Why doesn't the Army emphasize Weapons Marksmanship the same as Physical Fitness?

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 28 Mar 2014 13:20:34 -0400

Why is it that marksmanship is placed on the bottom shelf while physical fitness is put on a pedestal? Why is it that we are quick to give a Skillcraft qualification but look down on moderate PT scores? Why aren't we looking at the all encompassing qualities of a Soldier?

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 28 at 2014 1:25 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 28 Mar 2014 13:25:48 -0400

Don't know who or why anyone are giving "Skillcraft qualifications" for but they are flat out wrong and part of the problem! Weapons and PT are equally important. I think you hear more about PT because more Soldiers struggle with it than shooting 24 pop up targets at a range to meet the minimum standard.

Response by SFC Michael Hasbun made Mar 28 at 2014 1:34 PM

SFC Michael Hasbun — Fri, 28 Mar 2014 13:34:07 -0400

Anyone can PT, but marksmanship takes skill. A lot of people's self image rotates on their being a PT stud, so they devalue anything else and emphasize that.

Response by Sgt John Henry made Mar 28 at 2014 3:52 PM

Sgt John Henry — Fri, 28 Mar 2014 15:52:26 -0400

They are both fundamental skills for a warrior

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 28 at 2014 8:34 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 28 Mar 2014 20:34:15 -0400

In addition to the comments above, I think it comes down to the cost of rounds to get someone to qualify. Firing a weapon is more expensive than someone conducting PT. That is why most units only go to the range once or twice a year if you are lucky or getting ready to deploy.

I spent a good amount of time on the ranges and when we did it was $25K a day and we did this once a quarter. Our higher HQ always gave us a hard time for going to the range that much but we were justified because of our mission set.

Traditional Army units don't get that luxury because they have other requirements that take the funding of firing your weapon away. Plus the regulation only requires you to shoot once a year, which I think is absurd.

Response by SGM Matthew Quick made Mar 28 at 2014 11:03 PM

SGM Matthew Quick — Fri, 28 Mar 2014 23:03:43 -0400

Different leadership.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 29 at 2014 3:08 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 29 Mar 2014 03:08:03 -0400

We hae be it on the same level in my unit

Response by SFC Benjamin Harrison made Mar 29 at 2014 2:58 PM

SFC Benjamin Harrison — Sat, 29 Mar 2014 14:58:14 -0400

While I believe when push comes to shove, both skill sets are equally important, i can physically train Soldiers daily, if lucky i can get Soldiers to a range 2x a year. Take this and my previous combat experience, physical fitness is king as i only remember two occasions where i had to actually utilize my weapon to engage enemies, but a multitude of times where i had to be physically fit to endure the mission.

Response by CPL Charles Gale made May 27 at 2014 6:53 PM

CPL Charles Gale — Tue, 27 May 2014 18:53:52 -0400

Never seen any one reprimanded or discharged for not being able to qualify with their weapon. However, I have watched an E-5 receive assistance on the range(extra personnel firing at her targets) and then get promoted a few months later.

Response by SSG Matt Murphy made Aug 1 at 2014 1:37 AM

SSG Matt Murphy — Fri, 01 Aug 2014 01:37:33 -0400

Great idea....and some tips:

http://youtu.be/ChSazF41q-s

How to shoot a Pistol with world champion shooter, Jerry Miculek

Jerry goes over basic and advanced techniques that are sure to make you a better pistol shooter. Complete with high speed demonstrations of grip techniques. ...

Response by SPC David S. made Aug 1 at 2014 2:59 AM

SPC David S. — Fri, 01 Aug 2014 02:59:16 -0400

If you're winded your shot will be off as well as you could find yourself someplace your not suppose to be. Also if your fit you can take a few more hits than a bag of doughnuts can. Take the gun out of it and then tell me who your monies on. Some jacked up chisel chest or Joey bag of doughnuts. However if you can shoot a tick off a deer's ass at 300 meters you might not have to meet face to face with your foe.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 17 at 2014 9:48 AM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 17 Nov 2014 09:48:21 -0500

I have seen a lot by others on here saying that it mainly revolves around repitition and cost. Yes it does cost more to send soldiers to the range and have them actually fire rounds, and yes in most units that cost is only planned for twice/thrice a year. PT is done daily, and should be done well on a daily basis, but we should treat marksmanship similarly to the way we treat PT.
It is not only about putting rounds through the weapon, it is about making sure that when the rounds are put through the weapon it is done right. There are many drills that if done properly and accounted for on the training schedule will actually help save unit's money, because less ammo will be used.
Also another tip for those on bases with a SF Group, have a Battery/Company Commander/1SG or Battalion S3/XO/S3 SGM go talk to their equivalent at Group and work out a training package where when they need to treat someone like an indigenous force on weapons marksmanship they call your unit. It will get soldiers more trigger time, and ultimatly make them more comfortable with their weapons.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 17 at 2014 1:36 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 17 Nov 2014 13:36:13 -0500

I have often thought about this same issue during my career. When I was enlisted the number of promotion points one could get for advancement to E5 or E6 was the same (50 max, back in the 90s) for weapons qualification and APFT (may still be today), but that is where the similarities ended. 15 years later I find myself arguing why my Soldier who shot expert on the M9 four ranges in a row should be considered for an AAM, since the commander has a policy of giving them away for anyone who scores 300 on the APFT.... Needless to say the commander did not feel that 30/30 on the M9 was as meaningful as 300 on the APFT, even though it was accomplished four times in a row. I cannot answer the question, but I personally believe they should get equal emphasis and respect. But again, that is just my opinion!

