General Categories > Information Arsenal
Marine Pistol Qualification: "Expert"
Mudinyeri:
--- Quote from: SemperFiGuy on August 18, 2016, 02:29:42 PM ---Yes...........
But he was just a raw boot kid at the time. Followed me around everywhere. Couldn't get rid of him.
In desperation, shipped him off to OCS.
That finally worked.
sfg
BTW: I taught Toby to shoot the M1911. That's why he fired Expert. You should see me on flintlocks.
--- End quote ---
I think it helped that you were there when the first one rolled off the production line. :D
JTH:
--- Quote from: Mudinyeri on August 18, 2016, 09:38:04 AM ---Thomas, I suspect that, yes, many current and former members of the military have quite a bit of themselves invested in being known as experts with firearms - especially those that have carried firearms on a daily basis and run, perhaps, thousands of rounds downrange on the two-way range. When a civilian - who they most likely assume has never taken incoming fire - suggests that they are not experts, it probably rankles a bit.
--- End quote ---
Because they can't tell the difference between a pistol and a rifle? That's what I always find interesting, actually. Many time when I get the angry person yelling at me, it is due to a simple comment of "having been in the military doesn't make you a pistol expert" --- which is literally obviously factually true. (The vast majority of people in military service don't shoot pistols. Therefore, being in the military doesn't make you a pistol expert.) Even someone who fits your description above has done almost all of it (outside of a few, select small military groups) with a rifle. What does that have to do with pistol skills?
Of the people who have served in the military, a fairly small percentage have actually deployed. Of the ones who have deployed, quite a few never did any shooting. Of the ones who did shooting, not too many have run "thousands of rounds downrange on the two-way range" --- and they certainly didn't do it with a pistol.
In other words, the number of people who HAVE actually deployed, and shot thousands of rounds downrange on the two-way range isn't actually that big. And you know what? The few people I know who HAVE done that don't have the attitude that I normally get about my simple statement that "military service doesn't make you an expert with a pistol."
That attitude pretty much comes from people who HAVEN'T done those things.
What I find interesting is that people who ARE expert pistol shooters, and either former or current military, uniformly agree with me. (Matter of fact, most of them are quite a bit harsher than I am about it. My favorite recent comment heard regarding the Army qualification is "Even worse is the Army pistol qual, it’s barely a sobriety test…") It is actually more like I agree with them---I was actually originally surprised at how few military folks actually ever shoot a pistol. I thought it was a part of everyone's normal basic training---but instead, it is exceedingly rare. So it isn't a surprise that being in the military doesn't necessarily give you pistol skills. What is surprising is that some military people think it does, even when they KNOW that most people in the military don't get any pistol training!
As for your comment about "carried a weapon on a daily basis" -- do they think that carrying it actually confers skill? Granted, a lot of CCW permit holders seem to think something similar, but that doesn't actually make it true. A friend of mine has deployed more than once, and as someone in a med unit, he always carries a pistol when outside of the hospital. And yet....he doesn't think that because he's carried it a lot he's an expert with a pistol.
--- Quote ---They're probably thinking a little bit along the lines of Mike Tyson's famous quotation: "Everybody has a plan until they get hit in the face."
--- End quote ---
So they are thinking about things that literally have nothing to do with the topic of discussion? I'm not sure that is much justification for their ire.
Mudinyeri:
:shrug: Thomas, I tried to give you an insight into what might be going on in their minds. Rather than trying to understand, you continue to rail on about how stupid, wrong or statistically challenged they are. This probably has at least as much to do with their response to your statements as anything.
FWIW, I agree that military service doesn't immediately equate to "expert" pistol shooting skills. However, having served myself, that message is probably received differently by other current or former members of our armed services than it is from a civilian.
gsd:
--- Quote from: Mudinyeri on August 19, 2016, 08:04:42 AM ---:shrug: Thomas, I tried to give you an insight into what might be going on in their minds. Rather than trying to understand, you continue to rail on about how stupid, wrong or statistically challenged they are. This probably has at least as much to do with their response to your statements as anything.
FWIW, I agree that military service doesn't immediately equate to "expert" pistol shooting skills. However, having served myself, that message is probably received differently by other current or former members of our armed services than it is from a civilian.
--- End quote ---
I agree with this. Most prior military I know (myself included) are only good with a pistol because we usually train above what was originally taught to us. My former stepfather (retired Army) used to say a pistol is for fighting to your rifle.(probably borrowed in some iteration from someone else). Pisol markmanship just isn't a focus in the military. Now, that may have changed, but I doubt it.
It could be that the "Military service=good shooter" connection comes from those who have served, BUT also trained to increase the skills, (people like Pat MacNamara, Steve Reichert, Tim Kennedy, Jim Gilliland to name a few). It's the nature of some civilians to lay broad generalizations on military service, i.e., "Oh, you're in the military? Do you know my friend Steve?"
JTH:
--- Quote from: Mudinyeri on August 19, 2016, 08:04:42 AM ---{various stuff}
--- End quote ---
I made a long, specific, point-by-point post, but upon reflection, it just isn't worth it.
Like always, Mud will add in comments about things not on topic, he'll take comments out of context and attack them for things not actually said, and he'll turn factual comments into emotional attacks and then castigate others other them...and overall, it just isn't worth it.
I mean, seriously? "Rather than trying to understand, you continue to rail on about how stupid, wrong or statistically challenged they are. This probably has at least as much to do with their response to your statements as anything." ----yes, because my reply to YOU indeed is why other people attack me for making my initial statement of "being in the military doesn't make you an expert with a pistol."
Sheesh.
Stated simply, Mud----your initial "reasons" for why people act that way are wrong, for the reasons I stated. (Literally you can't possibly be correct.) And my comments about people not being able to tell the difference between a rifle and a pistol are due to YOUR contention that this two-way range thing is why people act that way. And since you want to take that as me attacking other people which is my fault and whatever.....
....okay. Thanks for reminding why discussing anything with you is pretty useless, because you can't actually argue a topic.
So---never mind.
Plenty happy to discuss with other people. Talking with Mud is pretty much worthless on topics where he has an Opinion.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version