The poll about shooters' abilities here at AR got me to thinking. I'm curious what the board thinks, and especially those of you from a military background. I have shot with a good many law enforcement officers, and must say that I'm seldom impressed with their abilities, or knowledge of firearms (knowing full well that marksmanship is but a fraction of the skill required to be a LEO). I have not however shot very much with military trained shooters, but have shot extensively with good ol' boys. The little experience that I do have with military guys shooting ( and please note that I'm taking this poll out of lighthearted curiousity, and not at all in an attempt to look down on, or poorly portray the armed forces) gives me the impression that they do teach some skills quite well, while some important points get missed.
I'm not talking about snipers and those with extremely advanced weapons skills, just the average grunt. Like wise with the country boys, I'm not talking about the ones who think that shooting involves spraying an old dead car with an AK-47. I mean the boys, like myself who grew up hunting, nearly always having a firearm close at hand, and keeping the local snake, turtle, beaver, fox, crow, etc. populations under control.

Question:
What do ya'll think? How does the average country boy's shooting skills compare with the average grunts' shooting skills?

Choices:
A country boy can survive
marksmanship only counts when the targets shoot back, so go kill a squirrel country boy
Marksmanship is completely individual, and background has little effect
other

 

Shooters are shooters if a shooter is in the military hes a good shot if hes a Ol'country boy hes a good shot if hes is in law enforcement hes a good shot.

The Avg hunter, law enforcement, miitary person does not shoot much at all. One has to like it and pursue it on ones own time spent a lot of time and money for ammo guns and other items that goes along with being a good shooter.

Grew up hunting and carrying a weapon--
shells were rationed--
results mattered.

Later competed in college-
still later--
sought out training beyond ROTC and Uncle.

Generally speaking, rural recruits shoot more consistently.
(At least in the past, can't personally speak for the present much.)
(Though my son was singled out quickly to help other recruits with their marksmanship.)


Thoughts:

1.) A country boy can survive-- yep, though maybe not as much as in the past.

2.) Pursuit of excellence is an individual priority-
in marksmanship and life-

3.) When things shoot back precision matters--
but, IMO--
not as much as self control and situational awareness.

I've seen some absolutely outstanding shooters from the military.

I've seen some phenomenal shots that were sorta "good ol' country boys" (even if from the city).

I've seen a good many absolutely horrible shots among both groups.

I suspect what counts is:

- True Interest in becoming a good shot.

- Willingness to do the work required.

- Patience. (Stick-to-it-iveness)>

- Humility (Willing to learn from any and every source, and not too proud to change one's ways).

- Enough intelligence to analyse and respond to problems encountered.

Perseverence.

More perseverence.

Did I mention perseverence?

I like this thread. AC hit it on the head.
I do believe that trigger time is key. Practice lots of practice. I always liked to make my time fun. Shooting stationary clays at different distances, small pumpkins in the fall, Soapy water filled milk jugs in the summer makes it fun. If a 9" vital shot is needed for hunting, all of these make it fun to practice in the field. Having the ammo to do it helps. I started shooting NRA Smallbore at 11, still at it after 36 years.

As a good old country boy I handle and shoot a rifle maybe once a year during hunting season. There is a great difference between 'shooters' and 'hunters' to me with shooters doing far more actual shooting and gun handling. An Infantryman on the other hand handles his weapon daily and when he enters combat radidly gains proficiency or doesn't often survive. Another criteria that differentiates the two is game rarely shoots back. I was in an Observation Unit and NOT the Infantry but the members of my unit almost all wore a silver markmanship badge atesting to their skill although not all the Expert. And quite a few such as myself as a radio operator qualified with both pistol and submachinegun. I would have to give the edge to the military at the very least I would 'HOPE' they are more proficient.

I think that it depends. The "country boy" will have a far better EYE for a target than will most soldiers. Why? Because the "country boy" will have had a childhood of needing to quickly pick-up the slightest movement of an animal or of vegetation etc., that may mean...dinner!

