So, just received a letter from TG5 (dated sometime in May (although surprised it’s not already been mentioned in a thread - or was it dated May but not released until recently?)) regarding the dropping of second class shot AND any form of Air Rifle/No 8 or .22 TR training prior to moving on to the L98. These “requirements” have now been downgraded to a “recommendation” that they try and get some trigger time on Air Rifle, No 8 or a .22 TR before going on to the L98.
Great in terms of cadets getting more access to the L98 - certainly the ever decreasing numbers of No 8’s around and decreasing number of ranges (as well as, dare I say it, staffing levels for RCOs, WIs and Effective Coaches) have compounded the requirements to get people marksmanned up on the No 8 before progressing. I would like to think that, by improving the accessibility of the L98, we’ll see a surge in applicants for CISSAM etc.
BUT, whilst these challenges will no longer be present, will it actually make a difference? I wonder…
If we take an insular ATC only approach then yes it will make negative difference due to a lack of ATC staff trained, but if we look to approaching our ACF brethren who have better access to L98s, staff trained etc and only seem to do L98 shooting, then we could actually get a better experience for the cadets. As far as I’m aware our shooting tickets are the same as the ACF’s.
I imagine there will be some anal retent who will ramble on about small cadets shooting l98s and so on, but I well remember some small cadets successfully firing .303s which had a much more of a ‘kick’ than L98s. I’ve used most weapons cadets have used in my time and by comparison I could fire an L98 all day, whereas 30 rounds with a .303 was plenty. Because of my cadet experience I never really understood the prerequisites and no one could really explain it and make it seem logical. It seemed that someone was trying to make more of it than it really is.
As one of the bullet polishing crowd I can’t say I’m particular fond of it as it moves us away from the target rifle mentality. The no 8 and the air rifle are both better weapons for teaching and reinforcing the principles of marksmanship than the L98 (which is a horrible and more importantly, boring weapon in addition to being a pain in the backside from a legal point of view), as well as making it harder for cadets to progress in the sport.
It also makes us more vulnerable to the charge that we are teaching cadets to kill or be soldiers - we don’t, but the politics get quite sensitive and the anti’s such as the gun control network aren’t really known for their rationality.
I imagine that this will lead to units ignoring all weapons but the L98 which is sad - I doubt the young cadet from cardiff Sqn who made it to the final stage of the Queens Final would have had such an advantage if she hadn’t had training on the No 8 first. Also the L81 is an underused weapon and I cant imagine that this will change this.
The main caveat to the training of the L98 is that the safety rules for handling weapons are taught first, these previously being part of the No8 training, so this is a sensible decision from that point of view. In addition it doesn’t remove the requirement for the CO to confirm the cadet is mentally and physically mature enough to handle the weapon. The no 8 is great for new cadets and weapon safety as its not ‘sexy’, its simple and its a great starting weapon. Cadets can focus more on the safety side than the trying to remember all the technical bits.
However this is an elastoplast decision - it helps to get round a problem rather than solve it. It doesn’t improve access to gallery ranges, it still remains illegal for SNCO & CIs to transport the weapon on the public highway without an officer, you still need an RCO and WI to deliver the training so all it does reduce slightly what you need to train and I don’t see it making a hugh difference to CISSAM. It also doesn’t solve the ammo issue.
So is this a good thing?
Its good for units and sqn training officers trying to fit everything in as it reduces the admin burden, so it shows HQAC are actually thinking. Those who want us to become a version of the ACF who go flying will also no doubt be pleased.
But this is not a good thing for the ATC as it shows we are struggling to deliver the services we should be and its not a good thing for british shooting.
If you have someone with an eye for it then I’m sure that they can be taken aside for proper coaching, but the vast majority of cadets will only want to make holes in paper.aand As a cadet I got the old RAF marksman once and ATC twice and there were a huge number who never achieved either, but they shot .303 and or SLR and enjoyed the opportunity. Some were very diminutive but no one ever questioned their physcal ability and or mental capactity to shoot a larger round than currently regarded as “full bore”. I really can’t see what the fuss is about, if it gets more cadets shooting, then bring it on. The political aspects of youngsters shooting has been around since Hungerford, but I can count the number of parents who have positively said they didn’t want their kids to fire weapons on one hand. I’ve known more with reservations around flying than shooting and their kids are joining an organisation where the key activity is flying.
While I agree the .22 is a nice simple weapon HQAC’s (or whoever’s) provaracating and procrastinating means that we have to adapt or potentially lose shooting from the Corps. I feel this has been the default position for several years, although they’d never admit it.
