# FATS



## Sh0rtbUs (17 Mar 2004)

My course was supposed to be scheduled to head down to Fort York Armouries sometime this week to have a go at the Simulator they have. We were told by our Sergeant "Think of your favourite video game...then multiply it by 8" when we asked what it was like..so i was wondering if anyone could give me the low-down on it, what can be done on it...etc. I have this image of duck hunt with a C7 in my head....


----------



## Redeye (17 Mar 2004)

It‘s often joked about that way.  The official term is CFSATS - the Canadian Forces Small Arms Trainer Simulator, which is manufactured by Fire Arms Training Systems of Suwanee, Georgia.

Basically, it is a fairly realistic simulator system which can effectively simulate the operation of a variety of weapons.  Your unit will have C6, C7, C9, M72, M203, and a kit for the Carl Gustav.  There are also modules for other weapons, and the system can be used to train artillery observers in its CGI mode.

The SATS can simulate all standard range practices and PWTs, as well as a variety of operator-designed serials.  It can factor in weather (its ballistic effects), and can be used to monitor proper application of drills and IAs.

What it basically uses are modified weapons fitted with laser emitters and a gas system which runs on compressed CO2 stored in tanks.  The weapons look exactly like those you‘d be issued (although my unit‘s rifles are Bushmaster XM-15s rather than Diemaco C7s), and feel similar, although the C7 is someone "front-heavy" because of the gas cylinder apparatus.  The laser doesn‘t pulse like your Nintendo light gun - it is a constant beam, and a camera mounted above the projector records the hits.  SATS is computer-zeroed, so the operator can zero and adjust weapons as needed.

There are sensors in the C7s which monitor cant angle, barrel movement, trigger squeeze, and butt pressure, which the operator and his range NCOs can use to coach shooters.

I could go on for ages about the system, I‘m a trained operator, so if you want to know anything else about it, just ask.


----------



## 1feral1 (17 Mar 2004)

We have FATS eqpt here in Australia. Its called WTSS short for Weapons Training Simulation System(pronounced ‘wets‘). Many very well done scenerios for the following weapons:

F88 Austeyr family
M16 family
F89A1 Minimi 
MAG 58 (C6)
84mm Charlie Gutsache (Carl G)

M203PI is being looked at.

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## Thompson_JM (18 Mar 2004)

> Originally posted by Redeye:
> [qb] (although my unit‘s rifles are Bushmaster XM-15s rather than Diemaco C7s[/qb]


Redeye, any reason your unit uses the Bushmaster XM-15, and pardon the Ignorance but is there any differance in look or operation from the C7?

Just wondering.

cheers


----------



## Redeye (18 Mar 2004)

It‘s basically the same rifle (AR-15 design, Safe/Semi/Auto selector) - as far as I know, all SATS have that particular rifle, but I haven‘t seen enough systems to know for sure.  Since they are made in the USA, it seems logical that it would be easier for the company to procure rifles for conversion in the USA rather than sending C7s there to be converted.  I‘m not positive that‘s the reason, but it‘s the only one I can come up with.


----------



## Righty (18 Mar 2004)

ahhh.... The SAT trainer... The first time they brought us in there our sgt‘s, and MCpl‘s gave us a demo and had an actual simulated attack... every second thing outta there mouths was "DIE F&%&^%S".....that was fun


----------



## Redeye (18 Mar 2004)

Yeah, we‘ve done some demos using the CGI scenarios with SATS that break down into ridiculous.  everyone just wants to fire the C6 from the shoulder and mow the commies down...

That aside, it can (and generally is) an excellent training tool that needs polishing.


----------



## pte anthony (18 Mar 2004)

we had one at the regiment for a while during 2002 it was a blast. We did range scenerios with c9 c6 and c7 and then did a simulated raid on a village with people running out and dropping into the prone  and popping off shots from windows it ****in rocked even though to me besides all the features such as hands on weapons and excellent statistacal records it seemed kind of 80s video game cheesy I mean no one s gonna run out into the middle of the street in a FIBUA situaion to face a on coming fighting patrol unless its raw ambush   :soldier:


----------



## Doug VT (18 Mar 2004)

I‘m a system operator, and it‘s not too bad.  It could be so much better though.  So many times when creating my own ranges and scenarios, I wished I had the password to add some of my own targets...
All of the "C7‘s" are the bushmasters.  They are a real rifle, just modified to operate with the system.  The company will supply almost anything that you want, if you have the budget...


