C7 weapon drills

[Haggis]

MWO (Haggis),

Thank you very much for your reply.  It is exactly your point about the PAM way being the official way, and that is what I am doing what I am with the PAM re-write.  The Inf Sch is the SME, and as long as claims are logically backed up and tested, we propose the changes to LFDTS and the PAM gets changed.  It's getting changed anyway for the A2 architecture.

As stated in my original reply, I'm a CWO.  Certainly an SME should pay better attention to detail! ;D

For example, when you claim that the new drills won't stop a mechanical stoppage (broken extractor, hard double feed requiring Leatherman, etc), you are exactly right.  However, what we are testing and identifying is how often that would actually happen?  When we weigh pros and cons, we're looking at "No the tap/rack won't solve everything as an immediate IA, but will it solve 95% of stoppages in half the time?".  If so, then it would be a matter of having X as the immediate IA, and Y for the prolonged stoppage.

You must remember, of course, that not all CF units have the A2.  Some still have the original C7 (i.e. ships) .  Secondly, the universal drills must suit the needs of the "lowest commin denominator" user, i.e. those members who rarely (almost never) use the CF service rifle (C7, C7A1 or C7A2) but still require a rudimentary skill and knowledge to meet PRV requirements.  Not everybody needs to learn "Gunfighter" style handling drills.

Further, yes the PAM drills can identify all types including an empty mag that the tap/rack would not fix), but can you do it at night?  Pretty tough to identify the position of the bolt in pitch black or fumbling with a flashlight or refocusing the NVG while getting shot at.  Those are the sorts of pros/cons we're weighing.

  Although I don't have a copy of B-GL-385-001/PT-001 handy at home to refer to (yes, I know I should have one) I seem to recall being taught, all the way back to the C1A1 to feel for the position of the breechblock/bolt carrier at night during the IA.

While I am remaining entirely objective, it is hard to not notice a very obvious range slant toward the current PAM drills, and a combat focus to the new drills.  For example, if you are getting shot at, is it really more important to do up your mag pouch than return fire?

Again, I ask you to remember at what level these drills are being initially taught, that is BMQ/BMOQ.  At this level, "doing up your mag pouch" has as much to do with handling drills as it does with teaching recent civvies to look after and keep track of a whole new set of tools and accessories with which they are not yet familiar.  At this stage I can guarantee you that the "range slant" is exactly where we need to be.  To do otherwise, at this level, will inculcate the soldier with a trepidation born from preventable incidents which will undermine his confidence in both the weapon and his abilites to safely handle it.

Thank you very much for your detailed reply, it's exactly that sort of info and opinion that I'm looking for.

You are welcome.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

As stated in my original reply, I'm a CWO.  Certainly an SME should pay better attention to detail! ;D

I was waiting for that

You must remember, of course, that not all CF units have the A2.  Some still have the original C7 (i.e. ships) .

Like the complete Windsor Garrison : 

Although I don't have a copy of B-GL-385-001/PT-001 handy at home to refer to (yes, I know I should have one) I seem to recall being taught, all the way back to the C1A1 to feel for the position of the breechblock/bolt carrier at night during the IA.

Absolutely correct

Again, I ask you to remember at what level these drills are being initially taught, that is BMQ/BMOQ.  At this level, "doing up your mag pouch" has as much to do with handling drills as it does with teaching recent civvies to look after and keep track of a whole new set of tools and accessories with which they are not yet familiar.  At this stage I can guarantee you that the "range slant" is exactly where we need to be.  To do otherwise, at this level, will inculcate the soldier with a trepidation born from preventable incidents which will undermine his confidence in both the weapon and his abilites to safely handle it.

Ditto

 

[Journeyman]

Although I don't have a copy of B-GL-385-001/PT-001 handy at home.....

Scandalous. That's why the Army Electronic Library is your friend.



Although I probably would have gone with B-GL-317-018/PT-001 myself 

 

[Haggis]

Scandalous. That's why the Army Electronic Library is your friend.



Although I probably would have gone with B-GL-317-018/PT-001 myself 

Even more scandalous is that when you click on the AEL link for B-GL-385-000/PT-001 it opens up to B-GL-317-018/PT-001.  So, despite your best efforts to *ahem*, "assist" me, I still don't have access to B-GL-385-000/PT-001!

But thanks for tryin! 

 

[Journeyman]

But thanks for tryin!

Dammit   

 

[SeanNewman]

My sincere apologies, CWO (that's a beer for sure, and on record no less).

