View Single Post
Old February 13, 2013, 07:41 PM   #14
Senior Member
Join Date: May 11, 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 758
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  
Page generated in 0.03859 seconds with 7 queries