For you guys handy with/at Service Rifle, what kind of a group can a better than average shooter do in the standing at 200? Or just dinking around at 100 yards, again standing unsupported? Just curious, as a buddy and I were talking about it yesterday and neither of us have a clue what you guys are capable of. Thanks.
Advanced Marksmanship Service Rifle Group Size
- Thread starter tnichols
- Start date
Maybe this will give you and idea.
The NRA 200 yard target has an X-10 ring that is 7 inches in diameter. There are few (I only know a couple) cleaned 200 yard standing targets, but if you did clean the target you need to shoot 3.5 MOA.
A good shooter has to be in the 90s in off hand. The 9 ring is 13 inches in diameter. So to be in the 90s you have to shoot an average 6.5 MOA group.
A good offhand shoot normally does well in positions in HP matches. Not necessarily the inverse. Matches are won and lost in the offhand position.
The NRA 200 yard target has an X-10 ring that is 7 inches in diameter. There are few (I only know a couple) cleaned 200 yard standing targets, but if you did clean the target you need to shoot 3.5 MOA.
A good shooter has to be in the 90s in off hand. The 9 ring is 13 inches in diameter. So to be in the 90s you have to shoot an average 6.5 MOA group.
A good offhand shoot normally does well in positions in HP matches. Not necessarily the inverse. Matches are won and lost in the offhand position.
Kraig,
it's kind of interesting how few shooters can hold a 9 ring group standing for 20 shots but what is sad is how few are taking the challenge to learn how to do it. I think the saying "Distinguished Rifleman-if it was easy they would call it F-class" applies. When I get old i'll lay down with a bipod and bag.
it's kind of interesting how few shooters can hold a 9 ring group standing for 20 shots but what is sad is how few are taking the challenge to learn how to do it. I think the saying "Distinguished Rifleman-if it was easy they would call it F-class" applies. When I get old i'll lay down with a bipod and bag.
few legs shy of distinguished in rifle and I still aint a clue how to do 200 standing very well, maybe it's cause I aint got a R. Lee Ermey creedmore shooting jacket
I used to shoot High Power at Quantico and would marvel at the Marines on the rifle teams and especially their offhand skills. They would drop a few points here and there, but I you'd see some cussing if an 8 was shot. It was almost all 9's and 10's from those guys (and girls).
Me, on the other hand, I won't mention my scores. Lets just say they were substantially worse.
Me, on the other hand, I won't mention my scores. Lets just say they were substantially worse.
My standing average, while I was still working on leg points, was about 94 %. My last posting in an NRA approved event from standing was a 191 and something. For the most part, I usually made up for shortages from the standing position with real good 600 yard scores. At any rate, my problem with standing was not enough dry firing, which would have likely improved my performance with a little discipline. When I think about it, I still think I must be dreaming about having earned my Distinguished Rifleman badge as undisciplined as I am.
That's the key to off hand, hours upon hours of dry firing.
The Alaska Rifle Club, Small Bore Division use to have what they called Owful 100 matches, which was 100 round fired offhand at ISU targets.
I tried to shoot everyone I could, not that I was any good at it, but it sure helped my HP standing scores.
The club I shoot with now has NRA Light Rifle matches during the winter. That have two classes, one is all off hand, the other is for old guys and they shoot from the bench. I'm defiantly an old guy but I refuse to shoot from the bench. It accomplishes nothing shoot those huge targets from the bench.
The Alaska Rifle Club, Small Bore Division use to have what they called Owful 100 matches, which was 100 round fired offhand at ISU targets.
I tried to shoot everyone I could, not that I was any good at it, but it sure helped my HP standing scores.
The club I shoot with now has NRA Light Rifle matches during the winter. That have two classes, one is all off hand, the other is for old guys and they shoot from the bench. I'm defiantly an old guy but I refuse to shoot from the bench. It accomplishes nothing shoot those huge targets from the bench.
Last edited:
I bought a high end target air rifle to shoot in the basement in hopes of improvement. We'll see how it goes... It's humbling.
