Page 11 of 11 FirstFirst ... 91011
Results 101 to 110 of 110

Thread: Appropriate programming

  1. #101
    I've taught a lot of non english speakers how to shoot over the years. Sometimes they get a lot of training and sometimes they only get what I give them for years and years. A fair number of them have been in gunfights over the years and I've heard back from some of them, though not always in enough detail to be really useful. I always taught eye level sighted fire for the majority of the class (1 day to 1 week, usually), however, I always include a very short session on target focused shooting. Very close ranges, and very high speeds. I don't know for sure if it matters, but it doesn't seem to hurt. After a day of sighted fire, target focus can be taught in a matter of minutes. I really believe it can't hurt and it could help. They do seem to have fewer trigger issues when using a target focus at high speed. Of course, I always emphasize that the gun should be brought up to eye level and pushed out just like it is when using the sights.

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

  2. #102
    Member JHC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    North Georgia
    Quote Originally Posted by SLG View Post
    I've taught a lot of non english speakers how to shoot over the years. Sometimes they get a lot of training and sometimes they only get what I give them for years and years. A fair number of them have been in gunfights over the years and I've heard back from some of them, though not always in enough detail to be really useful. I always taught eye level sighted fire for the majority of the class (1 day to 1 week, usually), however, I always include a very short session on target focused shooting. Very close ranges, and very high speeds. I don't know for sure if it matters, but it doesn't seem to hurt. After a day of sighted fire, target focus can be taught in a matter of minutes. I really believe it can't hurt and it could help. They do seem to have fewer trigger issues when using a target focus at high speed. Of course, I always emphasize that the gun should be brought up to eye level and pushed out just like it is when using the sights.

    It takes a lot of practice to do a press out at high speed with high accuracy. Less practice but almost the same results (with more speed) with the target focus at close distances.
    Same here with some family and friends who may not get a lot of follow on practice for a spell. After the fundamentals etc they are always gleefully surprised how well they can hit fast with metal on meat and cyclic trigger snapping up close.
    “Remember, being healthy is basically just dying as slowly as possible,” Ricky Gervais

  3. #103
    Yes, that has been one of my thoughts throughout much of this thread and other times this has been discussed. I always wonder how skewed the data is because dead defenders likely do not contact their instructors or talk about what worked and did not work in the fight It would, of course, take a very dedicated study to know the other side of the equation.

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

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

  4. #104
    I don't post here too often...but....I know a few guys that have replied to this thread, I have trained with a few guys on this thread, I have a bit of experience with a boat load of different trainers, I have pointed a gun at a few people. While I can appreciate from a business perspective attempting to identify and properly train a CCW individual that may never take a class again. I cannot at all get on board with anyone that gives any legitimacy to any instructor that teaches unsighted fire. Tell me one legitimate instructor that teaches this?? Please don't say Pincus either, he has zero legitimacy in the community, regardless of the amount of classes he teaches or TV shows he is on. It should be humiliating as an industry that this guy is still instructing and is a voice to the firearms community. My attempt is not to be a dick, but to say, the problem with our society is that in everything we do recently (including LE and mil, save for a few exceptional units) is teach to the lowest common denominator. That is a terrible solution. I would certainly rather develop a program where you educate as much as possible in an 8 hour program, and beat home the importance of follow-on training. The right to own or carry a gun does not equal competence. It is up to every level of trainer to educate individuals on their level of ability.

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

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

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

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

  5. #105
    Site Supporter Totem Polar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    PacNW
    Quote Originally Posted by Blake View Post
    I think some of what this topic entails is integrity. There are some amazing shooters out there that can teach people to shoot more accurately, more quickly, and more efficiently. That being said, should some guys be teaching CQB or response to active shooter? I don't think that is appropriate. My take only.

    More importantly, regardless of what we are teaching, why compromise standards because people don't see relevance in training? If you believe in a certain curriculum, why compromise that? Adjust fire to the audience, but DO NOT compromise the standards.
    I've also mostly stayed a lurker in this thread, because I am not a firearms instructor, nor any firearms/UOF expert by P-F standards.

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

  6. #106
    Site Supporter Maple Syrup Actual's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Northern Fur Seal Team Six
    Quote Originally Posted by Sidheshooter View Post
    I've also mostly stayed a lurker in this thread, because I am not a firearms instructor, nor any firearms/UOF expert by P-F standards.

    That said, what I am is a fine teacher in a mostly unrelated discipline (music performance) with a great reputation, acknowledged as an expert in print and radio, who sits on the faculty of my city's two dominant universities. Per the post above, if one can efficiently teach highly functional methods and techniques that are proven to work, and one chooses to dumb that expertise down for the wider field, then one becomes a hack by choice. I hold my classes to high technical and mechanical standards, and everyone learns to perform satisfactorily. Many will not still be playing 2-4 years later, true; I have no control over what people do or do not do with the information and skills I share with them. But the folks who do take to it really benefit; I've had students hand me their debut CDs and invite me to their gigs several years after starting out from scratch with me. I'd rather teach to the top, explain well enough for the bottom to experience success in the moment, and let folks sort out which camp they ultimately want to be in themselves.
    JMO.
    Well, that pretty much does it for me. I don't think it can be addressed any better than that.
    This is a thread where I built a boat I designed and which I very occasionally update with accounts of using it, which is really fun as long as I'm not driving over logs and blowing up the outboard.
    https://pistol-forum.com/showthread....ilding-a-skiff

  7. #107
    Quote Originally Posted by Sidheshooter View Post
    I've also mostly stayed a lurker in this thread, because I am not a firearms instructor, nor any firearms/UOF expert by P-F standards.

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

    Very good!

  8. #108
    [QUOTE=Tom Givens;294573] The ONLY way they had been taught to shoot was to aim the gun (use the sights). If they have only been taught one way, that's what they do.

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

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

    https://pistol-forum.com/showthread....452#post297452

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

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

  9. #109
    Quote Originally Posted by Blake View Post
    I don't post here too often...but....I know a few guys that have replied to this thread, I have trained with a few guys on this thread, I have a bit of experience with a boat load of different trainers, I have pointed a gun at a few people. While I can appreciate from a business perspective attempting to identify and properly train a CCW individual that may never take a class again. I cannot at all get on board with anyone that gives any legitimacy to any instructor that teaches unsighted fire. Tell me one legitimate instructor that teaches this?? Please don't say Pincus either, he has zero legitimacy in the community, regardless of the amount of classes he teaches or TV shows he is on. It should be humiliating as an industry that this guy is still instructing and is a voice to the firearms community. My attempt is not to be a dick, but to say, the problem with our society is that in everything we do recently (including LE and mil, save for a few exceptional units) is teach to the lowest common denominator. That is a terrible solution. I would certainly rather develop a program where you educate as much as possible in an 8 hour program, and beat home the importance of follow-on training. The right to own or carry a gun does not equal competence. It is up to every level of trainer to educate individuals on their level of ability.

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

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

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

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

  10. #110
    Smoke Bomb / Ninja Vanish Chance's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Quote Originally Posted by BaiHu View Post
    People need to know what they don't know. The ego is one of the first things that needs breaking before learning can occur. Only preceded by wax out of the ears and crusties out of the eyes.
    Regarding how to structure a training program, I think this is an important point. In my experience (which has nothing to do with self-defense), not exposing new students to the depth of a topic can easily result in a Dunning-Kruger type of effect, resulting in vast over-confidence that's difficult to correct without a serious (often devastating) ego check. That ego check seems to come at the least opportune time.

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

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •