The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > Hogan's Alley > Tactics and Training

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old February 12, 2013, 06:12 PM   #1
g.willikers
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 28, 2008
Posts: 5,328
Interesting conversation on civilian vs military training.

Last Sundays handgunworld podcast had a very informative and interesting conversation about the differences between todays training of civilians, military and police.
I thought it quite an eye opener.
The goals are very different, as is the actual training procedures.
Oddly, they said that civilian training involves much more actual live firing.
Check it out:
handgunworld.com, podcast episode 217.
__________________
Lock the doors, they're coming in the windows.
g.willikers is offline  
Old February 12, 2013, 06:27 PM   #2
OEF-Vet
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 23, 2011
Location: Backwoods, PA
Posts: 284
Your training in the military has a lot to do with your "MOS" job in the military and also the mission you are preparing to deploy into. There is a lot of mission specific training we go through prior to a deployment. A supply SGT or cook is not going to get the same training as an infantry soldier or MP and they are not going to get the same training as a Ranger, Seal or Green barrett.

Sent from my HTC PH39100 using Xparent Green Tapatalk 2
OEF-Vet is offline  
Old February 13, 2013, 10:53 AM   #3
Murdock
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 4, 2008
Location: Down East Maine
Posts: 431
They make Barretts in green now? I want one.
__________________
The United States Marine Corps: Providing the enemies of America the opportunity to die for their countries since 1775. Semper fi.
Murdock is offline  
Old February 13, 2013, 11:59 AM   #4
kraigwy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 16, 2008
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 9,515
Quote:
Your training in the military has a lot to do with your "MOS" job in the military
Not in all units, depending on the commander. When I was a company commander or OIC of a unit everyone got the same training.

It was my company so I could allocate my training time to suit me, and I was an expert of selling budgets, including getting ammo.

For example, I had clerks to recon. I extended the training beyond the 300 yard pop up, we also had rifle training of KD ranges and maneuver courses.

Did the same thing with pistols.

The only exception was if one showed interest in competitive shooting. I was also the OIC of the State Marksmanship unit. These individuals got further coaching and training with the understanding they provided training to their units or sections.

Yes its different then LE and Civilian. I am a cert. LE Sniper Instructor and did sniper training for the military. A clear example is in LE you teach head shots, in Military, you teach COM. Also the range (distance) is different.

Civilian pistol/revolver shooting isn't that much different then military and LE pistol/revolver training. Defensive pistol is about bad breath distance. 3 yards is 3 yards whether you are a civilian, LE or Military.

But yes, you gear your training to the mission or purpose.
__________________
Kraig Stuart
CPT USAR Ret
USAMU Sniper School Oct '78
Distinguished Rifle Badge 1071
kraigwy is offline  
Old February 13, 2013, 12:47 PM   #5
OEF-Vet
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 23, 2011
Location: Backwoods, PA
Posts: 284
Quote:
Originally Posted by Murdock View Post
They make Barretts in green now? I want one.
You got me on that one lol damn auto correct. Green Beret!

Sent from my HTC PH39100 using Xparent Green Tapatalk 2
OEF-Vet is offline  
Old February 13, 2013, 12:50 PM   #6
g.willikers
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 28, 2008
Posts: 5,328
During the podcast, it was pointed out that military training doesn't necessarily include much in the way of handgun training.
The fellow talking was in the Marines, so maybe other branches do include it.
He also said that the emphasis is on precision rifle over long distances.
Very useful in some places, but the lack of training in close, fast rifle training was harmful in others.
He also said that competition shooters, who excel in handguns and fast rifle use, are increasingly being asked to train military.
It was a very interesting discussion.
__________________
Lock the doors, they're coming in the windows.
g.willikers is offline  
Old February 13, 2013, 01:04 PM   #7
kraigwy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 16, 2008
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 9,515
Quote:
He also said that competition shooters, who excel in handguns and fast rifle use, are increasingly being asked to train military.
Not just "fast fire" (what ever that means), but long range precision rifle also.

