Reaearch Note 85-98

SVRVEY OF MI6A1 BASIC RIFLE ARKSMANSHIP

CUPRENT PROCEDURES AND PRACTICE£S

0Jeffrey L. Maxey and R. Jcscph Ddnpste", Jr.

Litton-Mel.lonics Systems Development Division,, litton Syptems, Inc.

for

U Contracting Officer's Representative

H. C. Strasel

KRI Field Unit at Fort enning, Georgia

Seward Smith, Chief

TRAINING RESEARCH LABORATORY

Harold F. O'Nei.l, Jr., Director

" jtAN 0 ,o

U. S. Army

!"-7' Rese-rch Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

January 1985

Approved for piublic rolease; distrihui,'n tinn o n ited. JLo ý', ýj"1 2
-. mrw__

DISCLAIMER NOTICE

THIS DOCUMENT IS BEST QUALITY

PRACTICABLE. THE COPY FURNISHED

TO DTIC CONTAINED A SIGNIFICANTr

NUMBER OF PAGES WHICH DO NOT

REPRODUCE LEGIBLY.
U. S. ARMY RESEARCH INSTITUTE

FOR THE BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

A Field Operating Agency under the Jurisdiction of the

Deputy Chief of Staff for- Personnel

L. NEALE COMBY

EDGAR M. JOHNSON Colonel, IN

Technical Director Conimander

This report, as submitted by the contractor, has been cleared fet releaa to Defense Technical Information Center I(DTIC; to comply with regulatory requirements. It has been given no primary distribution other than to DTIC

and wilf be ava;lable only through DTIC or other refeience services such as the National Technical Information (NTIS). The witws, opinions. SSeruice and/or findingls contained in this report are those of the author(s) and |

should not be construed as an officala "oepartnmew of the Army position, policy, or decision, unless so designated I

iv other of.*ical documentation. j

" : •" I *•• ~~~~~~~~~~~~z& . ... 1 I•lklvk*.•t•r 
Unclass if ied

* SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (When ODne Entered)

SREPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE READ INSTRUCTIONS R O D U T P BEFORE COMPLETING FORM

RUMMI 102. OOVT ACCESSION NO. . NICiIPOItNT'S CATALOG NUMBER

ARI RESEARCH NOTE 85-98 OWA li 111

1,4. TITLE(and Subtitle) S. TYPE OF REPORT 6 PERIOD COVERtr)

Survey of M16A1 Basic Rifle Marksmanship -

Current Procedures and Practices Period ending ,August 1978

6. PERFORMING ONG. REPORT NUMBER

[7. AUTNI7 . S. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER(&)

J.L. Maxey DAHC-19-77 -C-0011

R.J. Dempster, Jr.

9. PRPORMIoI• ORAMIZATION NAME AND ADOR.SS PR Ao.1 M RE TASK

Litton-Mellonics Systems Development Division ARE A WRK UNIV NUMUERS

Defense Science Laboratory 2Q763743A773

P.O. Box 2498, Ft Benning, GA 31905

1I, CONTROLIINO OFFIrC NAME AND ADDOESS 12. R.PORT OATS US Army Rtesearch Instiute tor the Behavioral and January 1985

Social Scienceas, Ft Benning Field Unit IS. NUMBEROF PAGES

Fort Benning, GA 31905 R5

14. MONITORING AGENCY NAME & AODRESS(•1 different trm Controllin Office) Is. SECURITY CLASS. (of thle report)

Unclassif ied

15a. DECLASSIFICATION/DOWNGRADING

SCHEDULE

IS. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of this Report)

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.

17. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of the abestact entered In Block 20, It different fhom ,.sport)

IS. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

H. C. Strasel, contracting officer's representative for this project.

IS. KEY WOROS (Continue on ,everse side If nceee,,m mid identlfy by block number)

Basic Rifle Marksmanship Rifle Training Procedures

M16AI Rifle Rifle Marksmanship Training

Marksmanship Training Training Tasks

Marksmanship Practices Rifle Training Standards \1

126, AU•TRACr (CWmfwe ",we. ebb N nem aomy Iaddeutyt by block numbecr)

Recent Training aid Doctrine Command (TRADOC) studies indicate for many Army

systems that traini' h does not optimize total system effectiveness. These

same studies show tha\ existing practices tend to underuse training resources.

Because of these findP gs, TRADOC initiated the CTraining Effectiveness .-• .,Anasi (TEA) effort. 4 The objective ofATEA) is to produce training improvements through analysis and redesign of the procedures and resources used to

implement training.- 'Ideally, this will lead to more cost-effective training

alternatives.... .......--- nued) .

DD JA 1473 M EDITION OF 9 NOV 65 IS OSSOLETE Unclassified

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (Wen Date Entered)
Unclassifted

SECURITV CLASIUPICATIO" OF THIS PAKD(Whn Date 5aft$*;

-.... Accordingly, TRADOC directed the U.S. Army Infantry School (USAIS) to

conduct a TEA for the M16A1 rifle. In support of the USAIS, the U.S. Army

Research Institute (ARI) has initiated TEA-related research for this weapon.

A major objective of the ARI research is to identify both short and long

range improvements in the training process for M16AI rifle marksmanship.

One portion of this research is the development of a prototype criterion

referenced, threat oriented Basic Rifle Marksmanship (BRM) training program.

Based on research accomplished during 1976 and 1977, it appears that the

immediate development of the prototype BRM ptogram is premature and that certain intermediate research and development tasks remain to be completed before

program development should be initiated. One of these tasks involves updating

the existing information base for BRM training procedures and practices. This

report presents the findings of a survey of BRM training as it is now implemented at four Army Training Center s4P-e-and discusses in detail the

various procedures, performance measures, diagnostics, remediation activities,

training aids, and traiuing materials used for this training. In addition,

the report discusses the implications of the survey findings for improving

the marksmanship training process

Accession For NTIS GRA&I • -

DTIC TAB

Unannounced 13

Justif 1catJ onL_

By- -

Distributin/ AlIVnO

AvailabilLty Codes

"-Avail and/or

Dist Special

Unclassified
FOREWORD

This report Is provided by the MellonIcs Systems Development

Division of Litton Systems, Inc., to the Army Research Institute

for the Behavioral and Social Sciences (ARI) under Contract Number

DAHC 19-77-C-0011. Under the contract, a part of Mellonics' effort

concerns support to the Training Effectiveness Analysis (TEA) research presently being conducted by the ARI for the United States

Army Infantry School (USAIS). A major objective of the ARI research

Is to Identify both short and long range improvements in the training

process for MI6AI rifle marksmanship. One portion of this research

Involves updating the existing Information base for Basic Rifle Marksmanship (BRM) training procedures and practices. This report presents

the findings of a survey of 8RM training as It is now Implemented at

four Army Training Centers (ATCs) and discusses In detail the various

procedures, performance measures, diagnostics, remedlation activities,

training aids, and training materials used for this training. in addition, the report discusses the Implications of the survey findings

for Improving the marksmanship training process.

M
TABLE OF CONTENTS

-- Page

INTRODUCTION I

OBJECTIVES 2

METHOD 3

RESULTS 8

Program CompositIon 8

Program Organization I.

Training "rocedures 23

Training Aids 63

Performance Evaluation 72

Diagnostic Procedures and Remediation Acitivitles 75

Training Materials 76

CONCLUSIONS 78

BIBLIOGRAPHY 79

I.l !V
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd)

-- • Pagje

TABLES

Table 1. U. S. Army Installations Conducting Basic Training and Anticipated Training Input for 1978 4

2. Trip Description for the BT Installations Visited

and BRM Training Programs Observed 5

3. Training and Evaluation Phases Included in Each

BRM Program Surveyed 10

4. Block Titles and Abbreviations Used in Figure 1 16

5,. Program Organization By Periods of Instruction and

the Responsible BT Organizational Element for Each

Period 20

6. Content Areas Covered During the Mechanical Training Phase 24

7. Content Areas Covered During the Preliminary Rifle

Instruction Phase 26

8. Practical Exercises Completed During the Preliminary

Rifle Instruction Phase 29

9. Rounds Fired and Positions from Which Firings are

Conducted 31

10. Content Areas Covered During the Battlesight Zero

Firing Phase 35

Ii. Positions Employed, Target-to-Firer Distances, and

Rounds Fired for Transition Firing 41

12. Summary of Field Target Engagement Training by BRM

Program Surveyed 44

13. Summary of Field Target Engagement Firing Exercises:

Rounds Fired by Firing Positions Employed and Target

Type 45

14. Summary of Field Target Engagement Firing Exercises:

Rounds Fired By Target-to-Observer Distances Employed 46

15. Use of Field Target Engagement Firing Results for

Trainee Diagnosis and Remediation 48

vi
Page

16. Summary of Practice Record Fire Exercise: Rounds

Fired by Firing Pos;tions Employed and Target Type 50

17. Summary of Practice Record Fire Exercise: Rounds

Fired by Target-to-Observer Uistances Employed 51

18. Use of Practice Record Fire Results for Trainee

Diagnosis and Remedlation 52

19. Summary of the Record Fire Evaluation: Rounds by

"Firing Position and Target Type 54

20. Summary of the Record Fire Evaluation: Rounds and

Cumulative Rounds by Target-to-Firer Distance 55

21. Summary of Qualification Requirements for BRM Training: Number and Percent of Firings that must be Hits 57

22. Summary of Automatic Rifle Firing Training: Content

Lecture Sof 59

23. Summary of Automatic Rifle Firing Exercise: Rounds

Fired, Positions Employed, Targets Fired At 60

24. Summary of Night Rifle Firtng Training: Content of

Lecture 61

25. Summary of Night Rifle Firing Exercise: Rounds Fired,

Positions Employed, Targets Fired At 62

26. Summary of Target Detection Training: Lesson Content

and Practical Exercises 64

27. Summary of Training Aids Employed to Support BRM

Training 67

FIGURES

Figure 1. Organizational structure of the Fort Leonard Wood, Fort

Jackson, Fort Dix, and Fort Knox BRH training programs 15

2. Organizational structure underlying the BRM programs

surveyed at Fort Leonard Wood, Fort Jackson, Fort Dix, 18

and Fort Knox

3. 25 meter zero target 74

vii

illA s A~a. naIana a.f
SURVEY OF M16AI BASIC RIFLE MARKSMANSI 4IP - CURRENT PROCEDURES AND PRACTICES

INTRODUCTION

Recent Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) studies indicate for

