Gunsite Academy vs Rogers Shooting School

[Sterling Archer]

Each work out to about the same price. I'll eventually do both but I'm not a rich man so a year will probably separate them. The question becomes, which do I go to first? Input is appreciated. Thanks!

[JV_]

What's your training goal?

[Sterling Archer]

What's your training goal?

To attend a well known and respected 5-day class. ;)

[JV_]

Rogers is about shooting their test. It's not a typical 5 day class, IMO.

If you want to shoot a lot of steel, with disappearing targets, on the clock - then Rogers is your place. If you want to shoot on the move, and do other more traditional 5 day school stuff, then you'd probably be better off elsewhere.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dg3WrQ7XltA

[DamonL]

I have attended gunsite 250 and they teach a balance of gun handling, marksmanship, tactics, and mindset. Depending on your skill level it may or may not be challenging. It is a great experience though because of the people you meet. I have not attended Rogers, but I believe it is focused on improving your technical shooting skill. So what is your training goal? :)

[Sigfan26]

I believe GJM has attended both. Hopefully he will chime in.

[OldRunner/CSAT Neighbor]

I believe GJM has attended both. Hopefully he will chime in.

Affirmative, he’s been to both, multiple X’s each IIRC, seems he was just @ a GS reunion & looking forward to him weighing in here.

[Sterling Archer]

So what is your training goal? :)
I was mostly serious in my earlier response. I really just want to check out some of the schools I've heard are really good. I've got CSAT in my backyard and have taken several classes, with more on the calendar. I'm a bit of a training enthusiast and like experiencing different instructors and their styles. I have no aspirations of become a pro shooter or anything.

Make sense?

[DamonL]

I was teasing you a little with that comment. I am glad you did not take it the wrong way. At the gunsite course the did range work, an indoor simulator, an outdoor simulator and a night shooting session, too. So it sounds like you would like either class. If you wanted to move from a B-class to an A-class shooter I don't think gunsite is for you and Rogers would help you.

[taadski]

I’ll reiterate what I was counseled a handful of years ago re the Roger’s school...

Go NOW for the opportunity of experiencing a true industry and firearms training icon...before you’re no longer able to.

I followed the advice and had an excellent experience. It was a blast meeting Bill, hearing his take on things and getting to watch him put the rubber to the road demoing his own school test. Between that and the caliber of the group that attended, it was truly an excellent experience.

But like JV notes, the class is not your typical week long program. And the instruction itself (not necessarily the theory) is ALL about preparation for the school tests. In that respect, it’s an excellent barometer of your current technical shooting skills, but the way the school is structured, it IS NOT a week of relaxing, pretty much regardless of your ability.

[41magfan]

I went to Gunsite in '92 and '93 (250 & 499) and to Rogers Intermediate/Advanced Pistol & Shotgun in 1998.

In a nutshell, I describe the two experiences a bit like this;

At Gunsite I shot about 1,000 rounds on a half-dozen different ranges spread out over 700 acres. I got to meet and socialize with a number of like-minded folks that I would have NEVER crossed paths with at any other venue. I had great fun and didn't want the training days to end.

At Rogers, I shot well over 2,000 rounds (along with hundreds of SG rounds) while standing in the same spot. There was very little socializing and I was fairly tired at the end of the training days.

Gunsite is about the overall training "experience", whereas Rogers is simply a place to apply, measure and hopefully improve your technical skills. They are two totally different places with two totally different expectations. Do both if you can, but you will not find much comparable relevance between the two schools ..... one is an apple, and one is an orange.

[Sterling Archer]

I went to Gunsite in '92 and '93 (250 & 499) and to Rogers Intermediate/Advanced Pistol & Shotgun in 1998.

In a nutshell, I describe the two experiences a bit like this;

At Gunsite I shot about 1,000 rounds on a half-dozen different ranges spread out over 700 acres. I got to meet and socialize with a number of like-minded folks that I would have NEVER crossed paths with at any other venue. I had great fun and didn't want the training days to end.

At Rogers, I shot well over 2,000 rounds (along with hundreds of SG rounds) while standing in the same spot. There was very little socializing and I was fairly tired at the end of the training days.

Gunsite is about the overall training "experience", whereas Rogers is simply a place to apply, measure and hopefully improve your technical skills. They are two totally different places with two totally different expectations. Do both if you can, but you will not find much comparable relevance between the two schools ..... one is an apple, and one is an orange.

Thanks for your perspective. Strictly speaking in terms of skill building which did you feel was more beneficial to you?

[41magfan]

To be quite honest, I didn't learn a thing about shooting in the 250 Course, but it's a prerequisite for taking more advanced courses. I had been shooting for quite a while by the time I attended and I'd already been a FI for 10 years, as well. While the 250 School Drill (see below) wasn't much of a challenge, I still enjoyed the overall experience and have absolutely no regrets .... none! I skipped the Intermediate 350 course and took Advanced Pistol (499) the next year.

I said all that to say this: If you can shoot the 250 Drill clean without much difficulty you won't be challenged much, but the 250 Course is required before you can take progressively tougher courses like 350 and 499.

If the 250 Drill is a challenge for you, then you will benefit from a 250 Class at Gunsite. If 250 is NOT a challenge, you'll likely benefit from attending Rogers.

Hope that response was helpful.

250 School Drill
Beginning at 3 yards, fire a single shot to the head in 1.5 seconds. Then do it again.
From 7 yards engage the target with two shots to the body in 1.5 seconds.
Progressing to 10 yards, repeat the drill, but with an allotted time of 2 seconds.
Then, at 15 yards, transition from a standing to a kneeling position and engage the target with two shots to the body in 3.5 seconds.
Finally, from 25 yards go from standing to prone, firing two shots to the body in 7 seconds.

[Sterling Archer]

Thank you, sir!

[GJM]

I took my first Gunsite class in 1991, and since then have taken many more classes (250, 499, 599, 260, 223, 270, Foreign weapons, Backcountry). Was there as recently as this past weekend for the Gunsite Alumni Shoot and reunion. Been to Rogers a half dozen times, and was class organizer three times, twice with a full boat of Gunsite instructors. Rogers and Gunsite are my favorite two week long courses, but their approaches couldn't be more difficult.

Gunsite uses the following approach:

1) Teach the student basic gun handling.

2) Teach the student manipulations like draw, reload, scan.

3) Teach the student accuracy.

4) Only after steps 1-3, focus on speed.

Rogers starts even beginner students out at full speed, and they must learn to shoot at that speed or they can't meet the standards. There is also an emphasis on strong and support hand only shooting, unlike anywhere else out there.

If I wanted to develop the best possible shooter, I would start them with the Rogers Basic class and then send them to Gunsite 250. And, specifically in that order.

[DamonL]

Also, Gunsite teaches the Weaver stance.

[Erick Gelhaus]

If I wanted to develop the best possible shooter, I would start them with the Rogers Basic class and then send them to Gunsite 250. And, specifically in that order.

Develop something on the way to blazing speed before developing manipulations, procedural memory, discrimination (the exposure to one hand only work that early does make sense though)?

GJM, am quite interested in the why.

[Erick Gelhaus]

Also, Gunsite teaches the Weaver stance.

It does and it also demonstrates, teaches, and lets students use the modified isoceles as well. The school did a rather public announcement last year or the year before saying what has been practice on the ground for quite some time. What is taught is balanced stance that one can deliver force from as well as move when needed.

Yes, the Modern Technique specifically mentions the Weaver stance, however only shooting from it isn't a requirement. Additionally, what people perceive to be a Weaver isn't ... though that is a discussion for another time.

mandatory caveat: I'm on staff there and have been for a number of years.

[41magfan]

Also, Gunsite teaches the Weaver stance.

Well, sorta.

When I was there, Weaver was discussed within the context of The Modern Technique ..... but nothing more. I didn't see anyone being coerced into changing their shooting stance (or much of anything else) if they were performing well. Their philosophy (which I happen to share) is that the proof is in the pudding and your performance should speak for itself.

Within the context of defensive shooting skills, minor tweaks in technique that require a lot of time and large round counts to develop and maintain aren't very relevant IMO. Contrary to the steady stream of BS I witness being suggested, 99.9% of gunfights aren't won't by hundredths and thousands of a second.

A couple of other quick comments;

As an Instructor, I respectfully differ with GJM concerning the two venues as it relates to developing a shooter. I'm a firm believer in the principle of crawl, walk, run and putting Rogers ahead of a fundamentals class like Gunsite 250 perverts that philosophy for most shooters ..... obviously there are exceptions.

One of the guys that attended Rogers with me was a perfect example. He enjoyed the experience, but left there fairly frustrated and discouraged. He was an OK shooter but something like shooting a clean Gunsite 250 Drill was not quite doable for him at the time. Had I been free to stand next to him and actually "instruct/coach" him through the various Test at Rogers at our own pace, I'm absolutely certain I could have developed him into a better shooter, but that level of oversight isn't the paradigm at Rogers. The Staff will demonstrate things for you at Rogers, but there was very little (if any) time for individual, real-time instruction.

There's a deep chasm between demonstrating your skills as an Instructor and developing the student's skills to the same level. I've produced better shooters than myself - I know how much work is involved.

[GJM]

Develop something on the way to blazing speed before developing manipulations, procedural memory, discrimination (the exposure to one hand only work that early does make sense though)?

GJM, am quite interested in the why.

