# C7 weapon drills



## Greywolf

Does anyone know where I can find online copies of the drills for the C7 rifle?  (function test, drills for stoppages...)


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Edit: replaced broken links with a working one: http://www.scribd.com/doc/9213612/BGL385001-the-Rifle-556mm-C7-and-the-Carbine-556mm-C8


----------



## 48Highlander

it's kinda worrying that the army electronic library is accessible to anyone with internet access.....


----------



## Fishbone Jones

I figure people a lot higher, and hopefully smarter, than me have looked at this issue in it's entirety. If they see no problem with it, I'm not going to second guess them. I'll suggest everything there can be gotten elswhere if you looked or asked. Yeah, it kinda makes you think WTF, but it's better than driving across town hoping someone on Cl B is in and has access to the Pam Library.


----------



## OldSolduer

PM en route.


			
				tree hugger said:
			
		

> Links don't work.  Does anyone have a run down of the function test?


----------



## OldSolduer

Cock the weapon, place on safe, squeeze the trigger. Weapon should not fire
Cock, place on R, squeeze triggerand hold it back. Weapon should fire. When you release the trigger an audible click should be heard
Place on A, Hold trigger back and cock weapon three or four times....should action ok. When you release the trigger, no click should be heard.


If weapon fails any tests, do not live fire it. Take to wpns techs for insp.


----------



## Gasplug

> it's kinda worrying that the army electronic library is accessible to anyone with internet access.....



Why? It was a perfect disinformation campaign against the Soviets and the Warsaw Pact. We wrote perfectly sound doctrine but never used it in training...

It will work again with terrorists and enemies of Canada!  ;D



Seriously, even if you have all the tactical publications of the CF, it does not help any adversary know exactly what Platoon X will do in Situation Y.  They probably have better feedback direct from the bad guys in contact than they do through our pubs.  As far as the weapon pubs are concerned, they can find the manufacturer's specs on any site and most of the small arms forums give them more info than our pubs would.  In this case, access by the people who need the info is more important than the negligible gain some bad guy can get from them.

Cheers,

Gasplug


----------



## Greymatters

Gasplug said:
			
		

> Seriously, even if you have all the tactical publications of the CF, it does not help any adversary know exactly what Platoon X will do in Situation Y.



Agreed, placing this material online doesnt constitute a threat to serving members, thats why its unclassified and open to viewing...


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Gasplug said:
			
		

> Why? It was a perfect disinformation campaign against the Soviets and the Warsaw Pact. *We wrote perfectly sound doctrine but never used it* in training...
> 
> It will work again with terrorists and enemies of Canada!  ;D



Hahahahaha!  My favorite post of the day!!!!!!


----------



## Fusaki

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> **** the weapon, place on safe, squeeze the trigger. Weapon should not fire
> ****, place on R, squeeze triggerand hold it back. Weapon should fire. When you release the trigger an audible click should be heard
> Place on A, Hold trigger back and **** weapon three or four times....should action ok. When you release the trigger, no click should be heard.
> 
> 
> If weapon fails any tests, do not live fire it. Take to wpns techs for insp.



Hehe. He said "****". ;D


----------



## OldSolduer

Suck it Trebek!! LOL


----------



## eugenetswong

I found the PAM in the Army Electronic Library Publications Explorer http://armyapp.dnd.ca/ael/Publications.aspx, and then clicked on "Weapons and Equipment - Technical" http://armyapp.dnd.ca/ael/Documents.aspx?subcat=11. I then scrolled around to find what I needed.

Here is the actual link to the PAM called, "THE RIFLE 5.56 mm C7 AND THE CARBINE 5.56 mm C8". http://armyapp.dnd.ca/ael/pubs/B-GL-385-001-PT-001_e.pdf


----------



## SeanNewman

FWIW, I am the current OIC of Small Arms and Soldier Systems at the Infantry School, and clearing up a bit of the confusion with C7 drills is on my "to do" list.  I certainly am not the guy in charge of how it should be, but my predecessor identified the conflict between the two drills we are teaching to remedy stoppages.  I witnessed this first hand and had troops asking "Well if we get it taught this way _and_ this way, what do we do?".


----------



## daftandbarmy

Petamocto said:
			
		

> FWIW, I am the current OIC of Small Arms and Soldier Systems at the Infantry School, and clearing up a bit of the confusion with C7 drills is on my "to do" list.  I certainly am not the guy in charge of how it should be, but my predecessor identified the conflict between the two drills we are teaching to remedy stoppages.  I witnessed this first hand and had troops asking "Well if we get it taught this way _and_ this way, what do we do?".



What are the conflicting drills?


----------



## blacktriangle

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> What are the conflicting drills?



I will _speculate_ that he is speaking of the standard drills taught on BMQ and the gunfighter style "Tap Rack and Shoot" method taught on more advanced training. Those are the two I've seen, but there is no conflict in my mind about which I would use.  

I stand to be corrected.


----------



## daftandbarmy

I am deffo the last guy to comment with authority on this topic, but 'rap, rack and go' looks like it's pretty much the same as a normal IA drill a la 'rounds in the magazine, no rounds in the chamber' (although cool wrap arounds and a SF battle beanie are likely mandatory for the former  ;D). 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBZZwsDywBA


----------



## Fusaki

Tap, Rack, and Bang is an evolution on the American IA: SPORTS.

Slap - the the bottom of the mag
Pull - the charging handle to the rear
Observe - the chamber
Release - the charging handle
Tap - the forward assist
Squeeze - the trigger

The idea is that after you become familiar with the weapon, you'll _feel the recoil_ of an empty mag stoppage and respond appropriately. If you _feel_ a loose mag or obstruction then you can react with SPORTs without bothering to observe the chamber and tap the forward assist: just Tap, Rack, Bang.

There are a few cases where Tap, Rack, Bang will make the obstruction worse, but I'm not a good enough shooter to comment on those particular situations.  I do know that for those who are good enough with the weapon to recognise the recoil on an empty mag stoppage, TapRackBang will sort out 90% of everything else.


----------



## vonGarvin

Of course, "Tap, Rack, Go!" is nowhere to be found in B-GL-385-001-PT-001, so, the translation is
"Tap.  *Cock*.  *Fire*."  Of course, remember, kids, the IA isnt' complete until you start shooting again!





(Yes, I realise that the UOIC teached "Tap!  Rack!  Go!")


----------



## dapaterson

If you have to stop and think about a stoppage, you are not proficient with your weapon.

It should be second nature to react to a stoppage - and you should know the feeling of an empty mag vice the other stoppages and be able to react immediately.

Look, cock, cant for anything other than an empty mag.  And as stated, the IA isn't clear until rounds have resumed going downrange.


----------



## Thorvald

Neither IA methods helped me recently... I had to use the third 'undocumented' Immediate action... "Cant the weapon and curse loudly".

Recently on a PWT 3 shoot, while just starting to shoot at the 300 meter mark, the little pin which holds the buffer spring in the stock decided to attempt a jailbreak (and was very successful I might add).   The resulting effect was a rather nasty double feed.  No amount of shaking or "love taps" would remove those two rounds.

Thank god for the issued Gerber though, with an exceptional amount of cursing, finally managed to rip out (ahem, I mean dislodge) the outermost round and drop the other out the mag well at the 200 meter mark but then of course had to move to the next before even getting a shot off.

After that little incident, my Gerber just became part of my IA's, 'tap, rack and rip!"


----------



## daftandbarmy

Thorvald said:
			
		

> Neither IA methods helped me recently... I had to use the third 'undocumented' Immediate action... "Cant the weapon and curse loudly".
> 
> Recently on a PWT 3 shoot, while just starting to shoot at the 300 meter mark, the little pin which holds the buffer spring in the stock decided to attempt a jailbreak (and was very successful I might add).   The resulting effect was a rather nasty double feed.  No amount of shaking or "love taps" would remove those two rounds.
> 
> Thank god for the issued Gerber though, with an exceptional amount of cursing, finally managed to rip out (ahem, I mean dislodge) the outermost round and drop the other out the mag well at the 200 meter mark but then of course had to move to the next before even getting a shot off.
> 
> After that little incident, my Gerber just became part of my IA's, 'tap, rack and rip!"



Good thing we have bayonets!


----------



## SeanNewman

Yes you are correct that the two methods being taught are:

1. As per on most basic courses (tilt left, check position of bolt); and

2. Tap + rack.

What we must remember is that BGL references mean nothing to the average soldier (and some could argue the average Captain   )

The confusion results in a soldier being taught what is the "official" way in most of their early training, but then as the A Team-taught method has filtered its way down through Urban Ops and snap shooting paths taught in modern gun camps.

Putting myself in the boots of Pte Smith (and I have been Pte Smith so I see things from both sides of the fence), what I am faced with is a way I was taught in basic, and now I'm being taught a new high-speed way by cooler looking instructors with nice sunglasses and Oakley/Converse boots (so they _must_ know more).

4-5 years ago as a platoon commander I saw this confusion first hand when the PWT4 and gun camps started happening in the unit.  It is my intent to get this confusion removed by bringing it to the attention of those who need to know.


----------



## Thorvald

Petamocto said:
			
		

> ...and now I'm being taught a new high-speed way by cooler looking instructors with nice sunglasses and Oakley/Converse boots (so they _must_ know more).



 :rofl:

Love that line, you need to make that a signature!


----------



## SeanNewman

An update to all of you who may have a personal interest in this topic.

Sitting in my chair, I owe it to soldiers to provide them with the "best" drill that is proven to be the most efficient in terms of time to remedy the stoppage, while also being safe.

Years ago I identified a problem exists because two actions are being taught, which causes confusion.

Now, in this chair, I have a chance to fix it.

The best way to go about it though is not a "new way" vs "old way" (Urban vs PAM) challenge, but a completely objective series of tests to find what the best thing to do at every point.

What is the best way to do X drill?  Can I do these drills at night?  Is the forward assist still required?

All we have now are opinions; what I will acquire is the data to back it up, and base my way ahead off of that.  

But as I mentioned, it's not simply one way vs the other, there may end up being 10 ways to remedy a stoppage that must be tested.  

The end state is to have one "best" series of drills identified that are what new recruits can use because they are simple and those same drills are still used by advanced soldiers because they're still the best drills.


----------



## Fusaki

Have you taken a look at Kyle Lamb's book *Green Eyes & Black Rifles*?  He's an Ex-Delta guy, and kind of a big deal.  He wrote his book while in Iraq on his off time to wind down from a long day of killing terrorists.

