"Spend the Money on Ammo and Classes"

[BLR]

The money could be better spent on ammo and classes than on outdated guns that are just taking up space.

Disclaimer: Quote taken out of context.

I've noticed, in most 2 day classes, that 70-95% of the subject matter is exactly the same from one instructor to the next. This excludes very focused classes, rather is aimed at the 2 Day Long Intermediate to Advanced Generic Handgun Operators Course.

The reason I bring this up is this: that is the nearly universal recommendation when any monetary expenditure is brought up. And since no one on forums ever (bit of hyperbole there) mentions non tactical classes, I've always assumed the advice is to take another Pinky or Jimmy class. But to what end? How much can you get out of a 2 day class with so broad a curriculum? 2 day class on reloads - I can see that. 2 day class on fast, accurate use of sights - I'm there. 2 day class on draws - yep. Yet another 2 day class on Advanced Handgun - why? To what end?

After a few of those, are you really getting any more ROI for cost and time?

[ToddG]

I got more out of the Langdon class I took a couple weeks ago -- at about $800 after tuition, ammo, & lodging -- than any new pistol would have delivered in terms of improving my shooting. The last $800 I spent in ammo for practice was also worth more than any $800 gun.

Some "training junkies" are just collectors of a different sort: they want to collect class certificates. I've had guys come through class, put absolutely zero effort into learning anything new, shoot the drills, and walk away happy to get a piece of paper at the end of the day. During class they're often already talking about the next class(es) on their schedule. To me, that's no different than collecting guns for fun. Knock yourself out if you want to do it, but don't pretend it's going to make you a better shooter. Collecting guns or class certificates is as useful as collecting ammunition... it's gun-related but it's not going to make you faster or more accurate.

For what it's worth, I do think even serious shooters can get trapped in a training junkie loop that eventually plateaus. I've seen quite a few good shooters who can't get to that next level because they only shoot when they're in classes. They might take five, ten, even twenty classes a year but they never spend a single day on the range practicing. They never absorb what they were taught in class. They never transfer it from "I learned this" to "I do this," if that makes sense. There are a few guys I've seen in class year after year (or multiple times per year) who've I told flat out not to come back until they burned 5,000 rounds in non-class practice, or spent a year off from classes, or whatever.

[David S.]

Bill, in my limited experience, I think there is some truth to your comments for some people. I had the pleasure of attending the same Ernest Langston class with Todd.

Some thoughts on the issue for those who are truly interested in improving their pistolcraft (and not just the buy guns to buy guns or take classes for the sake of certificates crowd, which as Todd said above, there is nothing necessarily wrong with). I gather....
1. Most serious would benefit from buying one or two high quality guns that are similar. (G17, G19 or G17/G17 G17/G19 combos). This has been hashed out ad nasseum around here, right?

2. Complete a basic class. NRA basic or state CCW permit class or similar. A couple ex-mil buddies taught me those basics years ago.

3. Take the 2-day general class. Givens, Langston, Hackathorn, et.al, all probably have a very similar curriculum for 70-95% of their Combat Pistol 1 or Tactical Pistol 1, or whatever the school calls that class.

4. Practice, read, learn, compete....?

5. As necessary, find instructors that can help fill the training gaps. Trouble with grip, go see Vogel. Interested in The role of guns in self defense, go see Givens or Ayoob. Need extra emphasis on sight picture and trigger control, go see Bruce Gray. Competition, go see Avery, Seeklander or Stoeger. Etc.

6. Practice, read, learn compete....?

7. Take a general class every few years to keep up on current trends.

8. Practice, read, learn, compete....?

[PPGMD]

I've noticed, in most 2 day classes, that 70-95% of the subject matter is exactly the same from one instructor to the next. This excludes very focused classes, rather is aimed at the 2 Day Long Intermediate to Advanced Generic Handgun Operators Course.

I found that as well.

Honestly once you reach intermediate level and your desire is to get your shooting skills better, it is hard to find an instructor that can work. As even if they can teach you to get better they don't have the time to observe you and correct the little things.

I honestly think that a class small enough that there is a ton of time per a student becomes a must at a certain point.

Though that is hard to find, only a few instructors don't do the 2 Day Long Intermediate to Advanced Generic Handgun Operators Course, and honestly including medical classes I have at best time for one class a year that isn't local.

I think that finding someone that can do personal instruction might be a better option once you reach a certain level. Sure one day of personal instruction often costs more than a 3 day class, but I think with the personal attention you might get more out of it.

[YVK]

After a few of those, are you really getting any more ROI for cost and time?

No, but I doubt it is expected. After getting basics down and sorting out dogmas, half-truths, open-ended hypotheses etc, what you're paying for is listening to a specific instructor's own take on things, having him see and diagnose you shoot, and new self improvement drills. Whether you are going to get it, is almost a random event, and amount of a "new stuff" is going to be small. Therefore, at this stage a class selection process should be different. For example, I'd only go for a specific content, and will not do a poor student to instructor ratio classes.

