Appropriate programming

[SouthNarc]

AFHF isn't really the kind of thing the average line guy needs. I've rejected offers in the past to teach "average" patrol cops. Not because I don't think they're worthy, but because the stuff taught in AFHF needs a lot of on-your-own practice to make worthwhile. Going to AFHF and never practicing again would be a huge waste of time and money. Plus the average non-gun mandated-to-handle-guns type guy wouldn't be able to pay attention for two days of dedicated high volume training. Believe me, BTDT.

I'm personally of the belief that if you're not going to practice at least monthly, then bothering to teach people to use their pistol sights is nothing but hopeful folly. I know people will lose their minds because of the personality issues, but I think there are a lot of people out there who carry guns everyday and practice once a year who'd be a lot better served by something like a Rob Pincus threat focused shooting type program. If you know your guy is going to be staring at the other gun anyway, why not teach him to shoot that way as best you can?


Todd and I talked about this in more depth on the phone but I thought this would make an interesting thread on it's own as there are minor parallels with ECQC, mainly in sustainment. Also as much as Rob gets bagged on by the internetz, one could very well opine that he actually has a far wider impact on gun owners than we do.

So I wanted to start this and see where it goes.

[MVS]

Todd and I talked about this in more depth on the phone but I thought this would make an interesting thread on it's own as there are minor parallels with ECQC, mainly in sustainment. Also as much as Rob gets bagged on by the internetz, one could very well opine that he actually has a far wider impact on gun owners than we do.

So I wanted to start this and see where it goes.

Craig, I don't have a lot to add except that I would tend to agree. Rob does have a much bigger impact on the general handgun owner. I was talking about this very thing with someone at PEP2 when they were griping about Rob's material. I told them for who it is aimed at it is probably very useful. We tend to forget that most people don't care to be anywhere near as much "into this" as we are. After all, if talking about ECQ stuff, why do we place such a priority on the default cover? (As well we should IMHO)

[45dotACP]

No lie, my first exposure to firearms training was one of Rob Pincus' videos the NRA sent me. I practiced it a bit before my first formal training with a USPSA shooter Some of the stuff Rob teaches is good stuff. I would train with him if there weren't some good trainers around my area already.

[Chuck Haggard]

If I had just a couple of hours and a few rounds in which to get someone into barely OK with a handgun I'd likely use a modified Shanghai Police training program.

[dgg9]

Todd and I talked about this in more depth on the phone but I thought this would make an interesting thread on it's own as there are minor parallels with ECQC, mainly in sustainment. Also as much as Rob gets bagged on by the internetz, one could very well opine that he actually has a far wider impact on gun owners than we do.

I agree that there are classes really well suited to someone who will take one class and never another. People who shoot/teach for a living may possibly not relate to those to whom it's more peripheral or utilitarian.

[Tom Givens]

I am adamantly opposed to any defensive shooting program that teaches people to just point the gun and hope for the best. I believe that technique is irresponsible, especially in today's litigious society. Just pointing the gun in a training environment historically has led to nothing more than miss after miss after miss in the field. All of those bullets go somewhere.

In our training programs we stress that every shot fired should be fired with the gun in the eye target line and visually indexed, unless there's actual physical contact, in which case we shoot from retention. From a basic permit class to our highest level class, every round fired is aimed, using the sights, again unless from retention. As far as I can tell, this has done very well for our students. We are running about a 95% hit ratio in actual shootings and the misses have all been under highly unusual circumstances. I can't tell you if the students are actually using their sights, but I can tell you that's the only way they train and they're getting their hits in the field. Craig, you have seen the photos from our little Thai female student shooting a holdup man. She has the gun in two hands in the eye target line and hit the guy in the chest. Did she use the sights? Nobody really knows. Was she trained use the sights? Yes. Did she get her hit? Yes. Given the hit ratio I suspect that if we had more of our civilian students caught on camera we'd see more of the same thing.

If you insist that students always use the sights, that means they have to at least get the gun into the eye target line where they can see the sights. This builds a habit of getting the gun in between their eyes and the target. This leads to hits. Sighted fire can degrade into effective point shooting, but point shooting will never upgrade into precise hits under stress.

Using the sights religiously forces the student to learn to present the gun to the same place in the eye target line consistently, so that a sight picture can be acquired. Thus, before long the gun starts coming up with the sights already pretty much aligned on the target. If the sights are actually visually used, it is to verify alignment --not to achieve it. I suspect that the majority of our students that have been involved in shootings fall into the category of people who do not practice monthly. In fact, from my debriefs with them I found that many of them had not practiced at all after the class they took one, two, or three years ago. However, all of them were taught to get the gun into the eye target line and look at the sights. Apparently, that works

[TR675]

Nevermind, not the place for attempted comedy.

[Maple Syrup Actual]

Well, you're the guy with the line about how if you're in a prison shower with ten guys and you can't keep at least five of them from raping you, the last thing you need is a carbine course, right?

I think that general line of thinking carries over to most shooting skills. If I were to design a program for the average person who's just made the "I'm going to be armed from now on" decision...


1) Basic pistol familiarity so you don't blow your toes off. If we're assuming that this is starting people from "what's a gun?" then okay, NRA basic or whatever, so you're not a menace to the guy who teaches you your first advanced skills.

2) I feel that step two, once you're past getting a basic grasp of shooting, period, should probably be a course that is nothing but drawing and firing, drawing and firing, drawing and firing. I think Mike Pannone does a CCW class with 500 draws? Something like that would be really, really productive for a lot of people because it would get them out of using garbage holsters and into a headspace where they can and will get their gun out if they have to.

3) ECQC. I know I've said this a bunch and I have some hesitations about saying it here because you started the thread and I don't want to make this weird as per my avatar but IMO this is just critical training for people. Once you can work a gun, and get it out under normal circumstances in your carry gear and put some rounds on the target successfully, you are at a point where you now need to be trained to cope with the fight that you brought your gun to.


I would also be totally fine with ECQC or EWO as step 1, then deciding you want to add a gun, learning how to work one, and then learning to access and utilize it.

[Totem Polar]

Sighted fire can degrade into effective point shooting, but point shooting will never upgrade into precise hits under stress.


Thread boiled down, in laconic fashion.

[SouthNarc]

Thread boiled down, in laconic fashion.

Not really. It's not a point shooting versus sighted fire thread and that's not really where I want this to go.

[SouthNarc]

I am adamantly opposed to any defensive shooting program that teaches people to just point the gun and hope for the best. I believe that technique is irresponsible, especially in today's litigious society. Just pointing the gun in a training environment historically has led to nothing more than miss after miss after miss in the field. All of those bullets go somewhere.

In our training programs we stress that every shot fired should be fired with the gun in the eye target line and visually indexed, unless there's actual physical contact, in which case we shoot from retention. From a basic permit class to our highest level class, every round fired is aimed, using the sights, again unless from retention. As far as I can tell, this has done very well for our students. We are running about a 95% hit ratio in actual shootings and the misses have all been under highly unusual circumstances. I can't tell you if the students are actually using their sights, but I can tell you that's the only way they train and they're getting their hits in the field. Craig, you have seen the photos from our little Thai female student shooting a holdup man. She has the gun in two hands in the eye target line and hit the guy in the chest. Did she use the sights? Nobody really knows. Was she trained use the sights? Yes. Did she get her hit? Yes. Given the hit ratio I suspect that if we had more of our civilian students caught on camera we'd see more of the same thing.

If you insist that students always use the sights, that means they have to at least get the gun into the eye target line where they can see the sights. This builds a habit of getting the gun in between their eyes and the target. This leads to hits. Sighted fire can degrade into effective point shooting, but point shooting will never upgrade into precise hits under stress.

Using the sights religiously forces the student to learn to present the gun to the same place in the eye target line consistently, so that a sight picture can be acquired. Thus, before long the gun starts coming up with the sights already pretty much aligned on the target. If the sights are actually visually used, it is to verify alignment --not to achieve it. I suspect that the majority of our students that have been involved in shootings fall into the category of people who do not practice monthly. In fact, from my debriefs with them I found that many of them had not practiced at all after the class they took one, two, or three years ago. However, all of them were taught to get the gun into the eye target line and look at the sights. Apparently, that works

And I agree with you. But...I'm really curious about this from a program design standpoint. Any program...not just shooting.

Do I as a trainer take the Mitt Romney approach and say "Well at least half of the people who train won't train with me"? Know what I mean? And should I develop tiered programming for people like that? I can do that and have. I don't really like doing that though and I'm at a point now in my life where there's very little that I do that I don't like doing.


Sooooooo......ya'll continue.

[EPF]

If I had just a couple of hours and a few rounds in which to get someone into barely OK with a handgun I'd likely use a modified Shanghai Police training program.