He's all about teaching SPORTS, and letting it naturally evolve to TAP, RACK, BANG. I paraphrased him in my last post in this thread:


> Tap, Rack, and Bang is an evolution on the American IA: SPORTS.
> 
> Slap - the the bottom of the mag
> Pull - the charging handle to the rear
> Observe - the chamber
> Release - the charging handle
> Tap - the forward assist
> Squeeze - the trigger
> 
> The idea is that after you become familiar with the weapon, you'll feel the recoil of an empty mag stoppage and respond appropriately. If you feel a loose mag or obstruction then you can react with SPORTs without bothering to observe the chamber and tap the forward assist: just Tap, Rack, Bang.
> 
> There are a few cases where Tap, Rack, Bang will make the obstruction worse, but I'm not a good enough shooter to comment on those particular situations.  I do know that for those who are good enough with the weapon to recognise the recoil on an empty mag stoppage, TapRackBang will sort out 90% of everything else.



I am NOT a high speed shooter by any means, but google around a bit and you'll see that Lamb is pretty well spoken of in those circles.  I HIGHLY recommend that you check out his book.


----------



## SeanNewman

Thank you for the book review/tip; I will add it to the dozens of articles/opinions I already have.

A lot of people seem to have the best way to do drills.

This nut will be cracked through testing and research, though.  Some things can be scientific (timed drills), others may have to be rated (weapon "feel" / control, etc).


----------



## Fusaki

> This nut will be cracked through testing and research, though.  Some things can be scientific (timed drills), others may have to be rated (weapon "feel" / control, etc).



Uh oh.

It almost sounds like you're trying to make a new rucksack.   Are you sure something just as good can't be bought off the shelf?

My (admittedly amateur) understanding of tactical shooting is that "The Best" is a pretty subjective thing.  Like you said, everyone and his dog thinks their way is "The Best."  Maybe the best is just to resign yourself to the fact that the art is in a constant state of evolution, and just go for the latest COTS option: take a look at where our elite shooters go to train, and (with common sense) bring our standard drills into line with what's taught there.


----------



## SeanNewman

I disagree.

I have pretty solid access to where these drills originated, and I can assure you that no scientific analysis was done.  The drills were just adopted because they were similar to what other countries were using and they were similar to MP5 drills.

I will not just take what appears to be a high-speed drill at face value, and copy/paste one person's idea of what the "best" drills are.  I've now read Lamb's book mentioned above, and I've also been to the Blackwater (when it was still called that) ranges.  In the chair I occupy, I owe the CF's soldiers better than just assuming new drills must be the best.

I'm not trying to invent a new ruck sack, and I am not saying that whatever the new Pam ends up looking like won't resemble the UOI drills.  I can promise you that they won't be exactly the same, though.

I 100% agree with you that at some point better drills may be found and we should adapt to those when they come out.

However, right now I do not feel we are using the best possible drills, and even worse that we are teaching two ways to do the same thing.

There will be some answers that will be answered with a stop watch, and some will be subjective input for "feel", "weapon control", etc.  They'll be tested in daytime, low light, no light, with/without gloves, with/without NBC, etc.

Everything needs to be questioned, right from "Do we really need to hit the forward assist anymore?".  Yes the first gen M16s from Vietnam needed them, but are modern buffer springs, bolts, and ammunition enough to say that it makes no difference?  That is what I mean when I write that it will be solved through research.  Take a row of rifles, make half load-ready-fire-unload one round at a time with the FA pressed and the other half not, then switch.  If 1000 rounds are fired and 995 are fired from both with no stoppages, then the FA isn't required.  But if it's 995 vs 900 then obviously it's required.

I am confident the resources and will exists to give the troops what they deserve; drills that we can confidently tell them are the best we could give them.


----------



## Fusaki

> I have pretty solid access to where these drills originated, and I can assure you that no scientific analysis was done.  The drills were just adopted because they were similar to what other countries were using and *they were similar to MP5 drills.*



To be fair, this in particular I suspected on my own.  I'm not surprised wiser heads have reached similar conclusions...

Petamocto, I hope I didn't come off sounding like a jerk in my previous post.  I have a kneejerk reaction when people declare "We need to do more _studies!"_  Thank you for taking the time to put my mind at ease.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Here's a question when did the drill of stripping the bolt to include the removal of the extractor stop?

The only ref I can find in the pam is the 1994 revision that states not to remove the extractor spring.....


----------



## dangerboy

Removing the extractor is part of "Detailed Stripping" you just have to be careful not to remove the extractor spring when you remove the extractor.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Dangerboy I know that but all the troops that I test last night from BMQ/SQ soilders and even to some PLQ qualified CPls that where taught NOT to remove the extractor.... I am trying to track down when some decided that it was no longer going to be taught.....


----------



## dangerboy

It must be whatever school taught them, I know the BMQ and Bold Eagle courses I ran in LFWA TC we taught removing the extractor.  Once again people are deviating from the drills as they are scared people will lose parts.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

I think so Dangerboy.... when I showed them how to do it they looked at me like I had 3 heads!


----------



## SeanNewman

I do not have the 100% solution on the extractor, but my best-guess would be that it was stopped because probability of the weapon having a stoppage because the extractor spring wasn't cleaned in a few days was much lower than the certainty of the weapon failing to function if the spring is lost in the field.

It's not so much that it's verboten to ever clean it so much as it's not the best thing to do if you're not in a controlled clean environment.

Getting back to the drills, Wonderbread no worries.  I have the soldiers' best interest in mind, and that is why I am going through the process of relieving the confusion for them.  I don't like troops being confused, and I don't like instructors being put in positions where they have to answer questions that put them on the spot (which drill should we use?).

We shall see.


----------



## SeanNewman

Everyone,

At the end of the preamble below, I will be asking a few questions that I would appreciate your assistance with.

This is not meant to be a scientific research-gathering exercise, more than it is a chance for me to identify the "pulse" with something I'm working on.  

I am the Officer in Charge of Small Arms at the Infantry School, and I am in the process of doing everything in my power to provide the soldiers the best drills we can provide them.  These drills will be the simplest, safest, offer the most control of the weapon, and provide the highest probability of success in combat (remedying stoppages quicker in more conditions, etc).

Approx five years ago I identified that two methods were being taught to conduct C7 drills; the "old" PAM drills (cant the weapon to the left, identify the position of the bolt), and the "new" quick shooting package (slap the bottom of the mag, ****, and believe that will fix most of the stoppages).

I don't want to go into too much detail here, but basically I have all the answers as to what the origins of both sets of drills are.  I know why the PAM method is the way it is, and I know the origins of the new ones.  I also know the US has used SPORT for 25 years, among other countries.  There is a large full-scale testing process going on to identify the best steps to do every part of the drill / stoppage.  This message board is to help us look in other directions we may not have thought of ourselves.

So my questions to you are:
Please list who you are and what you do.  Did you learn the C7 by the PAM drills?  When?  Since learning them, have you used them entirely?  Have you been taught this "new" method?  Where/when?  What is your opinion of both of them?  If you have been in TICs and have a stoppage, do you just smash and **** the C7 until it can shoot again, or actually follow a set list of steps?  Do you change your mags during a lull, or do you run them dry (attempt to count rounds but there is too much going on).

My example is:
I learned the PAM way in NCM Reserve Infantry trg in 1994, and then again in Reg Force Infantry Officer trg in 2002.  Then, as a platoon commander in 04-06, during a "gunfighter" shooting package/range, some guys with cool sunglasses taught us a different way to conduct drills.  It caused some confusion because there seemed to be some merit in them being faster, but it was still not the "official" way as taught by the book.  I know the troops seemed to think they were pretty good, but it put the Sgts in some awkward positions when they were instructing classes because they were either teaching the official way and fielding questions about there being a perceived better way, or they were instructing the new way and fielding questions about it not being the by-the-book way.

Don't worry, you're not going to be quoted in any paperwork or anything; as I mentioned it's just for me to get a feel of what's out there.  I have a pretty good picture of the Reg Force Infantry situation, but what would be great is if some of the non-Infantry types can tell me what the ground truth is for you, because whatever changes I make to the PAM will affect the entire CF.

Thank you very much for any assistance.

Edit:  Haha, apparently it won't let me write c-o-c-k the weapon.


----------



## Haggis

> Please list who you are and what you do.



As per my profile, I am an Infantry CWO and the current RSM of a Reserve Light Infantry Regiment, employed at NDHQ in a staff position.  I have recent operational experience in an Infantry sub-unit.



> Did you learn the C7 by the PAM drills?


Yes.



> When?


I was one of the orignial SARP instructors



> Since learning them, have you used them entirely?


Yes.  Never had a stoppage I couldn't clear.



> Have you been taught this "new" method?


Yes.



> Where/when?


A couple of times/places with both mil and civ "operators" wearing balaclavas and Oakleys.  Most recently was a refresher shoot in December 2009 just west of Ottawa.



> What is your opinion of both of them?


 As I stated I have been taught both ways:  as per the pam (B-GL-385-001/PT-001) and as per "Gunfighter".  When it comes to safety, the pam way is the ONLY drills that should be accepted.  This is particularly true at the BMQ, BMQ (L) and DP1 levels where "best practises", which will stay with the soldier for their careers, will be learned.

"Gunfighter" drills are faster and more efficient but not neccesarily safer.  If a breech obstruction or mechanical problem is the cause of the stoppage, I don't care how many times you "Smack-Rack-GO", your stoppage isn't going to magically get cleared.  In those instances, falling back to the pam drills is the only way to go.

As I stated earlier, I have been taught and have used both drills in training and in the real world.  I can also "transition" from rifle to pistol more quickly that I can clear a stoppage or change a magazine.

To be honest, I really like the "Gunfighter" drills, particularly with the A2.  The problem is that "Gunfighter", though effective, is not the CF standard and is rarely taught outside the communities of those who need it.

In the case of an ND (which in the majority of instances happens during a load or unload) an ammunition/weapon accident/malfunction, the test is to establish if the accused followed the published, accepted CF standard - the pam -  for handling/manipulating the weapon.

My $0.02 on a Saturday morning (before taxes).


----------



## REDinstaller

LCIS Sgt currently 2IC Ancil Sect of Armoured Regt.
As per the PAM.
Back in 1991.
Every step minus cant to the left, as I shoot left handed i can see the port from the shoulder.
Yes i have received Gunfighter famil. But as our 3VP instructor told us, this isn't an official course, so a ND will be treated as per the PAM.
It is quicker to use Gunfighter as well as more stable at short ranges, but as Haggis states its better to use approved drills for the safety factor with new troops.


