Bad advice from military/law enforcement...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Code:
Might have something to do with the internet. I've done lots of things "pre-internet" that I've found to be impossible or wrong "post internet".

I was just thinking that myself. For instance, using 223 ammo in a 556 gun, apparently can't or shouldn't be done because the internet says so! Even though it has been done for many many years.

I find all to often advice is usually someone just repeating something they heard or were told and is not from their own first hand experience.
 
I was just thinking that myself. For instance, using 223 ammo in a 556 gun, apparently can't or shouldn't be done because the internet says so! Even though it has been done for many many years.

I think they got it backwards, 223 is ok to use in a 5.56, but 5.56 ammo in a 223 can develop dangerously high pressures.
 
Heck, I'm in the military, and I hear stupid advice all the time.

"Watch that weapon, Sergeant. You'll have an ND and bring down the whole airplane."

"Load nothing but tracers in the bottom half of your mag."
 
You might not learn a lot about firearms but you learn how to handle and shoot them effectively. Was good enough for me.
 
Just because they happen to be a cop or military means nothing. The're just guys. In fact it could mean that since guns are associated with their "job", there may some contemp from them towards guns, or the law associated with them.

Play it smart and get your info from a specialist. (Lawyer or enthusiast).;)
 
Many/most cops(specially in urban areas) are not gun guys. They know little more than what is required to pass qualification with the issued firearm. Same with many military personel although they may have experience with more exotic applications.
I have military experience(precision rifle applications) but little of the rattattattat. Some military types with much more shootem up trigger time still come to me for firearms advice simply because they only know about what their unit is issued.
Cops are notoriously poor advisors pertaining to legal issues.
 
I agree that some bad advice can be given even by LEO or Military/Ex-Military guys. There are plenty of LEO's who don't even know some of their local laws or don't shoot as much as civilian firearm enthusiasts do.

Their experience and background is always good, but it takes more than that to be proficient and knowledgable with firearms. Continuing training and education is important too, along with lots of practice.

I have a good friend who is a Veteran Marine and is now a Deputy. Everytime I go to the range and invite him to go, he usually turns me down even if he gets a discount or shoot for free because he's a LEO. And he's not even up to date with my state's CCW laws as much as I am, and hes a cop!
 
As an LEO I have to agree. First, all officers (at least in my state) are competent with their firearms. That said, many of my fellow officers are not “gun guys.” Most officers are not armorers or firearms instructors. While they do qualify with their duty handguns every year, for some it’s simply not their hobby. A couple guys on my department are car guys, and why not? Another important skill an LEO must possess in enhanced driving skills. There are many facets to law enforcement that officers can be interested in other than guns. A few departments I know of have AR-15s in all their squad cars. Some officers personally own AR-15s and know quite a bit about them, others work to learn the platform and become very competent, while some only take the time to learn the basic operation of the gun and get other officers to clean their rifles. There is a reason most departments issue Glocks, and that is because they are simple to operate and easy to maintain.


I have worked in other occupational areas such as retail and utility services before getting into law enforcement. There is definitely more interest in firearms among LEOs than grocery store clerks or gas & water pipe layers. Let us not forget that terms like “expert” and “knowledge” can be very relative. Compared to your average person an LEO is likely to know more about guns than most people. However, it is not uncommon for a civilian to know much more about guns than LEOs. I would guess that a good majority of the LEOs I know personally own firearms; a little under half have a more than average interest in firearms; and about 15-25% could be considered firearm enthusiasts (relative term).


In closing, I would advise using the same level of skepticism on gun info from a random LEO as I would from any stranger in a gun store. Some really know their stuff, while others are talking out of their asses.
 
I have to agree with DRail and Departed

Most service types and LEOs are trained with their service or issue weapons and little else. And what seems to me as minimal levels of training for the most part.

