Suggestions Wanted: Trained Rifleman Terminology

Gratuitous PT Motivational Video
November 5, 2014
MVT Rifleman Challenge
November 8, 2014

In the move to create qualification standards for III volunteers in these posts:

III% Rifleman Combat Task Proficiency

III RIFLEMAN Qualification Weekend

‘The 2-Miler’

I used some arbitrary terms to describe different levels of qualification, based mainly on performance in the PT test. I used:

III Rifleman

III Reserve

III Support

I happen to like the term Rifleman, because I think it describes what it is. It was suggested in comments that I instead use: Minutemen, Trainband and Alarm List, for their historical context. Indeed it was suggested that  am trying to codify standards for the new Minutemen. If so that wasn’t my intent.

I am not so sure that we need to, or should,  go back to old terms. I understand the motive, but I am not sure it is right.

The idea for the three levels came from the PT test: Rifleman would be those that could pass it at the standard level. Reserves would be qualified as Riflemen but would be held to a lesser PT standard. Support would not be able to pass, of would not attempt, the PT test, but would require weapons quals. The support are in effect the auxiliary. The Reserves are more of a security or guard force.

So, these are the questions:

1) Are we right to have 3 levels?

2) What should these levels be called?

Input welcome.

Max

50 Comments

  1. Fred says:

    1) Yes we are right to have 3 levels.

    It makes sense in how many of us view the III % movement.
    …if we did not offer a badge for the older among us or slightly injured among us, a badge that shows competency and a degree of physical competence …it would be very discouraging to many and result in less not more training among patriots IMO.

    For example someone with bum knees may take great pride that he passed the lowest level..

    Speaking of which…

    2) As for nomenclature I suggest top to bottom:
    – Expert Rifleman
    – Rifleman
    – Reserve Rifleman

    This will likely maximize participation and give older folks or those w/ demanding careers starting out form a lower shape an more immediate goal to work towards that is aspirational.

    – “Reserve Rifleman” is more aspirational than Support.
    …. when you think about it, it’s possible to provide support w/o any infantry skills whatsoever and these badges are supposed to be badge for the possession of such skills. Where as Support may to many apply a complete absence of such skills…

  2. D Close says:

    Yes, three levels seems right to start. I like the names as they are.

    At a future point we may want to add a 4th: Auxilliary. This would provide deep, possibly clandestine logistical and intelligence support. They would include those who could not qualify for PT or weapons due to age, infirmity or special ability. This requires special training, of a sort, but does not require PT or weapon proficiency beyond basic. The majority of FREEFOR would fall into this category. They would need to be trained in how to support III forces.

  3. Hello Kitty says:

    1. Don’t think so. Either you can hack the Rifleman standards or you don’t. If you can’t then you will need to either work harder or accept you will function in a support capacity. Besides no one wants an “almost” tab.
    2. Rifleman is a perfect name. It is accurate and succinct.

  4. Fred says:

    To DClose:

    An “auxiliary” tab for example could have maybe no PT requirement but a strong Handgun requirement (think Urban insurgency) with intel collection + fieldcraft involved..

    Maybe the Culper Institute would be interested in being involved in the creating/grading/credentialing a auxiliary patch

  5. robroysimmons says:

    Something like the Marine Corps and their marksmanship levels Marksman – Sharpshooter – Expert, not necessarily those terms but something related to infantry work. As for the patches adding something underneath the III patch denoting level.

    As for levels of expertise some names, scout, rifleman, guard, fobbit, that is all I can think of tonite.

  6. Thomas says:

    Fred has some good names that I like. Rifleman has to be there because that is what we need for the fight. But, Warrior has to be there as well because that is what you, Max, are making. We want Warriors. The Warrior will bring the others home.

    Level 1: Warrior (achieves sub-18 minute 2 miler)
    Level 2: Rifleman (makes age normalized qualification)
    Level 3: Reserve (passes all but 2 miler/takes the test)
    Level 4: Auxiliary (no 2 miler; passes skills test)

  7. Alex says:

    Minor potential confusion could arise from the Appleseed Project. They have been using the term Rifleman , and passing out Rifleman Patches for some time now.

    They are doing something much less intense , but are an honorable group and its likey that there will be some Patriots already wearing Rifleman patches on their camo already.

    • The differentiation will be Max’s “III Rifleman” tab.

