how does the military best guys compare to USPSA or olympic shooters

[CrudeBehavior]

marksmanship wise....

im sure the top guys in the military are good (special forces etc.) but how do there marksmanship skills compare to USPSA guys or olympic shooters

for instance a Navy Seal might be a great marksman, but does he really compare to someone like Jerry Miculek?

[geds]

Well, if you consider Top Shot as a measurement tool, a self-taught camp counselor is a better shot than SEALS and various law enforcement agency personnel.

[jack404]

Military hunt better than paper punchers ( i punch paper too ..)

our top shooters comp wise here are civilians the top mil shooter is 5th or so and shock and horror , he's Navy!!! ( sob!) army is about 7th ...

but a bunch of ex army bums myself included ate way better than the rest in our first club deer hunt

[300 H&H]

In NRA prone shooting this match up happens all the time. Go to a 600 or 1,000 yd shot and you are going to see the military teams shooting right along side of the civilians. In my opinion they compare rather well, the best of each group very good indeed. The military guys are very tough with metalic sights, as this is all they get to use for the most part, as they shoot irons in the "any sight" portion of the match.

At one time the military was strapped for long range instructors, and they recruited some distinguished expert class civilians to help teach long range riflery. This happened just a few short years ago. There was very little mentioned about it puplicly. I know because I know someone who was invited to go.

SO IMHO they are quite comparable in their skills. They just get to shoot free ammo...sort of anyway

Best regards, Kirk

[jack404]

300, can back that up easy for ya , they grabbed some aussies as well

later some US troops came here for long rifle in the field traing ( desserts like Afghanistan) here to Oz before deploying

[pickenup]

Don't know about rifle competition, but in handgun competition. We have had groups come from the army base, as well as the air force base. They will have one or two shooters that place "OK" But for the most part, the groups do not do that well. Then again, the same can be said for LEO's.

[EDF924]

Stationary targets don't shoot back.

[jack404]

EDF924 Welcome to the forum

and very true eh ..

[RunningOnMT]

Hmm, if anybody thinks the average service member can't compare to competition shooters, I would invite them to try their hand in a military environment, say like Afghanistan.

Ok, I know all military members aren't sharpshoooters and initially their marksmanship training only lasts from a few days to a couple weeks, unlike the years of regular practice competitive shooters do, the average service members is by far a better marksman than the average gun owner. You can't expect much more than that from a system designed to turn millions of citizens, many of whom have never fired a weapon, into an effective fighting force.

So yeah, take a random selection of 100 competitive shooters pitted against 100 servicemen and the competition shooters will win hands down. But then take the 100 best in each category and see who does better.

Oh, one more thought; I wonder how many civilian competition shooters got their initial marksmanship training in the military.

[reynolds357]

Originally Posted by CrudeBehavior

marksmanship wise....

im sure the top guys in the military are good (special forces etc.) but how do there marksmanship skills compare to USPSA guys or olympic shooters

for instance a Navy Seal might be a great marksman, but does he really compare to someone like Jerry Miculek?

The military shooters will always prevail in real world shooting enviornments.
I dont consider race guns on paper a real world shooting enviornment.

I would say they match up really well.

USAMU
http://www.usaac.army.mil/amu/index.asp

USMC Shooting Team.
http://www.quantico.usmc.mil/Sentry/....aspx?SID=5304

http://www.quantico.usmc.mil/Sentry/....aspx?SID=2250

USAF Shooting team.
http://www.airforceshooting.org/

USN Shooting Team.
http://www.usnst.org/

Spec Ops guys are not always the best shots in that branch of the service.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sm8SanSnzE4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29GGLt1ZT2U

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ew8p2blUYf0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xG8aOIB5x0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ehx9pLXmqtc

[jack404]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sm8SanSnzE4

this one had the stoner 25 in 7.62 we used here for a while , great rifle

good shooting ...

[jacksonco]

It is all apples to oranges. You can take a bunch of bubbas and hillbillies from the sticks that have never been in the military or competitive shooters and they are very good, way better than average shooters.

In the wars past it has always been the country boys that were the true marksmen in the militias and the ones during the Civil War on either side that showed up to camp able to shoot a flea off a bears butt at 300yds.

The military can improve a shooter and competition can also hone a shooters skill. But the country boy is a product of his or her environment with skills learned from their fathers and their grand fathers. For them firearms are a way of life and in a lot of cases they still provide meat on the table for their families.

[whirley]

Many city peoplle come in the miltary with the idea that "Kick" from a firearm is extremely painful, almost deadly. It takes some practice just to get them past that idea. Besides the military training is not so much accuracy, as getting them to lay down covering fire. That keeps enemy heads down making an opportunity for other things to happen. A good marksman is good no matter what he's wearing. It just takes practice and concentration.