----------



## Sh0rtbUs (18 Mar 2004)

so when using it..the user IS stationary, correct? How exactly would a raid on a village work?


----------



## Redeye (18 Mar 2004)

Their website it quite interesting.  They even have baton dummies for police training.  I‘m told that the navy has MP5s and pistols for theirs too.

The system can do a lot of things they showed us during our course that I just never got around to trying, and with the limited time that Reservists get to use the system, the vast majority of the focus goes to rifle marksmanship rather than complex CGI scenarios.

Doug, do you know if the rumoured modified C79 sights ever materialized in the system?  I know that there were supposed to be some procured to compensate for the fact that the focal length of the real C79 makes it difficult to get good sight picture resolution in the 18 m in which the system operates.

I suspect a public relations nightmare might erupt if some targets were loaded.  I‘ve never laughed so hard and some things.  "1 Section, 200, school bus to your front, rapid rate, FIRE" never sounded quite so funny.


----------



## Spr.Earl (19 Mar 2004)

The first time I came accross this type of system was in Minnasota at Camp Ripley in 95,but alas did not get a chance to go and play as we were doing a bunch of project‘s on the base i.e building tank turning pad‘s on the road‘s but the Field Troopies got to go.
The one thing they said was if didn‘t do your weapon‘s drill‘s right you could not fire,the computer locked you out untill you did the correct reload or clear drill,IA‘s etc.
Is ours the same?


----------



## 1feral1 (19 Mar 2004)

Recently at Holsworthy at the WTSS Bldg, I had a chance to do the ‘Downtown Dili‘ scenerio.

As you Ptl the street, passing small shoppes, and even a Coke sign painted on a wall, you end up coming under SA fire, and suddenly a ‘technical‘ appears with a 12.7 MG on it and about 4 pers, rge under 100m. 

Our entire section shot the living **** out of the vehicle, killing all EN pers, and even the veh caught fire and smoked.

Not bad graphics either.

we carried on, and again came under fire from a church, and along a fence line. Again all EN pers were killed.

Its a very good learning tool, and has many other scenerios one can programme in, such as ‘shoot dont shoot‘ situations, and it even can follow the muzzle of your IW, to show you where you have been pointing your rifle, after the fact.

I was impressed.

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## Tpr.Orange (19 Mar 2004)

I played tonight actually. 

Loved every second of it. We did range firing, sectional, in cities in the artic, with paratroopers landing and vehicles rolling in. We even had platoons charging us from different directions. There were stoppages inbetween, the recoil is slightly the same as the real thing, and its a great trainer and fun as ****


----------



## Tpr.Orange (19 Mar 2004)

> Originally posted by Spr.Earl:
> [qb]
> The one thing they said was if didn‘t do your weapon‘s drill‘s right you could not fire,the computer locked you out untill you did the correct reload or clear drill,IA‘s etc.
> Is ours the same? [/qb]


Yep ours are the same! the other thing is if your magazine is touching the ground during prone position is wont allow you to fire, cause the machine things your too weak! Its great because the c7 is 80% of the actual recoil and all the information about your shots go straight into the computer, so they can tell you how much pressure your applying to the butt and to the trigger etc.. great trainer


----------



## Redeye (19 Mar 2004)

The magazine resting stoppage has nothing to do with machine thinking you‘re weak, it‘s a technical matter of the way in which the system determines the state of the weapon.  The computer sets the size of the magazine, which is basically a giant magnet.  The computer knows if the mag is in or out based on whether the magnet closes a switch or not (hence just popping the mag out of the well and pushing back in counts as a "mag change".  When it sits on the ground and pushed the follower up to high, the system won‘t cycle properly and you get the stoppage.

The recoil is 100% of the real thing, the regulator is designed that way, though it can be turned down to as low as 25% as a training tool if desired (though I can see absolutely no purpose for doing so).

Our systems require you conduct all the drills properly, since for all intents and purposes they work exactly like real firearms, with CO2 replacing propellant gases, and no ammunition.  The operator can simulate and IA except a mechanical stoppage (ie Bolt Partially Closed).  Even a runaway MG can be simulated, though the actual drill doesn‘t work because the belt does not feed through the weapon.

Incidentally, you did not "play" it.  It‘s not a toy, it‘s a training aid.


