Most rounds fired in combat are suppressive in nature - most shots are fired to keep the enemy's heads down, and not deliberately aimed.
The US Army once did a study, and found even the most skilled marksmen had a difficult time engaging man sized targets at 300 yards - assuming they saw them at all. With the introduction of optical sights on rifles, this trend has reversed slightly. While a less precise aiming system than the traditional iron sights, electronic dot sights allow for faster acquisition and alignment of the "pipper" with the target, thus reducing engagement time.
The Marine Corps analyzed data from Iraq, and found nearly all rifle rounds fired (including sniper rifles) occured at distances of 300 meters or less, with the overwhelming majority occuring under 50 meters.
Having said all of the above...
When on a range, the skills needed to attain "Expert" on a military qualification course pale in comparaison to the skills needed to shoot Expert level scores (usually 90-93.99% on courses of fire for centerfire rifles) on NRA bullseye targets. A large part of this is because the x, 10, and 9 rings on NRA bullseye targets are often smaller than the silhouette targets used for military qualification.
Steve Swartz wrote:Better example? Navy/Air Force pilot. Hey, their secondary combat arms skillset is to surrender, and then absorb enemy medical and logistics capability as a POW. We don't really train them to use the M9 stuck in their ruck except as a signaling device or potentially as a source of protein in game rich environment (holding up a gracery store, not hunting live game!
As a former Student Naval Aviator, I can assure you that key portions of your statement above are decidely untrue. The secondary combat skill of an aviator is to evade capture for as long as possible, hopefully until rescued by friendly forces. This is why Land Survival and Survival/Evasion/Resistance/Escape (SERE) schools are requirements for all military aviators and high risk (i.e., Special Forces) personnel. The schools teach skills, but most importantly, they teach a mindset bent on surviving and resisting the enemy as long as possible. As part of this mindset, firing a sidearm may be low priority (it attracts unwanted attention), but the schools teach there are lots of other tools in a survival pack/kit which may be used as weapons, including:
- Parachute cord (used as bowstrings, garrottes, tripwires, or snares);
- Wire saws;
- Survival knives;
- Pen flares (which may be fired at an opponent);
- Conventional flares (burn your opponent with a 3000*F+ flame).
You see, the downed aviator is usually outgunned, and certainly outmanned by his/her pursuers. Fight or escape blindly, and you get caught - or worse. Resist/evade with a plan, and the dynamic changes. The combination of training, luck, and - most importantly - will to fight makes a downed aviator a potentially dangerous opponent. The fact that rescuers seldom operate alone, and usually bring significant amounts of firepower to the party makes it even more difficult for would-be captors.
A gun is a very handy survival tool, but the amount of ammunition carried (usually less than 50 rounds) makes it a somewhat dicey proposition to hunt with one. In a survival situation, it makes more sense to use less energy intensive methods of gathering food than stalking prey. Snares, traps, and nets can gather more food in less time than by shooting game. By the way, your example of holding up a grocery store is flat-out dumb. First, it exposes the location of the downed aviator, and second (and more importantly), it annoys the locals - who are more likely to turn said aviator in to the authorities as a result.
