Q: What is so wrong w/ "Training"?

[Interceptor_Knight]

4MOA sounds like luck to me. That's like 20" at 500 yards. That means that any grouping less than 20" is luck. I'm not even entering the "rack grade" rifle into the equation which probably adds like 2 or 3 more MOA to the deal so unless you are talking about a target, the size of a friggen barn it's LUCK LUCK LUCK. What are you not understanding here? You are trying to talk your way around an indefensible position..

You have not articulated your position clearly. I simply do not understand you finding offense at the term "rack grade". The only "luck" is the exceptionally poor luck you would have if you ended up with a rack grade rifle that only shoots 4MOA. Most are far better. Match ammo and a "PALMA" or other precision rifle is capable of 1/2MOA or better. At 500 yards, that allows you to shoot much worse and still score in the 10 ring or make a kill on a deer.
My position is that most people can not place 10 shots into a 20" circle at 500 yards with a rifle which is capable of doing so in capable hands. Most can not do so at 25M (1" square).
Is your position that most service rifles are not capable of 4MOA groups? In my experience most are capable of 2-3 MOA groups (M1 Garands, 1903, M44, 91/30). Any AR15 is capable of 2MOA groups unless something is seriously wrong with it. Most people can not pick up an AR15 and shoot a 4MOA group. Once again, I am not talking bench rest shooting. Sitting or Prone unsupported (no sand bags, etc) with a sling if you wish.
Shooting from a bench rest during deer hunting "sight-in", many people who show up with their scoped modern "deer" rifle can not shoot a 3MOA group at 200yds even though their rifle is easily capable of 1.5MOA groups.
There is no luck involved in consistent long range shooting. Those who are skilled through practice can do so over and over again if their tools are capable of it.
Even if I do not use the term "Rack Grade" and simply say a rifle capable of 4MOA or BETTER in the hands of a competent shooter using a sling in unsupported positions, my point is still 100% valid.

 

[Interceptor_Knight]

I think my military record is all the proof that I need. I need not prove anything to you as I am sure it wouldn't be good enough anyway. Really doesn't matter because I am sure you will find something wrong or tell me why I am wrong or why you are so much better than I and everyone else here. .

I never made a personal attack. I simply responded to the premise that 500 yard shooting is no big deal. Good for you if you can consistently make 500 yard yard hits. Most people can not. That is my point. Nothing more. Inviting you to come out and shoot with me is not an attack. I enjoy shooting with others. I am not offended if others can shoot better than me. That just means that they have something I can learn from. I do not need to the the best at an event or find fault in others to feel good about myself.

 

[Brass Magnet]

You have not articulated your position clearly. I simply do not understand you finding offense at the term "rack grade".

Ok, I'm going to try this one more time, then I'm done because it doesn't seem your going to get my point.

In your initial post on the subject you used "rack grade" and "surplus ammo" in a way that would embellish the skill of a shooter that is using said weapons and ammo. That is incorrect. Two people that have equal skill can pick up a rack grade weapon and both shoot it equally just as the same two people could pick up a PALMA rifle and shoot it with equal skill. The rifle and ammo have nothing to do with the SKILL

Even if I do not use the term "Rack Grade" and simply say a rifle capable of 4MOA or BETTER in the hands of a competent shooter using a sling in unsupported positions, my point is still 100% valid.

Correction: IF you would have not used the term "Rack grade" and instead simply said "a rifle capable of 4MOA or BETTER in the hands of a competent shooter" using a sling in unsupported positions you WOULD have had a 100% valid point. In another example, if you would have said: "try picking up a rack grade rifle and shooting 500m" it would mean to me that "rack grade" rifles are only capable of 4MOA or better so "good luck".

Does that make sense?

Look, I understand the basics of what you are trying to say, I just don't like it when people embellish the situation to make it seem that they or the people they are supporting are some kind of awesome. That's it.

 

[littlewolf]

what the hell does rack grade and surplus ammo got to do with training? and btw you can train a monkey to hit the bulls eye with a bent barrel if he practices enough! do you guys know what you sound like? ah hell talking to the wall.

 

[qball54208]

what the hell does rack grade and surplus ammo got to do with training? and btw you can train a monkey to hit the bulls eye with a bent barrel if he practices enough! do you guys know what you sound like? ah hell talking to the wall.

AMEN Brother! This happens to be a discussion about your opinions, theory's, position, expertise and blah blah about Training as it pertains to Hand Guns.
Good for all of you that can shoot a hair off a nats a** at blah yards in the prone un supported.
Heck, in December 2008 I was on a Range at Ft.Leonard Wood MO, temp 23 Deg with a strong wind howling outa the Mountains qualifying 9mil, no gloves, freezing rain, in ACU's no "snivel gear" (gloves, PT cap) first time go!
Multiple positions, scoring 49/50, one only hit the line, otherwise it'd been a 50/50!
I don't care for the Beretta 9mil, it sucks IMHO!
But hell, at graduation, I got a really nice piece of paper from my Command Staff, A795TH MP...HOOAH!

 

[FMJ45]

I've got to agree with you "Qball54208", if training isn't necessary, why does the military and LEO's train. Should shooting qualification be a part of carrying, I say yes. How many will take the time in a voluntary fashion to become proficient in the use of their sidearm. For myself I shoot multiple times a month. I consider that a requirement of carrying. I also agree, NO, I pray to our maker that I never have to draw and use my sidearm. But because I spend time at the range multiple times each month, I know that if forced to use my sidearm in defense of my loved ones, I will be able to end the threat to those loved ones without endangering innocent bystanders.

If those that are about to "SLAM" me because I respond to your posting about needing training to carry, please come forth with another way to get all into a training mode.

After all everybody born after 1973 must take training to be able to hunt. (Wisconsin).

We all took training before we were allowed to drive a car on the highways.

For driving a car or hunting, training was put in place to prove everybody demonstrated "SAFETY" when doing these endeavors.
If falls to reason that training for carrying a firearm "safely" falls within reason.

Once that sheep are shown that the OK corral will not happen on the streets of Wisconsin and the crime rate drops, then we go like AK, AZ and VT. Small steps.

OK, all start the slamming.

Ack, no slamming. Can I just remind you that it's your opinion that you expressed, and that like Good & Evil to exist, there has to be the accompanying opposite.

You may make the FREE choice to take whatever training you wish to take to further your skills, and I personally would hope you will. Yet, I have to stand firm in the opposing thought that other FREE Citizens of Wisconsin will not be able to (for whatever reason) pay for and take skill set training. Those that have the "need" for CC run on the higher side of a lower or fixed income. To say that my retired father and mother living on a small SS income would not be able to CC because they couldn't afford some training, would be ludicrous. And a law that would prevent them from CC'ing would not be a consonant law among men. Why do you think so many retired folks carry CC now. They come from a generation that knows better and believe that it's easier to ask forgiveness than permission.

A single mother who's working two jobs to keep her children in school and out of trouble, would probably also fall within those same financial parameters. And I, for a party of one, do not want her to not be able to protect her family because of a mandated training CC permit.

I will give you the reaction time deficit argument that comes with age. Heck, I'm getting older and now it takes me all night to do what I used to do all night. Much like elderly drivers, (I'll duck now for that statement) a senior citizen may well be slow, or be quicker to react or over react to a questionable situation, but that in no way negates his or her legal or moral God given right to protect themselves, loved ones, or fellow citizens.

America was built on free choice! Not a whole lot more than that really. We bump into those that feel a need to climb onto the pulpit and spew the I'm more knowing than you and the blah blah's that follow. But all in all, the freedom of choice has built our way of life. You choose to train and I'll choose to (wouldn't you like to know)

If you're thinking, teaching, or voting for mandatory training in a CC bill. . . we'll agree to disagree.

Regards.

 

[Flipper]

Does anyone know what is the State of Wisconsin required firearm training & proficency score required for state and local leos. I have not been able to find any.

 

[Doug Huffman]

Yes, the State's CJA syllabus on firearms is on-line some where. I think I got mine from J.Gleason. Gimme a minute or three...

Firearms, A Training Guide For Law Enforcement Officers Wisconsin Department of Justice, Law Enforcement Standards Board, March 2007

Sorry, I don't see an online copy. That's the title and it is probably on WILENET behind their bluewall. It's a .PDF of 116 pages and 4 MB.

 

[protias]

Yes, the State's CJA syllabus on firearms is on-line some where. I think I got mine from J.Gleason. Gimme a minute or three...

Firearms, A Training Guide For Law Enforcement Officers Wisconsin Department of Justice, Law Enforcement Standards Board, March 2007

Sorry, I don't see an online copy. That's the title and it is probably on WILENET behind their bluewall. It's a .PDF of 116 pages and 4 MB.

I'll link it for the lazy...which is usually me, but in this case, I'll make an exception.

https://wilenet.org/html/integratio...arms/texts/Firearms_Student_Text-Aug_2008.pdf

 

[Flipper]

I'll link it for the lazy...which is usually me, but in this case, I'll make an exception.

https://wilenet.org/html/integratio...arms/texts/Firearms_Student_Text-Aug_2008.pdf

Thank you. Usefull information there, but I am looking for state requirements for leo firearm proficency. We keep hearing how much more firearm training leos have than citizens. What does the state require state and local leos to demonstrate about their firearm knowledge and what range qualification score is needed for leo certification?

 

[J.Gleason]

Thank you. Usefull information there, but I am looking for state requirements for leo firearm proficency. We keep hearing how much more firearm training leos have than citizens. What does the state require state and local leos to demonstrate about their firearm knowledge and what range qualification score is needed for leo certification?

Actually there is "NO" required annual training for LEOs once they have been hired by a department. There is no set standard by the Bureau of Law Enforcement Standards here in Wisconsin. That is why I have argued against mandated training all along.

 

[Flipper]

Actually there is "NO" required annual training for LEOs once they have been hired by a department. There is no set standard by the Bureau of Law Enforcement Standards here in Wisconsin. That is why I have argued against mandated training all along.

So, there is no state set range proficiency requirement for a person to be hired and continue as a sworn LEO? If so, there is nothing to stop a LEO agency from defining firearm "proficiency" as the ability to hit the broad side of a barn at 10 feet. I have never heard of a LEO being fired for not meeting their locally defined range proficiency requirement.

 

[qball54208]

So, there is no state set range proficiency requirement for a person to be hired and continue as a sworn LEO? If so, there is nothing to stop a LEO agency from defining firearm "proficiency" as the ability to hit the broad side of a barn at 10 feet. I have never heard of a LEO being fired for not meeting their locally defined range proficiency requirement.

Flipper, it's probably because the Union.

 

[qball54208]

Local LEO here do what is called "In Service" Updates, anything from Legal stuff to various Tactical Training...OH there it is that darned pesky WORD...Such an naughty little word.

 

[MKEgal]

When you hunt and you violate you lose your hunting "Privileges."

I disagree... I think hunting permits are unconstitutional infringements on our rights. (No, I don't hunt.)

Say it with me now:
The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation, or any other lawful purpose.


As for the original question: training is good. I like training. I like improving my skills. I took training before I fired the first gun I bought. I took more training to get my Utah permit, and more to get my Florida permit (so I can CC when I visit my mom). I like going to the range and seeing how much I can shred my little half sheet of paper at 30'. (If I can do that, I'll have no problem with an attacker who's closer, & a bigger target.)

Mandatory training, especially when it turns a right into a government-controlled priviledge? NO!

 

[FMJ45]

I disagree... I think hunting permits are unconstitutional infringements on our rights. (No, I don't hunt.)

Say it with me now:
The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation, or any other lawful purpose.


((CUT SOME GOOD STUFF HERE))

NO!

I think you're on to something here! No donation until after you shoot! (Like Africa does) Shoot it you pay for it, don't shoot it have a nice day.

If we're lucky enough to even see something in the field, let alone shoot it, THEN perhaps we should make our "voluntary contribution" to the DNR.

While I'm liking this, I'm thinking the DNR would have a fit on this theory of (cough cough) game management.

Jusss a thought

 

[johnny amish]

Say it with me now:
The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation, or any other lawful purpose.

Mandatory training, especially when it turns a right into a government-controlled priviledge? NO!

I agree 100%.

 

[johnny amish]

I think you're on to something here! No donation until after you shoot! (Like Africa does) Shoot it you pay for it, don't shoot it have a nice day.

If we're lucky enough to even see something in the field, let alone shoot it, THEN perhaps we should make our "voluntary contribution" to the DNR.

While I'm liking this, I'm thinking the DNR would have a fit on this theory of (cough cough) game management.

Jusss a thought

Good luck with that. It is really offensive as a property owner that I have to get permission from the DNR to hunt my own land.

 

[Doug Huffman]

Good luck with that. It is really offensive as a property owner that I have to get permission from the DNR to hunt my own land.

Citation please, OCDO Rule (5). And see my perhaps subsequent thread post on the subject of hunter safety training - Hah PHUI!

 

[phred]

Read the Hunting Regs!

There are some animals that may be hunted on one's own land without a license. Page 21 of the Small Game Regulations

The owner or occupant of any land and members of their family*
may, without a license and subject to all other restrictions except seasons, hunt or trap on their own property for beaver, fox, coyote, raccoon, woodchuck, rabbit, and squirrel year-round and may sell the skins of these species (except for woodchucks); however, hunting with a firearm is not allowed during the 24-hour period immediatelypreceding the regular gun deer season, and hunting is illegal for anyone under the age of 10.

http://dnr.wi.gov/org/land/wildlife/regs/SGHunt10.pdf