All Things Negligent Discharge (merged)

[ballz]

I'm sorry this post is going to be ridiculously long... but I think I'll have it beaten to death finally.

SO, I ask you this: What is preventing a candidate from asking his section NCO to run him through the drills, coaching them so to speak?

Well, they take the bolt carriers, and we have no dummy rounds, so it does make it pretty s**tty for trying to practice. As you know, without those things, you might as well just put the rifle away and start mimicking the drills without the rifle. As for asking the section NCO, people did that lots too. Quite frankly there was just too many steps and too many sequences for people to grasp as easily as they could be grasping it. Eventually everybody ended up passing the handling test but I mean that's just not good enough...

Did you not perform safety drills each time the weapon was picked-up or put down?

Yes I did but that's pretty miniscule compared to what we're talking about here.... Pulling back a cocking handle, checking the chamber, and pointing at a safe point and shooting is ONE *small* sequence of many, and doesn't even involve ammunition so it's not like practicing that one is going to prevent an ND during drills (obviously it would prevent an ND in other instances of course)...

Just a quick question, for the benefit of the us that were in the army with Moses, but are candidates not allowed to keep their rifles in the shacks at St. Jean anymore?  What I mean overnight, when they are on their own time.

Yes but without bolt carriers or dummy rounds.... I think they should take out the firing pins and give us dummy rounds personally and that idea is from the Weapons Tech that was teaching one of our classes, not my own.

I think that I now see what you were trying to say [1] (they had been able to demonstrate/repeat the skill at their test but had no deeper understanding of what was going on which tripped them up later - am I tracking?)  I am not necessarily agreeing with your assessment - just trying to make sure I understand your theory.
[2]So the individual who had the ND did not know that the bullets go in the magazine and thence into the chamber upon cocking? [3] Even after training with magazines with drill rounds? [4]You were the first person to make that connection for him?
[5]Did the other members of the course who did not have negligent discharges have prior firearms training from their parents or public schools?

1. Yes, you are tracking. IMO, not having a deeper understanding of what was going on caused them to forget how to do the drill properly Yes, repetition would obviously help retain something, but it isn’t practical to think that the 100,000 or so members of the CF are all going to get to practice their drills 2 or 3 times a week when they aren’t deployed either. If they understood the weapon however, and they went a loooong time (years I would bet) without even seeing a rifle, I’d bet they’d still be able to pick one up and use it safely.

2. Apparently not. I guess if he sat there and thought about it on his own he’d probably start to see why what he did was stupid. However, my whole beer here with the teaching method is exactly that: “drills” don’t provoke thought. The drills were emphasized and presented in such a way that a good chunk of people just didn’t think. While he was doing his drills he wasn’t thinking “I am taking the magazine out so that when I cycle the action another round doesn’t get chambered, I am now cycling the action to empty the chamber (which I know will not be replaced by another round), *I am now making sure there is nothing in the chamber.*” and so forth…. He was thinking “step 1, step 2, step 3, step 4, step… BANG”

3. Even after that. Because every time he screwed up while doing the drills, he just got the proper sequence yelled at him again. For some reason no one ever thought to say “do you realize there’s a round getting chambered when you do that? Here, watch what’s going on inside my rifle while I do it slowly”

4. Yes, and he specifically told me, after I was expressing my own frustration with the lack of theory being taught while I explained it to him, that “See I didn’t know any of that…”

5. I have no idea about each specific member... However... I would bet that the people who have a prior understanding of firearms had a less failure rate, and ND rate, than those who have no knowledge of how a firearm worked. It's all speculation without cold hard stats, but I don't think many people would bet otherwise...

I *KNOW* for a fact (because I always noticed the weapons instructor never explained it every time it happened) that a weapons instructor from my classes that I attended never once explained to a person who had just screwed up an unload in this manner WHY you're going to end up killing somebody if you don't release the mag before you start cycling the action. They would yell at them and tell them how stupid they were for not releasing the mag first but they would *never* explain why. This is just one example, and it’s the simplest.

Another good one is that people often forget the function test. Why? Well it’s 15 steps of random stuff to them… For me, its 3 steps (Check to see that the safety is working… Check to see that Repetition functions… Check to see if Auto functions). The most common thing that seemed to be forgotten was whether you were going to hear a “clicking” sound after you cycled the action while holding the trigger on Rep or Auto... People mixed this stuff all the time… because they had no clue why you should hear a clicking sound after Rep and why you shouldn’t after Auto.

