Marksman Badge

[Barch]

Is the Marksman Badge still awarded ?

What is the qualifying criteria for the badge ?

Which uniform can the badge be worn on ?

 

[Tin basher]

What is the qualifying criteria for the badge ?

Which uniform can the badge be worn on ?

Don't know the details for todays folks. My marksman badge was stiched on the right lower arm of my No.1's back in the day.

The criteria has changed over time. When I returned home after a very short time in uniform and told TB Snr I had earned the marksman badge he was intially impressed. I explained I was quite good at hitting a cardboard German from 25 yards so got the badge. Immediatley he became much less impressed. Old TB Snr never did get his badge because in his time in uniform back in the national service 1950's the task was harder. He explained it was a timed event back then. Starting with 5 rounds at target 600 yds away, double to a trench 400 yds away load up another clip of 5 rounds fire at the target, double forward to a trench 200yds away load another clip of 5 and fire at the target. I guess running in LFO kit and breathing heavily was not conducive to accurate shooting with the old 303 elephant gun.

 

[Oldstacker]

Likewise, no idea about today, but as I recall (and i'm same vintage as Barch) it was only worn on the No2 jacket on the lower right arm. I can't recall seeing it any No1s during recent ceremonials and I don't think there is a No2 jacket any more either so the badge has probably vanished.

 

[Gonterseed]

I seem to remember that the qualification was based on groupings with 25 or so rounds (7.62 SLR) and were only allowed one cock of the weapon for two or three three mags.

Never got my marksman badge, it seemed to me that getting it on a 25 metre range was like trying to get three darts in 3 cards on the fairground game - it was total luck because you were too close. I would probably have aced it with one of those L28A1 shotguns that I've just read about on Wikipedia... And I would have made a bit of a mess of the Pikey running the fairground stall.

 

[Vushtrri]

I could hardly manage to piss in a Naafi urinal most nights let alone shoot in a straight line..

 

[Stevienics]

On this subject and related, if you're cruising through your service life on a med biff chit, you won't be able to do your annual guns and gas masks from this month. Have to get a med exemption to be able to shoot bullets.

 

[Tin basher]

On this subject and related, if you're cruising through your service life on a med biff chit, you won't be able to do your annual guns and gas masks from this month. Have to get a med exemption to be able to shoot bullets.

I'm guessing not getting that med exemption to shoot bullets leads to task exemption for certain duties.
Not currently qualified on weapon = not qualified for armed guard.

 

[Oldstacker]

I'm guessing not getting that med exemption to shoot bullets leads to task exemption for certain duties.
Not currently qualified on weapon = not qualified for armed guard.

That would be my guess too - and presumably is 'career limiting' as well

 

[Talk Wrench]

That would be my guess too - and presumably is 'career limiting' as well

For a service that has a well publicised personnel retention problem, the RAF medical system just loves to keep on inventing ways to get rid of good people.

 

[Oldstacker]

Hmmm... it's a difficult one though. A small(er) service requires the maximum availability, flexibility and deployability of all of the people it has in order to achieve its missions and objectives in a cost-effective manner. If someone can't be fully flexible, available or deployable, for whatever reason, then the burden of their 'missed' or unmet duties and responsibilities inevitably falls to those who can meet the requirements.
How much of that transfer of responsibility can both the service and 'fully fit' personnel sustain? There will always be people with temporary inabilities to fulfil a full commitment (illness, pregnancy, 'domestic' issues, for example) but for how long can the permanently limited be carried? In the negotiations & discussions between the 'top brass' about taskings and manning levels, what levels of 'partially effective' manning are considered acceptable?
Somebody may be good at their primary role in, say, a UK based role or an office-based role, but if that means that others are deployed more often or spend more time in more physically demanding trade roles, or even just manning the gate, is that fair?

We have all cursed the twisted sock brigade....

 

[Rigga]

Hmmm... it's a difficult one though. A small(er) service requires the maximum availability, flexibility and deployability of all of the people it has in order to achieve its missions and objectives in a cost-effective manner. If someone can't be fully flexible, available or deployable, for whatever reason, then the burden of their 'missed' or unmet duties and responsibilities inevitably falls to those who can meet the requirements.
How much of that transfer of responsibility can both the service and 'fully fit' personnel sustain? There will always be people with temporary inabilities to fulfil a full commitment (illness, pregnancy, 'domestic' issues, for example) but for how long can the permanently limited be carried? In the negotiations & discussions between the 'top brass' about taskings and manning levels, what levels of 'partially effective' manning are considered acceptable?
Somebody may be good at their primary role in, say, a UK based role or an office-based role, but if that means that others are deployed more often or spend more time in more physically demanding trade roles, or even just manning the gate, is that fair?

We have all cursed the twisted sock brigade....

The Chinook force was so inflicted in the 80’s and 90’s as maintenance manpower didnt really match the deployment cycles. Moving between NI, FI, UK and everywhere else seemed to be a constant for a great deal of folks that eventually left - I remember one Sgt Rigger leaving in ‘85 after 5 tours in FI…

Pumas were of a similar ilk between NI, Belize and NI and UK…(NI was a lot of stuff) and everywhere else again.

 

[muttywhitedog]

For a service that has a well publicised personnel retention problem, the RAF medical system just loves to keep on inventing ways to get rid of good people.

Whilst retaining some absolute ar$eholes!