C7 weapon drills

[Haggis]

Civilians have shot military weapons on many occasions in the CF, from family days to whatever else.  Like anything else, it just involves someone singing a waiver.

Do you think we are going to let people off the bus and give them a fully loaded rifle with no instruction?

Umm....probably not.  Maybe my time in Gagetown had me thining it was a kinda redneck part of the country (must've been all the pickup trucks).

This is not me having a lightbulb going off in my head here, this is the Small Arms Cell using a working group in order to identify ways we can get non-qualified people to learn drills.  We can't exactly just bring the janitors out (not trust worthy), and we can't ask DND civilians who work there (not in their contract), and we can't use Reserve units (they have weapons training).

My point about P Res PAT members is that they are freshly sworn in, wear a uniform and are awaiting their P Res BMQ.  Ergo, a perfect unbiased, unskilled PTA.  Nowhere did I advocate using P Res members who have had small arms training.

Family members are the perfect target audience because they are a blank slate (unbias), and at least to some extent they can be vouched-for credibility wise.  They are going to get plenty of instruction and coaching both before and during any shooting.  I have a platoon's worth of Small Arms instructors who teach the course for a living, so I have faith in them that they can coach monkeys as ARSOs, let alone my wife or an MWO's 18 year old son.

Agreed, but not supported (from my perspective).  The PAT soldiers, in my opinion, have a vested interest in the success of the project and can be treated exactly the same as a real-live BMQ candidate.  (I'm sure you can imagine what would happen to you if one of your instructors lost focus, even for a split second, and jacked up your wife!)

I have no doubts about the abilites of the SA Cell at the Inf School.  However, I don't think we should be teaching monkeys to shoot.

 

[SeanNewman]

Don't get me wrong, I am not discounting your idea.  I am far more flexible than most would think (which is why I am doing this whole thing in the first place), but there's no reason we can't do both (or more).

There's no reason we can't have civilians to resemble monkeys, PATs to resemble the middle, and fully-qualified pers as the other end of the spectrum.

What that does at the other end when I make my changes to the PAM is make it iron clad.  Whatever drills come out the other end will be based on fact, not opinion, and naysayers will be muted.

That's the whole purpose of this thread, really...to get as many outside opinions as possible.  I just wished more non-Army types would help out.

 

[Haggis]

Petamocto, I see a plan forming here.

I've been accused of being an "in the box" guy before.  But, I've also been told that I have a really, really big "box".

 

[zuluder]

I understand the concept that is behind this initiative that you are trying to undertake and I fully support any changes towards training/drills that allow for more efficiency but I do have a concern.
I was an Inf Sgt SA instructor for many years until 2007 when I joined a new occupation on the civy side of life. I still am a believer that the PAM is an excellent guideline tried and tested to meet the needs of recruit introduction to the service rifle. We know that depending on skill, some drills in real time can/will be overlooked by the operator depending on their experience with "other" trained/practiced methods due to cross training or not.
My concern is how these new standards will be introduced to our NCO's who are non Inf let alone non Cbt Arms who are involved in SA trg. I remember taking a young Artillery recruit aside one day during his SQ trg to ask him where he had been taught the "interesting" way he had just cleared his weapon and he advised that it had been an Airforce Sgt who had taught him that in basic. My concern.
I have no doubt that new drills can be incorporated within the Inf for obvious reasons  but if one of the goals is to ensure there is no cross standard, what is the plan to ensure that the checks  for those pers who aren't always in need of a rifle on a day to day basis are met?

 

[1feral1]

How can the AUS PAM be the same as the Canadian PAM and the US PAM when the US PAM teaches SPORT (Tap/Rack variant) when the Canadian PAM teaches to cant the weapon to the left? 

From Wesley's home pam library.... Verbatum

In your response WRT pams, you pretty much accuse me of not knowing what I am talking about, and that does not settle well with me. Perhaps before you 'go off' you should research first.

For the record, I've been on this site for over 6 yrs and I have developed a good reputation on small arms technical knowledge (infact I have an SME registed number here with Army on small arms matters), this along with over 34 yrs of service in two armies in peace and war.

