Smith, M. D., & Hagman, J. D. (in publication). Weapon Zeroing with the Laser Marksmanship
Training System (LMTS) (Res. Rep. 1744). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute
for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. (ADA369654)

U. S. Army Infantry School. (2000). Training Support Package for Basic Rifle Marksmanship
(Draft), Fort Benning, GA, 2%, Battalion, 29" Infantry Regiment.

12



Period 7 (Field Fire I)

Neither group outperformed the other on timed, pop-up target engagements during Field Fire
I. As shown in Table 3, experimental and control group performance did not differ significantly
in the mean number of targets hit or in the percentage of trainees meeting the 22-out-of-36 hit
standard. Thus, the heretofore advantage displayed by the experimental group during grouping,
zeroing, and KD firing did not carry over to the engagement of pop-up targets.

Period 8 (Field Fire II)

In contrast to earlier periods, the control group outperformed the experimental group during
Field Fire II. As shown in Table 3, a greater percentage of the control group met the standard of
27 out of 44 targets hit on the first run’, y7(1) = 6.45. Control group trainees also hit
significantly more first-run targets, 1(359) = 2.93.

Table 3
Field Fire I and IT Results
Group
Periods 7 & 8 Control Experimental
Field Fire I:
Percentage of Qualifiers 36 41
Mean Number of Targets Hit 19.93 19.45
Field Fire I:
Percentage of First-Run Qualifiers 55* 42
Mean Number of First-Run Targets Hit 26.90* 24.82
“‘p<.05.

Periods 9 (Practice Record Fire I) & 10 (Practice Record Fire II)

Neither group consistently outperformed the other during the two scheduled practice record
fire periods. As shown in Table 4, the 3% difference in first-run qualifiers (i.e., those firing 23
or more hits out of a possible 40) favoring the experimental group at Period 9 switched in favor
of the control group at Period 10. These percentage differences, as well as the differences found
between groups for the number of first-run targets hit, however, were not statistically reliable. It
should be noted that experimental group trainees did not have the opportunity to refire during
Period 9 because of the need to undergo a company-wide weapon function/safety inspection.
The control group, in contrast, conducted up to four refire runs primarily for trainees unable to
score at least 23 hits on their previous run(s). Interestingly, the lack of time to refire at Period 9

? From this period on, most trainees who did not meet the specified standard on their first
run were allowed to refire. Refire performance comparisons were not made, however, because
of group differences in the number/percentage of first-run nonqualifiers who actually refired.



FOREWORD

The United States Army Reserve (USAR) is looking for more effective and efficient
ways to train and evaluate rifle marksmanship through the use of training devices. To this end,
and at the request of the U.S. Army Reserve Command (USARC), the U.S. Army Research
Institute's Reserve Component Training Research Unit (ARI-RCTRU) has been working in
partnership with the 84th Institutional Training Division (DIVIT) (i.e., USARC's marksmanship
executive agent) and Small Arms Training Team (SATT) to develop and evaluate device-based
(i.e., the BeamhitTM Laser Marksmanship Training System [LMTS)) rifle and pistol
marksmanship training programs for use at home station (i.e., reserve centers). The common
goal of this cooperative effort is to field companion programs that will produce rifle and pistol
marksmanship proficiency levels that meet, or exceed, unit readiness requirements while
minimizing the resources needed to do so.

To date, the rifle program has been developed and plans are underway to answer
questions about its potential payoff. A preliminary step in the implementation of these plans is
to answer a U.S. Army Infantry School (USAIS) query about the potential impact of the program
on the level of Basic Rifle Marksmanship (BRM) performance displayed at initial entry. This
report describes the research conducted to answer this question, what was found, and what the
implications are for both initial, and sustainment, marksmanship training.

This research was conducted by the ARI-RCTRU, whose mission is to improve the
effectiveness and efficiency of Reserve Component (RC) training through use of the latest in
training technology. This research is supported under Work Package 207, "Maximizing Payoff
of Reserve Training," of ARI's Science and Technology Program for Fiscal Year 1999.

This research was sponsored by USARC under a continuing Memorandum of
Understanding initially signed 12 June 1985. Findings have been presented to Deputy Chief of
Staff for Training, Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC); Director, USARC; Deputy
Chief of Staff for Operations, USAR 84th DIVIT; and Director of Training, USAIS.

WA A reicled

‘A M. SIMUTIS
Technical Director



Appendix A
LMTS-Based Training Exercises
Exercise 1: Reflective Target

This exercise is designed to assess the degree to which trainees can properly apply the
fundamentals of rifle marksmanship while dry firing their weapons. Trainees take a prone
supported position (employing sandbags) and, using their own weapons equipped with an LMTS
laser insert, fire at an actual-size reflective version of the 25m Zeroing Target. This target
enables an instructor (and the trainee) to view, at 25m, the location of laser impact, thereby
providing immediate feedback concerning the adequacy of firing position steadiness, sight
picture alignment, breath control, and trigger squeeze. These four fundamentals can be evaluated
with the laser transmitter in either a constant-on or trigger-activated mode of operation.

