Master Sgt. Joe Garcia wrote the following article and put together the bibliography - see below. My take: In the next update or change to U.S. Army Training Circulars on small arms, this should become Table 7 in the training model.
Forged to Kill: Competitive Marksmanship and the Infantryman’s Path to Digital Lethality
by Joe Garcia
Thanks for reading! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.
Master Sgt. Joe Garcia currently serves as Program Manager for the California Military Department Office of Competitive Programs, where he manages the CANG Combat Shooting Team; Biathlon Team; Marathon Team; Sport Parachute Team; and Obstacle Course Racing Team. He served as a Master Firearms Trainer, Assistant State Marksmanship Coordinator, DOJ Firearms Safety Instructor, California Peace Officer Standards and Training certified firearms instructor, and CCW Instructor.
At the National Guard Marksmanship Training Center, he was a Designated Marksman and Small Arms Master Gunner Instructor, leading Mobile Training Teams to administer training on all military small arms. He helped establish a joint force pre-mobilization weapons training cadre that conducted individual weapons training for 9,390 Soldiers, Airmen, Sailors, and Marines, validating each individual’s training through qualification with their assigned weapons.
As a competitor, Garcia led the 2013, 2014, and 2015 U.S. Army All Army Small Arms Champions and has earned Distinguished marksmanship ratings.
Introduction: The Kill Gap
In the evolving landscape of modern warfare, the traditional metrics of infantry proficiency—basic qualification scores and doctrinal compliance—are insufficient to ensure battlefield dominance. The gap is not small. The rise of the peer and modern threats, with their emphasis on algorithmic warfare, persistent ISR, and long-range precision strike capabilities, changes the lethality equation (Watling & Rasser, 2023; Department of the Army, 2022; TRADOC, 2023). Modern conflict punishes hesitation, indecision, and rote training. Yet in the practical application of TC 3-20.40, much of the U.S. Army’s marksmanship instruction remains compliance-based, emphasizing safety over mastery and qualification over combat capability (Scales, 2021; U.S. Army, 2021).
Competitive marksmanship fills the critical gap. Unlike standard qualification, which merely assesses minimum competency in sterile conditions, competitive shooting develops true lethality under pressure. Competition is the collective pursuit of individual excellence. That collective pursuit is the dynamic force producing change. It forces Soldiers to perform under observation, against time, and in dynamic, unfamiliar scenarios that mimic the unpredictability of war (Miller & Bartone, 2022; Spencer, 2023; TC 3-20.40, 2020). Competition as training has no regard for rank or what you did yesterday. It’s a ten-digit grid point of your real skill level, under duress, in relation to everyone else on the map. Competition exposes truth, inoculates participants against stress and builds cognitive resilience—attributes increasingly recognized as essential for high-performance tactical units (Paulus et al., 2021; Corbett & Tack, 2021).
Emerging research supports the superiority of competitive environments for cultivating elite performance. A recent study on stress exposure and performance optimization concluded that decision-making and motor skill execution improve when training simulates the cognitive demands of combat, particularly in uncertain environments (Buchanan & Tranel, 2021; McCord, 2024; Freedman, 2022). The Army’s own Futures Command and Army University Press have acknowledged that stress-inoculated, adaptive shooters are better suited to the digitized, sensor-fused battlespace emerging under Multi-Domain Operations (Army Futures Command, 2022; Kallberg, 2022).
I’m saying that competitive marksmanship is not just useful—it is essential. It bridges the lethality gap by producing riflemen who can dominate under real pressure, perform inside the decision cycle of the enemy, and fuse weapon systems with battlefield awareness. Without it, modernization efforts will be hollow shells—platforms without punch, doctrine without killers.
Section 2: Competitive Marksmanship as Stress Inoculation Training
Thanks for reading! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.
In the context of modern warfare, where combat is defined by cognitive overload, sensory saturation, and rapid threat engagement, Soldiers must be conditioned not just physically, but psychologically. Traditional marksmanship training does not provide the exposure to time pressure, uncertainty, and performance judgment that fosters the resilience combat demands. In contrast, competitive marksmanship imposes acute stress on the shooter through direct observation, peer comparison, and scenario complexity—hallmarks of stress inoculation training (SIT) (Bartone, 2022; Paulus et al., 2021; FM 7-22, 2020). This exposure cultivates what psychologists term “adaptive stress response,” enabling Soldiers to perform with consistency and clarity under extreme pressure (Buchanan & Tranel, 2021; FM 3-0, 2022).
