I've been giving this a lot of thought over the past few months as I have some extra time on my hands.
I've been noticing how many civilians are very very focused on Close Quarters Battle (CQB) training. YouTube is full of videos and many instructional classes have large blocks dedicated to the subject. Many of my friends who are 2nd Amendment minded folks tend to focus their gear and range time toward this subject. I was speaking with my wife about crisis plans and she asked what we do in certain situations and based on my experience, I found myself avoiding CQB in almost every instance. This is of course from the perspective of an individual or small family unit.
I don't think any individual, trained or not could hold a structure against a trained element. On that subject, I don't think an individual or small untrained element could stand a chance taking a structure against a small force. Unless the situation is your family being held hostage, I don't think there is a reason to strike or attempt a CQB engagement. With that in mind why do so many focus their training time and gear towards CQB? I'm speaking of the prevalence of SBRs and the ubiquitous 300 Blk. Not only that, but I see many people who focus on a very slick style gear that is very minimalist to not get in the way for CQB.
Outside of a home intruder, because personally I believe a pistol is far better than the SBRs and such, in what instance do you see CQB training actually being put to use.
I understand that the war on terror taught the military a great deal about CQB tactics, but many of those tactics are applicable to engagements with poorly trained enemies and/or small elements. The only CQB tactics I believe are universally applicable are speed, surprise, and violence of action, but those are applicable to every type of engagement.
The crisis situations my wife and I covered were extended power outages, large scale natural disasters, criminal elements targeting our family, and political instabilities. In all those situations, I would defend held territory and attempt to seek out allies. Unless my family was taken hostage and the Police just did not want to do anything, I can't see a situation where I would have to take a structure. At least not immediately, or by myself.
Final point. I do have CQB oriented arms, but I tend to structure my gear and arms towards scenarios where distance is an issue. For those that focus on CQB training and gear, what experiences/research has taught you to do so? What are you thinking you'll use that for or do you just like the challenge and puzzles that CQB provokes?
I've been noticing how many civilians are very very focused on Close Quarters Battle (CQB) training. YouTube is full of videos and many instructional classes have large blocks dedicated to the subject. Many of my friends who are 2nd Amendment minded folks tend to focus their gear and range time toward this subject. I was speaking with my wife about crisis plans and she asked what we do in certain situations and based on my experience, I found myself avoiding CQB in almost every instance. This is of course from the perspective of an individual or small family unit.
I don't think any individual, trained or not could hold a structure against a trained element. On that subject, I don't think an individual or small untrained element could stand a chance taking a structure against a small force. Unless the situation is your family being held hostage, I don't think there is a reason to strike or attempt a CQB engagement. With that in mind why do so many focus their training time and gear towards CQB? I'm speaking of the prevalence of SBRs and the ubiquitous 300 Blk. Not only that, but I see many people who focus on a very slick style gear that is very minimalist to not get in the way for CQB.
Outside of a home intruder, because personally I believe a pistol is far better than the SBRs and such, in what instance do you see CQB training actually being put to use.
I understand that the war on terror taught the military a great deal about CQB tactics, but many of those tactics are applicable to engagements with poorly trained enemies and/or small elements. The only CQB tactics I believe are universally applicable are speed, surprise, and violence of action, but those are applicable to every type of engagement.
The crisis situations my wife and I covered were extended power outages, large scale natural disasters, criminal elements targeting our family, and political instabilities. In all those situations, I would defend held territory and attempt to seek out allies. Unless my family was taken hostage and the Police just did not want to do anything, I can't see a situation where I would have to take a structure. At least not immediately, or by myself.
Final point. I do have CQB oriented arms, but I tend to structure my gear and arms towards scenarios where distance is an issue. For those that focus on CQB training and gear, what experiences/research has taught you to do so? What are you thinking you'll use that for or do you just like the challenge and puzzles that CQB provokes?