1

Situated Cognition: Combat Marksmanship Course

Miles C. Davis

Colorado State University

EDAE 624: Adult Teaching and Learning

Dr. Jill Zarestky

April 24, 2023

 2

Situated Cognition: Combat Marksmanship Course

Marksmanship is a fundamental and critical aspect of the military as the ability to

effectively engage the enemy determines mission success or failure. To optimize the learning

process of marksmanship, situated cognition is recommended because it emphasizes that learning

is inseparable from doing and is tied to the context in which it occurs (Brown, et al., 1989).

Therefore, I will design a marksmanship course guided by situated cognition. I will present a

course overview, review the literature, design, and analyze the course within situated cognition,

and provide concluding remarks.

Course Introduction

The Marine Corps' creed, ‘every Marine is a rifleman’ differentiates the Corps from other

branches. Situating the education of combat marksmanship will develop Marines to be capable

riflemen. Combat marksmanship mirrors real combat scenarios and emphasizes shooting while

moving and under load in a dynamic environment. Situated cognition will maximize Marines’

skill development and knowledge acquisition of marksmanship. This section discusses the

course’s characteristics.

Reasoning

Marksmanship as a complex skill has received less attention than its peers like sports

(Chung et al. 2006). Marksmanship research has focused on the physical and mental factors

involved in shooting performance, often neglecting the environment, equipment, and the

individual (Chung et al. 2006). Facilitating marksmanship from a situated approach may elicit

better development and performance of Marines by enhancing the realism of the training.

Content

The course will be divided into four blocks. The first block will include instruction,

dialogue, and collaborative learning on weapon safety/handling, nomenclature, and firing

 3

techniques. The second block will be hands-on learning with a rifle and other items involved in

the course in which students will manipulate, handle, and learn about the relevant tools. The third

block will be live fire training in which Marines are placed in a realistic context that mirrors a

combat situation. The final block will be a performance assessment in which students are

evaluated on their marksmanship, again in an authentic context performing applicable tasks.

Duration

The course will be five hours, beginning at 0800 and concluding at 1300. Each block will

be one hour long, except for the third block which will be two hours. Restroom breaks will be as

needed in the first two blocks and in blocks three and four, head calls will be made before or

during the transition between blocks. Marines may eat and drink as needed throughout blocks

one and two, and if not actively shooting in blocks three and four.

Participants

The audience will be active-duty Marines of any gender, rank, occupation, or age. The

course is appropriate for novices and more experienced shooters. I will be aided by an instructor

cadre with extensive experience and knowledge in marksmanship to help me facilitate and

maintain range safety.

Learning Objectives

The primary learning objective is to improve Marines’ tactical marksmanship by

familiarizing them with combat shooting. Following this course, Marines will have developed an

ability to engage threats in combat scenarios with a service rifle and standard individual-issued

gear.

Literature Review

Military education emphasizes experiential learning, which is learning through direct

experiences (Kolb, 1984) and making meaning from personal experiences (Davis & Arend,
 4

2013). However, experiential learning is susceptible to various interpretations. Scholars agree

that people learn from experience, but their perceptions of learning depend on their theoretical

orientation (Merriam & Baumgartner, 2020). Fenwick (2003) proposes five theories on the

nature of experience, one of which is the situative theory that posits knowing is intertwined with

doing (Fenwick, 2003). The literature review connects experiential learning to situated cognition,

and describes situated cognition’s main tenets, how learning occurs, contextual applications, and

its limitations.

Experiential Learning & Situated Cognition

Situated cognition is an instructional method of experiential learning, commonly known

as ‘learning by doing’ (Merriam & Baumgartner, 2020). Kolb (1984) posits that individuals learn

experientially from a cyclical process of experience, reflection, abstract conceptualization, and

active experimentation. Fenwick (2003) critiques the model because the learner’s context is not

considered nearly as much as reflection or the experience itself. Situated cognition suggests that

learning occurs from interaction in a situated activity (Merriam & Baumgartner, 2020). Situated

cognition directs experiential learning by recognizing the interaction between learners, tools, and

the context to facilitate educational experiences (Paige & Daley, 2009).

Experiential learning and situated cognition provide opportunities that represent potential

situations in which Marines would need to apply their marksmanship knowledge and skills. The

design values the learner, tools, and context, and enables a practical application of knowledge.

From experiential learning and situated cognition, Marines learn from practice, reflection, and

application of knowledge in an authentic learning setting.

