What are your thoughts on units using the EST to qualify on weapons?

2016-09-10T16:09:05-04:00

Response by SSG Derrick L. Lewis MBA, C-HRM made Sep 10 at 2016 4:20 PM

2016-09-10T16:20:33-04:00

SSG Aaron Marshall ,
Leverage all available resources when the opportunity for a physical range does not exist.

Response by SFC George Smith made Sep 10 at 2016 4:22 PM

2016-09-10T16:22:50-04:00

I hope they have improved them since they were introduced in My days...

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 10 at 2016 4:39 PM

2016-09-10T16:39:49-04:00

There is no substitute, in my opinion, for the feel of firing a real weapon. Budget restraints have taken a lot of range time away from units and it hurts our readiness as a force.

We will however be the best trained virtual warfare force on the planet.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 10 at 2016 4:39 PM

2016-09-10T16:39:55-04:00

The last time I used EST we had just got done rucking, the heat coming off us combined with the cool air of the room made our eye pro fog up like crazy. A lot of guys missed their targets. This was a stand up react to contact exercise. The instructor was annoyed by the poor performance. I asked to do it again and she agreed. I pulled my eye pro off, she told me I had to wear them. I insisted and explained the situation to my SGT and got the go ahead.

I hit every target that time around.

The EST simulates recoil fairly well, definitely not the noise, and it can give different options on a moments notice for training. Though I'm not sure it should be used as the only means to qualify but rather an addition to training.

However if a proper range is not available or there is a restriction on ammunition for whatever reason then you do what you have to do.

Response by SGT Roger Mitchell made Sep 10 at 2016 4:50 PM

2016-09-10T16:50:04-04:00

The world's greatest military and we can't afford or make time to shoot real weapons- someone needs a kick in the ass to motivate them.

Response by SGT Robert Cupp made Sep 10 at 2016 5:13 PM

2016-09-10T17:13:23-04:00

Waste of time. Half the time most of the lanes are down and then you have to try to cycle an entire unit through 3 lanes.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 10 at 2016 5:18 PM

2016-09-10T17:18:13-04:00

the EST is garbage and a complete waste of time and resources. It never works properly and never qual on it yet I can go out to the range zero in 9 rounds and qual with a 35 or better everytime.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 10 at 2016 6:03 PM

2016-09-10T18:03:18-04:00

The EST is crap...

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 10 at 2016 6:11 PM

2016-09-10T18:11:28-04:00

I guess it's fine to qualify, as long as leaders get their Soldiers out there to actual ranges and conduct advanced marksmanship training such as stress shooting, shooting from different positions, shooting while moving or turning, etc, to better simulate what they need to be ready for.

Response by CPT Joseph K Murdock made Sep 10 at 2016 6:19 PM

2016-09-10T18:19:17-04:00

ggg

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 10 at 2016 6:36 PM

2016-09-10T18:36:58-04:00

Here are the Army's thoughts
ALARACT 027/2013 DTG: R 042121Z FEB 13

THIS MESSAGE HAS BEEN TRANSMITTED BY USAITA ON BEHALF OF//DAMO-TR/G-37//

SUBJECT: INDIVIDUAL WEAPONS QUALIFICATION USING ENGAGEMENT SKILLS TRAINER (EST) 2000

REF:
A. FM 3-22.9, RIFLE MARKSMANSHIP M16/M4 SERIES WEAPONS (AUG 2008)
B. FM 3-23.35, COMBAT TRAINING WITH PISTOLS, M9 AND M11 (W CHG 4 2008)
C. FM 3-22.68, CREW SERVED WEAPONS (2006)
D. FM 3-22.65, BROWNING MACHINE GUN, CALIBER .50 HB, M2 (W/CHG1 2007)
C. AR 350-1, ARMY TRAINING AND LEADER DEVELOPMENT (AUG 2011)
D. DA PAM 350-38, STANDARDS IN WEAPONS TRAINING (OCT 2012)

1. (U) THE ENGAGEMENT SKILLS TRAINER (EST) 2000 IS NOT AN AUTHORIZED SUBSTITUTE FOR
LIVE-FIRE QUALIFICATION. LIVE-FIRE QUALIFICATION PROCEDURES WILL BE FOLLOWED IAW
FM 3-22.9, FM 3-22.68, FM 3-22.65, FM 3-23.35, AR 350-1 AND DA PAM 350-38 EXCEPT WHERE
OUTLINED BELOW.