This is something worth thinking about

[JJN]

Craig, I do think there should be a delineation between training for dedicated vs. Non-dedicated folks. Ayoob struck me as someone who gave a lot of thought to that. Some of his stuff, gripping the heck out of the pistol, loading shotguns with strong hand, things like that, would limit a high-end shooter, but would work pretty well even if you never practiced it again. I think of some things as a crutch or maybe like a brace. If you're actively rehabbing your leg at some point the crutch will hold you back, but if the leg isn't ever getting better, you'd be ill-served by instruction that doesn't provide a crutch. Vast majority of defense-minded folks are better served with Ayoob or Pincus and something like Krav Maga than competition shooting/MMA based instruction. I'd love to see you run a "diet ECQC" that a 40-something housewife and a 70 year old fellow could do easily. I wouldn't see that as selling out at all.
I also think there is a place in the "tactical" world for folks to function as "ambassador" between the T-rexes and the masses. A lot of the more tame training venues are tame because the instructor(s) are old, and therefore likely behind the times, e.g. Gunsite. I'd really appreciate if some of the cutting edge guys would consciously work on a "for mass consumption" version of their curricula.
Jon

[LSP552]

And I agree with you. But...I'm really curious about this from a program design standpoint. Any program...not just shooting.

Do I as a trainer take the Mitt Romney approach and say "Well at least half of the people who train won't train with me"? Know what I mean? And should I develop tiered programming for people like that? I can do that and have. I don't really like doing that though and I'm at a point now in my life where there's very little that I do that I don't like doing.


Sooooooo......ya'll continue.

I think it's hard to tell who won't make changes to their practice habits so I don't like automatically writing them off. If you give them the tools to improve on their own, as an instructor you have done your job. I've seen a few marginal shooters decided to improve on their own, and remember being surprised because I didn't expect them to do so.

I completely agree with Tom about getting the gun to eye level and using the sights beyond contact range.

[NickA]

I'm pretty sure there was a thread here a while back where a fairly well known trainer caught a bunch of flak for teaching the Weaver stance. IIRC part of his reasoning boiled down to: most students will only train sporadically, if at all. But they've spent a lifetime seeing Weaver every time they watch a cop movie or TV show, so that's what they'll remember and probably go to anyway. Might as well go with it.
Makes a weird kind of sense, at least for stance, where Weaver may not be considered ideal anymore but it's not the end of the world either.

[SouthNarc]

Craig, I do think there should be a delineation between training for dedicated vs. Non-dedicated folks.
I also think there is a place in the "tactical" world for folks to function as "ambassador" between the T-rexes and the masses. A lot of the more tame training venues are tame because the instructor(s) are old, and therefore likely behind the times, e.g. Gunsite. I'd really appreciate if some of the cutting edge guys would consciously work on a "for mass consumption" version of their curricula.
Jon

Jon as usual you provide great feedback and always give me pause. Thanks for that.

[Tom Givens]

Not really. It's not a point shooting versus sighted fire thread and that's not really where I want this to go.

"I'm personally of the belief that if you're not going to practice at least monthly, then bothering to teach people to use their pistol sights is nothing but hopeful folly."

Craig- How is this anything but a sighted vs unsighted argument, given the quote above from your original post? Intentionally dumbing down training just results in dumber performance. You mention Pincus and his program. "Extend, touch, press" is his mantra, with no mention of sighting, visual verification, visual indexing or whatever you wish to call directing bullets from Point A to Point B.

[orionz06]

Would it make sense to consider things from a level of dedication? Disinterested spouse to training junkie to focused multidisciplinary participant?

[SouthNarc]

"I'm personally of the belief that if you're not going to practice at least monthly, then bothering to teach people to use their pistol sights is nothing but hopeful folly."

Craig- How is this anything but a sighted vs unsighted argument, given the quote above from your original post? Intentionally dumbing down training just results in dumber performance. You mention Pincus and his program. "Extend, touch, press" is his mantra, with no mention of sighting, visual verification, visual indexing or whatever you wish to call directing bullets from Point A to Point B.

That's a fair point and in the conversation I had with Todd that was but one in several in the broader idea of what we'd like people to do, and what they will do and if there's a middle ground. I should have probably clarified the original post with more.

[SouthNarc]

Would it make sense to consider things from a level of dedication? Disinterested spouse to training junkie to focused multidisciplinary participant?

And from my perspective should I do focused training for less dedicated people in the hope that it might inspire them to become more dedicated? OR should others do that thus leaving me to focus on those who have already made the choice?

[orionz06]

And from my perspective should I do focused training for less dedicated people in the hope that it might inspire them to become more dedicated? OR should others do that thus leaving me to focus on those who have already made the choice?

Where would you be most effective?

Who could also be effective? Would it help you develop your material to teach the eye gouge to people you'll never see again?

[SouthNarc]

Well the eye jab is certainly a technique that requires very little sustainment.

[ToddG]

Craig- How is this anything but a sighted vs unsighted argument, given the quote above from your original post?

This becomes an issue of definitions. Teaching people to get a hard focus on their front sights isn't the only type of sighted fire. My point, quoted by Craig and you, is that it's a waste of time to beat people over the head with "front sight, press" when they're never going to reach a point with either of those to use them effectively under life threatening stress. So finding something more do-able but still effective makes sense.

When Senator Whomever tells me he'll never step foot on a range again so long as he lives, there's no point in wasting time obsessing about the perfect alignment of the sights he'll never see. I want him to put the gun where it needs to be and press the trigger. Will he possibly miss? Of course. Lots of guys taught "front sight, trigger press" as their mantra miss, too.

What reduces the odds of missing? Practicing. There's no getting around that. So the question becomes what can be absorbed and recalled under stress the most easily for the guy who isn't ever going to practice seriously.


Intentionally dumbing down training just results in dumber performance.

Sure. No argument. But getting dumber training that you can make work is better than brilliant training you'll never be good enough to employ.

Example: The typical high school driver education program doesn't include threshold braking, skid control, evasive driving, etc. Those things are all worth learning, but you're not going to fit them into the number of hours the class has to teach... and many of them are skills you can only get good at if you have the time, location, and resources to practice them. Many CCW classes are essentially like a driver's ed class that taught only skid control. That's great and going to work under a certain subset of circumstances for people who understand it, absorb it, and practice it enough to make it work for them. For everyone else and every other circumstance, it's been a waste of time.

Or take combative as an example. I've been through InSight's Unarmed Self Defense (http://www.insightstraining.com/view_course.asp?courseID=154) class multiple times. They'd be the first to admit that it's way more simplistic ("dumber") than a comprehensive system that you could master if you trained multiple times per week for years. It's not going to let me beat a fascia-belt BJJ practitioner if we go to the ground. But it gives me a reasonable amount of skill that will work in many (not all) circumstances and it's easy enough to retain that I can get away with little or no regular practice and still be able to execute the basics. Would I be better prepared if I rolled or whatever the BJJ addicts call it three times a week? Of course. And Senator Whomever would be better if he practiced gunplay three times a week. But neither of those are going to happen so the training has to be tailored to the student. Expecting it to work the other way around is just hopeful thinking.

Don't get me wrong, I've always said the most effective way to become proficient at target focused shooting is to practice using your sights because (a) you're building neural pathways to get the gun where you want it preconsciously and (b) it simultaneously builds both sight-focused and target-focused shooting. But that really only applies to someone who has the time & drive to learn and understand what sight-focused shooting is to begin with.

Tom, let me throw this out to you because I'm genuinely interested in your answer:

If you had a student who would only go through an hour or two of your marksmanship fundamentals training or only go through your mindset lecture, which would you think makes him better able to defend himself if he's attacked? In both cases it's dumbed down from what you'd want him to learn, but he's only going to make one segment or the other.

[Tom Givens]

Todd- I disagree. Take our students who only had a single, 8 hour permit class but still got 100% hits in actual shootings. The ONLY way they had been taught to shoot was to aim the gun (use the sights). If they have only been taught one way, that's what they do.

Without digging into the files, I believe we have had three actual Rangemaster certified instructors, four or five more I would consider competent, dedicated shooters, and over 55 ordinary non-dedicated permit types involved in shootings, and all won. The non-dedicated, non-practicing non-shooters still got their hits, having been taught strictly aimed fire.

[ToddG]

Thanks, Tom. Definitely food for thought!

[Talionis]

In reading through some of the posts in this thread I am struck by several uses of what is, to me, a false distinction; "using the sights" vs "threat focused shooting". I don't think anyone is advocating point shooting (no visual reference to the gun) for anything outside of contact distance. I do not think that "threat focused shooting" means someone is not using the sights. At all. It could mean that, but I certainly don't think that it should. It would be more productive to say "hard front sight focus" rather than using the sights. In my experience even first time shooters are capable of using the sights with minimal explanation, but they very probably don't have a hard focus on the front sight. I think that once someone has learned to get the gun into their eye line, they will make at least some use of the sights simply because they are right there in front of their eyes.

[Dagga Boy]

I'll just wholly agree with Tom and leave it. If folks want to subscribe to Pincus's stuff........I no longer care. Want to have range explosion wannabe contractor entertrainment, knock yourself out. Want to listen to folks without a remote first hand clue about what happens in a shooting, yet will tell you what your body is going to do, fantastic. Life is full of choices and big boys and girls are free to make them.

Here is the reality in my little world...I find that in my first hand experience with the same non-dedicated police people everybody else gets, they will fall back to the most significant training they have. In most cases as far as actual training that will be TV or the police academy. If the impression some trainer somewhere leaves because of DVD's, and awesome social media influence is that "you can't use your sights" or "focus on the target" (that will automatically leave you in reactionary mode for the entire fight playing catch up from .25 seconds back) then that is exactly what will happen. Hey, at least they will get 100% hits as they all hit something.

