What percentage of CCW holders almost never train

Status
Not open for further replies.
The rule of thumb I have always and still hear is 3 feet 3 rounds 3 seconds

If one had 'training' in statistics, one would know that an average figure (and this is one that is always debatable - see Givens) - doesn't mean that will be what happens to you.

There is a distribution of incident characteristics, you might be in one of the extreme tails. John Hearne says (great guy) that you need to be ready for the rare event because the stakes are so high.

Training by yourself for a two person gun fight is like training by yourself for two party sex. Yeah, you've watched the videos - so what. (Bad posting - moderators scold me!).

There is amazing resistance to training. It is more of an ego thing, IMHO. I took lessons on how to ski. I didn't go down the black diamond slope after watching a video.

Training in gun fighting can lead you to looking like a doofus. Some folks (esp. men) won't risk that. So cognitive dissonance leads them to devalue training or state that they personally don't need it.

This argument gets old.
 
How many deer hunters have had the same box of ammunition for years, and it's only missing one or two rounds. I have known police officers who shoot their gun once a year when they need to qualify. If you are into shooting, or take self defense seriously you practice. Otherwise when trouble comes you hope you can remember where you last had your gun.
 
The 3x3x3 Rule, training....

I agree with the 3x3x3 Rule in general for armed citizens.
Training or taking classes doesn't mean your a SWAT cop or going to join DEVGRU or HRT. :rolleyes:
If you can handle a critical incident or feel a course by a top instructor or program would help then have at it.

To hit a 3"x5" target consistently at 30ft should be a standard for a armed citizen. ;)

A few years ago, I read of a new small town police patrol supervisor who made a surprise inspection. One of his senior officers had a old sidearm that couldn't even get out of the worn out leather holster.
True story!

RS
 
If you are into shooting, or take self defense seriously you practice.
I agree and that is why I "practice" a bunch. But practice isn't exactly "training" (my opinion). I have speed, accuracy, shooting on the move, and all kinds of square range skills. I know how to run a gun. But that is only part of the equation. Now where do I go to learn how to fight with the tools in the tool box? That would be some meaningful training.
 
You mentioned. "Moving", which to me is one of , if not the most important elements in a gunfight. If you can move and still hit your target accurately, the likelihood of surviving goes way up. My only contact with real training was when I was in a gun club and shot against other members and other clubs when I was much younger.
But like many here I just took to guns at a very early age. Like 10 or so years old. My dad coming from 2 wars, was cool with showing me how to shoot, first a 22 rifle and later a 38 snubby at around 15 or so. I went every week in my 20's to the Nassau County range, from NYC, and shot against the police, and later on the FBI up in Fishkill.
I was as I mentioned before privy to having a carry in NYC.
But circumstances changed and I just can't get there as much.
I carry every day for almost 50 years. I have a gun on me all the time. It's second nature. I can't imagine not having a gun on me. And although I don't shoot more than 6 times a year, I handle guns all the time and dry fire almost daily.
I hadn't been to a range in several years at one point 6 or 7 years ago. I walked in after buying a new 26, "which I had before, and several other pistols.
Immediately I shot 2 boxes and split the 10 on the first and last shot from 30 feet. I never missed the target with 90 % being in the 8 ring or better with 2 or 3 flyers.
The only thing I seem to feel I lost was some speed, although I always shot fast, and was told by instructors to slow down constantly when I was younger
I believe that if you handle a gun constantly, and if you actually shot well all your life, you aren't going to forget, just slow down a bit. As you get older you are naturally going to slow down at just about everything. But I stay fit and run every day, along with lifting weights. I can't take off and go to a fancy shooting school half way across the country any more, "wish I could" it's not the time or the money, just circumstances.
But we all do the best we can. For me standing and shooting paper really doesn't do very much, I can do that all day, or not at all.
In a fight it really won't help.
I get more out of moving while dry firing and being honest as to weather I did what I needed to do or not.
I hate to bring up corny movie references, but remember in Butch Cassidy, when he was interviewing for the body guard job, and missed the can. He asked the guy "can I move", and that was that. I think it was pretty much on the money. Ayoob says move to the guys weak side, which is his left for 80% of folks at least. I go with that and situational awareness.
 
