain "common" skills that all Soldiers should be able to perform, regardless of MOS, and personal weapons marksmanship is definitely at the top of that list. A couple reasons why: First, no Soldier can say that they have a job that will never require them to engage the enemy, history has proven that time and again. Second, there is professional pride that comes from being a Soldier and being skilled with ones personal weapon is integral to building that pride. Without the soldiery skills, many of our modern specialties becoming nothing more than a civilian wearing a uniform.

I saw a comment above postulating that some jobs such as Air Force pilots have a multi-million dollar weapon, their aircraft - insinuating that personal weapon marksmanship is unnecessary for them. I fly AH-64s and carry an arsenal of weapons that can neutralize the enemy from miles away; I still take pride in my ability to use my personal weapons because being a pilot is not a substitution to being a Soldier, it is an addition. The rest of the services would do well to adopt the Marine Corp mentality that everyone is a rifleman first.

Response by CPT Pedro Meza made May 4 at 2015 2:58 PM

2015-05-04T14:58:41-04:00

The military is in the process of changing given the rise of technology, so a shooting a fire arm is not critical, because I can out shoot most soldiers but have problem with new tech.

Response by LTC Paul Labrador made May 4 at 2015 3:13 PM

2015-05-04T15:13:58-04:00

Being able to shoot well is a basic solider skill (and I'm using the small "s" making it a generic noun for military members)......BUT if your job is not primarily as a trigger puller, then your intrinsic value to the military really isn't tied to it. Case in point: I am an ER nurse. My job does not revolve around shooting a weapon. In fact, if I ever had to shoot my assigned weapon for real, things have gone really, Really, REALLY wrong. Being a good shot is nice, but do you really care how well I can shoot when you are bleeding to death on my ER table? Or are you more about how well I can do my job as an ER nurse?

Response by SGT William Howell made May 4 at 2015 4:39 PM

2015-05-04T16:39:26-04:00

All military need to be able to shoot. We come into harms way at the blink of an eye. Do we all need to be able to shoot at 500 yards? Nope, but you should be able to shoot a person across the street. We are all targets and must be able to kill those that wish to do us harm.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made May 4 at 2015 5:15 PM

2015-05-04T17:15:31-04:00

Yes it does matter, because even in a non combat MOS (which I know nothing about) it only takes one wrong turn in a convoy before it becomes a matter of survival in any forward operating area.

Response by Lt Col Jim Coe made May 4 at 2015 11:08 PM

2015-05-04T23:08:26-04:00

Sgt. Way the definition of "can't shoot" is important to the answer If you mean the SM didn't qualify with a basic weapon at the min level, then the chain of command has to get involved. It means the SM didn't meet minimum requirement of his job. All active duty and reserve component members might be needed for armed duty at some time. They shouldn't be a hazard to themselves and other service members because they have a weapon.

If you're talking having an IT person qualifying expert. Nope. Not required.

Response by TSgt David Holman made May 4 at 2015 11:14 PM

2015-05-04T23:14:04-04:00

Not at all. I agree that everyone should at least qualify with a weapon, simply because they may need it for defense, however, some jobs are just as important without having to fire.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made May 5 at 2015 6:50 PM

2015-05-05T18:50:24-04:00

Qualifying with your assigned weapon is a soldier task and is required of all soldiers. If a soldier "can't" shoot their weapon because of a medical reason and that reason isn't corrected within a reasonable time, then I believe the soldier should be separated.

If a soldier is unable to qualify with their assigned weapon, I believe that the NCO in charge of that soldier should be held accountable. We are responsible for training our soldiers and if that NCO is unable to properly train a soldier to fire their weapon properly and qualify, that NCO should shoulder some of the responsibility for failing to train their soldier.

MOS should not be a big issue. All soldiers need to train as they fight and for them to not train to use their weapons would only cause problems. Though they may not deploy or be in a non-deployable unit, they need to train as if they are going to deploy otherwise, they are not living up to their service obligation that they signed up for.

Though I am not in a combat MOS (nor do I have any desire to do so), I still train in my tasks and drills and maintain proficiency in all I do in order to better myself as a soldier. Any soldier who is under me will be trained the exact same way and I will not accept any other substitute.