It doesn't matter that the target shoots back or not. It is that instinctive ability to spot movement quickly that has been almost "inbred". How different animals and birds for example react variously to human presence. City dwellers don't have it.

As to actual skill at arms. In the days when the "country boy" used a bolt action 30-06 (or 303) just as did GI Joe or Tommy Atkins then yes, that made a difference, in that there was a realy experience of the weapon at ALL ranges, in ALL weathers, in ALL terrain.

Aiming up or down according to the light, how much to aim off for wind, how to get a sight picture on a target on a totally dark night. How to approach quarry making use of wind, background noise, cover, etc., etc.

But now that most civilians don't use the EXACT same weapon as the military then the skill at arms may be lost. But NOT the fieldcraft.

I remember a friend who was a British Army Sniper Instructor. Judging candidates' "stalks". One chap, a "townie" (city dweller), he knew EXACTLY where he was throughout even though he could not see him at all.

Why? Being a "townie" he did not realise that following him some yards away out of sure curiosity was...a cow! A "country boy" would never have made that mistake as he would have realised how a cow would react to someone crawling along a ditch!

But I also think that early skill at arms training say at school or in the community as a "cadet" also has great later life value.

Just a reminder that the thread isn't about who is the better game finder, stalker, sniper tactician, or any of that, but which is the better shooter (if either)?

And country boys learn how to see some kinds of things but not others. Ask yourself who you would rather walk through Central Park at 2 a.m. with, or through Harlem or The Bronx with at any time of day....or even down the avenue across the river from Bourbon Street? (And I'll toss East or South L.A. in there too....) You wanta be with a home boy, or some rube who just fell off the turnip truck from the sticks?

I'd take the city boy every time for that, regardless of the Crocodile Dundee urban myth. The city boy has managed to stay alive so far in the city, which is quite a feat of observation, evaluation, and response, in itself.

Both can be taught to shoot extraordinarily well if they are smart enough, dedicated enough, and really want to learn.

I shot on a pistol team for the State of Florida, Department of Corrections. Not a correctional officer, retired AF. The local PDs, FHP and the Army team from Ft Rucker would sometimes shoot in the FDOC matches. We shot a standard 90rnd bullseye/60rnd combat match. Invariably, the FDOC teams would take the top honors and the Army last. In their defense, an issue M9 is no match for a S&W M52 in the bullseye match or a built gvt model in the combat match. Our captain shot on the USA team prior to his retirement. His MOS was MP, but his job was shooting. A female correctional officer was the second best shot on our 5 man squad with a 686 S&W.

Never had any military training so I guess I am a country boy. Ask the guys at the Houston Hoot n Shoot what they thought of my marksmanship. Ha Ha.

3 tens and 1 eight in 9 seconds with a bolt action .375 H&H rifle.

I started shooting when I was 12. Learned a lot from my Dad, he shot on his HS rifle team in the thirties. Also learned a lot from uncles and cousins. I really think my skills were honed in the Marine Corps 40 years ago using the M14. I qualified expert, 2nd high score in the platoon, 1 point behind the first place rifleman.

Semper Fi!

Just to clarify a misconception in the original post. Basic training does not produce "an average grunt." In the Army, an average grunt has completed Advanced Infantry (grunt) Training, and has advanced marksmanship skills.

The minimal shooting skills taught in Basic Training are for those who are going on to other Military Occupational Specialties (non grunts).

In the Marine Corps, things are different. Everyone becomes a grunt (advanced marksmanship skills) before proceeding to other specialties.

In the Marine Corps, things are, indeed, different. At least when I was in (68-71).

In 1968, another "country boy" and I went through US Army basic training, AIT, and OCS together. We were the top two rifle (M14 and M16)shooters in our company in all three of these training schools.

I went to Viet Nam in 1969 as a 2nd Lt platoon leader. The only weapon that the Army issued me in Nam was a 1911A1 .45 acp pistol. Prior to being issued that pistol, the only Army training that I was given with the .45 was in the last month of OCS where we each fired two clips -- a total of 14 shells.