For the *I am now making sure there is nothing in the chamber.* thing… The reason I put asterisks around this part is because I have a separate point… People got complacent with checking the chambers because there was never any dummy rounds put in them to keep everybody on their toes… I can’t promise he did or didn’t check his chamber, and if he didn’t whether it was out of pure idiocy or forgetfulness , but I know there were people that were doing the motions and not actually checking the chamber out of pure idiocy / complacency.

Just saying that - back when the earth was cooling - the safest people to be around re: weapons handling were new troops just out of training (vs. the dinosaurs like me) because they were freshly brainwashed with the right drills, and had the benefit of recent, insane amounts of practise with all the weapons in an Inf Pl.

Hmmm... well that makes sense but just to be clear I'm only talking about after BMOQ... So a new combat arms troop who just finished MOC training has done significantly more than the stuff I'm talking about. They would also probably be more prone to *wanting* to learn how the rifle works, and probably sit there and pick at their rifle and see how it works a lot more than your average OCdt on BMOQ who just wants to survive the summer so they never have to do this kind of stuff again.

However, WHY would the T-Rex's be considered more dangerous. Because the brainwashing is wearing off after all those years? If the T-Rex's were taught all the theory during their MOC training, instead of being brainwashed with drills, one would suspect and want after 20-25-30 years of rifle-handling they would have an understanding of the rifle so deep they could carry a good conversation with a gunsmith no? Not screwing up safety drills because he's forgotten stuff...

 

[the 48th regulator]

So to sum up your observations, and disagreements with four members of the forces who probably have callouses and boot laces with more T.I than you;


ND's are occurring at a much more frequent rate, due to the fact that the theory and the mechanics of the rifle are not taught.  Safety drills practiced every time a rifle is touched are minuscule, as it is the theoretical knowledge, that outweighs, the importance of practical use of the weapon.

Just wanted to clarify what you are bleating posting about.

I shall now retire to Bedlham...

dileas

tess

 

[ballz]

ND's are occurring at a much more frequent rate, due to the fact that the theory and the mechanics of the rifle are not taught.  Safety drills practiced every time a rifle is touched are minuscule, as it is the theoretical knowledge, that outweighs the importance of practical use of the weapon.

Just wanted to clarify what you are bleating posting about.

Clarify? You put more words in my mouth than anything else.

My "minuscule" comment was "in comparison to" and it wasn't even about importance of doing it. I was advocating random dummy rounds being put into student's chambers, that alone shows I think there should be more emphasis on clearing your rifle. Never did I say anything about safety drills being used every time a rifle is touched being unimportant.

I also never said anything about theory being more important than practice. The whole point is that theory is a very important factor for proper application. You wouldn't try to teach somebody physics by giving them a formula sheet and not explaining what it meant would you?

So to sum up your observations, and disagreements with four members of the forces who probably have callouses and boot laces with more T.I than you;

I didn't even realize there was a debate going on to agree/disagree about yet. I was answering what I was asked and explaining myself for the most part. What have I said that shows me saying I know anything more than any member on here? Petamocto specifically asked for someone who had recently done the training at St. Jean for god's sake.

Besides that, the CFLRS certainly was interested in hearing our critique. You're just being arrogant if you think there's no point in listening to a trainees opinion of the training system. Thankfully CFLRS doesn't share that opinion or my entire platoon "bleating" about this would have fallen on deaf ears.

Anyway, I'll just concede to your experience since apparently that's all a mere mortal is allowed to do around here anyway. Definitely can't have any of those damn dissonant voices in the discussion.

 

[the 48th regulator]

Clarify? You put more words in my mouth than anything else.

My "minuscule" comment was "in comparison to" and it wasn't even about importance of doing it. I was advocating random dummy rounds being put into student's chambers, that alone shows I think there should be more emphasis on clearing your rifle. Never did I say anything about safety drills being used every time a rifle is touched being unimportant.

Dummy rounds randomly put in the chamber.  Do you think the instructors have nothing better to do, than inserting rounds into rifle chambers, so that they really really really make sure you people do your drills???

Little advice, when you are taught the drills, practice them.  Do them.  Repeat doing them.  Pretend there is always a dummy round in the rifle, because I would love to hear your answer, to the loved ones, of the guy who died after you drilled a round into them.