I am not about to make stuff up just to make a point.

Now here is a simple example (for sake of argument on empty magzines) of what I was trying to emphisise.


Okay, here is an example.... Cdn manual B-GL-317-018/PT-001, The Rifle 5.56mm C7 and the Carbine 5.56mm C8, page 2-77, para 8. Sadly dated 1987. I am aware that amendments have been made.

IA: If the rifle fails to fire or stops firing the immediate action is to cant the rifle to the left and look in the ejection port at the position of the bolt:

a. If the bolt is to the rear
1. Check for an empty magazine, and change magazines
2. Operate the bolt catch and strike the forward assist assembly
3. Re-aim and continue firing

Australian MLW dated 1979, The Rifle, 5.56mm M16, Vol 4, Pam 4, Sect 6-6 paras 618 and 619

IA drill as fol:

a. Pull the cocking handle fully to the rear
b. Tilt the rifle to the left and look into the ejection opening port

Empty magazine Drill.

If carrying out the IA the magazine is empty, the folllowing drill is to be employed:

a. Return the cocking handle
b. Replace the magazine with a filled one
c. Press the bolt catch to allow the bolt and cocking handle to go to forward
d. Strike the bolt assist to ensure the bolt is fully seated
e. Re-aim and fire

See the similarities?

I have an earlier US manual too (can't find it - but I will) , and no doubt the Australians piggybacked some info into our own pam from the US, and the similiarites between the Aust and Cdn pams are noted.

I rest my case.

I know my subject matter, and like I said I m NOT talking out my ass, and I do see things outside the box.

A weapons system developed in the late 1950s, and still in use today, one can only over engineer an IA and remedies for stoppages so much before it gets OUTRAGOUSLY complicated and difficult to teach/retain.

In my opinion only the current pam should be used and set a standard, allbeit a universal tri service standard at that. Yes remember the KISS principle. 

The rifle first appeared in 1985 in Canada, and thats 25 yrs ago, and the same FOW has been here in Australia for over 40 yrs.

Regards from a rather grim monsoonal low pressure system in the tropics,

OWDU

 

[Haggis]

Petamocto:

One very important consideration.  When you get around to developing the training plan, it's important to remember that there will be little (i.e. no) appetite at CDA for a proposal which lengthens BMQ or BMOQ.

CFLRS is bombarded for requests to "add XX periods of YYYYY to the BMQ/BMOQ".  When that happens, another topic has to be pared back by an equal number of periods.  Changing the course by even a single day has second and third order effects on scheduling, accomodations, and resources.  This is magnified when you have 26-32 platoons in-house at any given moment.

Any proposal to add additional material, subjects or length to BMQ must go through CDA as a Training Needs Analysis/Proposal. The proposal is then weighed against the NCMGS and BMQ TP by the NCMPD Working Group (a panel of Reg and Res CWO/CPO1 from all environments and CDA). If accepted, the QS and TP are then modified and direction passed to the TEs to "make it work".  The officers have a similar process for BMOQ.

So, to greatly increase the chances of your proposals being accepted, ensure you stay within the time window already provided for C7 training in the BMQ/BMOQ QS and TP.

 

[ArmyRick]

I used to instruct Reg F DP1 Infantry a couple of years ago and we were reviewing the standard C7 drills but moving them ASAP to the quick shooting drills. We had them use these drills on ranges, in field firings and in one instance we took DP1 troops through a kill house (live).

No dangerous situations popped up as a result of using the new drills or at any time during the time we put troops through a kill house.

I firmly beleive the number one safest thing to drill troops is WHERE IS YOUR BARREL POINTING! (situational awareness).

I beleive the quick shooting drills are very good and witht he exception of complicated stoppages, the tap, rack and go usually works. I also like the emergency magazine change.

I was originally trained on the PAM drills back in 1990.

Thats my 2 cents and hope it helps.

 

[SeanNewman]

CWO,

Your point is valid about training time.  Whatever the new weapons instruction looks like, it has to be better in the same amount of time, or as good in less time.