----------



## Tpr.Orange (20 Mar 2004)

well red eye ive obviously been misinformed...my deepest apologies... 

and as for play lets not be to picky


----------



## Redeye (20 Mar 2004)

It‘s not a matter of being picky, it‘s a matter of professionalism.  This board is watched by members of the public, many of whom may not be impressed by the military having $150,000/unit "toys".  I‘ll be the first to admit that after I saw the system for the first time, I wondered where to put in my quarters, and I would be a liar if I claimed to derive no amusement whatsoever from its use, but the system is meant solely as a training aid.


----------



## portcullisguy (20 Mar 2004)

It‘s a great training aid, too.

On our DP2A course this week, we were doing C7 coaching on the system.  Although we did use the "auto zero" function because we were short on time, the intent was that we could have assisting the firer in correctly zeroing the weapons on the line -- as we will be doing during the range weekends coming up.

Most of the scenarios we did were ranges, not CGI stuff, although I‘ve played on it in the past doing section defensive, etc.

The rifles at our trainer, Moss Park Armoury, are Diemaco C7‘s, I am almost certain of it.  So were the M203‘s.

However, our system is running on Pentium 1‘s, and therefore it runs REALLY slowly.

But some of the features are awesome.  Apparently, with the right network adapters, etc., we could link up with the Fort York and Georgetown armouries‘ SAT systems, and "play" in a virtual battlefield.  The Meaford system apparently has something like 24 weapons hooked up to it.

Every round fired off on a SAT is a round not spent from our dwindling stocks of CF ammunition, and there‘s never any brass to clean up.  The savings are enormous, and it is an excellent training tool.

But, yes, it‘s fun to shoot things!


----------



## hhour48 (21 Mar 2004)

Actually If you lok closely, the weapons are replicas. There‘s a neat picture of a cobra instead of the diemaco emblem


----------



## Jarnhamar (21 Mar 2004)

Talking to a teckie at CFB Kingston while coaching with the FATS and he said the army would like, int he future, all the systems to be interlinked.  The end result being regiments from ontario could train, on the system, with regiments from BC at the same time and give us more practice fighting at a larger level.


----------



## rdschultz (22 Mar 2004)

> Originally posted by Bratok:
> [qb] Actually If you lok closely, the weapons are replicas. There‘s a neat picture of a cobra instead of the diemaco emblem     [/qb]


I think the bushmaster logo is a cobra.  So if it is a bushmaster XM-15, the cobra would make sense.


----------



## scotty884 (30 Mar 2004)

The trainer also has the ability to have 81mm mortars on it too.  We use it once in awhile here saves on money and ammo.


----------



## MPIKE (27 Mar 2006)

I was wondering if anyone had any recent news of use of CFSATS for current training in their unit?  Has anyone updated their unit's system scenarios to something that reflects our current theatre of operations?  I believe that we only have the some basic FATS scenarios involving some Peacekeeping checkpoints etc and most of its use was towards range training .  Unfortunately, our use of this system has been abandoned for other training requirements needs for now but I would like to change that, now that most of our conversion training (cougar to recce) has come to an end.   I would be interested in hearing in some ideas of others who are still incorperating this into their training.  Or has it become like its brother the cougar simulator outdated?

Thanks


----------



## vonGarvin (27 Mar 2006)

The beauty of the SAT is that that IFT/IFACT, IFFT, LAV CGT etc are all made by the same company.  There is a force underway now to "mesh" the systems.  In other words, you sit in a standalone LAV CGT and around you are other soldiers, all fighting the same fight.  Or, think bigger, and the combat team is spread across Gagetown, or wherever, all linked up with say the JCATS running one big virtual battle.  
Of course, Simulators don't replace field training: it enhances it.  Think of it as one more step prior to "going live".
As for the weapons, FATS is implementing Blue-tooth technology so that you aren't "slaved" to the cable: they even have it for pistols.  Basically, the magazine houses the CO2 required to cause the bolt to go back, etc.  So, you can "stack" outside a room, and then enter a "virtual" CGI room.
Also, they showed us some branching video of "shoot/don't shoot" scenarios.  They also have climate controlled rooms, where in one case the scenario was "two man OP".  The room temperature was dropped to just above freezing (the operator was warm in his hole with coffee, internet, etc).  For the first 15 minutes, the soldiers were wide awake, alert, etc.  Nothing happened.  Their instructor reminded them that their shift was 2 hours.  Well, about 1.5 hours into it, some CGI soldiers approached and got very close before being detected by the now-shivering and cold soldiers.  So, it can do more than marksmanship.
They also have this paintball-gun-type-thing that fires paintball-projectile sized foam balls AT YOU, sort of punishment for failing to adopt correct firing positions, etc.

