B Cat Holder Wanted!!

If you really want to learn something and be good at it you will.
By any avenues you can.
Reading and instruction and practice is where everyone at the top of the game started.

If you are so committed to being the best or even just good at something you will read all you can on the subject. Filter the crap and digest the rest.

In my other profession it was part of my job to train.
I tried to train people to think logically and laterally at the same time.
Where others would say you do it like this, i would say you could do it3 or4 different ways and explain the benefits and downfalls of each method verbally,with diagrams, and practically.

Invariably my trainees at the end of a trip would thank me and say they learnt more this trip than in their last 3 with someone else.

You tripped on a training nugget of gold VC. We all learn best by a blend of seeing, hearing and doing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tussock

Formal training means its all written down somewhere. In other words, its directly from a book.

---

I was just a dumb grunt. Your semantics are confusing me:D

Personally I never got good at welding reading. I spent a hour each day at school for a solid 6months before it got good.

Mig welding. Compared to 99% of the other kids mine didnt look like birdshit. That welding is easy though (now) but the idea is still the same nothing beats doing it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tussock

It means you didn't get a copy of the book:D

---

I admit to being a dumb grunt and slightly in awe of your current training methodoligy.

If I gave you all the written doctrine there is on say, a section sized attack on a fixed position. You should be able to train 10 of your chosen men how to accomplish this better than I could, going by your logic?
My experience in this regard counts for nothing?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Toby

but the idea is still the same nothing beats doing it

---

I 100% agree Toby, I love doing "it"! See I am one of those weird buggers!:thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by R93

I admit to being a dumb grunt and slightly in awe of your current training methodoligy.

If I gave you all the written doctrine there is on say, a section sized attack on a fixed position. You should be able to train 10 of your chosen men how to accomplish this better than I could, going by your logic?
My experience in this regard counts for nothing?

---

Add in the complexity of a mortar crew to provide cover and make it a nocturnal assault and I will join your section if you are short a man

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tussock

Did you read anything I wrote? Where did I say experience counts for nothing? Suggesting experience alone is ever remotely productive is stupid. Suggesting just reading alone is remotely productive, also stupid.

However, if you gave me all the written doctrine available, that would only be a starting point.

If I think "section sized attack on a fixed position" I think Charles Upham. Who was a surveyor, and is sited as having an utterly superb eye for terrain when attacking a fixed position.

He had knowledge outside of the realm of military doctrine, and outside the realm of his own experience.

Put it this way. If your rely solely on your formal training, plus the things you bump into (experience), you will never compete with someone who has the same experience as you, same training as you, but also has read widely, and therefore has the benefit of thousands of other peoples experience.

Thats all most books are. A distillation of someone's experience. Its like cheating. That person who worked and studied for 40 put down the best of his experience, on paper, for the express purpose of giving me a head start.

---

Yes, I have read what you have written. You and others have in my opinion, have discredited formal training that is available to members of police and the like.
Again my opinion, but I believe you are overlooking the reasons they are trained the way they are, by applying what is to you, a better and more logical approach. Yet, strangely you have no experience what so ever, being trained in and for their environment.

The police may not have the best pistol shots in NZ but I would expect they are trained to a standard that their current post/position requires.
They are also trained in such a way that it may not show fruit in a pistol club competition, but it will give them the best chance of carring out their job of downing a crim if they ever need to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rushy

Add in the complexity of a mortar crew to provide cover and make it a nocturnal assault and I will join your section if you are short a man

---

I am not short and only know the daylight "Up the guts assault" sorry, Rushy. You can go lead scout and I will call in DFSW and indirect, danger close:thumbsup:

Okay so if you guys are finished........

I am the one that started this thread. Simply put, I prefer someone who has been through the Police testing to give me a hand. Because they have done the test and know what it involves.

If the top shooter in NZ taught me, well cool stuff. I might still fail a police test because my technique might not be jumping through the hoops they require me to. Does that not make any sense?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dougie

Okay so if you guys are finished........

I am the one that started this thread. Simply put, I prefer someone who has been through the Police testing to give me a hand. Because they have done the test and know what it involves.

If the top shooter in NZ taught me, well cool stuff. I might still fail a police test because my technique might not be jumping through the hoops they require me to. Does that not make any sense?

---

+1 End of thread;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by R93

+1 End of thread;)

---

Thank fuck for that. Page one actually had it sorted.

Cheers mate.

Just bet me to it dougie.

The trend here is, if you want to shoot well get trained by someone who can shoot AND train well.

Once you can shoot well a read of requirements for your test(or someone who has done it schooling you on what's involved) should allow you to practice any different points not covered by the sports shooter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dougie

They might be, but they will have undertaken the tests that I want to ace..

---

Sorry it was in SECOND post, still before you started to rant.