Overwatch,

I am not doubting your knowledge, I was confused by your statement that the AUS drills are the same as the Canadian and the US drills which are different (?).  I was able to find a 1984 US M16 Manual that shows SPORT, which closely resembles the Tap/Rack method of remedying stoppages, where as the Cdn PAM does not.  That was at the core of my confusion, as to how the AUS PAM could be similar to both.

 

[1feral1]

Overwatch,

I am not doubting your knowledge, I was confused by your statement that the AUS drills are the same as the Canadian and the US drills which are different (?).  I was able to find a 1984 US M16 Manual that shows SPORT, which closely resembles the Tap/Rack method of remedying stoppages, where as the Cdn PAM does not.  That was at the core of my confusion, as to how the AUS PAM could be similar to both.

Your tone said otherwise, and now you know there is not much difference in drills.  Maybe its you that should see things outside the box. No matter who you are, or who you think you are, you only get one chance at a first impression.

 

[SeanNewman]

Well, I really do appreciate your opinions but when I write I do not think whether or not someone will like me for it or not.

My goal here is to identify personal experiences with these sets of drills, not to be in a popularity contest.

Chalk it up to the impossibility for written text to show emotion, but my writing was not meant to be sarcastic (I genuinely did not understand what you were stating, and I still don't because other than having the aim of remedying the stoppage, the drills are not the same at all).

 

[1feral1]

This is a website, not work. Its not about being popular or liked, its about treating fellow members with a bit of respect, common courtesy, and learning from their experiences or taking in the knowledge they possess.

The IA generic drill between Canada and Australia for the M16 FOW is similar, infact almost identical (you've seen it in your face and quoted from a source), thats what I am stating, and I am saying overengineering these IAs is a waste of time, money, and resources.

Like I said these rifles have seen service for almost 50 years, and there should be one standard taught in the generic pam. Thats always how its been over the years and thats proven from WW1 to Korea and beyond.

I also think family members handling weapons is outright retarded, and opens a whole new can of worms from legality to safety.

Perhaps you should park the arrogance and listen to some valued WOs, SNOs and other Officers on what they have to say on this matter.

I am not about to have a pissing contest with a stranger who thinks he is a know-it-all on the INet, and being an officer does not make you any different than any one of us on here.


Its 0545 and I got to get to work.

 

[SeanNewman]

1. Perhaps you should park the arrogance and listen to some valued WOs, SNOs and other Officers on what they have to say on this matter.  I am not about to have a pissing contest with a stranger who thinks he is a know-it-all...

2. Like I said these rifles have seen service for almost 50 years, and there should be one standard taught in the generic pam. Thats always how its been over the years and thats proven from WW1 to Korea and beyond.

1.  Does that make any sense at all on a thread where I am asking for advice from other people??  You need to relax.  For someone who stresses that this is ust a message board, why do you get so wound up?  Nice crack at me being an officer and implying that I don't take advice from NCOs, but you are offside on that one.  Talk to the Sgts-MWOs I work with.

2.  You have made some valid points on these boards, but you are completely wrong on this one.  Saying that we shouldn't bother identifying whether or not new drills may be better than what we have used for decades would make you an excellent WWI general.  Are you that stubborn that you are completely unable to be flexible and think that something newer might have come along that may have merit?  I honestly don't even know how to reply to this point you are making, because you are going public to state that anyone who tries to accept new methods as possible advancements is wrong.

As for civilians handling weapons, you have already stated that you think it's retarded.  I think some people are retarded, so I guess we're even.  It has been done several times before in the CF.

 

[1feral1]

You need to relax.  For someone who stresses that this is ust a message board, why do you get so wound up?

...you are completely wrong on this one.

As for civilians handling weapons, you have already stated that you think it's retarded.  I think some people are retarded, so I guess we're even.  It has been done several times before in the CF.

Well, I don't think I am wrong at all. But I guess all those years of experience don't mean much afterall, You know everything, and I'll bow out.

As for getting wound up, I get a little irritated when someone (and new at that)basicially accuses me of being bullshit artist.

The only time I have observed civilians firing military weapons was on family day when under strict supervision, and firing from the prone, a few rds of blank from various small arms, usually the Minimi and MAG 58.