I have made it a lifelong project of studying how to win fights from folks who won fights. I simply train to what works. I did it on the cop side with incredible success simply copying the other folks who got great results. Tom has done the same thing on the non-sworn side and there is a huge correlation. There are things Tom and I differ on that is not all that big picture important, but if I had to pick three things that really matter.....it's the same three things, and we POUND that in, no matter how much time I have with a student. In sort of an amusing conversation with GJM over some of Leatham's stuff.......if you really look at the wording and what is being communicated it is the same thing. Weird.

Okay, back under the rock.

[Maple Syrup Actual]

I think if I had someone for an hour and I knew they were never going to train again, I'd do two things that would ordinarily give me hives.

1) discourage them from owning a gun

2) recommend XS sights

and just tell them 3600 times "front sight, trigger press" while having them shoot 6" circles pasted on photographic person targets at whatever distance they could make that work.

[orionz06]

How many people on the news who survive violent encounters through use of their gun have had any training?

[GJM]

I think if I had someone for an hour and I knew they were never going to train again, I'd do two things that would ordinarily give me hives.

1) discourage them from owning a gun

2) recommend XS sights

and just tell them 3600 times "front sight, trigger press" while having them shoot 6" circles pasted on photographic person targets at whatever distance they could make that work.

I would tell them to:

1) stop the gun

2) aim

3) try to pull the trigger without disturbing the sights

[JHC]

I am adamantly opposed to any defensive shooting program that teaches people to just point the gun and hope for the best. I believe that technique is irresponsible, especially in today's litigious society. Just pointing the gun in a training environment historically has led to nothing more than miss after miss after miss in the field. All of those bullets go somewhere.

In our training programs we stress that every shot fired should be fired with the gun in the eye target line and visually indexed, unless there's actual physical contact, in which case we shoot from retention. From a basic permit class to our highest level class, every round fired is aimed, using the sights, again unless from retention. As far as I can tell, this has done very well for our students. We are running about a 95% hit ratio in actual shootings and the misses have all been under highly unusual circumstances. I can't tell you if the students are actually using their sights, but I can tell you that's the only way they train and they're getting their hits in the field. Craig, you have seen the photos from our little Thai female student shooting a holdup man. She has the gun in two hands in the eye target line and hit the guy in the chest. Did she use the sights? Nobody really knows. Was she trained use the sights? Yes. Did she get her hit? Yes. Given the hit ratio I suspect that if we had more of our civilian students caught on camera we'd see more of the same thing.

If you insist that students always use the sights, that means they have to at least get the gun into the eye target line where they can see the sights. This builds a habit of getting the gun in between their eyes and the target. This leads to hits. Sighted fire can degrade into effective point shooting, but point shooting will never upgrade into precise hits under stress.

Using the sights religiously forces the student to learn to present the gun to the same place in the eye target line consistently, so that a sight picture can be acquired. Thus, before long the gun starts coming up with the sights already pretty much aligned on the target. If the sights are actually visually used, it is to verify alignment --not to achieve it. I suspect that the majority of our students that have been involved in shootings fall into the category of people who do not practice monthly. In fact, from my debriefs with them I found that many of them had not practiced at all after the class they took one, two, or three years ago. However, all of them were taught to get the gun into the eye target line and look at the sights. Apparently, that works

That was evident when I trained with you at the first WarriorTalk symposium way back. There was simultaneously a pure point shooting clinic underway. The targets were a stark contrast.

And in Hackathorn's class when we taped out sights and hit plates moving down a row; we were using index.

[Tamara]

How many people on the news who survive violent encounters through use of their gun have had any training?

This is the elephant in the room. Part of my daytime gig (http://booksbikesboomsticks.blogspot.com/2015/02/hey-look.html) for some time now has combing the media for stories where people successfully used guns to defend themselves and it certainly seems like the two ingredients are 1) Having a gat in the first place, and B) Showing willing. Actually shooting and hitting helps, too, but by the time you're in a situation where any serious gun fu is required to come out on top, you're in a very small slice of the statistical pie, somewhere between backup guns and WHO malfunction clearances.

[SouthNarc]

This is the elephant in the room. Part of my daytime gig (http://booksbikesboomsticks.blogspot.com/2015/02/hey-look.html) for some time now has combing the media for stories where people successfully used guns to defend themselves and it certainly seems like the two ingredients are 1) Having a gat in the first place, and B) Showing willing. Actually shooting and hitting helps, too, but by the time you're in a situation where any serious gun fu is required to come out on top, you're in a very small slice of the statistical pie, somewhere between backup guns and WHO malfunction clearances.

Word. Run down Ed Lovette if you can. He gathered about 150 citizen shootings and analyzed the data and that's basically what he found too.

[orionz06]

Is Rob Pincus actually teaching people to no use sights? Has anyone in this thread taken a class of his from start to finish? I mean the dude has ICE edition sights, I'd find it hard to believe that he's standing in front of a bunch of gun owners, and he trains more than anyone here, and tells them to not use them.

Coming from a teaching standpoint I've used a slightly different approach, similar to what I think he uses, and it worked pretty well. Maybe he's not as wrong as his competitors say?

[GJM]

Word. Run down Ed Lovette if you can. He gathered about 150 citizen shootings and analyzed the data and that's basically what he found too.

Grizzly bears are some of the toughest predators on earth, and the results aren't too different. Fire a warning shot or hitting the bear somewhere is often all that required. If you needed to penetrate the brain on demand, to stop the attack, the bear stats would be much different.

[BaiHu]

Maybe I've got the wrong idea about this thread, but it was my impression that this thread was about drawing the line as to who/what you teach and why. With that premise, I will share the following:

First exposure to guns and "rules" was around 10 years of age. Very basic and weaver centric.

Second phase was almost 20 years later (no training just plinking in between) when I decided to get serious and my g/f and I took some NRA classes. And then I flew solo into some "urban pistol" and "low light" classes at Gun for Hire in NJ.

Third level was ECQC and AFHF within 3 months of each other almost 2.5 years ago.

My point:

I found better instruction each step of the way. Most people will stop at their friend/family showing them some basics. A smaller portion would stop at a mandatory CCW or NRA class in order to get what they need to do what they do. An even smaller portion gets to my stage.

Now I'm sitting here talking to guys with aeons more experience and skills that make me look like a blind/deaf point shooter. So all of you guys are like unicorns, centaurs and griffins.

What the hell can I offer? The car model philosophy.

If you only want to do high end training, then keep doing what you're doing - you're all awesome at it and if I had more time and money, I'd take a class a year from each one of you every year of my life until I die.

If you want to elevate the shooting/combative community, then you have to crawl back into the mud. Either by yourself or by handing a great curriculum to a charismatic and patient guy under your tutelage and start selling low end Bugattis.

I teach martial arts to 4 year olds up to 60+ year olds every day and I enjoy making each age range better at how they think about violence and civilian defense, but that's not everyone's cup of tea. I'll most likely never teach someone that will go into the UFC (unless they leave me) or have someone go chase a trophy (unless they leave me), but if they all look less like prey, then I've done my job. Predators or protectors will always be a miniscule portion of all of our markets.

What's the military percentage that sees combat? 1% IIRC?

[TR675]

The discussion has gotten off the rails when we start discussing "what works" in the vast majority of cases. I think the point of the thread is not "what works," it's "what is the maximum level of competence most people can be trained to in a short time?" Tom and DB have persuasively argued in favor of high standards based on their respective experiences, in the context of firearms training. If all firearms students are capable of rising to the level that Tom and DB's students do - and that is a big "if" - then training to a lower level that "works" but is not as competent is not a good philosophy, IMO. On the other hand, the ability of the instructor may be the limiting factor, in which case training to the level of "what works" makes sense.

In my personal experience training to Tom's standards was not difficult, but achieving any level of competence in ECQC/grappling/BJJ/fighting is much, much harder.

[41magfan]

I'll echo some of the previous comments;

Hitting the target with some predictability is simply a matter of orienting the muzzle adequately and discharging the gun without disturbing that orientation. We all know there are various ways to orient the muzzle and that most of us don't have the skill to always rely on hand-eye coordination to get that done, irrespective of the guns position relative to the eye.

Bringing the gun to eye level - to some degree in the orientation continuum - to aid in muzzle orientation simply works. While the gun is there, you might as well learn "how" to use the sights, even if you can't or won't in a real circumstance.

While we all might agree that time spent using sighted-fire in training and practice tends to reinforce the discipline to use the sights when necessary, until it happens it's an uncertainty. Just because you have the skill and ability to use your sights, doesn't always mean to will for a number of reasons.

In cases where coordination isn't working, it's a fairly common phenomenon for folks to admit the first few rounds were sent downrange without the use of the sights and then they had the revelation that they'd better start using the sights if they wanted to get predictable results. You can't default to that on ANY level if you haven't spent some time using the sights beforehand.

[JHC]

In my personal experience training to Tom's standards was not difficult, but achieving any level of competence in ECQC/grappling/BJJ/fighting is much, much harder.