many Army systems that training does not optimize total system effectiveness These same studies show that existing practices tend to under use

training resources. Because of these findings, TRADOC initiated the Training Effectiveness Analysis (TEA) effort. The objective of TEA is to produce

training improvements through analysis and redesign of the procedures and

resources used to implement training. Ideally, this is to lead to more

cost-effective training alternatives.

Accordingly, TRADOC directed the U. S. Army Infantry School (USAIS)

to conduct a TEA for the MI6AI rifle. In support of the USAIS, the U. S.

Army Rusearch Institute (ARI) has initiated TEA-related research for this

weapon. A major objective of the ARI research is to identify both short

and lor.g range improvements in the training process for M16AI rifle marksmanship.

The Mellonics Systems Development Division of Litton Systems, Inc.,

under contract to the ARI, is supporting the TEA research being conducted

Department of the Army. Analyzing training effectiveness (TRADOC

PAM 71-8). Washington, D. C.: Author, December 1975.
at the Fort Benning ARI Field Unit. One portion of this research is the

development of a prototype criterion referenced, threat orient-d Basic

Rifle Marksmanship (BRM) training program. Current plans call for this

program to teach techniques for both stationary and moving target engagement. This is In contrast to current programs which only teach techniques

for engaging stationary targets.

Based on research accomplished during 1976 and 19772, it appears that

the immediate development of the prototype BRM program is premature and

that certain intermediate research and development tasks remain to be completed before program development should be iniciated. One of these tasks

involves updating the existing information base for BRM training procedures

and practices. This report presents the findings of a survey of BRM

training as it is now implemented at four Basic Training (BT) sites and

discusses in detail the various procedures, performance measures, diagnostics, remediation activities, training aids, and training materials used

for this training. In addition, the report discusses the implications of

the survey findings for improving the marksmanship training process.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this research were:

"o To update the existing information base for BRM traiining, and

"o To analyze and discuss the implications of the research

findings for the development of improved BRM training.

2 Maxey, J. and George, J. Analysis of MI6AI basic rifle marksmanship

(Task Report). Fort Benning, GA: Mellonics Systems Development Division,

December, 1977.

2
METHOD

At the onset of this research, it was decided that a series of visits

to selected U. S. Army BT sites and on-slte observation of their BRM pro-

* grams would be a satisfactory means of collecting the information required

to update the information base for BRM training procedures and practices.

Ideally, it would have been desirable to study all of the BRM programs presently being implemented within the Army. Because of time, fiscal, and

personnel limitations, this was judged to be impractical. Instead, It was

decided to limit the data collection effort to those BT sites that will

receive the majority of the male and female trainees coming into the

Army in 1978.

Table I lists the installations currently conducting BT in the continental United States and their anticipated 1978 trainee input. As shown

in Table 1, four installations will receive just over 70 percent of this

input: Fort Leonard Wood, MO; Fort Jackson, SC; Fort Dix, NJ; and Fort

Knox, KY. Because of this, these installations and their BRM programs were

selected for on-site visits and survey.

The dates of each visit to the four BT sites surveyed, the composition

of the survey team at each site and, the phases of BRM training observed at

these sites are indicated in Table 2. For euch visit, a similar procedure

was followed in developing a schedule for observing the BRM program. BT

schedules of training were inspected. Periods of BRM instruction and practice of interest to the survey team were identified. Visits to training

sites (classrooms or firing ranges) were coordinated and scheduled with the

3
LLLi

CL

4,P -o -

-0 '.0 -4 LA 0 !a

I-4 J

CLL

co

ND I' .0 r ~ 0 - C o .. .-

z

C;

oX

z0

0 L

oo 0 0-

L- U- L - L L
C C

C-L ~ L6

03 4-) a) m

@3 vi LA. w. Wi *U tA.01 

4j @0 IM lu 0 *-~ 0 ~ R0

0 . > .- C a C3- 0 J 0 V.*~ ~41 44J. 

U.) cm ~ 7L- cm4 u.i Ln o) L. 0) i u 0

> r_>..--C4) 4) C ~.-@ E @0 C >.- c ) 4) m-0

I- LL. . z cL'W . L. .cc 4.1 -L-J.W L. 4.; LL...-

C0 0 Q L-i4) a. u- 4 00 L.- Q I. u 4

U) . GJC 4J.@ LL.- L.- L4.1- ~- 0 L..- .- 9

0473a.- m4-J .- - 4, C I- A)41)4U..

o) 1.) 4J - I. 4~J 4. 041 L * - EJ 0 M V 0 0 0 -0 2h

0 . n ( L1 W m u44L 4) . 0 4 j%

",4 -4 cm.

to Is-. 0~0

£0~~ Z3I O4.) - k 4- 1 4

w) -b #A

z0 4J4- 0 AA 4-

CL0 U 4) 4)

C3 4- a.

0,

.0 c0

~fl00

Go

4.o .1 c

in~L a.1.A.a

C 0 0 - La~~~..L..L.La.

m5 I-6
local BRM committe'e group. With the completion of these planning activities, the survey team began Its data collection activities.

With the exception of the Fort Jackson, SC, visit, the following data

collection procedure was employed. Team members observed the instruction

and practice activities conducted at the training sites. Notes were

taken indicatir.g the specific Instruction presented, the procedures followed during training, the measures of performance employed to evaluate

training progress, the diagnostics and remedlatlon activities employed during training, and the aids and devices used to support training. Finally,

interviews with company and BRM committee group personnel were conducted

to discover their views on BRM training and, as required, to clarify points

about the program that were unclear or that could not be observed during the

visit. Also, training aids and devices used to support training were

photographed. Finally, at each installation lesson plans and trainee handouts for BRM training were obtained. Together, this information constitutes

the data used to update the conduct of current BRM training.

At Fort Jackson, SC, the above activities were completed with one exception; instead of observing the practice and firing activities of the

program, the civilian members of the survey team directly participated in

these activities. This culminated with their qualification in the use of

the MI6AI rifle. The purpose of this was to give the civilian members of

the team an opportunity to "get the feel" of the total program and to broaden

their knowledge base for rifle marksmanship training. It was believed that

this experience would aid in the identification of both problems and difficulties experienced by trainee and cadre during the markstnanship training

6
process. It was also anticipated that the experience would provide a

sound basis for developing ideas for improving ORM training.
RESULTS

In this section the Information collected during the observation of

BRM training at the four ET sites visited is summarized. The objective of

this summary Is to provide a cogent picture of current BRM training In terms

of the following:

"o Program composItion

"o Program organization

"o Training procedures

"o Training aids

"o Frogram evaluation

"o Diagnostic procedures

"o Remediat ion activities

"o Training materials

For the most part, notes taken during the observation of treining provide the basis for this summary. When observational data viere unavailable

for particular segments of training, lesson plans were used to provide the

required information. As appropriate, the summary is supplemented with information deied from interviews and comments from the personnel (both company and committee cadre) Involved in the conduct of the training at the

sites visited.

PROGRAM COMPOSITION

Training programs consis.t of sequences of training (instruction and

practice) and evaluation activities. The former are designed to teach
selected subject matter (instruction) and to provide opportunities to

practice the application of the information and skills taught during Instruction (practice). The latter are designed to assess proficiency with

respect to the training completed prior to the evaluation. The composition of a training program is thus Indicated by the nature of the training

and evaluation phases comprising it.

Table 3 shows the training and evaluation phases defining each program surveyed. Also, a short description Is provided for each phase

briefly indicating its objective. Of the 15 phases Included in one or more

of the programs, 10 are common to all. Considered in the context of their

respective objectives, these phases constitute the minimum required to

teach and evaluate the Individual marksmanship skills for engaging stationary targets under daylight conditions and familiarizing trainees In

the firing of the rifle at night and in the automatic mode.

The five phases not common to all of the programs surveyed are special

purpose phases designed to accomplish specific functions as follows:

o To provide trainees an opportunity to .practice the development of tight shot groups (Pre-Battlesight Zero Firing),

o To provide trainees an opportunity to fire the rifle from

positions not emphasized in the main body of the program

(Position Firing),

o To give trainees having difficulties in achieving a battlesight zero additional time and rounds to accomplish this

task (Battlesight Zero Firing-Remedial)

o To give trainees an opportunity to adjust to the transition

from firing at relatively close (25 meter) stationary targets

to firing at more distant (75, 175, and 300 meter) stationary

targets (Transition Firing),

9
60 x

1.- 3 x x x

'm

&. z x

-j

U A. 6. 