I feel the actual range and instruction courses need to be more accessible. I did a RCO course in the 80s for .22 indoor over a weekend. You were WI, WHTer (although it didn’t exist as it does now) and RCO off the back of that. You had to train cadets, ensuring competence, range orders/logs, range discip, dealing with misfires and end of range declarations and weapon care. Didn’t have a RAM, but that seems pretty straightforward and more of a pita admin task for the sake of an admin task, talking to RCOs. Why there can’t be something like that now so that people can dip their toe into the shooting world baffles me? Then if they want to take it further they can, just as was available years ago.
[quote=“Chief Tech” post=9596]As one of the bullet polishing crowd I can’t say I’m particular fond of it as it moves us away from the target rifle mentality. The no 8 and the air rifle are both better weapons for teaching and reinforcing the principles of marksmanship than the L98 (which is a horrible and more importantly, boring weapon in addition to being a pain in the backside from a legal point of view), as well as making it harder for cadets to progress in the sport. [/quote]That’s entirely a matter of opinion - there are plenty of cadets who find service rifle shooting far more interesting than Bisley-style stuff.
Agreed - thats why I confessed myself as a bullet polisher and but it in bold.
There are plenty of cadets who prefer target rifle to service rifle. There are also plenty of cadets who prefer painting aircraft to shooting, or first aid or walking up hills. Cadets prefer a variety of activities, and any of these done to death will cause cadets to lose interest. The program we provide should be well balanced between all the activities but it all comes down to personal preference and everyone will have an equally valid opinion.
I (personally) find the interest with the L98 only really kicks in when you are using it on a gallery or an ETR and doing advance to contact and the like. 25m barrack range can get boring quite quickly especially if you stick to just groupings - its the rapid and snap that really add the interest (although if we do get 3P with the L98 this will certainly be a major plus for the weapon).
I also dislike, as a coach, the fact there is very little work you can do with the firer.
One thing I have found is that once a cadet has fired the L81 they aren’t really too bothered about the L98 - whether its because its a bigger calibre, requires greater mental discipline or because they have greater communication with their coach with the Jedi wind skills I don’t know.
It might even be because the fullbore TR attitude is so laid back that at times its almost supine - whatever it is I have always found this a bit odd even from cadets I wouldn’t expect it from and I’m sure that there are plenty who prefer the L98 (and some the No 8 ) as their main weapon (also it could be cadets humouring an Old TR fart - let’s not discount the obvious )
TR can get quite boring - shooting ten bulls all the time gets quite repetitive, but you have got the option for things like clay disc (as per the punch/shell) or landscape (with the Country Life). I quite enjoy the mental challenge of fiddling with the sights as I try to read the wind at 900 yards, so perhaps the reason I find the L98 boring is that there is less to do as a coach.
I always try to ensure all the cadets have proper coaching on every shoot. It gets them to buy into the shooting and try their best. There is nothing more demoralising for a cadet than being dumped on a range, told to shoot at a target and then coming back with a pants group and no idea how they can improve. Shooting is all about consistency and eliminating the error - getting cadets to understand this and learn that attention to detail will help them with their self discipline, allowing them to transfer that mentality to other areas. Get them away from the paper punching mentality and they start grow and develop more which is what we are here to do and so it’s all to the good. Not everyone will be a good shot when they join in the same way some people aren’t naturally good at maths and we shouldn’t neglect those who struggle but support them to improve.
Going back to topic, this change to the L98 is a sensible stop gap, but what needs solving is the availability of gallery ranges and the ability (along with the personnel) to transport the arms and ammo. What I can see happening is the L98 becomes the only weapon we use and then an incident will occur (possibly outside the ACO or even the cadet forces) and because it is a section 5 prohibited weapon we lose it along with all shooting as we have nothing else to fall back on.
P.s.
I still maintain it’s (currently) a boring weapon but at least it’s more interesting that Clay Target Shotguns
it was HEAVILY enforced on us last year while i was on a SAAI course that there states no where in the PAM or ACP that a Cadet needs to fire or have experience with the No8 prior to L98.
the instructor in question got quite animated when telling us.
the point rose when going over lessons 5-6, the marksmanship principles and the detail in which they should be covered (on the basis that a Cadet knows them from prior experience) which lead to the aboved animated (read shouty, stamping foot, shaking fist level of persuasion) comment. all lessons should be taught in full as there is no fixed pre-requist and so the assumption is there is no prior knowledge.
the ACF go straight in on the L98 so why make a different rule for the ATC?
will it make a difference?
i doubt it, but not because there wont be the opportunities, but Staff are stuck in there ways. when i mentioned the above comment from CTT aboout a pre-requist two experienced WIs i work with threw the comment away indicating there may not be a rule to say there is, but they wouldnt consider putting a Cadet forward for training who hasnt touched a No8.
personally i have no issue with it, if it gets more Cadets on a range/excited about shooting sooner then i am all for it, but i have reservations on how readily it will be accepted and adopted by those staff who have years of experience and unlikely to change their practises…
PS i voted indifferent. it will (and has) changed my practise on how i advertise shooting to Cadets but i cannot see it being the standard approach for some time
No we don’t. For actual shooting, we start off with air rifle or the No 8 (although we had those permanently withdrawn the other week). They don’t fire live on the L98 until 2* level, although can fire blank in the field as soon as they have passed their WHT at 1* level.
