Thanks for taking the time to consider my post! I like your attribute and skills listing of "the draw, reload, shooting while moving, moving to shoot, unconventional positions, etc." and ruling out only looking at bullseye style marksmanship (I'm ASSuming that's what you refer to with base marksmanship align sights pull trigger) as a standalone metric.
On his site Gabe White lists:
https://www.gabewhitetraining.com/te...-skills-tests/
A tactical level of proficiency in core technical skills of drawing and shooting
Bill Drill, 3.50 (Theoretical Breakdown: 1.50 + .40 + .40 + .40 + .40 + .40)
Failure to Stop, 2.90 (Theoretical Breakdown: 1.50 + .40 + 1.00)
Immediate Incapacitation, 3.00 (Theoretical Breakdown: 2.00 + 1.00)
Split Bill Drill, 4.70 (Theoretical Breakdown: 1.50 + .40 + .40 + .40 + 1.00 + 1.00)
This seems to best match the thread title of "Are classes the only way of becoming proficient?" as it includes a class based standard labeled as proficiency by a well respected trainer.
My personal objective benchmarks I plan on attaining initially are:
-5 second FAST (talked about too much on P-F for me not to be able to execute this)
-IDPA Expert classification (this was my first goal from reading a lot before I fired my first shots and was looking for an objective benchmark before starting the journey. I'd like to make sure to follow through on it.) Lots of shooting from unconventional positions to be found here typically.
-2 second BILL drill (It's on too many lists for me to consider myself adequate if I can't do it on demand).
-USPSA "A" Class (I don't plan on having to practice for classifiers but will if it's required to make my goal. I mention this because USPSA should handle the "moving while shooting part" but classifications can be gamed to achieve this through stand and shoot skills alone.
*I really don't anticipate a problem with "moving TO shoot" (assuming you don't mean "shooting on the move"). It's too much fun to practice not to end up good at rushing to and from a position to shoot on the clock.
I assume that to be absolutely the case. Then I'll go work on my now glaringly revealed shortcomings and go back and do it again, lather rinse repeat. That should be the basic premise of an independent course of study to attain objective progressively harder benchmarks.
More important than whatever metric I list, what would you deem an objective benchmark or set of benchmarks?
At some level if proficiency can't be defined or objectively tested then you could just always arbitrarily tell someone they've fallen short.