PDA

View Full Version : Reduced Round Counts and Training



ST911
05-08-2013, 10:44 AM
With slow ammunition flow in the market, many trainers and venues have announced various accommodations for students. Two of the more often seen are approval of rimfire conversion kits and reduced round counts. I’ll speak to the latter here.

Several classes on my 2013 calendar have reduced round counts by as much as a quarter or third while maintaining class time and tuition.

Behind the line, I recognize that class time and range exercises can be modified and still provide a high quality training experience. At some point however, the reduction in repetitions, drills, and ability to move into optional exercises with more capable classes compromises some of the potential learning and skill development. With it, the overall value of the course.

On the admin side, I also recognize that if course requirements aren’t reasonable for students, they don’t enroll. Whether hosted by the private or public sector, there’s a significant cost:benefit to be done for the venue. Public sector entities expending targeted program funds in required purpose areas have an additional layer of issues.

My first inclination is something along the lines of, “you’re ammo/magazine/widget shortage is not my problem.” If enough people are short though, the class isn’t held, and low and behold it becomes everyone’s problem.

As someone who came into all this well prepared, it’s irksome. I wasn’t short at the start, and hyper vigilance in resupply have kept me going. When I call a venue to ask about a course particular, is it wrong of me to be annoyed when their first response is “well, you better get your ammo now because it’s X amount of rounds”?

At the end of all this…and it will end…is it wrong to wonder if I received a lesser result if I didn’t get the trigger time and reps I would have otherwise?

Is there a point at which we can quantify the effect of reduced live fire, esp when the COI and objectives aren’t altered as well? Objectives and target performance measures need a certain number of cognitive, dry, and live fire experience to take hold.

I have high confidence that the GTG trainers will continue to deliver quality product, and my dollars are well spent. I have always believed training was good investment, in any quantity. Still, it’s all points to ponder.

Thoughts?

JodyH
05-08-2013, 07:26 PM
In all honesty, a good portion of the rounds sent downrange in most high round count classes are just noise, especially if there's a high student to instructor ratio.
A good instructor should be able to cut the round count and still meet the students expectations.

I just finished assisting with a class where the round count had been cut significantly due to budget and ammo limitations.
We ran 6 students on the line at once.
2 students would shoot the drill under the eyes of the primary instructor.
The next 2 students would challenge then either draw their handgun to a ready position or to aimed in on the target, but not fire any shots.
The last 2 students would just verbally challenge the target and assume an aggressive posture.
We'd then rotate down the line so everyone took turns doing each variation.
It worked out very well.
The 2 shooters received personal attention and had some extra pressure added because all eyes were on them.
The 2 ready position guys got experience in avoiding sympathetic shooting and they got in multiple draws.
The last two guys practiced their challenges and positioning.
Everybody got practice in performing the skills under somewhat chaotic conditions.
The class as a whole went through about 1/3 the ammo count.

NickA
05-09-2013, 08:39 AM
In all honesty, a good portion of the rounds sent downrange in most high round count classes are just noise, especially if there's a high student to instructor ratio.
A good instructor should be able to cut the round count and still meet the students expectations.

I just finished assisting with a class where the round count had been cut significantly due to budget and ammo limitations.
We ran 6 students on the line at once.
2 students would shoot the drill under the eyes of the primary instructor.
The next 2 students would challenge then either draw their handgun to a ready position or to aimed in on the target, but not fire any shots.
The last 2 students would just verbally challenge the target and assume an aggressive posture.
We'd then rotate down the line so everyone took turns doing each variation.
It worked out very well.
The 2 shooters received personal attention and had some extra pressure added because all eyes were on them.
The 2 ready position guys got experience in avoiding sympathetic shooting and they got in multiple draws.
The last two guys practiced their challenges and positioning.
Everybody got practice in performing the skills under somewhat chaotic conditions.
The class as a whole went through about 1/3 the ammo count.

That's a great idea. I was just thinking that, up to a point anyway, I'd be willing to trade more rounds fired overall for more rounds fired under direct observation of the instructor.

ToddG
05-09-2013, 09:51 AM
I think it depends a lot on the program and the instructor.

There's a big difference between giving students something to do so they're not bored versus letting them actually work on applying the skills being taught.

If the point of the class is technical skill-building, losing reps is losing reps. No amount of frosty coating goodness can change that. So unless the program was previously inefficient something had to come out when the round count dropped. That "something" may have been replaced by other activities that are also valuable, but that doesn't change the fact that some of the benefits of the old program were lost.

Jay Cunningham
05-09-2013, 10:40 AM
I agree with Todd.

I have recommended round counts in my classes that are the best possible projection we could come up with. I'm not going to revise my round count downward just to put bodies in class during hard times. I'd rather cancel the class than say "Hey, the round count is less but all that shooting stuff is just fluff anyway!"

Why aren't instructors who are lowering their round counts also reducing the course fees? Alternately, if you can get the same "training value" from the reduced round count, why not make the lower round count the New Normal?

ST911
05-09-2013, 07:56 PM
The 2 shooters received personal attention and had some extra pressure added because all eyes were on them.
The 2 ready position guys got experience in avoiding sympathetic shooting and they got in multiple draws.
The last two guys practiced their challenges and positioning.
Everybody got practice in performing the skills under somewhat chaotic conditions.
The class as a whole went through about 1/3 the ammo count.

That's great. Time and ammo efficient. Keeps everyone on the same exercise for consistency and peer learning. Keeps everyone doing something productive, without busy-work.


If the point of the class is technical skill-building, losing reps is losing reps. No amount of frosty coating goodness can change that. So unless the program was previously inefficient something had to come out when the round count dropped. That "something" may have been replaced by other activities that are also valuable, but that doesn't change the fact that some of the benefits of the old program were lost.


