NFOA MEMBERS FORUM
General Categories => Information Arsenal => Topic started by: JTH 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/ (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 (http://shooting-performance.com/michaelseeklander.html) )
-
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/ (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 (http://shooting-performance.com/michaelseeklander.html) )
HA! 1 & 3. Typical newbie selections. Every Pro knows number six is best. :)
His skills drills test looks good. Downloaded.
-
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
-
HA! 1 & 3. Typical newbie selections. Every Pro knows number six is best. :)
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.
His skills drills test looks good. Downloaded.
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.
-
3) Should I NOT recommend the free CHP class offered on this site on Father's Day based upon his #1 ?
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?)
-
It's a good article from Seeklander, even if he fails to mention "Critical Dynamic Incident."
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.
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.
I completely agree. First hand experience. :)
"Advanced Skills"= practice. Lots of practice.
-
My personal favorites are #1...
Wait a minute. Isn't your blog free? ;D
Fly
-
Wait a minute. Isn't your blog free? ;D
:) Yep. And people should completely ignore it if what I say contradicts reality, or can't be confirmed or supported by research and data.
Or, you know, they can ignore it because *I* said it. That's fine too. :P
Vaguely relevant anecdote:
I ran into someone the other day who said, actually said to my face, that he wasn't interested in anything I had to say about shooting because I wasn't law enforcement or military, so I didn't understand anything that happened In Real Life(tm)....I was just a competition shooter.
I just started laughing. I couldn't help it. When I thanked him for not being interested in taking one of my classes, he looked confused.
(I realize that I should have used some gentle facts and logic to help him understand better, but I wasn't in the mood to fix stupid at the time, and my sarcasm rating was pretty high that day.)
-
I am not an Instructor, I am not even that good of a student, but the people who scare me the most are the people who tell me they do not need to attend ANY training classes once they have their permit. They have been shooting since they were kids and already know everything! I can only shake my head and hope they leave their guns home in the safe.
-
I am not an Instructor, I am not even that good of a student, but the people who scare me the most are the people who tell me they do not need to attend ANY training classes once they have their permit. They have been shooting since they were kids and already know everything! I can only shake my head and hope they leave their guns home in the safe.
Anyone, including instructors, who thinks they don't need any further instruction is someone to be wary of. It's one thing to not get further training if you don't want to get better. It's another thing to not get it because you think you're good enough that you don't need it.
-
I am not an Instructor, I am not even that good of a student, but the people who scare me the most are the people who tell me they do not need to attend ANY training classes once they have their permit. They have been shooting since they were kids and already know everything! I can only shake my head and hope they leave their guns home in the safe.
I used to be like that, but then I took a class with Thomas and now I don't need any other instruction because I am basically an operator in plain clothes. I'm sure Thomas will back me on this.
Fly
-
I used to be like that, but then I took a class with Thomas and now I don't need any other instruction because I am basically an operator in plain clothes. I'm sure Thomas will back me on this.
Fly
I can vouch for this.... I've seen him (or at least I thought I did....he is very clandestine)
-
law enforcement or military
+
they do not need to attend ANY training .... They ....already know everything!
=
The worst of the bunch. Usually VERY poor shooters (notice the use of the word shooter, not gun owner), and worse yet, their safety habits tend to be in the crapper. And unfortunately, MOST prior/current military and law enforcement have this attitude towards ongoing education. I say that based on no real scientific evidence, just a general impression of people I used to and still currently work with or know.
Last summer I taught several days of pistol shooting to various brass, including a General who actually gave me a plaque based on the quality of instruction. Over the course of three days, I taught about 200 people in rotation (about 2.5 hours/20 students for each iteration). Almost all of the students were terrible shots, and about half were terrible students. I was routinely accused of being a "gamer" and "competitive shooter" (must be my habitual search and accessing that gives it away... some of you will get why that is funny).
At the end of each iteration, the group would go up and shoot the qual table. Giant pop-up targets, 40 rounds, 30 targets, must hit at least 16 to pass. Retarded easy. Except for two of the 10ish groups, I always went up and qualed in the first heat. Mostly because I was bored and the ammo was free. My LOWEST score out of 8 or so attempts was 29/30 with 9 rounds left over (I missed twice. Doesn't matter how many rounds you have left over, but I kept track for myself).... because I shot the whole thing strong hand only and I still very much suck at that. I am not saying I am a great shot, because I only consider myself "decent" at best, I am saying it makes the NE CHP qual look challenging.
The students, like the General, who came in with an open mind and good attitude, ALWAYS qualified on their first attempts, and, on average, scored about 8 points higher than everyone else (non-scientific). Many told me they got the highest score on a pistol qual that they had ever got. Mind you, I taught completely on the range, and absolutely nothing from doctrine (because military pistol doctrine is about as useful as canned spit).
The _other_ students often had to make another (or several more) attempts. They routinely blamed the ammo, the gun, the targets, the hit sensors on the targets, the guys running the range, and, of course, even me.
And that, is why I completely understand this sentiment:
I just started laughing. I couldn't help it. When I thanked him for not being interested in taking one of my classes, he looked confused.
THAT. Is why I have no interest in trying to convince people to get more training. I will, on occasion, try to SHOW them why, but, based on the completely unscientific statistics below, that has a very low success rate. I have long since had my fill of teaching people who don't really want to be there. This is also why I don't teach CCW.
The other point I am attempting to illustrate is that military and law enforcement firearms training is designed to make officers or servicemembers "good enough." And, quite frankly, most of the time, what departments or DoD consider "good enough" is downright pitiful. The training is half-assed check-the-block bullcrap. I have literally laughed out loud at the phrases uttered by prior service (especially POGs and part-timers) about how proficient they are.
Now, to be fair to the _other_ students, I gave the option of remedial training, and even had an assistant instructor set aside who could teach it. Of the _other_ students, maybe 5% actually came back for the remedial training, and, usually, with a much better attitude. The other 95% scraped by and managed to score the minimum after several attempts.
-
At the end of each iteration, the group would go up and shoot the qual table. Giant pop-up targets, 40 rounds, 30 targets, must hit at least 16 to pass. Retarded easy. Except for two of the 10ish groups, I always went up and qualed in the first heat. Mostly because I was bored and the ammo was free. My LOWEST score out of 8 or so attempts was 29/30 with 9 rounds left over (I missed twice. Doesn't matter how many rounds you have left over, but I kept track for myself).... because I shot the whole thing strong hand only and I still very much suck at that. I am not saying I am a great shot, because I only consider myself "decent" at best, I am saying it makes the NE CHP qual look challenging.
Just curious, what exactly are the specs on this retarded easy qual table? ???