Exercise 2: Interactive Dry Fire

This exercise is also fired from the prone supported position, but the target is changed from a
reflective to a laser-sensitive TR-700 (Figure A-1) capable of sensing and counting the number
of laser hits and sending back an associated visual and auditory signal to the shooter. Trainees
fire at the target in sets of 10 rounds, with 8 hits on 2 successive iterations required for a “GO.”
In addition, a Military Mask Set of silhouettes can be superimposed on the target to reduce the
targeting area and thereby simulate targets at distances of up to 600m.

Figure A-1. TR-700 target.
Exercise 3: Grouping and Zeroing

For this exercise, trainees again fire from a prone supported position using their own
weapons equipped with a laser insert. A computer-linked, LMTS TR-900 laser-sensitive target
(Figure A-2) is used with superimposed 25m silhouettes that dimensionally replicate the 25m
Zeroing Target. The computer is used to detect the precise point of impact of each laser round
and to calculate center of mass and maximum round dispersion.



Second, because LMTS-based training was found to "work" when LMTS was used in place of
traditional devices, it should also work (perhaps even better) if LMTS were used in addition to
these devices. Of course, the cost of such an augmentation approach would be a primary
concern. It's possible, however, that the dime [washer], for instance, could continue to be used
as a handy tool for concurrent training conducted at the company area, or for remedial training
conducted at the company area or at the range, without an associated cost hike. Using LMTS
along with Weaponeer (at a cost of around $40,000 per device), however, might be a different
matter. In any event, the notion of augmenting LMTS with at least some of the devices currently
in use would seem to merit future consideration if, or when, a decision is made to adopt an
LMTS-based training approach.

Third, it is likely that the number of pop-up target rounds fired during Periods 8-10 of the
current BRM training program could be reduced even without the introduction of LMTS-based
training. The finding that the additional rounds fired by the control group during Period 9
(Practice Record Fire I) did not produce better first-run Period 10 performance, relative to that of
the experimental group, certainly suggests that round reductions may be possible. Of course,
follow-up research targeted to address this specific issue would be required to provide a more
definitive conclusion.

Sustainment Training

The results of the present research should also encourage the USAR to proceed with its
LMTS-based sustainment training program development and evaluation efforts for several
reasons. First, given that LMTS-based training was found to work for initial training, it is likely -
to also work for sustainment training, although the yet-to-be-determined magnitude of payoff
may not be the same. At the very least, the notion of using LMTS for sustainment training is
worthy of further pursuit. Second, LMTS-based training should minimize the time and
ammunition required to shot group and weapon zero. Given that grouping and zeroing typically
consume much of the range time set aside for qualification firing, and that training and
evaluation time is always in short supply for USAR units, greater grouping and zeroing
efficiency should be a welcomed plus. Third, and lastly, because most USAR soldiers fire the
25m Alternate Qualification Course, their record fire scores should improve as a result of LMTS-
based training, given that additional detection and aiming adjustment skills required on the pop-
up target range would not be required with the stationary, KD, Alt-C target.

Future Research

The next steps of the current LMTS-based training program evaluation plan call for research
designed to answer questions about the magnitude of program impact on USAR soldier
sustainment performance and the ability to predict live-fire qualification scores from LMTS-
based scores on a simulated Alt-C course of fire. While data collection is underway to answer
both of these questions, recent findings suggest that the answer to the prediction-related question
is yes (Smith & Hagman, in preparation). This means that LMTS can not only be used for
sustainment training, but also to (a) identify which soldiers are in need of it (i.e., those predicted
not to live-fire qualify), (b) determine when enough has been provided (i.e., when successful
qualification is predicted), and (c) support device-based qualification, as an alternative to live-

10



Unlike other marksmanship training devices in the Army's inventory (e.g., Multipurpose
Arcadé Combat Simulator [MACS] [e.g., Purvis & Wiley, 1990; Schroeder, 1985)], Weaponeer
[Schendel, 1985; Schendel, Heller, Finley, & Hawley, 1985]), and the Engagement Skills Trainer
[EST] [Hagman, 1998; Scholtes & Stapp, 1994]), LMTS allows soldiers to train with their own
weapons with the laser transmitter and mandrel attached as a muzzle insert. The device is also
relatively inexpensive and, therefore, could be fielded in quantity to most, if not all, reserve
center locations. These reasons, coupled with the device's ease of setup, operation, and upkeep
prompted the USAR's selection of LMTS to support both rifle and pistol training program
development.

Figure 1. An LMTS electronic target and laser
transmitter with attached mandrel.

Figure 2. The M16A2 Rifle 25m Zeroing Target.

Now that the rifle program has been developed, questions about its potential payoff need to be
answered. Planning is underway for the conduct of a series of investigations to answer questions
about program effectiveness/efficiency, as well as others regarding LMTS usage to diagnose
marksmanship deficiencies and to predict live-fire qualification performance. A preliminary step
in the implementation of this plan is to collect the data necessary to answer a U.S. Army Infantry
School (USAIS) query about what the impact of LMTS-based training might be on the level of
Basic Rifle Marksmanship (BRM) performance displayed at initial entry. The LMTS-based
program's emphasis on the practice/reinforcement of marksmanship fundamentals, plus the
device's capability to deliver precise aiming point and shot location feedback along with laser-
supported grouping and zeroing practice, suggests the program's potential for producing a
measurable payoff in terms of better trainee performance and reduced ammunition costs. As a
test of this notion, USAIS provided support for research, designed and monitored by ARI, to
compare the relative payoff of current BRM training with that of an LMTS-based approach.