Response by PV2 Matthew Dzemske made May 15 at 2015 4:18 AM

2015-05-15T04:18:43-04:00

Even if not a combat arms MOS, every soldier should still know how to effectively engage targets, bare minimum with his or her MBR. In WWII, every soldier who had a pulse was shoved into the line. The story of Jessie Lynch proves that one can still find themselves in unexpected situations.
If you're not meeting standards in PT, you get remedial PT. Same should apply to qualifying. If there is any chance at all you might find yourself up in that ring, same thing for the 240B, M2, and MK 19. If you're in finance, you very well may never have to squeeze your trigger anywhere but the range. You are still a soldier in the US military, and, as such, are expected to have certain basic knowledge. I should be able to grab literally any soldier in the Army, ask them what a battle drill 1A is, and have it explained to me. To perform this battle drill, like all others, one must be able to shoot. If that day comes, and your M16/M4 jams, or you empty your magazine and hit nothing, you haven't only failed yourself...

Response by TSgt Private RallyPoint Member made May 15 at 2015 7:42 PM

2015-05-15T19:42:35-04:00

In reality it doesn't matter. Now I know...some people in non-combat jobs had to engage the enemy. But in the big picture does it really matter is some all source analyst or a SIGINT analyst can hit the broad side of a barn? In reality all that matters is PT anyways. Running is what defines us. Not our job and not firing a weapon. And in the interest of full disclosure I can fire a weapon pretty well and enjoy owning my own.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made May 15 at 2015 9:01 PM

2015-05-15T21:01:35-04:00

Everyone must know how to shoot because life is not always linear. If we get into WWIII then everyone definitely knows how to use their weapon.

Response by Cpl Rc Layne made Jun 11 at 2015 8:42 AM

2015-06-11T08:42:16-04:00

Basically yes. Shooting well requires hand and eye coordination and attention to detail, no matter the weapon. Sight alignment, sight picture, breath control etc are all physical skills that must be mastered, and can be mastered if you pay attention to what you are doing. I worked the range at Parris Island for three years, and as a firearms instructor for the Virginia Department of Corrections. I have gone ten for ten standing at the 500 yard line and shot the DOC course holding the 38 upside down and passed, just to show people that attention to detail matters. If you pay attention to what you are taught and apply it, shooting expert on the range with any weapon is not that difficult.

Response by SGT John Wesley made Jun 13 at 2015 10:33 AM

2015-06-13T10:33:19-04:00

I think we need to maintain standards in the military, that being said, there is a place for those who excel at areas that are unique or unusual.

Cyber warfare is a growing threat and we need the best and brightest to counter that threat. That they'll never pull a trigger against a foe is probably a given. Do they need to qualify with a weapon? No. But let's be realistic, they would need to qualify in areas that an 11B would not or could not.

Doesn't make them any less a part of our forces, in fact they enhance our ability to fight on every type of terrain, to include the land of 1's and zeros...

Response by Sgt Bob Blevins made Jul 10 at 2015 8:37 PM

2015-07-10T20:37:49-04:00

To be a Marine you must qualify at least a Marksman and shoot a 189 minimum score.

Response by CMSgt James Nolan made Nov 13 at 2015 10:54 PM

2015-11-13T22:54:45-05:00

Anyone can learn to shoot. The bigger question would be is the military willing to take the time to truly train everyone to a high level of proficiency?
Shooting is a perishable skill.

Response by SSG John Erny made Nov 24 at 2015 10:51 AM

2015-11-24T10:51:10-05:00

It depends on what branch you are in for one, the Army and USMC you had damn well better know how to use your weapon and use it well. If you ride around in a sub 1000 Ft below the surface well I will quote a movie The Hunt for Red October "some things in here don't react well to bullets"

Response by 1stSgt Eugene Harless made Dec 18 at 2015 2:59 AM

2015-12-18T02:59:02-05:00

The short answer, and the official one is that if you can't qualify with a weapon then you don't graduate Recruit training. If you do graduate and fail to qualify you will get lower Pro/Con Marks can be non recommended for promotion and not retained. As a SNCO failing to qual with your issued weapon gets you an adverse Fit Rep.

Response by SSG James James made Jul 18 at 2018 11:38 PM

2018-07-18T23:38:02-04:00

Yep