I don't know if I 'd call them groups 
but I reckon most competitors are just looking for the 10 ring. I know I am, and the X is icing on the cake! Having scored for lots of shooters while at Camp Perry, I watched a senior citizen walk away with a 98 and a fistful of X's. Told me he was from California and was shooting matches all the way here and would shoot all the way home. To him, everyday was a Saturday! Military teams always shot well over 95 into the high 90's. But that's their job while on the team right? I think it was 2 years ago, 3 guys cleaned every stage of the President's 100! Last season I reached a few goals here at our local club and at the big matches. I worked on gobs of dry firing, and other holding exercises. Still working on the badge as I hope to wrap it up this season. It's impressive to watch a hard holder while standing. They make it look easy! Good luck and good shooting!
Doug
but I reckon most competitors are just looking for the 10 ring. I know I am, and the X is icing on the cake! Having scored for lots of shooters while at Camp Perry, I watched a senior citizen walk away with a 98 and a fistful of X's. Told me he was from California and was shooting matches all the way here and would shoot all the way home. To him, everyday was a Saturday! Military teams always shot well over 95 into the high 90's. But that's their job while on the team right? I think it was 2 years ago, 3 guys cleaned every stage of the President's 100! Last season I reached a few goals here at our local club and at the big matches. I worked on gobs of dry firing, and other holding exercises. Still working on the badge as I hope to wrap it up this season. It's impressive to watch a hard holder while standing. They make it look easy! Good luck and good shooting!Doug
Timely read, I am starting this next month, will be shooting my M1A NM, shoot it quite a bit, but never in a match. Haven't shot in a competition since I left the Army in 89. My eyes are older, still in decent shape, but my eyes worry me a bit.
depending on how bad your eyes are there are a few sight add ons that help a bunch. My favorite is by Bob Jones and is a lens that goes into the M1A rear sight hood. I need a small + correction to help clear up the front sight picture. Have them in both my AR and M1A and it helps a bunch for 600 yard stages since they are usually at the end of the day. Google Bob Jones sight lens.
As someone said, standing is mostly about dryfire. getting that wobble down and then excepting the wobble you do have takes time. Might as well learn it somewhere comfortable and without ammo.
This was a rather nice recent 22 shot practice round shooting by myself on a 100 yd reduced target with AR service rifle. Dropped 3 points in those 22 shots, including that 8 that I pulled. So this would have been a 197-8x, assuming the two sighters were in the 10 ring. My OH scores in regional matches are usually 190-192. I do see the target better at 100 than at 200 OH, but its usually the match nerves that loses a couple points compared to practice. OH separates the pack pretty quickly at a match!
Attachments
I've always felt like those shooting jackets and the gloves kind of go against what the sport stands for. Because of this, I've chosen to go against the Service Rifle grain by allowing myself to use optics and a sling, but nothing else to make things any easier. I also have been practicing this with a bolt gun with some success.
You will need to clarify for me what you mean by "kind of go against what the sport stands for" as EIC is a standard competition where everybody is in compliance to rules for equipment; and thus; all have equal opportunity to test and celebrate skill. Here are some facts and observations: The shooting jacket improves support and comfort for everyone and therefore it is not giving anyone an unfair advantage. Only those who do not have the correct jacket size are handicapped by it. It, clearly, is not a substitute for marksmanship as an undisciplined shooter will have no better score with jacket than without one.
On the other hand, a shooter learning what's important to good shooting will be handicapped by an optic for a multitude of reasons, the foremost being that it actually does serve as a substitute for marksmanship; and therefore, it may persuade the shooter that he knows something about good shooting when in fact he still knows nothing. You see this anytime such a shooter goes long. This forum is in fact littered with thousands of posts from these "shooters". Their questions, arising from attempts to shoot at long range and the discovery that magnification or the ability to see the target better was not the aid they thought it would be, proves the point.
Last edited:
Please excuse my ignorance here. I really do not know too much about this but I do have some basis to my opinions.
From what I understand, the sport revolves around the way the military used to qualify soldiers. These qualifications were likely meant to test various shooting positions that the soldier would encounter on the field. The NRA rules seem to have been designed to coincide with this in the spirit of "practical shooting". However, the coats and gloves seem to be a method of playing the rules rather than staying true to the intent. What is to stop us from getting one of those rigs the cameramen use for sports like the NFL where it stabilizes and carries most of the weight at the core of the person wearing it? It wouldn't modify the gun at all, but it would almost be considered "cheating". I have not used one of those coats before so I'm really talking out of my ass, but I have been told by a couple guys that are distinguished rifleman like yourself that they do not think they would perform very well without one. This is what my point was before.
I agree that every shooter should learn to use their iron sights. In fact, I participate in these matches (unqualified of course) with my bone stock M&P 15 Sport and the crappy irons that come with it. I don't score well either, but it's fun for me to shoot with what I have instead of "playing the game" per se. If I actually wanted to compete to win, this obviously wouldn't be the case. However, in terms of having a scope goes, I don't really feel it effects the shots themselves and instead is just additional comfort. Call it bringing the sport into the new age if you will.
I'm sorry if I have offended you in any way. That was not my intention.
I've witnessed several cleans shooting offhand (or awfulhand if you like) by HighMasters. It's not impossible just takes a lot of practice. Look into 1 minute holding exercises- builds muscle memory. And a good shooting coat is worth its weight in gold. 2 MOA is achievable with serious practice and dedication.
+1 to all posters, not much I can add.
I've been playing the hi-power game for 20 yrs and if I can keep 'em somewhere in the black (hold the 9 ring) standing I'm ecstatic.
The key - practice, Practice, PRACTICE.
BTW, As well as the other great advice from all the posters pay close attention to advice coming from anyone with Distinguished behind their name.
Never had the time, money, or energy to go distinguished - which gives me great respect for those who do.
I've been playing the hi-power game for 20 yrs and if I can keep 'em somewhere in the black (hold the 9 ring) standing I'm ecstatic.
The key - practice, Practice, PRACTICE.
BTW, As well as the other great advice from all the posters pay close attention to advice coming from anyone with Distinguished behind their name.
Never had the time, money, or energy to go distinguished - which gives me great respect for those who do.
ASHIH313,
you didn't have to say you were taking out your ass, we already knew that. Why is it that so many guys here think NRA/CMP matches are trying to live up to some current tactical standard? The course of fire has been around over a hundred years and it is what it is, a simple and effective test of marksmanship skills. It is not a practical test, it was around before that term was even used in shooting circles.
The coat doesn't make the shooter, i've seen plenty of guys shoots 10's offhand without a coat. The coat and glove just allow a more repeatable position it doesn't make a good position out of a bad one. You seem to think you know the intent of the rules but clearly have no clue about the whole intent, just parts that you want to nit pick and make general assumptions.
It's always the guys that can't meet the standard that have to try and change the standard. Do you cry about football players wearing cleats, because people don't normally wear cleats you know, and they enhance the performance of running on grass???
Maybe you should understand that CMP/NRA shooters are not trying to be wannabe snipers, that is the bottom line. We are just out improving our marksmanship. I"m sorry you can't see that, or the value in it but if you can't hang then don't play at all. If you don't like the course of fire then don't play, because now you think you are somehow allowed to make changes to rules that have been around since before you were born because they don't fit your standard of what shooting should be.
How about making Distinguished, which is actually only the first step in the marksmanship ladder, and then start complaining to the High Masters in the NRA competitions division about how change needs to happen? Then you would have some basis on which to whine. BTW you didn't offend me, but don't you think it's a little disingenuous to complain about something you don't even do or know much about?
you didn't have to say you were taking out your ass, we already knew that. Why is it that so many guys here think NRA/CMP matches are trying to live up to some current tactical standard? The course of fire has been around over a hundred years and it is what it is, a simple and effective test of marksmanship skills. It is not a practical test, it was around before that term was even used in shooting circles.
The coat doesn't make the shooter, i've seen plenty of guys shoots 10's offhand without a coat. The coat and glove just allow a more repeatable position it doesn't make a good position out of a bad one. You seem to think you know the intent of the rules but clearly have no clue about the whole intent, just parts that you want to nit pick and make general assumptions.
It's always the guys that can't meet the standard that have to try and change the standard. Do you cry about football players wearing cleats, because people don't normally wear cleats you know, and they enhance the performance of running on grass???
Maybe you should understand that CMP/NRA shooters are not trying to be wannabe snipers, that is the bottom line. We are just out improving our marksmanship. I"m sorry you can't see that, or the value in it but if you can't hang then don't play at all. If you don't like the course of fire then don't play, because now you think you are somehow allowed to make changes to rules that have been around since before you were born because they don't fit your standard of what shooting should be.
How about making Distinguished, which is actually only the first step in the marksmanship ladder, and then start complaining to the High Masters in the NRA competitions division about how change needs to happen? Then you would have some basis on which to whine. BTW you didn't offend me, but don't you think it's a little disingenuous to complain about something you don't even do or know much about?
