18X vs OP40 vs Etc…Running the Numbers
I’m getting lots of questions about 18X vs Option 40 (and every other option) and of course guys are reading what they want and misinterpreting data. And I’m even seeing guys misciting my musings on other platforms, so I thought a master post was in order so I could save myself some time by just directing guys here.
Let’s start with some simple and clear thesis statements that will drive this discussion.
1- The overall Selection rate for SF, Rangers, SEALs, and SpecWar is about the same.
2- The discrepancy between the options is due to reporting peculiarities.
3- If you’re making decisions about which path you take based on success rates, then you are self-selecting and you likely won’t (nor should you) last.
Comparing Selection Rates The overall Selection Rate for 18X is ~40%. Officers are ~50%, National Guard is ~45%. ADE is ~25%. This doesn’t include an analysis of the last 18 months (since we published RUSU) but the bar napkin math drives these numbers down slightly except for Officers who remain E L I T E.
SEALs generally report about a 10% pass rate from BUD/S.
Rangers generally report about a 50% pass rate from RASP (RASP II is ~75%)
USAF SpecWar is ~10-15%.
So, on its face these numbers seem to indicate that my initial thesis statement of, “The overall Selection rate for SF, Rangers, SEALs, and SpecWar is about the same.” Is deeply flawed, but…
Reporting Discrepancy This is where we introduce you to the problem with data…it all depends on how you collect it and who does the reporting.
As we discussed some time ago, the 18X data is inherently flawed because it only includes 18X that go to SFAS. If you counted all 18X contracts from MEPS to Q, it would likely be somewhere near 10-15%. Of course, nobody is going to collect/report this data because the 18X program probably represents a perfect bait and switch to fill the ranks with 11Xs. But ask any 18X who has been through OSUT in the last decade and they will tell you that number of guys who showed up at the 30th AG barking about being a Commando was very different from the number of guys who finished SFPC.
This same phenomenon is true for NG guys. The ~45% rate looks good until you realize that they have to navigate multiple gates to even get sponsored to go to SFAS. So by all rights they better have a high success rate. Just look at the numbers we see coming out of the various SFREs and SFEs. Those are far closer to the raw numbers the other programs have.
The same can be said for Option 40, which is actually worse because it includes all MOS in the Regiment and encompasses a younger, less mature population. So while RASP reports a ~50% pass rate, the reality is that only 8% of Option 40 contracts actually matriculate to a Ranger Battalion. I keep getting asked for a source for this number and my source is from the mouth of the RCO and RSM. I was in a conversation with them when they made this statement. It is not available in any other context. That’s it. Again, just ask anyone who has been to OSUT in the past decade and they can confirm this general condition of wanna-be Commandos drastically dropping during their respective pipelines.
Again, you won’t find the 18X and Option 40 numbers published because that would fuck up the little scheme of using these attractive options to entice you to sign on the dotted line. But from the data that I have seen, both public and protected, my analysis holds true. As I work on our RASP prep program I will seek to get clearance to publish the citable data, but I won’t be shocked if that’s not an option.
The SEAL rate is fairly well published, and they are not shy about promoting it. This holds true to the SEAL culture. They like to use this as part of the mystique because it draws the exact sort of candidates that the maritime direct action mission requires. They don’t need that many jabronis to fill the ranks each year so they are fine with openly promoting the practice. But you may have also noticed with the overall dwindling recruiting environment and the well-published missteps out in Coronado that they aren’t quite as loud as they once were.
The AFSOC SpecWar data is a little tougher as they’ve done some significant realignment recently with both the introduction of SR and the restructuring of the pipeline. But those guys have always boasted a pretty high attrition rate and I would expect this to remain fairly constant, regardless of any restructuring. Systems do what systems are designed to do.
Stop Gaming The System I’ll close with a few comments about this growing trend. I appreciate that some guys are genuinely just looking to be well informed. Recruiters aren’t always well-positioned (and they certainly aren’t motivated) to be as accurate and truthful as you might want. If you listen to barracks lawyers you get exactly what you deserve. And Reddit is only slightly better and some subs are downright bad. I think we’ve done a pretty good job of keeping our community accurate, accountable, and fun. But the struggle is real.
And we have all seen (you might be one of them) these guys that are clearly trying to game the system. They are looking for the easiest/most likely/less risky option possible. They are looking to be special, but only if they can be adequately assured that they won’t fail. So they massage, manipulate, and coerce the data to some perfect outcome.
That’s not how you want to start this pathway where you will be pushed to the limits. Sometimes that limit is under the Sandman. Sometimes is in the Surf Zone. It might be in the pool or at Cole Range. But you will be pushed into a place where if your only parameter is stats, then you’re probably not going to make it. Do some thinking about what really drives you to be elite and then pick the pathway that can sustain you.
Finally, I didn’t include MARSOC because there is no initial entry option and I didn’t include CA and PsyOps because they’re not really SOF (shots fired!!). Be sure to check the comments to links where have amplifying data. Again, most of this stuff isn’t citable, but some if it is.