Stress inoculation is more than exposure—it is a deliberate structured progression through anticipation, confrontation, and mastery of stress, which competitive events inherently replicate (Meichenbaum, 2007; Miller & Bartone, 2022). Soldiers who engage in competitive marksmanship show statistically significant improvements in focus, motor control under stress, and decision accuracy compared to those trained only under qualification standards (Baumeister & Vohs, 2016; Corbett & Tack, 2021). These findings align with the U.S. Army’s own emphasis on the integration of performance psychology into readiness, as defined in ATP 7-22.02, which promotes deliberate stress exposure as a mechanism to build resilience and improve lethality (Department of the Army, 2020; TRADOC, 2023).
Furthermore, neurophysiological studies reveal that training under realistic threat conditions activates and strengthens the same neural pathways used in combat, improving decision-making speed and reducing panic-induced degradation (Sandi, 2013; Kallberg, 2022; McCord, 2024). Competitive marksmanship forces the shooter to rapidly process visual and auditory cues, prioritize targets, and execute motor tasks under time constraints—conditions that mirror the chaos of close combat and the decision cycle required in sensor-to-shooter engagements (Freedman, 2022; Army Futures Command, 2022; TC 3-20.40, 2020).
The Army has doctrinally endorsed these findings. TC 3-20.40 explicitly outlines competitive and scenario-based shooting as valid mechanisms for preparing Soldiers for the complexities of war, noting that “standard qualification tables do not replicate the time constraints, stressors, or movement required in combat” (TC 3-20.40, 2020, p. 1-4). Similarly, FM 3-0 describes the future operational environment as characterized by tempo, ambiguity, and distributed threats—factors best countered by Soldiers trained to think and shoot under pressure (FM 3-0, 2022; TRADOC Pam 525-3-1, 2018).
In short, competitive marksmanship is not recreational—it is functional inoculation against the psychological and kinetic realities of war. There can be only one champion. The failure at competition is the inoculation. Competition conditions Soldiers to operate on the edge of failure without breaking. By embedding stress exposure through competition into marksmanship, commanders pre-harden their units, accelerating the transformation of shooters into lethal decision-makers long before the first bullet is fired in combat (Miller & Bartone, 2022; Kallberg, 2022; TRADOC, 2023).
Section 3: Cognitive and Physical Enhancements through Competitive Training
Modern infantry warfare requires Soldiers to synchronize rapid cognition with physical endurance, often under extreme stress and ambiguity. Competitive marksmanship uniquely cultivates this dual capacity by replicating the tempo, uncertainty, and physical strain found in actual combat. Cognitive neuroscience research confirms that high-performance shooting under pressure activates the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and other executive function regions, enabling faster and more accurate threat discrimination (Bishop et al., 2004; Meichenbaum, 2007; Paulus et al., 2021). These brain regions are critical for combat effectiveness, especially in environments that demand rapid shoot/no-shoot decisions, target prioritization, and movement coordination under fire (Buchanan & Tranel, 2021; Sandi, 2013).
From a performance standpoint, competitive marksmanship drives measurable improvements in motor precision, visual tracking, and executive response time. Studies have demonstrated that shooters who engage in competitive or stress-based training environments significantly outperform those trained under static, qualification-focused protocols in both speed and accuracy (Mon-López et al., 2019; Baumeister & Vohs, 2016; Freedman, 2022). These findings directly support the Army’s readiness doctrine, which stresses physical-cognitive integration as a prerequisite for success in large-scale combat operations (FM 3-0, 2022; TRADOC Pam 525-3-1, 2018).
Physiologically, the integration of anaerobic exertion before marksmanship tasks—such as sprinting, climbing, or casualty drag drills—has been shown to simulate the degradation seen in firefights. Research from Norwegian infantry trials revealed that accuracy declines significantly after high-stress exertion unless the shooter is regularly conditioned in those environments (Solberg et al., 2022; McCord, 2024). Competitive marksmanship naturally includes this kind of stress layering, preparing shooters to maintain precision during fatigue, elevated heart rate, and cortisol spikes (Sanchez et al., 2022; TC 3-20.40, 2020).