The Civilian Marksmanship Program provides instructors to help the Army in the Army's Designated Marksmanship Program.
__________________
Kraig Stuart
CPT USAR Ret
USAMU Sniper School Oct '78
Distinguished Rifle Badge 1071
kraigwy is offline  
Old February 13, 2013, 01:19 PM   #8
g.willikers
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 28, 2008
Posts: 5,328
Who here actually listened to the podcast?
__________________
Lock the doors, they're coming in the windows.
g.willikers is offline  
Old February 13, 2013, 03:09 PM   #9
OEF-Vet
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 23, 2011
Location: Backwoods, PA
Posts: 284
Quote:
Originally Posted by g.willikers View Post
During the podcast, it was pointed out that military training doesn't necessarily include much in the way of handgun training.
The fellow talking was in the Marines, so maybe other branches do include it.
He also said that the emphasis is on precision rifle over long distances.
Very useful in some places, but the lack of training in close, fast rifle training was harmful in others.
He also said that competition shooters, who excel in handguns and fast rifle use, are increasingly being asked to train military.
It was a very interesting discussion.
I am an MP so we do have extensive M9 pistol training as well as M16/M4 W/WO M203 grenade launcher, M249 SAW M240B SAW, M2 50 cal AND MK19 automatic 40mm grenade launcher. Many MOSs aren't even issued M9s so they don't get much training on them. Ben did touch on that in the podcast.

Prior to our last deployment we had specialized close combat training. This training was conducted by civilian contractors who all 4 were former military and 2 of them also worked in civilian law enforcement.

As an MP we train in teams for combat deployments but also train individual for stateside L&O deployments.

I think one thing Ben missed is that a lot of military service members are also civilians (reserve and guard) and shoot/train a lot in their civilian free time.

As I said in my earlier post a lot in the military depends on your unit, MOS and mission specific training.

Sent from my HTC PH39100 using Xparent Green Tapatalk 2
OEF-Vet is offline  
Old February 13, 2013, 04:39 PM   #10
Constantine
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 5, 2010
Location: Miami, Florida
Posts: 5,201
Quote:
Last Sundays handgunworld podcast had a very informative and interesting conversation about the differences between todays training of civilians, military and police.
Police are civilians. Just saying.

Yeah. It's no secret that a lot of civilians, if they seek it. Will have better training than any military or law enforcement.

However, I still firmly believe that real life experience triumphs any training. Also if the training prior to the real life experience is sufficient or more so than another is hard to tell. Everyone is still different and reacts differently under stress.
__________________
Sáncte Míchael Archángele, defénde nos in proélio, cóntra nequítiam et insídias diáboli ésto præsídium. Ímperet ílli Déus, súpplices deprecámur: tuque, prínceps milítiæ cæléstis, Sátanam aliósque spíritus malígnos, qui ad perditiónem animárum pervagántur in múndo, divína virtúte, in inférnum detrúde. Ámen
Constantine is offline  
Old February 13, 2013, 05:18 PM   #11
g.willikers
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 28, 2008
Posts: 5,328
Isn't it hard to learn from real life experience without enough training to survive it?
__________________
Lock the doors, they're coming in the windows.
g.willikers is offline  
Old February 13, 2013, 06:41 PM   #12
armoredman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 3,838
my military experience was over 20 years ago, but the 1911A1s in the ship's armory were used every year for "familiarization" and "qualification" on the flight deck. Neither was worth a hoot, and Boot Camp was spectacularly bad - 5 rounds from a Colt Ace 22lr, and no opportunity to see if you hit anything. We DID have 4 Ruger Service Six revolvers, and I bought some 38 Special ammo to shoot one on the regular qualification date, which irritated my Chief to no end. He also had no explanation why the guns were there....
My Dept gives better handgun instruction, but that's to be expected. What is also funny is even that is far less than I got on my own over the years.
__________________
http://czfirearms.us/ same original CZForum, new location.
armoredman is offline  
Old February 13, 2013, 07:08 PM   #13
Constantine
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 5, 2010
Location: Miami, Florida
Posts: 5,201
Quote:
Originally Posted by g.willikers View Post
Isn't it hard to learn from real life experience without enough training to survive it?
Didn't read my last paragraph did you?