"Oh Ma'am, I am sorry for your loss.  However, had the instructors put dummy rounds rounds in our rifle, back in training, little Johnny would be alive.  I accept no responsiblity for this, but will stand by your side as you hunt down those evil meany instructors.  Did yiou know, that they would not even hear about my opinion about that course??  The nerve of them."

I also never said anything about theory being more important than practice. The whole point is that theory is a very important factor for proper application. You wouldn't try to teach somebody physics by giving them a formula sheet and not explaining what it meant would you?

Oh sorry, I was confused when you said;

I think the rifle-handing curriculum at St. Jean was *waaaay* too heavy with handling drills and not nearly enough theory about the actual rifle and how it works. People couldn't remember the drills the day after the handling test because they just didn't understand why it was important to remove the magazine before cycling the action on an unload, etc. We had 3 NDs on my course of I think 45 that went into the field for the last 2 weeks.

I didn't even realize there was a debate going on to agree/disagree about yet. I was answering what I was asked and explaining myself for the most part. What have I said that shows me saying I know anything more than any member on here? Petamocto specifically asked for someone who had recently done the training at St. Jean for god's sake.

The debate started when you began theorizing.  Although I will give you kudos for thinking, you started turning this into a debate when seasoned Soldiers disagreed with you.  And, you just kept coming back, standing your ground.

Besides that, the CFLRS certainly was interested in hearing our critique. You're just being arrogant if you think there's no point in listening to a trainees opinion of the training system. Thankfully CFLRS doesn't share that opinion or my entire platoon "bleating" about this would have fallen on deaf ears.

Pumpkin, if you, and the rest of your platoon acted the way you do on these forums, I would not waste anymore time hearing your mewling.  I would friggen sum up the course, and send you guys trundling on your way.

Anyway, I'll just concede to your experience since apparently that's all a mere mortal is allowed to do around here anyway. Definitely can't have any of those damn dissonant voices in the discussion.

Something you should have realized on course, this forum, and the rest of your military career.  God gave you two ears and one mouth.  That is so you listen twice as much as you speak.

3 NDs, on a course....pfft, I have been around exactly 3 NDs in my entire 18 year time in.  Must havebeen all the theory we were given... :

dileas

tess

 

[Loachman]

Dummy rounds randomly put in the chamber.  Do you think the instructors have nothing better to do, than inserting rounds into rifle chambers, so that they really really really make sure you people do your drills???

Perhaps this is not a practical solution, or part of one, but there is apparently a problem.

Troops will, in general, act in accordance with their training.

That there is a problem would indicate that there is a deficiency in that training.

"There are no bad soldiers, only bad leaders".

It's not the recruit's job to solve this problem. but it is his/her responsibility to speak up and suggest solutions when asked.

Little advice, when you are taught the drills, practice them.  Do them.  Repeat doing them.  Pretend there is always a dummy round in the rifle, because I would love to hear your answer, to the loved ones, of the guy who died after you drilled a round into them.

It does not seem to be Ballz that needs this advice, and those that do need it do not seem to be getting it.

He is much closer to this issue than you or I, having just gone through it, and I think that he is well within his lane to speak about his experience and thoughts on the matter.

When I went through all of this, we kept our rifles, breech blocks, and magazines with us in the shack and almost everywhere we went. Somebody higher, some where, at some time decided that this was not a good idea. The results should not be particularly surprising.

I remember being taught, in detail, how various weapons worked, too, and, yes, it does improve understanding of what to do and why.

 

[chrisf]

The mechanism of the weapon is taught, there are however two problems, the first being that at the time, most of the students aren't interested in paying attention, and the second is that (And again, this has been in my experience) that many of the instructors teaching it don't understand the action overly well themselves.

We hauled out brownings out of the vault a few weeks ago, and taught and refreshed a few of my troops on them... even the troops who'd fired it multiple times were blown away when I explained the full mechanism of the pistol, including the how and why of the half cock safety.

 

[the 48th regulator]

Perhaps this is not a practical solution, or part of one, but there is apparently a problem.

Troops will, in general, act in accordance with their training.

That there is a problem would indicate that there is a deficiency in that training.

"There are no bad soldiers, only bad leaders".

Right, I forgot.  It is never the troops fault, but the Person who leads them.  Give generation Y another reason to blame others, as opposed to seek and accept responsibility...