I used to be 3 to 5 classes per year guy. After talking it over with TLG during in late 2011, I decided to invest my time and money in self practice, and some competition. I did zero classes in 2012, and one in 2013 - with a "non-tactical" trainer. 2014 so far has one class planned. My scores are getting better, and I don't feel less tactical..

[Cookie Monster]

I started shooting a few years ago, headed to a school in the desert and ended up taking a class a month or every other month over the course of two years. I went from no good to zero down on the testing. Which was a pretty good feeling

What was beneficial to me with lots of classes was not having a lot of time to develop bad habits. I go back and an instructor would see something I'd developed with my dry practice, I'd get it fixed and come back. Or I'd work on improving something else. I'd walk away with something to work on and then work on it.

I've gone from 12 classes a year to 1 or 2. My skills have dropped due to life emphasis on other things and less motivation to perform well and get the most of out the money I was spending on classes.

I saw a fair number of folks chasing performance with equipment or running no carry equipment to improve. Only saw one or two IWB holsters in my time at those classes.

My experience,
Cookie Monster

[Ray Keith]

After a few of those, are you really getting any more ROI for cost and time?

I think it depends on what you want to "get".

I took AFHF a couple of summers ago, for the specific purpose of learning something new. I was not taught to shoot with a press out and it was very foreign feeling. I committed significant time, $ etc.. to travel for the class. I accepted that I was going to spend 2 days working on that method. It was fairly traumatic, I shot horribly, and probably looked like I had no business being in the class, perhaps I didn't. I am a decent shooter, and have had a significant amount of other training and competitive shooting. It was unbelievably tempting to go back to shooting the way I always did, because there is nothing worse than sucking in front of your peers, who just think you suck and don't know what you are doing. This may make it sound like the experience was not worth it, that is not the case. Through the misery I learned a lot. I made a significant tweak to my grip and reload through the instruction there. Prdator installed some new sights on my pistol which I still use and installed on all of my carry guns. I also took away many of the principles being taught and they have made me a better shooter. I still have my certificate with a rating of "take his gun away" on it with the others.

It's painful to suck in front of people and have your ego battered, but it is generally worth it. Fortunately a mentor did not bill me for the therapy that I required to stop talking to myself afterwards.

I posted a Gunsite review here this year, much of what they taught was "basic", and as I hear on the internet outdated and from the Paleozoic Pistol Era but I still learned a great deal there. I have a list of who I want to train with when money and time allows. Yes I'm a training whore, I like my certificates, I like my pictures. Perhaps I'm kidding myself but I enjoy the process and enjoy learning from smart people, it is worth it for me.

I need more AR training now. I have a had a little, but am still very much a beginner, and need very basic low student/teacher ratio stuff. A class of 20 won't help me, I need far more individualized work. The good thing is I have no preconceived notion of my rifle skills, so it won't be painful.

The other benefit of continued training is that the field isn't static. Methods/drills/philosophy evolve. Newer doesn't necessarily supplant older in terms of validity, but always forces me to evaluate what I believe and do.

[GJM]

Sometimes we do classes for pure fun, like because they are with a group of buddies, with a fav instructor, at a neat place (desert in the early spring), or have a neat target system such as the Rogers range.

As pointed out already, beyond a certain level the real progress comes from hard work in your own practice, with periodic high level coaching from a great instructor in a private or semi-tutorial setting mixed in to troubleshoot.

[Chuck Haggard]

Mostly I agree with you. Many people never get to that level though.

Going to sound like pimping because I know the guys, but some of this is why I like going to the TDSA-Tulsa classes so much, and recommend them so highly.

I have never been to a pistol class before where the instructors are looking at you, just your trigger pull, your grip, etc. After having gone the first time about ten years ago I have been back twice since as a tune-up of sorts. I think sometimes a tune up is a good thing when we are talking basics. Also during that time the group of instructors has been learning and practicing, so you get the benefit of other people's experience outside of your ability to gain it in the same time frame.

I know, for me, this has been far more valuable than buying or keeping many of the guns I have had over the years.

[LittleLebowski]

I've been to a few "tactical" classes. That being said, Todd taught me how to practice and what to practice. Failure2Stop kept a running log of my shooting and pushed me hard to become a better carbine shooter.

A week ago, Ernest Langdon was watching me shoot and diagnosed a less than optimal grip (sweating) by observation.

From the above, you can see who I recommend training with and whom I plan to train with.

[GJM]

I have never been to a pistol class before where the instructors are looking at you, just your trigger pull, your grip, etc. After having gone the first time about ten years ago I have been back twice since as a tune-up of sort.

This is exactly what I am talking about. My wife and I have gone to Manny Bragg the last two years, for this, and it is the shooting equivalent of a head to toe physical. Plus we get to see him shoot with us, which is invaluable. Whether it be with Bragg, Langdon, your place out there, or just a smart buddy, it is extremely valuable to have someone focus on you. Incidentally, OrigmiAK has an incredible eye for this stuff and has provided valuable critique on some video I have shared with him.

[ST911]

I've become a voracious note taker when I go to training. I try to capture the purpose, progression, and explanations of particular POIs in addition to the exercises themselves. It's been very helpful in comparing not only experiences with particular instructors and courses, but more importantly what had the greatest difference in outcomes down the road. Keeping a log/journal of my shooting activities has also been helpful in the same type of analysis.

Looking back, a lack of the above kept me wandering in circles.

[BWT]

If I had the discretionary income I'd take training, but these days (6 days to Marriage, whoo!) I just don't.

That being said, I'd say shooting, in a lot of ways, when you get down to the very very fine end of the spectrum, is simple.

Simple principles, the danger is that you start doing things and developing habits, that you won't notice because you do them. I can give fairly decent relationship principles, and know them. But... I still in the heat of the moment, etc. (Heck I've spent what I'd spend on training classes and guns in forms of counseling in the last year, but it's priorities being correct) make simple mistakes. I still do the things that I'd advise not to.

Getting into a quality training class reminds you of the truth. Heck something I spend a lot of time in is the Bible as a Christian. I was reading it just 20-30 minutes ago, and I realized things I still fail to do.

For instance I was reading the Bible, and sent a text to my fiancee as a reminder "Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children; and walk in love, just as Christ also loved you, and gave Himself up for us, an offering and sacrifice to God as a fragrant aroma." Ephesians 5:1-2.

I can tell you before that I was texting her how I lost my patience with my Mother over wedding planning last night over something remedial, and really didn't practice the above principle even though I know it.

That's why as a lifestyle the Bible says to renew your mind daily, I believe the Bible is absolute Truth personally.

This fundamental that's listed in the bible, is also true to shooting.

If you don't practice basic fundamentals, consistently and if you don't practice them consistently, you will lose your skill level as a shooter. You will experience dissipation, which is also something the bible talks about.

You'll water down, lose your edge, quit practicing the things you knew. Shooting is the same way, anything you do is this way. That's honestly how I can tell you, even in my experience, the bible is the truth.

Not trying to evangelize, just trying to relate.

Training is needed, practice is needed, balance is needed as well between the two.

[Failure2Stop]

A good instructor should help you figure out where you need work, and what to practice to improve that downfall. Take the lessons from the class and use your time and resources to advance to the next level. Once you get there, if you desire to break through your plateau, seek applicable training. It helps a lot to log your performance.

I don't expect "good" shooters to greatly increase their performance in a 2 day class. Beginner, or shooters with fundamental marksmanship problems, might massively improve in a short time, but the purpose isn't really to sell "performance in a can" like some magical salve. The tweaks and finer points of individual performance take time and repetition to make habitual.

There is not a GM that rose to that level of performance through a few 2 day classes. That level of performance is gained through dedicated, intense, driven individual practice, purpose built to constantly push until the wheels come off, and then push some more.

Practice is where you make your gains; classes are where you learn how to do that.



Typos brought to you via Tapatalk and autocorrect.

[Drang]

...Yet another 2 day class on Advanced Handgun - why? To what end?
Refresher?

[BLR]

An additional observation: Every GM/M level shooter I know video tapes himself (I don't know any female shooters at that level) during practice sessions, and especially during drills.

So, my followup question is this: Why are there so few what I would label "shooting" schools? Rogers is a "shooting" school, for reference purposes.

[BWT]

An additional observation: Every GM/M level shooter I know video tapes himself (I don't know any female shooters at that level) during practice sessions, and especially during drills.

So, my followup question is this: Why are there so few what I would label "shooting" schools? Rogers is a "shooting" school, for reference purposes.

How many bullets a year do your friends shoot?

My Father is a pretty avid golfer, has been for about 20+ years. He lives at a neighborhood with a golf course and is a member there. He golfs multiple times a week, he reads articles, magazines, practices at ranges just about weekly.

His game has improved and he's had Ah ha moments. But really his biggest break throughs have happened by changing things he's learned watching and golf instructors. Every Pro Golfer has a coach and a caddie. It's not a horrible idea as shooters to get insights as a Shooter.

Now shooting is much more forgiving of improper technique, but the principle applies to a degree in shooting as well.

[Ed L]

The money could be better spent on ammo and classes than on outdated guns that are just taking up space.


Disclaimer: Quote taken out of context.

Just to be clear, my original quote in its original context was meant as a friendly ironic barb from someone who has more than a few outdated guns to someone else who owns even more outdated guns. Both myself and the person it was directed at have more than a decent amount of training.

I also think the line is overused at times.

My thought is to get a decent gun or two, get some decent training, get to a decent level of skill. And then go where you want with regards to buying guns and/or training.


I've noticed, in most 2 day classes, that 70-95% of the subject matter is exactly the same from one instructor to the next. This excludes very focused classes, rather is aimed at the 2 Day Long Intermediate to Advanced Generic Handgun Operators Course.

Having taken a bunch of classes, sometimes this is the case and sometimes it isn't. Different instructors add different elements from their background, emphasize different things and have different approaches. It's up to each student to do their research and try to find instructors and classes that best fit their needs and tastes.

Sometimes even though what you are learning isn't something new, it helps reinforce good habits and skills. You may also pick up something you have previously missed or forgotten.

