Naval Medical Research Unit Dayton

DEVELOPMENT OF A SUBJECTIVE EVALUATION TOOL

FOR ASSESSING MARKSMANSHIP
TRAINING EFFECTIVENESS

WILLIAMS, H., ROBINSON, E., KIRKENDALL, C.

NAMRU-D REPORT NUMBER 13-22

Enclosure (2)

Form Approved
OMB No. 0704-0/88

Report Documentation Page

Pu~lic ~~rting burden for the collection of information is estimated to average I hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and
~am~mmg the d~ta needed, an~ co~pleting and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information,
mcludmg suggesttons for reducmg thiS burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 121 S Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington
VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to a penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it
does not display a currently valid OMB control number.

I. REPORT DATE

3. DATES COVERED
2. REPORT TYPE

28JAN 2013
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Sa. CONTRACT NUMBER

Development of a Subjective Evaluation Tool for Assessing

Marksmanship Training Effectiveness

5b. GRANT NUMBER

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

6. AUTHOR(S)

Sd. PROJECT NUMBER

H. Williams; E. Robinson; C. Kirkendall

5e. TASK NUMBER

Sf. WORK UNIT NUMBER

70705
7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

Naval Medical Research Unit Dayton,2624 Q Street, Bid. 851, Area

B,Wright-Patterson Air Force Base,OH,45433-7955
9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT

NUMBER

NAMRU-D-13-22
10. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S ACRONYM(S)
II. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S REPORT
NUMBER(S)

12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
14. ABSTRACT

All U.S. Marines must qualify as marksman; as a result the training demand on live fire rifle ranges is
significant. Marksmanship simulators such as the Indoor Simulated Marksmanship Trainer (ISMT) may
help relieve some of this pressure on traditional ranges, but the training effectiveness of such systems must
be evaluated and verified. The goal of the current effort was to develop a subjective survey for evaluating
marksmanship training systems, as a possible alternative to lengthy and resource-demanding training
effectiveness evaluations. A task analytic approach was used to break down the marksmanship domain, as
presented in the USMC Rifle Marksmanship Manual, into sub-tasks that were converted into training-task
statements which were arranged into a survey format. The survey asked USMC marksmanship instructors
to rate each task statement on Importance, Difficulty, Known Distance (KD) Range Training Effectiveness,
and ISMT Training Effectiveness.
15. SUBJECT TERMS
16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF:

17. LIMITATION
OF ABSTRACT

a. REPORT

b. ABSTRACT

c. THIS PAGE

unclassified

unclassified

unclassified

IS. NUMBER
OF PAGES

19a. NAME OF
RESPONSIBLE PERSON

46

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98)

Prescribed by ANSI Srd Z39-1 K

Reviewed and Approved

07 February 2013

________________________________________
C. Douglas Forcino, CAPT, MSC, USN
Commanding Officer

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily
reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Navy, Department of
Defense, nor the U.S. Government.
This work was funded by work unit number 70705 .
The study protocol was approved by the Naval Medical Research Unit Dayton Institutional Review Board in compliance with all applicable Federal regulations governing the protection of human subjects.
I am an employee of the U.S. Government . This work was prepared as part of my
official duties. Title 17 U.S.C. 105 provides that Copyright protection under this
title is not available for any work of the United States Government. Title 17 U.S.C.
101 defines a U.S. Government work as a work prepared by a military service
member or employee of the U.S. Government as part of that persons official duties.

Enclosure (2)

Development of a Subjective Evaluation Tool for

Assessing Marksmanship Training Effectiveness

Henry P. Williams, F. Eric Robinson, and Cristina D. Kirkendall

Naval Medical Research Unit Dayton
January 2013

Acknowledgements
This effort was funded by ONR Code 30, and the authors wish to express their appreciation to Mr.
George Solhan, Dr. Rudy Darken, Dr. Roy Stripling, Dr. Peter Squire, Dr. Joan Johnston, and LT Lee
Sciarini, USN, for providing sponsorship, direction, and insightful guidance.
The authors also express appreciation to: Dr. Richard Arnold and Dr. Jeffrey Phillips for laying a proper
foundation for the project; Dr. Phil Mangos for his expertise in survey development and, along with Dr.
Joseph Chandler, for guidance on the analysis of a complicated data set; Mr. Clarke Lethin, Dr. William
Becker, Ms. Rebecca Riffle, Mr. Davey Lind, and Gunner Christian Wade, USMC, for sharing their
considerable knowledge of USMC marksmanship, and for their help in finding subject matter experts to
complete the Marksmanship Training Survey. Finally, we thank the dedicated marksmanship instructors
for finding the time to complete the survey. This was truly a team effort.

Executive Summary
All U.S. Marines must qualify as marksman; as a result the training demand on live fire rifle ranges is
significant. Marksmanship simulators such as the Indoor Simulated Marksmanship Trainer (ISMT) may
help relieve some of this pressure on traditional ranges, but the training effectiveness of such systems
must be evaluated and verified. The goal of the current effort was to develop a subjective survey for
evaluating marksmanship training systems, as a possible alternative to lengthy and resource-demanding
training effectiveness evaluations. A task analytic approach was used to break down the marksmanship
domain, as presented in the USMC Rifle Marksmanship Manual, into sub-tasks that were converted into
training-task statements which were arranged into a survey format. The survey asked USMC
marksmanship instructors to rate each task statement on Importance, Difficulty, Known Distance (KD)
Range Training Effectiveness, and ISMT Training Effectiveness. Surveys were distributed to 39
instructors and 22 of these Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) returned completed surveys.
The interrater agreement for the survey was generally good, which is a basic requirement for this tool to
have utility in assessing marksmanship trainers. Importance ratings were high, with a mean of 4.3 (all of
the scales on the survey ranged from 1 to 5). This was not a surprising result since the task statements
were generated from the USMC Rifle Marksmanship Training Manual. The mean Difficulty rating was
2.8, near the scale midpoint, and respondents used a fairly wide range of the available scale indicating
that the SMEs were able to successfully rate tasks relative to each other and in a meaningful manner.
The mean KD Range training effectiveness rating was 4.4, which was significantly greater than ISMTs
mean of 2.9. Although it scored lower than the KD Range, ISMTs score indicates that it is still a
moderately effective trainer, at least. Response patterns indicated that some instructors do not use
ISMT to train certain categories of marksmanship, such as ballistics and zeroing tasks.
Based on the survey results, the following conclusions and recommendations are offered: 1) The survey
exhibited favorable characteristics as a marksmanship trainer evaluation tool, but an important future
step would be to compare the subjective effectiveness ratings from this survey to objective training
results, as they become available. 2) The survey identified a clear SME preference for the KD Range over
ISMT as a training tool for marksmanship qualification. 3) Despite this preference, the SMEs still viewed
ISMT as a useful training tool. 4) Based on the response patterns and associations between training
effectiveness, task importance, and task difficulty, the KD Range should be used to train items that are
more important and difficult, such as aiming tasks. When KD Range time is particularly scarce, a good
use of limited assets would be to divert less important and less difficult marksmanship tasks, such as
Weapons Handling items, to ISMT. 5) There was some disagreement among SMEs regarding whether or
not ISMT was used to train certain tasks (e.g., Ballistics and Zeroing tasks). It would probably be useful
for USMC training experts and decision-makers to specifically look into which ISMT features are used
and how they are used, and conversely, which features are not used, and why they are not used.
Perhaps some ISMT features are underutilized, and/or simple improvements can be made to improve
ISMTs ability to train certain tasks, ultimately easing the demand on KD Ranges.

INTRODUCTION
Marksmanship is a fundamental skill for all Marines to master. Ongoing military operations require
the United States Marine Corps (USMC) to train Marines as rapidly and effectively as possible, but the
opportunity to train on live fire ranges is limited. Marksmanship simulators such as the Indoor
Simulated Marksmanship Trainer (ISMT) may help relieve some of this pressure on traditional live fire
ranges, (a.k.a., Known Distance (KD) ranges). Simulators can offer several advantages over the
traditional KD range. Some simulators are compact and portable enough to allow Marines to train in
settings such as ships or embassies that are too confined for a KD Range (Training and Education
Command, 2010). Simulators are typically less expensive to operate because they save on the cost of
ammunition, targets, and other supplies (Training and Education Command, 2010). The ability to place
sensors on the trainees weapon also allows instructors to provide more specific feedback compared to
a KD Range, where the instructor may not be able to pinpoint deficiencies in technique so quickly and
easily.
Despite these potential benefits, determining whether simulators offer training that is comparable or
even superior to a KD Range can be difficult. A full training effectiveness evaluation (TEE) comparing a
new system to an established training method often requires a substantial amount of time and
resources, and can disrupt training schedules. Current demands on the training pipeline make such
evaluations even more challenging. The amount of time required to evaluate a new system can
approach the time required to design and build it, meaning that new systems come online before the
old system has been evaluated. As a result, improvement can be sluggish and trainers are implemented
without a full understanding of the new systems effectiveness or advantages over the system being
replaced. The USMC requires a method to evaluate training systems that is faster, less expensive, and
less disruptive while also being applicable to a wide range of simulators.
The goal of this effort is to determine if task analytic and survey techniques can be used to evaluate
the effectiveness of training systems when time and resources do not permit a full-fledged TEE. This
report describes the development, administration, and results of a survey comparing the KD Range and
ISMT as marksmanship training systems. The results of the survey, which was administered to
marksmanship subject matter experts (SMEs), will eventually be compared to objective training
outcomes from a companion study, as those results become available. That comparison will ultimately
determine the utility of this type of survey-based evaluation for assessing a training systems
effectiveness.
METHOD
The survey developed in this project is called the Marksmanship Training Survey (MTS). The MTS is
based upon an analysis of the Marine Corps Rifle Marksmanship Manual (USMC, 2001) focusing on both
the KD Range and ISMT as facilities for training marksmanship. Each facility is described below.