The only restriction to SATS is the human mind and imagination.


----------



## ZipperHead (27 Mar 2006)

> The only restriction to SATS is the human mind and imagination.



You forgot one restriction: money!!!! We have caviar tastes and a Kraft Dinner budget, so the thought of getting these "Gucci" simulators, while enticing, is unlikely, due to the money being better spent elsewhere. Don't get me wrong: I am all about using simulators to augment training (to make sure soldiers are at a higher level than just through field training and theoretical work alone). It's just that some of the extra's can be done without in the interest of getting more of the basics. If we won the International Lottery, I would be all over getting the Cadillac version if we can afford it, but we are likely to get the Honda Civic version: thoroughly capable of getting the job done, but not having all the fancy bells and whistles that aren't really needed, and can be achieved via different (read as: through field training) means. 

I have seen (and played with) a goodly number of these simulators, and they certainly have a high WOW!! factor, but they also come with a WOW!! factor price tag: in excess of $100,000 per "lane" (which is how they refer to each shooting position). That would keep them limited to only one place (Gagetown), and consequently out of the reach of the soldier's that would need to use them constantly: the field force soldiers. In a perfect world, every major formation would get them, but there are many costs associated with these big, high-end bohemoths, and if Lance Wiebe wants to weigh in, I'll let him (he's the FATS Canada rep here in Gagetown) as he would know far more than I do. 

There are other more cost-effective alternatives (desktop simulation, off the shelf systems) that do less, but they can be employed in greater numbers (hence more kit out to the troops).

One "goodie" that you didn't mention (that you may not know about) that I saw that works as an aversion therapy type of device is a belt that is worn around the waist that has a Taser device (with two leads coming out of it) attached to it, and if you don't take good enough cover when being shot at virtually (i.e standing when a prone position is better) the operator can "zap" the offending soldier with a varying length of electricity to "teach" them to adopt a better position. I have a short video clip of a Capt from CTC being shocked with it that is relatively amusing, as he drops to the ground and squeals like a little girl (he received a .75 second burst - it can go up to 5 seconds). I received a .25 second burst, and I was sore for 2 days (muscles contracting rapidly due to the shock). Anyway, there are many "cool" things that can be accomplished, but like anything, there is a cost associated with them, and trying to justify that to the people who control the chequebook is easier said than done: there has to be a concrete reason that something is needed, no LCF factors allowed  .

No lecture intended vG, as you know these things better than I do, but I'd hate to have all the pers reading this run to their CO asking to buy these fancy riggin's, not realizing these are major projects, and take a lot of work to procure. I love what FATS puts out (and they certainly know how to throw a good party, with lots of goodies given away to try to get you to buy their stuff  8) ), but some of it is definitely for those with unlimited budgets (look south, young man.....), not tire-kickers like the CF.

Al


----------



## MPIKE (27 Mar 2006)

Thanks for your input Gents, 

I think I should have prefaced a little more that I'm not looking to do virtual reality field training replacement or even start requesting the procurement of the mega sims that they have at Fort Knox.  I just have the humble idea of using what we have with a greater emphasis.  

When I started in policing there was quite a bit of emphasis in the FATS system but most forces (bigger ones) have moved back towards Simunition Training which is about as realistic as you can get.   But when we did use the system, I think it had the benefits with just getting people to think out of the box.  I would like to propose an increased use of the sim at my unit for some judgmental type training.  Something that I don't think we are doing a good job of showing to new soldiers.  I really have a hate on for Blank Warfare and people endlessly running around with no real use or I should say concept of cover & concealment. (although that Tazer system would cure that)  In perfect world we all would have access to WATC and their Miles gear but that not possible from Oshawa. 

For starters I have to my homework on the exact capabilties of our reserve unit size FATS-in-a-Box that we have and corner the Smea and see what we can do with it.  I thought I could also pick some minds here to see what others are doing with that system.  We have a dedicated room built for it with a theatre sound system and screen so it is just limited to the imagination.

So in my context I'm not looking at re-inventing the wheel, just using the tools that have been sent out to us in the satellite armouries.  I would rather make the training applicable now rather than wait til a soldier goes to pre-op. And anything to avoid death by powerpoint.

Thanks Al I would appreciate hearing more from Lance or yourself in this area.