(I know--overly vague with excessive use of words like "good" and "decent")

[Haraise]

Just to be clear, my original quote in its original context was meant as a friendly ironic barb from someone who has more than a few outdated guns to someone else who owns even more outdated guns. Both myself and the person it was directed at have more than a decent amount of training.

I also think the line is overused at times.

My thought is to get a decent gun or two, get some decent training, get to a decent level of skill. And then go where you want with regards to buying guns and/or training.



Having taken a bunch of classes, sometimes this is the case and and sometimes it isn't. Different instructors add different elements from their background, emphasize different things and have different approaches. It's up to each student to do their research and try to find instructors and classes that best fit their needs and tastes.

Sometimes even though what you are learning isn't something new, it helps reinforce good habits and skills. You may also pick up something you have previously missed or forgotten.

I completely agree. Get rid of those stupid outdated guns. Old tech! Useless! ;) Make way for the latest and greatest everything!

[NETim]

I enjoy training classes. I meet some pretty cool people. Most classmates are accomplished, decent individuals. They are ADULTS. I don't have to be at all PC about self-defense issues. I can drop my guard and I relish that feeling. Sometimes I even leave the class feeling like there is yet still hope for this country.

Training classes give me an opportunity to see how I measure up to standards and what I need to work on. They give me an opportunity to learn how my chosen gear performs in ways perhaps I haven't tested and sort the wheat from the chaff in a fairly efficient manner.

And a good class never fails to remind me that the most important tools lie between my ears. (It's much too easy and much too fun to get caught up in the hardware side of things and lose sight of what's important.)

I 'spose some would consider me a "weekend warrior" or a "gun skool vacationer" type (or whatever the current derisive phrase is now for those of us who go to "gun camp".) Regardless, I do think that there is a great deal of value to having some training certs in your name and a pile of hand written notes from a MAG40 class in your possession should the worst ever happen.

But yeah, I'd much rather drop my $$$$ on classes and ammo than equipment.

[BLR]

How many bullets a year do your friends shoot?


My friends - not much. Less than a grand a year, I would guess.

My shooting buddies - 5-20k/yr. I have 1 Master level shooting buddy.

So, let me twist the question a little bit for the sake of discussion - at what point do you start looking for a GM rank and/or national title (or equivalent) as required for an instructor?

[PPGMD]

But really his biggest break throughs have happened by changing things he's learned watching and golf instructors. Every Pro Golfer has a coach and a caddie. It's not a horrible idea as shooters to get insights as a Shooter.

I don't think you can compare golf school to a shooting school, as typically golfing is something that is done one at a time. You don't have a single golf instructor watching a line of a dozen students all swinging at the same time.

But even with that the pro-Golfers don't attend those golfing schools because their issues are things that might only be spotted by cameras. And in a way I think at a certain level shooters benefit from much more personal attention than what Johnny Generic Tactical Shooting Class can give each student. They need more personal attention, which requires smaller class sizes and an instructor that can spot those little issues. And once they get beyond that level, I think that pro-shooters could benefit from the golfing coach approach but our sport doesn't have that much money in it yet so they substitute video cameras.

And honest to become a better shooter you don't need to be shown a new way to reload your gun because it is tactical, you need someone that can watch an already solid (tactical or competition depending on your arena) and find the issues. Because lets me honest 90% of the descent schools out there are teaching virtually the same technique with at best some small changes (take reloads, slide stop vs working the slide).

[PPGMD]

So, let me twist the question a little bit for the sake of discussion - at what point do you start looking for a GM rank and/or national title (or equivalent) as required for an instructor?

Never. Just because they got a national title or a GM rank doesn't mean that they can teach.

We've brought up Golf here. Pro-golf coaches aren't former greats, in fact if they weren't known for teaching the golf greats you wouldn't know their names. Sure they typically play themselves, but they are never at the same level as the people that they coach. And it is the same across many other sports, take gymnastics for example, the Olympic level coaches are older men tutoring pre-teen girls.

[Chuck Haggard]

So, let me twist the question a little bit for the sake of discussion - at what point do you start looking for a GM rank and/or national title (or equivalent) as required for an instructor?

Depends.

Obviously when I attended a class put on by Jim Cirillo I was looking for something different than how to max my efforts in competition. Unless you also meant to cover BT/DT type guys with national recognition in your question, in that case guys like Kyle Lamb, Paul Howe and Kyle DeFoor would certainly qualify.

[GJM]

Never. Just because they got a national title or a GM rank doesn't mean that they can teach.

We've brought up Golf here. Pro-golf coaches aren't former greats, in fact if they weren't known for teaching the golf greats you wouldn't know their names. Sure they typically play themselves, but they are never at the same level as the people that they coach. And it is the same across many other sports, take gymnastics for example, the Olympic level coaches are older men tutoring pre-teen girls.

Fair point about GM doesn't necessarily mean a great teacher. However, do you know any instructors with B class level shooting skills, for example, who you would go to if you were trying to increase your shooting ability from A to M, or M to GM?

[PPGMD]

Fair point about GM doesn't necessarily mean a great teacher. However, do you know any instructors with B class level shooting skills, for example, who you would go to if you were trying to increase your shooting ability from A to M, or M to GM?

