daftandbarmy
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 26,849
- Points
- 1,160
Thorvald said:
Good thing we have bayonets!
C7 weapon drills
- Thread starter Greywolf
- Start date
Good thing we have bayonets!
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Yes you are correct that the two methods being taught are:
1. As per on most basic courses (tilt left, check position of bolt); and
2. Tap + rack.
What we must remember is that BGL references mean nothing to the average soldier (and some could argue the average Captain
)
The confusion results in a soldier being taught what is the "official" way in most of their early training, but then as the A Team-taught method has filtered its way down through Urban Ops and snap shooting paths taught in modern gun camps.
Putting myself in the boots of Pte Smith (and I have been Pte Smith so I see things from both sides of the fence), what I am faced with is a way I was taught in basic, and now I'm being taught a new high-speed way by cooler looking instructors with nice sunglasses and Oakley/Converse boots (so they must know more).
4-5 years ago as a platoon commander I saw this confusion first hand when the PWT4 and gun camps started happening in the unit. It is my intent to get this confusion removed by bringing it to the attention of those who need to know.
1. As per on most basic courses (tilt left, check position of bolt); and
2. Tap + rack.
What we must remember is that BGL references mean nothing to the average soldier (and some could argue the average Captain
)The confusion results in a soldier being taught what is the "official" way in most of their early training, but then as the A Team-taught method has filtered its way down through Urban Ops and snap shooting paths taught in modern gun camps.
Putting myself in the boots of Pte Smith (and I have been Pte Smith so I see things from both sides of the fence), what I am faced with is a way I was taught in basic, and now I'm being taught a new high-speed way by cooler looking instructors with nice sunglasses and Oakley/Converse boots (so they must know more).
4-5 years ago as a platoon commander I saw this confusion first hand when the PWT4 and gun camps started happening in the unit. It is my intent to get this confusion removed by bringing it to the attention of those who need to know.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
An update to all of you who may have a personal interest in this topic.
Sitting in my chair, I owe it to soldiers to provide them with the "best" drill that is proven to be the most efficient in terms of time to remedy the stoppage, while also being safe.
Years ago I identified a problem exists because two actions are being taught, which causes confusion.
Now, in this chair, I have a chance to fix it.
The best way to go about it though is not a "new way" vs "old way" (Urban vs PAM) challenge, but a completely objective series of tests to find what the best thing to do at every point.
What is the best way to do X drill? Can I do these drills at night? Is the forward assist still required?
All we have now are opinions; what I will acquire is the data to back it up, and base my way ahead off of that.
But as I mentioned, it's not simply one way vs the other, there may end up being 10 ways to remedy a stoppage that must be tested.
The end state is to have one "best" series of drills identified that are what new recruits can use because they are simple and those same drills are still used by advanced soldiers because they're still the best drills.
Sitting in my chair, I owe it to soldiers to provide them with the "best" drill that is proven to be the most efficient in terms of time to remedy the stoppage, while also being safe.
Years ago I identified a problem exists because two actions are being taught, which causes confusion.
Now, in this chair, I have a chance to fix it.
The best way to go about it though is not a "new way" vs "old way" (Urban vs PAM) challenge, but a completely objective series of tests to find what the best thing to do at every point.
What is the best way to do X drill? Can I do these drills at night? Is the forward assist still required?
All we have now are opinions; what I will acquire is the data to back it up, and base my way ahead off of that.
But as I mentioned, it's not simply one way vs the other, there may end up being 10 ways to remedy a stoppage that must be tested.
The end state is to have one "best" series of drills identified that are what new recruits can use because they are simple and those same drills are still used by advanced soldiers because they're still the best drills.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
Have you taken a look at Kyle Lamb's book Green Eyes & Black Rifles? He's an Ex-Delta guy, and kind of a big deal. He wrote his book while in Iraq on his off time to wind down from a long day of killing terrorists.
He's all about teaching SPORTS, and letting it naturally evolve to TAP, RACK, BANG. I paraphrased him in my last post in this thread:
I am NOT a high speed shooter by any means, but google around a bit and you'll see that Lamb is pretty well spoken of in those circles. I HIGHLY recommend that you check out his book.
He's all about teaching SPORTS, and letting it naturally evolve to TAP, RACK, BANG. I paraphrased him in my last post in this thread:
I am NOT a high speed shooter by any means, but google around a bit and you'll see that Lamb is pretty well spoken of in those circles. I HIGHLY recommend that you check out his book.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Thank you for the book review/tip; I will add it to the dozens of articles/opinions I already have.
