Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.7
Site Design by Sekimori

« Adolph Hitler on federalism | Main | Rather strange result in a gunfight »

Article on infantry and marksmanship

Posted by David Hardy · 21 December 2006 11:41 AM

There's an interesting article in Infantry magazine on the subject. The thrust of it is that the Army has neglected marksmanship, due to (1) emphasis on high-tech weapons and (2) the tendency of past wars ('Nam) to be fought in jungles at close range. Whereas WWII soldiers were trained to engage out to 600 yards, whereas today emphasis is on 200 yards and less. Also the Army (unlike the Marines) have a shortage of first-rate marksmanship instructors.

And now we're fighting in the desert and mountains, where people can see and shoot from longer range.

[Update: link corrected. Thanks...]

· shooting

3 Comments | Leave a comment

Alcibiades | December 21, 2006 1:41 PM | Reply

I think the URL is incorrect; it wants me to log into you cPanel.


Anyway, weren't there fewer riflemen in WWII, percentage-wise? A lot of soldiers were armed with submachine guns that couldn't shoot very far.


Marcus Poulin | December 21, 2006 4:45 PM | Reply

President Franklin D. Roosevelt maintained a long friendship with then (future) Marine Commandant Thomas Holcomb from the 1920's onward.

And you know what started their friendship?

An interest in long-range rifle markesmanship.

Incidentally, Holcomb, was the first United States Marine in history to pin 4-Stars on
his shoulder.

Even if his rank of General was his retirement rank.

bud | December 22, 2006 11:28 AM | Reply

The Army's disinterest in marksmanship has a lot more to do with the studies showing that well under 10% of soldiers in combat ever actually consciously put the sights on another human being and pull the trigger. The percentage of "combat" troops who *never* fired their weapon is in the double digits.

Given this, the Army decided to go back to the really old days of "volley" fire and depend on area fire to maybe eventually hit something.

Leave a comment