Hunters and the Army

A Can of Man

A Can of Man

Je suis aware
Okay here's a new thread because the other was getting off topic.

Here's my opinion.
Hunters or a hunting background will be really good because first, you're already acclimated to the outdoors. This can be quite a big shock to others. You already know some nice little tricks and things that can keep you going longer. You know how to maintain your kit as well.
You develop an eye for the enviorns. If something isn't where it's supposed to be, chances are you'll be the first to spot it. For most people trees all look alike. To a skilled hunter, he could call a fake camouflage tree or one that just wasn't there the other day.
Also being experienced in shooting, it makes marksmanship a snap.
Though hunting in itself won't turn you into a good infantryman, the skills you learn there can be applied and it's a good combination.
 
you could probably add boyscouts into your agrument. There are a lot of skills that I got from the boyscouts that I use in the military.

But yes, being a hunter can aid a soldier.
 
Many skills learned from hunting can be beneficial, while many, like shooting for instance, can often times hurt - especially when it comes to long range target interdiction. Bad habits die hard.
 
RnderSafe said:
Many skills learned from hunting can be beneficial, while many, like shooting for instance, can often times hurt - especially when it comes to long range target interdiction. Bad habits die hard.
Click to expand...
Can you give us a hypothetical example. I'm not entirely sure I'm understanding.
 
Although I only have any real experience with one side of this, I do believe that hunting (and the BSA) can be very beneficial to a serviceman, as far as a general idea of fieldcraft (basic movement, although I think I've only lowcrawled while hunting once :lol: , situational awareness, and marksmanship) is concerned, but the trap that I have seen a few others, including a couple fellows I grew up with, fall into is thinking they are Daniel Boone. This isn't the Wild West or the Kentucky Frontier anymore where hunters actually had to practice good fieldcraft to survive and had done so all their lives, and a lot of modern hunters are more dangerous to their dogs and our cattle than to the game they're after (I know this from personal experience, getting peppered by a 20 GA on a pheasant hunt and some flatlander drilling one of our heifers because he thought it was a deer, among other things). Hunters, even ones who have been hunting their entire lives, still make stupid mistakes. My Dad almost drowned/froze to death on a duck hunt when their punt capsized because they stayed out in a storm, and one of our neighbors fell off a cliff and froze to death on a hunt in Montana.
So, yes, hunting CAN give the hunter certain skills that will benefit him as a Soldier, but most likely it will not make him a romanticized Audie Murphy type frontiersman.


edit:

godofthunder9010 said:
RnderSafe said:
Many skills learned from hunting can be beneficial, while many, like shooting for instance, can often times hurt - especially when it comes to long range target interdiction. Bad habits die hard.
Click to expand...
Can you give us a hypothetical example. I'm not entirely sure I'm understanding.
Click to expand...

I have run into this almost every time I have been on a range in the military and the range OIC or NCOIC asks "how many here know how to shoot?" And then gets an "oh great" look on his face when all us high speed hooah hooah country boys raise our hands and grin at each other like we're going to show these city boys what for. I have never run into a problem with my shooting even though I do have a pretty unique shooting style, which is what RnderSafe is talking about (hope I'm not putting words in your mouth, Sir). Having used long guns my whole life, I, and most other lifetime firers, have developed my own style, which can be detrimental to the firer's abilities with a new weapon with which he is unfamiliar. We tend to rely on things like Kentucky windage (adjusting where you aim to correct your accuracy instead of adjusting the sights) and, like RnderSafe said, when someone tries to correct these bad habits, a lifetime shooter can be very resistant to the change, either intentionally ("well that's the way I've always done it") or just because they have done it so long that they unconciously fall back into their bad habits.

That help at all?
 
RnderSafe said:
Many skills learned from hunting can be beneficial, while many, like shooting for instance, can often times hurt - especially when it comes to long range target interdiction. Bad habits die hard.
Click to expand...
Hunters make better snipers or squad designated marksmen than regular riflemen. Trying to tell a hunter to use suppression fire will definitely not sit well with him. “Spray and Pray” is just stupid to him to understand.

Invariably, hunters make the best snipers not only because of their marksmanship but because of their ability to be cohesive to their environment, the woodlands. Some people may concede that a hunter has the potential to be a good soldier, but that doesn’t necessarily mean he will. Those people say that hunting and killing deer, for example, is much easier than killing a human because deer do not shoot back. I disagree; if the soldier(s) cannot spot you they cannot kill you - unless they are indiscriminately using artillery. When I am out hunting, many times I see other hunters that pass by me, whether I am in a tree or on ground; and they never see me. I have had people get so close to me that I could spit on them and they never see me because human senses are very dull. On the other hand, behold the the senses of a white tail deer : her hearing, sight, and smell are hundreds of times better than a human’s. When shooting a wild deer that is in a heavily hunted area (not these corn feed farm deer you see on hunting channels), her nerves are always on the edge and she can actually move a little before the bullet gets there; and the rest of the deer in the area will immediately know where you are and haul-ass at 30-35mph in the opposite direction. In contrast, well trained soldiers will hit the dirt, find cover, and listen for the snap (bullet passing by) and crack (muzzle blast) of the shot so they can locate that sniper, but by that time, two soldiers are likely fallen victim. Most men will panic and fire in different areas, but that has a small chance of hitting anything as the sniper places his shots where they count. And exceptional sniper can wipe out a whole squad or platoon of men if they are unsupported. Case study: Carlos Hathcock. They guy was about as far away from a typical marine as one could get; he used all the techniques he learned hunting to bag his "quarry".

Redneck said:
And then gets an "oh great" look on his face when all us high speed hooah hooah country boys raise our hands and grin at each other like we're going to show these city boys what for.
Click to expand...
This is basic or AIT. The drill sargents/instructers don't give a damn about what you think because they are there to break you. They want men who do what they say, period.
 
You sound like you have some special experience both with the military in general and sharpshooting/sniping in particular, I am curious as to what personal experience you have with the subject upon which you are basing your conclusions about hunters and their military abilities.
 
I am just a citizen, an avid hunter, and a gun enthusiast. I visit the local range each week to shoot; and it’s usually with my bench rest rifles, but I do have experience with military style shooting. I compete in the high power rifle competition which is bi-annual for us, and usually shoot expert. I have competed against people that are in the service and they have their military style, but I have been able to beat all of them except for my dad, who is a former 101st Airborne sniper. He usually shoots better than what a standard AR-15 (M16A2) is capable of shooting. I have learned a great deal about the military because I talk to my dad and all the vets who show up at the range.

I shoot high power rifle competition with these
I shot this little 3-shot group at 100 yards with my M1A (iron sights) on a bench (I took a 6 Oclock hold)
It went straight to my head, so fogive me for the "bighead" :lol: .
This is not me, but it is basically my mentality
 
If you look back at the past some of the best snipers were hunters as kids. But I agree that it takes far more than hunting skills to be a good soldier.
 
Big_Z said:
If you look back at the past some of the best snipers were hunters as kids.
Click to expand...
I bet Simo Häyhä of Finland was a hunter too, but unfortunately, it is hard to find information on him.
http://www.snipercountry.com/BVT_Reviews/RiflesWhiteDeath.asp

Oh wait, I found something interesting:
A Finn farmer turned civil guardsman still holds the highest kill record of any sniper in history. Simo Häyhä, as recounted in the book, was responsible for the demise of 505 Russian soldiers!
Click to expand...

What!? He wasn't in the military!? :shock:
 
I dont think anyone doubts the skill of a hunter, if you told me the best shot in the world was a hunter I would not be surprised. I think it boils down to if that hunter just seen his best friend get shot in the face, is his hand still going to be steady?
 
Big_Z said:
I dont think anyone doubts the skill of a hunter, if you told me the best shot in the world was a hunter I would not be surprised. I think it boils down to if that hunter just seen his best friend get shot in the face is his hand still going to be steady?
Click to expand...
Dude that’s just horrifying to anyone; and not just hunter civilians are effected. You can read Marine Sniper: 93 Confirmed Kills and learn that the VC and NVA were scared out of their minds by Hathcock. Basically, the psychological effect would be to shoot a person in the brain because it is going to cause violent spasms. If persons head is shot with say a .50 caliber, then it will explode with enough force that bone fragments can wound/kill people near by.

Carlos Hathcock, in his book never mentioned intentionally shooting for specific body parts, and he zeroed his rifle at 700 yards and aimed at a person’s belt buckle. Which by the way, the military uses variable scopes and they click them over to different ranges and abhor “Kentucky” windage/elevation. This is yet another example of how the military is not always right in their thinking. You click over a variable and you f--k your accuracy up beacuse the scope does not settle in until after you fire a shot, and even then it's not exactly right. The military doesn’t pick up on the nuances, but civilian shooters and hunters do.
 
ravensword227 said:
Carlos Hathcock, in his book never mentioned intentionally shooting for specific body parts, and he zeroed his rifle at 700 yards and aimed at a person’s belt buckle. Which by the way, the military uses variable scopes and they click them over to different ranges and abhor “Kentucky” windage/elevation. This is yet another example of how the military is not always right in their thinking.
Click to expand...

Actually I believe the reason snipers aim at things like the belt buckle and canteen or whatever other piece of equipment a soldier has on them, is because the .50 cal round is intended to be an antimaterial round and the Geneva Convention prohibits the use of such weapons on a human target. At least that's what an Army DS has told me.
But I do realize that before the .338 Lapua came to be the .50BMG was the only bullet capable of extremely long distance shots.
 
egoz said:
Actually I believe the reason snipers aim at things like the belt buckle and canteen or whatever other piece of equipment a soldier has on them, is because the .50 cal round is intended to be an antimaterial round and the Geneva Convention prohibits the use of such weapons on a human target. At least that's what an Army DS has told me.
Click to expand...

I don't think so. You're not supposed to shoot explosive or incendiary rounds at troops if the rounds are less than 37mm. http://home.blarg.net/~minsq/NCArchive/00000210.htm
 
ravensword227 said:
Basically, the psychological effect would be to shoot a person in the brain because it is going to cause violent spasms.
Click to expand...

This is incorrect, if the spinal cord is severed, no action potentials will be transmitted and therefore the body will not move at all, let alone in "violent spasms."


If you are not sure of what you are posting, do not feel that you are in fact rquired to make that post, you won't lose any cool points for admitting to not knowing something.

And the subject is hunters and the military, not distance shooting.
 
Redneck said:
This is incorrect, if the spinal cord is severed, no action potentials will be transmitted and therefore the body will not move at all, let alone in "violent spasms."
Click to expand...

I said brain, not spinal cord. Have you ever heard the expression somethings going crazy like a "shot rabbit"? That was what is in the book, Marine Sniper.

If you are not sure of what you are posting, do not feel that you are in fact rquired to make that post, you won't lose any cool points for admitting to not knowing something.

And the subject is hunters and the military, not distance shooting.
Click to expand...

If you could give me just a little leeway, I would be grateful. I am trying to stay on topic while dispelling myths and educating people. I am willing to present the facts and proof to back my statements.
 
So can anyone say conclusively whether a background in hunting, guns and shooting makes a better soldier or ruins the soldier in advance? I wonder if there's ever been a study of any sort on it?

One thing is for certain. Like or hate em, lots of Americans have their own guns. That fact makes the United States one of the least desireable places to invade on the planet.
 
godofthunder9010 said:
So can anyone say conclusively whether a background in hunting, guns and shooting makes a better soldier or ruins the soldier in advance? I wonder if there's ever been a study of any sort on it?
Click to expand...

Every other commercial on the outdoor hunting channel where I live is Army advertisements. I think that says a lot right there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top