Can you, do you train enough?

[Kleanbore]

Posted by JERRY: start incorporating unarmed defensive tactics so that you can use your gun if attacked by surprise.

Good put.

 

[SnowBlaZeR2]

He does, and the reservations fill up quickly. I do not know how many FCS instructors there are. That number is available, as are the names.

People who say they benefit from the course include people who instruct law enforcement personnel, and the say that the FCS curriculum makes much more sense than LEO qualification courses, for those who carry for real business.

I think the course is excellent, and I would not consider for a moment letting a personal issue with I C.E. or its owner prevent me from receiving excellent training.

For anyone who hasn't taken it, I also recommend that everyone who keeps a gun for defensive purposes attend MAG-20, for an excellent course in Use of Force Law.

It isn't only a personal issue that prevents me from receiving the training. He doesn't offer anything of value to me. I never took the time to look up his background, until the previous thread about his training. His background and experience just don't fit into my goals for training. It's not really a knock on him, I just don't think his training is worth my money or my time.

It gives a lot of insight. It's a statistical thing.

An anti-air missile is fired once, though there are many of them. But the qualification testing and reliability testing involves a very high number of cycles. That's so the users can be highly confident that it will work that one time.

Back in the day, the Colt automatic was fired several thousand rounds without a hitch in Army tests. No one expected a cavalryman to shoot that many in a single encounter. It was testing. And those are not the guns people buy today; civilians would not be satisfied with the accuracy, much less with the trigger pull. There are more reliable pistols around today.

How often did the Austrian army expect a soldier to ever fire a Glock in a single encounter?

I'm not in the Austrian army, and I don't carry an anti-air missile for self defense. What I do carry is a pistol that I know works, and that I've tested and am completely comfortable with. It doesn't need to fire 800 rounds without a cleaning. It needs to put accurate rounds on target, and fast.

The issue I have with that line of thinking is how many of those "malfunctions" are the fault of the gun, and how many are from operator error due to poor training. An instructor isn't there to sell pistols. He's there to train shooters how to use their chosen firearms.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Old Dog: I have seen plenty of SIGs, good-quality 1911s, CZs, Berettas and many others make it through exceptionally high-round-count classes with the fewest malfunctions.

Well, some of them do better than others. But there's more to it than round count.

How well do people do, on the average, in real defensive shooting with a DA/SA system? Observations of that have led Pincus' instructors and many others to prefer striker fired guns over that mechanism. I sold my S&W DA/SA pistol some years ago. I had much more trouble getting through the drills than with a 1911. There were students with SIGs in the class, but they did better when they were handed Glocks and XDs.

I was a big proponent of a manual safety, with which I was very familiar--until I demonstrated what many other students have shown! (That wasn't with my high-end 1911). To solve that without taking on the risk of a discharge caused by an article of clothing in the holster, I changed to the XD, with a grip safety.

All of those, except for reliability, are personal preference issues, and so is fit, but it is best to decide after some intensive, realistic training. What one does at the sure range and in dry fire may not follow one obediently into a class.

Pincus' recommendations are based on his T&E testing and on considerable observation of many, many tudents. One's milage may vary. One's Glock may break a spring in 200 rounds, but on average, Glocks do better than 1911s.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by SnowBlaZeR2: What I do carry is a pistol that I know works,....

I think that's what we all want to do.

...and that I've tested and am completely comfortable with.

I don't know anyone who can do enough personal testing to really justify that kind of confidence. One really should look into large-scale observations by others.

I was highly confident in my 1911, but I think it would be foolhardy to discount the observations of others, including those of the Austrian Army.

 

[Kleanbore]

Here's something on CFS. And here's a link to a book review.

 

[SnowBlaZeR2]

I don't know anyone who can do enough personal testing to really justify that kind of confidence. One really should look into large-scale observations by others.

I was highly confident in my 1911, but I think it would be foolhardy to discount the observations of others, including those of the Austrian Army.

I don't know how anyone but me would know what I'm comfortable with. I've carried a 1911 while deployed. I've used a 1911 places other than the range. I was an instructor in the Marine Corps, and that included the 1911. It's not just personal testing. 800 rounds on paper and observations aren't about to undo that. As it stands, I'm comfortable with my choices, regardless of what the Austrian military observed.

I'll also point out that I own a Glock and two XDs. I love the XDs, and even the Glock, for what they are. The goal is to win, and I'm confident that my chosen carry pistol gives me the best chance to do that.

*edit*
I wanted to add that I'm not discounting those observations. I simply think that my own are more valuable, to me.