BTW ASHIH313, maybe you weren't aware that the Army Marksmanship Unit and USMC Marksmanship Unit's both have a "seat at the table" with the CMP/NRA competitions rules committee. So you are bashing their knowledge and doctrine.
But I guess you know better, right?
But I guess you know better, right?
I'm well past the stage where I'll be called on to take up the rifle in combat, but I still shoot for sport, either High Power, or more of late, the CMP Vintage Military Rifle Games. I have in my younger days seen enough combat as an infantryman to know that the skills learned in High Power, do in fact transfer over to the skills needed by the infantryman in combat.
Now having said that, I'm going to post one of my favorite quotes by MG J. Hatcher. He's talking about pistol shooting but the same principal applies to rifles.
Now having said that, I'm going to post one of my favorite quotes by MG J. Hatcher. He's talking about pistol shooting but the same principal applies to rifles.
Kraig,
i've actually had a epiphany based on this topic. I'm am in Electrical Engineering school currently and it is tough to meet some of the standards BUT, I've worked with engineers in the past. I know for a fact they don't use all the math skills that are smashed into their heads in school. SO with my knowledge of what I will use in the future I am going to email the University President and get my math requirements lowered. After all, why should I have to meet the past standards of engineers since I won't really need that knowledge to do my job.
Sounds good right?
OH wait, i'm a grown man that has already decided that I will make the effort to meet the standards that others have met. otherwise I wouldn't be in Engineering school. But if I fail out you can be damned sure I will be online bashing universities for judging engineers using old standards.
i've actually had a epiphany based on this topic. I'm am in Electrical Engineering school currently and it is tough to meet some of the standards BUT, I've worked with engineers in the past. I know for a fact they don't use all the math skills that are smashed into their heads in school. SO with my knowledge of what I will use in the future I am going to email the University President and get my math requirements lowered. After all, why should I have to meet the past standards of engineers since I won't really need that knowledge to do my job.
Sounds good right?
OH wait, i'm a grown man that has already decided that I will make the effort to meet the standards that others have met. otherwise I wouldn't be in Engineering school. But if I fail out you can be damned sure I will be online bashing universities for judging engineers using old standards.
kraigWY said:
A huge +1 to both posts.
After the initial action in Afghanistan and Iraq, the Marine Corps found it's marksmanship program severely lacking. Throughout much of the 90's and into the early 2000's the rifle qualification was hit or miss, pseudo combat style, attempting to merge KD fire into a combat type of scenario adapted to the ranges the Marine Corps already had. Under combat conditions it became evident very quickly that the overall marksmanship proficiency in the Marine Corps suffered.
In 2005 the Marine Corps re-vamped there marksmanship program into segmented 'tables'... each one building on the last.
All this information is info is approved for public release, and the current MCO can be found here. http://www.lejeune.usmc.mil/wtbn/MCO 3574.2K/MCO 3574 2K .pdf
Back to the subject at hand. The FIRST 'table' is a known distance shoot (w/ test) utilizing the Marines issued weapon (M-16A2, M-16A4, or M-4) equipped with iron sights, at 200, 300, and 500 yds, in the standing, kneeling, sitting, and prone positions, utilizing sling support on 'bullseye' type targets w/ both slow and rapid fire engagements!!
Mind blowing... after a significant chunk of the FMF has been tested in combat, the Marine Corps reverts BACK to a training regiment that is proven to instill the marksmanship fundamentals! The individual Marine must prove his grasp on these fundamentals BEFORE moving on to 'high speed' stuff... i.e. NV, optics, movement while firing, CQB, multiple target engagements... all the 'practical' type stuff.
To hit a target consistently (whether it be a tin can, piece of paper, another human being, some tannerite, or a deer) the fundamentals of marksmanship must be applied... Those fundamentals haven't changed in the past 20 yrs, or 50 yrs, or 100 years, or since the invention of the firearm. You don't need to 're-invent the wheel', just apply those fundamentals that have already been proven and laid out.
My $0.02... take it for what it is, the opinion of a Marine Corps Iraqi combat veteran and distinguished rifleman (DR badge # 1929).
Been a while since I competed in service rifle competition if you want to call what I did "competition". I pulled the target for the AMU shooter who won the overall 2001 Interservice Matches, and if memory serves correctly I think he shot a 198-?X that day. I just remember him throwing a fit and having verifiers come down a couple of times because he dropped two points on his 300yd rapid fire.
