Is there a correlation between 2A and military marksmanship?

[jamesjames]

I've wondered if there's a correlation between recruits who grew up learning to shoot and better performance as as riflemen in the military? If "a well regulated militia" carries the meaning of individual citizens practiced in the art of the rifle (forgive me Jeff Cooper), is the infantry made up with more people who possess previous marksmanship experience? Has the military (or anyone else) surveyed their ranks to see how many have previous shooting experience? Are American military better shots than members of other nation's armed forces where private gun ownership is banned or severely limited?

My hope is that previous shooting experience translates into better marksmanship, which would tend to prove the value of 2A to national security.

 

[Bigdog57]

"2A" has no definition for me. Yes, I know what is intended for it's meaning, but it's an undefined combination of a number and a letter.
Now, as to the "Second Amendment", and the idea of familiarity with firearms growing up, then going into the military, YES. I saw this in both USAF bootcamp during wetfire on the range with the M-16 in my first hitch, and later during my Navy daze (second hitch) on shipboard security detail with the M-14. Those of us who grew up shooting and hunting did consistently better than the total newbies from the big cities with zero gun experience. We 'country bumpkins' all made high scores, the newbies did not. At that time, I did not care for peep sights - now I love them. I was never infantry, but I could certainly appreciate a good idea once I had some experience with it.

 

[LoneGoose]

The name Alvin York comes to mind.

 

[X-Rap]

I would say that as a group you could expect better all around marksmanship from a group of American Military shooters who grew up using firearms than the same group of foreign troops who did not, if they also grew up with hunting and wood craft I'd say you might have an even better suited group.
That's not to say that those things can't be taught and they are.

 

[Averageman]

As a guy who trained more than a few while in the Military, I would say it depends.
I know that's not the answer you're looking for but it is the truth.

If you had a new soldier with the basics of safety you were thankful.
If you had a new soldier that has some, but bad training it could be frustrating.
If you had a new soldier that had participated in an NRA Marksmanship training course, Appleseed or actually competed, you might have a competent Marksman.

It was very individual to each Soldier and to be honest you could be a great Shooter and a not so great Soldier. As an example when I was a very young Soldier we had a very competent Marksman who couldn't maintain the Physical Training or the weight standards. It doesn't do a lot of good to have an unbalanced skill set such as that.
Also it is important to remember if the command you are in isn't a bunch of "Gun Guys' you may well have your annual ammo allotment go unused for 5.56. As an example at one point I came up with the idea for an event that stressed both physical fitness and marksmanship combined. The idea of actually moving from point A to point B with your weapon was deemed far too dangerous to do.
Clearly if you clear a weapon and are "Rodded off the Range" that M4 is as safe as a pencil. They just didn't understand or want to understand that not only was basic Marksmanship important, Marksmanship under physical stress might actually be more important than your score on the annual qualification.

 

[M-Cameron]

Honestly, ide be surprised if there was....


Most people in this country are not trained/practised shooters....

If they have any firearms experience at all they are either hunters who shoot a few rounds a year......or they are "weekend warriors" who go to the range every once and a while to have fun, but don't really "practice" at all.

Most people in america have a familiarity with guns.....but that doesn't necessarily translate to skill with a gun.....

And in all honestly, you can train someone to be familiar and competent with a firearm in a weeks time or so.

A lot of the really good shooters I've met are either

1)EXTREMEALY well practiced and have years and years of shooting experience.

2) have never shot a gun before in their lives and have a knack for it


As far as shooting in the military....I've got to imagine their shooting performance has more to do with the training they go through in the service rather than their previous experience with firearms.

 

[plexreticle]

The original idea behind the Civilian Marksmanship Program is to encourage shooting sports and training for people that may be called up for service.

My observation in the military has been; talent and coachability are the biggest factors for people learning to shoot well. Previous experience can help but, many people have picked up bad habits and poor technique so it can go either way.

 

[Nom de Forum]

I believe it does.

IIRC some historian noted that because many more Americans soldiers in WWII had prior experience operating automobiles and even mechanized farm equipment than our enemies the U.S. Army had an easier time training soldiers to use mechanized weaponry. I believe having soldiers with prior experience shooting does make it easier to train them to be good marksman. I spent quite a bit of time training soldiers to shoot but unfortunately with limited time available for each soldier. Too many other training requirements competing for training time. With more time available I think most complete novices could be trained to be as much of a marksman as most soldiers with previous experience.

 

[BaltimoreBoy]

I'll say no. Not of personal knowledge, but based on Lt. Col. John George in his book "Shots Fired in Anger" about his WWII experiences.

The truth is that there is probably a higher correlation with numbers of rural boys who hunted than with the second amendment per se.

 

[Sunray]

"...is the infantry made up with more people who possess previous marksmanship experience?..." No. Like most people, new PBI troopies have never seen a real firearm before enlisting.
However, the Second Amendment has nothing to do with it.
"...Most people in this country are not trained/practiced shooters..." And weren't before W.W. II either. The idea of "A nation of riflemen" is a myth.
"...who couldn't maintain the Physical Training..." Knew a small statured guy, a PBI Sgt. when I knew him, who told me he was only able to haul his 150ish lb. pack on exercises due to the CC in his canteen. Said everybody thought he was just a happy guy.

 

[psyopspec]

From the training I conducted, I tended to have an easier time with coachable new shooters. Reason being, given a squad-sized group of people who grew up shooting, the handful that had to unlearn bad habits made for a lower common denominator than conveying foundational basics. Especially if those bad habits were safety-related. No way would I want my soldiers shooting and moving or room clearing if I was still seeing fingers on triggers while not engaging a target. In the case of my own data point, it's the 80/20 rule in practice: 20% of previous shooters who knew enough to be dangerous taking up 80% of instructional time/resources.

 

[denton]

No hard data or direct experience, just an anecdote from a friend with significant experience....

The rural guys from the West and Southeast often seemed to make into better marksmen.

OTOH, I do have a friend who was a successful sniper in Viet Nam who had never handled a firearm until he was in the military.

So I suppose you can find stories and opinions on both sides of the issue.

I hadn't thought about the issue of experienced shooters with bad safety habits. That has to be a major issue.

 

[ironworkerwill]

If some one does something long enough, they'll eventually get good at it. Some folks catch on quicker than others.

I had the pleasure to split some of my Basic Training with females. With both genders being equal, the females seem to suffer form a lack of experience. Other " farm girls" were not intimidated in the slightest. Often times the females that had never shouldered a rifle either barely qualified or was restarted as failing to qualify. I believe all the females with experience had equaled the the majority of male soldiers.

There is always that "one guy". I don't know if he was weened with a rifle in his hand or had superior custodial training. Maybe he's never touched a rifle. Maybe it's just an innate ability, a natural shooter.

The idea is for the average Joe/Jane to become familiar with a weapon and perform to a minimum standard. It's "Basic" Training not sniper school.

After reading my anecdotal evidence, not everyone will agree. I do believe that recruits with good old common horse sense an good shooting aptitude will out shoot those who don't and as a whole will become shooters with a higher skill set that the majority of shooters will ever accomplish. But then there is that "one guy"

 

[buck460XVR]

If some one does something long enough, they'll eventually get good at it. Some folks catch on quicker than others.

Getting good at something is much different than getting "excellent" at it. Marksmen I believe are excellent at what they do. Folks that learned to shoot on their own or from other untrained folks develop bad habits that are hard to break. Thus while they may become proficient, they will never be "marksmen" until they are trained on proper technique, judging distance, reading wind, etc. Many excellent deer hunters are only mediocre shots, and will be mediocre shots all their lives, because mediocre accuracy is all they need. Many don't hold their breath or squeeze the trigger, because at a pie plate sized target only 100 yards away, it's never been necessary for them. Same goes for firearm safety. When teaching hunter safety, many times it's easier to teach someone new to firearms proper safety than their dads or other mentor that has been around guns for years. Back during the Revolutionary and Civil Wars, when there was no real firearm training done before soldiers hit the trenches, coming from the farm may have had it advantages over being a city slicker. I'm not sure that is true so much anymore.

 

[Red Wind]

I saw it first hand at Ft.Polk, Louisiana, Basic Training in 1964. Out of our 50 man barracks, 12 were Enlisted Reserves from then fairly rural Enid, Oklahoma.

Every single one of the 12 fired Expert (212 or better), with 7 getting perfect scores of 230. 400 yard Maggie's Drawers, iron sights, with the wonderful M-14. All seemed to be born with a rifle in their cribs.

Meanwhile, us city dwellers from Miami,Tampa and other highly populated areas struggled to get to 160 and pass. I shot 187, Sharpshooter, only because of my youth at Grandpa's large Sussex ,NJ farm, where groundhogs were the target.

To my mind, there is definitely a correlation between a rural upbringing and military marksmanship.

 

[Panzerschwein]

There were guys in basic who outshot me, who never touched a gun before.

I think it all depends.

 

[4thPointOfContact]

Almost anyone can achieve Basic Rifle Marksmanship, it is after all based on the lowest common denominator.

But....

Carlos Hathcock - shooting/hunting from early age
Charles ‘Chuck’ Mawhinney - shooting/hunting from early age
Rob Furlong (Canadian Forces) taught himself to shoot ambidextrously at early age
Chris Kyle - shooting/hunting from early age
Adelbert Waldron - shooting/hunting from early age
Simo "Simuna" Häyhä - farmer/hunter from early age

Correlation is not necessarily causation, but there's definitely a correlation there.

 

[Red Wind]

We can add Texan, Lt. Audie Murphy, our most honored soldier of WWII, to that fine list.

 

[plexreticle]

Exceptional shooters have the talent and put in the training.

There are plenty of lifelong hunters and rural folk than have marginal firearms skill, you just never hear of them.

 

[Red Wind]

We'll also add Oklahoman, D.A. "Jelly" Bryce, the FBI's all time greatest shooter.
Bryce, in the words of his first CLEO, "Never missed."

 

[ironworkerwill]

Buck460XVR you have to be a Marksman to maintain gainfull employment in either the US Army or Marines. The two badges above Marksman are Sharpshooter and Expert.

We can dive into semantic all the while trying to prove or disprove one another's anecdotal evidence.

 

[entropy]

Having been on both ends of it in the military, (receiving training and training soldiers on the range) I find soldiers who had prior experience and were willing and able to suspend their ego during training did well. New shooters usually listened better, and caught up to previous shooters quickly. How the range experience relates to combat accuracy/effectiveness, I cannot attest to.

 

[yugorpk]

I was a expert shot when I went in the Army. I didnt let them ruin that as much as they tried.

 

[Ignition Override]

How about where there is No 2nd Amendment? If the British sniper platoon based in southern Iraq back in '05 or so did very well, how many of them might have had previous seasoned exposure to any type of gun, if they were primarily from the UK?
"Sniper One", by Sgt. Dan Mills.

The lunatic Mahdi Militia were their main enemy, and quite a number were killed from a fair distance.

There is now Google news from August 2015 of an SAS sniper who killed an "ISIS" executioner, planning to behead an 8 year-old boy and his father: "The Washington Free Beacon", Stephen Gutowski, August 10. "1,000 meters away", but from "Express" by Nick Gutteridge.

Did most of the British citizens of the SAS have much prior civilian experience? This would also seem very unlikely.

 

[Bart B.]

In the summer of 1971, the USN team prepping for the Interservice and National Matches were tasked with training the Naval Academy's freshman class in marksmanship with both M1 rifles and M1911 pistols. Some 1000 reasonably bright kids came to the ranges and we passed on our knowledge of shooting skills on to them as best we could.

Naturally, some "plebes" had preconceived techniques for hitting their targets but most had virtually none at all. With Garands shooting the standard USN qual course, a few were a bit cocky and felt their method would produce good scores; none of them did. The others willing to learn good stuff did so and shot the best scores.

On the pistol range, most had their biggest surprise about their preconceived skill set. We had them shoot the entire pistol qual course on 25-yard targets with their printed side against the backer board; just the blank square target paper facing them. We explained that method would be used because enemy combatants don't have bullseyes printed on their clothes; aim for center of mass for best results. Their scores were pretty good on the practice phase as well as the one officially scored for record. Then they shot a partial course with the bullseye side towards them; all scores were lower.

Across the entire class of midshipmen, 95% qualified expert with the pistol and 98% with rifle. One who shot extremely well with both weapons said he was going into the USMC at graduation. His only concern was how to tell his fellow leathernecks that a bunch of swabbies taught him how to shoot so well.