IV- r- K4 Kj

CA 0 A C . )

in 7c gu* ;a h:

u a 4- #A 4J02 #z a a .' 4:. v , I 0 c: r

c, 0, a - A ) C.M4A t

0b9~4- to.: > 0 2 f L

0 0, L. 0 = c .- 0 A0 m =

4d. Wt. to2 lw 4. N Z. 0ý

.0 M1 >~ o2 0 .- 0 4

00

In C c . 1.

O - 0

lb 1- *-Ch

CL mU L. I'

10
04 x

4I 

6(A 0UL 0 44

4-4 PQ I'll 4 coW

144 "3 00. .~

1" & A "U 9xI 0 Ur 44 0 -- s .C 1u

44 04

411

jj to

114
A.4

IN NP

4) r

0 4ja

0 ed Oa 0*0J. 0 

cc m).. 0) 4)J ý44

4w u ~0 u ,a12

ru g r) W) 4 440

P4 0 b g .2 t

4) ~P I0)4 6.Uj 4J 04' N

4Jc-4b~)4J .' coo 4)4. ~c 0 W .U 44vJ1U.4 9 . 4.' ~ ~ ~ 8 IW8~0)D ,4J~0 A40 M~.4O a

.0 ~ ~~~~ ~ 0 V4~. u~4~Q9 ~

54)

415.

41

4.0 u. 04

00-4 w

12
44o~

Ita4 44 4.~4 0. 4

41 ja -

4N Nj O 0 04.l4

'1 fub

A~~ 93 .4 IJ 4

41~

0 Q

GoJ% 0.4 1

I0 0144.

