Just took this course this weekend. Video

[the1kidd03]

The military doesn't care about eye protection. After all, they're not afraid of any lawsuits for negligent acts like the civilian side of things are.

agreed...only in entry level combat training do they make everyone use eye pro...after that its personal choice, unless you have one of those above you who is passionate about eye pro

 

[the1kidd03]

I at least find it more important to scrutinize the tactics/training used itself...rather than whether or not the camera man cares for his own safety based in his personal level of trust for the students......I think this is point i've been trying to make all along.....stick to what you KNOW in the video rather than variables which you can only assume......I have had students who were overly safety conscious before and because I needed to make a demonstration for a question in the class I TOLD the student to not be afraid to aim in my direction....we can't assume that the same thing may not have taken place here based off a video clip

 

[Steve MI]

agreed...in close proximity training, for civilians who have likely not had any prior training...simunition would be the best choice

although, being that guy that stands in one position trying to draw a weapon in a fleeing, panicing crowd makes you stand out like a sore thumb to the likely only ONE person who would not be running (attacker) and thus making you the next feasible target...to conceal your intentions in such a situation one should at least appear to be running in a safe direction to not draw attention to yourself and engage as soon as his attention is not in your general direction (with discretion of course)

Never said i would be standing still in a crowd i mentioned it on the basis of drawing a handgun in a moving chaotic crowd i have done this a few thousand times in classes training and sims and once in real life....( No shots fired..)

and as far as glass goes, the training is a matter of choice....if you felt unsafe firing near glass you can easily say that you don't wish to take part in this event...and instructor has no authority to force you and a GOOD one will leave it at that......I'm more inclined to think that the person shooting inside the car was likely an instructor doing a demonstration....I can't see them allowing 10+ people to shoot through expensive auto glass in up to 10+ vehicles...or taking the time to replace a window in fewer cars for each student..

there were different shooters in the car i have also shot a lot of car glass inside and out there are right ways and wrong ways to do having done many live fire confidence drills in my life so to speak i have no issues with being in or around other competent shooters very few few in this video were as it seamed.. lack of many skills and simple basics ones at that including how to hold the gun or apply proper fundamentals

I teach all over the country LE/MIL/and good earth people i see this alot from schools trying to make a name for themselves it works its a bad name


.but that just goes to show my other point that we can scrutinize a VIDEO all day long....we don't know the nature of any of it or the intent of each scenario given to the students

yes understood then dont show the video

 

[Chaz]

......my point was that in a training environment we can over analyze every little detail of everyone's training....it's not something to get panties in a bunch over...

Thanx Kid!!!! What you say is true. If those who wish to critisize were there, that would be different. They can pick the video apart all they wish. (It was not professional and "IF" the cameraman was in any danger, it was his choice. But he wasn't.) Picking things apart is something people tend to do on the internet. It seems that some who tend to critisize seem to "have a dog in the fight", as it were. Yes, they may have experience, that is true, but it's a home made video. Not a documentary. This is starting to sound more like Newt and Mit as of late. So be it.

Bottom line, it was safe. The instructors did a good job and if others wish to pick apart the video, call them a "movie critic" then.

I was hoping to "help" others by posting this video and not cause such a stir. I will not make that mistake again. Looks like too much ego got involved. Stuff like this really does back good people off from doing good things.

My apologies for causing such a ruckus. I could go back and forth with the nay sayers of this video all day and all it would do is waste precious time I don't have. Sad.

My thoughts are still:
Take a course (or 2 or 3 or 50). Who's ever course you feel works for you.
Exercize your right of choice backed up by personal responsibility when you can.
Don't assume you know it all. Makes you look bad.

Thanx again Kid. You are MUCH more eloquent with the written word than I. (which means I can and will be more easily flamed - much like the video) In my view, you have your "sh*t in one sock and that sock located". Thank you.

Later...

 

[the1kidd03]

yes understood then dont show the video

assumptions....is my pointentirely.......for all we know, the video could have been made by a hiredmarketing agency with NO firearms experience......this is why I say it'simportant to stick to the "tactics" displayed in the video ratherthan the "semantics" of how it was made or the students in it.....sure you can debate their skill level, but what's the point...to substantiate your own "expertise" to a bunch of random people on the internet?....debating the tactics and value of the scenarios they presented would be more efficent use of this thread IMO to better collaborate/develop more effective methods of realistic training

there were different shooters in the car i have also shot a lot of car glass inside and out there are right ways and wrong ways to do having done many live fire confidence drills in my life so to speak i have no issues with being in or around other competent shooters very few few in this video were as it seamed.. lack of many skills and simple basics ones at that including how to hold the gun or apply proper fundamentals

I teach all over the country LE/MIL/and good earth people i see this alot from schools trying to make a name for themselves it works its a bad name

so then bring up what was wrong about that particular scenario exactly for discussion, rather than common sense safety issues which most here can identify and understand that these are STUDENTS and not likely as trained as most of us on this forum and each has their own "safety threshold" just as you and I would

I don't question your skills, experience, job, etc....but to point out...
If I told you I was a SEAL would you believe me??? Then why preach to random people on the internet how much experience you have or who you train when it provides no additional credibility to the subject matter at hand with no way to prove it.......there's no need to get frustrated about the discussion..
as far as the crowd point...Ithink I misinterpreted what you were trying to say...I'm sure you're skilled orat least have the common sense in such an event...I was merely aiming topresent a point about training for such a situation (tactic)...apologies for not understanding entirely what you were saying

I think having a training section is important and highly valuable, but it seems to turn into personal choice debates and pissing matches over irrelevant matters (such as military vs civilian vs LE or I have more experience than you) rather than constructive collaboration of experience in order to develop more efficient training methods

 

[the1kidd03]

Looks like too much ego got involved. Stuff like this really does back good people off from doing good things.

You said it ALL right there!!!!...this attribute seems to be VERY indicative of the training community and on this forum in general a lot of the time (not necessarily only the educators) but it does shy a LOT of people away from otherwise good things.....as I already pointed out I think discussing TACTICS in a given situation and better solutions would be more efficient use of EVERYONE here's time......example, the following

someone pointed out the methods they use for shooting through glass here was "wrong" by their definition.....ok, WHY? What SHOULD they have done/COULD they have done to make it more effective?...and then someone can counter with their own experience and we can COLLABORATE towards more EFFICIENT training........rather than..."THAT'S NOT SAFE!!".....ok, that's why it's not YOUR class right?...most here know better...we don't need the OBVIOUS pointed out and get off track with egos and "I'm better than you" BS

 

[samrothstein01]

Then why preach to random people on the internet how much experience you have or who you train when it provides no additional credibility to the subject matter at hand with no way to prove it.......

Research is mandatory for training. Understanding credibility takes effort from both parties. Take a look at the AAR's that are plentiful on INGO, browse websites, or in SteveMI's case, sign up and suffer through a class of his. If you wish to add credibility to a particular training outfit, technique, or method my recommendation is to provide a thorough AAR with details of who, what, when, where, why, and how... not a short (perhaps poorly executed) video.

 

[the1kidd03]

Research is mandatory for training. Understanding credibility takes effort from both parties. Take a look at the AAR's that are plentiful on INGO, browse websites, or in SteveMI's case, sign up and suffer through a class of his. If you wish to add credibility to a particular training outfit, technique, or method my recommendation is to provide a thorough AAR.

thanks to the military I know a LOT of acronyms..but AAR?

 

[samrothstein01]

thanks to the military I know a LOT of acronyms..but AAR?

Sorry...After Action Review. Typically a detailed review of an event after the action has occurred, recounting the events, lessons learned, pros, cons, etc.

 

[the1kidd03]

Sorry...After Action Review. Typically a detailed review of an event after the action has occurred, recounting the events, lessons learned, pros, cons, etc.

gotcha....seen them on here, but hadn't payed attention to that particular acronym....."after action report" but I never really heard many acronym that..lol

 

[fireblade]

I get the purple, but I do question the validity of this photo. 1. that uniform hasn't been in service for a number of years in any branch, I would venture to guess about 7 years +/- ......2. last I checked we didn't "issue" AK's, I know a lot of units "train" with them on occasion for familiarity sake but the next thing I notice is that ...that's not a Berreta in the drop leg....looks more like a Sig ? possibly........if anything I would say non-US soldiers at best ?!....oh and their shooting stance, although barely able to see most of them, is very "off" from what typical grunts are taught...they are easily taken off balance in the position presented here

lol those are US soldiers ( am there ) and the place is Bosnia..... we are just playing around with captured weapons before we destroy them ...........as for picture am careful what i post for security i have been in the military 20 + my friend ....any way this has gotten way off topic am not going to waste my breath on some here after this post........if you haven't walk the walk ....shut the **** up...... i haven't said anything about tactics my only point in my post in this thread was a lot of us military high speed types don't wear safety glasses in some real simulation training which is the truth ..........and got attack for it........ to those who don't like it **** off

 

[GBuck]

All this, started by a video of a class that looks like it is taught by a mall cop. I spent the whole time watching waiting for someone to shoot themselves in the leg. Seriously, what was actually taught at this "class"?

 

[ATM]

...if you haven't walk the walk ....shut the **** up......

By "walk the walk", do you mean attending to a variety of training?

Or does walking the walk to you simply mean being in a vocation where some level of training is provided for you.

The safety glasses thing is a non-point. There is nothing to be gained by abandoning glasses during training except to make the training easier to accomplish - not exactly the purpose of training, right?

I mean, who wants to deal with fogging or sweat on the lenses or slipping down on your nose to obstruct your view and having to deal with all that.

 

[HICKMAN]

so if you were carrying in a crowd and someone opened fire, are you going to ask everyone to please step away before reacting??

you're not separating TRAINING from the real thing.

Someone gets shot by one of these guys in a class, State Reps and Senators start getting calls calling for gun control.

we're talking about civilians training here, not soldiers.

 

[HICKMAN]

agreed...only in entry level combat training do they make everyone use eye pro...after that its personal choice, unless you have one of those above you who is passionate about eye pro

talked to my 18 series buddy at work today, says they all wear eye pro or get dinged with a safety violation during training.

Says he always wore his Oakley's any way while downrange, like you said, personal choice for eye pro and keeping sun/crap out of the eyes.

I know he's walked the walk and not some guy on the internet, so I'll let it at that from my stand point.

 

[the1kidd03]

By "walk the walk", do you mean attending to a variety of training?

Or does walking the walk to you simply mean being in a vocation where some level of training is provided for you.

The safety glasses thing is a non-point. There is nothing to be gained by abandoning glasses during training except to make the training easier to accomplish - not exactly the purpose of training, right?

I mean, who wants to deal with fogging or sweat on the lenses or slipping down on your nose to obstruct your view and having to deal with all that.

I think his reference of "walk the walk" is to that of the frame of mind in combat oriented jobs where they regularly, "poke fun" at (for lack of better term) or do not trust the opinions of those who have not actually had combat or similar experience...it's a common mentality in the military, particularly infantry

and agreed, you are only putting yourself at risk by not using eye pro, and pretty much everyone does wear it in the military....with some exceptions dictated by conditions, environment, etc

 

[the1kidd03]

you're not separating TRAINING from the real thing.

Someone gets shot by one of these guys in a class, State Reps and Senators start getting calls calling for gun control.

we're talking about civilians training here, not soldiers.

understood, as I pointed out in my previous post I think I misunderstood the point he was making in that reference

 

[the1kidd03]

talked to my 18 series buddy at work today, says they all wear eye pro or get dinged with a safety violation during training.

Says he always wore his Oakley's any way while downrange, like you said, personal choice for eye pro and keeping sun/crap out of the eyes.

I know he's walked the walk and not some guy on the internet, so I'll let it at that from my stand point.

for standard infantry units or non-infantry, yes they do take eye pro seriously and it is mandatory....ESPECIALLY entry level training such as boot camp and the combat trainings school immediately after boot..............after that though it is not necessarily "mandated"..it depends on your command and how strict about safety your superiors are.....when deployed it's completely different...you do what you want with your gear (for the most part) ...but you DO NOT wear ear pro......in the "heat of the moment" it may prevent you from hearing someone coming up from behind, or communications with team mates, etc...so most NCO's and above (including myself) will get on anyone trying to wear it in the field....in training that doesn't require significant use of hearing, ear pro is fine...so most all civilian training..............no matter what the situation you should TRY to keep eye pro on, but it's not possible ALL the time...it is however in training

 

[fireblade]

talked to my 18 series buddy at work today, says they all wear eye pro or get dinged with a safety violation during training.

Says he always wore his Oakley's any way while downrange, like you said, personal choice for eye pro and keeping sun/crap out of the eyes.

I know he's walked the walk and not some guy on the internet, so I'll let it at that from my stand point.

not sure what you are trying to say ? sounds like you are challenging me i will be at every meet and shoot for NWI this year will more then happy show you a DD214 ............all i can say is a can back up my background, not all training is MOUT .....there a lot of different aspect were wearing safety glasses is stupid.....again applying to military not civilian.

 

[esrice]

sounds like you are challenging me i will be at every meet and shoot for NWI this year will more then happy show you a DD214 ...........

Umm.... I don't think anyone was challenging you.