Competition Shooting

[Peregrino]

I'm glad to see a few people taking a realistic attitude towards competitive shooting. It is fun. It is also challenging and, if approached with an open mind and personal discipline, it CAN be a quality training experience. You get out of it what you put in it. If all you see is the "game", I can just about guarantee you won't gain much from the experience. OTOH, if you bring realistic expectations and concentrate on fundamentals (efficiency, i.e. economy of motion and accuracy, i.e the basics of marksmanship) you cannot help but improve your skills.

NTM - When you find yourself on a two-way range, it's a little late to discover you can't shoot when stressed. Competition may be artificially induced stress but it's better than flat-footed on a flat range punching holes in paper. To paraphrase TS - "masturbatory marksmanship only impresses the shooter". Thanks TS , I use that concept regularly, and some of my victims even (or eventually) understand what I'm talking about.

[Leozinho]

Originally Posted by JGarcia

I am an instructor at the Nat'l Guard Marksmanship Training Center; on the Squad Designated Marksman Course staff. I think I can shoot okay.

Originally Posted by APLP

With all due respect, I would wager a case of beer, that you would have a hard time qualifiying as a mid level "C" class IPSC shooter in the "production, or limited class". Not a slam on you, but you won't know what you don't know until give it a try.

Standby.....

I was going to let it slide, but that is what I was thinking, too.

I'm NOT saying that I'd rather have a civilian USPSA competitor than JGarcia by my side in a firefight. Quite the opposite. However, ceteris peribus, a soldier than has his 'A' card is better than one that has only fired his pistol during flat range week at SFAUC.

[Gene Econ]

Originally Posted by JGarcia

I am an instructor at the Nat'l Guard Marksmanship Training Center; on the Squad Designated Marksman Course staff. I think I can shoot okay.

JG:

You are an instructor at the Guard MTC and on the SDM staff eh?

Are you Army Distinguished or Presidents Hundred? Perhaps a Master or High Master at mid and long range? Or do you think these things do not relate to precision marksmanship?

My advice is this. Army Distinguished is a must. Presidents Hundred is possible where you are. They prove you are a damn good marksman. A CIB or the title of "Instructor of SDM" doesn't.

Just some advice.

[JGarcia]

Nope Gene Econ,

I have earned no distinguished badges or President’s Hundred tab. I am just lucky they decided to bring me on board, I guess. But yes, I do instruct there. Our last class was conducted in terrible shooting conditions, ice, fog, snow, heavy winds and plenty of rain over the two week class (our course runs two weeks as opposed to the 5 day AMU version); yet 100% of our students met the standards and passed the course, the bar was not lowered. We had a few re-tests on Range E which is typical and probably the most difficult part of SDM; Range E with an ACOG is an acquired skill. Typically we have an 84% pass rate. We work closely with all of them to do our best to help them achieve the standards.

We don’t use fancy pants rifles, or exotic optics, just what you can expect at any old arms room, M16A4’s, iron sights and ACOG’s. (With standard Army equipment the course is really a true test of one’s marksmanship ability, train like you fight, no? Your typical infantryman, engineer, or scout cannot expect to be given a free floating barrel, Leupold optics, bipods and national match triggers, but that’s what you’ll train with at AMU.) I think this past class was a testament to our instruction, of which I am a part of.

I certainly do think that Distinguished Badges, Presidents Hundred, High Power etc., relate to precision marksmanship. Fundamentals are fundamentals.

It is infinitely more interesting to me to see how well guys can shoot in full kit with issue ammo and weapons than it is to see some guys with sooped up race guns, light loads, and fancy pants attire jog around a neat little range popping targets. Now if it were scantily clad surgically enhanced college chicks jogging around popping targets, that’d be cool… IF… they had a naked Crisco Twister cage match at the end and then suddenly were passionately attracted to each other… but I digress.

At any rate, I intend to compete in Benning's Combat Pistol Championship match - Novice class (as this will be my first) in February. I am working towards my distinguished badge. I don't think I will be able to compete in the All Army matches this year because we will be otherwise engaged during that time. I have no interest in high power right now, working only on pistol for now; we’ll see how well I do in February. Pistol is not something infantry guys spend a great deal of time on so it’s fun for me.

Gene, you are right, I need the badges to get the respect. I believe our course might just be the best practical marksmanship training you can get ... anywhere in the Army. I’m a graduate of it, and excited about marksmanship for the average Soldier. I'll let you know when I am sporting that Distinguished Badge.

