Optics added for entry-level Marine rifle training

[stagehand steve]

Marines using pilot program to start recruits with optics instead of iron sights:

http://marinecorpstimes.com/news/2011/06/marine-corps-boot-camp-optics-062611/

-stagehand steve

[Patent guy]

This does omit the "sight alignment" step.  Simpler is better?

[boltgun71]

This does omit the "sight alignment" step.  Simpler is better?

Well it doesn't omit sight alignment, just simplifies it a bit.  Sight alignment with a optic consists of proper eye relief and making sure your centered in the optic and have a full field of view with no "shadeing" around the edges.

I will be curious to see the results of this pilot program.  I can understand the views of the proponents of both sides, whether iron sights or optics.

Iron sights are great to learn the fundamentals on, reliable, and usually almost always available on a military issue rifle which is a plus if optics fail.  And heck, iron sights are tradition.

But optics are the way of combat, and you should train as you fight.  You cant hit what you cant see.  And most "targets" in war are concealed, camoflauged, moving, partially exposed, or at extended distances from you.  Optics are a must to effectivly engage them.  Not to mention, the "targets" may be shooting back and optics can aid in quickly identifying and precisely eliminating the threat, instead of straining your eye to search for them and then obscuring the target with your front sight post. 

[yellowhousejake]

This does omit the "sight alignment" step.  Simpler is better?

Not even. Depending on the optic it can complicate things enormously. Irons are easier to teach IMO. Once a student learns irons they can teach themselves sight alignment necessary for optics, but not the other way around.

YHJ

[Castle Mountain]

You are such a good teacher Boltgun.   

Best regards

CM

[Castle Mountain]

   


I like your Bonhoffer quote. Did you read his book.."   Letters From Prison" ?


Cheers


CM

This does omit the "sight alignment" step.  Simpler is better?

Not even. Depending on the optic it can complicate things enormously. Irons are easier to teach IMO. Once a student learns irons they can teach themselves sight alignment necessary for optics, but not the other way around.

YHJ

[EEL]

+1 Boltgun.  Yes, everyone should at least know how to use irons, optics are, superior when it comes to target detection, aquistion, and engagement.  You cannot shoot what you cannot see.  Snipers use scopes for a reason, as do their spotters.  Spotting scope is not called such on accident.  ACOGs and Aimpoints are not issued because they are cheaper than the standard A2 or a set of irons for the A3.  They are issued because they work.....very well.

Learn how to shoot with iron sights.  They are robust and will always be with you.  But don't feel any less of a Rifleman if you put glass on your rifle.  Remember, hits count. 

EEL

[Leonidas]

Marines using pilot program to start recruits with optics instead of iron sights:

http://marinecorpstimes.com/news/2011/06/marine-corps-boot-camp-optics-062611/

-stagehand steve

There goes the neighborhood.....
Semper Fidelis

[DesertDog]

+1 to Boltgun again.  They are training to shoot people who are shooting at them, not to score 210 and get a patch on a static firing line.  Their world is different than ours.

[EEL]

DesertDog,

With all due respect, they are training to stay alive.  Whatever that takes.      

I reckon we are on the same page 

EEL

[Chrome]

I'd like to see it work like this.  Issued flattop rifle with BUIS.  Zero BUIS and have abbreviated training on use of iron sights.  Then, every Marine is responsible for zeroing their optic from scratch.  That should be taught to every soldier going into combat with an optic.  Sadly, I'd bet money that will not be taught.

Later,
Chrome...

[DesertDog]

DesertDog,

With all due respect, they are training to stay alive.  Whatever that takes.      

I reckon we are on the same page 

EEL

Your right I was a little blunt in my description, I tend to do that 

[CharlieHotel]

Here is my opinion... 

Any Soldier or Marine that has Mastered Iron-sights can adapt to optics. I'm not talking about sniper rifles, I mean CQB type ACOG and the like. I don't believe that to be true in the Inverse. Lets not get our guys dependent on equipment. They have GPS now but they are still taught land navigation.
It seems like every so many decades Commanders forget the lessons of the past. Stop making them qualify KD and markmanship skills drop off. Then the commanders all get together and say "how can we improve marksmanship?" "Hey I have an idea, lets start a designated marksmanship program or lets go back to KD..."
Now I completely understand the logistics of this, it takes time and money to train soldiers/marines but I believe marksmanship to be one of, if not the single pillar of being an infantryman. He may have to pick up someone else's rifle in battle and it may not have an ACOG. I'm not saying "don't issue the tools that make them more effective but let's not make it a crutch without which they cannot be effective.

Please read this as only my opinion and not a rebuttal to anyone else's testimony here...

My buck-three-eighty...
CH

[Nickle]

Nothing new here. This is actually quite old news, been this way for several years now.

The Marines issue ACOG's to all troops, the Army issues ACOG's to selected troops, and CCO's (Aimpoint CompM4 is the current CCO) to the rest (most of us). My assigned M5 wore an ACOG up until deployment, when it came back, it now wears a CCO. Back up sights are a given. Those of us with CCO's usually zero with irons, then rezero the CCO, before qualifying. We qualify with the CCO, the BUIS is used as a back up only.

We don't usually qualify KD. We qualify on Pop Ups, which isn't the same as KD, though we know the distances in our heads. If a Pop Up range isn't available, then we qualify KD (300, 200, 100).

And, we do get taught how to zero our stuff. I'm in a Mountain Infantry battalion. Ripersnifle (one of our SB's here) can back what I'm saying, he's in the same battalion.

[yellowhousejake]

Nope, I was sent an excerpt of something he wrote by a friend, the paragraphs I read contained the quote. I had to go look him up to understand the context.

Funny you noted that, I removed all quotes from my profile the night I posted  the message. You must have posted pretty quick behind me.

YHJ

I like your Bonhoffer quote. Did you read his book.."   Letters From Prison" ?

Cheers

CM

This does omit the "sight alignment" step.  Simpler is better?

Not even. Depending on the optic it can complicate things enormously. Irons are easier to teach IMO. Once a student learns irons they can teach themselves sight alignment necessary for optics, but not the other way around.

YHJ

[dugjeep]

Are Appleseed rifle course of training  is almost a mirror image of my USMC rifle training,  we do in a weekend what the marines do in 2 weeks.  I like to tell students you learn to shoot like a marine with out going to boot camp.  I am all for what ever platform gets you home. 

Every Marine a rifleman first!!!

[Leonidas]

Every Marine a rifleman is right. The fundamental training that you get in boot camp IMHO should be irons only, the way it has been since tun tavern. Push optic training to SOI? Fine. Predeployment training? Even better. Boot camp doesn't teach you how to wage war, it teaches you how to be a Marine (A rifleman who can grab a rack grade rifle and surplus ammo and shoot 4 M.O.A.) just my opinion, I'm sure the C.M.C. And the SgtMaj signed of on it. And the SgtMaj has way more experience in war fighting than I do. (the new Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps is a decorated sniper who served tours in Iraq and Afghanistan).

[AdamSelene]

Every Marine a rifleman is right. The fundamental training that you get in boot camp IMHO should be irons only, the way it has been since tun tavern. Push optic training to SOI? Fine. Predeployment training? Even better. Boot camp doesn't teach you how to wage war, it teaches you how to be a Marine (A rifleman who can grab a rack grade rifle and surplus ammo and shoot 4 M.O.A.) just my opinion, I'm sure the C.M.C. And the SgtMaj signed of on it. And the SgtMaj has way more experience in war fighting than I do. (the new Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps is a decorated sniper who served tours in Iraq and Afghanistan).

I agree with the sentiment, however ultimately the military makes some calculated decisions.  They have x weeks to train people to become soldier, marines etc.  Many are going almost straight downrange.  So they make some choices on what method to train and what to do with that time.  One choice they are making is to spend more time training optics, which they are more likely to use to engage an enemy with than irons.  No it isnt optimum, but there it is. 
Another example of this is the army eliminating bayonet training.  They enhanced the amount of combatives basic trainees received.  Feedback from downrange was that soldiers tussle with local national more than they bayonet people so they changed it.  Done properly, combatives can be used to fill the role that bayonet training filled.  This role was aggression training.

Twould be nice to train irons heavily, but I dont blame the Marines for making the calculated choice.

[Justin]

Alrighty, Now for my $.02 cents on this matter that really doesn't pertain to urgency, scheduling, or any of the other parts of the AS mission. I'm wondering now why I'm writing this instead of bailing, seems to be a forum wide problem but anyhow.....

With the utmost respect to AdamSelene, you made you statement at the beginning and based the rest of the assessment around that particular statement.