Known Distance Range

The KD Range is a rifle range with targets at predetermined, fixed distances (see Figures 1a and 1b).
Trainees receive marksmanship instruction in training phases known as tables. Training progresses
through the following tables:
Fundamental Rifle Marksmanship (Training Table 1/1A) This table trains Marines in the
fundamental knowledge, skills, and attitudes necessary to fire the rifle safely and accurately.
Table 1 serves as the foundation upon which more advanced training is based. Marines learn to
shoot from various firing positions (prone, kneeling, and standing) and to engage targets at a
sustained rate of fire.
Basic Combat Rifle Marksmanship (Training Table 2) This table begins the transition from
fundamental marksmanship skills to combat marksmanship. Marines learn to execute different
weapon carries and reloads, and to engage targets using controlled pairs of shots. Marines also
begin to engage moving targets.
More advanced marksmanship skills such as using combat optics, engaging targets while the Marine
is moving, shooting at night, and engaging targets at unknown distances are trained during Intermediate
Combat Rifle Marksmanship (Training Table 3) and Advanced Combat Rifle Marksmanship (Training
Table 4). These training tables are not conducted on a KD Range, however, so we did not include them
in our evaluation.
On the KD Range, trainees fire live rounds at targets in order to practice the skills necessary for Table
1 and Table 2 qualification. Target distances for the M-16 include 25, 100, 200, 300, and 500 yards,
depending on the training table being conducted. One instructor is assigned for every four trainees on
the KD Range (W. Becker, personal communication, August 23, 2012).

Figure 1a and 1b. Images of Known Distance Ranges.

ISMT
ISMT is a weapons training simulator built for indoor use (see Figure 2). The training system consists
of modified M-16 rifles, a firing line, an instructor station, and an audio/visual system for displaying
simulated targets. While ISMT is compatible with a wide range of weapon systems for training
marksmanship skill, shoot/no-shoot judgment, and weapons tactics (Training and Education Command,
2010; Indoor Simulated Marksmanship Trainer Enhanced, 2008), the current effort focuses on ISMT as
used for Training Tables 1 and 2 with the M-16 rifle. For training purposes, the rifles are modified to fire
laser light instead of live ammunition. Trainees occupy positions along the firing line, and a large display
screen is located 20 feet downrange, upon which the simulated targets are projected. When the
trainee fires at the target, ISMT registers and records the point of impact of the simulated round with an
accuracy of two minutes of angle (Yates, 2004). Point of impact and important marksmanship variables
that can affect it, such as point of aim, trigger pressure, buttstock pressure, and barrel cant, can be
displayed immediately to the instructor and student. Trainee scores can be tracked over time and ISMT
can replay a trace of the shooters point of aim prior to and immediately after firing the weapon,
providing feedback to the trainee. This type of immediate feedback is designed to help instructors
correct trainees errors and improve their technique. Training in ISMT is typically conducted with one
instructor per group of approximately eight trainees, but the size of a group varies based on the size of
the ISMT facility (W. Becker, personal communication, August 23, 2012).

Figure 2. The ISMT training system.

ISMT is able to reproduce the KD Range training necessary for qualification in Training Tables 1 and 2,
with the exception of zeroing the weapon. Trainees cannot zero in ISMT because the systems software
adjusts for any bias in the weapon automatically, and because the distance between the display screen
and the shooter is too small to allow for proper training in zeroing the weapon (W. Becker, personal
communication, August 23, 2012).

Marksmanship Training Survey (MTS)

We developed the MTS as a tool for SMEs to rate both ISMT and KD Range facilities on their abilities
to train marksmanship tasks. The MTS can be found in Appendix A. The survey was developed by
analyzing the Marine Corps Rifle Marksmanship Manual and dividing the marksmanship domain into
tasks, secondary tasks, and tertiary tasks. Chapter titles from the Marksmanship Manual served as tasks
(e.g., Introduction to Rifle; Weapons Handling; Fundamentals of Marksmanship). These tasks were the
highest level in the task hierarchy. Chapter sections served as secondary tasks (e.g., trigger control,
breath control, aiming). Topics within the chapter sections were identified as tertiary tasks (e.g., sight
alignment, sight picture). Tertiary tasks were identified as the actual actions carried out by Marines
firing a weapon. An example of a full hierarchical classification from task, to secondary task, to tertiary
task would be:
Fundamentals of marksmanship Aiming Sight alignment
The Marine Corps Rifle Marksmanship Manual contains fairly detailed descriptions of tertiary tasks.
These lengthy descriptions were converted to simple action statements in order to make them more
suitable for inclusion in the survey. With sight alignment, for example, we translated Sight alignment is
the relationship between the front sight post and rear sight aperture and the aiming eye into a survey
item that read Establish the correct sight alignment. Survey participants could, however, recover the
detailed descriptions of each item if they wanted more information, as follows. The MTS was
constructed as a worksheet in an Excel workbook; by hovering the mouse cursor over an item, its
detailed description would appear in a pop-up box.
In addition to the survey worksheet, the workbook contained a worksheet for Instructions, Informed
Consent, Privacy Act, and Marksmanship Experience. The Marksmanship Experience worksheet (refer to
Appendix A) contained questions about which weapons the SMEs trained others to use, amount of
experience as an M-16 rifleman and as an M-16 instructor, and amount of ISMT experience. It also
provided space for general open-ended comments.
Long surveys tend to have low response rates and suffer from poor response quality (Galesic &
Bosnjak, 2009). In order to manage the length of the MTS, we excluded items from the Marine Corps
Rifle Marksmanship Manual that were not directly related to the shooter accurately engaging a target.
For example, we excluded items about learning the specifics of how the rifles gas system operates, rifle
maintenance, loading and storing magazines, or rifle carry and transport positions. We enlisted the help
of a local SME, who has qualified in marksmanship at the expert level, to eliminate these types of items
and to ensure the use of proper terminology. The final version of the MTS (see Appendix A) contained
48 tertiary task statements, plus two questions about the overall effectiveness of ISMT and KD Range for
training marksmanship.
Each of the 48 tertiary survey items was rated on the following four dimensions:

1) Importance for Accuracy, defined in the survey instructions as The degree to which incorrect
performance of the task would result in reduced ability to place rounds effectively. Importance was
rated from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important), or not applicable (NA).
2) Difficulty to Learn, defined as: Difficulty to learn reflects the total amount of time and effort
required to learn to perform a task successfully and independently, relative to all other marksmanship
training. Difficulty was rated from 1 (one of the easiest tasks to learn) to 5 (one of the most difficult to
learn of all tasks), or NA.
3) ISMT Effectiveness, defined by the question: How effective is ISMT in training the Marine to perform
this task?. ISMT effectiveness was rated from 1 (not effective) to 5 (extremely effective), or NA (the
task is not trained using this method).
4) KD Range Effectiveness, defined by the question: How effective is the KD Range in training the
Marine to perform this task?. KD Range effectiveness was rated from 1 (not effective) to 5 (extremely
effective), or NA (the task is not trained using this method).
Each of the 48 items also provided space for general open-ended comments.
The two final questions on the survey asked participants to rate the overall effectiveness of ISMT, as
well as the overall effectiveness of the KD Range, for training marksmanship. The effectiveness of each
method was rated from 1 (not effective) to 5 (extremely effective). The entire set of instructions with all
of the response options can be found in the MTS in Appendix A.
Survey Administration Procedure
With prior agreement and arrangement, an electronic copy of the survey was e-mailed to a point of
contact (POC) at the Weapons Training Battalion Quantico, Virginia. The POC then forwarded the survey
to 39 USMC M-16 marksmanship SMEs (instructors). After reading through the Instructions,
Informed Consent, and Privacy Act worksheets, the SMEs continued on to fill out the
Marksmanship Experience and Survey worksheets. The SMEs then sent completed surveys back to
the POC, who in turn forwarded them to the research team at NAMRU-D.
Participants
Twenty-six of the 39 marksmanship instructors completed and returned the MTS, for a response rate
of 67%. Three surveys were dropped due to a probable file-saving-error that resulted in identical
responses on each of 194 answers. One additional survey was dropped because the SME reported no
experience with ISMT. The remaining 22 SMEs had a mean of 6.0 years of experience with the M-16
rifle, and had been training others to use the M-16 for an average of 2.6 years. SMEs had an average of
2.2 years of experience working with ISMT.

ANALYSES AND RESULTS

In order to facilitate interpretation of this large dataset, we grouped the 48 tertiary items into the
following six marksmanship categories: Weapons Handling, Firing Positions, Aiming, Trigger Control,
Ballistics, and Zeroing. These groups were guided by, and corresponded well to, chapter sections within
the Marine Corps Rifle Marksmanship Manual. These six categories and the tertiary tasks that they
contain are listed in Appendix B.