Attachment 16505

http://i943.photobucket.com/albums/a...psb279754a.jpg

I prefer pub logic............arguments start followed by some frantic windmilling cunts tip over and someone wins, weather you were wright or wrong or just plain fucken arrogant the missus always has the last word............weather your right or wrong you should learn to just fuck up sometimes.

Look! I had the last word.

Word.

Having a look back now, I originally interpreted it as wanting to learn to shoot properly and to the best of your ability rather than to simply pass a test.
There is a heap of info and help presented here in more than one form, but end of the day it's up to the individual to decide what they want to do and achieve.

I shot not bad for 2 yrs and 10k rd's... 5 mins of elbow work with someone that actually knew what they were doing instructor wise and my groups halved and speed almost doubled.


I personally scoff when someone mentions guns and military training..
Because you get to qualify a couple times a year and use a gun as part of your job ans wear camo and march around 350days a year or issue speeding tickets doesn't mean they have any actual skills or correct training
those involved usually have little to no actual skills and techniques that have been developed on the last 70+ odd yrs
Many procedures, postures and grips predate WW2.
I'm not going to try and justify my comments other than i have experienced it to a certain extent and if you WANT to shoot better and spend the time researching, reading and practicing and/or getting training from someone that has some idea, you will soon find out for yourself, the easy way of the hard way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spanners

Having a look back now, I originally interpreted it as wanting to learn to shoot properly and to the best of your ability rather than to simply pass a test.
There is a heap of info and help presented here in more than one form, but end of the day it's up to the individual to decide what they want to do and achieve.

I shot not bad for 2 yrs and 10k rd's... 5 mins of elbow work with someone that actually knew what they were doing instructor wise and my groups halved and speed almost doubled.


I personally scoff when someone mentions guns and military training..
Because you get to qualify a couple times a year and use a gun as part of your job ans wear camo and march around 350days a year or issue speeding tickets doesn't mean they have any actual skills or correct training
those involved usually have little to no actual skills and techniques that have been developed on the last 70+ odd yrs
Many procedures, postures and grips predate WW2.
I'm not going to try and justify my comments other than i have experienced it to a certain extent and if you WANT to shoot better and spend the time researching, reading and practicing and/or getting training from someone that has some idea, you will soon find out for yourself, the easy way of the hard way.

---

You are obviously after a bite but if thats your honest opinion ref the military, your ignorance is truely astounding. :roll

PM sent Dougie :thumbsup:

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 :D

When the Army adopted the P226 in 92' I was sent on the original fam cse. It was run by the top shot and weapons instructor from SiG. Sweedish fella. He was ex-military, but what the fuck would he know.:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tussock

Every territorial soldier who did his basic training will tell you he is the elite of the elite, the sharp end of the best fighting force the world has ever known blah blah blah. Really military training is not the best way to do anything. Its a way that most people can get right, most of the time, and a way that a bunch of guys that can't find their shoe laces most of the time let alone tie them can be made moderately effective.

Some people come out of the military knowing all kinds of stuff. They are lost in the mire of the thousands of people grossly exaggerating their effectiveness.

Before you all have a cry, I have spent plenty of time in the bush with ex-army guys. They are like a perfect cog in an awesome machine, trained extremely well to do the job of that cog. And what can a cog do if you take it out of the machine? Not much.

Been there, done that, got the T-shirt. I will believe the "military elite" line when I see it. Yet to see it.

---

The Military would do it self proud having you and spanners giving the final stamp of approval on potential recruits so they can only hope to aspire to your level of..........Legen............wait for it.................dary.:thumbsup:

You should be given honourary Wings and Dager embloms and have your portraits in all unit headquarters:thumbsup:

And we're off again :D

In the same way that there is a fundamental difference between civilian competitive training and paramilitary training, there is also a world off difference between firearms training for basic army units vs specialised units.

And Tussock, PLEASE READ THIS SLOWLY : different, not one is better or worse..., you are the guy who is making this a "military training sucks" debate.

In exactly the same way that I detest the typical wannabe TF weekender claiming to be the second coming of some elite force :ORLY: having someone who has sweet blow-all military training or experience spout off about how pathetic it supposedly is, is not a lot better in my book :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tussock

Every territorial soldier who did his basic training will tell you he is the elite of the elite, the sharp end of the best fighting force the world has ever known blah blah blah. Really military training is not the best way to do anything. Its a way that most people can get right, most of the time, and a way that a bunch of guys that can't find their shoe laces most of the time let alone tie them can be made moderately effective.

Some people come out of the military knowing all kinds of stuff. They are lost in the mire of the thousands of people grossly exaggerating their effectiveness.

Before you all have a cry, I have spent plenty of time in the bush with ex-army guys. They are like a perfect cog in an awesome machine, trained extremely well to do the job of that cog. And what can a cog do if you take it out of the machine? Not much.

Been there, done that, got the T-shirt. I will believe the "military elite" line when I see it. Yet to see it.

---

Go fuck you're self :D

Sent from my HUAWEI Y210-0100 using Tapatalk 2

Neckers, not really sure that is the solution... ;)

What if he manages to impregnate himself ? You'd get a super distilled tussock mini-me, imagine trying to have a debate with that :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ebf

Neckers, not really sure that is the solution... ;)

What if he manages to impregnate himself ? You'd get a super distilled tussock mini-me, imagine trying to have a debate with that :D

---

I'm just taking the piss I'm to retarded to be on this forum.
:what::eek::screwy::sly::confused:

Sent from my HUAWEI Y210-0100 using Tapatalk 2

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tussock

Why are you mad at me? Should not you be mad at the guy who told us he got his broken nose "training hand to hand combat with the SAS" but actually got it from a nerdy kid from Uni who weighed 40kg less than him? Or the guys who turned up in full webbing and talked for hours about their training, then got blisters and had to sit in the van? Or the guy who was "special forces" and only lasted 4 hours in camp (that is a actual record). Or the guy with 20 years in the army built a million dollar camp in a wadi in the dry season? One guy was pretty clever but he still wrote evac procedures which nearly got me killed.

Like I said. All the good ones lost in the mire of the shit talkers. Its not my fault if all the stuff I have heard has never ended up matching up with what I have seen. So yeah, talk up the army shit to your hearts content. But you might want to do something about the tall tales.

---

You're just as big a shit stirrer as us common people tussock and your a moderator,of your so high and mighty why don't you set a good example.that's what clever cunts do


Sent from my HUAWEI Y210-0100 using Tapatalk 2

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tussock

Why are you mad at me? Should not you be mad at the guy who told us he got his broken nose "training hand to hand combat with the SAS" but actually got it from a nerdy kid from Uni who weighed 40kg less than him? Or the guys who turned up in full webbing and talked for hours about their training, then got blisters and had to sit in the van? Or the guy who was "special forces" and only lasted 4 hours in camp (that is a actual record). Or the guy with 20 years in the army built a million dollar camp in a wadi in the dry season? One guy was pretty clever but he still wrote evac procedures which nearly got me killed.

Like I said. All the good ones lost in the mire of the shit talkers. Its not my fault if all the stuff I have heard has never ended up matching up with what I have seen. So yeah, talk up the army shit to your hearts content. But you might want to do something about the tall tales.

---

Not mad at you all Tim, just amused tbh. You know I think well of you and would happily share a beer or a camp with you anytime. I just disagree with you in this instance. However, I agree, there is a lot of weekend warriors out there. But I am sure you will agree and would be able to filter out the weirdo's when the credibility is just in their demeanor not their words.:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dougie

Look! I had the last word.

Word.

---

You'd hope. But no :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by R93

You are obviously after a bite but if thats your honest opinion ref the military, your ignorance is truely astounding. :roll

---

It wasn't for a bite.
There is a big difference to studying for a test and learning the content , rather than being given the answers the day before hand.

So basically if you have anything to do with the armed forces you are automatically a pro right??
This is the attitude I disagree with.
So many times we have army both current and past and police turn up to shoot with the attitude 'I'm in the army or police - I know what I'm doing' and proceed to grip the pistol like its their 1st time picking it up and generally shoot like shit. 'This is the way we are taught'
Doesn't mean its right or current and can't be improved but you hit a brick wall that goes up 'I'm in the armed forces, therefore I know'
The taught grip is 100yrs old.. For a gun 100yrs old that was out of date before WW2

If you can't seem room to improve and want to maintain the army or police knows best mentality then whatever floats your boat

Quote:

---

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 :D

---

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

Your latest post is nothing like your last. I would have to agree and sympathize with you on the last one.
I know and accept the military or police do not know everything or what is best. But in some cases, the standard of training and expectations in certain roles is higher than you will ever encounter on the outside. It has to be, or any muppet could be SAS for example.
As ebf said there are many different branches of both that require different standards. They can be worlds apart, even in the same unit.

Plonkers that show up to shoots and announce they are military or police are just plonkers. IMO they are generally dishonest and have not learnt that actions speak way louder than words.

I know a lot of people would disagree, but I get a tad defensive when the military (Army) is challenged on here.:D I always will, and make no apologies for it as long as I dont get banned:thumbsup:.
I have had a pleasure and the privilage as a soldier, to see and do things that a lot of people could or would not do. I was able to do it with some of the highest calibre Kiwis, I consider a privilage, just to know.;)
I know it is not always intended and usually I can handle being insulted personally, but not them.

Analytical buggers, those "Drop Shorts" (Arty):D

Quote:

---

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.

And thus the issue of no tone and context via short text.
It's a lot easier to discuss with words spoken rather than iPhone screen
Intention/point/argument is still the same, maybe 5th time lucky we're getting there lol

For fucks sake.

Are you guys trying to get fit by typing or something ??


Tim