All Things Negligent Discharge (merged)

[danchapps]

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?

While I have not been in nearly as long as you were Kat, nor been in a combat arms trade, I have seen 4 ND's, all while in the training system. 3 of these were during the BMQ confirmation ex. (they claimed sleep dep, I claimed B/S). All 3 did not perform a proper unload (mag still in, cock, cock, boom) The 4th was during my SQ, and the poor girl didn't have her sh** squared away, and I'm thinking she just kept firing after the cease fire was called, maybe didn't hear it, I don't know. The good thing is all were with blanks, and the 3 during my BMQ were all into the clearing chamber.


I just wish people paid a little more attention to their weapons is all.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I did my weapons training about 50 years ago.

We had the complete weapon in our possession 24/7.

We learned, by rote, the ‘theory’ of weapon – from trigger pull through some of the gasses passing through the gas plug and the piston driving the breech block … well, you get the picture.

And we drilled on weapon handling and drilled and drilled and then drilled some more. When our NCOs weren’t drilling us in weapons handling, IAs and stoppage and so on we were doing it to ourselves, after we had scrubbed the showers and polished the brass in the urinals and all those other neat things.

There were no NDs during my recruit training, none during my Group 1 LI and none on my Junior NCO’s course, either.

I don’t know how good, or bad, our weapon handling was relative to that conducted 25, 35, 45 or 50 years later. I do know that any mishandling of any weapon was a serious disciplinary infraction that was punished quickly and in an exemplary manner: I saw NCOs reduced to private and sent to DB for weapon handling errors.

If young, junior soldiers do not understand something they can and should ask questions. They could and did 50 years ago and they can now – I’m here to guarantee that soldiers are no more in awe or fear of their (combat veteran) NCOs than we were of ours. If junior soldiers are making weapon handling errors then the first place to look is inadequate instruction by the junior leaders and the second place to look is an inadequate training methodology. Recruits are not responsible for their own training. If they mishandle their weapons it is because they were not instructed and/or supervised in an adequate manner.

 

[Loachman]

I did my weapons training about 50 years ago.

We learned, by rote, the ‘theory’ of weapon – from trigger pull through some of the gasses passing through the gas plug and the piston driving the breech block … well, you get the picture.

And we drilled on weapon handling and drilled and drilled and then drilled some more. When our NCOs weren’t drilling us in weapons handling, IAs and stoppage and so on we were doing it to ourselves, after we had scrubbed the showers and polished the brass in the urinals and all those other neat things.

There were no NDs during my recruit training, none during my Group 1 LI and none on my Junior NCO’s course, either.

I don’t know how good, or bad, our weapon handling was relative to that conducted 25, 35, 45 or 50 years later. I do know that any mishandling of any weapon was a serious disciplinary infraction that was punished quickly and in an exemplary manner: I saw NCOs reduced to private and sent to DB for weapon handling errors.

If young, junior soldiers do not understand something they can and should ask questions. They could and did 50 years ago and they can now – I’m here to guarantee that soldiers are no more in awe or fear of their (combat veteran) NCOs than we were of ours. If junior soldiers are making weapon handling errors then the first place to look is inadequate instruction by the junior leaders and the second place to look is an inadequate training methodology. Recruits are not responsible for their own training. If they mishandle their weapons it is because they were not instructed and/or supervised in an adequate manner.

Thank-you.

This reflects my experiences, although they do not date back anywhere nearly as far.

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

I do not understand your lack of interest in determining a true cause of and solution to an apparently serious trend that you profess to be concerned about.

All that you want to do is blame the soldiers involved - and barely-trained ones at that - while ignoring and/or poo-pooing any other possible cause.

This, to me, is rather irrational.

It does not matter that you, Kat Stevens, or I never had NDs or that they were rare. It matters that they are no longer as rare. Fortunately, the vast majority have been with blanks and harmed nobody, but we have lost at least two people in theatre due to NDs.

For me, the Gold Standard is our Flight Safety system. Its prime purpose is to analyze all flight safety incidents and accidents, determine what the causes were, and seek appropriate corrective measures. This includes situations where there was potential for something to go horribly wrong but didn't. Trend analysis is a big part of it. If something happens more than once people very high up want to know why.

It came about because somebody noticed that we lost more aircraft from accidents than enemy action in World War II, and it has cut those losses dramatically.

It is not complex or cumbersome, but it does work best when people keep an open mind.

Possible causes that I see contributing to this ND trend are:

Soldier incompetence/negligence/motivation.
Insufficient training time.
Inadequate/improper training.
Inadequate training materials.
Supervision.
Instructor competence/quality/motivation.
Opportunity to practise outside of formal instructional periods.

With thought, I could probably come up with a few more.

I pointed out that, whatever your, Kat's, E.R. Campbell's, or my experiences were, none of us are involved in this situation today so we cannot address it.

Several posters who have direct and recent experience with it have commented on it. Their stories are quite consistent, yet you dismiss them.

They are far more within their lanes than those of us who did it ten to fifty years ago, yet you dismiss them.

We have heard that more than one individual who had an ND did not realize that the magazine had to be removed before cocking the action on an unload. Threats of being charged for an ND may well make people more careful, but if they do not know why they do basic things, as we are being told by those with current experience, that's not going to have the desired effect - not on these recruits anyway.

This tells me that either there are more thick people going through basic training now than when we did, or that some aspect of the training that we received has fallen off over the past few years.

Without comparing course training standards and lesson plans and schedules etcetera from back then and now it is not possible to say for sure, but I will bet nonetheless that today's recruits, goofy questions that some of them may ask here aside, are no stupider than those that we went through with.

I did have some real slugs on my courses, but none of them had NDs.

I have taught this, as have you. None of the people that we have taught had NDs, and our trainees couldn't have been any smarter on average than today's crop.

Something has changed, and it is not good.

If the real causes are not found and corrected, then we are letting these people down, and the next poor sod who gets shot by a buddy.

WE were spending too much time shutting up, as opposed to questioning.

If you did not understand something taught during a period, did you not put up your hand and ask?

Did you not do course critiques as is standard on every course (that I did, anyway)?

If somebody pointed out a hazard, unsafe situation, or problem did you bash on anyway, or listen to their suggestion?

Loachman will translate shortly so you can understand...

I'll reserve my comment regarding who I think may require a translation, the simple concept and basic English aside.

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?

I'll wager that you realized that you had to squirt gasoline into that little hole in the side of your car in order to make it go, though. And whether or not it was essential to the skill part of driving, you probably were given some knowledge of how the vehicle worked. Most kids know that before their first turn behind the wheel, though, so that's not a fair comparison to learning about weapons.

Our Lieberal-contaminated, socially-engineered youth have been taught that weapons are evil, scary things. They lack any real knowledge and are not comfortable with them. If there is any significant difference between you and I and the current crop, that is most likely it.

So how difficult is it to ensure that they know enough about something that is neither evil nor scary but can still kill, hurt, or embarass somebody if mishandled? What does it take? One more period, maybe less? Less time than a summary trial, surgery, or funeral either way. Maybe it's just a little more emphasis as the drill is being taught: "REMOVE THE MAGAZINE BEFORE YOU COCK THE WEAPON OR YOU WILL FIRE A ROUND DOWNRANGE AND YOU WILL BE CHARGED AND FOUND GUILTY. DO YOU UNDERSTAND?" Maybe more practice doing the drills - perhaps tied in with inspections. Maybe more TOET before rangework and before issuing blanks for an ex. If the recruits aren't allowed to practise with their complete weapons on their own time anymore, they need to be given some opportunity.

I'm just tossing out some suggestions. I don't have the answers, and neither does anybody here not directly involved.

There are better-placed people who, hopefully, are investigating this trend thoroughly and honestly with open minds.

Right now, something/somebody is failing these kids, and it could bite any one of us currently serving as well.

 

[MARS]

Well said Loachman.

An ounce of prevention....

 

[ballz]

One thing with the car...

With a car, you can do things wrong, and nothing happens because of it. You could accidentally put it in reverse, realize you're going backwards for about 3 feet, hit the brakes, put it in drive, and drive away as if nothing happened. People make minor mistakes in cars all the time. ALL the time. Please nobody pipe up and say you haven't made a minor mistake in a car, we'll know you're full of it.

But you've got a safety net called the brakes. You can't put the brakes on a bullet on it's way out the barrel.

Loachman I agree with you. My generation is definitely very out of place with firearms.

 

[Loachman]

Well said Loachman.

An ounce of prevention....

Thank-you.

I have been to far too many funerals, most of which were unnecessary.

I really do not like those at all.

 

[aesop081]

That is essentially what people foreign to firearms are getting...

I had never handled a firearm until they handed me a C7 at basic training.

 

[ballz]

I had never handled a firearm until they handed me a C7 at basic training.

Shat, you got me before I finished my edit

I realized I was probably getting into points already covered so I tried to take that part out. However, in one sense it still stands. You were probably surrounded by more people that knew firearms than my course, so you could have benefited from that where as my struggling course mates couldn't. Sometimes I felt like the only person that actually ever handled a firearm before.

Sigh, I dunno. It's probably a combination of a lot of things.

 

[aesop081]

It's probably a combination of a lot of things.

It usualy is.

 

[Loachman]

I was the same.

We had some who had, though, and that probably helped a little - as Ballz said while I was typing this.

We had not been taught to fear them either.

I am not saying that this is a major part of the problem. It may not even be a minor part. All aspects should be investigated, however.

And it was not Ballz who originated the car/firearm analogy (unless I have to delve back further in this thread).

I really hate comparing firearms with cars anyway, as that is a favourite misguided tactic of the idiotic anti-gun lobby.

One is a complex, hard to control death machine, and the other is simply a gun.

 

[Kat Stevens]

It was me, and I hoped it wouldn't be taken as a literal comparison.  Ah well, the longer I live the less I know.