----------



## SeanNewman

MWO (Haggis),

Thank you very much for your reply.  It is exactly your point about the PAM way being the official way, and that is what I am doing what I am with the PAM re-write.  The Inf Sch is the SME, and as long as claims are logically backed up and tested, we propose the changes to LFDTS and the PAM gets changed.  It's getting changed anyway for the A2 architecture.

I know at first glance it seems like "In this corner, we have the PAM drills...", but that's not really it.  While we are directly comparing the two, it's not about going with one or going with the other.  It has more to do with every single step / drill being as efficient as it should be.

For example, when you claim that the new drills won't stop a mechanical stoppage (broken extractor, hard double feed requiring Leatherman, etc), you are exactly right.  However, what we are testing and identifying is how often that would actually happen?  When we weigh pros and cons, we're looking at "No the tap/rack won't solve everything as an immediate IA, but will it solve 95% of stoppages in half the time?".  If so, then it would be a matter of having X as the immediate IA, and Y for the prolonged stoppage.

Further, yes the PAM drills can identify all types including an empty mag that the tap/rack would not fix), but can you do it at night?  Pretty tough to identify the position of the bolt in pitch black or fumbling with a flashlight or refocusing the NVG while getting shot at.  Those are the sorts of pros/cons we're weighing.

While I am remaining entirely objective, it is hard to not notice a very obvious range slant toward the current PAM drills, and a combat focus to the new drills.  For example, if you are getting shot at, is it really more important to do up your mag pouch than return fire?  

Thank you very much for your detailed reply, it's exactly that sort of info and opinion that I'm looking for.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Don't you already have a thread on this?

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## Haggis

Petamocto said:
			
		

> MWO (Haggis),
> 
> Thank you very much for your reply.  It is exactly your point about the PAM way being the official way, and that is what I am doing what I am with the PAM re-write.  The Inf Sch is the SME, and as long as claims are logically backed up and tested, we propose the changes to LFDTS and the PAM gets changed.  It's getting changed anyway for the A2 architecture.



As stated in my original reply, I'm a CWO.  Certainly an SME should pay better attention to detail! ;D



			
				Petamocto said:
			
		

> For example, when you claim that the new drills won't stop a mechanical stoppage (broken extractor, hard double feed requiring Leatherman, etc), you are exactly right.  However, what we are testing and identifying is how often that would actually happen?  When we weigh pros and cons, we're looking at "No the tap/rack won't solve everything as an immediate IA, but will it solve 95% of stoppages in half the time?".  If so, then it would be a matter of having X as the immediate IA, and Y for the prolonged stoppage.



You must remember, of course, that not all CF units have the A2.  Some still have the original C7 (i.e. ships) .  Secondly, the universal drills must suit the needs of the "lowest commin denominator" user, i.e. those members who rarely (almost never) use the _CF service rifle_ (C7, C7A1 or C7A2) but still require a rudimentary skill and knowledge to meet PRV requirements.  Not everybody needs to learn "Gunfighter" style handling drills.



			
				Petamocto said:
			
		

> Further, yes the PAM drills can identify all types including an empty mag that the tap/rack would not fix), but can you do it at night?  Pretty tough to identify the position of the bolt in pitch black or fumbling with a flashlight or refocusing the NVG while getting shot at.  Those are the sorts of pros/cons we're weighing.


  Although I don't have a copy of B-GL-385-001/PT-001 handy at home to refer to (yes, I know I should have one) I seem to recall being taught, all the way back to the C1A1 to feel for the position of the breechblock/bolt carrier at night during the IA.



			
				Petamocto said:
			
		

> While I am remaining entirely objective, it is hard to not notice a very obvious range slant toward the current PAM drills, and a combat focus to the new drills.  For example, if you are getting shot at, is it really more important to do up your mag pouch than return fire?



Again, I ask you to remember at what level these drills are being initially taught, that is BMQ/BMOQ.  At this level, "doing up your mag pouch" has as much to do with handling drills as it does with teaching recent civvies to look after and keep track of a whole new set of tools _and accessories_ with which they are not yet familiar.  At this stage I can guarantee you that the "range slant" is exactly where we need to be.  To do otherwise, _at this level_, will inculcate the soldier with a trepidation born from preventable incidents which will undermine his confidence in both the weapon and his abilites to safely handle it.



			
				Petamocto said:
			
		

> Thank you very much for your detailed reply, it's exactly that sort of info and opinion that I'm looking for.



You are welcome.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Haggis said:
			
		

> As stated in my original reply, I'm a CWO.  Certainly an SME should pay better attention to detail! ;D


I was waiting for that 



			
				Haggis said:
			
		

> You must remember, of course, that not all CF units have the A2.  Some still have the original C7 (i.e. ships) .


 Like the complete Windsor Garrison  :  



			
				Haggis said:
			
		

> Although I don't have a copy of B-GL-385-001/PT-001 handy at home to refer to (yes, I know I should have one) I seem to recall being taught, all the way back to the C1A1 to feel for the position of the breechblock/bolt carrier at night during the IA.


Absolutely correct



			
				Haggis said:
			
		

> Again, I ask you to remember at what level these drills are being initially taught, that is BMQ/BMOQ.  At this level, "doing up your mag pouch" has as much to do with handling drills as it does with teaching recent civvies to look after and keep track of a whole new set of tools _and accessories_ with which they are not yet familiar.  At this stage I can guarantee you that the "range slant" is exactly where we need to be.  To do otherwise, _at this level_, will inculcate the soldier with a trepidation born from preventable incidents which will undermine his confidence in both the weapon and his abilites to safely handle it.



Ditto


----------



## Journeyman

Haggis said:
			
		

> Although I don't have a copy of B-GL-385-001/PT-001 handy at home.....


Scandalous. That's why the Army Electronic Library is your friend.



Although I probably would have gone with B-GL-317-018/PT-001 myself


----------



## Haggis

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Scandalous. That's why the Army Electronic Library is your friend.
> 
> 
> 
> Although I probably would have gone with B-GL-317-018/PT-001 myself



Even more scandalous is that when you click on the AEL link for B-GL-385-000/PT-001 it opens up to B-GL-317-018/PT-001.  So, despite your best efforts to *ahem*, "assist" me, I still don't have access to B-GL-385-000/PT-001!

But thanks for tryin!


----------



## Journeyman

Haggis said:
			
		

> But thanks for tryin!


Dammit


----------



## SeanNewman

My sincere apologies, *CWO* (that's a beer for sure, and on record no less).

It wasn't my original plan to go into detail on this, but since you are clearly informed and interested, let me walk you through exactly where we're going.

As of 2009, the A2 started making its way through Reserve units from EAST TO WEST.  If the new drills (or parts there of) "win" the tests, it would be the A1 that would be a limiting factor, not the drills themselves.

The "gunfighter" style of drills are actually not advanced at all, it's just that we're treating them that way because the exposure to them comes in advanced training and courses.  Whatever way of drills wins, it *will be* adopted by everyone, because it will be in the PAM as the official way.

You are absolutely right that they must be available to the lowest common denominator, and that is fully in the scope of the testing.  But if one drill is 5 steps and another is 7 steps to do the same function, which would be simpler to learn for new recruits?

You are also right that it was because of the change over from the FN that the cant the weapon and checking bolt position was adopted.  Right beside me is the Inf Sch Tech MWO (which is why I had MWO on the mind) and he can speak to that.  Likewise, when...ahem...another unit adopted the quicker drills, it was a carryover from the MP5 (and what other countries were already doing with the M16/M4). 

So in both cases, what you have is people adopting drills from an older weapon without actually doing the work to find out which way is the best.

As for the mag pouch, I am not saying that it is not important (although new tac vests / load carriage systems may solve that problem on their own).  However, you're not going to convince me that doing up the pouch is more important than killing the threat, so it should be the last thing done when there's a lull.

This is my life and passion, so please by all means keep discussing because I get a lot out of it.


----------



## HItorMiss

Petamocto said:
			
		

> Likewise, when...ahem...another unit adopted the quicker drills, it was a carryover from the MP5 (and what other countries were already doing with the M16/M4).
> 
> So in both cases, what you have is people adopting drills from an older weapon without actually doing the work to find out which way is the best.




So you are saying in the 17 years that this other "unit" and follow on units and all the other units that use variations of the gunfighter drills etc etc have never in all the years did a study on the effectiveness of the drills they are using and simply took it on faith that they would work based on the MP5.

Sorry it isn't adding up. The SOF community to my limited knowledge is less inclined to take anything on faith and the knowledge that some other SOF units using this drill or that SOP and more likely to look at it study it see if it works better then what they know and adopt it "IF" it suits the needs and is found to be more effective.


----------



## SeanNewman

Bullet Magnet.

Yes to your first paragraph, and no to your second paragraph.

As the OIC of Small Arms, I have chats every day with OIC Urban Ops, who I have been in steady contact with since this initiative began.  As for going into other detail on how other units train, I will not go into detail (nor do I pretend to know all the details), but yes you are correct that no official trial was ever conducted to see which drills (not just those sets, but plenty of other variations) were better.  Yes, it was all based on faith, from experience on the range and people having the opinion that they were better.

The PAM way has always been the official way, and still is.  To be the honest broker, technically everyone else who uses the other way is in the wrong (which includes thousands).

You can say it doesn't add up if you wish, but it is true.  There may be a lot of the CF I know nothing about, but between myself and the expertise I am surrounded by in the Inf Sch, that is how it is.

Don't get me wrong, I fully agree with you that I am shocked that no formal test/comparison has been conducted until now, but I am now in a position that can conduct these tests and make changes depending on the results, so all is good.

As I wrote above, though, it's not so much in the mindset of "Old vs new" or "PAM vs Gunfighter"; it has more to do with "I am now standing here with a rifle and a magazine, what is the most efficient way possible to load it", or "I have just pulled the trigger and nothing happened, what is the most efficient thing that I can do that will have the highest probability of fixing the majority of stoppages quickly, while still having control of the weapon and doing it safely".

If the tests show us that doing a backflip while you're pulling the c0cking handle works better, then that's what the recommendations will be.  And when we have the test results in hand, we can sum up any naysayers who have their opinion but are wrong (be they fans of either set).

Even things like "is the forward assist still required as a step, or has modern ammunition and other changes rendered it obsolete as a step?"  People have their opinion and will say "of course it's still needed, you'll get stoppages all over the place if you don't", but we put 20 rifles on a firing line pushing the assist with half and not with the other, and they all fire the same (under all conditions, dirty, cold, etc), then we can slim down the drill.  If you get stoppages when you don't press it, then it stays...it really is that simple, and it won't be based on opinion but fact.

If nothing else, understand that this is being done completely objectively.  I don't like that troops are being taught different ways, and I don't like that Sgts are being put in awkward positions while instructing.  The main problem is that there are two ways, and that's what needs to get fixed.  The way to solve it is not to pick one way or the other due to opinion or feel, but to get the hard data.


----------



## c4th

Petamocto said:
			
		

> The "gunfighter" style of drills are actually not advanced at all


Agreed nor are they less safe.  Which you already know.  Aside from ‘workspace’ and always keeping your hand on the pistol grip through all drills they are not fundamentally different.   Left hand right hand drills have been freely interchangeable by virtue of left or right hand dominance so why not by virtue of efficiency.
Some UO Quick aim drills transfer nicely to basic infantry drills.  Press check, tap rack come to mind.  Emergency reloads are better when the objective is in the same room as you.  Not so good when the objective is 250m away.
IMO the PAM drills work very well for their intent which is firing from the prone up to the effective range of the weapon.  UO drills work best for standing from the high ready up to 25ish meters.
I train recruits to DP Inf standard.  Personally, prior to PWT 3 and a live fire confirmation I prefer keeping the soldiers with muzzles of readied weapons within the arcs and templated elevation of the range for positive control reasons.  Quick aim drills are really not required and the seconds they save will be negated by the proficiency of the trainee.
One consideration in training is the ease of classroom training and transitioning to firing PWT 1-3.  The drills as per pam are easy to be proficient in usually in 40 minutes or less.  Quick-aim drills require much more practice to become proficient in but are easy to learn one the soldier has some weapons handling experience.
Basic C7 is currently taught at the BMQ level.  For this reason alone I would recommend not straying much past changes that effect efficiency.   New firing positions and weapons movements will not be taught well at that level and are best left to be instructed by Infantry NCO’s or UOI’s.
If you want my credentials or my AAR from teaching recruits quick-aim, PM me and I will send you my DWAN contact.  Our schools should be speaking anyway.


----------



## SeanNewman

TNO,

Thank you very much for your educated reply.

One of the core reasons that we're doing what we are is that we can't have two ways to teach.  I am convinced that this process can be successful and we can find one way that is the best way to teach, regardless of experience or environment.

As I said, it's a matter of step by step broken down.  If I'm at the "port", what is the best way to get to "load" for the CF.  That's at the core of it.  There are some pros to the "new" way like better control of the weapon and faster stoppage remedies, and there are "pros" to the old way like identifying every type of stoppage.  At the end if the day, we are humans and have the ability to make common sense assessments like (hypothetically) perhaps the tap/rack is the best IA, but checking the position of the bolt is the best prolonged stoppage.  Again, I'm not situating the estimate, just providing an example of what the testing might show.

Overall, it really seems like the PAM ways are entirely geared around successful *range* shooting, because time is not an issue, and light is not taken into account.  I would challenge anyone in a night time TIC to check the position of the bolt, for example.  

I know why both sets of drills were chosen, and I know the pros/cons of each, but what I'd really like to know are the sorts of issues that non-infantry types are having with either method.  I've hear anecdotally that the tap/rack is even being taught by some civilian instructors in Saint Jean, but again, as the owner of the PAM with the drills I can say categorically that the old way is still the official way.

The reason I have called for the testing is not that I want a copy/paste of the Urban Ops drills to become the official way, but because I can understand that the new way has some merit and it needs to be researched.  If it is found that never taking your control hand off the pistol grip is the way to go, then so be it.  If it is found that NDs are out of control with the new way, then so be it as well.  

As I said, the end state is that we will find one best way and that will be the way it is taught at every level.  There won't be a basic way and an advanced way that conflict with each other.


----------



## Haggis

Petamocto said:
			
		

> One of the core reasons that we're doing what we are is that we can't have two ways to teach.  I am convinced that this process can be successful and we can find one way that is the best way to teach, regardless of experience or environment.



In that case, I think this is an excelent initiative.  You'll either improve service rifle training or validate that the current way is the best way to go.



			
				Petamocto said:
			
		

> I've hear anecdotally that the tap/rack is even being taught by some civilian instructors in Saint Jean, but again, as the owner of the PAM with the drills I can say categorically that the old way is still the official way.


  Then those instructors are in violation of the QS and Standards must engage them to ensure the correct material is being taught.  During my staff visits to CFLRS last year, I didn't witness this at all.  Then again, I am one person and didn't get to see a wide cross section of SA training during my visits.  However, I'm returning there in April and will make time to discuss this.



			
				Petamocto said:
			
		

> The reason I have called for the testing is not that I want a copy/paste of the Urban Ops drills to become the official way, but because I can understand that the new way has some merit and it needs to be researched.  If it is found that never taking your control hand off the pistol grip is the way to go, then so be it.  If it is found that NDs are out of control with the new way, then so be it as well.
> 
> As I said, the end state is that we will find one best way and that will be the way it is taught at every level.  There won't be a basic way and an advanced way that conflict with each other.



And, as I said, this is a good initiative. Whatever _service rifle_ handling drills eventually come out of this must be applicable to the CF population as a whole, regardless of the version of service rifle they employ.  In the end, how you handle any weapon should be safe, simple, effective and efficient (in that order).


----------



## SeanNewman

Thank you for your kind words.

You are right that if there is one official way then that is the way that it should be taught, but at the same time it's tough to ignore the potential merit in some of the pros of the new ways.  Not entirely as a "sure, we'll use all of it" way, but enough to find out how much of it is useful vs hype.

A lot of people will say they've done them and swear by them, but until I see it on paper, like you said, with all trades and body types then I won't change anything.

In fact, one of the potential things we're looking at doing is having family members come in, get split in half (or thirds if we identify another way, or quarters if we mix/match), and taught the drills (or a mix).  This will not be Army like at all in terms of getting yelled at or push ups, it's to see how effective the drills can be taught on a clean slate.  Then they'd be tested with stoppages and watnot and timed, as well as questioned (not tactically) on how the rate the control, etc.


----------



## Fusaki

Back to the original question:

I'm an Infantry CPL, first in the Regs and now in the PRes.  I learned the PAM way in 2003 on BMQ in St Jean.  My first exposure to the "Gunfighter way" was on a cool day at the 25m Range in Camp Julien in 2005, under the instruction of burly bearded men.  Since then regular training has consisted primarily of Gunfighter Drills, although TOETs have still been conducted prior to every range practice according to the PAM.

I guess overall you could say that I do a mix of Gunfighter and PAM drills.

-As per Gunfighter Drills, all the charging is done with my left hand, except when engaging the bolt catch.  

-As per the PAM, I cant the weapon to observe the position of the bolt, but it's just a quick look with only a slight rotation to the left.  I can typically feel the position of the bolt based on the recoil, so I'm really  just checking to confirm, or even out of force of habit.

-As per the Gunfighter drills, my reloads are either tactical or emergency.

-I clear obstructions as per the PAM.

-I've found the shooting stance Kyle Lamb describes in Green Eyes Black Rifles to work really well for me.  Shooting right handed, my left foot is forward and my body is slightly bladed toward the target.  My left hand is fairly far forward on the handguards and my right is high on the pistol grip.  My head and shoulders are positioned so that I bring the sight up to my eye, not vice versa.  This differs from the Gunfighter way in that I'm not totally squared off to the enemy.  I believe Lamb's method is better because having my left hand farther forward helps to compensate for the length of the C7.  While I'm not squaring off my plates to the threat, I gain speed driving the longer barrel from target to target.  As an infantry guy, I see it as very unlikely that I'll be kicking in doors and shooting guys at CQB range.  More probable is that if I'm shooting standing, it will be from over or around cover at guys a little farther away.  Squaring off plates, therefore, takes a back seat to shooting faster and more accurately.


----------



## SeanNewman

Wonderbread,

Awesome reply, thank you.  Someone brought up that book a month ago or so (you?) so I read it right away and yes there are some good points in it.  Some of his things in there I wasn't sold on, but I do agree with him that press checks probably result in more stoppages than they're worth (but that's just my opinion and research/testing will find the answer).  Another great point he made was to number the mags, in order to keep track of which ones give you stoppages if you track them; something that seems so basic but I never thought of before.  

The overall answer might very well be a combination of pros and cons from each system (and others).  When I say that I don't mean "load from PAM" and "ready from New", what I mean is attribute-wise, like if it is found that it is beneficial never to give up your control hand on the pistol grip (although then you get into problems with Reserve units or non-Army units that don't have the A2 yet, but that's our nut to crack).

It is exactly your type on input that I'm looking for, in order to challenge/support our beliefs at the school, and bring up things that we haven't thought of in order to ensure better integration when they come out.


----------



## Dissident

Petamocto said:
			
		

> Please list who you are and what you do.  Did you learn the C7 by the PAM drills?  When?  Since learning them, have you used them entirely?  Have you been taught this "new" method?  Where/when?  What is your opinion of both of them?  If you have been in TICs and have a stoppage, do you just smash and **** the C7 until it can shoot again, or actually follow a set list of steps?  Do you change your mags during a lull, or do you run them dry (attempt to count rounds but there is too much going on).



-Reserve MP, LFWA
-Learned the PAM way back in 2003
-For the first five years that is all I have used.
-I have not done the PWT4 or gunfighter with the army, but I have the other method taught through civi courses and read about it here and there in the last 3 years. (Including Green Eyes and Black Rifles)

My opinion: I will still teach the PAM way as a good introduction. Members who join have often no to little firearms experience. Once someone is qualified I will introduce more advanced elements as I see fit.

No TICs for me, luckily enough. But on courses or shoots I am much faster overall using the GEBR drills than the standard PAM way. MUCH FASTER.

Counting rounds does not work for me. I will change my mags in a lull or before a tac bound.

The picture below is from a course I attended where no matter how often I tapped and racked, it would not go BANG. Cool drills are great, but fundamentals can not be left behind.


----------



## 1feral1

Crikey! I nearly choked - - family members getting involved?? Bloody hell mate (scratches shaven head). What a load of bullocks!

