Gunsite Academy vs Rogers Shooting School

[41magfan]

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

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

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

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

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

[Sterling Archer]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[41magfan]

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

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

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

Hope that response was helpful.

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

[Sterling Archer]

Thank you, sir!

[GJM]

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

Gunsite uses the following approach:

1) Teach the student basic gun handling.

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

3) Teach the student accuracy.

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

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

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

[DamonL]

Also, Gunsite teaches the Weaver stance.

[Erick Gelhaus]

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

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

GJM, am quite interested in the why.

[Erick Gelhaus]

Also, Gunsite teaches the Weaver stance.

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

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

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

[41magfan]

Also, Gunsite teaches the Weaver stance.

Well, sorta.

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

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

A couple of other quick comments;

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

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

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

[GJM]

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

GJM, am quite interested in the why.

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

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

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

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