 

[kratz]

In order to address the increase of training NDs there is a review on issuing the bolts sooner, allowing BMQ students to be able to practice with their drills. The safety reasons for removing the bolts continue to come up during the discussions. To err on the side of caution in a training environment is standard, but is the lesser of the two concerns assisting or harming recruits and their teammates in the long run?

I think Loachman has summed up the potential issues that are currently increasing NDs. I think there is a certain level of personal responsibility that needs to be stressed more.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I'm not going to get into a long winded pyscho babble explanation. Just my observations from 40 years service (still serving and still involved), as an NCM and 50 years of shooting.

Knowledge is good. The more the better.

However,

Drills are just that. Drills. Meaning they are the way it's done because it is the most logical, mechanical and SAFEST way to get the task done. I don't care whether it's open order march, blind corner left, or IA & Stoppages on a Sopwith Camel.

Drills are taught by rote. It is the only way they can be taught and proficiency in them gained. They are practiced until the muscle memory and unconscious thought for that drill becomes natural and mechanical. That is why when a drill is taught and practiced properly, and the muscle memory instilled, the drill can be carried out unconsciously and SAFELY at O dark thirty, by someone totally sleep deprived and zombied by the weather and tactical conditions that turn normal men into heaps of quivering, sobbing slop.

Now if people can't quit going around in circles and discuss things logically, wiithout poking each other in the eye with a stick, I'm going to lock this.

Milnet.ca Staff

Edit - Sorry Edward, got tired of reading all the crap and missed your post

 

[Loachman]

The safety reasons for removing the bolts continue to come up during the discussions.

What "safety reasons"?

 

[ballz]

My guess is somebody who could make that decision saw Full Metal Jacket for the first time :-\

Like the Weapons Tech at the CFLRS had said to us, if it's that big of a concern... just keep the firing pins...

 

[Fishbone Jones]

My guess is somebody who could make that decision saw Full Metal Jacket for the first time :-\

Like the Weapons Tech at the CFLRS had said to us, if it's that big of a concern... just keep the firing pins...

Quit guessing. That's one reason this thread has devolved to the crapfest it has. If you don't know the answer, or can't susbtantiate your claim just STFU.

Like the Weapons Tech at the CFLRS had said to us, if it's that big of a concern... just keep the firing pins...

You heard that from a gun plumber? Was he qualified or one of the guys on your course that was going to that trade?

The firing pin is an integral part or the bolt carrier group. It locks the bolt cam pin in place. Without it the bolt cam pin won't align properly, and when the bolt carrier is removed from the weapon the bolt cam pin will fall out. When it falls out, the bolt falls out of the carrier. Then we have a bunch of ham fisted recruits losing bolts and cam pins all over the place.

A weapon is meant to be carried fully functional.

That or you should all be carrying rubber rifles.

Edit - for the mechanical part I should have mentioned in my original response.

 

[the 48th regulator]

Quit guessing. That's one reason this thread has devolved to the crapfest it has. If you don't know the answer, or can't susbtantiate your claim just STFU.

After all of my wind bag posting on this, RG, you summed up what my intent was to a tee, in just one sentence.

dileas

tess

 

[ballz]

You heard that from a gun plumber? Was he qualified or one of the guys on your course that was going to that trade?

He is a qualified Weapons Tech. He was a Cpl and he is one of the instructors from the Wpns Cell that was teaching us how to not accidentally shoot somebody...

 

[c4th]

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).

Boring!?  Why be inclined to pay attention?  It’s only a f@@@ing weapon that we’re going to put live ammunition in and fire out of the muzzle at 920 m/s.  Here is the nub of the issue.  Instructors teach students learn.  Not understanding that pulling a trigger may fire a round means there is something lacking in either aptitude or attention.

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.

Time is always finite.  Honestly, if students are not inclined to pay attention to weapons lectures I would spend my time fast tracking the PRB process.  Currently ND’s are a result 100% of the time of handling.  4-5 hours on theory.  Good god.  I could cover everything you and everyone else needs to know in forty minutes or a handout you could read in twenty. 
Knowing the state of a weapon requires situational awareness.  I can teach the drills, but ultimately if there is no light behind the eyes and the soldier does not apply the drills correctly when required then he very well find himself in one of many pots of hot water.

 

[Nuggs]

And just how do you know how much expereince the Res F instructor does/doesn't have.  S/he could be ex Reg F or have multiple tours, maybe even an ex "ninja". 

All instructors at St. Jean (Reg F or Res F) are required to pass the same GMTI - IT course to certify them as being capable to instruct recruits in accordance with the standard.  No pass- no teaching.

FYI almost a quarter of the instructors at CFLRS are Res F.

Once again, I was commenting on the collective experiance of my entire platoon, who all felt that the instruction provided by the "Commisionaries" was superior and more consistant than the instruction provided by the "Uniform" servicemen. All of which I beleive were reservists.

Again I am not belittleing reservists, or thier experiance.

Its also not a personal opinion, it was the collective experiance of 60+ people.

For clarification I just posed the same question to my roommate (who was in my Platoon, different section).
His reponse was that the civilian staff all had very similiar instruction methods, almost word for word. Where the Uniformed instruction had alot of variance in it.