 

[Old Dog]

I think the course is excellent, and I would not consider for a moment letting a personal issue with I C.E. or its owner prevent me from receiving excellent training.

And again, this echoes what I have heard from some whose judgment I respect.

As far as basing one's preference on what one's observed during high round-count courses, I don't disagree ... what I previously referred to was Pincus' rather over-the-top video on why the 1911 sucked for personal defense ... Anyway, I instruct courses exclusively with the M&P, have been through courses that were almost exclusively Glock, and was just talking through someone who went through the SIG Academy (guess what pistol of choice there?) but still feel confident carrying a 1911 (but of late have gone with a SIG) ... Choices are good; what brand an instructor or training center owner shills for doesn't sway me if the training offered is worthwhile.

 

[SnowBlaZeR2]

... what I previously referred to was Pincus' rather over-the-top video on why the 1911 sucked for personal defense ...

You know I saw the video, and I took it for what it was. His opinion, and nothing more. I filed it right next to Yeager's rant on the same subject. What really puts me off about him the most is the incident where he removed a student's pistol from his holster and threw it during training. I find that to be unacceptable behavior from an instructor, regardless of environment or intention.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by SnowBlaZeR2: I don't know how anyone but me would know what I'm comfortable with.

You are absolutely right. It was the "that I know works" that raised the issue of the adequacy of personal testing.

I've carried a 1911 while deployed. I've used a 1911 places other than the range. I was an instructor in the Marine Corps, and that included the 1911. It's not just personal testing.

So have many other people . I knew a man who demonstrated shooting and reloading at a gallop to Herbert Hoover. Many people I knew carried them up to the end and prefer them to the M9. So do I

At one time, the Colt Government Model was the best available, by far. Later, it was what they had, and they had a lot of them. It still has the best trigger for hostage rescue, for example. But if one can handle the trigger of a top shelf striker fired pistol, and not everyone can, we have to accept that there are better designs available today, made possible by advances in materials and manufacturing methods that were not available to John Browning or Savage or Luger or Pederson.

800 rounds on paper and observations aren't about to undo that.

Ok. It's the comparative numbers of malfunctions during 800 rounds per student X 12 students average per class X the number of classes per year X the number of years that have led the instructors to their conclusions. It is said that at one time, if your 19911 made it through without a hiccup, you got your tuition back.

Posted by Old Dog: what I previously referred to was Pincus' rather over-the-top video on why the 1911 sucked for personal defense.

IIRC, that referred to compacts. The thing was designed for a five inch barrel, though the Commander performed well.

I did a lot of research on the three inch models several years ago and concluded that there are much better choices. I would never trust my life to one, and I decided that long before that video. Mine has a 3.9 inch barrel. I would prefer 4.25.

During our class, one high grade Commander length/ Officer's frame pistol started jamming within the first hour. It worked fine after a change in ammo. And one of our members told me recently that a new Glock broke a spring after 200 rounds. It's a matter of odds. Second firearm, anyone?

If I were highly confident that it would function every time--and while I have no personal experience to indicate otherwise, I have nowhere near enough personal experience to allow me to discount the stats--I would carry my .45. Trigger pull would be the deciding factor.

How many rounds would be enough? Thousands and thousands. That's what others have fired, in aggregate.

But we digress. The subject is training.

 

[Old Dog]

I remain rather bemused by the hoopla regarding the DA/SA thing ... I still tend to believe (and this is only one dinosaur's opinion, based on a bit of experience) that in situations where guns are drawn but not fired, the DA/SA has a distinct place -- the same as revolvers with long DA trigger pulls: threat management and avoidance of the "inadvertent" discharge. Far more cops take down suspects at gunpoint than end up actually shooting (at) them ... As far as manual safeties, meh, I've seen highly competent people using 1911s with manual safeties for years and nary an issue.

And for the record, I agree with the thoughts on the ultra-compact (sub-4" barrels) 1911s; however the diatribe began, it became an indictment against all 1911s (perhaps not what Pincus intended, but the perception carried forth).

 

[SnowBlaZeR2]

You are absolutely right. It was the "that I know works" that raised the issue of the adequacy of personal testing.

Perhaps "I know what has worked for years" would have been better.

So have many other people . I knew a man who demonstrated shooting and reloading at a gallop to Herbert Hoover. Many people I knew carried them up to the end and prefer them to the M9. So do I

I prefer them to the M9, as well as Glocks and every other pistol I have experience with. That's what it boils down to; personal preference. I don't enjoy someone telling others what their personal preference should be.