----------



## Snaketnk (8 Sep 2007)

I realize this thread is over a year old, but I don't think such a minor question merits its own thread.

I was wondering what kind of distribution FATS recieves among the Regular Forces? I know that many Reserve units have 4- or 8-lane set-ups in their local armoury, but what about Regular Forces? Are there FATS set-ups on the major bases? Are they just the Small Arms trainers or do they have the LAV III systems as well? How restricted are their use? I've spent time with nearly all of their products, and I'm just curious as to Regular Force use.


----------



## George Wallace (8 Sep 2007)

Yes they do.  (Same answer for all your questions.)


----------



## bily052 (8 Sep 2007)

I was on the one in Kingston last week.  Had a blast and didn't have to lay in the mud.  (Air Force guy here) LOL


----------



## MG34 (13 Sep 2007)

FATS is pretty much a useless training tool,as it trains the soldiers to shoot an unnatural shot, what I mean is the sim (if you actually follow it's feedback) forces shooters to adopt the position that IT likes, not the most natural position forthe shooter to be in.  I have seen scores drop when inexperienced shooters apply the firing postion feedback that the sim tells them to do.
 Other than that it's a neat distraction that kills some time, and not much else. The money spent on purchasing, upgrading and maintaining the systems would be better spent on ammunition and real range time.


----------



## KevinB (14 Sep 2007)

MG34 said:
			
		

> FATS is pretty much a useless training tool,as it trains the soldiers to shoot an unnatural shot, what I mean is the sim (if you actually follow it's feedback) forces shooters to adopt the position that IT likes, not the most natural position forthe shooter to be in.  I have seen scores drop when inexperienced shooters apply the firing postion feedback that the sim tells them to do.
> Other than that it's a neat distraction that kills some time, and not much else. The money spent on purchasing, upgrading and maintaining the systems would be better spent on ammunition and real range time.



I agree fully.  The only thing I find it useful (and not as good as sims) is shoot/don't shoot stuff from the video's.


----------



## medaid (14 Sep 2007)

The other thing a FATS is good for is PAF events like the PNE 

There was one brought out this year, and it was a huge attraction. I have to admit it was fun for even those of us who were there. I mean it was really neat to just shoot off rounds and practice some basic marksmanship principles. I know my pistol shooting actually improved after that.  ;D


----------



## c_canuk (14 Sep 2007)

it is by no means even close to useful for improving your marksmanship, it does however help with shoot don't shoot as mentioned before and is useful for practicing M72 and M203 drills before going to the grenade or rocket range. I also think that it would be just as useful for the Arty types who at my armouries have a scaled down 105 hooked up to it.

I don't think is completely useless as it can vastly improve drills without spending very expensive ammo, but you can't beat real bullets down range when working on marksmanship.

That said I don't like the automated ranges in Gagetown... it works great about half the time, the other half you might as well just save your ammo and start again next serial cause once someone else sets off one of your sensors or shoots at your target, it's all out of wack and your not going to get anyinformation that is worthwhile.

EDIT: oh and it's good for practicing calling GRITs and GETMs


----------



## Lance Wiebe (17 Sep 2007)

Obviously, the SAT's are not being used as designed.

The feedback is primarily there for the coach to assist you in correcting fundamental mistakes.  They are not there for the shooter to try and get the perfect butt pressure and so on.  The wearing of vests, helmets etc or not wearing them , all affect how you shoot.  If a soldier is having problems grouping, a good coach can use the feedback to improve your shooting.

As was pointed out, they also make you do your drills, which most of us can use practice in.

Using the SAT, especially for those "once a year" shooters, is a great training aid, and has improved the shooting of most of those who have used it.....provided coaches are used!

The SAT does save on ammunition, wear and tear on service weapons and so on.  It is not meant to replace ranges, it is meant to supplement them.

Methinks that some coaches are required in some places.


----------



## Snaketnk (17 Sep 2007)

All of the times I've been on FATS, there has been a Reservist Coach there (he's an employee of FATS Canada) And on my second session with the C7, I was able to get a 12cm group of 5 rounds at 100 yards. I'd say that isn't bad for someone who, prior to that, had only ever fired paintball guns. I think that as a training tool; that is, getting recruits to understand the basic principals of C7 handling and firing in perfect safety, and without wasting ammunition. I don't think it would work well for familiarization when it comes to shooting, as they're not live rounds.

