View Full Version : Civilian traing + Mil backround question
So with the new year im looking at getting into a few classes. I have an infantry background and im familiar with the ar15 platform obviously.
I haven't attended any training outside of the military and I'm curious about a few things. I know there are some posts in the past about this but nothing truly addressing my concerns. It may come across as me trying to make a statement but trust me im not im very curious because Im not knowledgeable in these things.
Im looking for some input on what people hope to gain from there courses and why they pick specific ones.
I have to admit I grind my teeth when I read something from a civilian where they imply that they are more competent then military personnel to engage in gunfights. I seem to see a lot of people say "well I would do this and then that...bet the Deployed guys don't know that..." When they've never been in combat or shot at anything that isn't paper. Real world experience is worth all the training in the world in my opinion Which leads me to my next thought.
** Disclaimer, Ill be the first one to say many military personnel, although effective in combat have never fine tuned their skills and are pretty brutish and misinformed as to effective procedures.
Example: Gieger Tigers banging their mags on there kevlars before inserting it... Seriously wtf I hate seeing that.
I have a friend who ive been trying to convince to attend with me. Lots of people say go with a buddy. He has four years of active service as an Infantry rifleman two tours in Iraq and a contracting position in Afgan under his belt.
He makes a good point in that " what are they going to teach me that I haven't learned or encountered kicking doors in for 16 hours a day...?" He put a stick my my spokes. Hes right in that if its worked this far why change what we know? Now im thinking aren't most trainers former military and where did they learn there specialized skills outside of military doctrine? Im thinking their skill sets add more to individual tactics as opposed to team tactics, correct me if im wrong. And there are some civilian trainers as well correct? I don't know how to feel about that, please give me some insight on that.
Weren't these type of classes initially created to prepare civilian contractors for work in Iraq/Afgan? While looking around trying to familiarize myself with the community ive seen a lot of civilian MOUT(shoot houses) and other training with people wearing full protective gear and combat load outs. I don't really understand this.
Any and all input would be appreciated, I posted here as opposed to Lightfighter for a broader audience of Civilian,LEO, and MIL. I know this place has serious shooters and industry pros. I never considered AR15.com for obvious reasons, Im not even a member.
Its hard to find much out of NY in my area I plan of traveling to the Charlotte NC area which is my future residence.
Failure2Stop
01-03-12, 12:39
The kind of training available on the market today places heavy emphasis on individual proficiency instead of team/squad/plt/company proficiency. They have a much higher degree of precision in individual coaching and performance bench-marks. They are more able and apt to change with newer TTPs. The instructors tend to come from a background with higher than average performance goals at all levels and they maintain contact with people all over the world with a variety of applications and skill requirements. They are not forced to "dumb-down" training to a perceived lowest common demoninator. They have years (if not decades) of experience in getting the highest level of performance in the shortest amount of time. They do not have to adhere to archaic range regulations published in the 385-63. They know what they are talking about and can perform tasks and standards on demand, not junior enlisted that fill in knowledge gaps with myths and fantasy. Their student base covers everyone from high level competitive shooter to SWAT members to Tier 1 operators. They see numerous different platforms and employment methods and therefore have a greater appreciation for what those changes really mean. Many instructors come from a Tier 1 or high performance background, which is rarely found in the training that is bulk-packaged and delivered to conventional units.
Students in most of these classes will shoot more in a 2-day class than most do in a year, with each and every round serving a purpose and with a lesson attached.
Above all, the instructors have to earn their pay, and the students expect to get their money's worth.
I say this being a professional instructor, former military instructor, multiple tour combat veteran, and former junior enlisted dude with more opinions than knowledge. After spending time with me (while I was still in), and seeing what lies on the other side of the coin and a little urging, many of my good friends invested their own money to attend training, and I have not yet heard any of them say that their time or money was wasted.
Now, there are some very good military schools out there, but there are very few outside Tier 1 units that get the level of individual training that a good class will provide.
The kind of training available on the market today places heavy emphasis on individual proficiency instead of team/squad/plt/company proficiency. They have a much higher degree of precision in individual coaching and performance bench-marks. They are more able and apt to change with newer TTPs. The instructors tend to come from a background with higher than average performance goals at all levels and they maintain contact with people all over the world with a variety of applications and skill requirements. They are not forced to "dumb-down" training to a perceived lowest common demoninator. They have years (if not decades) of experience in getting the highest level of performance in the shortest amount of time. They do not have to adhere to archaic range regulations published in the 385-63. They know what they are talking about and can perform tasks and standards on demand, not junior enlisted that fill in knowledge gaps with myths and fantasy. Their student base covers everyone from high level competitive shooter to SWAT members to Tier 1 operators. They see numerous different platforms and employment methods and therefore have a greater appreciation for what those changes really mean. Many instructors come from a Tier 1 or high performance background, which is rarely found in the training that is bulk-packaged and delivered to conventional units.
Students in most of these classes will shoot more in a 2-day class than most do in a year, with each and every round serving a purpose and with a lesson attached.
Above all, the instructors have to earn their pay, and the students expect to get their money's worth.
I say this being a professional instructor, former military instructor, multiple tour combat veteran, and former junior enlisted dude with more opinions than knowledge. After spending time with me (while I was still in), and seeing what lies on the other side of the coin and a little urging, many of my good friends invested their own money to attend training, and I have not yet heard any of them say that their time or money was wasted.
Now, there are some very good military schools out there, but there are very few outside Tier 1 units that get the level of individual training that a good class will provide.
thank you for taking the time to post this. Sums it up very nicely.
I have to admit I grind my teeth when I read something from a civilian where they imply that they are more competent then military personnel to engage in gunfights. I seem to see a lot of people say "well I would do this and then that...bet the Deployed guys don't know that..." When they've never been in combat or shot at anything that isn't paper. Real world experience is worth all the training in the world in my opinion
FWIW I think you're viewing things through a skewed lens.
