C7 weapon drills

[Towards_the_gap]

Ok here's my 2c, having attempted to post a nice long rant a while back but loosing it due to crappy computer.

Reg force Engr MCpl, 2 years at a CER, prior to that 6 1/2 years British Army, Royal Engineers
First taught all TOETs for SA80A1, then A2, then converted as such to C7 upon transfer.


Firstly, the ''PAM'' TOETs for both weapon systems are identical. Only difference I noted was that with the SA80, the right hand remains on the pistol grip. This means an awkward movement for pulling the working parts to the rear, however it also means the weapon (and muzzle) remains under positive control, which is something I think needs to be introduced to the C7.

I agree with both the two last posters, in that the pam drills are an excellent basis for understanding the weapon, and that gunfighter drills are much better when the range is two way.

A good compromise for both camps, if it is possible, is to merge the two drills into one 'super-drill'. For example

Primary IA
weapon fails to fire - tap rack and go
Weapons still fails to fire -  secondary IA

Secondary IA - cant weapon to left, look at position of bolt ...and then go into the normal drills.


Myself personally, being an experienced user of the C7 and the SA80, I can generally tell what kind of stoppage I have from the feel of the recoil, or rather the recoil from the bolt returning to the closed position, but out of muscle memory/habit do cast a quick glance at the bolt as I change mags.

 

[helpup]

Myself personally, being an experienced user of the C7 and the SA80, I can generally tell what kind of stoppage I have from the feel of the recoil, or rather the recoil from the bolt returning to the closed position, but out of muscle memory/habit do cast a quick glance at the bolt as I change mags.

Good point I can also tell for myself and more often then not when someone near me has a stoppage.  It took me a while but I got out of the habbit of looking at the bolt if it is in a normal posn ( i.e fully or partially forward and just needs a tap rack)  I can also automatically change mags for the times I do not get it done prior to an empty mag.  I dont count per say but go by feel of how many rounds I have fired.
-There is also a stoppage that although rare does happen ( normally with bolts that have modified ejector springs) the empty casing winds up caught between the bolt and the cocking handle.  The normal drill does not work as you cant c-o-c-k it.  ( trick is to remove mag, use long enough object to hold the bolt in current posn and tap the cocking handle forward.) using that method simply replace mag c-o-c-k the wpn and continue to fire.

 

[SeanNewman]

HelpUp,

Thank you for the incredible post.  I agree with a lot of what you wrote, but I'm not sold on having two separate drills (basic and advanced).  I firmly believe that a set of drills can be found that are the best because they are the simplest and most effective, and that is what makes them good (and safe of course).

As you know from having done the course, I think part of the problem resulting in a lot of misunderstandings and misconceptions is that the Urban Ops Cell has been the ones teaching these new drills, which gives the impression that they are what you should use in CQB short-range scenarios, which is completely false. 

Drills are drills, and if you have a stoppage it doesn't matter if you are firing from 40m or 400m; a way that remedies it faster at short range is better and should be used at all distances and positions.  But that's not how it's coming across, because I have seen it first hand that people are interpreting skills learned on UOI = skills you use during CQB only. 

You bring up great points about the tap/rack not solving every type of stoppage, and I 100% agree with you.  However, we must ask ourselves "what stoppages are likely to happen most often, and what will fix those?".  (See below)

Toward The Gap,

I think you are bang on with your assumption that one can be an IA and the other can be a prolonged stoppage drill, and this is why we are going to test it. 

Hypothetically, say that 95% of all stoppages are either a loose mag or a simple jam.  If that is the case, then of course having a tap/rack IA makes sense because it would solve most of the stoppages in the least amount of time.  Then if you go to fire again and still nothing, it's time to take cover because it may be something big (broken extractor, hard double feed, whatever).

However, say that the rifle fired absolutely perfectly forever and the only stoppage that ever happened was an empty mag; then a tap/rack wouldn't make any sense.

We all know the truth though, and we get stoppages for more than that.