I don't have much time this morning, but let me take a quick stab at this.

The order of speed vs accuracy/manipulations really goes to the philosophy of teaching. Bill Rogers is convinced that if you don't learn speed first, you develop all sorts of baggage that has to be shed at great cost later. He equally believes in accuracy, but believes it should follow, even if only later that same week. My wife illustrates his point. Despite multiple Gunsite E tickets, and being widely praised at Gunsite as a shooter, she could not make Rogers Basic on her first visit there, because she flat couldn't put her accuracy to work within Rogers time frames. Ultimately, she shot 114 and 115/125, the two highest runs ever shot by a woman in the decades of the Rogers School, but it was a monumental undertaking and took some years.

I have been meaning to write an AAR of the Gunsite Alumni Shoot, as I enjoy Gunsite so much, but have been flat out the last few days. At the GAS match, the penalty for a shot even an inch outside the smallish Gunsite A zone is 3 seconds, and a miss on steel where no make up shot was allowed was 10 seconds. This effectively turns what was originally a speed/accuracy pursuit into a bullseye match. While I get that accuracy wins, and it is hard to teach speed with accuracy, I think Gunsite has drifted to a place where speed has been so deemphasized in their scoring so as to disadvantage their students.

Got to run, look forward to discussing this later as it is an interesting topic.

[GJM]

Well, sorta.

When I was there, Weaver was discussed within the context of The Modern Technique ..... but nothing more. I didn't see anyone being coerced into changing their shooting stance (or much of anything else) if they were performing well. Their philosophy (which I happen to share) is that the proof is in the pudding and your performance should speak for itself.

Within the context of defensive shooting skills, minor tweaks in technique that require a lot of time and large round counts to develop and maintain aren't very relevant IMO. Contrary to the steady stream of BS I witness being suggested, 99.9% of gunfights aren't won't by hundredths and thousands of a second.

A couple of other quick comments;

As an Instructor, I respectfully differ with GJM concerning the two venues as it relates to developing a shooter. I'm a firm believer in the principle of crawl, walk, run and putting Rogers ahead of a fundamentals class like Gunsite 250 perverts that philosophy for most shooters ..... obviously there are exceptions.

One of the guys that attended Rogers with me was a perfect example. He enjoyed the experience, but left there fairly frustrated and discouraged. He was an OK shooter but something like shooting a clean Gunsite 250 Drill was not quite doable for him at the time. Had I been free to stand next to him and actually "instruct/coach" him through the various Test at Rogers at our own pace, I'm absolutely certain I could have developed him into a better shooter, but that level of oversight isn't the paradigm at Rogers. The Staff will demonstrate things for you at Rogers, but there was very little (if any) time for individual, real-time instruction.

There's a deep chasm between demonstrating your skills as an Instructor and developing the student's skills to the same level. I've produced better shooters than myself - I know how much work is involved.

Your Rogers student example is exactly why I think a person should start with Rogers Basic, then go to Gunsite, then go back for Rogers Int/Adv. The Rogers Int/Adv is a testing class not a teaching class. Rogers Basic does the teaching, but sets the speed at a human reaction time standard, like you would likely employ if someone was shooting at you as fast as they can.

[JV_]

The Staff will demonstrate things for you at Rogers, but there was very little (if any) time for individual, real-time instruction.

Exactly. If I weren't good at weak or strong hand stuff, Rogers (advanced) wouldn't have been fun. There's very little time for you to try and fix a real issue. I would simply miss all WHO or SHO shots, knowing that I have to work on it when I get home.

Rogers (advanced) is about learning their test and shooting their test. It's not really about shooter development.

[41magfan]

Since I've never been to Rogers Basic Class, what's the student/Instructor ratio and is the round count the same?

[GJM]

Since I've never been to Rogers Basic Class, what's the student/Instructor ratio and is the round count the same?

I wish my wife and I took that class. Ratio is great. Bill, his wife and other instructors are all very hands on. Unlike the int/adv class, Bill is teaching continuously. The school provides all guns, ammo and equipment. They start with a .22 revolver, then .22 semi auto, then 9mm as student hits various thresholds.

[GJM]

Class description:

https://www.rogersshootingschool.com/classes.php

[Sterling Archer]

I took my first Gunsite class in 1991, and since then have taken many more classes (250, 499, 599, 260, 223, 270, Foreign weapons, Backcountry). Was there as recently as this past weekend for the Gunsite Alumni Shoot and reunion. Been to Rogers a half dozen times, and was class organizer three times, twice with a full boat of Gunsite instructors. Rogers and Gunsite are my favorite two week long courses, but their approaches couldn't be more difficult.

Gunsite uses the following approach:

1) Teach the student basic gun handling.

2) Teach the student manipulations like draw, reload, scan.

3) Teach the student accuracy.

4) Only after steps 1-3, focus on speed.

Rogers starts even beginner students out at full speed, and they must learn to shoot at that speed or they can't meet the standards. There is also an emphasis on strong and support hand only shooting, unlike anywhere else out there.

If I wanted to develop the best possible shooter, I would start them with the Rogers Basic class and then send them to Gunsite 250. And, specifically in that order.
Thanks for your input!

[YVK]

As an Instructor, I respectfully differ with GJM concerning the two venues as it relates to developing a shooter. I'm a firm believer in the principle of crawl, walk, run and putting Rogers ahead of a fundamentals class like Gunsite 250 perverts that philosophy for most shooters ..... obviously there are exceptions.



GJM and I have had a lot of conversations about Rogers' "full speed right off the bat" approach, and I remain convinced that I am right:D
I actually don't believe that Rogers uses that in his beginners classes even though the par times doesn't change from advanced to beginner classes.

Having said that, the crawl/walk/run principle employed by the different schools has two limitations. First, the sequential nature of lower level classes being prerequisites for more advanced classes leads to many students never arriving to a class where they are supposed to be trained to run. Second, the definitions of walking vs running varies greatly which perhaps explains why some Gunsite instructors can't do better than intermediate scores at Rogers. To that end, hitting a wall at Rogers right at the beginning of a path could be a great thing for a shooter who has high aspirations and motivations, who will be training beyond basic proficiency, and who does need a good definition what "run" is. On the other hand, if the goal is to get basic training and be reasonably familiar and solidly proficient without challenging self that much, then going Rogers first (or ever) doesn't make much sense.

[11B10]

Post deleted.

[Mitch]

Is it just me or is gunsite kind of nuts on their prices? I'm trying to get some shotgun training next year and when I saw the price of their 3 day class I was shocked.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GJM]

Is it just me or is gunsite kind of nuts on their prices? I'm trying to get some shotgun training next year and when I saw the price of their 3 day class I was shocked.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Their pricing is high compared to many traveling trainers. However, when you consider the Gunsite facility, and what it takes to operate and maintain it, pricing seems reasonable.

[MVS]

Is it just me or is gunsite kind of nuts on their prices? I'm trying to get some shotgun training next year and when I saw the price of their 3 day class I was shocked.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Its not just you. They are high no matter the justification and is why I will probably never train with them. Good for anyone who can, I am not criticizing, just stating.

[Sterling Archer]

Is it just me or is gunsite kind of nuts on their prices? I'm trying to get some shotgun training next year and when I saw the price of their 3 day class I was shocked.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I've been spoiled by CSAT prices, I'm taking a 6 day course for $1,200

[kutter]

Full disclosure, I have never been to a Gunsite school, I have heard good things, but none are near me so I just have not done it. I have however been to Rogers basic class this past March.

I consider myself a decent pistol shot, I have taken numerous classes with Brian Hoffner in Houston. I like his style, I think it is very good for someone who is not very advanced. That being said, I was never particularly challenged in either his pistol or rifle classes, but I learned and it was fun, so for me it was worth it. I shot some IDPA when I was living in south Florida, I liked it very much but shooting a P226, it is hard to be uber competitive against striker fired pistols.

Forward to Rogers. My brother-in-law, whom I have taken several classes at Hoffners with and we shoot weekly, took Rogers advance class last fall. He came back both demoralized, enthusiastic, and chomping at the bit to go back. He talked me into going to the basic class with him this past March. He warned me that on Monday night I would want to quit, he was right. I would personally never encourage anyone that does not shoot regularly to attend a Rogers class. He will tell you, he is not prepared to teach people to shoot, he is however prepared to make you a better shooter assuming you already have the basics down. Bill's class, if you have never been to one, will tear you down, and build you back to his mold, it is the only way to succeed at his school.

I do not know which school is the 'best', I think that all depends where you are at on you journey. Me, I am still in the basic class. I will go back to Bill's school, probably in March again. Maybe after my second basic class I will feel like I am ready to move to the advanced, but I will probably be miserable there too on Monday night. But there is always Tuesday.

Some things about the basic class: the max is 12 students, so typical student to teacher ratio is 3:1, my class was 2:1 since we only had 10. You will shoot a lot, and I mean a lot. To give you an idea of the pace, if you are not on the line shooting, you are reloading and scoring, often at the same time. We put over 3500 rounds downrange that week starting with .22 revolver, then going on to an M&P 22. Then if you make the basic requirement, you move to 9MM and shoot revolver then an M&P 9MM.

Bills mantra is, Be Fast, Be Accurate, Be the Best. It sounds good, but our class changed it some in our joking to, be fast enough, be accurate enough, and be good enough, but I only shot a 99, so take that with a grain of salt, support hand is my nemesis.