[Albtraum]

Like jack said, I too think it's apples and oranges. Top Shot is the perfect example of this. One group is trained for man-sized targets, the other, the smallest possible groups, respectively. There are interesting outcomes to this, like on Top Shot. I believe it all comes down to the individual. Background experience has a part of it too.

[Randy A]

Here is how it works, somebody in the cahin of command hears about a match and thinks "That would be nice if some of our boys showed up at that". So word goes down to the company level and the morning of the match "top" picks out four or five guys for a detail, so a 18 year old PFC and similar others file by the arms room and draw a .45 or 9mm that they have never been issued (thier issue weapon is an m16) while the NCOIC draws a GSA van to haul them, and they go to a match. Thier first round in competition is the first they've usually fire from that weapon. (Mind you, the average unit only trains on marksmanship less than one week out of the entire year) that's not a joke either.
How do I know this, I joined at 17 and am a retired First Sergeant, this happened to me and I've watched it happen literally hundreds of times. I bacame "Top" and had to do the same thing. Frankly from a leaders standpoint,,, unless we are the Army Marksmanship Training Unit our real world mission is many other things than local matches. Marksmanship is a fraction of what the modern day battlefield requires.
However, if you were to pick 10 names out of your phone book and 10 names from the military, of course the military will win. In the other category, look at the AMTU they have people winning just about every National and International title there is, of course thier job is to practice and win, just like Jerry and yes Jerry has been ousted on occasion by the Army boys.
Whats the recipe, it's where you come from, that 18 year old PFC that fired a 1911 for the first time in his life at a match legged in that match and went on to be distinguished in four years and eight points away from double distinguished in a couple more,,, wore out a couple rifles before he was in high school.
There is an aspect of the question that is a bit odd, the comparison is between something that is known for a sole purpose and something developed for a broad spectrum.

[Randy A]

Hey, they also quit using paper many years ago, it's all tactical scenario and pop up ranges now. I think it's been at least 8 years now,, at least that's what we did.

Last Time I qualified in the Army 2002 I did so at 25m on paper targets. Of Course this was a bunch of Garrison units in the medical field. (I was in the Vet Command at the time)

I took a M-16 from someone walked out there laid down and proceeded to score 40 out of 40. They were all in amazement.

When I was at Fort Hood. We had Range Week. We had a different range each day of the week. Monday M-16, Tuesday M-9, Wednesday Mk-19, Thursday M249, Friday Grenade, AT-4 and make ups. The nice thing about being one of 3 Hazmat drivers in the BN had its perks.

Due to some Martial Mishaps I had to store all my POW (Personally Owned Weapons) int he arms room. So everyone knew I loved to shoot. Seeing as I had 15 rifles, and Pistols in there.

[bobski]

eyes have a lot to do with it. military guys get a good workout with eye issues and are expected to be flawless. i/e: we would jump in, (120mph wind), hump out, (a few miles with a pack) (or how about swim out?) set up in a wind storm, then expect to shoot without any pretty little flags telling us where the wind was.

im an old iron man. glass was for wussies.

us old guys peter out as our careers end. i quit shooting high power when i retired. i just couldnt justify waking up 3am to pack my gear, drive to the match. sit around waiting for ammo issue, just to start shooting at 6am. then, do the day course, and starve myself, dehydrate myself when the sun came out, clean guns, repair targets, then walk over to the pistol range and shoot a 300 point match.
drive home and collapse. then go do it for 10 more days.

then i took up girly 22 pistol shooting. and one day i just cased the gun, and its still there unfired for over 15 years.

i think what makes it an even race is civilians can afford the shoot and like love me trophies. thus they do well to accel.

military are told to shoot. take away the reason shoot and there isnt a drive. i just becomes work or expensive. just my 2 cents.

[sub-moa]

Originally Posted by jack404

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sm8SanSnzE4

this one had the stoner 25 in 7.62 we used here for a while , great rifle

good shooting ...

Hey Jack, First I would like to say hello and thanks to everyone for such a fine forum. There is something here for any gun enthusiast. I have been looking at the SR-25 recently as a possible purchase. I have heard stories of the rifle needing rigorous cleanings and perfect ammunition or it will often fail to extract, but never heard this from anyone who had first hand experience shooting the weapon a lot. Any help with roomers ?
PS> I already own a AK 47 and a SKS so I'm use to hearing a bang right after the click. HA !

[jack404]

my stoner 25 never had a issues and i put maybe 3000 rounds through it

but the laws changed here so its in the lockup in the USA waiting

i have seen some that are a mix of parts and they have had issues .. the boards show that but never seen a issue with a 100% stoner , the problems start when folks mix parts i think

[vaskeet]

military way bette with targets that shoot back Randy