This report describes how this research was conducted, what was found, and what the
implications are for initial marksmanship training as well as USAR plans to use LMTS for
sustainment and prediction purposes.



BASIC RIFLE MARKSMANSHIP TRAINING WITH THE LASER MARKSMANSHIP
TRAINING SYSTEM

CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION o.0.....cccccsescccstceesseescesessessesnssessscunesneesseneensaeeeeeeeneeneeseseentanenseusereeeceiriessesnates 1
METHOD 0... sssceccescecece eee ees ees eeseeseesesecsneseseaneeseanesuecseessesecisenecnecsiesieseceneneeneenseesensrateneeeteeeneaes 3
Participants .....

Design and Procedure

RESULTS.

Periods 4 (Grouping Procedures) & 5 (Zeroing Procedures)
Period 6 (Obtain Down Range Feedback)
Period 7 (Field Fire I) .
Period 8 (Field Fire II) ..
Periods 9 (Practice Record Fire I) & 10 (Practice Record Fire II)

Period 11 (Record Fire) .........cccscecesseeeeseseeeeeseessenees
Round Count... cecccccccceceeceeeeeeesssseeeseseeeseeeseeneneenenes
DISCUSSION ......scccccescsecsessessessessessesnecseesesecsneaesnesaeeeceecesesessesseeasssassnesneseaseeussassneanesesesensenseneeaes 8
IMPLICATIONS. .o....ceecesescseseseeseseseseeeecseseescesscssssssesscessesscesecscsesenseaesecseeeesenensesenensseeeesseesaes 9
Initial Training

Sustainment Training

FUTURE RESEARCH ..0.....cccsccesseesssssseeesessnessessssressessveesscsussscanecsnsesnequeesueevecsessneseresaeeansenetees 10
REFERENCES
APPENDIX A: LMTS-BASED TRAINING EXERCISES .........::ccccsscssesseeeeseeneneseeeeneeeenes A-l
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Grouping and Zeroing Results, ..............ccscccsesseseeeecneereeeeeeneeneeeees

Table 2. Down Range Feedback Results .0.......0....c.cccecccssesessessessesseesecseeseaneeneseeneenesnecneeeeseeneaneanens 5



BASIC RIFLE MARKSMANSHIP TRAINING WITH THE LASER MARKSMANSHIP
TRAINING SYSTEM

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Research Requirement:

Determine the relative impact of using the BeamhitTM Laser Marksmanship Training
System (LMTS) to train Basic Rifle Marksmanship (BRM).

Procedure:

One hundred and eighty four One-Station Unit Training (OSUT) infantry trainees
were assigned to an experimental group, and 202 were assigned to a control group. The
control group used the dime [washer], target/shadow box, Multipurpose Arcade Combat
Simulator (MACS) and Weaponeer, whereas the experimental group used LMTS, to
support BRM training. Trainee marksmanship performance was then measured in terms
of the number of targets hit and/or rounds fired during the live-fire instructional periods
leading up to, and including, record fire qualification.

Findings:

Use of LMTS (a) reduced the number of rounds fired, while increasing the number of
trainees firing to standard, during live-fire shot grouping and weapon zeroing, and (b)
increased the number of known-distance target hits. It did not improve record fire
qualification scores.

Use of Findings:

These findings suggest that LMTS-based BRM training would improve initial entry
rifle marksmanship performance and save ammunition in the process. This payoff could
be expected to increase, and perhaps extend to qualification firing, as instructors become
more familiar with the device and the LMTS-based program of instruction is augmented
to include a pop-up target engagement practice course of fire. These findings should
encourage U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) pursuit of plans for follow-up research to assess
(a) the impact of LMTS-based training on marksmanship sustainment, and (b) the
feasibility of using LMTS-based performance to predict live-fire qualification scores.



fire qualification, when range facilities are not readily available. Of course, the notion of
shooting record fire on a device instead of on a range is still controversial. But if, and when, the
time comes for its acceptance, the USAR will have already laid the groundwork for its successful
implementation.

References

Beamhit Inc. (1999). Marksmanship training that works (Brochure). Columbia, MD: Author.

Commander, Small Arms Training Team. (1999). M16 rifle LMTS (Laser Marksmanship
Training System) course of instruction (COI). Forest Park (Fort Gillem), GA: Author.

Dulin, E. G. (1999, January-February). BEAMHIT: This marksmanship training system uses
lasers and can go anywhere. Armor, 44-46.

Hagman, J. D. (1998). Using the Engagement Skills Trainer to predict rifle marksmanship
performance. Military Psychology, 10(4), 215-224.

Headquarters, Headquarters, Department of the Army. (1989). M1641 and M16A2 rifle
marksmanship (Field Manual 23-9). Washington, DC: Author.