It wasn't my original plan to go into detail on this, but since you are clearly informed and interested, let me walk you through exactly where we're going.

As of 2009, the A2 started making its way through Reserve units from EAST TO WEST.  If the new drills (or parts there of) "win" the tests, it would be the A1 that would be a limiting factor, not the drills themselves.

The "gunfighter" style of drills are actually not advanced at all, it's just that we're treating them that way because the exposure to them comes in advanced training and courses.  Whatever way of drills wins, it will be adopted by everyone, because it will be in the PAM as the official way.

You are absolutely right that they must be available to the lowest common denominator, and that is fully in the scope of the testing.  But if one drill is 5 steps and another is 7 steps to do the same function, which would be simpler to learn for new recruits?

You are also right that it was because of the change over from the FN that the cant the weapon and checking bolt position was adopted.  Right beside me is the Inf Sch Tech MWO (which is why I had MWO on the mind) and he can speak to that.  Likewise, when...ahem...another unit adopted the quicker drills, it was a carryover from the MP5 (and what other countries were already doing with the M16/M4).

So in both cases, what you have is people adopting drills from an older weapon without actually doing the work to find out which way is the best.

As for the mag pouch, I am not saying that it is not important (although new tac vests / load carriage systems may solve that problem on their own).  However, you're not going to convince me that doing up the pouch is more important than killing the threat, so it should be the last thing done when there's a lull.

This is my life and passion, so please by all means keep discussing because I get a lot out of it.

 

[HItorMiss]

Likewise, when...ahem...another unit adopted the quicker drills, it was a carryover from the MP5 (and what other countries were already doing with the M16/M4).

So in both cases, what you have is people adopting drills from an older weapon without actually doing the work to find out which way is the best.

So you are saying in the 17 years that this other "unit" and follow on units and all the other units that use variations of the gunfighter drills etc etc have never in all the years did a study on the effectiveness of the drills they are using and simply took it on faith that they would work based on the MP5.

Sorry it isn't adding up. The SOF community to my limited knowledge is less inclined to take anything on faith and the knowledge that some other SOF units using this drill or that SOP and more likely to look at it study it see if it works better then what they know and adopt it "IF" it suits the needs and is found to be more effective.

 

[SeanNewman]

Bullet Magnet.

Yes to your first paragraph, and no to your second paragraph.

As the OIC of Small Arms, I have chats every day with OIC Urban Ops, who I have been in steady contact with since this initiative began.  As for going into other detail on how other units train, I will not go into detail (nor do I pretend to know all the details), but yes you are correct that no official trial was ever conducted to see which drills (not just those sets, but plenty of other variations) were better.  Yes, it was all based on faith, from experience on the range and people having the opinion that they were better.

The PAM way has always been the official way, and still is.  To be the honest broker, technically everyone else who uses the other way is in the wrong (which includes thousands).

You can say it doesn't add up if you wish, but it is true.  There may be a lot of the CF I know nothing about, but between myself and the expertise I am surrounded by in the Inf Sch, that is how it is.

Don't get me wrong, I fully agree with you that I am shocked that no formal test/comparison has been conducted until now, but I am now in a position that can conduct these tests and make changes depending on the results, so all is good.

As I wrote above, though, it's not so much in the mindset of "Old vs new" or "PAM vs Gunfighter"; it has more to do with "I am now standing here with a rifle and a magazine, what is the most efficient way possible to load it", or "I have just pulled the trigger and nothing happened, what is the most efficient thing that I can do that will have the highest probability of fixing the majority of stoppages quickly, while still having control of the weapon and doing it safely".

If the tests show us that doing a backflip while you're pulling the c0cking handle works better, then that's what the recommendations will be.  And when we have the test results in hand, we can sum up any naysayers who have their opinion but are wrong (be they fans of either set).

Even things like "is the forward assist still required as a step, or has modern ammunition and other changes rendered it obsolete as a step?"  People have their opinion and will say "of course it's still needed, you'll get stoppages all over the place if you don't", but we put 20 rifles on a firing line pushing the assist with half and not with the other, and they all fire the same (under all conditions, dirty, cold, etc), then we can slim down the drill.  If you get stoppages when you don't press it, then it stays...it really is that simple, and it won't be based on opinion but fact.

If nothing else, understand that this is being done completely objectively.  I don't like that troops are being taught different ways, and I don't like that Sgts are being put in awkward positions while instructing.  The main problem is that there are two ways, and that's what needs to get fixed.  The way to solve it is not to pick one way or the other due to opinion or feel, but to get the hard data.