At the moment? Off the tip of my head, no.

I was simply saying that we shouldn't a judge a person on weather they've gotten their GM ticket punched.

[YVK]

So, my followup question is this: Why are there so few what I would label "shooting" schools? Rogers is a "shooting" school, for reference purposes.

Business decision? Traveling instructors have a very minimal overhead and financial investment, the demand falls off - there are no losses for them. Schools have to invest in land, infrastructure, maintenance, electricity, water, insurance etc. Their product stops selling - their losses are huge.




So, let me twist the question a little bit for the sake of discussion - at what point do you start looking for a GM rank and/or national title (or equivalent) as required for an instructor?

When you think they have a specific set of instruction to offer? I think it is a matter of an insight on what they do well, why they do it well and whether it is applicable and transferable to you. Just as a personal example, my only 2013 class that I alluded to in my previous post was a private day with Manny Bragg. I wouldn't've gone to him and dropped $600 on a generic day with Manny. I was not particularly interested in draw from open holster or stage planning, or position entry and exit, but knew there was a ton of other stuff I wanted him to teach me, and he did. Awesome instructor, BTW, highly recommended.

[Dagga Boy]

Let me add a couple of things. I have been to a ton of schools. I learned from every single one; although, some was what not to do. This weekend I took a "Fundamental Pistol 1" class from Stephen Pineau. Have I had basic pistol classes.....yes, several. Have I taught a bunch of these.......yep. I do this stuff to maybe try to pick up a "tidbit" of info as an instructor to maybe hear something explained a different way. I like to hear what other instructors believe, even if I think its wrong. At least I can get their context. Most of all, and this is for the "student"-I guarantee that if you take a class a second or third time, or go back "down" a couple levels, you will pick up a few things that are small details (that are often the gems) that you missed when you were drinking out of a firehose the first time through.

In this case I shot the first third of the class with a revolver. I haven't spent much serious time with revolvers in the last several years, so I wanted the time on someone elses structure to run drills. I also challenged myself to shoot it faster and more accurately than the rest of the class all shooting pistols with a class built around semi-auto pistols. Additionally, when I transitioned back to the P30 for the last third of the class, I was much better able to self diagnose some issues. The day culminated with a clean dot torture....which was kind of neat, because I had never shot Dot Torture before (I know...:confused:..I guess I missed that memo). It is a great drill I will be using in the future. So while I didn't "learn a lot", I did get solid benefit from being there.

[BLR]

Let me clarify this point a bit - this was not intended as an indictment of instructors, traveling instructors, gun schools, and so on. This was intended, as a teacher/professor, to start a dialog on the Generic 2 Day Intermediate/Advanced Pistol Skills class value beyond the first one or two sessions.

[BLR]

Fair point about GM doesn't necessarily mean a great teacher. However, do you know any instructors with B class level shooting skills, for example, who you would go to if you were trying to increase your shooting ability from A to M, or M to GM?

I would have VERY serious reservations about taking a shooting school with a non-GM level shooter. There are precious few exceptions I would consider today.

In other words, a GM ticket is (almost) necessary, but not sufficient.

[YVK]

I would have VERY serious reservations about taking a shooting school with a non-GM level shooter. There are precious few exceptions I would consider today.

In other words, a GM ticket is (almost) necessary, but not sufficient.

Interesting. Would it be a current, active GM, or someone who got their ticket punched 15 years ago and now is quite past their prime?

[BLR]

I would prefer current.

Though, past prime if the reputation picks up the slack.

And that would have to be supported by someone I trust.

Sent from my SGH-T889 using Tapatalk 4

[Dagga Boy]

I would have VERY serious reservations about taking a shooting school with a non-GM level shooter. There are precious few exceptions I would consider today.

In other words, a GM ticket is (almost) necessary, but not sufficient.

Now I'm confused........You should be a GM to teach pure shooting, but if we broach the idea that instructors who teach pure defensive shooting should have extensive "GM" level of experience in dealing with making well executed lethal force decisions under stress for real, we are told that it is not necessary:confused:. Weird.

[BLR]

What?

Sent from my SGH-T889 using Tapatalk 4

[YVK]

High threshold, eh?

I used to take tennis lessons from that woman in her mid-late thirties. She was a head coach at a public facility near me, nobody vouched for her, was just a matter of convenience.
Turned out she had qualified for the Wimbledon and the US Open in her prime, which she was way past. She was overweight and with arthritis, but, mobility aside, did everything better that I ever will, and could certainly teach well. Even though she was way past her GM time (one even could argue that qualifying for a major isn't even equivalent to GM).

[BLR]

Hence the "almost" and the "not sufficient" terminology to cover statistical anomalies like that. Because it would not be a likely hood that "that" woman is the norm.



Sent from my SGH-T889 using Tapatalk 4

[YVK]

Bill, perhaps it was not the best example, but I could list college players, college tennis coaches and teaching pros way lower than successful touring pros who taught me a lot.

Perhaps, it is a matter of personal proficiency level, but I think I would have no reservation about taking a lesson from an M or high level A shooter, provided my other selection criteria were met.