I'll wade a tad here a little bit, IMHO why fix things when they are not broken. This rifle has been around in the system for over 45 yrs, sure its evolved, but it still the same action with the same stoppages. One cannot re-engineer the wheel, and over engineering things which do not require it is a dirty great big giant waste of time and money.

The Australian pam is almost identical to the Cdn and US for IA's etc. I've learned from the c.1989 C7 pam, and the Aussie MLW, which I do believe was 1979, and we've used the rifle since pre 1970, starting off in the days of the 'Nam, and the M4 is now in service, along with the F88SA1 and A2.

I would just be sticking to one 'force wide' source for standardisation, that is the current CFP, and again IMHO civilians should be kept out of the trg program from instruction to doctrine. I found it hard to fathom that they are allowed to instruct.

Summing up, KISS here prevails, and there is only one way to train, one standard to adhere to for everyone, and thats the current pam on the weapons system provided.

I've spent over 30 yrs on the rifle, from leading a national rebuild, to carrying it (E1's --yes E1's--, A1's, A2's. M4's  and the C7 FOW -- from 1990 to 95--) in the field, so I am not taking out my ass here.

My 2 bob,

OWDU


----------



## SeanNewman

Overwatch Downunder said:
			
		

> 1.  Crikey! I nearly choked - - family members getting involved?? Bloody hell mate (scratches shaven head). What a load of bullocks!
> 
> 2.  Why fix things when they are not broken. This rifle has been around in the system for over 45 yrs, sure its evolved, but it still the same action with the same stoppages.
> 
> 3. The Australian pam is almost identical to the Cdn and US for IA's etc.
> 
> 4. I would just be sticking to one 'force wide' source for standardisation, that is the current CFP, and again IMHO civilians should be kept out of the trg program from instruction to doctrine. I found it hard to fathom that they are allowed to instruct.
> 
> 5. Summing up, KISS here prevails,
> 
> 6.  and there is only one way to train, one standard to adhere to for everyone, and thats the current pam on the weapons system provided.



First off, I appreciate your comments, but I will explain all of your points.

1.  In order to identify which method can be taught the fastest and most effectively, you need people who have not had years of experience (or any experience) with the rifle.  That's great that you call it bollocks, I like to call it conducting research that isn't bias.

2.  They are broken, and here is where your points contradict themselves.  What is broken is that two ways are being taught, and that is disastrous because it adds confusion to something that should be simple.  The rifle *has* changed, and it is now easier to do things with both hands.  

3.  How can the AUS PAM be the same as the Canadian PAM and the US PAM when the US PAM teaches SPORT (Tap/Rack variant) when the Canadian PAM teaches to cant the weapon to the left?

4.  What I am doing is finding which force-wide set of drills are the best.  Saying "leave well enough alone" is ridiculous when it has been identified that another method might have some merit and provide troops with better drills.  

5.  I agree, which is why I am trying to only have one method of doing the drills (not a basic and advanced, which is terrible).  Also, are the current PAM drills really simpler?  It's simple in the terms of what we're doing now, but why not change them for the better if you can shave steps off them to accomplish the same thing? 

6.  Again, you say there is one way, but you now have a CF learning and training two ways.  The whole reason I am doing this is that I am fortunate enough to be in the chair (OIC Small Arms) that has input on this and can change things for the better.


----------



## Haggis

Petamocto, I have to agree with OWDU regarding the idea of using family members as test subjects.  Bad idea.  You're now allowing civies to handle/"be trained on" prohibited weapons and that may not pass the Globe & Mail test.

If you're looking for a safe and acceptable PTA, why not approach some of the local P Res units around CTC  (RNBR, HMCS Brunswicker et al.) and borrow some of thier PAT members?  If you like, I can put you in touch with the Army Reserve Training CWO, Army and Navy NCMPD CWO/CPO1 when I'm back off leave next Monday.


----------



## SeanNewman

While I appreciate any constructive criticism, I think you guys are a bit too much "in the box" on this one.   ;D

Civilians have shot military weapons on many occasions in the CF, from family days to whatever else.  Like anything else, it just involves someone singing a waiver.

Do you think we are going to let people off the bus and give them a fully loaded rifle with no instruction?

This is not me having a lightbulb going off in my head here, this is the Small Arms Cell using a working group in order to identify ways we can get non-qualified people to learn drills.  We can't exactly just bring the janitors out (not trust worthy), and we can't ask DND civilians who work there (not in their contract), and we can't use Reserve units (they have weapons training).

Family members are the perfect target audience because they are a blank slate (unbias), and at least to some extent they can be vouched-for credibility wise.

They are going to get plenty of instruction and coaching both before and during any shooting.  I have a platoon's worth of Small Arms instructors who teach the course for a living, so I have faith in them that they can coach monkeys as ARSOs, let alone my wife or an MWO's 18 year old son.


----------



## chrisf

Has Haggis mentioned, why not reserve PAT members? They won't have any weapons training, and provided their units approve, the individual members will likely jump at the chance to get out of sweeping the floor in QM.


----------



## Haggis

Petamocto said:
			
		

> Civilians have shot military weapons on many occasions in the CF, from family days to whatever else.  Like anything else, it just involves someone singing a waiver.





			
				Petamocto said:
			
		

> Do you think we are going to let people off the bus and give them a fully loaded rifle with no instruction?


 Umm....probably not.  Maybe my time in Gagetown had me thining it was a kinda redneck part of the country (must've been all the pickup trucks).



			
				Petamocto said:
			
		

> This is not me having a lightbulb going off in my head here, this is the Small Arms Cell using a working group in order to identify ways we can get non-qualified people to learn drills.  We can't exactly just bring the janitors out (not trust worthy), and we can't ask DND civilians who work there (not in their contract), and we can't use Reserve units (they have weapons training).



My point about P Res PAT members is that they are freshly sworn in, wear a uniform and are awaiting their P Res BMQ.  Ergo, a perfect unbiased, unskilled PTA.  Nowhere did I advocate using P Res members who have had small arms training.



			
				Petamocto said:
			
		

> Family members are the perfect target audience because they are a blank slate (unbias), and at least to some extent they can be vouched-for credibility wise.  They are going to get plenty of instruction and coaching both before and during any shooting.  I have a platoon's worth of Small Arms instructors who teach the course for a living, so I have faith in them that they can coach monkeys as ARSOs, let alone my wife or an MWO's 18 year old son.



Agreed, but not supported (from my perspective).  The PAT soldiers, in my opinion, have a vested interest in the success of the project and can be treated exactly the same as a real-live BMQ candidate.  (I'm sure you can imagine what would happen to *you* if one of your instructors lost focus, even for a split second, and jacked up your wife!)

I have no doubts about the abilites of the SA Cell at the Inf School.  However, I don't think we should be teaching monkeys to shoot.


----------



## SeanNewman

Don't get me wrong, I am not discounting your idea.  I am far more flexible than most would think (which is why I am doing this whole thing in the first place), but there's no reason we can't do both (or more).

There's no reason we can't have civilians to resemble monkeys, PATs to resemble the middle, and fully-qualified pers as the other end of the spectrum.

What that does at the other end when I make my changes to the PAM is make it iron clad.  Whatever drills come out the other end will be based on fact, not opinion, and naysayers will be muted.

That's the whole purpose of this thread, really...to get as many outside opinions as possible.  I just wished more non-Army types would help out.


----------



## Haggis

Petamocto, I see a plan forming here.

I've been accused of being an "in the box" guy before.  But, I've also been told that I have a really, really big "box".


----------



## zuluder

I understand the concept that is behind this initiative that you are trying to undertake and I fully support any changes towards training/drills that allow for more efficiency but I do have a concern. 
I was an Inf Sgt SA instructor for many years until 2007 when I joined a new occupation on the civy side of life. I still am a believer that the PAM is an excellent guideline tried and tested to meet the needs of recruit introduction to the service rifle. We know that depending on skill, some drills in real time can/will be overlooked by the operator depending on their experience with "other" trained/practiced methods due to cross training or not. 
My concern is how these new standards will be introduced to our NCO's who are non Inf let alone non Cbt Arms who are involved in SA trg. I remember taking a young Artillery recruit aside one day during his SQ trg to ask him where he had been taught the "interesting" way he had just cleared his weapon and he advised that it had been an Airforce Sgt who had taught him that in basic. My concern.
I have no doubt that new drills can be incorporated within the Inf for obvious reasons  but if one of the goals is to ensure there is no cross standard, what is the plan to ensure that the checks  for those pers who aren't always in need of a rifle on a day to day basis are met?


----------



## 1feral1

Petamocto said:
			
		

> How can the AUS PAM be the same as the Canadian PAM and the US PAM when the US PAM teaches SPORT (Tap/Rack variant) when the Canadian PAM teaches to cant the weapon to the left?



From Wesley's home pam library.... Verbatum

In your response WRT pams, you pretty much accuse me of not knowing what I am talking about, and that does not settle well with me. Perhaps before you 'go off' you should research first.

For the record, I've been on this site for over 6 yrs and I have developed a good reputation on small arms technical knowledge (infact I have an SME registed number here with Army on small arms matters), this along with over 34 yrs of service in two armies in peace and war.

I am not about to make stuff up just to make a point.

Now here is a simple example (for sake of argument on empty magzines) of what I was trying to emphisise.


Okay, here is an example.... Cdn manual B-GL-317-018/PT-001, The Rifle 5.56mm C7 and the Carbine 5.56mm C8, page 2-77, para 8. Sadly dated 1987. I am aware that amendments have been made.

IA: If the rifle fails to fire or stops firing the immediate action is to cant the rifle to the left and look in the ejection port at the position of the bolt:

a. If the bolt is to the rear
1. Check for an empty magazine, and change magazines
2. Operate the bolt catch and strike the forward assist assembly
3. Re-aim and continue firing

Australian MLW dated 1979, The Rifle, 5.56mm M16, Vol 4, Pam 4, Sect 6-6 paras 618 and 619

IA drill as fol:

a. Pull the cocking handle fully to the rear
b. Tilt the rifle to the left and look into the ejection opening port

Empty magazine Drill.

If carrying out the IA the magazine is empty, the folllowing drill is to be employed:

a. Return the cocking handle
b. Replace the magazine with a filled one
c. Press the bolt catch to allow the bolt and cocking handle to go to forward
d. Strike the bolt assist to ensure the bolt is fully seated
e. Re-aim and fire

See the similarities?