I would likke a better definition of the word 'train'.

IF you are thinking about those that go their indoor range, where they have no other space, but the five foot width of the shooting lane stall, you might edit that to the word 'practice'.

IF you are thinking about those, that can physically go to a place where a 'Gunsite'/Thunder Ranch'-style of formal participation of various forms of POSSIBLE scenario-reaction instruction by licensed competent instructors, with various firearms designs, then THAT is what cannot be defined in any other fashion, then 'training'.

There are those of us who have had our 'training instruction/practice/functionality exercises', while serving in the US military, whether it is the in the sands of the Near East, or in the mud/rivers/jungle/savannahs of SouthEast Asia.
 
Practice vs training....

I agree with the last post.
I would say practice is more apt than "training".

Years ago when I was in the US Army MP school we had a cadre tell us a good point: "Practice isn't enough, you need to have good practice."
His point was that when you want to maintain your skills or proficiency you need to use the proper methods & standards. If you cut corners or avoid effort, you aren't really going to benefit from it.

Rusty
 
I'm retired LEO, and so am eligible to have a national carry permit if I qualify annually with the revolver or pistol of my choice. That means 50 rounds per year. That's not much shooting, but I always score a 98 or 99. That's a timed course of fire at 5, 15, and 25 yards. After qualifying, I clean the 9mm and put it away until the next year. I carry a .38, which I've fired a total of 6 times, which is way less than the number of years I've carried it. Pitiful really, but I'm okay with it.
 
Post #58....

In re; post #58, is the reason you don't go target shooting or practice because of $$$, time, or some other factor or do you not enjoy shooting or practice with guns?

I could see not target shooting or training if you are mandated to carry a gun but if you enjoy the shooting sports or want to take classes/courses to improve your skills why not do it?
If I had the resources or ability, Id do much more than I do now.
It's not a burden or a problem.
 
In re; post #58, is the reason you don't go target shooting or practice because of $$$, time, or some other factor or do you not enjoy shooting or practice with guns?



I could see not target shooting or training if you are mandated to carry a gun but if you enjoy the shooting sports or want to take classes/courses to improve your skills why not do it?

If I had the resources or ability, Id do much more than I do now.

It's not a burden or a problem.


It seems to me he is saying that he qualified with it so he could carry it, but never does.
 
Who defines "Training". If you are getting the definition from Wikipedia then nothing further needs to be said.

Schwing,

I taught at the college level as an educator and I was trained as a trainer by DoE and have conducted training for 20+ years. The definition of training vs. practice is well established in the training community and it isn't just a Wikipedia entry level definition in spite of there being a Wikipedia entry on it.
 
Last edited:
I have never trained. I used to shoot a lot, and I keep in practice, but I've never called it training. I don't think I know anybody who trains.
So, from what I see, it looks like the number of ccw holders who train is low.
 
Posted by Haxby:

I have never trained. I used to shoot a lot, and I keep in practice, but I've never called it training.
That describes me before early 2010.

Then someone I knew who had taken a high performance defensive pistol shooting course strongly recommended that I take it. The course involved presenting from low ready, shooting very rapidly at multiple steel plates at 21 feet, and replacing magazines very fast. The drill was essentially the El Presidente, without the draw. The draw was taught with an empty gun. I thought it worthwhile.

Earlier this year, a neighbor and I attended the Combat Focus Shooting course on the I. C. E. Personal Defense Network Tour. I strongly recommend it for those who can get to one.

