No mate, I think he was referring to scopes vs. open sights in general. Indeed, I don't think he was even referring to the same rifle type, given the (initially) fairly shambolic state of British sniping during the War. I can recall the amount of effort involved in both teaching - and being taught to shoot - with SLR. A calibre that offers less recoil, plus a decent optical sight, certainly could hardly fail to improve students' confidence and ease instructors' workload. Admittedly, F 88 was after my time, so I could be talking out of my arse.

Does anyone have an opinion as to whether recruits with previous experience of firearms make better or worse students of marksmanship? (apologies if this is a bit of an old chestnut)

P.S.;Sniping in France 1914-1918 was H-P's book. Bloody good read, too!

I think previous experience makes a big difference in many cases. I was in the Cadets prior to joining and also spent alot of time (usually unsuccessfully!) trying to pop rabbits and pigeons with an air rifle. Then in Depot i was the second best shot in the platoon, mainly due, in my opinion, to my previous experiences with shooting, even if it was limited.

Any bad habits one may have picked up are outweighed by the experience in guessing range, wind, breathing properly and getting into a good stable position. This grounding in the basics, mainly self taught, lets you get on with getting used to a 'proper' rifle and shooting well with it.

Must say though that towards the end of Depot, and in Battalion, those of a poorer standard did catch up, so maybe prior experience is only useful as an initial stepping stone and doesn't affect your 'end ability'?

I did competition shooting before Depot. It certainly makes a difference at the start, especially with breathing and elevation/depression; but most were at a similar level on passing out.

As we're getting on to marksmanship training I would venture that the rushed nature of most army shooting isn't conducive to individual improvement - I'm meaning in elementary practices, not snaps and rapid of course.


Also, the targets aren't much of a challenge. If I get the same score with a 4" group as somebody with a 10 inch group (on a fig 12) what is going to motivate him to do better?

In reality, both would have been an equal number of "kills" but it doesn't reward good shooting and that matters more as you get further out or the loopholes get smaller.

I've found throughout my training (RAuxAF) that I've been very much left alone to get on with it once I'd proven I was capable.

Note I said capable, I'm no marksman - just achieve good consistent shooting each time we go out.

The DS have enough trouble coaching everyone through APWT that there's little time spent on improving anyone beyond a pass.

That said, speaking to mates in the TA we would seem to do far more IBSR / LFTT training.

Running before we can walk or a reflection of the current tempo?

Metric man, use metric measurements.

As for improving shooting then look to time constraints and the individuals determination to ensure each shot is a good one, also good coaching.

I am a fair shot however in the standing I might aswell me armed with a soggy slipper, better yet a stern frown.....is there time and ammo to improve it. NO therefore I'll be the one screaming blue murder at the huns.

[quote="EX_STAB"]As we're getting on to marksmanship training I would venture that the rushed nature of most army shooting isn't conducive to individual improvement - I'm meaning in elementary practices, not snaps and rapid of course.


Also, the targets aren't much of a challenge. If I get the same score with a 4" group as somebody with a 10 inch group (on a fig 12) what is going to motivate him to do better?

In reality, both would have been an equal number of "kills" but it doesn't reward good shooting and that matters more as you get further out or the loopholes get smaller.[/quote]
Really mate, are you sure, I'm (Pedant mode on) sure that they stay the same size, they just look smaller!

May I remind you that despite the Army's best efforts we are not required in law in this country to use that french muck!

I have a sneaking suspicion that it is largely MoD spin, anecdotally based on a shiny new SA 80 with SUSAT compared with shagged out 25+ year-old SLR's with wobbly rear sights. The "it's more accurate than an M-16" probably comes from a similar comparison with a few shagged-out iron-sighted AR15 and M-16 rifles held on strength somewhere (and probably used in comparative trials...)

I would very much like to see a genuine comparative test (same ammunition, same shooter, same-day) between a good-condition SA 80 with all the Gucci attachments and ACOG and a good-condition M-16 A4 with the equivalent gucci attachments and the same ACOG (note -- not the DMR rifles, just the tool-up standard ones).

Alternatively, if any STABS who load privately .223 could be a slightly naughty person and try some match ammunition (e.g. 24.6 grains N140 pushing a 69 gr Sierra Match King) in an SA 80 and post the results, it would be very enlightening and we can probably arrange an equivalent military-spec AR15 to be tried in the same way over here.

A question that always comes to my mind when marksmenship is talked about, is how accurate can we be as marksmen on the battlefield, lungs bursting, adrenaline running, and taking incoming fire?

Take a step away from whether the SA80 is a more accurate rifle in the hands of a target shooter, and start looking at target effect in the hands of the great unwashed. A minute difference in MoA accuracy is not that important - a weapon that allows the majority of firers to hit the target the majority of the time at the required ranges and in all conditions is. It is about being fit for purpose, not the model of perfection.

