tactical training

The skills involved in hunting are the same skills used in a gun fight.

Again, with all due respect - if Bambi shot back, there would be a lot fewer hunters.

Having gone to a gunfighting class does not somehow convert your skin to armor

I don't think I ever implied that it would, and if i did I certainly did not intend to imply that. But if it did, there would sure be a lot more students looking for classes. :D

I recall an article that appeared in a certain magazine (yes, SWAT) several issues back about a young service member who indicated that knowing the skills he learned in a civilian carbine class might well have kept him from being wounded, had he been taught those skills in his military training. That was a sad story to read. It made a real impression on me. And listening to certain (now) civilian instructor discuss in his typically no-punches-pulled way the shortcomings of military small arms training makes a continued impression as well.

No matter if your gunfight is your first one or just one more in a long line of them, surviving it and prevailing are still challenges best prepared for in advance by training and practice IMHO.

lpl
 
Having gone to war and having ended life in the name of my nation and having been shot at and surviving several RPG and rocket attacks, I disagree that being shot at somehow removes your shooting ability, rockets on the other hand can rock your world to the point where shooting would be difficult for a period.

Animals dont shoot back, I get it and a SD situation is certainly going to up the blood pressure and cause tunnel vision and lack of situational awareness but it doesnt disconnect the trigger finger nor the skills aquired over years and lots of practice.

And as you can see I do agree practice and training is extremely important... Im not saying a pure hunter is going to be trained to the same level what i am saying is it is a skill that can translate to a large degree.

The militarys problem is they need to shoot weekly and not yearly and they need to develop a core of civilian or military instructors who have the lessons of experience. :)
 
Last edited:
I don't argue at all that hunting is not in some ways a useful preparation for fighting. It has long been known as such and practiced as such through human history, all the way back to the day when the primary weapons used were the spear and the bow. This was especially the case when the game being hunted was dangerous game and capable of causing injury or death to the hunter.

Until you have experienced or seen someone else experience the adrenalin reaction and apparent mental disconnects that can happen in the face of an encounter with a sought-after game animal, you don't really appreciate just how much this can be the case. There are lots of stories about hunters suffering from 'buck fever' for example, but I have seen people seemingly lose their minds over a six ounce bobwhite as well. That experience always made me very careful who I went quail hunting with... .

Learning to handle this kind of stress and be 'graceful under pressure' IS very important IMHO, and hunting is one way to learn it. But a good defensive firearms instructor understands the importance of learning to operate under stress, and will therefore deliberately build increasing levels of stress into the training program. Not only does the student get to experience and cope with stress under controlled conditions, the student also gets taught important ways to manage the other half of the gunfight - NOT GETTING SHOT - at the same time. That's something hunting can't do for you, other than by teaching you to choose your hunting partners carefully.

lpl
 
The militarys problem is they need to shoot weekly and not yearly
Click to expand...

Now that is something I can sink my teeth into. Take one days worth of PT per week and donate it to Marksmsnship training.

they need to develop a core of civilian or military instructors who have the lessons of experience.
Click to expand...

Actually that is something that is being done Via the CMP/AMU (Civilian Marksmanship Program & Army Marksmanship Unit). The problem is few units take advantage of the programs.
 
The skills involved in hunting are the same skills used in a gun fight.
Click to expand...

Only your quarry is the most dangerous animal in the world. Capable and cunning. Able to use weapons and counter your "hunting" ability.

The skills may be the same but the level of mastery of those skills needs to be better as does the tactics used in concert with those skills when the "hunted" is dangerous game as man certainly is.
 
In TX, you hunt for deer by laying out corn for several months from a feeder. Then you sit in a blind many yards away from the deer and when the operantly conditioned deer show up on the wrong day (they should learn how to read a calendar), you pop them with a scoped rifle.

Thus, I will carry a bag of corn and carry a Ghillie suit (blind is too heavy) to the convenience store, set up and wait. Or perhaps laying out some dollar bills and beer might be better bait.
 
threegun said:
The skills involved in hunting are the same skills used in a gun fight.

Uh...no.
Click to expand...
What skills are different? Tactics are different but the skill to launch a projectile stays the same.
Click to expand...
There's more to defensive weapons craft that basic marksmanship (although basic marksmanship is still important and regrettably often gets short shrift by those interested in self defense).

Additional defensive skills include: presenting from concealment and getting good hits quickly; moving and shooting; use of cover and concealment; reloading quickly; clearing malfunctions; assessing situations and making difficult shoot/no shoot decisions quickly under stress (which decisions are cued by factors different from those involved in hunting); and dealing with the legal aftermath of a violent encounter.

There's more to hunting than marksmanship, as well. But the additional skills involved in hunting aren't necessarily those involved in self defense.
 
Hunting vs fighting...........both require the end skill of putting a bullet on target. Most of the rest that separate the two are tactics not skill sets.
 
Hunt - when done - eat the target or put head on the wall.