In Post #50, I recommended a book called Counter Ambush: The Science of Training for the Unexpected Defensive Shooting, by Rob Pincus. I think it provides a very good discussion of the difference between shooting at targets on a sure range and what one should try to prepare for for self defense. Here's my review of the book:

The title threw me. It sounded to me like something suited for soldiers entering Tikrit. When I asked the author, Rob Pincus, why he chose that title, he answered me, but I must confess that I was still not entirely sure.

Now I understand. The title says it all.

Think for a minute. When we leave the restaurant for the car, or leave the car for the treck across the parking lot to the supermarket, we are not knowingly heading toward a place where we know we will stand to shoot at a target, which will be located "down range", and we are not going to be given a command to shoot, and we will not be scored by a timer or a number of hits, nor will our score be reduced for misses or hits out of sequences. No! We are not heading out to shoot at all. That is the farthest thing from our minds.

But, should the unlikely and unexpected and worst occur--an ambush--we will have to make some rapid cognitive decisions on our own, observe, react, recognize, and respond. That is not the time to rely upon improvisation. It is the time to utilize basic skills learned in training.

As an attorney from Arkansas likes to put it, a gunfight is not the time to learn new skills.

The book goes into depth on psychology, physiological reactions and how to train, and still more on training. There is a little bit on shooting, firearms, and ammunition, but those are not really what the book is about.

I think the book is great, but don't take my word for it. In his foreword, LTC Dave Grossman starts with "You hold in your hands one of the most important book of our kind. First, this a vital, lifesaving resource."

Pincus spends a lot of time discussing the philosophy, the beginnings, the raison d'être, and the evolution, over the last couple of decades, of the I.C. E. Combat Focus Training course. The discussion covers the years in which it was delivered at Valhalla Shooting Cub, when key customers included SOCOM operatives and instructors from both Army and Navy units as all as agents of foreign governments.

Let me be clear that what I think is most important about it is the knowledge it contains that could be useful to ordinary armed citizens going about their daily business, and trying their best to avoid combat.

By the way, the course is now available at several Gander Mountain Academy locations under the title Dynamic Focus Training.

Im my opinion, Counter Ambush is a must read, and a must for the bookshelf.

I don't think I know anybody who trains.
I can count those I know on one hand.

So, from what I see, it looks like the number of ccw holders who train is low.
I think you are absolutely right.

Not only that, most people who practice shooting often do so at 21 feet, or more. The above mentioned book should provide the reader with some appreciation of why that may not be the best idea.

For me, it was an eye opener.
 
I have taken about 10 training courses, including Gunsite. and I try to shoot in the
boonies at least twice a month. Yes...some of that is fun target shooting....but I also
shoot at 21 feet practicing draw, shoot and doubletaps. Also shoot while moving
laterally. Im always anticipating another training class. When I retire in about 4 years
I will go to classes as much as I can.
 
For the same reason most people don't run ironman triathlons. Because if you're doing it right it's hard and we don't want to do hard things.

Ha. I can attest that this is a great analogy since I have done an Ironman. Neither shooting drills nor triathlon are overly complicated activities, but mastering either one of them requires a level of commitment that most people just don't have in them.

And OP, thanks for the post. I haven't done any training in over 2 months since I just started a new job and moved. Thanks for the reminder that I need to get my sorry butt back in gear on this.
 
I don't "train." I go shooting. I don't do that near as much as I used to. Moving to town, and having a handicapped wife to take care of cut into my time a lot, but sorry, I never had any desire to run, jump, crawl in the dirt, climb over barricades and such. I did all that when I was younger and went through my IPSC phase.

I buy guns I don't shoot, and might never shoot. Just like I buy fishing lures I never use. I just like 'em.
 
To answer, my guess is less than 5%.

I rarely shoot pistols. I may put 500 rounds a year downrange. I am just not that interested in it. I have been shooting guns my entire life. I may not be the best but I am better than most. But I am obsessed with guns and buy them all the time. I just rarely shoot them or even buy ammo.