Interrater Agreement
The MTS data were first analyzed to gauge interrater agreement, since the usefulness of a subjective
assessment tool like this one is limited by the extent to which expert raters can agree upon task ratings.
A high degree of disagreement would indicate that the outcome of the assessment will be dependent on
the particular sample of raters selected, limiting the utility of the evaluation tool. Assessing agreement
can be facilitated by the use of multiple methods, as different indices tend to yield convergent results
(LeBreton & Senter, 2008). Although the choice of index is largely a matter of personal preference
(LeBreton & Senter, 2008), we used the rwg and Average Deviation (AD) indices of agreement per item
following the advice of Burke, Finkelstein, and Dusig (1999). The rwg statistic examines the distribution of
raters responses compared to a hypothetical null distribution. We used a null distribution composed of
uniform random responses because we lacked a sound basis to identify subgroups of raters a priori
(LeBreton & Senter, 2008) or determine the nature of any potential ratings bias and could not otherwise
model the response variability (Burke, Finkelstein, & Dusig, 1999). Interrater agreement was tested at
the p = .05 level.
The AD statistic evaluates the average deviation of each rater from the mean or median of all raters.
We computed the AD statistic as an additional measure of agreement to strengthen our interpretation
of the rwg statistic. Significance of agreement was tested at the p = .05 level for individual items using
established critical values (Dunlap, Burke, & Smith-Crowe, 2003).
The AD statistic can be computed based on either mean rating scores or median rating scores. For
the purposes of measuring agreement, we computed the AD statistic using median rating scores
because these values can be more robust and sensitive in detecting agreement than values computed
using the mean (Burke et al., 1999). Appendix C presents both the rwg and AD values for each item, as
well as the critical values to reach significance at the p = .05 level.
To evaluate aggregated marksmanship categories, we examined the number of individual items
showing agreement out of the total number of items in that category. There is no widely accepted
significance test for the rwg and AD statistics at the aggregated level.
In our MTS dataset we found that SMEs agreed in their task ratings as a whole, but agreement varied
between marksmanship categories and on different dimensions (Importance, Difficulty, ISMT

Effectiveness, and KD Range Effectiveness). These variations can affect the interpretability of the findings
and will be discussed in the appropriate section of the results.
Overall Results
To gain a composite picture of the Importance and Difficulty ratings for the 48 tertiary tasks, we
calculated the overall mean for each of these two ratings. Across the 48 items, the 22 SMEs gave
Importance a mean rating of 4.31 (SD = 0.33). The mean rating for Difficulty was 2.84 (SD = 0.58). The
Top Five and Bottom Five items for Importance and Difficulty are rank ordered in Tables 1 and 2,
respectively. The entire rank orderings for Importance and Difficulty are presented in Appendices D and
E, respectively.

Table 1
Items Rated Most Important for Accuracy and Least Important for Accuracy
Importance
Rank

Item #

Task statement

Category

Mean

35

Establish battlesight zero

Zeroing

4.91

12

Apply marksmanship fundamentals until the

round exits the barrel of the rifle

Aiming

4.86

Establish the correct sight alignment

Aiming

4.82

Establish the correct sight picture

Aiming

4.82

Maintain sight alignment and sight picture

Aiming

4.73

44

Establish proper stock weld

Aiming

3.91

45

15

Don the loop sling

46

19

Use proper positioning of the right elbow

47

41

Use front sight post method to determine

distance to the target

48

11

Maintain proper interrupted trigger control

Weapons
handling
Weapons
handling

3.68
3.68

Ballistics

3.59

Trigger control

3.55

10

Table 2
Items Rated Most Difficult to Learn and Least Difficult to Learn
Difficulty
Rank

Item #

Task statement

Category

Mean

44

Use multiple methods to determine distance

to the target

Ballistics

4.14

48

Engage targets while wearing the field

protective mask

Aiming

4.06

10

Maintain proper uninterrupted trigger

control

Trigger control

4.05

37

Shift point of aim or use offset aiming when

conditions do not permit mechanical sight
adjustment

Aiming

3.86

40

Use unit of measure method to determine

distance to the target

Ballistics

3.86

44

15

Don the loop sling

45

19

Use proper positioning of the right elbow

46

25

Assume the sitting position

Firing positions

2.18

47

Establish proper stock weld

Aiming

2.00

48

24

Assume the prone position

Firing positions

1.82

Weapons
handling
Weapons
handling

2.27
2.18

The two overarching questions at the end of the survey asked SMEs to provide an overall rating of KD
Range Effectiveness, as well as ISMT Effectiveness. The two overall questions demonstrated good rater
agreement (rwg and AD were 0.61 and 0.82 for ISMT Effectiveness, and 0.92 and 0.41 for KD Range
Effectiveness, respectively). The mean rating for the KD Range Effectiveness was 4.81 (SD = 0.40), versus
3.52 (SD = 0.87) for ISMT Effectiveness. A paired sample t-test showed that this difference was
significant, t(20) = 6.16, p < 0.01.
A second way to compare KD Range and ISMT Effectiveness ratings is to look at means for these
variables across all 22 respondents and all 48 tertiary tasks. When calculated in this manner, the KD
Range still had the higher rating, but ratings for each facility were lower. The mean effectiveness rating
for the KD Range dropped somewhat to 4.40 (SD = 0.24), and that for ISMT dropped to 2.92, (SD = 0.61).
The overall mean ISMT Effectiveness ratings must be interpreted with caution, however, since they
demonstrated poor rater agreement in the Firing Position and Ballistics task categories (discussed

11

below). In a later section we also apply t-tests to these KD Range vs. ISMT differences within each of the
six marksmanship categories.
Analysis by Marksmanship Category
For each of the six marksmanship categories, we calculated the average rating of Importance and
Difficulty, and these data are graphed in Figures 3 and 4, respectively. Similarly for each category, mean
ratings for KD Range Effectiveness versus ISMT Effectiveness are shown in Figure 5. In all cases, means
were calculated across all subjects and items within each category.

Weapons
handling

4.08

Firing
positions

4.34

Aiming

4.52

Trigger
control

4.11

Ballistics

4.08

Zeroing

4.58
0

Importance

Figure 3. Average Ratings of Importance

12

Weapons
handling

2.67

Firing positions

2.60

Aiming

3.17

Trigger control

2.96

Ballistics

3.84

Zeroing

2.98
0

Difficulty

Figure 4. Average Ratings of Difficulty

3.16

Weapons handling

2.97

Firing positions

4.49

4.23

3.26

Aiming

3.48

Trigger control
2.16

Ballistics

4.54

4.34

KD range
effectiveness

4.13

2.25

Zeroing

ISMT
effectiveness

4.54
3

Figure 5. Average Ratings of KD Range Effectiveness and ISMT effectiveness

Each of the 48 tertiary survey items had Not Applicable: The task is not trained using this method as
a valid response choice. Respondents invoked this choice to varying degrees, and as a result, certain
questions did not receive a numeric rating from some of the respondents. NA ratings were treated as
strictly qualitative data and therefore did not enter into the calculation of means, t-tests, etc. Figures 6
13

and 7 show the percentage of questions within each category that received NA responses for the
Importance and Difficulty ratings, respectively. Likewise, Figure 8 shows these percentages for KD Range
Effectiveness and ISMT Effectiveness ratings. NA responses were mostly reserved for ISMT Effectiveness
ratings for the Zeroing and Ballistics categories, indicating that in the experience of some SMEs, ISMT is
not used to train these components of marksmanship.

Weapons handling

0.0%

Firing positions

0.0%

Aiming

2.3%

Trigger control

0.0%

Ballistics

0.0%

Zeroing

0.6%
0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Figure 6. Percentage of NA Ratings for Importance

Weapons handling

0.0%

Firing positions

0.0%

Aiming

1.5%

Trigger control

0.0%

Ballistics

0.0%

Zeroing

0.6%
0%

10%

Figure 7. Percentage of NA Ratings for Difficulty

14

4.0%

Weapons handling

0.0%
5.7%

Firing positions

0.0%
6.4%

Aiming

1.5%

ISMT effectiveness

0.0%
0.0%

Trigger control

KD range effectiveness
31.8%

Ballistics

0.0%
27.8%

Zeroing

2.3%
0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Figure 8. Percentage of NA Ratings for KD Range Effectiveness and ISMT Effectiveness

The NA ratings are informative since they are indicators of which items are not currently trained by a
particular method, but they are also problematic in that they effectively become missing data for
comparing training methods. This is especially true here for paired sample t-tests comparing ratings of
ISMT vs. KD Range effectiveness. For example, there were five survey items on Ballistics, and each of
the 22 participants provided a rating of KD Range training effectiveness for each item, for a total of 110
responses. None of those responses were NA. All participants also rated each item for ISMT
effectiveness, but 35 of those responses were NA, meaning that for 35 of the response pairs (ISMT vs.
KD Range Effectiveness) we could not make a meaningful comparison. That is, a paired sample t-test
could not calculate a difference score for those particular pairs. However, 75 valid pairs still remained.
To conduct the paired sample t-test, we chose a conservative approach of omitting a participants
response pair if it contained an NA, versus another approach such as using that participants mean
(perhaps calculated from only a small number of responses) of non-NA responses within that category.
This approach still allowed for comparison of 75 response pairs within the Ballistics category, and this
was the worst case category in terms of having the highest percentage (31.8%) of omitted pairs
(Figure 8).
The KD Range Effectiveness and ISMT Effectiveness ratings presented in Figure 5 were recalculated
for the omitted pairs data set, and these new means are presented in Figure 9. Comparison of these
two figures shows that there was little or no effect of omitting pairs except for the Zeroing and Ballistics
categories, and then only for the KD Range data, where the means increased slightly. ISMT data for
these two categories showed little or no change since the vast majority of NA ratings were due to ISMT,
and since NA ratings were considered qualitative data they did not factor into means to begin with.