0933,
Great to hear we went back to the "old course". I was a PMI when we went from the 250pt course to the 65pt course and just shook my head. In fact, now that I think about it, we shot that 65pt course for the first time at Quantico during the PMI school. Most of us that discussed it felt as though it needed to be a supplemental course like the gas mask, mover, and night fire "courses" rather than THE qual course for recruits and currently-serving Marines.
Like I said, it's nice to hear the "old" course was resurrected.
Great to hear we went back to the "old course". I was a PMI when we went from the 250pt course to the 65pt course and just shook my head. In fact, now that I think about it, we shot that 65pt course for the first time at Quantico during the PMI school. Most of us that discussed it felt as though it needed to be a supplemental course like the gas mask, mover, and night fire "courses" rather than THE qual course for recruits and currently-serving Marines.
Like I said, it's nice to hear the "old" course was resurrected.
0933, thanks for the backup. I cringe at the thought of the Marine Corps letting marksmanship fundamentals slip because I cannot imagine how bad other services must be. I'm sure they will square it away. I learned all my knowledge from two former OIC's of the Big Team at Quantico when they did clinic's at Camp Pendleton. i'm DR#2069 and Navy Pistol Distinguished/P100 before that.
I hate being on a soap box regarding this stuff but the term "A nation of Rifleman" really means a nation of good fundamentals, not clueless with the latest S&B on top of a $4k rifle. Going through the trials and tribulations of earning a DR badge would improve anybody's game in many ways. It's sad to think of how many AR15's are out there and so few use them in competition.
I hate being on a soap box regarding this stuff but the term "A nation of Rifleman" really means a nation of good fundamentals, not clueless with the latest S&B on top of a $4k rifle. Going through the trials and tribulations of earning a DR badge would improve anybody's game in many ways. It's sad to think of how many AR15's are out there and so few use them in competition.
The current Marksmanship Program is definitely quite a bit more in-depth than the 65 point course of fire. Even though they did resurrect the 250 point course for table 1, tables 2-4 get into some really fun stuff. Don't get me wrong... I love the fact that the Marine Corps is the only branch embracing a 'traditional' course of fire, and deem it an invaluable tool to instill the fundamentals. The current program goes way beyond any previous 'combat' style marksmanship training though.
For example, table 3 has a night portion where the course of fire is the same as the day shoot (into and out of pivots, firing while moving, FTS drills)... but the Marine utilizes AN/PVS-7's or AN/PVS-14's w/ a weapon mounted PEQ-2.
Semper Fidelis from a fellow PMI (now CMT '0931').
I hear you... my younger brother was in the Army for 6 yrs (couldn't follow me I guess), and it was unbelievable how little weapons training he received in boot camp. It wasn't until after he joined his unit (he was a grunt, and eventually became a Ranger) that he started receiving some quality in-depth training.
Don't sweat being on a soap box too much... either people will listen to you or ,as kraigWY said in an earlier post (paraphrasing), try and discount you because they can't perform at the same level.
Keep holding center Xcount!
I'm glad the move is back towards some QUALITY training. Under Clinton we got cut back to a true Qual every 3rd year at one point, with Fam Fire in the interval years to save on ammo. Hell, one year for pistol qual, me the Gunny and the Top had to chip in some money and send a Marine to Wal Mart to buy enough 9mil to finish getting everyone done.
We never did get to do a proper night course with NODs. Back then they weren't issued at the individual Marine level yet, it was still a couple per squad.
What are your thoughts on the use of the optics on these courses? I totally support their use for any of the "practical" courses, but it's my understanding that they're now authorized for the KD course? How many guys are cleaning the course with an ACOG?
We never did get to do a proper night course with NODs. Back then they weren't issued at the individual Marine level yet, it was still a couple per squad.
What are your thoughts on the use of the optics on these courses? I totally support their use for any of the "practical" courses, but it's my understanding that they're now authorized for the KD course? How many guys are cleaning the course with an ACOG?
Wow!! That's rough... I believe now POG's are allotted roughly 600 rnds of 5.56 a year, and grunts around 1,400 a year. It's a little bit more for work-ups, but that's a far cry from what you guys went through.
Optics for table 1 was a big debate a few years ago. The commanders intent was to let each individual Marine get familiar with there optic. I think it's a mute point because from table 2 on optics are part of the training and course of fire. The Marine gets PLENTY of training with optics now. Optics have been cleared for use on table 1 out in the fleet, though table 1 at Parris Island, San Diego, and Quantico (TBS) iron sights are required.
