Great info from Karl Rehn

[Zincwarrior]

FWIW, that March 3 class was a long day. The morning was a somewhat-advanced shooting course, the afternoon was force-on-force and was the most stressful for me, then we had the low-light class. Karl made a remark along the same lines as yours about the force-on-force training - most people need the force-on-force training more than the shooting, but it's not fun like the shooting is.

A bit if a digression but can you detail that more? How is it different?

[Zincwarrior]

50+ proves personal accuracy performance. It shows where your 7yd target bullet goes if you miss - and 99% of the time that long trajectory is higher than most people assume.

There have been a few times in history where it could have made all the difference in the world, Columbine for one.

I get the fact you don't get it. Saying it once is enough.

No you are missing the point. I am saying most people do not have the physical means to practice long range shooting due to distance limits at most ranges. I live in Central Texas and have access to 6 ranges in driving distance including clubs with shooting bays where we compete. Of those ranges maybe one has a bay you could shoot 40 yards with a pistol. Most people just physically do not have access to a location where they can practice longer range pistol shots.

I dry fire with small targets that are equal to 50 yards, but I do not have access to an actual range where I can shoot that.

[BobLoblaw]

Why did he keep saying "on it" at random times?

Cuz he's got that shit.

Probably a nervous filler similar to people saying "um" during their presentations.

[revchuck38]

A bit if a digression but can you detail that more? How is it different?

I'm assuming you're referring to the force-on-force training.

In a shooting drill, you know you're going to shoot the target, and you usually know where and how many times and in what time frame. In a shoot-house situation or in a match, you'll usually have no-shoots, but they'll be plainly marked and hitting one only results in time or point penalties. In the scenarios we went through, you had to decide in real time if drawing your gun was merited and legally defensible and if so, if it was the appropriate response against a "target" that moved quickly and unpredictably and that verbally challenged you. Sometimes it was, other times it was better to un-ass the AO without drawing and call the cops, and other times it wasn't the appropriate response. My brain froze at least once, and that was common. My brain doesn't freeze shooting cardboard.

Karl and the other instructors emphasized to us that as legally armed private citizens we have the right to defend ourselves and our families with deadly force if necessary, but we have no duty to intervene in other situations. That's what the police are trained and obligated to do. Sometimes intervening can be the right thing to do, but that's a decision you have to make based on the circumstances and with the knowledge that you'll be held responsible for that decision. Processing that for the first time in a deadly force situation would be really, really hard. Going through that class began that processing for me, and I'm still thinking about the implications.

[octagon]

From his post.


Kind of hard to run a class where folks have all kinds of different holsters with sweep dangers and questionable trigger discipline habits. It's hard enough to maintain a safe line with OWB/AWB holsters much less when one guy has a coat holster that requires him sweeping his off hand that's holding the holster still, his chest and everyone down line to his left while the guy a few down is pointing his gun at his pubic bone while trying to stuff his piece in his codpiece.

Doing the very basic square range classes with the "average" shooter is all you can safely do. If you're one on one you can do a little more but not with a group.

This may be true of live fire and higher round count or higher repetition type training but is much less so for training done with Simunitions/UTM, Airsoft, Simulators, blue gun scenario based training. Having people draw and present lethal live firearms particularly in line square range setting has plenty of risks even with standard IWB and OWB holsters let alone alternative types of carry. Doing the same with Sims, airsoft or blue guns eliminates the lethal high injury aspects and allows students to both get in some reps at speed and discover the weaknesses of their chosen carry choice. By including scenario training a trainer does so much more for helping a student for what they face than just recoil management and gun running skills of live fire.

Safer, more realistic, incorporating decision making/thinking under pressure and pressure testing gear with a few less reps or less time doing full power recoil management development. This is what the masses need but what the minority (gun and training enthusiasts) want is what the market offers. The 1% er gun/training enthusiasts are willing and plan to go to multiple training courses so they are willing to get some gun skills in one class, some mindset in another class and some tactics in another and so on. The masses need a one stop shop or two to get what they need to cover all their needs as they don't want,plan or desire to go to several one or multi day training courses. If it is not close enough or cheap enough or it takes multiple days they don't sign up and go.

It is why you see the same people and types of people in class after class instead of every class filled with novices and newbies they are filled with "this is my second,third, tenth class" type people. This leads to another point of consideration. How intimidating is it for a new(er) person to take a class with loud lethal guns being used together and then comparing their target to the person next to them who is on their 4th class this year. Compare that to the same person going through a scenario with quieter, lower recoiling, non lethal Sim gun in a scenario related to their daily life. Then watching the same skilled people also makes mistakes or get it wrong when they go through.

[Lomshek]

This may be true of live fire and higher round count or higher repetition type training but is much less so for training done with Simunitions/UTM, Airsoft, Simulators, blue gun scenario based training. Having people draw and present lethal live firearms particularly in line square range setting has plenty of risks even with standard IWB and OWB holsters let alone alternative types of carry. Doing the same with Sims, airsoft or blue guns eliminates the lethal high injury aspects and allows students to both get in some reps at speed and discover the weaknesses of their chosen carry choice. By including scenario training a trainer does so much more for helping a student for what they face than just recoil management and gun running skills of live fire.

Safer, more realistic, incorporating decision making/thinking under pressure and pressure testing gear with a few less reps or less time doing full power recoil management development. This is what the masses need but what the minority (gun and training enthusiasts) want is what the market offers. The 1% er gun/training enthusiasts are willing and plan to go to multiple training courses so they are willing to get some gun skills in one class, some mindset in another class and some tactics in another and so on. The masses need a one stop shop or two to get what they need to cover all their needs as they don't want,plan or desire to go to several one or multi day training courses. If it is not close enough or cheap enough or it takes multiple days they don't sign up and go.

It is why you see the same people and types of people in class after class instead of every class filled with novices and newbies they are filled with "this is my second,third, tenth class" type people. This leads to another point of consideration. How intimidating is it for a new(er) person to take a class with loud lethal guns being used together and then comparing their target to the person next to them who is on their 4th class this year. Compare that to the same person going through a scenario with quieter, lower recoiling, non lethal Sim gun in a scenario related to their daily life. Then watching the same skilled people also makes mistakes or get it wrong when they go through.

The problem with that sims gun training class is now the instructor needs to provide weapons, holsters and ammo for the class which means the class that the unwashed masses already think is too expensive just doubled in price. Add to that the fact that the Bersa 380 that the guy carries in his SmartCarry holster is not available in blue gun or Sims so he can't use his carry method or gun type anyway.

I'm not arguing against any of the points you made. They are absolutely true and valid about what the gun carrying public should do. The reality is that the same 1% of us ever will seek out training and, just like cops, if you paid people and provided the ammo most people still wouldn't do it unless they had to.

Why did I not need anyone holding my hand or walking me through the steps of how to train or get started in competition 20+ years ago? Because the mindset of myself and most others on this forum is very self help oriented. Most of us researched for ourselves whether that was reading class reviews of Gunsite and Thunder Ranch in the 90's and earlier in American Handgunner and similar mags or the web in modern times then went and did it.

A majority of humans want to be spoonfed everything instead of doing the "hard" work of learning and then they reject the info anyway. Look at how many times someone asks for gun buying advice then goes out and buys a Taurus 24/7 because it was $50 bucks cheaper and the salesman said it was just as good as the G19.

Teach people who want to be taught. Do everything you can to make the training relevant while keeping it safe and if the want to use some kind of carry method that makes class practice unsafe they can take the lessons they learned in class and practice dry fire at home with the Thunderwear.

Karl's post seems like more of a gripe about un-prepared students than anything and he's absolutely right. Hopefully someone besides us fringe nuts will read it and learn from it.

[Zincwarrior]

I'm assuming you're referring to the force-on-force training.

In a shooting drill, you know you're going to shoot the target, and you usually know where and how many times and in what time frame. In a shoot-house situation or in a match, you'll usually have no-shoots, but they'll be plainly marked and hitting one only results in time or point penalties. In the scenarios we went through, you had to decide in real time if drawing your gun was merited and legally defensible and if so, if it was the appropriate response against a "target" that moved quickly and unpredictably and that verbally challenged you. Sometimes it was, other times it was better to un-ass the AO without drawing and call the cops, and other times it wasn't the appropriate response. My brain froze at least once, and that was common. My brain doesn't freeze shooting cardboard.

Karl and the other instructors emphasized to us that as legally armed private citizens we have the right to defend ourselves and our families with deadly force if necessary, but we have no duty to intervene in other situations. That's what the police are trained and obligated to do. Sometimes intervening can be the right thing to do, but that's a decision you have to make based on the circumstances and with the knowledge that you'll be held responsible for that decision. Processing that for the first time in a deadly force situation would be really, really hard. Going through that class began that processing for me, and I'm still thinking about the implications.

Thanks.sounds like a good class.

[schüler]

No you are missing the point. I am saying most people do not have the physical means to practice long range shooting due to distance limits at most ranges. I live in Central Texas
...

No, I get it.

Public: Red's southwest Austin has pistol to 100yd.

Private membership: Austin Rifle Club has dedicated 25/50 pistol range.

I'm sure Karl can accommodate any serious interest in private lessons.

[okie john]

Many of the things mentioned, like holsters, sights and zeroes can be learned over the internet, or with simple instruction. The thing that can’t be bought, or fully learned through instruction, is what I believe is the single most important skill in shooting, regardless of whether you are a defensive or competitive shooter, and that is trigger control. Trigger control only comes from doing the work. As you develop trigger control, you extend the distances you shoot, shrink the target sizes, and increase the speed you shoot difficult targets at.

Having worked on public ranges for several years, I firmly believe that 99% of shooters have no idea where their pistols hit or that it's possible/desirable/necessary to zero one. Even on websites that profess to be all about shooting, intelligent discussions of pistol zero are nonexistent--most of them devolve into the "combat accuracy" gibberish on the first page.

This thread once again reminds me of how poorly educated the average shooter is and how switched on the typical PF poster is. Yesterday I met a guy at the range who's about my age. Eventually the conversation drifted to shooting handguns at distances beyond 100 yards. When I mentioned Elmer Keith, he said, "Who's that?"

Facepalm.

I described Elmer's method, then used it to get a first-round hit at 100 yards with a G19 and ball ammo. Then I wrote Elmer's name on a Post-It note so this knucklehead can go do his homework.

Some days I don't know whether to feel experienced or just old.


Okie John

[Zincwarrior]

No, I get it.

Public: Red's southwest Austin has pistol to 100yd.

Private membership: Austin Rifle Club has dedicated 25/50 pistol range.

I'm sure Karl can accommodate any serious interest in private lessons.

Red's has a 100 yard range? didn't know that. Thanks!