Sent from my phone...expect typos.
Constantine is offline  
Old February 13, 2013, 07:41 PM   #14
Beretta686
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 11, 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 734
The military teaches you to shoot, move and communicate as a member of a team, not as an individual. While civilian training teaches you to neutralize a threat on your own.

The military doesn't care so much about the individual rounds (which is why the "5.56 sucks" argument makes no sense), but rather about putting rounds down to allow your maneuver element freedom of maneuver. But civilian thinking is the exact opposite where "suppressive fire" will send you to jail.

So though the military's combat-arms training (don't get me started on cooks & aviators) will make you very proficient as an individual with weapons and able to safely handle weapons under stress, it's not going to make you a CQB commando, unless you're a actual commando (even Ranger School doesn't teach you how to use weapons in CQB, but rather it's a leadership school).

If you're looking to survive a civilian situation, I'd go for civilian training, even if you're military trained, as you're not out there learning how to draw and fire from concealment what not unless you're in some high-speed unit.
__________________
"Our contract called for 16 cases of rifles and ammunition for $10,000 dollars, not a machine gun...........That is our present to the General"-Pike Bishop

When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.”
Beretta686 is offline  
Old February 13, 2013, 07:44 PM   #15
Glenn Dee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 9, 2009
Location: South Florida
Posts: 1,487
OK Armoredman... I gots ta know... why are they there?
Glenn Dee is offline  
Old February 13, 2013, 11:30 PM   #16
armoredman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 3,838
Sorry, amigo, I never did get an answer - Ruger revolvers were never military issue that I know of, but we had four. No holsters, no speedloaders, not a single round of ammo - I had to buy my own AND get Gunner's permission to shoot it. It shot left, badly. But no, not one person could tell me why we had for Ruger revolvers in a US warships' armory. When the ship was decommissioned in 1994, I assume they went to the base armory, and probably disposed of from there who knows where, maybe gifted to Admirals and such.
__________________
http://czfirearms.us/ same original CZForum, new location.
armoredman is offline  
Old February 14, 2013, 02:34 AM   #17
Justice06RR
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 21, 2010
Location: Central FL
Posts: 1,280
Quote:
The military teaches you to shoot, move and communicate as a member of a team, not as an individual. While civilian training teaches you to neutralize a threat on your own.

The military doesn't care so much about the individual rounds (which is why the "5.56 sucks" argument makes no sense), but rather about putting rounds down to allow your maneuver element freedom of maneuver. But civilian thinking is the exact opposite where "suppressive fire" will send you to jail.
I think that is spot on, Beretta.

Civilian training for the most part is geared towards being on your own, while military you are part of a team/squad.

Also, what some claim as "inferiority" of the 5.56/223 round on the civilian side is not so much a big deal with the Military because they are supplemented with 7.62NATO, 50BMG, Grenades, Grenade lauchers, and Full-auto capability.

Another I noticed on Military vs Civilian/Competion is the type of techniques used on rifles, mainly AR's/M4. Competition shooters always have the support hand farther out on the handguard, while Military/LE has your support arm closer to the magwell or gripping a VFG.

I kinda hate the grip that competition shooters use...
Justice06RR is offline  
Old February 14, 2013, 05:17 AM   #18
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
Look on the bright side, OEF-Vet, they only dinged you on spelling; only time I typed "Green Berets" on TFL, it was promptly pointed out that those are headgear, but the guys who wear them are SF.

(Of course, most civilians don't know that, so the shorthand of "Green Berets" is simpler.)

Meanwhile, with regard to training, I think it depends greatly on who the commanders are. In my experience, which was mostly big Navy but with the occasional JSOTF LNO gig, the typical Navy CO firmly believes that a sailor with a gun is more likely to hurt himself or his buddies than he is to hurt the enemy.

