An interesting take on mindset, proficiency and gear.

https://youtu.be/h3CNLY7fSzU

I'm leaning towards the younger generation, having grown up with CoD, and at the same time, the proliferation of social media, have been exposed to a lot, and maybe that's sparked more interest than previous generations. This is a generation who seem to have disposable income and don't have any issues buying NVGs, Gucci helmets, comms, plate carriers, and commensurate rifles.

I guess my thought is, this is a good thing, right? I just turned 40, and none of my friends are shooters, in fact, only one of them owns a gun. Now I've recently (by way of USPSA and some formal classes) befriended a group of younger guys, mostly in their late 20s/early 30s and they're balls deep in to it, all of it, the NODs, the 13.7 ARs that are all the rage with $2500 LPVOs, CRYE this, super tall red dot risers that. Say what you want about the money and the gear, they're training. It's a younger generation of folks going out and getting involved in 2A stuff.

I don't know how to answer your question about how to decide "how militaristic" training should be. If it's safe and people aren't being stupid, I don't care. We need more allies. We shouldn't be tearing our own apart because they went a little too hard in training and they may never actually have to drag someone 100 yards by their plate carrier while the person being dragged is shooting bogeys. Is that too much? I'm not sure, but what's the harm?

Another look at mindset/gear, outside the MIL/LE context.
https://vs-training.com/2023/0...le-of-two-paradigms/

quote:

Originally posted by KSGM:
Another look at mindset/gear, outside the MIL/LE context.

“Basically, everybody has that one scenario in their mind that they are preparing themselves for with their gear and training.”

The above quotation from the article is something that I’ve noted far more often than not in any discussion relating to some form of self-defense. And even that’s a very limited set of two scenarios if we were considering everything from going to the store to dealing with an invading quasi military force. The article was of course not about going to the store, but rather about the latter, and therefore I wouldn’t expect it to discuss the former.

I believe, though, that it’s important to keep in mind and consider all possibilities even in limited scenarios. I can easily conceive of situations that are not exactly like either of the ones discussed in the article, and if they are the only two we’ve thought about, that can lead to, “What now?” brain freeze.

And because I’ve weighed in again on this topic, one thing I must point out is that there is a difference between the professionals and the rest of us. Someone who puts on his deployment gear once a week or even once a month in actual call-out or even serious training situations that may actually demand the gear’s features will be far more familiar with it than someone who just opened the Amazon box. In my own relatively limited, but active experiences nonetheless, it took me a while to determine what I needed, what worked the best to satisfy those needs, and how to use it best to satisfy those needs. I expended a lot of thought, analysis, and experimentation on gear and its use before I finally settled into what’s hanging ready now (not that I will likely ever use it again, but …). In fact, I never stopped evaluating my gear and actions until the activity stopped. If someone has had enough experience to have figured it all out and not need to give it any more thought, great, but I never reached that point.
And if I suddenly peeled off 40 years and were going to be doing that for real again, that whole process would start over.

These activities are not a sort-of zero sum game in which we need to decide what’s the most critical skill or ability and then focus on that to the exclusion of everything else. Some things we can even do at home; other things we can’t. Putting everything on a time or four, deciding that it seems to fit okay and nothing’s poking us in the ribs while walking around the yard, and then setting it aside until the balloon goes up may not prepare us as well for things as we might like later in view of later discoveries.

I’ve read several of the posts multiple times and I’m still a little confused.

The talk of medical, fieldcraft, tactics, etc as it relates to the armed citizen is a bit silly.

There’s nothing “tactical” about medicine. As a matter of fact, armed citizen medicine is called “first aid” and once upon a time everyone learned it in the Boy Scouts. Come to think of it “fieldcraft” and land nav were also common topics. None of this should shock the conscious. Matter of fact, if you want to get good at the type of medical care you should be worried about, become a EMT and join a volunteer fire department. You can serve your community and get experience.