For instance, I was in the Marine Corps in the long ago. In advanced training, I received about two hours of 'training' with the M1911A1 pistol. Most of it was 'keep the muzzle down range' in various colorful language, the next popular subject was how hard the thing kicked and how inaccurate it was; and I think they devoted ten minutes or so to lining up the sights. Then we were directed to the firing line where the pistols were on the bench waiting for us - we didn't walk with them in our hands at all - and I think three pre-loaded magazines with five rounds each. Shoot the ammo and get off the range.

I left a M1911A1 pistol at home when I enlisted and had some idea of how to work it. I was the one eyed man in the land of the blind.

Same with the rifle. We were more seriously trained with the rifle (an M14 in my case). We were 'exposed', or 'familiarization fire' to M60 machineguns and 3.5 inch rocket launchers and LAAW rocket launchers. Very limited.

I went to the Border Patrol Academy and received some fairly serious training on shooting the issue revolver. But it was the revolver only, and only basic marksmanship training. A small amount of 'decision' shooting' on an indoor range with plastic bullets (ten minutes of practical exercise) and a night shoot. It wasn't 'bad', but it was brief. Also some explanation of and fifty or so rounds of shotgun shooting.

Same with U. S. Customs. Good basic instruction, but no depth and nothing about tactics or gunfighting. And ONLY with the issue weapon.

Most of the people with whom I worked could qualify, clean and operate (more or less safely) their issue sidearm. However, with something foreign to them - a model 94 Winchester, for instance - and a box of ammo, most would use the rifle as a club and some few would figure out how to single load it. Perhaps a minority would figure out how to load it. (The lever is pretty obvious.) But only those who knew about them from their private study would be comfortable and have any degree of confidence.

I've been a firearms enthusiast all my life. I've read many books by shooters about shooting. Many of those people had different ideas about how to do things. Some of them had specialties. Most of them have their own particular axe to grind.

I own a fair number of firearms now. I've shot all but a few antiques. And two or three times a week I see something on one of the firearms forums I've NEVER seen! And to be honest, I no longer keep up with 'new' guns. So - just for the tally book - I have my limits.

My suggestion is to research any question of firearms, ammunition or tactics and read several different 'sources'. There is more than one way to accomplish a task, and one size does not fit all.

Except for self defense, a solid hit with a big caliber beats a solid hit with a smaller caliber. Trust me, I'm an expert.
 
It depends on the individual.

You can be pretty sure that a submariner can give you a competent explanation of what "Rig for Dive" means

Well maybe. I get your point and in general agree. Being in the military can mean alot of things and not necessarily "Firearms Expert".
But it depends on the individual as much as MOS. I know SEAL's that aren't gun people (not saying their not Good at what they do, just not all are gun enthusiast).
As for the bubble head above. Maybe he is a gun guy, shoots competitively, attends the Nationals for Service Rifle, and is on the PRP program (Personal Reliability i.e. Reaction Force that guards nukes).

My point is, it depends on the individual more than job title. Military, Law Enforcement or Convenience Store owner.
 
Sure, there are many current and former military/law enforcement personnel who have received advanced training and are also well-versed in civilian firearms. But there are also a lot of those who don't have advanced training and haven't studied up on civilian firearms at all, yet present themselves as firearms experts just because of their military/law enforcement experience.

I agree.

Let me tell where I sit before I tell you where I stand ... I am retired L.E. and cops today are less knowledgeable in firearms than the Old Breed. There is a small group in every department who are well versed in the subject, but they seek further knowledge and take extra training, and do their own research and practice. I competed in the World Police and Fire Games, and this group of cops is very skilled and knowledgeable in the gun world.

A lot of the new hires are folks who never fired a gun, been in a fight, or experienced marriage or a domestic dispute!
 
Last edited:
Bad advice from military/law enforcement...

I've been in the military as an NCO and have had casual dealings with law enforcement. I trust neither the competence of the military nor the integrity of law enforcement.
 
Yep, I have shot real bullets exactly ONCE in the past 6 years for military qualification.

(I feel that is a travesty, and found ways to do a LOT more than that, but 40rds in basic was the last time I was required to fire anything tougher than simunitions.)
 
There is the issue of "my cousin's friend said X" and then there is the issue of the police officer/military guy not knowing their X from a hole in the ground.

