Are Classes the Only Way to Become Proficient?

[Doc_Glock]

Obviously by the way I phrase the title, I don't think it is true. There are lots of ways to proficiency in firearms and I think the self taught model can be just as good or even better than attending classes.

In general around PF, there is a tendency to push classes on folks. I don't think that is necessarily wrong, but I don't think they are necessary at all.

I guess a lot comes from what sort of learner you are. For me: I have always learned from books and self testing on most topics and found lectures sort of a big waste of time.

In this era of information on the web plus video I don't think there has ever been an easier time to be an auto didact. And I think it is probably more efficient though that is probably debateable.

Firearms are consequential, but basic gun handling and marksmanship is not a difficult skill to learn.

If you want to learn defense tactics, I think a course is probably more useful, but there is also an awful lot of written material out there going back hundreds of years if you look.

If you want to learn competition shooting there is also plenty of information available.

I think much more important than any in person class is: interest in the topic, the willingness to do the reading, and probably most importantly, the willingness to put in the practice and the necessary feedback cycle of push til you fail, analyze the failure, correct the flaws and try again.

I have taken a few classes and invariably I am bugged by the massive amounts of wasted time.

Anyhoo: discuss
GJM

[Tom Givens]

For many, this is like asking if you can teach yourself to play the piano or the violin, both pursuits that share much with pistol proficiency. Of course, you can. However, the learning curve will be long, difficult and frustrating. Especially now, with ammo as scarce and valuable as it is, wasting a lot of it in trial and error seems foolish. I was largely self taught in my youth, then went to Gunsite in the late 1970's and discovered I had wasted a railroad car of ammunition trying all the different techniques I had read about in shooting books from the 1940's through 1960's, which were current at the time. having a qualified instructor watch you will discover errors and tweaks it might take the shooter much longer to discover on his own, if ever.

Like you, I detest wasted time in class. Choose your trainer wisely and avoid that. As always, YMMV.

[Doc_Glock]

Like you, I detest wasted time in class. Choose your trainer wisely and avoid that. As always, YMMV.

Thank you for the reply and please take no offense at my lack of enthusiasm for in person training (I actually have read and gifted your Concealed Carry book which is excellent). For classes personally, you and Gabe White are on the short list of ones I want to make happen some day.

[rd62]

I guess it depends upon your definition of proficient.

Can you learn to make the gun go bang on your own? Sure. Can you hit a target? Sure. Can you hit a small target at speed and distance on demand. Well.... maybe not.

You don't see many athletes that are purely self taught. Even those at the peak levels of development typically have a coach and often several.

I'll give you that some classes may be more ballistic masturbation or role play, but there is no replacement for a knowledgeable coach personally observing your actions and performance and providing direct feedback.

Classes can be very valuable but if a group setting is not your thing, I'd find an instructor and curriculum that meet your desired goals and invest in instruction.

There is definitely a certain level of inate skill that can make someone a good/better shooter, athlete, singer, actor, etc. But good coaching can help you meet or exceed your goals faster and more fully while helping to avoid pitfalls and bad habits along the way.

[Trooper224]

The short answer is, "no".

Strangely enough, there was a time when classes weren't a thing. Many of us were self taught and got pretty good at it. While I think training opportunities are great and should be taken advantage of whenever possible, the view that one can't learn to shoot without having one's hand held is simply a fallacy, one often promoted by trainers strangely enough.

[ST911]

A class may not be essential, but quality teaching is. Teaching and instruction comes in many forms. Continued mentoring almost never gets the attention it deserves, nor does real testing and accountability. A cohort of learners working together has advantages, but that doesn't necessitate a gathered simultaneous experience ("class").

There is also the distinction between "mastery" and lesser levels of learning and proficiency. The former is a journey over time, the latter what you'd expect after a "class."

[CCT125US]

Part of it is knowing what "good" looks like. Showing up to class won't make you any better than spending time at the gravel pit making noise. However, it could be argued that a student who forks over money, for fees, ammo, travel, etc. has more skin in the game and exhibits a deeper desire to get better. For me, I've had the opportunity to train with TLG twice, Bob Vogel, and Ken Hackathorn. You couldn't pay me to train with Ken again. TLG's methods just clicked with me, and Vogel was fantastic from a competitive perspective.

What the student applies after class determines alot. It's that inner desire for constant improvement and measurement.

[Moylan]

I have taken a few classes and invariably I am bugged by the massive amounts of wasted time.

I went to a pretty good class last month. Brief classroom intro then head to range: when we get out to the range, everyone starts loading magazines. I think this has happened at every class I've ever been to. I'm always amazed. Like, you guys didn't realize you could load mags ahead of time? :D We got an hour dinner break. I'm here to learn stuff. I brought food, like the class description told me to. Give me twenty minutes and then let's get back to work. If the instructor can't teach while I eat, that's fine with me. He deserves a break, too. But I like working meals during classes if possible.

Many instructors don't pay quite enough attention to time management. And I've been to a few classes where they paid far too little. One class last summer was admittedly incredibly hot, but we spent so long on break, sitting in the shade, listening to war stories that I cannot say I got my money's worth from the class. I know the instructor was trying to keep us safe from heat injury, but to me it felt truly excessive. I don't like stuff to get all about the money, but the going rate for a one-day class is anywhere from $150-$250 or more...I want a full day's instruction for that kind of cash.

Still, at the good classes the useful material always more than compensates for whatever less good stuff there is.

[flyrodr]

I'd add that no, classes aren't the only way, but . . .

Often, people learning on their own just don't know what they don't know. Said another way, they don't know when they're doing something wrong, and can very easily practice something enough that they become very proficient in doing the wrong thing, making it tougher to correct.

I've seen this a lot in fly casting. Even when people can see their casting isn't going well, sometimes they can't figure out why. This is sometimes the case after watching videos, reading books, etc. Corrections are, or can be, needed at any level, from beginner to master.

That said, not every instructor in every activity is qualified to, or capable of, diagnosing a problem, especially as one gains proficiency.

Group lessons can be fine, probably more so for beginner- and intermediate-level shooters. Class size can matter, though, even with beginners. Individual attention can be necessary at any level. And not everybody can afford one-on-one or small group instruction.

All that said, I'll still say "No, classes aren't the only way". There are plenty of tips and techniques that can be picked up with individual searching.

But if you can't figure out that tailing loop in your cast, that slice in your swing, etc., a class (or individual instruction) might be the ticket.

[Moylan]

As someone newish to pistol training, I think the main value of instruction is simply having an expert watching me. I can get information from books or from videos or whatever. But the books and videos can't say "no, you're doing that wrong" or "here, try this instead" or whatever. I can only pay attention to so many things at once. Very few things, actually. A good instructor can see 1000 things at once, and something I might have no idea I'm doing (or not doing) he can spot and get me to notice. How, exactly, that will work in practice depends on what level the student is at. Basic level students are going to need reminding about basics--like trigger discipline and muzzle discipline. As is well-known, once the novice's attention is off basic gun handling and on something else (unloading the gun, or dealing with a malfunction), basic gun handling goes right out the window. An instructor better be on his toes here. Higher level students will make different mistakes, and get corrected in different ways. What we think we're doing isn't necessarily what we actually are doing. Videoing ourselves can help, I expect (I don't do it), but the instructor can still often see things we can't see, even if they're right in front of our eyes.

More important than this shooting stuff, though, doing classes on tactics and scenarios has been incredibly instructive for me, and there's no way to do it alone. Force on force particularly has been, for me, by far the most valuable training I've done.

[JCN]

Agree that it seems to be what kind of learner you are.

I would not want to be self taught in a vacuum.

But with books, multimedia training, online discussion and videos from every expert and so-called expert under the sun it’s easier than ever to get access to the opinions of the best in the world.

I think the main determinant of high handgun proficiency is critical self awareness and a commitment to training. How you do that isn’t as important.

For people in the medium proficiency range, a class might be the best way to get up to speed.

But I’m the kind of guy who wants to experiment with everything to see if I agree with the conventional wisdom.

[GJM]

T Givens pretty much summed up my personal experience and thoughts on this topic. I will add just a few things:

1) Smart people often are burdened by their “smartness,” and believe their intellect in one profession or endeavor translates to others. That is where the notion of a “brain surgeon in a Bonanza” or a “tech genius in a Cirrus” comes from.

2) learning is an acquired skill. I have spent a lifetime learning from others, in jets, helicopters, bush planes and shooting. Attending a class in itself means nothing — you need to figure out how to learn from the class and instructor. I remember when a friend attended a JJ class, and his only take away was that JJ is athletic. In contrast, my wife is a life long student, and her continued shooting progress comes from studying best practices from a variety of sources.

3) if you have never taken a class, you have no basis to evaluate the usefulness of taking classes.

4) you need to be thoughtful about the classes you pick, your expectations from the class, and your plans to use what you learn.

[littlejerry]

Classes can be useful if you have the right mindset and goals.

As with most things, balance is best. I've known class junkies who only shoot in classes every other month, hobbyists who only shoot in their backyard, and competition shooters who only shoot in matches. Some of them were good shooters, most weren't, and all were leaving something on the table.

Classes are also a wildcard because I see no shortage of ineffective local classes that cater to the lowest common denominator. They may keep people from shooting themselves, but they aren't making better shooters.

[octagon]

At last count I have taken 40+ self defense courses (mostly firearms related) and like 8 performance driving schools including 4 day Bondurant school. Having trained with greats like Jim Cirillo,Mas Ayoob,Craig Douglas,Sheriff of Bagdad,Robert Vogel and lesser known instructors from all walks. I can say that I learned something from almost every trainer in every field. Some I gained a lot of knowledge and experience or improved significantly. Others I only picked up something small or only 1 or 2 things. A lot especially after taking a few courses in the same area were heavily repeats of earlier classes with no or very little difference.

For driving I drove a lot and hard from before I got my license and was doing forward and reverse 180's,power slides, jumps,heel/toe downshifts,powershifts etc... all with zero instruction. I autocrossed a couple years and did a year of trackdays before Bondurant and the first 3 days were almost a waste other than practice. I learned nothing new.

All that said my take is that in the beginning you learn the most and most times prevent instilling bad habits so taking a class in the beginning of your journey makes sense. As you progress I think classes do less and less other than help keep you up to date on trends and techniques and help verify what you are doing makes sense and is working. When you get far along in the journey classes may not gain you much in new or improving much but can tweak current techniques and tactics and give some variables not thought of in self study/practice.

I got A LOT more out of a $200 1 day driving school than 4 days at the best driving school in the US just a year or so later. Value is important but if you learn and then use the 1 thing you got from a class to save your life I think the value is immense.

[Doc_Glock]

I autocrossed a couple years and did a year of trackdays before Bondurant and the first 3 days were almost a waste other than practice. I learned nothing new.

Bondurant. Truly the Gunsite of driving. One day of content in four days of instruction. Stupid expensive too.

To be clear, I do not think I know everything, nor do I feel I have achieved mastery in, well, anything. But I do know how to teach myself and I am extremely sensitive to perceived wasted time. Not just the time of the class, but the time off work and travel time for most classes.

For me, I have plateaued in my pistol skills and that is because, frankly, I don’t work at it nor do I practice enough. And I guess I am happy enough performing at the high school orchestra level and not being in the top 10%tile. It’s not because I haven’t taken enough classes. I would get a lot better if I started shooting competition regularly, and cared about my placement. That would drive the practice necessary for improvement and provide the practical experiences to evaluate how that practice is working. Learn, drill, test, evaluate, repeat. On the defensive side, force on force training with MUKing would probably be the highest yield experience.

[medmo]

Training is what is required for someone to significantly increase skills. Traditional classes can be excellent training opportunities. There are other methods. Best example for me is motorcycle riding skills. Through video instruction, and lots, and lots of practice I increased my riding skills to where I can pass a motor officer qualification test easily. I'm sure a traditional in person class would have been a faster track, but it was still do-able with video instruction and practice. Lots of practice.

[P.E. Kelley]

Bondurant. Truly the Gunsite of driving. One day of content in four days of instruction. Stupid expensive too.

To be clear, I do not think I know everything, nor do I feel I have achieved mastery in, well, anything. But I do know how to teach myself and I am extremely sensitive to perceived wasted time. Not just the time of the class, but the time off work and travel time for most classes.

For me, I have plateaued in my pistol skills and that is because, frankly, I don’t work at it nor do I practice enough. And I guess I am happy enough performing at the high school orchestra level and not being in the top 10%tile. It’s not because I haven’t taken enough classes. I would get a lot better if I started shooting competition regularly, and cared about my placement. That would drive the practice necessary for improvement and provide the practical experiences to evaluate how that practice is working. Learn, drill, test, evaluate, repeat. On the defensive side, force on force training with MUKing would probably be the highest yield experience.

We are brothers from different mothers! If I wanted to get back into GM level trim I would have to take it up as a J.O.B. again.

I love social aspects of shooting matches (all kinds of disciplines) and enjoy shooting all manner of tools in these events.

If I can run most any event anywhere with about any tool at a "expert" level I am a happy man!

[NoTacTravis]

Great thread! I've been wondering something very similar lately. Following this discussion with interest! Thanks to the OP for starting it.

[Eyesquared]

IMO the hours spent in individual practice >>> hours spent on a firing line at a 2-day class.

1. I firmly believe that 2 days of training is not enough time to meaningfully convey everything someone needs to know to develop their own shooting to a truly high level.

2. I no longer believe in the "if I get one golden nugget out of the training, it's worth it" mindset. In my mind this is a coping mechanism. If someone is truly serious about training they won't have time to keep messing around with new techniques all the time. It's almost as bad as constantly switching guns or jumping back and forth between different sighting systems.

3. When I was in 3rd grade, I used to practice the piano for 30 minutes per day. Most shooters, even the ones who attend lots of classes, probably practice less than my 3rd grade self did. In general shooters have a very warped sense of how much time is required for top level performance.

I will say that every time I look at myself and feel good about having taught myself to shoot, I meet someone who seriously needs outside instruction if they want to improve. There are a lot of people who fundamentally have no idea what is happening when they shoot and therefore have no idea how to diagnose their errors. All that being said, I also find a lot of people who believe they need instruction, they just have no ability to discern who is a good instructor and who isn't.

[Quantrill]

Learning how to practice is something valuable to be learned from a good competition instructor. I can’t say I ever got that from a tactical class. I got knowledge from it, so it was still valuable.

Classes can be good but I don’t think it’s the default answer.

[Caballoflaco]

2. I no longer believe in the "if I get one golden nugget out of the training, it's worth it" mindset. In my mind this is a coping mechanism. If someone is truly serious about training they won't have time to keep messing around with new techniques all the time. It's almost as bad as constantly switching guns or jumping back and forth between different sighting systems.

I disagree with this. People at the top level of almost any pursuit are constantly testing new techniques or refining what they currently do and making changes. They also tend to continuously seek the next thing equipment wise that could give them a performance advantage.

The difference between the galant and the goofus is the high level galant can quantify what he is gaining (or looking to gain) by experimenting with a new technique or trying new hardware and will readily cast aside something (technique or equipment) when they find something else that is better.

[David S.]

A few years ago, Arik Levy interviewed a couple dozen high level competition shooters for his Firearms Nation: Shooter's Summit. As I recall, a few of them said they never received any formal instruction during their formative years. I vaguely remember this included Steve Anderson and Robert Vogel. They identified the standards required to make GM, broke them down into components, and worked their asses off in live fire and dry fire to meet those standards. They both teach now, so I'm sure they'd both acknowledge it's not the most efficient way, but it can be done.

If you can find the resources, I suppose you could figure out the marksmanship and gun handling, especially with the internet resources currently available.

Competition skill validation seem pretty straight forward: Practice things you suck at. Go to match - see if you got better. Repeat.

Tangentially, I suspect personal defense skills are much harder to validate without some sort of organized group, training, or going and looking for trouble.

[YVK]

1) Smart people often are burdened by their “smartness,” and believe their intellect in one profession or endeavor translates to others.



Liberal application of neurotoxins takes care of excessive brain cells and fixes this problem. I have used single malt scotch with a great success.



Choose your trainer wisely

That is the point. By 2021 people who wanna take classes ought to know who to go to for what. Unfulfilled expectations and frustrations are prevented before signing up. I've had one meh class in last 5 years, and I took that one mostly because I had a coupon.

[Eyesquared]

I disagree with this. People at the top level of almost any pursuit are constantly testing new techniques or refining what they currently do and making changes. They also tend to continuously seek the next thing equipment wise that could give them a performance advantage.

The difference between the galant and the goofus is the high level galant can quantify what he is gaining (or looking to gain) by experimenting with a new technique or trying new hardware and will readily cast aside something (technique or equipment) when they find something else that is better.
Most top shooters will tell you there is a time and a place for experimentation. They will try new techniques or gear at the beginning of a shooting season and decide how they feel about them. Almost all of them will not make drastic changes for the majority of the shooting season. They may refine their execution of technique or tweak certain things during the season but they won't dramatically change things like how they grip the gun or how they reload.

[JAD]

Most beginning shooters do a bunch of stuff wrong, even if they’re avid video watchers. They benefit from in person instruction at a G250 level to avoid practicing bad habits which can be hard to correct later.

After that people seem to get a level ton out of a few specific instructional circumstances — Rogers, Cain, and White stick out to me — that appear to accelerate their technical skill acquisition pretty profoundly.

For me, my post-250 instruction has been very focused on defensive aspects of shooting, rather than technique. I don’t think that would be impossible to duplicate with videos and books and stuff, but it seems like it would be harder.

[Cory]

I have never taken a shooting class. I was in the Army National Guard, and was taught some bad habits on pistol shooting during MP school. I later got my own handgun and starting shooting on my own. Eventually I was showing others basic form. Then I wound up teaching a couple really basic classes. But had pretty much zero training myself.

I found PF, because I wanted to learn more. This place is the motherload of info for shooting. From here I wound up stumbling onto the names of countless experts and consumed every video and article I could. Then I started dryfiring.

Todya I'm a USPSA C class shooter. I believe I could be an A class shooter, but I don't put in the time and attention to get there. If I dryfired everyday, and live fired every week I'd be there. I can't live fire that amount, and don't dryfire that amount.

But. I recently took a combatives class with Cecil Burch. I learned a ton about a topic I was not even remotely as informed about. It really showed me a major benefit of a class... the experience. I had some basic ideas and concepts about grappling and could grasp a few ideas and thought I understood them. I did not understand them. There is a je ne sais quoi about going through the motions that will reveal the truer nature of things. Knowledge gained the hard way is truly owned.

With shooting, that could be a match where you are over confident about being able to do a reload before a clam closes and you botch it. You learned by getting embarrassed. But you could probably learn far faster if someone was giving you a mix of experience, and direction toward the infinite learning resources on the web.

[MVS]

Thank you for the reply and please take no offense at my lack of enthusiasm for in person training (I actually have read and gifted your Concealed Carry book which is excellent). For classes personally, you and Gabe White are on the short list of ones I want to make happen some day.

As someone who has taken almost countless numbers of classes, especially if you consider all the extra LEO classes I took after the academy, you will not find very many classes run as efficiently as these two gentlemen. With absolutely no disrespect meant toward Tom, Gabe Whites class made me think of Tom's classes on steroids. Other than in the movement section, by necessity, there is almost zero down time.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Classes and practice. Most folks punch a square target and that's it. Not to belabor the point but Tom picked up a flaw I would never would have seen and improved my shooting. When I screw up, it's that flaw and I go back to what he showed me.

Second, there is more that holes in the target. I found FOF a crucial part of my knowledge base and have done quite a bit. Now, I had friends who said we could get airsoft but unless the exercise is well thought out and supervised, it's boys with toys.

I've had two classes over the years with guys I thought were a waste of time. Most have been very useful. Not much quality training around here, it seems - maybe I haven't tapped into it.

I also read the books as the more you know, the better.

[Totem Polar]

This is sort of my wheelhouse, since I’m well over 20k direct contact hours teaching applied psychomotor skills to students. My take: to progress you *need* to be a dedicated autodidact. And, at first, you need guidance as to what progress actually looks like. The ideal mix is solid, intensely focussed bursts of *expert* instruction frontloaded at the beginning, followed by long periods of self-directed work on the concepts, once one knows what the concepts are.


As a P-F relevant hypothetical, I’m trying to imagine any self-directed course of defensive shooting study that can provide, say, the same “paradigm shifting without a clutch” learning experience as one’s first ECQC. Sure, AFTER the first ECQC, if a student wants to grab some training partners and bang it out in a garage a few nights a week from then on out, great, but you have to go through the intellectual, emotional, and synaptic experience gathering phase first.

You have to have a good framework to know how to determine what you don’t know before you can self-teach efficiently. After that, have at it.

JMO.

[Kanye Wyoming]

It's a great question. My two cents are these. If 1 is rank beginner, 6 is reasonably competent and 10 is world class proficiency, pretty much anyone who is willing to put in the study and practice can eventually get to 3 or 4 or 5 in anything on their own, whether it's the violin, or the pistol, or woodworking. Maybe 6 or 7 or even 8 if they're really determined and genuinely gifted. Without instruction and coaching, though, most will have developed flaws that preclude them from advancing much beyond that, or won't be clued in to the tools and techniques that lead to substantial advancement (you don't know what you don't know, as someone below mentioned). Good instruction and coaching - whether it's in the form of twice weekly violin lessons or a pistol class or two each year - is what enables someone who is motivated and who practices diligently to advance additional levels over time. Hell, even the greatest violinists and opera singers and athletes in the world have teachers and coaches in order to maintain themselves at a 10.

Most of us can't afford to fly in Tom Givens or Gabe White to accompany us to the range every month. So I'd say being able to take a class every so often with one of them, or with others at that level of world class instructing and coaching proficiency, is a blessing. Even if you're at a level where you only get that one golden nugget, and everything else is reinforcement of what you're already doing right, there's substantial value in that reinforcement. I always go to the annual conference and sometimes regional conferences in my particular professional specialty. I'm at a pretty high level of knowledge and experience and occasionally I'm a speaker at these. Notwithstanding, I invariably learn a few things of value, and almost as valuable is the reinforcement that I'm on target when it comes to some complicated stuff. As opposed to the early years when at every conference there were always 2 or 3 panicked "oh shit" moments when I realized I'd been doing something completely bass-ackwards.

Can you become proficient without classes (or other mode of instruction from an expert instructor)? Maybe, maybe not, but even if yes, not as proficient as you would be with expert instruction and coaching.

[jlw]

Classes: no.

Coaching: yes.

Classes are typically the most cost efficient way to get coaching.

[Cory]

I think alot of this depends on the definition of proficient, too.

[vcdgrips]

JLW

"Classes: no.

Coaching: yes.

Classes are typically the most cost efficient way to get coaching."


I am so using that phrase going forward.


Pedagogical platinum presented right there!

[Duelist]

This is sort of my wheelhouse, since I’m well over 20k direct contact hours teaching applied psychomotor skills to students. My take: to progress you *need* to be a dedicated autodidact. And, at first, you need guidance as to what progress actually looks like. The ideal mix is solid, intensely focussed bursts of *expert* instruction frontloaded at the beginning, followed by long periods of self-directed work on the concepts, once one knows what the concepts are.


As a P-F relevant hypothetical, I’m trying to imagine any self-directed course of defensive shooting study that can provide, say, the same “paradigm shifting without a clutch” learning experience as one’s first ECQC. Sure, AFTER the first ECQC, if a student wants to grab some training partners and bang it out in a garage a few nights a week from then on out, great, but you have to go through the intellectual, emotional, and synaptic experience gathering phase first.

You have to have a good framework to know how to determine what you don’t know before you can self-teach efficiently. After that, have at it.

JMO.

I was thinking that Totem would have some things to say here.

As a child, I took weekly private music lessons in violin, piano, voice, and French Horn (not all at the same time, but usually two) as well as drove my sister to and sat and watched her very high level piano instruction. This went on from the age of 5 till sometime during my first years of college. I also took occasional lessons in guitar, which today is my primary instrument. I teach guitar and voice as a side, hobby thing, and occasionally play gigs. Very different from Totem, whose whole professional life revolves around recording, performance, and instruction of guitar.

I also spent what seems now an excruciatingly long time - 11 years - instructing in TRADOC. I had a high level of skill going into that job, at doing the job. I developed a high level of skill instructing, not just that job, but in general, including getting my first masters degree in classroom instruction and curriculum development and delivery.

I am usually somewhat impatient when subjected to a class, whether private or part of work, individual or group, that is not run well.

It is important to have quality, effective instruction if you want to develop proficiency efficiently. It is not important to have much instruction if you want to bust dirt clods and cow pies.

Something I took away from one of my few professional lessons in guitar was this: the teacher said, I can tell you and show you a thousand times, but you won’t get any better until you take your guitar in your room, shut the door, and practice it. Play the guitar until your housemates hate it, until you no longer get blisters, and you can play that lick properly without thinking about it, until you can improv a change to it and connect it to the rest of your lick at the front and back end. At some point, every student has to become their own teacher and that is when they will actually develop proficiency - when they practice and critique their own performance, figure out how to do it better, and then do it over and over.

The same thing is true for shooting.

I took a class from Gabe because I wanted to learn to shoot faster - I was and still do think too much about it and slow myself down from my peak possible speed. I learned a lot about shooting faster. I took a class from Cecil because I wanted to know how to fight with a pistol in tight environments better. I learned about shooting from positions and in ways I’d never thought of before.

I didn’t learn marksmanship from either of them. I learned that from an old cop when I was a child, and then applying the lessons in a gravel pit with a Ruger and a pile of bricks of .22.

All learning is a journey, a continuum. A class or private instruction may be a useful positive for someone today. Or not, depending on where they are now and where they want to go.

[Eric_L]

Classes: no.

Coaching: yes.

Classes are typically the most cost efficient way to get coaching.

This is brilliant insight.

I needed some coaching a few years ago. There is a local three gun shooter who is a Master USPSA, international shotgun competitor and very good rifle shooter. I paid him for a few hours. He will give me a few hours whenever I want it. I am fortunate because he is local and he can instruct/coach.

If you have someone close who you can do this with it is great. AND you avoid “that guy”, unless....YOU are “that guy”, in which case you won’t know it anyway. 😀

[RJ]

This thread cheeses me off. Every time I think about adding something, someone posts another good point about training :cool:.

Seriously, there are some smart people on this web site. Great discussion so far, and I can't add a lot from my perspective of 31 years developing solutions in the Aerospace training industry.

I think the comments made by Totem Polar and Duelist resonate with me the most. Interesting they are both related to music, a field of study that has both cognitive (thinking) and psycomotor (physical/kinesthetic) aspects of learning; not unlike shooting.

So far, I found classes to be a mixed return on investment, measured strictly by the individual attention I got vs. the price paid. Out of the 140 hours or so of logged training I've had over the last seven years, two examples stand out: I took a two day shooting course once from a national instructor with a SF/operator background. What I got was two days of shooting drills monkey see, monkey do, with absolutely no individual feedback on my performance.

In contrast, I spent less than $100 for a couple hours with this dude named Gabe White in Clackamas OR a few years back. :) Gabe walked me through drills he had on his note cards, providing feedback, filmed me for the session, and then posted the edited video online for my later reference. It's still up on private YT, and I watch it occasionally to remind me how much I suck.

The best value, by far, of any training experience, including both knowledge gained and skills taught, were Rangemaster Combative Pistol I and Gabe's Performance Pistol. I liked Tom's class so much I took it again for the second time last year. The two days I spent with Gabe in class, on the same line as shooters like Mas and Kanye Wyoming, had an incredibly high signal to noise ratio.


Last comment: I ran across a related concept recently called Deliberate Practice. This has nothing to do with shooting, but how to practice better, and it seems on topic.

tl;dr: Deliberate Practice is a highly structured form of learning by doing. It includes:

- Define Success and Drill Deliberately.
- Plan, reflect and take notes
- Go slow and practice effectively
- Limit your sessions for focus
- Maximise the efficiency of Practice Time
- Track small intervals of improvement
- Emulate practice, not performance
- Repetition makes perfect
- Routine is everything
- Get a coach

Video:


https://youtu.be/1-sjUoGO250

[GJM]

Of course, there is one thing you can only get in a class, and not thru self study, no matter how disciplined and motivated you are.

[Duelist]

@RJ’s post reminded me of one more thing I was going to say: I coach girls tennis at my school, not because I am awesome at tennis, but because they needed a coach, I felt like getting more involved was a good idea, and I’m experienced enough at teaching stuff and running PT programs when I was in the Army that I figured I couldn’t screw them up more than not having a coach would, and that at the least, we would have some fun.

I took lessons, read books, watched videos, and played as often as I could, and I’ve kept that up, and promoted and encouraged girls tennis at my school. We had 25 girls show up for tryouts last year. I don’t know yet how many we’re going to get this year - COVID has screwed the whole year up - but learning this way, as fast as I can, with focused and deliberate practice and play, has turned me from the equivalent of a dirt clod shooter as a tennis player to a passable developing middle aged player and reasonable new coach.

Online and in-person coaching has sped that process. But it still has taken significant time and effort over the past year and a half to get here, and I’m certainly not done yet.

[JCN]

Last comment: I ran across a related concept recently called Deliberate Practice. This has nothing to do with shooting, but how to practice better, and it seems on topic.

tl;dr: Deliberate Practice is a highly structured form of learning by doing. It includes:

- Define Success and Drill Deliberately.
- Plan, reflect and take notes
- Go slow and practice effectively
- Limit your sessions for focus
- Maximise the efficiency of Practice Time
- Track small intervals of improvement
- Emulate practice, not performance
- Repetition makes perfect
- Routine is everything
- Get a coach


You got it wrong. If you want to learn about how the concept came about, read the book called PEAK.

That’s why someone can hear something and still not improve. Because they don’t understand what they heard. Notice what you heard is about the routine and the slowness, not about pushing the boundaries.

Key points of deliberate practice are:
PUSH your boundaries. Be just outside of your comfort zone.
You are not going for perfect. When you improve, then push the goalposts.
Having a defined goal for the short term is important, but you might have to change the routine to get there.
A coach can get you to a certain point in a defined field, but when you’re pushing the boundaries of the field you have to be your own coach.
Whatever the field, it takes a crap ton of hard work.

[JCN]

Of course, there is one thing you can only get in a class, and not thru self study, no matter how disciplined and motivated you are.

Coronavirus? :D

[RJ]

I took lessons, read books, watched videos, and played as often as I could, and I’ve kept that up, and promoted and encouraged girls tennis at my school. We had 25 girls show up for tryouts last year. I don’t know yet how many we’re going to get this year - COVID has screwed the whole year up - but learning this way, as fast as I can, with focused and deliberate practice and play, has turned me from the equivalent of a dirt clod shooter as a tennis player to a passable developing middle aged player and reasonable new coach.

Online and in-person coaching has sped that process. But it still has taken significant time and effort over the past year and a half to get here, and I’m certainly not done yet.