We have a trauma doc and two paramedics assigned to my team. One of the paramedics is very well known for what he does. Know what they teach us? Stop the bleed, start the breath, treat for shock. TQ the limbs, seal the box. We’re also trained to start IVs and do needle decompressions. But the situations would be dire before we every would have to do that. And it’s really taught in case the medic goes down.

As to tactics, what tactics exactly? And how would one even practice these in public? (To be made fun of for doing so)? Individual tactics such as urban warfare isn’t going to be something you’d practice at a range. Most ranges wouldn’t allow it any how.

So that leaves playing dress up.

As I have said, want to train up to be a minuteman? Shoot IDPA. You’ll learn a lot about basic skills that would be important. The rest of the stuff shouldn’t shock the conscience to practice in public or take a class in.

To be honest, outside of scheduled training, I spend at least an hour a week in the shoothouse, and three nights a week in dry fire. I shoot a couple times per week. Medical stuff we train a few times per year in scheduled training. A couple times a year maritime. Land nav, fieldcraft and all that once a year maybe.

Besides LARPING is like pornography. We all know it when we see it.

Like I said on the previous page, I think the conversation would be ultimately more productive if we steered away from the specific LARP terminology.

Where the tactics are concerned, maybe a citizen would be keen on training the exact tactics you likely train with your team; building and room entry and clearance would be highly useful skills for a citizen, in almost any of the theoretical bad situations that "prepared" people are motivated by. Movement as an organized and coordinated small unit in a patrol context would also likely be of use, as would a tactic like breaking contact, considering the likely defensive nature of a prepared citizen's activities in most worst-case outcomes. I agree with your assessment that these things really couldn't be practiced publicly, and that's not what the conversation is about anymore. It's about whether, from within our own "community", this kind of training would be discouraged or not. I am of the belief that the teamwork and coordination factors are a big deal, and I think you probably do as well, jones, considering your time spent with a SWAT team. Everyone should always strive to improve and maintain individual skills, necessary equipment, and family readiness. Wouldn't coordinating with like-minded individuals in one's community be a logical next step, or parallel trajectory, in the preparedness and training continuum?

I think that tying the proverbial arm behind peoples conversational back by claiming that this needs to be discussed, pulling the dreaded word in your original thread title, then when the conversation doesn’t go in the direction you wanted (ie- people not patting others on the back for playing dress up) it is declared off limits… that is intellectually wrong.

I know that type of debate has been normalized by those on the left, but I disagree with it.

And while we are at it, does anyone really care what others think about how they train, or what they train? What is this? The third grade?

It’s academic at best. 99 percent won’t get enough reps to be efficient at any type of CQB. First time they face an opponent that has the reps it won’t end well. That’s the reason why I keep stressing (on apparent deaf ears) that shooting is the predominant skill. Unless a person is going to live and breath CQB under the watchful eye of someone that knows it in and out, the conflict is coming down to who shoots sooner and hits effectively sooner.

If you go back several posts, I said that this stuff isn’t what Instagram makes it out to be. Want to be an efficient minuteman? Shoot IDPA or USPSA. Get good at it. Because if you have to kit up for the Red Dawn sequel, the dudes that can shoot competitively will fair much better than the guys playing dress up. The upper crust understands basic strategy, they understand pressure (somewhat), they can fix problems (and problem solve on the fly and how to shoot sooner, not faster.

I am not trying to tie anyone's arms anywhere. By initially using the LARP term, the conversation participants got distracted by gear and clothing, which was never the intent, so I amended the OP, in an effort to get it back on the intended track, not onto a track I liked better because the first track wasn't going where I wanted. My comments have never been argumentative; I try to be constructive and receptive with every post, and have very much appreciated your input throughout. When it comes to training what you want to train: you're correct; no one cares; we're grown-ups; and I assure you, jones, my ears are not deaf. You never did address this train of thought, which I mentioned twice; I am still curious as to your feedback...

quote:

I speculate, also, that a "rookie" SWAT officer is better off with a well-rounded skill set. An expert in weapons manipulation and shooting may be of little use on a SWAT call, if he lacks training in tactics, and doesn't have the right equipment to support a SWAT mission. This is, of course, fairly uninformed speculation.

quote:

I maintain the speculation, using jones' employment circumstances, that a SWAT man with a "good" level of training and experience in a broader skill set makes for a more effective officer at the "target building" or active shooter scenario. I think it likely that an officer who's badass in every conceivable square range scenario, and has effective supporting equipment, is still going to be the butt of the joke, when he's thrust into a enveloping scenario in the shoot house, with other team members. "It's about more than just killing paper and your kit, slick." I am not trying to diminish the importance of weapon proficiency; I am proposing that, depending on one's goals, they might consider a point that their weapons skills are "good enough", and then broaden their focus, to encompass other aspects of what makes them effective at their respective "objective", while, of course, maintaining weapon skills already developed.

Because I am not deaf, I am hearing what you're saying about the reps, when it comes to tactics, and I think it's a very good point. When it comes to facing opponents with the reps, that, of course, depends on the worst-case outcome. I 100% agree with you, if we're talking about citizen prepper going up against the likes of you and your team (as an example), in some dreadful scenario that has the citizenry battling our own government and it's highly trained agents, with all their resources.

As far as Instagram is concerned: I don't know, because I don't use it.

We're just sharing ideas, jones. Maybe it's for no other reason than to engage in conversation with like-minded folks. I have used your input to refine my ideas about this stuff; don't think that I am firmly planted and stubborn.

Edited to add that I am not ignoring your recommendations, when it comes to IDPA and USPSA. My work and family obligations make legitimate participation in those things an impossibility right now. I am fortunate enough to be able to shoot where I live, but, even still, my sessions are often of limited duration. I am certainly going to incorporate more USPSA-inspired drills moving forward, because of your feedback.

When it comes to other types of shooting and practice, I am able to coordinate with a few other like-minded folks, in the early morning hours, around everyone's work and family obligations, maybe twice a month. A few of us have invested in NV equipment, so we also do our best to fit in a some night time practice maybe six times a year. You are thoroughly enveloped in the shooting world; conversational head-butting is likely a result of mere circumstantial differences (and depth/breadth of experience).

One thing I would do well to implement, and likely could, is more dry fire practice. Being used to the convenience of being able to actually fire a weapon with no more effort than a step out the door has had me dismiss the value of dry fire in the past. However, I do have time in the early morning that wouldn't permit actual firing, but would be OK for dry practice.

*I also revised some language that I found, upon review, to be unnecessarily confrontational; I apologize. I feel as though I make every effort to be the opposite of "deaf", so it temporarily irked me that you implied I am.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: KSGM,

There are obviously many reasons why people offer advice to or criticism of others. Very often it’s a genuine desire to help them avoid bad behaviors or outcomes, or to help them improve something they’re doing. An example of the latter was the man riding on a ski lift with me who offered a tip based on his having seen me ski earlier. When I expressed my thanks, he mentioned “A duty to teach.”

There are other reasons as well, but to address an original question of this thread when the criticism is just to ridicule or disparage actions that don’t affect the critic in any way, we’re justified in asking why, and in my opinion, it’s clear: The basic motive of such attacks is to boost one’s standing with other people. As I’ve mentioned many times before, one of the most basic human motives for what we do is to influence and then gain a measure of control over others. There are countless examples that could be cited, but in short we are social animals, much of whose success in life from basic survival to being able to pass on our genes is highly dependent upon being able to influence others to cooperate in most of our endeavors.

One way that disparaging the actions of others enhances our own standing in the group is that saying, “He’s just an incompetent amateur who isn’t doing it right,” means I don’t have to say, “I’m smarter and more competent than he is, and I am doing it right, but he’s not.” That’s obviously understood. Such criticisms can be applied to almost any human activity from flying an airplane to seasoning cast iron cookware—and are. And to be clear, not all such criticisms are what I’m referring to. I’m talking about criticisms or disparagements of another’s activities that have absolutely no effect on anyone else other than the actor and therefore wouldn’t warrant a comment, except that it allows me to passively tell my listeners that I’m the better one and they should heed my opinions, not his.

The second, and probably more common way of disparaging what someone else does is to announce that it’s unnecessary at best and harmful or dangerous at worst. This is something we see frequently in Internet discussions. For example, someone will ask about a gun cleaning product and it’s almost inevitable that sooner or later there will be a post declaring that what’s being discussed, for example bore cleaning, is unnecessary. That’s often emphasized by a comment to the effect of, “My gunsmith says more barrels are ruined by improper cleaning than shooting.”*

I’ve long believed that such gratuitous interjections were primarily as a way for claimants to convince themselves that it was acceptable or even desirable to avoid doing something that they didn’t want to do. I also believe, however, that they are also intended to enhance the individual’s overall status. Countless people have been very successful in various endeavors by attacking the status quo. Many of us will be attracted to someone’s lead for no other reason than that it goes against the flow. “McTavish wouldn’t say it’s not necessary to clean an AR if it weren’t true, so he must know what he’s talking about, and the clean freaks are just pawns of the gun maintenance industry.”
And of course, who likes to clean guns?

Anyway, my thoughts.

* I’ve taken to asking how a gunsmith would know that, and have never gotten a reply at all, much less a meaningful one.

QCB is a red herring, IMO. Paying attention to the Ukrainian conflict, anti-armor and grenades are ten times more important. This is currently a challenge to the American second amendment enthusiast.

quote:

Originally posted by Voshterkoff:
QCB is a red herring, IMO. Paying attention to the Ukrainian conflict, anti-armor and grenades are ten times more important. This is currently a challenge to the American second amendment enthusiast.

^^^ This is an important point.

I feel like I was tracking with the original LARPing discussion, but when we started talking about the modern day "minuteman", you kinda lost me. What does that even mean? To me it alludes to everyday citizens preparing to stand up to a tyrannical government, like the colonists at the beginning of the Revolutionary War. If that's what we're talking about, I've gotta say it's just not going to happen, at least not with any degree of success.

Like Voshterkoff said, watching the way that this thing in Ukraine has plaid out, it's the anti-armor weapons, artillery, and drones that are doing the heavy lifting. The success of the Ukrainian military has a lot more to do with preparation and training that they've done since the 2014 invasion (and the ineptitude of the Russian military) than it does with the acts of individual riflemen. A single well-trained man, or even a group of men, with rifles aren't going to stand a chance against a military with the resources of a nation-state. And as American civilians, we don't have access to the equipment that we'd actually need to be training with to make a difference in such a conflict.

If we're not talking about armed insurrection or national defense, but rather responding to civil unrest or an active-shooter, those may be a more realistic scenario, but still highly unlikely, IMO, and even more unlikely that you're going to have timely access to a rifle and all your kit when something like that kicks off.

Don't get me wrong, I love my rifle, and given the choice I'd rather have it with me in a fight than a handgun. But even as a cop, where my chances of encountering the above situations are likely higher than average because when they happen I don't have to be there to get involved, I get sent to them...It's still far more likely that when the fight comes to me I'll be working with what I have on me in the moment, which is probably going to be a handgun.

Like it or not, the reality is that as civilians (and I include cops in that...we're civilians too) our primary weapon is a handgun. Does that put us at a disadvantage when an active shooter who has planned and prepared to storm your local grocery store with a vest and a rifle decides that today is the day, and you happen to be in there shopping? Absolutely it does. It's the very nature of these things that they have the initiative. They've planned and prepared. They've amassed whatever gear they've been able to, they've made the decision to do what they're going to do. And they know it's coming. They also don't have to worry about collateral damage...they're just trying to kill everything that moves.

How do we prepare for that? The same way we prepare for any defensive shooting. Get damn good with a handgun. Rifle skills are good, too, but the handgun is always there. Study how these people think, develop strategies for how to address them ahead of time, and be vigilant and prepared to react and adapt at a moment's notice. Also, gameplan what you're going to do after it's over so you can render necessary aid and don't end up getting taken out by another well-meaning citizen or responder. Your mindset has to be informed by what your threat is actually going to be, how you're realistically going to address it, and maintaining the discipline to consistently train towards that goal.

Going back to the original question...if somebody wants to dress up in kit and run around shooting stuff with a rifle, I'm not going to deride them for it. It can be fun, and those skills are certainly not useless. But if you're really serious about maximizing your return on investment in training, you need to be training for the fight that you're actually going to have, and the fight that you can win.

To avoid future confusion, I think we can make the distinction between this and the "justifying intervention" thread: That thread is for active shooter and self defense discussion, and this one is for discussion concerning the armed citizen in the larger scope of the Second Amendment. The "justifying" thread has broadened from it's rifle-centric origin, and this thread would do well not to be derailed by what I had previously described as the "fortunate side effects" of the 2nd Amendment. I am not trying to "tie arms"; I think the conversation will be more productive on both fronts, if the distinction is made. I understand it's difficult to draw hard lines in what are ultimately very gray areas, but we'll try, for the sake of continuing conversation.

It seems, to me, that there are three fundamental outcomes a contemporary "minuteman" or prepared individual would be motivated by: The most-dreaded tyrannical/oppressive gov't vs the people, or civil war similar to what our Nation has already experienced; the "Red Dawn" homeland invasion; and the 2020 perfect storm scenario, which could foster a prolonged dystopian existence of sorts. I don't think any of these are particularly outlandish concerns, considering the national and global socio-political conditions at present. Considering these potential outcomes, in the context of firearms, equipment, and training, has us doing well to broaden our horizons, IMO. If you don't think any of these scenarios have any legitimate chance of occurring in our lifetimes, or our children's, then you'd likely be right, in saying one may do better to focus efforts elsewhere, when it comes to firearms proficiency, and synonymous preparedness skills. Just like a fateful encounter with someone who threatens us or our family, that has us employing our CCW, is something we hope never occurs: we hope very much that these things never occur. As responsible American citizens, we are defensive; we quench our political hate fire with self control; we don't look for trouble.

Since folks want to consider the worst, worst possible outcome, IMO, of the gov't vs the people, we'll go with it. So far, we seem to have echoed our beloved CiC, in saying it is folly to consider opposing the gov't; they've got jets and nukes, after all. He's right; we don't have that stuff; nor do we have tanks, anti-tank munitions, grenades, armed drones, sophisticated ISR assets, etc.; we don't even hardly have machine guns. Have they already succeeded in killing our will to fight, because they have already gutted the Second Amendment such that we feel ill-equipped to take on any real opponent? When it comes to a guy with a rifle, or some guys with rifles, "standing a chance", I think we should remember that "boots on the ground" are always the bottom line, even nowadays, with all our fancy technology. The conversation of late almost has undertones suggesting that any training with a rifle, as a citizen, is relegated to "for fun"; any donning of associated equipment is "dress-up", and just tongue in cheek. Is that how we feel? Is that how professional instructors view citizens attending their classes? Do they condemn the behavior, but permit it so long as it's under their supervision, and then have a chuckle on the way to the bank afterward?

I am not sure about answers to any of these questions. I do, however, feel as though any one of the three worst-case outcomes are likely; almost certainly in my child's lifetime. I do have a serious mind when I train with a rifle. I am puzzled that, as a "community" of like-minded people, we don't seem to know where we stand, when it comes to what I perceive to be the true intent of the Second Amendment we so often invoke.

If I seem as though I glossed over something someone feels I ought to have addressed, it wasn't intentional; point it out. On the specific point:

quote:

the fight that you can win

I understand that sentiment, but I don't know that I agree with it. "If you can't do enough, why bother doing anything?" doesn't seem like the right answer.

Thanks again for the good conversation, SIGforum! At this rate, we'll figure this shit out for everyone!

Added 3/2... After considering the mention of, we'll call it, "pistol priority", I wonder if our community would appreciate a level of pistol proficiency from which one must "graduate", and subsequently maintain, before turning to sharpening rifle skills. It is quite logical that a citizen's training priorities ought to be aligned with the weapon he carries the most. I don't know that there's a universal standard that could be applied to all circumstances though; a guy that carries a P365XL with a red dot IWB is going to capable of more than someone like me, who carries a TCP in his pants pocket. Perhaps it is my duty to be better equipped, when it comes to a pistol, if I am to achieve the standard, and have the community's blessing, to proceed to rifle training. Some of this sounds a bit silly, and it is, of course, theoretical, but it's interesting to consider.

Another point that my mind returned to is the professional instructor's relationship with a citizen student. Is a professional instructor merely enabling a sort of MIL/LE tourism experience? Does he think it's ridiculous that a citizen would meaningfully train with a rifle and associated equipment, but plays along in the name of industry and public relations? I wonder how many take pride in making a "rifleman" out of a citizen-student? That is certainly, after all, how they market their services.

Thanks again, everyone, for your replies.

quote:

Get damn good with a handgun. Rifle skills are good, too, but the handgun is always there.///Going back to the original question...if somebody wants to dress up in kit and run around shooting stuff with a rifle, I'm not going to deride them for it. It can be fun, and those skills are certainly not useless. But if you're really serious about maximizing your return on investment in training, you need to be training for the fight that you're actually going to have, and the fight that you can win.

I think that quote of 92fstech is quite meaningful, and it drove my train of thought, concerning the pistol performance baseline requirement. This discussion has certainly motivated me to put more rounds through my TCP, if nothing else.

As another parting thought: If the administration came out swinging tomorrow, with an AWB, our reaction wouldn't be "oh well, it was fun while it lasted. We just use those for dress-up anyway." We would passionately invoke the Second Amendment's true purpose. Why are we hesitant to be more enthusiastic about pro-actively training with these tools, in the context of that true purpose?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: KSGM,

It’s obviously common and understandable for people to think only about preparing for the threats they can imagine. If they believe that the only threats that would ever occur are those that could be met by a single unarmored individual armed with a handgun, then of course why would they prepare and train for anything else? Even if I were to expand my imagination to the idea that a company of Marines would show up in my small town in obedience to orders to seize all the firearms and arrest everyone who had one in possession, they wouldn’t need tanks, air support, and/or HIMARS to carry out their mission regardless of the capabilities of the local Minutemen.

There are, however, other conceivable scenarios* in which a defense mounted by multiple individuals who trained together and who were armed and equipped with more than Glocks with 30-round magazines and red dots, and who are dressed in something other than flip-flops, t-shirts, and cut-offs would be desirable and even feasible.

* What scenarios, you ask. Imagining those is left as an exercise for the reader. If I cited examples myself, that would only serve as an excuse—as usual—to divert the discussion from the relevant topic. If you can’t think of any, then there is obviously no reason for you to be concerned about any other possibilities and my imaginings can be ignored.

MikeGLI summed it up perfectly for me, and Sigfreund filled in the blanks.

I always find it entertaining to listen to buddies/coworkers talk about their latest AR build or whatever new gear is the flavor of the month. You know what I never, ever hear anyone say? Hey - who wants to go spend the weekend doing day and night land nav?

I ask the gear guys - Can you orientate yourself to a map and move to an assigned point, regardless of lighting conditions or weather? They’re not even interested in the topic because they have no frame of reference. I’m not picking on anyone in particular, but there are in my experience a percentage of middle aged men with resources, who might wish they would have served and they’re reaching out for little bit of the experience - the gear part. What they don’t seem to get is the concept that weapons training is just one common skill out of many that need to be mastered.

When my son was just starting out in baseball, he wanted a $200 bat. Why? He couldn’t even hit the ball yet. It’s because for a lot of people it’s all about the gear first.


