A training system can only be effective if it is appropriately utilized, regardless of whether the training system is a sophisticated full-motion simulator or steel targets on a small-arms range. However, without understanding how trainees use a training system and without clear performance feedback, it is not likely that desired training outcomes will be met. A recent example of training-system underutilization impacting training performance comes from the U.S. Army Sniper School (USASS). In the USASS, sniper teams spend a considerable amount of time at the beginning of the course conducting “data confirmation.â€� Data confirmation is accomplished by engaging static targets at varying distances on an unknown distance range. So, in the case of data confirmation, the training system is very simple: a small arms range with static targets at varying distances. It was observed over several iterations of USASS that shooters rarely engaged targets at distances beyond 600 m during data confirmation and that, when engaged, the hit percentage of targets over 600 m was very low. The consequence of failing to shoot at far targets (i.e., over 600 m) during data confirmation was low hit percentages on far targets in the record fire event that was a graduation requirement. An intervention was introduced to increase engagements with far targets that required USASS instructors to record and analyze individual shot data. By requiring instructors to document data, the instructor was able to determine if the shooter was spending too much time at closer distances (i.e., not fully utilizing the training system) and to intervene if necessary. The result was increased record-fire performance on far targets. Even though the intervention and results may seem intuitive, the need for such an intervention highlights the importance of trainer engagement to ensure proper training-system utilization and the importance of providing performance feedback during training.