Of course in the past, some Cadets have been invloved with small arms/range pracs too.

 

[ArmyRick]

BACK on topic,

Petamocto, I really hope the new drills reflect the lessons we have learned from Afghanistan, the boys on the hill, etc, etc.

I have been using these drills and I firmly beleive they work well. Yes if you have a complicated stoppage, you really need to take cover and sort it out.

I once again emphasize that we have had DP1 candidates use these drills and in one case go through a live fire kill house without any safety infractions. It requires damn close instruction, supervision and willing mind set from the NCOs at the section level.

BTW, best of luck with this endevour and I think its great that someone in the loop is taking a proactive step for OUR army.

 

[SeanNewman]

Don't be silly, nobody is blowing you off.  I do think it's a bit odd that you would say you don't want a pissing match but then say that I don't take advice from NCOs, though...which is about as personal of an attack as you can give one of my type.

Anyway, on to business.

I fully understand your assertion that it is bizarre to have civilians firing military weapons, but that does not mean the default setting is "no".  One of my biggest peeves is when people in the CF automatically revert to "no" just because something is different (civilians shooting, changing the drills, etc), so that is why I went on the offensive. 

What it means, is that if it is to happen, X Y and Z need to be in place in order to make it happen safely (which as you implied, will include being surrounded and coached by small arms instructors as ARSOs in a non-threatening posture).  Just give me a little bit of credit though knowing that this would be my skin on the line as the RSO of this range, that I would mitigate risks as best as possible.  If we go this route, the people will be coached and trained properly, and would not be allowed anywhere near live ammo if we did not have full confidence in them.


That's actually much more than what has happened in the past on live ranges, where your wife and kids could walk up to a firing point and knock out a few rounds of the 50 cal live downrange with no instruction.

Inside of out own resources though, it's the easiest way to get non-qualified people on the ranges.  I do think the idea of getting an unqualified PAT(R) and I will also pursue that option when we're back to work next week.

Army Rick,

Thank you.  I really am an idealist and deep down under the hard outer shell the reason I am doing this is because I want to give Pte _______ the best possible chance of survival.  While remaining objective, I can still see that he deserves better than something meant for the range and not combat.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

If you two don't drop your schoolyard spat, I'm locking this up, complete with warnings. You won't be able to start a third thread on the subject either.

Milnet.ca Staff

 

[Kat Stevens]

If I have to pull this thread over, you two are grounded for life...

 

[dapaterson]

My 2c:  The current drills are the basis that needs to be taught.  That is, at the lowest level, we need to teach about the weapon and ensure there's an understanding of what is going on with the weapon as a system (see another thread for a discussion about NDs - the issues are linked - soldiers need to know and understand their weapon).

Soldiers (and sailors, and airpeople) need to understand the way the weapon works, and the nature of defects that can occur, so they are more able to deal with them.

That training and knowledge provides the baseline needed.  If a soldier can't explain both fully forward / bolt fully to the rear / bolt partially to the rear it means that when (not if) they ever experience a problem, they are not prepared to deal with it.

Once they have that level of understanding and familiarity, then you can build on it.  Add the Bearded Oakley Cool Kids modified drills - but it's an addition to the skillset, not a replacement.


I will say that I see it as a positive sign that folks are looking and asking questions about "Why do we do it this way?" - that's how we get better.  In this case, though, I believe the current drills, properly taught, teach a greater understanding and thus still have a place as the foundation for all service members.  Adding to that (DP1 Cbt arms courses perhaps) is good - but a solid foundation is needed to start.

 

[ArmyRick]

I disagree with dapaterson.

The new drills should be implemented and preferably in a timely fashion. There still will be a thorough understunding of the rifle as it is, just with drills that make more sense.

Muscle memory is another issue. I find it highly counter productive to teach the troops "PAM drills" and then try and teach them drills for COMBAT! The soldiers should be taught these drills from the beggining in BMQ. The drills should be designed for combat in the first place.

I have loads and loads of small arms lessons I have taught on reserve and regular force SQ, BMQ (L) and DP1 infantry, I am more than willing to stake my expiriences on teaching soldiers how to properly use weapons in the first place.