Getting back to HelpUp though, it is imperative that soldiers understand what is happening with the bolt, but perhaps if a drill exists that can remedy most stoppages faster, perhaps we should investigate if something can be injected first before the "Cant the weapon to the left..." prolonged stoppage.

 

[SeanNewman]

Silver,

Great post, thank you.

I agree with you on the trigger part in both ways (in what happens to the trigger and what your finger should be doing once you identify a stoppage).

One of the things we have bounced around when weighing the pros and cons is the US method of SPORT, which is Slap the mag, Pull the cocking handle, etc...but perhaps adding something the stresses getting your finger away from the trigger before anything else.  Whatever that would be, be it "finger SPORT", "F SPORT" or an entirely different acronym that means the same thing.

We're dealing with recruits here too, so getting ourselves in their boots, remember that they're actually saying the drill out loud to remember it, not just working by repetition memory like you and I.  So take the cheesy example of "Finger SPORT" (we're not going to actually use this), what you would have in the classroom is a "click" followed by the candidate instinctively thinking "finger off the trigger".

That's our nut to crack though, but you're exactly right.

 

[ArmyRick]

I agree with alot of what I have read so far. Petamocto, it sounds very much like you guys in the small arms world are on the right track.

Looking forward to what comes out of it.

 

[LineJumper]

I may be speaking out of lane here, so watch out!

I think that the initial training that all elements receive is quite adequate, due to the absolute use of said primary weapon. (This of course excludes C8 drill, as many just don't get it yet) It is more than irritating to explain to any recruit that 'yes, we are more advanced' than said level of shooting, yet here we are trying to explain a level of CRBN that many care nothing of (bad example I know). Realistically, does it matter how you clear a weapon obstruction, to say, remembering how the mechanic explained to clear a fuel line in your mode of transport when going A-B?
These are bad examples, in my opinion, but strangely I felt a tad yappy. Basic weapons handling for all elements should remain as is. When practicing beyond PWT3, well, give out the required tools....
:2c:

 

[SeanNewman]

Line Jumper,

If what we are doing works out, it will eliminate that basic/advanced problem.  There will just be one set and it will be what's best.

You are absolutely right that the current PAM drills are "adequate".  It has never been about what drills are right or wrong, because they are both effective.  However, the goal is to identify which drills are the most effective, in terms of time, safety, efficiency, control, etc.

Take the analogy of cutting down a tree:  An axe is completely effective at cutting down a tree, and a saw is also effective at doing it in a different way.  However, if a chainsaw is invented we should not limit ourselves to the axe and saw just because they work.  Perhaps we use a chainsaw until we run out of gas and then go to the axe/saw.

 

[ArmyRick]

Petamocto, I agree 100%.

The so called advanced drills are actually really easy to perform. Simple principles like dominant hand always on the pistol grip, controlled breathing, as many actions as possible done with the non dominant hand (always ready to engage the enemy). I also agree that engaging an enemy at 20m or 200m, same mind set, same principles.

When you look at the modification of the drills (and pound it into the head of the old school crowd) they must understand the concept that "the PAm drills are good for training and then new /advanced drills are for deployment"...

WRONG. The C7 (in any form) and the C8 are weapons meant to engage the enemy, simple, end story.

Shooting the enemy is COMBAT. We must, must, must teach our recruits how to do things properly from the begining so they develop good habits earlier on.

The concept of we do this training and this on operations is absolutely garbage.

Its like the stance we have for CQB in urban operations. Why do we square off agaisnt the target? Because we have a ballistic plate and frag vest. 25 years ago we did not have the ballitic plates, hence no squaring off when standing.

We used to teach spray the room on automatic after heaving a grenade in the room. That was based on WWII doctrine when we fought through old european houses made of stone.

We don't teach that anymore because of different type of building structures, different materials and with civilians/co-lateral damage is now a huge concern in operations, we change our drills to reflect that.

Look at the alert states (white-yellow-red-black) we study that now (OR WE SHOULD! If you don't know it, hit the books and learn), because we have learned that alert states influence how we perform our drills (all drills not just weapons handling) in combat situation when the sympathetic nervous system kicks in. We teach similar stuff in Close Quarters Combat (the new unarmed combat).

