Training to Fail

How the US Army’s range procedures made Soldiers suck

If you jumped in a time machine and went back to a US Army rifle range in 2005, you would have found a tense training environment.  Soldiers took all commands from the range tower while range safeties stood over their shoulders watching for mistakes.  The tower gave all instructions and the shooter was expected to follow them exactly as stated.

“Approach your weapon”

“Load 5 rounds into your 30-round magazine”

“Lock and load your 5-round magazine”

“Flip your selector from safe to fire.”

“Fire when ready”

God help the poor Specialist that touched the magazine before he was instructed, or flipped the selector a moment too soon; they were sure to get yelled at by the NCO standing behind them.  Strict adherence to the instructions was as much about discipline as it was safety.  The graded qualification had a similar vibe; Soldiers were expected to engage 40 pop-up targets from the prone, prone supported, and kneeling firing positions.  Soldiers were not allowed to reload or change positions until directly told by the tower.

Of course, this was all seen as necessary and good.  Shooting a rifle is serious business and the Soldiers should be fearful of safety violations.  The rifle range isn’t the place for cowboy hooliganism.  Except that in 2005 the Army was rapidly rotating units through combat deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Those troops on the rifle range were soon deployed and sent out on patrol where the problems became apparent.  Soldiers were handed their rifle and live ammunition, and just as they were trained, they waited for explicit instructions to engage targets.  Even when faced with an obvious need to shoot back, many Soldiers needed the affirmations of their leadership before they were comfortable engaging targets.  While this seems like absurdity, how could they be expected to perform otherwise?  They were trained to a standard, performed as they were trained, and then had to be un-trained of those bad lessons while engaged with the enemy. 

Fortunately, the Army quickly learned their lessons and completely revamped both the rifle qualification and the range procedures surrounding it.  Soldiers are now given 4 magazines loaded with 10 rounds each.  They still engage 40 pop-up targets, but now utilizing a barrier from the positions of prone, prone supported, kneeling supported, and standing supported.  But more critically, the tower commands were changed dramatically.

“Lock and load”

“Troops to the South” (or some variation)

“Weapons free”

And that’s it for the entire qualification until the tower calls ceasefire.  Shooters are expected to engage targets as they appear, reload when they run empty and change positions at each reload.  The range safeties are still there, but they serve as more of a coach than a disciplinarian.  The end result is obvious: the Soldiers are significantly more confident with their weapons and can easily progress to more dynamic training.  An added benefit is poor competency becomes extremely visible; in the old qualification, bad shooters could get away with a lot because they simply had to wait for the command and do what everyone else did.  It’s very difficult to pass the new qualification with poor weapons handling; the targets will keep coming and won’t wait for you to reload or change position.  Modern Army riflemen are much more prepared than their predecessors and have a solid foundation on which to build further skills.

While the Army learned this lesson many years ago, the old culture still permeates many educational structures within the broader “tactical” community.  You don’t need to go far to see a firearms instructor demanding strict adherence to instructions under threat of shouting and belittling.  Some may do this out of the old belief that this stress makes good shooters, while others pursue it as a means to exercise their ego.  In either case they are mistaken; shooters are made competent with strong fundamentals and progressive skill-building in a safe and trusting environment.  If an instructor doesn’t trust their student to do a drill/qualification without strict instructions, then they should seriously consider if the student is actually ready for the task at hand. 

Weapons training is serious business and any real-world application of such training is done with significant autonomy.  A shooter must be trusted in training, and in trusting them, they will learn to trust themselves.