2. (U) TRAINING INSTALLATIONS EQUIPPED WITH THE EST 2000 WILL CONDUCT M9 AND M16
CHEMICAL, BIOLOGICAL, RADIOLOGICAL, AND NUCLEAR (CBRN) AND UNASSISTED NIGHT
QUALIFICATIONS USING EST 2000. 10-METER QUALIFICATION FIRE FOR THE M249 AND M240 WILL BE
CONDUCTED IN EST 2000. 10-METER TRAINING FOR THE M2 WILL BE CONDUCTED IN EST 2000.

3. (U) TRAINING INSTALLATIONS WITHOUT THE EST 2000 WILL CONDUCT CBRN AND UNASSISTED
NIGHT QUALIFICATIONS USING BALL AMMUNITION IAW FM 3-22.9 AND FM 3-23.35. 10-METER
QUALIFICATION FIRING FOR THE M249, M240, AND THE M2 WILL BE CONDUCTED WITH BALL
AMMUNITION IAW FM 3-22.68.

4. (U) THE USE OF SIMULATORS (EST 2000) AS A TRAINING TOOL IS ENCOURAGED PRIOR TO
CONDUCTING LIVE FIRE QUALIFICATION. IT DOES NOT, HOWEVER, REPLACE NOR SHOULD IT BE
USED AS AN ALTERNATE FORM OF LIVE FIRE QUALIFICATION.

5. POC FOR DISTRIBUTION AND TECHNICAL CONCERNS IS MR. WILLIE RICE, HQDA DAMO TRA, DSN
222-9052, E-MAIL [login to see] .

6. EXPIRATION DATE FOR THIS MESSAGE IS 14 DECEMBER 2017 UNLESS FORMALLY RESCINDED OR
SUPERSEDED BY OTHER POLICY.

Response by SPC Chelsea Fernandez made Sep 10 at 2016 6:59 PM

2016-09-10T18:59:29-04:00

EST sucks I'm not going to lie. I always did had trouble with that simulation

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 10 at 2016 7:18 PM

2016-09-10T19:18:03-04:00

Doesn't replace the feel of firing live rounds and you can use the EST down range to engage the enemy.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 10 at 2016 7:45 PM

2016-09-10T19:45:08-04:00

Hate it. Can't hit anyhing on EST, qualify expert every time at a real range. Maybe it's with how I see things, but it just doesn't work for me.

Response by COL Jason Smallfield, PMP, CFM, CM made Sep 10 at 2016 9:25 PM

2016-09-10T21:25:04-04:00

Thoughts on using EST to qualify on weapon?
- Short answer. Hell no.
- Long answer.
- Live, virtual, constructive, gaming. Look at US Army training doctrine. Virtual, constructive, and gaming can be used as an effective and efficient means to achieve a training goal but the bottom line is that live is the preferred and final training requirement in most cases.
- Qualification vs familiarization. An EST can be a very effective training tool but it is not, and never has been, a replacement for actually getting onto a range and putting real bullets onto real targets. If we ever fight wars via video game then maybe an EST becomes the gold standard at that point.
- Apples and oranges. The real test of a Soldier is the ability to hit a target in combat while the enemy is returning fire. Never confuse the game world with the real world.

Response by SFC(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 10 at 2016 11:55 PM

2016-09-10T23:55:12-04:00

We have to use it here in TRADOC where I'm stationed we have no weapons in my unit!

Response by PFC Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 11 at 2016 1:56 AM

2016-09-11T01:56:45-04:00

My thoughts on it are that its fucking stupid. I've seen guys at the local bar playing "deer hunter" that can shoot expert

Response by Capt Chris McVeigh made Sep 11 at 2016 2:57 AM

2016-09-11T02:57:49-04:00

Electronic simulations are fun toys to practice on, but absolute garbage compared to the real thing. Lets you work on the basics and is significant improvement over dry firing, but in no way takes the place of actually shooting.

If you told me you were qualified on a weapon based on shooting it at a simulator I would take it away from you and go find a new gunner.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 11 at 2016 8:06 AM

2016-09-11T08:06:17-04:00

I am ok with it either way...but I know this is or would be fiscally driven. Nothing compares to the real thing. Hence the Army Mantra "Train as you fight"...for me it's the whole ritual of it...throwing on your battle rattle, jumping on a crowded bus, waiting on a firing order, battle sight zero's, qualifying...on the range in the mud and rain..."It ain't training... if it ain't raining"....or show up at a sim center...in an A/C controlled environment, where conditions are always perfect...In the MEDCOM, qualification gone from once a year to once every three years...unless you were deploying, in a competition or prepping a packet for a promo board or specialty school...

