RANT

[BikerRN]

I think part of the problem is that Trainers have to get students, and lets face facts, most of the people that go to training classes can't shoot to the level they should be able to, and in order to get repeat business one has to have people feeling good about themselves. Therefore the standards get lowered.

Even if I shoot a "perfect" score, I'm not satisfied. There is always something that could be better, and that is what we should be striving for. The beginner shooting a 4" group at 7 Yards has more room for improvement than the guy or gal shooting one ragged hole at that distance, but they both have room for improvement.

Biker

[JdePietro]

Wet blanket time...

The problem with always being able to deliver surgical shots is the logistics of maintaining the skill. If you spend $80 a month on 8 50 rd boxes of 9mm you have about 100 rounds a week to practice. Now you have to add in the amount of fuel you consume getting to the range. If you range is fifteen miles away and you F-150 gets 15 mpgs than you have another $13.40 cost.

$93.40 that may or may not be enough to maintain a skill that statistically will only be used in the rarest of times.

Excellence is costly. Good enough can still save your hide.

[tankerdad]

Many people have brought up great points.  This is one of those discussions that can turn in to a "chicken or the egg" scene rather quickly.  Do you do the ground work to a high degree before moving on, or do you work on the harder stuff sooner for it to increase your skill?

Personally, I'm a train as you fight guy.  Now, I do believe there should be a minimum proficiency prior to moving on to tactical situations.  The first reason is safety.  The second reason is basic knowledge has to be there in order to make the training worthwhile.  I don't see an issue with working 30 minutes on basic shooting skills, then 20 minutes on a tactical scenario (could be as basic as reload with one hand, or whatever).  I believe that if you don't work any tactical skill until you can put 10 rounds in a 1" hole at 10 yards, you missed a lot of valuable training time.

I think part of the problem is that Trainers have to get students, and lets face facts, most of the people that go to training classes can't shoot to the level they should be able to, and in order to get repeat business one has to have people feeling good about themselves. Therefore the standards get lowered.
Even if I shoot a "perfect" score, I'm not satisfied. There is always something that could be better, and that is what we should be striving for. The beginner shooting a 4" group at 7 Yards has more room for improvement than the guy or gal shooting one ragged hole at that distance, but they both have room for improvement.

Biker

Biker, I have to disagree with you here.  First, your statement that "most" people that go to training classes can't shoot is a huge generalization.  Second, training centers have different level classes for this reason.  Third, at least for every instructor I've seen, it's about feeling confident, not feeling good (to me they are different).  And fourth, If someone is going to carry or own a gun at all, I much prefer they get professional training in any way than not (purpose here is I don't think it's a "lowered standard" issue).  Every person comes in at a different level to a class.  Unless it is for a qualification, it isn't a "standard" it's a "goal" or "outcome" which is an important distinction.

I do totally agree that we should never be satisfied, and always strive for better performance.  Everyone should have that mentality.

As always, just my humble opinion. And good enough can also injure or kill a bystander in an engagement.

Tankerdad

[Rob Pincus]

There is a HUGE difference between "touching the paper is okay" and "one hole groups".....  how about some balance, as in "Balance of Speed & Precision". It's been discussed here before and probably worth googling for an article or video clip, if you're not familiar with the concept.

It is important to remember that "shooting" isn't just one thing... like driving a car, it can be done many ways for many different reasons. Target Shooting is one of them, defensive training is another.... making bang-bang noises and not worrying much about accuracy is yet another thing that some people do when they go to the range to "shoot".  Set realistic goals based on what you want. Since we are in the D&T forum, I think we should rule out target shooting and random expenditures of ammo and focus on realistic training for plausible accuracy needs.

-RJP

[ratcatcher55]

My $0.02

I think Rob's second edition of Combat Focus Shooting does a much better job of explaining his accuracy and speed balancing act then the first one.

[Sponsor]

[tombogan03884]

There is a HUGE difference between "touching the paper is okay" and "one hole groups".....  how about some balance, as in "Balance of Speed & Precision". It's been discussed here before and probably worth googling for an article or video clip, if you're not familiar with the concept.

It is important to remember that "shooting" isn't just one thing... like driving a car, it can be done many ways for many different reasons. Target Shooting is one of them, defensive training is another.... making bang-bang noises and not worrying much about accuracy is yet another thing that some people do when they go to the range to "shoot".  Set realistic goals based on what you want. Since we are in the D&T forum, I think we should rule out target shooting and random expenditures of ammo and focus on realistic training for plausible accuracy needs.

