[HOLLiS]

Gene,

I will beg your pardon, Zin loi(sorry). My comment was not to discredited competitive shooting. It was more in line with a class of males who opt to the easy track of buying skill. I think competitive shooting has a value. As it has been mentioned on this forum, "paper does not shoot back". Training is very important, and the measure of training, IMHO, is how close to reality does it get.

I believe it was Josephus who said Roman training was bloodless combat, and Roman combat was bloodied training. When I arrived in RVN, it was a general consensus that all the training in the states was not equal to a day in the bush. That was probably a over statement. During the American Civil War, until a regiment was bloodied it was considered a unknown. Yes the training back then was nil. I really don't see a way to train and have the same effect as actual combat. From what I have seen and read the Military is doing a much better job of it than in my day.

I think excellent training and competition instills a self confidence needed to go in to combat. Actual combat confirms the skills learned and answers those unanswerable questions a person has, as they go into combat. Back to buying things, and this does not apply to our Military, you can not buy a set of huevos. I still think we have our finest military, today.

Cam on, ban cua ong (thank you, your friend)

Hollis

toi tieng titi (I speak little) Old age does that