Martere, R. F., Hunt, J. P., & Parish, J. R. (1987). Recommended Alternative Qualification
courses for the M16 rifle (Res. Note: 87-33). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army research Institute
for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. (ADA183872)

Memorandum for Record (1997, December 14). Small Arms Simulation Training Systems
Comparison.

Plewes, T. J. (1997, Oct 9). Memorandum entitled "U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) Weapons
Training Stretegy for the 21st Century." Author.

Plewes, T. J. (1997, Nov 24). Memorandum entitled "U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) Weapons
Training Strategy for the 21st Century." Author.

Purvis, J. W., & Wiley, E. W. (1990). Trainer's Guide: Personal Computer (PC) Version of the
Basic Rifle Marksmanship Program for the Multipurpose Arcade Combat Simulator (MACS)
(Res. Prod. 90-13). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army research Institute for the Behavioral and
Social Sciences. (ADA219302)

San Miguel, D. (1998). USARC weapons training strategy for the 21st Century. The Officer, 47,
48-49.

Schendel, J. D. (1985, January-February). The Weaponeer and marksmanship. Infantry, 32-35.

Schendel, J. D., Heller, F. H., Finley, D. L., & Hawley, J. K. (1985). Use of Weaponeer
Marksmanship Trainer in predicting M16A1 rifle qualification performance. Human Factors,
27, 313-325.

Scholtes, T. G., & Stapp, K. M. (1994, June). Engagement Skills Trainer (EST) training
effectiveness analysis (TEA) (TRAC-WSMR-TEA-94-018). White Sands Missile Range,
NM: Headquarters, Department of the Army TRADOC Analysis Center.

Schroeder, J. E. (1985). A multipurpose arcade combat simulator (MACS) (Tech. Rep. 629).
Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.
(ADA156795)

Smith, M. D., & Hagman, J. D. (in preparation). Use of Laser Marksmanship Training System
(LMTS) Performance to Predict Small Arms Live-Fire Qualification Scores (Res. Rep.).
Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.

11



BASIC RIFLE MARKSMANSHIP TRAINING WITH THE
LASER MARKSMANSHIP TRAINING SYSTEM

Introduction

Budget cutbacks, escalating ammunition costs, reduced access to live-fire ranges, reported
performance deficiencies (e.g., San Miguel, 1998), and ever-present training time constraints
have prompted the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) to search for more effective and efficient ways
to train small arms marksmanship through the use of devices. To this end, the U.S. Army
Research Institute (ARI) is working in partnership with the U.S. Army Reserve's (USAR's) 84th
Institutional Training Division (DIVIT) and Small Arms Training Team (SATT) to develop and
evaluate device-based rifle (M16A2) and pistol (M9) marksmanship sustainment training
programs for use at home station (Plewes, 1997, Oct 9).

As the U.S. Army Reserve Command's marksmanship executive agent (MEA), the 84"
DIVIT is responsible under this partnership for project coordination/conduct and shares
responsibility with SATT for development of the two programs of instruction. ARI is
responsible for designing the research needed to support program development and subsequent
evaluation. The common goal of this cooperative effort is to field companion sustainment
training programs that will produce rifle and pistol marksmanship proficiency levels that meet, or
exceed, unit readiness requirements while minimizing the resources needed to do so (Plewes,
1997, Nov 24).

To date, the rifle program has been developed (Commander, SATT, 1999). It calls for device
use to (a) identify which soldiers need sustainment training, (b) support the relearning and
practice of marksmanship fundamentals (i-e., steady position, aiming, breath control, and trigger
squeeze), as well as shot grouping and weapon battlesight zeroing procedures, (c) enable indoor
record fire qualification practice, and, eventually, (d) reduce the frequency of live-fire
qualification with device-based qualification when live-fire range facilities are not readily
available.

After completing a relative capabilities analysis of several candidate training devices
(Memorandum For Record, 1997, Dec 14), the USAR has selected the BeamhitTM Laser
Marksmanship Training System (LMTS) (Beamhit, Inc., 1999) as the device best suited to
support the above objectives. LTMS is an indoor, laser-emitting device that enables the
engagement of targets without the firing of live ammunition. The device’s major components
include a battery-powered laser transmitter, a mandrel to which the transmitter is
attached/aligned, a variety of laser sensitive targets (Figure 1), and a laptop computer. One end
of the mandrel holds the laser transmitter while the other end slips into the muzzle of the
weapon. The transmitter is designed to function under two modes of operation. Under a trigger-
activated mode, vibrations from the rifle's firing mechanism activate the transmitter when the
weapon is dry fired and the location of the emitted beam (i.e., shot location feedback) is "picked
up" by the laser-sensitive target(s) (Dulin, 1999). This information is then recorded and stored
on the laptop for future reference (e.g., during shot group analysis and weapon prezeroing).
Under a constant-on mode, precise aiming point location feedback is provided against the
background of a reflective version of the 25m Zeroing Target (Figure 2).