In my experience, anyone outside of the very pointy tip of the spear or who has a very high (and rare) level of personal commitment and interest in marksmanship and firearms, is lacking in their ability to shoot. Shoot. not fight. I'm not qualified to comment on fighting. But 100% of the time the people I have shot with (and against, in matches) that have relied solely on their military training (outside of marksmanship teams) in terms of shooting have performed less well than all of the other shooters with multiple commercial training classes. I have never seen a shooter with only military training win a match, and never seen one take high shooter in a class. This applies to cops as well, FWIW.
This gets misconstrued as "you're saying you could beat me at a fight or perform better than me in combat" which is not the same thing.
This is purely my experience, so take it for what it's worth.
My dad is a CSM and has been in the military in a large range of capacities. He has been through several multi-week weapon- and -shooting-related courses including an SDM course where he was ringing steel out to 600 meters.
Upon his return from deployment to Afghanistan, I convinced him to go with me to Pat Roger's carbine operator course. After those three days, he remarked that he had learned more about gunfighting and the ability to manipulate the weapon at the individual level than any training the military had ever given him.
Submariner
01-03-12, 14:05
Upon his return from deployment to Afghanistan, I convinced him to go with me to Pat Roger's carbine operator course. After those three days, he remarked that he had learned more about gunfighting and the ability to manipulate the weapon at the individual level than any training the military had ever given him.
Any chance you can get your Dad to respond to this thread? I believe what you say, having heard it from individuals at Pat's classes of similar background.
No, he won't make a post himself. If you have a specific question, I'd be happy to give him a call and get an answer. I thought that my dad's background would make his observation relevant to the OP's question, and my intent was simply to relay what he expressed to me after we took the class.
RogerinTPA
01-03-12, 16:08
Approach all training, outside the military, with an open mind. I'm a retired Army Officer 15C35D & former Enlisted 11BVP. I was very skeptical of the training value in taking civilian classes. I learned pistol and rifle marksmanship in the Military and not real gun fighting TTPs. I started taking pistol classes locally and learned how to effectively employ my CCW. Eventually, I made my way onto this forum, then taking a Vickers Tactical basic pistol and carbine course, was my first formal instruction with the carbine, and learned from a former special operations "Operator" from a Tier 1 SMU, that effectively did bad things to bad people for a living, for a very long time, was an added bonus. That was were my "epiphany" occurred, where I realized that I was just practicing "marksmanship" during my own range time, in the same way I had done for years in the military and on several rifle teams. Larry's instruction was an eye opening. I personally ate some humble pie in the fact that his class showed me what I didn't know...how to use my pistol and carbine more efficiently and effectively. Way more than I ever learned in the Army.
I attended more advanced training with others from his former unit, which was another eye opener, as well as a couple of Pat Rogers classes, and civilian instructor Randy Cane at Cumberland Tactics. I mentioned Randy because I used to have a bias against civilian/police instructors without a Tier 1 background, but again, I was wrong. His CQT (Close Quarters Tactics) class was excellent. Shooting from bad breath distance and very physical 'hand to hand' blocks of instruction. A lot of life saving practical information was given. I thoroughly enjoyed them all, learned a hell of a lot, and have had a hell of a lot of fun. There are tons of excellent instructors in the Training Forums, and from other members recommendations on M4C. Too bad they are all not located or train in FL or the SE. I would have loved to taken them all.
The most important thing is to not close your mind off to new and different instruction and have a sense of humor. Don't be so arrogant that you won't let the instruction sink in or won't take friendly advice from fellow class mates. Check out every ones gear, ask questions, take notes. See what works for you.
The kind of training available on the market today places heavy emphasis on individual proficiency instead of team/squad/plt/company proficiency. They have a much higher degree of precision in individual coaching and performance bench-marks. They are more able and apt to change with newer TTPs. The instructors tend to come from a background with higher than average performance goals at all levels and they maintain contact with people all over the world with a variety of applications and skill requirements. They are not forced to "dumb-down" training to a perceived lowest common demoninator. They have years (if not decades) of experience in getting the highest level of performance in the shortest amount of time. They do not have to adhere to archaic range regulations published in the 385-63. They know what they are talking about and can perform tasks and standards on demand, not junior enlisted that fill in knowledge gaps with myths and fantasy. Their student base covers everyone from high level competitive shooter to SWAT members to Tier 1 operators. They see numerous different platforms and employment methods and therefore have a greater appreciation for what those changes really mean. Many instructors come from a Tier 1 or high performance background, which is rarely found in the training that is bulk-packaged and delivered to conventional units.
Students in most of these classes will shoot more in a 2-day class than most do in a year, with each and every round serving a purpose and with a lesson attached.
Above all, the instructors have to earn their pay, and the students expect to get their money's worth.
I say this being a professional instructor, former military instructor, multiple tour combat veteran, and former junior enlisted dude with more opinions than knowledge. After spending time with me (while I was still in), and seeing what lies on the other side of the coin and a little urging, many of my good friends invested their own money to attend training, and I have not yet heard any of them say that their time or money was wasted.
Now, there are some very good military schools out there, but there are very few outside Tier 1 units that get the level of individual training that a good class will provide.
Wow thank you for writing that out. Your right about trying to fill the masses with limited knowledge its hard enough getting a squad in shape, I never really thought about it that way.
FWIW I think you're viewing things through a skewed lens.
In my experience, anyone outside of the very pointy tip of the spear or who has a very high (and rare) level of personal commitment and interest in marksmanship and firearms, is lacking in their ability to shoot. Shoot. not fight. I'm not qualified to comment on fighting. But 100% of the time the people I have shot with (and against, in matches) that have relied solely on their military training (outside of marksmanship teams) in terms of shooting have performed less well than all of the other shooters with multiple commercial training classes. I have never seen a shooter with only military training win a match, and never seen one take high shooter in a class. This applies to cops as well, FWIW.
