Bill Wilson and Ken Hackathon's Crystal Ball Predictions

[mmc45414]

Vegans, crossfitters, firemen, dotters.........

I always heard it as the firefighter that does CrossFit and is on a paleo diet is always in a dilemma about what to tell you about first.

[HCM]

I was texting with a friend from pf this morning and something occurred to me. There seems to be more push back with some shooters not because they think red dots are bad but maybe just not for them, right now. when rds shooters hear this the reaction seems to be to treat those people as fudds or like they are now somehow unarmed/not prepared because they are using irons. Others have said it before but group think is a hell of a thing.



before anyone jumps down my throat, I understand rds is the future, yada yada

I have no issues with an experienced irons shooter who says the juice of going to dots is not worth the squeeze for them. I don’t think anyone else is saying that either.

It takes more work to go from irons to dots than to start from zero with a dot. That may not be worth the investment for a higher skill irons shooter.

I DO have a problem with those same people making false assertions about dots for others to protect their ego and/or try to preserve their relevance without doing the work despite evidence to the contrary. Examples:

-The presumption that it takes a new shooter as more work to learn the dot than it takes an experienced irons shooter to transition from irons to dot.

-The assertion that learning the dot is some sort of arcane elite skill that requires higher levels of commitment than developing or maintaining equivalent levels of skill with irons.

-The assertion that dots cannot be shot as well as (or better than) irons and that this is somehow an equipment issue.

[HCM]

I always heard it as the firefighter that does CrossFit and is on a paleo diet is always in a dilemma about what to tell you about first.

It’s definitely vegan cross fitting firefighters …

[Paul Blackburn]

It could just simply be a matter of individual pros and cons which are of course subjective and not without biases.

I took a red dot pistol to a Paul Howe course and received the same individual instruction and attention as everyone else. Maybe even a tad more in observation.

No snide remarks in any way. Very professional and top notch.

At least thats my personal interpretation.

[HCM]

It’s a common thread with all good instructors – their knowledge is always evolving.

The student/instructor thing is very interesting. When people post on PF, and elsewhere, are they wearing the shoes of instructor or student?

I think at your core, you self identify as only one.

Archer1440 is spot on.

A good instructor should always be learning / evolving in both roles.

In addition to switching roles and being a student at times, an instructor should be paying attention to what their students are actually doing and the outcomes they are actually getting vs what they want or expect them to get.

If an instructor has not learned anything from their students and/or has not changed their mind on something they are doing it wrong.

I see rigidity and stagnation in two areas: institutional instruction and “cults of personality.”

Regarding the former, I may not agree with Will Petty about everything but one thing he’s correct about is his “Rockettes” analogy. The Rockettes have to stay current and try out every year. If you are an instructor who has not attended some sort of professional development in 5, 10, 15 years since you went to your institutional instructor school you’re wrong.

Regarding the latter, as much as conservative / gun owners like to make fun of liberals for being attracted to gurus, and cults of personality acting as life coaches, there are a lot of conservative gun owners who indulge in gun / tactical / conservative gurus and cults of personality acting as life coaches. They say they want to train hard skills, but they really just want a guru. I see the same thing with certain martial arts populations like Krav Maga.

[joshs]

It takes more work to go from irons to dots than to start from zero with a dot. That may not be worth the investment for a higher skill irons shooter.

I'm not sure this is even universally the case. I was a moderately skilled iron sight shooter, and switching to a red dot pretty much looked like this: Step 1: Install red dot . . . . Step 3: Profit. For me, I just didn't like losing the peripheral view of irons coming into the target on transitions, but learned to over come that by reading the rear of the slide and optic for that visual feedback.

I DO have a problem with those same people making false assertions about dots for others to protect their ego and/or try to preserve their relevance without doing the work despite evidence to the contrary. Examples:

-The presumption that it takes a new shooter as more work to learn the dot than it takes an experienced irons shooter to transition from irons to dot.

-The assertion that learning the dot is some sort of arcane elite skill that requires higher levels of commitment than developing or maintaining equivalent levels of skill with irons.

-The assertion that dots cannot be shot as well as (or better than) irons and that this is somehow an equipment issue.

Yeah, the "problem for new shooters" claims seem completely disproven at this point by the multiple agencies that have had the same experience with their "non-gun people" all doing better with a dot. Obviously, USPSA and IDPA results are pretty good evidence that the last type of claim is false too.

[JHC]

It could just simply be a matter of individual pros and cons which are of course subjective and not without biases.

I took a red dot pistol to a Paul Howe course and received the same individual instruction and attention as everyone else. Maybe even a tad more in observation.

No snide remarks in any way. Very professional and top notch.

At least thats my personal interpretation.

That’s pretty great to hear and I’m not surprised. Based on the personal unique feedback every shooter got in the one Hackathon class I attended I know it would be the same.

But he’s been retired from that gig for years and has not one fuck to give about “relevance”.

[Trooper224]

I have no issues with an experienced irons shooter who says the juice of going to dots is not worth the squeeze for them. I don’t think anyone else is saying that either.

It takes more work to go from irons to dots than to start from zero with a dot. That may not be worth the investment for a higher skill irons shooter.

I DO have a problem with those same people making false assertions about dots for others to protect their ego and/or try to preserve their relevance without doing the work despite evidence to the contrary. Examples:

-The presumption that it takes a new shooter as more work to learn the dot than it takes an experienced irons shooter to transition from irons to dot.

-The assertion that learning the dot is some sort of arcane elite skill that requires higher levels of commitment than developing or maintaining equivalent levels of skill with irons.

-The assertion that dots cannot be shot as well as (or better than) irons and that this is somehow an equipment issue.

Logically, I don't see how anyone can look at the technology and the processes involved , then claim it's too complicated for a new shooter. Fewer points of reference, one focal plane, etc. Less is not more in this case.

I get the hesitation to adopt new technology when what you've used has worked well for so long. When you're dealing with life saving equipment, constantly jonesing for the flavor of the week isn't productive. However, time marches on. I was always of the opinion that one should never put anything that takes batteries on one's weapon. Then, the state put an Aimpoint Comp M4 on my rifle. It took five minutes to convert me.

Last year, when I found out my old peeps were going to pistol mounted optics I was just a bit jealous. I missed the chance to check it out on the states dime.

[HCM]

I'm not sure this is even universally the case. I was a moderately skilled iron sight shooter, and switching to a red dot pretty much looked like this: Step 1: Install red dot . . . . Step 3: Profit. For me, I just didn't like losing the peripheral view of irons coming into the target on transitions, but learned to over come that by reading the rear of the slide and optic for that visual feedback.




Yeah, the "problem for new shooters" claims seem completely disproven at this point by the multiple agencies that have had the same experience with their "non-gun people" all doing better with a dot. Obviously, USPSA and IDPA results are pretty good evidence that the last type of claim is false too.

I could see that for an irons shooter who already had both a good index and some experience using “soft focus” irons with a target focus.

Taking pistols out of the equation the Army found the same thing with new shooters when they switched to teaching optics first, then irons in basic training.

[mmc45414]

It takes more work to go from irons to dots than to start from zero with a dot.

I made a pretty smooth transition to the dot, and I attribute this to three things:

1. I bought the exact same pistol I had been shooting for several years and had it direct milled
2. I put a large (SRO) window dot on it
3. I use a press-out presentation I have been trying to utilize since 2006