History question regarding IPSC & the Military

[TNK]

I heard it said from time to time that the use of the optic in IPSC was a "testing ground" for its eventual acceptance by the U.S. Military. I have read this claim in Front Sight magazine, and I heard it again last week on Michael Bane's podcast when he was interviewing Dave Thomas. Both were saying it is true.

Can someone please provide support or documentation for this claim? It is an interesting thesis, but I am skeptical of its validity because I doubt the U.S. Military needs any help or influence to select its equipment. If anyone can refer me to credible evidence that the claim is true, I would appreciate the effort. Thanks.

[Patrick Sweeney]

I don't think it was a direct test, more a back-door "this stuff is sooooo good you're stupid if you don't approve it. Sir." sort of thing.

I know the Army had competitors shooting in the USPSA in the early 1990s, using optics on Open guns. When influential people in SF, Ranger and Delta are using optics, the rest of Big Green takes notice.

[ChuckS]

--- snip --- I doubt the U.S. Military needs any help or influence to select its equipment. --- snip ---

I do not have any USPSA/IPSC references for you but as an employee of a defense contractor, I can assure you that your statement is not always true! In fact, what the DoD will normally do is publish needs and/or requirements and look to the outside world for solutions. Actually, the FARs tend to limit the services from pinpointing solutions. Not always true but usually.

[dirtypool40]

I spoke with a veteran GM, no I will not name names, and he told me he actually wrote some documentation about using optics on M-4's for the military, as a civilian trainer. How to zero, how to train up and qual, things like that.

but I am skeptical of its validity because I doubt the U.S. Military needs any help or influence to select its equipment.

Yup, only if they want to find experts and get what's efficient and current. Otherwise they could ask one of those guys who dresses up like a mall ninja, and still teaching weaver and Korea era "tactics".

The secret's out, they know about IPSC and where to come when they want to learn how to shoot.

I bumped into a reserve 18D (SF Medic) last night at a Christmas party. Someone put us together "cuz he shoots those competitions". We chatted all about it and sure enough, he has been taught a lot of modern techniques by IPSC GM types.

I've said it 1000x; it would be arrogant to think I could teach some real life "snake eater" type anything about tactics, they evolve daily, and are best developed at the point of use. On the other hand, our TECHNIQUES are the most efficient out there for getting aimed hits on target fast. When the military wants to teach guys that, they know where to go.

Edited December 17, 2007 by dirtypool40

[Carlos]

It is an interesting thesis, but I am skeptical of its validity because I doubt the U.S. Military needs any help or influence to select its equipment. If anyone can refer me to credible evidence that the claim is true, I would appreciate the effort. Thanks.

HAHAHAHA - (you are joking, right?!?)

Seriously, the military has blundered SO badly over the years in being slow to adapt, it is not even funny.

Look at the success of snipers in WWI. What did the military do thereafter?

-Disband sniper units. End program.

You would think they would have learned by their experience in WWII, right? What did they do?

-Disband sniper units. End program.

OK - so what about their pistol program? What sort of pistol training & quals did they have right up to the 1980s?

-one handed bullseye style. And why?

-because that was the most effective way to deploy a sidearm - FROM HORSEBACK. How stupid was THAT?!

To give credit where credit is due, the current CONFLICT (in spite of military incompetence) has forced some useful and needed inovations, including the use of IPSC race-gun dot sights that you could NOT have sold the military on during peacetime, and yet were being pioneered by - who? - by our own host Brian & Rob Leatham in the late 80s and early 90s in IPSC.

If you want another example, look at the use of compensators on IPSC/USPSA race-rifles: its nearly universal. Why? Because it works. Is there combat proof of its usefulness? Ask the Russians - they figured it out - IN 1974. That year they adopted a 16" barreled 5.45mm rifle with an effective compensator. USPSA and IPSC followed suit.

But does our military "get it" ? Not yet. They have JUST started to see the light (after 33 years) and equiped one of the designated marksman rifles with a crude and marginally effective comp. Standard M4s still have a plain birdcage.

Sorry if this seems like undue criticism of our military's T&E and adoption/procurement programs. But I believe our fighting men deserve the very best tools available. I also believe that the top brass at the pentagon near here have consistently failed to properly equip and train our men with the best available fighting equipment.

Regards,

C.

[Viggen]

I heard it said from time to time that the use of the optic in IPSC was a "testing ground" for its eventual acceptance by the U.S. Military. I have read this claim in Front Sight magazine, and I heard it again last week on Michael Bane's podcast when he was interviewing Dave Thomas. Both were saying it is true.

Can someone please provide support or documentation for this claim? It is an interesting thesis, but I am skeptical of its validity because I doubt the U.S. Military needs any help or influence to select its equipment. If anyone can refer me to credible evidence that the claim is true, I would appreciate the effort. Thanks.

I like your sense of humor, especially the " I doubt the U.S. Military needs any help or influence to select its equipment" part.

It's true. Just like the military brings in GM's, yep civilian GM's, to teach and upgrade the shooting abilities of the Spec Ops boys and their instructors.

[M ammo]

I heard it said from time to time that the use of the optic in IPSC was a "testing ground" for its eventual acceptance by the U.S. Military. I have read this claim in Front Sight magazine, and I heard it again last week on Michael Bane's podcast when he was interviewing Dave Thomas. Both were saying it is true.

Can someone please provide support or documentation for this claim? It is an interesting thesis, but I am skeptical of its validity because I doubt the U.S. Military needs any help or influence to select its equipment. If anyone can refer me to credible evidence that the claim is true, I would appreciate the effort. Thanks.

I like your sense of humor, especially the " I doubt the U.S. Military needs any help or influence to select its equipment" part.

It's true. Just like the military brings in GM's, yep civilian GM's, to teach and upgrade the shooting abilities of the Spec Ops boys and their instructors.

Now that is funny!

In my 20 years in the Army as a 13F. I always wanted a scope.

The army is very slow to learn, and like many in law enforcement.

They are gun people or they are not.

Trying to train the trainer in some cases I could tell stories you would not believe.

On the way to Bosnia I had a rail mount for a 3X9 that was in My Ruck.

I would mount it in country, and get a zero on it.

The chain of command looked at me like I wanted to put a Jane Fonda blowup doll on my rifle. But they didn’t tell me I couldn’t use it. That was a big step, in the right direction.

It has taken a few wars now but the services are finally getting on the scope wagon.

[SA Friday]

Here's what kills me... The Army and Air Force both have subject matter experts in the firearms fields in their employment, and they are NOT the ones doing the training or driving the weapons appropriation in any way. Hell, I can name at least a half dozen USPSA shooters in both the Army and Air Force alone. I'm leaving the marines and navy out of this because for the most part the marines are smart about their firearms. The navy, well, I just don't know enough about them.

The AF has now started ordering all of their M4's with aimpoints on them. This is a HUGE step in the AF's thinking. The next step will be the military's new handgun appropriation. I can only hope the competition shooters that are military are given an opportunity to have some influence in this. At this point in time it appears the military has come to it's senses and is going back to the 45, but this is far from written in stone. We will see.

[dvc40jim]

Now here is a topic!!!!

Those of you that know me know that I have spent my whole adult life in the Army and soon after I retired I found myself right back over in Afghanistan training marksmanship among other things.

The Army does take many examples from many diff. venues in the civilian sector. Equipment finally is also one of those areas. Traditionally it would take years and years to get something approved from a safety standpoint or from a durability standpoint and often times equipment or paperwork would get lost in the pile before items could be fielded.

The REF (Rapid Equiping Force) helps to resolve some of that by looking for new products and listening to requirments from the field and then helping to field products much more quickly.

I think it would be a stretch to say that the only influence on the Army that prompted a change to dot sights was the USPSA. However it is easy to see that the USPSA is the most organized influencing force that has prompted the change. The growth of 3 gun provided a test bed without having to start at ground zero since we already had some of the ideas and concepts from Open division pistol. It is pretty smart to look at what works and take the advice from "experts" in that arena instead of having to do a full blown test internally.

Sadly.... the use of dots does not improve the overall marksmanship skills that have been deteriorating over a pretty long period. And just like we see in our great sport... often times there are those that think they can buy the latest greatest bell or whistle and that will make them better. Many units (who now have freedom to equip outside of the norm) think like many new shooters that they can buy "greatness" without taking the time to practice.

As far as finding a single source that would say the Army took this concept from any one idea..... Never happen. Someone used and idea they saw or heard of and then made it thier own and later that same idea was turned into an "excellence bullet" on an OER somewhere.

Only 7 days and counting and I'm out of Afghanistan.

[BSeevers]

Can we prove it? No

Did we do it? 100%

We adopted red dots when they were a silly idea used by few people/

I used to carry 3 Tascos cause that's all we had and they broke all the time. times changed.

Red dots were perfected to meet the needs of competition shooters and adopted by the mainstream later. That is a fact.