I just have too many hobbies. For the vast majority of people that's all it really is. While it is true that there is a miniscule chance that a gun, and your skills with it, may save your life one day, it is a recreational activity you enjoy. People also enjoy the feeling of satisfaction it brings. But there are plenty of other ways to get that. For me it's fishing and golf, although golf is probably killing me faster than life itself.
 
RustyShackleford said:
Years ago when I was in the US Army MP school we had a cadre tell us a good point: "Practice isn't enough, you need to have good practice."
His point was that when you want to maintain your skills or proficiency you need to use the proper methods & standards. If you cut corners or avoid effort, you aren't really going to benefit from it.

Perfect practice makes perfect. Practice only makes bad habits.
 
To answer, my guess is less than 5%.

Its a lot lower than that. I doubt 10% even shoot semi-monthly. Train, I would guess a lot lower than 1%. I shoot every week and I have no interest in taking a week long training class. Training with guns I expect is like martial arts training. You start out wanting to learn to fight, those that are still doing it a year later are way past the self defense aspect of it. They are doing it because they enjoy it.
 
'Kleanbore' years ago, I bought a book where a chess Grand Master explained why moves were made as he presented several classic games. Hoping Rob Pincus' book is a step in that direction. Firearms training could use more of that. The "immersion method" where we shoot, watch others with occasional suggestions from instructors only go so far.

In another site, I recently advocated training. Also attempting to "calibrate" the importance of "situational" awareness. Situational awareness will help your response speed, but there may be a time when one must respond even after being being fully aware of what's happening.

For the non-LEO perhaps a "suspicious person call" or an "officer ambush", IMHO, come closest to situations where the bad guy does not back off, that has us firing guns.

These are the two most deadly situations for LEO, where most officer lives are lost. This gives us an idea of how important it is to train.
 
I think it' more a lifestyle than anything else. Just like working out. Some work out on the weekend, "maybe they run, or lift a few weights", and others work out every day, or at least 5 days to 6 days per week.
The difference is that if something becomes a lifestyle choice, then it is something that you unconsciously do often without really thinking about it.
Lets say a "DIET" vs healthy lifestyle. The diet comes and goes, it is usually short lived and starts out strong then gradually dies down until it's almost if not completely ignored.
The same with guns, some start out strong with the idea of really becoming an excellent shooter, maybe even a competitive shooter. But life gets in the way, and before long they find themselves not really leaving the time to train or practice, that's when it becomes "work", and then it fades into a thing that one does only on occasion.
Also the unrealistic expectations are not met with some people, which is enough for them to become disinterested.
Most people who don't shoot have no idea what to expect, and find that they really can't get very good at it without putting in the time and effort.
Kind of like trying to play xbox with your 15 yr old. Most guys in their 30's to 60's can't hit anything when they try to play "Call of Duty" with their kids, or grandkids.
I read an article a long time ago about how it would be ideal to put a 16 yr old kids eye hand co-ordination in a Navy Pilot's skilled body and maturity. It would make the ideal combat pilot.
 
I have had no "formal" training

however, I have learned much from individuals who knew more than me. I have competed in everything from silhouette shooting, to Cowboy action, to IDPA over the last 25 years. In both Cowboy action and IDPA I have "trained" myself to shoot with either hand. I have "learned" to shoot then move in cowboy action and I have "learned" to shoot while moving with IDPA. When I go to the range to "practice" I don't set up one target, I set up multiple targets at different distances, anywhere from 3-30 feet, but usually between 5 and 10 yards. Depending on the drill I am doing at the time, I "always" draw from my holster, which is concealed and fire from 2-x shots, reholster, reload and, of course, move. Since I "always" carry a 4" 1911 in a VM-II with two spare mags in an OWB mag holster on my left hip, I am always ready to practice the way I carry. When I go to a an IDPA match I shoot the course with equipment I carry every day. I will not change my equipment to gain a few tenths of a second. I will not practice or shoot an IDPA course with "wimp loads" to gain a few tenths of a second. When doing any reload I drop or extract the mag in the gun then I grab the fresh mag and insert it into the gun. Anything else would surely lead to me fumbling the reload, I am just not that coordinated. Other than when I am at an IDPA match it is hard to practice using cover but I do try to shoot from different positions. I shoot any where from once a month to 2-3 times a week depending on the weather and my schedule. I put 10-30 thousand rounds a year down range. While I do not participate in 3 gun competitions, I have recently begun shooting with my AR-15 and my handgun. I practice with reloading each and transitioning from one to the other. So, while I have no "formal" training, I am very proficient with my carry gun and I am becoming proficient with my AR. I very much want to take a couple of courses this year but, even if I don't, I feel very well practiced, if not trained.
 
