A variety of methodologies are used to assess marksmanship performance, and while all are relevant, their constraints must be understood so that the portability and applicability of results are realized. Some measures are more appropriate for specific research questions than others. While some consider live fire to be the gold standard, it has several drawbacks. Many alternative methods (i.e., simulated target engagement) allow for controlled data collection and may be more appropriate than live fire, depending on their application and study design. The panelists represent a wide variety of experience conducting research investigating marksmanship performance, and applying a range of marksmanship tools and metrics for different applications. This panel will discuss the relative merits and limitations of their approaches (tools, metrics, methods, engagement scenarios) in an effort to provide the landscape of current approaches and issues in marksmanship performance research.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BacaA.KornfeindP. (2012). Stability analysis of motion patterns in biathlon shooting. Human Movement Science, 31(2), 295-302.
2.
BenselC.K. (1997). Soldier performance and functionality: impact of chemical protective clothing. Military Psychology, 9(4), 287-300.
3.
CrowleyJ. C.HallmarkB. W.ShanleyM. G.SollingerJ. M. (2014). Changing the army’s weapon training strategies to meet operational requirements more efficiently and effectively (rand corporation research report). RAND Arroyo Center, Santa Monica, CA.
4.
JohnsonR.F.KobrickJ.L. (1997). Effects of wearing chemical protective clothing on rifle marksmanship and on sensory and psychomotor tasks. Military Psychology, 9(4), 301-314.
5.
JohnsonR.F.McMenemyD.J.DauphineeD.T. (1990). Rifle marksmanship with three types of combat clothing. Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 34th Annual Meeting, 1529-1532.
6.
HagmanJ.D. (1998). Using the engagement skills trainer to predict rifle marksmanship performance. Military Psychology, 10 (4), 215-224.
7.
HagmanJ.D. (2000). Basic rifle marksmanship training with the laser marksmanship training system (No. ARI-RR-1761). Army Research Institute for the Behavior and Social Sciences, Alexandria, VA.
8.
HarmanE.FrykmanP.PandorfC.LaFiandraM. (2002). Physical performance benefits of offloading the soldier. In Proceedings of the 23rd Army Science Conference, pp. IP-07.
9.
HasselquistL.BenselC.K.CornerB.GregorczykK.N.SchiffmanJ.M. (2008). Understanding the physiological, biomechanical, and performance effects of body armor use. Proceedings 26th Army Science Conference, Orlando, FL.
10.
HawkinsR. N.SeftonJ. M. (2011). Effects of stance width on performance and postural stability in National Standard pistol shooters. Journal of Sports Science, 29(13), 1381-1387
11.
KnapikJ. (1989). Loads carried by soldiers: A review of historical, physiological, biomechanical and medical aspects (AD-A212 050). U.S. Army Research Institute of Environmental Medicine, Natick, MA.
12.
KnapikJ.HarmanE.ReynoldsK. (1996). Load carriage using packs: A review of physiological, biomechanical, and medical aspects. Applied Ergonomics, 27 (3): 207-216.
13.
KnapikJ.ReynoldsK.SanteeW. R.FriedlK. E. (2012). Load carriage in military operations: a review of historical, physiological, biomechanical and medical aspects. Military Quantitative Physiology: Problems and Concepts in Military Operational Medicine. Office of the Surgeon General and the Borden Institute, Ft. Detrick, MD, 303-337.
14.
MarshallS.L.A. (1950). Soldier Load and Mobility of a Nation. United States Marine Corps Press, Quantico, VA.
15.
MitchellK. B. (2012). Range of Motion and Reaches of Warfighters in Body Armor. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 56 (1), 1837-1841.
16.
MitchellK.B.GarlieT.GuerraR. (2010) anthropometric and human factors evaluation of a body armor vest with females: a report of methodology. Proceedings of the Personal Armour Systems Symposium (PASS) Conference 2010.
17.
MontagueR. (1958). Briefing on the effects of the protective mask on individual combat tasks (Technical Report No. AD-A020 142). Human Resources Research Organization: U.S. Army.
18.
PalmerC.J.BigelowC.van EmmerikR.E.A (2013). Defining soldier equipment trade space: load effects on combat marksmanship and perception –action coupling. Ergonomics, DOI: 10.1080/00140139.2013.832805
19.
Program Executive Office Soldier (PEO Soldier). (2014). Soldier system integration dismounted baseline version 1.0 for the soldier system. Fort Belvoir, VA.
20.
SchendelJ.D.HellerF. H. (1985). Use of Weaponeer Marksmanship Trainer in Predicting M16A1 Rifle Qualification Performance. Human Factors, 27 (3), 313-325.
21.
ScribnerD.R.WileyP.H.HarperW.H. (2007). A comparison of live and simulated fire soldier shooting performance (ARL-TR-4234). Army Research Lab Human Research and Engineering Directorate, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Aberdeen, MD.
22.
TharionW.J.Shukitt-HaleB.LiebermanH. R. (2003). Caffeine effects on marksmanship during high-stress military training with 72 hours sleep deprivation. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 74(4), 309-314.
23.
TorreJ. P.;
MaxeyJ. L.;
PiperA. S. (1987). Live fire and simulator marksmanship performance with the m16a1 rifle, study i: a validation of the artificial intelligence direct fire weapons research test bed. (Technical Memorandum 7-87). U.S. Army Human Engineering Laboratory and U.S. Army Project Manager for Training Devices: Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD.
24.
WarberJ. P.TharionW. J.PattonJ. E. (2002). The effect of creatine monohydrate supplementation on obstacle course and multiple bench press performance. The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 16(4), 500-508
