• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Soot To Live - PWT 1 is Useless!

silentbutdeadly

Full Member
Inactive
Reaction score
0
Points
210
Ok here in edmonton we just shot the PWT 1-2-3 for our deployment in Feb and i have to say the PWT 1 is useless and the reason i say this 1. it envoles grouping in the prone, sitting. kneeing and standing. I have no problem with grouping in the prone , but in the kneeing and standing come on now. Those pos. are snapping shooting pos. , so grouping is just a waste of time and money. We should be just doing zero and grouping and then str8 to the PWT 2 and 3 for everyone and i mean everyone not just combat arms!
 
You are saying, if I'm reading this correctly, that shooting from anything other than the prone is useless and not worthwhile training....    ???

I can't understand this coming from someone of your background.

It's been proven time and time again that kneeling and standing positions are the most often used in Iraq and Afghanistan right now. Battle proven speaks louder than anything else I can think of.

As for the PWT 1...I agree it's pretty much useless to the troops that are in the combat arms. However, it's a good refresher for those who don't make it out to the range as often as they should.

My .02

Regards
 
Franko said:
You are saying, if I'm reading this correctly, that shooting from anything other than the prone is useless and not worthwhile training....     ???

I can't understand this coming from someone of your background.

I think what he was saying was that grouping in anything other than the prone is useless, and that kneeling/standing applications should be snap-shooting only. I happen to agree with him, for what it's worth.

silentbutdeadly said:
I have no problem with grouping in the prone , but in the kneeing and standing come on now. Those pos. are snapping shooting pos. , so grouping is just a waste of time and money.
 
Yeah sorry having a long day when i posted this thread,  i was saying that grouping for score should be done in the prone not in the kneeing or standing. Yes i think everyone should  do the PWT 2/3 in the army because the way our mission our now even convoys(i.e. truckers, Medic's etc) are not safe and push be very good with there aim ref: Jessica Lynch(I,m a Hero not!), but yes for score i think PWT 1 should only score at the prone , like we use to!
 
;)

on that I can agree with. Thanks for the clarrification.

Regards
 
I seem to recall reading that Chesty Puller insisted that every man in his division in Korea would fire 40 rounds and zero his rifle before going into combat.  Forty rounds.  PWT1 doesn't sound so bad, alluvasudden.

Tom
 
PWT 1 is Useless!
I'd have to disagree.  In PWT 2 & 3, all you need to do is hit the target to get the point for that bullet.  PWT 1 forces shooters to get back to thier marksmanship principles before carrying on with the rest of the tests.  Having run IBTS a few times now in the last few months (including the ranges for the deployed PRT's FSG & most of 1 Svc Bn that snuck in with that), we noticed more failures on PWT 1 than on either of the subsequent shoots.

PWT 1 might become superflous if we, as an Army, establish a much more regular shooting program.  We are not there yet though.

 
To bad the CF doesn't have enough bullets for everyone to do 2&3. That's the rub.
 
Actually I think it is important for troops to learn to group in positions other than the prone.

Due to the fall when hit nature of our targets and the pt per hit - extremity hits count in PWT 2 and 3.   So we are building in a close enough for gov't work aiming concept into our training.   Most of the US Top Small Arms Instructors say they have seen a typical 60% degredation of shooting skill (accuracy) in combat - so all of a sudden that bare hit in training is a wide miss.

Additionally it gets troops seeing the change in their zero from position to position - due to checkweld changes and alternate pressure on the forestock.


and Rob - its Shoot to Live - not Soot  ;D

 
KevinB said:
Due to the fall when hit nature of our targets and the pt per hit - extremity hits count in PWT 2 and 3.   So we are building in a close enough for gov't work aiming concept into our training.   Most of the US Top Small Arms Instructors say they have seen a typical 60% degredation of shooting skill (accuracy) in combat - so all of a sudden that bare hit in training is a wide miss.

