Who created the Appleseed course of fire and what was it based on? What is its history? Through that, it tells all.

Don't say fundamentals, because we both know that's not what they designed the course of fire and shooting techniques about. Based on my understanding, and please correct me with the true story if I'm wrong, it was borrowed mostly from the CMP service rifle course of fire of late and was altered slightly by the founder to make it more friendly to shooters with limited target range distances, limited targetry, and limited weapons and equipment necessary. Hell, in the beginning weren't y'all loading 2 and 8 as if every rifle was a Garand? If so, that really tells alot of the mindset behind this. Who were the ones modifying two round Garand clips?

On another note, the question earlier was what the Corps found with optics vs. irons. Here's the skinny:

1. Optics are more intuitive to learn and easy to teach. It does not ask the human eye to do things it isn't meant to do.

2. Optics plus non floated guns leaves it impossible for shooters to truly understand and embrace holds, leads, BDCs, etc. The evaluation criteria currently gives a false positive of true proficiency - does not mean compartmentalization of shooting is bad, nor does it mean Marines achieve any level (generally) of conscious or subconscious competence.

3. Irons do have benefits if there is time to teach them, such as demanding a higher degree of muscular awareness and proprioception (small eye box). Also with non-field adjustable optics, irons can train one to understand concepts of adjustment, math, self zeroing, etc. That ability to zero with a degree of confidence and science is all but lost now (materiel can affect training and doctrine).

4. The demand for any required level of skeletal, muscular, organic or non organic support, natural point of aim, smooth enough trigger control (fast or slow given target size, movement and holding area, time demands) does not go away with optics.

5. One cannot look at anything as a component rather than a system (Army SWEAT acronym applies here as a crude example - Soldier, Weapon, Equipment, blah blah).

6. It generally remains more important to learn how to correctly shoot whatever you are handed than what sighting system you have. Concepts are concepts, mechanics are mechanics, principles are principles (such as mission driving the gear train), and it takes time and slow work (15,000 repetitions/rounds) to make permanent behavior (no such thing as muscle memory).

7. Unrelated note, the word 'fundamental' has become a hollow platitude. Folks need to get smarter, talk smarter, learn more. Try describing shooting without using that word.

In summary, talk less, shoot lots, listen more.

S/F

Yeah I don't know about that. My .22lr match rifle cost $1,200 without sights, ammo was $50 a brick (circa 2005), plus leather jacket and pants, gloves, sling, mats, offhand stands, spotting scope and stand, etc. Shit gets expensive quick for plinking with a .22lr 

But I got one of these to show for it

You were in the invasion? Or after? Did your unit train up specifically for OIF II? Did you do a MEU (SOC) work up? Ton of MOUT training as in live fire ready up CQB tables and rapid mag changes on the range and other shit like that? Or do you mean basic room clearing tire house stuff? If you're talking CQB tables, was that directed by your CO or by the USMC as a whole as part of your work up? My understanding is the"new" CQB tables the USMC implemented didn't come online until years after the invasion. I'm not calling bullshit, the USMC works like everything else, some units are good, some aren't. I'm just wondering how much things varied because the wounded Marine in the story, his training seemed similar to my own. I got out in 2001 and we were still being taught to take our slings off our rifles (or taping them down) because they made too much noise while patrolling. Nobody slung anything besides on humps or fast roping and other shit like that. We didn't get much for what I'd now call quality combat focused marksmanship training besides some adhoc shit coming from dudes from Force that knew shit that was lightyears ahead of the normal Marine Corps victor units.

I didn't say cheap, I said cheaper than others.  Ammunition cost being the biggest difference.  Do you know how much it would cost for you to be competitive at 1,000 yards with a 6.5CM?  The scope alone will cost more than you spent on all your gear.

I've already defined fundamentals as the Marine Corps defines it, Aiming, Breathing, Trigger Control. Nothing about prone or even rifles have anything to do with learning them besides practical application. But those fundamentals are called that because they are strictly applied across the board, right? Sight alignment as part of aiming doesn't change in application because someone has a different sling, right? And trigger control isn't different with a pistol versus a rifle versus a SWAM, regardless of position. Some positions disturb or alter each fundamental more than others, but they can all be learned in just about every single position with every single weapon. If someone can learn pistol shooting at a small bullseye at 50 yards one handed, they can be done rifle marksmanship in the prone with a magazine resting on the deck or other modern techniques.

I think we're talking around each other at this point. I complemented the USMC program on its willingness to learn and you took umbrage at that, while then stating that the Marine Corps was constantly adopting and bettering itself. I state marksmanship training is improving in Marines, you hint at some crazy stat that says otherwise while also stating how hard you've worked to improve it and saying highest scores ever using technique we all know to be more applicable to the modern battlefield (especially using modern equipment). I say a junior enlisted Marine was failed by his training and you go into a speil about how his instruction didn't fail him, and then state how instruction was flawed. I say his training was too focused on KD range stuff and you counter that I'm wrong and then call him a one trick pony which can only mean he only knew how to shoot on a range. I think we're talking around each other at this point. I think you're so used to fighting people at work you might actually be thinking I'm doing that here with you, and the reality is I have the utmost respect for what you've done and continue to do for the USMC. I wish everyone was capable of adopting and reforming when necessary.

And I still want to know how you got that stat you referenced earlier. You've dangled confidential intel in numerous Joglee threads and ran away with the whole "...I've said too much!" drama. If you don't tell me how you got got that info I'll likely not sleep properly. I'm a historian by education and a business analyst by profession, I know enough about stats and data collecting to know there are only so many ways to know through evidence what the combat hit ratio for riflemen only (not SAWs or grenadiers or machinegunners) was from pre/post 2008 and broken down by theater and separating between M27 full auto and aimed semi fire with an M16A4/M4. Did you interview the riflemen? Ask commanders? Analyze ammo expenditures? Review AARs for info? Or is this just opinion?

I was not in the invasion but I was in during it. Good times watching the first clips of it in the barracks.

Live fire MOUT was during a MEU workup but the MEU was cut short for phantom furey?. I have no idea on who directed it. I was a Lance.

Half my company used 3 point slings, the other half used their shooting sling with 550 cord.

As soon as 9/11 happened our bn ramped up MOUT like crazy, and even more for pre-invasion training. Lots of other Bn's did as well as the MOUT towns were stacked with no empty time like they had been pre-2001 where you could almost use them, especially the ghetto town, at will. Once one unit was off deck another was dragging in. 

squaring off isn't the only way to shoot standing (even in armor), nor is it the most accurate.

And I had a wonderful response written.Internet ate it.

1. Nothing personal in this Fellow Belleau

2. Marksmanship issues are a DOTMLPF issue, not a T or D issue. You can't logically pin it on discipline.

3. Proficency comes from knowing all aspects of the trade. Paul, and others to include myself, have been one trick guys before. Learning ART didn't get him in a wheelchair. No continued education to capitalize on those skills did.

4. Re:mag support/prone, to an extent yes. But it doesn't teach you everything. Things aren't as readily apparent as you may have learned as an 03, or as a member of a Post and Station team.

5. It's Stability, Aiming, Trigger Control now.

6. I do not dump or dangle any confidential information on the web. Do not imply that. I know my limits - if you want references, and I can't provide them, you are free to not believe me. Your choice, I'm just another guy until I put up.

7. Re: stat - sorry man, might be a sleepless night for you hah. There's plenty of studies of all flavors and methods to support what I'm saying, validated by stuff from MCCLL, and my own experiences. I won't toss a number, but the truth is we ain't a good as we think we are, with 6 out of 7 Tables being superficially and functionally combat centric. That alone means there's larger issues at play. See point 2, and think about all DOTMLPF issues.

8. Yeah, we've made changes, some willfully, some not. Not all changes have had the desired effect. Thanks for the vote of confidence, I am trying to bring sanity to the process, and it is painful. I've learned three big things though - 1, the biggest problem is facilities - it drives EVERYTHING else. 2, if people get emotional, you're on the right path. 3, look beyond the superficial for answers.

9. Appleseed is fine. Could use some modern messaging, though.

Have no more time or gas tonight, done with this topic, feel free to PM me with questions.

S/F

The only thing antiquated about it is the failure to recognize the prevalence of the AR15 and similar rifles in today's world in some of the teaching. It felt a little too Garand and 10/22 focused and the two of us guys using ARs just kind of had to improvise a bit together. Most of it is great fundamentals and the one I attended was great for reinforcing them and just plain a good time. My only gripe was the prone they teach is unnecessarily difficult. I put three rounds almost through the same hole shooting prone on the initial "test your basic skills" shots. By the end, using their prone method, I definitely got MUCH better at their method, but still not even close to shooting prone the way I was taught.

The other 90% of Appleseed? I thought it was great. I thought the methods of instruction were also good for taking people who had no clue how to shoot and turning them into passably good shots, and leaving them ripe for more specialized instruction. And I believe that's the whole point.

the guys bitching about "chicken wing" have probably never shot a ten-pound .30 cal from the offhand position at a bullseye target 200m away.  Things are a bit different compared to pinging steel at 50-100m with a seven-pound 5.56 rifle.

I think their point is that they don't see the point in learning something that isn't combat shooting

Gets one thinking about what guns are for, and if standing on  a hillside all cuffed up with a shooting jacket and pillowy gloves to hit a really far away static target is even a skill worth having.

(I think it's cool and fun, but if you're all about making Americans better with guns, is that the particular skill that is going to help them in life?

)

depends on whether they limit "combat shooting" to CQB indoors and house-to-house firefights.  There is something to be said for the ability to put bullets on target, first shot every time, from 300m-500m, and that is a different skillset than that used for CQB, MOUT, or other stuff.  

Fundamentally, Appleseed was created to do three things in a day and a half for roughly $70:  to introduce shooting to people who had never shot before, to pass down a tradition of American marksmanship, and to teach the fundamentals of NPOA and the six steps to firing the shot.*  AND, it was designed to go viral.  It does all that VERY well.  I know, I was part of the team that created and developed the original Appleseed program of instruction in 2005/2006.

It is not meant replace Basic Rifle Marksmanship, Advanced Rifle Marksmanship, any Sniper School, or the Delta Operators Course.  It is not meant to train 3-gunners, 03xxs, 11Bs, or SEALS for CQB.  Anybody who sneers at Appleseed because it doesn't do those is missing the point.


*sight alignment, sight picture, focus on the front sight post, breath control, trigger squeeze, follow-through

I have been to several tacticool shooting schools and have had the privilege of attending several instructor level law enforcement shooting schools and I still got the most enjoyment out of my one Appleseed. Out of the 40 shooters, myself and a sixteen year old kid made rifleman. It's the only target I have ever kept, framed in the man cave with my patch. Marksmanship fundamentals are never antiquated. I've have met many "high speed, low drag" dudes that struggled with an "antiquated" Appleseed.

I don't understand why you think that. Every skill is worth having.

I used to argue with my dad about math. I didn't think it was necessary for me. Land nav, firemissions, then it was needed everyday as a commercial lobsterman. Now I need math as a nurse.

You don't know what you don't know.

Saying it's stupid to learn is a very immature and narcasistic mentality that shows you really believe that the only things needed to survive and flourish in life are only the things you have used to get to this point of your life.

What if you were shooting a 7 lb hunting rifle at a 8" kill zone on a deer at 200 m? What if you were shooting an 8.5 lb carbine at a human target 200 m away that wasn't standing still or silhouetting himself and was shooting back? Would you still chicken wing? Would you do anything the same?

Sounds a lot like you're saying the technique was created to support obsolete military service rifles and modern service rifles with lead weight.

What if there was a 4 foot high rock that you couldn't lean on because of the shape but it provides great concealment from the deer and cover from the human target. Tall grass all around means you can't kneel. Wouldn't you want the most stable standing position possible?

I would use the most useful weapon-handling technique based on the weight and size of the weapon, the distance I am shooting, the most stable position I can take under the circumstances, etc.  You have an Army star icon, you should understand the concept of METT-T.

Do you understand that Appleseed cannot teach EVERY FUCKING RIFLE TECHNIQUE KNOWN TO MAN in a day and a half?  And that if it tried to, it would both suck at all of it AND turn away these newbie shooters who are showing up to learn something, anything, in a calm environment?

Jesus Christ dude, if you don't like how Appleseed teaches, then don't go to one.  Is this that hard to understand?

I'd like to take one of their courses sometime.

Also, OP has been making some dumb fucking threads lately

you forgot 7th step, get your friends to come to appleseed...

Nobody is saying it's stupid.

We're all just discussing and questioning.

Actually this has some great discussion in it about  tactics, equipment, skill, eras, etc.

If you'd just read.

You may not have said it that succinctly but you are saying that. You may think those question marks mean you are questioning but in reality you've made your statement.

You are not trying to discuss. You shared your opinion by trying to be vague and "questioning" in a condensending manner. It's ok. I don't mind disagreeing but don't pretend I'm stupid.

It is a question of what is the best way to start new shooters.

Appleseed Projects stated goal is to "create a nation of Riflemen".

It's possible to both agree with the goal and question if the course of fire is the best way to achieve that goal.

Chill the fuck out. This is a topic about a marksmanship academy orientated around the mythos of the American militia riflemen coming with it a two day course designed around shooting .22 rifles at 25 meters. You need to realize I didn't call your mother a bad name.

If there is so little time for Appleseed to teach all techniques, then why are they teaching techniques applicable to obsolete combat marksmanship expectations using antiquated weaponry and equipment? Why not, and this is a gigantic leap of faith, why not actually emphasize and push modern technique with modern firearms?

This entire thread is insane. Its no different than suggesting the only true way to learn the "fundamentals" of pistol marksmanship is to shoot one handed because that's how Service Pistol works since it was standardized in the early 20th century. But thankfully we've progressed past that point and nobody is wasting time teaching newbies to master one handed before moving on to modern isosceles or even Weaver. But NOBODY in their right mind would ever suggest that now. And yet the that's what is happening with rifles. We're promoting combat shooting techniques done concocted when Teddy Roosevelt was the fucking president still and acting as if we still need to learn them because its the only way to learn steady position, aiming, breathing, trigger control. Insanitiy...

We should eagerly slay the sacred cows of a outdated shooting sports whose techniques date back to 1907 and enter the 21st century if it means American militia riflemen are actually ready to at least know how to use their weapons in real scenarios. I'm just talking about teaching newbies how to shoot with rifles in the most up to date method to the best prepare them for combat related scenarios in the shortest and least costly manner.

Do you really have issues with that? Is your devotion to a sport really so much that you have issues with that?

read all your posts in this thread, then ask yourself who is the foaming-at-the-mouth rager. Hint: it's you.

I think it would be an improvement if there was a push to use more modern rifles.

I still think positional shooting is a good way to introduce shooters.

I agree wholeheartedly.

In its context Appleseed references militia riflemen while promoting an ethos of civic nationalism, WHICH IS FUCKING AWESOME.

But I want our civic nationalist riflemen, who will soon be forced to fight antifa terrorists, to know what the fuck they are doing when the balloon drops. I'd love for Appleseed to be a few months long to get max training. Or a few weeks long. But its two days long. As such, make it valid by skipping the traditional bullshit and get right to the good stuff on how to best shoot domestic and foreign enemies of the US with rifles.

My extremist opinion is that If someone is teaching civil nationalist militia riflemen the standing offhand position and they don't stop mid sentence and constantly warn the trainees "...but remember you shouldn't be engaging from the standing for anything besides close range, suppressing fire, or emergency longer range shots. Always try to find the most stable position possible and the standing offhand is the worst" then they're doing it wrong.

 The program encourages people to get out and shoot with the rifle they have. We see a variety of stuff on the line at a 25m event.   Shooting the Ruger 10/22 helps people learn fundamentals without the distraction of recoil and noise. Plus the magazines drop free.

That said,  at full distance events where we're shooting out to 400 and 600,  AR-15s compromise 90% of the rifles we see.

Sure, okay. You're a picture example of calm zen buddha of obsolete marksmanship techniques. Let's move on.

Still waiting for your reply on this comment:

"We should eagerly slay the sacred cows of a outdated shooting sports whose techniques date back to 1907 and enter the 21st century if it means American militia riflemen are actually ready to at least know how to use their weapons in real scenarios. I'm just talking about teaching newbies how to shoot with rifles in the most up to date method to the best prepare them for combat related scenarios in the shortest and least costly manner.?"

You have issues with this?

I know it's not directed at me but yes, I do.

Traditional, positional shooting is a good way to start. The pics I posted earlier show more modern/practical sling and optics being used which I see as a benefit. A stronger base will build stronger shooters in the long run.

Whatever you have to tell yourself to not be a well rounded shooter, and skip easy stuff to get mediocre fast.

Agreed they're repeating skills training a Marine or high power shooter should have mastered.  


To the OPs question you have to learn the basics first.   You learn to drive around town or on the back roads before moving on to interstates, crazy city traffic, NASCAR or formula 1 racing.  


Skills build.  With shooting if you start out IPSC three gun shooting without some precision bullseye training I believe you will take much longer to reliably hit your A zone.  Just my opinion.

Yes, I qualified expert every time.  Even in 20+ mph winds, out to a real 500M.  You can't "simulate" that with small Appleseed targets.  But like I said, this isn't about me.  There are lots of shooters out there better than I, who also won't benefit from an Appleseed.  If you will, then have fun.  Just don't claim that it will make anyone better.

What's wrong with teaching positional shooting using positions (with modern gear) that replicate how riflemen do it and what they use in the early 21st century and not the early 20th century? A stronger base? Appleseed has two afternoons to teach shooters the basics, to build their base, to instruct them on the fundamentals and techniques for combat marksmanship. At what point do they move on from the obsolete base and start getting into the actually pertinent techniques?

You lift, do you use modern exercise techniques or do you work out like they did back in 1907?



Is this a base for quick gains? Is this how you should start lifting? First build a base from the older technique and then work to newer ones?

Where are these "full distance" Appleseeds?  I've only seen them at 25, even on a range with 600 available.  

Also, during "rapid fire", are you teaching them to let out half their breath and shoot, or at the natural respiratory pause?  Just wondering, because it's something that I've seen change during my lifetime.  I always fired at the "natural respiratory pause", even back when they were teaching "half your breath".  

Pretty sure I've seen those moves make a comeback... want to say I've seen them with crossfit?

This is how I started so probably not the best argument.



I'm not looking for quick gains when it comes to shooting or anything. If we had 2 days to train a militia to fight I'd focus on tactics, not on shooting.

So, Natural Point of Aim, breath control, trigger fundamentals, sight picture, and basic supported shooting positions (which are the fundamentals taught in an Appleseed) are mocked these days?

I think the USMC might disagree.

I see stein is down to having to support his walls of text with false dichotomies now.
It always amazes me that people try to use analogies when it comes to shooting, where there doesn't need to be any and then makes up a false choice to rationalize their position.
Surprised you guys are still entertaining him.  At least stop quoting him as much LOL.

Reading it again, he does have a point.

Look how many here would scrap what you would teach a kid with a BB gun to try to be tacticool a few days faster.

I don't want to speak for others, but I'm going to guess that his main problem is with the offhand shooting position that is taught.  Obviously it's not suitable for CQB, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be taught.  Learn both.  I've used a "target" offhand shooting position plenty of times in practical situations.  Like when you are out varmint or deer hunting, and you have a critter 100 yards out, but the grass or brush is too tall for sitting or prone, and there is nothing nearby for support.  If you have time (and are not being shot at), you still want to get into the most stable position possible.

False dichotomies? Is that like shooting gatorade bottles at 1,400 yards with an M40A1 and ball ammo?

Considering what the cultists of crossfit normally do, I can see them reading an old timey exercise in a magazine or internet article and adding it to the Box's WOD.

Holy shit, I just realized that Appleseed is Crossfit for rifle shooters...

At a 25m event, shooters engage paper targets that are scaled to be a man sized target at 100, 200, 300, and 400 yards.

A full distance (or known distance - KD) event is shooting the qualification test at full sized targets & at actual distance rather than scaled targets.  We've had probably a dozen of these events on the calendar in the Southeast this year.  Proportionally, there are far more 25m events each year than KD events.

At a KD, we teach the three challenges of a rifleman: target detection, range estimation, and making the shot.  These three tasks enable a shooter to do unknown distance shooting, which is the real challenge of a rifleman.

Drop me a note and I'll be happy to help you find a KD near you.

We teach taking the shot at the natural respiratory pause as it's hard to replicate that half breath during rapid fire.  Others may see it differently, but this works for us.

Is a man sized target the best way to learn the fundamentals though? Why not circles? I'm just saying its easier to learn sight picture with a dot than a dog target.