 

[c4th]

The "gunfighter" style of drills are actually not advanced at all

Agreed nor are they less safe.  Which you already know.  Aside from ‘workspace’ and always keeping your hand on the pistol grip through all drills they are not fundamentally different.  Left hand right hand drills have been freely interchangeable by virtue of left or right hand dominance so why not by virtue of efficiency.
Some UO Quick aim drills transfer nicely to basic infantry drills.  Press check, tap rack come to mind.  Emergency reloads are better when the objective is in the same room as you.  Not so good when the objective is 250m away.
IMO the PAM drills work very well for their intent which is firing from the prone up to the effective range of the weapon.  UO drills work best for standing from the high ready up to 25ish meters.
I train recruits to DP Inf standard.  Personally, prior to PWT 3 and a live fire confirmation I prefer keeping the soldiers with muzzles of readied weapons within the arcs and templated elevation of the range for positive control reasons.  Quick aim drills are really not required and the seconds they save will be negated by the proficiency of the trainee.
One consideration in training is the ease of classroom training and transitioning to firing PWT 1-3.  The drills as per pam are easy to be proficient in usually in 40 minutes or less.  Quick-aim drills require much more practice to become proficient in but are easy to learn one the soldier has some weapons handling experience.
Basic C7 is currently taught at the BMQ level.  For this reason alone I would recommend not straying much past changes that effect efficiency.  New firing positions and weapons movements will not be taught well at that level and are best left to be instructed by Infantry NCO’s or UOI’s.
If you want my credentials or my AAR from teaching recruits quick-aim, PM me and I will send you my DWAN contact.  Our schools should be speaking anyway.

 

[SeanNewman]

TNO,

Thank you very much for your educated reply.

One of the core reasons that we're doing what we are is that we can't have two ways to teach.  I am convinced that this process can be successful and we can find one way that is the best way to teach, regardless of experience or environment.

As I said, it's a matter of step by step broken down.  If I'm at the "port", what is the best way to get to "load" for the CF.  That's at the core of it.  There are some pros to the "new" way like better control of the weapon and faster stoppage remedies, and there are "pros" to the old way like identifying every type of stoppage.  At the end if the day, we are humans and have the ability to make common sense assessments like (hypothetically) perhaps the tap/rack is the best IA, but checking the position of the bolt is the best prolonged stoppage.  Again, I'm not situating the estimate, just providing an example of what the testing might show.

Overall, it really seems like the PAM ways are entirely geared around successful range shooting, because time is not an issue, and light is not taken into account.  I would challenge anyone in a night time TIC to check the position of the bolt, for example. 

I know why both sets of drills were chosen, and I know the pros/cons of each, but what I'd really like to know are the sorts of issues that non-infantry types are having with either method.  I've hear anecdotally that the tap/rack is even being taught by some civilian instructors in Saint Jean, but again, as the owner of the PAM with the drills I can say categorically that the old way is still the official way.

The reason I have called for the testing is not that I want a copy/paste of the Urban Ops drills to become the official way, but because I can understand that the new way has some merit and it needs to be researched.  If it is found that never taking your control hand off the pistol grip is the way to go, then so be it.  If it is found that NDs are out of control with the new way, then so be it as well. 

As I said, the end state is that we will find one best way and that will be the way it is taught at every level.  There won't be a basic way and an advanced way that conflict with each other.

 

[Haggis]

One of the core reasons that we're doing what we are is that we can't have two ways to teach.  I am convinced that this process can be successful and we can find one way that is the best way to teach, regardless of experience or environment.

In that case, I think this is an excelent initiative.  You'll either improve service rifle training or validate that the current way is the best way to go.

I've hear anecdotally that the tap/rack is even being taught by some civilian instructors in Saint Jean, but again, as the owner of the PAM with the drills I can say categorically that the old way is still the official way.

  Then those instructors are in violation of the QS and Standards must engage them to ensure the correct material is being taught.  During my staff visits to CFLRS last year, I didn't witness this at all.  Then again, I am one person and didn't get to see a wide cross section of SA training during my visits.  However, I'm returning there in April and will make time to discuss this.

The reason I have called for the testing is not that I want a copy/paste of the Urban Ops drills to become the official way, but because I can understand that the new way has some merit and it needs to be researched.  If it is found that never taking your control hand off the pistol grip is the way to go, then so be it.  If it is found that NDs are out of control with the new way, then so be it as well.

As I said, the end state is that we will find one best way and that will be the way it is taught at every level.  There won't be a basic way and an advanced way that conflict with each other.