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 11 at 2016 9:36 AM

2016-09-11T09:36:29-04:00

I don't think it should count, train as you fight. I don't believe a video game can prepare you for real life.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 11 at 2016 10:00 AM

2016-09-11T10:00:20-04:00

EST is what we use to train for the eventual turkey apocalypse!!

Response by SSG Ray Mailloux made Sep 11 at 2016 10:05 AM

2016-09-11T10:05:32-04:00

No, just No. You cannot train for battle by using a video game.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 11 at 2016 2:07 PM

2016-09-11T14:07:10-04:00

It's a training tool that is cheaper than the real thing. We know the more familiar recruits are with the platform, the more simulation they do the better their scores are, their is less time required on the range and all of the logistics that go with recruits spending the day on the range.
It's a tool to use. Pew! Pew! Pew!

Response by 1SG Al Brown made Sep 11 at 2016 3:33 PM

2016-09-11T15:33:27-04:00

You can qualify on the EST system, or you can qualify with your assigned weapon. They are both valuable exercises, but they are never interchangeable. Ever. If you even talk about it, some unit, some where, will try to do it before they deploy.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 11 at 2016 3:59 PM

2016-09-11T15:59:16-04:00

The EST, with well-cared for weapons, working softwear, and air pressure built up to correct levels is a very good tool for training. When used to greatest advantage, it does a good job of giving feedback on an individual's targeting habits, as well as, an indication of what kinds of shooting "no no's" a soldier may be doing (trigger jerk, not maintaining sight picture, and so on). I would use it over "dime/washer drills" every time.

The problem is, people try to push an entire company through 10-12 lanes during an afternoon. You just don't have the time to use the trainer effectively in this manner.

When I ran a range, I had section leaders identify soldiers who needed additional training before throwing lead down range. I also offered the chance for anyone who felt they wanted some "warm up with feedback" a chance to use the Trainer. I believe it helped the less competent or less experienced soldiers perform better. Everyone who fired an M4 during the FTX qualified.

I also find the Trainer a great way to allow junior troops an opportunity to make leadership decisions in a mentored training environment. The patrol scenarios are well suited for that. Let a young SPC or PFC be a "team leader" and direct fire and control their team during these scenarios.

One thing I started to do recently was to simulate chemical attack during these scenarios. I would pause the scene, inform them of an attack and have them take appropriate measures (simulating seeking cover) They would then finish the scenario in Mask and Gloves. They learn that there is a big disadvantage to trying to direct and control a team with a mask on.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 12 at 2016 10:06 AM

2016-09-12T10:06:31-04:00

no go , that's not marksmanship !!

Response by SFC Wade W. made Sep 12 at 2016 10:21 AM

2016-09-12T10:21:59-04:00

Nope. It obviously is more cost effective but it is not as effective for the SM. We may as well use the Wii in a day room.

Response by SFC Mark Beazley made Sep 12 at 2016 6:31 PM

2016-09-12T18:31:54-04:00

Just to chime in...

As mentioned several times, the EST cannot be used for qualification. Having said that, the Army is moving towards a 6 table format outlined in TC 2-21.0 (Individual and Crew live fire prerequisite testing) for all qualifications. (though not all the manuals have been published).
For small arms this works out as follows:
Table I: PMI
Table II: Simulation (EST)
Table III: Basic (think dime and washer drills)
Table VI: Zero
Table V: Practice
Table VI: Qualification

Unfortunately, to my knowledge, STRAC has not been updated to provide for the additional 40 rounds per Soldier to cover Table V.