At one time, the Colt Government Model was the best available, by far. Later, it was what they had, and they had a lot of them. It still has the best trigger for hostage rescue, for example. But if one can handle the trigger of a top shelf striker fired pistol, and not everyone can, we have to accept that there are better designs available today, made possible by advances in materials and manufacturing methods that were not available to John Browning or Savage or Luger or Pederson.

"Better" is much too broad of a term for someone to dismiss an entire weapon. Better for what? For who?

Ok. It's the comparative numbers of malfunctions during 800 rounds per student X 12 students average per class X the number of classes per year X the number of years that have led the instructors to their conclusions. It is said that at one time, if your 19911 made it through without a hiccup, you got you tuition back.

As far as I'm aware, Pincus has never utilized anything he teaches in a real world situation. Correct me if I'm wrong on that.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Old Dog: I remain rather bemused by the hoopla regarding the DA/SA thing

Well, the German Army wanted it, Elmer Keith was high on it for reasons of safety, the Illinois State Patrol, used it for quite a while, and the US Army uses it now.

... I still tend to believe (and this is only one dinosaur's opinion, based on a bit of experience) that in situations where guns are drawn but not fired, the DA/SA has a distinct place -- the same as revolvers with long DA trigger pulls: threat management and avoidance of the "inadvertent" discharge. Far more cops take down suspects at gunpoint than end up actually shooting (at) them ...

That was the idea.The problem aries when one needs to shoot them fast at certain targets under certain conditions.

One guy in the class wit ha SIG 226 couldn't make it work.

American Gunfight: The Plot to Kill President Truman - and the Shoot-out That Stopped It by Stephen Hunter and John Bainbridge Jr. is an interesting read. A gunman without any training at all tried to shoot a Secret Service Agent at close range outside Blair House with a P-38. The second shot missed die to the change in pull.

I sold my Model 39 partly because of the trigger. Also, mine did not function well with JHPs.

As far as manual safeties, meh, I've seen highly competent people using 1911s with manual safeties for years and nary an issue.

The 1911 safety is excellent. I can disengage mine easily. Can't say the same for the Browning HP. I think I could use a Smith M&P with a safety very well, but the Ruber SR9c, which is essentially the same, caused me trouble in the class.

BTW, I think Elmer was thinking about something other than Condition 1 when he opined that the Smith Model 39 would greatly reduce accidents as compered to the Colt.

 

[short barrel]

I'm not sure anyone practices "enough." What is enough? Anyway, I started shooting very young and my occupation required regular training.

Now, this is going to sound awful. I didn't need the training. It's just something I can do very well, always could. Bulls eye or combat. It seems a natural thing.

Retired now, I can get free annual qualification to have a national c/c permit. I always shoot something over 99, even without firing a round since the last qualification.

So I don't practice. I just shoot for fun or while hunting.

However, a 1911 is a different animal for me. I love to shoot it, but it is not a natural shooter for me. I don't carry one for that reason.

 

[Infidel4life11]

Where is Advance Performance Shooting located? Did I miss it on their website?

http://advancedperformanceshooting.com/

Dixon, MO. have guns, will travel too.

 

[Infidel4life11]

I totally understand the priorities vs dollars vs family vs training/practice. Personally I don't have kids, my wife and I both work. So I'm fortunate enough to have the spare time and an allowance my wife gives me.

I touch a firearm everyday, if I leave the house I carry a firearm every time. IMO I have to train/practice, I have to stay up on my skills. That is a huge part of me being responsible. I've gone longer periods without training before and notice how perishable shooting skills are and how quickly they can get away from you.

There are a ton of great instructors out there, I've experienced only a few of them. No one has THE way to do things, but you can learn something from everyone. After giving everything I have to this Army stuff, I'm a little bent and twisted myself. I have yet to have any training presented to me that physically couldn't be accomplished by almost anyone (Save for the actual handicap) I get my butt kicked by Sr's and Super Sr's in USPSA all the time.

Lastly we will never know "this is where the fight will happen or it will happen this way" absolution will get us in a bad way really fast. There is the school of thought that there is 1% chance that a bad thing will happen to me. So I'm not going to practice or get good training. Even if that chance is less than us winning the lottery, I think that would be the most important 1% of our life or family's life. I pray we don't rationalize and minimize what could be a lifesaving moment for us or someone else.

If the average defensive gunfight in America is 3-5sec? 3-5 shots? From 3-5 feet? Are you only going to bring 3-5 bullets? Not me my friends!