Well this has disintegrated into a semantics debate after all. It seems we have two camps. Those who have had other humans explain things in person one one hand and on the other those who either don't do any kind of practice other than shooting or those that have learned from books, videos, word of mouth, whatever and actually do practice those things they have learned. It seems to be more important to ex-military people that the word "training" be limited to what the military said it was. That's fine but it isn't how English works. LEO's also fall into that category pretty often.

Let's get one thing straight. You can learn things from books, videos and word of mouth. It doesn't require another human to be present to learn. And putting what you learned into practice is training IMO. Someone suggested using the Wikipedia definition of training. For all we know that person wrote the Wikipedia definition. :)

How about let's look at the dictionary. That's the final word on words in English. It has been for a long time. The military doesn't have the market cornered when it comes to what words mean. I very much appreciate what those people do and what they have done but it doesn't make them right all the time. It's a pretty senseless argument anyway. Either you practice doing things you learn or you don't. That's the real question. So what does the dictionary say? The definition that seems to fit what we're all talking about here goes like this:

train
verb
to make proficient by instruction and practice, as in some art, profession, or work:
to train soldiers.

Notice it doesn't limit the type of instruction to a live human. Keep in mind that there are other definitions for "train" that include things that have nothing to do with instruction at all. For example those who train for an athletic event. It doesn't require someone telling you how to run if you already know how. Training is not limited to instruction by another person.

So we can debate whether people should have instructors or not. That's a different question from whether people should "train" or not. It certainly helps to have a live instructor. But I don't think it's a requirement for being proficient with a weapon. I'm pretty sure the things my friend who was in the 101st Special Paratroops gave me pretty good information. I haven't forgot it even if it has been a few years. I don't feel like I need to shell out cash to hear it again from someone looking over my shoulder. Sorry but I just don't. I've watched more than a few training videos. I have talks with LEO friends about such things. I don't think they need to be right there while I go through my practice drills before I can call it "training". I don't know that there's a huge difference in the training you get from a video and what you get from a person. And before you try to convince me that there is a huge difference be aware that I've been around a good while and I likely won't change my mind based on a few posts in a forum no matter how strident they are. Do I think I know everything? Absolutely not. I'm just not convinced that paid instructors do either. It's the same people that make the videos. And yes I have learned to do some things very well by watching them being done on video. I won't go into that but take my word for it. It's true.
 
It really should not be a surprise that so few people "train" with their carry gun. I would agree with the estimates that 99% don't "train" at all and about 90% don't shoot the gun more then a handful of times a year.

Think of it this way. I would bet that 100% of the people on this board drive a car everyday. I would also bet that 99.% of the people on this board have never done any real driving "training" beyond what was required to get their lic.

We use a car everyday. We are more likely to kill someone or ourselves with a car then a CCW gun yet we do not feel the need to "train" with that tool? I consider myself a decent driver but I have never had anything that I would consider "training" in any meaningful way. So lets not be so hard on the avg CCW holder and gun owner.

Most of us here like guns and like to shoot them so we find reasons, time and the $$$ so we can shoot. We are the exception not the rule.
 
Based on my informal surveys of CHL holders in my gun club, most don't even carry their guns.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top