-RJP

True enough, But  "touching the paper is okay" is the standard local and county Cops are trained to.
I have been there when they were qualifying. That is an Eye (and ear ) witness statement. On a half scale target at longer range I was holding fist size groups in shorter time than they were spraying the paper.

[ratcatcher55]

True enough, But  "touching the paper is okay" is the standard local and county Cops are trained to.
I have been there when they were qualifying. That is an Eye (and ear ) witness statement. On a half scale target at longer range I was holding fist size groups in shorter time than they were spraying the paper.

Qualifiers are just that. Make the minimum your good to go. Unless you shoot it clean (100%) it only matters if you shoot the score .

I always hate when I see folks practice a qualifier. A qualification is subjective on it's best day. I look at it as where I need to improve segments of my shooting. Practice what you suck at and fix what your doing incorrectly. Your qualification scores will improve.

[BikerRN]

Many good points brought to light here, in my opinion.

I think part of the issue is that while trainers need to get new students, and retain the older ones, there is a reinvention of the wheel aspect at work here as well. I'm not saying that one should only shoot one hole groups, there needs to be a solid basis in the foundations of shooting before moving on to the "cooler" stuff.

That is of course tempered by time. How much time do you have to train? How much time can you devote to the fundamentals before you move forward? It has been my observation that those schooled in accuracy, one hole groups, tend to be better at the tactical stuff as they progress forward. That's where "acceptable accuracy" comes in to play in my opinion.

I think rushing to "acceptable accuracy" too soon is a detriment to surviving a situation and endangers those around you.

Biker

[shiangti]

Ok, I realize I am a little late for this debate but..... First, I think accuracy is important.  Shooting small groups requires strong fundamentals and practice, bothof which are necessary for success.  Having said that, I think a lot more are getting into guns as beginners.  I have been to the range many times and seen both men and women over thiry who have never shot a gun before.  These people may seek out information on the internet, but that doesn't mean they can apply it.  I think good enough in training classes allows the beginner to gain knowledge that will allow them to apply information they may receive or gain later.  Just my two cents but, its all important.

[billt]

I think part of the problem is that Trainers have to get students, and lets face facts, most of the people that go to training classes can't shoot to the level they should be able to, and in order to get repeat business one has to have people feeling good about themselves. Therefore the standards get lowered. Biker

I know this topic has been somewhat dead for a while, but it is an important one. I agree with Biker. I think that a lot of these "training classes", along with what they promote, are designed to produce more dollars than they are good self defense shooters. Yes, most self defense encounters are up close and personal. But the problem is what can you actually "learn" shooting an AR-15 rifle at a full sized silhouette target from 7 yards away, rapid fire no less?

These trainers incorporate a lot of this "run and gun" close up stuff into their routine because it's fun, and it keeps the class awake. Basic marksmanship skills are not exciting to teach, or be taught. If you have someone who has paid top buck, taken time off of work, and traveled a great distance to get to one of these "carbine courses", and they don't have fun, they'll not only never come back, they will bad mouth it when asked. It won't take long under those circumstances for a lot of these guys to wither away and die on the vine financially. In keeping with promoting "Action Jackson" type shooting, they'll have larger class sizes, and turn more dollars in the process.

A lot of these trainers talk loud, keep guns roaring, and make things easy because they have to. In a way it's like eating restaurant food. It has to taste good or you won't come back, or talk good about the place when asked. The problem is they are required to make the food high in fat and unhealthy to accomplish that. A lot of these "training classes" are much in line with that. What takes place for you to have fun, isn't going to teach you a lot. At least not a hell of a lot you can apply from a practical standpoint. But it is good salesmanship.

One thing I have noticed over time is how distance has been shortened up in general when shooting. At my clubs pistol range the minimum distance you can place a target is 25 yards. There is almost always no one there when I go. Most of the handgun shooters go to the general range where they can place targets as close as 7 yards.

Back in the early 70's when I went to an indoor range, most all of the shooters in all of the bays had their targets set out at either 50 feet, or 25 yards. Today most everyone is shooting from 7 yards at huge silhouette targets. And their "patterns" are pathetic. They burn through magazine after magazine of ammo in no time, and hit little. It goes hand in hand with a lot of what you see in these police "dash cam shootouts". 2 cops blaze through 30 rounds from 2 guns in almost no time, but the bad guy still manages to either get away, or else do a hell of a lot of damage. Accurate shooting has definitely taken a back seat to slinging lead, along with all of this "increased firepower". You can't help but wonder how guys like Bill Jordan survived for so long through so much with a simple 6 shot wheel gun. He knew how to shoot. It really makes you wonder if we are headed in the right direction with all of this?