      It makes ALL the difference. As he’s said, the “III Rifleman” tab wearers are the ‘pointy end of the spear’, and as such,should the idea spread and be adopted, will let people know the difference. In essence, a “III Rifleman” would be the civilian equivalent to a Ranger, if I’m not mistaken.

    • Edheler says:

      Appleseed is a (first) step for many along the long path towards where we all live. I still recommend Appleseed to many people because the vast majority of them aren’t ready to take Max’s class. I am an Appleseed shoot boss and I was only barely ready to take the CRCD class. Everyone has to start somewhere and we’re not so numerous that we should be dismissive of those who are interested. We just have to point them at a good place to start.

      I believe that the majority of confusion can be handled with the design. Make it distinctively different from Appleseed’s Betsy Ross flag based design. It will mean a lot more than Appleseed’s but that doesn’t diminish Appleseed in comparison. I, for one, would proudly wear both Appleseed’s Rifleman Patch and the one which is in the process of being conceived here after I qualify. They both would have great meaning for my journey.

  8. Mike H says:

    Old School terms from an old schooler….

    “Headquarters Detachment/Troops” for reserves(personally “reserves” are good for me also)

    “Garrison” or “Home Guard” for support

    just some ideas floating around in the coconut….

  9. B-Dog says:

    Why even bother getting bogged down with military terminology when it comes to the nomenclature of a top tier designation. Military terms can be reserved for individual classes below each main tier.

    If you want to separate yourself from the unorganized and mostly unprofessional militia, then a change from the historical is in order.

    III Pro
    These are the professionals. They have done what it takes to earn their place as first line defenders.

    III Security
    This is a perfect description for the secondary defenders who would likely be called to many tasks.

    III CAS3 or CASIII
    (Comfort, aid, serve, supply, support)
    This covers the rest of the bases on the logistics side

  10. sfsigo says:

    I think three levels sounds about right. How about instead of a title you just use a symbol. The rifle for rifleman, a castle wall for the reserves, and an S and letter definition for the support (i.e. S6 for commo). I would further add that the support folks should have to demonstrate some proficiency in the specialized skillsets of their designated support role in addition to common tasks like firearms handling to earn the patch of their specialty. For example a communications support member should be able successfully load a data set into a radio, where a rifleman/reserve member would only need to be able operate an already loaded radio. I think its important to have some qualification/standard for the individual support roles so that you don’t end up with 50 “qualified” support personnel that haven’t trained on any capability beyond being less physically capable shooters. I also think we should shy away from formalizing the auxiliary or putting the term on a patch. My understanding of the term is that it is to be used for members of the community supporting the unit, but not part of the unit itself. By definition many of these activities can/should be clandestine and being in possession of an auxiliary patch is an unnecessary risk to the specialized mission of those folks. An example of this difference would be a trained and qualified support medic that is actually a member of the unit versus a sympathetic doctor in town that treats wounded unit members on the sly.

    • robroysimmons says:

      Sfsigo you have my vote for best ideas, a symbol denoting the quals of each person.

      Coincidently MVT basically trains to those tactical levels, and the other trainers roughly mirror that though Mosby breaks his down to two types of classes Rifle/pistol – Patrol.

      Honestly here is where I am, I’m 50+ and I still have a burst but I am not a long haul patroller/attacker. I feel I could do short range security/clearance patrols, but would be a liability on a Recon Ranger life of danger type mission.

      I’ll take a Castle patch because a man has to know his limitations.

  11. MQ says:

    Option 1 – Greek Theme
    1) Spartan (Professional Greek Soldiers)
    2) Hoplite (Greek Citizen Soldiers)
    3) Garrison (Greek Reservists)

    Option 2 – Norse/Viking Theme
    1) Berserkergang or Berserker(General Viking Badass)
    2) Huscarl (Royal Guard/loyal guard to the local thane/belonging to the thane’s house)
    3) Bondi (Free man)

    Option 3 – Anglo Saxon Theme
    1) Gedriht (Guards of the chief)
    2) Geoguth (Bulk of the wargroup)
    3) Duguth (Old warriors)

    • Eric S. says:

      Perhaps Ulfhathnar instead of Berserker, for those who are more akin to the wolf rather than the bear. 😉

    • pnoldguy says:

      Rob, ditto here! At 69 I have no doubts I won’t be the tip of the spear. But I have substantial equipment to provide support to those that are the spear and need that support. I have resigned myself to that role even though I would like more. I’ll take the test and see where I fit. But because we are all so spread out, training is essential in all the areas to be the best you can be and effect survivability.