This gets misconstrued as "you're saying you could beat me at a fight or perform better than me in combat" which is not the same thing.
Im without a doubt sure that many people can out shoot me. Anyone who thinks their Military supplied shooting skills are all they'll ever need are greatly mislead.
I guess ive been misinterpreting their intent when I read comments like that. In reality im new to a civilian shooting community outside of hunting and just shooting what ever I was allowed to as a kid.
Im under the impression that a lot of classes are tactics based with a large emphasis on marksmanship. How does that transfer to a civilian trainer? Does anyone have any hesitations about that?
This is purely my experience, so take it for what it's worth.
My dad is a CSM and has been in the military in a large range of capacities. He has been through several multi-week weapon- and -shooting-related courses including an SDM course where he was ringing steel out to 600 meters.
Upon his return from deployment to Afghanistan, I convinced him to go with me to Pat Roger's carbine operator course. After those three days, he remarked that he had learned more about gunfighting and the ability to manipulate the weapon at the individual level than any training the military had ever given him.
Approach all training, outside the military, with an open mind. I'm a retired Army Officer 15C35D & former Enlisted 11BVP. I was very skeptical of the training value in taking civilian classes. I learned pistol and rifle marksmanship in the Military and not real gun fighting TTPs. I started taking pistol classes locally and learned how to effectively employ my CCW. Eventually, I made my way onto this forum, then taking a Vickers Tactical basic pistol and carbine course, was my first formal instruction with the carbine, and learned from a former special operations "Operator" from a Tier 1 SMU, that effectively did bad things to bad people for a living, for a very long time, was an added bonus. That was were my "epiphany" occurred, where I realized that I was just practicing "marksmanship" during my own range time, in the same way I had done for years in the military and on several rifle teams. Larry's instruction was an eye opening. I personally ate some humble pie in the fact that his class showed me what I didn't know...how to use my pistol and carbine more efficiently and effectively. Way more than I ever learned in the Army.
I attended more advanced training with others from his former unit, which was another eye opener, as well as a couple of Pat Rogers classes, and civilian instructor Randy Cane at Cumberland Tactics. I mentioned Randy because I used to have a bias against civilian/police instructors without a Tier 1 background, but again, I was wrong. His CQT (Close Quarters Tactics) class was excellent. Shooting from bad breath distance and very physical 'hand to hand' blocks of instruction. A lot of life saving practical information was given. I thoroughly enjoyed them all, learned a hell of a lot, and have had a hell of a lot of fun. There are tons of excellent instructors in the Training Forums, and from other members recommendations on M4C. Too bad they are all not located or train in FL or the SE. I would have loved to taken them all.
The most important thing is to not close your mind off to new and different instruction and have a sense of humor. Don't be so arrogant that you won't let the instruction sink in or won't take friendly advice from fellow class mates. Check out every ones gear, ask questions, take notes. See what works for you.
Im glad both of you shared a similar experience. Although ive always known id learn something, I just wasn't sure if it would go against the grain so to speak.
I would love to get some pistol courses in, But in NY it hard enough just to get a pistol permit let alone find a class.
Cant wait for NC
USMC_Anglico
01-03-12, 17:51
I'm someone who has pursued training on my own dime for over 10 years. During that time I've been to Astan with the military. Everything I learned/fine tuned/practiced in those classes has been directly applicable to the world of the grunt.
Think about it this way, the military teaches skills to the lowest common denominator (outside of SMU, etc.). They expect you to rely on your squad/platoon, etc. to get the job done. I view the civilian training (much of it by former .mil and or LEO) as higher level learning (ie. high school vs. university)
Find good training with good instructors and you will not be disappointed. It is money well spent. As far as your friend, tell him to put his $ where his mouth is and try a class. It will be an eye opener.
Lastly look around, we have some good trainers coming to NY, Jason Falla being one.
I'll support the general sentiment here and add a few things.
First, civilian schools do a much better job of training individual skills such as weapons manipulation and marksmanship than the military does for the average combat arms MOS soldier.
Civilians with no military experience who have attended multiple carbine classes are going to perform better on the range and in competitions than the average Infantrymen.
It's a matter of focus and priority. Let's look at a 3 gun competitor. He or she has 3 things to focus on. Put simply...to be fast and accurate with a rifle, pistol, and shotgun.
Now compare that 3 gun competitor to an Infantry Soldier or Marine. Here's just a random list of just some of the things an AVERAGE Infantrymen knows and is good at:
- First Aid / CPR
- Calling for Indirect Fire (this implies a detailed knowledge of
capabilities for a variety of IDF platforms)
- Conducting MEDEVAC / CASEVAC both air and ground.
- Maintaining / operating a variety of combat vehicles.
- Map reading / Land Navigation.
- How to operate and maintain a variety of communications
platforms.
- How to react to a Nuclear, Biological, or Chemical attack.
- How to give a variety of reports (SALTUR, SPOT, etc.)
- Setting up a CROW turret.
- Operating a TOW, ITAS, LRAS, etc.
- Identifying enemy equipment / uniforms.
- Field Sanitation procedures.
- Cultural Training (how to interact with foreign nationals)
- Afghan / Iraqi Army rank structure and TTP's
- ETC ETC ETC I could make this list 10 pages long.
See what I'm getting at? That 3 gun shooter will outshoot that soldier every day of the week. But ask him to lead a squad in Afghanistan and he is going to fail miserably.
So, the key takeaways here are:
- If you're in a military unit that doesn't have the budget, resources, or will to provide "carbine class" style training to you, seek it out on your own. It's worth it.
- If you are a Soldier, Marine, Sailor, whatever...and think that your military training alone makes you an "expert" with an AR15 you are likely wrong and have much to learn.
- If you are a civilian who thinks that just because you can outshoot the soldier next to you that you are a more proficient "warfighter," you don't know the first thing about fighting a war and the vast amount of knowledge / skill it requires outside of shooting alone.