A lot of people seem to have the best way to do drills.
This nut will be cracked through testing and research, though. Some things can be scientific (timed drills), others may have to be rated (weapon "feel" / control, etc).
A lot of people seem to have the best way to do drills.
This nut will be cracked through testing and research, though. Some things can be scientific (timed drills), others may have to be rated (weapon "feel" / control, etc).
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
Uh oh.
It almost sounds like you're trying to make a new rucksack. Are you sure something just as good can't be bought off the shelf?
My (admittedly amateur) understanding of tactical shooting is that "The Best" is a pretty subjective thing. Like you said, everyone and his dog thinks their way is "The Best." Maybe the best is just to resign yourself to the fact that the art is in a constant state of evolution, and just go for the latest COTS option: take a look at where our elite shooters go to train, and (with common sense) bring our standard drills into line with what's taught there.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
I disagree.
I have pretty solid access to where these drills originated, and I can assure you that no scientific analysis was done. The drills were just adopted because they were similar to what other countries were using and they were similar to MP5 drills.
I will not just take what appears to be a high-speed drill at face value, and copy/paste one person's idea of what the "best" drills are. I've now read Lamb's book mentioned above, and I've also been to the Blackwater (when it was still called that) ranges. In the chair I occupy, I owe the CF's soldiers better than just assuming new drills must be the best.
I'm not trying to invent a new ruck sack, and I am not saying that whatever the new Pam ends up looking like won't resemble the UOI drills. I can promise you that they won't be exactly the same, though.
I 100% agree with you that at some point better drills may be found and we should adapt to those when they come out.
However, right now I do not feel we are using the best possible drills, and even worse that we are teaching two ways to do the same thing.
There will be some answers that will be answered with a stop watch, and some will be subjective input for "feel", "weapon control", etc. They'll be tested in daytime, low light, no light, with/without gloves, with/without NBC, etc.
Everything needs to be questioned, right from "Do we really need to hit the forward assist anymore?". Yes the first gen M16s from Vietnam needed them, but are modern buffer springs, bolts, and ammunition enough to say that it makes no difference? That is what I mean when I write that it will be solved through research. Take a row of rifles, make half load-ready-fire-unload one round at a time with the FA pressed and the other half not, then switch. If 1000 rounds are fired and 995 are fired from both with no stoppages, then the FA isn't required. But if it's 995 vs 900 then obviously it's required.
I am confident the resources and will exists to give the troops what they deserve; drills that we can confidently tell them are the best we could give them.
I have pretty solid access to where these drills originated, and I can assure you that no scientific analysis was done. The drills were just adopted because they were similar to what other countries were using and they were similar to MP5 drills.
I will not just take what appears to be a high-speed drill at face value, and copy/paste one person's idea of what the "best" drills are. I've now read Lamb's book mentioned above, and I've also been to the Blackwater (when it was still called that) ranges. In the chair I occupy, I owe the CF's soldiers better than just assuming new drills must be the best.
I'm not trying to invent a new ruck sack, and I am not saying that whatever the new Pam ends up looking like won't resemble the UOI drills. I can promise you that they won't be exactly the same, though.
I 100% agree with you that at some point better drills may be found and we should adapt to those when they come out.
However, right now I do not feel we are using the best possible drills, and even worse that we are teaching two ways to do the same thing.
There will be some answers that will be answered with a stop watch, and some will be subjective input for "feel", "weapon control", etc. They'll be tested in daytime, low light, no light, with/without gloves, with/without NBC, etc.
Everything needs to be questioned, right from "Do we really need to hit the forward assist anymore?". Yes the first gen M16s from Vietnam needed them, but are modern buffer springs, bolts, and ammunition enough to say that it makes no difference? That is what I mean when I write that it will be solved through research. Take a row of rifles, make half load-ready-fire-unload one round at a time with the FA pressed and the other half not, then switch. If 1000 rounds are fired and 995 are fired from both with no stoppages, then the FA isn't required. But if it's 995 vs 900 then obviously it's required.
I am confident the resources and will exists to give the troops what they deserve; drills that we can confidently tell them are the best we could give them.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
To be fair, this in particular I suspected on my own. I'm not surprised wiser heads have reached similar conclusions...
Petamocto, I hope I didn't come off sounding like a jerk in my previous post. I have a kneejerk reaction when people declare "We need to do more studies!" Thank you for taking the time to put my mind at ease.
- Reaction score
- 68
- Points
- 680
Here's a question when did the drill of stripping the bolt to include the removal of the extractor stop?
The only ref I can find in the pam is the 1994 revision that states not to remove the extractor spring.....
The only ref I can find in the pam is the 1994 revision that states not to remove the extractor spring.....
- Reaction score
- 68
- Points
- 680
Dangerboy I know that but all the troops that I test last night from BMQ/SQ soilders and even to some PLQ qualified CPls that where taught NOT to remove the extractor.... I am trying to track down when some decided that it was no longer going to be taught.....
- Reaction score
- 1,450
- Points
- 1,260
It must be whatever school taught them, I know the BMQ and Bold Eagle courses I ran in LFWA TC we taught removing the extractor. Once again people are deviating from the drills as they are scared people will lose parts.
- Reaction score
- 68
- Points
- 680
I think so Dangerboy.... when I showed them how to do it they looked at me like I had 3 heads!
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
I do not have the 100% solution on the extractor, but my best-guess would be that it was stopped because probability of the weapon having a stoppage because the extractor spring wasn't cleaned in a few days was much lower than the certainty of the weapon failing to function if the spring is lost in the field.
It's not so much that it's verboten to ever clean it so much as it's not the best thing to do if you're not in a controlled clean environment.
Getting back to the drills, Wonderbread no worries. I have the soldiers' best interest in mind, and that is why I am going through the process of relieving the confusion for them. I don't like troops being confused, and I don't like instructors being put in positions where they have to answer questions that put them on the spot (which drill should we use?).
We shall see.
It's not so much that it's verboten to ever clean it so much as it's not the best thing to do if you're not in a controlled clean environment.
Getting back to the drills, Wonderbread no worries. I have the soldiers' best interest in mind, and that is why I am going through the process of relieving the confusion for them. I don't like troops being confused, and I don't like instructors being put in positions where they have to answer questions that put them on the spot (which drill should we use?).
We shall see.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Everyone,
At the end of the preamble below, I will be asking a few questions that I would appreciate your assistance with.
This is not meant to be a scientific research-gathering exercise, more than it is a chance for me to identify the "pulse" with something I'm working on.
I am the Officer in Charge of Small Arms at the Infantry School, and I am in the process of doing everything in my power to provide the soldiers the best drills we can provide them. These drills will be the simplest, safest, offer the most control of the weapon, and provide the highest probability of success in combat (remedying stoppages quicker in more conditions, etc).
Approx five years ago I identified that two methods were being taught to conduct C7 drills; the "old" PAM drills (cant the weapon to the left, identify the position of the bolt), and the "new" quick shooting package (slap the bottom of the mag, ****, and believe that will fix most of the stoppages).
I don't want to go into too much detail here, but basically I have all the answers as to what the origins of both sets of drills are. I know why the PAM method is the way it is, and I know the origins of the new ones. I also know the US has used SPORT for 25 years, among other countries. There is a large full-scale testing process going on to identify the best steps to do every part of the drill / stoppage. This message board is to help us look in other directions we may not have thought of ourselves.
So my questions to you are:
Please list who you are and what you do. Did you learn the C7 by the PAM drills? When? Since learning them, have you used them entirely? Have you been taught this "new" method? Where/when? What is your opinion of both of them? If you have been in TICs and have a stoppage, do you just smash and **** the C7 until it can shoot again, or actually follow a set list of steps? Do you change your mags during a lull, or do you run them dry (attempt to count rounds but there is too much going on).
My example is:
I learned the PAM way in NCM Reserve Infantry trg in 1994, and then again in Reg Force Infantry Officer trg in 2002. Then, as a platoon commander in 04-06, during a "gunfighter" shooting package/range, some guys with cool sunglasses taught us a different way to conduct drills. It caused some confusion because there seemed to be some merit in them being faster, but it was still not the "official" way as taught by the book. I know the troops seemed to think they were pretty good, but it put the Sgts in some awkward positions when they were instructing classes because they were either teaching the official way and fielding questions about there being a perceived better way, or they were instructing the new way and fielding questions about it not being the by-the-book way.