  12. Eric S. says:

    Why give something a SuperSecretNinjaSquirrel name just to keep people from getting their panties in a bunch?

    A Rifleman is a rifleman.
    The Reserve is the reserve, not the riflemen.
    The Support is the support, not the reserve.

    Let the extra names come after one has achieved Rifleman, Reserve or Support. As in: Rifleman Sharpshooter, Reserve Engineer/ Sapper and Support Medic.

  13. John Lee Pettimore III says:

    This is how the people I associate have always done it.

    Riflemen

    and

    Rangers

    everyone else is simply people, who are the support for any such organization anyway.

    Riflemen are trained to certain standards which basically cover small arms proficiency, basic SUT knowledge and intelligence collection and reporting.

    Examples of standards or CMT:

    Field firing accuracy of 6 MOA at 300m or greater at the rate of 30 rounds per min (3 targets to transition between, must hit 10 rounds each alternating targets between each shot)

    Properly execute I.A. Drills:
    – Center peel
    – React to IDF

    Rangers first need to qualify as Riflemen, maintain Arms proficiency standards, and maintain bi-annual fitness standards such as:

    – Bench Press for 3 reps 150% of bodyweight
    – 300m Shuttle run (50m track) in Combat Load including rifle < 1 minute
    – 30 km movement in 24 hours over undeveloped terrain with (5 DOS) sustainment load.

    Rangers undergo advanced training in such things as:
    – surveillance
    – sapping(short range infiltration and breaching)
    – military mountaineering etc. etc. etc.

    In all honesty we only have 2 guys currently meeting that standard (the 30k is a bitch) but we have several guys real close.

    • Fred says:

      We cannot make, publish and enforce standards that generally can only be met by acyive duty infantry population.

      Because 99% of our recruits are not that.

      They are competent , quality, intelligent and in shape people who earn a living as something other than an elite infantry soldier.
      Usually a good living or they could not afford the gear and especially Ammo and coruses it takes to become competent.

      For this patch or these patchs to have any utility at all, as a training-incentive and useful badge of competence in operations they must be attainable by a competent and in good shape civilian.

      we are not enlisting active duty Infantry (or Sapper etc) for these tabs.

      These guys we would never turn down anyway if they showed up.. and they have little need for our tabs in the first place.

  14. duane says:

    III Rifleman

    III Reserve

    III Support
    .
    A lot of it depends on what you are trying to accomplish and what level of standards you are trying to maintain. As I understand it, the big differentiation in your classfications is the PT requirement. In today’s day and age your PT requirement will be a major decision point (as it should be). For that matter it is the one thing that will probably differentiate the III’er “Riflemen” from the rest of the whackjobs.
    .
    So then what about the rest of the requirements? So far everything I have seen in your requirements is an attainable goal (at least by the type of person that comes to MVT).
    .
    I would like for you to ponder the idea of graduating the other standards as well. I am a firm believer in high standards. If you were to use :
    – Expert Rifleman
    – Rifleman
    – Reserve Rifleman

  15. duane says:

    CONTINUATION from above post.
    Then the current standards you are proposing could be applied to the Rifleman rank and then you could “UP” the standards to achieve the Expert Rifleman tab. Standards like marksmanship and PT and TC3 level. Kinda like the EIB or EFMB. Reserve Rifleman would be those who can achieve all of the tasks of the Rifleman but are unable to pass the PT portion.
    Auxialary could be awarded the Support tab for meeting whatever standards you decide.
    .
    I would stress to add that marksmanship/riflecraft should not be downplayed as it can be attained more easily than the PT standards.

  16. Grenadier1 says:

    I really dont care what its called just have a standard that can be measured and keep a tight hold on the patches so we dont get people posing out there.

  17. Leatherneck556 says:

    Based on the conversation here, I think we are overthinking this.

    Let’s start with the actual intent (as I understand it): To codify some type of standards for “combat” troops in order to make others able to easily identify whether or not somebody is actually knowledgeable or a self-appointed couch kernal.

    Having the badge or rank is not a requirement to be part of the militia. Who here – if going into harm’s way as a “militia”-type organization would turn down the services of a young, healthy, recently-returned combat infantryman who hadn’t qualified on this course? Nobody, I would hope.