I'll support the general sentiment here and add a few things.
First, civilian schools do a much better job of training individual skills such as weapons manipulation and marksmanship than the military does for the average combat arms MOS soldier.
Civilians with no military experience who have attended multiple carbine classes are going to perform better on the range and in competitions than the average Infantrymen.
It's a matter of focus and priority. Let's look at a 3 gun competitor. He or she has 3 things to focus on. Put simply...to be fast and accurate with a rifle, pistol, and shotgun.
Now compare that 3 gun competitor to an Infantry Soldier or Marine. Here's just a random list of just some of the things an AVERAGE Infantrymen knows and is good at:
- First Aid / CPR
- Calling for Indirect Fire (this implies a detailed knowledge of
capabilities for a variety of IDF platforms)
- Conducting MEDEVAC / CASEVAC both air and ground.
- Maintaining / operating a variety of combat vehicles.
- Map reading / Land Navigation.
- How to operate and maintain a variety of communications
platforms.
- How to react to a Nuclear, Biological, or Chemical attack.
- How to give a variety of reports (SALTUR, SPOT, etc.)
- Setting up a CROW turret.
- Operating a TOW, ITAS, LRAS, etc.
- Identifying enemy equipment / uniforms.
- Field Sanitation procedures.
- Cultural Training (how to interact with foreign nationals)
- Afghan / Iraqi Army rank structure and TTP's
- ETC ETC ETC I could make this list 10 pages long.
See what I'm getting at? That 3 gun shooter will outshoot that soldier every day of the week. But ask him to lead a squad in Afghanistan and he is going to fail miserably.
So, the key takeaways here are:
- If you're in a military unit that doesn't have the budget, resources, or will to provide "carbine class" style training to you, seek it out on your own. It's worth it.
- If you are a Soldier, Marine, Sailor, whatever...and think that your military training alone makes you an "expert" with an AR15 you are likely wrong and have much to learn.
- If you are a civilian who thinks that just because you can outshoot the soldier next to you that you are a more proficient "warfighter," you don't know the first thing about fighting a war and the vast amount of knowledge / skill it requires outside of shooting alone.
Extremely well put. :dirol:
Taking an 18 year old kid and turning him into a warfighter in 6 months or so requires a balancing act of what to train on. This and F2S's post #2 really hit home and verge on sticky material in my mind. "Combat Veterans: read this first"
SeriousStudent
01-03-12, 19:15
.................
- If you are a civilian who thinks that just because you can outshoot the soldier next to you that you are a more proficient "warfighter," you don't know the first thing about fighting a war and the vast amount of knowledge / skill it requires outside of shooting alone.
Well said. As a former knuckle-dragger myself, I took great offense to the "dumb grunt" label that was often applied to us. I really appreciated your original question, and how you asked it.
Jsop, I used to feel much as you mentioned. I was an 0331, and a squad leader. I have learned that there is much difference between the employment of weapons systems at the fire team and squad level, and the skill with a particular weapon.
And think how much better you can train your Marines! If I were still carrying a musket and a cutlass, I'd be thrilled to death to take a class from Failure2Stop, and pass that instruction onto my Lance Criminals.
After all, the guy wrote the book - the new one, that is. :D
Lastly look around, we have some good trainers coming to NY, Jason Falla being one.
Yea I contacted him about his class. Im still waiting on my permit, who knows when that will come threw. Its been a good while since I had any extended time behind a pistol so I may be on a huge time crunch that im not willing to slow a class down on my behalf for. My first class will actually be a basic Carbine course, and I was apprehensive about that at first but its cheap $200 and I think ill learn a good few things. Cant hurt.
I'll support the general sentiment here and add a few things.....
Many good points there. I didnt want to quote the whole thing again but you addressed a lot of questions.
When you said "Civilian schools" do you mean taught by civilians or schools for civilians? If you mean the later I completely agree. I was taught in infantry school the magwell hold is THE BEST way to hold any M16 M4...
And think how much better you can train your Marines! If I were still carrying a musket and a cutlass, I'd be thrilled to death to take a class from Failure2Stop, and pass that instruction onto my Lance Criminals.
After all, the guy wrote the book - the new one, that is. :D
I was thinking this^
Someone told me once " A good leader always strives to be better than the ones he followed"
Failure2Stop Where do you teach out of? You seem like a no BS guy.
Failure2Stop
01-03-12, 20:44
PM outbound.
QuietShootr
01-03-12, 21:07
To be fair, he did leave out
-Floor buffer races
-scrubbing the finish off the guts of new M4s with Simple Green and 3M green pads because the armorer insists they aren't CLEAN, knowing this is a no-win argument and you're tired and just want to get the **** out of the barracks for the night, so you just do it
-Camouflage and reflective belts. Simultaneously.
-Racist minority staff NCOs
-Leadership ability can be directly measured by run times
-Taking three weeks to learn something a respectable civilian school teaches in a day
and a host of other stuff not having a thing to do with the ultimate goal, which is locating, closing with, and destroying the enemy.
:D
JSOP, something to keep in mind as I'm not sure this has been clarified, the only training courses blessed off by this community, while open to civilians, are NOT taught by "civilians". Look at the backgrounds of the guys teaching the courses worth going too and you will be more than convinced they have something to teach you. They have all put in their time on the two way range and most started their instructor careers in the military training high speed types or in very large city SWAT units.
Nobody is going to recommend some bullshit class by a 25 year old with a shitty goatee (some one please post that picture) who has no operational experience, know what I mean?
Stop listening to the pal that thinks he already knows everything he will ever need to know. It's truly odd for him to have his attitude after having come from the military, gotten away from the single-source training cycle, experienced somebody else's vetting/train-up process, and still think that single-source training with NO realistic sustainment is the right answer.