Main Tenets
 5

The main tenet of situated cognition is the learning environment which encompasses an

authentic context and tasks, communities of practice (COP), and tools and artifacts (Wilson &

Myers, 2000). To design learning activities from a situated perspective, educators immerse

learners in experiences that are as-real-as-possible in which their acquisition of new knowledge

and skills will be applied (Rogers, 2010).

Contextual learning

Choi & Hannafin (1995) suggest that effective learning occurs in meaningful contexts and

that knowledge is embedded in the context in which it is learned. In situated learning, learners

participate in experiences that mirror the way knowledge will be applied in real life (Onda,

2012).

Students need experiential and active learning spaces (Fisher, 2019, as cited in Closs et

al., 2022) which involve collaboration, interaction, and flexible learning settings (Asino & Pulay,

2019, as cited in Closs et al., 2022). Thinking, learning, and cognition are situated in contexts

(Wilson & Myers, 2000). Nieuwenhuys and Oudejans (2011) examined the impact of high-threat

(HT) training on HT shooting performance in two groups of officers. One group practiced under

low-threat conditions and the other group trained under HT conditions, of which, the HT group

performed much better in an HT shooting assessment (Nieuwenhuys & Oudejans, 2011). Lave

and Wenger (1991) discovered that apprentices in a vocational school who were in authentic

work environments performed better than those in traditional classroom settings. Opdenakker

and Minnaert (2011) explored the relationship between the learning environment and academic

engagement of 777 students across 41 learning settings. Students who perceived their

environment as more supportive had higher academic performance than students with poorer

perceptions of their learning environment (Opdenakker & Minnaert, 2011).

 6

Tools/Artifacts

Artifacts are objects or structures, either physical or composite, created to achieve a

specific objective (Preston, 2018). Heersmink (2021) describes three types of artifacts;

embodied, cognitive and perceptual artifacts that aid learning by supporting task completion and

conceptualizing the environment.

Embodied artifacts help learners by facilitating a physical connection with the content, as

seen in Howell et al. (2020) study on 3D printed models that improved students’ ability to

visualize and retain molecular structure and function. A characterizing feature of embodied

artifacts is transparency, which is a function of expertise and enables embodiment because

artifacts are absorbed in the body schema (Heersmink, 2021). Cognitive artifacts assist in

performing a cognitive task, by making it easier, faster, and/or more reliable (Heersmink, 2021).

Perceptual artifacts help learners perceive or quantify the world by amplifying sensory capacities

(Heersmink, 2021), like night sights, which significantly improve shooting performance in low-

light conditions (Copay & Charles, 2001).

Community of Practice

Practitioners in a COP learn with and from other individuals, and the values, norms, and

culture of a community (Abma, 2007, as cited in Onda, 2012). It was assumed that learning in a

COP is linear (Cope et al., 2000), however, Brooks et al. (2020) found that learning and

transference among firefighters in a COP was a bilateral process and that learning is radial. This

is important for the military which consists of many novices. In military COPs, people acquire

skills from observing others and participating in skill-building activities (Sookermany, 2011).

Military COPs allow troops to practice proven methods used by individuals in real situations

(Sookermany, 2011).
 7

Johnson et al. (2015) examined adult learning in COPs and observed that a village baker

learned her trade from enculturating into the community and on-the-job training. Kim and

Merriam (2010) found that adults’ computer learning is a situated activity by discovering that

they learned from social interaction, tools, and the physical setting. When students failed to

understand the teacher’s lecture, they sought help from peers, and students who had higher

computer skills voluntarily taught novice students (Kim & Merriam, 2010).

Learning Within Situated Cognition

Learning occurs from physically interacting with the content in the context it occurs

(Merriam & Baumgartner, 2020) and is the process of participation in a particular situation

(Fenwick, 2003). Situated learning involves enculturation, through which a learner develops

skills by engaging with the content in a specific context and a COP (Lave & Wenger, 1991).

Learning by doing which involves observation, emulation, and action (Gherardi & Nicolini,

2002) produces technical knowledge and competence (Holmes &Woodhams, 2013).

An example of situated learning was Lave’s study (1988) in which she gave adults math

problems having to do with groceries. Participants who interacted with the groceries and

customers solved 93% of the problems. Conversely, the group that had no interaction and

attempted the problems on paper only solved 59% of the problems, highlighting the importance

of context.