15

2.97

Weapons handling

4.22

3.16

Firing positions

4.49

3.26

Aiming

3.48

Trigger control
2.16

Ballistics

4.57

4.34

KD range
effectiveness

4.32

2.23

Zeroing

ISMT
effectiveness

4.66
3

Figure 9. Average Ratings of KD Range Effectiveness and ISMT effectiveness with Missing Data Pairs
Omitted
Mean Importance, Difficulty, ISMT Effectiveness, and KD Range Effectiveness means are reviewed
below for each of the six marksmanship categories. Paired sample t-tests results are also presented to
compare effectiveness ratings of KD Range versus ISMT training. Because each of the six marksmanship
categories was composed of a different number of survey items, and because the number of omitted
pairs varied, degrees of freedom for each t value vary as well. Ratings within each category
demonstrated good agreement unless otherwise noted.
Weapons Handling
Weapons Handling received a mean Importance rating of 4.08 (SD = 0.86) and a mean Difficulty rating
of 2.67 (SD = 0.98). Mean Importance and Difficulty ratings are shown in Figures 3 and 4, respectively.
For the KD Range versus ISMT effectiveness comparison, a paired samples t-test demonstrated that the
KD Range (M = 4.22, SD = 0.75) was rated as more effective at training Weapons Handling tasks than
ISMT (M = 2.97, SD = 1.00), with t(188) = 16.12, p < .001 (see Figure 9).
Firing Positions
Firing Positions received a mean Importance rating of 4.34 (SD = 0.89) and a mean Difficulty rating of
2.60 (SD = 1.23). Only four out of eight items demonstrated good agreement for Difficulty ratings on
both rwg and AD, with an additional item showing good agreement on the AD index but not rwg. Difficulty
ratings for Firing Positions as a category therefore demonstrate only modest agreement and should be
interpreted carefully. Regarding effectiveness ratings, a paired samples t-test demonstrated that the KD
Range (M = 4.49, SD = 0.73) was rated as more effective at training Firing Position tasks than ISMT (M =
3.16, SD = 1.24), with t(165) = 11.78, p < .001 (see Figure 9). These results should be interpreted with
16

caution, however, since none of the eight items in the Firing Positions category demonstrated
agreement among the SMEs on ISMT Effectiveness ratings.
Aiming
Aiming received a mean Importance rating of 4.52 (SD = 0.85) and a mean Difficulty rating of 3.17 (SD
= 1.12). For the Effectiveness comparison, a paired samples t-test demonstrated that the KD Range (M =
4.56, SD = 0.67) was rated as more effective at training Aiming tasks than ISMT (M = 3.28, SD = 1.15),
with t(246) = 16.23, p < .001 (see Figure 9).
Trigger Control
Trigger Control received a mean Importance rating of 4.11 (SD = 0.97) and a mean Difficulty rating of
2.96, (SD = 1.08). A paired samples t-test demonstrated that the KD Range (M = 4.34, SD = 0.77) was
rated as more effective at training Trigger Control tasks than ISMT (M = 3.48, SD = 1.02), with t(131) =
9.44, p < .001 (see Figure 9).
Ballistics
Ballistics received a mean Importance rating of 4.08, SD = 0.94 and a mean Difficulty rating of 3.84, SD
= 0.90. A paired samples t-test demonstrated that the KD Range (M = 4.32, SD = 0.84) was rated as
more effective at training Ballistics tasks than ISMT (M = 2.16, SD = 1.23), with t(74) = 12.80, p < .001
(see Figure 9). ISMT Effectiveness ratings should be interpreted with caution, as only one out of five
Ballistics items demonstrated good agreement.
Zeroing
Zeroing received a mean Importance rating of 4.58, SD = 0.76 and a mean Difficulty rating of 2.98, SD
= 1.13. A paired samples t-test demonstrated that the KD Range (M = 4.66, SD = 0.61) was rated as
more effective at training Zeroing tasks than ISMT (M = 2.23, SD = 1.10), with t(124) = 20.02, p < .001
(see Figure 9).
Correlations
In an exploratory effort to identify any associations between the dimensions of item Importance,
Difficulty, ISMT Effectiveness, and KD Range Effectiveness, we constructed the correlation matrix for
these four dimensions. This matrix is shown in Table 3. The significant positive correlation between
Importance and KD Range Effectiveness was fairly strong (r = .68, p < .001); items rated higher in
Importance also tended to be rated high for KD Range Effectiveness. The negative correlation between
Difficulty and ISMT Effectiveness was moderate but not quite significant at the p = .05 level (r = -.41, p =
.06), indicating that more difficult items tended to receive lower ISMT Effectiveness ratings. There was
some indication of an association between Importance and Difficulty ratings, but it was not statistically
significant (r = .37, p = .10). None of the other correlations approached significance.

17

Table 3
Correlations between Importance, Difficulty, KD Range Effectiveness, and ISMT
Effectiveness
Importance

Difficulty

Difficulty

0.37

KD Range Effectiveness

-0.20

-0.41

0.68***

-0.01

ISMT Effectiveness

KD Range Effectiveness

-0.29

***p < .001, two-tailed

Open-Ended Comments
Five SMEs provided a total of 11 general open-ended comments. The comments were wide-ranging and
included suggestions for useful teaching aids, general areas of difficulty for students (e.g., sight
alignment, eye relief), and areas where ISMT might be improved (e.g., more realistic recoil, ability to
teach various shooting positions). All of the comments are presented in Appendix F.
DISCUSSION
The goal of this effort was to determine the utility of a quickly administered subjective evaluation
tool for assessing the effectiveness of marksmanship trainers and as a possible alternative to
comprehensive TEEs. Using a task analytic approach, marksmanship training materials, and SME input,
we developed a survey which instructors and SMEs could complete in under 30 minutes. Twenty-two
USMC marksmanship instructors returned valid surveys and we discuss those results here. These data
will eventually be analyzed further to see if they are predictive of the objective training results of a
companion study comparing the effectiveness of ISMT and KD Range training methods, when those
results become available.
Interrater Agreement
Overall interrater agreement was good, indicating reliable results, with a few exceptions. Agreement
was low for ISMT Effectiveness ratings within the Firing Positions and Ballistics categories, which makes
those results more difficult to interpret. Although low agreement makes system evaluation more
challenging, it does not necessarily mean that an item is not informative. Low agreement could indicate
legitimately different groups of raters, as would result from different instructors using the system
differently, for example. Perhaps some SMEs used ISMT to train some tasks while other SMEs did not.
SMEs who did not use ISMT to train certain tasks may have rated it poorly or NA, while SMEs who used
ISMT rated it highly. This explanation seems plausible given the high agreement among SMEs on KD
18

Range effectiveness, but low agreement among the same SMEs in certain categories on ISMT
effectiveness. There may be some inconsistencies in ISMTs use, leading to different training depending
on a particular instructor or facility. Future work should investigate how ISMT is actually used by
different instructors in order to identify best practices to improve standardization and training
effectiveness.
Agreement was also low for Difficulty ratings for Firing Positions, but it is not clear why. One possible
explanation is again that instructors are using the systems differently. These differences could have
caused some trainees to learn the tasks more easily than others, depending on how instructors used the
systems.
Agreement scores must also be interpreted with special care for items or categories with a high
number of NA responses, as was the case with ISMT Effectiveness ratings for the Ballistics and Zeroing
categories. Numerous NA responses in the presence of other ratings may indicate poor agreement
despite good values for rwg and AD. Any follow on work should try to determine why some SMEs feel
that certain items are NA, whereas other SMEs have no problems in evaluating those same items.
Importance Ratings
Overall, the 48 survey items, or tertiary tasks, received high ratings for Importance. The mean
Importance rating across all items was 4.31, and the mean rating for each of six categories was above 4
(see Figure 3), which corresponded to Highly Important. High Importance ratings are not surprising
here since all items on the survey can be traced back to the Marine Corps Rifle Marksmanship Manual,
which focuses on tasks important to marksmanship. The top five items for Importance (see Table 1)
were all from the categories of Zeroing or Aiming. This result makes sense since a rifle that is not
properly zeroed and properly aimed cannot be expected to place a round accurately on target
(especially the first round, when there is not yet any feedback on point of impact). The item with the
highest Importance rating, Establish battlesight zero, had a mean rating of 4.91.
The bottom five items for Importance in Table 1 were a bit more heterogeneous, originating from the
categories of Weapons Handling, Trigger Control, Ballistics, and Aiming. It is worth noting that even the
item with the lowest rank order Importance rating, Maintain proper interrupted trigger control, still
received a mean rating 3.55. This falls approximately midway between the descriptors 3 - Moderately
Important and 4 - Highly Important, again indicating that all of the survey items were viewed as
important for marksmanship.
Difficulty Ratings
The overall mean Difficulty rating was 2.84, or just below the midpoint descriptor 3 - Approximately
half the tasks are easier to learn and half are more difficult to learn. The item rated as most difficult,
Use multiple methods to determine distance to the target, had a mean rating of 4.14. A rating of 4
corresponded to Harder to learn than most other tasks. The item with the lowest Difficulty rating was
Assume the prone position, which received a mean rating of 1.82, or close to a rating of 2 - Easier to
learn than most other tasks. For Difficulty ratings, SMEs used a fairly wide range of the available scale,
19