.0~~ 01- er~ 0 

~~~.~1 4I '001 4 0

t! .04 64 44 0 44 A 0 0IJ t) 04 -4j $ g o0 4.) .0 9L 

! 4 . 01 .di.-

ig 4 v0 I 0 4 PC 0 e C0 0 4~

x01414 P. o

0~0 0i11 1

bo 9)

I, en04.1

nO 0 20

0 0

13 1
o To determine if a failure to muinLain a battlubi~tht zero

Is responsible for inadequate firing performancc during

field and/or practice record firing (25 M1eter Corrective

Fire).

Thus, In terms of the bas~c classes of instruction, practice and

evaluation activities comprising the programs surveyed, there is a significant amount of overlap. Where differences emerge, these appear to

Involve the inclusion of specific training phases designed to augment or

supplement the training process.

"PROGRAM ORGAN I ZAT ION

A BRM training program, while built around a set of phases each with

Its own objectives, is in practice implemented via segments of instruction

and practice called "periods". In some instances, a given phase will be

synonymous with a period. In other instances, several periods will be required to Implement a given training or evaluation phase. The manner in

which a program's training and evalution phases are partitioned and organized

Into periods defines the organizational structure of a program. Figure I

displays the structure of the programs surveyed for this report. Each block

in this figure corresponds toa period of instruction. Block labels broadly

indicate the nature of the training completed during the periods. Block

size in the vertical dimension roughly indicates the amount of time allocated

for the period. Table 4 lists the complete title for each block and the

title abbreviations used in Figure 1.

An inspection of Figure 1 suggests across programs that organizational

structure is highly variable. However, when Figure I is considered in relation to the discussion of program composition, it is readily seen that the

14
PPRl

LIj I Il

L-.R. 2as PPRl

[hiF 211 852 52

IIBZI

TOPFl

I FFTE I r S-jBZ3I TO

IF E TF

l. ~ - - L - - - 1 TE

rA --- 1zr rKyI I IIT T

FTE- - -T_ 

T

ARF PFE

P-F LPT

RFRF

ARF PRF Isý

NR PFAR

ARF PF

ARFR

Fort L,-onard Wood Fort Jackson Fort Dix Fort Knox

Figure 1. Orginizationdl structure oF the Fort Leoijdrd doc~d, Fort

Jackson, Fort Dix, and Fort Knox BP~i training program~s.

15
Table 4

BLOCK TITLES AND ABBREVIATION

Block Title Block Abbreviation

Mechanical Training MT

Preliminary Rifle Instruction PRI

Familiarization Firing FF

Pre-Battlsight Zero Firing PBSZ

Battlesight Zero Firing BSZ

Position Firing PF

Field Target Engagement FTE

Battlesight Zero Firing (Remedial) BSZ(R)

Transition Firing TF

Target Detection Training TO

Target Detection Training (Aerial) TD(A)

25 Meter Corrective Fire 25MCF

Practice Record Fire PRF

Record Fire RF

Automatic Rifle Firing ARF

Night Rifle Firing NRF

16

L .•! jl ••- •• ••I •• •[•l6••! R ••ti•• •1•!1• - • •.P~l• ••AA•
programs may be considered to be transformations of a single, basic organizational strategy for training. This strategy is presented in Figure

2.

In moving from the basic strategy shown in Figure 2 to each of the

program organizations displayed in Figure 1, five mechanisms appear to

have been employed:

"o Incorporation of "new" phases In the basic framework to

augment one or more of the basic phases (and its associated

periods).

"o Consolidation of phases (and their associated periods) into

single periods of instruction.

"o Segmentatitn of a unitary phase into two or more periods

of instruction.

"o Movement of a single period of instruction from its original

position in the basic framework to another position (either

earlier or later in time) in the hierarchy.

"o Retention of obsolete training from a previous training program structure.

Thus, in terms of basic structure, the four programs surveyed are very

similar. Where differences in structure exist, these are a matter of the

presence of "new" training, training consolidation, training segmentation,

timing, and retention of training from a prior framework. In determining

the reasons for the existence of these differences, it is likely that they

derive from at least three sources:

"o Local preferences and opinions concerning what and how BRM

training should be conducted.

"o Local training considerations, e. g., availability of

17
See

MHT

SPR'I

BSZ

FTE(O TD

FTE(2)

MT Mechanical Training

PRI Preliminary Rifle InRF structlon

FF Familiarization Firing

L BSZ Battlesight Zero Instruction and Firing

ARF FTEl First Field Target

Engagement Ctat:. TD Target Detection

(Ground Targets)

FTE2 Second Field Target

NRF Engagement Class

PRF Practice Record Fire

RF Record Fire

ARF Automatic Rifle Firing

tRF Night Rifle Firing

Figure 2. Organizational structure underlying the BRH programs surveyed

at Fort Leonard Wood, Fort Jackson, Fort Dix, and Fort Knox.

18
training cadre, operative firing ranges, and training aids

and the typical company fill for the installation.

o Guidance from the BRM committee commander or hiiqhr local

author ities.

Table 5 displays the organizational structure of the four programs

surveyed in terms of the periods of instruction and practice comprising the

programs and the responsible BT elements for these periods. With one exception (25 Meter Corrective Fire in the Fort Dix program), all of the instruction and practice following Preliminary Rifle Instruction was conducted

by the BRM committee group. However, for the periods dedicated to Mechanical Training and Preliminary Rifle Instruction, the responsibility for the

conduct of these periods varied across the programs. For Mechanical Training, company cadre conducted this training in three of the programs (Fort

Leonard Wood, Fort Jackson, and Fort Knox), while in the fourth (Fort Dix)

BRM committee group personnel conducted the training. For Pr•!!minary

Rifle Instruction, both company and committee elements conducted their instruction in the Fort Leonard Wood and Fort Knox programs, while in the

Fort Jackson program it was taught by the committee and in the Fort Dix

program it was taught by the company. Thus, it is clear for the most part

that the conduct of BRM in the programs surveyed was the responsibility

of the BRM committee. Where the company took responsibility, this appeared

to be for at least two reasons:

o Convenience

o A desire on the part of local authorities to have the company

cadre become more involved in the training process.

19
33 0. li L.

4, 4. 4. .44o4. .

41l m C) E

;2~~q LI t c o o co)

L.V

0

Q U 0 4.4 W 4,l

41 414.., a) 41

Lio 0 4 1J4

4.j

*4 L.4

4'1

4.54 4.1 1d V 

-- IN m .- Ml UN L^ Ln

C,)

o a- -0

CAL P U t k o g m ca

C2

4) 404 m5

45 V 41410 

M.- cc> 0.

- :3 .- to 0' a I I

to -- L.a !0, 7

to CL ca

j ~ ~~20 u: I
tal lib

I- b -o -2 go

V 13

42m 

l~Ca.

u Li

to L0 lb §b Eb q ~ b1.2 l

'1.~ 2~ 21

.o V i~~

c C W If ~ ~ t .. 4

- ~ * Cw

41l

I U -

2. 06 x

- lb

G CA

Ln 0 01 1

2. lb IV

211
CL in

A.

4-

V* 02

* LC 

CL F

.2 L

) 4*1

-I-

.e- 03

20 -.

0A o 0 .0 -

Is #A

40 -

A. E@

M41

4* )

u 4) m 0 =j f

~2
TRAINING PROCEDURES

The procedures employed to implement a training program consist of the

collection and sequencing of instructional and practice activities that are

used to teach specific sets of knowledge and skills. In this section, the

procedures employed in implementing the programs surveyed are compared and

contrasted for the various phases of training and evaluation comprising

these programs.

Mechanical Training. In all but the Fort Leonard Wood BRM program, mechanical training is the first step in the BRM training process. In the Fort

Leonard Wood program, this training follows a company presented period dedicated to introducing the concepts of aiming, sight alignment, and the sight

picture (see Figure 1). In all but the Fort Dix program the mechanical

training phase of instruction is taught by company cadre either in an open

area adjacent to the company or in a company area classroom. The Fort Dix

instruction in this area, in contrast, is presented by BRM committee group

cadre in a Brigade area classroom. This is a relatively recent change

to the Fort Dix BRM program.

In each program, instructors cover essentially the same content areas

(see Table 6) using a conmblnation of lecture and demonstration. That is,

a topic is presented and discussed by the instructor. Concurrently, as appropriate, a demonstration (using the rifle) is conducted by the instructor.

Next, the trainees repeat the demonstration with their rifles. Following

this, another topic is presented and the above procedure is repeated.

23
0

0

LA.0

Lu u

LI 8

Z LA

01

Luu

.00

Lu0

41)

0 0

Iz 0

m m(

4.24
Preliminary Rifle Instruction. For all but the Fort Leonard Wood program, preliminary rifle instruction is taught following the Mechanical TrainIng phase. For the Fort Leonard Wood program, part of this training comes

prior to and part after the Mechanical Training phase. The organizational

element responsible for implementing this training and Its structure is

program dependent. For the Fort Jackson program the training is conducted

entirely by BRM committee personnel within a single period. In contrast,

In the Fort Dlx program this Instruction is entirely the responsibility of

the company cadre and Is taught in four periods. In the Fort Knox program,

OSUT companies are taught in a single period by BRM committee personnel,

while BT companies are taught in a single period by company cadre. Finally,

in the Fort Leonard Wood program, company cadre teach the portion of this

instruction that comes prior to mechanical training, while BRM committee

personnel teach that portion of this Instruction scheduled following mechanical training. Apparently these variations reflect local considerations and

opinions about how instruction for preliminary rifle marksmanship training

should be implemented.

The purpose of this training in all of the p.rograms is twofold. First,

It is to teach the trainee how to use the sighting mechanism of the rifle

to aim so that a round fired from the rifle will hit a designated target.

Second, it is to teach the trainee how to hold his rifle, squeeze the trigger, and control breathing while firing so that his aim will be minimally

affected. The topics addressed in this training for the programs surveyed

are presented in Table 7. As shown in the table, there is a significant

overlap in the areas relevant to the above objective for this training.

25
CAA

LUD

UWO

0~0

co ED ED x ED x

4-aC

L.

0

.0 aI-q

zE

LLAC

00

cc z

00

4- c

4) LU c

LA 4.0

t- Li c41I

I- Q1 L- 0-

41 a t L -)z 

u 0 0 0 :7 0 C

0.. m

4) 41 4) Q

o0 4- - . .L 

Lin sn ^ ( nC 0 

Lfl 26
This process is continued until all topics slated to be coverud have been

addressed. As a final step in the training the trainees complete the tasks

covered during instru.:tion several times under the guidance of assistant

instructor personnel. As problems or difficulties arise these personnel

assist the trainees In correcting the problem or difficulty.

In addition to the above activities, the Fort Dlx program follows up

the mechanical training with a lecture on sight alignment, aiming point

placement, sight picture, rifle steady hold factors, shot group analysis,

sight adjustments, and the target box exercise. Following this lecture, the

tralnees use the M15 Sighting device to practice aiming point placement

and sight alignment aid complete the aiming bar exercise to practice

achievement of a correct sight picture. While instruction and practice for

