Does experience trump training?

There are two necessary components to a gunfighter.

1. The willingness to shoot another person full of holes without hesitation or compunction. Your typical gangbanger shoot involves high volumes of typically inaccurate fire, directed into public areas in such a manner that would make most of us cringe. But the banger is driving the OODA loop at that moment because he don't give a damn, so he's filling the air with lead. Occasionally they even hit somebody.

2. The ability to get decisive hits at speed, under varying conditions and stress. This can ruin Mr. Banger's day.

Not everyone has #1 as an ingrained component. Like #2 it can, to a degree, be 'trained around', by teaching conditioned responses. #1 invariably becomes easier for those who have seen a lot of fights- and the determination to keep fighting can make the difference.
 
Last edited:
I'm only referring to experience vs. training in re: to a gunfight. Not all the other aspects of training, such as police training with regards to dealing with suspects.

After the training is all done, the mindset and performance under fire is still untested. Not so with those who have experience but It's still a contest between individuals.

Of course, some aspects of training emphasize cover, waiting for back up, and so forth. As far as the individual contest between participants in a gunfight, there's no difinitive answer to the question of which trumps which.
 
Not trying to be vague, but I would have to say, "Depends on the training and depends on the experience". Not all training and not all experience is equal.
 
I would say experience based on on-going training trumps all. Experience by itself may just count for little to nothing.

I own a weld shop. I've had welders walk in claiming "25 yrs experience". Turns out they have 25 yrs of experience doing it wrong.
 
A little insight on experience from Rory Miller - read the whole thing at the link below.

Force professionals have an advantage. A rookie can model veterans. You hang with the guys who have been doing it awhile, hear the stories, get some tips. It settles into your brain that it is ugly but survivable. You can do this. With luck (I don’t think it was conscious, but looking back we tried to do this) with luck, your first Use of Force will be with an experienced partner who can keep his cool and knows what to do.

None of that exists for a civilian self-defense student. There’s no, “The first time you are attacked, you’ll be with Shelly. She’s been being attacked for years and can show you the ropes…”

For most, if they get any serious violence in their lives, it will only be once. There’s no wading pool for assault.

- http://chirontraining.blogspot.com/2012/01/transitions.html
 
There really isn't anyway good way to get real fighting with weapons experience, on purpose, unless you are the aggressor.
Realistic practice and training are pretty much all the law abiding person has avalible.

Many people think of themselves as experts in firearms, edged weapons, impact weapons and hand to hand fighting, yet they have never been cut, shot at, or punched full force in the face. Many of those people really are proficent experts, despite not having been in a real fight. Some of them aren't.

Some of those people, if they are unfourtanate enough to get in a real fight, will utilize their practice and training and succeed. Some will, despite being well practiced, fail. There is really no way to know until the moment of truth.

I've been unlucky enough to have been in several life or death and possible great bodily harm situations. My physical and mental reactions have run the gambit between, partially frozen with fear, to calm acceptance that I was going to die. All I can say is, obviously I didn't. So even though I've had real life and death experiences, I'm not 100% certain how I will react if one occurs again. I personally don't see how anyone could be 100% certain.

Avoidance and situational awareness are, in my view, the #1 things to practice on, no matter who you are, or your line of work. Not getting in a fight, or at the least, being prepared before the fight starts will always be the best ways of winning.

Zen hat off/
 
I think a lot of you overthink criminals and firefights as a whole. It's the mindset and a few little things here or there that make the difference. It's not "I shoot 10000 rounds a year with this association or that." I'm not saying that doesn't help, but I honestly relate that to the big mouthy bully who hasn't gotten punched in the mouth. Everyone is saying experience is training, but I think that's a misnomer. Training is CONTROLLED experience. It's the same as the close proximity knife vs gun training. You have someone come at you knowing you're about to get "stabbed" so your ready for it. And if not, who cares? It's training and your not bleeding. Now imagine your thought process..ego aside, if that were to really happen.

As far as experienced gang bangers go, its kind of ridiculous to think they're doing military-esque tactics to any sort of success. They're pretty much the same as the bully I stated above. The principles of their tactics MAY be simil
ar, but the execution...not so much. Its like the Iraq military vs the US military in both wars. To say they didn't use military training would be a lie. But they still got run over as a whole in a matter of weeks. That brings me to my next point. While the individual infantryman may not have the experience, his training is based off of the experience of those who have gone before him. Even in one year I noticed the difference in tactics we used thanks to the experience of the year before. This in my opinion shows that there is no one set of tactics to use as an aggressor or victim. Which leads back to my original opinion of it all being mindset. Ever wonder why after 10 years of fighting a much more"inadequate" enemy were still at war? The two things I always preached were communication and situational awareness with the mindset to react accordingly. If you have no one to communicate with, then you damn well better have number two.
 
Last edited:
Experience is the parent of training.