It's not the recruit's job to solve this problem. but it is his/her responsibility to speak up and suggest solutions when asked.

:-X On a basic level course.  Where we are taking civilians and making them into soldiers.  Maybe it is this attitude that actually is allowing such lax handling drills.

It does not seem to be Ballz that needs this advice, and those that do need it do not seem to be getting it.

Uhuh, because as you stated before, and why I am so shocked, it had to be someone else's fault.  Could never have been the troop that committed the ND.  I seem to recall there is a reason why it is called an Negligent Discharge, not an Accidental Discharge.

He is much closer to this issue than you or I, having just gone through it, and I think that he is well within his lane to speak about his experience and thoughts on the matter.

Yep, because my years of teaching recruits, really has no validity.  Never an ND in that whole time.  But, hey, what the hell do I know.  Let us ask the the brand spanking new fella...

When I went through all of this, we kept our rifles, breech blocks, and magazines with us in the shack and almost everywhere we went. Somebody higher, some where, at some time decided that this was not a good idea. The results should not be particularly surprising.

I remember being taught, in detail, how various weapons worked, too, and, yes, it does improve understanding of what to do and why.

Really eh, I never did.  Never taught every intricate detail of the rifle.  We taught the drills that made a soldier perform his duty.  Handling, loading, unloading, firing, Safety precautions.  Only theory I really got in was the concept of breathing, and holding the rifle.  I am shocked you would agree that rifle-handing curriculum at St. Jean being  *waaaay* too heavy with handling drills and not nearly enough theory about the actual rifle and how it works, is what causing the ND's.  I believe it is this type of attitude that allows the newer troops that consider Safe handling drills to be minuscule, over what they believe is important.

Never had a challenge, may have been lucky, but hey that was even before the day of Gen X, so what do I know.  I will allow you, and your band of merry men, play court to one another as you talk about inner actions of the service rifle.


dileas

tess

 

[OldSolduer]

One possible problem is that maybe we have some "knob" NCOs. Way back when we converted from FNC1 to the C7, we were told that start drills slowly and speed will come on its own.
Maybe some of our currrent instructors slept through that part. Also, yelling, screaming and acting like a general jerk does not make you a god, it makes you look like a dumba$$.
Patience when teaching people how to properly handle weapons is PARAMOUNT.
Once the troop is taught and has been tested and found competent, and if the weapon is discharged negligently, the troop is responsible.
Before each live range, a soldier must be tested on his/her handling drills. If they pass the test and fire a round negligently, it is their responsibility.

 

[Niteshade]

Oh, God NO!!!!

Perhaps not in St. Jean, but at NRTD Borden, we were permitted our weapons, albeit without the bolts. We "ghost trained", and we had no major problems clearing our weapons.

The biggest thing I have seen is people need to understand HOW the weapon works, and to slow down and THINK about what is occuring during the unload process. I believe reinforcing the PROVE system of unloading a weapon would do wonders.

Nites

<edited for grammar>

 

[Loachman]

Right, I forgot.  It is never the troops fault, but the Person who leads them.  Give generation Y another reason to blame others, as opposed to seek and accept responsibility...

Are you saying that leaders are not or should not be accountable for the stndard and conduct of their troops?

If one person has an ND, yet has been trained and tested to an acceptable standard, that is most likely that person's fault and that person's fault alone.

If three in one platoon have NDs in one short period of time, that indicates to me that the training method or standard is faulty, or instruction and testing was faulty. The troops are still accountable, but ignoring the possibility of inadequate training is foolish at best.

Trends like this indicate problems, somewhere, and not just with the individual soldier.

What you are stating is that it is alright for leaders, who are responsible for the quality of training that they are charged with delivering, to blame others for ther shortcomings rather than accepting responsibility.

Sorry, but they are the experienced ones, the "experts", and they should be doing their utmost to ensure that those under them understand what they are supposed to be doing and do it properly.

We began charging troops for NDs many years ago, and the rate of NDs dropped. Charge section commanders, and I'll bet that they drop further, because those NCOs will put a bit more effort into the weapons-handling skills of their troops. Charge platoon commanders if there is more than one in their platoon per year.

On a basic level course.  Where we are taking civilians and making them into soldiers.  Maybe it is this attitude that actually is allowing such lax handling drills.

What's your point? That they should shut up and ignore perceived problems? Course critiques are done on every course that I know of, in order to improve training. Recruits may not have years of experience, but they are not necessarily stupid, and they know when something could be done better as well as anybody else.

