If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS July Giveaway ***Smith & Wesson SD9VE***
I think they should train for 'real world' scenarios. Just makes me wonder what enemy they have in mind for this new technique.
Tin foil time I know, but can't help but wonder and to know if their focus is on American civilians.
The timing is suspicious to me with what happened with congress a few weeks back and Biden being the potus and all...
Maybe so. Most prior military trained the old way. And since the Marines have done pretty well in foreign conflicts to this point it just makes me wonder why now for the change in training tactics.For now put the tin foil back under the kitchen counter. At a minimum the "problem" recently was not shooting proficiency and it sounds like the marines have been at it since Trump.
It's not a change in initial training, it's a change in qualification.Maybe so. Most prior military trained the old way. And since the Marines have done pretty well in foreign conflicts to this point it just makes me wonder why now for the change in training tactics.
Unless you’re a new officer candidate or recruit, in that case the traditional initial marksmanship training and two weeks of snapping in drills, shooting slick and in the century-old standing, kneeling, sitting and prone positions will still apply.
14 weeks of SOI! No thx!!!!!The Corps has also revamped it's Infantry training, extending it from nine to fourteen weeks:
New Marine Infantry Training Course Aims to Make Deadlier, More Independent Grunts
The USMC was in charge of the M16A2 program and its requirements. A few of their changes were aimed at improving the rifle for a one-way 500 yard qualification range rather than actual combat.Huh? What's that about?
On the requal range I'd cycle the cam to set up the light trigger pull for every shot (not the rapid fire strings of course).They switched it to a three round burst that made every third semi auto shot have a slightly different trigger pull weight and feel.
Thanks, interesting!The USMC was in charge of the M16A2 program and its requirements. A few of their changes were aimed at improving the rifle for a one-way 500 yard qualification range rather than actual combat.
They ditched the very simple and effective A1 sights in favor of adding a sight with elevation adjustment out to 800 meters that was better suited for paper targets than combat. It was no longer meant to be zeroed for a combat zero out to 250 meters. The small aperture is too small and the big one too big
They extended the length of pull to increase shooter scores in the prone(particularly for their 500 yard qualification) at the expense of all other shooting positions. Particularly at the expense of squared-off fighting stance style shooting positions that are used for a considerable amount of modern combat shooting. Nevermind how much it screwed over every person who is/was shorter than average. Hell, even average height people are disadvantaged with the A2 length vs the A1 length.
Then there were the issues of adding a god forsaken bump to the pistol grip for who knows what reason. They switched it to a three round burst that made every third semi auto shot have a slightly different trigger pull weight and feel. Oh, and adding weight to the end of the barrel instead of towards the chamber. You can thank them for the notorious “government” barrel profile.
About the only good things to come out of the A2 were the brass deflector, 1-7 twist, handguard, and flash hider.