The quick aim shooting drills (similar to gun fighter) are good, more effective than the old ones and safe.

We do not need two sets of drills and I appreciate that someone in the loop is doing something about this.

 

[helpup]

Ok, I just finnished reading up on this and will add my 2cents worth

First,
-I am a WO who joined the Reg in 88, prior to that I had 4 years Reserve time that started in 84
-I learned mil wpns on the C1/2, SMG, in BSL I first came on the C7 family and the C9
-I have spent 8 summers shooting competatively on rifle team's
-I have taught on numerous Basic's, TQ, and leadership Crses. ( now known as the DP series)
-I am UOI qualified with the full crse from Gagetown
-Apart from a two year posting, and times teaching or on Crse.  I have been in a Inf unit since I have joined.

I am more than familiar with both the pam drills and the CQB-DH meathods.  My own opinion is an echo of what has been mentioned on here.  The Common denomination is the CF standard.  Teach as the PAM currently states forces wide, for the following reasons:
-universality ( yes Cbt arms can and should be taught at later stages or work up Trg the Tap/rack drills )
-redundancy is not a bad thing, ( the Fwd assist, doing up mag pouches and the like, also instill familarity with the wpn.  most cbt arms stop on the own accord stricking the Fwd assist or use dump pouches.  usually once they have enough familarity with the wpn to know if the bolt went fully forward or the stop loosing mags due to thier experience.  Other trades though do not have the wpns time or experience to know if the bolt is fully forward or will and have lost magss)
-Tap & rack with troops not fully aware of the stoppages can, has and does get troops (especially non cbt arms) trying to clear a stoppage that could of been cleared more effeciently through the normal I.A's.  Empty mag, double feed or hard extraction comes to mind.
-troops who do not get into the habbit of looking at the posn of the bolt immediately during a IA do take alot longer at realizing they have an stoppage.  If they look at it immediately they can equate, easier and quicker the feeling the wpn had during either recoil or chambering a round and know that there was a problem. ( the book does not spell this out, but it has been my experience that those who do look tend to pick it up quicker and to the point they as experienced troops tend not to look.  And yes I can hear the jump on's happening about this one as I am saying follow the pam and yet disregarding the drills later.  Dont forget I am espousing teaching it and keeping it as the baseline standard.)
-Conventional ranges are there to instill the basics forces wide.  The Pam effectively deals with the most current stoppages in a safe and effective manner.  These Rangisms are to allow all soldiers to get thier basics down and also to improve thier shooting. 
-Once the basics are mastered by all means move on to more advance shooting techniques, and stoppage drills. 
-There has been in my opinion a dangerous trend in the CF of taking the CQB shooting drills and showing young soldiers as this being the " new and Cbt proven method of shooting" These young soldiers take these drills and adopt them before being profiecent with the wpn, especially the non cbt arms ( and that is not a dig as some cbt arms have been just as bad)

I have watched -
stoppage that were not cleared safely due to tap and rack ( barrel angle in the prone posn)
stoppages that were not noticed
Tap and rack that did not clear some stoppages that a quick look at the bolt or better feel for the wpn would of sorted out ( double feed)

Our crew just got back from California and there were issues such as ND's
(and the location of some of the ND's were downright scary.)  There were issues of people loosing SA and firing when no firing should of been happening at all.

I have throughout my carreer became a firm believer in teach the basics as they are suppose to be taught.  For those who the C7 family is not normally fired often they go through basic TOET's every single time with max supervision.  Even for Cbt arms TOET's are the norm vice the exception in my unit on a basis that it is done if there were little or no wpns or range work done in the past while.  I am also a firm believer in the Tap rack drills for work up trg or Urban Ops CQ shooting.  They are proven drills that greatly assist experienced shooters in getting the wpn firing at the Tgt.  There is range and scope in the CF for both of these drills.  I think there would be a loss if we only adopted just the one or the other.  The gunfighter program, shoot to live program, or the UOIC teaches these well and they translate well for the current Op's. 

Anyhow I think I went on long enough, and as stated this is my 2Cents