Wearing body armor to the gun range?

Status
Not open for further replies.
USAF_Vet said:
Fear of what you consider to be not normal, huh? :rolleyes: If only those pesky open carriers would just hide their guns like 'normal' folk, we wouldn't have to see those scary guns. Sounds like progress to me.

I don't always wear my personal body armor, but I do train with it from time to time as it is a part of my home defense set up. If that causes someone to leave the range, good. More room for me and less to deal with.
Click to expand...

Unusual behaviors cause concern. Reactions will vary depending on the behavior and the person observing it. A person unknown to me, not in uniform, and wearing body armor in public is sufficiently unusual behavior that I'd want to put as much distance as possible between myself and that person as possible. Generally speaking, people wear body armor when they're expecting trouble, and I don't want to be around when trouble happens, so I'm leaving. That's one unusual behavior and one person's reaction to it.

Now maybe if I shot at a range frequented by people who trained in body armor I'd have a different outlook - at least at that range. It might be normal behavior there. But I don't see those kinds of people at the ranges around here, so it would be a cause for concern.

Open carry doesn't bother me. Different behavior, different reaction.
 
We required all of our firearms instructors teaching at our police academy to wear them while on the firing line with the recruits......
 
When the S&W range was open, the staff all wore vests.
Makes sense, and that was a very safe operation.
 
Sergei Mosin said:
Unusual behaviors cause concern. Reactions will vary depending on the behavior and the person observing it. A person unknown to me, not in uniform, and wearing body armor in public is sufficiently unusual behavior that I'd want to put as much distance as possible between myself and that person as possible. Generally speaking, people wear body armor when they're expecting trouble, and I don't want to be around when trouble happens, so I'm leaving. That's one unusual behavior and one person's reaction to it.

Now maybe if I shot at a range frequented by people who trained in body armor I'd have a different outlook - at least at that range. It might be normal behavior there. But I don't see those kinds of people at the ranges around here, so it would be a cause for concern.

Open carry doesn't bother me. Different behavior, different reaction.
Click to expand...

Unusual behaviors cause concern. Reactions will vary depending on the behavior and the person observing it. A person unknown to me, not in uniform, and carrying a gun in public is sufficiently unusual behavior that I'd want to put as much distance as possible between myself and that person as possible. Generally speaking, people wear body armor when they're expecting trouble, and I don't want to be around when trouble happens, so I'm leaving.


How does that sound? ^


It seems kind of bias to say "in public" when referring to a shooting range, BTW.
 
When the S&W range was open, the staff all wore vests.
Makes sense, and that was a very safe operation.
Click to expand...

ive been to the S&W range probably a half dozen times.....i dont think ive ever once seen them wear vests.
 
Warp said:
Unusual behaviors cause concern. Reactions will vary depending on the behavior and the person observing it. A person unknown to me, not in uniform, and carrying a gun in public is sufficiently unusual behavior that I'd want to put as much distance as possible between myself and that person as possible. Generally speaking, people wear body armor when they're expecting trouble, and I don't want to be around when trouble happens, so I'm leaving.


How does that sound? ^


It seems kind of bias to say "in public" when referring to a shooting range, BTW.
Click to expand...

Precisely my point. Different people have different reactions to different behaviors. If a behavior is sufficiently out of the ordinary, negative reactions can be expected. Whether that bothers the individual enough to change their behavior is, of course, up to that individual.
 
Sergei Mosin said:
Unusual behaviors cause concern. Reactions will vary depending on the behavior and the person observing it. A person unknown to me, not in uniform, and wearing body armor in public is sufficiently unusual behavior that I'd want to put as much distance as possible between myself and that person as possible. Generally speaking, people wear body armor when they're expecting trouble, and I don't want to be around when trouble happens, so I'm leaving. That's one unusual behavior and one person's reaction to it.

Now maybe if I shot at a range frequented by people who trained in body armor I'd have a different outlook - at least at that range. It might be normal behavior there. But I don't see those kinds of people at the ranges around here, so it would be a cause for concern.

Open carry doesn't bother me. Different behavior, different reaction.
Click to expand...
In some cultures, a woman out of the house by herself is 'unusual behavior'. In the UK, possessing a firearm is unusual behavior. What is unusual and what is not is in the eye of the beholder. Now if someone entered a jewelry store wearing full Level IV armor and a helmet, that would be unusual. A person engaging in live fire, around other who are engaging in live fire... well now wearing body armor is just prudent. It might not be 'normal' but as long as that person is being safe, who cares? Not everyone who wears body armor is an unstable Call-Of-Duty wannabe mall ninja.
By packing up and leaving in a protest, that only does injury to the shooting sport overall. The 2A is great and all, but personal protection is more about just the gun.

I train with it, sometimes, and I even get asked about it. But no one has ever thought I was a nut job and packed their things and left because of it. The range I used to go to was public, unmonitored and very busy. Unfortunately, I saw more than a few idiots trying to bump fire from the hip, or shoot clays on the rifle line, or walk out to change targets on a hot range, or muzzle sweep the entire county. Where I go now is remote enough that I'm usually alone.

Maybe I just don't understand the mentality. I am open minded to things that are not considered normal. Some aren't.
 
USAF, it is sad that most people don't share your view anymore. for the most part, it seems people want their own freedom, but are afraid to let others have theirs.
 
Don't see how it is paranoid.You wear eye and ear protection.Body armor is just another piece of passive safety gear.Not just for "special folks".
 
Last edited:
Okay, well if car accidents are "too" frequent, and a bad analogy, what about parachuting.

Parachutes rarely fail. So why bother wearing a reserve?

Bottom line is that the technology is inexpensive and if you have it it could save your life if you wear it but it's useless in your closet.
 
USAF_Vet said:
What is unusual and what is not is in the eye of the beholder.
Click to expand...

Agree.

A person engaging in live fire, around other who are engaging in live fire... well now wearing body armor is just prudent.
Click to expand...

I disagree here; I think that - in most cases - it goes beyond prudent and heads toward paranoid. But that's just my opinion.

Not everyone who wears body armor is an unstable Call-Of-Duty wannabe mall ninja.
Click to expand...

But enough of them are that I don't want to stick around and find which one you are. You may think that's paranoid, just as I think wearing body armor is paranoid, but so be it.

taliv said:
USAF, it is sad that most people don't share your view anymore. for the most part, it seems people want their own freedom, but are afraid to let others have theirs.
Click to expand...

That comment seems directed at me and I resent that just a bit. I don't care what other people do, but there are certain things I don't want to be around, and when they're going on I am going to exercise my freedom to leave.
 
Isaac-1 said:
Maybe I am a bit more prudent than most when it comes to gun accidents, one of my grandfathers was killed in a hunting accident, this is part of the reason I brought up the subject. He was shooting at a squirrel in his backyard with a pump action .22 (Winchester model 61) had a hang fire ejected the round and it blew up in his face, he died 3 days later in the hospital from the infection (he was also on Chemo at the time). As to the know when to be somewhere else, that is valid too, a couple of years ago I was out target shooting with a relative by marriage, he was using a Ruger 10-22, using cheap ammo that kept misfiring, he was ejecting right away to get back to shooting, so I told him the above story, the second time he immediately ejected a round after me telling him the story I decided it was time to leave and never to go shooting with him again.
Click to expand...

With all due respect bringing up the case with your grandfather is a bit of a stretch since gun accidents do not have genetic nature and do not run in families. I am sorry for your grandfather but it was his own poor safety choice: being on chemo he could have died from cutting his finger with a bread knife and subsequent infection. A bulletproof vest would not safe his life in that situation; and will have much less chances than it may first seem to save your life in case of a major range accident, like somebody discharging a firearm in your direction, nor protect you from some minor injures which could lead to some fatal consequences in case of compromised health.

The threat is not in front of you and is not aiming at your center mass, in case of reckless shooters it is right next to you, sweeping your side with a muzzle. And chances that it is going to be a headshot or one of the extremities (with a possibility of fatally damaged main arteries, embolism due to a big bone fracture, a hollow point with a funny exit wound), or the bullet hitting your vest into a soft spot or under some interesting angle are pretty high. My point is that body armor is not a panacea unless you're wearing a helmet, mask and a tactical vest with chest, back, neck, shoulders and groin protection with rifle-round-proof plates. And even that will not save you from possible minor injury followed by a fatal sepsis.

If you want to train with your armor on, that is perfectly fine. If you want to rely on it to protect you from reckless people at the range, do not! If you think you're not safe, talk to that person, talk to RSO, leave and come some other time, or go to some other place with better shooting culture.

And by the way I have seen a good documentary recently made for firefighters with a set of experiments proving that any sporting ammo cannot cause any major injury if set off outside a firearm, including 9mm, .45acp rounds and 12ga shot shells.
 
Am I the only one who sees serious irony from the people who claim anybody who wears armour to the range is paranoid...while in the same breath saying that they would leave if they saw somebody in armour?

Who's the paranoid one in that scenario?
 
First post nailed it.

If you think you'll need the body armor, you need to avoid that place.
 
I think we all need to take a careful re-read of the original post.

There is a big difference between wearing body armor to the range so that you may practice with your duty or deployment equipment, or because you're working or participating in a very dynamic live-fire training environment, or to keep warm (...?) -- and purchasing it and wearing it because you're afraid of getting shot while on a static firing line.

Regardless of disagreements over whose statistics are less inaccurate, accidental shootings while on "square-range" firing lines are still so rare as to be statistically insignificant. There are SO many things that are FAR more worthy of concern, and which none of us would consider reasonable things to fret over.

But if it makes you happy -- go for it!

If you deride others and get all warm and fuzzy ridiculing them for enjoying shooting in their own way (so long as they are safe), you aren't helping anyone at all.
 
Am I the only one who sees serious irony from the people who claim anybody who wears armour to the range is paranoid...while in the same breath saying that they would leave if they saw somebody in armour?
Click to expand...

It's the same logic of "don't do anything while CCW'ing that you wouldn't do not carrying"

Risk avoidance before risk mitigation. Why mitigate risk (with bulky, cumbersome equipment) you can easily avoid altogether (by simply leaving and finding a better range). Not only that, patronizing a range that permits (or is powerless to stop) slobbish behavior from their users is irresponsible as a shooter.

I don't go to Wal-Mart anymore because their employees won't gather up all the carts littering the parking lot (left by slob customers) and I value my car's paint job too much to take the risk. I go to Kroger instead of tarting my car up with foam bumpers on all sides when I park.

As said above, from a purely training perspective; it's totally justifiable. But if I get a hint of mall ninja off the guy who shows up to plink in riot gear, I will be keeping an eye on him. Same as if the guy was in baggies shooting sideways, or in an abnormally expensive suit. Call it judgemental? I call it making a judgement.

Some people actually seem proud that their behavior/wardrobe choices "scare" people away from them at the range, like it proves something; that's called being rude. Somehow I don't picture a person with such an attitude about other shooters having a "pleasant" demeanor on the line. I frequent friendly ranges, and have yet to run across someone who resents my very presence there.

TCB
 
Public and private gun ranges are the only places where I know people with loaded guns have managed to point them at me. So I wore body armor to ranges for years until I finally bought my own land and set up my own range.
 
I think that - in most cases - it goes beyond prudent and heads toward paranoid. But that's just my opinion.
Click to expand...


I think that - in most cases - the line of thinking above goes beyond paranoid and heads toward ignorant by choice. But that's just my opinion.

I use two different types of body armor at work and I like to go to the square range just to practice with each piece of armor as they each wear differently.

OT, I agree, if you have to wear armor to stay safe, then you shouldn't be going to that range. I know of two ranges nearby that I won't go to for that very reason. I also know of one in Ft Worth.
 
Last edited:
Ever go to a range where there are bullet holes in the walls, ceiling, divider walls, etc? At public ranges you don't know who the shooter down the row is, and whether they are careful or not.

EVEN experienced members ON THIS BOARD have reported their own NDs and ADs. It can happen to anyone at any time.

I've been in the Army for a minute. Many trips to Iraq. Served with many of the best the Army has to offer. I can say without exaggeration that NDs and ADs are frequent, by the best of the best (Special Forces senior enlisted, warrants, and officers, including snipers). Even the best trained Soldiers get careless and overconfident.

So get off your holier than thou horses about "those ranges."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

S
  • Locked
Body Armor Question
Replies
13
Views
1K
GlockStar
G
T
  • Locked
Body armor for the gun range
2 3 4 5
Replies
109
Views
5K
Thin Black Line
T
L
  • Locked
Body Armor
Replies
6
Views
975
Kevlarman
K
D
  • Locked
Should Security Guards Wear Body Armor Like LEOs?
Replies
18
Views
3K
gunsmith
G
S
  • Locked
Body armor at the range?
2
Replies
25
Views
2K
Splat Shot
S
Back
Top