I have an earlier US manual too (can't find it - but I will) , and no doubt the Australians piggybacked some info into our own pam from the US, and the similiarites between the Aust and Cdn pams are noted.

I rest my case.

I know my subject matter, and like I said I m NOT talking out my ass, and I do see things outside the box.

A weapons system developed in the late 1950s, and still in use today, one can only over engineer an IA and remedies for stoppages so much before it gets OUTRAGOUSLY complicated and difficult to teach/retain.

In my opinion only the current pam should be used and set a standard, allbeit a universal tri service standard at that. Yes remember the KISS principle.  

The rifle first appeared in 1985 in Canada, and thats 25 yrs ago, and the same FOW has been here in Australia for over 40 yrs.

Regards from a rather grim monsoonal low pressure system in the tropics,

OWDU


----------



## Haggis

Petamocto:

One very important consideration.  When you get around to developing the training plan, it's important to remember that there will be little (i.e. no) appetite at CDA for a proposal which lengthens BMQ or BMOQ. 

CFLRS is bombarded for requests to "add XX periods of YYYYY to the BMQ/BMOQ".  When that happens, another topic has to be pared back by an equal number of periods.  Changing the course by even a single day has second and third order effects on scheduling, accomodations, and resources.  This is magnified when you have 26-32 platoons in-house at any given moment.

Any proposal to add additional material, subjects or length to BMQ must go through CDA as a Training Needs Analysis/Proposal. The proposal is then weighed against the NCMGS and BMQ TP by the NCMPD Working Group (a panel of Reg and Res CWO/CPO1 from all environments and CDA). If accepted, the QS and TP are then modified and direction passed to the TEs to "make it work".  The officers have a similar process for BMOQ.

So, to greatly increase the chances of your proposals being accepted, ensure you stay within the time window already provided for C7 training in the BMQ/BMOQ QS and TP.


----------



## ArmyRick

I used to instruct Reg F DP1 Infantry a couple of years ago and we were reviewing the standard C7 drills but moving them ASAP to the quick shooting drills. We had them use these drills on ranges, in field firings and in one instance we took DP1 troops through a kill house (live). 

No dangerous situations popped up as a result of using the new drills or at any time during the time we put troops through a kill house.

I firmly beleive the number one safest thing to drill troops is WHERE IS YOUR BARREL POINTING! (situational awareness).

I beleive the quick shooting drills are very good and witht he exception of complicated stoppages, the tap, rack and go usually works. I also like the emergency magazine change.

I was originally trained on the PAM drills back in 1990. 

Thats my 2 cents and hope it helps.


----------



## SeanNewman

CWO,

Your point is valid about training time.  Whatever the new weapons instruction looks like, it has to be better in the same amount of time, or as good in less time.

Overwatch,

I am not doubting your knowledge, I was confused by your statement that the AUS drills are the same as the Canadian and the US drills which are different (?).  I was able to find a 1984 US M16 Manual that shows SPORT, which closely resembles the Tap/Rack method of remedying stoppages, where as the Cdn PAM does not.  That was at the core of my confusion, as to how the AUS PAM could be similar to both.


----------



## 1feral1

Petamocto said:
			
		

> Overwatch,
> 
> I am not doubting your knowledge, I was confused by your statement that the AUS drills are the same as the Canadian and the US drills which are different (?).  I was able to find a 1984 US M16 Manual that shows SPORT, which closely resembles the Tap/Rack method of remedying stoppages, where as the Cdn PAM does not.  That was at the core of my confusion, as to how the AUS PAM could be similar to both.



Your tone said otherwise, and now you know there is not much difference in drills.  Maybe its you that should see things outside the box. No matter who you are, or who you think you are, you only get one chance at a first impression.


----------



## SeanNewman

Well, I really do appreciate your opinions but when I write I do not think whether or not someone will like me for it or not.

My goal here is to identify personal experiences with these sets of drills, not to be in a popularity contest.

Chalk it up to the impossibility for written text to show emotion, but my writing was not meant to be sarcastic (I genuinely did not understand what you were stating, and I still don't because other than having the aim of remedying the stoppage, the drills are not the same at all).


----------



## 1feral1

This is a website, not work. Its not about being popular or liked, its about treating fellow members with a bit of respect, common courtesy, and learning from their experiences or taking in the knowledge they possess.

The IA generic drill between Canada and Australia for the M16 FOW is similar, infact almost identical (you've seen it in your face and quoted from a source), thats what I am stating, and I am saying overengineering these IAs is a waste of time, money, and resources. 

Like I said these rifles have seen service for almost 50 years, and there should be one standard taught in the generic pam. Thats always how its been over the years and thats proven from WW1 to Korea and beyond.

I also think family members handling weapons is outright retarded, and opens a whole new can of worms from legality to safety. 

Perhaps you should park the arrogance and listen to some valued WOs, SNOs and other Officers on what they have to say on this matter.

I am not about to have a pissing contest with a stranger who thinks he is a know-it-all on the INet, and being an officer does not make you any different than any one of us on here.


Its 0545 and I got to get to work.


----------



## SeanNewman

Overwatch Downunder said:
			
		

> 1. Perhaps you should park the arrogance and listen to some valued WOs, SNOs and other Officers on what they have to say on this matter.  I am not about to have a pissing contest with a stranger who thinks he is a know-it-all...
> 
> 2. Like I said these rifles have seen service for almost 50 years, and there should be one standard taught in the generic pam. Thats always how its been over the years and thats proven from WW1 to Korea and beyond.



1.  Does that make any sense at all on a thread where I am asking for advice from other people??  You need to relax.  For someone who stresses that this is ust a message board, why do you get so wound up?  Nice crack at me being an officer and implying that I don't take advice from NCOs, but you are offside on that one.  Talk to the Sgts-MWOs I work with.

2.  You have made some valid points on these boards, but you are completely wrong on this one.  Saying that we shouldn't bother identifying whether or not new drills _may be_ better than what we have used for decades would make you an excellent WWI general.  Are you that stubborn that you are completely unable to be flexible and think that something newer might have come along that may have merit?  I honestly don't even know how to reply to this point you are making, because you are going public to state that anyone who tries to accept new methods as possible advancements is wrong.

As for civilians handling weapons, you have already stated that you think it's retarded.  I think some people are retarded, so I guess we're even.  It has been done several times before in the CF.


----------



## 1feral1

Petamocto said:
			
		

> You need to relax.  For someone who stresses that this is ust a message board, why do you get so wound up?
> 
> ...you are completely wrong on this one.
> 
> As for civilians handling weapons, you have already stated that you think it's retarded.  I think some people are retarded, so I guess we're even.  It has been done several times before in the CF.



Well, I don't think I am wrong at all. But I guess all those years of experience don't mean much afterall, You know everything, and I'll bow out.

As for getting wound up, I get a little irritated when someone (and new at that)basicially accuses me of being bullshit artist.

The only time I have observed civilians firing military weapons was on family day when under strict supervision, and firing from the prone, a few rds of blank from various small arms, usually the Minimi and MAG 58.

Of course in the past, some Cadets have been invloved with small arms/range pracs too.


----------



## ArmyRick

BACK on topic, 

Petamocto, I really hope the new drills reflect the lessons we have learned from Afghanistan, the boys on the hill, etc, etc. 

I have been using these drills and I firmly beleive they work well. Yes if you have a complicated stoppage, you really need to take cover and sort it out.

I once again emphasize that we have had DP1 candidates use these drills and in one case go through a live fire kill house without any safety infractions. It requires damn close instruction, supervision and willing mind set from the NCOs at the section level.

BTW, best of luck with this endevour and I think its great that someone in the loop is taking a proactive step for OUR army.


----------



## SeanNewman

Don't be silly, nobody is blowing you off.  I do think it's a bit odd that you would say you don't want a pissing match but then say that I don't take advice from NCOs, though...which is about as personal of an attack as you can give one of my type.

Anyway, on to business.

I fully understand your assertion that it is bizarre to have civilians firing military weapons, but that does not mean the default setting is "no".  One of my biggest peeves is when people in the CF automatically revert to "no" just because something is different (civilians shooting, changing the drills, etc), so that is why I went on the offensive.  

What it means, is that if it is to happen, X Y and Z need to be in place in order to make it happen safely (which as you implied, will include being surrounded and coached by small arms instructors as ARSOs in a non-threatening posture).  *Just give me a little bit of credit though knowing that this would be my skin on the line as the RSO of this range, that I would mitigate risks as best as possible.  If we go this route, the people will be coached and trained properly, and would not be allowed anywhere near live ammo if we did not have full confidence in them.
*

That's actually much more than what has happened in the past on live ranges, where your wife and kids could walk up to a firing point and knock out a few rounds of the 50 cal live downrange with no instruction.

Inside of out own resources though, it's the easiest way to get non-qualified people on the ranges.  I do think the idea of getting an unqualified PAT(R) and I will also pursue that option when we're back to work next week.

Army Rick,

Thank you.  I really am an idealist and deep down under the hard outer shell the reason I am doing this is because I want to give Pte _______ the best possible chance of survival.  While remaining objective, I can still see that he deserves better than something meant for the range and not combat.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

If you two don't drop your schoolyard spat, I'm locking this up, complete with warnings. You won't be able to start a third thread on the subject either.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## Kat Stevens

If I have to pull this thread over, you two are grounded for life...


----------



## dapaterson

My 2c:  The current drills are the basis that needs to be taught.  That is, at the lowest level, we need to teach about the weapon and ensure there's an understanding of what is going on with the weapon as a system (see another thread for a discussion about NDs - the issues are linked - soldiers need to know and understand their weapon).

Soldiers (and sailors, and airpeople) need to understand the way the weapon works, and the nature of defects that can occur, so they are more able to deal with them.

That training and knowledge provides the baseline needed.  If a soldier can't explain both fully forward / bolt fully to the rear / bolt partially to the rear it means that when (not if) they ever experience a problem, they are not prepared to deal with it.

Once they have that level of understanding and familiarity, then you can build on it.  Add the Bearded Oakley Cool Kids modified drills - but it's an addition to the skillset, not a replacement.


I will say that I see it as a positive sign that folks are looking and asking questions about "Why do we do it this way?" - that's how we get better.  In this case, though, I believe the current drills, properly taught, teach a greater understanding and thus still have a place as the foundation for all service members.   Adding to that (DP1 Cbt arms courses perhaps) is good - but a solid foundation is needed to start.


