9mm and the Navy SEALS

K

K80Geoff

New member
Army Marksmanship?

I went through Basic Training in 1970, just as the Army changed over to the M16. The marksmanship training was so poor that I was able to take the trophy in my basic class of 220 recruits after I spent the entire marksmanship training time in the hospital with pneumonia! The CO gave me one day to zero my M16 and told me if I could qualify I could stay with the platoon and not be recycled.

I didn"t tell him I had shot smallbore in college, zeroed my M16 with 9 rounds, went to one practice range and shot the qualification course as an expert!

The sergeants didn't know how to teach people how to shoot, fortunately I did not have to listen to them for two weeks. Shooting at little green men popping up from behind well marked berms is not marksmanship!

In seven years in the Army (active) INCLUDING Infantry OCS at Benning I never fired at a paper target except the zero target at 25 meters!

You cannot train soldiers to shoot accurately popping little green men.

Phooey to the 9MM, ask any GI who was in WW2!

Geoff Ross
 
G

George Hill

Staff Alumnus
ARM

Advanced Rifle Marksmenship training... The Qualification Course is Malone 18.
Pop Up Moving Targets out to 300 Meters.
This is not an easy course.

I can't say what it was like way back when... But when I was there - it was state of the art.
We had several groups of Marines that came to this range.
We had several groups of Marines that came for the Jump Training.

Lots of Marines were at Ft Benning. I wonder why. :D
 
A

Adventurer_96

New member
SquEALS and other such nonsense

Currently I'm in the Air Force but being a former Marine attached to a Scout-Sniper platoon let me pass on a few of my perspectives:

1. Air Force shooting courses stink. But, why should a personnel troop in Nebraska be qualified to 500m with an A2?

2. Scout-Snipers can hit a target with the M-40A1 out to 1,000 yds, but with a 16 it's a bit different. The last time I qual-ed in the Marines I told the snipers who were qualifying with me I would take the range as high-shooter. In my fleeting moment of military glory I did. Rifle and pistol, I might add... sorry! Why didn't they do too well? Because firing a bolt-action rifle with a mil-dot scope is different (and easier) than an iron sighted weapon. (My humble opinion...)

3. SquEALs aren't great marksmen. A friend of mine who was a school-trained Scout-Sniper in the Marine Corps crossflowed to the SquEALs and they were super excited because he's a sniper, so he can shoot! He's well trained for the long-distance stuff, so they should be in for a real good deal. They carry a lot of high rate-of-fire type weapons which make up for their small size units (see any Discovery channel show to back up that tidbit!) but the precision often isn't there.

4. Did I mention Air Force shooting courses/quals stink?

5. Marine Corps rifle training was pretty good, but when you only give an infantryman two or three trips to the range each year it's kind of hard to keep up the skills.

Not to bash the SquEALs too much, we need folks around who do the things that they do. Like sit in cold water and carry around logs and write books...

By the way, ever hear about the retooled .45's that were being used by Marine units (so to speak...) for specops type stuff?

La perte des armes est la fin de la liberte.
 
D

DAKODAKID

New member
SEALs

A96,
Sit in cold water, carry logs, write books!!!LMAO!!
I too enjoy the .45 Marine refurb. My MK23 is the
best pistol I have ever shot...
I agree that the Military, LE, and even most civilian
shooters really can't shoot......
sad but true...
I still think that as a whole we have the best Military
in the world!!!!!
 
C

C.R.Sam

New member
I agree with Dude and Bennett.

And most operations can hopefully be completed without a shot being fired.

But when necessary, some Navy can hump, shoot and blend quite well.

Sam...
 
B

Badger Arms

New member
It's the Man and not the job that makes a good marksman. Saying that Marines are better than SEALs or Air Force Qualification courses suck are all surface observations. The best Marksman I ever met was a civilian. She happened to like to shoot. Go figure. I like to shoot but am an average marksman. I shot Expert for the Air Force every time they let me handle a gun. That ain't saying much. Everybody can shoot expert with a little training and discipline.

I think that people who use a pistol in combat (we are in the semi-auto pistol forum) have much more to worry about than how accurate a shot they are. They have to worry about how quick they are and why the hell their M-16 or SAW is out of ammo.

The 9mm is NOT adequate for any military purpose except perhaps guard duty. When you shoot somebody with a 9mm, it is much less likely to incapacitate and will incapacitate much slower than a 45. The reason that the Army adopted it is because they were hiring suburb-punks who's only exposure to guns came from 'Duck Hunt' on their Nintendos. They have never done a lick of hard work in their lives and a 1911 was 'too heavy' and 'kicked' too hard for them. It's a sad commentary on the SEALS that they have to shoot three times to accomplish what a 90 year old Browning design can do with one shot.
 