As for cleaning the course of fire for table 1, I'm sure there are a couple Marines that have done it... though the range records throughout the Marine Corps were pretty high even before optics were allowed. I haven't shot table 1 for score in a long time, one of the perks to being a Distinguished Rifleman. I did tie the Charlie range record (Edson range Camp Pendleton) with a 247, and that was in Dec '03. Even though the sustainment level training changed to the 65 point course, entry level training was still the 250 point course.
Yeah, I "get" using an optic for the "practical" tables, and as long as at the recruit level they still have to shoot irons, its use in the fleet on Table 1 isn't really a big deal. I had just talked to some very new Marines that were telling me they shoot the KD course with their ACOGS now. I must have misunderstood them to be saying they got to use it in Boot.
The already high records were the reasons I was asking about cleaning the course. There were plenty of us shooting in the 240s, but 247 is an amazing score and you should be as proud of that as any of your shooting accomplishments if not more so. Never having used it I wonder if the ACOG is a handicap on off-hand at the 200? For the rest of the course it would seem to be enough advantage to pick up those few extra points we left on the table.
I think the last time I shot (the 65) I had a 61 or a 63 with a temp-loan rifle and no pre-qual/dope. That score was with zero "misses" but dropping some points out of the 2pt circle, I really have no idea if an optic would have helped pick up a couple of those points or if it would have hindered me at some point. By necessity I had to wait till everyone was done and off the range to shoot my qual and most of it was at dusk/dark (had to finish the 300 rapid and 500 the next morning). Never having used an optic I STILL play the "what if" on some of those dropped points.
At the end of the day, we're still the only branch teaching MARKSMANSHIP at the recruit level, which is a travesty for the military in general.
You know, I don't know if just the ACOG would jump your score that much... The highest I've witnessed is a 249 and he was shooting with iron sights. Granted, he was a member of the summer team and was already a Distinguished Rifleman. I've asked around and the only range that has a 250 (as a record) was one KD range in Okinawa... with several 249's on the west and east coast.
The last time I shot table 1, I was shooting an M-4 to prove that the shorter barrel/sights could still hold at 500... I believe I shot a 238. That was in Aug '06.
As for the 4x at 200 offhand... as long as you can build a good offhand position, I don't see a problem... the black is 6 MOA, and you should be able to hold that while pressing the trigger.
A bunch of us were talking about the table 1 course of fire though... I'd love to be able to shoot the course of fire with PWS built SAM-R's, or NM-A4's w/ ACOG's... using the MK 262 mod 1, or the Black Hills 77 grain stuff for the post and station teams. The targets are big enough... I'm pretty sure a decent rifleman could clean it more times than not.
This is a lot of what's drawn me to Service Rifle once I'm home. I'll obviously still be shooting irons, but I loved the process of building a position and "living or dying" on your sights, NPOA, and trigger squeeze. I think it's really going to be fun to shoot what is effectively the KD course, with a NM rifle with a decent trigger and good ammo. I know myself well enough to know that I'm going to get sucked into the "competition" side of it, but there was just a Zen-like calmness I felt inside when I was on the KD course that I haven't experienced in any other form of shooting.
Hell, I didn't even get to shoot the new NM rifle when I was home, but just sitting in the back yard "snapping in" brought back a ton of great memories and that warm fuzzy from settling into a solid position.
For any here who want to get a taste for Service Rifle competition, or any that would like an orientation to what is really important to good shooting, the USAMU will conduct Small Arms Firing School at Camp Perry July15 thru 17. This training will get the aspiring marksman off to a good start.
Thanks Sterling,
The "plan" is to attempt Camp Perry 2015, but that may be pushing it a bit. If nothing else I'm hoping to at least attend as a spectator and the USAMU clinic would make the trip "worth it".
If you are going to make the trip, you might as well bring a rifle and shoot. HP competition as a spectator sport is about as exciting as watching paint dry.
Very true. I doubt I'd be able to go and NOT shoot. I'm just hoping to get my legs under me a bit before the "big show" and I'll only have been home a few months before Camp Perry starts. I was thinking that even though I may not compete the first year, being able to see it, and get the "lay of the land" while shooting the USAMU clinic would be a compromise. PLUS, I really want to hit vendors row.