----------



## ArmyRick

I disagree with dapaterson.

The new drills should be implemented and preferably in a timely fashion. There still will be a thorough understunding of the rifle as it is, just with drills that make more sense. 

Muscle memory is another issue. I find it highly counter productive to teach the troops "PAM drills" and then try and teach them drills for COMBAT! The soldiers should be taught these drills from the beggining in BMQ. The drills should be designed for combat in the first place.

I have loads and loads of small arms lessons I have taught on reserve and regular force SQ, BMQ (L) and DP1 infantry, I am more than willing to stake my expiriences on teaching soldiers how to properly use weapons in the first place.

The quick aim shooting drills (similar to gun fighter) are good, more effective than the old ones and safe.

We do not need two sets of drills and I appreciate that someone in the loop is doing something about this.


----------



## helpup

Ok, I just finnished reading up on this and will add my 2cents worth

First, 
-I am a WO who joined the Reg in 88, prior to that I had 4 years Reserve time that started in 84
-I learned mil wpns on the C1/2, SMG, in BSL I first came on the C7 family and the C9
-I have spent 8 summers shooting competatively on rifle team's
-I have taught on numerous Basic's, TQ, and leadership Crses. ( now known as the DP series)
-I am UOI qualified with the full crse from Gagetown
-Apart from a two year posting, and times teaching or on Crse.  I have been in a Inf unit since I have joined.

I am more than familiar with both the pam drills and the CQB-DH meathods.  My own opinion is an echo of what has been mentioned on here.  The Common denomination is the CF standard.  Teach as the PAM currently states forces wide, for the following reasons:
-universality ( yes Cbt arms can and should be taught at later stages or work up Trg the Tap/rack drills )
-redundancy is not a bad thing, ( the Fwd assist, doing up mag pouches and the like, also instill familarity with the wpn.  most cbt arms stop on the own accord stricking the Fwd assist or use dump pouches.  usually once they have enough familarity with the wpn to know if the bolt went fully forward or the stop loosing mags due to thier experience.  Other trades though do not have the wpns time or experience to know if the bolt is fully forward or will and have lost magss)
-Tap & rack with troops not fully aware of the stoppages can, has and does get troops (especially non cbt arms) trying to clear a stoppage that could of been cleared more effeciently through the normal I.A's.  Empty mag, double feed or hard extraction comes to mind.
-troops who do not get into the habbit of looking at the posn of the bolt immediately during a IA do take alot longer at realizing they have an stoppage.  If they look at it immediately they can equate, easier and quicker the feeling the wpn had during either recoil or chambering a round and know that there was a problem. ( the book does not spell this out, but it has been my experience that those who do look tend to pick it up quicker and to the point they as experienced troops tend not to look.  And yes I can hear the jump on's happening about this one as I am saying follow the pam and yet disregarding the drills later.  Dont forget I am espousing teaching it and keeping it as the baseline standard.)
-Conventional ranges are there to instill the basics forces wide.  The Pam effectively deals with the most current stoppages in a safe and effective manner.  These Rangisms are to allow all soldiers to get thier basics down and also to improve thier shooting.  
-Once the basics are mastered by all means move on to more advance shooting techniques, and stoppage drills.  
-There has been in my opinion a dangerous trend in the CF of taking the CQB shooting drills and showing young soldiers as this being the " new and Cbt proven method of shooting" These young soldiers take these drills and adopt them before being profiecent with the wpn, especially the non cbt arms ( and that is not a dig as some cbt arms have been just as bad)

I have watched - 
stoppage that were not cleared safely due to tap and rack ( barrel angle in the prone posn)
stoppages that were not noticed 
Tap and rack that did not clear some stoppages that a quick look at the bolt or better feel for the wpn would of sorted out ( double feed)

Our crew just got back from California and there were issues such as ND's 
(and the location of some of the ND's were downright scary.)  There were issues of people loosing SA and firing when no firing should of been happening at all. 

I have throughout my carreer became a firm believer in teach the basics as they are suppose to be taught.  For those who the C7 family is not normally fired often they go through basic TOET's every single time with max supervision.  Even for Cbt arms TOET's are the norm vice the exception in my unit on a basis that it is done if there were little or no wpns or range work done in the past while.  I am also a firm believer in the Tap rack drills for work up trg or Urban Ops CQ shooting.  They are proven drills that greatly assist experienced shooters in getting the wpn firing at the Tgt.  There is range and scope in the CF for both of these drills.  I think there would be a loss if we only adopted just the one or the other.  The gunfighter program, shoot to live program, or the UOIC teaches these well and they translate well for the current Op's.  

Anyhow I think I went on long enough, and as stated this is my 2Cents


----------



## Towards_the_gap

Ok here's my 2c, having attempted to post a nice long rant a while back but loosing it due to crappy computer.

Reg force Engr MCpl, 2 years at a CER, prior to that 6 1/2 years British Army, Royal Engineers
First taught all TOETs for SA80A1, then A2, then converted as such to C7 upon transfer.


Firstly, the ''PAM'' TOETs for both weapon systems are identical. Only difference I noted was that with the SA80, the right hand remains on the pistol grip. This means an awkward movement for pulling the working parts to the rear, however it also means the weapon (and muzzle) remains under positive control, which is something I think needs to be introduced to the C7.

I agree with both the two last posters, in that the pam drills are an excellent basis for understanding the weapon, and that gunfighter drills are much better when the range is two way.

A good compromise for both camps, if it is possible, is to merge the two drills into one 'super-drill'. For example

Primary IA
weapon fails to fire - tap rack and go
Weapons still fails to fire -  secondary IA

Secondary IA - cant weapon to left, look at position of bolt ...and then go into the normal drills.


Myself personally, being an experienced user of the C7 and the SA80, I can generally tell what kind of stoppage I have from the feel of the recoil, or rather the recoil from the bolt returning to the closed position, but out of muscle memory/habit do cast a quick glance at the bolt as I change mags.


----------



## helpup

Towards_the_gap said:
			
		

> Myself personally, being an experienced user of the C7 and the SA80, I can generally tell what kind of stoppage I have from the feel of the recoil, or rather the recoil from the bolt returning to the closed position, but out of muscle memory/habit do cast a quick glance at the bolt as I change mags.



Good point I can also tell for myself and more often then not when someone near me has a stoppage.  It took me a while but I got out of the habbit of looking at the bolt if it is in a normal posn ( i.e fully or partially forward and just needs a tap rack)  I can also automatically change mags for the times I do not get it done prior to an empty mag.  I dont count per say but go by feel of how many rounds I have fired. 
-There is also a stoppage that although rare does happen ( normally with bolts that have modified ejector springs) the empty casing winds up caught between the bolt and the cocking handle.  The normal drill does not work as you cant c-o-c-k it.  ( trick is to remove mag, use long enough object to hold the bolt in current posn and tap the cocking handle forward.) using that method simply replace mag c-o-c-k the wpn and continue to fire.


----------



## SeanNewman

HelpUp,

Thank you for the incredible post.  I agree with a lot of what you wrote, but I'm not sold on having two separate drills (basic and advanced).  I firmly believe that a set of drills can be found that are the best because they are the simplest and most effective, and that is what makes them good (and safe of course).

As you know from having done the course, I think part of the problem resulting in a lot of misunderstandings and misconceptions is that the Urban Ops Cell has been the ones teaching these new drills, which gives the impression that they are what you should use in CQB short-range scenarios, which is completely false.  

Drills are drills, and if you have a stoppage it doesn't matter if you are firing from 40m or 400m; a way that remedies it faster at short range is better and should be used at all distances and positions.  But that's not how it's coming across, because I have seen it first hand that people are interpreting skills learned on UOI = skills you use during CQB only.  

You bring up great points about the tap/rack not solving every type of stoppage, and I 100% agree with you.  However, we must ask ourselves "what stoppages are likely to happen most often, and what will fix those?".  (See below)

Toward The Gap,

I think you are *bang on* with your assumption that one can be an IA and the other can be a prolonged stoppage drill, and this is why we are going to test it.  

Hypothetically, say that 95% of all stoppages are either a loose mag or a simple jam.  *If* that is the case, then of course having a tap/rack IA makes sense because it would solve most of the stoppages in the least amount of time.  Then if you go to fire again and still nothing, it's time to take cover because it may be something big (broken extractor, hard double feed, whatever).

However, say that the rifle fired absolutely perfectly forever and the only stoppage that ever happened was an empty mag; then a tap/rack wouldn't make any sense.

We all know the truth though, and we get stoppages for more than that.

Getting back to HelpUp though, it is imperative that soldiers understand what is happening with the bolt, but perhaps _*if *_a drill exists that can remedy most stoppages faster, perhaps we should investigate if something can be injected first before the "Cant the weapon to the left..." prolonged stoppage.


----------



## SeanNewman

Silver,

Great post, thank you.

I agree with you on the trigger part in both ways (in what happens to the trigger and what your finger should be doing once you identify a stoppage).

One of the things we have bounced around when weighing the pros and cons is the US method of SPORT, which is *S*lap the mag, Pull the cocking handle, etc...but perhaps adding something the stresses *getting your finger away from the trigger* before anything else.  Whatever that would be, be it "finger SPORT", "F SPORT" or an entirely different acronym that means the same thing.

We're dealing with recruits here too, so getting ourselves in their boots, remember that they're actually saying the drill out loud to remember it, not just working by repetition memory like you and I.  So take the cheesy example of "Finger SPORT" (we're not going to actually use this), what you would have in the classroom is a "click" followed by the candidate instinctively thinking "finger off the trigger".

That's our nut to crack though, but you're exactly right.


----------



## ArmyRick

I agree with alot of what I have read so far. Petamocto, it sounds very much like you guys in the small arms world are on the right track.

Looking forward to what comes out of it.


----------



## LineJumper

I may be speaking out of lane here, so watch out!

I think that the initial training that all elements receive is quite adequate, due to the absolute use of said primary weapon. (This of course excludes C8 drill, as many just don't get it yet) It is more than irritating to explain to any recruit that 'yes, we are more advanced' than said level of shooting, yet here we are trying to explain a level of CRBN that many care nothing of (bad example I know). Realistically, does it matter how you clear a weapon obstruction, to say, remembering how the mechanic explained to clear a fuel line in your mode of transport when going A-B?
These are bad examples, in my opinion, but strangely I felt a tad yappy. Basic weapons handling for all elements should remain as is. When practicing beyond PWT3, well, give out the required tools....
 :2c:


----------



## SeanNewman

Line Jumper,

If what we are doing works out, it will eliminate that basic/advanced problem.  There will just be one set and it will be what's best.