[quote=“steve679” post=9633]it was HEAVILY enforced on us last year while i was on a SAAI course that there states no where in the PAM…[/quote]The PAM lays out the minimum requirements.
ACTO43 (rev 1.01) para 23b as currently live on Sharepoint clearly lay out such a prerequisite over and above the minimum standards detailed in the PAM. It does not specify the No8 precisely: the standard can be achieved on any .22 rifle.
incubus…interesting to find that out. as indicated it was rammed down our throats that the line (No8 prior to L98) didnt exist…
(can you direct me to the PAM reference, i cannot find it myself after a quick flick through 5c and 21c)
although, reading between the lines it doesnt state training cannot start, only the elibility to fire the L98
which i guess would fit with the stance of CTT when the question was posed of teaching in full the marksmanship principles (lesson 5-6)…there is no reason (ie laid down in B&W) why a Cadet could not be trained on a L98 before any other weapon system
The requirement to have shot a .22 and reached a certain standard only came in iirc when we moved away from .303/7.62 to 5.56, there wasn’t anything prior to then, or, if there was it was never enforced. The question it seems was never asked at the time or if it was it wasn’t answered/made fully publc, as to why we had to have the prerequisites imposed when we moved to 5.56 as full bore. The only things I can think of are lack of weapons and or ammo, which quite frankly are poor reasons. Maturity / physical size would also be quite lame, given that maturity is subjective and the .303 and SLR were/are not what you could call easy to handle. The only cadets I recall not shooting .303/7.62 twice were those who got hurt by not holdng the weapon/siting the butt properly.
As a cadet I shot a .303 at camp only after two .22 range details and not getting anywhere near a marksman, not that, that bothered me.
If it’s time to move on as if the .22s can’t be sourced new and or are getting too expensive to maintain or whatever then so be it.
The change has been discussed for some time and I’ll perhaps come back and add my view when I’ve seen the effects of it in practice. For those of you who seem confused about what is/isn’t the policy
ACTO 43 does indeed say the following about what the pre-requisites of FIRING the L98A2 were.
[quote]L98A2 Cadet General Purpose Rifle (5.56 mm)
To be eligible to fire the L98A2 rifle, cadets are to meet the following criteria:
a. Have reached First Class Cadet standard.
b. Have reached Second Class Shot standard with the .22 inch rifle as detailed the Sqn Marksman Small Bore Service Rifle Test (see ACTI 48).
c. Be above 14 years of age before firing the weapon.
d. Be considered by the Sqn Cdr to be sufficiently mature mentally and physically to be capable of firing the rifle competently and safely.
e. Have successfully completed weapon training and passed the L98 A2 Rifle Weapon Handling Test (WHT) within the previous 6 months. Cadets are to be taught the immediate action (IA) and stoppage drills and be tested in them.
[/quote]
This has now been superceded with the issue of a Policy Letter from TG5 (TG Letter 2-13) which states
[quote]To be eligible to fire the L98A2 rifle, cadets are to meet the following criteria:
a. Have reached First Class Cadet standard.
b. Be above 14 years of age before firing the weapon.
c. Be considered by the Sqn Cdr or Local Cdr to be sufficiently mature mentally and
physically to be capable of firing the rifle competently and safely.
d. Have successfully completed IWT in accordance with the policy described below.
e. Have passed the L98A2 Weapon Handling Test (WHT) within the previous 6 months[/quote]
Although its no longer a pre-requisite to have fired a Number 8 (or other small bore rifle) prior to L98A2 shooting it is still recommended.
[quote=“steve679” post=9641]Talon, i stand corrected
incubus…interesting to find that out. as indicated it was rammed down our throats that the line (No8 prior to L98) didnt exist…
[/quote]
The stipulation in the ACTO has always existed and I’m sure the CTT instructors would have known that.
It was pointed out on my course that although the ACTO required cadets to undergo No 8 first, SAAIs might well be training CFAVs, or cadets from other services.
I also understand that the policy decision to remove the requirements in the ACTO was made a very long time ago – I wonder if the CTT instructors were aware and thought it would be promulgated much sooner.
On the subject of whether it will make a difference, it may well not. This may just be an example of HQAC updating policy to align it with current practice. In that case it can only be a good thing.
)