CFSAC 2010 Course of Fire

Riflechair

Riflechair

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 99.7%
369   1   2
Location
BC
Hello folks
I understand Matches one to Four were not available until the evening before the match started.

Holy Cow!

Is the break down available to read now?
I'm quite curious to give it a review.

Has there been any talk about modifying it for next year?

Cheerio
RC
 
The rule book was only the head of those Capt and the Navy Maj . Everything was gaming and not tactical.
Remember the rule was changing on the firing line, at every moment.

But the new scenario pistol match was the best new part. The ship assault and the Dummy Drag scenario was the best.
 
I didn't think the COF would change too dramatically from it's last version. Sounds like things pretty much stayed the same then?
 
D-boy,

The rulebook (RAM, aka Rules for Advanced Marksmanship) was used.

However, it did not define "Gaming" anywhere in it.

The Rifle matches changed from the planned matches in minor ways, such as the 12 second standing/kneeling match at 100. It was supposed to be 5 seconds up, 2 seconds down, 5 seconds up (with two shots in each of the positions.)

However, it was realized that the lack of complete PA system coverage in the butts would prevent people from hearing the "TARGETS DOWN" because of shots being fired at 5 seconds, the change was made to a single 12 second exposure vice the planned 5-2-5.

There were changes made on the fly during the practice. That's why it was a practice.

Did you get a copy of the little shooting log book/target replica book that was passed out prior to the matches? 200+ copies were made and distributed.

NS
 
I'd like to know what all the PRAs are doing about courses of fire...are they all hanging onto the old 1 thru 12 or are some of them changing up (or augmenting) with these new ones?
 
As of last year BCRA has rejected the new CFSAC COF. I was a little peeved at first because I wanted the intro to the new COF prior to competing at CFSAC but in hind sight I think it was the right decision. In many ways it is still a better way to recruit new shooters and for those of us that do not shoot on a regular basis it is an excellent training and verification opportunity.
 
ORA has rejected the old course of fire and adopted the most up to date version.

People seem to enjoy the new format much better.
 
greentips said:
ORA has rejected the old course of fire and adopted the most up to date version.

People seem to enjoy the new format much better.
Click to expand...

As you can see by our pics posted, our numbers at matches are up everywhere. That's testimony or proof that people are liking the new matches 1-4. The ORA 's membership is up and so are all of our SR and S CQB entries. I ain't complaining. Yes, I do miss matches 1-12, but it is what it is... :cool:

I've never been busier than this past season! :eek:

Cheers,

Barney
 
I think people want to shoot challenging matches that flow. I don't think that a carbon copy of CFSAC is the way to go but by combining it with some of the better aspects of matches 1-12 you can offer people a fun and productive day on the range. There were a number of matches that need to get changed or tossed as they are a PITA or not worth the ammo.
 
They should toss out Match 2 completely - that format IMHO is bad training for that kind of shooting. It is a giant rifle PPC match.

Instead, merge the pistol and the close range carbine/rifle match together. Move anything under 100m to the pistol range and made it an action carbine/pistol match.

Close range carbine/rifle should be a balance of speed and accuracy. Skill within close range need to be measured based on both time and reasonable accuracy.
 
I'm sure the new COF is the be all and end all to some, BUT if people want to learn how to apply basic marksmanship principles under some modicum of stress then there isn't anything better than matches 1-12.The new COF might be fun for senior and experienced shooters but I wonder how much fun it is for those that haven't yet grasped the basics?
Personally I feel that 99% of folks aren't able to shoot even basic PWT's well let alone matches 1-12....forget the new stuff!Throwing a bunch of new people into Bisley type matches isn't going to make them better shooters.It's too overwhelming to learn much.What type of target am I shooting at,how long is the next exposure,what position do I need to be in,how many shots do I shoot at each exposure and how do I load my mags?It's too much for newer shooters to digest and STILL focus on what is important...which is the marksmanship.But I wasn't there this year so what would I know.

If it were me organizing things matches 1-12 would stand and ther other matches would be added like they do in Bisley.There they have 1-12 like stages(all the NRA style matches) PLUS all the crawl carry a dummy shoot while doing a headstand matches.That way there is focus on the basics AND the operational stuff which we DO need these days.
 
Here Here Longshot.
You said it much better than I did (Post #8).
I still think the PRA's should consider sticking with matches 1-12.
Shooting sports needs entry level applications just like any other sport.
Service Rifle is no different.
Subsequent shoots can possibly be CFSAC based?

And anyways, all of the PRA trophies are set up for matches 1-12.
 
Longshot said:
I'm sure the new COF is the be all and end all to some, BUT if people want to learn how to apply basic marksmanship principles under some modicum of stress then there isn't anything better than matches 1-12.The new COF might be fun for senior and experienced shooters but I wonder how much fun it is for those that haven't yet grasped the basics?
Personally I feel that 99% of folks aren't able to shoot even basic PWT's well let alone matches 1-12....forget the new stuff!Throwing a bunch of new people into Bisley type matches isn't going to make them better shooters.It's too overwhelming to learn much.What type of target am I shooting at,how long is the next exposure,what position do I need to be in,how many shots do I shoot at each exposure and how do I load my mags?It's too much for newer shooters to digest and STILL focus on what is important...which is the marksmanship.
Click to expand...

Longshot,
Coach Dave said basically the same thing when we were chatting in the mess after the awards ceremony. CFSAC is supposed to be a Small Arms Concentration, not a Competition.
 