Do you think any of your students might participate in our Wilson Match or AFSAM this year?

[whocares175]

just wanted to throw out my $0.02..and if i'm way off feel free to tell me to STFU...if you're having a hard time finding competitions to compete in that have what you are looking for you can do what we used to do when i was in Ranger Batt....we would find a quiet range or place to shoot that had no one else around and we'd show up in full kit and do stress shoots all day. it was just us as a group of friends who didn't want to deal with the bs involved in 1 either locating competitions or 2 the sometimes impractical regulations of these competitions. so we made our own and it was pretty fun. we all benefitted and had a blast......just my $0.02.

[kawika]

I wish I could get a distinguished shooter badge. Cant ever get enough time of be at home long enough to do the multiday events. Maybe if I do a few CMP matches a year in 10 years ill have it

[Razor]

Originally Posted by JGarcia

I believe our course might just be the best practical marksmanship training you can get ... anywhere in the Army.

"The Army" is an awfully big organization with lots of moving parts, many unseen by the majority; its tough to make a definitive statement encompassing all of it.

[JGarcia]

Whocares175,

We do a bit of that after duty hours around here, and it is fun.

Razor,

Perhaps I am a little cocky.. .. But really just fired up about it. I know there are some places where things get done that we'll never see.. and that's the way it ought to be. But for big Army, I bet this is the heat.

[Juliet Delta]

For what it is worth, I have learned a lot about my shooting though competition (and watching myself on video).

I'm just a civy, who does a fair bit of pistol shooting...but I have definitely improved from shooting IDPA.

If you're looking to practice with your fighting load...IDPA might be a little more "friendly". It all comes down to the vibe at the local level, but in general IPSC tends to be a lot more "game" oriented. When I shoot IDPA, I use my standard carry rig (IWB holster, fleece jacket instead of a Gucci tac vest for cover, and my G19 carry gun). I shoot for accuracy, and good habits...and don't scurry around, and extend past cover like some of the "gamers" do.

There was a comment earlier about the better shooters being more efficient. That it certainly the case. I improved a lot after I saw all the excess movement I was doing on video, then I worked on lessening it. Competition between my friends and I who shot together just motivated me to improve.

I'd shoot what is available to you, and just use it as a tool to help motivate you to practice more, or become more efficient in your procedures.

Best of luck to you.

[HOLLiS]

Originally Posted by Juliet Delta

For what it is worth, I have learned a lot about my shooting though competition (and watching myself on video).

Videoing oneself is a really great tool. What we see in our mind and what the instructor sees can be two completely different things.

[The Reaper]

I too, encourage the use of video.

It is human nature to deny that we have done something wrong.

When we see ourselves doing it on tape, rather than the instructor arguing with us about it, we accept that we have made a mistake, try to remember to not do it next time, and move on.

The helmet cam and gun cams are great as well. Nothing like seeing what the shooter was seeing at the moment to allow for a great Socratic discussion.

The Simunitions trainers and Paul Howe make good and extensive use of tape in their training. Paul, particularly, cycles the tape frequently so that you get the feedback quickly in the hotwashes between runs, rather than a follies reel at the end, as some instructors seem to do.

It is a great tool, when properly applied.

TR

[Gene Econ]

Originally Posted by JGarcia

Gene, you are right, I need the badges to get the respect. I believe our course might just be the best practical marksmanship training you can get ... anywhere in the Army. I’m a graduate of it, and excited about marksmanship for the average Soldier. I'll let you know when I am sporting that Distinguished Badge.

Do you think any of your students might participate in our Wilson Match or AFSAM this year?

J.G.

I work with Regulars and they send guys to Benning for the sniper competition but not Little Rock. I am not sure you guys would accept them as the Wilson matches are for Guard only (?). It wouldn't matter as Regular outfits really aren't interested. A different culture.

The courses I run for DM's are ten days and I use stress tests for evaluation purposes so there are very significant differences between what I do and what faulty doctrine advises. So far I haven't been impressed with the DM courses run by the AMU but don't know what the Guard does. I don't think the AMU courses prepare guys for combat and I know they don't give them much in terms of perfecting marksmanship skills. The old story of shoot more ammo and you will learn on your own while emphasizing everything except what needs to happen for good enough shots under difficult conditions.