[ToddG]

I would have VERY serious reservations about taking a shooting school with a non-GM level shooter. There are precious few exceptions I would consider today.

Because you're so good that only a GM could teach you to be better?

I'm going to assume you're an even better engineer than you are shooter (and I mean that both sincerely and as a compliment). Do you believe only a Nobel Laureate could teach you anything about engineering, physics, chemistry, etc.?

I've learned things from shooters who weren't as good as I am. I've had shooters better than me come through class and -- if they're to be believed -- leave saying they learned stuff.

I've also been on the range with phenomenally talented shooters who've never shot a USPSA match. Amazing but true!

[rob_s]

Even Tiger Woods has a coach, and something tells me Bela Karolyi has never been on the uneven bars.

To the original question, I know lots of people that never shoot outside of classes. Day to day life seems to always get in the way of regular range trips and so the only way they get any practice is to schedule it months in advance and pay a bunch of money. An intermediate class is good for them as they don't necessarily need a 3-hour point-by-point breakdown of the draw, stroke but they do want to do some supervised shooting with feedback.

When I had my company one of the things we offered was "clinics", which were intended as focused training with a specific focus. For example, a whole day of shooting on the move, or engaging multiple targets, etc. while we got a lot of encouragement of the idea from other long-time shooters, we had a hard time filling them. That's either because we didn't market them well or because its not really what people want. If 75-90% of people are in classes for reasons you don't approve of, I guess we were only trying to reach 10-25%, which might explain the trouble.

My question back to you is why do you care? As Todd said, there are people that are there just to collect their Instructor XYZ merit badge, there are those that treat training like a vacation, those that just enjoy hanging out for fun, etc. frankly, at this point, I respect those guys a lot more than the ones that have some misguided sense of purpose and "need". And for the hardcore trainees, its the tourists that pay the bills. Why o you think so few trainers want to enforce standards for entry?

[Jay Cunningham]

http://i672.photobucket.com/albums/vv87/melliott2811/Internets/Hilarity/this%20thread%20delivers/this-thread-delivers_dhl.jpg

[BLR]

Because you're so good that only a GM could teach you to be better?

I'm going to assume you're an even better engineer than you are shooter (and I mean that both sincerely and as a compliment). Do you believe only a Nobel Laureate could teach you anything about engineering, physics, chemistry, etc.?

I've learned things from shooters who weren't as good as I am. I've had shooters better than me come through class and -- if they're to be believed -- leave saying they learned stuff.

I've also been on the range with phenomenally talented shooters who've never shot a USPSA match. Amazing but true!

I never said I was that good. I said a M/GM credential was something I look for in an instructor as an indicator (nothing more before someone contorts that into a something entirely different). It demonstrates commitment to shooting, proficiency, and knowledge. And again, there are exceptions for non M/GM level instructors I would pay for time with. Aside from a couple, they are members of this forum.

But to use me, and my profession as an example - let me turn the question around on you, Todd. If you wanted to learn engineering, would you like to learn from someone who demonstrated they are capable of unique and new work in the field of the level and quality suitable for publishing? If you were hiring me as a consultant, would you prefer I have demonstrated prior knowledge and proficiency in the field?

The point is this - A M/GM ticket is just that. A piece of paper. When combined with other factors it helps separate the wheat from the chaff.

[BLR]

http://i672.photobucket.com/albums/vv87/melliott2811/Internets/Hilarity/this%20thread%20delivers/this-thread-delivers_dhl.jpg

Seriously?

[Jay Cunningham]

Seriously?


Ya seriously.

Great discussion so far. At least I'm enjoying it.


https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/1705876736/hB41D44A1/

[ToddG]

I never said I was that good. I said a M/GM credential was something I look for in an instructor as an indicator (nothing more before someone contorts that into a something entirely different).

Through the power of Internet, what you said was:


I would have VERY serious reservations about taking a shooting school with a non-GM level shooter. There are precious few exceptions I would consider today.

In other words, a GM ticket is (almost) necessary, but not sufficient.

That's far different than what you're saying now. You've even backed out to M/GM.


But to use me, and my profession as an example - let me turn the question around on you, Todd. If you wanted to learn engineering, would you like to learn from someone who demonstrated they are capable of unique and new work in the field of the level and quality suitable for publishing? If you were hiring me as a consultant, would you prefer I have demonstrated prior knowledge and proficiency in the field?

I could learn things about engineering from students at a science/tech high school. Seriously. I could google "ten things every engineer should know" and somewhere between nine and eleven of the things on that list would be news to me.

My three year old niece doesn't need a Nobel Laureate in Mathematics to learn 2+2=4.

[Tamara]

(R)eal progress comes from hard work in your own practice, with periodic high level coaching from a great instructor in a private or semi-tutorial setting mixed in to troubleshoot.

Quoted For Truth.

I need to find somebody reasonably local to grade my homework every so often.

[BWT]

The other thing to consider is teaching is a skillset of it's own. So you have to weigh that too. Which makes a great, but also qualified teacher an even smaller percentage.

Example, Michael Jordan. Arguably another man hasn't ever played the game as well.

Horrible at managing and coaching.

http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/post/_/id/9203517/is-michael-jordan-bad-bobcats

[Chris Rhines]

Mark Rippetoe once said something along the lines of, "Mediocre athletes who tried like Hell to be great make the best coaches." (Quoted from memory.)

If I'm paying someone to train me, I care about their ability as a trainer first and foremost. Their ability as a shooter is a distant second, because they're not going to be shooting the matches for me.

[Dagga Boy]

I have three things I look for in a instructor:

1. A very good ability to teach
2. A high level of skill at what they teach
3. A high level of experience in doing what they teach with very good results over a long period to validate what they teach.

I have found that anyone with two of the above is usually worth spending the time and money and you will probably get your money's worth or at least not waste it (some who are exceptional at two are usually a bargain in the end). In the case of those with all three of the above.....they are the real gems and often the ones who become foundational instructors for many people who have trained with them.

I would agree with Bill that if I had a GM who also is outstanding in their ability to teach and communicate what they know would be more of what I would gravitate to over the local guy who is skilled and a good instructor. Which doesn't degrade the local guy or guy with two, it is simply the fact that chances are you will get more out of the instructor with three.

[41magfan]

Personally, I view firearms training in two dimensions; the mechanics and the application.

If the goal is simply to become a better shooter in a particular discipline or with a certain platform, there are PLENTY of folks out there that have demonstrated the ability to “do it”, so if they can “teach it” your time with them will likely be productive.

Obtaining qualified training in the mechanics is pretty straight forward IMO. For example, if I want 3-Gun skills I’m going to seek out a ranked 3-Gun competitor. If it’s Trap shooting, I want training from a guy that can shoot clean at the 27 yard line. If Action shooting is the goal, there are some great trainers from the various disciplines out there.

But, application training is where the water gets muddy IMO. Just like Camp Perry skills aren’t necessarily going to translate to the typical gunfighting scenario, experience in Infantry/Special operations on the streets of Tikrit or the Paktika province hill country isn’t going to be meaningful to me on the streets of Charlotte.

When it comes to the “application” of the gun, I want training from someone that has more relevant experience than I do – not just more training than I do. I say that because I’ve learned as much about the real world application of small arms from the average 19 year old gang-banger as I have from any firearms instructor/trainer.

[Rich Kid]

I think that going thru a training program without practicing on your own to really ingrain the skills that you have just been taught is like going to school and refusing to study and do homework. The class is only intended to get you started on a new skill and it is up to you to perfect that skill.

[GJM]

So here is a related question -- do you want/expect your instructors to be able to demo?

We have likely all had instructors who told us how great shooters they were and never fired a single shot in a course. In the last year, I did training with TLG, Bill Rogers, Robert Vogel and Manny Bragg. All of them demoed, and I considered watching their demos extremely important. So much so, I now have a quick and dirty rule -- no instructor demos and/or no steel (not all steel just some steel), and no me!

[Dagga Boy]

Good points 41Mag, as I was just at my kids skills camp and watching her coach I was thinking about this. Application is huge. Using the "Ball Sports" as similar to ""Shooting" stuff, the consumer needs to seek out the applicable training for their goals. Going to a Michael Jordon Basketball camp is probably not going to do a soccer play much good.....although some mindset, training principles and physical movement skills might apply. Someone looking for solid fundamental skills training for home defense is probably going to get far more out of a class with someone like Larry Mudgett at Marksmanship Matters than a top GM from the action shooting sports. Not that a top GM doesn't understand fundamentals, its just that they have really mastered small nuances that would be better applied and taught to that person who is trying to get to a higher level in that specific sport. There are many folks who are exceptional coaches and trainers who did not "go pro" in their sport, but instead went "pro" as a coach where "coaching" is their profession and it requires as much dedication to maintain those teaching skill sets as the doing skill sets. Usually, you would at least like to see that those professional coaches at least got to the top of their "amateur" ranks before making the switch. Seeking out those experts and top teachers in your exact area of interest is a worthwhile endeavor.

[Dagga Boy]

So here is a related question -- do you want/expect your instructors to be able to demo?

We have likely all had instructors who told us how great shooters they were and never fired a single shot in a course. In the last year, I did training with TLG, Bill Rogers, Robert Vogel and Manny Bragg. All of them demoed, and I considered watching their demos extremely important. So much so, I now have a quick and dirty rule -- no instructor demos and/or no steel (not all steel just some steel), and no me!

Yes! I want to see it from strictly the visual learning part of the equation. I also like to see an instructor who is okay with messing up, so I can see how they diagnose their own errors.....which is an important skill all its own. On the other hand, I want to see a "demo" of some drills, and not pay to watch the instructor shoot. You can also have too much demo work.

[Chris Rhines]

So here is a related question -- do you want/expect your instructors to be able to demo?

I'm more of a kinesthetic than a visual learner, so watching instructor demos has never done much for me. That said, I can certainly understand the value in seeing a demo. If I were an instructor, I'd probably demo most drills, but as a student, I can take or leave them.

[ST911]

I want to see a trainer demonstrate a task. It adds an additional layer of information transfer, credibility for the trainer, and learning opportunities in the event of their error.