And, as I said, this is a good initiative. Whatever service rifle handling drills eventually come out of this must be applicable to the CF population as a whole, regardless of the version of service rifle they employ.  In the end, how you handle any weapon should be safe, simple, effective and efficient (in that order).

 

[SeanNewman]

Thank you for your kind words.

You are right that if there is one official way then that is the way that it should be taught, but at the same time it's tough to ignore the potential merit in some of the pros of the new ways.  Not entirely as a "sure, we'll use all of it" way, but enough to find out how much of it is useful vs hype.

A lot of people will say they've done them and swear by them, but until I see it on paper, like you said, with all trades and body types then I won't change anything.

In fact, one of the potential things we're looking at doing is having family members come in, get split in half (or thirds if we identify another way, or quarters if we mix/match), and taught the drills (or a mix).  This will not be Army like at all in terms of getting yelled at or push ups, it's to see how effective the drills can be taught on a clean slate.  Then they'd be tested with stoppages and watnot and timed, as well as questioned (not tactically) on how the rate the control, etc.

 

[Fusaki]

Back to the original question:

I'm an Infantry CPL, first in the Regs and now in the PRes.  I learned the PAM way in 2003 on BMQ in St Jean.  My first exposure to the "Gunfighter way" was on a cool day at the 25m Range in Camp Julien in 2005, under the instruction of burly bearded men.  Since then regular training has consisted primarily of Gunfighter Drills, although TOETs have still been conducted prior to every range practice according to the PAM.

I guess overall you could say that I do a mix of Gunfighter and PAM drills.

-As per Gunfighter Drills, all the charging is done with my left hand, except when engaging the bolt catch. 

-As per the PAM, I cant the weapon to observe the position of the bolt, but it's just a quick look with only a slight rotation to the left.  I can typically feel the position of the bolt based on the recoil, so I'm really  just checking to confirm, or even out of force of habit.

-As per the Gunfighter drills, my reloads are either tactical or emergency.

-I clear obstructions as per the PAM.

-I've found the shooting stance Kyle Lamb describes in Green Eyes Black Rifles to work really well for me.  Shooting right handed, my left foot is forward and my body is slightly bladed toward the target.  My left hand is fairly far forward on the handguards and my right is high on the pistol grip.  My head and shoulders are positioned so that I bring the sight up to my eye, not vice versa.  This differs from the Gunfighter way in that I'm not totally squared off to the enemy.  I believe Lamb's method is better because having my left hand farther forward helps to compensate for the length of the C7.  While I'm not squaring off my plates to the threat, I gain speed driving the longer barrel from target to target.  As an infantry guy, I see it as very unlikely that I'll be kicking in doors and shooting guys at CQB range.  More probable is that if I'm shooting standing, it will be from over or around cover at guys a little farther away.  Squaring off plates, therefore, takes a back seat to shooting faster and more accurately.

 

[SeanNewman]

Wonderbread,

Awesome reply, thank you.  Someone brought up that book a month ago or so (you?) so I read it right away and yes there are some good points in it.  Some of his things in there I wasn't sold on, but I do agree with him that press checks probably result in more stoppages than they're worth (but that's just my opinion and research/testing will find the answer).  Another great point he made was to number the mags, in order to keep track of which ones give you stoppages if you track them; something that seems so basic but I never thought of before. 

The overall answer might very well be a combination of pros and cons from each system (and others).  When I say that I don't mean "load from PAM" and "ready from New", what I mean is attribute-wise, like if it is found that it is beneficial never to give up your control hand on the pistol grip (although then you get into problems with Reserve units or non-Army units that don't have the A2 yet, but that's our nut to crack).

It is exactly your type on input that I'm looking for, in order to challenge/support our beliefs at the school, and bring up things that we haven't thought of in order to ensure better integration when they come out.

 

[Dissident]

Please list who you are and what you do.  Did you learn the C7 by the PAM drills?  When?  Since learning them, have you used them entirely?  Have you been taught this "new" method?  Where/when?  What is your opinion of both of them?  If you have been in TICs and have a stoppage, do you just smash and **** the C7 until it can shoot again, or actually follow a set list of steps?  Do you change your mags during a lull, or do you run them dry (attempt to count rounds but there is too much going on).

-Reserve MP, LFWA
-Learned the PAM way back in 2003
-For the first five years that is all I have used.
-I have not done the PWT4 or gunfighter with the army, but I have the other method taught through civi courses and read about it here and there in the last 3 years. (Including Green Eyes and Black Rifles)

My opinion: I will still teach the PAM way as a good introduction. Members who join have often no to little firearms experience. Once someone is qualified I will introduce more advanced elements as I see fit.

