Quote:
Originally Posted by HorseSoldier
(Most of our guys that got 416s issued at the team level? Ditched them and either went back to stock M4A1s or M4s with shorter direct gas uppers. One of the good parts of SF is that the works/doesn't work decision cycle happens at a much lower level, for the most part, efforts to ditch the M9 notwithstanding. Once the chicks dig it factor wore off, the 416 mostly got tossed. Lance Corporal Schmuckatelly in a line infantry unit in the USMC won't have the benefit of being able to do the same thing until someone with a lot of stars on their shoulders owns up to their mistake, which takes a whole lot longer -- if it ever happens at all.)
|
Sadly, this is the Army I know (with Specialist Schmuckatelly standing in for his lance corporal counterpart).
Comparisons between the USMC and the Army often break down under analysis. The Army dwarfs the USMC and has all the attendant problems. The average Army brigade is not the same fighting force as the average Marine regiment. (I'd be happy to enterain arguments regarding the 82nd Airborne, though.) By the same token, the average Marine regiment isn't the same fighting force as the 75th Rangers or an SF group. I'm not talking firepower or equipment. I'm talking about the troops themselves. The more you restrict the pool of folks accepted, the more remarkable the end product. There's a reason the SO communities aren't hundreds of thousands strong.
For what it's worth, the former Marines in my Guard unit outshot the center of mass of my unit. The top ten percent of shooters weren't all former Marines or even predominantly Marines. However, on a standard Army qual range at Bliss, the unit as a whole shot 28 for 40. The former Marines shot 30 for 40. The XO compiled these statistics to settle an argument of the type Law and Horse are having right now. One should assign whatever significance one wants to the difference. It's worth bearing in mind that none of the targets were more than 300m from the firing positions. Coincidentally, I had a bad day on the range and fired 30 for 40 (I'm pretty reliable against targets 250 meters and closer). Were I forced to engage targets at ranges greater than 300m, I'd hit fewer than half of them. Sad but true. I can't speculate on how things would have turned out differently on a range with targets out to 500m, although you can be certain that the former Marines in my unit did.
I think there is a value to having confidence in one's ability to hit targets at long range. Personally, I'd love to have that confidence. On the other hand, maybe we should read something into the fact that the Germans, who entered WW2 with a bolt action rifle and superior marksmanship, switched to a rifle oriented towards shorter ranges. Granted, the loss of scads of well-trained manpower and its replacement by under-trained newbies would have rewarded a switch away from (comparatively) long-range riflery and to assault riflery. Nonetheless, crew served weapons exist to engage targets beyond 300m. Again, though, I've only served in the line dog world. I can't speak to how the Rangers, SF, or anyone like that does their business other than to say that those guys are far superior to me.