Lots of people probably think that in the military of course you're going to learn about guns and that much of the training will involve guns, but from what I've heard, lots of military training does not involve guns and depending on a person's job in the military, their training might not involve guns at all, or at least very little of it. Obviously, there are other ways to learn about guns besides joining the military, and joining the military just so you can learn about guns if you ask me is a really dumb reason to join. However, Im wondering if some of the best competitive and self defense shooters in the world have military backgrounds.
So how much does the military teach a person about guns?
- Thread starter PhotonGuy
- Start date
Depends upon the branch of service and MOS.
All Marines are combat infantrymen, and spend time on rifle proficiency. Airmen? Not so much.
Depends upon the event. More world-class competitive long-distance shooters are military trained than not. As far as pistols and other "practical shooting" events go, you have to consider police training, as well as people like me who had other reasons to need to be able to shoot well, but never served in the military or police.
Tgace
Grandmaster
Well...no disrespect to my USMC brethren, but the Marines tell recruits that every Marine is a "Rifleman"...far different concept.
Check this site for verification:
http://www.futurejarheads.org/everymarinearifleman.htm
Army Basic trains everyone in fundamental marksmanship and basic infantry tactics as well...very basic....the USMC just has a better PR department.
To answer the OP. In the Army/USMC at least (don't know about the other branches)...everyone will have to qualify with a rifle to pass basic training. My basic also had a "US Weapons" phase that familiarized you with other weapons/crew served platforms (M60 back then, M2, AT4, Claymore, etc.). When one goes to their Advanced Individual Training for their Military Occupational Specialization they may get additional weapons training/qualification standards depending on the job they are assigned.
J W
Green Belt
In USAF BMT we had to qualify with the M16. This amounted to one day of rifle training; a morning class on how it works, and then an afternoon at the range.
Of course, this was over a decade ago and I think they've added a couple of weeks to basic since then, so they may spend some more time on it these days.
Then in the Air National Guard we would qualify every couple of years, and that was about it. Of course, I had a backshop job so firearms weren't really a part of it. I'm sure the Security Forces guys spent much more time with guns than I did.
Of course, this was over a decade ago and I think they've added a couple of weeks to basic since then, so they may spend some more time on it these days.
Then in the Air National Guard we would qualify every couple of years, and that was about it. Of course, I had a backshop job so firearms weren't really a part of it. I'm sure the Security Forces guys spent much more time with guns than I did.
Our military, police, etc. have in general very basic skill sets that are taught to raw recruits. Whether with a gun, CQC or defensive tactics. When I went through the police academy it was very basic. Typically when someone goes into a more specialized group they get more extensive training. (ie. Infrantry, Sniper, Navy Seals, Special Forces, SWAT, etc) Even then that extensive training may be in depth or broad in certain areas. Take for instance one of my firearms instructors is a former sniper in the US Army. Based on his training he is an excellent resource for questions that I might have. I pick his brain and a couple of old friends of mine (also a US Army Sniper, Marine Recon) all the time in regards to firearms. When we talk however regarding blade, stick or empty hands they defer to my training and experience. (except the Marine Recon as he also sought out extensive martial training) So unless they are going on to specialized training in a certain unit, group then their overall training will be pretty basic.
Sorry I’m late on this.
To better address the point you’re making, may I change the terminology a bit? Let’s go from “learn about guns” to “train in combat shooting”. That’s probably what you mean, but if I’m wrong, I apologize.
If one wanted to learn about combat shooting, the military isn’t a bad method of doing so AS LONG AS one understands that they may OR MAY NOT be accepted into a specialized combat assignment and could just as easily end up driving a truck or painting rafters. One must also understand that even “combat troops” don’t get advanced firearms training per se as their roles are so diverse that they’re more valuable knowing a little about a lot than being an expert in CQB specializing in entry techniques.
As far as branch of the military, that’s a gamble, as well. Everyone who wants to “learn about guns” opts for Marines or Army so the competition to get into advanced schools is pretty high. On the other hand, precious few people join the Air Force for such reasons, so the competition to get into their assignments like base security and para-rescue (lots of combat training there) may not be as high. If you want some really interesting CQB and entry training, look at the Coast Guard. The enter ships and small craft every day, and they have to be good at it.
Keep this statistic in mind. During WW2, our biggest conflict ever, at best estimate only 7 to 10 percent of soldiers saw actual combat. That being the case, there’s no real need to train all our soldiers in combat roles.
Law enforcement is hit and miss, too (no pun intended). While we tend to think of law enforcement as being like the movies where one could easily find oneself in a firefight against heavily armed Columbian mercenaries using stolen military hardware, eh, it just doesn’t happen that much. Sure, big city entry teams may see some action, but unless you get in there, most law enforcement training is going to be learning how to handle people who just had a car wreck, the legalities of searching properties, and mundane other things that are actually useful in the performance of duties. I had a retired officer pull out a pen and his duty weapon and put them on a desk. He said “I used that gun once in 30 years on duty . . . the pen, every day. I should have spent more time in English class than on the range.”
This is what I tell people when they ask about “combat shooting” or whatever. What most people really mean is that they want to become a better INDIVIDUAL combat shooter. Precious few of us are going to get assaulted out on the street with 3 or 4 more of our “fire team” causing us to go into CQB mode, you know? Unless you HAVE a fire team, learning team tactics may not be as valuable as improving individual skill.
When it comes to developing individual skill, nothing beats learning some shooting basics, putting a few thousand rounds down range, getting more advanced training, put another few thousand rounds down range, and continually add to your training.
The biggest mistake I see with most people getting into shooting is that they go out and buy the coolest ultra-hip combat pistol available and budget nothing for ammunition. To get REALLY good at combat shooting, it takes more ammunition than guns. Having a Wilson 1911 doesn’t make you a great shooter. Putting 5,000 rounds through a decent Taurus or Ruger handgun is a good start, though. NOTHING WRONG WITH GOOD HARDWARE, but shooting it is where skill will develop.
If one were to really want to develop personal skill, I’d recommend looking for a range that hosts USPSA or other “practical” shooting competitions. Go to one or two, and ask where the NEWER shooters got their training. If you hear the same name over and over, try there.
In the US Navy medical corps, as a physician, there was not formal training in firearms. In fact, they were probably safer not letting us near guns. On a less flippant note; there were occasions when soldiers would end up in the ER with weapons (in a small isolated facility without trained security people on site). It would have been helpful at those times to have had some awareness of weapons so that we could have been more comfortable handling and securing weapons that the patient brought in. I actually did arrange for the marine detachment to provide a training session, but that limited exposure was not as good as going to the range a few times and learning how to use the weapons would have been.
I would think, in some military jobs such as the Navy SEALS you would learn a ton about guns and you would undergo heavy, and I mean heavy, training with guns. However I believe, I could be wrong about this, that even with the Navy SEALS that most of their training is not with guns but with PT (Physical Training which consists of various exercises such as running, calisthenics, ect.) so I would think that a Navy SEAL, generally speaking, would not do as well as an olympic shooter in a shooting competition that is done in controlled conditions where you've got stationary targets that aren't shooting back at you, but a Navy SEAL would do better in a tactical situation where you have to shoot while moving and where you got moving targets that are also shooting at you.
One, and only one, phase of BUDS (SEAL school) is PT-intensive, for a purpose. It's the method they have found works best to weed out the candidates who lack the willpower and drive to persevere through anything and complete a mission. For groups like that, the time to learn that someone can't hack it is in the school -- not in the field. Much of BUDS is spent learning the basic skills needed to function on the SEAL Teams, including combat diving, small unit tactics, demolition, and more.
Military weapons training is varied, depending on the MOS. Some learn a lot -- others not so much. Artillerymen don't learn nearly as much about rifles as infantry -- who don't learn much about air-to-air missiles or flying fighter aircraft. Same thing with police weapons training; most cops learn enough to handle the guns they're issued and carrying, and enough to handle other guns safely. But that doesn't mean they can pick up any gun and use it, or that they're all super marksman. I'm a LE Firearms Instructor, among other things. In any qualification session, I'll have officers who barely pass, and offers who barely miss a perfect score -- or even get a perfect score.
So are you a bodyguard?
No. I'm a physicist. :lfao:
Which may just be more dangerous...
I see. Well it goes without saying that Navy SEALs are among people who are in the best shape in the whole world. Also, Navy SEALs do not get over the hill with age. A SEAL would probably choose to die before allowing himself to deteriorate. Not to mention the fact that SEALs of course do learn how to use all sorts of guns and weapons. They must live the good life.
Also, although this doesn't really have anything to do with guns I would like to point this out anyway. A student should know what they need to do to get to whatever next belt level they're working on, including the black belt. If the student doesn't know then they should ask. A student should ask their sensei what they need to do to get a black belt, specifically, they should ask what they need to do to meet the sensei's standards for the rank of black belt.
Similar threads