Holy smokes YES +1000. God made man, but Sam Colt made them equal and all that.

[uechibear]

... if I had to pick three things that really matter.....it's the same three things, and we POUND that in, no matter how much time I have with a student ...

Great teaser!

If you don't mind, could you list those three things?

[Failure2Stop]

Do I as a trainer take the Mitt Romney approach and say "Well at least half of the people who train won't train with me"? Know what I mean? And should I develop tiered programming for people like that? I can do that and have. I don't really like doing that though and I'm at a point now in my life where there's very little that I do that I don't like doing.


I'm probably the worst guy to give this advice, since my primary income is not based on teaching anymore, but...

I only teach programs that I enjoy to students that I like, with an outcome that is better than (or at least equal to) any other similar program over the same timeline.
If I didn't think that I was putting forth the highest quality instruction, I wouldn't offer the class or take anyone's money for it.

[BaiHu]

*SNIP*
If I didn't think that I was putting forth the highest quality instruction, I wouldn't offer the class or take anyone's money for it.

I think this is why the level 1, 2, 3 classes work for so many. It's not that Todd, Craig, Tom, nyeti, Chuck, etc are holding YOU, the student, back on a level 1 course, rather YOU, the student, aren't ready for level 2 or 3 yet.

People need to know what they don't know. The ego is one of the first things that needs breaking before learning can occur. Only preceded by wax out of the ears and crusties out of the eyes.

[LittleLebowski]

If I had just a couple of hours and a few rounds in which to get someone into barely OK with a handgun I'd likely use a modified Shanghai Police training program.

Hand up if you want Chuck to get on the road and teach.

<raises hand>

[orionz06]

Already forced him to do it.

[BaiHu]

I'm working on him right now, but NJ ball snipped stuff ;)

[JustOneGun]

Todd and I talked about this in more depth on the phone but I thought this would make an interesting thread on it's own as there are minor parallels with ECQC, mainly in sustainment. Also as much as Rob gets bagged on by the internetz, one could very well opine that he actually has a far wider impact on gun owners than we do.

So I wanted to start this and see where it goes.

First there is no perfect program. I think the best a trainer can do is start basic with the idea that if the student never trains again they have the basics to survive. If they are advised of this and given a general set of training goals it then becomes their responsibility for further development. If they continue on and become the best shooter in the world is the basic class you gave them something they could build upon or was it actually a hindrance to the students progress. I think it makes sense to have shooting classes with a general level attached to them. I know that's not perfect but it does give some guidelines for a class not to be useless for the student.

I agree with Tom, to not teach sighted fire is unacceptable. There is quite a myth when it comes to those shootings where sights were not used. Because most shooting data comes from police shootings we have to look at why an officer wouldn't use their sights. There are a lot of theories and few facts here.

Where I worked most people reported using their sights as they were trained to do. Some agencies train the officers to shoot on the way up if they are close and that's been seen on video as happening with the documented misses. I dislike this because most officers have a problem telling distance under stress and start shooting when they are actually too far away for anything but a sighted fire hit.

I also have a sneaking suspicion that many officers shoot their pistols at chin level because that is where they draw their pistols too during training. For years I noticed this. Put a target out there and ask them to practice drawing. Most would draw to center mass of the target. Ask them to practice drawing without that target and they bring it to their chin. I've seen it thousands of times. Can I prove that's why some shoot this way? No. But nothing can be proven here so I think of it as efficient and or best practices. I advocate always drawing to a target whether the target is low ready or center mass but to something that lines up the eyes.

[Chuck Haggard]

Hand up if you want Chuck to get on the road and teach.

<raises hand>

Working on it...............

[cclaxton]

I am out of my lane here, but I want to ask a question:
Isn't the bigger problem that not enough CCW carriers get adequate training and information (let's not forget legal information, when/if to shoot decision-making skills, etc.)? And, that's just CCW guys...I cringe to think about the skill level for people who just own a few handguns for home/vehicle defense.

What can be done to set the expectations higher?
Thanks,

Cody

[dgg9]

What can be done to set the expectations higher?
Thanks,

Cody

IMO, nothing. There are millions of CCW holders in the US, and like every other large population, most will only be casually motivated. How many drivers take advanced driving courses? Maybe the fundamental question is, what's the value add of spending a lot of time training for a super rare event?

[Chuck Haggard]

IMO, nothing. There are millions of CCW holders in the US, and like every other large population, most will only be casually motivated. How many drivers take advanced driving courses? Maybe the fundamental question is, what's the value add of spending a lot of time training for a super rare event?

The flip side, as Tom has noted, is the number of CCWs who do not carry.

What would the value be if they actually carried, and trained to even a modicum of capability? I suspect there would be quite a few more bad guys shot.

[dgg9]

What would the value be if they actually carried, and trained to even a modicum of capability? I suspect there would be quite a few more bad guys shot.

I'm certain that's true. But once you actually carry a gun, you've already gotten the low hanging fruit of CCW, judging by the number of brandishings. You can spend more time in practice and increase your chances at the margins. But there are a hundred other ways of spending that same time -- improving diet, gym, learning first aid etc etc -- that will confer more benefits than improving your gun fighting ability.

I think we, as gun people, talk to and train with maybe the top 1% of CCWers and we might forget how the majority of gun owners view it, as utilitarian (at best) rather than as a hobby.

If you had 4 or 8 hrs to teach something to the 99% who will go to the range once a year, what would it be? What has the best chance of leaving some useful residue?

[Tamara]

If you had 4 or 8 hrs to teach something to the 99% who will go to the range once a year, what would it be? What has the best chance of leaving some useful residue?

A friend teaches a beginner's handgun course bi-weekly that is aimed at the total n00b. It's a couple hours long, an hour in the classroom and an hour+ on the range, and as far as I know, he hardly covers anything self-defense-related at all. It's just "Safe Handgun Shooting 101" for the most part. But (and I've observed his results over the years) it's a rare thing that one of his students walks out of that brief class without knowing, for a fact, that they can place bullets on a paper plate at seven yards reliably.

I'd think that a person who has confidence in their ability to put a bullet on target at twenty-one feet is going to exude a different demeanor should they actually find themselves holding that gun for realz than one who does not have that knowledge of their abilities.

[MGW]

How many people on the news who survive violent encounters through use of their gun have had any training?

I was thinking of this exact question last night but posed a different way. How many people on the news who did not survive violent encounters and had concealed carry permits but were not carrying had the training and skills to survive if they had been carrying? I know it's an impossible question to answer but it's an interesting thought.

[dgg9]

I'd think that a person who has confidence in their ability to put a bullet on target at twenty-one feet is going to exude a different demeanor should they actually find themselves holding that gun for realz than one who does not have that knowledge of their abilities.

So that's one big difference right there. You want your seldom-practicing guy to leave the class with confidence, which is usually achieved by keeping the student mostly inside his comfort zone. Compare that to more advanced classes, where you expect to be out of your comfort zone much of the time.

[dgg9]

An example of an easily taught technique with good persistence. John Farnam has been teaching relative beginners for several decades. In his class a while ago his baseline technique was "the zipper". That can be learned quickly and has the virtue that you can get decent hits even target focused for the first round or two and then pick up the sights on the way up. You can also get reasonable hits when moving. It's probably best limited to 7 yards, but that covers most defensive shootings. You'd probably never see that taught in more advanced classes, but the audience is different.

[David Armstrong]

from Todd:
I'm personally of the belief that if you're not going to practice at least monthly, then bothering to teach people to use their pistol sights is nothing but hopeful folly. I know people will lose their minds because of the personality issues, but I think there are a lot of people out there who carry guns everyday and practice once a year who'd be a lot better served by something like a Rob Pincus threat focused shooting type program. If you know your guy is going to be staring at the other gun anyway, why not teach him to shoot that way as best you can?
I've got to agree with Todd. I spent a fair amount of time teaching what I would consider fairly dedicated shooters and those who, to be polite, weren't so dedicated. As my clientèle has moved more and more toward the non-dedicated I have found my training philosophy changing quite a bit to emphasize the gross motor skills, natural reaction, easy to remember and so on type of stuff as opposed to the more complicated stuff that requires constant reenforcement. As Chuck said, the old Shanghai PD program works well for that, as does some of the basic Israeli-style stuff. The target-focus style of shooting, when taught correctly, provides a pretty good level of protection in spite of some of the nay-sayers.

But getting dumber training that you can make work is better than brilliant training you'll never be good enough to employ.
I would expand that a bit to also include brilliant training that gives you skills that you will likely never NEED to employ.

[dgg9]

David, doesn't Kelly McCann do something similar? He has classes for civilian types (executives, oil company people and so on) who will be posted in high risk areas like the Middle East, Rio. I think he has a week to impart the basics of hand to hand, how to use a folder, gun. It was all simple stuff. Carl Cestari type combatives.

[Tamara]

I would expand that a bit to also include brilliant training that gives you skills that you will likely never NEED to employ.

So, you would council people who won't need to employ skills to get dumber training?