Contextual Applications

Situated cognition has been applied in various settings including occupational safety,

healthcare, and mining. Machles (2004) applied situated learning in occupational safety, where

employees successfully learned safety practices from their social and physical interactions with

the environment. Billet (1994) applied situated learning arrangements that emphasized embedded

activities and authentic experiences and found that miners who learned via situated cognition
 8

perceived their learning process more positively than those who received a traditional training

program. Lastly, situated cognition improved job performance among student nurses by

facilitating knowledge acquisition and technical proficiency (Wang et al., 2023).

Limitations

Some scholars believe that situated cognition may hinder transference because of the

specificity and reliance on context (Anderson et al., 1996). However, constructivists argue that

socialization facilitates the transfer of tacit and explicit knowledge (Fenwick, 2003). Sonntag

(1997) suggested that instructional design includes the following principles regarding

transference: authenticity, situatedness, multiple contexts and perspectives, and social context.

These principles are represented by situated cognition, suggesting that transference is not a

limitation.

Instructional Design and Analysis

This section describes the course in greater detail and connects each period of instruction

to a principle of situated cognition. The course design will include elements of Herrington and

Oliver’s (2000) instructional design framework for situated learning (see Appendix A).

Additionally, I discuss the challenges, strengths, and limitations of the instructional design and

conclude by explaining how the course connects to adult learning principles.

Plan of Action

Block 1: 0800-0900. Instruction and Collaborative Discussions. This block will

introduce course objectives, explain the relevance of marksmanship, and discuss weapon

safety/handling, nomenclature, and firing techniques. This portion will occur in a classroom

adjacent to the rifle range. The classroom will be arranged to encourage collaboration. For

example, students and instructors will be in a circle so that everyone faces the front of each other
 9

to sustain dialogue and mitigate the militant and hierarchal structure that may impede

cooperation and participation. Instruction will begin with an icebreaker to allow students to

familiarize themselves with each other and the instructors. Then, the cadre will model, lecture,

and facilitate collaborative discussions. Marines will be encouraged to share their lessons learned

and relevant resources of marksmanship to disseminate knowledge to develop a COP. The

interaction between students and instructors encourages experiences, perspectives, and

knowledge to be shared. A military COP provides learners with knowledge and practices that

might not be traditional doctrine (Sookermany, 2011). For example, an experienced rifleman

could share guidance like grasping the rifle near the muzzle for greater control when shooting at

close range. The intent is that the COP will exist outside of the course and students will bring the

knowledge they acquire back to their commands.

Block 2: 0900-1000. Hands-on learning. Students will physically interact and familiarize

themselves with the service rifle and other tools relevant to the course. They will practice

conducting weapons checks, proper weapon handling, weapon assembly and disassembly, and

dry firing. Students will interact with their gear and equipment (see Appendix B) like a rifle,

sling, ammunition, and spotting scope to enhance their learning experience. Tools/artifacts shape

people’s problem-solving and reasoning processes (Heersmink, 2021). Students will become

acquainted with their equipment to use it for its intended purpose but also in more creative ways.

For example, students will learn that a rifle scope can serve as binoculars and magazines can

stabilize the rifle while standing. Learning happens only when people interact with the

surrounding community, the tools, and the activity at hand (Fenwick, 2003).

Block 3: 1000-1130, live-fire training. 1130-1200, debrief. Students will be situated in

combat scenarios that reflect how knowledge will be used in real life (Brown et al., 1989). The
 10

training will occur on an outdoor rifle range and replicate tactical actions such as shooting from

many positions and at moving and still targets. Students will learn from practice and reflecting in

action, aware that cognition is tied to action, either from physical action or deliberate reflection

and internal action (Wilson & Myers, 2000). Students will receive real-time coaching and

feedback from instructors and myself that they can apply immediately. Instructors will inform

students of their shot placement (i.e. impact below and to the left of the center chest area) so that

students can adjust their aim. Students will participate in multiple repetitions and drills to

develop their marksmanship in two courses of fire (see Appendix C). Multiple practices are a key

component of the situated learning model according to McLellan (1996). The last thirty minutes

will be a debrief to incorporate reflection on action. Students will reevaluate their experiences,

think about what they did well or poorly and then experiment with their revised approach in

block 4 (Merriam & Baumgartner, 2020).

