Talk:Marksmanship badges (United States)
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Removed reference to 300-point system for Marine Corps rifle qualifications, it is now based on a 65-point "hit or miss" system. Added point ranges for particular qualifications. Added information on competition badges for Marine Corps uniforms. Marine competition badges may be good fodder for a future article.
Reference for competition badges: http://www.tecom.usmc.mil/mcub/library/MCUR/URCH5.htm#ur5500 .
---Uhlek 10JUN05
Where does the shape of the Weapons Qualification Badge come from? Was the original version an award for shooting down imperial German aircraft? --62.104.218.83 18:42, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
The Marines Corps has now gone back to the 250 pt scoring system. The 65 pt system is no longer used.Bunns USMC 10:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Oops, my mistake, I didn't realize we stopped the KD Course. But multiple badges for marksmanship awards? Sounds like an Army thing, cause I've never seen it.
As for the shape of the badge, I don't recall where it came from, but if you are interested in the shape, look up Iron Cross, a German award.
--Pancho-Villa "A ship in harbor is safe -- but that is not what ships are built for." -John A. Shedd 15:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I have seen expert,sharpshooter and marksman bars for the US Army badges - are these 2nd or 3rd time qualification bars - they are not listed in wikipedia.
In the US Army earning a marksman badge is considered acceptable in Basic Training but once a servicemember gets to her/his assigned unit, at least infantry and MP (my two MOSs) a marksman badge is seen as substandard. It shows that the individual is not interested in improving their skills at marksmanship which in turn lowers their skill to fight which in turn lowers their unit's success. Sharpshooter has always been (in my 8 years in) to be the standard while almost everyone strives to achieve expert. I really think this should be included in the wiki page covering this topic.
With regard to the above, the US Army has only three badges, and you can qualify on a number of weapons and earn bars under the three badges. For example, a soldier can earn expert in rifle and grenade, sharpshooter in automatic rifle, and marksman in pistol and MK-19 (grenade launcher). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lionspoint (talk • contribs) 00:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Lacks any historical (Korean/WWII/WWI) references
editIt appears this was only created with current references. My father was rated "expert with M-1" circa 1943. No mention of the US Army ratings history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Dale (talk • contribs) 17:44, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Correction to Qualifications Bars list
The list of Qualification Bars shown under the Army Qualification Badges information appears to contain a typo. The "TD 57 mm" appears to be incorrect. To my knowledge there was no 57mm anti-tank weapon. There was a 37mm weapon. (Refer to TOE for Tank Destoyer Battalion) I have seen bars referencing this weapon as follows:
"TD 37 mm" "37 mm Anti Tank" "Anti Tank"
According to my father, a Company CO in 803rd Tank Destroyer Battalion during WWII, the Qualification Bar for the 37mm weapon read "Small Bore". This was not to be confused with "small bore rifle" as there was no such bar at that time. The 37mm was considered a small bore as anti tank weapons went. To quote: "...firing a 37mm at a tank was like throwing a peanut at an elephant..." apparently indicating this weapon was ineffective against tanks. It was used with some success for firing at pillboxes, houses, and lightly (or non-) armored vehicles. It had a reputation for being accurate, portable and reliable. My dad's expert badge is sterling silver and has 6 bars including "Small Bore". He would have first qualified in 1939-1940.