[Shellback]

There are some very informative and thought provoking posts in this thread.

Someone looking for solid fundamental skills training for home defense is probably going to get far more out of a class with someone like Larry Mudgett at Marksmanship Matters than a top GM from the action shooting sports.

Thanks for the heads up. I'd never heard of Larry and he's not too far away from Vegas. Not to mention by best buddy, works for West Valley PD, lives about 20 minutes away from his range. After your recommendation and checking out their website (http://www.marksmanshipmatters.com) I'll definitely be attending one of his classes in the near future.

From Larry's website:


If you are looking for a one or two day "dog and pony show," where you shoot entertaining drills that are way above your skill level, while reinforcing your mistakes, you will have to go elsewhere. If you are looking for a structured, successful training program which will teach you safe and efficient gun handling, marksmanship, combat mindset and defensive shooting, we have the class for you!

I prefer to see the instructor demo each drill for clarification, see their approach and I'm also a visual learner.

[BLR]

Through the power of Internet, what you said was:

That's far different than what you're saying now. You've even backed out to M/GM.

I could learn things about engineering from students at a science/tech high school. Seriously. I could google "ten things every engineer should know" and somewhere between nine and eleven of the things on that list would be news to me.

My three year old niece doesn't need a Nobel Laureate in Mathematics to learn 2+2=4.

I don't know about "far different," but sure. There you go, evolution of a concept.

At this point, M/GM instructor might be considered "over kill" for my skill set. I'm fine with that. But it also helps eliminate some really questionable instructors. And if it weren't for this forum, and some of the members, it would be difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff in some instances.

And Todd, FYI dude, YOU...YOU raised my standards and the bar I measure instructors by back in 2003 IIRC at with a bunch of Montgomery County deputy and Dayton PD fuzz (back in my P220 days). So keep that in mind, dude. You also got me into IDPA then USPSA.

[ToddG]

So... we've met? :confused: (we apparently lack a "man am I embarrassed!" smiley)

But there's as good an example as any, then. I'm far from a GM level shooter... and was farther still ten years ago.

[BLR]

So... we've met? :confused: (we apparently lack a "man am I embarrassed!" smiley)

But there's as good an example as any, then. I'm far from a GM level shooter... and was farther still ten years ago.

Well, it was ten years ago....

Was the class I took right after a semi famous, area instructor, won't mention names. Came away from that one feeling like a badass. Left yours with an appreciation for what I didn't know. And more importantly, how to improve. How to improve after the class. Your class was perfect in that it was focused, it was not a generic 2 day class.



Sent from my SGH-T889 using Tapatalk 4

[YVK]

So here is a related question -- do you want/expect your instructors to be able to demo?



Besides aspects of visual learning, demo is a confirmation that instructor isn't talking out of his ass. Bill's criterion for a GM level trainer is a surrogate of ascertainment, biased towards specificity rather than sensitivity, that instructor has an understanding of technical skills he is about to teach. Live demo is a true ascertainment that instructor has skills he wants to teach.

[BLR]

Besides aspects of visual learning, demo is a confirmation that instructor isn't talking out of his ass. Bill's criterion for a GM level trainer is a surrogate of ascertainment, biased towards specificity rather than sensitivity, that instructor has an understanding of technical skills he is about to teach. Live demo is a true ascertainment that instructor has skills he wants to teach.

To be fair, the majority of people I'd like to attend a class given by do not have a GM ticket. Those include:
1. Jack Leuba (Doesn't have one)
2. Bill Rogers (Doesn't have one)
3. TG (Doesn't have one)
4. EL (Think so, not sure)
5. F Proctor (Has his ticket)
6. Stoeger (Can't remember)

And if I could have my way, one week long one by The Burner would be ultra cool. Total waste of money and time based on my abilities, but cool none the less.

The local guys may be great. And I might learn something. Chances are it won't be a night and day difference. But I have to weigh my time in with the decision to go to a class too.

[jetfire]

Ben definitely has his GM card, he won* Production Nationals last year.

*He was actually second, but since the winner was French, Ben is the National Champion and Eric just gets a nice prize for his 1st overall finish.

[PPGMD]

With the change in discussion I get a chuckle thinking about the USPSA clubs I shoot with. There is always at least one paper GM, and one sandbagging M that has to be dragged kicking and screaming to GM via a match bump.

You can spot the sand bagger easily they get first or second on all the stages except the classifier.

Spotting the paper GM is easy too, they will tell you they are a GM.

[Clyde from Carolina]

With the change in discussion I get a chuckle thinking about the USPSA clubs I shoot with. There is always at least one paper GM, and one sandbagging M that has to be dragged kicking and screaming to GM via a match bump.

You can spot the sand bagger easily they get first or second on all the stages except the classifier.

Spotting the paper GM is easy too, they will tell you they are a GM.

OMG, that is probably so true, but I can only imagine. I know the one 'state champ' I know personally managed to work his new found-status into every other conversation after his "triumph" -- to the bemusement and annoyance of everyone else concerned and within ear shot.:rolleyes: