Military vs. Self defense training

[Spectre6]

After seperating from the military, I started looking at firearms training that is available to civilians. I had taken a few classes prior to the military and truly believe that fighting skills are perishable, so getting my feet wet in commercial training seemed natural.

I have noticed interestingly the type of training that SEEMS to be popular is fairly hardcore military fighting tactics. This sort of seems to parallel the zombie preparedness stuff as well to some extent.

There are significant differences between the goals of 'military' type training and self defense oriented training. For the sake of discussion ill loosely define the goal of 'military' training as giving the ability to operate offensively or defensively against a well armed formidable foe, normally working as a team but possibly (worst case scenario) solo (perhaps in an escape and evade type situation), and covering subjects like room clearing, hostage rescue, flanking etc... And ill define the goal 'self defense' training to give the individual a set of tactics that are applicable in a 'civil' situation, like defending your self, property or family against looters for example, or defending from several aggressive but not necessarily well trained or armed adversaries.

That being said, many of the weapons manipulation techniques will be similar if not identical between the two types of training.

What interests me is the reasoning behind civilians seeking military type training. Is it to prepare for a true 'SHTF/Zombie' scenario? Is it for the the thrill of a true military style training experience? Do you just want the most complete training and plan to scale what you learn to different situations?

I am curious to see what kind of a market there is for different kinds of training and how it has changed over the past 5 years.

[Keith A]

I think it comes down to what one considers a qualified instructor. Some believe that unless the instructor has used the weapon in question in a shootout, then they are not qualified to teach others to do so. If one seeks training in the effective deployment of a carbine, and their opinion of qualification is as stated above, then they are more likely to find qualified instructors of a military background. I imagine the percentage of LEOs that match the criteria are slim.

If the same criteria are applied to handguns, then LEOs are more likely to be qualified, the handgun being most police officers' primary weapon. The members of the military that carry a handgun are slim, and those most would consider experts even more slim.

I myself imagine having to use a carbine in a situation like the Korean shopkeepers in New Orleans. Order breaks down and mayhem ensues. Locking yourself in the house in a defensive posture is a poor option. Longer range shots than are practical with a handgun may be necessary. I may have to fire at hostiles that have taken cover or concealment. I may need the option of a higher capacity magazine and higher controllable cyclic rate to engage or supress multiple attackers.

I imagine a hangun to be useful for defense against one or two similarly armed attackers that threaten my defensive area, whether it be my safety while outside or inside my home.

I persue miltary style training as well because I am currently a military member and weapons usage training provided by the military is inadequate when one is not in a combat arms MOS. The only proper weapons training available to me is from non-DOD tactical instructors.

[Spectre6]

That makes a lot of sense, literally 'vetting' the instructor. Its unfortunate misconception however, one of the best classes I ever took was run by Sheriff Ken Campbell. He most certainly has applicable firearms experience, just not in a military setting.

I would consider the Korean shopkeeper situation a 'SHTF' type scenerio! I can certainly see where working as a team and using military tactics would be beneficial in that type of environment.

Even in combat arms, you are lucky when you have a really knowledgeable leader instructing you. When I was in leadership position, and responsible for firearms training, I pulled hard from my experience from civilians schools. That combined with practical experience in Afghanistan served me pretty well.

The military does outsource firearms training as well. They sent a large group to Tactical Ranch near El Paso for a week long carbine course.. I wish I could have gone! I did however have the opportunity to take a 2 week course from the asymmetrical warfare group, which was run much like a civilian school.. but we conducted it just outside the wire of a large FOB, which meant we had little 'range-isms'. The AWG course was outstanding and still technically a military course.

[TonyF]

It's all bullshit. And much of it is marketing.

People dressing up (especially out-of-shape middle aged men) and playing army.

I curse the GWOT for the influence it has brought to bear in the private sector training industry. It should be about "what people need" vs. "what people want" because most often, people don't know what they need and therefore seek "what they want".

The Ken Campbell example is illustrative of this phenomenon. It doesn't get much better than Ken (and his contemporaries).

Zombies? Please.

Social disorder? Define that in the context of SW PA? Hurricanes? No. Tornadoes? Hardly. Tsunami? No. Earthquake? No. Snow storm? A day or two, maybe.

Anyone a diabetic or have some other such illness that requires refrigerated storage of your medicine? Anyone have a newborn with all the post natal care they require? Where will you get your high blood pressure medication? Where will my mom get the creon enzyme she needs to digest the food she eats in her post pancreatic cancer state?

If it ever gets so bad that we need to grab our AR15's and don a chest rig or worse, a plate carrier, getting shot by "looters" is going to be the least of your worries.

The sense of insecurity that seems to infect much of the gun owning public (especially these gun forums) is pervasive and curious.

People have been "prepping" since the 1970's and nothing has happened. Can you and should you arrange to survive a short term local or regional scenario? Certainly.

A national or global scenario? Good luck, cuz you're gonna need a metric ton of it to survive.

Edit: BTW, great topic.

[Grey Bearded One]

What interests me is the reasoning behind civilians seeking military type training.

When I was a kid, we played "Army" all the time with our Marx Tommy guns and Mattel M-16s. This could be a grown up version of that and is "more real" than playing airsoft.

Many guys want to experience the training without the commitment needed for military service.

Some guys really believe that their home will be invaded by the Crips and that they will get involved in a running firefight that will move throughout their entire neighborhood, including their neighbors' homes.

Or it could be that it is fun when you don't have to do it for a living.

[brsims]

I take my training from a couple of war vets, but we focus more on small actions (a small group of savages, 3-5) and escape and evade tactics as well as situational awareness and staying away from potential situations in the first place.

As has been pounded into my thick Irish skull repeatedly over the years, my sidearm is there as the last resort to get me out of trouble, not to go looking for it. The training time I take is for two reasons. One, I truly enjoy shooting and the challenge that goes with it to constantly improve, and Two, just in case I ever find myself in a confrontation where I have NO OTHER CHOICE but to use my sidearm.

My guys constantly push situational awareness and always having a plan and an exit strategy. I seriously doubt I could receive better training than I'm already getting. As it is, I think of my gun the same way I used to think of the tire chains on my big rig. There for getting out of trouble, not for diving into it.

[John A Brown]

I'll throw my $.02 in here.

I see a lot of different types of people in my classes. I get some military, some law enforcement, and mostly civilians.

One of the things I try to do at each of my classes is ask everyone a simple question: "Why are you here?". I've learned that people take training classes for a lot of reasons.

Some people honestly want to learn how to use a firearm, be it a pistol, revolver, shotgun, AR what have you, in a safe and correct manner, learn the fundamentals of marksmanship from a qualified professional, and gain the skills to use their weapon correctly.

Quite frankly, I wish there were a hell of a lot more people that fell into the above category, particularly those folks who have a CCW permit and have never obtained professional training.

I've had military guys home on leave attend a course who were going to deploy back overseas in the near future, and they want to maintain and enhance their skills. Very cool.

I've had police officers and constables who want to enhance their skills in case the day ever comes when they need those skills. Rock on.

I've also had people tell me that they just enjoy shooting and go to classes because it's their hobby, they enjoy themselves, and have fun. I have no issue with this mindset at all.

I'm very tired of the whole "zombie" nonsense. Honest to god, enough already. I watch The Walking Dead - because it's a good TV show. But it's entertainment, and it's fictional entertainment at that. Some folks really need to get a grip. And grow up.

Doomsday Preppers. Nothing wrong with being prepared for anything, but thinking the end of the world is around the corner drives some people crazy, and they take it to extremes. Being prepared is one thing - being paranoid is another.

Is there an element of people out there who like to wear plate carriers and all the other tactical gear just for the sake of doing it? Yes, there is. It is very unlikely that your average civilian will ever find himself in a situation where he need to don a plate carrier and ballistic helmet. Extremely unlikely. Quite frankly, some of these people just want to play "dress up". If they fall into the category above as far as they look at shooting and taking training classes as a hobby, and truly do it for fun because it's something they enjoy to do, I don't have a problem with it. When they get into the whole zombie and doomsday crowd, it tends to get a little excessive.

The flip side is that if you are going to attend training classes, you need to have some gear. For example, for my 2 day AR course I require all students to be able to carry at least two AR magazines somewhere on their body. I don't care if it's on a belt or some kind of chest rig or plate carrier set up, as long as they can carry at least 2 magazines. So with a lot of folks, they are wearing kit because it's a requirement of the course they are taking.

Now, into specifics aspects of firearms / tactical training......................

I very rarely train anyone any differently based upon who they are or what their job is. I pretty firmly believe that a gunfight is a gunfight, regardless of location. There isn't a whole lot of difference between being shot at in Baghdad or Khandahar or on Main Street USA. Somebody shooting at you is somebody shooting at you.

Properly drawing and presenting a pistol is no different for a SEAL or an SF soldier than it is for Joe Average citizen with a CCW permit. It's exactly the same thing.

Using proper technique when reloading the AR doesn't change with who actually happens to be holding the weapon. I teach the exact same reloading technique to civilians that I teach to military and law enforcement.

The bottom line for me is this - obtaining professional firearms training is a good thing for all gun owners, whether you carry a gun as part of your job, or you are a civilian with a CCW permit. Some do go a little overboard and like to play dress up with all the tactical gear and accessories. Keep things in perspective.

John

http://www.3riverstraining.com

[Spectre6]

This is a very interesting discussion..

Honestly I have no issue with guys who want to go for the full military experience. It is undeniably a thrill to put on all the battle rattle and start sending lead downrange with a few buddies. If you want to spend money on the equipment, ammo, and training to have this experience, by all means!! As I stated before, I do believe that the weapons manipulation techniques you would learn are similar if not identical to self-defense training.

This type of military training is a bit like the cream of the twinkie.. There is so much that goes into a military mission, planning, tactics.. The raw fighting skillset is a small (and essential) part of that.. But you dont see people seeking classes on the 8 troop leading procedures..

Many of the basics are the same. Marksmanship, reloading, malfuntions, positions etc.. The application of the skills are different.

[Spectre6]

Properly drawing and presenting a pistol is no different for a SEAL or an SF soldier than it is for Joe Average citizen with a CCW permit. It's exactly the same thing.

Using proper technique when reloading the AR doesn't change with who actually happens to be holding the weapon. I teach the exact same reloading technique to civilians that I teach to military and law enforcement.

I agree, but to add to what you are saying.. On the subject of gear and weapons manipulations similarities:
If I was going to train a SEAL or SF (cuz im obviously just that bad-ass..), I would not advocate him practicing his reloads from his jeans back pocket if he is going to be fighting with a plate carrier. He might discover (at a very inopportune time) that his mag pouches on his carrier dont work the way he expected. While it may be beneficial for him to know how to reload from a pocket, this is a contingency and his core skill should probably focus on operating with the kit he plans to fight with.

In much the same vain, for people serious about firearms training I would advocate to train as you would fight.

[Hawk]

We are all kids at heart. Most of us loved to play "Army", "Cowboy's & Indian's", and "Cop's & Robber's" as kids. As we grew up we put away the toys of our youth and found new "grown-up" toy's and games to play. How many fat middle age guys have you seen buy a motor cycle and dress up to resemble a Hell's Angles member? As adults we have the freedoms and (sometimes) the money to fulfill some of our dreams to a "certain" extent.

I haven't pursued any "military style" training, but I have been involved in CMP & NRA HP for the past 6 years, which has a relationship to military training (semi-military? ).

I kind of agree with Tony, but not as strongly. It seems that we really need to separate "training" into two schools. One that caters to those who are serious about practical and applicable self-defense training for every day life as a civilian. The second, to appeal to those who want more of a combat style of training to fulfill a dream or some "need" regardless if it's practical or applicable as a civilian in today's society.