Additionally it gets troops seeing the change in their zero from position to position - due to checkweld changes and alternate pressure on the forestock.
Do you have to do grouping to address accuracy in the kneeling/standing? What about just eliminating extremity hits, or discounting them? I can't read minds, but it seems 'Rob' was saying that slow, deliberate, grouping in the prone - fine. Slow, deliberate grouping in the kneeling/standing is not really necessary, especially when considering these are primarily snap shooting positons in combat.

So I guess I'm advocating adding more snap-shooting, and not necessarily eliminating grouping, in the standing/kneeling. PWT level 3 does that, but non-cbt arms don't do level 3.
 
KevinB thx.  Me Smart like tank! :blotto: tighter groups are important, but again in the kneeing/standing is tough. Thats why we are now doing alot of the Gunfighter program and reflex shooting which works on snap shooting. MCG usually one hit is all you need!not 5 really close together ones!  :salute:
 
I think a good reason for grouping in all positions is to establish the shooter's ESA (Expected Scoring Area) for different positions at different ranges.  If a miss is in his ESA, no need to employ the miss drill, otherwise he just chases errors all around the target.  It is also a reliable indicator of improvement, especially through the use of Actuality/Capability coaching.  I think grouping is the foundation of shooting in ALL positions. 

I am - admittedly - a dinosoar.

Tom
 
silentbutdeadly said:
MCG usually one hit is all you need!not 5 really close together ones!  
I never implied such a thing.  However, if you cannot put 5 shots close together when making slow, deliberate shots from 100m, then how many shots will it take for that one hit when cold, tired, out of breath, and at a rapid rate out to 300 m?

PWT 1 only confirms your marksmanship principals.  PWT 2&3 move on to confirm your ability to hit people, and then to hit people after some physical exertion.
 
As has been pointed out, the purpose of grouping in the kneeling and standing is to:

1)  Determine the ESA
2)  Determine the pattern off the fall of the rounds.
3)  Learn where and how much to aim off for each position.

Being able to determine the ESA is important if you want to be able to track the progress of the individual.  Determining the pattern on paper is important because, just like in the prone, it tells you what the shooter can do in order to improve.  And learning to aim off is important because it increases the likelyhood of hitting the target with every round.  So yeah, snap-shooting is important, but grouping is just as important.
 
silentbutdeadly (all spelling and typo stuff in fun - I am one of the worst)
The others have expounded upon why we need that training.

I 100% agree with you on the need for a reflexive fire course - The USMC MEU-SOC M4 and Pistol course is the best one I have seen that blends speed and accuracy - however I will add that the key to shooting is accuracy as only hits count and we need proficient marksmen - once skills are good in the accuracy department then we get into speed drills.

a friend of mine wrote this about (then CWO3 Mike Haugen S7 1SFG(ABN) now retired)
B. Accuracy. It is generally believed throughout the SOF community that the M4 and 5.56 are not overly accurate at ranges past 300 meters. This belief  has been supported by routine training at ranges below 300 meters, more commonly less than 50 meters.

1) Cause of issue: The cause of this particular issue stems from the same place, as does lethality, however examples of poor accuracy are even harder to obtain. The most common heard/red comment is generally how inaccurate 5.56mm generally is or more specifically how inaccurate M855 specifically is.

2) Reality. Perception can be turned to reality if untested and repeated.

†¢ M855 has an acceptance standard of 4 minutes of angle (4 inches @ 100 yards, 8 inches @ 200 yards, etc.).
†¢ M855 is a three-part bullet comprised of a steel penetrator, lead sleeve and a copper jacket. This design is inherently inaccurate due to the positioning of the penetrator.
†¢ Over 80% of SF marksmanship training is conducted at ranges less than 50 meters. On some teams this may not be the norm, however on most due to range availability and an increased emphasis on close quarters / urban combat training, long-range marksmanship training is not a priority.
†¢ Human sized targets out to and including 600 meters can be easily engaged with M855 if the soldier is trained.
 
Back
Top