the above topics is completed in the next four periods of this program,

(which are administere'l by the company), the BRM committee judged it appropriate to cover the!; topics during the mechanical training phase to ensure that the Lrainee3 will have some preliminary understanding prior to

company instruction in these areas.

Finally, in none of the programs surveyed was it found that relevant

TEC lessons were being used to instruct the trainees in the mechanical

training and maintenanice aspects of the M16 rifle. This is viewed as a

limitaition since TEC ýessons properly integrated

into a training progainm can be a valuable means of increasing the knowledce and skill base olF an individual.

27
For all of the programs It was observed that instructors depend

heavily on the lecture to present their instruction in this phase of

training. Charts and training aids are also employed extensively to

assist in getting teaching points across to the trainees. While trainees

are allowed to take notes during these lectures, they are not encouraged

by the Instructors to do this. For all of the programs observed,

note taking behavior was seldom observed.

For all except the Fort Jackson program, the t~raining for this phase

of BRM Is Implemented as follows: The trainee comoany receives a lecture

as a group. Immediately following this lecture, the company as a group

completes a practical exercise relevant to the lecture. In contrast, the

trainee cowLlpany in the Fort Jackson program is broken down into four groups

prior to the training. Next, each group proceeds to one of four stations.

These stations each have their own instructor personnel and are designed

to address a specific set of topics. At each station the trainees receive

a lecture. Next, trainees complete a station specific practical exercise.

When the trainees at each station have finished the required exercise, they

rotate to a new station for a new lecture and a different practical exercise. This process continues until all trainee groups have moved through

all of the stations.

The variety of and frequency with which practical exercises are completed during this phase of training was found to vary considerably across

the programs surveyed. This Is shown in Table 8. Clearly the Fort Jackson

program places the greatest emphasis on practical exercises in this phase.

28
*t a

0

tn 4-1

0

z

x

z 4-' C-- 4 cc e

0

-. E

E 0

mo c 0. 0

-~ ~ ~ L toCt 0

-a- , _-r- _ s I ecc4

LU mr Ln <

0 1

0) L Li..

to El

z .- 0 z~ 4.J

0.

w '0

0. 0 g .

L) -C ~ 4J4J 0

LU 0 0 41

41 c

.- M

x -

00

en1 0o CACI 0 -

> E Wn 1- 0 00 4-I M

L) uC 0 n c- C

L Q41 U x I 041 00 0L

0 L-L w. U (0 U a.-- . a..-

IC. o'-* 0- L CL w 04-' 41 M

LU c~0 x 4) -. 0 cT

LU En 4- 0. 4-e C Q

-4J4 41 0 Lu 0 0 0 .

V0~ 010 <

u . e 410 4-'1. M if

(0 Lf% L- 0.- 0.. 0. L E %- W 'u. (A En CLE EQ0 :3 Of

0.CL c :0. :1 3C <~

en -0 too A2 0ne eDM

100 L-X *- ec Ln = X: F-L. 'w <C C)

29
This is shown by the fact that this program requires the trainee- to complete many more practical exercises related tc the instruction for this

training phase than are required in the other programs observed.

Familiarization Firing. In all of the programs this phase is integrated

with another phase of training. The particular phase with which it is integrated Is program dependent. In the Fort Dix and Fort Knox programs, It is

conducted as the first part of Battlesight Zero firing. In the Fort Jackson

program it is integrated into the Preliminary Rifle Instruction phase, while

in the Fort Leonard Wood phase it is integrated into the Pre-Battlesight

Zero Firing phase. In all cases it constitutes the first firing that any

of the trainees complete and is conducted against 25 meter zero targets.

This phbse involves only a firing exercise. The number of rounds

fired and the positions from which these rounds are fired vary across the

program as shown in Table 9. In the Fort Jackson and Fort Knox programs,

no assessment is made of the results of these findings. In the Fort Dix

and Fort Leonard Wood programs, however, assistant instructor personnel inspect the results of the familiarization firings and make "bold" sight adjustments if the shot groups appear (in their judgement) to be "sufficiently"

compact. The idea behind this phase is that the trainee may come Into the

BRM program with some inherent fear of firing a weapon. By letting him

fire the weapon early in training, he is allowed to see that the weapon will

not "hurt" him. It is assumed that if the trainee finds this to be the case,

his inherent fears will be reduced. As a consequence, he will be more

receptive to the training he receives after the firing.

30
Table 9

ROUNDS FIRED AND POSITIONS FROM WHICH FIRINGS ARE CONDUCTED

BRM Program Rounds Fired Positions

Fort Leonard Wood 9 Prone Supported

Fort Jackson 3 Standing

Fort Dix 10 Prone Supported

Fort Knox 6 Prone Supported
Pre-Battlesight Zero Firing. This phase of training is conducted in

two of the four programs observed: the Fort Jackson and the Fort Leonard

Wood programs. In both programs the purpose of the pliase Is to provide

trainees with an opportunity to achieve compact shot groups prior to attemps to achieve a battlesight zero. Irn the Fort Jackson program this

phase is conducted as a single unit, while in the Fort Leonard Wood program it and the Familiarization Firing phase are Integrated.

In the Fort Jackson program the trainees as a company receive a lec-,

ture addressing the topics of sight alignment, shat group analysis, sight

changes, and rifle steady hold factor prior to a firing exercise. During

the lecture the instructor, uses a metal board made up to look like a 25

meter zero target and a set of three magnetic dots to Illustrate the concept of shot groups and to present a discussion of shot group analysis. He

also uses a chart showing the effect of incorrect sight alignment on the trajectory of a round after it has been fired from the rifle. Following the

lecture, a demonstration is given to the trainees showing them the proper

way to assume the foxhole firing position. Following this lecture, the

trainees go to the firing line in pairs and fire 9 rounds in three, three

round groups from the foxhole position. At the firing line, one member of

each trainee pair fires while the other watches the firer. The man watchIng the firer is supposed to tell the firer when he is not employing the

proper technique of fire. Based on the results of the firing, the "best"

and "worst" firers are Identified and assigned to groups for the battlesight zero firing that occurs in the next phase of their instruction. in

addition, the assistant instructors who monitor the firing are supposed to

32
identify trainees who are not properly assuming the firing position and

correct such errors. They are also supposed to evaluate the shot groups

fired by the trainees and for dispersed shot groups determine w~ht aspect

of the trainee's firing technique is being incorrectly performed.

In the Fort Leonard Wood program this phase is integrated with

familiarization firing. Prior to the familiarization firlng/pre-battlesight zero firing exercise, the trainees reclevo as a company group a

lecture covering the rifle steady hold factors, shot group analysis and the

Imp,-.rtance of correct sight alignment for achieving tight shot groups and

hitting distant targets. During this lecture, the trainees are talked

through the rifle steady hold factors. In addition, they are encouraged

to refer to a booklet issued to them earlier that summarizes rifle marksmanship fundamentals. It should be noted that the Fort Leonard Wood program is unique in this respect. It is the only program that provides the

trainee with written guidance summarizing the fundamentals of rif;e marksmanship.

Following the lecture, the trainees move to the firing line with only

one man on the line at a t~me. The trainee fires his nine familiarization

rounds. Next, he fires a six round and then a three roun shot group. While

firing, assistant instructors observe his firing techniques and firing

positions, making corrections as they judge appropriate. Based on the results of these firings the assistant instructors are supposed to identify

errors in firing technique being committed by thot&e trainees who fail to

achieve tight shot groups. In those cases where trainees have very tight

shot groups, sight changes are made, These trainees are then allowed to

demonstrate that they have achieved a "zero" by firing an additional three

round shot group. 33
Battlesight Zero Firing. All of the programs Include th!s phase of

training. In the Fort leonard Wood, Fort Jackson. and Fort Knox programs

this training is conducted within a single period. in the Fort Knox program, however, It rs integrated with familiarization firing. Finally, In

the Fort •Ix program this training is spread over three periods with the

first of .hese being Integr3ted with familiarization firing.

Table 10 presents the Instructional content of these progra,.is for

this phase of training. As shown by this table there is a degree of

variability in the content addressed during the conduct of this phase across

the programs. In all of' the programs the trainees as a company receive a

lecture as the first item of training. The Instructors cover the topics

shown in Table 10 during their lectures and emploý' a variety of training

aids to help Illustrate the subject matter covered, e.g., charts are showing

a correct sigh•t picture, charts showing the effect of incorrect sight

alignment, a metal board w;th a 25 meter zero target and magnetic dots tn

illustrate shot group analysis.

Following the lecture, the trainees are organized into firing orders

and move to the firing line to initiate the achievement of a battlesighic

zero. The nature of this firing varies with each BRM program. In the Vort

Leonard Wood program the trainee fires from the prone supported positon.

He is issued up to 30 rounds and fires tlhese In three rou~nd groups. He

continues firing to achieve a "zero" (a) until he "zeroes", (b) until ammunition is no lonr.er available, or (c) until the ra.iqe is :losed. With

each three round firing, his shot group is analyzced and the likely error

34
Ix x

x

LL

00

LU

I"11

LL

0 .

~ ..i

40

00

L.a -

< 3 .. l CL C LU T) )

o 0

C: 00r 0 a - V) < ( cL < ( -E-)

435
he is committing in firing techn;que is identified. In this program, a

"ilzero" Is achieved when the three round shot group is within the four

squares around the "x" located below the 25 meter zero target aiming po~qt.

One round out of the four squares is acceptable as long as it is not Judged

to be too far out. As time is available in later periods, trainees not

"==zeroed" continue to try to achieve a "zero".

In the Fort Dix program, the trainee also fires from the prone supported position over three separate periods. He Is issued up to 36 rounds

and fires these in three round groups. He continues firing (a) until he

"lizeroes", or (b) until his 36 rounds are used up. With each firing the

shot groups are analyzed and errors in firing technique are identified by

instructor personnel. To "zero" in this program the three round shot group

must fall within a 5.2 cm which is centered on an "x" located below the 25

Mleter Zero Target himing point. If the trainee in this program fails to

zero during the time allocated, he is sent: to the Weaponeer for diagnosis

of his firing problem and remedial firing. He works on the Weaponeer until

the Weaponeer personnel are satisfied that the trainee's problems have been