U.S. Army Research Institute
for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

Research Report 1761

Basic Rifle Marksmanship Training with the Laser
Marksmanship Training System

Joseph D. Hagman
U.S. Army Research Institute

July 2000

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

wcsmecrmns 29000802 222



(100 per company) to practice trigger squeeze technique, the target/shadow box (100 per
company) to practice aiming/sight picture alignment, MACS (four per company) to assess the
level of trainee adherence to marksmanship fundamentals, and Weaponeer (four per company) to
assess the subsequent application of these fundamentals during the simulated process of shot
grouping. At the end of Period 3, control group trainees set their weapon sights to "mechanical
zero" (Department of the Army, 1989, p.G-14) in preparation for live-fire grouping and zeroing
during Periods 4 and 5.

The experimental group, in contrast, substituted LMTS for the above four devices. One
hundred LMTS laser/target combinations were used to complete three LMTS-based exercises.
Exercises 1 (Reflective Target) and 2 (Interactive Dry Fire) covered the development and
refinement of marksmanship fundamentals, whereas Exercise 3 (Grouping and Zeroing) was
devoted to shot grouping practice followed by weapon prezeroing with LMTS in preparation for
subsequent live-fire grouping and zeroing during Periods 4 and 5 (See either Appendix A for a
more detailed description of each exercise, or Commander, SATT [1999] for a complete
description of the LMTS-based program of instruction.).

Instructors. Trainees in both groups were trained by a cadre of 12 USAIS-certified drill
sergeant instructors (nine were common to both groups) from Company C, 1* Battalion, 19"
Infantry Brigade (C 1/19) and a six-member cadre from the 2TM! Battalion, 29" Infantry Regiment
(2/29). Besides being responsible for range control, the latter operated the Weaponeer for the
control group during shot grouping practice/assessment and the LMTS for the experimental
group during grouping and prezeroing, whereas the former conducted all other aspects of BRM
training. Both groups of instructors were trained by representatives from the 84" DIVIT and
SATT on how to conduct LMTS-based training in accordance with the USAR-prescribed
program of instruction.

Results

Trainee performance was measured in terms of the number of targets hit and/or rounds fired
during live-fire Periods 4-11. In general, the results favored the experimental group during
grouping, zeroing, and known-distance firing (i.e., Periods 4-6) but showed no consistent
advantage for either group thereafter. The specific results found for each period are described
below.

Periods 4 (Grouping Procedures) & 5 (Zeroing Procedures).

All trainees successfully grouped and zeroed. A count of target bullet holes revealed,
however, that the control group fired about three rounds more per trainee than did experimental
group trainees to achieve an acceptable shot group, #(383) = 2.22, and about five more per trainee
to zero their weapons, ((383) = 2.91, with the rejection region set at p < .05 for this and all
subsequent analyses’ (see Table 1). The 5-6% experimental group advantages in the percentage

1 Where normality and/or equality of variance assumptions were not met, both parametric (t-test) and nonparametric
(Mann-Whitney U) comparisons were performed. The results of each were comparable in all instances. Thus, only
t-test values are reported.



Method
Participants

A total of 386 infantry trainees participated in the research as part of One-Station Unit
Training (OSUT) at Fort Benning, GA. None of the participants was familiar with LTMS or had
undergone any military-conducted rifle marksmanship training prior to research participation.

Design and Procedure

A between-Ss, two-group, gross comparison data collection design was used with 184
trainees assigned to an experimental and 202 trainees assigned to a control group, with group
assignment based on the order of trainee arrival for OSUT. The control group was trained in
October of 1999; the experimental group was trained in March of 2000.

BRM. For this research, BRM training was restricted to the first 11 scheduled periods of
instruction leading up to and including firing for qualification (i.e., record fire). Period 1
(Introduction to Basic Rifle Marksmanship and Mechanical Training) consisted of lecture-based,
classroom instruction covering the history, nomenclature, operation, functioning, care and
cleaning, maintenance, sight adjustment, and immediate action of the M16A2 rifle along with a
brief introduction to the four fundamentals of fire (i.e., steady position, aiming, breath control,
and trigger squeeze). Periods 2 and 3 (Marksmanship Fundamentals I and Il) featured hands-on
trigger squeeze and aiming/sight picture practice, device-based assessment of adherence to
marksmanship fundamentals and shot grouping practice, a discussion of safety procedures, and
dry-fire practice from the firing positions (e.g., foxhole supported and prone unsupported) to be
employed later at the live-fire range. During Periods 4 (Grouping Procedures) and 5 (Zeroing
Procedures), trainees were taken to a 25m live-fire range to demonstrate their ability to (a) shot
group (i.e., place six consecutive live rounds within a 4cm circle located anywhere on the target),
and then (b) zero their weapons (i.e., place five out of six consecutive rounds within a 4cm circle
located in the middle of the zeroing target). During Period 6 (Obtain Down Range Feedback),
trainees fired at E-type, paper target silhouettes placed at known distances (i.e., 75, 175, and 300
yards) to experience the influence of wind (if present) and gravity on shot location. During
Periods 7 and 8 (Field Fire I and IN), trainees practiced the detection and engagement of single
(Period 7) and multiple (Period 8), timed-presentation, E- and F-type, pop-up, silhouette targets
presented at distances of from 75-300m. During Periods 9 and 10 (Practice Record Fire I and Il),
trainees practiced the detection and engagement of 40 timed, single/multiple pop-ups presented
at distances of from 50-300m, with (Period 9) and without (Period 10) coaching, in preparation
for qualification firing on a similarly configured Remote Electronic Targeting System (RETS)
range during Period 11 (Record Fire). During all but the last period, remedial training was
provided on the spot to correct individual trainee shooting problems, whereas 2.5hr of
reinforcement training (a USAIS term) was set aside after hours for trainees in need of special
attention. (See USAIS [2000, draft] for a complete description of the tasks, conditions, and
standards for each BRM period.)

Treatment Differences. Control and experimental group training differed in terms of the
training devices used during BRM Periods 2 and 3. The control group used the dime [washer]



CONTENTS (continued)

Page
Table 3. Field Fire I and I Results 2 ............cecccsssssesesssssesesssecseeseeseeneeseeseeeeseeeeeeeeeneeneeneeneeeneenees 6
Table 4. Practice Record Fire I and TH Results ...........c.cccssscsssseeseseeseseeseseeseeeeseeseseanensseeneseeeeaeenees 7

Table 5. Record Fire Qualification Results

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. An LMTS electronic target and laser transmitter with attached mandrel .............--sss0 2
2. The M16A2 Rifle 25m Zeroing Target ...........cccccccessecssseeseseseseenesseneseenenereeeeeenseteeneenes 2
AL. TR-700 Target .......c.csccccsecssscsesscsesessesessesnesesssnsseeneeisensneessnsneenencsecsssesnsassesisasevsesenaes A-l
A-2. TR-900 Target 0... cccccccceecsceeseeeesenesssseseeesesereeeenssssacasicssisaceseeseecesesesesenesasnenenenes A-2



Figure A-2. TR-900 target.

In the grouping phase of the exercise, trainees are allowed to fire up to 27 rounds in 3-round
shot groups. Satisfactory grouping is demonstrated when two consecutive 3-round shot groups
fall within a 4cm circle located anywhere on the target. If trainees fail to meet this standard, they
are sent to a remedial station and then permitted to return later to start anew on the grouping
exercise.

Once satisfactory grouping is demonstrated, trainees adjust their sights to bring shot
placement within a 4cm circle located in the middle of the target. Trainees fire 3-round shot
groups (up to a maximum of 18 rounds), adjusting sights as necessary between groups. When a
shot group falls within the 4cm circle, they fire an additional shot group for confirmation.
Zeroing is satisfactorily demonstrated when at least five of the six rounds in two consecutive 3-
round groups fall within the 4cm circle.

Remedial Training

Remedial training, consisting of a systematic check of trainee ability to apply the four
fundamentals of marksmanship during the integrated act of firing, begins with a weapons
serviceability check and proceeds to an evaluation of the trainee's firing position, sight picture
alignment, trigger squeeze technique, and breath control procedure. Once the instructor is
satisfied that the trainee understands these four fundamentals, he or she is asked to demonstrate
their application using the reflective Zeroing Target.

Depending on the judgment of the instructor, the trainee may then be re-entered into the
formal program at either Exercise 2 or 3. Theoretically, trainees may be pulled from the training
exercise sequence any number of times, although the evaluative and corrective procedure is
designed to produce problem recognition and remediation in one coordinated session.



Research Report 1761

Basic Rifle Marksmanship Training with the Laser
Marksmanship Training System

Joseph D. Hagman
U.S. Army Research Institute

Reserve Component Training Research Unit
Ruth H. Phelps, Chief

U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences
5001 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, Virginia 22333-5600

July 2000
EEE ee
Army Project Number Personnel Performance
20363007A792 and Training

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

iii



did not adversely affect first-run experimental group performance at Period 10. There was a
numerical shift in the percentage of first-run qualifiers favoring the control group, along with a
significant group main effect increase in the number of first-run hits over the two periods, F(1,
340) = 20,32, but the Group x Period interaction for number of first-run hits was not significant

(F<1).
Table 4
Practice Record Fire I and IT Results
Group
Periods 9 & 10 Control Experimental
Practice Record Fire I:
Percentage of First-Run Qualifiers 49 52
Mean Number of First-Run Targets Hit 22.17 21.66
Practice Record Fire I:
Percentage of First-Run Qualifiers 62 59
Mean Number of First-Run Targets Hit 23.69 23.15

Period 11 (Record Fire)

As shown in Table 5, record fire qualification performance also did not differ for the two
groups. Although the overall percentage of first-run qualifiers, end-of-period qualifiers, and
those qualifying at the marksman level numerically favored the experimental group, neither these
differences nor that for the mean number of first-run hits was significant. Thus, LMTS-based
training did not produce better record fire performance than that resulting from the standard