Don't worry, you're not going to be quoted in any paperwork or anything; as I mentioned it's just for me to get a feel of what's out there. I have a pretty good picture of the Reg Force Infantry situation, but what would be great is if some of the non-Infantry types can tell me what the ground truth is for you, because whatever changes I make to the PAM will affect the entire CF.
Thank you very much for any assistance.
Edit: Haha, apparently it won't let me write c-o-c-k the weapon.
At the end of the preamble below, I will be asking a few questions that I would appreciate your assistance with.
This is not meant to be a scientific research-gathering exercise, more than it is a chance for me to identify the "pulse" with something I'm working on.
I am the Officer in Charge of Small Arms at the Infantry School, and I am in the process of doing everything in my power to provide the soldiers the best drills we can provide them. These drills will be the simplest, safest, offer the most control of the weapon, and provide the highest probability of success in combat (remedying stoppages quicker in more conditions, etc).
Approx five years ago I identified that two methods were being taught to conduct C7 drills; the "old" PAM drills (cant the weapon to the left, identify the position of the bolt), and the "new" quick shooting package (slap the bottom of the mag, ****, and believe that will fix most of the stoppages).
I don't want to go into too much detail here, but basically I have all the answers as to what the origins of both sets of drills are. I know why the PAM method is the way it is, and I know the origins of the new ones. I also know the US has used SPORT for 25 years, among other countries. There is a large full-scale testing process going on to identify the best steps to do every part of the drill / stoppage. This message board is to help us look in other directions we may not have thought of ourselves.
So my questions to you are:
Please list who you are and what you do. Did you learn the C7 by the PAM drills? When? Since learning them, have you used them entirely? Have you been taught this "new" method? Where/when? What is your opinion of both of them? If you have been in TICs and have a stoppage, do you just smash and **** the C7 until it can shoot again, or actually follow a set list of steps? Do you change your mags during a lull, or do you run them dry (attempt to count rounds but there is too much going on).
My example is:
I learned the PAM way in NCM Reserve Infantry trg in 1994, and then again in Reg Force Infantry Officer trg in 2002. Then, as a platoon commander in 04-06, during a "gunfighter" shooting package/range, some guys with cool sunglasses taught us a different way to conduct drills. It caused some confusion because there seemed to be some merit in them being faster, but it was still not the "official" way as taught by the book. I know the troops seemed to think they were pretty good, but it put the Sgts in some awkward positions when they were instructing classes because they were either teaching the official way and fielding questions about there being a perceived better way, or they were instructing the new way and fielding questions about it not being the by-the-book way.
Don't worry, you're not going to be quoted in any paperwork or anything; as I mentioned it's just for me to get a feel of what's out there. I have a pretty good picture of the Reg Force Infantry situation, but what would be great is if some of the non-Infantry types can tell me what the ground truth is for you, because whatever changes I make to the PAM will affect the entire CF.
Thank you very much for any assistance.
Edit: Haha, apparently it won't let me write c-o-c-k the weapon.
Haggis
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,656
- Points
- 1,140
As per my profile, I am an Infantry CWO and the current RSM of a Reserve Light Infantry Regiment, employed at NDHQ in a staff position. I have recent operational experience in an Infantry sub-unit.
Yes.
I was one of the orignial SARP instructors
Yes. Never had a stoppage I couldn't clear.
Yes.
A couple of times/places with both mil and civ "operators" wearing balaclavas and Oakleys. Most recently was a refresher shoot in December 2009 just west of Ottawa.
As I stated I have been taught both ways: as per the pam (B-GL-385-001/PT-001) and as per "Gunfighter". When it comes to safety, the pam way is the ONLY drills that should be accepted. This is particularly true at the BMQ, BMQ (L) and DP1 levels where "best practises", which will stay with the soldier for their careers, will be learned.
"Gunfighter" drills are faster and more efficient but not neccesarily safer. If a breech obstruction or mechanical problem is the cause of the stoppage, I don't care how many times you "Smack-Rack-GO", your stoppage isn't going to magically get cleared. In those instances, falling back to the pam drills is the only way to go.
As I stated earlier, I have been taught and have used both drills in training and in the real world. I can also "transition" from rifle to pistol more quickly that I can clear a stoppage or change a magazine.
To be honest, I really like the "Gunfighter" drills, particularly with the A2. The problem is that "Gunfighter", though effective, is not the CF standard and is rarely taught outside the communities of those who need it.
