PDA

View Full Version : AAR SCT Carbine 2.5, Sacramento CA 03/27-03/28



JimT
04-06-10, 10:17
Stone Cobra Tactical Black Rifle Course 2.5 (http://stonecobratactical.com/index.html)
March 27 - 28, 2010 (0830 – 1600 PST)
Sacramento Valley Shooting Center, Sacramento CA
Lead Instructor: Jason Paletta
Assistant Instructor(s): Aaron Moe, Gordon Gray

The purpose of this AAR is to convey my perspective of the Black Rifle 2.5 course offered through Stone Cobra Tactical. This report will discuss curriculum, personal impressions and experience(s). Furthermore, this AAR will include my personal experience with a Primary Weapons Systems DC-16 upper assembly.

This AAR will not discuss the details of drills/exercises as I feel it is more important to describe skills learned/emphasized as well as how the curriculum was presented.

Core skills emphasized throughout class:
• Safety
• Mechanical Offset
• Reloads

o Emergency
o Tactical
• Remedial action of malfunctions
• Shooting Positions

o Prone
o Supine
o Kneeling
o SBU
o Shoot on the move
o Transition to secondary weapon
• Communication with teammates
• Threat identification and proper addressing
• De-escalation with search & assess
• Marksmanship


Personal Class Impression:
The majority of our shooting was performed between 7-25 yards with a good mix of intermediate ranges stretching out to 100 yards and beyond. These distances were a breath of fresh air as this was my first carbine course that I have attended where the instructors placed equal emphasis on intermediate as well as near-contact distances. The intermediate distances forced the students to act in an unnatural manner – slow down and implement the core fundamentals of marksmanship while under timed stress.

SCT incorporated exercises that involved competition to add an element of timed stress. These competitions were based around the core skills that were emphasized above. Students that have never taken a class before may be intimidated by competition, but that should not be a reason to avoid training altogether. From my experiences, students who attend classes leave their egos in the car and arrive with an open mind. The entire class encouraged their peers and the SCT staff kept a watchful eye to not only make sure that all students were safe but, to provide correction when necessary.

The class was fast paced and although there were students with weapon issues, they were quickly remedied which meant that no student impeded the class momentum. There were no major first or second line gear issues and by the end of training day 1 all students had sorted out most of their equipment. There is almost always an individual learning curve with regard to equipment, even the seasoned trainees will learn or confirm what does and does not work for them. This confirms my theory that students will continue to learn their gear and equipment as they appropriate more training certificates.

SCT added two man team movement and communication at the latter portion of training day 2 to advance student positions. Jason and company provided sample communication vocabulary as well as live demonstrations. There is no standardized vocabulary and there were moments when student teams stumbled over their words. However, through the rest of the day most students had de-conflicted with their teammates and the entire class ran smoothly. Overall, everyone seemed to be onboard with what everyone else was trying to say and did their jobs to make things “happen.” Furthermore, Jason and the SCT staff incorporated team bound over-watch and break-contact drills that were ridiculously fun. This built comradery amongst the teams and the class as a whole. All students were egging each other on to succeed.

Students were encouraged to react properly to weapons malfunctions. Most anyone can perform adequately when everything works correctly. However, the playing field widens when malfunctions are induced. This was stressed throughout the course. SCT coached students through the proper way to transition from primary to secondary and more importantly, when to transition. If within 25 yards, punch out with the secondary. However, implement cover (simulated in our case) if the opportunity presents itself to get the primary weapon back into the fight. These were big boy rules and it was on the individual student to react accordingly. Once students were familiar with their teammates and had established their communications, things became more interesting. At that point, students had to de-conflict with their teammates as to who will be bringing their primary and secondary weapons back online once the opportunity presents itself after properly addressing a threat.

Most students have never been put in an academic situation where they had to employ cognitive thought as to whether or not the proposed threat needs a few well placed shots COM. SCT brought proper threat identification and response exercises with shoot/no-shoot targets. Every proposed threat encouraged students to identify, determine the proper course of action and response. For the no-shoot targets, students had to verbally address the threat and determine if shots on target were warranted.

Jason did a great job of providing quality instruction to the class and put forth extra effort to provide real-world examples to support the methods and philosophies that SCT teaches. Jason as well as Aaron and Gordon have commanding voices which made it very easy for the entire class to listen during lecture. This was critical when there are 13-14 weapons sounding off. SCT practices big boy rules and employs a hot range.

Jason was not overbearing in any way and never said that you would have to do it the SCT way. The SCT staff would offer suggestions and provide demonstration where applicable as to why the method they teach might work better for you vs. other methods. The student was free to absorb this knowledge to see if it would work for his/herself. Students were encouraged to employ methods learned from other sources to complete the exercises as long as they were safe.

Jason Paletta and his staff are what I would call good instructors. They not only determine specifically what the student is doing wrong or right, but more importantly they coach students through issues to the point which the student understands and ensures that the information was processed correctly. The entire weekend focused on the “whys” instead of the “whats.”

Personal Experience(s) and Observation(s):

First and foremost, Jason and his staff provided a safe environment that was conducive to learning advanced concepts of how to fight with a carbine. Second, the SCT assistant instructors, Aaron and Gordon are natural born instructors as well. They not only performed range safety duties, but provided proper live fire demonstration of the exercises as well as correcting students when they mechanically broke down. Students received the luxury of three instructors as opposed to one. Third, all students to my knowledge attended with zeroed weapons. The students were just as eager to learn as the instructors were willing to teach. I would like to thank not only SCT, but the students for their preparedness. These combinations kept the class moving along and not lose momentum.