My first impression was that the FATS system's niche was training soldiers (and refreshing their training) on systems that are too expensive to frequently use. The Eryx and the M72 for example: I've probably fired more of those two systems than the majority of Reg Force soldiers(albeit simulated).

I'm only a Civvie with several days of FATS experience, so take my words with a grain of salt.


----------



## TN2IC (17 Sep 2007)

When teaching a BMQ course, SATS can be good, before the range day. Gets all the jitters out of the troops. And gives them an idea what is going to happen during the PWT.


Regards,
TN2IC


----------



## geo (18 Sep 2007)

FATS is a training tool.  As such it does not replace the real thing.


----------



## Lance Wiebe (18 Sep 2007)

geo said:
			
		

> FATS is a training tool.  As such it does not replace the real thing.



Sorry to nitpick, but FATS is a company.  The SAT and the IFT are the training tools.....


----------



## J.J (18 Sep 2007)

I wouldn't trust FATS as an marksmanship benchmark or exposure. It is inaccurate and can teach bad habits. It can be beneficial in handling skills. It was designed as judgement tool and should be used as such. It is an excellent and affordable shoot or no shoot scenario based training aid. I shudder every time I hear a bean counter suggest it be used instead of range time (not directed at anyone out here).


----------



## KevinB (19 Sep 2007)

WR said:
			
		

> I wouldn't trust FATS as an marksmanship benchmark or exposure. It is inaccurate and can teach bad habits. It can be beneficial in handling skills. It was designed as judgement tool and should be used as such. It is an excellent and affordable shoot or no shoot scenario based training aid. I shudder every time I hear a bean counter suggest it be used instead of range time (not directed at anyone out here).



+1

  The system is fact makes it impossible to teach the prone they way we want to - due to its mag pressure related stoppage software.
Funny EVERYWHERE outside the CF the system us FATS, not SAT.


----------



## medaid (19 Sep 2007)

Well apparently only on the Army side... The Navy calls it FATS. But then again are you surprised I-6? ;D we had to reinvent everything else including the wheel, what's a name right? ;D


----------



## geo (19 Sep 2007)

Lance,
Umpteen years ago, my original reserve unit was the 1st to receive a Brit "cine-target" simulator... we were the test bed close enough to FMC HQ.
X number of years later, we were the testbed for the 1st FATS ... again due to our closeness with FMC HQ and our experience with the ciné target range (which we still had in the 22 range).
At the time, it was called the FATS & to me at least.... it's still the FATS.   (SATs = aren't those college entrance exams?)


----------



## KevinB (19 Sep 2007)

CineTarget - wow that something I have not heard hide nor hair of in a while -- I think the last time I used one was 1988 with a C1A1 with subcal.
  It was actually a decent setup for that day and age.   These days there are way better systems for livefire visual.
When SAT boots up it still says FATS in the initialization period (well did two and a bit years ago).

  The biggest joke is some of the best markmen out their use DRY training as around 90% of their practice.  For whatever reason the CF seemed to try to use a piece of technology (again) in this respect.  
    FATS/SAT teachs a lot of bad habits - and with the addition of the C8FTHB and C7A2 - who shoots with a full stock - especially in armour?
  
I beleive it would be a much better simulator for ROE - and pre deployment in that respect - than how the CF currently misemploys it.


----------



## geo (19 Sep 2007)

+1 I6


----------



## Lance Wiebe (19 Sep 2007)

The SAT (Small Arms Trainer) is produced by FATS (FireArms Training Systems).  That is why when the SAT is started, you see the FATS logo.

The SAT was never designed to be a marksman trainer.  It was designed to teach the fundamentals of firing, and to maintain those basic skills.  Basic training, such as breathing procedure, trigger pressure, but placement and so on.

To complain that the SAT doesn't let you shoot with the mag resting on the ground is just showing me that you do not understand what the SAT was designed for.  You cannot teach basic principles of shooting by letting the soldier rest his mag on the ground.  He'd never be able to fire in any other position!

The SAT does not teach bad habits.  The SAT teaches the basics of firing a weapon.  Even the PWT is designed to test the knowledge of the basics of firing, no advance skills needed to pass that!

Once again, saying that some of the best marksman out there don't need it is very true.  They don't.  But not all of the people in uniform nowadays can say that they are among the best marksman.  As a matter of fact, I would say that the vast majority of people wearing the uniform are pretty darn bad with a weapon.  It is for this vast majority that the SAT is designed to train.  Not the snipers, or the designated marksmen, or even the well trained infanteer.


----------