Bisley-nut obsession with detail about trigger creep, how many grains of one thing is pushing how many grains of another is not actually that important - it is just of interest to those (few) with an interest in that level of detail. Range time, practice, good coaching etc is. Very few army shots will ever get to the level where they can outperform their rifle in terms of accuracy.

Oh, and the new G&Z practice requires you to prove you can group to an acceptable standard from kneeling, sitting, standing, prone and from the fire trench - it certainly adds a lot of time to the G&Z practice!

Thats when it all comes into play, the one or two done automatically as a drill well aimed shots that hit the bad guy as opposed to the get them rounds down type of fire that doesnt guarantee anything apart from noise. Well that was the theory behind it!

All good and well, but these elementary gravel-belly rivet-counting issues are important in practical terms -- simply in terms of how big a target you want to be able to engage at what range and guarantee a 1st round hit (with a perfectly-aimed shot, of course).

For instance, my torso is about 30 cm wide -- to "guarantee" a hit at 300 m, you need a minimum theoretical accuracy of 3.5 MOA, end of story.

If your standard is just "majority of shooters to hit the target the majority of the time", then you might as well save your money and buy optically-sighted AKs and have done with it...

Very valid point but to achieve anything other converting live into brass on a two way range its quite beneficial to hit the opposition. Like any other skill you are taught, shooting should start with the basics of shooting, slowly building on what has been taught to a point where instinctive shooting is exactly that: instinctive. To ignore the Marksmanship principles is to ignore what has been learned the bl*ody hard way in the past. Look at what some unwashed farmers did to us in S.Africa for example!

When all the elements involved in becoming a competent combat shot have been practiced enough they are instinctive,this means that even when you are blowing through your hoop, arrse going half a crown sixpence you will still be able to put down effective fire.

Arguably, we could. The money save could be used to teach the soldiers to shoot them properly.

Let us assume that the gravel bellies have their way, and we have an unlimited development budget allowing us to buy/develop the perfect rifle and sighting system - accurate to under your 3.5 MoA. It will still not "guarantee" a hit, unless a comparable amount of time and effort (and money) is allowed to teach all people to shoot to the capability of the weapon - in all conditions.

Theoretically then, we could save a fortune - after all, we would all be capable of "guaranteeing" a first round hit, in all conditions.

Of course, we know that we couldn't because the human factor will outweigh the technology in 99% of the soldiers. The remaining 1% are the ones who turn up at Bisley each year. Strangely enough, they seem to manage to drop representative targets at representative ranges with great consistency. Our soldiers also manage to drop real target at all sorts of ranges, also with great consistency.

Not bad for a weapon people are so keen to heap scorn upon.

There are only three guarantees in life; nurses, taxes and death. The weapon you have at the moment is there because of political decisions, not because it is the best for the job. Having said that you have to use it to the best of YOUR abilities. That comes with time on the range, initially gallery but eventually field firing and onto the two way range.

The M16A2 and M4's that I was issued would usually shoot around 3 MOA with M855 ball ammunition (our variation of SS109). With the 77gr M262 that would drop to 1.5-2 MOA. I would not be surprised to see a similar effect with your rifles. After all, good ammunition is half the equation and lets face it, a semi AP round built to low cost and high volume really is not optimal for consistency.

This particular gravelbelly thinks that SA80 is pretty much there already. I've never had a problem with the trigger, and the accuracy was quite good enough for the job - excellence is the enemy of "good enough". My concern has always been the amount of training time available, and the need for competent coaches and SAA instructors.

The easiest way to make the rifle more effective in the hands of the average soldier would be a handguard that wasn't bolted to the barrel; I always found that the second-biggest cause of wandering zero was "soldiers applying different forces on to the front handgrip from detail to detail" (the biggest was of course the REME insistence on loosening the windage screws on the SUSAT at PRE time, and soldiers not remembering to tighten them up, and I think the ACOG solves that).

Unfortunately, no-one is going to rework all those rifles to add brackets to screw handguards on at the back - so the realistic answer is teaching soldiers how to hold the rifle properly; knowing that even if they do get excited and forget, they'll still hit out to 200m or so.

Absolutely. I think we can all agree that the SA80, with SUSAT, ACOG or Spectre (OS?) is accurate enough to provide effective fire, and what needs to be refined is the training. Sadly, in my x years in the TA, I can easily count the number of times I was involved in March and Shoot and ISBR. Having read the number of times ranges were cancelled, maybe there is some need to reorganise how ranges are booked?

No that is a can of worms that needs to be addressed by somebody sooner rather than later.