…or at least that’s the gist of this fascinating article in Infantry magazine. (Found via Arms and the Law.)
The money quote is towards the beginning and references the well-known request of troops in Iraq to be issued with M14s instead of M4s. But, says the article, would they have known how to use them effectively? The author thinks not.
This has been a topic for a long, long time. Riflemen made this comment when the US adopted the Garand, only now, it is the truth.
While you will find one who can shoot well, getting stuck with “marksman” isn’t the Scarlet letter it used to be. Except maybe for the USMC.
I read that article in dead tree form about a month ago. I think the point isn’t so much that the infantry can’t shoot-it’s that they can’t shoot at range.
Given the wide availability of aides such as the ACOG, this shouldn’t be.
What’s not really mentioned is the logistical/budget side of making the desired increases in marksmanship proficiency. It takes a significant amount of ammo to build and maintain that. Ammo that isn’t currently accounted for in the training standards/budget. So unless you want to take ammo (and time) away from collective training (squad, platoon, company level live fire exercises), you have to convince Congress to give you more money, on top of the extra $26 billion the Army wants this year.
One the good news side, LTG Honore and First Army are looking to bring back competitive rifle shooting. 1A isn’t big in terms of people, but they’re all the right kind of people-NCOs and trainers.