Block 4: 1200-1300. Performance assessment. A performance assessment is a process in

which learners are asked to perform tasks that require given skills and knowledge (Choi &

Hannafin, 1995). Bergen (1993) declares that a performance must connect to the real world and

be an application of knowledge. There will be an assessment (see Appendix D) for each course

of fire that will be scored depending on shot placement and competition time. The assessment

will be the same courses of fire. The only difference is it will be evaluated. Instructors will

confirm that a target has been destroyed and share that with a student so they know if they can

progress to the next target. The evaluation will not determine pass/fail but is a benchmark that

Marines can refer to if they enroll in the course again. Students will wear combat gear and

progress toward stationary and moving targets in a combat scenario. Students can shoot from a

variety of positions and can fire multiple rounds at a target but must ‘destroy’ (see Appendix D)
 11

each target. This evaluation allows students to demonstrate various skills and operate in an

expected role.

Key Challenges

Two challenges of the course are the diversity of Marines and the resource-intensive

nature of the design. The fact that there is a large range of age, rank, and occupation suggests

that there will be a wide range of experiences. ‘Expert’ shooters who possess considerable

marksmanship knowledge and skills may not be as engaged as novices because the instruction

might not be relevant to them. Educators must be flexible to adapt the instruction to the

experiences and needs of their learners. The second challenge is managing the resources

necessary to conduct the course. Situated cognition is intense due to the emphasis on authentic

education. A great amount of effort and resources, like time, labor, and money is required to

facilitate this type of training and education. The occurrence of this course will need to be

dispersed to alleviate the strain on facilitators.

Design Strengths

‘Train as you fight’ is a moniker of the Marine Corps and reflects situated learning. The

strengths of the design are realism and knowledge in action. The course provides authentic and

interactive learning that prepares Marines for real-life contingencies. Instruction focuses on

relevancy by including scenarios that mimic potential situations that Marines may encounter.

The diversity of students suggests that there will be a wealth of experience to be shared in a

COP. Junior Marines can impart knowledge to senior Marines and vice-versa. Additionally,

artifacts enhance humans’ cognitive abilities (Heersmink, 2021). Providing students with the

opportunity to interact with objects relevant to their learning like a rifle, ammunition, and gear
 12

improves their ability to perform tasks. As an experiential instructional method, learning by

‘doing’ is incorporated throughout the course, particularly in blocks three and four.

Design Limitations

A lack of reflection on action and short duration are limitations. The design does not

emphasize reflection which is a pillar of experiential learning as much as it does experience and

context. Shot placement and feedback represent reflection in action because Marines can adjust

immediately. However, there is little reflection on action which is analyzing a situation after it

has occurred (Merriam & Baumgartner, 2020). A separate period of instruction dedicated to a

formal debrief before the assessment in which the instructors and students discuss the experience

would facilitate self-reflection and allow students to apply newfound knowledge or an approach

to future learning experiences. Additionally, five hours may not provide enough practice, or

engagement with the material to develop marksmanship to a satisfactory level.

Connection to Adult Learning Principles

Situated cognition supports Knowles’ (1980) model of andragogy, particularly his

assumption of experience, readiness to learn, and orientation to learn among adult learners.

Adults construct and make sense of knowledge from their experiences (Knowles, 1980). The

COP aspect of situated cognition relies on knowledge sharing between individuals that have

different experiences and insights regarding content or concepts. Emphasizing the learning

context aligns with the idea that adults are problem-centered (Knowles, 1980). Marines will

recognize that the course is relevant and applicable to them, and consequently be engaged in the

material.

Conclusion

The course intends to improve Marines’ marksmanship skills and knowledge by situating

them to acquire and apply content in a practical setting. The curriculum highlights hands-on
 13

learning, a COP, and a holistic interaction with the context. I recommend emphasizing firearm

safety, designing realistic scenarios for the live-fire portion, and incorporating more reflection to

promote individuals’ intellectual and habitual growth. Marines will learn marksmanship by

valuing the learning context, interacting with the environment, and participating in authentic

tasks.

References

Anderson, J. R., Reder, L. M., & Simon, H. A. (1996). Situated learning and education.

Educational Researcher, 25(4), 5–11. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X025004005

Bergen D. (1993). Authentic performance assessments. Childhood Education, 70(2), 99–102.

https://doi.org/10.1080/00094056.1993.10521005

Billet, S. (1994). Situated learning: A workplace experience. Australian Journal of Adult and

Community Education, 34(2), 112-130.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/29461893_Situated_Learning_A_Workplace_E

xperience

Brooks, J., Grugulis, I., & Cook, H. (2020). Rethinking situated learning: Participation and

communities of practice in the UK fire and rescue service. Work, Employment and

Society, 34(6), 1045–1061. https://doi.org/10.1177/0950017020913225

Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning.

Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42.

Copay, A. G. & Charles, M. T. (2001). Handgun shooting accuracy in low light conditions: The

impact of night sights. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies &

Management, 24(4), 595–604. https://doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000006499

 14

Choi, J.-I., & Hannafin, M. (1995). Situated cognition and learning environments: Roles, structures,

and implications for design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 43(2), 53–

69. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02300472

Chung, G., Delacruz, G. C., de Vries, L. F., Bewley, W. L., & Baker, E. L. (2006). New

directions in rifle marksmanship research. Military Psychology, 18(2), 161–179.

https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327876mp1802_5

Closs, L., Mahat, M., & Imms, W. (2022). Learning environments' influence on students'

learning experience in an Australian faculty of business and economics. Learning

Environments Research, 25(1), 271–285. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-021-09361-2

Cope, P., Cuthbertson, P., & Stoddart, B. (2000). Situated learning in the practice placement.

Journal of Advanced Nursing, 31(4), 850-856. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2648.2000.01343.x

Davis, J. R., & Arend, B. D. (2013). Facilitating seven ways of learning: A resource for more

purposeful, effective and enjoyable college teaching. Stylus Publishing.

Fenwick, T. (2003). Learning through experience: Troubling orthodoxies and intersecting

questions. Krieger.

Gherardi, S., & Nicolini, D. (2002). Learning the trade: A culture of safety in practice.

Organization 9(2), 191–223. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508402009002264

Heersmink, R. (2021). Varieties of artifacts: Embodied, perceptual, cognitive, and

affective. Topics in Cognitive Science, 13(4), 573–596.

https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12549

Herrington, J., & Oliver, R. (2000). An instructional design framework for authentic learning

environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(3), 23–48.

https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02319856
 15

Holmes, J., & Woodhams, J. (2013). Building interaction: The role of talk in joining a

community of practice. Discourse & Communication, 7(3), 275–298.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1750481313494500.

Howell, M. E., Booth, C. S., Sikich, S. M., Helikar, T., van Dijk, K., Roston, R. L., & Couch, B.

A. (2020). Interactive learning modules with 3D printed models improve student

understanding of protein structure-function relationships. Biochemistry and Molecular

Biology Education, 48(4), 356–368. https://doi.org/10.1002/bmb.21362

Kim, Y. S., & Merriam, S. B. (2010). Situated learning and identity development in a Korean

older adults’ computer classroom. Adult Education Quarterly, 60(5), 438–455.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0741713610363019

Knowles, M. S. (1980). The modern practice of adult education: From pedagogy to andragogy.

Cambridge Adult Education Company.

Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and

development. Prentice-Hall.

Johnson, L. R., Stribling, C., Almburg, A., & Vitale, G. (2015). “Turning the sugar”: Adult

learning and cultural repertoires of practice in a Puerto Rican community. Adult

Education Quarterly, 65(1), 3–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741713614549230

Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice: Mind, mathematics and culture in everyday life.

Cambridge University Press.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation.

Cambridge University Press.

Machles, D. (2004). A qualitative study of situated learning in occupational safety. ProQuest

Dissertations Publishing, 65(11), 4072A. (UMI No. 3154328)

 16

Merriam, S. B. & Baumgartner, L. M. (2020). Learning in adulthood: A comprehensive guide

(4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.

McLellan, H. (1996). Situated learning perspectives. Educational Technology.

Nieuwenhuys, A. & Oudejans, R. R. (2011). Training with anxiety: short- and long-term effects

on police officers’ shooting behavior under pressure. Cognitive Processing, 12(3), 277–

288. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-011-0396-x

Onda, E. L. (2012). Situated cognition: Its relationship to simulation in nursing

education. Clinical Simulation in Nursing, 8(7), e273–e280.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecns.2010.11.004

Opdenakker, M. & Minnaert, A. (2011). Relationship between learning environment

characteristics and academic engagement. Psychological Reports, 109(1), 259–284.

https://doi.org/10.2466/09.10.11.PR0.109.4.259-284

Rogers, S. (2010). Case methods in teacher education. In B. McGaw & E. L. Baker (Eds.),

International encyclopedia of education (3rd ed., pp. 592-597). Elsevier.

https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-044894-7.00662-X

Sonntag, K. (1997). Real-life tasks and authentic contexts in learning as a potential for

transfer. Applied Psychology, 46(4), 344–349. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-

