Hello Guys

As a newby here I'll stick my neck out a bit and see if ya'll "bite".

In my mind a lot of this has to do with the training the guys get, and I feel dammed sorry for them.

I did my basic training (12 week course) in 1982 with the NZ Army (OK first giggle for you all - I know)but even then to someone who was a keen "shooter" it was very disapointing.

We spent maybe 3 days on the range, mainly focussing on FAL's but a few shoots with M16's and MG's(Sterlings SMG'slater, I was a Gunner - it was our standard firearm, god help us if we'd ever made actual combat and had the gunlines come under small arms fire).

Even then marksmanship was a very haphasard concept, I (and a couple of other hunter/shooter types in my intake) could shoot the pants off the NCO's and 99% of the intructors. Once it got windy they were hopeless, and their knowledge of trajectory was very weak, off a range and having to estimate distance they'd have been very little threat to anyone.

My guess is that generally most modern soldiers have so much other stuff to learn that their practical shooting skills are pretty poor, and "hosing" targets is the only way they can compensate for this. I know from talking with cobbers who were in Vietnam that our US friends were at that stage even then, and statistics on small arms ammo use certainly bears this out.

Lots of your comments above reflect a "marksmanship" ethos that just doesn't seem to be what is common "in the field".

If the focus was on fire control and shot placement I'm sure they'd be a lot better off even with the equipment (and ammo) they've got.

Cheers - Foster