Comments on: Examining training opportunities – finding value and meeting objectives http://grayguns.com/examining-training-opportunities-finding-value-and-meeting-objectives/ Custom guns, gunsmithing and training Fri, 20 Apr 2012 11:15:09 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: san shields http://grayguns.com/examining-training-opportunities-finding-value-and-meeting-objectives/comment-page-1/#comment-274 san shields Wed, 12 May 2010 15:39:03 +0000 http://grayguns.com/?p=226#comment-274 Thank you Kirt for your well put comments. I recently completed the 5 day 250 defensive pistol course with GunSight. I am a relatively new shooter, so went into the course content with a fairly blank slate interms of expecations. Of the numerous training programs available, Gunsight was selected, in large part due to the petegre of the program combined with the seminal work of Mr. Jeff Cooper. Its a rather humbling experience seeing his study and vaulted gun collection. The didactics of the course set in motion the momentum for practice either on the range or dry fire. In reality, I think most folks have difficulty actually doing either. I have considered taking course work from different providers, but frankly there seems to be more similarities than otherwise. From the standpoint of a new person to pistolcraft, I have a hard time sorting thru an ocean of slick marketing from markmanship as illustrated in the Fronsight approach. Obviously, this is big business! So, now that I have a taste for technique and safety, my approach includes networking in the community for weekend shooting experiences/practice. Its amazing how much information comes pouring forth, if you just ask. As for immersion that hopefully fosters a mental mindset of awareness; well I think pragmatically this just takes time without losing yourself in the borderline aura of gun ownership paranoia. Thank you Kirt for your well put comments. I recently completed the 5 day 250 defensive pistol course with GunSight. I am a relatively new shooter, so went into the course content with a fairly blank slate interms of expecations. Of the numerous training programs available, Gunsight was selected, in large part due to the petegre of the program combined with the seminal work of Mr. Jeff Cooper. Its a rather humbling experience seeing his study and vaulted gun collection. The didactics of the course set in motion the momentum for practice either on the range or dry fire. In reality, I think most folks have difficulty actually doing either. I have considered taking course work from different providers, but frankly there seems to be more similarities than otherwise.
From the standpoint of a new person to pistolcraft, I have a hard time sorting thru an ocean of slick marketing from markmanship as illustrated in the Fronsight approach. Obviously, this is big business! So, now that I have a taste for technique and safety, my approach includes networking in the community for weekend shooting experiences/practice. Its amazing how much information comes pouring forth, if you just ask. As for immersion that hopefully fosters a mental mindset of awareness; well I think pragmatically this just takes time without losing yourself in the borderline aura of gun ownership paranoia.

]]> By: Kirk Fleming http://grayguns.com/examining-training-opportunities-finding-value-and-meeting-objectives/comment-page-1/#comment-53 Kirk Fleming Tue, 08 Sep 2009 15:43:30 +0000 http://grayguns.com/?p=226#comment-53 There are some problems I think beginners may face in selecting training, especially if they have little experience or skill in practicing. A few outfits I've checked out don't offer a lot in the way of course objectives, and course descriptions are sometimes a bit light, too. I understand the need for a quick 'tag line' for a course that quickly sets the general tone. "Learn to win at USPSA!" or "Win the gunfight!" sorts of tags do help to separate out the major themes of course offerings, but sometimes there just isn't too much meat under those ticklers. It's a roll of the dice, from my view, when a course offering promises to 'help me shoot better'. Very little, if any, of the criteria Jerry mentions can be gleaned from a published syllabus, or even from a Training Coordinator that you might get on the phone. So that's one problem I find in selecting what I'd call beginner to intermediate classes, at least. The reason I mentioned student skill level with regard to practice is that so few courses I've read about or taken seem to place enough emphasis on it. Most everyone hears lots of advice on the importance of practice, then repeats this advice because it just makes sense to all of us. What would hugely increase the value of beginner and intermediate level courses would be some guidance for practice. What it is (no, I'm not kidding), the need for specific objectives for practice sessions, conduct or structure of productive practice sessions and--this is important--how to get the most from the facilities available to you. I feel most folks who have not had any formal instruction in how to practice (for example, in formal music training) are accustomed to the idea that shooting practice means little more than the burning up of a few boxes of ammo in an attempt to better hit the target. We don't go to the range (or even dry fire) with specific goals in mind, and don't know (therefore) if we've reached those goals or improved anything. We may also not know the best things to practice when we're unable to shoot on the move, not allowed to draw from the holster or shoot at speed. One California indoor facility I visited was basically useless for any kind of practice I do, except maybe 25 yard 'precision' practice. But was it really useless? I doubt it. So, training value and training selectability could be improved with 1) more complete and detailed course objectives & description, 2) more open exposure to the training philosophy--WHY the class includes the training it does, and 3) some attention to what the student should do with the 99.999% of his/her time NOT spent in class--how to design a practice regimen and how to know if it's working. My final comment is also related to practice and time not spent in class. I've witnessed first hand what happens when a student takes 3 training courses consecutively over a 4-day period, with no 'soak time' between them. It's a disaster--from the standpoint of safety and learning. This isn't the fault of the training facility, really, or of the course content itself. But, if a student is taught, for the first time, to keep his finger off the trigger (on Thursday), then his attendance at an intermediate level, action-oriented course on Sunday isn't too productive or welcome. There are some problems I think beginners may face in selecting training, especially if they have little experience or skill in practicing. A few outfits I’ve checked out don’t offer a lot in the way of course objectives, and course descriptions are sometimes a bit light, too. I understand the need for a quick ‘tag line’ for a course that quickly sets the general tone. “Learn to win at USPSA!” or “Win the gunfight!” sorts of tags do help to separate out the major themes of course offerings, but sometimes there just isn’t too much meat under those ticklers. It’s a roll of the dice, from my view, when a course offering promises to ‘help me shoot better’. Very little, if any, of the criteria Jerry mentions can be gleaned from a published syllabus, or even from a Training Coordinator that you might get on the phone.

So that’s one problem I find in selecting what I’d call beginner to intermediate classes, at least. The reason I mentioned student skill level with regard to practice is that so few courses I’ve read about or taken seem to place enough emphasis on it. Most everyone hears lots of advice on the importance of practice, then repeats this advice because it just makes sense to all of us.

What would hugely increase the value of beginner and intermediate level courses would be some guidance for practice. What it is (no, I’m not kidding), the need for specific objectives for practice sessions, conduct or structure of productive practice sessions and–this is important–how to get the most from the facilities available to you.

I feel most folks who have not had any formal instruction in how to practice (for example, in formal music training) are accustomed to the idea that shooting practice means little more than the burning up of a few boxes of ammo in an attempt to better hit the target. We don’t go to the range (or even dry fire) with specific goals in mind, and don’t know (therefore) if we’ve reached those goals or improved anything. We may also not know the best things to practice when we’re unable to shoot on the move, not allowed to draw from the holster or shoot at speed. One California indoor facility I visited was basically useless for any kind of practice I do, except maybe 25 yard ‘precision’ practice. But was it really useless? I doubt it.

So, training value and training selectability could be improved with 1) more complete and detailed course objectives & description, 2) more open exposure to the training philosophy–WHY the class includes the training it does, and 3) some attention to what the student should do with the 99.999% of his/her time NOT spent in class–how to design a practice regimen and how to know if it’s working.

My final comment is also related to practice and time not spent in class. I’ve witnessed first hand what happens when a student takes 3 training courses consecutively over a 4-day period, with no ‘soak time’ between them. It’s a disaster–from the standpoint of safety and learning. This isn’t the fault of the training facility, really, or of the course content itself. But, if a student is taught, for the first time, to keep his finger off the trigger (on Thursday), then his attendance at an intermediate level, action-oriented course on Sunday isn’t too productive or welcome.

]]>