On Jul 29, 1:03*pm, wrote:
On Sunday, July 29, 2012 1:47:38 PM UTC-4, iBoaterer wrote:
In article , dump-on-

says...

On 7/29/12 12:15 PM, wrote:

On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 07:42:55 -0400, X ` Man

wrote:

Surprised you don't know this, since you "qualified" with a pistol

"about a dozen times." What was your qualification about? Didn't it

include safe handling?

The side arm was never much of a priority in most military training..

Your regular soldier was not going to get one anyway. They were just

for people who would not usually have a rifle.

If you are an MP or SP you should get extra training and I assume

officers get some training but from my experience the officer's

training is somewhat superficial too.

I was in ordinance, working for a CPO who was on the USCG pistol team

for a while so we all got more than the usual pistol training. I

sought out as much as I could get and actually got a lot of range

time. I also wanted to know how to maintain everything in the armory.

I would have thought that proper "safety training" would have been a

priority. When I took my training, I spent the first few hours in class

with an instructor who showed us a safety video or two, and then spent

the rest of the time showing us how to handle the firearm, how to field

strip it, how to unjam it, how to remove stovepipes, how to store it, et

cetera. We didn't even get to the range until halfway through the second

lesson.

Maybe the instructor thought you were slow.

My dad taught me gun safety before I was 10 years old. *Shot a .44 mag when I was 9. *Started helping reload back then.

It's sort of weird to think about a 60+ year old needing gun classes. *I guess some of those yanks grew up with lace on their underwear.

I owned a .22 rifle when I was 10 and a .357 mag. when I was 16.

In article ,
says...

On Sunday, July 29, 2012 1:47:38 PM UTC-4, iBoaterer wrote:
In article , dump-on-

says...



On 7/29/12 12:15 PM, wrote:

On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 07:42:55 -0400, X ` Man

wrote:



Surprised you don't know this, since you "qualified" with a pistol

"about a dozen times." What was your qualification about? Didn't it

include safe handling?



The side arm was never much of a priority in most military training.

Your regular soldier was not going to get one anyway. They were just

for people who would not usually have a rifle.



If you are an MP or SP you should get extra training and I assume

officers get some training but from my experience the officer's

training is somewhat superficial too.

I was in ordinance, working for a CPO who was on the USCG pistol team

for a while so we all got more than the usual pistol training. I

sought out as much as I could get and actually got a lot of range

time. I also wanted to know how to maintain everything in the armory.







I would have thought that proper "safety training" would have been a

priority. When I took my training, I spent the first few hours in class

with an instructor who showed us a safety video or two, and then spent

the rest of the time showing us how to handle the firearm, how to field

strip it, how to unjam it, how to remove stovepipes, how to store it, et

cetera. We didn't even get to the range until halfway through the second

lesson.



Maybe the instructor thought you were slow.

My dad taught me gun safety before I was 10 years old. Shot a .44 mag when I was 9. Started helping reload back then.

It's sort of weird to think about a 60+ year old needing gun classes. I guess some of those yanks grew up with lace on their underwear.

That could very well be true! I grew up around them as well.

On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 12:00:26 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 07:07:00 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 02:07:54 -0400, wrote:


I am surprised they are going with the SA 1911. The only way it is
useful in combat is in condition 1.

OK, Gregg, I'll bite....What is 'condition 1'?

I thought you were an army guy

"Cocked and locked" (round in the chamber, hammer back, safety on)

In all of the years that I worked around military security, the only
time I saw a "condition 1" .45 was at NSA and that marine puts his
finger in your belt loop.
Most of the time they are condition 4, (empty gun). A guy who is good
can load and get off an aimed shot in less than 2 seconds but that
will be from a magazine in his hip pocket or waist band, not that
pouch on his belt..

On the firing range, it's 'locked and loaded'. Off the firing range, it's whatever you need it to be
depending on the situation.

We never really discussed 'conditions' for the status of a weapon.

On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 12:15:38 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 07:42:55 -0400, X ` Man
wrote:

Surprised you don't know this, since you "qualified" with a pistol
"about a dozen times." What was your qualification about? Didn't it
include safe handling?

The side arm was never much of a priority in most military training.
Your regular soldier was not going to get one anyway. They were just
for people who would not usually have a rifle.

If you are an MP or SP you should get extra training and I assume
officers get some training but from my experience the officer's
training is somewhat superficial too.
I was in ordinance, working for a CPO who was on the USCG pistol team
for a while so we all got more than the usual pistol training. I
sought out as much as I could get and actually got a lot of range
time. I also wanted to know how to maintain everything in the armory.

Qualification refers to the ability to hit the target and get a score which meets the standards of
the service for the particular weapon.

On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 13:34:28 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 12:32:38 -0400, X ` Man
wrote:

On 7/29/12 12:15 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 07:42:55 -0400, X ` Man
wrote:

Surprised you don't know this, since you "qualified" with a pistol
"about a dozen times." What was your qualification about? Didn't it
include safe handling?

The side arm was never much of a priority in most military training.
Your regular soldier was not going to get one anyway. They were just
for people who would not usually have a rifle.

If you are an MP or SP you should get extra training and I assume
officers get some training but from my experience the officer's
training is somewhat superficial too.
I was in ordinance, working for a CPO who was on the USCG pistol team
for a while so we all got more than the usual pistol training. I
sought out as much as I could get and actually got a lot of range
time. I also wanted to know how to maintain everything in the armory.



I would have thought that proper "safety training" would have been a
priority. When I took my training, I spent the first few hours in class
with an instructor who showed us a safety video or two, and then spent
the rest of the time showing us how to handle the firearm, how to field
strip it, how to unjam it, how to remove stovepipes, how to store it, et
cetera. We didn't even get to the range until halfway through the second
lesson.

The safety training is more range safety than anything else from what
I saw and unless you actually get tactical training, you will not get
formal training in clearing jams and such. Fortunately a hardball .45
doesn't really jam that much.
Guys who get issued a sidearm that they are expected to use (guards,
SPs and MPs) will get better training.
The officers I knew did not really know much about the pistol and they
really didn't have one unless they were in combat. We only had 6 or 7
on the ships I was on and the captain was the only one who had one out
of the armory.
As I said, side arms were really not a priority back in the olden
days. Your average GI did not get a lot of pistol training, nor did
they actually get a pistol.
The basic safety rules are going to be the same as the service rifle
so they do get trained somewhat if you are army/marines.
The Air Force, Navy and Coast Guard are less likely to actually train
everyone on small arms in any meaningful way. It is a need to know
skill. These days I imagine the drug war has increased the need to
know for the coasties.

Harry keeps looking for the negative spin. What you've said above is basically accurate. The
military, except for certain specialties, doesn't issue concealed carry permits. For most, the
firing is done on the range or in a combat situation.

On 7/29/12 2:46 PM, John H. wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 13:34:28 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 12:32:38 -0400, X ` Man
wrote:

On 7/29/12 12:15 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 07:42:55 -0400, X ` Man
wrote:

Surprised you don't know this, since you "qualified" with a pistol
"about a dozen times." What was your qualification about? Didn't it
include safe handling?

The side arm was never much of a priority in most military training.
Your regular soldier was not going to get one anyway. They were just
for people who would not usually have a rifle.

If you are an MP or SP you should get extra training and I assume
officers get some training but from my experience the officer's
training is somewhat superficial too.
I was in ordinance, working for a CPO who was on the USCG pistol team
for a while so we all got more than the usual pistol training. I
sought out as much as I could get and actually got a lot of range
time. I also wanted to know how to maintain everything in the armory.



I would have thought that proper "safety training" would have been a
priority. When I took my training, I spent the first few hours in class
with an instructor who showed us a safety video or two, and then spent
the rest of the time showing us how to handle the firearm, how to field
strip it, how to unjam it, how to remove stovepipes, how to store it, et
cetera. We didn't even get to the range until halfway through the second
lesson.

The safety training is more range safety than anything else from what
I saw and unless you actually get tactical training, you will not get
formal training in clearing jams and such. Fortunately a hardball .45
doesn't really jam that much.
Guys who get issued a sidearm that they are expected to use (guards,
SPs and MPs) will get better training.
The officers I knew did not really know much about the pistol and they
really didn't have one unless they were in combat. We only had 6 or 7
on the ships I was on and the captain was the only one who had one out
of the armory.
As I said, side arms were really not a priority back in the olden
days. Your average GI did not get a lot of pistol training, nor did
they actually get a pistol.
The basic safety rules are going to be the same as the service rifle
so they do get trained somewhat if you are army/marines.
The Air Force, Navy and Coast Guard are less likely to actually train
everyone on small arms in any meaningful way. It is a need to know
skill. These days I imagine the drug war has increased the need to
know for the coasties.

Harry keeps looking for the negative spin. What you've said above is basically accurate. The
military, except for certain specialties, doesn't issue concealed carry permits. For most, the
firing is done on the range or in a combat situation.



Actually, I thought "qualification" included safety training. And why
would you need a conceal carry permit for a handgun carried visibly at
your side on a belt holster?

On Jul 29, 1:56*pm, X ` Man dump-on-conservati...@anywhere-you-
can.com wrote:
On 7/29/12 2:46 PM, John H. wrote:









On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 13:34:28 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 12:32:38 -0400, X ` Man
wrote:

On 7/29/12 12:15 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 07:42:55 -0400, X ` Man
wrote:

Surprised you don't know this, since you "qualified" with a pistol
"about a dozen times." What was your qualification about? Didn't it
include safe handling?

The side arm was never much of a priority in most military training.
Your regular soldier was not going to get one anyway. They were just
for people who would not usually have a rifle.

If you are an MP or SP you should get extra training and I assume
officers get some training but from my experience the officer's
training is somewhat superficial too.
I was in ordinance, working for a CPO who was on the USCG pistol team
for a while so we all got more than the usual pistol training. I
sought out as much as I could get and actually got a lot of range
time. I also wanted to know how to maintain everything in the armory..

I would have thought that proper "safety training" would have been a
priority. When I took my training, I spent the first few hours in class
with an instructor who showed us a safety video or two, and then spent
the rest of the time showing us how to handle the firearm, how to field
strip it, how to unjam it, how to remove stovepipes, how to store it, et
cetera. We didn't even get to the range until halfway through the second
lesson.

The safety training is more range safety than anything else from what
I saw and unless you actually get tactical training, you will not get
formal training in clearing jams and such. Fortunately a hardball .45
doesn't really jam that much.
Guys who get issued a sidearm that they are expected to use (guards,
SPs and MPs) will get better training.
The officers I knew did not really know much about the pistol and they
really didn't have one unless they were in combat. We only had 6 or 7
on the ships I was on and the captain was the only one who had one out
of the armory.
As I said, side arms were really not a priority back in the olden
days. Your average GI did not get a lot of pistol training, nor did
they actually get a pistol.
The basic safety rules are going to be the same as the service rifle
so they do get trained somewhat if you are army/marines.
The Air Force, Navy and Coast Guard are less likely to actually train
everyone on small arms in any meaningful way. *It is a need to know
skill. These days I imagine the drug war has increased the need to
know for the coasties.

Harry keeps looking for the negative spin. What you've said above is basically accurate. The
military, except for certain specialties, doesn't issue concealed carry permits. For most, the
firing is done on the range or in a combat situation.

Actually, I thought "qualification" included safety training. And why
would you need a conceal carry permit for a handgun carried visibly at
your side on a belt holster?

Harry, unless one is desirous to do some serious brig time. no one
(with exception of authorized security personnel) walks around a
military bass with a side arm strapped to their belt.

On 7/29/12 3:06 PM, Tim wrote:
On Jul 29, 1:56 pm, X ` Man dump-on-conservati...@anywhere-you-
can.com wrote:
On 7/29/12 2:46 PM, John H. wrote:









On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 13:34:28 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 12:32:38 -0400, X ` Man
wrote:

On 7/29/12 12:15 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 07:42:55 -0400, X ` Man
wrote:

Surprised you don't know this, since you "qualified" with a pistol
"about a dozen times." What was your qualification about? Didn't it
include safe handling?

The side arm was never much of a priority in most military training.
Your regular soldier was not going to get one anyway. They were just
for people who would not usually have a rifle.

If you are an MP or SP you should get extra training and I assume
officers get some training but from my experience the officer's
training is somewhat superficial too.
I was in ordinance, working for a CPO who was on the USCG pistol team
for a while so we all got more than the usual pistol training. I
sought out as much as I could get and actually got a lot of range
time. I also wanted to know how to maintain everything in the armory.

I would have thought that proper "safety training" would have been a
priority. When I took my training, I spent the first few hours in class
with an instructor who showed us a safety video or two, and then spent
the rest of the time showing us how to handle the firearm, how to field
strip it, how to unjam it, how to remove stovepipes, how to store it, et
cetera. We didn't even get to the range until halfway through the second
lesson.

The safety training is more range safety than anything else from what
I saw and unless you actually get tactical training, you will not get
formal training in clearing jams and such. Fortunately a hardball .45
doesn't really jam that much.
Guys who get issued a sidearm that they are expected to use (guards,
SPs and MPs) will get better training.
The officers I knew did not really know much about the pistol and they
really didn't have one unless they were in combat. We only had 6 or 7
on the ships I was on and the captain was the only one who had one out
of the armory.
As I said, side arms were really not a priority back in the olden
days. Your average GI did not get a lot of pistol training, nor did
they actually get a pistol.
The basic safety rules are going to be the same as the service rifle
so they do get trained somewhat if you are army/marines.
The Air Force, Navy and Coast Guard are less likely to actually train
everyone on small arms in any meaningful way. It is a need to know
skill. These days I imagine the drug war has increased the need to
know for the coasties.

Harry keeps looking for the negative spin. What you've said above is basically accurate. The
military, except for certain specialties, doesn't issue concealed carry permits. For most, the
firing is done on the range or in a combat situation.

Actually, I thought "qualification" included safety training. And why
would you need a conceal carry permit for a handgun carried visibly at
your side on a belt holster?

Harry, unless one is desirous to do some serious brig time. no one
(with exception of authorized security personnel) walks around a
military bass with a side arm strapped to their belt.



I know that, though I haven't spent much time on military bases.
Fortunately.

"John H." wrote in message
...

On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 12:00:26 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 07:07:00 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 02:07:54 -0400, wrote:


I am surprised they are going with the SA 1911. The only way it is
useful in combat is in condition 1.

OK, Gregg, I'll bite....What is 'condition 1'?

I thought you were an army guy

"Cocked and locked" (round in the chamber, hammer back, safety on)

In all of the years that I worked around military security, the only
time I saw a "condition 1" .45 was at NSA and that marine puts his
finger in your belt loop.
Most of the time they are condition 4, (empty gun). A guy who is good
can load and get off an aimed shot in less than 2 seconds but that
will be from a magazine in his hip pocket or waist band, not that
pouch on his belt..

On the firing range, it's 'locked and loaded'. Off the firing range,
it's whatever you need it to be
depending on the situation.

We never really discussed 'conditions' for the status of a weapon.

-------------------------------------------------------------

Many years ago, in a different time and place, I was "qualified" in
both small
arms (a military 45) and in the operation of a Browning Automatic
Rifle (BAR).
My qualification on the BAR consisted of about two hours of
instruction by a
Navy Gunner's Mate.

Never heard of "conditions".

On 7/29/2012 2:03 PM, wrote:
On Sunday, July 29, 2012 1:47:38 PM UTC-4, iBoaterer wrote:
In article , dump-on-

says...



On 7/29/12 12:15 PM, wrote:

On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 07:42:55 -0400, X ` Man

wrote:



Surprised you don't know this, since you "qualified" with a pistol

"about a dozen times." What was your qualification about? Didn't it

include safe handling?



The side arm was never much of a priority in most military training.

Your regular soldier was not going to get one anyway. They were just

for people who would not usually have a rifle.



If you are an MP or SP you should get extra training and I assume

officers get some training but from my experience the officer's

training is somewhat superficial too.

I was in ordinance, working for a CPO who was on the USCG pistol team

for a while so we all got more than the usual pistol training. I

sought out as much as I could get and actually got a lot of range

time. I also wanted to know how to maintain everything in the armory.







I would have thought that proper "safety training" would have been a

priority. When I took my training, I spent the first few hours in class

with an instructor who showed us a safety video or two, and then spent

the rest of the time showing us how to handle the firearm, how to field

strip it, how to unjam it, how to remove stovepipes, how to store it, et

cetera. We didn't even get to the range until halfway through the second

lesson.



Maybe the instructor thought you were slow.

My dad taught me gun safety before I was 10 years old. Shot a .44 mag when I was 9. Started helping reload back then.

It's sort of weird to think about a 60+ year old needing gun classes. I guess some of those yanks grew up with lace on their underwear.


My Dad taught me all the gun safety I needed. "Never touch another mans
gun, unless you intend to fire it, never fire a weapon unless you have a
target you need to destroy"... He didn't say it quite that way but I am
not gonna' put it the way he did Anyway, when I was about 12 he took
me to a friends pond. The friend was a fire arms instructor (active
duty) at the time and we fired a bunch of weapons, a couple years later
I took second in a scout competition...

Tim, when I asked my dad why we didn't have weapons in the house, why he
didn't teach me to shoot he simply said. "Scott, I saw too much of what
they can do in the war, and I don't want them in my home"... I never
questioned him beyond that...