Isn't that going to put you Double Distinguished?
Don't worry too much about the match part. CMP week has had around 1200 shooters or so the last few years, and there are shooters of all skill and experience levels. As long as you know the rules and can safely handle your rifle, the shooting part is no problem. Main thing is to make sure you understand your duties as scorekeeper and target puller, so as not to adversely affect any other shooters. It's really easy to get overly nervous and worked up at major matches, so the sooner you jump in, the easier it will be. Shooting at Perry the first chance you get just for the experience, and without any real expectations would probably be beneficial to you down the road if you decide to get into the sport more seriously. Going just to watch may make you build it up even more in your mind, and add undue pressure when you do get back there to shoot. I say just shoot it. You will meet a lot of great people and you never know who you might get squadded with, from national champions, to juniors shooting their first big match, to guys in their 80's who've made the trip 50 + times. It's always a great experience.
Good luck,
Erik
Speaking of the USMC and optics/iron sights, From what I've heard from our "new talent" Marines that just got out of SOI, they've stopped doing iron sights all together in bootcamp. They have ACOGs and shoot the range with ACOGs in bootcamp. I know this because I had to explain how to use iron sights to them all.
That said, I've shot the range with an ACOG twice and my scores were slightly higher than my initial qual with irons. However, nobody is sweeping the range with the ACOG. In fact, I think the ACOG is cause for quite a few Marines unq'ing (zero issues, loose mounts etc.). I don't like them, personally, and would gladly take a set of irons over the added weight and frustration. Wandering zeros, parallax, banging turrets, adjustments do nothing, adjustments do 2x what they're supposed to, lenses get scratched etc. etc. I've not had good luck with them in my experience. I think they should be a 1 per fireteam item, not individual issue. YMMV
Alas, I did a lot of long range shooting at home and got some good experience shooting in wind and bumped my table 1 score to a 243 (shooting an M4). Previous scores were 228 (irons m16a2) and 233 (acog m4). Experience and applying the fundamentals prevails. The chevron reticle does not lend itself to the most precise shooting on paper targets. It's especially difficult getting the lower "V" of the chevron centered in the 12" Able bull. The red illumination adds to the problem, often making the chevron bloom (black E-tape over the fiberoptic fixes it). The other issue is that the ACOG is set up in meters, and the range is in yards, so the BDC is not as useful as one would hope.
That said, I've shot the range with an ACOG twice and my scores were slightly higher than my initial qual with irons. However, nobody is sweeping the range with the ACOG. In fact, I think the ACOG is cause for quite a few Marines unq'ing (zero issues, loose mounts etc.). I don't like them, personally, and would gladly take a set of irons over the added weight and frustration. Wandering zeros, parallax, banging turrets, adjustments do nothing, adjustments do 2x what they're supposed to, lenses get scratched etc. etc. I've not had good luck with them in my experience. I think they should be a 1 per fireteam item, not individual issue. YMMV
Alas, I did a lot of long range shooting at home and got some good experience shooting in wind and bumped my table 1 score to a 243 (shooting an M4). Previous scores were 228 (irons m16a2) and 233 (acog m4). Experience and applying the fundamentals prevails. The chevron reticle does not lend itself to the most precise shooting on paper targets. It's especially difficult getting the lower "V" of the chevron centered in the 12" Able bull. The red illumination adds to the problem, often making the chevron bloom (black E-tape over the fiberoptic fixes it). The other issue is that the ACOG is set up in meters, and the range is in yards, so the BDC is not as useful as one would hope.
The ACOG is a godsend for sure. In a heartbeat, distance to target can be discerned, as well as the holdover for distance. That makes for a good quick hit at targets which would be difficult to hit with irons for a multitude of reasons. The only problem I see with novice shooters using an ACOG is it may deceive both the shooter and the coach that the shooter actually knows how to shoot. Only at the limit of the AGOG will the shooter have difficulty; and, the source/s of error will likely be attributed to wind when the actual error is more likely inconsistent application of the fundamentals. Learning marksmanship with peep sights does not mask shooter error and thus I think learning how to shoot using irons is preferable to learning first with an ACOG. For best results each sighting device should be understood.
Last edited:
Holy shit!! Where have I been... The last time I remember the subject of RCO's use for table 1 was in '08 into '09. I dug up this MarAdmin, https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...=PJWnDlOkon7np4zqPtnoZQ&bvm=bv.61535280,d.cGU
It's dated March 15th 2008, and allows the use of RCO's in table 1 for units about to deploy, but NOT for entry level training.