Perhaps that is part of the problem. I am not there to see how training is being delivered, and how well, and neither are you, but if "allowing lax handling drills" is a problem, just who is doing the "allowing"? It's not the recruits' responsibility to allow or not, but their leaders.

That is where the trend comes in. If three in a platoon actually have NDs, then several more almost had them, and could at any time in the future because they, too, were improperly trained.

And if it happened to that many on one course, it will likely happen to a similar number on the next, unless the problem is identified correctly and fixed.

Whacking kids with a few weeks in may be satisfying for some, but it's likely not a completely effective solution to a serious problem.

Uhuh, because as you stated before, and why I am so shocked, it had to be someone else's fault.  Could never have been the troop that committed the ND.  I seem to recall there is a reason why it is called an Negligent Discharge, not an Accidental Discharge.

Yes, and it should be termed such. It wasn't when I first started out, nor were charges laid. I was astounded by the number of NDs with blanks on patrol on Regular Force exercises in the early seventies, and everyone was a Regular Force guy.

The negligence is not necessarily embodied automatically and solely within the person squeezing the trigger with a round in the chamber, however.

If recruits do not know why the various drills are conducted the way that they are, they are less likely to carry them out properly simpley because they don't understand. It doesn't take a lot of time to explain that in the lesson: "The magazine is always removed before cocking the action on an unload so that another round is not chambered when the bolt move forward". Duh. To you and I, that's obvious. To the average young victim of decades of Lieberal "gun control" who has never touched one before and has been raised to fear them, it's not so much.

My point with the line "It does not seem to be Ballz that needs this advice, and those that do need it do not seem to be getting it", though, was that he was not the one who had an ND, yet you were castigating him s if he had. He was simply relating his conversation with the person who had, after the fact. The person who had that particular ND clearly did not understand why he was supposed to be doing what he was supposed to be doing.

Yes, he could have been particularly dopey, but when three have NDs in a small group I tend to look elsewhere for the real problem.

Yep, because my years of teaching recruits, really has no validity.  Never an ND in that whole time.  But, hey, what the hell do I know.  Let us ask the the brand spanking new fella...

I did not say anywhere that your experience had no validity. It is, however, somewhat dated. Training systems and courses change, and instructors frequently have less time in rank, or previous rank, our increased combat experience notwithstanding, and such changes may not necessarily be for the better.

That you managed to teach this and not see NDs may indicate that you were a better instructor than some now, or that the training was better laid out, or some other similar reason.

I was taught and in turn taught this stuff several decades ago, too. I can speak for the quality of training then, and the standards expected, and I can say that, other than the occasion previously noted, I saw no NDs. We spent a lot of time with our rifles, shot much more than people seem to do today, and had top-notch instruction for the most part. Reasons for doing certain things were also explained, and many of us shot recreationally at local gravel pits as well, something sadly denied to current generations.

The "brand spanking new fella" just went through the current system, which neither you nor I have, and observed some weaknesses (and there may be others) that, if corrected, may reduce the number of NDs that occur. Blowing him off may not be the best response to his observations.

Really eh, I never did.  Never taught every intricate detail of the rifle.

See? You're adding stuff again. I did not use the word "intricate". I was taught, and in turn taught, enough detail to ensure that trainees understood what was happening, when, and why, and carried out their drills properly and instinctively.

If they didn't, I kept at it until they did. That was my responsibility as an instructor.

Somebody, today, does not seem to be doing that.

I am shocked you would agree that rifle-handing curriculum at St. Jean being  *waaaay* too heavy with handling drills and not nearly enough theory about the actual rifle and how it works, is what causing the ND's.  I believe it is this type of attitude that allows the newer troops that consider Safe handling drills to be minuscule, over what they believe is important.

You are doing, again, precisely what Ballz said that you were doing - putting words in my mouth. Nowhere -nowhere - did I say that handling drills were over-emphasized. You should read a little more carefully sometimes, and keep a more open mind. All that I advocated was a little more theory to provide a basis for understanding the drills a little better. It takes less time to do that than it did for you to argue against it and me to explain the concept further.

As far as the drills themselves are concerned, perhaps there should be more formal practice of those or a refresher before an ex. On all of my live-in courses, we had our complete weapons and EIS available in the shack at all times. As you've seen reported here, that is no longer the case. We practised on our own time. That is now somewhat hard to do, properly.