All Marines can shoot, privates through generals, and do so from 500 meters as well as closer range, every year they are not in a combat zone. They sent me to the range 3 weeks after I returned from Nam.

quote:

Originally posted by buffybr:
In 1968, another "country boy" and I went through US Army basic training, AIT, and OCS together. We were the top two rifle (M14 and M16)shooters in our company in all three of these training schools.

I went to Viet Nam in 1969 as a 2nd Lt platoon leader. The only weapon that the Army issued me in Nam was a 1911A1 .45 acp pistol. Prior to being issued that pistol, the only Army training that I was given with the .45 was in the last month of OCS where we each fired two clips -- a total of 14 shells.

Yeah, the "troopies" were covering your ass.

The average hunter and LEO only has a very shakey grasp of marksmanship especially with a rifle. Men with Army or Marine training at least understand the basics of zeroing, trigger control and sight picture. As an Army veteran I must give the Marines a respectful nod for having a superior marksmanship program.

I watched a national guard unit spray and pray at a local range. They did manage to destroy all of the target frames and shoot up the trash barrels. I hunt with some older marine vets and they are extremely good marksmen.

In the FWIW dept, I've been told by more than one military instructor that he much preferred teaching "from scratch" than having to un-teach some of the things that the good old boys had learnt growing up.

I would have to put Marine marksmanship against any good old boy shooting out there acrost the board as a group. In both groups you would have individuals that were naturally better and worse. But we would pop more caps in a week than a good old boy would pop in a year.

I took USAF basic training in July '59. Our marksmanship training was breif but well done. I had never fired a center fire rifle before and our actual "practice" was limited to 5 rounds to zero sights on an M1 Carbine on the "1,000" inch range. I had payed attention to our sargent and focused on dry firing as we were told. Much to my surprise, I managed to shoot the high score for my 76 man outfit. I credit that small success for starting my life long enjoyment of firearms, all types.

I was a skinney small town boy who had been around guns all my life but had little personal experience, so I listened. It appeared that most city boys were intimidated with firearms while most country boys figured they already knew all that stuff. Attention to fundamentals made the difference for me.

Sadly, it appears the "spray and pray", full auto mindset has largely taken over tho. Except perhaps the Marines???

I have to agree, the individual matters more whether LEO, military or civilian. I've seen mediocre shooter across the spectrum. Some of the worst are LEO, some of the best w/ a rifle are military. Some of the best w/ a pistol are civilian. Why, trigger time & desire.

I have shot with, and hunted with a lot of good
old boys. Many were good shots, many were not.
I have also shot and hunted with a lot of
military. No question. Marines are far and away
the best shots and the best rifle handlers there
are. And that's from someone who was in the
Navy, not the Marines. They simply get the
practise, and the instruction.
Good Hunting
Raff

quote:

Yeah, the "troopies" were covering your ass.

Yes, and I appreciate the damn fine job that they did.

And just because Uncle Sam only issued me a .45 didn't mean I didn't carry a M-16. It didn't take me long to get my own 16, and I usually carried both.

The point of my post was that the Army sent me to a war zone and the only gun that they issued me was one that they had only had me shoot 14 shells through. Not very intensive training.

The fact that I qualified Expert with both the M-14 and M-16 was not because of military training, but that I was an avid shooter and hunter before I went into the Army.

Also, after I returned home from Viet Nam I was shooting my .45 at the Ft. Sill pistol range one day and a SFC from the Ft. Sill pistol team saw me shooting and invited me to shoot with them.

i shoot at a public range in rural virginia. the old marine guys i see are methodical and good shots.

I went into the Marine Corps as a 2ndLT in september 1990. Marine officers all go through a six month initial training course called the basic school which includes two weeks on the rifle range learning the M16 and qualifying with it. I was raised in the sticks of east central mississippi and have been shooting and hunting since forever. I started reloading at 13 or 14 and have always been a rifle fanatic, shooting all the time during high school and college. Out of 240 guys in my basic school class I was the #2 high score on qual day. The guy that beat me was raised 20 miles from me and had a similar background, reloader, hunter since youth, and rifle nut. I don't think it was a coincidence that the two highest scored shooters came into the Marine Corps as highly proficient shooters already. Now granted, most good ol' boys don't shoot like we did, but there is an inherent advantage to growing up with rifles that can't be taught in the time that the military has to teach you.