After further digging though, I found this article by the Marine Corps Gazette. Challenges Imperiling Our Marksmanship Standards | Marine Corps Gazette I couldn't find a date on it, but the comments are 2012 on... I assume it was written in 2012. At the end of the article it does say that the RCO will be used in recruit training... but iron sights will still be used in TBS. I guess that's why I never see ACOG's on the Lt.'s weapons while they are firing on Range 2.
I still can't find any reference allowing the use of RCO's in table 1 in either MCO 3574.2K or another MarAdmin... though these changes must have come about in the past year or two.
This is crazy!! HQMC received quite a bit of pushback from MCCDC back in '08-'09 when they opened table 1 up for use with RCO's. It makes me sick to see the Marine Corps losing ground after so much progress was made.
Thanks for "push" Erik. With luck I'll be able to get a clinic and some matches under my belt before Perry rolls around next year. I think I'd be comfortable with the shooting aspect of it, it was ensuring that I was competent enough to act as a scorer that was causing me concern. If I go and fall on my ass then that's on me, but I would never want to interfere with someone else's string of fire.
I spent enough time on a radio screaming at the pits NCO about shitty butts service that I know what a nightmare it can be for a shooter to have the target pullers with their heads up their asses as well.
Don't worry about it. You'll be scoring on the firing line behind the shooter with a spotting scope. You'll have a "cheat sheet" showing the scoring values. With the spotting scope you'll see the marked shot (spotter) and a value spotter. Compare that with you're cheat sheet. Its really easy. In the pits, you'll be paired up with another person. It will be the one who you scored and who will score you.
If you have a question ASK somebody. There will be people walking the line who will help you. Rule of Thumb: Benefit of Doubt goes to the shooter.
The worse thing anyone can do is wait until they "get good" before you take in a match. You learn at matches. You learn what to do and what not to do. Older shooters are ALWAYS willing to help new shooter.
When I shot my first match, I doubt I had a dozen rounds through my brand new M1A. I showed up with a rifle and a hand full of "God Knows what" for ammo. That's it. I left with a gifted cloth shooting coat, glove and web sling plus instructions on how to shim my rifle for accuracy. Not to mention tons of advice (including an idea what loads will work).
Best of all new friends. I could never have done this on my own.
GO SHOOT THE MATCH, you wont be sorry. Even if you cant get into the SAFS shoot the match. I agree with Sterling, the SAFS is the best place to get started, but if you cant get in for some reason, still shoot the match.
PM me with your Address and I'll send you a copy of the Lesson for the CMP Clinics. It will cover everything you need to compete in a CMP GSM match. This will give you a head start whether you get into the SAFS or not.
Kraig, a MILLION thanks. I'll PM you my address (if you don't mind sending to an APO?)
As I said, over the past year I picked up the rifle (RRA NM), an extra (WOA) upper, a spare trigger, and began stockpiling match ammo. This year is a coat, glove, spotting scope, and some more ammo.
Once I'm home the uppers are off to John Scandale to pin the sights and I'll hit a local clinic to figure out how different the CMP course is from the Marine Corps KD course that I knew and loved so much. From there the plan is to dry fire my brains out while I get my body used to the positions again, and catching a match whenever/wherever I can while I save up the loose change in my sofa cushions for the trip to Perry.
I guess I've built up Perry in my mind over the past 25yrs or so from when I first started hearing about it and have made it into this THING rather than keeping it in perspective.
As always, my fellow Hiders are here to keep me straight. I sincerely appreciate it.
As I said, over the past year I picked up the rifle (RRA NM), an extra (WOA) upper, a spare trigger, and began stockpiling match ammo. This year is a coat, glove, spotting scope, and some more ammo.
Once I'm home the uppers are off to John Scandale to pin the sights and I'll hit a local clinic to figure out how different the CMP course is from the Marine Corps KD course that I knew and loved so much. From there the plan is to dry fire my brains out while I get my body used to the positions again, and catching a match whenever/wherever I can while I save up the loose change in my sofa cushions for the trip to Perry.
I guess I've built up Perry in my mind over the past 25yrs or so from when I first started hearing about it and have made it into this THING rather than keeping it in perspective.
As always, my fellow Hiders are here to keep me straight. I sincerely appreciate it.
Similar threads