No TICs for me, luckily enough. But on courses or shoots I am much faster overall using the GEBR drills than the standard PAM way. MUCH FASTER.

Counting rounds does not work for me. I will change my mags in a lull or before a tac bound.

The picture below is from a course I attended where no matter how often I tapped and racked, it would not go BANG. Cool drills are great, but fundamentals can not be left behind.

 

[1feral1]

Crikey! I nearly choked - - family members getting involved?? Bloody hell mate (scratches shaven head). What a load of bullocks!

I'll wade a tad here a little bit, IMHO why fix things when they are not broken. This rifle has been around in the system for over 45 yrs, sure its evolved, but it still the same action with the same stoppages. One cannot re-engineer the wheel, and over engineering things which do not require it is a dirty great big giant waste of time and money.

The Australian pam is almost identical to the Cdn and US for IA's etc. I've learned from the c.1989 C7 pam, and the Aussie MLW, which I do believe was 1979, and we've used the rifle since pre 1970, starting off in the days of the 'Nam, and the M4 is now in service, along with the F88SA1 and A2.

I would just be sticking to one 'force wide' source for standardisation, that is the current CFP, and again IMHO civilians should be kept out of the trg program from instruction to doctrine. I found it hard to fathom that they are allowed to instruct.

Summing up, KISS here prevails, and there is only one way to train, one standard to adhere to for everyone, and thats the current pam on the weapons system provided.

I've spent over 30 yrs on the rifle, from leading a national rebuild, to carrying it (E1's --yes E1's--, A1's, A2's. M4's  and the C7 FOW -- from 1990 to 95--) in the field, so I am not taking out my ass here.

My 2 bob,

OWDU

 

[SeanNewman]

1.  Crikey! I nearly choked - - family members getting involved?? Bloody hell mate (scratches shaven head). What a load of bullocks!

2.  Why fix things when they are not broken. This rifle has been around in the system for over 45 yrs, sure its evolved, but it still the same action with the same stoppages.

3. The Australian pam is almost identical to the Cdn and US for IA's etc.

4. I would just be sticking to one 'force wide' source for standardisation, that is the current CFP, and again IMHO civilians should be kept out of the trg program from instruction to doctrine. I found it hard to fathom that they are allowed to instruct.

5. Summing up, KISS here prevails,

6.  and there is only one way to train, one standard to adhere to for everyone, and thats the current pam on the weapons system provided.

First off, I appreciate your comments, but I will explain all of your points.

1.  In order to identify which method can be taught the fastest and most effectively, you need people who have not had years of experience (or any experience) with the rifle.  That's great that you call it bollocks, I like to call it conducting research that isn't bias.

2.  They are broken, and here is where your points contradict themselves.  What is broken is that two ways are being taught, and that is disastrous because it adds confusion to something that should be simple.  The rifle has changed, and it is now easier to do things with both hands. 

3.  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?

4.  What I am doing is finding which force-wide set of drills are the best.  Saying "leave well enough alone" is ridiculous when it has been identified that another method might have some merit and provide troops with better drills. 

5.  I agree, which is why I am trying to only have one method of doing the drills (not a basic and advanced, which is terrible).  Also, are the current PAM drills really simpler?  It's simple in the terms of what we're doing now, but why not change them for the better if you can shave steps off them to accomplish the same thing?

6.  Again, you say there is one way, but you now have a CF learning and training two ways.  The whole reason I am doing this is that I am fortunate enough to be in the chair (OIC Small Arms) that has input on this and can change things for the better. 

 

[Haggis]

Petamocto, I have to agree with OWDU regarding the idea of using family members as test subjects.  Bad idea.  You're now allowing civies to handle/"be trained on" prohibited weapons and that may not pass the Globe & Mail test.

If you're looking for a safe and acceptable PTA, why not approach some of the local P Res units around CTC  (RNBR, HMCS Brunswicker et al.) and borrow some of thier PAT members?  If you like, I can put you in touch with the Army Reserve Training CWO, Army and Navy NCMPD CWO/CPO1 when I'm back off leave next Monday.

 

[SeanNewman]

While I appreciate any constructive criticism, I think you guys are a bit too much "in the box" on this one.  ;D

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?

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).

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.

 

[chrisf]

Has Haggis mentioned, why not reserve PAT members? They won't have any weapons training, and provided their units approve, the individual members will likely jump at the chance to get out of sweeping the floor in QM.