As mentioned, the intermediate distance exercises were a breath of fresh air. Many schools and instructors focus on the < 25 yard distances. A lot of students can rock at those distances, but the longer distances forced us to employ marksmanship fundamentals to achieve solid hits.

Threat engagement and proper addressing forced the class to do more than just pull a trigger and place solid hits on target – the shoot/no-shoot exercises introduced the element of cognitive thought. During these exercises the proposed threats were not always pointing a weapon at the student or even holding a weapon. Students had to challenge the threat which broke me out of the instinctual shoot mode to the “what am I really looking at” thought process. This was the most challenging portion of the class.

Students on the line:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v176/forty5r/Tactical%20Carbine/IMG_1920.jpg

Lead Instructor: Jason Paletta
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v176/forty5r/Tactical%20Carbine/IMG_1915.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v176/forty5r/Tactical%20Carbine/IMG_1715.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v176/forty5r/Tactical%20Carbine/IMG_1987.jpg

Yours truly testing a PWS DC-16 upper:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v176/forty5r/Tactical%20Carbine/IMG_2217.jpg

JimT
04-06-10, 10:18
PWS DC-16 Experiences and Observations:

Jason Paletta, a Primary Weapons Systems representative, asked me to test a sample DC-16 upper assembly. Prior to the start of class on training day 1, we opened the box for the first time and looked over the upper assembly. My initial impression was that PWS built a cosmetically flawless upper. The fit and finish was phenomenal and I fell in love with the extended rail immediately. The PWS charging handle was also a welcome touch as the latch itself extended a bit further forward than a standard USGI unit.

Unfortunately, that was our one and only glimpse of a virgin DC-16 as I quickly added my Aimpoint ML2 in LaRue LT129 to the upper assembly and performed a 25yd zero in the unsupported prone position. With the 25yd zero we dialed POI to 1” below my POA to produce a rough 50yd zero (Not that 25yds is the test of extreme accuracy, but all rounds went through nearly the same hole on the final zero group).

Once the upper was zeroed the BCG and charging handle were lubricated with Hoppes as if it were a standard direct impingement BCG. This was the first and last time the upper was lubricated and survived an excess of 1000 rounds throughout the class. I had brought 986 rounds of 5.56NATO/.223 Remington to SCT’s Carbine 2.5, but had to borrow ammunition from a friend once those were expended. When a student is encouraged to perform non-standard responses for two days, the round count has a tendency to increase.

SCT had us going strong the first day and I ran 504 rounds of Federal XM193, PMC Bronze and Hot Shot 55gr. through the weapon. Unfortunately, only 501 were flawless as the Hot Shot provided three failure to fires as evidenced with primer strikes with no ignition. This aggravated me as all three failures to fire occurred during a man-on-man type-1 malfunction exercise. Fortunately, these failures to fire were not weapon related and the rifle smoothed itself out after only ~150 rounds. The action was the smoothest that I’ve felt in an AR-platform weapon throughout the rest of the class.

For those that do not know me, I am a person that bases a lot of my decisions around logistics. The direct impingement weapons have always seduced me as quality components are readily available and most do not require proprietary components. The PWS might very well change my mind. The weapon was extremely smooth due to the long stroke piston and felt more like a 20” barreled AR-15 with a rifle length gas system. In addition to that, the muzzle rise was less than my primary LMT 16” M4-type direct impingement upper with PWS FSC-556 muzzle brake. This allowed me to produce some very quick follow-up shots that left me fairly surprised with myself.

During the evening break, my friends and I examined the upper and found that although dirty, none of the debris was solid or caked within the receiver. In fact, a lot of the initially applied lubrication was still present. The rifle was reassembled after inspection without cleaning or reapplication of lubrication.

Training Day 2 proved to be more intense than the second day and included a course of fire which asked the student to disassemble his/her carbine’s bolt carrier and charging handle. The carbine’s components were placed in 10 yard increments away from the weapon. To make a long story short, I accidentally kicked a good amount of debris into the open receiver. My initial thought was to clear the receiver of said debris, but realized that the PWS unit was not my upper. Needless to say, I reassembled without clearing the upper of debris and was able to finish the course of fire without any malfunctions.

SCT’s sample DC-16 upper digested another flawless >500 rounds of the above mentioned cartridges. Aside from the administrative breaks, the upper assembly’s barrel was warm, if not hot to the touch which necessitated the use of gloves throughout training day 1 and 2. This meant that the PWS upper was constantly run during both class days and had its fair share of rounds down range within 48 hours.

I have to admit that the past two months have been a life lesson in the consumption of humble pie. Prior to my purchase of PWS brakes, I had always been a naysayer of muzzle brakes on any 5.56 platform. My mind was changed when a friend of mine and I picked up our FSC-556s and TTOs in February 2010. Fast forward to March 27-28, 2010 and I had to eat another hot slice of humble pie as the PWS DC-16 upper’s smooth operation left a positive impression on me.

Beautiful photo compliments of our very own 45r:

http://i300.photobucket.com/albums/nn30/Jim_KT/Stone%20Cobra%20Tactical/IMG_1618.jpg