I agree with Todd.

I have recommended round counts in my classes that are the best possible projection we could come up with. I'm not going to revise my round count downward just to put bodies in class during hard times. I'd rather cancel the class than say "Hey, the round count is less but all that shooting stuff is just fluff anyway!"

Why aren't instructors who are lowering their round counts also reducing the course fees? Alternately, if you can get the same "training value" from the reduced round count, why not make the lower round count the New Normal?

Agree with both. If it's fluff, get rid of it.

To Jay's last point re: fees... This is clear in my head, let's see if it makes it out...

A course has a given value. An instructor's CV has an intrinsic value that he rightly bills for, and adds to the overall course experience. His 2012 course billed at X dollars for a given COI, requirements, and objectives. Those COI, requirements, and objectives were lowered/redefined for 2013. Does that instructor's CV still warrant the same rate, and give the course the same inherent value?

For certificate collectors who value a quantity of hours from <insert name here>... Absolutely.

For those more focused on outcome/performance-based valuations... No. Or am I missing something?

abu fitna
05-09-2013, 08:49 PM
Alternately, if you can get the same "training value" from the reduced round count, why not make the lower round count the New Normal?

I sincerely hope that this is only temporary. One of the real revolutions in training since the 90s as far as I have seen was the emphasis on reps. And reps have to be live fire at some frequent percentage, as much as dry fire or other training aids do help. Live fire reps take round count.

I don't want to be back to the 100-120 rounds once a quarter standard as the "good" recommendation (against a once a year run of same 50 or 60 round qualifier practise run and scored run as basic standard.) This is where the revolution in training, and the change in student outcomes that came with that revolution really made the difference.

ST911
05-09-2013, 09:50 PM
I sincerely hope that this is only temporary. One of the real revolutions in training since the 90s as far as I have seen was the emphasis on reps. And reps have to be live fire at some frequent percentage, as much as dry fire or other training aids do help. Live fire reps take round count.

I don't want to be back to the 100-120 rounds once a quarter standard as the "good" recommendation (against a once a year run of same 50 or 60 round qualifier practise run and scored run as basic standard.) This is where the revolution in training, and the change in student outcomes that came with that revolution really made the difference.

One of the upsides is that we're having these discussions. A lot of folks are looking at their students, objectives, and resources and making efforts to right-size them.

ToddG
05-09-2013, 10:28 PM
For those more focused on outcome/performance-based valuations... No. Or am I missing something?

I still think it depends on the class.

Let's suppose Trainer Joe used to teach a 1,500rd 2-day class. Now he's lowered it to 800rd.

Is it the same class? No.

Is it a good class? Depends. If all he's done is fluff it up or reduced hours or whatever, then no it's a sham. But if now he's added a lecture on dry fire or weapons retention or <insert topic of interest>, yes. Or perhaps he's added some more complex exercises that are time consuming; before, it was too much down time when people could have been shooting more but now it fits nicely into the rounds/hour for the class.

orionz06
05-09-2013, 10:30 PM
Todd,
I may have missed it or it may not be out there given the break but has AFHF been altered at all? I would guess the answer to be no.

ToddG
05-09-2013, 10:43 PM
I may have missed it or it may not be out there given the break but has AFHF been altered at all? I would guess the answer to be no.

Proving yet again that I live a charmed life, my break from teaching and the ammo shortage happened simultaneously so I've been able to dodge the whole kitten problem.

However, during the last ammo shortage I did make some pretty significant changes to the program. They were due anyway because early on I had a lot of students get burned out half way through day 2. Part of the change come by adding more dedicated lecture time to explain how/why I do things a certain way. Part of it came from getting more efficient with early drills that can teach the same concepts in a few rounds instead of many mags. And part of it came from taking out certain topics or drills, replacing them instead with things that only one person at a time can shoot such as Triple Nickel, Hackathorn Head Shot Standards, and the barrel/figure-8 drill.

The net effect was we went from 1,500rd per class to 1,000-1,200 per class. Of course, that still gets shifted class by class depending on the students, range, weather, etc.

NickA
05-10-2013, 10:04 AM
But if now he's added a lecture on dry fire or weapons retention or <insert topic of interest>, yes.

This could be a good side effect to the ammo crisis - if round count is reduced, add a half day or whatever of first aid, FoF, etc. The Tom Givens Combined Skills class was a fantastic value in that regard. Most of the round count (700 or so) was in an intense half day session with Tom, and the rest of the time was lecture, AMIS/MUC stuff, dry fire, and emergency first aid.
Obviously we didn't get as "deep" as a 2 day full-on course, but it was good base knowledge in different areas.

rob_s
05-16-2013, 05:52 AM
I had the opposite thought as the OP when courses started reducing round count. My first thought was "oh, so you're telling me that I actually DON'T need to shoot 2k rounds in 3 days to learn something?"

Best courses I've ever had were <1k/3-days. Most of the Hollywood classes/instructors are now being forced to learn how to teach.

ST911
05-16-2013, 09:13 AM
I had the opposite thought as the OP when courses started reducing round count. My first thought was "oh, so you're telling me that I actually DON'T need to shoot 2k rounds in 3 days to learn something?"

I agree with you. I think you can indeed learn things in far fewer rounds. The rub is in the point at which a loss of repetition and refinement occurs.


Best courses I've ever had were <1k/3-days.

This. I've found the 250-350rd mark per day, depending on the class and material, seems to be a good number for quantity and quality of material, student endurance and fatigue, and actual teaching, diagnostics, and interaction.

I've been to some events that were 1k per day. While they were deep in brass, but shallow in learning.