D

DUDE

New member
well in the end why do the SEALs use the 9mm round well it's NATO and that about it. in the 70s and 80s NATO said to the U.S. Military hay we adopted .308 and .223 and now you can adopted the 9mm and no if's and's or but's :p
 
J

joegerardi

New member
The young man that taught me to shoot was the RO and the former Senior Pistol Instructor at Parris Island. This kid could hit anything at any range with any pistol. I remember one day a real newbie showed up at the range fresh from the gun shop (his first pistol, he was THAT much of a newbie) It was a .44 mag snub-nose wheelgun. He set up his first target at 25 yards- yes 25 YARDS for his first crack at trying pistol shooting, and taht with a snub. Obviously he could barely hit the target at all, and started complaining that there must be something wrong with the gun. James, the RO, offered to try it. Lined it up freehand, took his time, and put one right between the eyes. Handing the shooter back his gun, he said casually: "I don't think there's anything wrong with the GUN, sir."

The kid gave me thousands in free pistols lessons. If you were willing to learn, he was willing to teach. Best shot I ever saw. I was sorry to see him leave to become a US Deputy Marshall.

That marine could shoot!
 
S

SGB

New member
I don't know who is the "Best" military group with a pistol. I like to think that I'm a pretty accurate civilian and I wouldn't want to go against any of them! I primarily shoot with a HK USP 9F which is a rather large "9", After holding a SOCOM and a Tactical I can't imagine ANYONE wanting to use the SOCOM over the Tactical! The SOCOM is just TOO BIG!!:rolleyes: The Tactical seems like the obvious choice if your going to pack a .45. If your going with a smaller caliber I like the idea of an extended threaded barrel on any other USP! Reliable, light, accurate, and durable. What else could one ask for?;)
 
D

DAKODAKID

New member
Once you get over the "size" factor of the MK23 it is one sweet shooter...Much more accurate than my Tactical!!!
It is a bit much for a Military handgun with all the other gear that has to be lugged around...
And you do need good sized paws to shoot it comfortably,
My wife is petite and it is her favorite handgund to shoot
that really baffles me, but when she does shoot she wants the crew served battleaxe...ie Mk23...go figure...
 
B

Bullshooter

New member
I spent a few years in the Navy, but with the Seabees rather than with the fleet. We spent about three of the six months between deployment in infantry training, and a month with the jarheads in Camp Lejeune, NC. We shot everything from (I'm dating myself) the M-16A1 to the 82mm mortar. Qualified as expert with the M-14 (this was in '66) but never quite made it to that level with the M16. Never considered myself a marksman, but then I wasn't supposed to be one. I always felt confident in my ability to defend myself or my shipmates. Served me well in February, 1968 when things became a little "hairy".

Back on topic, we never had the 9mm, instead when occasion demanded it we were issued the old M1911A1 with a couple of magazines using GI hardball. Several guys had personal firearms, even though they were proscribed, but, if memory serves me correctly, they were all .357 revolvers.

Obviously the effectiveness of any round is, in large part, a function of shot placement. IMHO, two rounds of 124gr 9mm in the torso is much better than two rounds of 230 gr .45 ACP in the shoulder and leg.
 
D

dvc

New member
Being in an elite spec ops unit does not instantly make you an expert marksman. Expert marksmen are people who practice religiously. Sure, there are SEALS that can shoot and there are SEALS that can't. It all depends on the individuals devotion to practice.
 
K

Kaboom

New member
It also makes quite a bit of sense to arm yourself with the favorite weapon of the opposition. Makes resupply of ammo much easier and you don't have to carry as much. At least I had the privlidge of shooting Chappel Flats with an M14 instead of the plastic and alloy tinkertoy. PS i'm not real fond of the 16. There are natural shooters in the world just line anything else. What and where they grow up probably has more to do with the ability to shoot that anything else. Those like me who grew up in the country hunting from a very early age weren't awed by the range. We already had a pretty good idea of what was expected of us. Like most things being a really good shot is mostly consentration. I don't shoot nerely as well as i used to because i don't practice as much. My fault.
 
D

DPS0348

New member
Exactly, Kaboon ... necessity is not the mother of invention, necessity is the mother of survival. You do what you have to do to survive. Those who have had to depend on their marksmanship to put meat on the table, I'm sure, have to laugh at the paper-punchers who can put a shot in the center of the target every time. You go, man!
 
J

jdthaddeus

New member
"It takes three shots from a 9mm to do what a .45 always did"


Those .45 guys just crack me up :) One hit to the chest with a .45 FMJ will plum take someone off their feet, but they will scoff at a 9mm hit to the same location.


I know we all hem and haw about how the military only went to the 9mm because it is NATO etc, but did anyone ever consider that the military did exhaustive research and found that it is a MYTH that the .45 works any better? They both carry the same energy, and so they both hit just as hard. In a recent Sanow article being discussed, the 9mm FMJ actually hits harder than a .45 FMJ, and in the NATO round makes a bigger hole! Neither is proven more effective in scientific studies and real shootings. THAT is why the military went to the 9mm. The Israelis and other top notch units that go into harms way all over the world, and shoot real bad guys on a regular basis (unlike most of us), agree. The SEAL in the above quote hit the nail on the head, and what he was saying in so many words is "placement placement placement!". Hit someone with a good hit and it works, no matter the caliber from 9 to 45. Hit someone with a bad hit, or miss, and it works just as poorly, no matter the caliber from 9 to 45. This has been proven over and over and over in study after study.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top