Interesting conversation on civilian vs military training.

G

g.willikers

New member
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.
 
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
 
Your training in the military has a lot to do with your "MOS" job in the military
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
He also said that competition shooters, who excel in handguns and fast rifle use, are increasingly being asked to train military.
Click to expand...

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.
 
g.willikers said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
Last Sundays handgunworld podcast had a very informative and interesting conversation about the differences between todays training of civilians, military and police.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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...
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Handgun training is primarily for officers, platoon Sergeants, and squad leaders and from what I understand it is purely marksmanship oriented.
Click to expand...

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..... :D).

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top