We must continually adapt and transform what we know/how we do it to better reflect the currrent threat and operations.

People who say the old PAM is adequete, I strongly disagree, it can be improved.

 

[SeanNewman]

Yes, the "train as you fight" thing is quite the pandora's box, especially taking into account Grossman's conditions.

All we do now on the range is train in white/yellow (the only stress being a bit of a time crunch, and some jogging).

Hypothetically there might be drills that are perfect in those cases when fine motor skills, but in red/black become as useless as trying to undo a zipper when your hands are frozen.

That's a whole other thread though (how to best train as you fight), because really the ultimate goal would be getting as close to someone else trying to kill you as possible.

It's another reason that modern experience is so critical in terms of retention, because there have been so many CF pers who have shot at real people and been shot at that you just can't replicate in training and that's priceless.

 

[LineJumper]

I'm not arguing any points about this. Some are shooters, and some of us hope the shooters are good to go (no worries there). My point is taking it to the first level, which completely changes doctrine at the basic level. I can run a range to PWT3, but gunfighter is a completely different animal, let alone CQC and variations on Urban Ops. Unit level, sure, revamp the basic training system? I don't even want to touch that. Certainly this can be built in to BMQ, however, realistically this is a bit much for many that are entering into the broad military world Canada has to offer. 'Advanced' weapons handling should remain at the unit+ level, after the unskilled are produced into skilled troops. Not to mention the sea and air components that are involved in their respective defensive/offensive roles. Again, just my  :2c: hopefully I'm not outside any lanes.

 

[SeanNewman]

Line Jumper,

You are one of many who is getting the drills part confused with the CQB shooting package part, and it is completely not your fault because all of these things have been wrongfully trained together before and it has led to mass confusion.

I am not talking about making everything CQB based, I am only talking about the drills you do on the C7 itself.  You can still do a PWT3 exactly the same as it is now, the only thing that would change (in theory) is that people would change mags faster and if someone had a stoppage they could likely fix it faster.

 

[LineJumper]

Seen, I'll leave the rest to the pro's, this is quite the enlightening thread.

 

[SeanNewman]

No, please do not leave it only to the "pros", because I already have the "pros'" input.  I am surrounded at work be people who have all the pro answers, so specifically what I need is input / advice from other circles.

Believe it or not, you demonstrating a bit of confusion is really helpful to me because it solidifies my belief that people out there are confused (which is bad and makes me want to fix it even more).

To keep it simple, basically what has happened is that the Urban Ops course has been teaching how to fight in close quarters, but what happened is that there was a cross pollination and then they ended up teaching a way to use the weapon that is separate from Urban training.

It would be like teaching someone about computers while using a MAC, ignoring that other computers are PC based.  Instead of focusing on the computer part, that guy you trained begins to associate one with the other.

 

[Fusaki]

When you look at the modification of the drills (and pound it into the head of the old school crowd) they must understand the concept that "the PAm drills are good for training and then new /advanced drills are for deployment"...

WRONG. The C7 (in any form) and the C8 are weapons meant to engage the enemy, simple, end story.

Shooting the enemy is COMBAT. We must, must, must teach our recruits how to do things properly from the begining so they develop good habits earlier on.

Pro Pat to that!

The goal is to develop the fewest drills for the widest range of applications.  We gain nothing from having two standards except for "training scars" that have to be unlearned.

Yes, the "train as you fight" thing is quite the pandora's box, especially taking into account Grossman's conditions.

All we do now on the range is train in white/yellow (the only stress being a bit of a time crunch, and some jogging).

Hypothetically there might be drills that are perfect in those cases when fine motor skills, but in red/black become as useless as trying to undo a zipper when your hands are frozen.

That's a whole other thread though (how to best train as you fight), because really the ultimate goal would be getting as close to someone else trying to kill you as possible.

It's another reason that modern experience is so critical in terms of retention, because there have been so many CF pers who have shot at real people and been shot at that you just can't replicate in training and that's priceless.