Ask the guys there at Little Rock why they will not allow a sniper team to compete in the Sniper matches unless they are B-4 qualified. He, he, he. It is because guys from the All Guard Team donned full kit and whipped all others. This brings on a point that you may want to consider. It depends on what you define as the mission essential aspects of making a good shot. You see, even though those All Guard guys shoot High Power, they have done one thing that most Army schools don't train guys to do or even emphasize in training. The guys who shoot High Power and are top of the line have trained their finger to move when their eyes have seen the degree of perfection they know is needed for success. And they move the trigger without moving the barrel.

Now some say "put on full kit, shoot a rack grade carbine and ball ammo and then see how well you do." This is not the type of statement I would place bets on. The really superb shooters -- guys who hold High Master scores in national competition, repeatedly get the Presidents Hundred and who vie for national level titles are so used to shooting in different conditions that their abilities don't drop because of the enviornment or what they are wearing. They understand that ball ammo and a rack grade rifle won't shoot as well as their match grade rifles and match grade ammo but aside from that -- they don't allow other things to bother them. In other words, they can maintain their focus despite helmets, body armor, etc. Take my word for it -- time factors mean nothing to them either. Their performance levels don't change much due to the environment or anything else. Also, they know what to train on and how to train which are two more things lacking in doctrinal schools.

Becoming Distinguished or Presidents Hundred in Rifle or Pistol isn't to earn a badge. It is to learn how to perfect the basics and from that you can influence your Soldiers more efficiently and effectively in training.

I wonder exactly what the Army expects out of guys shooting carbines, issued ball, and poor optics (ACOGs). So far I haven't heard of a DM blasting someone at ranges past about 200 meters yet the courses seem to emphasize trying to make a worn out carbine and ball ammo function efficiently at 550 meters instead of what a DM will really do which is maneuver with his Squad and do his best to shoot folks he can identify as enemy.

My intent for the DM courses I run is to prepare them to fill in Sniper slots and sorry guys but it happens -- a-lot. So I get spotting scopes and have the DM's work in two man teams -- using the same dialogue and techniques as with snipers. I run them through so many tests that it gets to the point where a test is training and not even a test anymore. It payed off for a couple of Brigades so I figure it is OK.

You have a unique opportunity to really become a fine rifleman or pistolero at Little Rock. They have the resources and the guys with the experience that will allow you to move to the 'next level'. 99.99% of us never had that opportunity and if you really enjoy marksmanship -- take advantage of what Little Rock can offer you.

Happy New Year!

Gene

[frostfire]

Originally Posted by Gene Econ

poor optics (ACOGs)

Gene Econ Sir, could you please elaborate on why you consider the ACOG as poor optic?

I've used it (not in 2 way range), and I thought it really amplifies the shooter capacity to perform just from the sheer difference of being able to "see."
Using ACOG on a ~7lbs, free-floated M4 platform, no sling, and M855 green tip, I was able to replicate my sitting rapid shots (95 to 99, I've never cleaned ) using 14lbs match service rifle, mk 262, and Turner sling. The one I used was 4x32 with chevron reticle.

Alles gute für 2009

[kawika]

I wouldn't say the ACOG is a poor optic. But rather for shooting things like CMP, NRA, High power ETC (half of those don't use optics anyway but yah get my drift) it isn't ideal. It's a combat optic. Same reason you wouldn't want to use an EOTECH to engage targets past 200 meters without a magnifer. Sure it'll work but there is better. ACOG isn't a match shooting optic.

[Gene Econ]

Originally Posted by kawika

I wouldn't say the ACOG is a poor optic. But rather for shooting things like CMP, NRA, High power ETC (half of those don't use optics anyway but yah get my drift) it isn't ideal. It's a combat optic. Same reason you wouldn't want to use an EOTECH to engage targets past 200 meters without a magnifer. Sure it'll work but there is better. ACOG isn't a match shooting optic.

Kawika:

I am not talking about competitive shooting sports. I am talking the issued ACOG in terms of SDM's and for the military. I have found them to be mechanically unreliable and prone to fogging up in cold rain. I am not comparing them to Night Force or S&B either. However they aren't cheap so they should be expected to function and not fog up.

Given the effective range of a very good marksman using an issued carbine firing issued ball is about 500 yards on a upper torso size target, the use of ranging stadia is of no value aside than offering the shooter multiple opportunities to use the wrong line. And they do -- constantly. And it isn't due to training. It is due to human nature which the reticle design of the ACOG seems to ignore.

There are other options that may not be as durable in terms of getting beaten up but at least can be depended on to work in adverse weather conditions and are easier for the shooter to see.

Gene