You are absolutely right that the current PAM drills are "adequate".  It has never been about what drills are right or wrong, because they are both effective.  However, the goal is to identify which drills are the most effective, in terms of time, safety, efficiency, control, etc.

Take the analogy of cutting down a tree:  An axe is completely effective at cutting down a tree, and a saw is also effective at doing it in a different way.  However, if a chainsaw is invented we should not limit ourselves to the axe and saw just because they work.  Perhaps we use a chainsaw until we run out of gas and then go to the axe/saw.


----------



## ArmyRick

Petamocto, I agree 100%.

The so called advanced drills are actually really easy to perform. Simple principles like dominant hand always on the pistol grip, controlled breathing, as many actions as possible done with the non dominant hand (always ready to engage the enemy). I also agree that engaging an enemy at 20m or 200m, same mind set, same principles. 

When you look at the modification of the drills (and pound it into the head of the old school crowd) they must understand the concept that "the PAm drills are good for training and then new /advanced drills are for deployment"...

WRONG. The C7 (in any form) and the C8 are weapons meant to engage the enemy, simple, end story.

Shooting the enemy is COMBAT. We must, must, must teach our recruits how to do things properly from the begining so they develop good habits earlier on.

The concept of we do this training and this on operations is absolutely garbage. 

Its like the stance we have for CQB in urban operations. Why do we square off agaisnt the target? Because we have a ballistic plate and frag vest. 25 years ago we did not have the ballitic plates, hence no squaring off when standing.

We used to teach spray the room on automatic after heaving a grenade in the room. That was based on WWII doctrine when we fought through old european houses made of stone. 

We don't teach that anymore because of different type of building structures, different materials and with civilians/co-lateral damage is now a huge concern in operations, we change our drills to reflect that.

Look at the alert states (white-yellow-red-black) we study that now (OR WE SHOULD! If you don't know it, hit the books and learn), because we have learned that alert states influence how we perform our drills (all drills not just weapons handling) in combat situation when the sympathetic nervous system kicks in. We teach similar stuff in Close Quarters Combat (the new unarmed combat).

We must continually adapt and transform what we know/how we do it to better reflect the currrent threat and operations.

People who say the old PAM is adequete, I strongly disagree, it can be improved.


----------



## SeanNewman

Yes, the "train as you fight" thing is quite the pandora's box, especially taking into account Grossman's conditions.

All we do now on the range is train in white/yellow (the only stress being a bit of a time crunch, and some jogging).

Hypothetically there might be drills that are perfect in those cases when fine motor skills, but in red/black become as useless as trying to undo a zipper when your hands are frozen.

That's a whole other thread though (how to best train as you fight), because really the ultimate goal would be getting as close to someone else trying to kill you as possible.

It's another reason that modern experience is so critical in terms of retention, because there have been so many CF pers who have shot at real people and been shot at that you just can't replicate in training and that's priceless.


----------



## LineJumper

I'm not arguing any points about this. Some are shooters, and some of us hope the shooters are good to go (no worries there). My point is taking it to the first level, which completely changes doctrine at the basic level. I can run a range to PWT3, but gunfighter is a completely different animal, let alone CQC and variations on Urban Ops. Unit level, sure, revamp the basic training system? I don't even want to touch that. Certainly this can be built in to BMQ, however, realistically this is a bit much for many that are entering into the broad military world Canada has to offer. 'Advanced' weapons handling should remain at the unit+ level, after the unskilled are produced into skilled troops. Not to mention the sea and air components that are involved in their respective defensive/offensive roles. Again, just my  :2c: hopefully I'm not outside any lanes.


----------



## SeanNewman

Line Jumper, 

You are one of many who is getting the drills part confused with the CQB shooting package part, and it is completely not your fault because all of these things have been wrongfully trained together before and it has led to mass confusion.

I am not talking about making everything CQB based, I am only talking about the drills you do on the C7 itself.  You can still do a PWT3 exactly the same as it is now, the only thing that would change (in theory) is that people would change mags faster and if someone had a stoppage they could likely fix it faster.


----------



## LineJumper

Seen, I'll leave the rest to the pro's, this is quite the enlightening thread.


----------



## SeanNewman

No, please do *not* leave it only to the "pros", because I already have the "pros'" input.  I am surrounded at work be people who have all the pro answers, so specifically what I need is input / advice from other circles.

Believe it or not, you demonstrating a bit of confusion is really helpful to me because it solidifies my belief that people out there are confused (which is bad and makes me want to fix it even more).

To keep it simple, basically what has happened is that the Urban Ops course has been teaching how to fight in close quarters, but what happened is that there was a cross pollination and then they ended up teaching a way to use the weapon that is separate from Urban training.

It would be like teaching someone about computers while using a MAC, ignoring that other computers are PC based.  Instead of focusing on the computer part, that guy you trained begins to associate one with the other.


----------



## Fusaki

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> When you look at the modification of the drills (and pound it into the head of the old school crowd) they must understand the concept that "the PAm drills are good for training and then new /advanced drills are for deployment"...
> 
> WRONG. The C7 (in any form) and the C8 are weapons meant to engage the enemy, simple, end story.
> 
> Shooting the enemy is COMBAT. We must, must, must teach our recruits how to do things properly from the begining so they develop good habits earlier on.



Pro Pat to that!

The goal is to develop the fewest drills for the widest range of applications.  We gain nothing from having two standards except for "training scars" that have to be unlearned.



			
				Petamocto said:
			
		

> Yes, the "train as you fight" thing is quite the pandora's box, especially taking into account Grossman's conditions.
> 
> All we do now on the range is train in white/yellow (the only stress being a bit of a time crunch, and some jogging).
> 
> Hypothetically there might be drills that are perfect in those cases when fine motor skills, but in red/black become as useless as trying to undo a zipper when your hands are frozen.
> 
> That's a whole other thread though (how to best train as you fight), because really the ultimate goal would be getting as close to someone else trying to kill you as possible.
> 
> It's another reason that modern experience is so critical in terms of retention, because there have been so many CF pers who have shot at real people and been shot at that you just can't replicate in training and that's priceless.



Does simunition make ammo that _intentionally_ induces stoppages?  A force-on-force scenario where 5% of rounds fired will cause stoppages would be a good way to get guys in condition red, and then figure out what drills are working and what aren't.


----------



## SeanNewman

Wonderbread, the answer is quite simply "yes", but it will take more outside the box thinking that has for years been almost over-fixated on safety to the point where it is risk averse.

All of us have been raised on the idea of "never mix dummy rounds and live rounds", but something like this could be exactly what it could be used for.

In your scenario, all it would take would be the RSO providing mags that had dummy rounds mixed in with live rounds on a range, which would induce stoppages.  Not all kinds of stoppages, but some.  Not sure how you'd over-induce other stoppages like double feeds or catches, short of severely altering the springs in the mags.

Anyway, I am all for safety like not bringing live rounds into a classroom, because that is "good" safe.  However, being hyper risk averse is less safe in the long run.


----------



## HItorMiss

Know how many stoppages I have had in combat not remedied by TAP RACK....0

Proper press check ensures round in the chamber and a quick slap of the base of the mag on insertion ensures proper seating of the mag.

Now the idea of making batches of Ammo (Simunition) that purposely induce stoppages scares the crap out of me I do not want to be training knowing this is a fact. Also I never want to have my troops in the Black, the Black is a place a properly trained Soldier never goes and training to accept that is assuming a risk that I as a leader am not will to accept.

The proper to my mind drill as previously stated should be Tap/Rack and if the weapon still fails to fire move into secondary IA of checking bolt position and follow on drills

Just my 2 cents anyway


----------



## Fusaki

Petamocto said:
			
		

> Not sure how you'd over-induce other stoppages like double feeds or catches, short of severely altering the springs in the mags.



Maybe this isn't such a bad idea.  Mags get old, the springs wear out, the feed lips spread apart, ect.  I don't see what's wrong with marking them (so they don't get get mixed in with "combat mags") and using them in training?



			
				BulletMagnet said:
			
		

> Now the idea of making batches of Ammo (Simunition) that purposely induce stoppages scares the crap out of me I do not want to be training knowing this is a fact.



Why?



> Also I never want to have my troops in the Black, the Black is a place a properly trained Soldier never goes and training to accept that is assuming a risk that I as a leader am not will to accept.



It's quite possible a properly trained soldier will go into the black.  It's not what we want, for obvious reasons, but there is always the potential for a situation to be so intense that even the most well trained guy is overwhelmed.

That said, I don't think anyone here is saying that we should train in the Black.  The Black is what gives guys CSR and PTSD.  What we're trying to do is train in the Red, so that we can push the Black farther away and function more effectively in high stress situations.


----------



## Big Red

What are being described by some posters as "advanced" skills are just more effective ones. Attend any 2 day basic carbine course from a variety of reputable trainers in the US and you will find that they can take a layman from never handling a weapon to these "advanced" drills in that time period with no difficulty.

Decide on one set of drills that are statistically the most effective and then teach them from Day 1 onwards.  Anything else is a waste of money and is not "training", it is masturbation.

As for sticking with drills from WW1, shall we apply the same to the excellent handgun drills of the day? Lets tuck one hand in the shirt or belt line and shoot one handed 90 degrees to the target. Hey, it 'worked' back then on the same weapon.

Re: Gunfighter stoppages...the "shake" part is not a reliable method of clearing an obstruction. Lock the bolt to the rear and "finger f***" (for lack of a technical term) the mag well. Drills should also take into account hard extractions and a collapse stock then mortar drill when the fingering method fails.


----------



## SeanNewman

As a SitRep for all of you who may have been interested in the subject matter of this thread, we are conducting some official research on this next week with a controlled test group.

It will not be one vs the other, but we will now have concrete data to move ahead with our findings.

I'll post next week with the results.

Expect to see a new C7/C8 PAM within a year and potentially some sweeping changes to make drills better and simpler.


----------



## SeanNewman

Update as per a similar thread.

The official testing will take place next week and I will post again with the findings.

Expect the PAM to be changed after than and better/simpler "official" drills for everyone.

Edit - Had to make some spelling changes.  Friday afternoon and getting the jitters.


----------



## ArmyRick

Looking forward to it. I personally beleive it is a step forward.


----------

