Meeting a 4 MOA standard is not the problem. Maintaining it across the force is.
The Army does not struggle to teach marksmanship. The Army struggles to maintain it.
That is not criticism. It is just reality.
Marksmanship is a perishable skill, especially in formations where range time is limited and priorities constantly compete for attention. Most Soldiers are not lacking motivation. They are lacking repetitions.
The standard itself is straightforward. The Army is looking for roughly a 4 MOA shooter, with 6 MOA generally considered acceptable. In practical terms, that means keeping rounds inside a 12-to-18-inch area at 300 meters. Enough to consistently hit an E-Type silhouette while allowing some margin for error.
The challenge is doing it consistently across the force.
That is where people often start searching for expensive solutions. New optics. New calibers. New technology. Meanwhile, one of the simplest tools for improving shooter stability continues to get overlooked because it is not flashy.
The adjustable two point sling.
Specifically, the Vickers Combat Applications Sling.
When Blue Force Gear conducts New Equipment Training with Army units fielding the VCAS, the same thing tends to happen. Shooters stabilize faster. Confidence improves. Qualification scores climb.
Not because the sling magically creates better marksmen.
Because stability matters.
Without a properly employed sling, shooters often spend the entire shot process fighting unnecessary movement. The rifle shifts in the shoulder. The reticle wanders. Small inconsistencies become misses once time and positional transitions get introduced.
The sling helps tie the rifle into the shooter instead of forcing the shooter to muscle the rifle through every shot.
That is not revolutionary. It is just effective.
That effectiveness is exactly why the Army authorized the Blue Force Gear push button sling as an approved attachment for the M4A1 platform through TACOM.
The important part is this is not about replacing training or pretending equipment solves everything.
It is about helping Soldiers apply the fundamentals more consistently under time and pressure.
Sometimes making better shooters is not about reinventing the rifle.
Sometimes it is simply about giving Soldiers more stability behind it.
Blue Force Gear continues supporting Army and SOF units with sling integration, New Equipment Training, and practical marksmanship application focused on helping Soldiers build confidence, consistency, and stability where it matters most.
Learn more about the Vickers Sling and Blue Force Gear’s full line of weapon slings and load carriage solutions at Blue Force Gear.
For units seeking to increase survivability and operational performance through reduced load carriage by upgrading to Helium Whisper, contact the Blue Force Gear Military Department or visit BlueForceGear.com.
The Army fails to maintain it because there’s no real penalty for not maintaining it in many units.
So the VCAS is the only 2-point sling that can do this. None of the others can. Ok…
“That is not revolutionary. It is just effective.”
From the article.
“Because stability matters” funny thing for BFG to write. Hey I guess if you can’t do, preach.
I don’t understand what you are trying to say.
First they completely dump organic positional work.
Then they go to massive targets that can be hit with ricochets and across a range (magically).
They got sandbags, a new shiny barricade, can even use packs.
Throw in the worst excuse for “zero” confirmation I’ve ever seen in my life.
And STABILITY is the problem still?
Jesus Christ.
Why do they expect 4 MOA marksmanship from a 5 MOA weapon?
So when I had to re qualify to deploy to Afghanistan. I got a 203 mounted under my barrel and had the red dot taken for some reason or another. So I had a front sight post and that was it. I couldn’t hit the 50yrd target. I was using the leaf sight for the 203 and the front sight. I was on the struggle bus. Eating a struggle muffin. I have been to sniper school 3 weeks before hand and passed. But I was hitting berms to spray the target with dirt just to try to get a point on the board. I had my MK12 and decided I was going to get it done correctly. I used the MK12 and shot a perfect score. They were asking what changed? I said I had actual sights to use. Will this happen now with everyone getting silencers and ever other thing to help soldiers.
But when I went thru basic it was M16s with fixed charging handles. No optics. We did have PEQ2s. But no batteries.
It’s interesting that since May 2016, when TC 3-22.9 was published, “fundamentals” have no longer been part of U.S. Army doctrine, having been replaced by the shot process. It’s wild that, ten years later, people are still quoting outdated doctrine.
First, Blue Force Gear is not a part of Department of the Army, so they can use whatever term they want to refer to foundational and essential skill components.
Second, is the word “fundamental” forever verboten, never to be uttered again in any context in the Army?
Third, when did the Army become arbiter of all things shooting? The Marine Corps still uses the term in MCRP 3-01A, Rifle Marksmanship.
Fourth, you’ll probably point to BFG’s use of the term in an Army shooting context, which might be valid unless you realize that the Weapons and Gunnery Branch, Directorate of Training and Doctrine, Maneuver Center of Excellence (the very group of folks who promulgate all infantry weapons employment docs for the Army) has a section called “Fundamentals First” right there in Chapter 1 of the weapons qualification book (TC 3-20.40). So, clearly the word still has stand-alone utility in writing to mean what it means.
Finally, in the context of your comment, the correct Army doctrine term that replaced “fundamentals of shooting” isn’t “shot process.” The term your looking for is “the functional elements.”
“The Shot Process” is the overarching timeline of phases a shooter goes through every single time they fire a round. Meanwhile, the “Functional Elements of the Shot Process” are the specific mechanical skills a shooter must continuously apply throughout those phases to make a shot…which are “fundamental” (dictionary definition).
It’s been 10 years, and folks still get it wrong…we both can agree on that.
And yes, this is all nonsense and a waste of calories to even think about considering the real problem, which is zero accountability in Army individual weapons training and qualification. No external evaluations, self-administered tests, self-corrected tests, self-reporting, no auditing, no organizational inspection program, and the Army is the only branch of service without a Weapons Training Battalion-like (Marine Corps), or CATM-like (Air Force) organization to oversee the effort.
I would be happy with just EXEVALs and OIPs, but I’m just an observer watching the circus from the cheap seats.