Response by COL Thomas F. made Sep 13 at 2016 9:44 AM

2016-09-13T09:44:49-04:00

The EST-2000 was designed to be a weapons trainer, not a qualifier. There was a time in 2004 that they tried to increase throughput of Soldier by making it an authorized qualification system, but that was all RUM-INT. As someone who helped developed the training budget for training support systems the last three years, let me help put out some facts. The EST-2000 has been shown to increase the proficiency of Soldiers ability to fire their weapon both individually and as a team/squad level. While simulations are not prescriptive (mandatory), some installations and Brigade and above units make it mandatory to use EST before going to the range. It has shown an proven increase in first time go's, and as you point out, helps save money by not wasting rounds for requalifications. You are right that nothing beats live training, but in this age of fiscal responsibility rooted in Sequestration (remember that?) and Congressional oversight , you would not believe the pain the Army has been through to prioritize monies in the right places. Training however, is one of those places identified that the CSA has emphasis to increase readiness. You understand what readiness really means, right? Not that you just passed your PT test and can fire a rifle. Lot more to it. I suggest those who have access to it to utilize it. Training equipment is one of those items where the term, if you don't use, you loose it, really is the truth.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 13 at 2016 11:28 AM

2016-09-13T11:28:19-04:00

The EST is good for training but nothing beats qualifying at an actual range because not only are joes are going to the range but they are also seeing how a range is being set up and ran so there is more to qualifying when going to an actual range.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 13 at 2016 11:40 AM

2016-09-13T11:40:18-04:00

Yeah! And use Call of Duty for MOUT training, battle drill one, battle drill six ...

Response by SSG Grant Hansen made Sep 13 at 2016 12:05 PM

2016-09-13T12:05:22-04:00

While simulators are good for practice, they can never replace actually firing a weapon.

Back in the 90's there was the Multi-Purpose Arcade Combat Simulator (M.A.C.S.) which was essentially a Nintendo game with an fake M-16 attached. There was no recoil and you were shooting targets on a TV just a few feet away, but it helped get the fundamentals down and cost next to nothing for soldiers to practice their shooting.

On range days, you could tell who had been using it to practice because they generally scored better.

That being said, it could not account for recoil, shadows, sun or wind effects.

Simulators have become a lot better since then, but the point still stands. Nothing can replace actually firing a real weapon with live ammo.

http://www.snescentral.com/article.php?id=0901

Snes Central: Multi-Purpose Arcade Combat Simulator (M.A.C.S.)

The Multi-Purpose Arcade Combat Simulator (or M.A.C.S.), was a shooting simulator developed for the U.S. Army as a cheap way to train shooting skills. It was a bit of a mystery until a couple of years ago when the rifle and and carts became available through Ebay. Thanks to 98PaceCar for the pictures!

Response by SGT Robert K. made Sep 13 at 2016 12:31 PM

2016-09-13T12:31:04-04:00

The Engagement Skills Trainer (EST) 2000 is a unit/institution, indoor, multipurpose, multi-lane, small arms, crew-served, and individual anti-tank simulator that saves currently required ammunition resources, operation and personnel tempo, as well as travel time and costs to and from ranges. It simulates weapon training events that lead to live-fire individual or crew weapon qualification and training events currently not resourced under Standards in Training Commission (STRAC).
Squad leaders are able to control and evaluate individual, fire team, and squad performance. The EST 2000 simulates the following weapons: M16A2 rifle, M4 carbine, M9 pistol, MK19 grenade machine gun, M249 squad automatic weapon, M240 machine gun, M136 (AT4), M1200 shotgun, M2 machine gun and M203 grenade launcher.
*This is a training tool and nothing more. To many times commanders use this to safe time, money, and resources. But in the end it is simply not the same. it is designed as a training tool to allow individuals and squads to develop the methods and concepts of small unit tactics before being placed on a live fire range. Use it has it is intended or don't use it at all.

Response by TSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 13 at 2016 12:32 PM

2016-09-13T12:32:25-04:00

I think as a way to safely familiarize new troops to a weapon, it is a great idea. Seeing how in the future it may be fewer and fewer recruits will have ever been afford the opportunity to have any hands on experience with any firearm. But, as stated in other comments, nothing prepares you for real life situations like live fire..

Response by SPC Eric Cunningham made Sep 13 at 2016 1:06 PM

2016-09-13T13:06:58-04:00

So, most of these reponses are along the lines of it being a poor substitute for the real thing - and it is. But I don't see any mention of what I think should be obvious - you qualify on YOUR weapon. That's why you group and zero first. If you are qualifying on a simulation gun, on a simulated range, what makes you think your weapon is going to be ready to make hits when you need it? How far off is the ACOG or Aimpoint from zero and how are you going to judge how to shoot with it without, you know, using it? The simulated is great for reaction drills and things you can't really do with live fire, but should never be a substitute for live fire qualification.

