Red Lion

Before you jump to conclusions, let me expound. It is already well excepted and proven through experience that hunters make better soldiers than non-hunters, such as in the case of Sgt. York. Do youbelieve that soldiers, who have had no previous hunting experience, make better deerhunters, at least in regards to initial learning than non-soldiers? I will add no other qualifiers.

Slim Pickins

I was always told that hunters made better lovers, but I can't really post the reasons

but to answer you question I would say that military training should increase your effectiveness as a hunter.

huntingson

No, but Marines do

Paul L Mohr

It would probably depend on the branch of the military you were in, the type of training you had and what your experiences were while in.

When I joined the military I was actually told by one of the intructors on the rifle range that they would rather teach someone that has never handled a firearm vrs someone that had experience. The novice tends to listen better and do what they are told. The person with experience already has bad habbits that are very hard to get rid of. He also said women tend to shoot better than the men once they get comfortable with the weapon.

That being said there were three of us with previous experience in Basic training and we all scored expert on the rifle range. Along with maybe 5 or 6 others that had never shot a gun before, out of about 60 men and women.

I can actually see his point now though. When I show someone how to shoot a bow I would rather have someone that has never shot one before vrs trying to help somene that has been doing it wrong for 10 years. And I have also found that women take direction better than men if you encourage them.

I would say someone trained in combat or special operations type people would be able to hunt well. They would be used to stress, would most likely be able to stay still and quiet and would be used to dealing with the elements.

Take someone like me that was just a mechanic on jets in the Air Force and my military training did very little to help me with hunting. Maybe the one good thing was the military helps you to pay attention and learn. So your learning curve might be faster than others.

Paul

Dave_G

Unless they're now teaching woodsmanship, how to read deer sign, the daily habits of the whitetail, the best bedding, feeding, and travel zones for a particular area, how to move in the woods with stealth, and how to stay focused while hunting despite boredom, cold, and bugs, then I think military training contributes nothing to what it takes to be a deerhunter.

Red Lion

I tend to agree with your answer Paul L. I also agree and disagree with you Dave G.I diagree in regards tostealth in the woods and staying focused, but agree with theother aspects that you mentioned.Soldiers,maybe outside of the pure desk-jockies, receives significant training in staying focused, cover and concealment, noise-sound-light discipline and stealthy movement in your environment. I agree withyou in regards to the other aspects like whitetail habits, etc...

Thanks for the feedback.

olblueeyes

I was in the Navy would I be a better fisherman? Have been hunting for 59 years, only skills Imay have carried over from theNavy SeeBees was shooting the M-1 etc. Hunting animals is a whole different ball game,

Rebel Hog

Many that have served in the Army or Marine Corps may be better marksman, but I doubt that they are better deer hunters.

nchawkeye

About 5-6 years ago I went turkey hunting in the Uwharrie National Forest, in central NC...I walked into an encampment of Army Rangers in training....The CO was a good old boy from Kentucky, he invited me to sit down to a hot cup of coffee...We chatted for over an hour, he said he had about 15 guys training with him, most had never fired a gun, they only used blanks while in his training....He let me know that these particular guys had a long ways to go to get where they needed to be...Actually told me he wished he had a bunch of country boys to work with as he felt they would adapt quicker....I have thought about that bunch quite a bit, hope they all came home safe from what he was training them for (he was evasive as to what their future would be)....Before I left I asked if he could use a deer ham....He lit up....Said they had been eating K-rations over 2 weeks...
I went home, loaded my backpack with a deer ham from the freezer, along with some salt, pepper, A-1, Worchester, beans, potatoes, onions, tin foil etc. and took it back to him...You would have thought I would have handed him $500...

All this being said, my dad was in WW-II, Army infantry and he definately felt that his training as a hunter while growing up was the reason he came back home...

I have a good friend that I hunt with quite a bit, was in the Navy, in artillery....Guys he is one of the worse shots I have ever seen...You talk about flinching, this guy has it bad, he is also one of these guys that gets the shakes real bad when a deer walks up...Yet he swears he qualified as expert with a 1911...

So I guess its like others have said....It just depends...My 15 year old niece has killed 3 does with 3 shots the last 2 years, using a 22-250 and 60 gr Nosler Partitions, and dropped every one to a high shoulder shot....She is a better shot than my 40 year old ex-Navy buddy....

JagMagMan

Possibly, better shooters, not better HUNTERS!