corrected. Following the Weaponeer training, the trainee returns to the

range and attempts to "zero" his weapon.

In the Fort Knox program, the trainee fires from the prone supported

position. Familiarization firing is integrated with the Battlesight Zero

firing. The six familiarization rounds are fired first. Next, he fires

12 rounds in three round groups (a) until he "2.eroes" or (b) until his

rounds are all expended. Each shot. group is analyzed and likely errors

- 36
in firing technique identified bý an Instructor. If he fails to zero he

is pulled i:rom the firing line for remedial training. 'rho. nature and conduct of th;s training is left up to the company cadre. Following this

training, :,he trainee returns to the firing line and may expend up to 30

more roundi; to achieve a "zero". If the trainee Is unable to zero after

firing the additional ?,0 rounds, he Is provided an opportunity to contin~ue

zeroing in the next period of Instruction in this program. The same zero

criteria are applied In this program as are applied in the Fort Dix program.

Finally, in the Fort Jackson program, the trainee fires his rounds for

zeroing from the foxhole position. This Is in contrast to the other programs where the "zero" Is achieved from the prone supported position. Initially, the trainees in this program are issued 18 rounds. These are fired

in three round groups. With each firing, shot groups are analyzed and

likely errors in firing technique are noted by instructor personnel. If a

"zero" is not achieved after firing the 18 rounds, the: trainee Is pulled

from the firing line and sent to a remedial training class put on by the

BRM committee cadre. Following the remedial activities, the trainee is returned to the firing line and issued an additional 18 rounds. These are

fired until he zeroes or until his ammunition is used. up. If after this

firing, the trainee still has not zeroed, he is given personal attention by

an Instructor and firing continues (a) until he zeroes, (b) the range is

closed, or (c) until the company returns to its area. In this program, the criteria for zeroing are the same as for the Fort Dix and Fort

Knox programs.

37
Position FirLng. Three of the programs surveyed (Fort Leonard Wood,

Fort Jackson, and Fort Knox) Include a position firing phase. The timing

and purpose of this phase are program dependent. In the Fort Knox program

position firing and remedial battlesight zero firing are Integrated into a

single period which is conducted after the battlesight zero phase is completed. During this period position firing is conducted against 25 meter

targets. Prior to the firing exercise the trainees as a group receive a

lecture and a demonstration designed to teach them the firing positions for

the exercise. Stoppages and immdiate action are also reviewed during the

lecture. The purpose of the firing is to provide the trainees with an opportunity to engage 25 meter zero targets from a variety of positions, i.e.,

kneeling supported, kneeling unsupported, prone supported, foxhole, and

standing. Nine rounds are fired from each position. The results of the

firings are not score~d and no diagnosis or remediation activities are employed based on the firing results ( shot group patterns).

in contrast to the Fort Knox program, position firing in the Fort

Leonard Wood and Fort Jackson programs takes place following Record Firing.

Position firing in tne Fort Leonard Wood program.takes place In a single

period, while In the. Fort Jackson program this firing is integrated Into

the Automatic Rifle Firing period. The Fort Leonard Wood program requires

trainees to fire a total of 26 rounds at E-type silhouette targets while

wearing protective nasks. aoth the kneeling unsupported and prone bipod

supported position are employed during the firing. A lecture and demonstration of: these po!;itions preceeds the firing exercise. The purpose of

the firing is to familiarize the trainee with

38
firing the rifle while wearing the protective mask. The exercise is not

scored. For these reasons, no diagnostics or remedial activities are employed to Identify and correct trainee firing difficulties.

Finally, in the Fort Jackson program, position firing is conducted

following automatic rifle fire Instruction. This firing is conducted from

the kneeling supported and kneeling unsupported positions (nine rounds for

each position) againsL 75 and 175 meter targets. Prior to the firing

exercise, the trainees as a group receive a lecture and demonstration of

these positions. The purpose of the exercise is to familiarize the trainee

with firing the rifle from the two kneeling positions. Further, as was

true for the other programs, the exercise Is not scored and further remediation activities are not employed.

In all cases, this phase appears to serve as a means of familiarizing

the trainee with firing the rifle from positions not employed for the most

part during the rest of training. No emphasis is placed on firing excellence

(number of hits or size of the shot group achieved) or on the identification

and correction of firing difficulties that occur when the firing is conducted.

Battlesight Zero Firing - Remedial. Only two of the programs (Fort

Jackson and Fort Knox) surveyed explicitly provide for this training phase.

In both programs this phase is integrated with at least one other phase.

All trainees who do not achieve a battlesight zero during the time allocated for this task receive this training.

39

" ' -- m" • • • " |t' ' •= - ' • -• • - I M . . -• • • iF,•: '• k• *rm m • • , 
The trainees desinliated for this activity first receive a lecture

reviewing the previuus instruction for rifle marksmanship fundamentals

(sight alignment, aiming point placement, rifle steady hold factors).

The lecturer employs the training aids (charts and devices) used previously to support instruction in the fundamentals. Following the lecture, the trainees move to the firing line and begin firing three round

shot groups at 25 meter zero targets. As a trainee zeroes he is removed

from the firing line and sent to the main body of trainees. Here he Is

Integrated into the training that the main body of trainees Is receiving.

Once all of the trainees completing the remedial zero phase have zeroed,

the Instructors police up the range, clear it , and return to the main

training area.

Transition Firing. Three of the four programs surveyed provide for

transition firing. In the Fort Jackson and Fort Knox programs transition

firing is integrated with other training, while in the Fort Dix program

trainsition firing is conducted as a separate period of instruction. In

all of the programs, 'the purpose of this phase Is to provide a "bridge"

between the firing conducted in the 25 meter range and the firing to be

conducted on the field firing ranges. The rounds fired, the positions

employed and the target-to-firer distance3 for this phase ave pprogram dependent (see Table 11).

In the Fort Jackson program, transition firing is integrated into the

first field target engagement exercise. It is not presented to the trainees

as transition firing, but rather a part of the overall firing exercise.

Prior to the firing exercise, the trainees receive a lecture

w40
1)4 

4)

Lo0

LA-)

z 

0

Aj 00

za U. 

C

-O 

0

to to 4)

L. 41

o~t m~.

uin

LII 41,0

Ul

o 4.)

I- -r r-r%07 -- *0 

S 4) CL 414

12 L.

to 

t

0 4.0

-0 0 0%-I

L 

L

4)4 go >-

V)) 0 0L L4. 1ý 4 

ILcE u~

Lo -0

LU 0) 00) 0 L 4)

Q- U-0 a0 x 

r

OC 4o
on aiming point placement and the adjustment of the, aiming point. Charts

and other aids are not employed to assist in getting across the teaching

point of the exercise. Following this lecture, the trainees move to the

firing line for a firing exercise. Transition Firing is conducted frorn

three positions (foxhole, prone supported, and prone unsupported) in the

following manner: The trainee assumes his firing position and single

field fire targets are raised: Two 25 meter targets, two 175 meter targets and three 300 meter targets. The trainees are given an unlimited

amount of time to engage these. The first target at a given range is

fired on. Based on whether a hit or a miss is achieved, and whether the

trainee Is able to "sense" where his round went, the trainee is supposed

to adjust his aiming point and fire at the next target at that range. Once

this exercise Is completed, a series of field fire targets (with time limits)

are engaged.

In the Fort Knox program, transition firing is also conducted during

the same time frame as the first field target engagement exercise. However,

it is conducted as a separate exercise. Prior to firing, the trainees receive a lecture on aiming point placement and aiming point adjustment. The

lecturer uses E- and F-type silhouette targets to assist in getting the

teaching point of the lecture across to the trainees. Following the Tecture, the trainees move to the firing line on a Field Fire range. Each man

firing has a man sitting to his rear to spot rounds as they are fired. Because of the Field Fire range design, spotters are only able to spot rounds

that fall too short. Rounds that are fired too high or to the left or right

of the target are not readily observable by the spotter. For these reasons,

42
there Is some question about the value of the sipotters.

Depending un the in;Li'UcLoi personnel at the range, trainees either

fire at just 175 meter targets or at 75, 175, and 300 meter targets. Once

this exercise Is completed, the trainees then fire their first Field Target Engagement exercise. During the firing, the trainees are supposed to

adjust their aiming point so that the likelihood of target hits is maxi-

,nized. Trainees who have problems hitting targets are not necessarily

identified. No special activities to help the trainee are employed in

this phase.

Finally, in the Fort Dlx program, transition firing is conducted as

a single unitary phase. Trainees receive a lecture covering aiming point

placement and adjustment. Also rifle marksmanship fundamentals are reviewed. Charts and aids are not employed during this lecture. Then from

the prone unsupported position they fire 18 rounds at 175 meter targets

(if conducted on a Field Fire range) or at 200 yard targets (if conducted

on a Known Distance Range). The first' six rounds are considered practice

rounds. The next 12 are for scoring. The trainees are encouraged to hit

7 out of these 12 rounds. If, however, this cri'terion is not achieved, no

diagnositcs or remediation activities are employed to improve the traineelt3

hit capability.

Field Target Engagement. All of the programs surveyed provide for

some type of field target engagement training. As shown by Tables 12, 13,

and 14, the exact nature of the training is program dependent. In general,

the purpose of this phase is to tcach the rules for engaging both single

and multiple target configurations at near (75 meter), miedium (175 meter)

43
00

0 4-' 4-' 00 %-0 o 0 

I~ --. %00. CO0 N -W zr 0 - 0 '.. m ev- Lr% IN- - -

C3C

> 0

CA CL ) U) 0

41 0

w - W 0- nU r

0 40-

4-' 0~0 0)

In

an 00

0%) 41U1t) 

U) U) CL I

Z 04-a)- 0 M.

0- .0).

-I.0 0)4

L - L)U

U) 4-i C

0 0 

U3 00

0 -

(0 CL 0.-O . ~ 5 I 0 C

L- -4-

0 0.0

0.0

4-1 -0 

tLn

L- t- L *0 

.2 4n-'

41- 00X

=n Ci tm cm0 0

L) 00. )0 ti 

0C -V U- 0.)a)- 'aC

As u 4 1-0.)41m, 0 r ~C 0 0 C - 4.

a. -- xVf - C U)3

L. 0 at 0- o 0 : C C4

Ci V4' ) 0- L.. 0C) 0j-- !M.C 0) 

o *-C-4' U)( 0 E-C

:3 0t n 0a.~ COL Lc.

0 ol- U)0

Z~ 4- 0 0

44
C1: .--- s- 000 co~~ 

