View Full Version : Armor in training?
Lately the thread here http://m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=39159 has trended towards a lot of guys with "training rigs" that include armor. Rather than muck that thread up with my question I thought I'd start a new thread.
What is the perception of training wherein it requires armor? I would prefer to hear specific examples rather than generics, theory, "some..." etc. What, specifically, led you to pursue armor as part of your training equipment?
Bluedreaux
02-02-12, 10:46
As an LEO I have been required to train in my body armor at times...train like you fight and all that. All of my rifle mags were kept on my heavy armor, so I had to wear it when we did rifle work.
But I'll never understand wearing armor in training if "life" doesn't require it. It's heavy, hot and cumbersome.
I wondered about that while reading through the same thread, but didn't want to be "that" new guy by asking. Look forward to seeing the reasoning behind everyone's decisions.
I only use armor in classes that require it such as CQB/HD classes. I dont see any reason to use armor unless the instructor or class dictates it.
In my case I would say it is used two or three time a year.
militarymoron
02-02-12, 10:52
in general, it seems prudent to have some protection when training with pistols and rifles, even in a controlled environment. accidents happen.
personally - since i design pouches and equipment, i need to test them on rigs to ensure that they work as intended (access, mobility and interference is different when wearing an armoured rig vs. 'slick'). while i may not ever have the personal need to wear armour in harm's way since i'm a civvie, a lot of the folks who buy the products i design do, so that's how the products need to be tested.
Sworn LEO, I wear mine always in a class, during qualification and usually just training in my own. It's mandatory when we qualify for good reason. A few years ago one of our FI in another part of the state took a 223richochet to the leg. Luckily nothing but meat but could have been tragic.
When I train on my own I normally wear my heavy armor because I usually have it on when I deploy my M4.
I guess maybe it would be helpful to delineate some things here. So let's add to the replies whether you are mil or civilian, and if civilian LE or non.
The majority of the classes I'm taking this year dictate armor. I find that incorporating it into my training in the classes that don't require armor allow me to become acclimated to moving and shooting with the restrictions that armor creates.
As MM pointed out, it's also the added safety in a class where others are going to be moving past me with firearms. This isn't to say I wear a helmet in every class, as I don't unless it's a class requiring night vision or a shoot house class where the instructors require the use of helmets.
What, specifically, led you to pursue armor as part of your training equipment?
Class: Civilian, non-LE
I already had a IIIA soft vest in case I ever felt the need to don it, for any reason. Thought of it being a good thing to have for someone who carries a gun. Using it doesn't change anything relating to weapons manipulation.
When I started upping my level of studies on use of the carbine, a lot of that training, for my uses, was inside shoot houses, and almost every instructor required armor. Shoot houses can have some hard surfaces that will redirect shrapnel, bullets, etc. Also the confines are tighter, and your fellow shooters may be in a separate part of the structure. I decided it was time to buy some, and again if I ever felt the need to throw it on, while not training, I would have it available.
The overriding specific reason to pursue armor = higher level, very specific types of classes & their requirements.
In almost every class that involved your typical gun range, I was pretty "slick". Eagle chest rig since 2001 for four rifle mags, Eagle FB kydex lined pistol mag pouches on my belt, and a 6004/Sidearmor/RCS holster.
My situation is similar to SHIVAN and Titleist. I'm a civilian that runs armor in some classes.
I recently set up a plate carrier as my 'training' rig. I've progressed in my training to the point that there are more team movement drills during the class. More advanced classes I am interested in taking will require plates, or at least give me more peace of mind given the amount of team drills.
LEO using soft armor.
I wear it in classes or training for several reasons.
1) I wear it on duty, so while in training or classes I try and keep everything as if I were working.
2) Rifle mags are on the vest carrier so when using the rifle I need to have it on to reload.
3) Safety. As a LEO firearms instructor I have seen some crazy things happen on the range.
I wear concealable soft body armor in training where it's required, where I want an added safety margin (shoot houses, recruit training, etc), or where I want to check gear combos. (Plates, occasionally.) I train without it as well, as the majority of life is spent outside the job and without armor, with basic CCW gear.