+

Land navigation can be a lot of fun. However, it comes with it's own barriers to entry. Investing in proper USGS topographical maps, a good compass, and proper protractors is no small thing for a lot of people, and the apparent return on your investment is minimal. Once you have the maps and tools, and have a grasp of the techniques, as you well know, it is a huge asset.
There are those you referenced, who may wish they'd have been in the military in some capacity, those who participated in the GWOT and want to keep sharp as a prepared citizen, and there is even a demographic of those who were enlisted before the GWOT. I train with a couple older guys who are quite serious indeed, because they have an even bigger idea of our country's cultural decline, due to their longer observation of it. It sucks, however, that with a seasoned mind often comes a body that may not be as willing to comply as one might like.

I’ve been thinking about the land navigation comment.

My interest in the subject in general first developed well over 60 years ago when my father gave me an Army field manual on map reading and some map tools. Since then I’ve kept up. I know things like how many of my paces equal 100 yards (and meters), and I’ve proved to myself more than once that I could find specific targets in dense woods. I have a friend who plans to put on a group presentation soon and I look forward to seeing if it will be a refresher or I’ll learn something new.

All that said, though, my first reaction is to question why it would be important for most people, even ones of the sort we’ve been referring to here. Becoming proficient to the point of being able to find a navigation target in the woods requires more than just a book and being told, “get a good compass.” And how does one acquire that proficiency? Even guidance on which type of compass is best for the purpose may not be clear. I have a very expensive British made unit that I like a lot, but I have used various others over the years. There are, however, many types that aren’t very well suited for precise navigation.

I have what seems to be a more active imagination about relevant scenarios than most people, but although I live in a rural county, most of which is undeveloped BLM or National Forest woodland, I’m not ever likely to need the land nav skills I have, and it would be difficult to convince most other people that they were necessary.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
I’ve been thinking about the land navigation comment..................

...............I have what seems to be a more active imagination about relevant scenarios than most people, but although I live in a rural county, most of which is undeveloped BLM or National Forest woodland, I’m not ever likely to need the land nav skills I have, and it would be difficult to convince most other people that they were necessary.

I've been sort of following this. Your last statement is the one that stood out from the rest. And my skills in that area are best on the water. I learned to navigate when LORAN was still a thing and GPS was in it's early infancy.

But one scenario jumped out of my memory on that. The Joplin tornadoes. I had an opportunity years ago to hear a couple speakers who responded to that event. All the landmarks were gone. All the street signs, most of the buildings were in ruins. For miles and miles. Handheld GPS units have taken away lots of the need for knowing how to hold a courseline and travel to a discrete point. But how many people could get there with just a compass and map?

I have to assume that land nav and night land nav are still taught, even with GPS. When I was in land nav was part of common skills training. We usually had FTXs setup to train lower enlisted. Depending on the type of unit you were in, you could find people really good at it, or people who couldn’t find their way back to their car in the parking lot. We also had Guard and Reserve units cycle through for training and land nav was one of the more enjoyable subjects to get to teach.

+

quote:

Originally posted by Appliance Brad:

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
I’ve been thinking about the land navigation comment..................

...............I have what seems to be a more active imagination about relevant scenarios than most people, but although I live in a rural county, most of which is undeveloped BLM or National Forest woodland, I’m not ever likely to need the land nav skills I have, and it would be difficult to convince most other people that they were necessary.

I've been sort of following this. Your last statement is the one that stood out from the rest. And my skills in that area are best on the water. I learned to navigate when LORAN was still a thing and GPS was in it's early infancy.

But one scenario jumped out of my memory on that. The Joplin tornadoes. I had an opportunity years ago to hear a couple speakers who responded to that event. All the landmarks were gone. All the street signs, most of the buildings were in ruins. For miles and miles. Handheld GPS units have taken away lots of the need for knowing how to hold a courseline and travel to a discrete point. But how many people could get there with just a compass and map?

Maybe things are different now, but when I served the standard was to be able to get there with a map and a compass. If you have ever been a pace man, or have used the pace beads, you can keep track distance along your plotted line. Even if trees and landmarks were destroyed there are things to use to shot your azimuth that are permanent - like a ridge line, hilltop, saddle, etc.