He's either extraordinarily stubborn or has a learning disability. Either way, I'd cock an eyebrow about anything he has to say in regard to training, and bounce it off of some other, disinterested party before taking it to heart.
Since the dawn of time, precisely ZERO people have fast-roped down their mom's unbilical cord knowing everything they need to know. They have to be taught, and that knowledge has to be periodically sustained, and doing it from only one source is limiting...not purifying.
OP, interesting topic and one that does come up from time to time.
F2S did an excellent job in his post so there really isn't much to add, but would like to throw my .02 on a couple of the comments.
The commercial training market is wide open. You can find everything from tactical medicine to jungle survival to CQB. IMHO, there are two main camps in the Civy training world. One is playing "Man Camp" and the other learning how to shoot and fight with a firearm. The man camp type training companies typically have you fire large amounts of ammo without much concern for accuracy. They are attempting to give the guy that has never been in the Military, the "Feel" of a gun fight. To me, this does them a great disservice (as they never really learn how to shoot) and when they go to an Instructor like Hackathorn or Vickers, they find out that they suck.
I attend a lot of classes taught by former Tier One guys and or instructors that teach Tier One guys. I have seen everything from Force Recon/SF/PJ/SEAL/Ranger/Delta/FBI/ICE/USM/ATF/SWAT, etc in these classes. The majority of them cannot shoot as well as a Civy whose passion is shooting and believe me, there are some Civy's on here that will "burn you down" with any weapon. While the majority of the .Mil and LE guys that come to Civy/open enrollment classes are cool guys, there are some that come in with the attitude that they are going to "show" everyone how awesome they are with a gun. This rarely works out for them.
In regards to the comments about shooting a gun (at paper targets) and "fighting" with a gun (against real bad guys), the principles are the same. You have to get good hits in order to win the fight. So without bringing team tactics and everything else into the discussion, the better shooter is going to have a better chance of winning the "fight" as they will put rounds on target more accurately. This is why Tier 1 units spend so much MORE time, energy and ammo on individual proficiency with a pistol/long gun.
I think it is great that you are seeking training outside of what the Military has offered you (smart man). I will leave you this one last thought from one of my favorite instructors. At a low light CQB class, one of the students asked if what we (Civy's) we were being taught was similar to what the Military receives. The instructor quickly pointed out that the material we were covering was BETTER than what 95% of the Military units receive.
C4
QuietShootr
01-04-12, 10:56
While the majority of the .Mil and LE guys that come to Civy/open enrollment classes are cool guys, there are some that come in with the attitude that they are going to "show" everyone how awesome they are with a gun. This rarely works out for them.
In regards to the comments about shooting a gun (at paper targets) and "fighting" with a gun (against real bad guys), the principles are the same. You have to get good hits in order to win the fight. So without bringing team tactics and everything else into the discussion, the better shooter is going to have a better chance of winning the "fight" as they will put rounds on target more accurately. This is why Tier 1 units spend so much MORE time, energy and ammo on individual proficiency with a pistol/long gun.
I think it is great that you are seeking training outside of what the Military has offered you (smart man). I will leave you this one last thought from one of my favorite instructors. At a low light CQB class, one of the students asked if what we (Civy's) we were being taught was similar to what the Military receives. The instructor quickly pointed out that the material we were covering was BETTER than what 95% of the Military units receive.
C4
That's a bitter pill to swallow for someone who's been continually, institutionally told they're the best of the baddest mother****ers around. I was an 11B, too, OP. I thought I knew shit. Turned out I was right -I did know SHIT. I have since rectified that, and opened my mind to the fact that this is a journey, not a destination. There will always be a new TTP to learn, a new skill to be polished, or a new way to do something, and part of being an advanced student is not allowing your training to ossify into what you learned once and thereafter got away with. And another big part of it is...well...see my sig line.
the first step in becoming highly skilled is the realization that just because you did something a few times, and survived, doesn't mean it was a valid tactic - it just means you were lucky or better ENOUGH than the other guy to make it work anyway.
Free your mind, and your ass will follow:D
Since the dawn of time, precisely ZERO people have fast-roped down their mom's unbilical cord knowing everything they need to know.
That sentence is full of truth and awesome.
That's a bitter pill to swallow for someone who's been continually, institutionally told they're the best of the baddest mother****ers around. I was an 11B, too, OP. I thought I knew shit. Turned out I was right -I did know SHIT. I have since rectified that, and opened my mind to the fact that this is a journey, not a destination. There will always be a new TTP to learn, a new skill to be polished, or a new way to do something, and part of being an advanced student is not allowing your training to ossify into what you learned once and thereafter got away with. And another big part of it is...well...see my sig line.
the first step in becoming highly skilled is the realization that just because you did something a few times, and survived, doesn't mean it was a valid tactic - it just means you were lucky or better ENOUGH than the other guy to make it work anyway.
Free your mind, and your ass will follow:D
You are a wise man my friend. ;)
C4
OP, interesting topic and one that does come up from time to time.
F2S did an excellent job in his post so there really isn't much to add, but would like to throw my .02 on a couple of the comments.
The commercial training market is wide open. You can find everything from tactical medicine to jungle survival to CQB. IMHO, there are two main camps in the Civy training world. One is playing "Man Camp" and the other learning how to shoot and fight with a firearm. The man camp type training companies typically have you fire large amounts of ammo without much concern for accuracy. They are attempting to give the guy that has never been in the Military, the "Feel" of a gun fight. To me, this does them a great disservice (as they never really learn how to shoot) and when they go to an Instructor like Hackathorn or Vickers, they find out that they suck.
I attend a lot of classes taught by former Tier One guys and or instructors that teach Tier One guys. I have seen everything from Force Recon/SF/PJ/SEAL/Ranger/Delta/FBI/ICE/USM/ATF/SWAT, etc in these classes. The majority of them cannot shoot as well as a Civy whose passion is shooting and believe me, there are some Civy's on here that will "burn you down" with any weapon. While the majority of the .Mil and LE guys that come to Civy/open enrollment classes are cool guys, there are some that come in with the attitude that they are going to "show" everyone how awesome they are with a gun. This rarely works out for them.