Response by SGT Kristin Wiley made Nov 17 at 2014 2:22 PM

SGT Kristin Wiley — Mon, 17 Nov 2014 14:22:47 -0500

There is so much more to being a good soldier than a PT score. Unfortunately, there is some disconnect coming from higher up that overemphasizes this capability over more significant ones. I would put character at the top of my list, followed by technical capabilites, etc.

Response by MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca made Dec 13 at 2014 8:16 PM

MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca — Sat, 13 Dec 2014 20:16:27 -0500

Simple, dollars. Both are equally important but... How much does it cost the Army for a soldier to do PT - $0.00/0 time/0 man hours/duty time other than the actual APFT. How much does it cost a soldier to qualify on a range:

weapon + ammo + range maintenance + duty time on training + schedule + transportation + scheduling resources = too much for the average Joe to qualify on a meaningful interval, say quarterly.

In the Guard we got once a year on paper targets. Then we got converted to plastic bullets because of the monetary and ecological cost. Then got converted to indoor "video game" PMI & zeroing...

Response by SGT Dee Stanley made Jul 13 at 2015 9:37 AM

SGT Dee Stanley — Mon, 13 Jul 2015 09:37:31 -0400

Because of the ratio of Support to Combat Arms Soldiers and the fact that the Army still thinks that situps equal fitness. I took a Soldier to Afghanistan that failed his PT test but we could hardly keep up with him in the Mountains because I knew he could do it and he could out shoot 90% of the other soldiers in the Company.

Response by SPC Roger Giffen made Jan 1 at 2017 4:10 PM

SPC Roger Giffen — Sun, 01 Jan 2017 16:10:39 -0500

It costs money to go to the range. PT is just sweat. It is all about money.

Response by PFC Bradley Campbell made Jan 1 at 2017 4:42 PM

PFC Bradley Campbell — Sun, 01 Jan 2017 16:42:29 -0500

i have been shooting since i was age 9. i have never had a problem shooting any firearm of any kind well. if service members have gym memberships for their own time, they should buy a close to mil spec AR15 train on their own time and dime.your best training will be plinking, and no stress over qualifying and no officers and NCO's busting balls. the fun factor goes up and so does your experience with rifle and ammo in hand and your confidence. rifle shooting needs to be right, and then fun. fun factor feeds your brain the same way you like sex. when you need to qualify, you slip into soldier mode and get it done like a pro. rifle and pistol skills are something that can help your military life and you need them all your life as an American anyways. and you retirees, should be CCW and packing anyways. your oath does not expire.

Response by Sgt Dale Briggs made Jan 2 at 2017 1:09 AM

Sgt Dale Briggs — Mon, 02 Jan 2017 01:09:14 -0500

My guess would be that PT is cheap and easy compared to range time. We spent two weeks a year on the range and obviously that's not enough to do much more than a token qualification. There's a reason why the SF gang is so effective , they can shoot as much as they like and they don't need to be supervised with weapons and on the range. For any line guy your beat, you can't do that unless its planned a year in advance. PT lace them up and run 6 days a week, you can do it yourself with no supervision required.

Response by SSG John Jensen made Jan 2 at 2017 2:19 AM

SSG John Jensen — Mon, 02 Jan 2017 02:19:14 -0500

we got a new shipment of tie-down chains for the trucks, someone says something about organizing a detail to which I said screw it, let's all go out and do it, as we're all crossing the road to the trucks, TOP shows up and asks what we;re doing, and I said 'we're doing PT" to which he replied "alright let's go" and when he discovered that the PT was 'real work' he disappeared so fast Einstein's ghost must be chasing him still

Response by MSG Dan Castaneda made Jan 4 at 2017 10:41 AM

MSG Dan Castaneda — Wed, 04 Jan 2017 10:41:14 -0500

Because PT is free.

Response by SPC Casey Ashfield made Feb 6 at 2017 11:34 AM

SPC Casey Ashfield — Mon, 06 Feb 2017 11:34:45 -0500

Some units do take marksmanship seriously. Although I don't think every MOS should. Some units I served with were not your friend if a soldier scored less than Sharpshooter. Wheras I went to a range qual with a field artillery unit where guys were cheering if they got a 23/40 "on the first try." A phrase that gave this 11B an internal stroke.

Response by SGT Aaron Atwood made May 21 at 2021 11:03 PM

SGT Aaron Atwood — Fri, 21 May 2021 23:03:49 -0400

Marine Corps seems to have a similar attitude, and similar accolades for those who excel in one but not the other.

I've seen certificates of achievement awarded by company/squadron COs to Marines who score perfect, or darn near perfect PFT/CFT scores, but nothing and I do mean nothing ever comes to Marines who score the highest on the range (or pretty close) except maybe a verbal congrats from the officer in charge of a section, and that's if he/she gives a damn.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 2 at 2021 9:56 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 02 Jul 2021 09:56:48 -0400

Culture. From the development of the National Match Courses and Distinguished program in the 1880s through the Korean War, the U.S. War Department offered a pay bonus to personnel shooting high scores on the NMC-based qualification. Attendance at the National Matches at Camp Perry peaked in the early 1960s largely due to military support.

This command interest has dropped significantly in the intervening decades; some reasons justified, others not. Cost of ammunition is not the primary reason. Dry fire is free and skilled shooters thrive on it. Simulators are nearly free to use once acquired and can be owned at the unit level.

Most gun owners are unaware of organized competitive shooting and the lay public is even more so. Military personnel are a cross-section of the general public and enter service unaware of marksmanship so their knowledge and interest is limited by what the non-shooters in their unit don't know about it.