The new match is true to its intention - application of fire, which is appropriate for competition. The creator of the matches followed it to the book.

If the PRA wants to continue to stick to the old stuff, eventually it will like the CMP - which has zero relevancy to the military.

27-10-1L.jpg


VS

tyth.jpg


DCRA, and the PRA, were originally established as training apparatus for the military. They should remember their roles and why DND grants them access to range facilities in the first place . They can do their own fun stuff on the side, but they have to at least devote part of their effort to benefit the military ( especially the Reserves).

They can choose to stick with whatever they have been comfortable with in the last 20 years or more, but the military is moving ahead. Therefore, they should move ahead to stay relevant to their original purpose. The Reg. force will have their own resources, but the reserves will depend largely on the PRA to provide expertise and training in more advanced marksmanship.
 
Some bigger picture things to keep in mind about why CFSAC changed:

1. The people that pay for it did not like the format (M1-12) nor the product the program generated. Some people just do not get it when the boss says change or lose it. Argueing that M1-12 were good matches is not solution oriented.

2. Match 1-12 is great training but CFSAC is not initial training. It is designed as continuation training. There are regulations (Training Canada's Army) about how you approach doing it for safety, skill-fade, relavance etc and the "come one, come all regardless of your training level" does not meet the commander's intent. It is a product of poor training plans and organization. If units were actually following the Operational Shooting Program (many "advanced marksmen" have never read it) or competeing at a Provincial/Regional or Unit/Formation level before coming to CFSAC this would be less of an issue.

3. CFSAC took too long, cost too much - how do you do "same as last year (M1-12)" + add matches and make it shorter, flow better, and cost less?

4. CFSAC and M1-12 was not up to date with current doctrine, tactics, techniques, and procedures, nor was it part of a recognized training system. Given that the Army Directorate of Training runs the event would one say those are important things to consider?

5. The new match 1-4 was never designed to be good for the PRA's, the CF really does not care what they do. I think M1-12 is a much better fit for them and they are going to do what they want anyway. Any arguements that the DCRA or PRAs should be closer to DND need to come with a very good understanding of how training (and more importantly training time and money) is tied to what soldiers do for a living - its not recreation, its your tax dollars working.

Having said the above, most agree that the new matches are not at 100%. Most of the problems that I saw were due to a key member of the staff that organizes CFSAC at a national level retired, that simple. No one was working on the matches since the trials. Not releasing them even in beta form was retarded:confused: but let's be real the matches were not much different from what was out on the street. Navy had them, ORA had them, LFWA and LFCA had them etc. The product people saw this year (for service rifle) was about 50% complete, if that.

If anyone has actually shot the matches and has recommendations to improve them they need to show up on your AAR not just CGN. I'll likely be going to the working group this year, if you have points you think are valid send them to me but take the time to read and learn the bigger picture. If you think that does not matter... save your time and mine and go out shooting instead.
 
Longshot said:
I'm sure the new COF is the be all and end all to some, BUT if people want to learn how to apply basic marksmanship principles under some modicum of stress then there isn't anything better than matches 1-12.The new COF might be fun for senior and experienced shooters but I wonder how much fun it is for those that haven't yet grasped the basics?
Personally I feel that 99% of folks aren't able to shoot even basic PWT's well let alone matches 1-12....forget the new stuff!Throwing a bunch of new people into Bisley type matches isn't going to make them better shooters.It's too overwhelming to learn much.What type of target am I shooting at,how long is the next exposure,what position do I need to be in,how many shots do I shoot at each exposure and how do I load my mags?It's too much for newer shooters to digest and STILL focus on what is important...which is the marksmanship.But I wasn't there this year so what would I know.

If it were me organizing things matches 1-12 would stand and ther other matches would be added like they do in Bisley.There they have 1-12 like stages(all the NRA style matches) PLUS all the crawl carry a dummy shoot while doing a headstand matches.That way there is focus on the basics AND the operational stuff which we DO need these days.
Click to expand...

Agree totally but that all needs to happen at the unit level not CFSAC. Why are people learning basics at a national level concentration/competition. Can we not do that better, cheaper and expose more soldiers to it at their home unit first? We should be restoring the ability of the units' NCO corps to effectively coach and teach basic marksmanship like M1-12 and the CFOSP approaches it.
 
DCRA, and the PRA, were originally established as training apparatus for the military. They should remember their roles and why DND grants them access to range facilities in the first place . They can do their own fun stuff on the side, but they have to at least devote part of their effort to benefit the military ( especially the Reserves).

They can choose to stick with whatever they have been comfortable with in the last 20 years or more, but the military is moving ahead. Therefore, they should move ahead to stay relevant to their original purpose. The Reg. force will have their own resources, but the reserves will depend largely on the PRA to provide expertise and training in more advanced marksmanship.
Click to expand...

Agreed but we (the CF) should just fund and train marksmanship training better, even in the Regs. What professional trade would rely on an unfunded volunteer organization with zero accountability to train their workers for them? The DCRA and PRAs have shown they are too personality driven to be of value to the CF. A link to them is sometimes good, and sometimes a liability when the personalities involved undermine you as a professional organization. The CF can not afford to gamble on relying on the DCRA or PRA if they are not 100% on board with what the CF needs done. You are lucky to live in an area where the influence of the PRA is positive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom