Carbine vs Pistol training

[DPB]

[QUOTE=PeteG;1025735There are people out there who profess to recreate Ranger School, for a fee.
[QUOTE]

I've been to Ranger School, they can have it. I've also seen guys advertising SERE courses, too.

But the guys who's names have been thrown around here, and the "big name," former military, firearms instructors (Magpul Dynamics, Larry Vickers, Paul Howe, Pat Rodgers, Dave Harrington, Tigerswan, Viking Tactics, etc) don't teach or advertise any of that nonsense for their open enrollment classes. From what I've gathered, they teach a lot of technique, but virtually no "tactics."

Regarding your point about instructors misrepresenting their background or experience, or playing on other's beliefs about the same, I'm right there with you. And that's a thread I'll have to avoid for the benefit of my blood pressure.

[PeteG]

Fixed it for you. I agree that FoF training is also very valuable, but no more valuable than being able to properly employ your weapon with speed, accuracy and maximum efficiency. Scenario will always dictate tactics... Train and prepare for any and all of them...

And whether it is valuable or useless will depend entirely upon when and where and how trouble finds you.

I think of the whole affair as a big game of "rock/paper/scissors." I doubt we would ever engage in a long discussion of whether the rock is better than the paper.

Maybe we have some people who have gone to the trouble of buying scissors who just want to make believe they will never encounter a rock, so they insist that is the case, and have many arguments to make it so. This would not be much different than people who make believe they will never need any of it.

[PeteG]

[QUOTE=DPB;1025756]

I've been to Ranger School, they can have it. I've also seen guys advertising SERE courses, too.

But the guys who's names have been thrown around here, and the "big name," former military, firearms instructors (Magpul Dynamics, Larry Vickers, Paul Howe, Pat Rodgers, Dave Harrington, Tigerswan, Viking Tactics, etc) don't teach or advertise any of that nonsense for their open enrollment classes. From what I've gathered, they teach a lot of technique, but virtually no "tactics."

Regarding your point about instructors misrepresenting their background or experience, or playing on other's beliefs about the same, I'm right there with you. And that's a thread I'll have to avoid for the benefit of my blood pressure.

That and the terrible consequences of violating the firearms trainer's Code of Omerta: never criticize anyone who is in the "good buddies tactical club."

I have trained with a couple of those guys, but I don't know the rest. Based upon advertisements and articles, it appears to me that most them, if not all of them, do have courses that employ military methods and equipment. That is not the same, however, as teaching military tactics.

I know Pat Rogers teaches military methods and technique for getting things done, and military tactics when he's running a course on military tactics. Based upon his more recent writings (not recent personal discussions or personal particpation in his courses - my last one with him was about 9 years ago), I gather he has gotten a bit impatient with the average, off-the-street guy with a rifle and the equipment they tend to bring to courses, and imposed certain rules about gear. But he teaches what he says he's going to teach; he is very qalified to teach that; no complaints should be heard if one signs up and that is what the course consists of. (And I cannot imagine why people who don't care to sign up should have anything to bitch about.)

The problem is that people seem to think those courses are what carbine courses are all about, because that's what they see in SWAT magazine. If one wants a course tailored to the needs and circumstances of "Ordinary Earth People," they are out there. Lots of them.

Use the right tool for the job.

[PeteG]

I've been to Ranger School, they can have it.

I really don't think they have it ... but the people likely to sign up won't know the difference.

Uh ... are we now having that other thread?

My bad.

[unloved]

Added thought: Apropos of whether there is any "talking down" of carbine traininig going on in this thread, I suggest that referring to people who train with carbines as "playing army," "wannabees" or "commandoes," or referring to carbine training as "not practical" or "not useful" is, in fact, "talking down" carbine training. I fail to see how anyone could miss the fact it is "talking down" carbine training.

I'm not referring to all carbine training. If anything I've written gives the impression that I am, I apologize for being unclear. I don't see anyone else referring to all carbine training. Maybe I'm wrong in that, but I don't see it.

I'm curious what "military TTPs" you think are being taught in firearms classes, or what you've seen or seen advertised that you think is irrelevant. I'm not aware of anyone who is running privatized basic training, and I don't think it would sell all that well. Seriously, I'm not trying to start a fight, I just don't think I've seen what you're referring too. Oh, my. There are MANY of these. TonyF cited a couple on this thread. There are people out there who profess to recreate Ranger School, for a fee.

Ranger School, for a fee is what I'm referring to as irrelevant to me. What I mean when I say I have no interest in, or need for, training to be a commando or war fighter.

I also observe these remarks are coming mostly, if not entirely, from people who have no personal experience in teaching or taking carbine courses; although I cannot know if this is true in every case.

No carbine classes for me as yet. I plan to take some when I can. Does the fact that I haven't had any training in the subject mean that I can't assess what type of carbine training is relevant to me? I think not.

I, for one, am an "armed citizen" who feels my rifles are far superior arms to any of my hand guns. Although I carry a hand gun frequently (out of necessity) I don't expect it will come into play in a sudden contact distance encounter, except, perhaps, at the very end. And, in any case where a firearm might be required, I consider myself underarmed with a pistol.

I don't disagree, however, I know that in my life I don't have access to anything other than handguns most of the time. I'm away from my home more than I'm in it. Vehicle burglaries are a serious problem in the area where I live, and the areas where I spend most of my time. I'm not keeping a long arm in my truck. It would be foolish for me to do so. Does it not make sense for me to spend most of my training time working with the tools I'll probably have to work with in reality?

Let me advance a "statistic" in support of owning and knowing how to use a rifle: "100% of the people with whom PeteG is acquainted and who work with firearms for a living prefer rifles to hand guns in fights."

I've never claimed that anyone should not own a rifle and train in it's use, nor have I claimed that everyone who trains with carbines is a wannabe.

[DPB]

I don't think they have it either, and I REALLY can't believe anyone's paying for it. Unless they're going there instead of fat camp.

I actually haven't trained with any of those guys, but I've met one or two and know the rest by reputation.

I can understand why EAG would require some pre requisites, he's never advertised it as a "beginner's" course. Of any of the guy's I mentioned, the worst thing I've ever seen or heard about any of them is that they were a little "intense." This, of course, is subjective.

It may be that we're differing on the term "military tactics." If using weapons designed for military use (ARs, AKs, Glocks, 1911s) and some limited load carrying equipment is "military equipment," then yes they are. And if "military techniques" includes things like failure drills, moving and shooting, shooting from cover, and non standard shooting positions, then yes, they are doing it.

When someone says "military techniques," I think they're teaching someone how to lay in an L shaped ambush, respond to an ambush, or some other group task. To me, very few individual skills are "military specific."

[DPB]

I fully concede that the commercial "Ranger School" is, in all probablility, not filled with things that are relevant to the armed citizen. I kind of suspect it's not filled with things that are relevant to anyone, except for those making money off of it.

I should have been specific, I was referring to the more "shooting / fighting with guns" oriented courses.



Civil discussion involving 3 (PeteG, Unloved, and myself) or more folks who don't appear to agree on things, on the internet. It's like I've just seen Bigfoot.

[unloved]

It's like I've just seen Bigfoot.

Nah, that was a UFO.

[DPB]

Well played, Sir, well played.

I would have said the Loch Ness Monster, except that I would have probably remembered if I had woken up this morning in Scotland.

[mercop]

I prefer to train citizens with an open mind who have accessed their personal needs or are at least willing to do so.- George