BRM program of instruction.
Table 5
Record Fire Qualification Results
Group
Period 11 Control Experimental
Percentage of First-Run Qualifiers 78 80
Percentage Marksman 42 44
Percentage Sharpshooter 31 31
Percentage Expert 5 5
Percentage of End-Of-Period Qualifiers 96 99
Mean Number of First-Run Targets Hit 26.98 26.88



generalize to another. Second, because problem shooters received remedial training along the
way, the skill level of control group trainees may have simply "caught up" with that of
experimental group trainees as time went on, thereby precluding the likelihood of findings group
performance differences during the later training periods. Third, a simple count of target hits
may have been too gross of a measure to identify any experimental group advantage that may
have existed in the "quality" (e.g., closer to center of mass) of target hits. Fourth, and lastly, it
may have simply been unreasonable to expect an LMTS training benefit with pop-up targets
when this training did not include practice on pop-up target engagements. This would especially
be true if the above notion that different skills are required under different targeting conditions
holds merit. Development of an LMTS-based pop-up target engagement practice course is
currently underway by the device's manufacturer (BeamHit, Inc.). Once completed, this course
could be included within the current LMTS-based program of instruction to provide this added
capability. Additional research would be required, however, to assess the impact of such a
program addition, as well as to examine the validity of the other suggested explanations for the
failure of LMTS-based training benefits to generalize to pop-up target engagements.

Before addressing the implications of this research, it should be noted that an alternative
explanation for the finding of an LMTS-based training benefit cannot be totally ruled out. For
example, because it was impossible, given safety and other operational concerns, to measure
marksmanship proficiency levels before the start of BRM training, it could be argued that control
and experimental group trainees simply began training with preexisting proficiency differences
that carried though to create those observed during training. Use of a relatively large number of
trainees in both groups, as well as the fact that consistent differences favoring one group over the
other were not found throughout, however, tend to minimize the validity of this argument. This
plus efforts to enforce a comparable instructor-to-trainee ratio, as well as to ensure that both
groups used the same weapons, fired on the same ranges under comparable weather conditions,
and were trained by the same instructor cadre (except for 3 of 12 drill instructors) also all but
eliminated the potential differential impact of these additional factors on the obtained results.

Implications
Initial Training

The implications of this research for initial entry BRM training are at least threefold. First,
LMTS-based training could enhance shot grouping and weapon zeroing performance, thereby
reducing ammunition expenditures and associated costs. On the average, about eight rounds per
trainee (i.e., three during shot grouping and five during zeroing) could be saved at a cost of $.36
per round. Thus, for a typical company of 200 trainees, the savings would be about 1,600 rounds
and $576 (i.e., 200 trainees x 8 rounds per trainee x $.36 per round). Although not much for a
particular company, these savings would start to add up when multiplied by total number of
companies trained per year (i.e., 89 in 1999, and a projected 128 for 2000) (LTC G. Davis,
personal communication, May 9, 2000) at Fort Benning. In addition, even greater savings might
be realized as instructors become more familiar with LMTS and as an LMTS-based pop-up
target engagement training capability is added to the BRM program of instruction. The latter
might also have a favorable impact on ammunition expenditures during pop-up target
engagement practice and enhance qualification scores.



REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE

1. REPORT DATE (dd-mm-yy) 2. REPORT TYPE 3. DATES COVERED (from. . . to)
July 2000 Final July 1999 - June 2000
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5a. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER
Basic Rifle Marksmanship Training with the Laser Marksmanship
Training System
Sb. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER
63007
6. AUTHOR(S) 5c. PROJECT NUMBER
A792

Joseph D. Hagman

5d. TASK NUMBER
207

5e. WORK UNIT NUMBER
HO1

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8, PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER
U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences
5001 Eisenhower Avenue

ATTN: TAPC-ARI-ID

Alexandria, VA 22333-5600

10. MONITOR ACRONYM

11, MONITOR REPORT NUMBER
Research Report 1761

12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES.

14. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words): This research compared the relative impact of two approaches for training Basic Rifle
Marksmanship (BRM). One hundred and eighty four One-Station Unit Training (OSUT) infantry trainees (i.e., the
experimental group) trained under a U.S. Army Reserve (USAR)-developed, device-based (i.e., the BeamhitTM Laser
Marksmanship Training System [LMTS)}) approach, and 202 infantry trainees (i.e., the control group) trained under the
standard U.S. Army Infantry School BRM program of instruction. Results revealed that the experimental group outperformed
the control group on shot grouping, weapon zeroing, and known-distance firing. No between-group differences were found,
however, for record fire qualification scores or for performance during pop-up target engagement practice periods leading up
to qualification. ‘The implications of these findings for initial marksmanship training are discussed along with plans for
follow-up USAR-sponsored research to assess (a) the impact of LMTS-based training on sustainment performance, and (b) the
feasibility of using LMTS-based performance to predict live-fire qualification scores.

15. SUBJECT TERMS
Rifle Marksmanship Training Laser Marksmanship Training System (LMTS) Active Component
Reserve Component U.S. Army Reserve

19. LIMITATION OF | 20. NUMBER 21. RESPONSIBLE PERSON

Pe

ee eee
_FECRTy SO SoreMTONOE
ABSTRACT OF PAGES | (Name and Telephone Number)

16. REPORT 17. ABSTRACT | 18. THIS PAGE Joseph D. Hagman
Unclassified | Unclassified | Unclassified Unlimited 22 208-334-9390



U.S. Army Research Institute
for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

A Directorate of the U.S. Total Army Personnel Command

EDGAR M. JOHNSON
Director

— — — ——————
Technical review by 7
Donald L. Riley, ODCSOPS, 84" Div, U.S. Army Reserve

LTC Gordon B. Davis Jr., U.S. Army Infantry School

NOTICES

DISTRIBUTION: Primary distribution of this Research Report has been made by ARI.
Please address correspondence concerning distribution of reports to: U.S. Army
Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, Attn: TAPC-ARI-PO, 5001
Eisenhower Ave., Alexandria, VA 22333-5600.