My roommate at the basic school was from Boston. Until he went through OCS he, quite literally, had never held a firearm in his entire life. Marine instructors are great and they did a good job of training him, turning him into someone competent with a rifle, but you're not going to take someone with that background and polish him into an expert shot unless he becomes a rifle loonie on the side and takes up shooting as a hobby. He qualified as a sharpshooter which is second on the list. The qual medals go expert-sharpshooter-marksman.

Marine Corps training is good, but the best shots showed up already knowing how to shoot.

Having to buy my own .22 shells as a kid and not being able to afford very many, made me a good shot!

A rabbit meant $.03 in my pocket and a .22 shell meant $.015 out of my pocket. My contract with my Grandfather demanded 10 rabbits per day, skinned and delivered. Come to think of it, I was already a self employed businessman at age 10!

Either way, that's what gave me the basic skills I still try to improve upon today.

I'm consider myself mostly country boy, but I shot on the high school rifle team, coached by a Korea Vet. I don't know. I have two good friends are police, I outshoot them with rifle (barely) and shotgun (by a mile), they totaly embarrass me with handguns. The one guy practices getting a couple shots off while raising his gun to his eye. He gets more hits than I do actually aiming! He wasn't that good before the police, I used to outshoot him with his own guns. I'd say the police trained him very well.

I don't regularly shoot with any former military guys, except a Marine I shoot bows with. He's better than me, too.

I agree, both good and bad shooters come from either camp..

Military marksmanship isn't at all what some might think it is. IMO there's nothing about a military person that makes me think he knows anything more than anyone else about marksmanship.

When I read posts where someone makes his claim to marksmanship due to his military training I am not at all impressed!

The term "military marksmanship" is a pretty broad term. I don't know too much about it. I do know that Marine Corp marksmanship is pretty intense and it's an ongoing thing regardless of what you do as a daily job.

Interesting topic. While I fall into the country boy category, when I used to shoot high power, the Army Reserve Rifle Team used to put on clinics north of Reno every year. Instruction by those guys definitely improved my shooting. That and my time shooting IHMSA helped me get over the excitement of guns going off all around and get into the zone of Target-Sight Picture-Trigger Pull and ignore all else.

Your question and poll are skewed and poorly worded.

Of course someone that avidly hunts and shoots will likely be a better shot than the avg grunt who may have never picked up a rifle before boot camp.

A better question would have been
Does a randomly chosen 18 yo in the .mil shoot better than a randomly chosen 18 yo from a small, rural town?

Or something along those lines.

quote:

Originally posted by Duckear:
Your question and poll are skewed and poorly worded.

Of course someone that avidly hunts and shoots will likely be a better shot than the avg grunt who may have never picked up a rifle before boot camp.

A better question would have been
Does a randomly chosen 18 yo in the .mil shoot better than a randomly chosen 18 yo from a small, rural town?

Or something along those lines.

Then go and pose THAT question.

Just want to throw something in. I grew up getting taught how to shoot/shooting with family group of WW II vets. Father (Navy) and my uncles (Army and Marine).

THOSE guys....could SHOOT. I FINALLY got to where I could "hold my own" and was deemed a "good shot". One of the proudest days of my life when my uncle (Marine) told me that.

All were country boys, products of the Depression era, had to hunt to survive, then sent to war. THAT is my guideline for shooters.

A hybrid......country boy/military.

My two bits. FWIW

quote:

Marksmanship is completely individual, and background has little effect.

I'm a city boy who's never been in the military, so this one gets my vote.

There is ONE BIG difference between the country boy who has shot since twelve years old and the city boy who handles a gun first time he is enlisted.

The country boy shoots because he enjoys it. The city boy because HE HAS TO. That is one big difference!

For some soldiers regard lying out on the range in the cold and the wet, with noisy gun, with recoil, AND having to clean it afterwards with as little enthusiasm as they regard a twenty mile forced march!