Self-defense fighting - bad idea to eat the bad guy or mount his head.

What does this silly thing mean - that the total package from start to finish in self-defense includes different mindset and outcomes than just the trigger pull of hunting.
 
threegun said:
Hunting vs fighting...........both require the end skill of putting a bullet on target....
Click to expand...
In that case, NRA Bullseye is also the same as fighting -- both also require the end skill of putting the bullet on target.
 
I dunno. Being trained improperly seems to get people killed on a regular basis
Click to expand...

So then, should the fear of training improperly prevent you from training at all? It would seem that an increase in training would help to identify that which is improper, as well as help replace it with that which is correct.

"In any moment of decision the best thing you can do is the right thing, the next best thing is the wrong thing, and the worst thing you can do is nothing"

Theodore Roosevelt
 
In that case, NRA Bullseye is also the same as fighting -- both also require the end skill of putting the bullet on target.
Click to expand...

Both require the same skill to hit a target. You can indeed use bullseye style shooting to fight with. To increase your odds in a fight you add different tactics. Tactics specialized for fighting. For hunting you use tactics so specialized. Still both require the same skill of putting bullets on target.

The skill of using a firearm to place bullets on target is essentially the same. Its the tactics and as Glenn pointed out the after action process that are different.
 
threegun said:
fiddletown said:
In that case, NRA Bullseye is also the same as fighting -- both also require the end skill of putting the bullet on target.
Click to expand...
Both require the same skill to hit a target. You can indeed use bullseye style shooting to fight with. To increase your odds in a fight you add different tactics. Tactics specialized for fighting. For hunting you use tactics so specialized. Still both require the same skill of putting bullets on target.

The skill of using a firearm to place bullets on target is essentially the same. Its the tactics and as Glenn pointed out the after action process that are different.
Click to expand...
So you're basically playing sophistic games with the words "skill" and "tactics."

So you might categorize drawing a gun from concealment and getting good hits quickly; moving and shooting; use of cover and concealment; reloading quickly; clearing malfunctions; assessing situations and making difficult shoot/no shoot decisions quickly under stress (which decisions are cued by factors different from those involved in hunting); and dealing with the legal aftermath of a violent encounter as tactics.

I however consider them to be skills. The Merriam-Webster On-line Dictionary seems to agree with me:
[1]...

[2] a : the ability to use one's knowledge effectively and readily in execution or performance
b : dexterity or coordination especially in the execution of learned physical tasks

[3] : a learned power of doing something competently : a developed aptitude or ability
Click to expand...
 
So you might categorize drawing a gun from concealment and getting good hits quickly; moving and shooting; use of cover and concealment; reloading quickly; clearing malfunctions; assessing situations and making difficult shoot/no shoot decisions quickly under stress (which decisions are cued by factors different from those involved in hunting); and dealing with the legal aftermath of a violent encounter as tactics.
Click to expand...

Many a man has successfully defended himself without the advanced tactics taught today. These guys just used the skill at arms honed on the hunting range.

I won't argue that the additional tactics make one better. Clearly they do. However the fact that gunfights have been won by men with only hunting skills should stand to prove that the basic skills are in fact the same.
 
Last edited:
threegun said:
Many a man has successfully defended himself without the advanced tactics taught today. ...the fact that gunfights have been won by men with only hunting skills should stand to prove that the basic skills are in fact the same.
Click to expand...
Nope. All it proves is that those particular people were able to solve their particular problems with the skills they had at the time. It doesn't consider how things might have turned out if the problems were a little different. It doesn't take into account all the people who lost because their skills at the time were not up to their problems.

See post 39 (emphasis added):
fiddletown said:
...The thing is that if we wind up in a violent confrontation, we can't know ahead of time what will happen and how it will happen. And thus we can't know ahead of time what we will need to be able to do to solve our problem.

If we find ourselves in a violent confrontation, we will respond with whatever skills we have available at the time. If all you know how to do is stand there and shoot, that will probably be what you'll do. It might be good enough, or it might not be.

The more we can do, and the better we can do it, the more likely we'll be to be able to respond appropriately and effectively. The more we can do, and the better we can do it, the luckier we'll be. ]
Click to expand...
 
Accurate: Many a man has successfully defended himself without the advanced tactics taught today.

Inaccurate: These guys just used the skill at arms honed on the hunting range.

Football and golf.
 
Just an observation: I'm always astounded at the number of people who vigorously defend their ignorance online. If you find yourself doing so, it's probably time to ask yourself why you are afraid of learning.

pax
 
How would one know whether a hunter or nonhunter could defend himself adequately without a study of such?

Most incidents don't require much skill. They are deterrent or a simple close range usage.

Hunting with a scoped rifle would have little to do with shooting a handgun at a guy who came through the window.

Maybe if the guy jumped into the air like a clay pigeon, skeet would help.

It is in the intensive incident that training really counts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top