In regards to the comments about shooting a gun (at paper targets) and "fighting" with a gun (against real bad guys), the principles are the same. You have to get good hits in order to win the fight. So without bringing team tactics and everything else into the discussion, the better shooter is going to have a better chance of winning the "fight" as they will put rounds on target more accurately. This is why Tier 1 units spend so much MORE time, energy and ammo on individual proficiency with a pistol/long gun.
I think it is great that you are seeking training outside of what the Military has offered you (smart man). I will leave you this one last thought from one of my favorite instructors. At a low light CQB class, one of the students asked if what we (Civy's) we were being taught was similar to what the Military receives. The instructor quickly pointed out that the material we were covering was BETTER than what 95% of the Military units receive.
C4
I completely agree except for the shooting paper and people being the same, this is off topic and im not saying your wrong I just see it different. In that sense I do see shooting clay pigeons and Ducks the same. I may be wrong but I don't think anyone can be desensitized enough to pull a trigger on another human without a fraction of hesitation, MIL,Civ,LEO alike.
And I couldn't agree more about the CQB training unfortunately.
I completely agree except for the shooting paper and people being the same, this is off topic and im not saying your wrong I just see it different. In that sense I do see shooting clay pigeons and Ducks the same. I may be wrong but I don't think anyone can be desensitized enough to pull a trigger on another human without a fraction of hesitation, MIL,Civ,LEO alike.
And I couldn't agree more about the CQB training unfortunately.
I don't think I articulated the paper vs people comment well enough. My point wasn't to desensitize what it is like to shoot real people, but in the fact that the fundamentals are always the same (get good hits)! With all things being equal, a better shooter is a better shooter and has a higher probability of going home.
C4
That's a bitter pill to swallow for someone who's been continually, institutionally told they're the best of the baddest mother****ers around. I was an 11B, too, OP. I thought I knew shit. Turned out I was right -I did know SHIT. I have since rectified that, and opened my mind to the fact that this is a journey, not a destination. There will always be a new TTP to learn, a new skill to be polished, or a new way to do something, and part of being an advanced student is not allowing your training to ossify into what you learned once and thereafter got away with. And another big part of it is...well...see my sig line.
the first step in becoming highly skilled is the realization that just because you did something a few times, and survived, doesn't mean it was a valid tactic - it just means you were lucky or better ENOUGH than the other guy to make it work anyway.
Free your mind, and your ass will follow:D
It is hard to humble yourself and accept your not the bad ass your 19 year old self thought you were.
As for my friend I see where hes coming from but he is a stubborn bitch! his loss though.
I don't think I articulated the paper vs people comment well enough. My point wasn't to desensitize what it is like to shoot real people, but in the fact that the fundamentals are always the same (get good hits)! With all things being equal, a better shooter is a better shooter and has a higher probability of going home.
C4
Oh I stand corrected. You are 100% right about that. Skill is skill regardless of where it was acquired.
Heavy Metal
01-04-12, 12:12
the first step in becoming highly skilled is the realization that just because you did something a few times, and survived, doesn't mean it was a valid tactic - it just means you were lucky or better ENOUGH than the other guy to make it work anyway.
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is King.......still doesn't make me want to put one eye out!
JSOP, something to keep in mind as I'm not sure this has been clarified, the only training courses blessed off by this community, while open to civilians, are NOT taught by "civilians". Look at the backgrounds of the guys teaching the courses worth going too and you will be more than convinced they have something to teach you. They have all put in their time on the two way range and most started their instructor careers in the military training high speed types or in very large city SWAT units.
Nobody is going to recommend some bullshit class by a 25 year old with a shitty goatee (some one please post that picture) who has no operational experience, know what I mean?
Agreed to a certain extent, but if some one like Rob S were to offer a class I would gladly take it from him - it is my understanding is that he is not prior military or LE, just a private citizen that has taken it upon himself to train to a high standard. I do think that operational experience is a very positive thing in an instructor, and that you can NOT have a well rounded training cadre without some high level operational experience. But certain well qualified shooters without operational experience have a lot to teach folks.
Agreed to a certain extent, but if some one like Rob S were to offer a class I would gladly take it from him - it is my understanding is that he is not prior military or LE, just a private citizen that has taken it upon himself to train to a high standard. I do think that operational experience is a very positive thing in an instructor, and that you can NOT have a well rounded training cadre without some high level operational experience. But certain well qualified shooters without operational experience have a lot to teach folks.
Agreed 100%, I didn't mean to down talk anyone.
Food for thought: For a long time .mil folks have sent their best and brightest to civilian shooting schools to get better at shooting (please note the word shooting, not gunfighting, tactics, etc). Ron Shaws Mid-South Institute of Self Defense is the grand daddy of them all. You want to be able to run a pistol blistering fast? Todd Jarrett can teach you, and Mid-South brings him out to do just that. Mid-South has world class competitive shooters teach how to shoot, and doesn't focus too hard on tactics.
Down here in Texas the shooting portion of the SDM classes at Camp Swift and other places are taught almost exclusively by civilians. Folks with the Presidents 100 tab, and a Distinguished Rifle medal.
If you want to get better at shooting, seek out training from folks who do it for a living. Take what they teach, filter it through your needs as a solider and keep what works. Going to any of the former Tier 1 instructors (Howe, Vickers, Lamb, McNamara, etc.) basically lets you receive the content already filtered and battle tested, and they are more then qualified to talk tactics as well.