I've never been averse to armor, having long ago experienced the difference between a quality, well-fit vest and otherwise.
Context: LE, open enrollment stuff.
Non-Mil, Non-LEO..
Sometimes I wear armor in class, sometimes not. When I wear armor, I wear a concealable vest. I learned from role playing OPFOR, that getting the most coverage is important to me, although at a cost of not having the protection of plates. I guess it's a personal preference. I would like to think it's not a product of the old armor vs. no armor, or concealable vs. non-concealed debates..... cans of worms in themselves.....
I think that if a person considers that there might be a time in the future when you will might need to wear one(another can o' worms), you have to get used to working in it and the heat and restrictions that come with it. Unfortnently, I do not have military experience to base weapons training or gear(and armor) training on. However, I am interested in it, and learning the right ways to work with it. Just like getting good firearms training itself, until you get out there and do it, you really don't know what you can and can't do. Heaven forbid that any of us get wrapped up in another Katrina like situation. Anyone want to guess how many unused vests were hanging in closets durring that time? I would venture a guess of less than fingers on the your hand. How many people, that stayed in New Orleans, wished they had one, even thought it was hotter and more muggy than the best cat house on Tchoupitoulas Street? I would guess quite a few.....
Having JIC(Just In Case) armor is one thing, getting out and working in it....something completly different. I hope that I never have to wear this stuff full time. However, I know that if I do have to, I have already experienced what it's like to wear and work in armor, and have already worked out most of the fleas with how all the gear interacts with me and my surroundings...
Cheers,
gb
I am LE. Whether I wear my armor or not depends upon my training goals. When I am at a Dept. training function I am required to wear my soft armor. I wear my PIG carrier with plates for tactical training. However when I go to schools if it is not required, I don't wear it. I don't want the burden of the armour to detract from my learning experience, but when I come home I wear the armour to practice the drills in a more realistic fashion.
With that said, if I am going to the range to work on trigger control or other basics, but it is almost always a trigger control issue, I don't wear armour. But if the training is geared toward more tactical type drills I wear it.
CIV and I bought my rig to attend some of the classes that requried armor. My rig is set up for those classes and train on my own with it on maybe half the time.
Voodoo_Man
02-02-12, 14:22
LE.
For dept. related stuff we are not required to wear body armor.
When I shoot pistol classes outside of my dept. I do not wear armor.
When I shoot rifle I wear a PC with plates (most of the time).
When I work out at home I have a training rig with plates I used for general workout stuff.
Many depts. require training in your armor, accidents do happen - as stated previously - so it is your choice.
Former military, current instructor for military, LE, & open enrollment.
I continue to wear plates & backers to MOST carbine training and while instructing because, once the armor is off (same as gloves, restrictive/protective clothing of all types), EVERYthing gets easier, faster, more sure because I'm not fighting what I'm wearing. Think of it sorta like doing PT in a weight vest, only I didn't feel like buying a separate weight vest.
My chest rig mimics my armor setup, so even when I go without my PC, all that's missing is weight and bulk, not item placement. Belt remains the same with either PC or chest rig, and that approximates my preferred EDC configuration.
Also, done simply to remain accustomed to wearing armor, for those times I'm required to wear it for the occasional in-theater overseas jaunt.
Lastly, and most importantly....I want something in between Momma Santoro's darling eldest child and some of the loose nuts behind guns, out there.
Lately the thread here http://m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=39159 has trended towards a lot of guys with "training rigs" that include armor. Rather than muck that thread up with my question I thought I'd start a new thread.
What is the perception of training wherein it requires armor? I would prefer to hear specific examples rather than generics, theory, "some..." etc. What, specifically, led you to pursue armor as part of your training equipment?
The class required it (HD and CQB based classes).
Besides that, it is always nice to have 7.62 (multi-hit plates) and soft armorer around for "just in case" events. ;)
C4
I am a LEO. Policy dictates I wear soft armor to quals and agency sponsored training. I have plates (issued and personally procured.)
If taking a pistol class, I would wear the soft armor. If carbine work was in the mix, I would don the plates.
Failure2Stop
02-02-12, 17:09
Because in most situations that warrant pulling out the AR, I'd like to have armor as well (along with a little more ammo and medical equipment).
Civi:
I purchased my PC for an upcoming class that requires it (HD, tac ops). I wear it while training obviously in order to get comfortable and work through the constraints a PC brings. Now that I own a PC I will always use it during training with others for the simple fact I really don't trust anyone and accidents DO happen know matter how good you are. As the skill level increases the more dangerous it all becomes. I have soft armor from when I did EP and use it only on the pistol action pits. Anytime there are rifles at play the PC is on and the range I train at some of the shooting pits are in front of the 200/300 yrd range berm and if a round hits the ground it could very easily jump the berm.
Civi
Disclaimer- I do not currently own armor. That being said:
After reading around a bit, reasons previously given, as well as an article by the OP have caused me to rethink my gear selection thinking and I will eventually be pursuing an armor/plate carrier of some sort.
After mulling this over for many days and nights (and this may not make sense, but bear with me) I thought what is the point of me spending a gob of money to put together a chest rig for training that does absolutely nothing for me beyond carrying my mags (and maybe a few other items) during a class that something simpler (like a "battle belt" type setup) could do just as well for (in some cases) less? Why not spend a bit more (options like the LMAC and a few others are well within reason- and yes, I am aware that armor itself is an added cost;)) and get something that actually has usefullness to it, and that may save myself from getting any holes- accidental or intended- poked in me?
Maybe I'm just apranoid, but freak accidents happen, and I seem to be on the receiving end of a lot more than other folk I know....:rolleyes:
I'm a civ. I generally don't wear armor in my daily life, so I tend to not train with it. That said, I will wear it if the class requires it, and I started wearing soft armor when teaching new pistol shooters after one of them swept me on the range.
I would like to eventually get plates, if only to do some of the more advanced carbine courses, but I have no illusions about wandering around in a post-apocalyptic wasteland in full battle rattle. The vast majority of my training is focused on everyday CCW with handguns or home defense with carbine or shotgun, where I will either not have armor with me, or be unlikely to have time to don armor when something goes bump in the night.
SWATcop556
02-03-12, 22:47
Civilian LEO: I train with different setups. I shoot mostly with no armor or with a soft armor carrier. Being plainclothes narcotics that's how I spend most of time. If I'm running my rifle I wear hard armor.
I will usually wear at least soft armor when training with others just because I only want to leave with the holes God gave me. I also run my med gear off my carriers and it's easier to carry that way.
kaltesherz
02-04-12, 10:27
Former Mil here
I wear armor every time I'm doing any "tactical" training with others. I learned how to shoot and move as well as how to properly operate a carbine in the military; and we always wore armor while doing it. It was just the way it was, and considering how much more comfortable my PC is vs my old IBA / IOTV I barely even notice it's there. I never liked using FLCs or RACKs, always preferred to attach everything directly to my armor so that's the only set-up I run. No chest rigs for me. I would figure training as you fight would make common sense but I've seen a lot of those that only train with chest rigs yet own armor for SHTF scenarios- good luck with that. The last reason I run armor is well, for it's designed purpose: to stop metal things from going through my soft vital things. Accidents happen- and I like being alive so I'd like to stay that way. I always wear plates, hell, I'm even considering running my side plates in the future.
While at first I felt a little silly wearing armor when no one else was, now I couldn't give a flying ****. Makes sense for me.
While at first I felt a little silly wearing armor when no one else was, now I couldn't give a flying ****. Makes sense for me.
Exactly! Except when shooting a 3 Gun event. :) Also, I've seen dudes put rounds in the dirt, ND/AD, or the dude that "sweeps" the crowd...in and Advanced course. :D
LE swat. I wear soft armor most of the time during training but only rarely wear plates. I wear them enough to know I can shoot, move, repel, deploy out of vehicles, etc. however, I want to be doing this 20 years from now and have seen way too many guys with major back problems late in their careers partly due training in full armor all the time.
If you shoot around people who are not safe then that is a different situation. I've done shoot house work with guys I don't know and will wear plates for that.
I'm now wearing plates at training.
Former LE SWAT and Weapons trainer, current open enrollment trainer.
When training in my old role I wore soft armor during pistol course, and did not wear plates during rifle segments unless I was training with SWAT or unknown outside groups.
Currently, soft armor for any live fire classes with pistols. I use plates for selective course work or when training for my goals.
I do NOT shoot competition but may give it a try in plates here as the participants seem more down to earth than the shooters were in my last location.
Current deployed Mil.
Depends on the particular training session. I learn and attempt to perfect skills "slick" and then add a piece of equipment, run it, adjust, add more until I get up to full kit with same effects as slick. It helps me take away variables and learn the skill correctly.
For skills that revolve around the gear, I drop to lowest level possible and do the same thing. Its the standard Army way of building skills.
Active duty military.
Yes. To figure out what works for you. But I would also maybe wear it when training with others if I was a civilian because.... there's a lot of texgrebners and nutnfancy's out there.
Civy here. I think wearing armor in a shooting environment is prudent, especially when you are at a place with strangers shooting guns. NDs and accidents happen all the time.
Although it's improbable that I'll ever be in a gun fight (much less a gun fight where I'm wearing armor), I am of the mindset that training in a harsher environment (decreased mobility, extra weight, overheating) will allow me to fight much better when I'm not as encumbered.
If anything I rather move around holding a 6lb gun, wearing plates for a few hours, honing a useful skill, than just being at the gym running in place.
Civilian: Never been to a course that required body armor but an instructor once said "Why not? You wear a helmet when you ride a bike right." I kinda agree so I have been looking into it.
Civilian.
I dont wear armor. as a matter of fact, I try to wear as little tacticool gear as possible. I see lots of guys in most classes wearing tons and tons or shit they just dont need, worn improperly, not fitting correctly, and really just there for the look. anyone who has been to a class in CA knows what I'm talking about. its always funny to see a guy wearing 5 grand worth of plate carrier (with no plates)/helmet/NVG/Drop Leg/Morale patches/Magpul shirts and shooting 4 grand worth of rifle, making nice tight 38" groups at 25 yards.
That being said, I have to purchase hard armor for 2 classes coming up this year. I'm trying to keep it as slick and no nonsense as possible.
NeoNeanderthal
02-07-12, 09:17
-Civilian-
Just got plates yesterday actually. The reason i purchased them is 3 fold.
1. Accidents on the range. I went shooting with my honey the other day and there were two senile old guys loading their kimber and ruger 1911's while pointing the muzzle sideways at me and the lady. Packed up and left early. If i'm by myself, this is not really a need. Pretty hard to shot yourself in the chest (though it does happen).
*On a side note, I'm 25 and at least know that i don't know anything. A lot of older fools are sure they know everything and wont change. Nothing worse then a 60-65 year old that cant shoot and has been practicing dangerous gun handling for 45 years. That guy, is sure that he's doing it right and will not change. Much less listen to a youngin like me telling him to quit pointing his overpriced nazi killer at my beautiful girlfriend. Christ
2. Courses. Currently signed up for a Vickers class in NH this summer, wicked excited about it! Doesn't require armor, but I am starting to ratchet up the training and some of the courses i'm looking at will require it. Decided to get it while it was a good deal. Figured i'd need it anyway and it could do #1&3 for me while i wait.
3. Home defense/shtf. A lot of people seem to poo poo this idea here, which is fine. I know the likeliness is low that I will be able to use it in these situations. One thing though is that I now keep it cummerbunds un-hooked (its a skdpig) with my brokos belt unbuckled. I can throw the vest on (stays put pretty well with out cummerbund) buckle the belt in less time then it takes folks to activate those bio safes, get their pistol, get and stow their cell phone and flashlight. Luckily (knock on wood) I don't have kids, so i don't need to lock things up while i'm there.
4ish. Another thing that i considered was i wanted more load carriage then my belt set up, so i almost got a chest rig. I figured might as well get a plate carrier and use it as a chest rig until i can afford/need armor. A lot of people thought i was a poser because i had no armor in it. (Surprised at how many people came up to me and asked??) But the carrier was working great as a chest rig, and i wouldn't lose any money because i wouldn't have to sell it and buy a carrier when i could afford armor. A lot of people would instantly ask at the range if i had sapi plates in my carrier, then when i said "no"- would say something like "yeah didnt think so, those are illegal anyway."
Is there anyone here that has NOT been to a class and felt like they needed armor prior to attending one?
militarymoron
02-07-12, 10:26
its always funny to see a guy wearing 5 grand worth of plate carrier (with no plates)/helmet/NVG/Drop Leg/Morale patches/Magpul shirts and shooting 4 grand worth of rifle, making nice tight 38" groups at 25 yards.
i also find it funny to see the guy wearing all the crap shoot better than the guy slicked out. if they're shooting equally well, the guy with all the gear on is going to be even better without it. in the classes i've been to, there are some guys who wear full kit that are consistently good shooters.
the bottom line is, no matter what you're wearing, it's your shooting that makes you look good or bad in the end.
i also find it funny to see the guy wearing all the crap shoot better than the guy slicked out. if they're shooting equally well, the guy with all the gear on is going to be even better without it. in the classes i've been to, there are some guys who wear full kit that are consistently good shooters.
the bottom line is, no matter what you're wearing, it's your shooting that makes you look good or bad in the end.
to quote someone else...
"if you're wearing all that crap and you can shoot, nobody is going to notice. If you're wearing all that crap and you CAN'T shoot, it's all they're ever going to see."
IME the latter far outnumber the former, but it doesn't mean the former don't exist. That said, I've also had to deal with the guy trying to run mags out of an ALICE pouch clipped to his pants belt, or the guy that's so concerned with being un-tactical he's carrying mags in his butt-crack.
IMO the gear should fit what you're doing. I'm not going to get all jocked up in multicam lederhosen to go take a level 1 or 2 carbine class (but if someone else wants to play dress up, fine by me, and there is always at least one in every class), nor am I going to go to a shoot-house class in my Speedo.
i also find it funny to see the guy wearing all the crap shoot better than the guy slicked out. if they're shooting equally well, the guy with all the gear on is going to be even better without it. in the classes i've been to, there are some guys who wear full kit that are consistently good shooters.
the bottom line is, no matter what you're wearing, it's your shooting that makes you look good or bad in the end.
I have yet to see a civilian (excluding contractors) wearing full kit who could shoot with any kind of skill.
I have seen plenty of LEO/MIL guys wear full kit embarrass the other shooters though.
militarymoron
02-07-12, 11:33
IMO the gear should fit what you're doing.
and that purpose may be different for different people, hence the wide variety of gear. either way, whatever works for the individual. if it doesn't, then it's a good learning experience.
militarymoron
02-07-12, 11:36
I have yet to see a civilian (excluding contractors) wearing full kit who could shoot with any kind of skill.
they're definitely out there.
and that purpose may be different for different people, hence the wide variety of gear. either way, whatever works for the individual. if it doesn't, then it's a good learning experience.
bro, even you can admit there is a lot of clown show going on at the average entry level carbine class. very rarely do you see people wearing gear correctly.
bro, even you can admit there is a lot of clown show going on at the average entry level carbine class. very rarely do you see people wearing gear correctly.
And allow those people to learn from that experience. I've seen most folk make the biggest leaps in either gear placement, selection, and shooting skills, happen in Carbine 1 courses.
Back on topic, I just witnessed my first ND during a project we were doing for a helmet camera in development. I won't go into details, but it involved full auto, it could have been very bad. As such I was happy I had armor on because it meant my IFAK was on my rig in case things had gone south. Thankfully outside of shaken nerves nothing did.
I don't bring armor to every class, it doesn't make sense. I generally do 50/50 just so I get used to how it affects draws, shouldering, etc etc.
militarymoron
02-07-12, 11:50
i'm sure you're right, and it's going to depend on the area and the class. i've been pretty surprised, actually to see the majority of students pretty squared away in the classes i attended this past year, both in terms of shooting skills and gear (or lack of it). much of that is due to the fact that many are regular shooters - the same faces show up class after class. this is just my personal observation, YMMV of course.
when i'm at a class, i'm there for two reasons - to learn how to shoot better, and to evaluate gear (both stuff i design and otherwise). i usually start out relatively slick, as most of the drills will be basic marksmanship, fundamentals. i actually wear more gear on the 2nd day (plate carrier, plates), when the drills have higher mag/round counts and more movement and positions. so, i'm usually wearing the least amount of gear at the beginning, and the most at the end. it's the best way for me to see what works when the drills are dynamic.
for those that i see wearing gear incorrectly, i ask them how it's working out for them. if they have issues and solicit any suggestions, i offer some. if they say it works great, then i keep my mouth shut. but usually, i'm there to learn, and work out my own issues, so i don't pay too much attention to what everyone else is wearing. if anything, i watch for for unsafe behaviour, as that's more important IMHO.
back to the original question - if you own plates and a plate carrier, when else besides training would you have a chance to wear them if you're a civvie)? if you own them for whatever reason, might as well learn to shoot with them on.
I have yet to see a civilian (excluding contractors) wearing full kit who could shoot with any kind of skill.
I have seen plenty of LEO/MIL guys wear full kit embarrass the other shooters though.
This is starting to sound like the competition thread...
I have been to... more than a dozen, less than 50.. training classes with a variety of students and student types. I ran a carbine match for 7 or 8 years and a carbine practice night for 5 or 6. I have, not once, found any metric for comparing civ shooters to mil shooters to cop shooters based solely on occupation. Not one. I have had cops and mil that can't shoot for shit, and civs that can't shoot for shit. Gear on or off being totally inconsequential.
But in that time I've also figured out pretty quickly how to tell if a guy is going to have gear problems, and that is typically indicative of a lack of experience, which translates to a lack of ability. Again, job-irrelevant.
Which isn't to say I don't snicker when I see the guy in his multicam overalls. But he's "there for himself and doesn't care what anyone else thinks" so what I think of it shouldn't matter to him anyway. and I've seen civs in multicam that can shoot like a mother****er, and combat-vets in multicam that couldn't hit the ground if they fell on it. (and we'd never find them if they did, being all in multicam and whatnot...:sarcastic:)
None of which is the purpose of this thread. if you'd like to start a "stupid civilian in all his kit can't shoot" thread there are evidently plenty of guys with pent up rage about just that and I'm sure they'd be happy to log right in and join you.
The purpose of this thread is to discuss whether or not people wear armor in training, and more specifically if they feel it's necessary at every training event, especially intro-level events, or just at classes that mandate it.
In weighing the merits of armor in the LE training environment, I can think of several incidents in which body armor would likely have saved a life. While the proximal cause of the injury or fatality in the event was a violation of SOP and safety practices, the armor would have helped.
Certainly, it does no harm. At worst, it is a little hot and uncomfortable.
I have never worn armor at a class.
But I have been to at least one class that did not require it where another guy was wearing it because he had a class coming up that required it and he wanted to have all the kinks worked out first and be able to function in it. I think thats more than reasonable.
Devildog1988
02-12-12, 11:45
In the military our theory is train as you would fight. Hence wearing plates, full loads, etc. There is a big difference in carrying and not carrying plates. Youll get hotter faster, tired faster, and your movement will be a little more limited with plates, if you didnt practice with them if you ever did need to use them you would feel akward and your techniques would be thrown off.
Grim Fandango
02-12-12, 14:50
Is there anyone here that has NOT been to a class and felt like they needed armor prior to attending one?
Perhaps I'm misinterpreting your question, but I'll answer yes to this one. Aside from my CHL class, I've only ever been to an Appleseed shoot. I've been trying to find a local, entry-level carbine class, without success. I'd really wanted to go to the Feb. CSAT class, but I couldn't due to schoolwork. Houston to Nacagdoches is just too far right now. Assuming I ever find a class (looks like a no-go based on the 2012 training schedules I've found), I'd feel better if I had plates. Likewise, I would want soft armor if I were looking for a pistol class. It's mostly a matter of safety at classes that I would like to take, and partially a matter of feeling just a bit more prepared if a Katrina-size Huricane hits Houston. I suppose that last bit is outside the scope of this thread/sub-forum, but that just the truth of it for me.
Perhaps I'm misinterpreting your question, but I'll answer yes to this one. Aside from my CHL class, I've only ever been to an Appleseed shoot. I've been trying to find a local, entry-level carbine class, without success. I'd really wanted to go to the Feb. CSAT class, but I couldn't due to schoolwork. Houston to Nacagdoches is just too far right now. Assuming I ever find a class (looks like a no-go based on the 2012 training schedules I've found), I'd feel better if I had plates. Likewise, I would want soft armor if I were looking for a pistol class. It's mostly a matter of safety at classes that I would like to take, and partially a matter of feeling just a bit more prepared if a Katrina-size Huricane hits Houston. I suppose that last bit is outside the scope of this thread/sub-forum, but that just the truth of it for me.
No, you understood. Can I ask what it is about what you know about classes that makes you want armor before you take one?
back to the original question - if you own plates and a plate carrier, when else besides training would you have a chance to wear them if you're a civvie)? if you own them for whatever reason, might as well learn to shoot with them on.
That's pretty much where I am with all this. I won't ever wear armor at work or in a SHTF scenario. For me it's definitely not a 'need' but it's 'nice to have' and is good insurance. Since I've got the kit, why not use it when I have the opportunity? Those opportunities (for me) are just about only at training/classes. I am .civ but former military and attend 4 to 6 classes annually. I wear soft armor at pistol class. I've only been to one class that required rifle plates but generally wear my PC at carbine classes anyway. Nobody has ever said anything to me about it in a derogatory way.
But, a loaded PC isn't something you simply strap to your ass and then run out to class with. I hump more than 20 miles every week all year 'round with my carrier/plates/pack for exercise. I always take my two dogs, and to make a fast walk more like a real work-out, I put on the carrier and a day-sack for about 38 pounds total. I found that wearing the plate carrier balances me out waaay better than just using a very heavy pack, although it's a lot hotter. That said, a three day class in the heat with plates isn't a deal breaker for me. So, if I can't shoot like a house-on-fire, it ain't only 'cause I'm wearing all that armor. :dance3:
As we say in the infantry, train as you fight. I have not had the privilege to pay for myself to take civi course yet as I am still active duty but when I can and do I will wear armor even if it is not mandatory. Makes more sense to me to train with it then without as if the time ever comes where you are in that situation that requires it you will be prepared. Doesn't matter whether you are on the beat, stacking on a house at a hostage situation, beating feat in the mountains in afghan, contracting in afghan or a doomsday scenerio.
Grim Fandango
02-12-12, 21:41
No, you understood. Can I ask what it is about what you know about classes that makes you want armor before you take one?
Of course. Having attended a CHL and Appleseed class, and from browsing this forum, it seems likely that participants at a training class, especially an intro-level class, will have varying degrees of experience. I've been shooting for a relatively short amount of time, three or four years. I'm as sure as I can be that I wont do something stupid with a firearm and endanger myself or others, however, I don't know how comfortable I feel trusting a group of people I've never shot with before not to do something unsafe.
The message on this forum is to get training ASAP, and I'm not saying that's a bad thing. But what I'm looking for at an intro class (how to be a better shooter) may not be the same as what someone who bought their gun last week is looking for at an intro class (how to shoot, period). I've seen people at the public range shooting sideways (gangsta-style), and no joke, I once saw a guy yelling at a target while shooting his shotgun from the hip. If they want to get training, great! But if I'm at the same class as they are, I'd feel a lot better wearing armor.
Rob, I've read a few of your articles on your site, and I remember your comment about realizing you wanted armor after standing in front of a firing line full of unknown people with rifles (or words to that effect). I could very well be one of those sorts of people that you're concerned about accidentally shooting you at drill night. And I wouldn't hold it against you. You have to do what you feel is necessary to maximize your odds of going home at the end of the day.
EDIT: I should probably add that I do not currently own armor, and it is not, at the moment, in the budget for the year.