Good post. Reminds me of one more thing I wanted to say: I was a member of our company's Systems Engineering Council for a bit in the 90s. We were in charge of advising (net annual sales at the time: in excess of $10B) across the enterprise on processes for effective training.

Anyway, one of the more effective strategies in creating effective training for a world-wide population of over 100K persons was tutored video. This involved a local class, with a monitor/proctor directing, using a video presentation that could be stopped periodically, and key points reinforced. We used a device called a "Vee See Arr". :cool:

Remember this was prior to the development of the internet as it is today. We could be sure of the course content was delivered uniformly, and after vetting the local teams could count on the training being effective. Kinda like Defect Prevention Process, it's a methodology that I think has gotten a bit lost in the transition to the "sit at a computer and take a class" approach that's prevalent these days. People just want their training to be over with and get the check in the box.

OK, rant over. :)

[Totem Polar]

Of course, there is one thing you can only get in a class, and not thru self study, no matter how disciplined and motivated you are.

An ass-kicking and a concussion? I’m pretty certain from personal experience that’s the answer.


You got it wrong. If you want to learn about how the concept came about, read the book called PEAK.

That’s why someone can hear something and still not improve. Because they don’t understand what they heard. Notice what you heard is about the routine and the slowness, not about pushing the boundaries.

Key points of deliberate practice are:
PUSH your boundaries. Be just outside of your comfort zone.
You are not going for perfect. When you improve, then push the goalposts.
Having a defined goal for the short term is important, but you might have to change the routine to get there.
A coach can get you to a certain point in a defined field, but when you’re pushing the boundaries of the field you have to be your own coach.
Whatever the field, it takes a crap ton of hard work.

Maybe we need to define what we are talking about here. If the discussion is about a philosophy dedicated to carving out a unique niche or role in a field of endeavor—in other words, emotional growth or innovation, then we are probably on the same page. If we are still talking about learning a skill, then pushing boundaries and being outside the comfort zone is how you ingrain mistakes, and suck under pressure.

If you are, say, challenging yourself by signing up for that very first open mic, then cool. If you are leaning a passage from Bach’s Chaconne in d minor, then I’m more with the list Rich posted. Slow and deliberate; allow no shitty input into your synapses. Each rep has to be clean.

Again, I’m not sure I have enough context from a single response to say for sure, but at the moment I strongly disagree with the above post.

JMO, but I’ve got some of the world’s best classical musicians in my corner on this topic.

[Glock26]

If we are still talking about learning a skill, then pushing boundaries and being outside the comfort zone is how you ingrain mistakes, and suck under pressure.

Slow and deliberate; allow no shitty input into your synapses. Each rep has to be clean.

I think this highly depends on how well an individual observes what's effective and what's not. Not every rep has to be clean if one can break down what made a particular rep bad. Slow and deliberate probably leads to proficiency more consistently in the general case, but I firmly believe that pushing boundaries help certain individuals attain proficiency much quicker. It's also quite possible that a bad rep for a very skilled person is better than a clean rep for an average person. The interesting part of practical shooting is the time element. A philosophical question is to ask whether or not a rep in our sport is clean if it wasn't done quick enough. How you answer this question will fundamentally determine how you approach practice towards proficiency.

[Totem Polar]

One can perform a given movement cleanly with incredible speed. The ideas are complimentary, not exclusionary.

[Maple Syrup Actual]

This is sort of my wheelhouse, since I’m well over 20k direct contact hours teaching applied psychomotor skills to students. My take: to progress you *need* to be a dedicated autodidact. And, at first, you need guidance as to what progress actually looks like. The ideal mix is solid, intensely focussed bursts of *expert* instruction frontloaded at the beginning, followed by long periods of self-directed work on the concepts, once one knows what the concepts are.


As a P-F relevant hypothetical, I’m trying to imagine any self-directed course of defensive shooting study that can provide, say, the same “paradigm shifting without a clutch” learning experience as one’s first ECQC. Sure, AFTER the first ECQC, if a student wants to grab some training partners and bang it out in a garage a few nights a week from then on out, great, but you have to go through the intellectual, emotional, and synaptic experience gathering phase first.

You have to have a good framework to know how to determine what you don’t know before you can self-teach efficiently. After that, have at it.

JMO.

This is a much more technical rendition of what I was about to say. Basically, classes are the only way to learn *some* things. But proficiency is then all about applying them over and over in your own setting.

Most of my shooting skillS were imparted to me by an instructor. Most of my skill LEVEL is derived from the time I spent afterwards, doing that stuff a bunch of times.



And I'd also say that some things you can learn entirely on your own, if you have the personality type. Some people are really good at applying written information to physical space, but I think that's rare. But you can teach yourself some kinds of things, for sure.

But if you want to learn anything that has either a performative or a competitive nature I think you're pretty SOL. There might be a handful of people who could teach themselves public speaking without ever leaving their bedroom, but generally, I'd say forget it. You need the immersion in the specific environment to get that down. Similarly I think you couldn't learn practically anything that's in ECQC, in a classroom by yourself with a book. It's just too dissimilar.

BUT: I think you could learn a lot about the technical shooting game by yourself at home, with massive dryfire routines and eyes-first target transitions and stuff. So you can't learn it all, but there are large subsets of skills you can learn. When I wanted to do a sub-5 FAST, I spent about a day with an app that would give me a par time and a target on the screen and I just focused on getting off those first two shots, dryfire style. Then I worked my reload. The next time out, I ran I think a 4.72, I forget now. But I already knew all the component skills, I just spent a day focusing on execution of each thing, at home, nobody around.


So yeah, I'd argue that you basically need the classes to get the introduction to what you need to be doing, and get the instruction on the technique so you're not practising completely wrong. But that's a small part of mastering the skill, which is mostly done on your own time.

[JCN]

Maybe we need to define what we are talking about here. If the discussion is about a philosophy dedicated to carving out a unique niche or role in a field of endeavor—in other words, emotional growth or innovation, then we are probably on the same page. If we are still talking about learning a skill, then pushing boundaries and being outside the comfort zone is how you ingrain mistakes, and suck under pressure.

If you are, say, challenging yourself by signing up for that very first open mic, then cool. If you are leaning a passage from Bach’s Chaconne in d minor, then I’m more with the list Rich posted. Slow and deliberate; allow no shitty input into your synapses. Each rep has to be clean.

Again, I’m not sure I have enough context from a single response to say for sure, but at the moment I strongly disagree with the above post.

JMO, but I’ve got some of the world’s best classical musicians in my corner on this topic.

It’s actually interesting because the PEAK author actually based a significant amount of his scientific study on students in a world renown music conservatory.

I think we are actually thinking about the same thing. I’m not talking about flailing and flubbing.
For shooting, that’s why As and close Cs. Not hosing half the shots off the paper.

For music, that might be increasing the tempo of the piece until you find the section that you feel you’re having to work harder and lose your “flow” and musicianship and then just isolate that segment and woodshed the technical part until you have the bandwidth to add the flow and elegance.

[Totem Polar]

It’s actually interesting because the PEAK author actually based a significant amount of his scientific study on students in a world renown music conservatory.

I think we are actually thinking about the same thing. I’m not talking about flailing and flubbing.
For shooting, that’s why As and close Cs. Not hosing half the shots off the paper.

For music, that might be increasing the tempo of the piece until you find the section that you feel you’re having to work harder and lose your “flow” and musicianship and then just isolate that segment and woodshed the technical part until you have the bandwidth to add the flow and elegance.

Based on some of your posts on the other thread, I figured this one was worth disecting. We are most likely somewhat apart on semantics, and pretty close on application.

You ever read “the talent code” by Coyle?

https://www.amazon.com/Talent-Code-Greatness-Born-Grown/dp/055380684X

I’ll grab a copy of “Peak” next time I feel like adding a tip to Bezo’s 14 mil hourly wage.

:cool:

[NoTacTravis]

If you are, say, challenging yourself by signing up for that very first open mic, then cool. If you are leaning a passage from Bach’s Chaconne in d minor, then I’m more with the list Rich posted. Slow and deliberate; allow no shitty input into your synapses. Each rep has to be clean.

Again, I’m not sure I have enough context from a single response to say for sure, but at the moment I strongly disagree with the above post.

JMO, but I’ve got some of the world’s best classical musicians in my corner on this topic.

Although I appreciate that there are many parallels between improving with a musical instrument and getting better at shooting, and I can't speak to classical music at all... Respectfully I'd venture to say that although some of the best classical musicians may be in your corner on this topic, many of the best shooters in USPSA are in JCN's argument's corner here not yours. From my podcast listening at least.

Stoeger (multi national champion) constantly espouses pushing until the wheels fall off in training then dialing it back a smidge, then pushing until the wheels fall off again as almost the only way to get truly fast. Many podcasts of his talk about that being the preferred way to get you "seeing" fast enough and forcing your visual skills to "catch up".

On Shoot Fast Podcast with Cody Axon and Joel Park, I was recently re-listening to Cody (a top 16 guy) talking to Joel (a high level GM) about how Joel USED to have an attitude of "I'm just going to shoot my sights" and that he never made it out of B class to GM until he changed that attitude in practice and only got truly fast by pushing until the wheels fell off and then pulling back a bit, then pushing again.

I've read and listened to numerous GM's talking about learning to shoot at GM speed first not even hanging the hits on paper, just getting used to the speed and pace. Then hanging hits on paper and gradually pulling the hits from Deltas to Charlies, and finally A's and making the classification. To my understanding, this method is directly at odds with the classical music argument you are espousing but pretty much in line with what I think JCN is getting at.


Two notes here though:
1) I could very well be misinterpreting all the information I'm taking in.
2) Pushing out of a comfort zone (in this context) seems to be not in learning the initial skill but in making it to the next level of skill.

[Totem Polar]

Although I appreciate that there are many parallels between improving with a musical instrument and getting better at shooting, and I can't speak to classical music at all... Respectfully I'd venture to say that although some of the best classical musicians may be in your corner on this topic, many of the best shooters in USPSA are in JCN's argument's corner here not yours. From my podcast listening at least.

Fair point.

And, we might be veering into a discussion on the difference between “practice” and “performance,” and “learning” vs “pressure testing.”

Or, maybe they’re largely different tasks with different levels of cognitive load.




2) Pushing out of a comfort zone (in this context) seems to be not in learning the initial skill but in making it to the next level of skill.

^^^I can totally get behind this idea. This is in total alignment with the idea of practice and practicing for performance being two different processes.

[JCN]

Based on some of your posts on the other thread, I figured this one was worth disecting. We are most likely somewhat apart on semantics, and pretty close on application.

You ever read “the talent code” by Coyle?

https://www.amazon.com/Talent-Code-Greatness-Born-Grown/dp/055380684X

I’ll grab a copy of “Peak” next time I feel like adding a tip to Bezo’s 14 mil hourly wage.

:cool:

Coyle actually ripped off Anders Ericsson’s premise and kind of got it wrong (per Ericsson).

I like going to the source and Ericsson is the one who had the firsthand knowledge and designed the experiments.

[JCN]

^^^I can totally get behind this idea. This is in total alignment with the idea of practice and practicing for performance being two different processes.

THIS.

I dry fire par train at a faster time standard than what I hope and can achieve confidently and reproducibly in actual performance.

I have been working full left handed for the past week and went from a miserable >6 second FAST to an easy clean <5.3s in just a few days of hard work.


https://youtu.be/5d3CSjD_LLI

I trained at a 4.7 dry par time to make 5.3 live.
Now training at 4.25 to hopefully clear 5 tomorrow in live.

[Cecil Burch]

I have been actively teaching Martial Arts and H2H fighting since 1987, and I can count on my hands with many fingers left over of people I have encountered who have learned high level skills effectively without mistakes and a deep understanding of the contextual underpinnings without having a teacher guide them.

Actually, I will have all of my fingers left over, because I have never seen it. And at this point, I have personally taught over 7,000 students.

The biggest problem with learning something is that extremely few people have true kinesthetic awareness and proprioception of what their body is doing. So we tend to THINK we are performing something at a certain level, when in reality we are not, and in truth are doing something maybe as much as 180 degrees wrong. In last Saturday's BJJ class, I watched my instructor give a terrific tutorial on a fairly easy classic judo throw. He walked everyone through it step by step and gave excellent verbal cues that the student could use to make sure they were doing everything correct. He and I then spent the next 15 minutes literally moving people's bodies in specific ways because even when they would say the correct verbal cues, they would almost always move some body part incorrectly, and NEVER KNEW IT even as we verbally followed them and said "right there! that is the wrong position to step to".

In my fundamental seminar coursework, I teach a really simple concept to keep safe when you find yourself on the ground when you don't want to be. One aspect of it is keeping your elbows connected to your ribs. Anyone on this forum who has done my class will remember how many times I had to walk around correcting people who are adamant that their elbows are stuck to their ribs, when in actuality the arms are straight out and far away.

The first time I took Craig Douglas' Armed Movement in Structures class, I already had solid gunhandling skills, and yet, during the learning phase - not even when we were going Force-on-Force with oppositional pressure, but just working through the techniques, I kept putting my finger on the trigger. I did not know it, and it took Craig walking behind me looking over my shoulder to catch it. I never would have, and I would have sworn on my children's lives afterward that I never did what I truly did do.

I have been weightlifting since high school (class of '82 baby!) and I did a lot of it. I am a smart researcher and studied the best manuals on technique performance, including videos. And I focused on what I considered fairly straight forward lifts like deadlifts and squats. DECADES later, when I took the time to hire a knowledgeable powerlifting coach, he had to correct a metric ton of poor habits and movements. And just two weeks ago, I had one of the main coaches for the Starting Strength program come to my Dallas seminar, and he corrected another poor habit I had in the squat.

My meandering point is this: with physical skills, some simple things can be learned without a teacher. But WE DON'T KNOW WHAT WE DON'T KNOW, and even with simple actions we can be sooooo wrong. With more complex actions, especially things that have to stand up to resistance and oppositional energy, we can easily be even more off base and not know it without at least some outside input.

I like Chief Weem's way of putting it - classes we can do without, coaching we cannot.

[Cecil Burch]

Coyle actually ripped off Anders Ericsson’s premise and kind of got it wrong (per Ericsson).

I like going to the source and Ericsson is the one who had the firsthand knowledge and designed the experiments.


Agreed. I have read both multiple times, and Peak is far and away superior.

[Totem Polar]

I have been working full left handed for the past week and went from a miserable >6 second FAST to an easy clean <5.3s in just a few days of hard work.


https://youtu.be/5d3CSjD_LLI



OT for a sec: that’s great work, right there.

[Totem Polar]

Agreed. I have read both multiple times, and Peak is far and away superior.

And Bezos gets a tip. I had to check to make sure that Ericsson wasn’t already in the library. Thanks, gents.

JCN

[JCN]

OT for a sec: that’s great work, right there.

Thanks, I made a training log for my left hand here.

https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?46671-JCN-left-handed-remedial-shooting-thread

I thought it was a great opportunity to demonstrate exactly what we are talking about in this thread.

I started with baseline left handed performance that was very mediocre and on par with a number of casual shooters’ strong hands.

I wanted to see how quickly I could bring my left handed shooting up to decent proficiency.

Finding your level at level 3 and sub 5 FAST.
With one week of dedicated and frequent and specific practice, I am almost there.

It was a perfect experiment because I already can do these things right handed.
So I KNOW how to do it and don’t need coaching.

But how much WORK and what specific component drills would I have to work on to make those levels of performance?

That’s what I worked on.

[JCN]

I will also add that it’s not bad or wrong to DECIDE to not work at improving a skill.
I don’t care to work on my golf game.

But anyone who has reached a certain level of proficiency shooting has put the work in (that is an immutable finding of Ericsson).

And most people who have not achieved that level haven’t put in the work. I’m not talking about logging hours. I’m talking about focused work. That’s different than recreational shooting or goofing off at a match with your buddies.

In Ericsson’s book he talks about the dedicated music students being so mentally exhausted from practicing that they often had to take naps afterwards. And nobody enjoyed practicing.

[Sauer Koch]

Bondurant. Truly the Gunsite of driving. One day of content in four days of instruction. Stupid expensive too.

To be clear, I do not think I know everything, nor do I feel I have achieved mastery in, well, anything. But I do know how to teach myself and I am extremely sensitive to perceived wasted time. Not just the time of the class, but the time off work and travel time for most classes.

For me, I have plateaued in my pistol skills and that is because, frankly, I don’t work at it nor do I practice enough. And I guess I am happy enough performing at the high school orchestra level and not being in the top 10%tile. It’s not because I haven’t taken enough classes. I would get a lot better if I started shooting competition regularly, and cared about my placement. That would drive the practice necessary for improvement and provide the practical experiences to evaluate how that practice is working. Learn, drill, test, evaluate, repeat. On the defensive side, force on force training with MUKing would probably be the highest yield experience.

Gabe’s PSS course is amazing. He’s an excellent instructor, and IMO, his class structure/methodology is designed to bring out the best in you. Reading some of your comments, something tells me you would enjoy his class very much.

Respectfully

[Totem Polar]

I\

In Ericsson’s book he talks about the dedicated music students being so mentally exhausted from practicing that they often had to take naps afterwards. And nobody enjoyed practicing.

Even in a world of professional musicians, I still get a lot of colleagues looking at me like I’ve got a dick on my forehead when I say that I only have 40 minutes of “real" practice per day in me. If I’m doing it right, I’m pretty fried at that point.

I can, of course, give myself a mini-concert with a pint of craft microbrew on the table beside me all night, and probably refine some things in a gross way, but 40 minutes of actual work is about it for me.

I had a chance to be a fly on the wall and experience a practice session by world-class violin virtuoso Midori, while remaining unobserved, myself (who says that fluffy, lightweight Ivory tower musicians have no use for a GRS ‘tradecraft’ class?).

It was a life-changing experience, and when I’m not off to teach 10 lessons in a row, myself, I’ll relate the story here, down the road.

[Sal Picante]

I think this fits, if tangentially...

p/CK49fI9F9Kn

Travis is the man...

[JCN]

I came across this Kyle Lamb quote from an interview:
——///::
If you had to narrow it down, what’s the one thing that will improve a pistol shot more than anything else?

You need to train. There’s not one specific little task that you can perform, it’s a total package. You gotta draw safely, present the weapon, squeeze the trigger straight to the rear, follow through on the shot, and repeat as necessary. One mag, one kill. Get out and train on your own, and once you hit that plateau, go seek professional training from someone who is a better shooter than you. Then take it to the next level.

—-//::

I think for certain types of people, that is the best way to learn pistol. That’s my personal preference, train and track progress and when there’s a plateau or question, seek help. Preferably from someone who is a better shooter than me.

Note that’s different than getting advice on tactics or self defense, that’s a separate knowledge base than marksmanship although the two are often taught together.

[psalms144.1]

I came across this Kyle Lamb quote from an interview:
——///::
If you had to narrow it down, what’s the one thing that will improve a pistol shot more than anything else?

You need to train. There’s not one specific little task that you can perform, it’s a total package. You gotta draw safely, present the weapon, squeeze the trigger straight to the rear, follow through on the shot, and repeat as necessary. One mag, one kill. Get out and train on your own, and once you hit that plateau, go seek professional training from someone who is a better shooter than you. Then take it to the next level.

—-//::

I think for certain types of people, that is the best way to learn pistol. That’s my personal preference, train and track progress and when there’s a plateau or question, seek help. Preferably from someone who is a better shooter than me.

Note that’s different than getting advice on tactics or self defense, that’s a separate knowledge base than marksmanship although the two are often taught together.Contrarily, as a semi-pro instructor, I spend an ENORMOUS amount of time re-training people who are "self taught" who have horrible, dangerous, unsafe habits and perceptions about defensive handgun use. Not pointing that at you or anyone else in this thread, just stating my experience over the last 30+ years of teaching firearms.

[JCN]

Contrarily, as a semi-pro instructor, I spend an ENORMOUS amount of time re-training people who are "self taught" who have horrible, dangerous, unsafe habits and perceptions about defensive handgun use. Not pointing that at you or anyone else in this thread, just stating my experience over the last 30+ years of teaching firearms.

Oh, I totally believe that. And I think for the most part that applies to most people.

But there is a subset of people who tend to be very curious, self-motivated and high achievers. For those people, they might have to "touch the stove" and work some things out themselves.
I thought it was interesting that there are a number of people like that (Kyle Lamb, Steve Anderson) who have that as an accepted style of learning.

[Yung]

I think folks really should go to a good force-on-force class.

[JCN]

I think folks really should go to a good force-on-force class.

I have a hard enough time convincing my wife to go to a square range....

[RancidSumo]

Key points of deliberate practice are:
PUSH your boundaries. Be just outside of your comfort zone.
You are not going for perfect. When you improve, then push the goalposts.
Having a defined goal for the short term is important, but you might have to change the routine to get there.
A coach can get you to a certain point in a defined field, but when you’re pushing the boundaries of the field you have to be your own coach.
Whatever the field, it takes a crap ton of hard work.

I got back into shooting last summer after taking several years off. At the same time, a friend of mine also picked up shooting again (also after having not shot for years) and we have gone to the range together consistently for a few months now. My approach has been to push boundaries every trip (trying for par times I know are a huge stretch, setting accuracy standards that really push my abilities, etc.), while my shooting partner has taken a very slow, deliberate approach. "Can't work on X yet because I'm still working on perfecting Y." The difference in the rate at which we have each progressed is pretty remarkable.

Now if only I could convince myself to take that bolded part more seriously.

[JCN]

I got back into shooting last summer after taking several years off. At the same time, a friend of mine also picked up shooting again (also after having not shot for years) and we have gone to the range together consistently for a few months now. My approach has been to push boundaries every trip (trying for par times I know are a huge stretch, setting accuracy standards that really push my abilities, etc.), while my shooting partner has taken a very slow, deliberate approach. "Can't work on X yet because I'm still working on perfecting Y." The difference in the rate at which we have each progressed is pretty remarkable.

Now if only I could convince myself to take that bolded part more seriously.

Spell it out for the PF crew...

Who has progressed more? :D

[Jeff22]

"Trying to learn something by making mistakes is a poor way to go. You are in the middle of a million bad habits, and without having someone qualified to teach correcting you, you are just wasting time."
-- Pat Rogers 04-07-2005

Having competent, structured training early in your shooting career can help you progress faster. One of the hazards in being entirely self taught is that you may have gaps in your knowledge that you don't know you have.

[Eyesquared]

"Trying to learn something by making mistakes is a poor way to go. You are in the middle of a million bad habits, and without having someone qualified to teach correcting you, you are just wasting time."
-- Pat Rogers 04-07-2005

Having competent, structured training early in your shooting career can help you progress faster. One of the hazards in being entirely self taught is that you may have gaps in your knowledge that you don't know you have.

I think the problem is that even shooters who attend multiple classes are essentially self-taught. Almost all of them went online, saw some reviews of a class, and picked and chose what they thought they needed to learn, from the person who they think they need to learn from. In my view that is still self-teaching. It would be like me trying to learn BJJ from a handful of 2 day seminars per year and then rolling around on a mat with a buddy. Technically I could say someone taught me, but in reality 99% of the work was done with no coaching (effectively self-taught, in other words).

Sometimes people choose instructors well and sometimes they choose very poorly and the majority of the class material just goes right over their heads. In my experience even the guys who attend multiple classes per year can have big gaps in their shooting knowledge depending on who they trained with and how much they retained. I have seen this myself in class, with shooters who have trained with the big name instructors, but cannot group at 25 yards, draw with an extremely inefficient gun path, reload with extreme amounts of wasted motion, etc.

Within the confines of the class the shooters are in structured training (hopefully), but for the vast majority of the year they are still left to structure their own training, or more often they just choose not to. I think there is a big opening in the "defensive shooting" world for someone to write a book that is a overview of all pistol shooting best practices, plus an overview of training best practices. IMO the only good way to avoid having big gaps in a shooter's knowledge is to expose them to a lot more material than you can cover in a 2 day class, but you can definitely do it in a book or a tightly edited video series. Ben Stoeger has books for USPSA shooters but obviously the competition background is a big turn off for a lot of people and by tackling different topics in each book there is some question in the reader's mind as to what material in the older books is still up to date.

[NoTacTravis]

For me personally, I like to look at this as opportunity cost.

I have extremely limited means and this is a surprisingly expensive hobby. Managing extended time away from home to pursue a hobby also burns relationship capital.

$500 for a course, plus say 500 rounds, plus gas, food (sure I normally try to pack all my own meals when traveling but I've always ended up with extra costs here) , incidentals, etc. Assuming no hotel cost here. Altogether my working figure comes out to about $700 conservatively (on old ammo prices) and say 20 hours of time investment from me for a typical weekend course. Plus using up one of my "hey honey... how do you feel about me disappearing for a weekend to...." spouse moments.

An example... Do I want to buy an SRO and take 500 rounds, shoot 250 rounds of doubles per day at the free outdoor range 30 minutes from my house and be back before the wife is home from a weekend shift? Or will I get better keeping my irons and taking all weekend at a class a few hours away? I see recoil control as my biggest lagging area in training at this point. The doubles and dot would probably get me further. The relationship capital of the class weekend away could be used to shoot a future match at Rio Salado if I get good enough locally to start feeling froggy and want to test myself against high level shooters in an unfamiliar environment.


Conversely, I spent a few hundred dollars on private instruction for the wife and I when we took out first shots. Doing it right and making sure we were going to be safe with a firearm was paramount. For the couple of weeks before the private lesson I bought a blue gun and watched about 10 hours of youtube focusing mainly on grip and sight alignment, memorizing the 4 basic safety rules, and probably practiced for 4 or 5 hours hands on with the blue gun and trigger finger discipline. I assumed we'd need at least 2 to 3 private lessons before shooting at the supervised indoor range on our own. At the end of the lesson the instructor (one of the range owners) told us "I'm perfectly comfortable with you guys shooting on my range on your own going forward. You should just do that and start practicing if you're comfortable. If you're not, I'd be happy to keep selling you private lessons."


I can totally see different people operating on a different matrix for improvement. I assume time, money, and motivation are in different supplies in different ways for every shooter. I've heard high level shooters comment that they would have burned 20,000 rounds trying to figure out what a good instructor told them in 5 minutes. For me, classes are likely to be a fun thing I might do in the distant future if we manage our retirement planning and stay the course. But I think I'll get better faster without them over the next few years by allocating my scarce resources to other areas of my training.

Obviously that's just my personal theory. But I also get a lot of motivation trying to "prove" it to be true for my own development. :shrug

[okie john]

To go back to the OP, classes are not the only way to become proficient. But they are a very good way and as others have pointed out, coaching is even better.

I had some kind of coaching or training weekly if not daily starting when I was eight or nine years old and continuing until I was about 15. That's what happens when your father is on a National Guard shooting team and is deadly serious about being good at it.

I was also an active-duty Special Forces soldier for several years during the Cold War. I got almost no "training" on shooting in the sense that we're using that word on this thread. (On a handful of occasions, one of us would put something together on one of the less-structured range days that were all too rare back then. Sometimes that was very good. On a couple of occasions it was horrible and misinformed to the point of being counterproductive.) What I did get was a ton of training on how to fight: how to apply shooting skills in dynamic situations, how to plan your way in and out of them, and how to work in accord with other armed people.

Since I left the Army, I've trained with some solid folks. The best taught me how to continue training myself after class was over. For instance, Pat McNamara, Ken Hackathorn, and Larry Vickers would call it out in class: "Hey, guys, here's how to stay proficient and get better after you leave here..." Then they'd explain how to adjust par times, conditions, and scores for standard drills to improve specific aspects of performance. Dagga Boy also talks about this in the threads on the D Platoon Qualification Courses. I think that a lot of my fellow students missed the importance of this because it came late in the class when we had been shooting for several hours and were too focused on range-level minutiae and loading mags to recognize an actual long-term strategy that could keep us growing and learning as shooters/fighters for years.

That said, a lot of it depends on what you want to do with the skills you acquire.


If 1 is rank beginner, 6 is reasonably competent and 10 is world class proficiency, pretty much anyone who is willing to put in the study and practice can eventually get to 3 or 4 or 5 in anything on their own, whether it's the violin, or the pistol, or woodworking.

6 will win a lot of fights but not all of them. 8 is a better place to be, and we all need help to get there.


Okie John

[JohnO]

I don't know if it has been brought up but online coaching exists. John "Shrek" McPhee (AKA The Sheriff of Baghdad) offers online coaching. I believe he gives details on how to film yourself and then he critiques your form via submitted video. I have no direct knowledge of this process, just putting it out there. It just might be worth getting evaluated by a professional via video if you have no one available to coach you in person. There is nothing worse than developing training scars.

[NoTacTravis]

6 will win a lot of fights but not all of them. 8 is a better place to be, and we all need help to get there.


Okie John

This makes sense. Can you expand a bit on a couple of objective benchmarks of what an 8 looks like so that people can better evaluate how close to it they are able to push themselves?

[Eyesquared]

I don't know if it has been brought up but online coaching exists. John "Shrek" McPhee (AKA The Sheriff of Baghdad) offers online coaching. I believe he gives details on how to film yourself and then he critiques your form via submitted video. I have no direct knowledge of this process, just putting it out there. It just might be worth getting evaluated by a professional via video if you have no one available to coach you in person. There is nothing worse than developing training scars.

Ben Stoeger and Hwansik Kim also offer online video review which I think they do a very good job of. I believe there are several others who offer online reviews now too. I think Steve Anderson, Scott Jedlinski, and Tim Herron all do online coaching / reviews.

[okie john]

This makes sense. Can you expand a bit on a couple of objective benchmarks of what an 8 looks like so that people can better evaluate how close to it they are able to push themselves?

I don’t know that numerical scales are useful for winning fights.

Shooting is a mechanical skill. It lends itself to numerical scales and PF has many superb threads on quantifying its various levels, which ones matter, and how deeply we should train on them. Posts by GJM are a good marker for quality in this area.

Fighting is a people skill. People are animals, either predators or prey. Predators usually see other predators first so they have more options. For this, I’d study the differences between affective and predatory aggression plus the behavioral markers for each. This helps you spot potentially violent encounters, avoid them if you can, and choose how to engage if you can’t avoid them. This is a good idea for everyone, especially those who refuse to go armed.

Fights are always deeply human interactions but many people shoot faster and longer than an evolving situation merits. You need to learn to assess situations as they evolve so you can stop your response at the appropriate time. Dagga Boy and Wayne Dobbs have shared much wisdom on this. IIRC, the D Platoon posts are a goldmine of information.

Of these three, I’d prioritize spotting predators, assessment, and shooting in that order.

Sorry I couldn’t be more help.


Okie John

[Caballoflaco]

This makes sense. Can you expand a bit on a couple of objective benchmarks of what an 8 looks like so that people can better evaluate how close to it they are able to push themselves?

I think Chuck Pressburg’s take on pure competition vs gunfighting might be relevant to what you’re asking here.


https://youtu.be/3dM6XRQCJY0

I’ll also agree with okie john that except for black swan events like a home invasion or mass shooting I put as much or more thought into my people skills as I do technical skills when it comes to self defense. I’ve been able to read people well enough to talk myself out of or just avoid far more situations than I’ve ever had to fight my way out of.

[JCN]

Rob Leatham’s thoughts


https://youtu.be/HmcXPc8qGic

[rob_s]

“Only” way? No, probably not. Every guy that doesn’t want to take a class for whatever reason can find an idol that had great success at the task or activity with little to no formal instruction.

But IMO, almost regardless of the task or activity, initial quality instruction is key to success for most people. Particularly when first starting out.

Of course, the problem is, if you’re new how do you know what quality instruction is? Particularly with a task like shooting where there is so much mythology and romance and baggage and Mitty-ism involved.

My wife and daughters have started taking tennis lessons. They are basically going from no experience. It’s been interesting to watch both the frustration at not “playing and then corresponding joy at “getting it” at certain intervals.

At work we’ve gone to what I call “just in time” training. We try to time our instruction to the task(s) at hand given the stage of the project (we’re a construction company). I think there’s probably some merit to that concept with physical activities as well.

FWIW I also view “training”, “practice” and “instruction” as three distinct things.

[El Cid]

I’ve enjoyed the classes I’ve taken over the years. And I paid out of pocket for most of them because the job won’t. But I don’t think a 2 or 3 day class is enough to be proficient at anything. I take what I learn and apply it during training or competition.

The thing that has helped me become proficient with weapons in my opinion is competition. I try to shoot a match at least monthly. And for most of those the folks running them let me draw from concealment. I use factory triggers on my Glocks and concealable holsters.

I still consider training/classes as important - we don’t want to become proficient at something that is a bad habit.

[JCS]

Classes teach you what to work on. You don't come away from the class a magically better shooter.

Agree or Disagree?

If true then you still have to put in the work. Going to a class won't make you inherently better. You have to put in the work after and apply what you learned. At least in terms of shooting skills. I think there's a lot that can be learned at classes like Managing unknown contacts and force on force but the way I interpret the question is are classes the only way to become proficient with a gun.

Just my thoughts.

[Moylan]

Ben Stoeger and Hwansik Kim also offer online video review which I think they do a very good job of. I believe there are several others who offer online reviews now too. I think Steve Anderson, Scott Jedlinski, and Tim Herron all do online coaching / reviews.

Yes, Tim Herron does. I have done a couple of sessions with him and it is an incredible value. I just recently looked at Scott Jedlinski's site to see about some coaching, and for the time being it appears he is no longer offering the service. https://www.modernsamuraiproject.com/1hourlesson

[rob_s]

You don't come away from the class a magically better shooter.

Agree or Disagree?

I think it depends where you are on the skill arc. Early on? Yeah, you probably walk away a better shooter, although if you have a good instructor it's not "magic".

I mean, shit, you almost can't help but become a better shooter after 2-3 days on the range and 500-2000 rounds expelled. You damn near trip and fall and get better just from dedicating the time to what actually amounts to practice. Many people don't seem to get that. They go to a class with instructor A and by the end of TD3 they can hit something they couldn't at the start of TD1. OK. But that's like getting a 3% raise and being proud of it. You forgot that's just inflation, just like you forgot that you got better because you practiced. 5... 7... 12%... now THAT's a raise. Come away shooting better and knowing how to get even better on your own, THAT's instruction.

maybe that's why it looks like magic. :cool:

[NoTacTravis]

Maybe I need to re-read the thread straight through again but... Have we properly defined our terms here?

What are we defining proficency as? And proficiency in what exactly?

My ASSumption has been that we were talking about becoming proficient in the mechanics and skills of shooting a pistol. But some of the defense of classes or claims that it can't be accomplished through independent study seem to revolve more around the learning and application of tactics to shooting or the application of shooting skills to a real world environment. Not developing proficiency in just shooting the gun.

I'm splitting hairs here and trying not to start up the old skills vs. tactics debate or offend the posters on the thread that are infinitely more real and accomplished than I am spouting off my own unproven opinions. Hence me trying hard to politely define, what is proficiency exactly? And proficiency in what exactly? For the sake of being able to properly debate/discuss something from the same page.


My personal belief (FNG alert here) is that I can become proficient and skilled as a shooter who can learn to operate a firearm in a highly skilled manner by watching youtube, scouring the internet, sending PM's and emails. And exhaustively, obsessively pushing myself every day to attain objective benchmarks that increase in difficulty over time.

It's possible that I can't. It's also possible that what I'm chasing and deeming proficiency is not what is being discussed in this thread. I'm hoping that by clearly defining our terms I can better understand which of the two arguments I am running afoul of.

[rob_s]

My personal belief (FNG alert here) is that I can become proficient and skilled as a shooter who can learn to operate a firearm in a highly skilled manner by watching youtube, scouring the internet, sending PM's and emails. And exhaustively, obsessively pushing myself every day to attain objective benchmarks that increase in difficulty over time.

It's possible that I can't. It's also possible that what I'm chasing and deeming proficiency is not what is being discussed in this thread. I'm hoping that by clearly defining our terms I can better understand which of the two arguments I am running afoul of.

what are the objective benchmarks?

Also, and I suppose this is part of your greater point, I don't think most on this forum are terribly interested in base marksmanship (align sights, pull trigger) for it's own sake. Just about anyone on PF is going to be interested in the draw, reload, shooting while moving, moving to shoot, unconventional positions, etc.

As I stated in my first post, you *could* become "proficient" in those things with nothing but the internet, but it's unlikely, and my bet is that for the vast majority of people that aren't savants the first time you are truly objectively tested outside metrics that are entirely within your control you will fail.

[NoTacTravis]

what are the objective benchmarks?

Also, and I suppose this is part of your greater point, I don't think most on this forum are terribly interested in base marksmanship (align sights, pull trigger) for it's own sake. Just about anyone on PF is going to be interested in the draw, reload, shooting while moving, moving to shoot, unconventional positions, etc.

As I stated in my first post, you *could* become "proficient" in those things with nothing but the internet, but it's unlikely, and my bet is that for the vast majority of people that aren't savants the first time you are truly objectively tested outside metrics that are entirely within your control you will fail.

Thanks for taking the time to consider my post! I like your attribute and skills listing of "the draw, reload, shooting while moving, moving to shoot, unconventional positions, etc." and ruling out only looking at bullseye style marksmanship (I'm ASSuming that's what you refer to with base marksmanship align sights pull trigger) as a standalone metric.

On his site Gabe White lists:
https://www.gabewhitetraining.com/technical-skills-tests/

A tactical level of proficiency in core technical skills of drawing and shooting

Bill Drill, 3.50 (Theoretical Breakdown: 1.50 + .40 + .40 + .40 + .40 + .40)
Failure to Stop, 2.90 (Theoretical Breakdown: 1.50 + .40 + 1.00)
Immediate Incapacitation, 3.00 (Theoretical Breakdown: 2.00 + 1.00)
Split Bill Drill, 4.70 (Theoretical Breakdown: 1.50 + .40 + .40 + .40 + 1.00 + 1.00)

This seems to best match the thread title of "Are classes the only way of becoming proficient?" as it includes a class based standard labeled as proficiency by a well respected trainer.


My personal objective benchmarks I plan on attaining initially are:

-5 second FAST (talked about too much on P-F for me not to be able to execute this)
-IDPA Expert classification (this was my first goal from reading a lot before I fired my first shots and was looking for an objective benchmark before starting the journey. I'd like to make sure to follow through on it.) Lots of shooting from unconventional positions to be found here typically.
-2 second BILL drill (It's on too many lists for me to consider myself adequate if I can't do it on demand).
-USPSA "A" Class (I don't plan on having to practice for classifiers but will if it's required to make my goal. I mention this because USPSA should handle the "moving while shooting part" but classifications can be gamed to achieve this through stand and shoot skills alone.

*I really don't anticipate a problem with "moving TO shoot" (assuming you don't mean "shooting on the move"). It's too much fun to practice not to end up good at rushing to and from a position to shoot on the clock.

[QUOTE=rob_s;1185187....the first time you are truly objectively tested outside metrics that are entirely within your control you will fail.[/QUOTE]

I assume that to be absolutely the case. Then I'll go work on my now glaringly revealed shortcomings and go back and do it again, lather rinse repeat. That should be the basic premise of an independent course of study to attain objective progressively harder benchmarks.


More important than whatever metric I list, what would you deem an objective benchmark or set of benchmarks?

At some level if proficiency can't be defined or objectively tested then you could just always arbitrarily tell someone they've fallen short.

[Jeff22]

my bet is that for the vast majority of people that aren't savants the first time you are truly objectively tested outside metrics that are entirely within your control you will fail.

One of the advantages of going to a class or shooting in USPSA or IDPA matches is that it provides you with an opportunity to be tested on somebody else's scenario.

The technical skills of running the gun are pretty similar. The application between a shooter working on defensive skills and a shooter working on competition skills is somewhat different.

I think shooting drills is great to structure your practice, and this forum is a great repository for lots of good drills used by well known instructors.

If you're just trying to develop to your personal limit, that's a valid goal. Depends on what you're hoping to accomplish. For shooters who are defensively oriented, too much focus on what Grant Cunningham has referred to as "meaningless increments of precision" may be counter productive or an inefficient use of resources like time and ammunition.

[okie john]

My personal objective benchmarks I plan on attaining initially are:

-5 second FAST (talked about too much on P-F for me not to be able to execute this)
-IDPA Expert classification (this was my first goal from reading a lot before I fired my first shots and was looking for an objective benchmark before starting the journey. I'd like to make sure to follow through on it.) Lots of shooting from unconventional positions to be found here typically.
-2 second BILL drill (It's on too many lists for me to consider myself adequate if I can't do it on demand).
-USPSA "A" Class (I don't plan on having to practice for classifiers but will if it's required to make my goal. I mention this because USPSA should handle the "moving while shooting part" but classifications can be gamed to achieve this through stand and shoot skills alone.

*I really don't anticipate a problem with "moving TO shoot" (assuming you don't mean "shooting on the move"). It's too much fun to practice not to end up good at rushing to and from a position to shoot on the clock.

You need to stop right fucking now.

Classes are not the only way to become proficient on these drills but they are the safest way. Learning to shoot is not like learning to fix a garbage disposal. Mistakes kill people.

The standards you listed are extremely high. It takes years of training, coaching, and competition to reach them. They all demand speed, which has inherent risk even for experienced, trained shooters who are just starting to learn them. Speed has far more risk for inexperienced, untrained shooters. Take the instructor out of the equation and you're playing with fire.

Instructors and coaches who know what they’re doing—many do not—break a drill down into individual components, then teach you each component. Then they teach you the transitions between components so you can start to string them all together. Then they show you how something you do on Component A affects Component E or F. Most important, they ensure that you progress at the right speed for the level of proficiency that you’re demonstrating in that moment. None of this is done on the clock until you can shoot the entire drill slowly without doing something unsafe.

Internet video cannot say, “Stop! That thing you’re doing right there is unsafe. Here's why. Don’t do that. Do this instead.”

A tiny portion of internet video comes from people who make shooting seem easy because they’ve had decades of training, classes, coaching, etc., usually at taxpayer expense. You don’t see the reps and training and failures that made them good, so it’s easy to think that you can walk into a gravel pit and start banging out El Pres in six seconds. FWIW, the original par time for a clean El Pres was 10 seconds on targets 10 meters apart. For that setup, 15 seconds is a strong score for an experienced shooter who’s shooting El Pres on the clock for the first time with a good coach. But nobody ever mentions that.

Most internet video is about as useful as an episode of Charlie’s Angels. It's self-aggrandizing bullshit made by people who have no clue about shooting and a lot of it can actually reduce your skills. If you’re new to shooting and you go too fast too soon without help, then you WILL make mistakes but you won’t realize it until it's too late. You do NOT want to be this guy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYvAxLX6OzE

Best case? You pick up bad habits but don’t realize it, they keep you from ever shooting well, you force your way around them, and it takes years to unlearn them later.

Worst case? You shoot someone else. Shooting yourself is not worst-case because that means there's one less dumbfuck in the gene pool.


Okie John

[rob_s]

A tactical level of proficiency in core technical skills of drawing and shooting

Bill Drill, 3.50 (Theoretical Breakdown: 1.50 + .40 + .40 + .40 + .40 + .40)
Failure to Stop, 2.90 (Theoretical Breakdown: 1.50 + .40 + 1.00)
Immediate Incapacitation, 3.00 (Theoretical Breakdown: 2.00 + 1.00)
Split Bill Drill, 4.70 (Theoretical Breakdown: 1.50 + .40 + .40 + .40 + 1.00 + 1.00)




The standards you listed are extremely high. It takes years of training, coaching, and competition to reach them. They all demand speed, which has inherent risk even for experienced, trained shooters who are just starting to learn them. Speed has far more risk for inexperienced, untrained shooters. Take the instructor out of the equation and you're playing with fire.

This was kind of where I was headed with a potential reply.

to Travis I'd ask, what are your current times or scores on these?

I would also recommend Dot Torture (https://pistol-training.com/drills/dot-torture) as a good Marksmanship standard with some elevated requirements. it's not a means of training, it's a means of establishing benchmarks.

Draw
Micro-transitions (between dots, as opposed to macro-transitions between targets. think inches vs feet)
Strong-hand only
Weak-hand only
Reload

[NoTacTravis]

okie john My sincere apologies. You were actually a primary person I was trying to carefully word my last couple of posts not to offend. Obviously I failed in that attempt.

Apparently I didn't do a good job of walking the line of my train of thought and caused offense. I'll stop my line of questioning here. I very much appreciate your safety concerns and agree that safety should always be a primary consideration of this type of training. I'll start a training log and post videos of my training there as it progresses. I would be happy for your critique and advice on any safety fails I am making or should be taking should you be willing to waste any of your time checking it out.


rob_s I'd really enjoy more discussion on those times and drills. However, I'm worried about making the thread all about me an my personal journey to improvement and I seem to be derailing the thread from the discussion in general now so I'll stop. I'll start a training log by the end of this week and invite your input/discussion/criticism there. I'd be happy to chew on the matter there where I won't be disturbing the flow and good will of the forum.

[Borderland]

Gravel pits are dangerous. Local guy was just killed by a friend who shot him in the chest with an "unloaded'' AK. I read the news story and then my neighbor told me he knew the guy who was killed through his son and his girlfriend.

The safety factor cannot be stressed enough IMO. Our range has an RSO when it's open to the public and generally 4 or 5 people who have been thru RSO training who assist. They now require new members to take the NRA Home Firearm Safety Class. That started last year I think.

[okie john]

okie john My sincere apologies. You were actually a primary person I was trying to carefully word my last couple of posts not to offend. Obviously I failed in that attempt.

Apparently I didn't do a good job of walking the line of my train of thought and caused offense. I'll stop my line of questioning here. I very much appreciate your safety concerns and agree that safety should always be a primary consideration of this type of training. I'll start a training log and post videos of my training there as it progresses. I would be happy for your critique and advice on any safety fails I am making or should be taking should you be willing to waste any of your time checking it out.

I’m not offended. I just don’t want people to get hurt. Please keep asking questions but please take my words into account. I’d love to see you become a proficient shooter who carries the message of safe proficiency far and wide.


My ASSumption has been that we were talking about becoming proficient in the mechanics and skills of shooting a pistol. But some of the defense of classes or claims that it can't be accomplished through independent study seem to revolve more around the learning and application of tactics to shooting or the application of shooting skills to a real world environment. Not developing proficiency in just shooting the gun.

I'm splitting hairs here and trying not to start up the old skills vs. tactics debate or offend the posters on the thread that are infinitely more real and accomplished than I am spouting off my own unproven opinions. Hence me trying hard to politely define, what is proficiency exactly? And proficiency in what exactly? For the sake of being able to properly debate/discuss something from the same page.

This may be our disconnect. Most of us here define "learning to shoot" as learning to load, fire, clear, and reduce stoppages a gun while on a square range. Most of us define "tactics" as having more to do with universal principles of fighting than with shooting, and the pistol is the means by which we carry out some of them some of the time. Some drills you listed, like the Bill Drill, are pure shooting. They develop skill that bolsters the ability and confidence to execute tactics, but are not tactical solutions in and of themselves—running an ultrafast Bill Drill on a guy robbing a liquor store is probably a bad idea absent very specific situational factors.

Other drills, while they aren't actual tactics, are definitely influenced by tactics and the universal principles of fighting. This is a massive gray area, and many of us who post here happily do our life’s work here trying to understand that gray area, make sense of it, and share that understanding.

The benchmarks you’ve set are admirable. Most people take years to achieve them. By all means continue toward them, but proceed knowing that they only measure one type of proficiency, arguably one of the least important.

I suppose all of this is another way to ask, "What do you want to become proficient AT?"


Okie John

[JCN]

It’s kind of like learning to play golf but only training on an astroturf driving mat.

You can develop a great swing, but it’s not the same thing as playing golf in its entirety.

It doesn’t discount the effort and achievement of being able to drive golf balls, but it’s not the entirety of the game.

[vcdgrips]

I am extraordinarily reluctant to compare shooting to golf in any meaningful way.

The consequences for playing/practicing/training poorly are rarely life altering.

Re shooting, the exact opposite is true.

[JCS]

Thanks for taking the time to consider my post! I like your attribute and skills listing of "the draw, reload, shooting while moving, moving to shoot, unconventional positions, etc." and ruling out only looking at bullseye style marksmanship (I'm ASSuming that's what you refer to with base marksmanship align sights pull trigger) as a standalone metric.

On his site Gabe White lists:
https://www.gabewhitetraining.com/technical-skills-tests/

A tactical level of proficiency in core technical skills of drawing and shooting

Bill Drill, 3.50 (Theoretical Breakdown: 1.50 + .40 + .40 + .40 + .40 + .40)
Failure to Stop, 2.90 (Theoretical Breakdown: 1.50 + .40 + 1.00)
Immediate Incapacitation, 3.00 (Theoretical Breakdown: 2.00 + 1.00)
Split Bill Drill, 4.70 (Theoretical Breakdown: 1.50 + .40 + .40 + .40 + 1.00 + 1.00)

This seems to best match the thread title of "Are classes the only way of becoming proficient?" as it includes a class based standard labeled as proficiency by a well respected trainer.


My personal objective benchmarks I plan on attaining initially are:

-5 second FAST (talked about too much on P-F for me not to be able to execute this)
-IDPA Expert classification (this was my first goal from reading a lot before I fired my first shots and was looking for an objective benchmark before starting the journey. I'd like to make sure to follow through on it.) Lots of shooting from unconventional positions to be found here typically.
-2 second BILL drill (It's on too many lists for me to consider myself adequate if I can't do it on demand).
-USPSA "A" Class (I don't plan on having to practice for classifiers but will if it's required to make my goal. I mention this because USPSA should handle the "moving while shooting part" but classifications can be gamed to achieve this through stand and shoot skills alone.

*I really don't anticipate a problem with "moving TO shoot" (assuming you don't mean "shooting on the move"). It's too much fun to practice not to end up good at rushing to and from a position to shoot on the clock.



I assume that to be absolutely the case. Then I'll go work on my now glaringly revealed shortcomings and go back and do it again, lather rinse repeat. That should be the basic premise of an independent course of study to attain objective progressively harder benchmarks.


More important than whatever metric I list, what would you deem an objective benchmark or set of benchmarks?

At some level if proficiency can't be defined or objectively tested then you could just always arbitrarily tell someone they've fallen short.

Set goals. Crush 'em. Repeat.
I like the goals in Stoeger's new book. First learn to shoot a match safely with no penalties or misses then progress to learning the speed.
If that's what you want to achieve, do it! Practice, practice practice. Be comfortable with failure. Failure is perfectly okay given it's in a safe context. Failure with gun training doesn't have to mean shooting yourself in the leg. Keep pushing your abilities and you will achieve your goals!

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I will slightly disagree in a humorous incident. I was playing golf and way down the fairway was a foursome. We wanted to tee off, so we yelled and screamed "Fore" as one should. I was reluctant to to swing but a buddy said to go ahead as you can't hit that far and probably won't tag anyone. Straight as a rocket, went my shot into the back of one of the foresome.

Is that like a Cooper rule violation? Back to the issue, I think Cecil nailed it. I also think that different classes can teach different aspects and some integrate them. Self-taught is fine by as he said, professional observation picks up things you never saw, felt or knew.

[Borderland]

It’s kind of like learning to play golf but only training on an astroturf driving mat.

You can develop a great swing, but it’s not the same thing as playing golf in its entirety.

It doesn’t discount the effort and achievement of being able to drive golf balls, but it’s not the entirety of the game.

True.

https://youtu.be/hvrAbHJNLuY

[RickB]

Shooting a match every weekend for ten years, I progressed from D to the cusp of Master, without having taken instruction of any kind.
I know a guy who went from D to GM in about ten months, and don't know that he had any instruction along the way, either?

[AlwaysLearning]

Gravel pits are dangerous. Local guy was just killed by a friend who shot him in the chest with an "unloaded'' AK. I read the news story and then my neighbor told me he knew the guy who was killed through his son and his girlfriend.

The safety factor cannot be stressed enough IMO. Our range has an RSO when it's open to the public and generally 4 or 5 people who have been thru RSO training who assist. They now require new members to take the NRA Home Firearm Safety Class. That started last year I think.

Very good point. Gravel pits have accidental dangers as well as predator dangers. For the noob folks, a gravel pit is where Platt and Mattix picked up a car they used in the first of their (known) robberies that led up to the 1986 Miami Shootout. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_FBI_Miami_shootout)

[Yung]

As I stated in my first post, you *could* become "proficient" in those things with nothing but the internet, but it's unlikely, and my bet is that for the vast majority of people that aren't savants the first time you are truly objectively tested outside metrics that are entirely within your control you will fail.

That is a big part of the reason why I said I think more folks really should attend good force-on-force classes.

[David S.]

Thanks for taking the time to consider my post! I like your attribute and skills listing of "the draw, reload, shooting while moving, moving to shoot, unconventional positions, etc." and ruling out only looking at bullseye style marksmanship (I'm ASSuming that's what you refer to with base marksmanship align sights pull trigger) as a standalone metric.

On his site Gabe White lists:
https://www.gabewhitetraining.com/technical-skills-tests/

A tactical level of proficiency in core technical skills of drawing and shooting

Bill Drill, 3.50 (Theoretical Breakdown: 1.50 + .40 + .40 + .40 + .40 + .40)
Failure to Stop, 2.90 (Theoretical Breakdown: 1.50 + .40 + 1.00)
Immediate Incapacitation, 3.00 (Theoretical Breakdown: 2.00 + 1.00)
Split Bill Drill, 4.70 (Theoretical Breakdown: 1.50 + .40 + .40 + .40 + 1.00 + 1.00)

This seems to best match the thread title of "Are classes the only way of becoming proficient?" as it includes a class based standard labeled as proficiency by a well respected trainer.


My personal objective benchmarks I plan on attaining initially are:

-5 second FAST (talked about too much on P-F for me not to be able to execute this)
-IDPA Expert classification (this was my first goal from reading a lot before I fired my first shots and was looking for an objective benchmark before starting the journey. I'd like to make sure to follow through on it.) Lots of shooting from unconventional positions to be found here typically.
-2 second BILL drill (It's on too many lists for me to consider myself adequate if I can't do it on demand).
-USPSA "A" Class (I don't plan on having to practice for classifiers but will if it's required to make my goal. I mention this because USPSA should handle the "moving while shooting part" but classifications can be gamed to achieve this through stand and shoot skills alone.

*I really don't anticipate a problem with "moving TO shoot" (assuming you don't mean "shooting on the move"). It's too much fun to practice not to end up good at rushing to and from a position to shoot on the clock.



I assume that to be absolutely the case. Then I'll go work on my now glaringly revealed shortcomings and go back and do it again, lather rinse repeat. That should be the basic premise of an independent course of study to attain objective progressively harder benchmarks.


More important than whatever metric I list, what would you deem an objective benchmark or set of benchmarks?

At some level if proficiency can't be defined or objectively tested then you could just always arbitrarily tell someone they've fallen short.

Your "opportunity cost" comments in post #70 of this thread seem to conflict with the metrics you've set. If resources are very limited, you should probably narrow down and focus your "why."

Acknowledging that this is the "Competition Skills" sub-forum on Pistol-Forum, I should be clear that "it's a free country," as they say. If you want to get really, really good at the shooty stuff, just because, then rock on with your bad 'ol self. Set whatever kick-ass standards you want get after it.

That said, if you're primary goal is personal defense, I suspect you'd do well to look to the standards of instructors like Tom Givens, @Darryl Bolke, Wayne Dobbs, and commentary by guys like Cecil Burch SouthNarc, Paul Sharp and Varg Freeborn, for instance. I suspect that anyone on the high side of "C" class has sufficient raw marksmanship skill to do really well in those standards, and therefore do well in a personal defense shooting. To that point, The Tactical Professor Claude Werner's minimum effective standards are even more modest. Fortunately, acquiring and maintaining that level of skill probably won't require a ton of practice, ammo and time away from family.

On the other hand, personal defense is multi-disciplinary. Shooting is only one of the skillsets that a well rounded personal defense practitioner ought to be familiar with, and arguably the least likely to be used in a personal defense encounter. Being physically strong and healthy, along with competency in

Awareness and Avoidance
MUC (Managing Unknown Contacts)
OC Spray
Hand to Hand fighting (such as BJJ or boxing)
managing in-fight stress response
medical training
low light shooting
defensive weapons flow
force on force validation
managing the after action
use of force legalities

are more likely to affect the outcome than having "A class" shooty skills. IF personal defense is the primary goal, I suspect getting "C class" competency in most or all of those skillsets is more valuable than becoming A, M, or GM in just shooting. If you can consistently pass the more respectable LE quals or Tom Givens standards, for instance, then time and resources may be better spent pursuing family time, health and wellness, general preparedness (food, water, power, shelter) and competency at those other defensive skills.

Of course, you do you.

***I am in not remotely an expert on any of this. That's why I qualify everything with "I suspect..." This is my imperfect understanding from listening those who are. I hope the knowledgable folks will push back if I'm full of poop. ***

[Clusterfrack]

Shooting is only one of the skillsets that a well rounded personal defense practitioner ought to be familiar with, and arguably the least likely to be used in a personal defense encounter. Being physically strong and healthy, along with competency in...

Great points. The intersection of shooting skills, MUC, and combatives is where I want to spend more time. One of the most interesting training sessions I've had recently was with a DT/EP instructor. We worked on some shooting skills on a random threat/non-threat target (https://shop.tacticalshit.com/threat-nothreat-double-targets), and then he said "Keep shooting this drill and I'm going to hit you a little." Then he gave me some solid spasm-inducing punches to the plexus, while standing at my side. It sucked. Hard. But it was a great drill.

Obviously, this sort of thing can't be learned by yourself... We need instructors to learn some important skills.

[NoTacTravis]

Your "opportunity cost" comments in post #70 of this thread seem to conflict with the metrics you've set. If resources are very limited, you should probably narrow down and focus your "why."

Acknowledging that this is the "Competition Skills" sub-forum on Pistol-Forum, I should be clear that "it's a free country," as they say. If you want to get really, really good at the shooty stuff, just because, then rock on with your bad 'ol self. Set whatever kick-ass standards you want get after it.

That said, if you're primary goal is personal defense, I suspect you'd do well to look to the standards of instructors like Tom Givens, @Darryl Bolke, Wayne Dobbs, and commentary by guys like Cecil Burch SouthNarc, Paul Sharp and Varg Freeborn, for instance. I suspect that anyone on the high side of "C" class has sufficient raw marksmanship skill to do really well in those standards, and therefore do well in a personal defense shooting. To that point, The Tactical Professor Claude Werner's minimum effective standards are even more modest. Fortunately, acquiring and maintaining that level of skill probably won't require a ton of practice, ammo and time away from family.

On the other hand, personal defense is multi-disciplinary. Shooting is only one of the skillsets that a well rounded personal defense practitioner ought to be familiar with, and arguably the least likely to be used in a personal defense encounter. Being physically strong and healthy, along with competency in

Awareness and Avoidance
MUC (Managing Unknown Contacts)
OC Spray
Hand to Hand fighting (such as BJJ or boxing)
managing in-fight stress response
medical training
low light shooting
defensive weapons flow
force on force validation
managing the after action
use of force legalities

are more likely to affect the outcome than having "A class" shooty skills. IF personal defense is the primary goal, I suspect getting "C class" competency in most or all of those skillsets is more valuable than becoming A, M, or GM in just shooting. If you can consistently pass the more respectable LE quals or Tom Givens standards, for instance, then time and resources may be better spent pursuing family time, health and wellness, general preparedness (food, water, power, shelter) and competency at those other defensive skills.

Of course, you do you.

***I am in not remotely an expert on any of this. That's why I qualify everything with "I suspect..." This is my imperfect understanding from listening those who are. I hope the knowledgable folks will push back if I'm full of poop. ***

Thanks for taking the time to break things down point by point and in depth! Regardless of eventual path I really enjoy chewing on the nuances of discussions like this. You raise a lot of interesting points, I'll try to touch on a directly but I might miss a few...

Obviously being "good at shooting" means different things to different people. And that's normally a goal post we keep moving as we learn more about any skill development. For instance, when I was doing BJJ regularly, if you were a friend of the family and asked me if I was "good" I would have most likely just said yes. If I was at the gym I would said I was trash as there were literal world champ black belts training there. If my training partners were around I would have said "I'm a serviceable brown belt". So even in my own mind "good" isn't necessarily consistent.

Heck, compared to most people at the range, and my friends who own guns but only shoot a few times a year I'm probably already "good" and by the objective measures of C Class and defensive shooting you touch I'm probably already "good enough". I think I should note as well that this thread is in the "Competition Skills and Development" section so I generally addressed my opinion on the notion of building skills that are tested in shooting competitions. I carried a G19 for about 1500-2000 miles on local trails last year. If I'm going to lug around that much iron that far I want to be "good" with it.


Awareness and Avoidance
MUC (Managing Unknown Contacts)- IMO, these 2 are basic life skills.

OC Spray-
Typically if I am outside I am in the woods or on a trail with a shepherd dog and big bottle of bear mace on the pack strap. I am familiar with the bear mace, and have used it on several necessary occasions over the years. I am familiar with the way in which the wind affects my particular brand and have experienced its effects from minor blowback several times. I was also quite dismayed to find it ineffective once when being actively stalked by a 90+ pound wolf for 2 miles of a trail.