-Jenrick
QuietShootr
01-04-12, 20:20
Food for thought: For a long time .mil folks have sent their best and brightest to civilian shooting schools to get better at shooting (please note the word shooting, not gunfighting, tactics, etc). Ron Shaws Mid-South Institute of Self Defense is the grand daddy of them all. You want to be able to run a pistol blistering fast? Todd Jarrett can teach you, and Mid-South brings him out to do just that. Mid-South has world class competitive shooters teach how to shoot, and doesn't focus too hard on tactics.
Down here in Texas the shooting portion of the SDM classes at Camp Swift and other places are taught almost exclusively by civilians. Folks with the Presidents 100 tab, and a Distinguished Rifle medal.
If you want to get better at shooting, seek out training from folks who do it for a living. Take what they teach, filter it through your needs as a solider and keep what works. Going to any of the former Tier 1 instructors (Howe, Vickers, Lamb, McNamara, etc.) basically lets you receive the content already filtered and battle tested, and they are more then qualified to talk tactics as well.
-Jenrick
The fellow who is the head of serious marksmanship training for the KYARNG is a civilian - and I would daresay that the reports coming from overseas from insurgents staying AWAY from units of the Kentucky Guard are due in large part to his influence.
ETA: there almost ought to be a sticky with this stuff. It seems like we refight this battle a few times a year, usually with new military members.
QuietShootr
01-04-12, 20:28
It is hard to humble yourself and accept your not the bad ass your 19 year old self thought you were.
The 39-year-old me could destroy the 19-year-old me, and all my buddies from back then besides, is all I have to say about that.
I've already made my point, but I think some of the civilians and veterans who have been out of the loop for a while underestimate the extent to which AWG and CATC are giving quality weapons manipulation training to Army soldiers (I can't speak for other branches). All it takes is one young NCO to attend one of their classes, see the light, and spread it around the unit. This is happening.
I think this forum as a whole (even the SME's / IP's ) would be pleasantly surprised at what they would see on any given range amongst so called average Joes in 2012. I know some of you are still working with said group, but your negativity does not represent my experiences.
You'll see urban prone, thumb breaks, support side transitions, etc. etc etc., and a lot of dudes murdering the A zone on the range. Leaders are starting to "get it."
As usual, the truth lies somewhere in the middle of the two extremes:
While proper technique and execution is not exclusive to civilian trained shooters or Tier 1 Operators, a lot of grunts still have a lot to learn.
But they're getting there.
While I'll admit that as a whole the military has a lot to learn about training "gunfighters," the default position of this site that the average soldier is incompetent with the M4 is not as true as it maybe once was.
As someone who was formerly involved in those training battles, that is great news! Just hope they can sustain it through the upcoming cuts.
mkmckinley
01-04-12, 21:21
I do't have much to add here other than having been in the position of the OP. I really like shooting and it's my main hobby on my off time. I wanted to take my individuals skills up a notch and decided to take some of the classes at Insights Training in Bellevue, WA. I've found that the civilian-taught classes I've attended have what I consider to be more up-to-date methods. They improved my individual proficiency a lot and taught me a lot of things I'de never heard of in the military. The even brought in a few techniques that competition shooters use to shoot quickly and accurately. In comparison most military training seems to gloss over the finer points of shooting and often reinforce bad habits. Ignore the guys in your unit that think they know everything. When you smoke them at the range after working on your individual skills they'll quit looking at you funny for buying your own training.
I don't think anyone is implying that the American Soldier is incompetent but the attitude that he has nothing to learn is incorrect. I probably have more training than most and I still feel like I have a lot to learn.
It took me a while to realize I could learn a LOT from civilians, and ONLY then did I stop being stubborn and started learning.
Failure2Stop
01-04-12, 23:43
ETA: there almost ought to be a sticky with this stuff. It seems like we refight this battle a few times a year, usually with new military members.
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=38540
I've already made my point, but I think some of the civilians and veterans who have been out of the loop for a while underestimate the extent to which AWG and CATC are giving quality weapons manipulation training to Army soldiers (I can't speak for other branches). All it takes is one young NCO to attend one of their classes, see the light, and spread it around the unit. This is happening.
If you read the sticky I linked to above you will see a pretty in depth discussion from yours truly about the improvements made to the USMC's combat marksmanship program. I still consider the points made to be vaild.
I don't want to get too far off the OPs discussion point, but I do want to say this:
there are progressive programs within the military, but these programs are greatly watered down with the necessity to train large groups as quickly as possible with whatever training staff you might have, while adhering to the programs' lateral limits. Good instructors can make whatever they are teaching beneficial, and poor instructors can make the best program a waste of time. It is far more hit and miss with mass-produced and hastily delivered classes than with known-quantity and quality instructors. I do not condemn them all as individuals, simply pointing out that large programs are controlled by people that may or may not have a grasp of the content or intent, and limited by those that are more concerned with checking a box than gaining or refining a skillset. The goal, of course, is to make training for our fighting men as relevant and effective as possible, but that optimism must be tempered with the reality that a 70-80% solution will often be implemented.
One final point that I will make is that due to the "task-condition-standard" approach that is necessary for large group instruction and evaluation, one can only really expect the minimum standard to be the maximum level of performance from those trained to meet those evaluation methods. Rarely will there be time to bring individuals to a superior level of performance, as time and resources will be expended to bring the lowest performers up to the minimum performance levels. To be fair, the performance of the whole is more important than the performance of a single individual when conducting team-based training and combat. But that is no excuse to be satisfied with the minimum standard.
Agreed to a certain extent, but if some one like Rob S were to offer a class I would gladly take it from him - it is my understanding is that he is not prior military or LE, just a private citizen that has taken it upon himself to train to a high standard. I do think that operational experience is a very positive thing in an instructor, and that you can NOT have a well rounded training cadre without some high level operational experience. But certain well qualified shooters without operational experience have a lot to teach folks.
I appreciate the confidence, and the compliment. However there is a difference, and it's where some civilian instructors get themselves into trouble. Whatever I have taught, may teach, or might teach in the future is based in the fundamentals and gun handling.