The message on this forum is to get training ASAP, and I'm not saying that's a bad thing. But what I'm looking for at an intro class (how to be a better shooter) may not be the same as what someone who bought their gun last week is looking for at an intro class (how to shoot, period).
This is thread drift, but I think you'd be surprised how much those two things are the same. and how the better you get the more you come to realize this.
As to armor in training, I think it's becoming an if-only for a lot of people. I get emails and PMs from people, on a pretty regular basis, looking to start training but with various "if-only"s. "if only the classes were cheaper", "if only I had more ammo", "if only my wife would let me", "if only I had armor (and all that other ninja-badassery I see in the videos)". That last one is what sparked this thread.
Having been to a class or two I can tell you that if you *need* armor at your first class you're at the wrong class. Can accidents happen? Yes, of course. But look at just how rare they are by how infrequently we hear about them, and then look at the kinds of classes where they do happen. You're more likely to get hit with lightning.
Our drills nights were a different thing entirely. They were the people that WON'T go get training (why would anyone else want to shoot with me?) and walked in off the street. For at least half the guys it was nothing more than a chance to shoot their guns. I could see it in the way they refused to progress and improve. They were there to make a big bang noise, repeatedly. THOSE are the guys I didn't want to stand in front of, but those are also the guys you're never going to see at a sleepaway class.
back to the original question - if you own plates and a plate carrier, when else besides training would you have a chance to wear them if you're a civvie)?
I don't think it's what you meant, but that can be taken as...
"well, I wasted all this money on armor (and time "researching" it on the internet) so I might as well make things worse and tire myself out and be less comfortable at training and wear the stuff."
:p
I keep hearing this "train as you fight". I like Pat McNamara's concept of "train for a fight" much better. Pick up a copy of his book and check it out.
Is there anyone here that has NOT been to a class and felt like they needed armor prior to attending one?
I've done drill nights but the courses I'm interested in (shoothouses for Home Defense/CQB/whateveryouwanttocallit) would likely require having it. It's something that I'm looking into but I'd like to get at least one or 2 handgun courses under my belt since it's a prerequisite anyway before I shell out for a soft armor.
militarymoron
02-13-12, 10:44
I don't think it's what you meant, but that can be taken as...
"well, I wasted all this money on armor (and time "researching" it on the internet) so I might as well make things worse and tire myself out and be less comfortable at training and wear the stuff."
:p
i think that'd be great. however anyone takes it, most people can benefit from the additional exercise. :)
plus, some instructors also incorporate physical challenges (running etc) to push their students' limits, which makes them less comfortable and more tired. if i wanted comfortable, i'd just sit and shoot from a bench all day. training is about always pushing the limits of your comfort zone, not staying inside it.
if i wanted comfortable, i'd just sit and shoot from a bench all day. training is about always pushing the limits of your comfort zone, not staying inside it.
I keep hearing this "train as you fight". I like Pat McNamara's concept of "train for a fight" much better. Pick up a copy of his book and check it out.
I am LE but don't think it matters in this case...
Unless you train lots and lots and can pick and choose times to wear or not wear your armor to adjust to the skills being presented I think you should take every advantage to make sure your gear works in the widest variety of situations. Where does your sling fall when walking/running/shooting/offhand? Does it block mags? Does it get caught on the lower portion of one of your mag pouches with plates inserted, without plates? Can you access your mags with armor on restricting movement? What happens when you transition and drop your rifle? Can you guide your rifle past your offside when your armor is on and pushing out your mags? Does your armor make it impossible to reach to the far side of your gear? When moving/kneeling/prone/SBU/contorted? There are thousands of other possibilities depending on your mission and loadout and I am continually amazed at the small and not-so-small things I find need adjusting whenever I train.
Just last year I found that a new cross draw holster that works great with soft armor was completely inaccessible in my armored vest with the radio in. Of course I found this out as I was getting ready to serve a warrant because I was too lazy to try it out beforehand...
So regardless of your occupation, if you actually own armor and ever expect to use it you should wear it in as many situations as possible so you don't get a nasty surprise if you actually use it for real.
Dennis.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.