C7A2 have arrived at our unit
- Thread starter mt84
- Start date
Well there are hundreds of dead Taliban that prove that the Gunfighter doctrine is effective. Hard to argue with hard facts. Too many armchair generals/soldiers out there.
By that logic, there are thousands of dead Vietnamese that say the M16A1 was a PERFECT weapon. You could call that a "hard fact", but it isn't.
Most casualties aren't caused by a soldier and his rifle (I'm sure you know this), they are caused by indirect fire, or masses of MG fire. I also didn't say that gunfighter doesn't work, I said it isn't taught properly and that it is only designed for certain situations. When someone is right in there facing an enemy within 10, or hell even 20 metres, gunfighter drills are designed to be faster. That is not the most common type of engagement for regular deployed soldiers, and as I said previously the system suffers from lack of training the further actions. Any decent urban ops instructor knows that it is only a basis to be built upon.
I am also NOT an armchair soldier, my statements are made from direct experience.
I never said perfect, I said effective. And I agree, Gunfighter is for close quarters, the old doctrine still works at longer distances.
1 hour and 3 minutes from question to answer. Now THAT;S why you ask a place like this.
With 3 days of fluff!
CGN already covered it. So I won't bother.
However, I will say that what is being taught now are two different standards for dealing with IA's. The old stuff still in the PAM and the new stuff. Standards wants us to teach the recruits what is in the PAM, so soldiers leave DP1 and re-learn newer things at unit level... some better than others, or different than others. It's not just with gunfighter drills either.
There should be one standard, but the people responsible for changing this crap are already overloaded.
If you can't see that, then there's no point in talking about it.
Last edited:
Yes it is very effective.
One thing is it has to be taught properly by people that understand why things are done a certain way so that they can explain this to the shooter.
I have seen over the years to many changes to the program that were implmented by NCOs who thought they knew better but were simply passing on info that was better for them ..not the for the program.
To add...there is a difference between old and new drills for the C7. We all know this ....this is been addressed as far back (when I got involved in this stuff particular) as 2006 and for those in the military, you know how long that takes. It is the weapon pam that has to change in order for anything to happen. As of right now....I know LFWATC and LFQATC teach both sets of Weapon handling drills and implements two seperate WHT. This I feel is wrong and one standard should be in place. As mentioned above we have a problem with dinosaurs roaming around but things are changeing.
As for the shooting side, troops are still taught/coached and fire the leading up practices and PWT 1-3 and once passed they undergo practice 41-48 and PWT 4 (which is the old gunfughter).
They use close quarter shooting in a close enviornment and use the standard shooting methods they are taught at longer ranges.
We just new to get someone higher than us instructors to keep the ball rolling in order to implement the better....Myself and the other UOIs here have done all we can do in the training system so far and it is up to a higher level now.
Last edited:
- Back in 1987, I was issued a cleaning kit case because I carried a C8. Unlike the C7, the C8 had no butt storage for the cleaning kit. Now, we all need the cleaning kit case, or would, if they could solve the shortage of cleaning kits...