Response by CPT(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 13 at 2016 1:11 PM

2016-09-13T13:11:13-04:00

Units and leaders had better get used to the idea, especially in the Reserves and National Guard. We just don't have the funds and ammo for actual range training anymore, plus the additional costs of transporting, billeting, and feeding Soldiers at a distant range site.
This is the new Army; doing more with less, and technology helps bridge the gap between theory and application.

Response by SSG Jason Penn made Sep 13 at 2016 2:00 PM

2016-09-13T14:00:50-04:00

I disagree unless it is included solely for reaction time issues. The EST is a great tool for preparing Soldiers for combat situations, but it is not the same as firing an actual weapon on the range!

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 13 at 2016 9:00 PM

2016-09-13T21:00:12-04:00

Whether you're shooting the EST in an air-conditioned classroom or "Qualifying" with your assigned weapon on a paper target's scaled silhouettes at a short-berm range, you're still not getting the full training quality you need, because all of the targets of any size are at the same focal distance from your eyes. You cannot accurately aim at a 300m or a 175m target if they're represented on a panel at only 25m, or less. We must train EVERY muscle used in battle, including our eyes for refocusing quickly when range-to-target changes.

Response by SSG(P) Brian Kliesen made Sep 13 at 2016 9:18 PM

2016-09-13T21:18:50-04:00

The EST 2000 is a training tool and for many, their first introduction in using a weapon on a range, working as a squad or utilizing a variety of weapons in a carefully controlled environment. However, it is just that, a simulation. Nothing can replace time spent in the field, putting rounds down range. The EST 2000 is the classroom portion of going to the range where units can hone the skills of their shooters and bring up the skill levels of those that struggle. It should not be used as a qualification tool, though some units use it that way. In the Army Reserve we too often use it as a training tool with no follow up. Without proper maintenance and care the system tends to break down and becomes frustrating to even the best marksman. Some will gain skills using it, others will not. But everything becomes real when you slap a magazine into your weapon with live rounds and engage targets from a real weapon, on a real range with and without real optics.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 13 at 2016 10:50 PM

2016-09-13T22:50:42-04:00

I am for having one qualification per year via EST and one via a live range. The controlled conditions of the EST environment allow for a true assessment of fundamentals without weather or other environmental factors entering into the equation. Keep in mind that my perspective is as a Reservist and my experience in my 33 years has been that we just don't get enough fundamentals training on the Reserve side of the house; I have not seen a dime-and-washer drill done in years and all of those cute little cheaters, rulers, etc. that aid in dry-fire training are non-existent to most AR units. We also have less overall time to accomplish our training mission in the calendar year. There is also the cost... live-fire training is very expensive.

Response by SGT Alicia Brenneis made Sep 14 at 2016 8:36 AM

2016-09-14T08:36:04-04:00

No, just no. It is a decent training tool for situations that cant be fully simulated in the field but is highly unrealistic when compared to an actual rifle. That thing goes "chunk" and barely has any kick back. To fix a "jam/malfunction" the computer just needs you to pull the mag and put it back in. It also doesn't require the soldier to maintain it. It is my opinion that the lack of responsibility would cause soldiers to neglect their actual rifles. Plus their wouldn't be any "range prep" and would reduce the hip-pocket training soldiers receive while waiting to fire. To me, that's just a natural part of the military experience.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 14 at 2016 10:44 AM

2016-09-14T10:44:17-04:00

No one should be allow to qualify their assigned weapon on any computerized system. Familiarization & retrain only, TRAIN AS YOU FIGHT!

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 14 at 2016 11:03 AM

2016-09-14T11:03:30-04:00

DO you use the EST to engage the enemy? NO!
It is a training tool.

Response by SGM Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 14 at 2016 10:09 PM

2016-09-14T22:09:38-04:00

Sounds good, and then we should all fight wars on COD (Call of Duty) clan matches.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 15 at 2016 12:42 PM

2016-09-15T12:42:18-04:00

Response by SGT Patrick Wells made Jun 11 at 2017 6:14 PM

2017-06-11T18:14:58-04:00

In basic my M16 kicked on every 3rd round. I learned to adjust to it and expect that. My first duty station my M16 kicked on every 5th round, again I learned it and was ready for it each time. That brings up the question of how do you truly learn your weapon if you are not firing live ammo?

Response by SGT Andrew Sherman made Jun 11 at 2017 7:09 PM

2017-06-11T19:09:04-04:00

Until we can conduct a war via Call of Duty using robots, then hell no!