I had a bud (real story, I was there) who went to a guy from the SF group on post to put a scope on his hunting rifle. He couldn't figure out why he couldn't get it sighted in. The SF guy had mounted it sideways. Just because someone is SF, Ranger, DELTA, Boy Scouts, or a SEAL doesn't mean they are a weapons expert. Yes, some are the finest in the world, but not all. There are also medics, commo, intel, log, engineer, and many other fields in that world.

We had a young man with us on my last deployment who NEVER left the laundry room for his 15mn tour. I tried many times to get him out of the wire with my patrol, however, he fought to not go. He is a combat vet now. I would not advice someone to take weapons training from him.

Same for police. Many don't like weapons and rarely shoot.

You have to be an educated consumer of info. If it sounds too good to be true (or like crap) odds are it is.

A police or military member who is into weapons and has been there/done that may be a great trainer. However, that does not make all of them so.
 
Theo and Oldgrump summarized the issue quite nicely. Some military and some LEOs are very knowledgeable and competent with firearms. Many, maybe most, are not. Having spent 12 yrs on military active duty, I can attest that most of my competence came from 4 yrs on Navy 4th Naval District pistol team, and my own off-duty practice and experience. When I shoot beside local Maryland LEOs (and in the past PA and NJ LEOs) I am unfortunately generally not impressed by them. Read the recent NY Times article about the NYPD (an organization I worked for for four years) limited training and the results. I will never credit an opinion based on the credentials that "I was in the military..." or "I am/was an LEO..." without other evidence that the individual is competent.
 
I dont know about advive from LEO/military. I suppose the LEO gives advice on what hed like/or what he thinks the law should be..

I do know that on these forums advice is freely given.

I have even noticed successive posts giving advice that is 180 to each other. I usulally post at that time that

"one of you must be wrong."!!!!!
 
For instance, I was in the Marine Corps in the long ago. In advanced training, I received about two hours of 'training' with the M1911A1 pistol. Most of it was 'keep the muzzle down range' in various colorful language, the next popular subject was how hard the thing kicked and how inaccurate it was; and I think they devoted ten minutes or so to lining up the sights. Then we were directed to the firing line where the pistols were on the bench waiting for us - we didn't walk with them in our hands at all - and I think three pre-loaded magazines with five rounds each. Shoot the ammo and get off the range.

I left a M1911A1 pistol at home when I enlisted and had some idea of how to work it. I was the one eyed man in the land of the blind.

Same with the rifle. We were more seriously trained with the rifle (an M14 in my case). We were 'exposed', or 'familiarization fire' to M60 machineguns and 3.5 inch rocket launchers and LAAW rocket launchers. Very limited.

I am not sure what your MOS was, but I do know your experience was far different than mine. I've probably put down 10s of thousands of rounds through various weapons, to include at least a dozen rockets and a few hundred rounds through a Mk-19. Of course, I was an infantry MOS. I also happened to be a squad leader in a good unit. Myself and other squad leaders convinced our CO that cross training (real cross training, not "familiarization") was valuable. Knowing how to pull the trigger on a 240 isn't that hard. Knowing how to set it up and lock it down on a tripod, along with making adjustments given by the A-gunner, takes a few trips to the range. We had that opportunity.

With this being said, the devil is in the details. I'm sure the OP meant "just because someone said it came from military, LEO, etc, don't take it as the gospel." This is true. The military is full of good people with important jobs that will likely never have to fire a gun in a conflict. Hence, they don't particularly train much for it. I do believe ALL LEO's should be able to give basic marksmanship advice. They don't have to be expert on everything that is firearms, but if they can't explain to someone how to shoot accurately then they are a walking liability. Yes, I know there are thousands (if not 10s of thousands) out there. That should be remedied.
 
nor the integrity of law enforcement

This I will fight you over!!! I will work with and trust my life with my brother cops, and put up against any group of civilian workers in this area!!! They die for each other, and overall the integrity of cops vs. others is beyond contestation.

Call a hippie the next time things go bumpy on a dark night, and backup your talk!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top