 

[SSGT PRIDE]

US ARMY 1987-2009 ....I had enough...still shoot 3 to 5 days a week long range

 

[dbp]

http://advancedperformanceshooting.com/

Dixon, MO. have guns, will travel too.

Thanks, but I went to the website hours ago. Still don't see the location mentioned. I do thank you for telling me it's in Missouri though.

 

[Infidel4life11]

US ARMY 1987-2009 ....I had enough...still shoot 3 to 5 days a week long range

I'm getting back into some longer range stuff myself.

 

[Infidel4life11]

Thanks, but I went to the website hours ago. Still don't see the location mentioned. I do thank you for telling me it's in Missouri though.

I'm sorry I thought that info was on the website.

 

[dbp]

I'm sorry I thought that info was on the website.

Not that I could see, but no big deal.

Good thread though -- thanks for posting.

 

[Hangingrock]

I totally understand the priorities vs dollars vs family vs training/practice

That's the reality that most individuals face there is only so much income after basic obligations are meant.

 

[Kleanbore]

For Those Who Have Not Trained...

...a brief discussion about just what "training" means for self defense.

I started shooting handguns about fifty years ago. In those days most of us fired one-handed and single action, standing upright and with our feet placed so our strong hands were angled toward the target. We fired slowly, single action, trying to keep our shots in the eight ring or better. We had fun.

Videos of old FBI, police, and Army training showed a somewhat different technique. The shooters still fired one handed, but they faced the target squarely with their knees bent. They fired revolvers double action except for longer distance shooting. They fired faster, but not too fast, and they still fired deliberately. Now they use two hands and fire semi-automatics much faster; they are scored and timed.

Now consider what people usually do at the square range. They shoot at a target of whatever shape that is directly in front of them and that they have been thinking about, and they usually try to shoot fairly small groups, perhaps rapidly but maybe not.

And now, consider a real defensive situation in a parking lot or at a service station. A threat (or two) appears without any warning from an unexpected angle, at close range, and is more likely than not likely moving fast or is about to do so (or he is probably not a threat).

Consider Dennis Tueller's demonstrations. The assailant moves about 21 feet in 1.5 seconds. That's about 15 feet per second.

The defender will have to access his or her firearm very quickly and fire very fast several times. He or she had better have moved, to the extent possible, to get out of harm's way.

The deliberation one sees at the square range would not serve the defender at all. Nor will improvisation, without the right skills.

That's where the kind of training I alluded to above comes in.

For the new shooter, I would first recommend some basic instruction in the fundamentals: grip, sight picture, recoil management, trigger operation, how to work the slide efficiently, and non-diagnostic handling of malfunctions, which would include reloading fast without looking at the gun. Full disclosure: that is not my strong suit. I don't do it enough.

Then should come some defensive training. As mentioned before, I think that the ICE CFS course is good one. There are others.

Then....practice, practice, practice.

If one has the interest and the time and the money, one can go further. Some trainers offer Force on Force training with simunitions, and others use motorized targets simulating a Tueller scenario.

And as Jerry pointed out, some unarmed defensive skills could prove essential. The physical limitations of age mitigate against much of that for me.

The foregoing is not intended to lecture or to offer my opinion on the "right" thing to do, but to put things in some perspective for those who have not yet had the opportunity to participate in some defensive training.

I hope it proves helpful.

 

[Fred Fuller]

I'm sorry I thought that info was on the website.

Odd, how so many people who put up a website forget that people in the physical world STILL NEED A PHYSICAL ADDRESS to find the physical place.

I see that all too often, looking at websites for various shooting schools.

 

[Outlaw Man]

Ignoring the fact that it might be impossible to train "enough," there are barriers to me being able train "enough," or even as much as I'd like to. Because many people are also in this boat, I think it's important to at least not "train poorly." In other words, any time you're handling your gun, be it going hunting or cleaning it after a range visit, make sure you're not developing any bad habits in the way you're handling the gun. If possible, do dry "drills," such as presenting a pistol the proper way.

None of that is a substitute for real training, though. Nor is just practicing at the range. I'm eager for the opportunity to take more classes, myself. Thanks for the extra kick in the pants to get after it. That was a good post.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Outlaw Man: If possible, do dry "drills," such as presenting a pistol the proper way.

Excellent idea--drawing, presenting , lateral movement...

Also, dry fire. See this from Claude Werner.

None of that is a substitute for real training, though. Nor is just practicing at the range.

True.