They have x weeks to train people to become soldiers marines (<--that should be capitalized btw) etc.

The statement is flawed due to the fact that the standards are nowhere near the same, nor is the training, nor is the mission.

So let me begin. The  army qualification is based on pop up targets out to 300y that measure 19" wide by 40" wide. So worst case scenario you are dealing with a 6.3 MOA by 13.3 MOA target. Not to mention elevation is a nonissue due to large target size. Aim center mass with a proper BZO and you will hit the target every time, irons OR optics. At this point I'll argue that we're not even talking about marksmanship anymore.

The slow fire targets for the Marine Corps are 6 MOA at 200 and 4 MOA at 300 and 4 MOA x 8 MOA at 500 for max point value. Regardless of point value, aiming center mass will not produce a qualified score as opposed the the Armys test meaning elevation and wind settings are placed on the rifle.

Now, standards aside, we'll get back to the subject matter which is the potential problems from using optics for entry level training now that we've established that the standards of marksmanship (if you want to call it that in the case of the Army's qualification) are very different.

The M-16 A2, A4, and M4 Carbine with iron sights provided a quick reference elevation adjustment. This was a good thing. The windage however did lack real understanding by the masses without the aid of a rifle data book. The advantage was that elevation and windage changes were applied to the rifle and the next shot was taken. Iron sights were easily zeroed, and easily BZO'd using only a small amount of Ammo. The iron sights were also effective in virtually all theaters. Best of all, you could literally throw the rifle at the wall, pick it up, and still have an accurate shot.

With the introduction of the RCO you lose a variety of what was fundamentally good. First they instruction stopped using proactive dope settings and began using kentucky windage and holdovers. This in itself is the death of marskmanship. In AS terms, it destroyed the Rifleman's dance. The entry level Marines are now being taught a reactive hold over and point of aim offset method. The RCO is about 3 clicks per MOA, but they don't teach that. Secondly, I cannot begin to tell you how many RCO's I had to send in or higher echelon maintenance due to prism and parts breaking. As a unit armorer I admit I have a hate hate relationship with optics. They are unreliable and what's worse, the only decent way to zero them is by laser boresight.

So reality check. Do you want an RCO on your rifle that is prone to breaking when you need it the most and when/if it is replaced iyou need a laser boresight to even get a near zero with the knowledge you are throwing proper marksmanship in the trash, compounded with the problem of the possibility that RCOs are not in stock and irons are all that can be issued on so now the average rifleman doesn't even know how to use them
or
Do you want iron sights that rarely break, are easy to zero, and maintain the possibility of a high standard of marksmanship for entry level training, and the use of optics thereafter.

Seems like an easy answer to me. I do have the advantage of being intimately familiar with the reality of actually operating with both and the failure/maintenance required of the RCO. As far as fielding the gear, an occupation force has a lot of advantages as far as logistics as compared with a shock troop force.

Teaching and using proper fundamentals of marksmanship is the basis of being a rifleman, by handing optics and teaching the methods of using them that we are, we are doing an injustice.

[boltgun71]

Well said justin and I agree with most of what you say.

You experience mirrors mine, but with the CCO (Aimpoint CompM) instead.  When I first joined and was assigned to my first Infantry unit they tried issuing me one.  But I preferred iron sights due to there reliability and they didnt depend on a battery.  I saw way too many CCO's get sent in for repair or batteries die, even though they are supposed to ridiculus battery lifes.

I certainly prefer the ACOG myself for combat but have seen alot of them break as well.  But when 1,000's are in use daily, your bound to wear them out and find a few flawed ones.  I guess the only spot where I differ from you is in the use of a laser boresight, I hate them and dont use them.  I find them a needless waste of time, especially when you have to rotate and center them first.  This past week I have run a zero range for about 200 deploying Reservist, about a quarter of them have brand new ACOG's.  We zero at 100m here where I am, and not a single of the 50 or so ACOG's, fresh out of the box and mounted directly to the rifle, were more than 6 inches off L-R or U-D from center mass at 100m.  I was impressed.  Every one was zeroed in less than 10rds at 100m, then fine tuned at 300m, once again with just another 10rds.  It went smooth.

I believe in the crawl-walk-run methodology and believe iron sights should still be the way to go in basic/boot, and then introduce optics after qualification.  A Rifleman needs to know iron sights. 

[LaneArein]

I've always looked at it from this perspective:

Back Up Optics instead of BUIS.