Stan Wagenals (talk) 23:05, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
- Stan, unfortunately, we will need a more official historical reference than the word of an honored veteran. According to the U.S. Army's Institute of Heraldry (TIOH), the historical qualification clasps listed on this page are correct. The "TD 57 mm" was added in 1944 (after your father qualified) and there is no mention of a "Small Bore" qualification clasp; the only small bores listed are "Small Bore Pistol," "Small Bore Rifle," and "Small Bore MG." If there is a better historical reference than the TIOH, please provide it and make the appropriate corrections. Just remember to site all your official references so we don't "undo" your edits. --McChizzle (talk) 00:46, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Historical USAF EIC Badges
editDoes anyone have information on when the U.S. Air Force (USAF) Silver and Gold Elementary Excellence-in-Competition (EIC) Badges and Gold EIC Badges stopped being awarded? I have found Air Force Instructions (AFI) on the EIC program dating back to 1997 and none of them mention these badges. However, the National Air and Space Museum website has some Silver Elementary Rifle EIC Badges, Gold Elementary Rifle EIC Badges, Gold Rifle EIC Badges, Silver Elementary Pistol EIC Badges, Gold Elementary Pistol EIC Badges, and Gold Pistol EIC Badges; which were provided by the Air Force Personnel Center. This tells me that these badges were once awarded to USAF competition shooters. I just can't find any documentation discussing when these badges stopped being awarded to Airman (current AFI on EIC Program: AFI34-143). --McChizzle (talk) 21:27, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Qualification Level
editExpert, Sharpshooter, Marksman......all good but the order they are listed makes this seem like Expert is the lesser award. There appears to be no indication of which order these are awarded in. Can someone clarify and edit accordingly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.208.193.12 (talk) 14:03, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- Done, thanks for the advise. --McChizzle (talk) 02:37, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Bolo
editHave heard the Marksman grade called the ‘bolo’ badge; seems to be disparaging. On the other hand, have seen ‘bolo’ used to just describe the badge, regardless of grade, no disparagement meant ( I think). Where does this term come from? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:E284:CF00:A056:C912:67FA:6FAD (talk) 02:10, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- When I served in the US Army, "bolo" was used to describe someone who did not qualify—they did not meet the minimum requirements of marksman—and needed to requalify in order to be considered deployable. --McChizzle (talk) 02:31, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
External links modified
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Marksmanship badges (United States). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140506235717/http://www.apd.army.mil/pdffiles/p670_1.pdf to http://www.apd.army.mil/pdffiles/p670_1.pdf
- Added
{{dead link}}tag to http://www.uscg.mil/directives/cim/1000-1999/CIM_1020_6H.pdf - Added
{{dead link}}tag to http://www.army.mil/usapa/epubs/pdf/r600_8_22.pdf - Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130522040619/http://www.usnst.org/Refs/OPNAVINST%203591_1F.pdf to http://www.usnst.org/Refs/OPNAVINST%203591_1F.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:14, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
NRA advertisement?
editI couldn't help but notice that this page tries to muddy the waters mixing the NRA badges as much as possible with the official US marksmanship badges. The NRA does not belong on the page anymore than a D.A.R.E. pin is a certificate for drug fighting from the US Marshal's. It's definitely a bit of corporate astroturfing in this article and should probably be fixed. I'm just lazy because it means a huge amount of rewriting. Nothing the NRA gives is an actual US marksmanship badge, it's a badge from the NRA and should be on the NRA's page.65.29.77.61 (talk) 21:55, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
- Your personal opinion is noted. The NRA use to be involved in many US Government marksmanship events and helped form some of the Government's marksmanship competitions that still exist today, including helping run the President’s Match back in the day. Take a look at this history paper from the US Government's Civilian Marksmanship Program's (CMP) website: http://thecmp.org/wp-content/uploads/PresidentsMatchHistory1.pdf
- Just because they're an American nonprofit that only focus on US citizens and US organizations does not mean they have not helped shape and build marksmanship in the US through their development of free classes and awards programs (i.e. marksmanship badges), often in coordination with the CMP; at one point they worked hard not to duplicate one another but tried to cover the different weapons, organizations, and people. In other words, you cannot remove the NRA from US marksmanship history. --McChizzle (talk) 01:01, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Marksmanship badges (United States). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110914091356/http://www.afpc.af.mil/library/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=7828 to http://www.afpc.af.mil/library/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=7828
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140518224313/http://www.moguard.com/12-14-10-tabs-and-badges-a-measure-of-marksmanship.html to http://www.moguard.com/12-14-10-tabs-and-badges-a-measure-of-marksmanship.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:07, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Citation style/MOS
editHi all, Although this article appears to be consistently and well referenced, all the citations are bundled up at the end of each paragraph. This is confusing when a reader is trying to work out which reference supports a particular statement, and runs counter to MOS:CITEPUNCT which states "All ref tags should immediately follow the text to which the footnote applies".
Is there a particular reason the article has been cited in this fashion?
I propose that references start being moved to the relevant locations for readability per MOS. Since some references are used more than 10-15 times, they could also be moved directly into the reflist (WP:LDR) to reduce inline clutter and make editing easier. Hemmers (talk) 10:51, 18 May 2023 (UTC)