    Again, the badge – to my mind – is simply a credibility booster. It lets you look at somebody and instantly know, “Okay, they should be good to go.”

    To that end, I really think that only one level is needed, and I think III Rifleman is a great name for it. Do you make the standard for combat or do you not? Now we have to understand that even in the military, some standards are pretty low. PT tests have different levels – not just age levels, but also different tiers within your own age group. The military also has different levels of rifle and pistol qualification, for example. Due to this, I propose that it would be acceptable to up the three levels to two levels. I don’t know what they would be called, but maybe “III Rifleman” and “Expert Rifleman”. III Rifleman might even be its own patch (see my post on proposed patches in the III Training Standards forum thread) and the Expert Rifleman qualification be a rocker that gets added. I don’t know.

    The difference would be this: If you see somebody with a rifleman patch, you know they have a base level of competence. That person is a competent infantryman. You would trust them to fight, stand post, etc. If you saw somebody with an Expert Rifleman tab, you would know they took those extra steps to go above and beyond. As stated by somebody above, they are the “Rangers” of the III rifleman ranks. They are the people who you would select to go on recon missions, or do something else particularly sensitive.

    Hell, I had even considered proposing the idea that other tabs existed (somebody kind of hinted at this above): Sapper tab to denote specialized training in short-range infiltration, breaching, etc. A Medic tab to denote somebody who was a “combat medic” (ex: TC3 trained, Wilderness-EMT or -Paramedic Trained, and rifleman qualified). A Designated Marksman or Sniper tab to denote somebody with that specialized skill set, etc.

    Where does the support/auxiliary fit into this? I think that should be a totally separate subject. I am not implying that support personal shouldn’t have some type of standards to meet or that they should be treated as second class citizens. What I am saying is that combat troops are combat troops; that is their job. Comm guys are comm guys; that is their job. Etc. If we are talking about qualifying riflemen, then let’s just qualify riflemen. If you are a dedicated Intel guy, but you want to go for your rifleman patch, then have at it. There is nothing that says you can’t. Getting the rifleman patch doesn’t mean you must be a rifleman if you know you’re the smartest guy in your AO about logistics and transportation. At the same time, not getting the rifleman patch shouldn’t cause you to be seen as somehow less valuable.

    I just think there should be a separation between the concepts of the fighters and the auxiliary.

    • Leatherneck556 says:

      Regarding the actual standards themselves: I don’t think we should water anything down just so people can get a patch.

      To me, the basic standard for the III Rifleman level should be an answer to the following question: Do I trust in this person’s competence and physical ability to serve adequately in combat? If the answer is yes, then they are a III Rifleman. The actual evaluations may look like this:
      -All the base standards from Max’s original list
      -Land Nav: Can you read a map and do dead reckoning?
      -Rifle Qual: 25m Appleseed Quick and Dirty AQT + a basic close-range “reaction firing” qual.
      -Pistol Qual: Some basic qualification, like the MAG-40 type police qual.
      -PT Test: Finish the 2-Miler in 24:00.

      The standard for the III Ranger tab (probably a better name than Expert Rifleman) should answer the following question: Do I have absolute confidence that this person is physically capable and really knows what he or she is talking about? The actual evaluations may look like this:
      -All the base standards from Max’s original list – this was already covered by gaining the III Rifleman qualification
      -Land Nav: Can you land nav? Do a Land Nav course both day and night.
      -Rifle Qual: Score “Rifleman” on the Full Distance basic 400 yard Appleseed qual + 100m “run and gun” course I outlined in the III Standards forum thread.
      -Pistol Qual: Pass the IDPA Classifier with at least the Marksman level.
      -PT Test: Finish the 2-Miler in 18:00. Maybe even add on a 300-m shuttle or a casualty drag as an additional test.

      To restate my thoughts, it goes like this:
      1. III Rifleman: I look at somebody with this patch and trust them to meet the demands of combat.
      2. III Ranger: I look at this person and know they are really squared away above and beyond what is required.
      3. No Patch: This person still may be good to go, I just don’t have an easy way to tell. Maybe my support personnel have no patch (unit insignia only). Maybe they have one of the two above patches. What matters is do they have the skills to do their job? Maybe some qualification for that comes later (ie: Commo patch to denote guys with HAM expertise, etc).

      • Leatherneck556 says:

        One final thing – sorry that I talk a lot.

        As I first said, I really think only one level is necessary, because the question we are trying to answer is this: Are you combat ready? To that end, I think only one flat standard is needed.

        My idea for an Elite/Expert/Ranger tier is to make a harder standard to serve as an idea to strive for above and beyond the minimum. I do not think there should be a lower standard just for the sake of awarding a patch. The standard is the standard. Matt explained it well in his comment on the original III% Rifleman Combat Task Proficiency post.

    • Leatherneck556 says:

      “Due to this, I propose that it would be acceptable to up the three levels to two levels.”

      Should read: acceptable to up the one level to two levels.

  18. chris says:

    Its good to be noticed.
    A grade gives you that.
    Grade either means:”rank”or “ascent”.(or decent if you’re not paying attention)
    A label is for someone else to see. If its for the training,great.The real world of hurt only accepts the rank of ‘motherfucker’.
    “We don’t rise to the level of our expectations- we fall to the level of our training” Some dead Greek Warrior said that.
    You need to know that you have trained yourself, or have been trained to a certain level that you trust, that you are going to fall to- and thats exactly where you should be.
    The attention should be toward the ability, not the ‘feel good’.Either you shoot good to kill and you keep practicing, or you shoot badly to kill and you must practice more.I would hope the guy next to me shoots good.
    Training is training,and it is a MUST. If labels are needed, keep it simple “_”.
    A
    B
    C

    III
    II
    I

    The military grading:
    Expert
    Sharpshooter
    Marksman
    Sort of says it all, but it mil-spec.
    When time renders all “once more unto the breach”,everyone will be on line,

  19. JeffSags says:

    To synthesize what I have read above:

    Perhaps a III rifleman patch for anyone that completes the basic requirements i.e. 24 minute 2 miler.

    An “expert” or “elite” tab for anyone that goes above and beyond.

    Perhaps III Auxillary for those still working towards the basic standard.

    I agree with Fred, those participating at all stages should be recognized, rewarded and motivated!

  20. manifold says:

    I’m just going to give my 2 cents.

    I don’t think there should be tiers.

    if you pass the PT qualification test AND patrol competency test then you get the patch. You fail, you get to try again. There should not be tiers to the III rifleman patch.

    I know many won’t agree with me. But the whole point of all of this stems from the need to identify those who are qualified to be front liners.

    Combat effective and combat competent rifleman.

    Its not some game where we get to pin social tags/patches that we can then show others so we feel good about ourselves.

    This is life and death. If you can’t pass the PT test due to injury then you should not be at the front lines.

    The unit moves as fast as the slowest person. So you cannot mix the other rifleman tiers as that will endanger the entire unit and compromise mission.

    I know we all want to be recognized and to be respected amongst our peers. This is why we all want the coveted III rifleman patch. But we must remain focused on WHY this kind of selection is created in the first place. If Max thinks this is the minimum requirement required to be combat effective then we must uphold it and strive to achieve it.

    i fear all the different variations will dilute the intended purpose, purity and message!

    Just keep it at one patch.

    III rifleman. That’s it.

    Manifold

    • pnoldguy says:

      “The unit moves as fast as the slowest person. So you cannot mix the other rifleman tiers as that will endanger the entire unit and compromise mission. ”

      This pretty much sums it up, I think.

  21. OldeEnglishCider says:

    I like the simplicity of Rifleman.

    It does what it says on the tin, as they say. It will also be the easiest to gain more widespread adoption.

    3 levels sounds right. Auxiliary and Specialist might be alternative titles, and give the holders of those titles more inspiration (they should still take an effort to achieve these levels and feel they are worthwhile).

  22. John Lee Pettimore III says:

    To elaborate on my above post,

    III Riflemen would denote absolutely capable warriors and the largest portion of men under arms.

    III Rangers are just as competent warriors, but have the above and beyond abilities of extreme long range foot patrolling and extended time in the field.

    This is assuming a “Recon-pull” type operations tempo as opposed to “Command-push”.

    Rangers are the finders, and the much larger Riflemen units are the smashers if you will.

    • Fred says:

      1)
      We simply, positively absoluetly cannot issue out patches that have the word “Ranger” on them not even for the highest level.

      It would open us up to a shitstorm of critiiscm and alienate a lotof good folks in whose good graces we want to be.

      • robroysimmons says:

        Yep, and a shame since the Rangers were the original real American bad asses.

        • John Lee Pettimore III says:

          Why would it be a shit storm?