When I personally seek out training I identify what I think a particular instructor may offer. There are things that someone with zero operational experience can offer, and there are things that only those with operational experience can offer. Important to note that there are also things that someone with eons of operational experience can offer but that has zero applicability to me and my situation.
mkmckinley
01-05-12, 06:06
Good point. It doesn't have to be any more complicated than one shooter learning from a better shooter/instructor. There's no need for guys with warfighting experience to get their precious egos bruised by the idea that they could learn how to shoot better from a civilian.
I won't rehash what the others have already articulated as I think they spelled it out very well. You might want to do a search and look for Paul's write up about the training that he received after he left the military and how that compared to the training that he received while in the military.
It's great that you are seeking out additional training. I think it will be an eye opening experience for you.
I’m a civilian shooter and when people ask me why I take these courses (assuming I’m a tin-foil hat wearer preparing for the zombie apocalypse). I tell them that I just want to be a better student of the art of shooting. I don’t want to be “that guy” who collects guns and never learns how to use them. I tell people that these schools are similar to the different sword schools developed during the Renaissance. Sword styles like the Italian, Spanish, and English schools evolved from the battlefield for use on the street and for dueling (I don’t plan to duel :rolleyes:). I think for civilians Jeff Cooper said it best; “Owning a handgun doesn't make you armed any more than owning a guitar makes you a musician.” I think that applies to rifles as well.
OP, be sure to look me up when you make it down to NC. I live in Charlotte and regularly participate in area events. I can also assure you that NC is full of opportunities for top notch instruction from the best in the business.
Im extremely grateful for all the feed back. I didn't know what to think about these topics at first.
I saw classes as training civilians to be warfighters. My ignorance.
But now im understanding its not like that. Its about shooting. Its unfortunate that these kind of classes get that stigma in MIL circles.
Cant tell you how many times Ive heard becoming a trainer called a "retirement plan". Im sure some courses are for guy who just want to feel like badasses, Ill just be avoiding those.
I appreciate the insight on civilian trainers. I would of avoided that and missed out. Fundamentals are the bedrock of shooting skills and you don't have to have served to master them.
wahoo95 PM inbound
Generalpie
01-06-12, 04:12
Stop listening to the pal that thinks he already knows everything he will ever need to know.
Stop listening to everyone who thinks they already know everything they need to know. There is always room for improvement, even if it learning what doesn't work.
Take any and all training you can get, when you can get it.
My objective for taking classes is to make that particular skill nearly subconscious. I intend on keeping my skill level high enough to just be able to do the action. If I can minimize the needed brain power to make a shot or do first aid, then that leaves power in reserve for other things.
For instance, here are some of the tasks needed in a contact.
Individual
- seek cover
- return fire
- communications
- scanning
- movement
Leader
all above plus
- accountability
- choosing next actions
- informing team of those next actions
- leading
- reporting
So if someone is a SME on any of those areas, I will learn what I can to make each of those skills as automatic as possible. There is a huge difference when you think " I need to shoot him" and the gun comes up, the sights center, the trigger is pressed, and bad guy falls down vs " I need to shoot him. lemme get squared up. I need sight alignment, sight picture, pause my breathing, sque-e-e-e-eeze trigger. Damn missed, um, shoot faster"
QuietShootr
01-06-12, 10:33
Im extremely grateful for all the feed back. I didn't know what to think about these topics at first.
I saw classes as training civilians to be warfighters. My ignorance.
But now im understanding its not like that. Its about shooting. Its unfortunate that these kind of classes get that stigma in MIL circles.
Cant tell you how many times Ive heard becoming a trainer called a "retirement plan". Im sure some courses are for guy who just want to feel like badasses, Ill just be avoiding those.
I appreciate the insight on civilian trainers. I would of avoided that and missed out. Fundamentals are the bedrock of shooting skills and you don't have to have served to master them.
wahoo95 PM inbound
Red: They ARE training to fight, if it's a good class. Blue: That's because nobody likes to think a talented "amateur" is better than a "professional" at anything - even though it's quite often the case.
You're going to be in a gunfight in the next 30 seconds - you can pick one of two partners: a random 0311, or Bill Rogers.
I know who I'm bringing.
QuietShootr
01-06-12, 10:34
My objective for taking classes is to make that particular skill nearly subconscious. I intend on keeping my skill level high enough to just be able to do the action. If I can minimize the needed brain power to make a shot or do first aid, then that leaves power in reserve for other things.
For instance, here are some of the tasks needed in a contact.
Individual
- seek cover
- return fire
- communications
- scanning
- movement
Leader
all above plus
- accountability
- choosing next actions
- informing team of those next actions
- leading
- reporting
So if someone is a SME on any of those areas, I will learn what I can to make each of those skills as automatic as possible. There is a huge difference when you think " I need to shoot him" and the gun comes up, the sights center, the trigger is pressed, and bad guy falls down vs " I need to shoot him. lemme get squared up. I need sight alignment, sight picture, pause my breathing, sque-e-e-e-eeze trigger. Damn missed, um, shoot faster"
Perfectly described.
Red: They ARE training to fight, if it's a good class. Blue: That's because nobody likes to think a talented "amateur" is better than a "professional" at anything - even though it's quite often the case.
You're going to be in a gunfight in the next 30 seconds - you can pick one of two partners: a random 0311, or Bill Rogers.
I know who I'm bringing.
"Blue" comment. I can see why! :p You literally spend all day everyday working to improve you fighting skills mentally and physically. And then some hobbyist out shoots the shit out of you. I can see that being hard to swallow haha
As for a gunfight... If that random eleven is one that ive spent endless training time with id take him any day for the fact that we'd both be on the same page and com would be minimal. Knowing each others strengths and weaknesses as well as loadout goes an infinite way.
But I get your point, association with a title doesnt designate high skill levels.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.