A thing to be got done with as quickly as possible and if it needs a cheat with a pencil from his colleagues in the butts (to make high scoring holes in the target) then the city boy is not beyond that either.

My late friend Clifford Owen say THAT done in World War II. And I saw it done - firing from a rest (a rolled up tunic or resting on the wooden firing point pegs) when a rest was not permitted - some thirty years ago.

The country boy will shoot strictly to the Course of Fire as he enjoys it and wants to see how good he is. And if not learn to be better. The city boy just wants his "Qualification" (and his extra "Marksman's Pay") by ANY means and if he has to "cheat"...so what!

Many if not most of the historically recognized great riflemen Keith, Whelen, O'Connor, Aagaard, Hathcock etc. had a mixture of background: country or small town living, military, formal competition, and hunting. The varied experiences all had lessons to teach.

In addition to a JC Higgins single shot, bolt action 22, I was shooting an 03-A3 and a variety of long, ill-fitting 12ga shotguns when I was 10 years old. Handguns came along when I was about 12.

As a Marine I trained in basic marksmanship, combat marksmanship, and what passed at the time for CQB. Later, as a cop, I trained in basic marksmanship, and later with specialized weapons in the swat team in CQB, circa 1990.

I have hunted every year both here in NA and Africa for a long time.

I've learned that while there are basic "fundamentals" to marksmanship, it is also situational. Hunting is different than basic law enforcement and military, and all are different than CQB. All contain fundamentals that are perisable. Throw in stuff like shooting sticks, weather, brush, uphill, downhill, smoke, noise, breaking glass, return fire, heavy clothing and tactical equipment, and things can get a little complicated.

I don't know if my childhood experience led me to any greater skill with a firearm later in life. I'd say the most relevant part of my experience was having a comfort level with the recoil and report of a rifle. Things like a good sight picture, firing position and the like are situational to the specific firearm and the situation in which it is deployed.

Hell, I still occasionally miss in Africa. Did so twice last year.

Won't tell any stories about wading through 3-4' of snow to get to school, but will say as a young lad, the road to our home was the creek and we drove an old Chevy sedan for quite a ways to get to the actual road. Wirt County, WV which today is the least populated and most forrested county in the State, so I know what a country boy means. Tradition w/ family was that each boy on 12th birthday was given or passed down a 22 rifle for squirrel hunting. Yes, that experience was a big help in learning to shoot and deer hunting was a common occurence when someone wanted fresh meat(Win. Model 94 32Win)
Learned the "ways of the woods" as it was called and all of that valuable info, but best thing I ever did to "learn" to shoot as a teeneger was participate in the NRA 22 small bore Qualification program from all four positions. Basics all the way and the second best thing I did to improve shooting skills was participate in Across The Course-HighPower matches. Basics learned earlier still apply.
Realize targets are at a known distance, but that is not a problem for targets in between. Max. distance 600yds for HighPowerXC and don't know many who routinely shoot at game at such a distance. Sight adjustments, hold over, favoring left/right, reading the wind all makes one a better marksman. For those who have not done it, give it a try at 200yds offhand, no sling, "iron sights" target 10" paper pie plate(blackened) 10 shots in 10 minutes. Some find it easy to do, most feel quite humbled. Bottom line, any formal training in shooting has to be a plus for the shooter whether it is military/civilian, country or city boy.

I know shooting 5 to 6000 little pop can sized sage rats at 100 to 200 yds each season has definitely made me a lot better shooter..

even tho I qualified as Expert in the M16 while in the Army...

I think if I had to do it again after all of this varmint shooting, I'd be pretty good..

a nephew from Montana, who has done a lot of varmint shooting most of his life..... when he went to basic for the Montana Guard... out of the entire training cycle..he tied with another kid from New Mexico as being the best shot...

of course the kid from New Mexico had a lot of mileage under his belt nailing little varmints at long distances also...

he was telling his dad how some of the 'city and suburban' kids just had their jaws on the ground on what he and this other kid from New Mexico could hit and the distances that they shot them at...

their ability just made their drill smile!