          There are plenty of Park Rangers, BLM Rangers, Texas Rangers, Ford Rangers, the New York Rangers, Power Rangers…

          I think you get my point.

          I don’t believe that the U.S. Army Rangers have total claim to the term “Ranger”, just as the Marine Corps does not have a monopoly on the term “Rifleman.”

          Besides, Ranger units were always originally militia and not part of any Army (until WW2), unlike the shock infantry they have become today which more closely resembles Grenadier companies in function.

          • Leatherneck556 says:

            ‘I don’t believe that the U.S. Army Rangers have total claim to the term “Ranger”, just as the Marine Corps does not have a monopoly on the term “Rifleman.”’

            As a former Marine, I agree completely.

            I also think we have found the terms for the two tiers:
            -III Rifleman
            -Power Rangers

          • Johnny Utah says:

            I’m partial to the term Spartan. Whether or not the US army has the claim to the word “Ranger”, even if I was able to qualify at that level, I would be uncomfortable claiming that.

  23. JohnyMac says:

    My first inclination was to think, you either pass the tests or you don’t. It’s not like you can’t improve and try again.

    Then I had a change of heart and thought that your suggestion Max was right on. In that if their was a struggle we would not only need the Rifleman to win but the home guard and of course support. I have a friend who is a retired Marine Major who’s job was logistics/support. Of course he feels that without logistics & support the front lines guys ain’t got squat. 😉

    I am partial to Fred’s suggestion: “They” are all Rifleman with a definitive set of skills. I picture a rocker type patch that says Rifleman and then a rectangular patch underneath stating there specialty, e.g. Expert, Guard, Support.

    Just speaking about me here…I would wear proudly any of those three categories and would work towards getting the “Expert” level if I failed the first time out.

  24. skittles says:

    I like the viking suggestion.

  25. Buckaroo says:

    Three levels is exactly what is needed. More levels and the qualification process becomes needlessly complicated and distracting, and fewer levels doesn’t provide the necessary resolution to make proper mission assignments.

    Your names for the levels are fine as well. Turning that into a project smacks of an HR exercise and my time in corporate america taught me what a waste of time that is.

  26. Good grief guys, this is simple;

    Tier 1 Operator
    Tier 2 Operator
    Tier 3 Operator
    Tier 4 Operator
    Tier 5 Operator

    Instead of “wolverines” our battle cry will be “Operate Operationally!”
    On the plus side, this may have the desired effect of pulling all the tacticool guys off the couch… 😀

    Really though, who cares what it’s called? It’s just a name, and maybe “rifleman” isn’t such a good choice because it’s already in use by Appleseed, so there could be some confusion. Yes, I get there’s a “III” differentiation, but it’s still a term already in use.

    FWIW, I like the current three levels, BUT I agree with the suggestions to add a fourth level, because it will still allow space for a little more of the volunteers who would meet an intermediate skill level. So for example top level are the guys you could count on to send out for a week on a fullscale mission, a’la Patriot Dawn.
    Then next level down, the guys who can be counted on to pull “base defense” if you will, AS WELL AS run say, a shorter 1-2 day “direct action” mission if you will. “Go in, give the message, get out” – a force that could augment the more hardcore guys for short term operations.
    Just a thought.

    On the other hand, Manifold’s comment about making it 1 patch, pass or fail does have some merit.
    BUT…. I feel like for non-mil. all volunteer groups such as this will be, having different levels can give a sense of progression, or a ladder to climb if you will.
    I’m also very leery of anything that draws a straight black and white difference between where an individual stands in and organization. A rather famous fellow and three hundred others died partially because they didn’t give the one odd guy *any* job…

    Either that, or, at the risk of turning this into “III Boyscouts”, a general patch, with extra tabs (ditto on the “no Ranger stuff” idea)that can be earned for different things.

    Oh, and as stated lock the patches up with a key, ss well as have something built in as a “tell” in case fakes start showing up.