0597.1997.tb01236.x

Sookermany, A. (2011). Learning in doing - Skills acquisition in [post-] modernised military

communities of practice. Defence Studies, 11(4), 615–635.

https://doi.org/10.1080/14702436.2011.642195
 17

Paige, J. B., Daley, B. J. (2009). Situated cognition: A learning framework to support and guide

high-fidelity simulation. Clinical Simulation in Nursing, 5(3) e97-e103.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecns.2009.03.120

Wilson, B. G. & Myers, K. M. (2000). Situated Cognition in theoretical and practical context. In

D. H. Johassen & S. M. Land (Eds.), Theoretical foundations of learning environments

(pp. 57-88). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Wang, M., Chen, X., Yang, Y., Wang, H., Yan, Y., Huang, X., Bi, Y., Cao, W., & Deng, G.

(2023). Effect evaluation of case-based learning with situated cognition theory on

competence training for student nurses in pediatric surgery. Heliyon, 9(2), e13427–

e13427. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e13427
 18

Appendices

Appendix A

Situated Instructional Design Elements

Literature suggests that applicable and transferable knowledge is best gained in learning

environments that feature the following nine situated learning design elements (Herrington &

Oliver, 2000).

1. Provide authentic context that reflects the way the knowledge will be used in real life.

2. Provide authentic activities.

3. Provide access to expert performances and the modeling of processes.

4. Provide multiple roles and perspectives.

5. Support collaborative construction of knowledge.

6. Promote reflection to enable abstractions to be formed.

7. Promote articulation to enable tacit knowledge to be made explicit.

8. Provide coaching and scaffolding by the teacher at critical times.

9. Provide for authentic assessment of learning within the tasks.

Appendix B

Course Artifacts

The authorized gear that Marines will use during the marksmanship course is a carbine

5.56MM M4, rifle combat optic, rifle sling, 5.56MM magazines, and the standard fighting load.

Below are the corresponding pictures.

 19

Rifle Combat Optic Rifle Sling

Carbine 5.56MM M4

Carbine 5.56MM M4 magazine Combat standard load

Appendix C

Courses of Fire

There will be two courses of fire. The first course of fire includes static and dynamic

shooting and targets. Marines will engage targets at 500, 400, 300, 200, and 100 yards. The

course will begin at 500 yards and decrease in distance as targets are destroyed. At 500 and 400

yards, Marines will shoot in the prone position. At 300 yards, shooters will kneel. At 200 yards,

shooters will stand and kneel, and at 100 yards shooters will stand. Equipment like backpacks or

magazines and natural terrain may be used for weapon stabilization at any distance. After the

shooter has destroyed every target at that distance, they will advance 100 yards, engage, and so

on until all targets are destroyed. This mimics a movement-to-contact in which an individual is

advancing towards the enemy by fire and maneuver. There will be five targets at each distance.

The maximum time limit to destroy all targets at each distance is five minutes. The time limit is

meant to be a safety guardrail to ensure Marines are getting through the course, not an induced
 20

strain on the shooter. Successful engagement requires one lethal (see Appendix D) impact.

Moving targets will appear at 100 and 200 yards and will move horizontally from left to right

and vice-versa for 10 seconds each way at a speed of one foot per second to mirror someone

walking.

The second course of fire includes static engagements with stationary targets. Distance

from shooter to target will be 15 yards to simulate close combat. The time allotted from target

identification to engagement will be five seconds for each drill. Drills will include ‘up’ drills

(bringing the rifle from hip to armpit and one shot to the head or chest), hammer pairs (two shots

to the head or chest in rapid succession with one sight picture), and controlled pairs (hammer

pair but with two sight pictures). Marines will have two magazines each with 15 rounds and will

expend every round. Standing or kneeling are the only permitted stances and successful

engagement requires impacts in the head or center of the chest.

Appendix D

Evaluation

Destroy impacts are in the head or center chest area of the target. Scoring for each course

of fire will be conducted by the instructors. Instructors will use spotting scopes to view impacts

from the first course of fire and ensure each target is destroyed at that distance before

progressing. For the second course of fire, scoring will occur after the Marine expends all their

ammunition. Instructor(s) will walk to the target during the cease-fire and count the number of

‘destroys’. Instructors will time the first course of fire to determine how long it takes a Marine to

destroy each target, and then sum the destroys in the second course of fire. The time and

‘destroys’ for each Marine will be recorded and shared with the individual after the course. The

next time that Marine attends the course, they can use their previous assessment as a benchmark.