Thread: B Cat Holder Wanted!!

Originally Posted by ebf

spanners, firearms training in a civilian competitive context and in a paramilitary context are two FUNDAMENTALY different things

And to make a generalised statement that small arms training in the military has not advanced significantly since WW2 (your words, 70 years) is pretty astounding.

I've personally had the benefit of both types of training, chalk and cheese mate

Fundamentally different ?? The fundamentals of grip, stance and sight picture should not change

If you're into history or old military firearms etc have a look at the publications over the years and wars. Less the over the top bayonet march they are damn near the same from ww1 to Vietnam. Even looks like the drawings were done by the same fella
Some really neat old stuff

Originally Posted by Spanners

Fundamentally different ?? The fundamentals of grip, stance and sight picture should not change

Some of the fundamentals are different. Stance/concealment is a good example. Weapon retention is another, pretty important if you are a police officer, a non issue for Joe Blogs at the range.

But I think you misunderstood me, the difference I am talking about is that military training (at least at the basic level) is all about bare bones competency, and also uniformity. In a platoon you want people to do things the same way. You also learn a different skill set in terms of firing while moving, house clearing etc. bottom line is they teach you how to be a soldier, and how to react in combat.

Civilian competitive shooting is all about individual excellence, and fine tuned to a particular discipline like IPSC.

Most first world countries, including New Zealand, now use electronic systems to do qualification, and also to diagnose problems with rifle skills. These things show you all kinds of detail about sights, barrel movement etc.