I believe that we all suffer from minimizing weapons familiarity. I'd like to see, for example, every single person in my unit issued a weapon and blank ammunition at the start of at least several days per month, and carry out their normal duties while looking out for their weapon. We do not have enough, however, and most of what we see are the rubber C7s used for BFT. As it's rather difficult to carry out safety precautions with a solid lump, people tend, over time, to forget that they should be doing that with the real thing that they so seldom see.

Never had a challenge, may have been lucky, but hey that was even before the day of Gen X, so what do I know.  I will allow you, and your band of merry men, play court to one another as you talk about inner actions of the service rifle.

Fine. Be that way. Don't bother seeking to identify the problem correctly, analyze it, and come up with reasonable solutions. Let the NDs continue, as they surely will.

 

[ballz]

Perhaps this is not a practical solution, or part of one, but there is apparently a problem.

I commented earlier in this thread, before I went to BMOQ, that a Reserve instructor on the BMQ I tagged along for (to get ready for BMOQ) put a dummy round in the chamber of someone's rifle, and I commented on the affect it had.

It only takes like 3 seconds to put one in. If each instructor was given 1 dummy round and said "you can use it whenever you want, but you've got to use it ONCE before the course is over" that would mean it would be applied 5-10 times in a course and would take barely any of each individual instructors time. Getting PTed through the ground 1,2,3 times for it would get recruits in the habit of it IMO.

It's just an idea... What are your thoughts on it?

The mechanism of the weapon is taught, there are however two problems, the first being that at the time, most of the students aren't interested in paying attention, and the second is that (And again, this has been in my experience) that many of the instructors teaching it don't understand the action overly well themselves.

All we got for the mechanism was a 20 minute video from 20 years ago... While the info isn't outdated the video was pretty boring. But, perhaps if there was a test on theory as well, not just handling-drills and a range test, the recruits would be more inclined to pay attention, and more curious and therefore asking more questions related to specifically how the rifle works (and these questions could be encouraged instead of some certain attitudes that think asking "why" should be forbidden and punished).

Even if there's no way time could be made for it (and I think there could be), if they took a small bit out of handling-drills and turned it into theory, I think it would cut the amount of time needed to teach handling. Right now I would guess from my go at BMOW the curriculum is balanced 1% theory and 99% handling... I think 15-20 percent theory and 80-85% handling would probably be a huge improvement overall. Rifles aren't that complicated, where just 4-5 hrs working on theory would bring someone who had NOTHING to start with would work wonders IMO.

As for the instructors understanding of the theory, I can't comment. Like I said, I never really heard them discuss the mechanisms, and I never heard them have to answer any questions about it. I guessed they probably did have good knowledge of it, but were just never encouraged, or even discouraged, from teaching it, or that some of them were just bad teachers and couldn't comprehend their pupils needs. But, I was just guessing. All I knew for sure was that the mechanisms were barely ever mentioned.

The biggest thing I have seen is people need to understand HOW the weapon works, and to slow down and THINK about what is occuring during the unload process.

That is exactly what I am advocating... When did you do your basic out of curiosity? Recently by any chance?

 

[aesop081]

All we got for the mechanism was a 20 minute video from 20 years ago...

Ballz,

I know the video you are talking about. It is the same video i saw on my basic 17 years ago. That is also all we got as far as theory of how the weapon works.

You folks got the same training i did and you are all, so i am told, the smarter and better educated generation.

Same training and 17 years without an ND. I still remember all the drill for the C7, C5, C6, C9, 9mm , .50cal, M72and the Carl G.

What is the problem again ?

 

[Niteshade]

When did you do your basic out of curiosity? Recently by any chance?

Graduated April 2009.

Nites

 

[kratz]

Students remember 90% of what they say and do (ie: drill). People only remember 10% of what they read (theory).

The system is open to be improved and tweaked. Research has shown some methods produce better results than others in the long run, for the majority of students.

 

[ballz]

What is the problem again ?

The problem is 48th Regular has been around 3 NDs in the 18 years previous to this, and I was around 3 NDs in a 2 weeks period. Apparently only myself and Loachmen are alarmed by that, and the article...