    Also, one more thing to think about:
    We’re hashing out competency in physical skill here, but what about leadership/tactic skills? If this is supposed to denote those tactically a “cut above the rest” but they can’t come up with a competent plan, or organize/lead a team, than how much higher up the ladder are they really?
    This is kind of why I like the “add-on” patches to denote specific skills in other areas.
    Kind of like was mentioned above about the great mass of available support/auxillary personnel who don’t have any applicable support skills, other than shooting/moving less well than the next tier up… If our tactics and support infrastructure suck, than we’re all dead anyway.
    Just a thought…

  27. skittles says:

    Personally i like the three leveled qualification. Call it whatever makes sense. I have met some hard as nails older guys on these courses who may not make the PT standard, but deserve some recognition. Ive been humbled by seveveral gents and one woman old enough to be.myparents or grandparents. (Not the female… she was 29). The level of heart amd.determination they showed was awe inspiring. So yes they deserve a patch that says been there and done that. As far as patches for follow ons after the red star cluster pops, thats silly. These are in my opion for those that trained and prepared prior to SHTF and is a form of recognition of their accomplishments.

  28. aptitude + 1 says:

    ‘we’re talking about patches man… patches. not talking about the “game”, but patches man… patches… not the game… we’re talking about patches man’ paraphrase allen iverson. self recognize. if there is a need for recognition, it is intelligence and aptitude. nothing worse than arguing or even talking with a dumb motherfucker who ‘knows’. wtf? kinda of like what many of the last blog posts are about. not required. fuck the person who can run an 18 minute 2 miler straight into a skull spliter.

    • John Lee Pettimore III says:

      Not sure if that was at all a serious statement but just in case…

      Establishing a standard for physical movement is not only crucial any type of maneuver warfare, but particularly for a foot mobile force.

      It makes a big deal for even the most rudimentary planning.

      A) all the guys in this Unit can perform at X level

      B) This Unit is at location Y.

      C) I need them at position F – So common core calculator says they can be there in ___ mikes.

      If you cannot see the value in that perhaps more watching and learning is in order.

  29. Rustic says:

    Indeed it was suggested that am trying to codify standards for the new Minutemen. If so that wasn’t my intent.

    The top tier of the proposed structure exactly mirrors the skillset and intent of the original minutemen, however.

    The intent of the original minutemen in 17th century New England was to identify the small part of the overall militia that was in a high state of readiness (typically 1/8 or so). These men were required to turn out rapidly. They often were expected to have patrol skills and be able to march rapidly. They were to be well trained and equipped.

    “Rifleman” is already in use by the USMC and as others have pointed out by Project Appleseed.

    “Minuteman” describes exactly what your qualifications propose. It has a uniquely American heritage. It encompasses the broader skillset envisioned beyond shooting rifles. It highlights the physical agility standard by emphasizing the need to turn out at a moment’s notice and move rapidly.

    While inspirational, I don’t think the words of foreign origin (Viking, Norse, etc) are quite right. They appeal to too narrow of an audience and don’t have a uniquely American heritage.

    Full disclosure — I was the original good idea fairy — just registered for the forums and figured I’d use the same handle here.

    • Skittles says:

      I disagree. By the very nature of the the classification of III percent we are a minority. We are the narrow audience. This isnt a all inclusive boy scout troop. This is the hard mf’ers club. The average “patriot” is no better than the fat asses in the videos that started this post. And personally, a ” III Berserker” patch would match nicely with with my ear necklace.

  30. Druganicus says:

    Personally I think we should stay away from archaic or anachronistic titles. They come off sounding like cosplay names and aren’t going to help us look like rationalists. Modern and non pretentious is what we should aim for if we’re looking to improve our image as a movement.

    We use something like the following.

    Rifleman
    Auxilliary
    Home Gaurd

  31. Alex says:

    I wonder if ” level 3 ” is needed.

    Right now you have ” everybody” , from bad asses to lard asses. A standard to identify ( and or cultivate ) the Tip of the Spear from the Patriot population is a good idea.

    A ” step down ” : Reserve, Guard , whatever , is a good idea to at least ID those who have the ability to mesh with the Riflemen. They’ll have commonality in training , doctrine, … Speak the same language so to speak.

    And now you’re left with ” everybody else. ” … Why do they need a patch ? Why do they need to be ID’d at all ?

    Wouldn’t a III patch with no tab be ” support ” or level 3 ?

  32. Joe6px says:

    III Rifleman is a great standard, and let’s leave it there for now. It is more important to have a trained rifleman than worry about what you will call him. If you have to add a quantifier, then make it a 1st class title. Rifleman First Class. After people actually start performing and earning the title, and Max starts leadership standards/courses, it can go from there. I personally am working on a group “Scout” standard. Thanks Max for starting the conversation, but let’s not get too bent over on the badge/patch hunting. “it is the man that adds luster to the title, not the title to the man.”