In the case of an ND (which in the majority of instances happens during a load or unload) an ammunition/weapon accident/malfunction, the test is to establish if the accused followed the published, accepted CF standard - the pam - for handling/manipulating the weapon.
My $0.02 on a Saturday morning (before taxes).
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
LCIS Sgt currently 2IC Ancil Sect of Armoured Regt.
As per the PAM.
Back in 1991.
Every step minus cant to the left, as I shoot left handed i can see the port from the shoulder.
Yes i have received Gunfighter famil. But as our 3VP instructor told us, this isn't an official course, so a ND will be treated as per the PAM.
It is quicker to use Gunfighter as well as more stable at short ranges, but as Haggis states its better to use approved drills for the safety factor with new troops.
As per the PAM.
Back in 1991.
Every step minus cant to the left, as I shoot left handed i can see the port from the shoulder.
Yes i have received Gunfighter famil. But as our 3VP instructor told us, this isn't an official course, so a ND will be treated as per the PAM.
It is quicker to use Gunfighter as well as more stable at short ranges, but as Haggis states its better to use approved drills for the safety factor with new troops.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
MWO (Haggis),
Thank you very much for your reply. It is exactly your point about the PAM way being the official way, and that is what I am doing what I am with the PAM re-write. The Inf Sch is the SME, and as long as claims are logically backed up and tested, we propose the changes to LFDTS and the PAM gets changed. It's getting changed anyway for the A2 architecture.
I know at first glance it seems like "In this corner, we have the PAM drills...", but that's not really it. While we are directly comparing the two, it's not about going with one or going with the other. It has more to do with every single step / drill being as efficient as it should be.
For example, when you claim that the new drills won't stop a mechanical stoppage (broken extractor, hard double feed requiring Leatherman, etc), you are exactly right. However, what we are testing and identifying is how often that would actually happen? When we weigh pros and cons, we're looking at "No the tap/rack won't solve everything as an immediate IA, but will it solve 95% of stoppages in half the time?". If so, then it would be a matter of having X as the immediate IA, and Y for the prolonged stoppage.
Further, yes the PAM drills can identify all types including an empty mag that the tap/rack would not fix), but can you do it at night? Pretty tough to identify the position of the bolt in pitch black or fumbling with a flashlight or refocusing the NVG while getting shot at. Those are the sorts of pros/cons we're weighing.
While I am remaining entirely objective, it is hard to not notice a very obvious range slant toward the current PAM drills, and a combat focus to the new drills. For example, if you are getting shot at, is it really more important to do up your mag pouch than return fire?
Thank you very much for your detailed reply, it's exactly that sort of info and opinion that I'm looking for.
Thank you very much for your reply. It is exactly your point about the PAM way being the official way, and that is what I am doing what I am with the PAM re-write. The Inf Sch is the SME, and as long as claims are logically backed up and tested, we propose the changes to LFDTS and the PAM gets changed. It's getting changed anyway for the A2 architecture.
I know at first glance it seems like "In this corner, we have the PAM drills...", but that's not really it. While we are directly comparing the two, it's not about going with one or going with the other. It has more to do with every single step / drill being as efficient as it should be.
For example, when you claim that the new drills won't stop a mechanical stoppage (broken extractor, hard double feed requiring Leatherman, etc), you are exactly right. However, what we are testing and identifying is how often that would actually happen? When we weigh pros and cons, we're looking at "No the tap/rack won't solve everything as an immediate IA, but will it solve 95% of stoppages in half the time?". If so, then it would be a matter of having X as the immediate IA, and Y for the prolonged stoppage.
Further, yes the PAM drills can identify all types including an empty mag that the tap/rack would not fix), but can you do it at night? Pretty tough to identify the position of the bolt in pitch black or fumbling with a flashlight or refocusing the NVG while getting shot at. Those are the sorts of pros/cons we're weighing.
While I am remaining entirely objective, it is hard to not notice a very obvious range slant toward the current PAM drills, and a combat focus to the new drills. For example, if you are getting shot at, is it really more important to do up your mag pouch than return fire?
Thank you very much for your detailed reply, it's exactly that sort of info and opinion that I'm looking for.
- Reaction score
- 4,934
- Points
- 1,060
Don't you already have a thread on this?
Milnet.ca Staff
Milnet.ca Staff