The JSOTF guys were much better, but in my experience, deployed training depended on individual initiative to a great extent, too. For instance, seeing that a class was going to be offered, finding out who was running it, and getting added in. Or, getting invited to go shoot with the security element when they did small arms or heavy weapons shoots.
MLeake is offline  
Old February 14, 2013, 08:14 AM   #19
Tucker 1371
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 29, 2008
Location: East TN
Posts: 2,035
Quote:
Originally posted by g.willikers
During the podcast, it was pointed out that military training doesn't necessarily include much in the way of handgun training.
The fellow talking was in the Marines, so maybe other branches do include it.
He also said that the emphasis is on precision rifle over long distances.
Very useful in some places, but the lack of training in close, fast rifle training was harmful in others.
Handgun training is primarily for officers, platoon Sergeants, and squad leaders and from what I understand it is purely marksmanship oriented.

As far as an emphasis on precision rifle I have to disagree. Our annual rifle qualification has two tables, 1 & 2, the first being 200-500 yds from various positions. Table 2 is all done at 25 yds with an emphasis on speed and hitting vital areas, center mass, brain stem, pelvic girdle (theoretically a mobility kill).

Besides that there are tables 3 and 4 which don't count towards rifle score but are typically done at least once a year by combat units such as infantry and combat engineers. emphasize facing then firing, firing on the move, magazine changes, and engaging in low light with and without NV and lasers.

I also recently went through some training that involved clearing rooms, every Marine does so at least once at MCT, my unit refreshes on it regularly.

So the podcaster saying we mainly emphasize precision rifle is, IMO, flat out wrong or he could possibly have gotten out of the Corps before the other tables were added to the training regimin.
__________________
NCO of Marines, 3rd Award Expert Rifle, 236 KD Range
D Co, 4th CEB, Engineers UP!! OEF 21JUN-20SEP2011
REV. 19:11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.
Tucker 1371 is offline  
Old February 14, 2013, 10:20 AM   #20
Beretta686
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 11, 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 734
Quote:
Handgun training is primarily for officers, platoon Sergeants, and squad leaders and from what I understand it is purely marksmanship oriented.
In the military, a handgun is largely a status symbol of little practical utility on the battlefield (unless you're a in a high-speed unit). Usually it's carried as a primary arm by guys who never leave the FOB just so they have a weapon. I carried an M9 in Iraq as an Infantry PL on top of an M4, but always figured it was a weapon of last resort or my walking around the FOB weapon.

The Army's "pistol training" is a Death-By-PowerPoint Preliminary Marksmanship Instruction, then you're basically handed a weapon and expected to qualify with it without a Familiarization Fire (unless you're a new cherry 2LT, then you'll often be told to go to Range Control and ask for the M9 Zero Range..... ).

Quote:
Also, what some claim as "inferiority" of the 5.56/223 round on the civilian side is not so much a big deal with the Military because they are supplemented with 7.62NATO, 50BMG, Grenades, Grenade lauchers, and Full-auto capability.
Yup. Most people I hear bitching about the 5.56 or 9mm are arm-chair commandos who don't understand the trade-offs between carrying lots of ammo (5.56) vs. a heavy hitting round(7.62). As you said, there's certain situations where a more powerful round is needed (such as Afghanistan or as a DMR), but I'd take more ammo over more power most any day.
__________________
"Our contract called for 16 cases of rifles and ammunition for $10,000 dollars, not a machine gun...........That is our present to the General"-Pike Bishop

When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.”
Beretta686 is offline  
Old February 15, 2013, 03:23 AM   #21
ClydeFrog
Junior member
 
Join Date: May 1, 2010
Posts: 5,798
Grossman's On Combat & On Killing(2009 ed)....