[David Armstrong]

How many people on the news who survive violent encounters through use of their gun have had any training?
Not many, and that is the big issue to me. Few encounters require much in the way of sighting. Let's face it, you don't need much of a sight picture to hit a 1'x2' rectangle at 6'. So I tend to teach the low-dedication folks a lot more on safe handling, trigger control, and that stuff thta getting all wrapped up in some other things. Maybe it goes back to some of my early training, which was very much target-focused, and I seem to remember a lot of those folks who did pretty good. Of course, many of the guns we were using had pretty miserable sights in the first place.

[John Hearne]

There are a lot of moving parts here that are complicated and haven't been fully addressed. I probably can't sort everything out but this is what you need to know as best I can explain it:

In the literature, there is a concept called "task complexity." There is an actual scale for task complexity that ranges from 1 to 54 with a higher number reflecting higher complexity.

The level of skill you will need is very directly related to the complexity of the task faced. So many people in private citizen shootings appear to perform well without any training because the situation they face is very simple. If they have any gun and can produce it, they will solve 85% of their problems. If they have any gun, can produce it, and can make it go "bang" (whether they hit anything or not) that solves 95% of the problems (this could literally be accomplished by a blank firing pistol facsimile).

The wheels fall off when the complexity of the task at hand rises. For instance, place a friendly in proximity to the hostile and you suddenly have problems. Or, suppose you are actually facing an adversary who is hard core - like has been shot before. Suddenly, having any gun and making it go bang doesn't affect the outcome. You had better have a "real" pistol and be able to place rounds where they matter.

Something else that is greatly misunderstood is the idea that people become quivering masses of jello under stress. There are a huge number of considerations that have to be considered before we accept this as a likely outcome. One of the considerations is the training that the person in question has experienced. The old saw of "you can't see your sights under stress" is bunk as an absolute. There are plenty of conditions under which people with limited training can access their sights. This is doubly so if they 1) haven't been told they can't use their sights and 2) have only been taught one way to use the pistol - with sights.

As I've conducted my research, I've been amazed at how much of these questions were figured out intuitively by Jeff Cooper. If you look at Jeff's earlier writings, he was a point shooter - a friend of mine reported that Jeff could point shoot 1x2's at 7 yds all day long. What Jeff was able to divine was a system to make non-copers into copers. He gave the students a system of shooting the pistol that might have been sub-optimal to us but was good enough for what needed to be done. He then made them practice under the watch of a skilled coach, cultivated mindset through lecture, made people use that mindset in shooting simulators, and encouraged regular dry fire. The basic Gunsite pistol class was never meant to make you a world class shot. Rather it was there to give you the mindset to know a fight was coming, be ready for it mentally, and have a modicum of skill with the pistol. After all of his divining and problem solving, and being able to point shoot very well himself, Jeff taught people to get the gun up to eye level and use the sights.

I think there is some merit in tiering training based on likely dedication. For instance, I'd teach the overhand saddle to run the slide for everyone but encourage those who practice to actually use the slide catch lever. The more important tiers of training have to do with the problems you're likely to face. If your job involves finding, corralling, and capturing feral humans then you should have a much higher level of competence. If there is a good chance that your adversary will stand and fight, you had better be damn good with a pistol.

As far as what you need to know, I'd offer that if you can do a very small set of things well, you'll probably be OK.
1) Failure drill from holster (ideally with side step)
2) Failure drill from ready
.
.
.
3) Keep bullets in the gun

There's a lot of stuff that might be good to know but if you can do those first two without involving the conscious mind to help you figure out how, you'll be OK.

[David Armstrong]

David, doesn't Kelly McCann do something similar? He has classes for civilian types (executives, oil company people and so on) who will be posted in high risk areas like the Middle East, Rio. I think he has a week to impart the basics of hand to hand, how to use a folder, gun. It was all simple stuff. Carl Cestari type combatives.
Can't address what Kelly is doing these days as I haven't followed him much in several years. But that wouldn't surprise me. I had a similar assignment with a company prepping execs to go to Mexico, South America, and such and that was what we did, only with a lot less time. Very simple, easy to learn and retain, fairly broad application, etc. IIRC we taught them 4 basic combatives responses, 4 basic knife moves, basic gun safety, etc.

Good to see you again, BTW!

[David Armstrong]

So, you would council people who won't need to employ skills to get dumber training?
No. Not sure how anyone could get that out of what was said. I'm not even clear on what "dumber training" would be.

[Dagga Boy]

John Hearne, as a personal favor could you please stop posting on this. From a business perspective I like the idea that it is simply impossible to teach "those people" the skill set that the folks with very high records of having students dominate fights use.

[1slow]

Bill Rogers was also a good point shooter. But it is not what he does now. I think he said it was Ray Chapman that showed him more sighted shooting. Point shooter do not do well at Rogers.

I went through Gunsite in 1982 and it was the beginning of my actually learning in an organized fashion. I have changed how I do it now but it was a good foundation and comforting when you were looking at your front sight superimposed on a problem.
Visual verification is very helpful to me in hitting. 'See what you need to see" Brian Enos I think.

[Al T.]

Tagged. Excellent thread is excellent.

[JHC]

I was thinking of this exact question last night but posed a different way. How many people on the news who did not survive violent encounters and had concealed carry permits but were not carrying had the training and skills to survive if they had been carrying? I know it's an impossible question to answer but it's an interesting thought.

The DOJ has published stats on this some years back. Victims of violent crime resisting with weapons have better outcomes overall that victims that resist without weapons or don't resist.

[Chuck Haggard]

A thought I had was that we hear about, and most of us likely look for, cases where the victim won via use of a gun. I have no idea how many cases there might be where the use of a gun didn't work out for the victim.

The recent KC area robbery at the gun store case may be one of the outliers where greater skill at shooting could have saved the good guy from ending up dead at the end of the pistol fight.

[JHC]

Are there any point shooting teachers/schools that have a data set comparable to that which Tom Givens and nyeti have/draw on?

[SouthNarc]

Are there any point shooting teachers/schools that have a data set comparable to that which Tom Givens and nyeti have/draw on?

The only one that might would probably be Lou Chiodo.

[Tamara]

An example of an easily taught technique with good persistence. John Farnam has been teaching relative beginners for several decades. In his class a while ago his baseline technique was "the zipper". That can be learned quickly and has the virtue that you can get decent hits even target focused for the first round or two and then pick up the sights on the way up. You can also get reasonable hits when moving. It's probably best limited to 7 yards, but that covers most defensive shootings. You'd probably never see that taught in more advanced classes, but the audience is different.

I dunno.

Ideally, if a loved one came to me and said "Okay, I'm only going to take one gun class for the rest of my life, and you get to pick it," I'd probably send them off to MAG-40. It's not really all that much of a shooting course, per se, but they'll leave confident that they can pass a police-style qualification course and have a pretty good grounding in the whys, wherefores, legalities, and ramifications of busting caps in fools.

If they're not going to take a multi-day class, I saw Tom Givens do a one-day course for a bunch of gun bloggers (http://www.pagunblog.com/2011/05/31/lucky-gunner-shoot-day-2-range-master/) that looked like it gave a solid grounding in the fundamentals, including how to draw from the holster without shooting your foot off and a bit of shooting from retention, and was certainly worth a recommendation. I don't know if that's a regular offering of his or a Reader's Digest Condensed Version of a two-day class, though.

If they're not going to commit to even that, I'd rather just spend a couple hours making sure that they know how to safely handle, load, and unload a firearm, and then give them the confidence that they can, whenever they want to, pick up a gun and put a bullet in an eight-inch circle twenty-one feet away. One-on-one, or at least in a small class, it has been my observation that this can usually be done with all but the most physically inept individuals. I wouldn't even refer to the target as a "bad guy" or anything like that; I'd just want them walking away with the confidence that they can pick up a gun and hit what they want to hit.

It seems like, when you start introducing stuff like "the zipper", you are front-loading this person's mind with the expectation that they're gonna go all to pieces and squeeze off rounds at the bad guy without being able to aim.

[MGW]

The DOJ has published stats on this some years back. Victims of violent crime resisting with weapons have better outcomes overall that victims that resist without weapons or don't resist.

I was going somewhere with that question but don't remember where.

[JHC]

I was going somewhere with that question but don't remember where.

I thought it was the flip side of all the NRA "Armed Citizen" wins where the person was barely trained - is there a dark side of many more that lose hard because they aren't trained. I think the DOJ stats suggested not really. But I'm sure that's largely due to the point John Hearne made that many civilian self defense scenarios are just more simply solved than more complicated ones that the professional who is out "looking for trouble" runs into.

[dgg9]

It seems like, when you start introducing stuff like "the zipper", you are front-loading this person's mind with the expectation that they're gonna go all to pieces and squeeze off rounds at the bad guy without being able to aim.

That's not how it was presented. The idea that it meshes with target focus was my observation, afterwards. A lot of things are easy to teach, but may or may not stick without continuous practice. As I said, Farnam gets a lot more raw beginners in his weekend class than most. I agree that any decent weekend class will do. Usually it comes down to which instructor will be closest to your area.

The point of the Zipper is that it's natural feeling. And you can get rounds on target fast. Make of that what you will.