and their average rating was close to the scale midpoint. These two characteristics of the data indicate
that with the exception of Firing Position Difficulty ratings as discussed above, the SMEs were able to
successfully rate tasks relative to each other and in a meaningful manner.
The top five items for Difficulty (see Table 2) were from the categories of Ballistics, Aiming, and
Trigger Control. Items in the Ballistics category involved making distance judgments, which is known to
be a difficult perceptual task (Allen & Rashotte, 2006). The Aiming and Trigger Control categories
contained challenging items that require fine motor control and precise hand-eye coordination, so it is
logical that these items and categories were rated among the most difficult.
The bottom five items for Difficulty in Table 2 were from the categories of Firing Positions, Aiming,
and Weapons Handling. These five items involved fairly gross motor movement and positioning tasks
(e.g., Assume the prone position). It is likely that the gross motor and fairly simple procedural nature
of these tasks (especially as compared to the five most difficult items) resulted in their lower Difficulty
ratings.
ISMT vs. KD Range Ratings
Overall Effectiveness Ratings
When SMEs were asked to provide one overall rating for KD Range Effectiveness and one for ISMT
Effectiveness, they clearly rated the KD Range (M = 4.81) as more effective than ISMT (M = 3.52). The
same pattern of results emerged when Effectiveness means were calculated across all 48 tertiary tasks.
The mean for the KD Range was 4.40 while that for ISMT was 2.92. It is unclear exactly why ratings were
lower when means were calculated across the 48 individual tertiary items. Perhaps the increased detail
and specificity at the item level prompted SMEs to think more thoroughly and critically in their ratings.
What is clear is that the SMEs consistently rated the KD Range as more effective.
There are at least two potential explanations for the higher KD Range Effectiveness ratings. First,
since Marines are tested on the KD Range itself, not ISMT, for their marksmanship qualification, the KD
Range is certainly a good choice for learning and practicing the required skills. For example, on the KD
Range Marines learn to deal with real world weather effects (e.g., wind, atmospheric obscuration, etc.)
and experience the actual noise and recoil of firing live ammunition in their own weapons. While the
weapons converted for ISMT do produce some recoil, it is only about one-third as strong as that
produced by live ammunition, and one SME did comment on the non-realistic recoil provided by ISMT.
Thus it may be argued that tasks like re-establishing sight alignment and sight picture are not as
challenging or realistic with ISMT, and therefore the KD Range produces better training for qualification.
A second factor that may have contributed to a higher rating for the KD Range is a subjective
preference or bias for firing actual, versus simulated, weapons and ammunition. Simply put, live fire is
probably more rewarding and fun for the Marines than ISMT, and this may be a bias that affects their
ratings.

20

One point that should be kept in mind is that even though ISMT received lower mean Effectiveness
ratings than the KD Range, it still received intermediate to favorable ratings. ISMTs mean rating of 2.92
across the 48 items is slightly below, but still close to, a rating of 3 Moderately Effective. ISMTs
mean score of 3.52 for the overall question is a favorable rating, falling between Moderately Effective
and Highly Effective. The SMEs still see ISMT as a useful training tool.

Effectiveness Ratings by Marksmanship Categories

In addition to the overall KD Range Effectiveness versus ISMT Effectiveness ratings, we analyzed the
effectiveness ratings within each of the six marksmanship categories (Figure 9). Reflecting the overall
ratings, SMEs rated the KD Range as being more effective than ISMT in all six cases, and these
differences were all statistically significant. Also for each of the six categories, mean ratings for the KD
Range were above 4, which corresponds to Highly Effective. Clearly then, SMEs rate the KD Range
high in Effectiveness in absolute terms, and as compared to ISMT. But again, even though ISMT was not
rated as highly, it still fared reasonably well. For three of the six categories, Aiming, Trigger Control, and
Firing Positions, ISMT scored above 3 (Moderately Effective), and nearly so for a fourth category,
Weapons Handling, with a mean of 2.96. So for these four categories, SME instructors felt that ISMT
trained marksmanship tasks in manner that was close to moderately effective or better.
Looking more closely at these four categories and at ISMT characteristics, these generally favorable
results are not surprising. ISMT uses actual M-16 rifles that are converted for simulated use. The sights
and trigger mechanisms are the same as those used for qualification, so Aiming and Trigger Control tasks
can be trained fairly well. The size and weight of the rifle is the same, so ISMT should be expected to
train Firing Positions and Weapons Handling tasks adequately. Thus in the opinion of the SMEs, ISMT is
fairly effective at training tasks in these categories, but not as effective as the KD Range. One possible
explanation as to why ISMT ratings fell short of KD Range ratings may be related to factors mentioned
earlier such as decreased recoil of the ISMT rifles and its training effects on re-establishing sight
alignment/sight picture. Another reason may be the perceptual and visual system differences involved
in aiming at simulated, projected targets versus real, physical targets.
For two categories, Zeroing and Ballistics, ISMT scored poorly in effectiveness with mean ratings of
2.23 and 2.16, respectively. These means were close to a rating of 2, corresponding to Slightly
Effective. These categories also had the highest percentage of NA ratings (see Figure 8) with Zeroing at
27.8% and Ballistics at 31.8%. Taken together, the data for these two categories indicate SMEs felt that
ISMT either trained the tasks poorly, or that it was not used to train the tasks at all. The response
patterns also indicate that there is some disagreement among the SMEs about whether or not ISMT is
used to train tasks within these categories. It may be the case that some instructors choose not to use
certain features of ISMT, such as introducing wind effects, if they believe it is ineffective in training how
to compensate for the wind. Although this reasoning is speculative it would help explain why some
chose to rate certain items as NA while others assigned low ratings. This is an area that USMC training

21

experts may want to examine further, both for standardization purposes, and possibly for improving the
way certain features of ISMT are used.
In the previously mentioned companion study, a separate project team has plans to collect objective
data on KD Range and ISMT training Effectiveness. In that effort, two groups of Marines will each
participate in a different method of training. One group will train traditionally on the KD Range
exclusively, while the other group will replace some KD Range sessions with ISMT sessions. After
training, the marksmanship qualifying scores of the two groups will be compared. Those results will also
be compared to the results from the current survey to see to what degree, if any, our SME ratings are
predictive of qualification scores.
By several measures, SMEs in the present study rated the KD Range as the more effective training
tool. In the planned companion study, if the group trained exclusively on the KD Range has reliably
higher qualification scores, those results would be an indicator that the MTS has potential merit as a
predictor of training system effectiveness. The future project is to be conducted on a not-to-interfere
basis, and extremely busy training schedules have not yet afforded the opportunity for data collection.
Provided that study can be completed we will work with that project team to combine the results of our
efforts.
Correlations
When correlation coefficients were calculated among the dimensions of Importance, Difficulty, ISMT
Effectiveness, and KD Range Effectiveness, the only significant association was between Importance and
KD Range Effectiveness (see Table 3). Tasks that SMEs viewed as high in Importance were rated highly in
terms of KD Range Effectiveness as well. So not only did SMEs rate the KD Range as more effective, they
saw it as particularly effective for more important items. Although not quite significant at the p = .05
level, there was also a trend in the opposite direction for the correlation between Difficulty and ISMT
Effectiveness (r = -.41, p = .057), indicating that ISMT was viewed as less effective in training the more
difficult tasks. A recommendation emerging from these results would be to give KD Range priority to
tasks rated as more important and difficult. A review of Tables 1 and 2 shows that Aiming tasks tended
to fall into this category.
One other interesting correlation result was that between task Importance and Difficulty (r = .37, p =
.095). Although not statistically significant, there was some tendency for items rated as important to
also be rated as difficult. One simple explanation would be that the important items are indeed more
difficult. Another possible explanation is that the structure of the survey may have induced a confound
between the dimensions of Importance and Difficulty, as follows. The most efficient way to complete
the survey was to read the task statement, and then rate it in terms of Importance, Difficulty, ISMT
Effectiveness, and KD Range Effectiveness. The fact that Importance was immediately followed by
Difficulty may have caused the former rating to bias the latter in the same direction. If follow on work
were to be conducted it may be worthwhile to investigate new methods of survey administration, such
as having the SMEs rate all items on one dimension before moving on to the next. More data on this
topic may provide a clearer picture about any relationship between Importance and Difficulty.
22

CONCLUSIONS
Several conclusions and recommendations that can be drawn from this study are listed below.