FINAL DISPOSITION: This Research Report may be destroyed when it is no longer
needed. Please do not return it to the U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral
and Social Sciences.

NOTE: The findings in this Research Report are not to be construed as an official
Department of the Army position, unless so designated by other authorized documents.

Preceding Page’ § Blank


of trainees who successfully grouped within the specified 27-round standard and zeroed within
the specified 18-round standard, however, were not statistically significant.

Table 1
Grouping and Zeroing Results
Group
Periods 4 & 5 Control Experimental
Grouping:
Mean Number of Rounds Fired Per Trainee 16.35 13.52*
Percentage of Trainees Firing to Standard 87 92
Zeroing:
Mean Number of Rounds Fired Per Trainee 26.55 20.97*
Percentage of Trainees Firing to Standard 49 55
"p<.05.

Period 6 (Obtain Down Range Feedback)

The experimental group also outperformed the control group during known distance (KD)
range firing. The control group fired a total of 40 rounds (10 at 75-, 20 at 175-, and 10 at 300-
yard target distances), The experimental group, however, did not fire from 75 yards because of
range modifications that were on going at the time of data collection. Therefore, only the
number of target hits at the two longer distances were counted. As shown in Table 2, the
experimental group scored more hits at both target distances, with #(249), = 2.86, and (322) =
4.10, for the 175 and 300 yard targets, respectively. In addition, a greater percentage of the
experimental group met the 14-out-of-20 hit standard at 175 yards, 2 (1) = 7.90, and the 5-out-
of-10 hit standard at 300 yards, 77(1) = 17.29. Thus, the positive impact of LMTS-based training
found for experimental group grouping and zeroing performance carried over to performance on
the KD range.

Table 2
Down Range Feedback Results
Group

Period 6 Control Experimental
Mean Number of 175yd Target Hits 13.34 14.75*
Mean Number of 300yd Target Hits 4.32 5.38*
Percentage of Qualifiers at 175yd 54 69*
Percentage of Qualifiers at 300yd 44 66*

"P< .05.



Ammunition Count

Although the record fire qualification performance of the two groups failed to differ, a count
of the total number of pre-record fire rounds fired at pop-up targets during Periods 8-10 revealed
that the control group fired 47 rounds more than the experimental group per trainee. Thus, the
experimental group fired fewer rounds than the control group during training to achieve
comparable record fire results. This efficiency advantage for the experimental group, however,
cannot be attributed to LMTS-based training, given that the experimental group showed no
performance advantage over the control group during Field Fire I (Period 7) where the number of
rounds fired by trainees was still the same. The majority of the round savings occurred during
Period 9 as a result of the unscheduled weapon's inspection, not as a function of differential
performance of the two groups. The lack of a difference between groups on first-run Period 10
and 11 performance reveals that the extra rounds fired by the control group produced no
measurable advantage and suggests these rounds may have been fired unnecessarily.

Discussion

The above results show that the early segments of BRM training would benefit from the
adoption of LMTS-based training. Replacement of traditionally used training devices (i.e., the
dime [washer], target [shadow] box, MACS, and Weaponeer) with LMTS during Periods 2 and 3
would (a) reduce the number of rounds fired during live-fire grouping and zeroing (Periods 4 and
5), and (b) increase the number of target hits on the KD range (Period 6). Presumably, the
combination of a better grasp of marksmanship fundamentals resulting from LMTS-based
training, the practice/reinforcement these fundamentals with LMTS during shot grouping, and
finally the opportunity to prezero weapons with LMTS before taking them to the range (see
Smith & Hagman, 1999, for more on the expected benefits of prezeoing), all contributed to the
reliable performance advantage displayed by the experimental group when asked to live-fire
group, zero, and engage KD targets. These differences are noteworthy given the relatively
limited familiarity of USAIS instructors with the LMTS-based training approach. One could,
therefore, speculate that even a greater payoff would be found as instructor familiarity with
LMTS, and its use during the training process, were to increase over time. Additional research is
required, however, to test the validity of this notion.

The benefits of LMTS-based training, however, stopped with Period 6. That is, no LMTS-
based training benefits were found once the firing of pop-up target engagements began.
Consequently, group performance failed to differ at qualification, or consistently during the four
pop-up target engagement periods (i.e., 7-10) leading up to qualification.

One can only speculate as to why LMTS training benefits did not carry over to pop-up target
engagements. First, the additional need for trainees to detect when and where targets popped up
and, then, to make the necessary aiming point adjustments before the target presentation time
elapsed may have outweighed any fundamental skill benefits resulting from LMTS-based
training. The lack of a robust correlation between performance on the 25m Alternative
Qualification Course (Alt C) and performance on a standard pop-up target record fire course
(Martere, Hunt, & Parish,1987) suggests that different skills may come into play under different
targeting conditions. Thus, performance benefits found under one targeting condition may not