Army doctrine has begun to acknowledge the need for these integrated performance domains. ATP 7-22.02, which outlines Holistic Health and Fitness (H2F), calls for training environments that simultaneously challenge the Soldier’s physical, mental, and emotional capacities to build resilience and reduce performance degradation under combat stress (Department of the Army, 2020; FM 7-22, 2020). Competitive marksmanship achieves this goal in a field-expedient and scalable way. It replaces sterile firing lines with dynamic tasks that improve vestibular processing, proprioception, and neuromuscular stability—all while refining combat decision-making in time-compressed scenarios (Spencer, 2023; Kallberg, 2022; TRADOC, 2023).
In sum, competitive marksmanship provides a unique training method that fuses kinetic and cognitive enhancement under conditions that are realistic, repeatable, and measurable. No other training domain achieves this synthesis as effectively. It is not an extracurricular activity—it is the functional backbone of the modern rifleman’s mind-body integration.
Section 4: Institutionalizing Competitive Marksmanship in Infantry Training Pipelines
Despite the overwhelming evidence for its effectiveness, competitive marksmanship remains peripheral within Army budgets and training architecture—treated as extracurricular rather than essential. This is a strategic failure. If lethality is the core output of the infantry, and competitive marksmanship is the most direct forge of that lethality, then it must be institutionalized across the training continuum (FM 3-0, 2022; TRADOC Pam 525-3-1, 2018; Department of the Army, 2020). The Army cannot afford to leave performance excellence to chance. It must not rely solely on qualification tables. These are rote administrative diagnostic tests, that cannot replicate combat conditions (TC 3-20.40, 2020; Spencer, 2023).
Competitive marksmanship must be embedded at multiple points within the training pipeline. First, at One Station Unit Training (OSUT), elements of time-stressed and peer-observed marksmanship can be introduced in parallel to current qualification events, fostering early resilience and skill differentiation (ATP 7-22.02, 2020; FM 7-22, 2020). Second, at the unit level, commanders can schedule recurring competitions that reinforce marksmanship principles under combat-relevant stressors—improving both readiness and morale while generating actionable performance data (Kallberg, 2022; Corbett & Tack, 2021). Data beyond hit or miss, but accuracy expressed as a percentage and hits measured in time. Finally, pre-deployment cycles must include mandatory competitive engagements that expose teams to joint, inter-unit, and inter-service marksmanship standards, fostering interoperability and raising tactical ceilings (Freedman, 2022; McCord, 2024).
FORSCOM and Army Futures Command have both emphasized the importance of measurable outcomes and performance under pressure in preparation for multi-domain operations (Army Futures Command, 2022; TRADOC, 2023). Embedding competition into institutional cycles satisfies this demand. Soldiers conditioned through competitive shooting arrive at the unit-level ready to integrate with ISR platforms, sensor-fused kill chains, and distributed command architectures because they have been trained to think and shoot as a single act (Watling & Rasser, 2023; Scales, 2021). This is not recreational—this is doctrinal alignment with emergent combat realities.
Additionally, the neurocognitive and retention benefits of spaced, stress-based learning validate the regular use of competitive events in training calendars. Repeated stress-exposure with performance feedback accelerates the myelination of task-relevant neural pathways, enabling shooters to operate under pressure with minimal cognitive load (Buchanan & Tranel, 2021; Sandi, 2013; Baumeister & Vohs, 2016). Simply put: what is stressed and scored is remembered and refined. Without this integration, institutional lethality remains a paper tiger. What readiness?
If the Army intends to win in the first contact—not after the first casualty—it must stop treating competitive marksmanship as a privilege and start enforcing it as a pipeline. Lethality is not a static qualification. It is a perishable, trainable outcome—and competition is the crucible that produces it.
Section 5: Conclusion — The Last Forge
In a world of machine-speed warfare, autonomous systems, and algorithmic targeting, the infantryman’s place on the battlefield is not diminished—but redefined. He is no longer merely a bearer of firepower, but a fused node of lethality within a digital ecosystem. To survive and dominate in this environment, the infantry must evolve. That evolution begins not with modernization plans or new gear, but with the re-forging of mastery—one rifleman at a time. Competitive marksmanship is the last surviving forge where this mastery is tested, measured, and earned (Scales, 2021; Freedman, 2022; Spencer, 2023).
