A Seal on tactical carbine

OldNFO talked to a Seal Chief about tactical carbine training.

The point he brings up about training specifically for the mission is what I’ve been trying to point out about training in general. There is no point in training for unlikely events.

Since the vast majority of gun owners never get ANY training and manage not to shoot themselves or anyone else accidentally, I think training is more an affectation than a requirement.

Kinda like these 5.11 pants I’m wearing now.

This entry was posted in Guns. Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to A Seal on tactical carbine

  1. Tam says:

    Kinda like these 5.11 pants I’m wearing now.

    I’m wearing Wranglers, you mall ninja, you. 😉 (And the cover garment for my handgun at the moment is a fleece woobie…)

    The vast majority of people drive cars without formal training and without killing themselves, yet I’m not going to look down on someone who takes Driver’s Ed or Defensive Driving as a “wannabe Dale Earnhardt”.

    People go to restaurants and the jogging trail without ever learning the Heimlich Maneuver or CPR, but I’m not going to deride someone who takes first aid classes as a “wannabe EMT”.

    And yet someone who keeps a Mossberg propped in the closet and takes Defensive Shotgun I is a “wannabe ninja”…

    I am puzzled by the disconnect.

    “He’s naive; I’m practical; you’re paranoid”?

  2. Tam says:

    Oh, and a “Seal” is a small aquatic mammal that balances balls on its nose.

    A “SEAL” (or, more correctly, “SEaL”) is a layabout cowboy in the Navy who Sleeps, Eats, And Lifts, and sometimes shoots pirates. 😉

  3. alan says:

    I’d be wearing jeans but work has a dress code. No Jeans.

    I have no problem with people wanting training. I have a problem with the idea that training is required.

    I would hate for Chicago to justify it’s onerous training requirement for a gun permit by pointing to gunnies and saying, “See? Even they say training is required.”

    The economist in me also questions the efficacy of a lot of training. Beyond sight picture, trigger control and basic gun handling is any training actually useful? There is a lot of anecdotal evidence either way, but even the studies done by the military with a vested interest in gun skills don’t show much marginal utility in training beyond safe gun handling and basic marksmanship.

    The gun is a highly intuitive tool and people have been using them for hundreds of years with little or no formal training.

  4. alan says:

    Yeah, I was going for a play on words there. As in, “seal the deal.”

    That’s what I get for trying to be clever.

  5. Tam says:

    I have a problem with the idea that training is required.

    Required? No. I am foursquare against requiring formal training for a CCW permit. (Or for requiring CCW permits, for that matter.)

    Advisable? Hell yes. I enjoy a culture of competence, whether in writing or driving or gun handling. And a misspelled word never killed anybody. Ignorance is never amusing or laudable.

  6. Tam says:


    And to add to your comment about “safe gun handling”:

    There is more to “safe gun handling” than taking it out of the box or soft case on an indoor range. Think of all the minimally-trained cops and soldiers who have shot themselves in the foot holstering or drawing loaded guns over the years because the sterile environment of the 10-lane covered range never taught them how to handle a loaded gun other than off the loading table.

    I understand that some people are happy with minimal competence, and that’s cool, but the desire to be better than mediocre is not something that should be derided, whether it’s sewing or shooting.

  7. Ancient Woodsman says:

    Good post about the SEAL. Valid about being skeptical about needing an offensive carbine class, but forgets that most of us non-SOF/non-SWAT folks will be using these tools defensivelynot offensively. Different mindset, different legalities. Unlike those who do so for a profession – where the tool is means to an objective and not politically correct to be referred to as ‘fun’ – many of us do consider time in a good class as fun. As long as people can own defensive long arms there will be a need for good classes, therefore good instructors.

    There is no military equivalent to smallbore rimfire bullseye, skeet, or trap, either. We don’t stop practicing such because there is no current value to these to the SOF or SWAT operator. We practice those because it is fun. Someone forgot that for many, arms are just plain fun.

    I do carry arms in my profession. I am an instructor & armorer. I do not see a ‘need’ for most folks to take some of the courses I’ve had, but would not prohibit them from doing so if they can. Budgets for time & ammo are limited so I recommend more time on basics & safety, stressing that if the person can safely use their chosen arms routinely in their environment (practice repeatedly doing what they like to do), they will stand a better chance of doing so safely under stress doing something no one likes to do.

  8. mike w. says:

    I am foursquare against requiring formal training for a CCW permit.

    Sadly there are plenty of gun owners who support formal training requirements to get a CCW. Sometimes we are our own worst enemy.

  9. Old NFO says:

    All I’ve got to say is I’m amazed at how a given post can be interpreted so many ways… The SPECIFIC questions were on advanced tactical carbine with bells and whistles, ala Tam’s original post, and quality issues with ranges/instructors in the civilian world vs. military.

    AW you are correct, but again a clarification, neither I nor the Chief believes there is any real need for team type/SWAT/LEO courses for a civilian. How much will you learn in 3-5 days, how much will you retain in 1/3/6 months with no practice? The Chief was in favor of basic weapon training, regardless of weapon, but pointed to basic pistol as the best bang for the $$ spent.

  10. pdb says:

    AW you are correct, but again a clarification, neither I nor the Chief believes there is any real need for team type/SWAT/LEO courses

    So only government employees should know how to fight in small groups or in a building?

    Is that your final answer, or are the goalposts going to move again?

  11. alan says:

    I don’t think anyone is saying you can’t do it.

    Don’t need doesn’t mean you CAN’T or Shouldn’t be allowed.

  12. Caleb says:

    Just like you don’t NEED that “military style assault rifle”, right?

  13. alan says:

    No Caleb, I don’t need one. But you persist in trying to make “don’t need” equal “shouldn’t be allowed to”. I think they are not the same at all.

    I’ve not once said no one should be allowed to take those classes, I just think they are of little or no use to most people.

  14. Alpheus says:

    I don’t think he said that “civilians” shouldn’t know these things. He said that they just don’t need to. I’m sort-of inclined to agree.

    I’m only sort-of, though, because I’m a member of the Unorganized Militia, and there may come a time where I would need to know these things, too. But even then, I think Safety & Basics would go a long way in a Call Out the Militia scenario.

Comments are closed.