[dgg9]

PS, I don't think we're disagreeing all that much. Let's say you're a traveling instructor like Farnam who gets beginners, as opposed to someone like LAV who gets self motivated ongoing shooters. After many decades of this you know most of your students will not take another class. So what do you teach in your 2.5 day class?

Not wall to wall shooting. You spend a good segment on legalities. A segment on trauma first aid. Gear choices. Managing unknown contacts and space considerations. Then you choose a small set of shooting techniques that are natural and adrenaline-congenial. That's one way to put together a class for casual students. There are others.

[Chuck Haggard]

Pretty sure the last I knew was that people who resist crime with a gun are the one's less likely to be hurt, any other course of action, including resisting with other weapons or not resisting at all, give a greater likelihood of being hurt. It's been awhile since I looked that those stats though

[cclaxton]

I dunno.

Ideally, if a loved one came to me and said "Okay, I'm only going to take one gun class for the rest of my life, and you get to pick it," I'd probably send them off to MAG-40. It's not really all that much of a shooting course, per se, but they'll leave confident that they can pass a police-style qualification course and have a pretty good grounding in the whys, wherefores, legalities, and ramifications of busting caps in fools.

If they're not going to take a multi-day class, I saw Tom Givens do a one-day course for a bunch of gun bloggers (http://www.pagunblog.com/2011/05/31/lucky-gunner-shoot-day-2-range-master/) that looked like it gave a solid grounding in the fundamentals, including how to draw from the holster without shooting your foot off and a bit of shooting from retention, and was certainly worth a recommendation. I don't know if that's a regular offering of his or a Reader's Digest Condensed Version of a two-day class, though.

If they're not going to commit to even that, I'd rather just spend a couple hours making sure that they know how to safely handle, load, and unload a firearm, and then give them the confidence that they can, whenever they want to, pick up a gun and put a bullet in an eight-inch circle twenty-one feet away. One-on-one, or at least in a small class, it has been my observation that this can usually be done with all but the most physically inept individuals. I wouldn't even refer to the target as a "bad guy" or anything like that; I'd just want them walking away with the confidence that they can pick up a gun and hit what they want to hit.

It seems like, when you start introducing stuff like "the zipper", you are front-loading this person's mind with the expectation that they're gonna go all to pieces and squeeze off rounds at the bad guy without being able to aim.
+1
Well said.
Cody

[jetfire]

If a person had no interested whatsoever on follow-on training, I'd probably send them to a Gunsite 250, assuming they could take a week and do the whole class. I know that the technique Gunsite teaches isn't the hotness these days, but as a comprehensive "Here's what you need to competently CCW class" goes I have a hard time thinking of something better.

[SouthNarc]

.....you are front-loading this person's mind with the expectation that they're gonna go all to pieces and squeeze off rounds at the bad guy without being able to aim.

Not necessarily on the zipper that John teaches but just this idea in general, I agree. Not a fan of telling people they're gonna' fall apart.

[Tamara]

Not necessarily on the zipper that John teaches...

I've been corrected on my ass-umptions there already. ;)

[JAD]

{with respect to getting Chuck to go on the road and train}
He's teaching four miles from my house next week.

[Mr_White]

Not a fan of telling people they're gonna' fall apart.

Me too, big time. I really hate that. There can be a fine line between being honest about how difficult a problem may factually be, and telling a person they should expect to be unable to contend with that difficult problem. The first is being honest and responsible to your students, the second is just setting them up to fail.

I generally agree with Tom and nyeti on this subject. I've not been terribly vocal about it because I don't have experience teaching a truncated set of skills nor have I seen firsthand the results of that kind of training. My gut feeling is that there are a lot of things in life that you can do well or do poorly. It doesn't necessarily have to take longer to do something well instead of badly. It often just needs to be done better. I see sighted fire as the better way, and truncated marksmanship methods simply as less good. It doesn't have to take a long time to get someone some basic instruction and practice in using the sights to aim and trying to press the trigger pretty much straight back. I don't think it's unreasonable in the context of a low-motivation student to characterize it as 'get the gun to eye level and pay attention to the sights' and allow target focused shooting while noticing the sights and using them to aim, vs. insisting on an actual hard front sight focus.

[JAD]

I have had the chance to pepsi challenge this a couple of times.

I"ve gotten to take bunches of foreign people -- customers and sales channel people -- to the range when they visit the US. I give them the four rules in the car ride to the range, repeat it when we get to the range, and spend about 10 minutes introducing them to how to hold the pistol, how to stand (not leaning back, mostly), and how to press the trigger (I teach pinning at this level). Somewhere in there I draw a picture of the sight picture on a target and circle the front sight, and then point to the actual front sight on the pistol, and I say, "lift the gun to eye level and focus on this bump here both before and after the shot breaks." We have a good time shooting and they go on their merry way back to England or Japan or what have you.

Three of them have come back to the range, with a couple (or in one case eight) years in between that last shot in KC and their return being devoid, naturally, of even thinking about firearms.

I have, in each of those cases, reminded them of the four rules again in the car (and interestingly, all three remembered them /verbatim/ without prompting, broken English notwithstanding).

In one of the cases we were in a group, so the veteran got to re-listen to the mini camp -- and Yuuichi said, "Hai, hai, that's important-u" when I mentioned the front sight.

In the other two cases I just got them on the range and let them rip. All three were able to get good hits, right away, and all three used the front sight.

What they tend to forget, irritatingly, is my strenuous prohibitions against dangling.

[Chuck Haggard]

I've never had to pressure test anything at the level we are talking about, but I can tell you that getting people to the range for two days a years, eight-ish hours each day (which includes stuff like picking up brass, water breaks, cleaning guns, etc.), with the right instruction, can lead to said folks (even the ones who hate getting paid to shoot free ammo) getting 100% hits, and really solid fight stopping hits at that.

Nine shootings like that in 18 months ain't a fluke IMHO, it's a trend.

I only taught sighted fire, except for launching rounds from the high 2/retention position, and a surprising number of our folks post shooting report seeing their sights.

My philosophy of pistol training heavily mimics what Wayne, Darryl and Tom teach in their programs.

[Cecil Burch]

I am going to tread carefully here because this is a thread that is focusing on teaching shooting and that is out of my lane. But Todd did bring up the teaching of H2H self-defense stuff as a comparison, and I can comment a bit on that aspect.





I generally agree with Tom and nyeti on this subject. I've not been terribly vocal about it because I don't have experience teaching a truncated set of skills nor have I seen firsthand the results of that kind of training. My gut feeling is that there are a lot of things in life that you can do well or do poorly. It doesn't necessarily have to take longer to do something well instead of badly. It often just needs to be done better. I see sighted fire as the better way, and truncated marksmanship methods simply as less good. It doesn't have to take a long time to get someone some basic instruction and practice in using the sights to aim and trying to press the trigger pretty much straight back. I don't think it's unreasonable in the context of a low-motivation student to characterize it as 'get the gun to eye level and pay attention to the sights' and allow target focused shooting while noticing the sights and using them to aim, vs. insisting on an actual hard front sight focus.


I very much agree here. If you teach someone essential, fundamental things, and teach it in a way that is not condescending or dismissive, I strongly feel you can get a lot of good done even in a short course with little to no sustainment on the student’s part.

As a contrary tack, there are a lot of self-defense courses that take a dumbed down approach to teaching fighting skills, with simplistic techniques that are easily taught, and look really nice when they are executed on a compliant partner, but completely fall apart under pressure, and where there is almost no chance the student ever remembers any of the cool moves. This type of approach can be recognized generally by the instructor following the format of “if the attacker does this, then you do this”. The student is given a handful of techniques and sent on their way. The argument for this is that it has to be simple for this type of student to “get” since they won’t be doing much in the way of practicing. I have found this to actually be a waste.

Rather than teach some techniques, you teach fundamental concepts that are not any harder to execute, and only require a tiny bit more thought on the part of the student. I have done this in my coursework, and have had really good success at getting solid usable skills across to people without them having to then go and do BJJ or MMA or boxing three times a week.

It seems to me that the things that Tom or Chuck or some others advocate follow the model of focusing on the essentials, and doing their best to get that across, rather than dumbing it down. I strongly believe this a much better tack.

[Chuck Haggard]

And our DT system at work also followed the track Cecil talks about, and has worked rather well for a bunch of years.

I strongly believe teaching people how to think, and recognizing the principles of what makes things work, are an important part of teaching thinking fighters vs people who are range/mat room robots.

[Tom Givens]

I have had the chance to pepsi challenge this a couple of times.

I"ve gotten to take bunches of foreign people -- customers and sales channel people -- to the range when they visit the US. I give them the four rules in the car ride to the range, repeat it when we get to the range, and spend about 10 minutes introducing them to how to hold the pistol, how to stand (not leaning back, mostly), and how to press the trigger (I teach pinning at this level). Somewhere in there I draw a picture of the sight picture on a target and circle the front sight, and then point to the actual front sight on the pistol, and I say, "lift the gun to eye level and focus on this bump here both before and after the shot breaks." We have a good time shooting and they go on their merry way back to England or Japan or what have you.

Three of them have come back to the range, with a couple (or in one case eight) years in between that last shot in KC and their return being devoid, naturally, of even thinking about firearms.

I have, in each of those cases, reminded them of the four rules again in the car (and interestingly, all three remembered them /verbatim/ without prompting, broken English notwithstanding).

In one of the cases we were in a group, so the veteran got to re-listen to the mini camp -- and Yuuichi said, "Hai, hai, that's important-u" when I mentioned the front sight.

In the other two cases I just got them on the range and let them rip. All three were able to get good hits, right away, and all three used the front sight.

What they tend to forget, irritatingly, is my strenuous prohibitions against dangling.

This dove-tails precisely with what I have been saying. In our basic permit class, ALL shooting is done in two hands, at eye level, using the sights. The students are told this is what will save their lives. In many cases, even several years after their class and with no sustainment or practice, they fire 2-5 shots in a real life shooting and get 100% hits. This has happened too many times to be chance. In some cases, they still had the ammo in the gun they loaded with after their class. People tend to do what they have been trained to do, if it is simple, explained and practiced properly, and it is explained why it is important.

[orionz06]

These must be for decoration only:

http://icestore.us/Pistol-Sights/I-C-E-CLAW-EMS-Rear-Sight-with-ProGlo-Tritium-Front-Sight.html

[Dagga Boy]

I find it amusing that the most significant thing we have done for shooting efficiency in the last 50 years is how far we have come with sights to enhance our ability to use our eyes to greatly enhance our ability to hit things, yet people want to cling to the ideas of the prior 100 years. I honestly believe the myth's of not being able to use or see a verified sight comes from a time of horribly small and inefficient sights. This is no longer true and I have found if folks are trained with the idea that "you can easily see and focus on a front sight in a fight", and it will make the scary things go away faster if you do, people will do it.

[orionz06]

Who isn't using sights?

[LSP552]

Who isn't using sights?

People who miss.

[Tom Givens]

Who isn't using sights?

You must not get around to other, less technically oriented gun forums. (Not meant as an insult, just a statement.) Every damn day there are dozens of posts like this one, from a guy who posts on several forums:

"Col Applegate had a simple formula.
80% of your practice should be with close range ( 0-12 feet) point shooting.
The other 20% can be anything else that you want to do.
While it is true that there is no shortage of people telling us how to train ( especially those who charge money for their teaching services) it is up to each of us to decide just whom we are to believe and emulate."

[Dagga Boy]

Who isn't using sights?

People being taught to look at something else.

[Tamara]

Who isn't using sights?

This (http://booksbikesboomsticks.blogspot.com/2010/05/somehow-i-thought-youd-be-taller.html) dude.

[orionz06]

You must not get around to other, less technically oriented gun forums. (Not meant as an insult, just a statement.) Every damn day there are dozens of posts like this one, from a guy who posts on several forums:

"Col Applegate had a simple formula.
80% of your practice should be with close range ( 0-12 feet) point shooting.
The other 20% can be anything else that you want to do.
While it is true that there is no shortage of people telling us how to train ( especially those who charge money for their teaching services) it is up to each of us to decide just whom we are to believe and emulate."

I generally avoid those forums. I was under the impression people were still talking about someone in particular.


But the point shooting comment is interesting, most likely better suited for another thread.


I would also assume that people like Tamara mentioned are excluded from this topic.

[JHC]

This (http://booksbikesboomsticks.blogspot.com/2010/05/somehow-i-thought-youd-be-taller.html) dude.

THAT is the PS fellow from the 1st Warrior Talk symposium in Memphis. BTW he still owes me for the tooth paste, breadth mints and disposable camera I went out and fetched him from the hotel before day 1. Each time I offered him the receipt that weekend his wallet was elsewhere. After the 2nd or 3rd try I decided to own it. His dudes couldn't hit shit.

"Half hip on the run."

[Tamara]

But the point shooting comment is interesting, most likely better suited for another thread.

You are correct. It was pretty specifically stated back on Page One:


It's not a point shooting versus sighted fire thread and that's not really where I want this to go.

And yet a bunch of people seem determined to mow these guys down:

3111

[Malamute]

This (http://booksbikesboomsticks.blogspot.com/2010/05/somehow-i-thought-youd-be-taller.html) dude.


Oh the h̶u̶m̶a̶n̶i̶t̶y̶!̶ retardery!

I've had the judgement failure to get involved in a couple discussions on the point shooting subject that he participated in. When asked how their scores on various drills and tests compared to sighted shooting, (as it HAS to be easily definable as superior, eh?) nobody was interested in telling times/scores etc. When he posted his video I couldnt believe anyone took it seriously. i was embarrased for him, as you said in your linked blog post.

This is from someone thats shot tens of thousands of rounds practicing point shooting. When I really want to hit something, I use the sights. Funny, they even work on running rabbits and stuff thrown in the air.



His dudes couldn't hit shit.

"Half hip on the run."


But,..wait! He said his training and method was very effective!

[Chuck Haggard]

I run in to people pushing point shooting all the time. Lots of people trying to claim that it is unpossible to see your sights in a gun fight, so much so there are retards posting on Kyle Lamb's YouTube video on the subject telling him he doesn't know anything about "street fights".

The "science" quoted by the people trying to get science-y to prove the validity of their claims is a bunch of that Bruce Siddle bullshit ref supposed changes to the eye and heart rate stuff. I giggled when John Hearne mentioned that crap specifically in his presentation in Memphis

[Hambo]

there are retards posting on Kyle Lamb's YouTube video on the subject telling him he doesn't know anything about "street fights".


I guess Mogadishu doesn't count.

Now on topic, I think. I'm not an instructor, and the vast majority of my shooting has been with people who are dedicated: SWAT cops, competitors, instructors, and people willing to keep training. Right now is my first rodeo with a friend who is really new to defensive handgun shooting. Grad school eats up his time and cash, so he won't be attending a good, intensive school and won't be buying ammo by the case. My plan was to pass on what I have learned over the decades and create a gunfighter. This thread and the Israeli thread made me rethink that. The new plan, which I fully explained to him and which I believe he will follow is dryfire at home three times per week and 1-2 short, low round count sessions each month. He's already seen the benefit of dryfire practice and believes in it. All live fire will be Givens style: two hands and using sights. He prefers condition 3 carry, so for now it has to be Givens-style with the Israeli twist, but that may change as he makes some holster choices. I'm also preaching awareness and will loan him some good books (Left of Bang, Givens, Reitz,etc).

So rather than pound a square peg into a round hole, what I hope is that I can help him reach a point where he will:
1-Carry a gun all the time
2-have a level of proficiency to deal with at least the majority of problems he might encounter
3-continue to train on a regular basis

That's the maximum sustainability he can or will tolerate at this time.

[1slow]

I find it amusing that the most significant thing we have done for shooting efficiency in the last 50 years is how far we have come with sights to enhance our ability to use our eyes to greatly enhance our ability to hit things, yet people want to cling to the ideas of the prior 100 years. I honestly believe the myth's of not being able to use or see a verified sight comes from a time of horribly small and inefficient sights. This is no longer true and I have found if folks are trained with the idea that "you can easily see and focus on a front sight in a fight", and it will make the scary things go away faster if you do, people will do it.

Yes !!!
Lack of good sights has led to 2 myths:
1) You can't/won't use you sights in a hurry/under stress. If they are small and ill defined this may be true,
2) small pistols are inaccurate. They often have small sights (see above) which makes fast accurate shooting more difficult.
Look at how much easier it is to shoot a 640 Pro well (big Trijicon sights) vs. an older J frame with tiny sights.

As you say sights have improved hugely and with this the ease of fast accurate shooting.

[SLG]

I've taught a lot of non english speakers how to shoot over the years. Sometimes they get a lot of training and sometimes they only get what I give them for years and years. A fair number of them have been in gunfights over the years and I've heard back from some of them, though not always in enough detail to be really useful. I always taught eye level sighted fire for the majority of the class (1 day to 1 week, usually), however, I always include a very short session on target focused shooting. Very close ranges, and very high speeds. I don't know for sure if it matters, but it doesn't seem to hurt. After a day of sighted fire, target focus can be taught in a matter of minutes. I really believe it can't hurt and it could help. They do seem to have fewer trigger issues when using a target focus at high speed. Of course, I always emphasize that the gun should be brought up to eye level and pushed out just like it is when using the sights.

It takes a lot of practice to do a press out at high speed with high accuracy. Less practice but almost the same results (with more speed) with the target focus at close distances.

[JHC]

I've taught a lot of non english speakers how to shoot over the years. Sometimes they get a lot of training and sometimes they only get what I give them for years and years. A fair number of them have been in gunfights over the years and I've heard back from some of them, though not always in enough detail to be really useful. I always taught eye level sighted fire for the majority of the class (1 day to 1 week, usually), however, I always include a very short session on target focused shooting. Very close ranges, and very high speeds. I don't know for sure if it matters, but it doesn't seem to hurt. After a day of sighted fire, target focus can be taught in a matter of minutes. I really believe it can't hurt and it could help. They do seem to have fewer trigger issues when using a target focus at high speed. Of course, I always emphasize that the gun should be brought up to eye level and pushed out just like it is when using the sights.