Does simunition make ammo that intentionally induces stoppages?  A force-on-force scenario where 5% of rounds fired will cause stoppages would be a good way to get guys in condition red, and then figure out what drills are working and what aren't.

 

[SeanNewman]

Wonderbread, the answer is quite simply "yes", but it will take more outside the box thinking that has for years been almost over-fixated on safety to the point where it is risk averse.

All of us have been raised on the idea of "never mix dummy rounds and live rounds", but something like this could be exactly what it could be used for.

In your scenario, all it would take would be the RSO providing mags that had dummy rounds mixed in with live rounds on a range, which would induce stoppages.  Not all kinds of stoppages, but some.  Not sure how you'd over-induce other stoppages like double feeds or catches, short of severely altering the springs in the mags.

Anyway, I am all for safety like not bringing live rounds into a classroom, because that is "good" safe.  However, being hyper risk averse is less safe in the long run.

 

[HItorMiss]

Know how many stoppages I have had in combat not remedied by TAP RACK....0

Proper press check ensures round in the chamber and a quick slap of the base of the mag on insertion ensures proper seating of the mag.

Now the idea of making batches of Ammo (Simunition) that purposely induce stoppages scares the crap out of me I do not want to be training knowing this is a fact. Also I never want to have my troops in the Black, the Black is a place a properly trained Soldier never goes and training to accept that is assuming a risk that I as a leader am not will to accept.

The proper to my mind drill as previously stated should be Tap/Rack and if the weapon still fails to fire move into secondary IA of checking bolt position and follow on drills

Just my 2 cents anyway

 

[Fusaki]

Not sure how you'd over-induce other stoppages like double feeds or catches, short of severely altering the springs in the mags.

Maybe this isn't such a bad idea.  Mags get old, the springs wear out, the feed lips spread apart, ect.  I don't see what's wrong with marking them (so they don't get get mixed in with "combat mags") and using them in training?

Now the idea of making batches of Ammo (Simunition) that purposely induce stoppages scares the crap out of me I do not want to be training knowing this is a fact.

Why?

Also I never want to have my troops in the Black, the Black is a place a properly trained Soldier never goes and training to accept that is assuming a risk that I as a leader am not will to accept.

It's quite possible a properly trained soldier will go into the black.  It's not what we want, for obvious reasons, but there is always the potential for a situation to be so intense that even the most well trained guy is overwhelmed.

That said, I don't think anyone here is saying that we should train in the Black.  The Black is what gives guys CSR and PTSD.  What we're trying to do is train in the Red, so that we can push the Black farther away and function more effectively in high stress situations.

 

[Big Red]

What are being described by some posters as "advanced" skills are just more effective ones. Attend any 2 day basic carbine course from a variety of reputable trainers in the US and you will find that they can take a layman from never handling a weapon to these "advanced" drills in that time period with no difficulty.

Decide on one set of drills that are statistically the most effective and then teach them from Day 1 onwards.  Anything else is a waste of money and is not "training", it is masturbation.

As for sticking with drills from WW1, shall we apply the same to the excellent handgun drills of the day? Lets tuck one hand in the shirt or belt line and shoot one handed 90 degrees to the target. Hey, it 'worked' back then on the same weapon.

Re: Gunfighter stoppages...the "shake" part is not a reliable method of clearing an obstruction. Lock the bolt to the rear and "finger f***" (for lack of a technical term) the mag well. Drills should also take into account hard extractions and a collapse stock then mortar drill when the fingering method fails.

 

[SeanNewman]

As a SitRep for all of you who may have been interested in the subject matter of this thread, we are conducting some official research on this next week with a controlled test group.

It will not be one vs the other, but we will now have concrete data to move ahead with our findings.

I'll post next week with the results.

Expect to see a new C7/C8 PAM within a year and potentially some sweeping changes to make drills better and simpler.

 

[SeanNewman]

Update as per a similar thread.

The official testing will take place next week and I will post again with the findings.

Expect the PAM to be changed after than and better/simpler "official" drills for everyone.

Edit - Had to make some spelling changes.  Friday afternoon and getting the jitters.