Hand to Hand fighting (such as BJJ or boxing)- brown belt in BJJ, former Olympic trials competitor in TKD, entered and fought in a number of "tough man boxing and kickboxing" contests both at my weight and heavyweight to test myself over the years.
managing in-fight stress response- see above

medical training- my wife is a full time medical professional, I have several basic Red Cross classes. Planning to take the "stop the bleed" classes at the range after I am vaccinated
low light shooting- I carry a flashlight and have practiced a bit to know how it affects my ability to see my sights in various lighting conditions. I am not at a point where I want to attach a light to my pistol yet to have another variable in the gun operation equation.

defensive weapons flow- first BJJ instructor was a highly rated JKD blackbelt. Some stick and knife training there. 8 years of Hapkido from 10-18 where I was the instructor for most of the last years. IMO, weapons (non-gun) training isn't really where it's at if we're divvying up time for defense.
force on force validation- I feel pretty comfortable here actually. Most people who look at my severely cauliflowered ears and train tend to accept that.

managing the after action
use of force legalities- These two top my list for classroom work as valuable things to understand for anyone choosing to carry a firearm through their daily life.

None of these are really related to becoming proficient at shooting for the sake of competition skills development though, IMO. If personal defense shooting stops at around C class skills and that was all that motivated me I'd probably be able to call it done, do a little dryfire here and there, and shoot a hundred rounds with some buddies every few months.

Generally when it comes to force on force, there's a bit of a logical plateau. The UFC fighters that I used to roll with are going to beat me to a pulp if it's a real fight in "da streettz". I'm also not going to close that gap at my age and size. I spent a good bit of time trying but my body just doesn't keep up with that level of abuse anymore and I was ending up unable to enjoy a day hiking.

As to being physically strong and healthy, I'm not a very big guy. But I'm generally in the top 1% of my age bracket for general fitness testing purposes. (Benchpress my bodyweight more than 10 times, ruck 10 mountain miles at 7K feet elevation with 25 pounds of gear without issue type of metrics).

At this point, it's mainly "get really good at the shooty stuff" that appeals to me. Typically I've found that the best way to build the best skills is through competition and a drive to get better at them. It's why Krav Maga blackbelts get wrecked by BJJ blue belts pretty much always. Because Krav is all tactics.


I think I'm not really looking at the discussion of "getting proficient" on the competition skills forum through the lense of tactics or personal defense. More as a "hey, are you any good with that thing? Let's go shoot some targets and find out" type of metric. For that, some basic metrics like the Gabe White standards seem like a decent intermediate test. Things like "the Test" at 10 yards seem like a good basic metric for beginners. And USPSA seems like where you can go to test yourself to see if you're really "good" with a pistol compared to other guys also trying to be "good with a pistol."



Not sure I really hung that all together too well. Just wanted to get some responses to the points you raise to keep the discussion moving one those points. Hope that's ok.

[Archer1440]

No matter how much training you have done on drills, or how competent you think you are with your weapon handling skills...

There’s nothing quite like getting smoked a few times with Simunitions rounds at the hands of skilled force on force opponents to make one a lot more humble about their skills, drill accomplishments, level of training, IDPA/USPSA rank, and knowledge base.

I’ve done Sims about 9 times since 2000. Never was hit, always “won” my engagements (though a couple of times my tactics were not correct, and a few times “winning” meant zero rounds fired.).

For nearly 21 years, since my first Simunition runs, I had always felt pretty confident about my ability to handle both pressure and marksmanship in that kind of environment.

Last year reality slapped me in the face, hard.

I got waxed twice in September in a repeat Gunsite 499- and that opened my eyes in a big way.

For me, there is no substitute for actual training classes for that level of learning. If I had stopped training after a certain point, I might never have learned those hard lessons.

I don’t regret a single dollar spent or round expended for the training I have received from my instructors over the years. Good instruction is vital to not only becoming proficient, but for understanding what proficiency really is in the first place.

[alamo5000]

I haven't read any of the previous comments so this is in response to the title.

First I think we need to define what 'proficient' really means. Proficient at what?

In short I think it's all relative. If you show up to an advanced combat pistol course and you don't know how to load a mag--- you will gain very little from the class vs what it could have been.

Proficiency means different things to different people. I consider myself very proficient in loading mags, safety, shooting, etc and all that is pretty much self taught. That said if I spent a day with John Lovell I would become a whole lot more proficient in a lot of different things that I might not have even thought of.

Proficiency is a moving target. It varies from person to person. For a new person that just took their concealed carry class 'proficiency' means one thing but for a Navy Seal that graduated BUDS a few months back 'proficiency' means a whole different thing.

I have never taken a class yet but not from a lack of wanting to. That said depending on the class you should probably take a certain level of 'proficiency' with you in order to get the most out of it.

[David S.]

***I am in not remotely an expert on any of this. That's why I qualify everything with "I suspect..." This is my imperfect understanding from listening those who are. I hope the knowledgable folks will push back if I'm full of poop. ***

Understatement of the century.

So, after posting this morning, I listened to a couple podcast interviews with Darryl Bolke, and am now somewhat embarrassed by my levels of Dunning - Kruger. I'll shut up now and move back in my lane, which doesn't include any of this.

At any rate, if you're interested in a couple about 3 hours of solid gold DB

Off Duty On Duty Podcast Ep 18: Darryl Bolke- Everything old is new again. (https://offdutyonduty.com/116/episode-18-darryl-bolke-everything-old-is-new-again/)
Off Duty On Duty Podcast Ep 25: Bolke likes front sights. . . you should too. (https://offdutyonduty.com/152/episode-25-bolke-likes-front-sights-you-should-too/)

[NoTacTravis]

Very good point. Gravel pits have accidental dangers as well as predator dangers. For the noob folks, a gravel pit is where Platt and Mattix picked up a car they used in the first of their (known) robberies that led up to the 1986 Miami Shootout. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_FBI_Miami_shootout)

In more recent news, in Feb. 2021, several people were shot and and (one?) killed at a gun store. In Jan 2021, there was an armed predator and death at a gun range.

Gun stores and indoor supervised ranges have accidental dangers as well as predator dangers that also make the news. Should we tell new gun purchasers to avoid their LGS and not patronize their local indoor ranges as well?

Or should they use their "situational awareness" to assess the likely dangers of each on a case by case basis?

[Archer1440]

If I drew and engaged everyone who has ever pointed a firearm at me in a gun shop, I would make Audie Murphy look like a Quaker.

Stern verbal engagement solves that sort of thing, but, yeah, the LGS environment can be hard on one’s nerves.

[AlwaysLearning]

In more recent news, in Feb. 2021, several people were shot and and (one?) killed at a gun store. In Jan 2021, there was an armed predator and death at a gun range.

Gun stores and indoor supervised ranges have accidental dangers as well as predator dangers that also make the news. Should we tell new gun purchasers to avoid their LGS and not patronize their local indoor ranges as well?

Or should they use their "situational awareness" to assess the likely dangers of each on a case by case basis?

Situational awareness is clearly the way to go.

[JCN]

The more I think individual, longitudinal coaching is the way to go.

Being able to work with someone one on one, even “virtually” I think feels way more efficient than classes.

Usually in a class an instructor has to tailor their attention to the average or to the weakest link.

In individual coaching, I can tailor the drills to their strengths and weaknesses.

And to their practice patterns and home range availability.

It gives more points of contact.

If you think of a model of learning an instrument, you don’t necessarily have just one lesson a year or twice a year.

It’s weekly lessons with daily practice.

Would love your guys’ opinions on this topic:
Moylan
JCS

[Moylan]

It's too early for me to speak to improvement based on coaching, but I hope before too long I can comment on that. Regarding coaching vs classes, I think there are some things you cannot get from coaching--the kinds of knowledge and experience that well-designed force on force gets you, for one example--and there are things you can get from coaching that you can't get from classes--the kind of tailor-made, long term instructions that you mention is the clearest case.

I've been doing things as a coachee that I wouldn't have thought to do, and that already is a good thing for me as a shooter. I did the 9 shot close speed drill at my class with Ernest Langdon, and it was extremely difficult for me--and the upshot was that Ernest pointed out to me after I finished that I point shot it. He could see me looking over the dot. I did some shooting yesterday that was not totally dissimilar to that drill, after only 3 days of coached dry fire, and I definitely was seeing the dot. So although I started off this post by saying I can't comment on improvement, I can already see an increased ability to attend to and see the dot at high speed. (Well, at what counts as high speed for me at this point.)

[JCS]

The more I think individual, longitudinal coaching is the way to go.

Being able to work with someone one on one, even “virtually” I think feels way more efficient than classes.

Usually in a class an instructor has to tailor their attention to the average or to the weakest link.

In individual coaching, I can tailor the drills to their strengths and weaknesses.

And to their practice patterns and home range availability.

It gives more points of contact.

If you think of a model of learning an instrument, you don’t necessarily have just one lesson a year or twice a year.

It’s weekly lessons with daily practice.

Would love your guys’ opinions on this topic:
Moylan
JCS

I believe individual coaching is far superior to large classes. It's a scientifically superior proven method of learning according to Anders Ericsson. Coaching wouldn't have to be paying someone in person either. With the plethora of online coaching options and monthly video programs, one can learn the fundamentals that way.

More important than taking classes is being able to self analyze your errors and correct them. This isn't meant to poo-poo classes. But viewing them as the only way to get better discredits the power of the human mind to learn on it's own.

[IDontDoQuests]

Obviously by the way I phrase the title, I don't think it is true. There are lots of ways to proficiency in firearms and I think the self taught model can be just as good or even better than attending classes.

In general around PF, there is a tendency to push classes on folks. I don't think that is necessarily wrong, but I don't think they are necessary at all.

I guess a lot comes from what sort of learner you are. For me: I have always learned from books and self testing on most topics and found lectures sort of a big waste of time.

In this era of information on the web plus video I don't think there has ever been an easier time to be an auto didact. And I think it is probably more efficient though that is probably debateable.

Firearms are consequential, but basic gun handling and marksmanship is not a difficult skill to learn.

If you want to learn defense tactics, I think a course is probably more useful, but there is also an awful lot of written material out there going back hundreds of years if you look.

If you want to learn competition shooting there is also plenty of information available.

I think much more important than any in person class is: interest in the topic, the willingness to do the reading, and probably most importantly, the willingness to put in the practice and the necessary feedback cycle of push til you fail, analyze the failure, correct the flaws and try again.

I have taken a few classes and invariably I am bugged by the massive amounts of wasted time.

Anyhoo: discuss
GJM

I've taken two "advanced" classes. From big name instructors (which everyone here will tell you to take a class from). Unfortunately, I didn't feel I got any actual instruction in either, it was mostly just "shoot my set ups and try to do well" type of training. Which to some extent was helpful because it helped show me where my strengths and weaknesses are (but I honestly could just have looked up these drills which are readily found on the internet and practiced them myself). And what little I did get out of the classes... I was only able to get, because I already have some competition experience to help give context to those drills. Someone who's a beginner or intermediate shooter might not know enough to be able to coach himself through the drills or what to do next with their results. It's true that in the long run you want to be your own coach, but a lot of trainers are using this statement as a cop out from having to ACTUALLY work/train to correct your issues. I saw a lot of bad shooting throughout the class with both instructors just walking the line and ignoring all these obvious faults. I mean, I know instructors aren't wizards, they can't fix you in one day or with one statement, but to never actually stop the shooter or even try to give them advice and just continue to watch them shoot like crap throughout 3 days... That's not acceptable. I think at some point, the bigger the name, the more complacent these instructors get. As if you're getting something just from being in their presence. I've seen it firsthand, many shooters leaving after 2-3 day classes with just aching hands, hundreds of dollars less, and 1k less ammo, and nothing learned other than they suck because they couldn't meet the instructor's standards. I've always found it rather interesting, that it's the training junkies who introduce themselves by their long training resumes with so and so, who tend to shoot the worst. What does that tell you? That classes are supplemental at best. There really isn't that much to shooting. In the end, where one will improve the majority of their training, is at home, with dry fire. Join a couple of shooting competitions, learn as you go, read some books on the subject, watch some youtube videos, diagnose yourself, and get to practicing/dryfiring/drilling. I managed to get to A class without any formal training and M is right around the corner.

[vcdgrips]

Congratulations on A Class.

Best of luck re M Class.

Paragraph breaks really help the reader understand and appreciate the points you are trying to make.

[JCN]

I think at some point, the bigger the name, the more complacent these instructors get. As if you're getting something just from being in their presence.

I've seen it firsthand, many shooters leaving after 2-3 day classes with just aching hands, hundreds of dollars less, and 1k less ammo, and nothing learned other than they suck because they couldn't meet the instructor's standards.

I've always found it rather interesting, that it's the training junkies who introduce themselves by their long training resumes with so and so, who tend to shoot the worst. What does that tell you?

In the end, where one will improve the majority of their training, is at home, with dry fire. Join a couple of shooting competitions, learn as you go, read some books on the subject, watch some youtube videos, diagnose yourself, and get to practicing/dryfiring/drilling.

This is what I’ve learned in an active year of being on Pistol-Forum:

There are a lot of great people here. There are a wide variety of different goals for their time with firearms and different priorities for their training.

For some of them, structured classes are absolutely the best use of their time.

For others, self study works better with their personalities.

For yet others, facilitated coaching and mentoring in addition to the self study is their best life.

What works for you may or may not work for them. There are no universal truths for firearm training.

We are all big boys (and girls) here. People will find the method that works for them emotionally and time investment-wise even if it’s not the most efficient at technical training. It’s what works for them and their choice on how they spend their time and money.

The lines between formal and informal and virtual training are progressively more blurry in this day and age.

Focus on what you want out of your competition goals and live your best life, cheers!

P.S. would love to read your training journal if you make one, it’s always fun to watch people work through their plateaus and cheer with their successes. Best of luck on M class!

[JohnO]

From watching what goes on in many formal training classes with big name instructors there is a large shoulder rubbing & bragging component in play. I can now say I trained with _______ __________.

There also is opportunity to learn and improve. I feel what can be learned depends on the individual student. It depends on many factors, most significant is where that student is in ability level. There would be a sweet spot where someone has enough experience to be ready to be taken to the next level. Too little experience and the student would be overwhelmed, unable to keep up and a drag on the class. Someone with a lot of experience under their belt could benefit from and be happy with a few nuggets of gold picked up at a class.

In many cases formal instruction should not be looked at as how much better will I be when the class is over. But how much can I learn, observe and take notes on that I will go on and practice and improve upon over the next few months. It really is difficult to walk away from 2 days of instruction markedly improved shooter. Think of formal training as obtaining the tools/techniques required to practice and become better.

[MVS]

Your "opportunity cost" comments in post #70 of this thread seem to conflict with the metrics you've set. If resources are very limited, you should probably narrow down and focus your "why."

Acknowledging that this is the "Competition Skills" sub-forum on Pistol-Forum, I should be clear that "it's a free country," as they say. If you want to get really, really good at the shooty stuff, just because, then rock on with your bad 'ol self. Set whatever kick-ass standards you want get after it.

That said, if you're primary goal is personal defense, I suspect you'd do well to look to the standards of instructors like Tom Givens, @Darryl Bolke, Wayne Dobbs, and commentary by guys like Cecil Burch SouthNarc, Paul Sharp and Varg Freeborn, for instance. I suspect that anyone on the high side of "C" class has sufficient raw marksmanship skill to do really well in those standards, and therefore do well in a personal defense shooting. To that point, The Tactical Professor Claude Werner's minimum effective standards are even more modest. Fortunately, acquiring and maintaining that level of skill probably won't require a ton of practice, ammo and time away from family.