oD% -. ,c m% f ! -T

'Cn

ui Ia. ~0c

&Z 0

0

>- 0

ui 0

ceo

0. 41 0J r41 41 III ( I4 Il

LJ)I 4 4) .11 G * J 4. )(

L- ca a)~ r L - ()1 )L

I-L - -ý L - L -ý

En, Wn U) 4) 0) - En1;1-

;i I- - v -) 1 - 4) m - 4) al a)4 4)

I C- ICb c0 L. c 0 L c -. LD i L.I- u0

0- 0 -I~~~- 4) -I- X) -I-4-I- ) --

00

CL L 4

oX 4) V) 0D C.

0. Ln.

CnC

>: 0i 0 W 0U

0'- I. IU- 0L 0Ln2

45
d

0- C CO

4J0 0 CO Co oGo c

x

X € 0

- -i 

4.5 4,-

US~

0 4

.• i~u

-- I 0 0 UI

na V4

L .

-2 0..

Ui US m •n

_r U.1 W

I-- L _ 

W USU

- 20

USI

t0

Z33

4~46

LuL

o 0

0 4-.

US ICO,

0

L

Cv)

0

00 0 C)

4.J 41. 41' V)

0E E E 1 2

46
and long (300 hiet&r) target distanzes. Lectures proceed firing exercises.

During the lectures, the trainees are given guidance about aiming point

plazement and alm;ng point adjustment. The nature of the exercise to be

fHred is explained aýong with the range arod safety considerations for the

exercise. Fer the ,m•ost part few or no training aids (charts, mock-ups)

are employed to suapcr• these lectures. Following the lecture, the trainees

move to the firing line and comp!ete a firing exercise.

For the firing exercises, the total number of hits out of the total

rounds fired Is the measure used to index trainee firing proficiency. In

no Instance was it observed that !nstructor personnel Inspected trainee

firing records to discover what types of target situations were associated

with low trainee hit rates. Further, as shown in Tables 13 and 14, the

specific target exercises fired in each program vary considerably from

program to program. Also, it was found that there is considerable variability in the way the results of the firing exercises are employed by the "

instructor personnel to diagnose individual trainee firing problems for correction. This is summarized in Table 15.

Practice Record Fire. This phase Is included in all of the progranis

surveyed. The details of the training vary from program to programr. In

general though, a similar procedure Is employed across programs: The trainees

arrive at the firing range designated for this phase. In the Fort Jackson

program this is a computer controlled range, while in the other programs it

is a Record Fire Range. Nex., as a group they receive a lecture which addresses the conduct of the practice record fire exercise and rTnge procedures.

47
4A IAAI

4) i)

'I U

£-" EJ.4

o li C .LC 0

x w £44 1 CL.

T 1 , A 44U~ i ~ .

LI or.*

'4 ue ~ ~ - ..l 4

0.~

P 0- :z -

.0 w. m-. C to v

4- v.C 0 4 V

L 101 41

.. ~ 0 - 41£ 

0i ±Euf. 444- 

41 -~~ £1 3 4 1 .- 0 13

LL 0 M. 0 U04- 10 1 'I0

44 41 4:,j %

I9L

2u.

14I0
i-n additlon1 , a rev Iew is provided that covers single and muldtiple tarc-pt

apr-4p9--ment, and a mi nq point ýparmýncnt. Few or no tradinl;g aids are employe to su~pport th Is lecture. Next, the 'trainees report to the firing

line and 7ire the practice Ilxercise. The exerc~se is designed to be

iimilar to he .iud 'Iffi cati'On Record Fi1ro exerciso that is fired'in the

next-pb~ge of all p#¶ogroms. Thtis,. the purposeý of this phase is to prkipare

th* tv-alInesfor Record'Firing.

Tables 16, and 17' SUMMar;,e the Practice Record Fire exercise for the

four pre~prams surveyed. For all but. the Fort- Knox program, the exercises

ýare very Simillar In terms of the positions from which firing Is conducted,

the types of targets fired at, and the distribution of rounds across ta*rget--to-observar distances. The Fort Knox program, in contrast", employs both

a prone mo~ve out phase and a standing hasty aimed fire pha~e. This results

in a distribution of rounds by distance that is somewhat different from the

other programs. In all cases the measure of trainee firing effectivenass, Is

the total oiurber of hits zichieved during the exercise. The use of the firing

results for diagnostic and remediation, however, varies across the programs.

This is shown in Table 18.

25 Meter CorrectiveF~re. Ail but tOe Fort Jackson program provide for

25 meter corrective firing. In the Fort Dix cnd Fort Leonard Wood programs,

this Is conducted using the Weapoioeer Facility. The Fort Kr~ox program, which

does not have an available Weaponeer, conducts this training in the field.

Trhe purpose of this phase is to identify and correct the firing technique of

trainees that have not scored at minimum acc~eptable levels up to the point in

the program where this phase occurs (see Figure 1)

49
J00

I e'

uco w

IC6

to u

In.0

-- Vt 41 0 .$

LU.

4) tv

II): 0 0) c 0

0~ 41'

LL. 0

C.-

Im J 4.) C"4' .6-'

4.'0)0 L- 0)UU

U CO C L :cQ0

50
VL LA NO UN %D '~

e 4JJ 0U

0m

L.nr K

U. C3

m w. % - % 1.L

ui I=

0

u~4J

0>0

UN C) l C

.0% c%(D 0 U'

-oCl

1.51
4.

II..

Vb

4. 4'a

1.0 R a

us. 0

31L

d- ?A4 4j - o 41 It

V± V C. 

* I'A

00

4o a

I~i I7

52'
For the Weaponeer supported corrective fire, trairees are sent tc the

Weaponeer facility. Here, under the guidance of the facilltly's personnel

they fire and errors In firing technique are diagnosed. Once firing technique problems have been Isolated, the trainees continue to fire on the

Weaponeer until the problems have been corrected. Training in this case Is

on a one-to-one basis.

* For the Fort Knox program, the trainees receive a brief lecture on the

fundamentals of firing and then move to the firing line to attempt to zero

their weapon. On-the-spot corrections are provided with the firing continuing

until the '-nstructor personnel are satisfied that deficiencies In firing

technique have been corrected.

DayRecord Fire Evaluation. In all of the programs this phase is used

to evaluate the daylight marksmanship proficiency of the trainees. If a

satisfactory firing score is achieved during this phase, the trainee qualifies

and may continue with his basic training. If he doesn't, he is likely to be

recycled. The conduct of this phase Is for the most part the same in all of

the programs. The trainees assemble on a Record Fire range and receive a lecture, they move to the firing line and complete the Record Fire firing exercise. For the programs surveyed, this exercise Is summarized In Tables 19

and 20.

As shown in Tables 19 and 20, the exercises for all but the Fort Knox

program are very similar in terms of the totel rounds fired (40), the positions these are fired from (foxhole and prone unsupported) and the distribution of these rounds across the target-to-firer distances employed for

the exercise. In contrast, trainees in the Fort Knox program fire 80

53
U4 C4 C)

44-0

IL

LU O

z L

L6~

LL..

10

2L

u a

LL. Au

) L. " 0) S * -

t- I-4..'L

w &. 0

LL..

FL -

a: En

0 0.L- b Q.4.O 'n i V -

a:~~ 4) IC WIa Ia)

4) 0) 0 0) ) LU 1.. ~~CO ,O O EU *~~~-3. -. -.

La54
10,

00 0

'ajJ% -ý " - P- Co.V

.j. I. V % f^ Go LA N%

a

S. U% co UNc

LA a 0r Lfl N

T -

o v

z 12 ~i r.. 0 II-.s
rounds from not only the foxhole and prone unsupported positions, but

also from the prone position in a "move-out" mode and from the standing

position using 1:he hasty aimed fire technique. The distribution of rounds

across target-to-firer distancei is, however, similar to that for the other

programs. Scor~ng in all programs Is In terms of the total number of hits

achieved during firinr, Table 20 presents the qualificatlon requirements

for the four programs and the number of target hits this translates into

for the traines. It should be o6served that the requirements for qualification are higher at all levels in the Fort Knox porgram than in the other

programs. Finally, comparing the minimum required target hits (from Table

21) with the, cumulative hits over target-to-firer distance (from Table 20)

shows that in all of the programs trainees need only to engage and hit all

of the targets appearing out to about 150 meters to be able to qualify at

the minimum level. That ;s to jus;t qualify in any of the programs, a

trainee can adopt the strategy: Fire only at targets at ranges of 150

meters or less and use rounds allocated for more distant targets to engage

any 150 meter (or less) targats that were missed on a first engagement.

56
0A T

N IAt c0ý 

to p

I.-.

KUin.

4.r4

- N N

cc

0 L

100

00 0

- 0 ' '. N 

(.4~L *.CU0

OLN 0 0

t.L .1 -11 06

ac

L~ ei 06

CC

.57
Automatic Rifle and Night Rifle Firing. All of the programs provide

for these training phases. The purpose of the training is to familiarize the

trainee in the use of his weapon in the automatic mode and under conditions

of dark when visibilities are limited, i.e., not as great as during a clear,

sunshiny day. There is no requirement placed on the trainee to develop

weapon proficiency in either the automatic mode or under conditions of darkness,

In the programs surveyed, those phases are conducted back-to-back with

the automatic rifle firing phase coming before the night phase. The general

procedure for this training is to have the trainees report to a range designated for the training (either a field fire or a night fire range). A lecture is presented on the use of the rifle in the automatic mode. The details of and use of training aids for the lecture were found to vary with

the program (see Table 22). Next, the trainees fire an exercise with the

rifle in the automatic mode. The details of the exercise were also found to

vary with the program (see Table 23).

Once the automatic rifle training is completed, the trainees take a

break until darkness has fallen. When It is judged to be sufficiently dark,

the trainees receive a lecture on the use of the rifle at night. The details of this lecture vary with the program (see Table 24). With the exception of the Fort Jackson program, following the lecture, the trainees

complete a firing exercise under conditions of darkness (see Table 25). In

the Fort Jackson program, just prior to dark, the trainees complete a practice exercise for night firing. Then, after dark they complete the night

exercise. Once this is finished, the trainees leave the range ani their

58

L Mý%MMAJMJXV-ý
41 0 Ji a

10,,

C44

*1.1

I--

LA.2

(.1 1

El Z

r 0

0 c1

cll.

0 0

Li V7

59.
6 40

m *0) L

S41' 41 41 44

ca41 41h $ 41.

I.- 0 m 0 0 0

I0 0-0 t 0 

CL.

C14 C3 0 0.0

I- t-r 1-t

c- CL L9O

CLL)

0"

LL

C920

or

0. 0 Ut 0nO

- 4-'CC

0 *-*0

I LLo L. 1

- 00
*I I-I

0

4.h4

- ILCL I.

0

00

w 0

41-

00

CAC

00

-~J 0

0 7 --

W W 0. Z ý -

8i x

- 0 -o

zz

o 61
4t 1

w I i

06 0L 06 06@3

41 4-a 41

4.JIA1 0 - 41 .01 41

L. 41 41 ,

4- 4 0. 0.4 4- r

LU

F- 4J .J 4.

C) I 0A 

22 2r c

IN LL 4.01

0 -

00

-j

In)

Z 04

S I

LI) 0) uA U

00

-l I- C.3- .-

0~ 00 4

Nc LLn0 X

o U.. 0 62 L. L 
rIl'e marksmanship training is completed. It should be noted that the r,-

suits of the firings In the automatic mode and under conditions of night do>

not contribute 'tc their overall rifle marksmanship qualification. The only

requirement with respect to these phases is that the trainee complete them.

Target Detect'orn. WVile all of thq programs surveyed m.ke provisions

for activities labeled "target detection" tra;ntng, the exact natute And

content of this training varies across the programs. This Is shown in Table

26 which summarizes the conteot of this training across the four prograums.

For the most part, this train'ng ii oriented towards ground activities Involved In the detection and/or range estimation pruce~s. In the Fort Knox

program, two types of target detection training are conducted - one for

ground activities and one for aerial detection and engagement.

Generally, the conduct of the training involves a lecture or series of