No checklist qualification, no static range event can prepare Soldiers for the chaos, uncertainty, and compression of modern war. Only competition – the collective pursuit of individual excellence and the dynamic force producing change, compels a shooter to integrate cognition, violence, stress control, and precision under observation. It exposes weakness. It rewards adaptation. It transforms Americans into Soldiers —before the first shot is ever exchanged with a peer threat (Buchanan & Tranel, 2021; Paulus et al., 2021; Army Futures Command, 2022).
Doctrinally, the tools are already in place. TRADOC, FORSCOM, and Futures Command have all recognized that adaptive, performance-based training is essential to Multi-Domain Operations (FM 3-0, 2022; TRADOC Pam 525-3-1, 2018; TC 3-20.40, 2020). What remains is implementation—at scale. We must remove competitive marksmanship from the budget margins and embed it as a core element of infantry pipelines, from OSUT to the line unit. Anything less will leave lethality to chance—and our Soldiers unprepared.
Threats aren’t static. We can’t be either.
If America wants riflemen to dominate on a battlefield saturated with sensors, AI, and autonomous fires, we must forge them where it matters most: under pressure, in competition, with purpose. The infantryman of the digital age must not only fire a weapon—he must master it, integrate it, and wield it with judgment faster than the enemy can think. The Soldier as a system remains a goal not yet met.
Competitive marksmanship is not optional. It’s the bridge between peacetime posture and wartime victory. It is the only path to true lethality – in the time available.
Bibliography
Army Futures Command. (2022). Project Convergence and the networked battlefield. U.S. Army.
Baumeister, R. F., & Vohs, K. D. (2016). Handbook of self-regulation: Research, theory, and applications. Guilford Press.
Bishop, S. J., Duncan, J., Brett, M., & Lawrence, A. D. (2004). Prefrontal cortical function and anxiety: Controlling attention to threat-related stimuli. Nature Neuroscience, 7(2), 184–188.
Buchanan, T. W., & Tranel, D. (2021). Stress and decision-making: Mechanisms and implications. Military Psychology, 33(1), 23–32.
Corbett, G., & Tack, N. (2021). Multi-domain operations: Tactical integration of ISR and fires. Military Review, 101(4), 33–47.
Department of the Army. (2020). ATP 7-22.02: Holistic Health and Fitness Testing.
Department of the Army. (2022). Army Techniques Publication 3-12.3: Electronic Warfare Techniques.
FM 3-0. (2022). Operations. Headquarters, Department of the Army.
FM 7-22. (2020). Holistic Health and Fitness.
Freedman, L. (2022). Command and control in contemporary conflict. Journal of Strategic Studies, 45(5), 721–743.
Kallberg, J. (2022). Cognitive dominance and decision-making in cyber-enabled conflict. Joint Force Quarterly, (106), 54–61.
McCord, C. (2024). Human-machine teaming in near-peer warfare. Army University Press.
Meichenbaum, D. (2007). Stress inoculation training: A preventive and treatment approach. Springer.
Miller, L., & Bartone, P. (2022). Hardening Soldiers through stress inoculation training. Military Psychology, 34(1), 45–60.
Mon-López, D., Tejero-González, C. M., & Refoyo, I. (2019). Performance indicators in elite shooting: A bibliometric analysis. Journal of Sports Sciences, 37(5), 507–515.
Paulus, M. P., Feinstein, J. S., Castillo, G., & Simmons, A. N. (2021). Neural mechanisms of threat processing. Current Topics in Behavioral Neurosciences, 50, 155–172.
Sandi, C. (2013). Stress and cognition. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 14(5), 311–324.
Scales, R. H. (2021). The lost art of battle command in sensor-saturated warfare. Parameters, 51(3), 19–31.
Solberg, P. A., et al. (2022). Physical fatigue and shooting accuracy in infantry Soldiers. Military Medicine, 187(9–10), 1124–1132.
Spencer, J. (2023). Urban Warfare Project: Preparing infantry for megacity conflict. Modern War Institute, West Point.
TRADOC Pamphlet 525-3-1. (2018). The U.S. Army Operating Concept: Win in a Complex World.
Thanks for reading! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.