All of the training you guys and gals take, or will take. Is based on someones past experience. Be it LEO, military, or Self Defense.
 
Experience wins over training every time

The Afghan soilder has been mentioned. They have had 23 years of continuous battle experience in fighting the world's best and most powerful forces, including the Russians, Americans, French, British, German, and Canadian forces with little more than AK 47s and RGPs. Yet, nobody can beat them!
 
This is a very interesting question. It's interesting because the answer can be both yes and no.

Experience is on of the greatest teachers bar none. There's an old saying that goes "A man with an experience is never at the mercy of a man with an argument." The lessons learned through experience are invaluable and often are translated into training of others. For example, there used to be a protocol for treating patients with OSA and the same protocol for treatment of patients with COPD. My good friend and Pulmonologist had a patient that needed a particular device for treatment. Normally he would have followed the protocol as with any other physician. His past experience however, had shown him that following this treatment protocol could also have an adverse reaction and spike the patients CO2 levels ultimately leading to death. Today, that protocol has changed nationwide.

However, experience can also lead to bad habits. When I played sports our coach had two sayings. One was "By failing to prepare, you are preparing to fail", and the other was that you could only play as hard as you train to play. Meaning that if you practice half-assing it, you will only be able to half-ass it! A group of terrorist or bank robbers are less likely to strike with the precision of SEAL TEAM 6. Why? Because of lack of preparation as well as other factors.

In conclusion, I believe that both have their place. The more realistic you make your training, the more successful and efficient you will be when the time comes to perform. Train hard and smart. Think of every possible situation and plan for it. Keep an open mind. Hope for the best but plan for the worst. Learn from your experiences and incorporate that into your training.
 
Didn't Cooper say something in Principles of Personal Defense,"Short of extensive personal experience which most of us would rather not amass. . . . . . . ." Training will certainly help one stay alive to learn from any experience. My third son has been to the the middle east on 5 tours. He's been in firefights where he went through 3 combat loads. (900 rounds), would I want him on my side? You bet your sweet bippy I would. I am sure his training helped him stay alive along with his equipment and lots of luck.
Best,
Rob
 
Do we send new soldiers into combat to get experience or do we train them first?

Someone mentioned the Taliban, and that they have generations of experience. True they do, but in a firefight, they stand very little chance against our trained soldiers. (throwing out the air and artty support which rules of engagement limit in Afghan).

Go back to my beloved Paratroopers at Bastogne. The 101st didn't have that much experience, they jumped in June 44, by Christmas they had about 6 months, in and out of combat.

They faced three armored divisions of German soldiers who'd been at it since '39, basicly 5 years vs. 6 months and the paratroopers prevailed.

Nah, experience alone wont cut it.
 
Experience, without training, just means that you aren't long for this world!

If you just plopped someone down in the thick of the Vietnam war with no training, gave them an M16 and a 1911, how long do you think they would have lasted.
 
Let's forget about the experience vs. training thing for a moment. One aspect I think that is left out here is that the law-abiding citizen is far more constrained than the gangbanger. We have to be careful about each and every time we pull the trigger--the experienced felon on the other hand probably finds this to his advantage since he probably isn't going to care who gets hurt or killed and already has divested themselves of any concern for the law.
 
Let's forget about the experience vs. training thing for a moment. One aspect I think that is left out here is that the law-abiding citizen is far more constrained than the gangbanger. We have to be careful about each and every time we pull the trigger--
Click to expand...

That does tend to put us at a natural disadvantage when being engaged by a bad guy. However, even a psychopath doesn't kill just to kill. That person wants something and is willing to kill if necessary to get it. Guns are loud, dead people are hard to dispose of and both bring a lot of unwanted attention to most bad guys (unless its a grudge or vengeance killing). So, a reasonable amount of preparedness on our parts can present a formidable opponent to a bad guy. This is why training is important and probably trumps raw experience.
 
It was said "Do we send new soldiers into combat to get experience or do we train them first?"

Depends - If you have run out of men to fight, as was the case with the German army in WW II, you conscript 15 and 16 year old boys with NO experience.

They also lowered (to 16 years old) the age at which a boy could volunteer. Then they "strongly encouraged" boys to volunteer. They seldom checked a boy's claimed age; there were many 14-year-olds fighting in the German army in the Battle of the Bulge.

Source: http://web.mac.com/davedepickere/World_War_II,_analyzed!/Boy_soldiers_in_the_German_Army.html
 
G1R2 said:
It was said "Do we send new soldiers into combat to get experience or do we train them first?"

Depends - If you have run out of men to fight, as was the case with the German army in WW II, you conscript 15 and 16 year old boys with NO experience....
Click to expand...
Pretty much beside the point. Exigent circumstances often require an extraordinary, and frequently sub-optimal, response.
 
I think the key to take out of that example is that they did it once they had to choose between it and certain defeat. I'm no history expert but the smarter place to look would be what were there ideals right before the war when options were abundant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top