General Categories > Information Arsenal

Nine Things New Shooters (and CCW Holders) Need To Know About Training

(1/3) > >>

JTH:
My personal favorites are #1 and #3.  :)

http://blog.shooting-performance.com/nine-9-things-new-shooters-and-concealed-carry-permit-holders-need-to-know-about-training/

(This is Mike Seeklander's training blog.  Mike has a lot of experience both as a shooter, and as an instructor of shooters for military, law enforcement, and private citizens.  http://shooting-performance.com/michaelseeklander.html )

Lorimor:

--- Quote from: jthhapkido on May 27, 2014, 06:24:41 AM ---My personal favorites are #1 and #3.  :)

http://blog.shooting-performance.com/nine-9-things-new-shooters-and-concealed-carry-permit-holders-need-to-know-about-training/

(This is Mike Seeklander's training blog.  Mike has a lot of experience both as a shooter, and as an instructor of shooters for military, law enforcement, and private citizens.  http://shooting-performance.com/michaelseeklander.html )

--- End quote ---

HA!  1 & 3. Typical newbie selections.  Every Pro knows number six is best.  :) 

His skills drills test looks good.  Downloaded. 

bullit:
1) He provided no studies to back up his blog entry so "meh".....
2) He does not mention that competition ENHANCES real world training due being dynamic and containing real world scenarios (i.e. IDPA)
3) Should I NOT recommend the free CHP class offered on this site on Father's Day based upon his #1 ?
4) For those of you in Rio Linda, 1) - 3) is sarcasm

JTH:

--- Quote from: Lorimor on May 27, 2014, 07:08:07 AM ---HA!  1 & 3. Typical newbie selections.  Every Pro knows number six is best.  :) 
--- End quote ---

Yeah----that of course assumes that the person actually knows what they are good and bad at....

....which, from what I've seen, is really not the case.  (I know, I know, you weren't serious, but I'm still going to comment!  :)   )

How many people have you talked to/seen who talk about how good they are as shooters---but yet, you watch them on the range and 1) their draw from open OWB is only slightly under 5 seconds, 2) their groups on a 5 yard target (that's being generous) look like shotgun patterns at 20 yards, and 3) their safety practice looks like the Keystone Kops playing Tactical Timmie.

How about at the NFOA annual meeting last year, where we had people draw to a 12" plate at 7 yards----and either people couldn't hit the plate, OR their draw to first shot could have been measured by hourglass?

Yes, that sounds like I'm being derogatory, and I don't really mean it that way---it is just that people REALLY need to understand what "competent" means.  His point #8 is rather important for that---because if you log your practice, you can then compare it to various scores that are considered "competent" by the majority of professional instructors.

Let's take the NE LEO Firearms Qualification...

It isn't difficult, only takes a 70% to pass (you can miss 15 shots completely and still pass---so scarily enough, you can miss all of the 10 and 15 yard shots and STILL PASS) and yet....some LEOs every year have trouble passing it.  Looking at what we saw at the NFOA annual meeting, many people there (who probably consider themselves competent with firearms) wouldn't be able to pass it either, simply due to the time limits.  Accuracy-wise, sure---but they couldn't do it in the time given (especially the strings with required reloads).

I have a student who took my Introduction to Handgun class, practiced less than 10 times with a .22 pistol in the next year or so, bought a 9mm the week before she took my Handgun Techniques class (which she had never shot before the HT class) and in that class, she had no problem passing the LE Qualification.

It isn't hard---if you have good solid fundamentals, and are competent at basic gun-handling.  Everyone doesn't have to be world-class to be considered "competent" ---but a 2 second draw from concealment to an A-zone at 7 yards isn't world class.  That's just solidly competent.

Shawn and I disagree on many many things, yet one of the things we DO agree on is that single most important thing that people should work on is their ability to make accurate hits.  And yet, lots of classes around here teach "advanced tactics" of various flavors that don't actually improve people's abilities to make accurate shots---because people think they already shoot competently. 


--- Quote ---His skills drills test looks good.  Downloaded. 

--- End quote ---

Mike's got some good stuff.  His training program works well for shooters with enough discipline to actually do it, and his drills are solid.

JTH:

--- Quote from: bullit on May 27, 2014, 01:07:47 PM ---3) Should I NOT recommend the free CHP class offered on this site on Father's Day based upon his #1 ?

--- End quote ---

I tend to recommend classes based on what I think of the instructor, as opposed to what it costs.    If I think an instructor will teach poorly or incorrectly, I won't recommend it even it is happens to be free.

And I've seen a LOT of "free self-defense seminars" given over the years that were actively bad.  (Meaning, going to it was worse than it you hadn't gone.  It taught you things that simply weren't true, and made you believe you had capabilities that you didn't have.)   If an instructor is going to give answers that are incorrect regarding self-defense or the law, then that isn't something you want to learn.

I've never been to a class by the particular instructor referenced above, so I couldn't say whether or not it would be a good choice, having no personal experience with his class.  I could only base an opinion on the relative correctness of the things the instructor has said here on the NFOA forum with regard to self-defense and the law.

I think with respect to what Mike was saying, is that he meant that the Internet means any idiot with an opinion can talk as if they were an expert---as such, taking all the free information around us as ALL TRUE isn't a good idea.

It is true that most of the people who are national-level instructors feel that their time is valuable---so their training costs.  But that isn't an absolute, as some give free seminars, or have periodic low class fees.  And worse yet, a lot of people who are really POOR trainers still have training fees that are high, and cult followings that sing their praises even though the rest of the training culture most emphatically does not agree.

Upshot is, IMO, don't trust everything you read, and do your homework on instructors before you start believing what they are teaching.



(Sarcasm?  What's that?)

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page