It doesn't matter the job, the more physically fit you are, the easier the job will be. You'll also improve your chances of being better at the required task and reducing injuries. Plus you'll live longer, not be tired as much, and hopefully have fun in the process.
Generally speaking your training should be divided into 4 categories; strength, cardio, flexibility, and mental conditioning. Too much of any one, and not enough of the others will result in shortcomings. It's all about finding balance. If all you do is lift weights with no cardio, then as soon as your heart rate goes high you'll suffer the consequences. On the flip side, a runner who does nothing but run will fall apart quickly when lifting weight, wearing weight, or doing anything strenuous.
Strength - Generally misunderstood, often judged by "how much you bench", in reality should be more core strength based(can you pick up that oak tree stump and carry it 25 yards?). Unless you're an NFL offensive lineman, why does it matter how much weight you can push off your chest while laying flat? Where is that applicable anywhere else in life? Rarely do we need to push weight of any kind, but, we almost always need to lift it and carry it. If you can CARRY weight after you lift it, that has real world application. Circuit training with weights is you best option here, hitting major muscle groups evry other day. My personal favorite strength exercise is the pullup. It can be done almost anywhere their is a place to hang from. Sadly, the average american can't do one. The average 6th grade kid can do 3, what does that tell you. I was a recepiant of the Presidential Fitness Award in 6th grade and can remember all of us doing the pull up portion during field day to prepare for the test. I'm still amazed at how many of us could do 5, 6, 8, 10 pullups at that age. If you ever see someone who can do 20 pullups, I guarantee they are strong above average in every category you can think of.
Cardio- This one is more realistic for most because their aren't that many options- run, bike, swim, paddle, or hump a ruck. In any case, you have to get your heart rate higher than it is normally. To quote Hal Higdon "to become a better runner, you can run faster, run longer, or some combo of both". The thing with cardio training that kills me is people who do it wrong and still bitch about the results. If you go on a bike ride and your heart rate never gets more than 30 or 40 bpm faster, of course your not going to get faster/lose weight/or become more efficient. You have to at some point get out of your comfort zone to get results. That being said, recovery is a key component as well (and the reason the Kenyans always win). Remember the mental part of this too. If you have to watch TV to exercise, you're probably not all that into it, and just doing it to say you did.
Flexibility - I through balance in this equation as well. Bottom line, not flexible= injury. Stretch correctly, use exercise balls to work the core and to stretch hard to reach places. I use a Rolo board to do some balance things, it helps alot. I also use the flatest, lightest, shoes to work in I can (Salomon XA's) unless it's really cold. This helps me have better balance when carring a load, and strenghens/toughens my feet. I had zero blisters after my 50 mile run.
Mental - If you think you can't, you right. Humans are born pretty much the same, it's what you decide to do with it that makes the difference. Yes there are those that are taller, bigger, more natural talent, but all that and no desire means nothing. So much as been written on this subject. Positive outlook, take chances, don't acknowledge those who doubt you. If you need some inspiration, I'm going to have a post on that soon.
Time - How much, how long, etc. It all depnds on your goals. If you want to run a 50 mile ultra, its going to take a lot of time to build up to that. If you want to dead lift 3 times your body weight, that's alot of dedication and time in the gym. Use your time wisely. Anyone who says it takes them 3 or 4 hours to work out at the gym is either not human, or doing a lot of bullshitting in the process. Don't be the guy who goes to the gym to posture for 3 hours. Go there and work for 1.
There are many great programs out there that combine all the things I've mentioned in one package. Or you can do your own thing like I do. The biggest problem I see is is individuals who do not train for their job but train for their wants (e.g.-looks), or personal satisfaction (e.g.- I'm not good at that, so I won't do it). Figure out what is the most important aspects of your particular job, and create a training plan for it. Drop the ego and waste of time exercises and you'll perform better, with less injuries, and have more to pull from in a stressful situation.
Trainer of Feeders
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Monday, August 10, 2009
How to pick an instructor
First of all, the term instructor is over used almost as much as 'operator'. In reality, you need someone who can TEACH, not just instruct or tell you to do a drill. None the less, instructor is the term most used in this business because it sounds better than teacher.
What to look for in an instructor:
1. Experience in the subject - Don't assume that just because someone has had a gun on their side for 20 years they know what they're doing. 20 years the wrong way doesn't equal 6 months the right way. What is experience anyway? In my mind, and especially in today's world, experience is doing, for real, whatever said subject is. For example, why would you pay good money for a carbine instructor who has never engaged another human with a carbine? We're dealing with life and death here. So, would you let a nurse perform open-heart surgery on your loved one? How about a CQB class from someone who has never even entered a room to face another man with a gun, let alone a man who is shooting back? Remember too, that just because someone is from a high speed unit, that doesn't give them carte blanche to teach every tactical subject or mean that they've even done it 'for real' themselves.
2. Performance - This one is simple. If a shooting instructor doesn't demo each and every drill, somethings wrong. If your unit is wearing a duty rig, and the instructor is wearing an open top, or the team shoots Glock 17s and the instructor has to shoot his 'match' gun, you just wasted money. When you're looking for some training be aware that videos are sometimes deceiving. Yeah, he's going fast, but is he getting 'A' zone hits? or just hitting the silhouette in general?
3. Teaching ability - Can the instructor actually get his point across? Or can he just shoot real well? If you're getting yelled at for anything other than safety, that's a sure fire indicator that the instructor has no idea how to correct problems. Ask around, and find out how people like the instructor you're thinking of using. The multiple tactical forums on the net (like m4carbine.net) are a wealth of info.
What to be wary of:
1. controversial background, or lack of background - For some reason, a lot of folks think that if you've been to Afghanistan or Iraq as a civilian independent contractor for a government agency that you can teach any subject dealing with warfare. This is the farthest thing from the truth. A "contractor" who has multiple deployments to Iraq for a PSD job IS NOT a master class shooter or an authority on CQB, sniping, or breaching. A good number of people jumped on the contractor train post 9/11. Where were they beforehand? My estimate is that it takes about 5 to 7 years of military service in a combat unit (obviously SO units will have more experience because of money and overall mission statement), and another 3 to 4 years of professional shooting/instructing experience to be competent enough to teach at a level that will benefit all those involved.
2. tactics geared toward an instructor's "style" - some people do things just to be differnet, or to benefit their own products. Keep an eye out for this. There is probably a reason that not everyone endorses gear specific tactics.
3. My way or the highway - if someone has limited experience, but that experience has had good results, it will be hard for them to accept or change to new or more proven methods. Make sure the instructor you pick is up-to-date with tactics.
The types of instructors:
1. A good one
2. The regurgitation instructor- one who has no experience in the subject but has landed the job. He is smart enough to know this and eventually can repeat, verbatim, a debrief that an experienced instructor gave before. Super dangerous, because he'll sooner or later think he actually knows something.
3. The smoke and mirror instructor - one who has a little experience but a good personality, and could sell water to a fish. Generally takes on the persona or teaching style of an instructor who's school he has been to in the past. Can generally critique and debrief some major points beacuse he has Google.
The bottom line- spend cheap, pay twice.
What to look for in an instructor:
1. Experience in the subject - Don't assume that just because someone has had a gun on their side for 20 years they know what they're doing. 20 years the wrong way doesn't equal 6 months the right way. What is experience anyway? In my mind, and especially in today's world, experience is doing, for real, whatever said subject is. For example, why would you pay good money for a carbine instructor who has never engaged another human with a carbine? We're dealing with life and death here. So, would you let a nurse perform open-heart surgery on your loved one? How about a CQB class from someone who has never even entered a room to face another man with a gun, let alone a man who is shooting back? Remember too, that just because someone is from a high speed unit, that doesn't give them carte blanche to teach every tactical subject or mean that they've even done it 'for real' themselves.
2. Performance - This one is simple. If a shooting instructor doesn't demo each and every drill, somethings wrong. If your unit is wearing a duty rig, and the instructor is wearing an open top, or the team shoots Glock 17s and the instructor has to shoot his 'match' gun, you just wasted money. When you're looking for some training be aware that videos are sometimes deceiving. Yeah, he's going fast, but is he getting 'A' zone hits? or just hitting the silhouette in general?
3. Teaching ability - Can the instructor actually get his point across? Or can he just shoot real well? If you're getting yelled at for anything other than safety, that's a sure fire indicator that the instructor has no idea how to correct problems. Ask around, and find out how people like the instructor you're thinking of using. The multiple tactical forums on the net (like m4carbine.net) are a wealth of info.
What to be wary of:
1. controversial background, or lack of background - For some reason, a lot of folks think that if you've been to Afghanistan or Iraq as a civilian independent contractor for a government agency that you can teach any subject dealing with warfare. This is the farthest thing from the truth. A "contractor" who has multiple deployments to Iraq for a PSD job IS NOT a master class shooter or an authority on CQB, sniping, or breaching. A good number of people jumped on the contractor train post 9/11. Where were they beforehand? My estimate is that it takes about 5 to 7 years of military service in a combat unit (obviously SO units will have more experience because of money and overall mission statement), and another 3 to 4 years of professional shooting/instructing experience to be competent enough to teach at a level that will benefit all those involved.
2. tactics geared toward an instructor's "style" - some people do things just to be differnet, or to benefit their own products. Keep an eye out for this. There is probably a reason that not everyone endorses gear specific tactics.
3. My way or the highway - if someone has limited experience, but that experience has had good results, it will be hard for them to accept or change to new or more proven methods. Make sure the instructor you pick is up-to-date with tactics.
The types of instructors:
1. A good one
2. The regurgitation instructor- one who has no experience in the subject but has landed the job. He is smart enough to know this and eventually can repeat, verbatim, a debrief that an experienced instructor gave before. Super dangerous, because he'll sooner or later think he actually knows something.
3. The smoke and mirror instructor - one who has a little experience but a good personality, and could sell water to a fish. Generally takes on the persona or teaching style of an instructor who's school he has been to in the past. Can generally critique and debrief some major points beacuse he has Google.
The bottom line- spend cheap, pay twice.
Saturday, August 1, 2009
Prairie Gun Works Timberwolf .338 Lapua
I'd first heard of the .338 when the Canadians went to it years ago and I thought nothing of it. Arrogantly assuming my issued .300 WINMAG was on par, and if it wasns't I could make up the difference in performance. Boy, was that ever the wrong thought! I first got to shoot it about 2 years ago when some Canadian snipers came down to run the yard lines. My first impression was, well, impressed. Still, only 20 or 40 rounds really is not enough to make the call.
Recently, thanks to Larry's personal collection and us being on a T.V. show about guns, I got to shoot it for about 3 days and 250 or so rounds. I will admit that months ago I selfishly suggested the Tiberwolf for an episode, secretly hoping I'd get a lot of time on it.
I can say now without question it's the best sniper rifle I've ever seen, shot or heard of(of course, having Schmidt & Bender's 5 to 25 on top ain't hurting) It weighs in at only 3lbs more than a Remington 700! The benefits of the Lapua .338 are well worth 3 lbs. .338 to .308 is almost like comparing .308 to 5.56. It flys that flat, with many .50 cal traits in tow without the agony of the BMG.
If you're a military leader and you're reading this, seriously ask why the U.S. doesn't have this in the inventory. If you need more convincing, watch the episode on it coming up in a few weeks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)