So I have been thinking about this for awhile and thought it would make for an interesting and fun debate.
At what point do you go from being a normally kitted out gun-guy to full-on gear whore/range commando?
There are two areas to discuss - gear and guns
1. Gear - Personally I have always been a bit of a gear whore, both personally and in the army. I have gotten and continue to get lots of flack from 'minimilists' over my gear, especially in the army. If something new comes out and I can see how it could be appliable to my job, I might try it out. I have the income to do it and having after-market kit has never diminished my performance. I have a rule with my troops, if it's reasonable and cadpat, I am open to letting them use it. If a troop can't perform with issue kit I will not allow him to use after-market kit. Unfortunately a lot of troops who use after-market kit aren't the fittest dudes. That and the fact that most nay-sayers are cheap, contributes to the slagging. I don;t overdo it but if the issue kit isn't cutting it then I improve it. As for private shooting, I personally use a Battle Belt because it is comfortable and a simple plate carrier, only because I use armour in both my jobs so I like to train with it as much as possible.
2. Guns - There are those that feel the need to put every last aftermarket item on their guns and those that prefer plain jane, simple. Personally I like to upgrade my guns to improve ergonomics. But where does it end? If I just put a front grip and a MIAD grip on I'm 'ok' but if I have a rail, CTR, red dot, yada, yada, I'm a range commando? I believe you need to learn to shoot with the basics, iron sights, stock (I'm talking AR platform). Once you've mastered the irons, then move to optics, and comfort. I have seen many people with all the toys in the world on an AR but still can't group a 4" group at 50yds let alone 2"! If you can't get a tight group with optics and bipod, you need to go back to the basics. There is no point in learning to shoot on the move and do fancy turns and flips if you can't shoot prone. I know guys on my team that prefer iron sights for room entry over EoTechs, not sure why, but as long as they hit their mark, who cares. In A-Stan I used an old AK with irons, back home I prefer red dots. So if I want to put the latest Magpul or Troy or whatever gadget on my rifle, does that make me a range commando? Is that any different than the car dude who tricks out his ride with after-market goodies? Or is that different?
For me, I don't care what a dude has on their guns/gear, I look at their drills and shooting ability. If it is good or above-average, then who cares, if it totally sucks, I say, go work on the basics, master those then accessorize!!
Basics win the gunfight, not gadgets....however the right gadgets help well-trained shooters increase their odds in said gunfight.
Thoughts? Let's discuss....
At what point do you go from being a normally kitted out gun-guy to full-on gear whore/range commando?
There are two areas to discuss - gear and guns
1. Gear - Personally I have always been a bit of a gear whore, both personally and in the army. I have gotten and continue to get lots of flack from 'minimilists' over my gear, especially in the army. If something new comes out and I can see how it could be appliable to my job, I might try it out. I have the income to do it and having after-market kit has never diminished my performance. I have a rule with my troops, if it's reasonable and cadpat, I am open to letting them use it. If a troop can't perform with issue kit I will not allow him to use after-market kit. Unfortunately a lot of troops who use after-market kit aren't the fittest dudes. That and the fact that most nay-sayers are cheap, contributes to the slagging. I don;t overdo it but if the issue kit isn't cutting it then I improve it. As for private shooting, I personally use a Battle Belt because it is comfortable and a simple plate carrier, only because I use armour in both my jobs so I like to train with it as much as possible.
2. Guns - There are those that feel the need to put every last aftermarket item on their guns and those that prefer plain jane, simple. Personally I like to upgrade my guns to improve ergonomics. But where does it end? If I just put a front grip and a MIAD grip on I'm 'ok' but if I have a rail, CTR, red dot, yada, yada, I'm a range commando? I believe you need to learn to shoot with the basics, iron sights, stock (I'm talking AR platform). Once you've mastered the irons, then move to optics, and comfort. I have seen many people with all the toys in the world on an AR but still can't group a 4" group at 50yds let alone 2"! If you can't get a tight group with optics and bipod, you need to go back to the basics. There is no point in learning to shoot on the move and do fancy turns and flips if you can't shoot prone. I know guys on my team that prefer iron sights for room entry over EoTechs, not sure why, but as long as they hit their mark, who cares. In A-Stan I used an old AK with irons, back home I prefer red dots. So if I want to put the latest Magpul or Troy or whatever gadget on my rifle, does that make me a range commando? Is that any different than the car dude who tricks out his ride with after-market goodies? Or is that different?
For me, I don't care what a dude has on their guns/gear, I look at their drills and shooting ability. If it is good or above-average, then who cares, if it totally sucks, I say, go work on the basics, master those then accessorize!!
Basics win the gunfight, not gadgets....however the right gadgets help well-trained shooters increase their odds in said gunfight.
Thoughts? Let's discuss....