It takes a lot of practice to do a press out at high speed with high accuracy. Less practice but almost the same results (with more speed) with the target focus at close distances.

Same here with some family and friends who may not get a lot of follow on practice for a spell. After the fundamentals etc they are always gleefully surprised how well they can hit fast with metal on meat and cyclic trigger snapping up close.

[valian]

Yes, that has been one of my thoughts throughout much of this thread and other times this has been discussed. I always wonder how skewed the data is because dead defenders likely do not contact their instructors ;) or talk about what worked and did not work in the fight It would, of course, take a very dedicated study to know the other side of the equation.


A thought I had was that we hear about, and most of us likely look for, cases where the victim won via use of a gun. I have no idea how many cases there might be where the use of a gun didn't work out for the victim.

The recent KC area robbery at the gun store case may be one of the outliers where greater skill at shooting could have saved the good guy from ending up dead at the end of the pistol fight.

[Blake]

I don't post here too often...but....I know a few guys that have replied to this thread, I have trained with a few guys on this thread, I have a bit of experience with a boat load of different trainers, I have pointed a gun at a few people. While I can appreciate from a business perspective attempting to identify and properly train a CCW individual that may never take a class again. I cannot at all get on board with anyone that gives any legitimacy to any instructor that teaches unsighted fire. Tell me one legitimate instructor that teaches this?? Please don't say Pincus either, he has zero legitimacy in the community, regardless of the amount of classes he teaches or TV shows he is on. It should be humiliating as an industry that this guy is still instructing and is a voice to the firearms community. My attempt is not to be a dick, but to say, the problem with our society is that in everything we do recently (including LE and mil, save for a few exceptional units) is teach to the lowest common denominator. That is a terrible solution. I would certainly rather develop a program where you educate as much as possible in an 8 hour program, and beat home the importance of follow-on training. The right to own or carry a gun does not equal competence. It is up to every level of trainer to educate individuals on their level of ability.

I see a boat load of instructors these days getting way out of their lane. Look if a competent pistolero wants to teach basic firearms skills, I have zero issue with that. You don't have to be ex-Delta or ST-6 to do basic gun handling skills; or to make someone a competent gun handler. However, if you have never responded to an active shooter, should you be teaching a group of individuals that competency?

I think some of what this topic entails is integrity. There are some amazing shooters out there that can teach people to shoot more accurately, more quickly, and more efficiently. That being said, should some guys be teaching CQB or response to active shooter? I don't think that is appropriate. My take only.

More importantly, regardless of what we are teaching, why compromise standards because people don't see relevance in training? If you believe in a certain curriculum, why compromise that? Adjust fire to the audience, but DO NOT compromise the standards.

If you want to say, you don't have to line up your sights at 0-3'ish feet; I might get on board, but lets not legitimize these point shooting morons beyond that.

[Totem Polar]

I think some of what this topic entails is integrity. There are some amazing shooters out there that can teach people to shoot more accurately, more quickly, and more efficiently. That being said, should some guys be teaching CQB or response to active shooter? I don't think that is appropriate. My take only.

More importantly, regardless of what we are teaching, why compromise standards because people don't see relevance in training? If you believe in a certain curriculum, why compromise that? Adjust fire to the audience, but DO NOT compromise the standards.


I've also mostly stayed a lurker in this thread, because I am not a firearms instructor, nor any firearms/UOF expert by P-F standards.

That said, what I am is a fine teacher in a mostly unrelated discipline (music performance) with a great reputation, acknowledged as an expert in print and radio, who sits on the faculty of my city's two dominant universities. Per the post above, if one can efficiently teach highly functional methods and techniques that are proven to work, and one chooses to dumb that expertise down for the wider field, then one becomes a hack by choice. I hold my classes to high technical and mechanical standards, and everyone learns to perform satisfactorily. Many will not still be playing 2-4 years later, true; I have no control over what people do or do not do with the information and skills I share with them. But the folks who do take to it really benefit; I've had students hand me their debut CDs and invite me to their gigs several years after starting out from scratch with me. I'd rather teach to the top, explain well enough for the bottom to experience success in the moment, and let folks sort out which camp they ultimately want to be in themselves.
JMO.

[Maple Syrup Actual]

I've also mostly stayed a lurker in this thread, because I am not a firearms instructor, nor any firearms/UOF expert by P-F standards.

That said, what I am is a fine teacher in a mostly unrelated discipline (music performance) with a great reputation, acknowledged as an expert in print and radio, who sits on the faculty of my city's two dominant universities. Per the post above, if one can efficiently teach highly functional methods and techniques that are proven to work, and one chooses to dumb that expertise down for the wider field, then one becomes a hack by choice. I hold my classes to high technical and mechanical standards, and everyone learns to perform satisfactorily. Many will not still be playing 2-4 years later, true; I have no control over what people do or do not do with the information and skills I share with them. But the folks who do take to it really benefit; I've had students hand me their debut CDs and invite me to their gigs several years after starting out from scratch with me. I'd rather teach to the top, explain well enough for the bottom to experience success in the moment, and let folks sort out which camp they ultimately want to be in themselves.
JMO.

Well, that pretty much does it for me. I don't think it can be addressed any better than that.

[1slow]

I've also mostly stayed a lurker in this thread, because I am not a firearms instructor, nor any firearms/UOF expert by P-F standards.

That said, what I am is a fine teacher in a mostly unrelated discipline (music performance) with a great reputation, acknowledged as an expert in print and radio, who sits on the faculty of my city's two dominant universities. Per the post above, if one can efficiently teach highly functional methods and techniques that are proven to work, and one chooses to dumb that expertise down for the wider field, then one becomes a hack by choice. I hold my classes to high technical and mechanical standards, and everyone learns to perform satisfactorily. Many will not still be playing 2-4 years later, true; I have no control over what people do or do not do with the information and skills I share with them. But the folks who do take to it really benefit; I've had students hand me their debut CDs and invite me to their gigs several years after starting out from scratch with me. I'd rather teach to the top, explain well enough for the bottom to experience success in the moment, and let folks sort out which camp they ultimately want to be in themselves.
JMO.


Very good!

[DamonL]

[QUOTE=Tom Givens;294573] The ONLY way they had been taught to shoot was to aim the gun (use the sights). If they have only been taught one way, that's what they do.

For me, this is the answer. I learned target, front sight, press and I will default to that training.

Bob Stasch, a Chicago PD gunfighter, was interviewed here,

https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?15036-Gunfight-Veteran-Interview&p=297452#post297452

He survived 14 gunfights. He said he is a "point shooter". In his description he says he brings the gun up to eye level, catches the front sight and fires.

My sighted fire training was target, front sight, press. It sounds the same to me.

[Cheap Shot]

I don't post here too often...but....I know a few guys that have replied to this thread, I have trained with a few guys on this thread, I have a bit of experience with a boat load of different trainers, I have pointed a gun at a few people. While I can appreciate from a business perspective attempting to identify and properly train a CCW individual that may never take a class again. I cannot at all get on board with anyone that gives any legitimacy to any instructor that teaches unsighted fire. Tell me one legitimate instructor that teaches this?? Please don't say Pincus either, he has zero legitimacy in the community, regardless of the amount of classes he teaches or TV shows he is on. It should be humiliating as an industry that this guy is still instructing and is a voice to the firearms community. My attempt is not to be a dick, but to say, the problem with our society is that in everything we do recently (including LE and mil, save for a few exceptional units) is teach to the lowest common denominator. That is a terrible solution. I would certainly rather develop a program where you educate as much as possible in an 8 hour program, and beat home the importance of follow-on training. The right to own or carry a gun does not equal competence. It is up to every level of trainer to educate individuals on their level of ability.

I see a boat load of instructors these days getting way out of their lane. Look if a competent pistolero wants to teach basic firearms skills, I have zero issue with that. You don't have to be ex-Delta or ST-6 to do basic gun handling skills; or to make someone a competent gun handler. However, if you have never responded to an active shooter, should you be teaching a group of individuals that competency?

I think some of what this topic entails is integrity. There are some amazing shooters out there that can teach people to shoot more accurately, more quickly, and more efficiently. That being said, should some guys be teaching CQB or response to active shooter? I don't think that is appropriate. My take only.

More importantly, regardless of what we are teaching, why compromise standards because people don't see relevance in training? If you believe in a certain curriculum, why compromise that? Adjust fire to the audience, but DO NOT compromise the standards.

If you want to say, you don't have to line up your sights at 0-3'ish feet; I might get on board, but lets not legitimize these point shooting morons beyond that.

Very well said

[Chance]

People need to know what they don't know. The ego is one of the first things that needs breaking before learning can occur. Only preceded by wax out of the ears and crusties out of the eyes.

Regarding how to structure a training program, I think this is an important point. In my experience (which has nothing to do with self-defense), not exposing new students to the depth of a topic can easily result in a Dunning-Kruger type of effect, resulting in vast over-confidence that's difficult to correct without a serious (often devastating) ego check. That ego check seems to come at the least opportune time.

I think I would rather have someone leave a basic class (in any topic) being knowledgeable, but skeptical, of their abilities. And, as has been stated several times, when someone has been guided to do something only one way, they're unlikely to start making things up on the spot.