EDIT: From the article
"He notes the increases accompany a shift in training emphasis and a broader focus on weapons handling in the Canadian Forces – as well as expanded recruiting. Just 69 cases were heard in theatres of operation, most commonly Afghanistan.
"Negligent discharge offences occurred in greatest numbers at training units or in training circumstances," Watkin reports, adding that 96 per cent of offences occurred at five training facilities and 64 per cent of defendants were entry-level privates or officer cadets.
"The majority of negligent discharge offences are committed by CF members who are at early stages in their careers," the report says."

So something has changed since you did your weapons handling... Both the emphasis/focus, and well, daftandbarmy was saying how the younger troops were normally considered safer, and now as you can see, they certainly aren't...

 

[aesop081]

Apparently only myself and Loachmen are alarmed by that, and the article...

Like i said, i have 17 years in and have handled a shitload more weapons than you have yet have never had an ND on any of them. I received the same training as you. I am concerned about the increase in occurences so you can stop the self-rightiousness. That being said, i do not place the blame on the lack of theory or emphasis on drills. Hell back then we had to learn the C9 too but basic wasnt any longer than it is today.

My brain must be wired wrong, i should have had at least 2 NDs...........

 

[ballz]

That being said, i do not place the blame on the lack of theory or emphasis on drills. Hell back then we had to learn the C9 too but basic wasnt any longer than it is today.

So then what do you think it is? All I am saying is what I, as somebody who recently went through it, attribute it to. I may be, and probably am as usual, wrong. But we're not getting anywhere if your just going to sit here and tell me I'm wrong. Join in on the discussion man don't just tell me I'm an inexperienced knob, I already know that.

Like i said, i have 17 years in and have handled a shitload more weapons than you have yet have never had an ND on any of them. I received the same training as you.

I'm not telling you or anybody else here that they are garbage with a weapon. I've never had an ND either for the record (and you're right, I haven't used a C7 much, nor a C7, C5, C6, C9, the issued 9mm Browning , .50cal, M72 or the Carl G at all, but I have used a shitload of firearms, slung a lot of led, and managed not to accidentally send anything out the end of the barrel), but I don't see why that is relevant or how that proves anything.

I had them go off beside me so personally I'm not going to say "well I've never had one so I'm just gonna ignore it." My personal observations were that it was from a lack of knowledge, not a lack of practice.

If you think it was attributed to something else (which you obviously do), then PLEASE tell me. I am very interested in hearing what you and other seasoned soldiers think it is. I do not want to argue with anybody here.

My brain must be wired wrong, i should have had at least 2 NDs...........

I don't even know what you're trying to get at here.

Anywho, I'm not going to talk on this anymore, unless I see some other people's theories on it and want to ask them questions. But I'm not going to discuss mine anymore. It is not well-received, that's cool.

 

[aesop081]

but I don't see why that is relevant or how that proves anything.

It is relevant because i was instructed on every one of those weapons with the same methodology. A sliver of theory ( none in some cases) and a shitload of repeating drills over and over until i had it right every time.

I would be more prepared to question the quality of the instruction but i have not been there in quite some time and thus cannot comment. i would be even more prepared to blame lack of pratice by students after classes What i do know is that i have been taught weapons in the same fashion you were and never had an ND and even though i received the same amount of theory as you, i did not forget my drills in short order.

 

[the 48th regulator]

It is relevant because i was instructed on every one of those weapons with the same methodology. A sliver of theory ( none in some cases) and a shitload of repeating drills over and over until i had it right every time.

I would be more prepared to question the quality of the instruction but i have not been there in quite some time and thus cannot comment. i would be even more prepared to blame lack of pratice by students after classes What i do know is that i have been taught weapons in the same fashion you were and never had an ND and even though i received the same amount of theory as you, i did not forget my drills in short order.

Patricio,

No use.

We just don't understand the new, much more informed students of the Military training system.

I have been shown that.  WE were spending too much time shutting up, as opposed to questioning.  Had we done otherwise, the instructors today would ahve been able to lower the ND count, all with dummy rounds and theory.

Loachman will translate shortly so you can understand...

dileas

tess

 

[Kat Stevens]

What a load.  I don't need to know the function of the internal combustion engine or the hot and cold flow path of all the fluids in my car in order to operate it safely.  I operate it safely by following well established procedures (drills).  23 years in a combat arms trade and I never had an ND, or saw one, and I was trained in the exact same way; endlessly repetitive drills, with pushups till you puke for getting it wrong.  It's worked for donkeys years, so what is the variable here all of a sudden?