On the other hand, personal defense is multi-disciplinary. Shooting is only one of the skillsets that a well rounded personal defense practitioner ought to be familiar with, and arguably the least likely to be used in a personal defense encounter. Being physically strong and healthy, along with competency in

Awareness and Avoidance
MUC (Managing Unknown Contacts)
OC Spray
Hand to Hand fighting (such as BJJ or boxing)
managing in-fight stress response
medical training
low light shooting
defensive weapons flow
force on force validation
managing the after action
use of force legalities

are more likely to affect the outcome than having "A class" shooty skills. IF personal defense is the primary goal, I suspect getting "C class" competency in most or all of those skillsets is more valuable than becoming A, M, or GM in just shooting. If you can consistently pass the more respectable LE quals or Tom Givens standards, for instance, then time and resources may be better spent pursuing family time, health and wellness, general preparedness (food, water, power, shelter) and competency at those other defensive skills.

Of course, you do you.

***I am in not remotely an expert on any of this. That's why I qualify everything with "I suspect..." This is my imperfect understanding from listening those who are. I hope the knowledgable folks will push back if I'm full of poop. ***

I agree with a lot of what you said and used to be all in on all of the physical stuff, then I became physically limited. So do the old and infirm still have any hope for self defense?

I found this recent Rangemaster article reflects more of my current way of thinking.

https://conditionredresponse.com/?p=1006

[MVS]

I am extraordinarily reluctant to compare shooting to golf in any meaningful way.

The consequences for playing/practicing/training poorly are rarely life altering.

Re shooting, the exact opposite is true.

Not a big golf fan, but seeing as how we are in the Competition sub forum, I can see the parallels.

[David S.]

I agree with a lot of what you said and used to be all in on all of the physical stuff, then I became physically limited. So do the old and infirm still have any hope for self defense?

I found this recent Rangemaster article reflects more of my current way of thinking.

https://conditionredresponse.com/?p=1006

Nailed it. Kilt on the streetz. :facepalm:

[IDontDoQuests]

Congratulations on A Class.

Best of luck re M Class.

Paragraph breaks really help the reader understand and appreciate the points you are trying to make.

Thanks and will do. I am used to another website and the way the paragraphs look once posted, now I know to separate here a bit more.
Now that I am taking this sport seriously, I am actually starting to post here rather than browse.

[JohnO]

Not a big golf fan, but seeing as how we are in the Competition sub forum, I can see the parallels.

Don't get me going on golf. Golf courses are a total waste of a perfectly good rifle range!

[BehindBlueI's]

I've taken two "advanced" classes. From big name instructors (which everyone here will tell you to take a class from). Unfortunately, I didn't feel I got any actual instruction in either, it was mostly just "shoot my set ups and try to do well" type of training. Which to some extent was helpful because it helped show me where my strengths and weaknesses are (but I honestly could just have looked up these drills which are readily found on the internet and practiced them myself). And what little I did get out of the classes... I was only able to get, because I already have some competition experience to help give context to those drills. Someone who's a beginner or intermediate shooter might not know enough to be able to coach himself through the drills or what to do next with their results. It's true that in the long run you want to be your own coach, but a lot of trainers are using this statement as a cop out from having to ACTUALLY work/train to correct your issues. I saw a lot of bad shooting throughout the class with both instructors just walking the line and ignoring all these obvious faults. I mean, I know instructors aren't wizards, they can't fix you in one day or with one statement, but to never actually stop the shooter or even try to give them advice and just continue to watch them shoot like crap throughout 3 days... That's not acceptable. I think at some point, the bigger the name, the more complacent these instructors get. As if you're getting something just from being in their presence. I've seen it firsthand, many shooters leaving after 2-3 day classes with just aching hands, hundreds of dollars less, and 1k less ammo, and nothing learned other than they suck because they couldn't meet the instructor's standards. I've always found it rather interesting, that it's the training junkies who introduce themselves by their long training resumes with so and so, who tend to shoot the worst. What does that tell you? That classes are supplemental at best. There really isn't that much to shooting. In the end, where one will improve the majority of their training, is at home, with dry fire. Join a couple of shooting competitions, learn as you go, read some books on the subject, watch some youtube videos, diagnose yourself, and get to practicing/dryfiring/drilling. I managed to get to A class without any formal training and M is right around the corner.

I've taken a hand full of classes outside .gov courses, and always learned *something*, but if you want to work on fundamentals and get personalized feedback then John McPhee is the 'big name guy' to go to. I learned more about what I was doing vs what I thought I was doing from his coaching and video feedback then anything else I can think of. Slow motion video feedback of you shooting is a very powerful tool, IMO, especially because it's very tough to argue you aren't actually doing X when the video shows you doing X.

[octagon]

Having taken a John McPhee course a few years ago in MI I wholeheartedly can agree with BBI on the value especially for beginners and anyone looking to refine their shooting or address a specific shooting concern. More than the instruction or even Coaches Eye software using video shot from the side or front (dryfire) or rear once you have a decent understanding of efficiency and fundamentals is extremely valuable in improving and maintaining skills. Like BBI said what you "feel" or "think" you are doing is either verified or more often not found in the unblinking completely objective video footage.

[GJM]

In years past, I have taken a bunch of classes. These days, what stands between me and being a better shooter can only come from lots of dry and live fire, and studying video of myself and others. That doesn’t happen in a one or two day class, but rather over weeks, months and years of persistence.

Going from class to class is almost like shopping wellness doctors, each with their own diet and exercise plan. Pick one and start working.

[mmc45414]

I've taken a hand full of classes outside .gov courses, and always learned *something*
In my job working in sales seems like every time the value proposition was out of whack we all got sent to another sales training program. Some were good, some were lame, some were (IMO, including one that is currently very popular) just wrong, but I always learned something.


In years past, I have taken a bunch of classes. These days, what stands between me and being a better shooter can only come from lots of dry and live fire, and studying video of myself and others. That doesn’t happen in a one or two day class, but rather over weeks, months and years of persistence.
I have really only been to one organized popular class, but my peer group is probably rare and they have taught me a great deal. But I really started shooting better when I started (ETA: Probably ten years ago or so) going out every weekend and shooting our timed drills, informally competing with that peer group, every single weekend, not just when I was in the mood.

[JCN]

In years past, I have taken a bunch of classes. These days, what stands between me and being a better shooter can only come from lots of dry and live fire, and studying video of myself and others. That doesn’t happen in a one or two day class, but rather over weeks, months and years of persistence.

Going from class to class is almost like shopping wellness doctors, each with their own diet and exercise plan. Pick one and start working.

I love this so much!

vcdgrips

I think everyone learns differently but for some and after a certain level, self study and experimentation is the way to make those subtle and incremental gains. Taking cues from other sports, slow motion video and study of inefficiency at reduced speeds is the key. It’s not necessary to achieve that level of mastery, but for those who want to pursue it it’s a viable path.

[UNM1136]

I've taken a hand full of classes outside .gov courses, and always learned *something*, but if you want to work on fundamentals and get personalized feedback then John McPhee is the 'big name guy' to go to. I learned more about what I was doing vs what I thought I was doing from his coaching and video feedback then anything else I can think of. Slow motion video feedback of you shooting is a very powerful tool, IMO, especially because it's very tough to argue you aren't actually doing X when the video shows you doing X.

Much luvs Shrek.

Have a local contact that I need to use to get him here. Dude is a STUD. Makes me hesitant, because I don't shoot anywhere near where I should....

And yes, his empasis on video reviews can be super humbling...but aren't we all students of the pistol? Shouldn't we welcome the spanking?

pat

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I'm at the point where I would only take a specialized class on a topic. For instance, Karl Rehn's Historic Hanguns. Yes, I probably could use some redo of the basics but I don't know the folks around here to make it worth my time.

I don't have the time or energy to do intensive practice, so I confine myself to two or three matches and some dry fire, SIRT around the house. No more H2H, to risky now - sigh.

My goal in matches is not to win as I never will. It is to keep basic skills up to date. Good accuracy and times actually shooting - not sprinting around. If I can in IPDA land have few points down or USPSA land, significantly more Alphas than Cs and very few Ds or Mikes, that's what I get.

I'm glad the club here has instituted a carry gun match and it seems wildly popular. Some folks still try to USPSA millisecond chase but that's OK. I get what I can get out of it for my old bones. Boy, I'm whiny but my knees are murderous lately.

I would suggest USPSA move into the 22 versions of service pistols. My club guy said if they allowed that as an option in an official match, they would get into trouble. What do I know?

Will do some steel challenge, PCC when the weather relaxes.

[vcdgrips]

I am not sure why JCN keeps mentioning me but it is saturday....

vcdgrips

JCN says

"I think everyone learns differently but for some and after a certain level, self study and experimentation is the way to make those subtle and incremental gains. Taking cues from other sports, slow motion video and study of inefficiency at reduced speeds is the key. It’s not necessary to achieve that level of mastery, but for those who want to pursue it it’s a viable path."

Nobody who is at or near the top of anything bodily kinesthetic reached their full potential without classes and/or coaching.

Re the use tape. Particularly in the defensive training context- Paul Howe (CSAT) started teaching in an open enrollment environment in 2002-2003. He was the first trainer I heard of that was using video to critique students. IIRC, in the early days, student were told to bring a blank VHS tape. In a class or "coach" led small group setting.


John McPhee was the first instructor I heard of in the defensive training context that was using the "Coach's Eye" 10 or 12 years later, harnessing the widely available digital recording resources of Apple products. In a class or "coach" led small group setting. happy to stand corrected if there were others sooner.


Perhaps not surprisingly, Mrs. Howe and McPhee have a common military background re their respective service to our country.



Yes or No

1. In your "prime" would you have been a better driver if you had some coaching by the lead factory Porsche Driver? If not him/her then who?

Can you get better by self study-absolutely. Can you get crazy good-absolutely.

2. Would you be a better long gun shooter today if you had spent a day with somebody who was already a GM in the realm?


I know- you are still a better shooter than me. You self taught yourself to GM re a pistol. You have a finite amount of time.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I might disagree on the GM issue. I am all for classes but being a great driver or GM doesn't mean you are a great teacher. Those folks might be at the stage of unconscious competence and not be cognitively aware of how they do this or that or if they do have insights, they are correct.

I'm all for training but want a trainer who is truly competent in the domain as well as being a competent instructor and has taken his or herself instructions on how to teach and diagnosis actions.

One noted champion in TX taught but his instructions were usually something like: Shoot faster.

Folks like Givens, Rehn, Ayoob, etc. have the skills and the teaching abilities. Thus having real time with them is very worth it. They offer instruction on how to shoot and how to teach.

In Academia, one current analysis is that we taught folks how to be great researchers for an R1 environment but little to none on how to teach. Given most PhDs ended up in teaching institutions (OH, the bitter pain of that), it is being rethought.

[JCN]

I am not sure why JCN keeps mentioning me but it is saturday....

This is coming from an educational standpoint and a discussion standpoint. It's not meant to be antagonistic.

I quoted because GJM stated that he is at the point where he will make the most gains by self study rather than classes.

Would he or I be better faster if we had Max Michel or Ben Stoeger living in our basements ready to coach us whenever we felt like it?

For sure we would.

That's the nuance I think you may be misattributing.

I like going to classes and receiving instruction. When I was racing, I did and paid for a lot of formal education. Dozens of schools and many days worth.

Some were great (Hurley Haywood!) and some sucked donkey balls.

I'm not anti-class. Nor anti-coaching. I regularly tapped my GM pistol friends to help me when learning pistol. I did the online coaching program that Casey Reed and Max Michel did.

Receiving good information is very important and cuts learning curve down.

Implementing it (which is what I think GJM is saying and I agree) to actually achieve proficiency takes ongoing work and self study... and for that a coach generally isn't available for.

[vcdgrips]

Now that you answered your question:

"Would he or I be better faster if we had Max Michel or Ben Stoeger living in our basements ready to coach us whenever we felt like it?

For sure we would."

Answer mine:

Yes or No

1. In your "prime" would you have been a better driver if you had some coaching by the lead factory Porsche Driver? If not him/her then who?


2. Would you be a better long gun shooter today if you had spent a day with somebody who was already a GM in the realm?

[JCN]

Now that you answered your question:

"Would he or I be better faster if we had Max Michel or Ben Stoeger living in our basements ready to coach us whenever we felt like it?

For sure we would."

Answer mine:

Yes or No

1. In your "prime" would you have been a better driver if you had some coaching by the lead factory Porsche Driver? If not him/her then who?


2. Would you be a better long gun shooter today if you had spent a day with somebody who was already a GM in the realm?

1. Yes. I thought that was clear because I did get coaching from Hurley Haywood who was a famous Porsche driver.

2. I don’t know. Probably? But maybe by 0.0001% more because most of the improvement was improving my coordination, strength and muscle memory? But it’s not an and/or because I ask my GM PCC friends questions all the time. It still doesn’t meet your criteria of “training resume” which was the point I was trying to make.

I ask for and get lots of help from people who know more than me.

That’s not sufficient to become proficient. It takes work and self study on top of that.

[JCN]

vcdgrips

I find shooting mechanics pretty simple and intuitive.

I don’t need to attend a class to teach me to reload a revolver.

I can watch a Jerry Miculek video.


https://youtu.be/0FbUMqoyjDw

He did the reload in 1.57.

I studied his reloads and practiced a little.


https://youtu.be/HmGj0QHc0Xo

Then I can do it in that ballpark of time (he has me on consistency and accuracy but it’s a start).

I don’t need a class to teach me to reload a PCC, I can watch this guy.

I can watch this video:


https://youtu.be/qhOMa0s-8gs

He did a 0.92 reload

And study and practice that.


https://youtu.be/hrz97zvhxiY

Then I can do it in that ballpark of time (he has me on consistency and accuracy but it’s a start).

I couldn’t have done it without watching their videos. But I didn’t need a class to do it. Just putting in some smart work.




Where I’d like to take a class is from someone like SouthNarc who can teach me strategy rather than mechanics (which I can work at home).

[vcdgrips]

Copy re the driver. I apologize for not reading closer.


Re longs guns

JCN says---- "I don’t know. Probably? But maybe by 0.0001%"

You start a thread for all to see that you are not good with long guns yet.

When asked would you be better if spent a day with a long gun GM, you seriously are saying you have 99.0099% of it figured out?!?!?

I am in awe. You are a freak of bodily kinesthetic and cognitive nature. I have no more words...

[JCN]

Copy re the driver. I apologize for not reading closer.

Re longs guns

JCN says---- "I don’t know. Probably? But maybe by 0.0001%"

You start a thread for all to see that you are not good with long guns yet.

When asked would you be better if spent a day with a long gun GM, you seriously are saying you have 99.0099% of it figured out?!?!?

I am in awe. You are a freak of bodily kinesthetic and cognitive nature. I have no more words...

It’s not meant to be antagonistic. So please don’t take it that way.

I’m answering your questions honestly. I think you’re interpreting my answers through a colored lens and attributing things that aren’t attributable.

If you asked: would I be worse if I couldn’t ask any PCC questions or study video?

Absolutely. I would probably be 30% worse.

But I could and did ask those questions. So spending a day with a GM wouldn’t have gotten me much further because I was working on fundamentals and had already asked those questions.

The “I’m not good at” threads are where I STARTED the threads to show the progression of improvement.

The goal is to get good at and the reason for the threads is to document the progression.

I can go from A class to GM level in a few months of self study.

That’s the point of those threads. To show that I’m not automatically GM, I have to figure it out.

Also to your point, I plan on squadding this year with the best PCC GMs I can get with in order to study them live.

I don’t have it all figured out, but that’s not what you asked.

TL: DR version is that I want National Champion input on strategy rather than mechanics. I don’t need coaching on mechanics, just a video of them doing it to study.

But I feel that I have to get the mechanics work done first before I benefit from the strategy part.