The survey exhibited favorable characteristics as a marksmanship trainer evaluation tool, but an
important future step would be to compare the subjective effectiveness ratings from this survey
to objective training results, as they become available.
The survey identified a clear SME preference for the KD Range over ISMT as a training tool for
marksmanship qualification.
Despite this preference, the SMEs still viewed ISMT as a useful training tool. Depending on how
the data were analyzed, ISMT received mean ratings that ranged from just below Moderately
Effective to ratings that fell between Moderately Effective and Highly Effective.
Based on the response patterns and associations between training effectiveness, task
importance, and task difficulty, the KD Range should be used to train items that are more
important and difficult, such as aiming tasks. When KD Range time is particularly scarce, a good
use of limited assets would be to divert less difficult and less important tasks, such as Weapons
Handling items, to ISMT.
There was some disagreement among SMEs regarding whether or not ISMT was used to train
certain tasks, particularly Ballistics and Zeroing tasks. It would probably be useful for USMC
training experts and decision-makers to specifically look into which ISMT features are used and
how they are used, and conversely, which features are not used, and why they are not used.
Perhaps some ISMT features are underutilized, and/or simple improvements can be made to
improve ISMTs ability to train certain tasks, ultimately easing the demand on KD Ranges.
References

Allen, G.A. & Rashotte, M.A. (2006). Training metric accuracy in distance estimation skill: pictures versus
words. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 171-186.
Burke, M.J., Finkelstein, L.M., & Dusig, M.S. (1999). On average deviation indices for estimating
interrater agreement. Organizational Research Methods, 2(1), 49-68.
Dunlap, W.P., Burke, M.J., & Smith-Crowe. (2003). Accurate tests of statistical significance for rwg and
average deviation interrater agreement indexes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(2), 356-362.
Galesic, M & Bosnjak, M. (2009). Effects of questionnaire length on participation and indicators of
response quality in a web survey. Public Opinion Quarterly, 73(2), 349-360.
Indoor Simulated Marksmanship Trainer Enhanced (ISMT-E) (2008). Retrieved from
http://www.marines.mil/unit/pandr/Documents/Concepts/2008/PDF/CP08Ch3P7_Indoor_Simu
lated_Marksmanship_Trainer%E2%80%93Enhanced.pdf on January 6, 2012.
LeBrenton, J.M. & Senter, J.L. (2008). Answers to 20 questions about interrater reliability and interrater
agreement. Organizational Research Methods, 11(4), 815-852.

23

United States Marine Corps (2001). Rifle Marksmanship. Retrieved from

https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.everyspec.com/USMC/download.php%3Fspec%3D
MCRP_301A_29MAR2001.013708.pdf&sa=U&ei=_IKrULDGHcmx0AG7jIDQBA&ved=0CA8QFjAE&client=i
nternal-uds-cse&usg=AFQjCNHCc3tps8PVlBKg4AYI1OT0uSWoGA on May 17, 2010.
Training and Education Command (2010). Concept of operations for the Indoor Simulated
Marksmanship Trainer.
Yates, W. (2004). A training transfer study of the Indoor Simulated Marksmanship Trainer. Unpublished
Masters thesis. Retrieved from
http://www.personal.psu.edu/krm10/Live%20Fire%20Project/ISMT%20transfer.pdf on January
6, 2012.

24

Appendix A
Survey instructions
NOTE: This survey is presented in an Excel workbook (see the multiple colored tabs below). Be sure to
read the brief "Informed Consent" information and the Privacy Act Statement, and to fill out the
short Marksmanship Experience worksheet as well. Please save the file often so you dont lose your
work. Finally, if you have any questions, call Henry Williams (937-938-3880), Cristina Kirkendall (937938-3913), or Eric Robinson (937-938-3919). They will be happy to help with any problems.
You will probably find it helpful to print out these instructions and rating scales and refer back to
them as you fill out the survey. You can also see the ratings scales by hovering the cursor over cells
in the top row on the "Survey" worksheet.
On this survey, you will see a variety of tasks related to marksmanship. We would like you to provide
ratings for each task statement using the scales provided below. Hovering the cursor over a task
statement cell will give you additional detail about that item. Please review all task statements and
type the number corresponding to your rating in the appropriate column. If you think that a task is not
relevant to USMC marksmanship duties, select NA.
Scales 1 & 2 concern the characteristics of the tasks themselves while Scales 3 & 4 relate to how well
ISMT and the live fire range train these tasks. Please read the definitions of the scales and rating
options provided below. When providing ratings for the tasks, you may also review the definitions and
ratings scales by hovering the cursor over the cell containing the name of the rating scale (top row).
There is also space at the end of each row for any additional comments you may have on a task.

There are two questions at the end of the survey asking you to rate ISMT and the Live Fire Range in
their general ability to train marksmanship tasks. For these items please think about the overall
capabilities of both training methods and choose the best response for each item from the dropdown
menu.

Scale 1: Importance for accuracy

The degree to which incorrect performance of the task would result in reduced ability to
place rounds effectively.
1
2
3
4
5
NA

Not important
Slightly important
Moderately important
Highly important
Extremely important
Not applicable

25

Scale 2: Difficulty to Learn

Difficulty to learn reflects the total amount of time and effort required to learn to perform
a task successfully and independently, relative to all other marksmanship training.
1
2
3
4
5
NA

One of the easiest tasks to learn

Easier to learn than most other tasks
Approximately half of the tasks are easier to learn and half are more difficult
to learn
Harder to learn than most other tasks
One of the most difficult to learn of all tasks
Not applicable

Scale 3: ISMT Effectiveness

How effective is ISMT in training the Marine to perform this task?
1
2
3
4
5
NA

Not effective (ISMT is used to train this task, but does not train the task
effectively)
Slightly effective
Moderately effective
Highly effective
Extremely effective
ISMT is not used to train this task

Scale 4: Live Fire Effectiveness

How effective is the live fire range in training the Marine to perform this task?
1
2
3
4
5
NA

Not effective (The live fire range is used to train this task, but does not train
the task effectively)
Slightly effective
Moderately effective
Highly effective
Extremely effective
The live fire range is not used to train this task

26

Marksmanship Experience

1
2

Please list the weapon(s) which you train others to use (e.g., M-16
rifle, M9 pistol).
How long have you been an M-16 rifleman? Please provide both the
Year(s) and Month(s). Enter "0" if necessary.
Year(s):
Month(s):

How long have you been training M-16 marksmanship? Please

provide both the Year(s) and Month(s). Enter "0" if necessary.
Year(s):
Month(s):

How long have you worked with ISMT? Please provide both the
Year(s) and Month(s). Enter "0" if necessary.
Year(s):
Month(s):

Other comments or notes that you would like to add:

27

Marksmanship Survey
Task Statement

Importance
Live Fire Additional
Difficulty to
ISMT
for
Range
Comments
Learn
Effectiveness
Accuracy
Effectiveness (Optional)

1 Establish the correct sight alignment.

2 Establish the correct sight picture.
3 Establish proper stock weld.
4 Establish proper eye relief.
5 Maintain sight alignment and sight picture.
6

Fire at the appropriate point in the breath

cycle.

7 Establish the proper trigger grip.

8

Establish the proper trigger finger

placement.

9 After firing, reset the trigger.

10

Maintain proper uninterrupted trigger

control.

11

Maintain proper interrupted trigger

control.

12

Apply marksmanship fundamentals until

the round exits the barrel of the rifle.

13

Bring the rifle sights back on target for

additional shots.

Select and assume a firing position based

14 on mobility, stability, and observation of
the target.
15 Don the loop sling.
16 Use proper left hand position.
17

Use proper placement of the rifle butt in

the pocket of the shoulder.

28

18 Use proper grasp on the pistol grip.

19 Use proper positioning of the right elbow.
Maintain firm and consistent placement of
20 the cheek against the stock from shot to
shot.
21

Use skeletal structure to support rifle's

weight when using the loop sling.

22

Relax the muscles when using the loop

sling.

23

Adjust the body to achieve proper point of

aim when using the loop sling.

24 Assume the prone position

25 Assume the sitting position
26 Assume the kneeling position
27 Assume the high kneeling position
28 Assume the medium kneeling position
29 Assume the low kneeling position
30 Assume the standing position
31

Use the front sight post to adjust for

elevation.

32

Use the rear sight elevation knob to adjust

the sight for a specific range to the target.

33

Use the windage knob to adjust the strike

of the round right or left.

Establish initial sight settings to serve as

34 the starting point for initial zeroing and
subsequent adjustments.
35 Establish BZO.
Rezero in order to compensate for the
36 effects of wind, temperature,
precipitation, and light.

29

Shift point of aim or use offset aiming

37 when conditions do not permit mechanical
sight adjustment.
If the strike of the round is known, aim the
next shot an equal distance from center
38
mass in the opposite direction to
compensate.
39

Use environmental features to support the

weapon.

40

Use unit of measure method to determine

distance to the target.

41

Use front sight post method to determine

distance to the target.

42

Use visible detail method to determine

distance to the target.

43

Use bracketing method to determine

distance to the target.

44

Use multiple methods to determine

distance to the target.

45

Use environmental cues to estimate wind

direction, angle, and velocity.

46

Use the angle between a flag and the

flagpole in order to estimate wind velocity.

47 Execute a controlled pair to a target.

48

Engage targets while wearing field

protective mask.

Overall, how effective do you think ISMT is at training marksmanship tasks in

49 general? Please click on the cell to the right and choose one option from the
dropdown menu.
Overall, how effective do you think the Live Fire Range is at training marksmanship
50 tasks in general? Please click on the cell to the right and choose one option from
the dropdown menu.

30

Appendix B
Tertiary Tasks by Category
Category

Item #

Firing
positions

14
24
25
26
27
28
29
30

Weapons
handling

15
16
17
19
20
21
22
23
39

Aiming

Trigger
control

Task Statement
Select and assume a firing position based on mobility, stability, and observation of
the target
Assume the prone position
Assume the sitting position
Assume the kneeling position
Assume the high kneeling position
Assume the medium kneeling position
Assume the low kneeling position
Assume the standing position
Don the loop sling
Use proper left hand position
Use proper placement of the rifle butt in the pocket of the shoulder
Use proper positioning of the right elbow
Maintain firm and consistent placement of the cheek against the stock from shot to
shot
Use skeletal structure to support the rifles weight when using the loop sling
Relax the muscles when using the loop sling
Adjust the body to achieve proper point of aim when using the loop sling
Use environmental features to support the weapon

1
2
3
4
5
6
12
13
37

Establish the correct sight alignment

Establish the correct sight picture
Establish proper stock weld
Establish proper eye relief
Maintain sight alignment and sight picture
Fire at the appropriate point in the breath cycle
Apply marksmanship fundamentals until the round exits the barrel of the rifle
Bring the rifle sights back on target for additional shots
Shift point of aim or use offset aiming when conditions do not permit mechanical
sight adjustment

38
47
48

If the strike of the round is known, aim the next shot an equal distance from center
mass in the opposite direction to compensate
Execute a controlled pair to a target
Engage targets while wearing the field protective mask

Establish the proper trigger grip

Establish the proper trigger finger placement

31

9
10
11
18

After firing, reset the trigger

Maintain proper uninterrupted trigger control
Maintain proper interrupted trigger control
Use proper grasp on the pistol grip

Ballistics

40
41
42
43
44

Use unit of measure method to determine distance to the target

Use front sight post method to determine distance to the target
Use visible detail method to determine distance to the target
Use bracketing method to determine distance to the target
Use multiple methods to determine distance to the target

Zeroing

31
32

Use the front sight post to adjust for elevation

Use the rear sight elevation knob to adjust the sight for a specific range to the target

33
34

Use the windage knob to adjust the strike of the round right or left
Establish initial sight settings to serve as the starting point for initial zeroing and
subsequent adjustments
Establish BZO
Rezero in order to compensate for the effects of wind, temperature, precipitation,
and light
Use environmental cues to estimate wind direction, angle, and velocity
Use the angle between a flag and the flagpole in order to estimate wind velocity

35
36
45
46

32

Appendix C
rwg and AD statistics for each item, by category
Shaded values not significant at the p = .05 level
Importance
N
rwg
AD
22 0.27 1.05
22 0.68 0.64
22 0.65 0.68

Difficulty to
Learn
N
rwg
AD
22 0.47 0.64
22 0.49 0.82
22 0.78 0.59

ISMT
Effectiveness
N
rwg
AD
22 0.20 1.09
22 0.68 0.45
22 0.58 0.64

KD Range
Effectiveness
N
rwg
AD
22 0.48 0.77
22 0.74 0.64
21 0.83 0.59

22

0.79

0.50

22

0.73

0.45

22

0.66

0.64

22

0.76

0.45

Maintain firm and consistent

placement of the cheek against the
stock from shot to shot.

22

0.64

0.68

22

0.65

0.59

22

0.64

0.73

22

0.79

0.50

Use skeletal structure to support rifle's

weight when using the loop sling.
Relax the muscles when using the loop
sling.

22

0.72

0.55

22

0.45

0.77

22

0.80

0.45

22

0.79

0.50

22

0.72

0.59

22

0.49

0.73

22

0.57

0.59

22

0.79

0.41

22

0.78

0.59

22

0.64

0.73

22

0.61

0.73

22

0.79

0.50

Use environmental features to support

the weapon.

22

0.58

0.73

22

0.60

0.68

14

0.57

0.64

22

0.64

0.73

Select and assume a firing position

based on mobility, stability, and
observation of the target.
Assume the prone position
Assume the sitting position

22

0.79

0.50

22

0.60

0.59

16

0.28

1.00

22

0.68

0.45

22
22

0.68
0.73

0.55
0.45

22
22

0.64
0.30

0.64
0.91

22
22

0.15
0.18

1.05
1.05

22
22

0.77
0.73

0.45
0.55

Category Item
Weapons Don the loop sling.
Handling Use proper left hand position.
Use proper placement of the rifle butt
in the pocket of the shoulder.
Use proper positioning of the right
elbow.

Adjust the body to achieve proper

point of aim when using the loop sling.

Firing
Positions

33

Aiming

Assume the kneeling position

Assume the high kneeling position
Assume the medium kneeling position
Assume the low kneeling position
Assume the standing position

22
22
22
22
22

0.68
0.69
0.60
0.53
0.14

0.55
0.64
0.68
0.77
1.00

22
22
22
22
22

0.27
0.35
0.35
-0.07
0.20

0.95
0.91
0.91
1.27
0.95

22
22
22
22
18

0.19
0.15
0.22
0.18
0.27

0.95
1.05
1.05
1.05
1.06

22
22
22
22
22

0.77
0.83
0.73
0.59
0.77

0.50
0.41
0.59
0.64
0.45

Establish the correct sight alignment.

Establish the correct sight picture.
Establish proper stock weld.
Establish proper eye relief.
Maintain sight alignment and sight
picture.

22
22
22
22
22

0.83
0.92
0.48
0.77
0.85

0.18
0.18
0.82
0.50
0.27

22
22
22
22
22

0.30
0.67
0.57
0.72
0.71

1.00
0.45
0.82
0.41
0.45

22
22
22
22
22

0.64
0.56
0.51
0.34
0.43

0.55
0.64
0.77
0.86
0.64

22
22
22
22
22

0.79
0.90
0.72
0.69
0.73

0.32
0.27
0.59
0.59
0.50

Shift point of aim or use offset aiming

when conditions do not permit
mechanical sight adjustment.

22

0.54

0.41

22

0.32

0.95

19

0.52

0.84

22

0.94

0.14

If the strike of the round is known, aim

the next shot an equal distance from
center mass in the opposite direction
to compensate.

22

0.64

0.36

22

0.38

0.95

19

0.84

0.32

22

0.85

0.27

Fire at the appropriate point in the

breath cycle.

22

0.38

0.77

22

0.45

0.82

22

0.32

0.95

22

0.73

0.55

Apply marksmanship fundamentals

until the round exits the barrel of the
rifle.

22

0.94

0.14

22

0.71

0.45

21

0.27

1.00

22

0.89

0.32

Bring the rifle sights back on target for

additional shots.
Execute a controlled pair to a target.
Engage targets while wearing field
protective mask.

22

0.73

0.45

22

0.75

0.45

22

0.36

0.86

22

0.73

0.50

20
18

0.76
0.03

0.50
0.94

22
18

0.45
0.50

0.82
0.72

19
15

0.22
0.44

1.00
0.93

22
18

0.74
0.58

0.32
0.61

34

Trigger
Control

Ballistics

Zeroing

Establish the proper trigger grip.

Establish the proper trigger finger
placement.
After firing, reset the trigger.
Maintain proper uninterrupted trigger
control.
Maintain proper interrupted trigger
control.
Use proper grasp on the pistol grip.

22
22

0.79
0.55

0.41
0.77

22
22

0.49
0.73

0.68
0.59

22
22

0.39
0.38

0.91
0.86

22
22

0.74
0.86

0.55
0.32

22
22

0.64
0.68

0.64
0.55

22
22

0.44
0.60

0.77
0.68

22
22

0.44
0.60

0.73
0.59

22
22

0.46
0.68

0.68
0.50

22

0.01

1.18

22

0.57

0.77

22

0.54

0.77

22

0.67

0.68

22

0.70

0.68

22

0.52

0.73

22

0.68

0.50

22

0.78

0.59

Use unit of measure method to

determine distance to the target.
Use front sight post method to
determine distance to the target.
Use visible detail method to determine
distance to the target.
Use bracketing method to determine
distance to the target.
Use multiple methods to determine
distance to the target.

22

0.69

0.59

22

0.32

0.95

15

0.40

0.87

22

0.62

0.64

22

0.49

0.77

22

0.56

0.77

15

0.30

1.07

22

0.49

0.82

22

0.46

0.86

22

0.74

0.50

15

0.22

1.07

22

0.62

0.68

22

0.56

0.77

22

0.74

0.55

15

0.13

1.13

22

0.67

0.68

22

0.73

0.50

22

0.60

0.68

15

0.01

1.20

22

0.64

0.64

Use the front sight post to adjust for

elevation.

22

0.78

0.41

22

0.51

0.77

16

0.54

0.75

22

0.68

0.55

Use the rear sight elevation knob to

adjust the sight for a specific range to
the target.

22

0.79

0.32

22

0.39

0.91

16

0.65

0.44

22

0.83

0.41

Use the windage knob to adjust the

strike of the round right or left.

22

0.79

0.32

22

0.49

0.82

17

0.63

0.59

22

0.89

0.32

Establish initial sight settings to serve

as the starting point for initial zeroing
and subsequent adjustments.

22

0.63

0.50

22

0.32

0.95

16

0.70

0.50

20

0.83

0.45

35

Overall
Scores

Establish BZO.
Rezero in order to compensate for the
effects of wind, temperature,
precipitation, and light.

22
21

0.96
0.33

0.09
0.67

22
21

0.39
0.50

0.91
0.67

17
17

0.38
0.38

0.94
0.88

21
20

0.87
0.78

0.19
0.57

Use environmental cues to estimate

wind direction, angle, and velocity.

22

0.68

0.45

22

0.35

0.82

14

-0.22

1.14

22

0.60

0.68

Use the angle between a flag and the

flagpole in order to estimate wind
velocity.

21

0.72

0.77

21

0.42

1.05

13

-0.04

1.36

22

0.68

0.55

N
21

rwg
0.61

AD
0.82

21

0.92

0.41

Overall, how effective do you think

ISMT is at training marksmanship tasks
in general?
Overall, how effective do you think the
Live Fire Range is at training
marksmanship tasks in general?

Shaded values are not significant at the p = .05 level.

36

Critical Values of the rwg and AD statistics

N
rwg (a = 0.05)
AD (a = 0.05)
3
1.00
0.00
4
1.00
0.00
5
0.85
0.40
6
0.72
0.56
7
0.67
0.61
8
0.61
0.69
9
0.57
0.72
10
0.53
0.74
11
0.47
0.79
12
0.44
0.82
13
0.43
0.83
14
0.41
0.85
15
0.40
0.87
16
0.38
0.88
17
0.37
0.89
18
0.35
0.91
19
0.34
0.91
20
0.33
0.92
25
0.30
0.96
30
0.27
0.98
Critical values are based on a 5-category
rating scale

37

Appendix D
Items Ranked by Importance Rating
Importance
Rank
1

Item #

Task Statement

Category

Mean

35

Establish BZO.

Zeroing

4.90

12

Aiming

4.85

Apply marksmanship fundamentals until the

round exits the barrel of the rifle.
Establish the correct sight alignment.

Aiming

4.80

Establish the correct sight picture.

Aiming

4.80

Maintain sight alignment and sight picture.

Aiming

4.70

32

Zeroing

4.65

33

Zeroing

4.65

38

Aiming

4.60

31

Use the rear sight elevation knob to adjust the

sight for a specific range to the target.
Use the windage knob to adjust the strike of the
round right or left.
If the strike of the round is known, aim the next
shot an equal distance from center mass in the
opposite direction to compensate.
Use the front sight post to adjust for elevation.

Zeroing

4.55

10

37

Aiming

4.55

11

13

Aiming

4.50

12

25

Shift point of aim or use offset aiming when

conditions do not permit mechanical sight
adjustment.
Bring the rifle sights back on target for
additional shots.
Assume the sitting position

Firing positions

4.50

13

45

Zeroing

4.50

14

Use environmental cues to estimate wind

direction, angle, and velocity.
Establish proper eye relief.

Aiming

4.45

15

10

Maintain proper uninterrupted trigger control.

Trigger control

4.45

16

34

Zeroing

4.45

17

44

Ballistics

4.45

18

47

Establish initial sight settings to serve as the

starting point for initial zeroing and subsequent
adjustments.
Use multiple methods to determine distance to
the target.
Execute a controlled pair to a target.

Aiming

4.44

38

19

24

Assume the prone position

Firing positions

4.40

20

26

Assume the kneeling position

Firing positions

4.40

21

46

Zeroing

4.37

22

23

Weapons handling

4.35

23

Use the angle between a flag and the flagpole in

order to estimate wind velocity.
Adjust the body to achieve proper point of aim
when using the loop sling.
After firing, reset the trigger.

Trigger control

4.30

24

27

Assume the high kneeling position

Firing positions

4.30

25

36

Zeroing

4.26

26

14

Firing positions

4.25

27

17

Weapons handling

4.25

28

18

Rezero in order to compensate for the effects of

wind, temperature, precipitation, and light.
Select and assume a firing position based on
mobility, stability, and observation of the target.
Use proper placement of the rifle butt in the
pocket of the shoulder.
Use proper grasp on the pistol grip.

Trigger control

4.25

29

28

Assume the medium kneeling position

Firing positions

4.25

30

Fire at the appropriate point in the breath cycle.

Aiming

4.15

31

16

Use proper left hand position.

Weapons handling

4.15

32

22

Relax the muscles when using the loop sling.

Weapons handling

4.15

33

29

Assume the low kneeling position

Firing positions

4.15

34

Establish the proper trigger grip.

Trigger control

4.05

35

20

Weapons handling

4.05

36

42

Ballistics

4.05

37

43

Ballistics

4.05

38

21

Weapons handling

4.00

39

39

Weapons handling

4.00

40

40

Maintain firm and consistent placement of the

cheek against the stock from shot to shot.
Use visible detail method to determine distance
to the target.
Use bracketing method to determine distance to
the target.
Use skeletal structure to support rifle's weight
when using the loop sling.
Use environmental features to support the
weapon.
Use unit of measure method to determine
distance to the target.

Ballistics

3.95

39

41

48

Aiming

3.94

30

Engage targets while wearing field protective

mask.
Assume the standing position

42

Firing positions

3.90

43

Establish the proper trigger finger placement.

Trigger control

3.85

44

Establish proper stock weld.

Aiming

3.80

45

11

Maintain proper interrupted trigger control.

Trigger control

3.80

46

15

Don the loop sling.

Weapons handling

3.75

47

19

Use proper positioning of the right elbow.

Weapons handling

3.65

48

41

Use front sight post method to determine

distance to the target.

Ballistics

3.45

40

Appendix E
Items Ranked by Difficulty Rating
Difficulty
Rank
1

Item #

Task Statement

Category

Mean

10

Maintain proper uninterrupted trigger control.

Trigger control

4.10

44

Ballistics

4.10

48

Use multiple methods to determine distance to the

target.
Engage targets while wearing field protective mask.

Aiming

4.06

41

Ballistics

3.80

37

Aiming

3.75

40

Ballistics

3.75

12

Aiming

3.70

Use front sight post method to determine distance

to the target.
Shift point of aim or use offset aiming when
conditions do not permit mechanical sight
adjustment.
Use unit of measure method to determine distance
to the target.
Apply marksmanship fundamentals until the round
exits the barrel of the rifle.
Maintain sight alignment and sight picture.

Aiming

3.70

38

Aiming

3.65

10

45

Zeroing

3.65

11

42

Ballistics

3.65

12

43

Ballistics

3.60

13

30

If the strike of the round is known, aim the next

shot an equal distance from center mass in the
opposite direction to compensate.
Use environmental cues to estimate wind direction,
angle, and velocity.
Use visible detail method to determine distance to
the target.
Use bracketing method to determine distance to
the target.
Assume the standing position

Firing positions

3.50

14

46

Zeroing

3.47

15

11

Use the angle between a flag and the flagpole in

order to estimate wind velocity.
Maintain proper interrupted trigger control.

Trigger control

3.35

16

23

Weapons handling

3.30

17

Adjust the body to achieve proper point of aim

when using the loop sling.
Fire at the appropriate point in the breath cycle.

Aiming

3.30

18

35

Establish BZO.

Zeroing

3.20

41

19

22

Relax the muscles when using the loop sling.

Weapons handling

3.05

20

Establish the correct sight picture.

Aiming

3.00

21

36

Zeroing

3.00

22

14

Firing positions

2.95

23

21

Weapons handling

2.95

24

18

Rezero in order to compensate for the effects of

wind, temperature, precipitation, and light.
Select and assume a firing position based on
mobility, stability, and observation of the target.
Use skeletal structure to support rifle's weight
when using the loop sling.
Use proper grasp on the pistol grip.

Trigger control

2.90

25

31

Use the front sight post to adjust for elevation.

Zeroing

2.80

26

29

Assume the low kneeling position

Firing positions

2.80

27

Establish proper eye relief.

Aiming

2.75

28

34

Zeroing

2.75

29

13

Aiming

2.70

30

26

Establish initial sight settings to serve as the

starting point for initial zeroing and subsequent
adjustments.
Bring the rifle sights back on target for additional
shots.
Assume the kneeling position

Firing positions

2.70

31

39

Weapons handling

2.65

32

Use environmental features to support the

weapon.
Establish the correct sight alignment.

Aiming

2.60

33

After firing, reset the trigger.

Trigger control

2.60

34

28

Assume the medium kneeling position

Firing positions

2.60

35

16

Use proper left hand position.

Weapons handling

2.55

36

27

Assume the high kneeling position

Firing positions

2.50

37

32

Zeroing

2.45

38

33

Zeroing

2.40

39

47

Use the rear sight elevation knob to adjust the sight

for a specific range to the target.
Use the windage knob to adjust the strike of the
round right or left.
Execute a controlled pair to a target.

Aiming

2.40

42

40

17

Use proper placement of the rifle butt in the pocket

of the shoulder.
Establish the proper trigger grip.

Weapons handling

2.35

41

Trigger control

2.35

42

20

Weapons handling

2.35

Maintain firm and consistent placement of the

cheek against the stock from shot to shot.
Establish the proper trigger finger placement.

43

Trigger control

2.35

44

25

Assume the sitting position

Firing positions

2.30

45

19

Use proper positioning of the right elbow.

Weapons handling

2.20

46

15

Don the loop sling.

Weapons handling

2.10

47

Establish proper stock weld.

Aiming

2.05

48

24

Assume the prone position

Firing positions

1.90

43

Appendix F
Open-ended comments from the demographics questionnaire and survey
Comment
Item Task Statement
NA (Demographics)
I like to shoot

SME
4

NA

(Demographics)

ISMT is helpful and can help anyone that uses this

NA

(Demographics)

We must teach; "perfect practice makes perfect" and not "practice makes perfect"

Establish the correct sight alignment.

Lots of shooters make mistakes with this on RCO (Rifle Combat Optic)

16

Diagrams for the coachs (sic) to keep on them to show proper aiming would greatly help

22

1
2

Establish the correct sight picture.

Once again the diagrams would greatly help

22

Establish proper eye relief.

Another problem area for many shooters

16

13

Bring the rifle sights back on target for additional shots.

ISMT doesnt offer realistic recoil

22

24

Assume the prone position

Very important in combat scenarios

16

30

Assume the standing position

We still can not do the standing in the ISMT

22

48

Engage targets while wearing field protective mask.

I have never done this so I can not make an informed decision

22

44