I would suggest LTC David Grossman's On Killing(2009) & his other book: On Combat.
He explains military structure, training, veteran issues, and the dynamics of the act of killing.
David Grossman retired from the US armed forces & started as a lower enlisted soldier. He also was jump & Ranger qualified.
His points about "personal kills" & how only approx 2% of all active duty troops can kill w/o remorse or be damaged by the combat is worth the read.
LTC Grossman also explains the fact that US Army doctrine/training does not want combat soldiers to kill, but to wound the enemy. This plan(in theory) will cause the enemy to direct troops to aid the wounded/lower morale.
Many people in the general public & some active duty soldiers(in all fields) do not clearly understand that point.

The end goal of the military is NOT to kill but to carry out missions or reach goals. Death is not always required or mandated.

Clyde
PS: He also writes in On Killing that approx 50,000 rounds were expended for EKIA(enemy killed) in the entire SE Asia conflict
ClydeFrog is offline  
Old February 15, 2013, 10:13 AM   #22
kraigwy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 16, 2008
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 9,515
Quote:
PS: He also writes in On Killing that approx 50,000 rounds were expended for EKIA(enemy killed) in the entire SE Asia conflict
Apples and oranges.

I didn't count the shots, but I don't dispute it. It had nothing to do with marksmanship.

In most firefights you never say the enemy. It was one side hidden in a wood line shooting at another side hidden in their wood line.

This was about firepower, not marksmanship.
__________________
Kraig Stuart
CPT USAR Ret
USAMU Sniper School Oct '78
Distinguished Rifle Badge 1071
kraigwy is offline  
Old February 15, 2013, 11:05 AM   #23
Beretta686
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 11, 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 734
Quote:
The end goal of the military is NOT to kill but to carry out missions or reach goals. Death is not always required or mandated.
Exactly

Quote:
PS: He also writes in On Killing that approx 50,000 rounds were expended for EKIA(enemy killed) in the entire SE Asia conflict
I agree with that factually, but as kraigwy pointed out, it's an apples-to-oranges comparison.

I'd venture to say that the rounds-to-boudy-count ratio is even higher in OEF/OIF (or if you really want an interesting figure, I'd like to know how much $$$ per kill we spent).

But often times it doesn't matter if you kill or wound the bad guy. If you're on a convoy to deliver supplies to somewhere and some dusche-bag with an AK opens up on you and you return fire and expend 200 rounds suppressing him without killing him, it's still a success, as you accomplished your mission. Stoping everything you're doing just to go kill some bad-guys often times makes no sense in the broader scheme of things.

Too often folks get obsessed with body counts, as they look good on paper, but just killing people doesn't equal a strategic victory and in fact may be your undoing. But that's a whole other topic we can spend all weekend arguing about.
__________________
"Our contract called for 16 cases of rifles and ammunition for $10,000 dollars, not a machine gun...........That is our present to the General"-Pike Bishop

When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.”
Beretta686 is offline  
Old February 15, 2013, 12:24 PM   #24
sfmedic
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 2, 2012
Location: Currently Erbil, Iraq
Posts: 106
On the handgun aspect

Different tool for different jobs in the military

MPs use them same as any LE

We use them as a secondary in the event that your primary goes down - hence the transitions (drop / and draw)

we use them for CQB in small rooms / aircraft takedowns / bus takedowns

and correct - you cant easily transition military tactics and immediate action drills to the civilian world except in a very small specialized set of missions like hostage rescue.
sfmedic is offline  
Old February 15, 2013, 04:00 PM   #25
ClydeFrog
Junior member
 
Join Date: May 1, 2010
Posts: 5,798
Rates of fire, Macnamera....

I agree with the forum members about the 50,000 round stat(which includes squad automatic weapons, aircraft systems, armor, etc). The book states that military snipers & sharpshooters had a EKIA rate of about 1.4 rounds per enemy dead.

Years ago, I saw & read how JFK's SECDEF; Robert Macnamera(check spelling) was angry over US armed forces in SE Asia not "killing enough" NVA & Viet Kong. He was a business exec for Ford & thought you could apply logistics(weapons troops ammunition) and expect results. Real combat(killing & dying) is not a business model. It's bloody, dangerous & stressful.

Clyde
ClydeFrog is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:46 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.15707 seconds with 9 queries