Response by SGT Tony Clifford made Jun 11 at 2017 7:36 PM

2017-06-11T19:36:04-04:00

It would be great if we engaged the enemy in call of duty. In reality those glorified light guns don't do shit. Get your guys real training.

Response by CW3 Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 11 at 2017 8:09 PM

2017-06-11T20:09:45-04:00

The EST for most unit training is a gimmicky tool introduced as cost savings and should not be taken seriously. Some one came up with an idea to bring marksmanship training and simulation to the 21st century, a contractor "developed" the lowest capable system, and the Army wastes millions. Nothing can replace using real rounds for training or building solid fundamentals. The MP scenarios may have some value, but I'm not a MP so I can't say.

Response by SFC Malcolm Hale made Apr 18 at 2018 12:22 PM

2018-04-18T12:22:27-04:00

As a retired SFC as myself who's spent many days on a range, I agree that nothing beats actual "trigger" time, but working on a AIT installation, AIT soldiers & Law Enforcement personnel are the only one's authorized weapons, AIT permanent party soldiers are not, so for them to maintain current weapons qualifications and be competitive with the rest of their MOS Peers, unit commanders have authorized the use of an EST generated record score sheet. Now on the flip side of that record, those same soldiers, according to DA PAM 350-38, are exempt from weapon's qualification if they are assigned to a unit with that situation.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 24 at 2018 1:56 PM

2018-04-24T13:56:50-04:00

EST training does not work. I myself would like to see any statistical data showing that EST training improved qualification scores with both the M4/M9 or any other weapon system. The fact of the matter is this, you are fire a weapon without using live ammunition in a controlled environment that impedes on necessary skills you need to use in an uncontrolled environment. The ARMY should be mandating training in field environment for the reality factor to improve skill sets for firing and maneuver with live ammunition. The EST training builds up a false sense of situational awareness and limits sensory perceptions for our Warriors who need to develop these senses in a field environment. True warriors learn there craft by conducting training closely related to a true combat situation, video stimulation and controlled environments does not do this. Someone is making to much money of a flawed system that is impeding our Warriors ability to fire weapon systems effectively for combat operations.

Response by Sgt Dale Briggs made Aug 11 at 2019 6:59 PM

2019-08-11T18:59:47-04:00

Of all the ways to save a lousy buck, as it is qualifying once a year is a joke. 03 need to shoot every month.

Response by PO2 Bill Kuiper made Aug 11 at 2019 7:32 PM

2019-08-11T19:32:00-04:00

It's just not the same.

Response by CPT(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 11 at 2019 7:39 PM

2019-08-11T19:39:13-04:00

That's a slippery slope...

Response by SGT(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 11 at 2019 7:51 PM

2019-08-11T19:51:04-04:00

Theyre good for practice. but they are a short for the soldier & the unit if that is used to qualify for standard. its ok for nbc if you have qualified for day & night qual. those are actually physically needed to shoot. the nbc not really.

Response by SFC Sean Mcelwee made Aug 11 at 2019 8:48 PM

2019-08-11T20:48:15-04:00

Honestly I’ve ran it and gone thru this so many times it makes my eyes bleed. Here’s my take as an nco;
1.) its never running right, there’s always glitches
2.) civilians in charge of facility makes it a nightmare to even wanna deal with it
3.) honestly I think it’s a complete waste of time and money. I’ve gotten more training value with taking my boys out to a field with engineer tape or running thru the barracks or whatever I could come up with

Response by CPT Kurk Harris made Aug 11 at 2019 9:02 PM

2019-08-11T21:02:39-04:00

And maybe while we're at it fight battles on PlayStation 4. Same difference. The EST is fun and allows a person to practice BRM skills, it does not approximate the range experience. It is a simulator, but not real marksmanship.

Response by SP5 Ron Nelson made Aug 12 at 2019 8:37 AM

2019-08-12T08:37:19-04:00

All training is good.

Response by SPC Randall PeQueen made Aug 12 at 2019 3:06 PM

2019-08-12T15:06:04-04:00

Army, Marines... now fucking way...
Not sure on the Navy but the Air Force weapons training is a joke.
My son just finished BMT Air Force and they didn't even GO TO the range.
Said it was being remodeled.
It was hilarious to see them out there yelling 'WARRIOR AIRMAN' when they never fired a weapon.
I understand the tactical difference but damn...