lectures. Following the lecture porticr of the trairing, a practical exercise is conducted which is supposed to allow for the application Uf the subject matter covered in the lecture. in practice, it was observed that these

exercises where primarily demonstrations with insufficient time for any Substantial learning on the part of the trainee. If the time and comprehensiveness of this training could be significantly expanded, however, particularly

in terms of practical exercises, it is likely that the trainees would be

much better prepared to per-form target detection tasks, than they are now

following this training.

TRAINING AIDS

Charts, equipment nock-ups, equipment mndels, and items of equipmert

61
XJ X

4)1

~c

u 0 a c-0 IA

".2 0 U W4 L - C

%O !:0 e

0- 0Q- a > C

0 0 00 C

0 Lna UC

2 64
U.1-

tx

0.. c

0

X

04.

eL

c x

0

L,

o

UU

4.5)

cj 41 L

(0 0 m (J C

L.., . L. ,

CL

65

I-, •I :

. 6-
designed to support practical exercises comprise the set of aids used

In BRM training. Table 27 lists the aids used In the BRM programs surveyed according to the phase In which they are employed. The aids that

were found in use appeared to be typical for a marksmanship program. Nothing unusual or different was observed In this area. In general, it was

found that all types of aids are used extensively In the early phases o.'

training and less frequently in the latter stages.

66
166

61V a.

4A, . '41

ac. U404

La.j

a4 u

LL, L.L. 0' L& C .

IlA

L 41

0~~L C . '

0 VS~ ~' a.0 U)

- 4

0 -

67'
1 41 

0 4:

C-4 v

0 0

m0 0. 0. 

-) Gm. 41 u 41 6j b. 41T 

41 3 . 5 t.

U Ur~CUI *.~us

41 - I 405 .E VS .- O

41 j -1 b 'No'.~ 

-~ i ~ -~ 

N ~ a.~0

Sb68
C4J

06f

LOU

U. 2 U. 1 "-1mw

4*1

1.9

L.c

-~~ Uln ~ 1 05

CL5

152 ZI-2

ot lu"

0 .t.4.

*1 '1

U) 15 0

0I0

.0.

069
Lit

M U

a 41 U

4- m

zt Sb 0 L16

en EU ~. EQ ~ .. C P~~t I- a ..

4) Intl. i

Li

IAw 

0 L.

4) c

I.n

I. IL N c

700
00

UUIl

U

a~ c is

CcC

u 0~

0) WIUd. vi I c01C 3 1

- .4 t.c -

C 

41 w 0 C 0>

~~0

I71
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

During the course of a training program, two types of evaluatlo;'-

may be employed to assess trainee performance and progress: formal crnd

informal evaluations. Formal evaluations are those tests or exercises

conducted to determine If the trainee Is able to meet specific, predetermined goals or objectives. In these evaluations, objective mea!,Lres

of performances are collected and assessed to determine whether a gien

level of excellence has been achieved, Informal evaluations are those

conducted by instructor personnel, to determine if the trainee is performing up to the instructor's expectations. In these cases the in!;ti-uctor generally observes without collecting any data. Such evaluatircrs are

subjective with their value dependent on the intuitive skills of 1;he instructor and the extent to which he is knowledgeable In the subject matter

of the training program. In the BRM programs surveyed, both formal and

informal evaluations were found to be integral parts of the trainiig process.

Formal Evaluations. During marksmanship training, the firing exercise

is the only formal evaluation employed to assess.the deveiopment of trainee

firing proficiency. Three types of firing exercises are employed:

o 25 Meter exercises

o Field Fire exercises

o the Practice Record Fire exercise.

For the most part, 25 meter exercises are designed to teach the trainee

to consistently fire tig'it shot groups from designated firing positions. The

72
measure of performance in these cases Is the degree of physical closeness

of (usually) three round shot groups. For selected of these exercises,

trainees are also required to achieve i, battlesight zero. Ability to

zero is measured by whether the trainee can fire three successive rounds

at the 25 meter zero target so that thtse rounds fall within a 5.2 cm

circle having a center located 2.4 cm below the aimih'g point. (see Figure

3). To complete training, all trainees are supposed to zero their weapons. If this can not be accomplished during the time alloted, additional

time is usually taken at either scheduled or unscheduled points during

training. In some instances, trainees recaive remedial training prior to

a second or third attempt to zero.

Field Firing exercises and the Practice Record Fire are designed to

teach the trainee the skills necessary for achinving high target hit rates

when engaging specified numbers of successively presented targets. For

Field Fire exercises targets arc presented it three ranges: 75, 175, and

300 meters. For the Practice Record Fire Exercise, targets are presented

at six ranges: 50, 100, 150, 200, 250, and 300 meters. The measure of performance in these exercises is the hit rate, i.e., number of hits achieved

out of the number of opportunities to score a hit. As a practical matter,

hit rate is seldom computed. Instead only the number of hits achieved is

counted and evaluated. These hit scores are evaluated by instructor personnel who compare obtained scores with pre-established 1:raining standards.

What is done with the results of the evaluation is solel) a function cf the

particular BRM program.

73
•M 6

II

NOT I. TWO CLICKS UP lLt VAT 100 OR W.INDAGE WILL MOVIE TH I STRIKE OP THE 1ILLLET OME SQUARE ON4 THIS TARit.11

Fiqure 3. 25 Meter ;:ero target.

"AI74
Informal Evaluations. Instructor personnel informally evaluate trainee

performance in a non-systematic way during training. These evaluations are

generally limited to the trainee who is obviously doing something wrong (assuining an incorrect firing position) or who Is unable to Ferform a particular

practical exercise to standard (the trainee consistently misses all targets

presented to him). In these cases the instructor observes the trainee and

makes suggestions to him that will hopefully serve to correct problems.

These evaluations are highly subjective. Further, because of the Instructor's limited experience, It frequently happens that the trainee Is unable

to profit from the evaluation. Further, It was frequently the case that the

instructor was unsure of what would correct a trainee's performance problem.

In these cases "pat'" directions (e.g., "try harcer") were given to the

trainee, which appeared to do little or nothing to help the trainee. Significant improvement could be achieved in this area if the instructors were

better able to diagnosis and remediate problems of firing technique.

DIAGNOSTIC PROCEDURES AND REMEDIATION ACTIVITIES

Diagnostic procedures are designed to discover why a trainee is having

difficulty completing a particular task. Remediation activities are designed

to help the trainee correct those aspects of his performance, that are contributing to poor or unacceptable task performance. In the BRM training

programs surveyed for this report it was found that the use of diagnostics

and remediation activities was poorly developed and limited in scope. For

the most part, diagnosis of firing difficulties was found to be in the hands

of the instructor personnel at the firing lines. It was genera\ly observedi

that these instructors ý;ere ofte;n unsure as to whet aspect of a tr,;inee's

75
firing technique was creating a firing problem, i.e., a failure to zero In

the Battlesight Zero phase or a failure to achieve high hit rates In the

Field Target Engagement phases. In these cases, the Instructors tended to

encourage the trainee to try different corrections In ffring technique

until sonimthing worked.

At those lns~allations having a Weaponeer facility (Fort Dlx and Fort

Leonard Wood) a somewhat different approach was found to be in use. In

th'Tse programs, trainees having a problem (inability to achieve a battlesight

zero or failing to hit field targets with a degree of consistency) are frequently sent to this facility for diagnosis and remedlation.

In general, though, the lack of planned diagnosis and remedlation was

found to be a major limitation of current BRM training. It is likely the

inclusion of easily applied diagnostic procedures would significantly aid

the instructor in providing assistance to the trainee having marksmanship

problems. Further, by including a variety of specific remediation acitivities

to solving specific firing problems, it is likely instructors would be in

a better position to help the trainee having a firing problem.

TRAINING MATERIALS

One goal of the BRM training survey was to determine what types of

written materials were made available to the trainee during the marksmanship training proceass. It was disccvered that only two programs (Fort

Jackson and Fort Leonard Wood) distributed written materials to trainees.

At the beginning of the Fort Jackson program trainees are issued the

SMART Book which contains a section on M16 Mechanical traiting. Nottling,

76
however, Is included In this pamphlet that addresses rifle marksmanship

fundamentals or field firing. Thus, the usefulness of this material is

limited to only a small part of marksmanship training.

The materials Issued to the trainees in the Fort Leonard Wood program,

however, have much more relevance to the training process. There is a "fact

sheet" of the M16 rifle (general data, operational characteristics, and

definitions of selected marksmanship terms) and the BRM booklet. The "fact

sheet" provides a summary of general Information presented during the

Mechanical Training phase. The BRM booklet, on the other hand, Is used as

an aid in much of the BRM instructional process, particularly fundamentals

training. It addresses the following subject matter areas:

"o Rifle Steady Hold Factors

"o Basic firing positions

"o the BRASS acronym

"o Shot group analysis

"o Correct sight picture

"o Sight alignment errors and their effect.

During fundamentals training, as the instructor lectures on sel.ýcted topics

in the bookiet, the trainees follow# the major points of the lecture In their

booklet. This is viewed as a valuable aid because it not only puts down in

writing what is being lectured on, but it also serves as a readily available

reference for the trainee when he has a problem or a question on marksmanship fundamentals.

77
CONCLUSIONS

The objective of the marksmanship survey was to update the existing

information base for 8RM training. It was hoped that in the diversity

of the programs surveyed, Ideas and Improvements could be identified that

would be appropriate for Inclusion in a new BRM program. The results of

the survey, as discussed in the previous sections, show that current BRM

training is doing little that is new or Innovative. The results, however,

point to a number of areas where Improvements are likely to result in a

better trained marksman. These are:

"o Improvement in the process of instruction,

"o Improvement in the knowledge of the instructor staff,

both at the company and committee level,

"o Increased use of diagnostics and remediation activities,

"o Improvement in the measurement and eva'uation process

during training,

"o Improved quality control of the complete BRM training

process.

It is suggested that if attention is paid to these areas in future

BPM training development that a significant improveatent will accrue in

the quality of the marksmen produced during basic training in the U. S.

Army.

78
BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Department of the Army, Ana-ly.... InIng effectiveness (T!ADOC--

PAM 71-8). Washington, D.C.: Authort-December 1975.

2. Maxey, J. and George, J. Analysis of M16AI basic rifle marksmanship (Task Report). Fort Benning, GA: Mellonics Systems Development

Division, December 1977.

79